Up 8% on approval, and 5% more think we can "win" in Iraq!
PROPAGANDA and LIES WORK!
And even if they don't, the MSM will report that it does.
So tonight's address to the nation is a "victory" speech, that will be proclaimed as bold and daring, compromising and conciliatory in the "post-game" analysis.
Either way, I'll bet the pimping shills like Matthews and Blitzer say the president was strong and resolute, and boy, even if you don't agree with him, it is hard not to accede to his request. This post is time-dated, so you will be able to check my veracity and accuracy later, folks.
Anyway, here's today's reason I probably won't be be here.
I have logged the outlandish pack of Zionist-controlled War Daily lies from the last few days, but I'm not up for it, reader.
The absolute bias, misinformation, and downright lies has gotten to me.
I'm tired of getting angry.
Yesterday was the first day I was not steaming all day.
It is enough now to condemn this pack of mass-murdering liars and their pimping shills.
The gig is up, the game is over, and the MSM has been found guilty of crimes against humanity by facilitating his wars.
Iran up next, folks, and real soon -- judging by the lies in the shit war rags!!!!
I will really solely on blogs for my news from now on!!
Here is your page-one, Times' propaganda piece:
"Limited Pullout Is Middle Way on Iraq, Bush Will Say" by SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and STEVEN LEE MYERS
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — When top Democratic leaders visited him at the White House this week, President Bush told them he wanted to “find common ground” on Iraq. But when the president said he planned to “start doing some redeployment,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, cut him off.
“No you’re not, Mr. President,” Ms. Pelosi interjected. “You’re just going back to the presurge level.”
The testy exchange, recounted by three people who attended the session or were briefed on it, provides a peek into how Mr. Bush will try to sell Americans on his Iraq strategy when he addresses the nation at 9 p.m. Thursday.
[Testy exchange, bullshit!
ALL BULLSHIT POLITICS!!!!!
STOP INSULTING OUR INTELLIGENCE!!!!]
With lawmakers openly skeptical of his troop buildup, Mr. Bush will cast his plan for a gradual, limited withdrawal as a way to bring a divided America together — even as he resists demands from those who want him to move much faster.
The prime-time address will be the eighth by Mr. Bush on Iraq since the invasion in March 2003, the latest iteration of his efforts to sketch what he calls “the way forward.” It will be the first time he has described a plan for troop reductions, a radical departure for a president who has repeatedly defied his critics’ calls to bring the troops home.
[So what makes you fools think he is going to actually do it?
When I see boots on the ground HERE, I will believe it]
Yet as the president outlines his plan, his critics say he is trying to have it both ways. He is, they say, taking credit for a drawdown that has been envisioned since he first announced the current buildup on Jan. 10 — a withdrawal that had to be carried out unless he was willing to take the politically unpalatable step of extending soldiers’ tours further.
The White House declined on Wednesday to preview Mr. Bush’s speech, but one senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid upstaging the president, said the reductions would be heavily conditioned on the situation in Iraq and would fall far short of the rapid withdrawal Democrats want.
Under the plan, at least 130,000 American troops would remain in Iraq next July, down from more than 160,000, decreasing to about the same level as before the buildup began, with any decisions on further withdrawals likely to be postponed until at least next March.
Bush’s ultimate goal would be a sustainable force of around 10 combat brigades, down from 20 now, at the end of his presidency, though a large number of support troops would also still be required.
A senior official said: “We want bipartisanship, but not to the point where it sacrifices success.”
Mr. Bush has repeatedly asked Americans to give him another chance in Iraq, and Thursday night will be no different. “His main goal at this critical juncture,” said another senior official, also speaking anonymously, “is to ask Americans to stop and take a fresh look.”
[Yeah, let's all take a fresh look and remind ourselves of the lies and failures of this mass-murdering fuck!!
WMD, "Al-CIA-Duh" in Iraq, and all the shit lies we've heard for seven fucking years!!
Take a fresh look, and then DEVOUR that BOWL of SHIT George will be feeding you tonight!
Go on, Amurka, EAT UP!!!!!]
The president remains as determined as ever to see the troop buildup through. Aides say he returned from his trip to Anbar Province last week convinced that military progress in Iraq would spawn the sort of political reconciliation that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has so far been unable to achieve.
Charlie Black, a Republican strategist close to the White House, said it is now up to Mr. Bush to make that case to the American people:
“The question that Democrats and some Republicans are asking is, ‘Even if the military strategy is succeeding, how do we get to political stability?’ That’s a fair question, and he needs to at least answer that to say there’s a fair chance of getting there and it’s worth continuing the military effort to give it a chance.”
White House officials say that Mr. Bush is in a much better place now than he was in July.
At that time, top White House officials like Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, were openly nervous about the prospect of losing Republican support for the war. But in the nearly two months since then, Mr. Bush’s communications team waged an aggressive — and, many Republicans say, largely successful — campaign to use the Congressional recess in August to take control of the debate on Iraq.
[Hence the new "poll" results!
PROPAGANDA and LIES WORK!
Especially when "(57 percent of Americans) say they do not like learning about political issues in other countries."]
Buoyed by reports of improving conditions on the ground, the White House scheduled a series of presidential speeches, including one in which Mr. Bush contended that a hasty retreat from Iraq would produce carnage of the sort seen in Southeast Asia after Americans pulled out of Vietnam.
Peter Wehner, a former policy adviser to Mr. Bush who left the White House in July, referring to the Vietnam speech:
“That was an important moment because that showed that the president was not going to cede certain arguments and cede certain ground. Vietnam was already out there as a narrative, and the president took it and said, ‘Well, there’s actually another story.’ ”
The strategy culminated with Mr. Bush’s surprise trip to Anbar Province last week, just as lawmakers were returning to the Capitol.
Republicans like Senator Susan Collins of Maine said they would reserve judgment about whether to support the president until after he delivers his speech.
Among them is Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, who said it is too soon to predict whether Mr. Bush will be able to retain enough Republican support to see his strategy through:
“This forward strategy is going to be watched everywhere, and it is then going into the jaws of the presidential elections, a drumbeat of people in the United States who are saying to themselves, ‘We’re sacrificing all of these things, our sons, our daughters, our money, and the Iraqis aren’t performing as the president said on Jan. 10.’ I mean, there’s a swirl into which this new strategy goes.”
[What did he just say?
There isn't going to be enough Republican support.
Bush has won!]
"Disappointed Democrats Map Withdrawal Strategy" by CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 — The struggle to settle on a party alternative illustrates the problems Democrats are having finding a way to take on the president that unites their party and avoids criticism that they are weak on national security.
As Democrats huddled Wednesday to prepare for the floor debate, a group of leading House Republicans arrived in Iraq to demonstrate their backing for the president. The lawmakers, led by Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, had been in Iraq less than five hours, but in a conference call with reporters they said their initial briefings had already confirmed improvements.
Mr. Boehner, who previously visited Iraq in July 2006: “Clearly what’s happened over the last three months has been real success.”
In an interview on “The Today Show” on Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said stabilizing Iraq was part of “a long process of dealing with what the president called a long time ago a generational challenge to our security brought on by extremism, coming principally out of the Middle East.”
[Whatever happened to Waxman's subpoena of her, anyway?]
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, said:
"[Ms. Rice’s comment represented an acknowledgment that the United States would be engaged in Iraq for] years to come. We need a new direction that redeploys our troops from Iraq, rebuilds our military and refocuses on fighting terrorism across the world.”
The Polls
Military Families and Iraq (by The New York Times):
"Members of current military families are critical of President Bush’s handling of Iraq and say his administration misled the country into war, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Two-thirds of the military families polled disapprove of how Mr. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq. And 56 percent said members of his administration had misled the public when making its case for the war.
When it comes to next year’s presidential election, 55 percent said it was very important that the candidate they supported shared their views about the future of American involvement in Iraq. Few of the military families polled prefer a candidate who is committed to immediate withdrawal (13 percent) or supports staying in Iraq until victory (13 percent). Rather, 72 percent prefer someone flexible about when the troops should depart.
The national telephone poll was conducted Sept. 4 to 8 with 1,035 adults, of whom 306 said they or someone in their immediate family was a member of the armed forces or reserves. The margin-of-sampling error for military families is plus or minus six percentage points."
Here's another poll. Go vote, reader!
The American people:
"Poll results on surge differ sharply from general's view; Data suggest most view war as failing" by Alan Fram/Associated Press September 12, 2007
WASHINGTON - The public sees the Iraq war as a failure and thinks the US troop buildup there has not worked, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll indicated, suggesting the tough sell President Bush faces in asking Congress and voters for more time.
[But he has already won!?]
The pessimism expressed in the poll, taken in the days before General David Petraeus's long-awaited appearance before Congress, contrasted with the brighter picture Petraeus offered.
By 59 percent to 34 percent, more people said they believe history will judge the Iraq war a complete or partial failure than a success. Those calling it a failure included eight in 10 Democrats, three in 10 Republicans, and about six in 10 independents, the poll indicated - ominous numbers for a president who hopes to use a nationally televised address later this week to keep GOP lawmakers from joining Democratic calls for a withdrawal.
[Not anymore, because he has already won!]
Underscoring the public's negativity, four times as many predicted the war in Iraq would be judged as a complete US failure as the number who saw a complete success, 28 percent to 7 percent.
When the Gallup Poll asked the same question in September 2006, 52 percent said the war will be judged as a partial or complete failure, seven points fewer than the AP-Ipsos survey.
In the poll, more people rated the troop increase a flop than a success by 58 percent to 36 percent, with three in 10 Republicans joining majorities of Democrats and independents in foreseeing failure.
[And I'm one of the former Republicans turned independent in that bunch!]
Positive reviews of the troop increase were at about the same level as they were in mid-January, just after Bush announced the buildup.
[So he is holding his base, which is all he needs]
In the new survey, people calling it a mistake to go to war in March 2003 outnumbered those calling it the right decision by 57 percent to 37 percent, numbers that have stayed about level for more than a year.
[So the American public has MADE UP OUR MINDS about this disastrous failure and his wars!]
About a quarter of Republicans, along with most Democrats and independents, labeled the war an error.
[How about calling it a CRIME?!!!!!!!!]
Overall, those viewing the war and the troop buildup most negatively tended to be groups that often lean Democratic: females, members of minority groups, those with lower incomes, and those with less education.
[Yup, the dumb and uneducated special interests are against the war!
This is where the slanted writing and reporting comes in (even if demographically it is true).]
For example, about two-thirds of women and half of men said the troop increase had not worked, while more minorities than whites said going to war was a mistake by about a seven-to-five margin.
[Gee, that's weird! HALF of MEN said that?
Something is funky in their numbers.
And a seven-to five ratio sounds like a lot of people on one side, doesn't it?]
But the war remains unpopular with another group crucial to both political parties: moderates. Nearly two-thirds of them said that the war and troop increase were failing and that the conflict was a mistake from the start.
[Where were all you people when it counted and we were screaming no war?]
Two groups that normally support the Bush administration - white evangelical voters and conservatives - remained largely behind its war strategy.
[Then DAMN them all to HELL!!!]
Just over half of the white evangelicals who attend church at least weekly said the war was the right decision and the extra troops were helping, while about four in 10 said the war is a success - well more than Catholics and Protestants measured in the survey.
[Gee, if he is only polling at just over 50% and 40% in his own base, how is he at 34-37% in the total aggregate?
Something sure stinks about these numbers!]
Slight majorities of conservatives saw success in Iraq, a troop increase that is working, and a war that was the right choice, though a third or more answered each question negatively."
[What is up with that slanted analysis?
First, the "slight majorities" leaves you with the impression that it is OVER 50%, right?
Why not quote the numbers?
Then a "third or more" of his conservative base answered negatively?
WTF is up with the numbers? Why the vagueness?
What the poll is really saying is that CONSERVATIVE SUPPORTERS are UNDER 50% -- probably in the forties!
And the "third or more?" Well, that means 33% or MORE!!
Why the vagueness? Is it possible that OVER 40% responded negatively?
Why not just give the actual numbers?
Why are you SHIELDING the president, shit MSM?!]
Here is the mother of all lying polls, from the New York Times, of course!
The Iraqis:
"For Iraqis, General’s Report Offers Bitter Truth" by ALISSA J. RUBIN
BAGHDAD, Sept. 11 — Iraqis found themselves in a difficult position on Tuesday as they reflected on the report to Congress by Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. Although they say there is nothing they want more than to have American soldiers leave Iraq, they also say there is nothing they can afford less.
More than 20 Iraqis of different sects and ethnicities said in interviews across the country that they viewed the report favorably because it — or, at least the parts shown on television in Iraq — portrayed the situation accurately. They also said it signaled that there would be little change in the status quo.
[So the New York Times is telling us that Iraqis CONFRIM Puketrayus' testimony!
A-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!
Can you serve up a more mendacious pile of soft-serve, side-winding shit propaganda?
Most of those who wanted a quicker pullback were politically close to the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who has advocated immediate withdrawal. But even Mr. Sadr’s supporters left room for negotiation when it came to suggesting dates for withdrawal.
Salah al-Ubaidi, the spokesman for Mr. Sadr’s office in Najaf: “We prefer the occupation forces get out today. The exact timetable of the withdrawal, in my opinion, is up to these forces to decide. It is up to the professionals in the security field.”
[Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?]
Mostly, Iraqis appeared rueful about their vulnerability and the need to allow foreign troops to help keep order for some time to come. Politicians were more measured in their views, and most stuck to the line that any withdrawal should be pegged to the readiness of Iraqi troops.
A city employee in Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province, vividly described his ambivalence.
Ahmad Umar al Esawi, a worker and a Sunni: “The withdrawal of the occupation forces is a must because they have caused the destruction of Iraq, they committed massacres against the innocents, they have double-crossed the Iraqis with dreams. I want them to withdraw all their troops in one day.”
Dropping his voice, he continued: “There is something that I want to say although I hate to say it. The American forces, which are an ugly occupation force, have become something important to us, the Sunnis. We are a minority and we do not have a force to face the militias. If the Americans leave, it will mean a total elimination of the Sunnis in Iraq.”
[So we had better stay like Bush wants!
I really start to wonder if the Times isn't just making up their polls after a while, since they always seem to conform with what the Bush Administration wants.
Not just once and on the war, but many times on so many issues.
Information manipulation to promote the agenda?
By the Times? Your kiddin,' right?
And if this "sectarianism" thing is so hot, how come these folks lived together and inter-married for years before we got there?
I believe all the violence is perpetrated by western intel organizations, or by natives participating in the Baghdad Option.
"Secatrianism" is ANOTHER LIE, folks, to MAINTAIN OUR PRESENCE THERE!!]
Mr. Esawi added: “I know I said I want them to leave, but if we think about it, then I have to say I want them to stay for a while until we end all the suspicions we have of each other and have a strong national government.”
Several people said they were certain that the trend of decreasing violence cited by General Petraeus would reverse itself as soon as the Americans left.
[Ahem! I would just like to remind everyone, even if the papers won't, about 35 people are being reported killed every day -- and it is on the rise over the summer -- although the real number of Iraqis killed per day is 300!
And even if we leave, Mossad, MI6, CIA, and Blackwaters will still be around to carry out terrorist attacks on Iraqis.
The country will never be whole again, and that was the "Clean Break" strategy of Israel!]
Sara al-Zubaidi, 30, a Baghdad resident and a graduate of the city’s College of Arts, whose father is Sunni and whose mother is Shiite:
“Violence could erupt at any moment if the Americans leave. The ones who do these terrible things are asleep, not gone. They are waiting for the opportunity, just waiting for the opportunity to eat one another."
[As if we are not kicking down doors, detaining people, and conducting helicopter gunship attacks and air raids!
Yup, AmeriKa doesn't bring any violence!
Who is this woman, and is she even a real person?
Did the Times pay her to say this?
Or are they just selective about who they quote?]
In interviews four months ago, many Iraqis refused to say how long American troops should stay. Now, however, some say they want them here for a minimum of three years, and maybe even five years.
Ms. Zubaidi said she thought five years would be the minimum, adding that the police and army needed to be remade to root out sectarianism.
“They will need five years. The first year they need to prepare themselves properly to work with the Iraqi people. Then they need a year or two years to start from the ground building the security services and then...”
She lowered her voice and looked around as if she was afraid someone might be listening, then continued:
“They need one year to prepare a government for Iraq that is built not on a sectarian foundation. It must be a secular government. Religion has nothing to do with government. Religion is in my heart.”
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki in his speech to Parliament on Monday, acknowledged that the country was not ready for the American forces to withdraw. In subdued language, he voiced the views of many Iraqis.
“We quietly realize that we need more time before our security forces can take over the security dossier throughout Iraq from the multinational forces. They have played an important role in helping and backing our armed forces in fighting terror and outlaws.”
[While being terrorists and outlaws! What a mealy-mouthed puppet is Malaki!]
Like many legislators, Mr. Maliki said he favored tying any withdrawal to the ability of Iraqi forces to protect civilians.
While most of the Iraqis interviewed blamed the Americans for the country’s deterioration, several echoed the sentiments of members of Congress who blamed the Iraqi government for failing to provide services and for allowing sectarianism to dominate.
However, several Iraqis noted that it was the Americans who created the government. And the corollary, they say, is that Americans bear the responsibility for fixing it. Some went further, saying the Americans should start all over again — even if it meant they would be here for years."
[You get the point, reader?
According to the New York Times and its "poll," the Iraqis even want us to stay for YEARS!!!!
AmeriKa is NEVER LEAVING, folks!!!
Instead, the WAR IS GOING TO BE EXPANDED!!!!!
Bye-bye, Iran!!!!!!!]
