Things Take a Downturn in the War on Terror
As drdog09 pointed out yesterday, the War on Terror (although it’s not called that any more) has taken a turn for the worst in both Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the media is strangely slient.
In Iraq:
A series of blasts in Baghdad killed 95 and wounded 536 yesterday.
In Iraq’s bloodiest day this year, home forces accepted blame for the security breach after U.S. troops withdrew from urban centres in June.
At least six blasts struck near government ministries and other targets at the heart of Iraq’s Shi’ite-led administration.
In Afghanistan:
KABUL -The U.S. military said Wednesday six American troops were killed in Afghanistan, as militants killed six election workers amid growing fears on the eve of the presidential election that insurgents would mar the vote.
Two troops were killed in gunfire in the south on Wednesday, the U.S. military said, while a third was killed in an unspecified hostile attack. The U.S. also said a roadside bomb Tuesday in the south killed two troops, while another died of noncombat-related injuries. No other details were released.
The deaths bring to at least 32 the number of American troops killed in the country this month, a record pace. Forty-four U.S. troops died in Afghanistan last month, the deadliest month of the eight-year war.
Cindy Sheehan is protesting again, but this time she is receiving very little coverage by MSM. At least Cindy is consistent . Most of the anti-war groups and MSM have folded their tents since the Obama corronation.
Hat tips: Drudge Report, Daily Mail (UK) and Flopping Aces
[1]
Today’s Rasmussen: Zero is still at -6. Overall is 50/50.
[2]
ALL the other polls are now hovering around 51% approval. Rasmussen forces a “decision” in their overall index, which is why they get to 100%. The others show 51% Approval…but only 40% Dis-Approval. They let the others pretend they have no opinion.
Still, for the overall average in Realpolitics to be just barely above 50% is huge for our Dear Leader.
[3]
I want to know Obama’s exit strategy. I think we need to have a draw down date.
/s
[4]
Obama wants a “good war”…the Left remains mum
Obama calls upon religious leaders to support ObamaCare, and directly makes the case that the government should TEAM WITH RELIGION to push his plan…and the Left remains mum
Obama fills his staff with Lobbyists…and the Left remains mum
Splendid!
[5]
Given O’s community activism, he will be quite adroit in co-opting the religious community. All he has to do is shovel money their way. Over time they will buckle to his ’suggestions’.
[6]
the media is strangely slient.—> drdog
I can’t believe how much the media has become a “shaper” of the news, rather than a neutral “reporter” of the news.
It’s really shameful. They are right down there with used car salesman regarding any self-respect!
[7]
Regarding INC’s post from yesterday on Sarah Palin’s Facebook statement, I saw this comment on Hot Air. I wonder if it’s true. I wonder if the media cares.
[8]
What continues to have the “disbelief center” of my brain amazed and confused, all at the same time, is the continuing hubris of the democratic party.
Like any political party they have a certain agenda in mind. The difference with them is that push their country-changing agenda —-> whether the “people” go along with their ideas or not.
In health care, the stimulus, cap and trade, the auto industry, and so on, the dims barrel forward, no matter what messages of discontent, anger, dissent the public volleys towards them. It’s like they think they are “ruling” a country of underclass citizens! In other words, “strategy” not consensus is what governs their “rule of law.”
For instance, regarding health care:
WSJ Link
[9]
bc3b — Soros is Obama’s “money-man.” And, Soros has only been prospering under the ruinous Obama policies. Of course there is an obvious tie.
I keep thinking how the press hounded Chaney over his Halliburton stock. But the media echo chamber is stone cold quiet on any financial ties or gain with the Obama administration.
[10]
More acid reflux from the dims:
H/T Instapundit
[11]
I guess the Waxman versus the Health Insurance companies story has been around a few days. But, I haven’t been in the news loop for over a week. I thought, though, this American Thinker piece was spot on, including the proper amount of “venom,” to spice up the chagrin people should feel when reading the degree of muscle the govt. is applying to private enterprise to get their own way.
American Thinker Link
[12]
The war, health care debacle, cap & trade, stimulus, C4C, budget explosion —-> It’s all taking it’s toll……..
H/T The Corner
[13]
I want to see Obama fail at anything he attempts that take more of our freedoms away, but Iraq and Afghanistan are different. His failures there are resulting in the deaths of American servicemen and women.
When Bush was in office, I was dead set against cutting and running. Even when the objectives were costing American lives, there was a purpose: defeating terrorism. Although each life is sacred, I felt, and I’m sure the troops felt, that they were there for a good cause.
Under Obama’s leadership, I have swapped positions and I am now for cutting and running. He does not have our tr0ops there for any goal other than the perception that it would look bad politially to cut and run. This is a hard to reconcile because a lot of good men and women lost their lives and quitting now would mean their lives were lost without reason.
[14]
CT -
I have to agree. If we are not in it to win, the lives of 100 Afghans isn’t worth the life of one U.S. Service member.
[15]
BC
I was listening to Rush talk about Planned Parenthood and I thought he said Planned Presidency.
I was waitng for him to finish the joke with something like–”They both end in abortions” or someting like that, until I realized he did say Planned Parenthood.
[16]
The MSM may be ignoring Afghanistan, but there is one group that is not — NATO. My prediction: Obama’s bumbling in Afghanistan will severely weaken, if not outright break, the NATO alliance. Obama is invested emotionally in fighting the “correct war” in Afghanistan, but is unwilling to do what it will take to win. This will be his downfall and he’ll take the NATO alliance with him as they will refuse to take the loses necessary to feed Obama’s ego.
[17]
While things are not as quiet as the once were say 9 months ago, you are both making more out of the iraqi bombings then you should.
I do find it interesting that almost none of the upticks in both places over the last 3 months have been bushed over quickly by media outlets….. hmmmm wonder why that is???
[18]
US War Policy: More “Kung Fu” Than Sun Tzu
————————————————————
Self-Sacrificial Lambs:
A question for our brass: If the Taliban is responsible for disproportionately more casualties than the United States — and purposely so where ours are inadvertent — shouldn’t, by our brass’ own reckoning, all those Afghan hearts and minds already belong to us? Could there be something else – such as the Islamic religion – causing Afghans to reject our infidel “hearts and minds” pathetically pressed on them, along with grotesque sums of money, like hopeless valentines?
These are questions the brass can’t answer, can’t even think about, because the answers would upend America’s entire Afghan strategy. We are in a war on civilian casualties in Afghanistan to win Afghan hearts and minds. Period. And woe to statistics, let alone basic and intractable religious differences, that undermine this illusory strategy.
But there is something else Americans should become aware of regarding the military’s obsession with further decreasing casualties as a means to victory. Our troops, the brass says, are the ones who are ultimately going to have to find what Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, our new commander in Afghanistan, earnestly calls the “balance.”
I watched McChrystal discuss his mission to further decrease civilian casualties in an online BBC video this week. “It’s a balance for the young soldier on the ground who is in combat,” he explained. “One of the assets that he has that might save his life might be air power or indirect fire from artillery or mortars and we don’t want to take away that protection for him.”
No, we don’t, General. So why are we even talking about it? The lightly hinted implication — that our troops may be called on to think twice about saving their own lives — is chilling.
Too bad we don’t know when to quit. But not just quit — reconfigure our defenses against expansionist Islam. Big difference.