Iraq: The best story of the year
“Iraq is more peaceful in 2007 than at any time since the 2003 invasion”. Not only is this essentially correct but it is the most important story in the world this year.
By any measure, the US-led surge has been little short of a triumph. The number of American military fatalities is reduced sharply, as is the carnage of Iraqi civilians, Baghdad as a city is functioning again, oil output is above where it stood in March 2003 but at a far stronger price per barrel and, the acid test, many of those who fled to Syria and Jordan are today returning home.
Another little known fact;
Surging Bonds: Bloomberg reports that, “[Iraq’s] $2.7 billion of 5.8 percent bonds due in 2028 returned 15.2 percent since July, according to JPMorgan Chase & Co. index data. Only Ecuador’s debt gained more, rising 18 percent.” Iraqi bonds were trading at 55 cents on the dollar last August, with an 11.5 percent yield. Today, they have rallied to 64 cents, bringing the yield down to 9.9 percent. U.S. money managers are saying these are the hottest bonds in the emerging market. This is a clear sign of confidence in the conduct of the war. After all, the folks swooping up this debt have money on the line. They are backing up opinions with real money. One bond manager who oversees $14 billion says, “There’s optimism the surge is starting to pay off.”
You know, it would do Jack Layton, Stephane Dion, and a few of our favourite national columnists some good to receive these links. Then, at least they can’t claim ignorance. Because ignorance is about all they’ve been displaying lately.
The global anti-American left has made a huge political and emotional investment in failure. This is a nightmare scenario for them, especially those in the U.S. Democratic Party.
There will be denial and rationalising for a time. But, at the risk of sounding like someone’s Grandmother, the truth has a stubborn way of coming out.
Yes, a fascinating scenario. The Democrats have based their vote on the failure of Iraq; that seems to be disappearing. What will they focus on?
There seems to be a growing awareness of this in the US – witness the movement away from Hillary and on to Barak Obama. And, the rise of Huckabee among the Republican candidates.
Afghanistan seems to be turning as well, despite the enormous lack of attention paid by our own Canadian MSM to the successes there.
Now, attention has to be paid to resisting multiculturalism, resisting accomodation to any religious or identity politic requirements in the public sphere, speaking out against dogma and political agendas masked within religious sanctuaries.
“Forty-eight percent of Americans say the war in Iraq is going “very well” or “fairly well,” up from 34 percent in June ….”
I would like to hear some stats on what percentage of Americans now get some of their news from the internet.
These changes in opinion were sure as hell not the result of the MSM’s generally biased handiwork.
Maybe there’s hope for educating the masses on the MMGW hysteria after all.
Bart is right, but that doesn’t mean that the MSM won’t attempt to delay the mass dissemination of the facts for as long as possible.
Really, they only need to care about delaying it until after the big election…
What exactly has Dion said that Harper hasn’t also said about Iraq and their agreement that Canada should not be in Iraq? (At least, that’s Harper’s current line because of the polls; but if the US is successful, he may change his mind yet again as the polls change.)
Teddy: any consideration that public perception of how well the war is going has improved because the war has, in fact, finally started to improve after many years? Nah. Must be the media’s fault and the Democrats’ fault.
The fact of the matter is that if you want to argue that the “surge” worked/is working, then implicit in that is a concession that something wasn’t working before. And the obstinate Bush only changed tactics – throwing the necessary power and arms at the quagmire – after years of calls for more arms from the military brass and poor results in Iraq and horrible polls from home.
At day 1734, it’s been a long long “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that” (www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml), and there is still a long long way to go, years, but only the war profiteers and the Daily Kos/rabble.ca types will be sorry to see this poorly invented, poorly planned and poorly fought one end.
This is the absolute worst casenerio for the Democratic Party of the United States.
Iraq is turning around, and Bush can turn around his popularity, and may (on his way out) be able to reduce the number of soldiers, and this would overwhelmingly selvage the Republican Party of the United States.
You can already see the Democrats hiding from the Iraq issue.
In the 2006 midterm elections they ran completely on Iraq’s failures. Well watch out! Republicans are coming back in 2008!
What an amazing feat it would be if the Republicans won the presidency and the Congress back in 2008.
It would irritate Europe so much…hahaha
Yes it’s funny how “surging” has replaced “quagmire” as the word of choice these days. There’s nothing like the mathematical facts of “surging” bonds in Iraq to dispel the self loathing tactics of the Democrats Pelosi and Reid. Facts work, as Friday use to say on Dragnet … “Just the facts M’am”.
The surge is working because the Iraqis are now trained to lead the charge and only need back up from the West. That was the original plan and it took time to implement. A surge that was led by the West would not work now either. Democracy must be fought for by the people who will benefit from it, not by outsiders , although outsiders can support … for awhile. The same concept has to go down in Afghanistan.
Soon our MSM will have to admit that we’re surging in Afghanistan. Plus surging on CO2 emissions reduction goals and the poor Liberals will have to dredge up scandalous behaviour by Sir John A or some other totally irrelevant emotional buttons to press.
The Liberals and the Democrats covered up their lack of policy ideas for years because they could rely on poorly communicated Foreign Policy combined with slow progress on the ground to justify their “cut and run” policies. But they misunderstood the Canadian and American majority who were not anti-war, they were anti-losing.
no, ted, you are wrong.
You expect results in one second; it doesn’t happen that way. Transforming a tribal culture to one that can collaborate with each other doesn’t happen overnight. Especially when the governing mode of Saddam Hussein was to keep the ancient tribal adversarial politics alive – to ensure his control of the country.
Transforming a population who haven’t taken charge of their own destiny to one that is self-reliant and responsible doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time.
I know that you prefer actions that resolve themselves in the two hours of an Action Film, but real life, ted, isn’t like that. It takes time.
I know that you also support people enslaved within dictatorship, but, the Iraqi people prefer freedom. That’s what Bush did for them.
“I know that you prefer actions”
ET, actually Liberals do not prefer action.
They prefer feel good press releases versus facts and action and results. Lorne Gunter’s column says it best in the NP today on the 13th conference of the parties (COP) to the Kyoto accords:
“There is never any ‘final’ deal. The goalposts move at every conference, and often three or four times during the pre-negotiations that occur between COPs. Don’t like a COP agreement? Wait a few months. It’ll change.
You may remember that COP-11 was held in Montreal in December, 2005, during the first two weeks of Canada’s last general election. It, too, was hailed as historic. Stephane Dion, then the Liberal environment minister, was praised as the saviour of the Kyoto process for having hammered out some last-minute deal that kept negotiations alive through COP-12. But just what bargaining catastrophe Mr. Dion is supposed to have averted can no longer be recalled — just as the “historic” achievements of Bali will quickly be lost in the mists — because the substance of the agreement was completely meaningless.”
So liberals are not after results. They are after feeling superior and if the surge is Iraq is working and our troops are winning in Afghanistan then their moral superiority will take a hit and they’ll have to move the goal posts again to something like … “well we may be winning but look at what it’s costing us?”
Nomdeblog:
Excuse us if we don’t trust the Bush government on giving us the straight facts on Iraq. With all of the positive signs of winning in Iraq right now, don’t forget that Bush has been telling us victory was around the corner/imminent from the moment of the first bombing. There has never been a dark day in the war according to Junior and the Bushies.
You know, there is one thing – well really many many things, but one thing in particular – that I don’t quite get about The Vast Leftwing Media Conspiracy claims as they relate to Iraq. First, “The MSM” is claimed to be suppressing the good news in Iraq just to help the Democrats. After the Democrats won the senate and congress, many right wing blogs claimed “The MSM” was now spinning that Iraq was getting better and that they were doing so to help the Democrats. Now I’m reading here that, now the US is finally winning in Iraq, “The MSM” is deliberately hiding the improvements in Iraq to help the Democrats. Well, which is it? Was the US winning before, or finally winning now? Is “The MSM” touting successes to help the Democrats or suppressing successes to help the Democrats?
This is the problem with conspiracy theories of this sort: the facts tend to trip you up.
Good news on Iraq is not something the Leftoids want to hear so they simply ignore it and deny it.
According to the braindeads, Afghanistan and Iraq are worse off than before intervention. The truth is far removed from their predetermined mindset.
The Teds in our midst are stuck on stupid because it’s all about ideology, to hell with the poor people in those Countries. To hell also with putting a stop to world wide terrorism in their minds, incapable of reasoned thought.
It’s really burning their butts that Bush is coming out the winner as time evolves.
What the hell are you talking about Liz? Can you show me one citation from anyone saying that right now, December 2007, either country is worse off? I don’t think you have the first clue about what I think about Iraq, and you certainly haven’t any clue about what I think about the Afghanistan campaign of which I have been and remain a strong supporter from day one.
Talk about stuck on stupid and driven by ideology.
As for Bush, he’s a class A ignoramous, but I couldn’t give a crap about him or the Democrats (who are no more friends or foes of Canada than the Republicans). I’ll be glad for Iraq to be over so the US can focus it’s energies back on where it should never have left: getting the job done in Afghanistan.
ted, if you ‘couldn’t give a crap’ about Bush, then why are you so frequently on this blog deriding him? Hmmm?
Why is Afghanistan a ‘worthy project’ but not Iraq? Is it that some dictatorships are OK with you, but others are not? Strange, people are the same everywhere, but you’ll only help some, not others. That’s the Liberal mindset for you!
If Iraq is better off now, then, why are you upset?
Oh, and remember, ted, things don’t happen overnight. Except if you believe in Santa Claus, and usually but not always, people grow out of that belief.
Nomdeblog:
““There is never any ‘final’ deal. The goalposts move at every conference, and often three or four times during the pre-negotiations that occur between COPs. Don’t like a COP agreement? Wait a few months. It’ll change.”
Isn’t that what Flanagan said was the Conservative Party strategy?
Damn! I KNEW I should have bought Iraqi bonds instead of that Mogadishu timeshare!
“was around the corner/imminent from the moment of the first bombing.”
Actually that is not correct either Ted.
From the begining they said this would go on for years and there would be “overt and covert operations” and essentially like the Cold War.
Where people get mixed up is the Bush landing on the aircraft carrier where the Navy had big banners up saying the War was over .. .and it was in the sense that Saddam was out of there and the role of the aircraft carrier was pretty much over.
Again communications have not been a strength of this Administration, as I said , but they are getting the job done now.
“There has never been a dark day in the war according to Junior and the Bushies.”
Well that kinda goes with the Commander in Chief who shouldn’t be wandering around saying “gosh these are dark days.”
“Was the US winning before, or finally winning now?”
Ted that is a good point. I would say it was never winning but it wasn’t losing either. Defining “winning” is very tough as Rumsfled said many, many times.
They might be winning now, I think they are, but in all honesty we might not know for years. I supported Bush and the battle of Iraq going in and still do. I would say the War in the region will last decades. Ronald Reagan, who along with Thatcher saved us from the USSR, was called an ignoramus by the New York Times too. It’s expected from the media appendages of the Democrats and the self-loathers like Michael Moore who export anti-Americanism conspiracies for personal profit.
Ted that is a good point. I would say it was never winning but it wasn’t losing either. Defining “winning” is very tough as Rumsfled said many, many times.
They might be winning now, I think they are, but in all honesty we might not know for years.
Alright, now we’re getting somewhere. Someone who prefers a discussion instead of slithering around with insults. I agree with you on these points. On whether they should have gone in or not, I’ve been pretty consistent the other way, 90% of the reason being that I think if you pick a fight, a difficult fight others (Russians, Brits) have lost before, that you stick with that fight, see it through, focus your energies to do it right, before picking another fight.
There was no imminent danger in Iraq, even if you buy the story about WMD. And even if you buy that, there were far more dangerous and more threatening enemies who were dictators. So flinging around insults about supporting dictators because you don’t support the start of the war in Iraq is not only childish but hypocritical. Should we pick a fight with every dictator all at once just show we oppose dictatorship? A fantasyworld inhabited by too many on the left and right.
Imagine how the Middle East would have reacted if the US had not divided its energies and resources (unevenly, with most going to Iraq). Knock out Afghanistan pour the same money into it and we would have been out of there by now and then the US negotiates with the Middle East from a much stronger position.
But that is the game of what ifs. The war was started, false pretences notwithstanding, there is still some opportunity to gain a broader benefit from a victory in Iraq. I really don’t care if Bush ends up looking good or bad, or if the Democrats looking good or bad, out of all of what was a quagmire. I just know that the end of the war in Iraq is good for the war in Afghanistan and, generally and over time, will be good for the Middle East.
Ted
We like your participation because it frees one from the necessity to think about the discussion point.
Oh, the Brits didn’t lose in Afghanistan. It’s a situation where nuance is in fact useful.
Cheers
No, ted, the statement that:
“There is never any ‘final’ deal. The goalposts move at every conference, and often three or four times during the pre-negotiations that occur between COPs. Don’t like a COP agreement? Wait a few months. It’ll change.”
DOES NOT REFER TO, your conclusion that: “Isn’t that what Flanagan said was the Conservative Party strategy? ”
Step-by-step development, or ‘bricolage’ has nothing to do with moving the end-points or goalpoints. It has to do with how one moves towards a stable end-point. The best way, is by bricolage or step-by-step incremental acts towards that agenda. There’s no comparison between the two, ted. This false analogy of yours shows how deeply you misunderstand the Conservative mode, and Flanagan.
And as nomdeblog points out, from the very beginning, the US said it would take years. Bush reminded us of that repeatedly.
No, ted, Afghanistan’s transformation to democracy isn’t enough to transform the ME to democracy. Afghanistan is not the ME. For that, you need a transformation right in the middle of those tribal states, border to border, face to face. That’s why Iraq was and is, necessary.
It isn’t always possible, in this world, to operate in the mechanical fashion of doing only one thing at a time. Sometimes, since the world is complex, we have to do several things at once! That includes wars.
Again, putting more troops anywhere, whether Afghanistan or Iraq, will not transform a population from a tribal to a civic mode. You are ignoring this. You can’t, at the point of a gun, change the mindset of a population. It has to be done slowly (step-by-step, OK?) and it takes time. So, your suggestion of merely putting in more troops is something that a blustering 18th c general would do – but, colonizing a people is very different from enabling a people.
While this is bad news for the dems for now it may be even worse news for the reps – most notably Rudi.
If in the run-up to nov., the economy is sluggish and the terror threat less of a top-of-mind issue Rudi is weakened and Romney who has paid more attention to the econ issue is helped, as is the dem’s nominee.
Rudi needs to take out Romney early – ie.January 29th and Feb 5th so he will be able to attack Hillary (or be still my heart Obama) fulltime – even debate her/him if possible early on so as to deliver a mortal political wound before the econ numbers come out for the second/third qtrs.
Heinrichs:
Good point. But they sure didn’t win.
“Excuse us if we don’t trust the Bush government on giving us the straight facts on Iraq.”
Ted,
I’m glad you brought this point up, because it reminds me to clarify something that may not be common knowledge among Canadians who don’t travel to the United States very often.
When Harper was elected, Americans were grateful that Canada once again started wading into the water of military assistance with global problems. However, military service has not been popular in Canada for years, and as a consequence fewer people have served than otherwise would be the case.
The US is the exact opposite. Despite vocal opposition to the military service from the left, military service is commonplace throughout every generation.
Virtually everyone in the US has a relative in the service, or has a friend in the service, or knows people whose kids have joined, and as a consequence we have a network of citizens with direct contact to people in the field at every level.
A short time ago (before we had to move back into Gotham in preparation for retirement) our next door neighbors were a very recently retired Navy Captain and Air Force Colonel. This is just the ordinary way things go in the US, because of military service being part of the fabric of ordinary life.
So we by no means have to rely on what the President says to know what is happening on the ground in various theatres of operations. We get the scoop first-hand, you might say. And you know, with the VFW Posts, and so forth, veterans get together and chew the fat, and share some of it with their spouses.
In other words, word gets around independently of official sources. We are winning in Iraq. One could postulate that al Qaeda is simply hanging back and gathering strength, but that would fly in the face of the fact that we are making al Qaeda membership a very masochistic thing to do. Their recruiting posters should say, “Join al Qaeda, Become a Victim!”
So in short Americans have sources of information that do not come from official channels, and right now everyone in the know knows we are winning.
Coalition deaths due to hostlie action are on track to be about 20 for this month (http://icasualties.org/oif/hnh.aspx) – down from 30 for each of the last 2 months and lower than any month since feb’04 (less than 12 months from the start of the invasion). The graphic in the link tells the story.
Left wing media defeatism…
CNN spent the day reporting that Afghanistan was not getting anywhere and that the US Needs to rethink the plan for Afghanistan.
Sound even the slightest bit familiar?
I guess we all just imagined the hysterical defeatist headlines from CP/AP/Reuters and all the broadcast focus of Networks for the last 6 or so years…. all the numerous confabulated stories chronicled in the blogs for posterity!!
Liberalism must be a Cognitive disorder!
The Americian’s are doing today what the British did in 1920-26. Get a uniity government for Iraq. The problems are very similar, but in very different times. Complete with insurgents from Iran, Syria. Does sound familiar.
Now you just KNOW mr.Ken E. that the folks at CNN etc do not mean that the US should learn from that example.
IN fact you would have to explain that to them and in all likelyhood their eyes would roll back in their heads well before you’d laid out the historical facts let alone the current dynamics.
Nice try!
How could anyone consider the liberation of Iraq anything other than a historically lopsided victory from day one? The terrorist masses flocking to Iraq from across the Middle East have been frequently treated to THIS for a while now:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fd9_1197892265
It really can’t get any easier to recruit new terrorists after getting your ass handed to you like that, contrary to what leftists always try to argue…
Ted
if yopu get a map of the ME and take a look at were afiganistan and Iraq are, and then were Iran and syria are. It will become clear the why of going into both Afig. and Iraq at about the same time. Iran gets closer to being isolated by land, and it becomes harder for them to “help” syria in case of war with isreal.
now as to your “there are worst dictators than saddam”, why are a disproportionate UN resolutions aimed at isreal and their conflict with the palistinians??? Saddam was a big supporter of the suicide bombers, thus he played a large part in this oh so important to the UN conflict
now saddam can no longer play trouble maker in the middle east, syria and iran have a “separation” problem, and southern iraq is less likely to wind up part of iran
are you starting to see the military benifit of the fall of saddam yet
now ask yourself, why, after the isrealis bombed a targit in syria in oct 07 did the syrians sent a deligation (low level I admit) to the bush peace effort this month, could it be they they are starting to SEE the light????a light that is obscured to you by your norrow minded POV
march 20 till april 9. hardly poorly planned or poorly fought as this was the most powerful army in the mideast. a right flogging
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8b5_1182147438
and occupying armies. seems we still have them in germany, heck ask the indians ,we still have them here.
Ted at 4:03: Although I’m generally satisfied with the government that I voted into power, one of the things that has disappointed me about PMSH is the way that he’s disavowed his early position on Iraq, both through what he’s said and through his silence. I think he could have held the line in a way that many Canadians would have understood and accepted — not most Canadians, but you don’t need most of them to vote for you in order to gain power.
As for the US doing now what they should have done at the start of the war, yes, we hear this frequently but it really is revisionist. After the defeat of Saddam, right after the initial victory, the US had 125,000+ troops standing around looking like the targets that they were. If their rules of engagement had been different at the outset — that is, a much more aggressive approach to the task at hand — the Americans may not have needed any more troops than they had. On the other hand, in light of the real, limited rules of engagement early on, ca. 175,000 troops would have represented even more sitting ducks. It was only with the Battle for Fallujah that we saw what the US was capable of if they let their troops loose. So more troops early on would definitely have made a difference, but only with different rules of engagement, but in that case they might not have been needed.
Forget the MSM. They’re largely unreliable, unqualified and too smitten with self validation and importance – in sofar as the WOT is concerned. Its usually the strident that makes a headline, not necessarily fact or uptake opinion. I realize that statement itself uses a broad brush stroke and there are of course exceptions. However, the audience\viewing and readership numbers for many MSM TV news and print are hemorrhaging. Why? Lack of perception, bias and trust, to name a few.
One real measure of public perceptions of war, is the PULSE of the battlefield. There were massive peace movments in the UK in 1917 before Vimy and equivalent phenomena even after Gettysburg, before Gen. Sherman took Atlanta for example. Those perceptions changed radically when events trended toward victory, as they are now.
The mis-steps and set backs reported by the media in prosecuting the war effort in both theaters of operations are for the most part noteworthy, but harmful at the exclusion of the tactical and altruistic advancements that took place. The war in Iraq was never an intractable quagmire or ” America’s worst foreign policy” ( compared to what exactly? ) as much of the media maintained it was. Stalemated, enigmatic and protracted perhaps, but never the chicken little scenario constantly prodded by the likes of CBC, CNN, and the NewYork times etc. The cost in blood and treasure after nearly 7 years of fighting is remarkable and historically low. Never before have we seen such honor and professionalism by the US military and her allies
The intermittent years between the fall of Saddam and the military offensive launched this summer demonstrated a couple of things. Firstly, that no effective over arching stratagem employed at the time would quell the insurrectionist violence created domestically and\or by powerful outside actors. Secondly, Iraqis ( sunni sect especially ) eventually learned the US army was NOT a conventional occupying force there for nefarious reasons. Fighting and dieing against the then percevied “imperialist” Americans was a loosing cause. By opposing the coalition, however costly, did restore honor among the sunni – and saving face is all too important in that culture. Also, Al-Qaeda was by far the greater enemy.
After abu musab al-zarqawi was killed along with all the computer chip intel ( see “Bagdad belts” map ) that was discovered, everything changed. No less significant than air lifting the german reichstag building from Berlin in ’43 and placing it in Washington with documents and staff included.
As simple as this might sound, with all the herculean costly efforts, the trial and error, the coalition didn’t know how to solve the myriad of problems in Iraq. No one did. One thing is for certain: the cruelty that is al-qaeda and the raw steadfast perseverance of the US military ( and the surge ) contributed decisively in changing the pulse of the battlefield.
As for Taliban jack, mansbridge, naomi wolf, pelosi, harry reid and all the rest of the assorted moonbats, will continue to condemn, opine and evaluate as they do. Meanwhile, America has lit a fire in the belly of that totalitarian monstrous nihilistic idealology and it will burn its black heart out.
ted et al;
“isn’t that what Flanagan said was the Conservative Party strategy”??!!
PMSH digests incoming information and acts on it, bricolage, a final deal, a goal, the goalposts move but not the goal. The “assigning of priority order to projects” means just that…not unlike a triage nurse in your local ER
RE:
“Jack Layton, Stephane Dione, and a few of our favourite national columnists some good to receive these links. Then, at least they can’t claim ignorance.”
Ignorance is bliss, because then they can say whatever they want. No accountability, no
responsibility ,no guts, and what they don’t understand – no glory. And yet they demand or respect.
Teddy said:
“I would like to hear some stats on what percentage of Americans now get some of their news from the internet.”
Can you say RushLimbaugh.com A one man crusade against the “drive by media” and their left wing agenda. He’s a blast and mostky right on the money – that’s why he’s singled out as a target by the MSM is the US. This guy would be pulled off the air in Canada because of not toeing and challenging the so called “Canadian Values” line.
Google Earth it to Baghdad, click on blue dots for pictures. Very interesting. Haven’t seen a CBC type picture yet 🙂
Ted,
“The fact of the matter is that if you want to argue that the “surge” worked/is working, then implicit in that is a concession that something wasn’t working before.”
I think it was widely acknowledged that there were… “problems” and he left just after the election. That problem was Donald Rumsfeld’s hubris. As entertaining as I found him in news conferences while he abused the asses in the media, he wasn’t competent due to his inability to adapt his plan to reality. He is a brilliant man but suffers from the delusion that his intelligence makes him infallible. He refused to admit his ideas were not working and adapt.
His “fast and light” idea worked to take Iraq but just like North Africa in WWII, you can take it with light and fast but can’t hold it without heavy and slow. You win by sending in fast and light and backing it up with heavy and slow after the territory is taken. You also need to take lessons from Britain’s colonial days to see how to deal with the locals (there was a reason there continued to be Indian Maharajas after the Brits took over. You keep the local elites happy and they in turn keep the peasants in line.)
That there was a surge is the tacit admission by the Bush lot that they didn’t get it right to begin with.
The media, the liberals/left/democrats refuse to back off of their failure doctrine. When you hitch your cart to failure and place all of your hopes for power on the basis that your side should lose, you have disengaged yourself from an honourable path. You at least should admit that – liberal you may be but you will admit when your side is wrong.
Warwick:
It wasn’t just Rumsfeld’s hubris. He was fully backed by the Administration in all of his hubris, especially the VP. Bush signed off on the light attack force plan going into the war. And Republicans of all stripes, supporters etc. are the ones who shouted the loudest that “The MSM” was suppressing the good news out of Bush Derangement Syndrome. That the US citizens are slow to trust what the Republicans and their supporters are shouting out now should come as no surprise. That those same people blame “The MSM” for their troubles is a tad off to say the least.
rush limbaugh was so funny when he called chelsea clinton a dog!
ann coulter was so great when she said there’s no Jews in heaven!
glenn beck was so wonderful when he said how much he hated the 9-11 victims
george bush was so hilarious when he joked about not finding the WMD he sent all those young people to die for in Iraq!
they’re all such wonderful Christians! just like all of you on this board!