9 US Soldiers Killed In Diyala After Making Inroads Against Terrorists

That last part -- the background, the reason, the context -- is of course altogether absent from AP's story. Jules Crittendon adds it back in, quoting from the MNF site:

In Zaganiyah, Iraq, Saturday, citizens from the area approached members of the 5th Iraqi Army Division and Soldiers from the 5th Squadron, 73rd Cavalry Regiment, assigned to the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, to inform them of weapon caches and people responsible for placing improvised explosive devices.

The information provided by the citizens led to the discovery of two caches and the detention of two suspected terrorists who were still carrying the initiation systems for IEDs. Six anti-Iraqi forces were also killed in the area.

The caches included artillery rounds, an anti-tank mine, more than five rocketpropelled grenades and IED-making material.

Aside from the citizens providing information, the local tribal leaders have
approached the patrol base in Zaganiyah to meet with the Iraqi army and Coalition leadership and discuss the way ahead.

That report was released on the same day of the attack. And yet AP is intellectually incurious as to the "root causes" of this particular bit of terrorism, because the root causes are American success.

Related: The veto pen is out for the Democrats' surrender plan for Iraq. The whole trick is to force a defeat while retaining plausible deniability, of course.

Jeff Goldstein notes that Harry Reid had it right the first time, at least by his own lights-- he does believe the war is lost, or, I suppose, that the war should be lost. But he's not supposed to say so, because the Democrats have found that while Americans don't like the war in Iraq, they don't like military losses, either. So the trick is to advocate for defeat while pretending to be interested in success through "smarter strategies."

All of this is of course viciously cynical -- if the war is lost, then the troops should be brought home immediately, and not slowly, unit by unit, exposing those left behind to greater danger and higher casualty rates as the Democrats' seem to prefer.

But the Democrats are pushing the "slow bleed" "strategies" even knowing they will result in greater American casualties and guaranteed American defeat because this strategy, unlike defunding the war, allows them to pretend they had nothing at all to do with the defeat they're forcing.

They're trading American soldiers' lives for a few percentage points in polls.

And yet they accuse others of politicizing war.

Related: Reid says he'll flat-out ignore any reports of progress of David Petraeus.

Video of Reid's Vow To Ignore Inconvenient Testimony:

Where do the Democrats stand, then?

Reid doesn't believe Petraeus about progress in Iraq and will not accept any evidence that contradicts his position.

But John Kerry is willing to have a look at evidence "based on fact" that 9/11 was caused by a government conspiracy to inflict mass-murder on its own citizenry.

Strong, smart. Reality-based.

"Scathing" Cheney Attack On Reid, Reports MSNBC: This is "scathing"?

His visit to the doctor earlier today didn't stop Vice President Cheney from launching a scathing attack on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's recent statements on Iraq -- calling them "unfortunate," "uninformed," and "misleading."

In his remarks from Capitol Hill, Cheney added, "What was most troubling about Sen. Reid's comments is his defeatism."

If that's "scathing," what exactly is it when Democrats claim Bush "lied us into war"?

posted by Ace at 02:30 PM

| Access Comments