<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Putting Lipstick on the Pig in Iraq</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 12:54:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: taters</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-26360</link>
		<dc:creator>taters</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:44:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-26360</guid>
		<description>Excellent Larry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent Larry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leslie</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-26054</link>
		<dc:creator>Leslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:23:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-26054</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m not so sure MoveOn&#039;s ad was clumsy. Consider the effect it had on the right-wing, which raised the MoveOn ad and the discussion of betrayal to a national issue. 

George Lakoff has a &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3899/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;great article on Common Dreams&lt;/a&gt; about how effective the MoveOn ad was.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not so sure MoveOn&#8217;s ad was clumsy. Consider the effect it had on the right-wing, which raised the MoveOn ad and the discussion of betrayal to a national issue. </p>
<p>George Lakoff has a <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/17/3899/" rel="nofollow">great article on Common Dreams</a> about how effective the MoveOn ad was.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shirin</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25797</link>
		<dc:creator>Shirin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:32:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25797</guid>
		<description>&quot;&lt;i&gt;if we attack Iran, the Shia Iraqi militias, &lt;b&gt;especially the 100,000-strong Mahdi Army, will be going after our troops&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;

Not sure why you say ESPECIALLY the Mahdi Army. Muqtada Sadr and the Mahdi Army are nationalists, and the one major Shi`a group in Iraq who are not affiliated with Iran. Muqtada is, if anything, anti-Iran. 

Also, the Mahdi Army have been &quot;going after&quot; - i.e. resisting - your troops from the beginning, and rightly so. As Iraqi nationalists, they have no obligation to accept being occupied by a foreign power bent on turning their country into a dependent, useful client state.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;<i>if we attack Iran, the Shia Iraqi militias, <b>especially the 100,000-strong Mahdi Army, will be going after our troops</b>.</i>&#8221;</p>
<p>Not sure why you say ESPECIALLY the Mahdi Army. Muqtada Sadr and the Mahdi Army are nationalists, and the one major Shi`a group in Iraq who are not affiliated with Iran. Muqtada is, if anything, anti-Iran. </p>
<p>Also, the Mahdi Army have been &#8220;going after&#8221; &#8211; i.e. resisting &#8211; your troops from the beginning, and rightly so. As Iraqi nationalists, they have no obligation to accept being occupied by a foreign power bent on turning their country into a dependent, useful client state.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RS Janes</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25770</link>
		<dc:creator>RS Janes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:55:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25770</guid>
		<description>Good points, and if we attack Iran, the Shia Iraqi militias, especially the 100,000-strong Mahdi Army, will be going after our troops. Bush will have Iran-friendly forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan attacking our exhausted forces, as well as the formidable Iranian military, and the Islamic zealots in northern Pakistan will likely overthrow Musharraf, so the nightmare will be complete.

Bush&#039;s only option to end the massacre would be to go nuclear, but I wonder if the Pentagon would allow him to launch? After all, considerable numbers of American troops would be detrimentally affected by any nuclear attack on Iran, and such an attack would bring down the world on us. Bush and Cheney may not appreciate the catastrophe they would be uncorking by going to war with Iran, but certainly others still in the government do -- even star-chasers like Petraeus.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good points, and if we attack Iran, the Shia Iraqi militias, especially the 100,000-strong Mahdi Army, will be going after our troops. Bush will have Iran-friendly forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan attacking our exhausted forces, as well as the formidable Iranian military, and the Islamic zealots in northern Pakistan will likely overthrow Musharraf, so the nightmare will be complete.</p>
<p>Bush&#8217;s only option to end the massacre would be to go nuclear, but I wonder if the Pentagon would allow him to launch? After all, considerable numbers of American troops would be detrimentally affected by any nuclear attack on Iran, and such an attack would bring down the world on us. Bush and Cheney may not appreciate the catastrophe they would be uncorking by going to war with Iran, but certainly others still in the government do &#8212; even star-chasers like Petraeus.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RS Janes</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25768</link>
		<dc:creator>RS Janes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:42:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25768</guid>
		<description>Why should anyone believe Petraeus? Look what happened when Americans -- even many liberal Democrats -- believed Colin Powell&#039;s elaborate and completely false presentation to the UN in February 2003. It was a pack of lies from beginning to end.

Out beyond the beltway, I don&#039;t think Petraeus has any more credibility than Powell now has. Bush was trying to convince GOP pols in Washington to keep us in Iraq; he may have succeeded, but the damage done to the Republican Party elsewhere in the country will be devastating -- I think 2008 will be a landslide for the Dems no matter who their presidential candidate is, and no matter what GOP candidate is nominated. This is a turning point election, just like 1932.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why should anyone believe Petraeus? Look what happened when Americans &#8212; even many liberal Democrats &#8212; believed Colin Powell&#8217;s elaborate and completely false presentation to the UN in February 2003. It was a pack of lies from beginning to end.</p>
<p>Out beyond the beltway, I don&#8217;t think Petraeus has any more credibility than Powell now has. Bush was trying to convince GOP pols in Washington to keep us in Iraq; he may have succeeded, but the damage done to the Republican Party elsewhere in the country will be devastating &#8212; I think 2008 will be a landslide for the Dems no matter who their presidential candidate is, and no matter what GOP candidate is nominated. This is a turning point election, just like 1932.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SusanUnPC</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25702</link>
		<dc:creator>SusanUnPC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:50:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25702</guid>
		<description>TRUTH:  I used Betray-Us in a title here recently, but just did it because it made me laugh.  I wonder if I&#039;d have the nerve to put it in a NYT full-page ad.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>TRUTH:  I used Betray-Us in a title here recently, but just did it because it made me laugh.  I wonder if I&#8217;d have the nerve to put it in a NYT full-page ad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SusanUnPC</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25699</link>
		<dc:creator>SusanUnPC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:40:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25699</guid>
		<description>I liked MoveOn&#039;s troop #s TV ad but disliked its Petraeus ad.  

What&#039;s that old saying?  When one&#039;s enemy is destroying himself, don&#039;t get in his way?  (It&#039;s something like that.)

MoveOn has butted in and made itself the hot topic ... it gave a talking point to the Republicans.  And it hit on a military man, which is a high-risk move because even if most Americans detest Bush and the Iraq war, they have a huge soft spot for our military.

If MoveOn had just stuck to the facts, not trying to smear Petraeus, the Republicans wouldn&#039;t have had a comeback.  And now even the Democrats are fighting with each other over it.  To wit:
http://www.memeorandum.com/070915/p57#a070915p57</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I liked MoveOn&#8217;s troop #s TV ad but disliked its Petraeus ad.  </p>
<p>What&#8217;s that old saying?  When one&#8217;s enemy is destroying himself, don&#8217;t get in his way?  (It&#8217;s something like that.)</p>
<p>MoveOn has butted in and made itself the hot topic &#8230; it gave a talking point to the Republicans.  And it hit on a military man, which is a high-risk move because even if most Americans detest Bush and the Iraq war, they have a huge soft spot for our military.</p>
<p>If MoveOn had just stuck to the facts, not trying to smear Petraeus, the Republicans wouldn&#8217;t have had a comeback.  And now even the Democrats are fighting with each other over it.  To wit:<br />
<a href="http://www.memeorandum.com/070915/p57#a070915p57" rel="nofollow">http://www.memeorandum.com/070915/p57#a070915p57</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jess Wonderin</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25697</link>
		<dc:creator>Jess Wonderin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Sep 2007 03:36:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25697</guid>
		<description>damn . . . it sounded so, so   BUSH . . . .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>damn . . . it sounded so, so   BUSH . . . .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linda</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25657</link>
		<dc:creator>Linda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25657</guid>
		<description>Is the right wing sniveling about Move on having an effect on Public Opinion? I don&#039;t pay much attention to popular culture - an oxymoron if ever there was one. It seems to me that the pro war crowd isn&#039;t only threatened by Move on; they don&#039;t have anything else. I doubt they would put all this effort into raising the public profile of an antiwar group if their own talking points were having any effect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is the right wing sniveling about Move on having an effect on Public Opinion? I don&#8217;t pay much attention to popular culture &#8211; an oxymoron if ever there was one. It seems to me that the pro war crowd isn&#8217;t only threatened by Move on; they don&#8217;t have anything else. I doubt they would put all this effort into raising the public profile of an antiwar group if their own talking points were having any effect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GSD</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25613</link>
		<dc:creator>GSD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:04:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25613</guid>
		<description>Oracle,

That quote is urban legend.

Check out the Snopes debunking.

It was a satire piece written by Michael Kinsley.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp

-GSD</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oracle,</p>
<p>That quote is urban legend.</p>
<p>Check out the Snopes debunking.</p>
<p>It was a satire piece written by Michael Kinsley.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp</a></p>
<p>-GSD</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shirin</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25586</link>
		<dc:creator>Shirin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:16:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25586</guid>
		<description>Good for the Iraqi make-believe government for not meeting Bush&#039;s self-serving Benchmarks™. Not that anyone could under the circumstances.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good for the Iraqi make-believe government for not meeting Bush&#8217;s self-serving Benchmarks™. Not that anyone could under the circumstances.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leslie</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25584</link>
		<dc:creator>Leslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:08:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25584</guid>
		<description>Guess what, while Bushie tells us his strategery is going so well that we&#039;re going to stay in Iraq for years...Bushie smart money is shorting the war. Because there&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Krugman_Bush_backer_banks_on_Iraqs_0914.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;$oil$ money&lt;/a&gt; to be made in failure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Guess what, while Bushie tells us his strategery is going so well that we&#8217;re going to stay in Iraq for years&#8230;Bushie smart money is shorting the war. Because there&#8217;s <a href="http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Krugman_Bush_backer_banks_on_Iraqs_0914.html" rel="nofollow">$oil$ money</a> to be made in failure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leslie</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25583</link>
		<dc:creator>Leslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:06:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25583</guid>
		<description>Nice poem Ybnormal. A very concise assessment too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice poem Ybnormal. A very concise assessment too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leslie</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25579</link>
		<dc:creator>Leslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:58:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25579</guid>
		<description>Oh, and by the way, didn&#039;t Iceland just remove it&#039;s one troop on the ground in Iraq? In which case, make it 24 the actual number of nations with troops on the ground.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, and by the way, didn&#8217;t Iceland just remove it&#8217;s one troop on the ground in Iraq? In which case, make it 24 the actual number of nations with troops on the ground.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Leslie</title>
		<link>http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/845/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25578</link>
		<dc:creator>Leslie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:56:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/09/14/putting-lipstick-on-the-pig-in-iraq/#comment-25578</guid>
		<description>Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=759&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;ranked Bush&#039;s speech&lt;/a&gt; by the numbers:
&lt;blockquote&gt;
0 = Number of times Bush said the word “victory” in his speech last night, despite the fact that “for more than four years since the invasion of Iraq, President Bush most often has defined his objective there with a single, stirring word: ‘Victory.’” [LA Times, 9/14/07]
6 = Number of times he mentioned “progress”, despite independent assessments that show little to no political progress
5 = Number of slogans created by the Bush Administration to mark a new strategy and phase in the war (“Mission Accomplished,” “Stand Up, Stand Down,” “Plan for Victory,” “New Way Forward,” “Return on Success”)

12 = Number of times the President mentioned “success”/ “succeed” last night
0 = Number of times Ambassador Crocker guaranteed success in his Iraq testimony: “‘I cannot guarantee success in Iraq…The challenges. . . are immense.’” [LA Times, 9/14/07]
5 = Number of times the President mentioned “strategy” last night
0 = Number of new strategies President Bush offered last night

5,700 = Number of U.S. forces coming home by the end of the year
3.5% = Percentage of U.S. forces in Iraq that will be returning home by the end of the year
130,000 = Number of troops that will remain in Iraq indefinitely

15 = Number of benchmarks the independent GAO report said the Iraq government failed to meet
1 = Number of benchmarks moved into the ‘satisfactory’ column between July 15 and September 15 (out of 18 total benchmarks) by the optimistic Bush report, 9 are still deemed as not satisfactory

36 = Number of nations President Bush said last night have troops on the ground in Iraq
25 = Actual number of nations with troops on the ground, according to the State Department
7% = Percentage of international forces in Iraq, compared to U.S. forces

12 = Number of times al-Qaeda was mentioned by President Bush
0 = Number of times General Petraeus said in his testimony that al-Qaeda is the primary threat in Iraq
3775 = Number of American casualties that Minority Leader Boehner said is a “small price to pay” in Iraq&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer <a href="http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=759" rel="nofollow">ranked Bush&#8217;s speech</a> by the numbers:</p>
<blockquote><p>
0 = Number of times Bush said the word “victory” in his speech last night, despite the fact that “for more than four years since the invasion of Iraq, President Bush most often has defined his objective there with a single, stirring word: ‘Victory.’” [LA Times, 9/14/07]<br />
6 = Number of times he mentioned “progress”, despite independent assessments that show little to no political progress<br />
5 = Number of slogans created by the Bush Administration to mark a new strategy and phase in the war (“Mission Accomplished,” “Stand Up, Stand Down,” “Plan for Victory,” “New Way Forward,” “Return on Success”)</p>
<p>12 = Number of times the President mentioned “success”/ “succeed” last night<br />
0 = Number of times Ambassador Crocker guaranteed success in his Iraq testimony: “‘I cannot guarantee success in Iraq…The challenges. . . are immense.’” [LA Times, 9/14/07]<br />
5 = Number of times the President mentioned “strategy” last night<br />
0 = Number of new strategies President Bush offered last night</p>
<p>5,700 = Number of U.S. forces coming home by the end of the year<br />
3.5% = Percentage of U.S. forces in Iraq that will be returning home by the end of the year<br />
130,000 = Number of troops that will remain in Iraq indefinitely</p>
<p>15 = Number of benchmarks the independent GAO report said the Iraq government failed to meet<br />
1 = Number of benchmarks moved into the ‘satisfactory’ column between July 15 and September 15 (out of 18 total benchmarks) by the optimistic Bush report, 9 are still deemed as not satisfactory</p>
<p>36 = Number of nations President Bush said last night have troops on the ground in Iraq<br />
25 = Actual number of nations with troops on the ground, according to the State Department<br />
7% = Percentage of international forces in Iraq, compared to U.S. forces</p>
<p>12 = Number of times al-Qaeda was mentioned by President Bush<br />
0 = Number of times General Petraeus said in his testimony that al-Qaeda is the primary threat in Iraq<br />
3775 = Number of American casualties that Minority Leader Boehner said is a “small price to pay” in Iraq</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

