Gay Patriot Header Image

The Truth From Iraq

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 7:35 am - March 10, 2006.
Filed under: War On Terror

Here’s some news that ABCNBCNYTMSNBCNN isn’t talking about.

Iraq: The Untold Truths – New York Post

Among the many positive stories you aren’t being told about Iraq, the media ignored another big one last week: In the wake of the terrorist bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, it was the Iraqi army that kept the peace in the streets.

It’s routinely declared a failure by those who yearn for the new Iraq to fail. But an increasingly capable Iraqi military has been developing while reporters (who never really investigated the issue) wrote it off as hopeless.

What actually happened last week, as the prophets of doom in the media prematurely declared civil war?

* The Iraqi army deployed over 100,000 soldiers to maintain public order. U.S. Forces remained available as a backup, but Iraqi soldiers controlled the streets.

* Iraqi forces behaved with discipline and restraint – as the local sectarian outbreaks fizzled, not one civilian had been killed by an Iraqi soldier.

* Time and again, Iraqi military officers were able to defuse potential confrontations and frustrate terrorist hopes of igniting a religious war.

* Forty-seven battalions drawn from all 10 of Iraq’s army divisions took part in an operation that, above all, aimed at reassuring the public. The effort worked – from the luxury districts to the slums, the Iraqis were proud of their army.

As a result of its nationwide success, the Iraqi army gained tremendously in confidence. Its morale soared. After all the lies and exaggerations splashed in your direction, the truth is that we’re seeing a new, competent, patriotic military emerge. The media may cling to its image of earlier failures, but last week was a great Iraqi success.

Why would they report success? Our own media is part of Al-Qaeda’s plan to convince the world we are murderous tyrants.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

13 Comments

  1. It is good news.

    Comment by Calarato — March 10, 2006 @ 7:54 am - March 10, 2006

  2. Why would they report success?

    Optimism is just so… unsophisticated.

    Comment by V the K — March 10, 2006 @ 7:55 am - March 10, 2006

  3. Oh, and let’s add more good news:

    There IS a civil war in Iraq… and it’s the civil war between al Qaeda and their former Iraqi Sunni (ex-Baathist) allies.

    Comment by Calarato — March 10, 2006 @ 8:01 am - March 10, 2006

  4. Ooops, sorry, I forgot: al Qaeda isn’t supposed to be in Iraq, or have any connection with Baathists. 😉

    Comment by Calarato — March 10, 2006 @ 8:19 am - March 10, 2006

  5. So, us going to find WMDs is a success because something completely different happened?? It’s great Iraq is becoming a nation, and hoepfully they won’t descend into civil war or elect another leader like the elected Saddam. But, this doesn’t make it a success.

    If I go to the grocery store to get Orange Juice, and can’t find it, but get some soda instead, that’s a success?

    Comment by Joey — March 10, 2006 @ 5:21 pm - March 10, 2006

  6. #5 – Typical liberal delusion – the delusion that (1) WMD was the only reason for the Iraq war, that (2) WMD somehow weren’t found, etc.

    Joey, all you need to do is Google the 2002 Congressional authorizing resolution for the Iraq war and see how wrong you are about (1).

    As for the WMD question: Understanding the WMD material they did find involves a lot of icky, you know, FACTS and EVIDENCE and THINKING, and you don’t seem likely to be very keen on that, so I’ll leave it. Maybe someone else would have patience for you.

    Comment by Calarato — March 10, 2006 @ 6:12 pm - March 10, 2006

  7. Zogby pulled a fast one when he talked about the poll of our military in Iraq. The questions asked soldiers why they believed we were there and only a tiny number said “WMD”. Zogby, in talking about this, said that opinions had shifted away from WMD to what the poll showed. The poll, however, had no questions whatsoever about what soldiers may have thought in 2003. The remark that there was a *shift* came entirely out of his own head.

    Comment by Synova — March 10, 2006 @ 11:23 pm - March 10, 2006

  8. #5 & 6

    Add to that the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, signed by sweet lord B.J., which directs the POTUS to remove Saddam Hussein from power. B.J., of course, couldn’t have given a damn about the job he was supposed to do.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 11, 2006 @ 4:40 am - March 11, 2006

  9. #8 – Of course not. He was busy with Monica in the Oval Orifice. That’s why the OKC bombing, the first WTC bombing, the USS Cole and numerous other terrorist attacks occurred during his watch.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — March 11, 2006 @ 12:15 pm - March 11, 2006

  10. Well, let’s see, #s 8 and 9: You blame “lord BJ” (fine, call him what you want, he was head and shoulders above the POS we have now) for the OKC bombing (when that was one of your own right-wingers), for the first WTC, USS Cole. Mighty short list there when you compare it to Bush’s incompetence and the resulting 9/11 (2,800 lost), Madrid (220+), London, Iraq (100,000 Iraqis dead, 2,300 Americans dead, 18,000 Americans maimed) and as you put it, “numerous other terrorist attacks occurring on his watch”. If you’re keeping score on these things, you should fight your way through that partisan fog so you can see that your Dear Leader is way ahead on the body count.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — March 14, 2006 @ 5:13 am - March 14, 2006

  11. And adding more to Dear Leader’s ugly total all the time…

    BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 14 — The police reported finding 68 bodies today scattered around the city, as the wave of reprisal killings for Sunday’s attack on Shiite civilians appeared to gain steam.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — March 14, 2006 @ 9:28 am - March 14, 2006

  12. I think the millions of Iraqis imprisoned, tortured, and murdered on Bill Clinton’s watch more than pushes the body count above and beyond.

    Of course, Queer Patriot, that was when the media was being paid by Saddam Hussein to cover up such matters. Since your fellow Democrats were as well, I’m not surprised that you’re completely unaware of the number of people Saddam Hussein killed between 1992 and 2000.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 14, 2006 @ 12:40 pm - March 14, 2006

  13. Right.

    Saddam was killing his own people at a rate of 30-50 thousand per year. Since the U.S. took over, Saddam diehards (the “insurgents” and al Qaeda terrorists) have only been able to kill a few thousand Iraqi civilians per year. That’s a tenfold reduction. And one day, no more than a year or two off, fully trained Iraqi Security Forces will get it to zero.

    Note that Kewpie’s 100,000 number has been completely debunked; one need only Google “lancet 100,000 debunked iraq” and read a couple of the many articles. It also avoids the issue of moral responsibility: the real, far smaller number of Iraqi civilian deaths can and should be placed squarely on the shoulders of Iraq’s Baath diehards and al Qaeda terrorists, who after all kill as many civilians as they can, on purpose.

    Comment by Calarato — March 14, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - March 14, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.