AJ Strata is blaming Democrats for Iraqi civilians who WERE NOT killed:
If the Democrats in Congress had done what their BDS crazed base had desired the killings and repression of Iraqis would NOT be going down. It would have gone up as al-Qaeda attempted to take over the country we were abandoning.
Up Next: How Democrats are to blame for the cold you don’t have.
Zifnab
Yes, and who’s numbers are they using again? Is this the “bomb attacks and bullet wounds may not entitle you to dead Iraqi status” Petreaus rigged numbers? From the guys who brought you SADDAM HAS WMDS! we present NO MORE DEAD IRAQIS!
Let’s ignore the crass stupidity of Strata’s “Democrats who voted with the President still rooting for terrorists” nonsense. We need to focus on the crass stupidity of the premise – that Iraq is getting better, for realizes this time, and all because of the glorious surge. Does anyone take these people seriously anymore?
montysano
Civilian deaths are down? Military deaths are down? Rockin’ good news! Can we start packing up and getting ready to leave?
Oh yeah……. I forgot: several permanent bases are being built, as well as a multi-billion dollar embassy. And as our Democrat debaters told us last week: we ain’t going nowhere.
RSA
He also writes,
I wonder how those 800+ Iraqis know they’re the ones who should be thanking Bush and the military? Just to be safe, every Iraqi should express some gratitude to Bush and the military for being alive today. And the 800+ dead Iraqis should take a break from their virgins, or whatever, and drop a thank-you note as well, for trying.
whippoorwill
Let’s see. let me git my cypherin’ hat on.
500,000 Iraqi deaths caused by Bush invasion so far
minus
800 roughly saved by insane wingnut methodology
equals= 499,200 still dead — compliments of George W. Bush
capelza
Were these 800 the ungrateful Iraqi’s who so thoughtlessly got shot in the front of the head rather than the back?
Bubblegum Tate
I naturally assume the worst in people, but at this point, I’d like to think that the only people who take wingnuts seriously are fellow wingnuts.
The Other Andrew
I’m honeslty worried that people will be fooled by this. AP is running with an “Iraqi deaths down 50%” story, and I’m sure people will just read the headline and ignore the rest. And Democrats will become even more scared and tack even more to the right…
Jake
I see Birdzilla has a new gig.
I’m just surprised that there’s no mention of the schools that would have gone unpainted were it not for the evil, blood-thirsty, war mongering DEMONcRATs
Incertus (Brian)
I naturally assume the worst in people, but at this point, I’d like to think that the only people who take wingnuts seriously are fellow wingnuts.
Problem is, there’s still so many of them. And they breed.
The Other Steve
Have the Iraqis surrendered yet?
whippoorwill
They would have, but the white-flag waving sissified democrats beat them to it. You just can’t surrender to people who surrendered first. It’s not natural. So the Iraqi’s have to keep fighting until Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid officially un-surrender which isn’t likely because George Soros and MoveOn.org won’t allow them to because of the votes they’ll get in 2008 by staying surrendered and foiling George Bush’s rightful victory. It all makes perfect sense if you apply a little wingnut logic.
Jess
“Dopeler Effect (n): The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.”
PaulW
When you review and examine every statement, every opinion, every item written by the republican far-right conservatives, they all – ALL – break down to one simple issue:
Democrats are at fault for everything. Doesn’t matter what the issue is, or who is really responsible for causes and effects. It’s all the Democrats fault. Blame them always and forever. Amen.
josephdietrich
Yes, of course, it is the US military that is alone responsible for taking the fight to Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The native insurgency who turned on AQI because they were sick of those dickheads killing the locals in car bombings had nothing to do with it at all.
Xenos
Ok, jd, some success against some 800 Saudi-financed psychopaths once the US essentially surrended authority to some Baathist insurgents in the Western part of the country. We could not control Anbar, so we let Saddam’s relatives take it back over so long as they pretended not to be insurgents any more. Conveniently some radicals decided to call themselves ‘al-Qaeda’ some three years after the invasion so this could be dressed up as some sort of political and diplomatic victory instead of the defeat for US policy that it clearly is.
Meanwhile, the death count is down in Baghdad because there are more patrols, and because much of the ethnic cleansing is complete anyway. I notice that Krajina is peaceful too – Oh, the Krajina Serbs must be so happy to be at peace. (Even WJC was had shame enough to not make such an argument.)
Like in Anbar, the ‘success’ in Baghdad relies on the US strategic losses already locked in, and the recognition that the US can not sustain the poorly thought out policies of Bush, so the Shia thugs can lay low for a couple years and be stronger than ever when able to fill a post-American vacuum.
Tactical success is a poor indication that a strategy or policy is going well. For a President to justify a policy on the basis of tactical success is to insult the intelligence of every soldier and citizen. If you are not insulted, jd, there is something wrong with you.
Evinfuilt
Don’t you mean. “Clinton did it!”
RightWingScreamQueen
…Well, yes. That’s true. BUT, if the US hadn’t invaded, the Iraqis wouldn’t have any AQIs to fight in the first place. But have the Iraqis or the Democrats said “Thank you, President Bush. Your wisdom has given more people a chance to kick terrorist buttock”?
Nooooooo, of course not. If Bush weren’t so nice he’d teach those ungrateful Iraqis a lesson by withdrawing troops from their country but that would make the Democrats happy. So they have to stay.