After returning from YearlyKos and a ten-day vacation prior to that, I had a lot of stuff in my Inbox. Sifting through it, I came across the following from my Republican friend Bob, about whom I have written before.
In it, Bob relates how he came across this great article by a couple of "Democrats" who took a lot of heat for supporting "The Surge," but who felt they had a "higher duty" to give the American people "the truth."
Oh God, I thought; please, no - but to no avail. You guessed it - he had linked to O'Hanlon's and Pollack's New York Times piece:
Stability in Iraq: A War We Just Might Win
Oh, great, I thought; another rightwinger swallows the line about O'Hanlon and Pollack being "critics" of the invasion and occupation.
Whatever.
Then, though, the next e-mail in my Inbox is from another Republican friend of mine from the gym, Dave. Oy vey:
The surge is working. The LA Times also had a front page article re this fact. Dem strategists are already strategizing how to credit their leadership for this.
Dave then goes on to post the entire L.A. Times article cheerleading for the surge.
It was Dave’s use of "The surge is working" line that pushed me over the edge. I've talked before about that choice moment for me, whenever I'm at the gym and Bob or Dave pipes up with some hilarious right-wing talking point:
Depending on my mood and how much time I've got to finish my workout, my willingness to be drawn into discussion with Bob [or Dave] can vary from "Don't bother me right now," to, "I can't wait to flay this bullshit talking point until it's just a quivering blob of bleeding protoplasm, leaking its poisonous bodily fluids into the dirt, all alone in a vacant lot under the blazing L.A. summer sun."
Yeah. Well, what would you do?: "The surge is working."
I had no choice, really. My response:
"The surge is working."
Dave - If you're going to spout rightwing talking points, couldn't you at least change the wording around a bit?
"Working"? Really. How would you define that, Dave? Number of American casualties? Number of Iraqi casualties? Political progress? Number of times Bill O'Reilly refers to bloggers as "Nazis" and members of the "Ku Klux Klan"? Please let me know, so that we can discuss specifics, okay? Otherwise, please spare all of us the mindless rightwing platitudes.
BTW, the "Democrats" who wrote the piece Bob referred to have been vociferous proponents of "The Surge" since before Bush even announced it. Gee, what a surprise, then, that they would enthusiastically trumpet how wonderful it is. Hell, they were proponents of the INVASION and occupation before it began, for that matter. To characterize them as "critics of the war" is total bullshit, and an insult to our intelligence.
You might want to read these two pieces:
http://thinkprogress.org/...
http://www.salon.com/...
Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Sorry.
xoxo o.h.
Dave took my bait:
Why yes, occam, you can define progress with at least one of your listed metrics. The coalition casualty rate for july was at an all time low for this year, despite an aggressive response by al qaeda to our surge plan. this may be a distressing statistic for those extreme bush haters, but when you even have the LA Times, not necessarily known as a conservative voice, report progress, consideration by the left that the surge is a good idea is warranted.
Aaah occam, back from the KOS convention with new venom to spew. I take it the faithful didn't take kindly to assaults on its indignant and self-righteous hate-blogging. I wonder what john edwards, always ready to take advantage of a good opportunity (it must be the trial lawyer in him!), had to say about the surge? I do recall edwards, himself a critic of the war soon after voting for it, opining the benefits of a surge wherever there was an active microphone.
Fun stuff, huh? Yeah, I thought so, too:
Hmmm - casualties for July, you say? You sure you want to go there, David, my good friend?
Okay, then: here are U.S. casualties for every July that we've been in Iraq:
July 2003: 48
July 2004: 54
July 2005: 54
July 2006: 43
July 2007: 80
Oops. But thanks for playing!
(BTW, Dave, Wal-Mart doesn't cite increasing sales for December over November and say that "sales are INCREASING!!" - they use what's called "same-store sales," measuring performance for the same period 12 months earlier. Here's a graphical and tabular view: http://icasualties.org/...
Here's another way to look at things: For the January-through-July period for the years 2004 through 2007, the casualty totals look like this:
Jan-July 2004: 430
Jan-July 2005: 464
Jan-July 2006: 397
Jan-July 2007: 656
Or, for the five-month period, March-July of each year since the invasion (albeit that March 2003 only included 12 days of ground combat):
March-July 2003: 254
March-July 2004: 333
March-July 2005: 299
March-July 2006: 280
March-July 2007: 492
Or, if you want to focus solely on July 2007 - it having been such a stellar month, and demonstrative of the success of "The Surge" - then let's examine it in relation to total year-to-date casualties for each respective year:
July casualties as percentage of total Jan-July casualties:
- 12.56%
- 11.64%
- 10.83%
- 12.20%
Hmm - pretty much the same as every other year, I'd say - a little higher than some, a little lower than one other. In fact, it could be said truthfully, the numbers for 2007 represent the first time since 2004 that July's casualties as a percentage of the year-to-date total have gone UP - ooooh, not a good sign.
But, hey, I give you credit for trying.
And - "new venom to spew"? Please direct me to the "venom," as it was not my intent to "spew venom." Unless by "venom," you mean, "actual facts."
And - I'm sorry; I obviously don't spend enough time on the left wing blogs to find any of this "indignant and self-righteous hate-blogging" that you and Bill O'Reilly mention - can you please direct me to it? I'd really appreciate it. If you can't, please refrain from spreading untruths.
If you'd like, I'd be happy, BTW, to walk you through what really goes on on at least one left-wing blog with which I am familiar.
As for Edwards' views on "The Surge"? Can you please direct me to a link or two to support your assertion? Seems all I can find are these from about seven or eight months ago, before the surge started, where he comes out strongly opposed to it. But hey, what the heck do I know?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
http://johnedwards.com/...
Or this, from nearly two years ago:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/...
So - again, Dave, please: If you're going to make assertions, please back them up with, you know, like, FACTS, okay?
Or, as we in the left-wing blogosphere like to call them,
"VENOM."
:)
xoxo always,
o.h.
Just thought I'd share.
:)