Democrats Count Iraq Casualties but Push for Partial Birth Abortion.

McCain: Cutting casualties in Iraq is primary goal - Yahoo! News

John McCain said it is more important to avoid casualties in Iraq than bringing troops home. As you can guess the Democrats went bananas. The Democrats declared that McCain is out of touch with the public, but they don't what to drill for oil. He is out of touch and don't know the needs of the military, but the Democrats have to be dragged to finance them.

The Democrats are keeping the count of the deaths in Iraq and the News Media is helping them. Do you remember the count down during the October 2006 mid term elections. Every day we were told how many Americans died that day. They all cried this is Bush's War and they all told us when 1000 died, 2000 died, 3000 died and now when 4000 died. The Democrats cry, please remove our troops so no more will die.

Do you think the Democrats, their followers and the press care about these lives? Demorcrats are the ones who push Partial Birth Abortion and abortion in general. They don't care about these lives. Do you think that only 4000 babies were aborted in the last six years?
According to Planned Parenthood, there are at least 164,000 abortions after the first three months of pregnancy, and 13,000 abortions after 4 1/2 months and these number are regarded as minimums. Democrats and their followers don't want to stop this.

What is partial birth abortion and why is it performed? First partial birth abortion involves partial delivery of a baby in its third trimester, following which an abortionist doctor jams scissors into the base of the baby's skull. The dead baby is then removed from the birth canal. Christian burial? No, the baby is throw into the trash to be burned as tissue.

The reason Partial Birth Abortions are preform is because the baby is too far along for normal saline, (salt) to destroy the baby. The baby is too big for suction, the baby's limbs are too strong to pull apart. Because of the lack of options, Partial Birth Abortion is the preferred choice.

Now do you believe that the Democrats care about the lives in Iraq or Afghanistan? Remember, this is Bush's War and the Democrats want ot destroy President Bush and the Republicans. If this was the Clinton War, you would not here a peep, because they really don't care about human life.

Technorati Tags: Iraq

Enjoyed this post? Email to a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag This Dog, Link to any post.

Surge has reduced Violence, Recent Attacks in Iraq is no trend.

A rash of deadly bombings blamed on al-Quida in Iraq does not represent an upward trend in overall violence, which has plummeted around the country in recent months, the U.S. military said Sunday. One of the reasons for the drop is a cease-fire called by anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. On Sunday the cleric called on his supporters to work on transforming his lethal and powerful Mahdi Army into a charitable organization. "There is no contradiction for the Mahdi Army to be military and at the same time be educational and humanitarian," al-Sadr said in a leaflet handed out at his offices in the Shiite holy city of Najaf. Violence around Iraq has dropped by about 60 percent in the past nine months, mostly because of Al-Sadr's cease-fire, an influx of thousands of U.S. troops and a decision by tens of thousands of Sunnis to join forces with the United States. By Patrick Quinn, Associated Press writer.

A year ago, everyday, the Iraq war was in the news and the only news was how many U.S soldiers were dying. We were losing the war in Iraq at least that's what the Democrats were saying. Shuler and most Democrats voted for troop pullout of Iraq by December 15, 2008. The bill states that the primary purpose of the money, used to support our troops, "should be to transition the mission of United States Armed Forces in Iraq and undertake their redeployment." Where the Democrats wrong?

There is still soldiers dying in Iraq. Where is the news media? Have they given up on Iraq? They used this tool to get the Democrats back in the majority. So they don't need to use this anymore. Well maybe I am wrong. I think the Democrats used the news media as a tool. The Democrats said it was a civil war and all of the news media reported it. The Democrats said we were losing the war and all the news media reported it. Looks like the news media has just become a puppet of the Democrats.


Technorati Tags: Iraq

Enjoyed this post? Email a friend, Leave a comment, Subscribe to Wag Tis Dog, Link to any post.

Agent: Iraq courted fear of weapons

Saddam Hussein allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction to deter rival Iran (Iraq invaded Iran without notice) and did not think the United States would stage a major invasion, (what did he think the 100,000 plus U.S. troops were doing in Kuwait?) According to an FBI interrogator who questioned the Iraqi leader after his capture. Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States (like we did in the Bosnian war) and thought he could remain in control, the FBI special agent, George Piro, told CBS's "60 Minutes" program in an interview to be broadcast Sunday. "He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions." said Piro. "He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we (Clinton) did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack." (this was Bill Clinton's 4 day war) "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack," Piro said. By Lily Hindy, Associated Press writer.

If you believe Saddam than I have some swamp land here in Louisiana I'll like to sell you. On September 22 1980 Iraq invaded Iran without formal warning. In this six year war, Iraq extensively used chemical weapons, such as mustard gas on a daily bases, against Iranian troops and civilians as well as Iraqi Kurds. When the war ended on August 20 1988 Iraq owed Saudi Arabia 30.9 billion, Kuwait 8.2 billion and the U.A.E. 8 billion. A total of 47.1 billion dollars. Do you think Saddam wanted to pay this bill? No, his plan was to attack the ones who helped him financially in the war against Iran. On August 2, 1990 Iraq attacked Kuwait with the equipment they helped finance in the Iran-Iraq War. Instead of paying his allies back, he was going to take their oil. During this war, Saddam fired missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. For the next ten years Saddam will play cat and mouse games with the U.N. Saddam was right he got rid of all his chemical weapons, he used them on Iran and innocent women and children. And in his own words, he had the intention of restarting an Iraqi weapons program, and had engineers available for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. I wonder who he was going to use these on?


Technorati Tags: Iraq

Powered by ScribeFire.

More U.S. soldiers shifting to suppoprt Iraq missions.

U.S. commanders have begun shifting the mission of military forces in Iraq by moving more troops out of front-line combat and into assignments that allow American soldiers to monitor and support Iraqi units, senior military leaders said Thursday. In their changing capacity U.S. troops increasingly will be positioned to back up Iraqi forces in a role that commanders outlined in recommendations in September and have termed "over-watch." Under the recommendations, the overall U.S. troop level in Iraq will be reduced from about 165,000 to about 130,000 by July. One combat brigade already has left Iraq. By Juilian E. Barnes , Los Angeles Times.

A lot has change in Iraq in the last six months. Six months ago we where talking about bench marks to measure the progress in the war. In July 2007, it looked like out of the 18 bench marks we would have 8 satisfactory, 8 unsatisfactory and 2 mixed. The Democratically controlled House of Representatives voted 223-201, on July 11th, to require most U.S. troops to leave Iraq by April 1, 2008. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) accused Bush of a strategy "to keep our troops in an open-ended war-- a civil war in Iraq. I'm calling on my Republican colleagues to not just say the right thing but to vote the right way so we can give our troops the strategy they deserve." It's a good thing we don't run a war by committee. The founders of our constitution knew their could be only one Commander in Chief and that is the President. Bush said " I don't think Congress ought to be running the war. I think they ought to be funding our troops. Bush was right and the Democrats were wrong.

Other issues pushing Iraq aside.

The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are navigating a far different set of issues as they approach the Iowa caucuses on Thursday than when they first started campaigning here a year ago, and that is likely to change even more as the campaigns move to New Hampshire and across the country. Even though polls show that Iowa Democrats still consider the war in Iraq the top issue facing the country, the war is becoming a less defining issue among Democrats nationally, and it has moved to the back of the stage in the rush of campaign rallies. Instead, candidates are being asked about, and are increasingly talking about, the mortgage crisis, rising gas costs, health care, immigration, the environment and taxes. Part of the shift appears to stem from the reduction in violence in Iraq after President Bush's decision to send more troops there last year. By Adam Nagourney, 2007, The New York Times. Now let us talk about the Democrats Iraq strategy. Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca) threw her support behind a proposal by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa) for a prompt pullout of U.S. troops from Iraq. Sen John F. Kerry (D-Mass) "the presence of our troops itself is a part of the current reality on the ground that presents food for the insurgency." Kerry added, "in the end, the strategy for exit is in fact part of the strategy for success." Sen. Harry M. Reid (D-Nev) Called for "a vote of no confidence in the president's current policy in Iraq" Sen Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis) condemned Bush's plan and said "we need a policy on Iraq that includes a flexible timetable for completing our military mission there with Dec. 31, 2006, set as a target date to complete the military mission there." As you can see the Democrats were wrong the U.S. public did not want a time table, they wanted us to win this war. The war is now on the back burner because we are winning the war. They are not mad at Bush for stating the war in Iraq. They were mad because we were not winning. President Bush said " we will stay the course" and the Democrats wanted a time table to pull out. Who was right!

Quiet month caps bloody year in Iraq.

December emerged as possibly the safest month for U.S. forces in Iraq since the 2003 invasion and the least deadly for Iraqi civilians in the past 12 months, but, now here come the negative, overall 2007 was the bloodiest year of the war, according to figures released Monday. On the military front, 21 U.S. personnel died in December, according to Department of Defense figures released by the independent Web site icasualties.org, making the average death tally last month the lowest since the start of the war, but, now here comes the negative, at least 899 American Troops were killed during 2007, according to the Web site, the highest annual toll since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. After high monthly death tolls early in 2007, the number of civilians and U.S. soldiers and civilians slain has been decreasing since the U.S. military completed a troop buildup in June. But, now here comes the negative, few people were celebrating the recent down turn in violence, especially Democrats, as proof of irreversible progress. By Tina Susman, Los Angeles Times.

The rest of the 19 paragraphs and a thousand or more words are all negative. Tina, just like all the other liberal news people, don't report anything good that our soldiers are doing in Iraq, just how many of them die each month. In fact, in October of 2006 the month before the mid term elections, the new media let us know how many of our soldiers died each day. Have you ever seen a news report about the good things our troops are doing in Iraq? Wait, Harry Reid and the rest of the Democrats said this is a civil war and that we lost the Iraq war. So we should give up and bring our troops home. Where is this civil war? We are winning the war on terrorist in Iraq because of our troop buildup. Maybe also the terrorism has slow down because the Iraq war has not been in the news much since the U.S. is winning. You know the only way the terrorist can get their message out to the world is through the liberal U.S. media. How else would the world know what the terrorist are doing?

Gains cause Democrats to shift on Iraq.

Advisers to Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., two sets of different advisers, say that the candidates have watched security conditions, the war, improve after the troop escalation in Iraq and concluded that, you would look stupid, not to acknowledge those gains, because we are winning. Now wait a while I thought the leaders of the Democrat Party said that we lost and can not win. You know it's Bush's war. But at the same time, they are arguing that American casualties are too high. Was WWI or WWII casualties too high? What would be just right. What death rate is acceptable for Democrats? That a quick withdrawal is the only way to end, and lose, the war and that the so-called surge in additional troops has not paid off in political progress in Iraq. What kind of political progress did we have in our last five years? I guess the Democrats give the Republican majority every thing they asked for in these last five years? NO. So when the three political parties in Iraq don't get alone there is no political progress in Iraq. I guess the Democrats expect them to act different than them. Do what every you can to run the country and destroy you adversary. Who is calling the pot black?