Comments on: U.S. Observers Note Progress In Iraq Surge

Casualties Down In July; Some Critics Of War Strategy Find Reason For Encouragement

[rjmcbs]

As of today there were 75, yes 75 troops killed in the month of JULY.
Now that's what Bush and Company call progress!
How much more progress can we take?

[hungry1968]

This is dishonest reporting, conspicuously serving the White House. You've got an administration shill saying everything's going fine over there, consistent with his beliefs before the war. Any mention of all the people who have been there lately and reported the exact opposite?
Posted by twinsidious at 09:40 AM : Jul 31, 2007


And the worst part is later on processor or perception will be on here crying about the "liberal MSM wolfpack".

[Ann Onymous]

This is some of the most dishonest reporting I've ever seen on CBS News. This is nothing more than helping to catapult the administration's propaganda, and half of the posts I've read here are probably from people working for Karl Rove. Let's stop this nonsense of calling Ken Pollack a critic of the administration. When I watched the report this morning, I saw no mention of him being the author of the 2002 book, "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq."

He was a cheerleader for this war and the Bush administration used him to justify the invasion of Iraq. His credentials as a critic of the administration amount to possibly one recent magazine article.

This is dishonest reporting, conspicuously serving the White House. You've got an administration shill saying everything's going fine over there, consistent with his beliefs before the war. Any mention of all the people who have been there lately and reported the exact opposite?

[briannorwood]

Sean Hannity was really playing this guy up on the radio yesterday, gleefully spouting off about how he's from the "liberal" Brookings Institute.

Look, Ken *** wrote a book "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq" -- He's a neocon sympathizer.

Not to mention, he's a traitor!

[mudrose-2009]

Apparently the reenergized American military operations under Gen. Patraeus are making headway. O'Hanlon and Pollack, Brookings Institution think-tankers who, writing in The New York Times, allow that Iraq is today "a war we just might win." These two have been critical of the war in the past but have just returned from 8 days at the front. They say there is a turnaround in Anbar Province, there are plunging civilian fatality rates and the improving performance of Iraqi security forces are signs things may at last be working. They admit the situation in Iraq is still grave but conclude there is enough good happening on the battlefields today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008. Hey, these are the New York Times worst critics of the war.

[hungry1968]

"That is exactly what the American commander Gen. David Petraeus wants %u2014 continue the surge into next spring and then start a gradual withdrawal back to the pre-surge troop level of 130,000 by the end of 2008."


I didn't like the above statement - so I changed it up a little bit:

"Exactly what the American people want %u2014 continue the surge into next week and then start a gradual withdrawal back to the pre-war troop level of none by the end of August 2007."

[bluestardad]

YOU WILL SEE MORE AND MORE OF THESE TYPE OF ARTICLES SAYING THE SURGE IS WORKING STAY THE COURSE IN THE MEDIA AS THE SEPTEMBER REPORT DATE DRAWS NEAR.

THESE PEOPLE IN THE MEDIA AN OTHERWISE WHO ARE TOUTING STAYING THE COURSE IN IRAQ ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO ARE FUNDED BY AIPAC THE ISRAELI LOBBY GROUP.

IRAQ IS NOT IN AMERICAS NATIONAL INTEREST!

WE MUST CONFRONT THEM HEAD ON AS THE VERY LIVES OF OUR SOLDIERS REST ON OUR EFFORTS!

[coffeehead-2009]

However, if the report is true and there is enough progress to build something solid on- I'll support it.

xxxxx

I question taking their word for it.
according to non-propaganda reports, it's worse now.


IS THE UNITED STATES KILLING 10,000 IRAQIS EVERY MONTH? OR IS IT MORE?
by Michael Schwartz
July 05, 2007


http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=13222

[cozzicon]

I've been against this war from the start.

However, if the report is true and there is enough progress to build something solid on- I'll support it.

Though at this point, after everything that has happened and my loss in faith with the present administration- who knows what is true?

It's a nice article, it made me feel good. I need more information from credible sources, and source documents to change my stance.

I still say we should move our troops to Afghanistan and finish the job.

[ramos937]

I watched Pollack's CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer. After Pollack made his comments on progress in Iraq, Wolf asked him, "Was your travel agenda set by the military or did you set it each day". Pollack admitted that every day's schedule was set by the military and that every day he and his party was escorted by a strong US military force. Everybody remembers Senator McCain's visits to Iraq.

Until the day comes that these gentlemen can move freely in Iraq and without a military escort, they will receive only one version of how things are in Iraq as will all other visiting VIPs.

[brianbwb-2009]

"It's just enough progress so that a critic like Michael O'Hanlon, who used to think the surge was too little too late, now believes it should be continued."

KA CHING!!!

[toldyouso21]

If someone wants to do something or continue to do something bad enough--they will always find justification. It does not mean what they do is right or their justification is really true or valid--it just means that they will do everything in their power to twist and turn info to suit what they want to defend, accomplish or keep doing. We've had YEARS of "great progress" in Iraq--but people keep dying. We all should try to remember as this plays out, that the same people do not die each day, every day this is prolonged, new are killed, tortured, mutilated, shot, bombed, etc--and the toll only can grow larger NEVER smaller.

Bush may crow about American casualties or even Iraqi casualties being less. But for the victim and the family survivors, the catastrophe and horror, terror and grief of their last day, in the war that cannot end--is 100% and the decrease in death toll means nothing.

[randalds]

Come on insurgents, get with the program, you need to INCREASE bombings and make BUSH and his stupid "surge" look like the dimwhit failure they are.
Posted by newster1 at 02:02 AM : Jul 31, 2007

The surge is a failure, no matter what happens militarily, because it was based on the idea that it'd give the Iraqi government (there's a joke) time to get their sh*it together. Instead they went on vacation. No matter how many of our troops do or do not die over the next five weeks the surge has failed.

[nothappyatall]

Come on insurgents, get with the program, you need to INCREASE bombings and make BUSH and his stupid "surge" look like the dimwhit failure they are.

[randalds]

You might also want to put some new names in your rolodexes and remove these so-called experts (Pollack and O'Hanlon) who haven't gotten a single prediction right since the late 90's.
Posted by shingles1 at 01:45 AM : Jul 31, 2007

You're right about that. This story might as well have been titled "Bush and Cheney see progress in the Surge" for all the credibility these guys have.

[shingles1]

This article serves up Pollack and O'Hanlon as "war critics" ("even critics of the war strategy are encouraged") even though neither one is really a war critic.

Both encouraged invading Iraq (Pollack wrote "The Case For Invading Iraq" for crissakes), both have been cheerleaders all along, and both have supported the surge. They are only conveniently "critical" about things that pretty much EVERYBODY is critical about, and usually retroactively, mainly to cover their own butts.

Hey CBS, try using that magic thing called "google" sometime.

You might also want to put some new names in your rolodexes and remove these so-called experts (Pollack and O'Hanlon) who haven't gotten a single prediction right since the late 90's.

[randalds]

You should persue a career writing fiction novels. You really have a vivid imagination!
Posted by EdinTex at 01:43 AM : Jul 31, 2007

Don't worry. If it does come down to bloodshed to try to take this country back for real Americans, then I'm sure none of the blood that is shed will be yours.....

[edintex]

RandalDS:
You should persue a career writing fiction novels. You really have a vivid imagination!

[randalds]

When are you going to move out the hypothetical stage? This war is already Four years old and was planned before 9/11 there%u2019s plenty of information for why the Bush Admin went into Iraq but the real reason lies in PNAC. Now what%u2019s next, Iran and possibly another 9/11 in the US? That%u2019s what matters, what%u2019s going on now and will happen next.
Posted by red164 at 01:22 AM : Jul 31, 2007

Hey! Am areas where we can agree! PNAC is the real enemy of America! As for what's next I honestly believe that Cheney will do something, anything, to make a war with Iran inevitable before the 2008 election. Once that war happens I believe that there'll be a real attempt on the neocons part to suspend the Constitution and seize power under martial law. It won't be successful, but it will take a lot of bloodshed to resolve.

[randalds]

Re: "That way Saddam would be gone..."

Who cares? Wouldn't the Bush regime still be in power?

Posted by FeelFree1 at 01:04 AM : Jul 31, 2007

Not necessarily. Without the war to drum up fear (equaling votes) he may not have been re-elected. Before 9-11 his popularity was slowly sliding downwards and he was well on his way to being a one term loser who'd soon be forgotten. Even with the war and all of his minions beating the drums of terror he barely made it to a 2nd term and he had to corrupt the hell out of the Ohio vote to do even that.