Anarchy in Baghdad

[theliberalavenger]

http://liberalavenger.com/2005/05/anarchy-in-baghdad.html

[Virginian]

1. Why do Republicans hate the truth?

<snip>

Read that closely... The military was unable to complete a comprehensive investigation of the incident because Baghdad is too dangerous.

What is "the truth" about the state of affairs in Iraq? Ask a wingnut and they'll talk about the purple-finger army, the blossoming of democracy and the desperate insurgency. Glenn Reynolds wants us to believe that things are so good in Iraq that even Paris has become more dangerous.

If things are as good as wingnut rhetoric would have us believe, then why are we still there?

Why do Republicans hate the truth?

<snip>
Because it isn't what they want to believe.

[blogbear]

2. Because it is alien to them!

[Clark2008]

4. Paris, France?

Or Paris Hilton?

:evilgrin:

[Virginian]

7. There's a link in the source.

I didn't check it, it could be Hilton.

[theliberalavenger]

8. Paris, FRANCE

[kentuck]

3. That is much closer to the truth than anything from the MSM..

It is not safe in Baghdad...

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. Here's another little tidbit from this report

"From July 2004 to late March 2005, there were 15,257 attacks against Coalition Forces throughout Iraq."

That's a hell of a lot more then the 1 to 3 attacks per day, that the M$M tells us about.

[theliberalavenger]

6. Christ, that's a lot of violence

[Jacobin]

9. Yes. That would be more like 63 attacks PER DAY

But'we're making good progress in Iraq" says the chimpanzee