Week 2 of Operation Baghdad

Mohammed at Iraq the Model files the latest report.

Related, from Afghanistan: U.S. Soldier Wrestles Suicide Bomber: US -1, Terrorists -0

Update: Check out this fantastic site full of photos of Iraq, taken by an combat photographer Staff Sergeant Russell Lee Klika. (Hat tip: Euphoric Reality)

forest hunter says:

February 24, 2007 at 12:28 am

SSSHHH! Don’t tell any of the komrades it’s working.
Lorica says:

February 25, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I cannot believe this AP Story. Check out this headline.

al-Sadr: Baghdad security plan is doomed

Here are the last 3 paragraphs.

The cleric’s statement was his first public comment since U.S. officials said last week that he had left the country, probably for Iran.

Al-Sadr’s aides and lawmakers loyal to him have insisted that he had never left the country and Iran denied he was there. An aide to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said last week that al-Sadr went to Iran about three weeks earlier. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release information to the media.

In the statement, al-Sadr called on both Sunnis and Shiites to “scorn sectarianism and hoist the banner of unity.”

Amazing 1st and foremost, when did al-Sadr start getting Dem talking points?? 2nd Why did it take the AP until the last paragraphs to even mention that al-Sadr has run off to his Iranian Masters.

It seems to me that a very desperate man would say one thing then attempt to look like he was an ally of the ones he spoke against. I tell you tho, al-Sadr easily be a speech writer for Biden, Clinton or a host of other Dems. – Lorica
forest hunter says:

February 25, 2007 at 5:50 pm

The unending libretto of such stalwart truths like this one that continue to pour out of the terrorists mouths, er uh AP, is simply awesome. One needs a score card to determine who writes talking points and speeches for whom.

I think the defeatocrats have a legitimate shot at an infringement suit.
Great White Rat says:

February 26, 2007 at 12:48 pm

Apparently, Joe Lieberman hasn’t been taking his cues from the AP reports. He’s written a good opinion piece for the WSJ today:

Will we allow our actions to be driven by the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq–or by the unchanging political and ideological positions long ago staked out in Washington? What ultimately matters more to us: the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?

That’s the core of the issue in a nutshell. For the nutroots – and seemingly all the Dems seeking the ’08 nomination – it’s the latter. To them, nothing trumps gaining power. They see that as much more important that winning in a central front of the WOT.

He’s also keenly aware of the enemy’s goals:

Al Qaeda’s stated strategy in Iraq has been to provoke a Sunni-Shiite civil war, precisely because they recognize that it is their best chance to radicalize the country’s politics, derail any hope of democracy in the Middle East, and drive the U.S. to despair and retreat.

In other words, Speaker Pelosi, if we retreat we are validating AQ’s strategy and playing into their hands. Exactly what VP Cheney said a week or so ago.

More:

we are in a stronger position to marginalize the extremists and strengthen the moderates; a stronger position to foster the economic activity that will drain the insurgency and militias of public support…Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America’s cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.

Or, they’re actually afraid it will succeed, and the idea of having the Smirking Chimp proved right is intolerable to them. Again, their power is more important than America succeeding.

We are at a critical moment in Iraq–at the beginning of a key battle, in the midst of a war that is irretrievably bound up in an even bigger, global struggle against the totalitarian ideology of radical Islamism. However tired, however frustrated, however angry we may feel, we must remember that our forces in Iraq carry America’s cause–the cause of freedom–which we abandon at our peril.

I still maintain that if the Democrats had the brains to nominate Lieberman in ’04, he’d be in the White House today.

My one quibble with the Senator is that he seems to be leaving the door open to bugging out if the situation in Iraq isn’t completely in hand by the end of the summer. In a war, it’s difficult to plan that far ahead with any degree of certainty.

LINK
sanity says:

February 26, 2007 at 6:27 pm

For the nutroots – and seemingly all the Dems seeking the â€˜08 nomination – it’s the latter. To them, nothing trumps gaining power. They see that as much more important that winning in a central front of the WOT.

That is the meat of it though GWR, the nutroots don’t consider this a war of terror, hell to most of them they think WE blew up the twin towers, not the terrorists. So why should they care about the WOT, when they think we are not affected by it?

Comments are closed.