March 18th, 2008 10:37 PM Eastern
Progress in Iraq
by Baghdad Bureau
By Courtney Kealy of the Baghdad Bureau
It took 48 hours to plan just a few hours to get out in the city and talk to local Iraqis and see how they’re living.
It’s really nerve-wracking when you stuck in between cars here just because of the threat of car bombs. There’s been a huge decrease in violence but they still happen. We managed to walk some streets safely. Iraqis do say they see improvements yet slowly.
It’s a city fighting for its life with hopeful signs like newly painted children’s parks on the banks of the Tigris. But daily life here remains governed by a maze of cement blast walls concrete checkpoints and barricades with armed security convoys racing through the streets.
Watch Iraq's rebuilding efforts through the eyes of our Baghdad Bureau — reporters risking it all to bring you fair and balanced coverage from the Mideast.
Yes, yes, Iraqi progress. Bush is out spewing to the media that he thinks it was worth it after 5 years. What else should we expect from him? Apparently he’s unaware or just doesn’t care that most of the US population (about 65%) disagree and think he’s a complete idiot. His war on Iraq has about 30% approval, the same as he does.
Progress is what happens when you pay off the Sunni insurgents with money and guns and when the Shiite militias declare a cease fire. For four years this Administration has referred to these Sunnis, who formed the backbone of the insurgency, as terrorists. Now that we’re paying them off they’ve suddenly become “concerned Iraqi citizens” of “the Sunni Awakening”. For the last four years if anyone had suggested or even hinted at making deals with the terrorists, they would have been shouted down as defeatists, appeasers, and traitors. But, now that Bush has made a deal with people we used to call terrorists,…it’s all “move along, nothing to see here…”
Barrack says his judgement on the war was better, but based upon what?
McCain and Clinton both had breifings and the NIE report (which Clinton admits that she did not read).
Barrack was not in the senate at the time, and received no breifings of any kind.
So just what information did he base his opinion upon?
The newspapers?
Was it just a lucky guess?
After all he did not have the actual intelligence reports.
Maybe his opinion on not going to war was based on a breifing from Rev. Wright.
Barrack says his judgement on the war was better, but based upon what?
McCain and Clinton both had breifings and the NIE report (which Clinton admits that she did not read).
Barrack was not in the senate at the time, and received no breifings of any kind.
So just what information did he base his opinion upon?
Was it just a lucky guess?
After all he did not have the actual intelligence reports.
Maybe his opinion on not going to war was based on a breifing from Rev. Wright.
I just wonder what Sadaam would be doing right now if we had NOT taken him out. Would he be on our side? Gee whiz, is that a tough question for Obama and Hillary? Might he have taken the opportunity to jump on the terrorist band wagon?
I read a very interesting book called “Sadaam, King of Terror”. I recommend it if you’re wondering what Sadaam was all about. It might answer some questions for you.
Courtney,
Has there been any reaction from officials in Iraq (Iraqi govt or U.S. military) to the Pentagon report showing Saddam Hussein’s extensive support for Islamic terrorism, including anti American plots?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWQzMmY4MGFmZDZkZjZmNTAwYTMzODFhNzllOWVkNDQ=