Ken says "They also said they want to know when the occupation forces will get the hell out of their country."

The AP story (11/22/05) says:
“Washington reiterated Tuesday that the United States would stay only as long as it takes to stabilize Iraq. "The coalition remains committed to helping the Iraqi people achieve stability and security as they rebuild their country. We will stay as long as it takes to achieve those goals and no longer."

“…calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks

“…did not lay down a specific time - reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.”

So Ken says: "Meanwhile Iragi government leaders gave the green light to the insurgentcy by proclaiming that anyone who fights the US occupaction cannot be considered a terrorist and therefore, by implication, is not doing anything illegal."

Actually the AP said:
The communique condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if they don't target innocent civilians or institutions that provide for the welfare of Iraqis.
Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships,"

So tell me what "insurgent" attacks only U.S. targets, and does not produce any civilian casualties? Is there any such "freedom fighter" in existence? These COWARDS are killing their own countrymen, wholesale, including women and children, and do not care. They are TERRORISTS by their own country's definition!

While ODO attempts to show solidarity among the IRaqis in their opposition to the U.S. actually what was said was:
"Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the regime of Saddam Hussein or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique."

Selective reporting at the least. Blatant and intentional undermining of the truth is closer to reality.

On the second, instead of estimating the slope of the curve on your graph, look at the actual numbers. Down six months in ten. Fewer casualties every month since January. The MSM (and your)story line is anti-war hype. Period.

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) - Leaders of Iraq's sharply divided Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis called Monday for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces in the country and said Iraq's opposition had a ``legitimate right'' of resistance.

On the second, I said "the line gets steeper," not merely that it goes up.

On your graph, it shows casualties over time. Unless there;s some way to reduce the number, it ALWAYS going to be an upward trend. Duh. Nice try though. If you look at the graph I provided, there have actually been fewer casualtied every month since January. There have been more months with a decrase in casualties than those with an increase.

http://www.intelligencesquad.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/slide1.jpg

It certainly does not measure how much we are supported by the local leaders. Read this:

http://nitpicker.blogspot.com/2005/11/fuck-it.html

Creative reporting and the story you're trying to sell. Absolute bullshit, like what you're peddling here.

If you feel so strongly, leave the CA Communist party, go overseas and help your buddies expel the "infidel crusaders".

You also have to look at these statistics in light of what is occurring on the ground. i.e. Major operations, elections, etc.

BTW, of the number of casualties, only 78% are combat-related. Of the wounded, most were RTD. So the increase inviolence is a fabrication of the MSM. Other myths include the number of minority deaths, deaths of "boys" under age 25, I could go on...

Enlighten yourself:
http://icasualties.org/oif/hnh.aspx

So back to the plan. I'll type real slow so you can understand.
1.) Train Iraqi police and military, gradually increasing their responsibilities until they can stand on their own two feet.
2.) Gradually reduce the number of U.S. troops required in response to #1 above.
3.) When the Iraqi authority asks the U.S. to depart, we do.
4.) Stay the course doesn't mean keep executing missions that don't work. The troops on the ground, not the administration, adjust to developments the requirements dictated by the situation.
Not staying the course means not finishing what we started. It means delivering Iraq to extremists, sacrificing the lives of innocent Iraqis that want to live in peace and with freedom, diminishing the sacrifices of our troops, and telling the world that the U.S. doesn't have the balls to enforce what is just.

P.S. I don't care if you do call yourself a Republican. I am an Independent, although I tend to vote Republican becasue the candidates put forth by the Dems are out to lunch. Talk about flip-flopping. "Oh, I voted for it before I voted against it." Who thought that crap would fly?

Throwing up your hands, as a couple of you have, and saying to me "so tell us how you'd fix it" is not a rational answer!

Either you have a way to seriously turn it around, or you don't.

There have always been Republicans, from before the war, who thought going into Iraq was a bad idea. I think Brent Scowcroft was a famous example. Other famous Republicans like William F. Buckley Jr. have come to oppose this war and support a pullout. That's just from memory.

I swear, it's like you guys just want to rant on Democrats, or hippies, or whatever, and this war is just your excuse.

If you had solid ideas, you'd be engaging the conservatives who disagree with you a little more intelligently.

Odo, the source you quoted simply said we need to fix it. His interpretation of the policy may also be skewed. Where did the President say that "Stay the course" did NOT include corrections? I have asked repeatedly how you would do that, but to date you offer no solutions. Instead we get moronic comments like Anjin San's saying "He lied! Haliburton is making money! No WMD! Waaahhhhh!"

I said I think Bush DOES have a plan, it is being implemented, and is working. Just not fast enough for the short attention spans in this country.

BTW my "going off" on hippies relates to their totally distateful, unproductive, and stupid approach to opposing the war. Grow up and learn how to express yourselves intelligently, or STFU. (Anjin San perfect case in point)

"There is indeed another sucker born every minute"

You are absoloutly correct Anjin, and you proove it with every comment you make. Your lefty lberal, anti war, and sarcastic statements are the pride of your Democrat buddies that would cut and run at the smallist excuse giving the victory to you other buddies OBL and Zarqawi.
Yes Anjin, you have proven PT Barnams statement.

If you accept the Israeli solution, you accept generations of suicide bombers

YOu have an alternative, Odo? And if none of the partisan stuff fixes Iraq, why engage in it?

Anything for a political advantage, as Peters says.

Think about this, the left is demanding the US lose this war.

It's really that simple, that direct.

JAMES JOYNER, a reasonable righty if ever there was one, has this to say about Ralph Peters' latest NY Post column...

Does any of this tripe really make the right think that Bush was not pretty much full of it on the Iraq issue from day one?

Before the war Bush told us about a million times it was all about WMD.

Turns out there are no WMD. So Rove re-brands the war as an effort to convert Iraq into a democracy. Don't mind there was hardly a whisper about this before it turned out there were, in fact, no WMD.

There is indeed another sucker born every minute.