1
POPSAl Qaeda Takes Credit for Last Week's Baghdad Bombings Since the attack, Maliki has ordered the concrete blast walls to be put back up around sensitive sites, and the military has arrested 11 officers for negligence or aiding in the attack. The Iraqi government has accused both al Qaeda in Iraq and former Ba'athists operating from Syria of conducting the attack. On Aug. 23, state-run television aired the confession of a senior member of the Ba'ath party who is accused of masterminding the attacks. The suspect claimed he was a former policeman in Miqdadiyah in eastern Diyala province, a region that has served as a bastion for al Qaeda in Iraq. He said the attackers paid $10,000 in bribes to ensure that their trucks would pass through checkpoints into Baghdad. The attack was ordered by a senior Ba'ath official based in Syria. Today, the Iraqi government asked Syria to turn over senior Ba'athists Sattam Farhan and Mohammad Younis al Ahmed for their involvement in last week's bombings.
4
POPS Rejectionism Is The New Dead-ending Damn, that sounds awful familiar. Sounds kind of like the role reversal has them a little confused. I hope they can figure out that 2006 Democratic strategic thinking is not the right answer post-2007/08 surge success. While the violence is far below the worst levels in 2006, 18 major attacks this month have kindled fears that Baathist and jihadist elements could be reconstituting themselves into a smaller, but still deadly, insurgency that will exploit the withdrawal of American troops between now and 2011. Translation: rejectionism could be a problem for Obama’s de-surge.
1
POPSHarry Reid Predicts the Future with Uncanny Accuracy 
I hate to admit it, but Democrats really are better for the economy! Just ask them. Twenty-seven of the Dow's 30 stocks ended in the red. The exceptions were Citi, which rose 9.7% to $2.14 a share, and Bank of America, another target of frequent nationalization speculation that managed a 3.2% gain to end at $3.91. General Motors shares ended flat. ...The S&P 500 dropped 26.72 points, or 3.5%, to 743.33, its lowest close since April 11, 1997. All of its sectors swooned, paced by a 6.1% decline in its basic-materials sector. The energy sector fell 4.7% and the technology sector dropped 4.6%. The financials, which were the best-performing market through much of the session, ended trading down 3.5%. They'll be happy to explain it to you. New Crisis Lows for Dow, S&P 500 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123538987022847373.html Reid: "The Iraq War is lost." YouTube video (1:10) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYZEGot-xU4 Good, lets cancel the porka-palooza Har
5
POPSObama Congratulates United Nations On Successful Iraqi Vote Barack Obama congratulated the United Nations for the peaceful elections. The United States still has 130,000 soldiers serving in Iraq. The troubled nation has seen a major turnaround due to the Bush Surge in 2007. Obama did not mention the American military in his statement. The president's statement was not posted on the White House website.
1
POPSOne Surge Does Not Fit All producing the forces necessary to help hold difficult neighborhoods against the enemy. By 2007, the surge, for most Iraqis, could have an Iraqi face. And the political scene in Iraq had shifted. Moktada al-Sadr, the firebrand cleric, declared a cease-fire in February 2007. The best indication that timing is everything may be that there had been earlier surges without the same effect as the 2007 surge. In 2005, troop levels in Iraq were increased to numbers nearly equal to the 2007 surge — twice. But the effects were not as durable because large segments of the Sunni population were still providing sanctuary to insurgents, and Iraq’s security forces were not sufficiently capable or large enough. During my last weeks in office, I recommended to President Bush that he consider Gen. David Petraeus as commander of coalition forces in Iraq, as General Casey’s tour was coming to an end.
4
POPSDid the Surge Work? more: "Essentially, our interpretation is that violence has declined in Baghdad because of intercommunal violence that reached a climax as the surge was beginning," said lead author John Agnew, a UCLA professor of geography and authority on ethnic conflict. "By the launch of the surge, many of the targets of conflict had either been killed or fled the country, and they turned off the lights when they left." "If the surge had truly 'worked,' we would expect to see a steady increase in night-light output over time, as electrical infrastructure continued to be repaired and restored, with little discrimination across neighborhoods,"
2
POPSThe rising cost of the Iraq 'surge' Cont.... In other words, the big-name journalists don’t want a discussion about the decision to illegally invade Iraq under false pretenses in 2003 (presumably because they almost all were cheering the invasion on), but instead they want the debate to center entirely on their latest false assumption, that the “surge” has virtually won the war. In reality, the “surge” of about 30,000 additional troops sent to Iraq appears to have been only one factor and – according to military officials interviewed for Bob Woodward’s new book, The War Within – possibly a secondary one in explaining the drop-off in the violence that had made Iraq a living hell.
6
POPSEthnic cleansing of Baghdad Note the decrease of yellow (mixed) areas between the two maps. This ethnic cleansing - people fleeing their homes into other neighborhoods - is part of the decrease in violence that happened during the surge, and it is unresolved.
6
POPSNow The Surge Is Succeeding? .......continued... But the National Intelligence Estimate of Jan 2007 said this: Coalition capabilities, including force levels, resources, and operations, remain an essential stabilizing element in Iraq. If Coalition forces were withdrawn rapidly during the term of this Estimate, we judge that this almost certainly would lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict in Iraq, intensify Sunni resistance to the Iraqi Government, and have adverse consequences for national reconciliation. OK, so Obama opposed a surge that succeeded and advocated a policy that the NIE said at the time would lead to a disaster in Iraq. As to whether anyone could have predicted that the surge would be effective - well, Bush did introduce it this way in his January 2007 speech: President's Address to the Nation http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html
12
POPSText of McCain Editorial rejected by the NY Times This editorial was a written response to Obama's editorial. It was rejected. continuing.. "Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism."
4
POPSStrategy Or Magic Numbers And Stump Politics? Yet, unlike the Iraq surge he opposed (and still opposes), where increased numbers were based on a mission transition in 2007 and requirements to fulfill that mission, Senator Obama’s surge plan for Afghanistan appears on its face to have little concrete vision beyond sending in more troops. What’s more telling is that there is little in the way of detailing how that specific number of additional troops was arrived at. The lack of accompanying explanation - suggests it may be just that, a number. This, if so, is not a plan. Perhaps his military advisors may want to sharpen their pencils and share a thought or two. Perhaps we simply missed them amid the frequent criticism. Or perhaps the senator may reverse course and return to his once-stated predisposition to send US troops into Pakistan. Otherwise, it all rings as hollow criticism without serious alternative. That’s not a plan. And it’s not a strategy. That’s simply stump politics.
2
POPSBusting the Surge Myth Cont.... The Shiitization of Baghdad was thus a significant cause of falling casualty rates. But it is another war waiting to happen, when the Sunnis come back to find Shiite militiamen in their living rooms.
10
POPSThe Democrats' Fairy Tale And the improvements in Anbar could never have been sustained without aggressive American military efforts — efforts that were more effective in 2007 than they had been in 2006, due in part to the addition of the surge forces. Last year’s success, in Anbar and elsewhere, was made possible by confidence among Iraqis that U.S. troops would stay and help protect them, that the U.S. would not abandon them to their enemies. Because the U.S. sent more troops instead of withdrawing — because, in other words, President Bush won his battles in 2007 with the Democratic Congress — we have been able to turn around the situation in Iraq. And now Iraq’s Parliament has passed a de-Baathification law — one of the so-called benchmarks Congress established for political reconciliation. For much of 2007, Democrats were able to deprecate the military progress and political reconciliation taking place on the ground by harping on the failure of the Iraqi government to pass the benchmark legislation
2
POPSMcCain: The Mistake Machine Poor John McCain is a gift that keeps on giving to the Democrats. Mistake after mistake after mistake. I'm beginning to worry about pointing out his mistakes. I'm afraid someone will accuse me of making fun of someone with a "challenge" and it will be true.
8
POPSLanny Davis: "We were wrong" Thank You, Lannie. It is great to see there are still stand-up people on the left. From article: "Maybe another democracy, however imperfect, other than Israel in the Middle East could lead to more moderation, possibly other democracies? Democracies that could serve as bulwarks against al Qaeda-type of terrorist states?" "And then in early 2007 came the Surge, which so many of us in the anti-war left of the Democratic Party predicted would be a failure, throwing good men and women and billions of dollars after futility. We were wrong." "The surge did, in fact, lead to a reduction of violence, confirmed by media on the ground as well as our military leaders."
5
POPSFacts matter The Iraqis most enthusiastic about Obama’s plan surely are al-Qaeda members, Sadrists, Iranian agents and sectarian killers of every stripe. The prospect of an American president suddenly letting up on them has to be the best cause for hope they’ve had in months. Obama’s withdrawal would immediately embolden every malign actor in Iraq, and increase their sway in Iraqi politics. In his oped, Obama sticks to the badly dated contention that Iraqis “have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.” In fact, roughly 15 of 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqis — progress Obama threatens to reverse.
7
POPSObama Scrubs website of surge criticism Yes, I'm always supportive of something that has been proven successful too. A little late though. Nice try Obama. After you trounced the efforts, the policy, the military...now that the surge has made significant progress, you want to slap them on the back and join the chorus of "Good job, guy!"
5
POPSMcCain's Surge in Iraq Crippling Efforts in Afghanistan The death rate for American troops in Afghanistan last month was four times that of Iraq. The last two months have been the deadliest of the war for U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan since 2001. And today, Afghanistan sustained the deadliest single terrorist attack since 9/11 when suspected Taliban militants blew up the Indian embassy in Kabul. This is directly attributable to negligent policies set forth by the Bush administration--an administration dangerously obsessed with Iraq at the expense of the Real Global War on Terror. When many were urging the U.S. to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan in early 2007, the Bush administration--with the support of Senator John McCain--launched the "surge" of troops into Baghdad. Unfortunately, Iraq is not, as John McCain says, the "central front" in the War on Terror--and it never has been. If there is such a thing, it is in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
6
POPSThe Bush Paradox Even the defiled NY Times publishes the fact that the surge decision was correct and, against all odds, produced victory. No other man could have had the courage and foresight to stay the course and pick the right military leaders to defeat the enemy and bring safety and prosperity to a suffering people. God bless George W. Bush.
6
POPSThe Surge is....oh no, not again! "And the GAO report finds just that, that the Bush administration has no plan for what to do next. With the 18-month surge coming to an end in July, the report says that the administration has not set out "strategic goals and objectives in Iraq for the phase after July 2008 or how it intends to achieve them" and "an updated strategy is needed for how the United States will help Iraq achieve key security, legislative, and economic goals." The report acknowledged that violence was down in May (after rising in March and April) and attributed the reduction to three factors: "1) the increase in U.S. combat forces, 2) the creation of nongovernmental security forces such as the Sons of Iraq, and 3) the Mahdi Army's declaration of a cease fire." What do these three conditions have in common? They are all temporary and unlikely to continue in the future.
3
POPSSecret plan to keep Iraq under US control
Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors America currently has 151,000 troops in Iraq and, even after projected withdrawals next month, troop levels will stand at more than 142,000 – 10 000 more than when the military "surge" began in January 2007. Under the terms of the new treaty, the Americans would retain the long-term use of more than 50 bases in Iraq. American negotiators are also demanding immunity from Iraqi law for US troops and contractors, and a free hand to carry out arrests and conduct military activities in Iraq without consulting the Baghdad government. The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.
1
Pops
Newest Clips
Latest Comments
Most Pops
Print
Save
Turn on live update