More bad news for Obama. His side is losing.

He probably won’t realizes for a few months...possibly even after the election considering he hasn’t been to Iraq for years...

I heard that he wants to go and meet Gen. Petraeus, but his schedule is just too busy. He’s got appointments out the ying-yang. He’s got a meeting with Ahmadinejad today, lunch on Tuesday with Raul Castro, a quick visit with Brother Fidel, Canasta Thursday night with Hugo Chavez, Movie night on Friday with Kim Jong-Il, a Hamas fundraiser over the weekend... I don’t know how he squeezes it all in.

HAHAHA..that was hilarious...!

That, US Junk Media, is what Victory in Iraq looks like. Counter Insurgencies don't end with a Surrender Ceremony or a Victory Parade, they just fade away.

Shhhh. The story is that Iraq only generates BAD news.

They had a Iraq hit piece on the radio last month. Some attack was the "The WORST Loss of LIFE in Two Months" or something like that. The folks from work that I was riding with commented on it, and were astonished when I told them that it was the worst loss of life, because no soldiers had been killed for that long.

"The Media would do that?", one guy asked.

"They just did.", was my reply. Dunno if it stuck with anyone, though.

This is indeed excellent news, KLV, if AQ is on the run as bad as the reports are making out and, given the media's penchant for trying to help us lose the war, things are probably at least as good as the reports indicate.

However, my own opinion is that, get ready to gag, the left does have a point, though not in the way they think, that the war has been mismanaged. If the Bush administration had declared war on Al Queda immediately after 9/11 and followed it up with bold action, including conscription, I believe we could have achieved even greater results than we have heretofore.

One other point: I hate when leftists were using the argument that we were taking too many casualties, and, therefore, 'we are less safe' and, presumably, need to withdraw; the argument makes no sense on its face (we took a majority of our WWII casualties in the last year of the war, so, by that logic, the war was a failure.) I just don't want the opposite, low casualties such as are mentioned in this story, to lead people to the false notion that we are therefore 'more safe'.

In my opinion the threat from Islamofascism is greater than before, approaching 'existential' as others have commented.

Don’t worry, the retards in the media will find some way to spin it into a negative. Most likely, they’ll compare it to the lowest monthly casualty rate of the war and say ‘see, we told you nothing has changed’ and completely ignore any trend that is occuring.

I agree that parts of this war have been mismanaged, but at the same time I think the gains we have made in Iraq are provding an over all better quality of life for them and us. It’s hard to fight a war on Terrorism...mainly because it’s hard to declare war on a tactic rather than a government or NGO...at the same time I think had we left Saddam get away with more attrocities it would have been as negligent as Clinton with Khobar Towers...

I posted this yesterday:

Washington DC averages 15 murders per month, population 588,000. Monthly Murder rate 1:39,2000

Iraq had 532 murders/killings last month (including Iraq Army) - population 27.5 million. Monthly Murder rate 1:51,691

You would be safer in Iraq than in Washington DC.

Sources: Wash. Post, AP, Reuters, US Census Bureau

I agree that parts of this war have been mismanaged, but at the same time I think the gains we have made in Iraq are provding an over all better quality of life for them and us. It’s hard to fight a war on Terrorism...mainly because it’s hard to declare war on a tactic rather than a government or NGO...at the same time I think had we left Saddam get away with more attrocities it would have been as negligent as Clinton with Khobar Towers...

I agree it is providing a better quality of life for them, disagree that it, beyond the main point of us being there, that is, holding off the spearhead of Islamic terrorism on their territory, not ours, is providing a better quality of life for us, US.

Also, I agree that it is hard to declare war on a tactic, that's why I said we should have declared war on Al Queda, and, by extention, any country (Iran) that harbors them. A large-scale effort at subversion in Iran could yield impressive results. Iranians (the large proportion of the population who are not suicidal, moon-worshipping cultists anyway) are smart, modern and very friendly to the U.S. I assume something of the sort is going on; if not, the U.S. intel agencies are committing criminal neglect. In general I think more needs to be done, and would have been done with a declaration of war, in the black ops area.

Saddam Hussein was committing atrocities for years and years before the Khobar Towers bombing, so I don't think it's a fair comparison. Plus we weren't all that interested in his genocide, enough to do anything about it anyway, until after 9/11. Perhaps a better comparison would be had we let Hitler continue on governing, with limited powers, after WWII. The very idea is preposterous!