| Author | Post |
|---|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 07:40 pm |
|
There have been numerous examples of people coming forward detailing how the administration wanted to present only certain aspects of the intelligence, or presenting it in a certain way.
The infamous aluminum tubes are the perfect example. If you remember, they were described very ominiously as being so highly crafted that they could only be used for nuclear purposes....which, to their credit, is partially true....highly crafted aluminum tubes ARE used in the nuclear industry, but they also have many other uses....but this came out AFTER the initial fit and flurry.
The yellowcake intelligence was another one that they trumped....and had to actually retract that one, because they made the mistake of having the President actually claim it, instead of having it leaked by underlings to the toadies at Fox News. They took spotty intelligence and ginned up where and who they got it from to look like it was more meaningful and creditable than it was. What they did was when they KNEW the same source gave it to us and the Brits was say, for example, that this was based partially on information from them.....implying it was independent, when it was not.
That in a nutshell is how the administration has operated....and now righties get all indignent when people question the facts the administration chooses to share?
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 06:40 pm |
|
You can keep repeating those lies, but that is NEVER going to make them become true - they are still lies.
|
Bixby Member

| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 11th, 2007 06:36 pm |
|
Fred wrote: The facts are that the main reasons the administration gave for going into Iraq were based on information that was cherry-picked at best, and forged at worst. The same mis-information that Bill Clinton forwarded and previously acted on and the same mis-information (obtained from her husband's administration) Hillary Clinton parroted.
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 8th, 2007 10:20 pm |
|
Fred wrote as the Surge started: Iran is a problem, and we need to figure out a way to deal with it, if only to keep a lid on them until internal pressures can be used to bring about a change. Our forcing a change on a people will not work.....we keep trying, and it has never worked.
The surge probably will produce some good results, but what I suspect will happen is that either the insurgents will lay low for a while and then hit back or move their base of operations to another area (which is actually the best thing, as we would then secure the most important area).
If the surge gets the long-term cooperation, it can possibly get Baghdad back. The problem is that it depends entirely on the Iraqis to lead and do their job. Our Soldiers might be able to get the initial work done, but they can't do it all...and the Iraqis ahve proven time and time again that they are not willing to do their part, either due to Sectarian divisions, or laziness.
A few things about the surge and the results of it, or lackthereof, made me go back and see what I thought about it before it started (and it is something I'd recommend long time posters do, as well....go back 6 months, and see what you (or others) wrote.
The surge was supposed to provide a few things...among them was breathing room in Baghdad for the Iraqi government to take up their role. Success in Anbar is great, but you will NOT find it among the goals when the surge started. While I applaud the non-linear thinking that somewhat pacified this area (and if you want to know why it is so important, look at a map...it runs up to the western border of the country).
The surge has provided some results, but not the results that were hoped for, and even the General is saying that to his troops. He'll say to Congress, as he has said to reporters, that the progress is disapointing, but he needs more time to determine if he can suceeed.
Realize, also, that the surge is done....we don't have the troops to extend it, so when the extra troops start coming home, troop strength will come down as well. This has nothing to do with any policy, but simple math.
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 7th, 2007 02:37 am |
|
Amazing, bbd, how everything that doesn't fit into your view of the world is part of a vast Democratic conspiracy.
The facts are that the main reasons the administration gave for going into Iraq were based on information that was cherry-picked at best, and forged at worst. The administration was itching to go to war - one can argue that they may have had other good reasons, or that they had a vision that Iraq would have been the start of Pax Americana, but the fact is that they misled many, including Congress, into this war. That was the first mistake.
The second mistake was not planning for the post-invasion. Again, they believed that it would not be needed, and Rummy ordered the military not to plan. bbd, I'm not sure if your icon indicates your membership in the National Guard, but if you have any experience with leadership you know that the military plans for everything, maybe to a fault.....and to be told, to be ordered NOT to plan goes against our ethos.
There were many other mistakes, and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army may have been the point of no return. I DO think that we can create a situation where we might be able to get some of the things that the administration wanted, but we have to ask how much more of an investment these small gains are worth it. It may be worth the surge, and may be worth x amount of time....but there HAS to be a point where the benefits do NOT outweigh the costs.
What Republicans are afraid of is being tagged for losing this war. They are ignoring all the metrics that indicate that things are going extremely slowly, at best, and going backwards in some areas. As for the gains in the elections....the Dems have already won that battle. I do not think it could be won in the next year, which is when the elections will be decided, and the American people are tired of the war and tired of the administration....the only issue is whether they are tired of Republicans.
|
bbd Member

| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 08:41 pm |
|
So we were to believe an Iraq foreign minister when most of our information said they had it. Get real
Hitler's minister.
"Oh no! we do not mistreat Jews."
you would have believed him ... right
BTW:
Sidney Blumenthal served as assistant and senior adviser to Bill Clinton from August 1997 until January 2001. His roles included advising the President on communications and public policy as well as researching information in the general media about the White House.
Real one sided information
He put this out to give Hillary cover for her vote
Last edited on Thu Sep 6th, 2007 08:56 pm by bbd
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 08:31 pm |
|
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal
Sept. 6, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD....
Full story here.
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 08:23 pm |
|
Fred, Rawstory has a PDF copy of a very comprehensive Congressional Research Service report on Iraq available for download.
|
bbd Member

| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 08:12 pm |
|
All signs point to things getting better over there. are we to discredit his report?
Bush did not ask for this report Congress did. They voted for the General every one said he was the man for the job even the democrats said he is above reproach.
but.. now that his report may reflect that we are winning they want to discredit him.
It appears we are wining. if his report reflects this then we need to stay the course. not run home as we are on the verge of victory.
But then again a victory will not help Obama get in the whitehouse will it.
"So....say it, bbd. The administration's screw ups are the reason things are the way they are in Iraq."
Bush, yea I believe this war could have been fought better, but much more so the lack of support from the democrats are to blame for it taking so long to win this
Last edited on Thu Sep 6th, 2007 08:37 pm by bbd
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 07:54 pm |
|
No, bbd....the General has something to say, but he will not be the final answer on this issue. The GAO, the NIA (which is composed of all the Intel agencies), AND the American people have a voice in this. You already know what he is going to say, given his past writings and leanings....He is going to say that things are not great, but improving, and if he gets just a little more time, things will be better next time.
If you want support, the first thing the administration HAS to do is admit how screwed up they made this situation, and then we can move on from there. They want to blame the media, the Democrats, the man in the moon....but it was their policies that did this. Heck, the President even tried to lie about the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, which is now the biggest CF of the war....and he tried to claim he knew nothing about it, but Bremmer is saying he knew dang well what was going on.
So....say it, bbd. The administration's screw ups are the reason things are the way they are in Iraq.
|
bbd Member

| Joined: | Fri Jan 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 736 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 07:43 pm |
|
One thing is clear. the Democreat need America to loose this war. It is their best chance to gain in power.
They are trying to discredit the General and his report before it comes out. Good news out of Iraq is bad news for them.
Let's listen to what the General's report has to say before they try to rip it and him apart.
Newshound wrote:
Ken Blackwell: The Elephant in the Room
Next week General Petraeus will report on progress of the war. It will likely mark a turning point in America?s role in Iraq, and will refocus voters on what they should be looking for in a president. It also reminds us that the elephant in the room in 2008 is the global war against radical jihadists and their reign of terror.
http://www.townhall.com
|
Newshound Member

| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1018 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 07:10 pm |
|
Ken Blackwell: The Elephant in the Room
Next week General Petraeus will report on progress of the war. It will likely mark a turning point in America?s role in Iraq, and will refocus voters on what they should be looking for in a president. It also reminds us that the elephant in the room in 2008 is the global war against radical jihadists and their reign of terror.
http://www.townhall.com
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 6th, 2007 02:16 pm |
|
Experts Doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq
Military Statistics Called Into Question
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 6, 2007; A16
The U.S. military's claim that violence has decreased sharply in Iraq in recent months has come under scrutiny from many experts within and outside the government, who contend that some of the underlying statistics are questionable and selectively ignore negative trends.
Reductions in violence form the centerpiece of the Bush administration's claim that its war strategy is working. In congressional testimony Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, is expected to cite a 75 percent decrease in sectarian attacks. According to senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad, overall attacks in Iraq were down to 960 a week in August, compared with 1,700 a week in June, and civilian casualties had fallen 17 percent between December 2006 and last month. Unofficial Iraqi figures show a similar decrease.
Others who have looked at the full range of U.S. government statistics on violence, however, accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators and caution that the numbers -- most of which are classified -- are often confusing and contradictory. "Let's just say that there are several different sources within the administration on violence, and those sources do not agree," Comptroller General David Walker told Congress on Tuesday in releasing a new Government Accountability Office report on Iraq.
Senior U.S. officers in Baghdad disputed the accuracy and conclusions of the largely negative GAO report, which they said had adopted a flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Many of those conclusions were also reflected in last month's pessimistic National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.
The intelligence community has its own problems with military calculations. Intelligence analysts computing aggregate levels of violence against civilians for the NIE puzzled over how the military designated attacks as combat, sectarian or criminal, according to one senior intelligence official in Washington. "If a bullet went through the back of the head, it's sectarian," the official said. "If it went through the front, it's criminal."
"Depending on which numbers you pick," he said, "you get a different outcome." Analysts found "trend lines . . . going in different directions" compared with previous years, when numbers in different categories varied widely but trended in the same direction. "It began to look like spaghetti."...
Article continues here.
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 07:01 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: = The biggest obstacle standing in the way of the surge’s success at this point may well be the U.S. Congress.
If you truly believe that, and prefer to ignore every other non-Congressional assessment, then I can't stop you. The only thing I'll give credit for this quote is that at least they have updated it to not simply blame the Dems, since many Repubs are beginning to see the light.
If you listen to the Trio of Pace, Gates, and Rice, at the beginning of the search they said that the results of the search should be seen even before the troops deployed...then they claimed you couldn't judge until the troops were all there (as if 10,000 troops would have no measurable affect, but 30,000 would solve everything), then they said you had to wait until GEN P. speaks, then they said they would need more time, and now they are saying you have to ignore all the measures that the IRAQIs are making towards their taking control of the country.
|
Bixby Member

| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 05:50 pm |
|
Warfront with Jihadistan: Iraqi detainees
American troops have scooped up more than 8,000 terror suspects since February of this year, putting the total number of detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq at 24,500. These new prisoners are courtesy of the troop surge that has allowed American forces to travel into areas that haven’t been patrolled for months and maintain a 24-hour presence there.
The makeup of the detainee population is interesting; 85 percent are Sunni, the minority Islamic group in Iraq that once ruled under Saddam Hussein. Among that group, 1,800 are sworn al-Qa’ida, and 6,000 more believe that the Shi’ite majority are heretics. What’s more, many of them, despite their religious or anti-American views, are more motivated to commit terrorism for money. “They’re angry men because they don’t have jobs,” said Navy Capt. John Fleming, a detainee-operations spokesman. “The detainee population is overwhelmingly illiterate and unemployed.”
The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto surmised that many of these detainees were likely convicts let out of prison by Saddam after his “election victory” in October 2002 as part of his plan to sow chaos in the streets after an American invasion that he knew was coming. There were few political prisoners in the bunch, but there many who praised the former dictator for their release.
Every thug taken off the street in Iraq brings the country one step closer to stability. The biggest obstacle standing in the way of the surge’s success at this point may well be the U.S. Congress.
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 03:22 pm |
|
Taos....interesting perspective, and the book was the discussion of Fresh Air yesterday....they did their usual great job of questioning the assumptions of both the authors, and the author of the book wrote to refute their assertions.
If you get a chance, listen to it....one thing that was apparent was that while I think the case is a bit overstated, the ADL guy who wrote the book did not present his case very well. I think there ARE forces that pushed AND pulled us into war with Iraq, just as there were forces that tried to keep us out.
More interestingly is the posturing that everyone is doing with all the concrete data products that are being produced....the adminstration is insisting that none of that really matters, but what is important is that they "feel" things are getting better.
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 5th, 2007 04:52 am |
|
This is long, but well worth the read.
Iraq, Israel, Iran Posted September 4, 2007 | 10:38 AM (EST)
David Bromwich
When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's article on the Israel Lobby appeared in the London Review of Books, after having been commissioned and killed by the Atlantic Monthly, neoconservative publicists launched an all-out campaign to slander the authors as anti-Semites. Now that their book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy has appeared--a work of considerable scope, carefully documented, and not just an expanded version of the article--the imputation of anti-Semitism will doubtless be repeated more sparingly for readers lower down the educational ladder. Meanwhile, the literate establishment press will (a) ignore it, (b) pretend that it says nothing new or surprising, and (c) rule out the probable inferences from the data, on the ground that the very meaning of the word "lobby" is elusive. The truth is that many new facts are in this book, and many surprising facts. By reconstructing a trail of meetings and public statements in 2001-2002, for example, the authors show that much of the leadership of Israel was puzzled at first by the boyish enthusiasm for a war on Iraq among their neoconservative allies. Why Iraq? they asked. Why now? They would appear to have obtained assurances, however, that once the "regime change" in Iraq was accomplished, the next war would be against Iran.
A notable pilgrimage followed. One by one they lined up, Netanyahu, Sharon, Peres, and Barak, writing op-eds and issuing flaming warnings to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein was a menace of world-historical magnitude. Suddenly the message was that any delay of the president's plan to bomb, invade, and occupy Iraq would be seized on by "the terrorists" as a sign of weakness. Regarding the correct treatment of terrorists, as also regarding the avoidance of weakness, Americans look to Israelis as mentors in a class by themselves.
So a war projected years before by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz--a war secured at last
by the fixing of the facts around the policy at the Office of the Vice President--was allowed to borrow some prestige at an intermediate stage by the consent of a few well-regarded Israeli politicians. Yet their target of choice had been Iran. They accepted the change of sequence without outward signs of doubt, possibly owing to their acquaintance with the Middle East doctrine espoused by the Weekly Standard and the American Enterprise Institute--a doctrine which held that to create a viable order after the fall of Iraq, regime change in Iran and Syria would have to follow expeditiously.
To sum up this part: the evidence of Mearsheimer and Walt suggests that Israel was never the prime mover of the Iraq war. Rather, once the Cheney-Wolfowitz design was in place, the Israeli ministers who trooped through American opinion pages and news-talk shows did what they could to heat up the war fever. This war was on the cards before they threw in their lot with Cheney and Bush; by their efforts they merely helped to confer on the plan an aura of legitimacy and worldly wisdom.
But now the American war with Iran they originally wanted is coming closer. Last Tuesday, when the mass media were crammed to distraction with the behavior of a senator in an airport washroom, few could be troubled to notice an important speech by President Bush. If Iran is allowed to persist in its present state, the president told the American Legion convention in Reno, it threatens "to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust." He said he had no intention of allowing that; and so he has "authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities." Those words come close to saying not that a war is coming but that it is already here. No lawmaker who reads them can affect the slightest shock at any action the president takes against Iran.
Admittedly, it was a showdown speech, reckless and belligerent, to a soldier audience; but then, this has been just the sort of crowd and message that Cheney and Bush favor when they are about to open a new round of killings. And in a sense, the Senate had given the president his cue when it approved, by a vote of 97-0, the July 11 Lieberman Amendment to Confront Iran. It is hardly an accident that the president and his favorite tame senator concurred in their choice of the word "confront." The pretext for the Lieberman amendment, as for the president's order, was the discovery of caches of weapons alleged to belong to Iran, the capture of Iranian advisers said to be operating against American troops, and the assertion that the most deadly IEDs used against Americans are often traceable to Iranian sources--claims that have been widely treated in the press as possible, but suspect and unverified. Still, the vote was 97-0. If few Americans took notice, the government of Iran surely did.
That unanimous vote was the latest in a series of capitulations that has included the apparent end of resistance by Nancy Pelosi to the next war. After the election of 2006, the speaker of the house declared her intention to enact into law a requirement that this president seek separate authorization for a war against Iran. On the point of doing so, she addressed the AIPAC convention, and was booed for criticizing the escalation of the Iraq war. Pelosi took the hint, shelved her authorization plan, and went with AIPAC against the anti-war base of the Democratic party.
This much, one might know without the help of Mearsheimer and Walt. But without their record, how many would trace the connection between the removal of Philip Zelikow as policy counselor of the state department, at the end of 2006, and a speech Zelikow had given in September 2006 urging serious negotiation and a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine? The ousting of Zelikow was a blessing to the war party, since it freed them from a skeptical confidant of Secretary of State Rice--perhaps the only person of stature anywhere near the administration whom she treated as an ally and friend. And the meaning of the change was clear when Zelikow's replacement turned out to be Eliot Cohen: a neoconservative war scholar and enthusiast, an early booster of the "surge" on the pundit shows, and incidentally a shameless slanderer of Mearsheimer-Walt ("Yes, It's Anti-Semitic," Washington Post, April 5, 2006).
From Zelikow to Cohen was only a step on the long path of humiliation that now stretched before Condoleeza Rice. When, in March 2007, amid suggestions of a renewal of diplomacy, she intimated that talks might be helpful in dealing with the Hamas-Fatah unity government (whose formation the Arab world had greeted as offering a promise of peace), she was demolished by an AIPAC-backed advisory letter bearing the signatures of 79 senators, which directed her not to speak with a government that had not yet recognized Israel. From that moment Rice was effectively neutralized.
The hottest cries for another war have been coming this summer from Joe Lieberman. He has called for attacks on Iran, and for attacks on Syria. It is as if Lieberman, with his appetite for multiple theaters of conflict, spoke from the congealed memory of all the wars he never fought. But Joe Lieberman is a stalking-horse. He would not say these things without getting permission from Vice President Cheney, a close and admired friend. Nor would Cheney permit a high-profile lawmaker whom he partly controls to set the United States and Israel on so perilous a course unless he had ascertained its acceptability to Ehud Olmert.
Yet the chief orchestrater of the second neoconservative war of aggression is Elliott Abrams. Convicted for deceptions around Iran-Contra, as Lewis Libby was convicted for deceptions stemming from Iraq--and pardoned by the elder Bush just as Libby had his sentence commuted by the younger--Abrams now presides over the Middle East desk at the National Security Council. All of the wildness of this astonishing functionary and all his reckless love of subversion will be required to pump up the "imminent danger" of Iran. For here, as with Iraq, the danger can only be made to look imminent by manipulation and forgery. On all sober estimates, Iran is several months from mastering the nuclear cycle, and several years from producing a weapon. Whereas Israel for decades has been in possession of a substantial nuclear arsenal.
How mad is Elliott Abrams? If one passage cited by Mearsheimer-Walt is quoted accurately, it would seem to be the duty of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to subject Abrams to as exacting a challenge as the Senate Judiciary Committee brought to Alberto Gonzales. The man at the Middle East desk of the National Security Council wrote in 1997 in his book Faith or Fear: "there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart--except in Israel--from the rest of the population." When he wrote those words, Abrams probably did not expect to serve in another American administration. He certainly did not expect to occupy a position that would require him to weigh the national interest of Israel, the country with which he confessed himself uniquely at one, alongside the national interest of a country in which he felt himself to stand "apart...from the rest of the population." Now that he is calling the shots against Hamas and Hezbollah, Damascus and Tehran, his words of 1997 ought to alarm us into reflection.
Among many possible lines of inquiry, the senators might begin by recognizing that the United States has other allies in Asia besides Israel. One of those allies is India; and there is a further point of resemblance. In a distinct exception to our anti-proliferation policy, we have allowed India to develop nuclear weapons; just as, in an earlier such exception, we allowed Israel to do the same. But suppose we read tomorrow a statement by the director of the South Asia desk of the National Security Council which declared: "There can be no doubt that Hindus are to stand apart from any nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Hindu to be apart--except in India--from the rest of the population."
Suppose, further, we knew this man still held these beliefs at a time of maximum tension between India and Pakistan; and that he had recently channeled 86 million dollars to regional gangs and militias bent on increasing the tension. Would we not conclude that something in our counsels of state had gone seriously out of joint?
The Mearsheimer-Walt study of American policy deserves to be widely read and discussed. It could not be more timely. If the speeches and saber-rattling by the president, the ambassador to Iraq, and several army officers mean anything, they mean that Cheney and Abrams are preparing to do to Iran what Cheney and Wolfowitz did to Iraq. They are gunning for an incident. They are working against some resistance from the armed forces but none from the opposition party at home. The president has ordered American troops to confront Iran. Sarkozy has fallen into line, Brown and Merkel are silent, and outside the United States only Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency stands between the war party and a prefabricated justification for a war that would extend across a vast subcontinent. Unless some opposition can rouse itself, we are poised to descend with non-partisan compliance into a moral and political disaster that will dwarf anything America has seen.
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 4th, 2007 03:32 pm |
|
| The President is beginning to describe the successes of the surge as a possible reason to start bringing the troops home. Now....as I've said, the purpose of the surge in his own words was not to achieve military success but to allow the Malaki government room to take charge, but if that is what it takes for him not to lose any more face....so be it. I'm not sure that I trust him on this, as he simply hinted at it, and it was certainly for political theater in the wake of all the reports coming out this week, but it shows he is beginning to realize he doesn't have the influence, even on his own party, that he did even a year ago.
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 06:11 pm |
|
Warner has stated that if Bush doesn't change direction he may have no choice but to go along with a bipartisan that sets dates and withdrawal numbers.
|
Newshound Member

| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1018 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 12:58 pm |
|
John Warner joins the Demos on Iraq
Sen. John Warner (R-VA), long an opponent of imposing timetables on American troops in Iraq, has apparently changed his mind. Moved by the inability of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki’s government to sow peace, Warner thinks a small drawdown of forces later this year will send a signal to Iraq that our presence is not indefinite. Once the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Warner’s opinion is respected, and he has a point. However, Al-Maliki is under enough pressure in Iraq without U.S. senators using him as a political tool here at home. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton have recently called for his removal along with troop withdrawals far larger than Warner is suggesting. It is unlikely that Warner will be able to go along with anything the Democrats have planned, since he still wants to defer to the President, and the Demos want him to set a deadline sooner rather than later.
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 12:44 pm |
|
The surge is working for some of the areas for some of the people in Iraq, but it is countered with other problems that have risen, mainly the increase in the number of Iraqis killed....which, if you are an Iraqi, isn't a good indicator of any program.
However, we seem to be all in agreement that the purpose of the surge was to give the Iraqi government time to get their Shiites (and Sunnis) together....and, they are not really all that much closer. The only think that seems to make them talk of moving are threats to pull out, so maybe Warner has the right idea...pull 5K out now as a signal that they need to get serious. Warner isn't saying pull them all out now (none of the leading Dem candidates are saying this, regardless of what the Repubs are saying), but to begin a process to reconstitute our military and try a different tact to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country.
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 05:25 am |
|
davidlanderson wrote: You have to be kidding Tacos. Everyone knows the surge is working but you. The question is will the Iraqi government take the window it gave.
You are hoisting yourself on your own petard, David. The metrics by which the "surge" is to be judged are >precisely< what effect it has had on stablizing the fractured Iraqi governemnt; not whether it stablized parts of the city of Baghdad - a task which everyone knew was possible.
The recent effort has met 3 (THREE) of the benchmarks established and the Iraqi government is futher away from reconciliation than it was in January.
You'd better lay off that KoolAid, it's rotting your brain.
Last edited on Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 05:27 am by
|
Punky Member

| Joined: | Thu May 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 732 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 02:48 am |
|
| Good timing! I just heard from my nephew in Iraq.........all positive feedback, without revealing classified information.
|
Bluesman Member

| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3187 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 02:43 am |
|
David,
I have to disagree with you. The number of soldiers that I have spoken to including Officer's who have come back from the front lines say exactly the opposite of what the political spin miester's want us to believe. It is still a total SNAFU in Iraq, for every 1 step forward we make it is 3-4 steps back.
|
davidlanderson Member

| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 552 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 3rd, 2007 02:03 am |
|
| You have to be kidding Tacos. Everyone knows the surge is working but you. The question is will the Iraqi government take the window it gave.
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 1st, 2007 05:34 pm |
|
Gen. Batiste’s Op-Ed That The WSJ And The Washington Times Didn’t Want You To See
For my first post here at ThinkProgress, I thought I would share something a little different from what you usually read here — something from a conservative perspective. I think this is especially fitting, given the new poll of foreign policy experts by Foreign Policy Magazine and the Center for American Progress, which shows 64 percent of conservative analysts feel the so-called “surge” in Iraq is having no impact, or a negative effect.
The following is an op-ed I wrote two weeks ago, which neither the Wall Street Journal or Washington Times wanted to consider, so I’m posting it here…Over a year and a half ago, I made a gut-wrenching decision to leave the Army in order to speak out about the war in Iraq. I turned my back on over 31 years of service and what by all accounts would have been a great career. I realized that I was in a unique position to speak out on behalf of Soldiers and their families. I had a moral obligation and duty to do so. My family and I left the only life we knew and entered the political debate. As a two-time combat veteran, I understand the value of thorough planning and deliberate execution. I understand what it takes to win. As a life-long Republican, I am prepared to carry on with the debate for as long as necessary. I have been speaking out for the past 17 months and there is no turning back.
As a conservative, I am all for a strong military and setting the conditions for success. America goes to war to win. I am not anti-war and am committed to winning the struggle against world-wide Islamic extremism. But, I am outraged that elected officials of my own party do not comprehend the predicament we are in with a strategy in the Middle East that lacks focus and is all but relying on the military to solve the diplomatic, political, and economic Rubik’s Cube that defines Iraq. Our dysfunctional interagency process in Washington DC lacks leadership and direction. Many conservatives in Congress have allowed the charade to go on for too long.
It is disappointing that so many elected representatives of my party continue to blindly support the administration rather than doing what is in the best interests of our country. Traditionally, my party has maintained a conservative view on questions regarding our Armed Forces. For example, we commit our military only when absolutely necessary. In the same way conservatives have always argued against government excess in social programs, the lives our young men and women in uniform, our most precious resource, are not to be used on wars of choice or for nation building. The military theorist Carl von Clausewitz taught us that wars are to be fought only as a last resort–the extension of politics by other means.
These principles are apparently not understood by many of the Republicans in our Congress. Besides the fact that many conservatives allowed President Bush to jump head-first into a war of choice, the bullheadedness of Congressional Republicans who argue for staying the course runs contrary to conservative values. Many politicians of my party continue to argue that we must liberally use up whatever our military has left. Bottom line, the Republican Congress of the last six years abrogated its Constitutional duty and share in the responsibility for the debacle in Iraq.
Our all-volunteer military cannot continue the current cycle of deployments for much longer. America’s national strategy in Iraq is akin to a four legged stool with legs representing diplomacy, political reconciliation, economic recovery, and the military. The glue holding it all together must be the mobilization of the United States in support of the incredibly important effort to defeat world-wide Islamic extremism. The only leg on the stool of any consequence is the military–it is solid titanium and high performing, the best in the world. After almost six years since September 11, our country is not mobilized behind this important work and the diplomatic, political, and economic legs are not focused and lack leadership. Most Americans now appreciate that the military alone cannot solve the problem in Iraq. In this situation, the stool will surely collapse.
Our military and our treasury are not unlimited resources. The war in Iraq is breaking our fine Army and Marine Corps, and we are perilously close to doing damage that will take more than a decade to fix. Our brigades and divisions in Iraq today are at near full strength because the rest of the force has been gutted. We cannot place America in a position of weakness as it just begins its long war against world-wide Islamic extremism. The Republican administration is bleeding our national treasure in blood and dollars with little to show for it.
The high price we are paying might be worth it if Iraq’s many factions were making meaningful progress to achieve political reconciliation. But, after more than four years, Iraqis are no closer to settling their differences and the sitting Shia government is ineffective. With insufficient coalition and Iraqi security forces on the ground, the myth of Sisyphus is playing out over and over again. The Iraqi Parliament goes on vacation instead of working, and every few months, it seems, another Iraqi political faction walks out of the process. To me, continuing to expend money and American lives on a nation that shows little drive to solve its own problems is the foreign policy equivalent of a welfare queen.
The only way to stabilize Iraq and allow our military to rearm and refit for the long fight ahead is to begin a responsible and deliberate redeployment from Iraq and replace the troops with far less expensive and much more effective resources–those of diplomacy and the critical work of political reconciliation and economic recovery. In other words, when it comes to Iraq, it’s time for conservatives to once again be conservative.
– Major General John Batiste, US Army (retired)
|
Bixby Member

| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2007 09:11 pm |
|
Fred wrote: The media is not losing the war in Iraq...the ADMINISTRATION is losing the war in Iraq. It is about time you forced them to accept responsibility for their actions.
Yes, but they do get a lot of help from the left-wing press, no?
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2007 09:06 pm |
|
Jeez...give it up on "the supressing the good news" bit, unless you also want to discuss how the administration is desperately trying to "supress the bad news" as well.
The media reports news....good news, usually, isn't news. If a building is built by an engineering unit...is that really newsworthy? If a school is opened....is that as important as 500 people dieing?
Yes, there are some good things going on in Iraq...but for every step forward, the Iraqis are also taking two or three steps back.
The media is not losing the war in Iraq...the ADMINISTRATION is losing the war in Iraq. It is about time you forced them to accept responsibility for their actions.
|
Bixby Member

| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2007 08:57 pm |
|
Gathering of Eagles II
On 11 September, General David Petraeus will testify before Congress regarding the progress of the Iraq War with a deadline of the 15th for the President to submit his benchmark reports. The commie-pinko group Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) is planning a “massive” protest on 15 September to “End the War Now!” They plan another “die-in,” using the names of fallen soldiers for their own political gain.
In response, the Gathering of Eagles, which countered March protests of the same Left-lemmings, will once again be in Washington to voice their patriotism. As Michelle Malkin notes, “For every anti-Bush activist agitating for immediate withdrawal and throwing rocks at ROTC offices, an Eagle will be there in Washington to oppose the planting of the white flag. The organizations leading the way include the Gathering of Eagles, Eagles Landing, Move America Forward, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Free Republic, Vets for Freedom and the Victory Caucus. (Visit gatheringofeagles.org and moveamericaforward.org for details.)”
PatriotPost.US patriot-SK08207667@m1.PatriotPost.US
|
Newshound Member

| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1018 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 31st, 2007 06:35 pm |
|
Suppressing the Good News from Iraq
Immediately following September 11, many liberals reflexively and preemptively accused those on the right of questioning their patriotism, before anyone had even had a chance to do so. For a honeymoon period of about six months, as President Bush?s poll numbers skyrocketed in response to his successful handling of the aftermath of the attacks, most liberals held their tongues.
http://www.townhall.com
MoveOn Slams Democrat for Iraq 'Flip-Flop'
(CNSNews.com) - The anti-war group MoveOn.org announced on Wednesday that it is launching an ad campaign against a Democrat -- calling attention to Rep. Brian Baird's support of "President Bush's failed policy in Iraq." The five-term congressman from Washington returned last week from a tour of Iraq with a different view of the conflict there...
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 07:48 pm |
|
http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/08/post-labor-day-product-rollout-war-with.html
Fred, you may want to read this. It begins with a recap of the 2002 run-up to the Iraq invasion and ends with a rumor. Even though it isn't specifially addressing your point it might explain the "strange" behavior of the Pentagon.
BTW you should google the blogger's name: Barnett Rubin Last edited on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 07:50 pm by
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 30th, 2007 05:13 pm |
|
It should be a very bumpy ride over the next couple of weeks....
The adminstration and their supporters will go to extraordinary lengths to highlight every positive movement in Iraq as proof that the surge is working...ignoring that the point wasn't whether a military surge would "work", but what the Iraqis would do with it. They have, apparently, already tried to set the stage by putting extreme weight on what GEN P. is going to say...which would be fine, but they have been outed as trying to sway/manipulate/restate what he is going to say.
Second, the GAO draft on Iraqi Accountability was leaked, probably becuase they were afraid of similiar manipulation of the data, or it being watered down as some officials say happened with this month's NEA.
Third, and perhaps most interestingly....the Pentagon is making it painfully obvious that they will be making several recommendations to the President on Iraq. This is unusual in several ways, the first that a public, unified front is almost always the priority. The second is that more then one recommendation or course of action is antithema to the military process. What is supposed to happen (almost to a ridiculous level, at times) is that the staff develops the courses of action, studies, and provides a final recommendation to the person in charge. I say ridiculous, because there are very often two good courses of action, but the staff's job (and the expectation of the boss) is that they will recommend one. He or she may accept, reject, or modify it, but this is the way business is done. To not do so sends very interesting signals...
|
Bluesman Member

| Joined: | Thu Mar 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 3187 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27th, 2007 03:29 am |
|

Last edited on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 08:48 pm by Bluesman
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 27th, 2007 02:34 am |
|
| No, it isn't that simple. The average person doesn't watch Glenn Beck (look at his audience share), or at least doesn't take him seriously. NPR has a much large, and more "average" audience then Beck could ever dream of having.....it's morning show is the second most listened to show in America (Rush being the first). Glenn peaked last fall, and has been falling in the ratings and viewership ever since.
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26th, 2007 10:08 pm |
|
Taos Eddy wrote: You are the one that made the assertion, why ask Fred?
|
Lyle Jr. Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26th, 2007 10:03 pm |
|
| Sorry honey, I was responding to Fred's statement. Isn't your momma calling you?
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26th, 2007 10:01 pm |
|
You are the one that made the assertion, why ask Fred?
|
Lyle Jr. Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26th, 2007 09:59 pm |
|
So Fred is the country divided between the effete and Joe average.
Fred wrote:
Come on, Bix...first, do you think this is is any way representative of most Iraqis?
Second....NPR has done this sort of feature quite a few times....it assumes that it's audience is a bit more intelligent then those who watch Glenn Beck or Fox News, and knows that there are several factions in Iraq who have differing loyalties to differing groups.
Last edited on Sun Aug 26th, 2007 10:00 pm by
|
Taos Eddy Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26th, 2007 09:57 pm |
|
A lot of average Americans listen to NPR and a lot of effete Republicans listen to Beck. In fact, both Beck and his mentor Limbaugh are poster children for effete Republicans.
|
Lyle Jr. Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26th, 2007 09:53 pm |
|
| So the effete Democrats who listen to NPR are better than the average american who listens to Glenn Beck?
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26th, 2007 06:48 pm |
|
Come on, Bix...first, do you think this is is any way representative of most Iraqis?
Second....NPR has done this sort of feature quite a few times....it assumes that it's audience is a bit more intelligent then those who watch Glenn Beck or Fox News, and knows that there are several factions in Iraq who have differing loyalties to differing groups.
|
Bixby Member

| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1620 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 26th, 2007 06:07 pm |
|
From Glenn Beck's website. http://www.glennbeck.com
Iraqis like Americans?
Here is a story you won't see in the mainstream media anywhere. Cable news won't run it. Why? Because, it's about an Iraqi citizen who sacrificed his own life to save US soldiers and other citizens. The media doesn't want to show this story because it paints a drastically different picture of Iraq than they paint. Reporting a story of an Iraqi giving his life to save Americans is not part of the media modus operandi on Iraq.
American Spirit
Perhaps one of the reasons the citizens in Iraq are beginning to like Americans is because they are getting a first hand glimpse of the American spirit, like we are seeing right now in Ohio. Flooding has ravaged parts of Ohio, including a bike shop in the town of Findlay. The owner, a Glenn Beck Insider, talks about how the local community is rallying to help save his business. Plus, Insiders are coming together to help as well. It's good to see that the American spirit is alive and well. Read the transcript.
|
Fred Member

| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7121 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 24th, 2007 05:03 pm |
|
| What the draft would have done (which NO military leader wants) is commit the American people to it beyond Chinese made magnetic yellow ribbons, and what paying for it now rather then later would have made our leaders think about priorities of the war effort. If it is worth it, it should be worth paying for...and we have not, but defered it to a later time. It is another issue that causes heartburn for true conservatives.
|
Newshound Member

| Joined: | Fri Dec 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1018 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 24th, 2007 04:14 pm |
| | |