The New York Times has the article.
"As a result, for the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army."
What will the Democrats do now. It has become clear that they will only accept failure at any cost, but as the sucess becomes more clear what line will they take. I find this as an indication of why Congress's poll numbers are so much lower than the President's now. While Congress continues to waste time delaying on the war and not handling the real buisness of the nation our Military has been winning. It is time the Democrats got off their soapboxes and did the real work of the people.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 28
The Dem's are flailing about, they just don't know what to do about this GOOD NEWS coming out of Iraq.
We are saving lives in Iraq and the Dem's hate it.
When you wake up to the fact that Washington politics is all corrupt, broken, dysfunctional, ineffective, inefficient, in the pockets of the largest donors, about as far from representative democracy as any form of government that calls itself a "democracy" is, maybe, just maybe you will get off this stupid partisan thing and say something that supports the country. I guess you think your cheerleading for the right is the patriotic thing to do, but your divisiveness is silly and ineffective. Our government is seriously broken, in the midst of a constitutional crisis, and your "patriotism" exhibited by this type of partisanship, is supporting the crisis rather than offering any salient remedies. Wake up, man.
I applaud the reduction in violence, but am just not so naive as to believe that Mr. Bush has much to do with it. The Iraqi government is still not doing jack toward the real effort that would be required to make the country even marginally stable. You will notice that the far right never comments on the inaction of the Iraqi puppet government which we prop up no matter what they do or don't do? Is there now a plan for revenue sharing and I missed the story? Did they finish their re-writing of the constitution to make it more inclusionary? Did they find ways of incorporating the groups into the government? Has the government repaired the roads, disarmed the militias, restored the power grid, fixed it so people have fresh clean water? These are terrific and wonderful stories. Why isn't Fox News trumpeting these successes to the skies? There's not the slightest chance that none of this has happened, is there?
In terms of the Democrats, they are politicians. They are no better and certainly no worse than the Republicans as the past seven years have so adequately proven. I find it amusing to watch the 29 percenters still clinging so desperately to any small bit of good news out of Iraq since they can point to nothing else during the entire Bush administration.
Karl makes a good point as well. And the far right would love nothing more than to see the Democrats divided and squabbling among themselves. Personally I find much of what Democrats have done or not done in the past year disappointing. I just have seen and heard absolutely nothing that the Republicans propose that would make things a shred better.
Thanks MDP. I just featured this at the Positive War News site -
www.positivenews.gather.com
For those out there who have trouble finding positve news about the war - visit the site and you'll find artcles galore that will make you proud of the work our troops have done.
I find it especially satisfying that in addition to the palatble progress being made, we have our Leftie friends showing up and saying, "Yeah, but..."
Their tanks are as empty as those of AQI and the Harry/Nan Congress. I can hardly wait for the next 350+ days to transpire. There's going to be a severe shortage of crow.
This guy is so out of it he probabbly thinks thinks taking bribes was really okay in the eighties, oh wait he does.
You make an excellent point though. One of the reasons a lot of experts on the area say that the current government is dragging its feet is that the U.S. is demanding that they sign over 80% of their oil production to American companies, and they figure there is no win for them in that.
They can claim "victory" because it has never been defined and there are no benchmarks to tell when it is reached, so whatever they play with today is as much "victory" as was "mission accomplished." When you refuse adamantly to define your objective then you and only you can tell anyone when it's been reached.
Regardless of the reason, however, I am glad there is a bit less killing. I'm happy to wake up to news that isn't littered with the bodies of helpless civilians and our own troops all killed by people with a political or sectarian axe to grind. I also notice that nobody among the "Bush is god" crowd has ever criticized him for going into Iraq with absolutely no plan for an extended occupation.
There is no lasting stability there now. Maybe at some point there can be. Personally I cannot see the Kurds ceding power or land now that they effectively have it. Of course they're not as smart as a lot of folks thought they were, since they have been allowing insurgents to use their area as a launching ground for terrorist raids into Turkey. That's not real smart no matter how you cut it.
And there is some very positive news. Saddam tried to eradicate the Marsh Arabs by drying up the marshes where they have lived and existed for thousands of years. I read somewhere recently that the dams blocking the natural flow of water to their area have been removed and the area is gradually returning to normal. I think the British did it, but am not sure. However, the article did say that their way of life is returning. That cannot be anything but positive.
It doesn't, Sam.
Thank goodness the combination of the surge, and the fact that grassroot cooperation between the Sunni and Shiites is expanding now that the AQI and other insurgent groups are on the defensive and on the run. The situation you describe has essentially ended, with only sporadic and uncoordinated acts of violence now occuring.
You have toi keep up with events, Sam. There moving fast ... and in a positive direction.
Carolyn, it doesn't matter how many times, or how many articles you assert this position, it just isn't so. It's demonstrably false, actually. The end-goal for Iraq has always been the same: A stable, secure Iraq with a uniquely Iraqi democratic form of government. That's what it has always been, and when they Iraqis get there, THAT will be "victory".
As I said to Sam, you really need to keep up with what's going on today., because the situation is not how you describe it.
Things can be better and still be really bad.
But we'll wait and see. And we'll wait and wait.
Seems to me like you should be giving the Dem's a toast! Without their spineless capitulating and spurning the people who voted them into office, Iraqi's would be having to police their own streets, shed their own blood, build their own society based on their own values right now. Ever consider that maybe Congress's poll numbers are so low because they haven't done what they were elected to do; which was to restore accountability to government and put an end to Bush's incessant usurpations and abuses as well as his misguided warmongering?
A couple more things:
When "winning" means breaking the will of a nation's people and militarily imposing on them the form of government that some politicians and bureaucrats in Washington think best suits the interests of the Western Corporatocracy; then perhaps it's a game that some would rather not be played at all. Not agreeing with the policy is not tantamount to "hoping for defeat." Sure, some politicians in D.C. might perceive themselves to be politically vested in "bad news" from Iraq. That doesn't mean that everyone who wants our troops home is "vested in defeat." some of us just don't think policing the streets of Iraq should be the role of our military; and we're not going to change our position just because the number of corpses turning up in the streets of Baghdad has gone down from 30 a day to 15.
Also, please don't equate Congress's bowing to Bush on funding for his world-policing, nation-building exercises as "doing the work of the people." In fact, Congress hasn't been "doing the work of the people" for decades. They've been doing the work of building and expanding on the parasitic welfare-warfare state, plundering the great mass of the people for the enrichment of themselves and the rent-seekers who count on the coercive power of government to sustain their enterprise.
If they really wanted to do the work of the people, they would get to work reprealing the veritable mountain of laws and regulations that do nothing but stamp out personal liberty and freedom to choose for ourselves who and what we wish to associate ourselves with, and stifle the dynamics of a free and competitive market for the benefit of interested political pressure groups.
The work of the people, not the work of the Carlysle Group, GE, Exxon, and Haliburton.
Hillary isn't anti-war. She just nitpicks and spouts politically-motivated rhetoric, but she's always been careful to avoid committing to pulling our troops out of Iraq, and she's on the same exact page as most of the Republicans when it comes to Iran.
Its amusing to hear all these so-called "conservatives" (Hannity-ites) pledge their support for Rudy and and spew such vitriolic hatred for Hillary in the same breath. Policy-wise, the two are not more than a few degrees removed from one another.
And if the support for Rudy is predicated on him being "tough on terror" (basically his being a warmonger) despite his rather "liberal" stance on social issues, then why the hatred for Hillary? Her rhetoric is laced with almost as much saber-rattling as his!
And if the hatred for Hillary is based on her being a socialist, despite her "tough on terror" and threats towards Iran, basically meaning that simpy being a warmonger isn't the most important attribute for a candidate, then why the hatred for Ron Paul?
Ron Paul's the only candidate who really believes in small, limited government (as opposed to just paying lip service to such things) but he's denounced simply for not being a warmonger. I don't get it.
Yeah, my son just came back and he said the same thing, the Iraqi economy is picking up (they have more and more items, at higher prices) to sell compared to his earlier tours. He said most people seemed in better spirits too...
he may be right about secratarian integration though...when you have a half million men plus armor, airpower and chemical weapons all telling you to be good or else, well they kept quiet. Extrapolating from Sam's theme, Saddam had the right idea on keeping everything under control right?