Report Charts "Victory" in the War that Couldn't be Won

So.... I'm wondering just how President Hussein and Jihad Joe Biden are going to spin the fact that they just inherited victory in a war they both swore to us we were losing and couldn't be won.

Report Charts Just How Successful America has been in Iraq.
So successful that security is no longer the number one concern...

But the lying left (and news media) who claimed that was a civil war that we couldn't stop and a war we couldn't win are silent and ignoring it. Shocking.

I'm waiting for Obama to put a big banner on the white house saying... "Mission Accomplished" and take full credit for the big win in Iraq to the applause and cheers of former anti-war leftwing lemmings.

A New Kind of Imperialism

Engram at Backtalk blog shred's whats left of the antiwar crowd's failed argument....

"Everyone knows you can't "impose democracy by force."

Yet, in contradiction to that view, the Iraqis just set a timetable for their next election. Obviously, the U.S. did not impose democracy by force.
Instead, against the objections of the UN, it offered democracy to the Iraqi people, and they appear to have accepted the offer.

I never really have been able to figure understand the UN-esque "principled stand" against the invasion of Iraq.
According to the anti-war crowd, the U.S. illegally invaded a "sovereign nation" and toppled its "internationally recognized leader," thereby setting a "dangerous precedent."

In essence, the invasion of Iraq was like Iraq's earlier invasion of Kuwait (i.e., that, too, was an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation in which internationally recognized leaders were deposed).

When that happened, everyone agreed that the right thing to do was to restore to power the deposed leadership of Kuwait. And that's precisely what was done. But if our invasion of Iraq was similarly in violation of international law, why were there no similar cries to restore Saddam Hussein to his rightful place as the wrongly deposed, internationally recognized leader of the sovereign nation of Iraq?
Or is there some coherent line of reasoning according to which it is a dreadful violation of international law to depose the leader of a sovereign nation, yet that leader should not be restored to power afterwards?
What is the principle that states that it is altogether wrong to depose the leader of a sovereign nation without UN approval, yet, if you do illegally depose him, you should immediately put him on trial for his crimes against humanity?
I don't get it.

To me, there was no principled reason whatsoever to oppose the forced removal of a man who was universally recognized to be a ruthless dictator.

Instead, the reasoned opposition was practical, not principled, in nature (e.g., it just won't work, ethnic hostilities run too deep, it will cause an endless civil war, a new dictator will emerge, it will inflame the Middle East, it will embolden terrorist, etc.).
But the idea that some sacrosanct principle was being violated just seems preposterous to me, and I think it seems equally preposterous even to those who used that argument to oppose Bush's decision to invade.
That's why even the anti-war crowd did not loudly agitate for the restoration of Saddam Hussein to his rightful place as the leader of Iraq when they had the chance to do so.
nstead, they insisted that his trial be fair.

According to some, not only did the U.S. "go it alone" and illegally invade a sovereign nation, it supposedly did so as part of an imperialistic grab for oil to benefit Halliburton and US oil companies.
As such, the U.S. became the greatest threat to world peace in the eyes of many.
But how many imperialistic conquistadors depose a genocidal dictator, set up a democracy in which the conquered people are allowed to vote as they please, and then further allow the democratically elected government to evict the invading forces once security is restored?
Here's the deal:

Under the agreement, U.S. forces must vacate Iraqi cities by June, leave Iraq by the end of 2011 and grant Iraqi authorities extensive power over the operations and movements of American forces. It also prohibits the U.S. from using Iraqi territory to attack Iraq's neighbors, like Syria and Iran.

I don't think there is anything left of the anti-war analysis that has not been as badly shredded as al Qaeda in Iraq.
That's why you don't hear detailed arguments from that side of the debate anymore.
Instead, you hear a bumper-sticker mantra: "end this war."
Too late.
On top of everything else, Bush did that, too.-end

Engram is a research professor and registered Democrat who documented in great detail the data from the inception of the war till now showing when and why the surge worked and much more.

Which Has More Violent Deaths, DC, Baghdad or New Orleans?

One of the major benchmarks for US success or failure in Iraq is the rate of violent deaths in that country particularly in Baghdad.
Engram at BackTalk lays it out in straight, no-nonsense numbers and facts, no spin required or given.
Baghdad is now safer than Washington DC when comparing the murder rate in DC to the violent death rate in Baghdad.

That's not to say that if the US immediately pulled out of Iraq that Al Qaeda would not ramp up the killing in a big way, because they would. What it does speak to is the fact that we are winning in a big way and the democrats dream of lowering troop numbers is now becoming a reality just as George W Bush predicted, when conditions on the ground warrant it and not a minute before.

Like it or not, Bush was right in the end.

Bush to Terrorists... We're Coming to Get Ya'

After hearing all of the ideas from all of the so-called experts, what's the new plan for Iraq?

(see photo above for answer)

It may not be what liberals and Democrats wanted, but President Bush outlined the new strategy and plan for Iraq.
It involves adding 20,000+ US troops to achieve the universally accepted 1:50 ratio while changing the rules of engagement allowing those troops to better assist the Iraqi Army in controlling the violence and a strong committment from the Iraqi government to control Iraq by November 2007. It involves controlling the borders between Iran, Syria and Iraq and engaging foreign fighters who are now assisting insurgents coming into Iraq and even striking groups outside Iraq who are involved in the terrorist based violence there.

Bush to terrorists... Not only are we not going to "cut and run", we are sending (turning loose) 20,000 MORE US warriors who are coming to hunt you down and kill you. You can run but you cannot hide any longer.
Every battleplan for every war has changed throughout the war based on the conditions in theatre. This improved strategy in Iraq will succed, but don't think for a minute that Bush is suggesting the war against radical Islam is near the end. This war will go on for years... the only question is WHERE... over there or over here?

Democrats led by Senator Dick Durbin are opposing the new plan (of course) mostly because it wasn't their idea, but they have NOT offered any idea, plan or strategy (of course) for success in Iraq, nor have they addressed how they would handle the mass murder and violence that experts agree would transpire if US troops were withdrawn now (as Democrats are suggesting).

Senators John McCain (R) AZ and Joe Liberman (I.D.) CT both support the Presidents plan/strategy demonstrating non-partisan support from (3) parties to defeat our enemy but partisan Democrats like Durbin, Ried, Kennedy, Pelosi and Kerry still refuse to support ANYTHING to do with their enemy (Bush) even if it means supporting defeat for their country without offering any plan for what happens next.

So here are your choices:
Bush plan- Increase troops and kick-ass.
or
Democrats plan- (no plan except oppose Bush's plan)

This would be another good time to offer my VICTORY or DEFEAT challenge to liberals who are fed up with "no plan/accept defeat now" from the democrats.

Given the new Bush plan (increased troops, clear strategy, change rules of engagment, commitment from Iraqi's, timetables and Victory) do YOU support VICTORY or DEFEAT?

Unite the country, support US VICTORY in Iraq. (Vote in the poll accept my offer/challenge)

Prediction: Osama will be captured (or killed) by US forces long before Obama ever becomes Commander in Chief of US forces.
-red

Added 1/11/07: After hearing the Democrats responses
...How can you not admire President Bush for standing his ground, not caving in and not buckling under the pressure from Democrats and the moonbat media?
Like him or not, he is brave enough to stand in the face of every accusation, lie and political bomb tossed his way and remain on target. People seemed to forget that he is the President and the President IS the Commander in Chief of the armed forces... HE alone says who, what, when and where... in addition Congress authorized the President to USE his authority in processing the war on terror and in the war in Iraq which have now become one and the same.
If you are one of the Islamic throat-cutting fascists you gotta' be scratching your turbin and saying... "what is this guy, the energizer bunny or the terminator... "we" (and the democrats along with the American moonbat media) turned Bush's entire country AGAINST him, defeated Republicans in an election, took over the US government and Bush is still coming after us...he's not human".
-red