177.8 attacks in Iraq per day in June, highest since May 2003; Are We Going Backwards?

I'm sure this will please right wing nutcases, thought they'll lack the balls (as usual) to respond in the comments.

If we're supposed to start classifying our enemies in Iraq as al Qaeda because the Administration has changed it's Orwellian rhetoric, then this would mean that there are approx. 5,000 terrorist incidents in Iraq every month, and the numbers are expected to rise.

Attacks in Iraq last month reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of
U.S. troops, Pentagon statistics show.

The data, obtained by Reuters from the Defense Department, showed an upward trend in daily attacks over the past four months, when U.S. and Iraqi forces were ramping up operations against insurgents and militants, including al Qaeda, in Iraq.

If Bush was waging an effective war on terror, a person would logically assume that the rate of attacks would go down - especially after "Shock and Awe" when we showed the Islamofascists what we could do to them with our high-priced weaponry. Well, the Islamofascists took that message and escalated their attacks. Hmmm, that's the opposite of what a successful war would accomplish, isn't it?

End result? There are now more terrorist attacks on US forces every single week (or day) than there were terrorist attacks on the US under every other US President combined. There weren't even this many terrorist attacks on US forces "over there" (as opposed to "over here") before Bush II.

For Chrissakes, when did the US last have an embassy that was openly fired on several times a day? In Vietnam? It makes quite a target for terrorists in training, I suppose.

Way to go, Bush! You have delivered yet another failure that only a conservative (and bin Laden) could love. Strange bedfellows that Conservatives and bin Laden make! Bush is lucky the Senate Republicans obstruct any attempt to change his course in Iraq and that the media can't bring itself to utter the word 'filibuster' when discussing Republican obstructionism.

Republicans and their wing-nutty base own this war and it's aftermath. No wonder they never want to talk about Iraq anymore. While the Right Wing's definition of 'success' is close, if not identical, to bin Laden's definition, it is at odds with how thinking human beings would define it: a decline in enemy attacks.

Ron Paul raises more money from military than every other Republican candidate combined

The troops support an Iraq War opponent like Ron Paul? Boy, this is going to piss off the right wingers! I just know they are going to unleash a fury upon these defeatist troops. Right?

Right wingers can't abide by this, right? Or maybe they're just incapable of explaining why they selectively criticize 'Dhimmicrats' but studiously avoid addressing the collapse in support for the war elsewhere?

Congressman Ron Paul has defined his Republican presidential candidacy with a staunchly critical stance on the Iraq war, saying during the June 5 debate in New Hampshire, for example, that it was a "mistake to go and a mistake to stay."

Paul has often reiterated his views that US security has been worsened by its military presence in Iraq, and that Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine represented one of his administration's greatest moral failings.

One might think such criticism of the war and the Commander-in-Chief's leadership would make Paul a pariah to the military community, however, the latest figures indicate the antiwar Republican is receiving more donations from employees of the US military than any other Republican candidate.

First Sitting White House Official to be Indicted & Convicted in 130 Years has Sentence Commuted; Right wing celebrates

Bush said he'd fire anyone who was responsible for leaking Plame's identity and yet never did so. Libby was found guilty of obstructing the CRIMINAL investigation and yet the President never told him (or the rest of the White House) to stop obstructing the investigation? Some "leader" Bush is! People in his own White House were breaking the law and he couldn't bring them to heel. Is it because they have no respect for him or because he's ineffectual?

If the outing wasn't a crime, why did Bush even bother saying he'd fire whoever was responsible? He could have said from day 1 that it wasn't a crime, right?

If it wasn't a crime, why did the CIA ask Justice to open an investigation?

If it wasn't a crime, why did Justice agree to investigate?

If it wasn't a crime, why did Ashcroft recuse himself?

If it wasn't a crime then was Libby convicted of obstructing a "not-crime" and sentenced by a Reagan-appointed judge?

If it wasn't a crime, why on earth did Bush allow it to go on for years when he could have stopped it and saved taxpayer money?

I guess it was just tough talk & a flip flop rolled into one.

Does any right winger have answers? I've looked for answers in the right wing blogosphere but you're too busy celebrating criminality, drawing false analogies and comparing the behavior (favorably, I might add) to the standards set by the hated Bill Clinton. What else is new, right Big Dog?

Interesting fact about commutations:

Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions

A commutation of sentence reduces the period of incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed. Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.