SURGE!!! by the numbers
ByWhen General Petraeus comes before Congress to defend the White House’s report on “progress” in Iraq, here are some numbers to keep in mind, percentage change from summer ’06 to summer ’07:
Iraqi Military and Police Killed – Up 23%
Multiple Fatality Bombings – Down 25%
# Killed in Mult. Fatality Bombings – Up 19%
U.S. Troop Fatalities – Up 80%
U.S. Troops Wounded – Up 45%
Size of Insurgency – Up approx. 250%
Attacks on Oil and Gas Pipelines – Up 75%
Diesel Fuel Available – Down 22%
Kerosene Available – Down 11%
Gasoline Available – Down 24%
Electricity Generated – Down 4%
Hours Electricity Per Day – Down approx. 14%
To see the whole chart over at The Washington Monthly click here.
Bush told us that his SURGE!!! would be effective and,
“When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq’s Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.”
36 Comments
August 25th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Well as everyone know Bush and Co. do not look at statistics, like polls etc. So all those numbers will not deter them from spinning the report into a success story. And I will bet my life that somehow they will be able to twist the report into a “see it is working” argument.
And if not they will blame all the war critics because they have embolden the enemy and of cause Iran for that is their next target. ….
And than people wounder why the drug use in this country is on the rise. How else can you live with the bulls-s..t that is coming out of Washington?
“Feel Blue? See Red? Go Green!”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Whether the surge will be completely successful remains to be seen. Let’s not forget the surge was not fully implemented until late spring, so a more appropriate comparison would be comparing May of ’07 to May of ’08. Much of Washington Monthly’s statistics are from an era with a Sec of Defense who proved to be less than superb and a poor strategy.
There have been multiple stories confirming success in Al-Anbar province, even by the Brookings Institution, a left of center think tank. There are predictions that the report will recommend troop withdraws of 30,000 by January. We’ll have to wait and see what the real surge numbers are.
As for touting success, it seems to be a bi-partisan affair. Clinton, Levin, and Rep. Baird hvae all publicly stated they feel the surge is showing signs of success. Baird says he will no longer vote for time tables anymore.
Those are always good numbers to remember, but we’ll have to wait and see what the real surge numbers are.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I didn’t read Kai’s post before I did mine, but he’s right. We did have to wait and see, because the surge was introduced in Jan, not implemented. Since it’s been going, people have seemed more optimistic. There have been other signs of optimism, such as capturing Saddam, killing Zarqawi, but there have been a lot of stories generated from Al-Anbar, and there isn’t a central figure such as Saddam to draw this media attraction.
Let’s also not forget, the Iraqis can vote to have us leave any time they want. That’s the agreement that was set up with their government. They vote, we leave.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
What are you waiting to see, Senator? I’m glad you’re encouraged by Al-Anbar and the latest round of whack-a-mole. This whole “wait another year” nonsense is what the D.C. spinners have been feeding us for years.
Atrios puts it best I think when he sums up the thought process of Stay The Coursers:
Staying is Winning, Leaving is Losing.
How many more U.S. soldiers are we going to throw on this pyre? Wait another year and the pro-war gang will tell you.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 25th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
“Let’s also not forget, the Iraqis can vote to have us leave any time they want.”
Sure they can vote, we will however ignore what they want. In a recent poll 80% of the population of Iraq want us to leave, some 40% say it is ok to kill US soldiers.
We are not going to leave. We are building the largest embassy in the world in Iraq, which is actually a military installation.
And besides it is not only the some 135,000 military personal we are talking about but also the 200,000 private army folks we got stationed in Iraq.
I am sorry Senator No, but lets look at reality for once! We are there to secure the oil resources for us. And we are not going to give that up just so that Iran can take them over.
In 1994 VP Cheney said to invade Iraq would result in a quagmire, and he was right! To bad making money for himself and his cooperate buddies is more important than being honest
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 1:38 am
I am looking at reality. Reality says Levin and Clinton thinks there is progress, as does Brookings Institute. If the left says there is progress, there must be progress or else I’m dreaming. It’s not just Bush and Co trumpteting this time; it’s bi-partisan this time. Not to mention Baird won’t even vote for time tables anymore. We’ll see where support lies after the report and testimony.
Kai, I’m glad you can read polls. Let the Iraqi’s vote, and we’ll leave. Polls aren’t votes.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Hold it, hold it, hold it. My cat has four legs. So does the chair I’m sitting on. Does that mean that I’m sitting on a cat? According to that particularly sloppy example of an inductive fallacy that you just provided, apparently your answer is “yes”. Just because a small handful of “liberals” think that there is progress in Iraq does not mean that “the left” believes it or even passes that along as “fact”.
Also, I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds your confusing Hillary! with a liberal to be quite amusing. If you’re going to pick one Representative or Senator that exemplifies everything that “the left” stands for to use as a right-wing bugaboo to scare conservatives into voting against something (instead of encouraging them to vote *for* anything), you can do better than Clinton. Try someone who didn’t vote for the war. Try someone who’s not in favor of corporate welfare. Try someone who’s pro-choice. Try someone who wasn’t beating the drum for war against Iran as early as 2005! Then we’ll talk.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go feed my chair.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 9:42 am
So if I had said “democrats” instead of the “liberals”, you would be okay with everything?
Baird voted against the war from the outset, happy? Here’s his op-ed.
I’m sorry my generalization upset you and completely ruined your weekend and now you’re taking chairs to the vets office, the finer point I was trying to make was that it’s not just right wing drum beating, there’s a democrat hand in the drum circle too.
Considering Hillary could very well be the democratic party’s presidential candidate, and you don’t consider her to be liberal, I would interested in seeing what you consider “liberal”.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Trust me, Senator. This conversation is a high point in my weekend, which was shot long before you came along and upset me with your generalization. Boo hoo. Someone call the waaaaaaaaaahmbulance. I believe the number is WHINE-1-1.
As for Baird’s commentary… well, at least he gave some kind of an explanation to his constituents, and one that you can tell he truly believes in. Whether that works for him and doesn’t create a backlash remains to be seen. But good for him for acting on his own conscience and bucking the party line. Seems that all we get from Shuler is either a two-line pull quote in the AC-T or a fluffy little blog entry telling us how he’s going to build a bigger parking lot for the Carl Sandburg House or whatever.
Who do I consider to be “liberal”? Anyone with the cojones to describe themselves as “liberal” instead of hiding behind the watered-down nomenclature of “progressive”. They’re a dying breed.
Also, I edited your comment so that the full URL to Rep. Baird’s op-ed was in an HTML “a” tag. Long URLs like that tend to break the template in some browsers. I figured you wouldn’t mind.
Dang it, my chair just coughed up a hairball…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Ha. Nice. Don’t mind the edit.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Looking at reality? Which one, Senator? Because some Democrats say it, it must be true? This is a new standard of truthtelling to me.
Did this thread really get eleven comments long, with back-and-forthing about progress without once mentioning the list of actual facts. Facts – the ones with numbers after them instead of a D or an R. The facts don’t bear out the “progress”.
Spin machine in full effect. Hillary! might have been a liberal once, but she’s been locked in a bubble since 1991 and her best buddies are the proven losers in the Democratic Leadership Council.
Real liberal? Feingold, Kucinich, Boxer, Obama (just barely), Dean, Frank, Waters, Wasserman-Schultz…
I could go on and on. Hillary! isn’t on my liberal list. Neither is Biden, Dodd, or Richardson, though Richardson comes the closest of those three…
Democratic candidates are still seeking the sturdy spine necessary to refute the Republican spin machine, often preferring to run from taunts rather than stand up to them. This isn’t a happy situation, and Lord knows we’re doing our level best to let them know what we expect from them.
The SURGE!!! is falling far short of the benchmarks (remember those?), including some semblance of political progress. The facts, Senator, don’t bear out progress.
Maybe you’ll hire me to cut your grass one day. I’ll show up with a pair of scissors and snip a few blades, call it progress, and demand you pay me. “What about all the rest of this?”, you’ll say. And I’ll call you a defeatist, nattering nabob of negativism.
“Wait and see”, I’ll say, “I’ll cut a few more blades every day and pretty soon your lawn will turn into a pony.”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Cutting lawn grass is a lot different than fighting a war. I can snip grass blades whenever I want, I can’t win over clergy members whenever I want, it requires work. No one is promising horses from grass.
The facts must bear some progress if democratic party members are switching sides. Not all of them, obviously, but someone is reporting progress, including Brookings. My original point is that the facts being compared don’t line up. Washington Monthly was comparing pre-surge statistics with pre-surge statistics. Obviously, the “light foot print” was a bad strategy. Compare surge numbers of May ’07 to surge numbers of May ’08, and see how it worked. Don’t cite pre-surge numbers and then say the surge isn’t working because pre-surge numbers are still high.
The democrat leadership council supported Bill Clinton, and he’s the last non-republican president I’m aware of in the last 30 years besides one term Carter. They should bear some credibility.
If Pelosi quits holding votes on the Iraq war, you know it’s because more congressional members have abandoned the withdraw plan and she doesn’t want to lose that vote in public. She could keep winning it, but time will tell.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
None of the current Presidential candidates attended the DLC conference this year despite having been invited.
There you go with that ‘democrat’ instead of Democratic, even when it’s obviously wrong.
By your calculations, we can’t know if things are improving. So why so much creedence lent to Democrats’ opinions?
Evidently it’s only the “progress” opinions that count. Everyone else has to wait a year before you’ll talk about it.
Naked shilling for the Bush administration’s failed policy, Senator? I’m embarrassed for you.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I think if the Senator wants to keep using “democrat” for “Democratic” we won’t take it seriously when he complains that we use derogatory terms for Republicans, individually or as a group.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Good golly, what’s problem miss molly? When CNN runs election receounts, they don’t say “democratic” candidates, they say “democrats”. When is what appropriate?
Gordon,
So you don’t dispute the facts you cited were pre-surge, and that you were comparing them to pre-surge numbers? So why should pre-surge numbers determine if the surge is working?
As I said before, I cited democrats, democratic candidates, (I can’t call them liberals because I got chewed out for that too, so I’m really running out ideas of what you all want to call them), aka: non-republicans-independents, to show it’s not just right wing drum beating supporting the surge numbers. Nothing more, nothing less. The point stands important figures that were/are against the war have said the surge has done good things. That’s all I was throwing out there.
New tactic needs time. I want to hear what Petraeus has to say. He might even propose reducing troop levels, isn’t that what we all want?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Petraeus doesn’t have anything to say. The White House is writing his report. You know this.
What’s your angle, Senator? The “Good Golly” routine is cute and all, but there’s clearly more to you.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 26th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
How many times will apologists tell us to just wait a few more months? Magically putting faith in a group whose military stategery has been disastrous since before the war began? Saying it’s the generals on the ground making the decisions even though Bush’s own former generals and members of the Joint Chiefs are arguing against it? Petraeus? He’ll say what he’s told.
Meanwhile – in realityland:
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 7:24 am
First,
Petraeus will be there to testify before Congress. That won’t be the White House talking, that will be the general.
The article mentions nothing of Al-Anbar. One cannot deny that there’s been significant progress made there.
Petraeus is calling the shots. No one has been able to win over an area like this. It’s not the same bundled strategy. Rumsfield’s cleary was a bad strategy, and is no longer being employed.
Also notice the headline of the article you quoted from realityland says “Violence LOWER in Iraq”.
No one anywhere is claiming the world is perfect and that no one’s being killed. There are still a lot of problems, no one is denying it.
You really think if we left tomorrow that there wouldn’t be Iraqi genocide and even worse fighting? The least we can do is leave them an infrastructure where they have some capability of performing civilian protection. If the Iraqi’s want us gone, their parliament is welcome to vote on it at anytime. If 80% of the country wants us gone, democracy will work and they can vote for representatives to tell us to leave. Then we’ll leave.
Petraues is even going to recommend a troop reduction according to early reports. Isn’t that what we want? The troops to start coming home on our own terms.
Even Joe Biden is saying at least a year. When a staunch anti-war opponent is saying it’ll take a year to get the troops out, it’s going to be more than a few months.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Violence is down from its peak evidently. This is good news, but a little like saying “Your whole house was on fire, but we’ve got the kitchen fire put out now. The rest of the place is in flames, and the charred kitchen will take a long time to rebuild (assuming it doesn’t catch fire again). Good news!”
“Isn’t that what we want?” I have no idea what you want, Senator.
Petraeus is going to recommend that the SURGE!!! do what it was supposed to do, temporarily increase troop numbers. The nature of the operation was to be temporary, so let’s not pretend that returning to pre-SURGE!!! levels is some sort of significant pullout.
You’re a real go-getter for the President, Senator. Thanks for coming by to share his point of view.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 9:01 am
wait…wasn’t the surge supposed to lead to political progress in Iraq, I believe that is how it was originally sold? And the reason the violence is down can be attributed to that fact the we are now arming both sides in (wow, that sounds like such a good idea for improving security and stability)hopes that A) they will stop/lessen attacks on US troops and B) kill dem Al Qaeda types.
I would say that the Bush Admin is secretly happy about all the instability in Iraq as it is one of the main factors keeping oil above $60 a barrel, but that would be cynical
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I’m for reality, Gordon.
The reality is we’re going to be there for some time, so we may as well try and do it right. Biden, Clinton, Kerry all want the troops home, but acknowledge they aren’t coming home overnight. I think the surge is a much better strategy than what was being employed before.
You just acknowldged that it was good news, why are you against good news? It might just be the kitchen that was put out, but you have to get the fire out section by section. No house fire is just put out all at once.
So you would rather not try and save the ‘house’? You just want to leave it to genocide and ethnic cleansing?
I don’t understand your fascination with pre-surge numbers. This is how I see it, early reports and rumors suggest that troop levels will begin to draw down in January. If once troop levels draw down, and post-surge numbers are the same as pre-surge numbers, then it’s clear the surge hasn’t worked. Citing deaths that happened before the surge was implemented is not a valid way to critique the surge.
The surge was sold as bringing helping bring stability to Iraq. Several sources say it has. I’m going to side with Brookings on this one.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Well a big “Thank You” to all my Democratic Friends for making my point, namely just because someone has a (D) behind their name does not make them a progressive liberal freedom enjoying patriot.
The left – right issue is so outdated, I highly recommend for anyone that has not done so to take a little test at: http://politicalcompass.org/
Here is where the want-to-be Presidents are
In case this picture does not display here is the link to the site: http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007
So to me Dennis is the only choice for us true liberal progressives until the Green Party gets strong enough to run a true candidate for President. (Maybe 2024)
“Feeling Blue? Seeing Red? Go Green!!”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
“why are you against good news” – Lord let this be sarcastic.
“The reality is we’re going to be there for some time.” – This is funny to me, because the reality is that we’ll be there as long as we decide to be there. We can leave anytime at any pace. That’s the reality.
The choice of Stay The Coursers is to stay and put our soldiers through the meat grinder.
Your “genocide and ethnic cleansing” scare tactic is crystal balling of the worst sort. I’m for considering some realpolitik in this region, but I’m not going to predict cataclysm if we leave and shiny ponies if we stay. How many die if we stay? How many die if we leave? How many years until stability if we stay? How many if we leave?
You can’t answer these questions. Neither can our government. So, what are we doing there? Putting our soldiers into the line of fire because your Tarot cards are more accurate than mine?
Reality is that Bush failed in Iraq. The SURGE!!! will always need six more months because pro-Bush folks believe that leaving is losing.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Very interesting, Kai. (I fixed your comment to show the image that you were talking about.)
That sounds worthy of its own post, actually. Thanks for bringing that site to our attention.
(I took the quiz and found myself a little further into quadrant III of that graph than Gravel and Kucinich)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Me too, Arratik. Both of those guys must have fudged their answers because there’s no way…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Gordon,
“the right has made the world less safe and has made us less safe” are nothing more than scare tactics. How do you prove someone has made something less safe? Eastern Europe has many growing countries that are adamently pro-American, both France and Germany have elected governments that are more willing to work with us.
Do you really not think any genocide will occur if we leave? Do you really not think even worse fighting will break out? Millions in eastern europe were murded after we let the Soviets keep it. There was fighting murders in Vietnam after we cut off funding. There were brutal paybacks to all those that rose against Saddam after the Gulf War; and all the news of killings and secterian violence indicate, at least to me, that it’s anything but peaceful. If we leave tomorrow, they’re not all going to shake hands and get along. We should give them a police and miliitary structure they can rely on, then we go home. If the surge didn’t do anything, then we’ll go home.
Bush has said that there will be troops there until after he leaves, so as long as they’re there, they may as well be effective. That’s a reality unless the House cuts off funding.
The stay the course rhetoric was dropped by everyone a long time ago, and is as applicable as ” the democrat party”.
Many a politician has gotten on TV and said the surge is the last straw, if it fails we leave. If the surge ends, and troop levels draw down, and then violence escalates again, then it’s over.
By the way, we can also leave if the Iraqi government votes for us to leave. We’d have to leave, yet I don’t seem the voting for that as much as everyone seems to hate us.
I think Kai makes a good point that should be considered on the opposite side of the spectrum as well.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I prove that we’re less safe by pointing out that terrorism has increased worldwide since Bush’s War on Terra was announced.
With one side of your mouth you’re saying that we have to stay to prevent genocide, then with the other you’re saying that if the SURGE!!! doesn’t work, we’ll leave. Make up your mind, man.
Staying the course is exactly what you’re saying we ought to do, Senator.
Many a politician has said a lot of stuff and nonsense. I’ll believe them when I see the votes.
You’re a SURGE!!! supporter. I’m not. I’m confident that we’ll get out of Iraq. The only question remaining is how many more Americans have to die for George W. Bush’s mistake?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
In one sentence you acknowledge that I said we would leave, and then you accuse me of staying the course. Make up your mind.
If the surge doesn’t work, then I’m not confident anything will work. We’re there to build up an Iraqi army, and then we’ll leave.
I think there will be genocide if we leave prematurely, history has shown a pattern of this, and I’m against genocide. A strong army and police force can combat armed forces committing genocide.
You just want to roll the dice on genocide?
I have three outs,
if the surge doesn’t work because popular will demands it and lack of other options.
When the Iraqi army can stand up for itself.
When the Iraqi parliament votes for us to leave.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Now you’re being deliberately obtuse. This is my last comment on this thread, since it’s clear what’s going on.
“ou acknowledge that I said we would leave, and then you accuse me of staying the course.” – You said that if the SURGE!!! (staying the course) doesn’t work, then we should leave. But we can’t know if the SURGE!!! is working for how long, Senator? Another year, right? Another year of staying the course, right?
You just want to roll the dice on thousands more dead American soldiers?
Done.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Awww…and it was just getting fun. I’m not being deliberately obtuse despite what you think, I’m holding onto my opinion.
As I see it, staying the course was the old rumsfield strategy, the surge is the new strategy. I see them as different entities, and I guess you just don’t want to share that viewpoint.
Through various reports of the armed forces and visiting Congressional delegations, we’ll know if the surge is working. If you don’t believe Petraeus, you must not believe Baird either. Their messages are pretty close to each other.
I’ll take it that since you quit citing pre-surge numbers to see if the surge is working that some of my arguments were successful.
You’ve never explained why you don’t think there would be a genocide. You have a right to that opinion, and I’m sorry I won’t get to see it. Maybe American lives are just better than Iraqi lives?
I just don’t want the troops to have died in vain; I’d like to leave a stable Iraq behind.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Gordon,
I was thinking a little bit more about this, and wanted to elaborate. First, do you really think that the majority of troops will come home under Bush? If they do, it will be near the end of the presidency. Knowing the troops will be there for a considerable duration either way, I say we have to give the surge time to judge it.
It may look like staying the course to you, and in some ways the continuation of the war will always be staying the course, but it’s not genuine. Staying the course meant the old strategy of just fighting terrorists when we saw them, and not meddling with Iraqis otherwise. That didn’t work. The surge impelements a different strategy, and you know that.
Since we’ll be there at into at least 2009, I’ll hold off on judging the surge.
How do you think you’ll get the troops home before then, if you have a plan?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Senator No writes: Kai, I’m glad you can read polls. Let the Iraqi’s vote, and we’ll leave. Polls aren’t votes.
Of cause polls are not votes, that is not the point. The point is that the majority of Iraqis want us out. But we are not going to leave even if they would put it on a Ballot at the next general election. Why you ask? Well lets look at the economics of this war.
Stipulations: Someone has to pay for a war so that someone else makes money!
This war is the first major test-run on privatizing the military and other government services, thereby extract money from the working class to give to big cooperations. And private cooperations can waste that money, not deliver anything and all without congress overseeing the process, de facto sidestepping congress and the people. Mission accomplished indeed! 500 Billions and counting.
Same philosophy that this administration applied to New Orleans. Karl Rove in the forefront (he was put in charge of the reconstruction of New Orleans). Hallibuton etc were hired. Of cause a nice site effect was by moving extremely slow to keep the displaced mostly democratic voting poor and black population from returning and thereby secure Louisiana for the republicans.
I do not care how often you claim that we would leave if the Iraqis vote that way, we are there to stay and regardless of who the next President of the USA is we will stay. It’s just good economic sense for the controlling class of the world. Never mind the fact that the Iraqi government is a puppet of the US government and we would not even allow them to vote.
Senator No, get real, you fooling no one here, we all read, and darn it we actually got educated during our collage years, meaning we have learned to think for ourselves ( Reora humanum est!) You should try it once, it’s addictive!
“Feeling Blue? Seeing Red? Go Green!”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
That is college years, I am so tiered, I’m sure there are more spelling and gramatical mistakes, sorry for that.
Let’s continue this conversation in German …. Also ich wollte sie all ja nur darauf hinweisen that wir uns in einer neuen weltordnung befinden ….Anyone???
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Kai: I liked my collage years better, for what it’s worth.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 27th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Typical,
just because people disagree with you, they’re discredited as being uneducated and unable to think for themselves.
Only German speakers should be allowed to determine policy because knowing German mystically makes you qualified? Hitler knew german, coincidentally, as long as we’re making strang allusions. He even wanted to build a new world order.
I’ll believe the polls when I see the votes, something Gordon said earlier too. Pretty convenient you think we’re just not allowing them to vote isn’t it? Thus it must be a conspiracy. Not many other people would agree with the august body that views this site that John Edwards fits in the right-wing authoritarian grid on the political field.
If the Iraqis vote that way, I’ll be writing Shuler everyday telling him to pull out.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
August 28th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Senator No writes: Typical,just because people disagree with you, they’re discredited as being uneducated and unable to think for themselves.
No you can disagree all you want, what I was pointing out is that all I hear from you are the talking points of the White House, so I encouraged you to think for yourself that’s all.
Now to the German stuff…. I was simply saying that I was tiered and when I am I make spelling mistakes etc. How do you go from that to that only
“German speakers should be allowed to determine policy because knowing German mystically makes you qualified? Hitler knew German”
Do not attribute claims to me I did not make, not cool!
And while we are at it: Hitler did not speak German, he spoke a perverted version of Austrian-German, I thing Charlie Chaplin captured that very well in his wonderful movie “The Great Dictator” http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032553/
History lesson: The Nazis started WW II not the Germans, they used the Germans sadly! It was easy because of the Versailles Treaty which impoverished the German nation to the point that they were willing to follow anyone that promised to get them out of the mess, a mess that the Germans were not responsible for either. Read the history and you will see that WW I would have happened regardless because of all the complicated treaties and circumstances. To much to go into here.
You know who belonged to the Nazis? Well Bush’s Grandfather Prescott for example: http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/ or here is the watered down version of Fox News http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html
“Errare humanum est ut non reputo est bardus!”
Rate this comment:
0 
0