Thread: Quagmire....

it would be nice if these bumbling incompetents could get their stories straight...

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The U.S. military denied reports on Saturday that Iraq plans to dig a giant ring of trenches around the city of Baghdad.

Iraq’s Interior Ministry announced earlier this week that it plans to set up 28 checkpoints that would allow controlled access to the city, while closing off other roads as part of a security crackdown.

U.S. denies Baghdad trench plan - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Sometimes the great CinC GWB does things that even piss me off. :

Missed Opportunity To Kill 100+ Taliban In Afghanistan


"Anyway, here's the deal. We had an undetected drone spot over 100 taliban fighters standing in formation at a funeral in Afghanistan. Excited Army officers quickly had the wind taken out of their sails when folks higher up in the chain of command said a strike was a no go because apparently our self imposed rules of engagement forbid attacking terrorists at a funeral.

To be clear, there is nothing illegal or against Geneva Conventions (not that ununiformed soldiers that don't fight for a particular country are entitled to Geneva Convention rights anyway). Judge Napolitano broke it down on Gibson today, and to sum up this was basically a stupid decision in an effort to appear civil to people that don't car about civility! There was nothing that forced us to pass on this massive target, other than our own "let's play nice" rules. This is crap. I just mentioned the other day that this mentallity is our biggest weakness and we need to cut the crap and get tough.

Remember the fiasco in Iraq when terrorists were hiding in hospitals, mosques, and schools. They fired out but we wouldn't fire back in. Actually this is still going on today. These sorts of rules are our weakness and get our military folks killed. It's the same as this funeral incident. We try to play nice with terrorists... why? I don't think anyone wants to argue that we're trying to show good will to the Taliban, in hopes that they'll "see the light" or something. The argument you'll probably hear is that we're trying to be sensitive to everyone in the region, but come on. If they're going to get made about it, you know who's side they're on anyway. There's comes a time when we need to decide if we are trying to win these wars, and stop all these politically correct tactics. How many people will now die at the hands of these 100+ Taliban fighters?"

Precisely, though we hold the upper hand through intell and technology under difficult conditions, none of either compensates for the self-strangulation of democratic and pc niceties.

Originally Posted by keda

On the contrary, it's those you support that I don't support.

In my case it's that I am against Neoconservative World Domination as advocated in the Proposal for the New American Century (PNAC).

I am hoping for one side to lose, more than hoping for one side to win.

sk---cartoons are appropriate on the cartoon thread, but it's time for the adults to discuss a few things. however, you can stay if you promise to behave.

BAGHDAD, Sept. 19 — Senior Iraqi and American officials are beginning to question whether Prime Ministe Maliki has the political muscle and decisiveness to hold Iraq together as it hovers on the edge of a full civil war.

Four months into his tenure, Mr. Maliki has failed to take aggressive steps to end the country’s sectarian strife because they would alienate fundamentalist Shiite leaders inside his fractious government who have large followings and private armies, senior Iraqi politicians and Western officials say. He is also constrained by the need to woo militant Sunni Arabs connected to the insurgency.


Patience among Iraqis is wearing thin. Many complain that they have seen no improvement in security, the economy or basic services like electricity. Some Sunni Arab neighborhoods seem particularly deprived, fueling distrust of the Shiite-led government.

Doubts Increase About Strength of Iraq’s Premier - New York Times



honestly, how was iraq becoming a quagmire anything but inevitable?

More troops being added possibly raising levels up to 147,000. Last year they were hoping to have levels down to 100,000 by election time.

LMAO.

^^ Cartoons occasionally are OK. But in general they are a distraction for the topics being discussed. They are better off in the cartoon thread.

^ As for troop levels, I've been reading more articles by the military today and other folks in Iraq, and it seems that things are continuing more or less as they have been. A few more casualties in recent days (about 4), and having boots on the ground until at least Mid 2007 (in reality it will be longer).

The Mehdi army in Sadr City, which is led by Sayyid Muqtada Al-Sadr, who has 4 cabinet posts in the government the Americans are supporting, are now recruiting children to throw gasoline bombs at Americans, and also draw them into sniper fire.

Wast of time and money.

whoever wins in '08 (R or D) is going to feel very much like LBJ did in '64.....' i didn't start this mess, and i don't know how to get out of it'.

Average death toll of civilians in Iraq daily: 100.

Nobody to blame but the United States.

U.N.: Iraq civilian deaths hit a record - Yahoo! News

Originally Posted by surasak

Average death toll of civilians in Iraq daily: 100.

i wonder if this is what rummy had in mind when he coined the term 'shock and awe'?

Donald Rumsfeld bears the lion's share of responsibility for the Iraq debacle -- even if it weren't at his urging that the U.S. invaded (and I don't for a minute believe that it was solely a Bush decision), he is accountable for poor planning, inadequate initial troop levels, inadequate and outmoded equipment and supplies, and an ego that caused him to refuse to listen to experienced military advisors.

The latest from a soon-to-retire general was that Rumsfeld flatly refused to listen to even the proposal to plan for an extended occupation, telling the generals "advising" him that the next one to bring up the subject again would be dismissed.

As I'm married to a former Army infantry officer, I listen to anti-Rumsfeld rants and raves on a regular basis (to which I nod agreement). A pleasant supper requires separating him from the evening news and pouring several glasses of wine -- one for him, one for me, one for him, one for me.

The lion's share of the responsibility lies with POTUS. The other guys aren't responsible for his decision to go to war. It's obvious it's a mess yet POTUS does nothing about it.

If I hear POTUS say one more time "I'm going by the recommendations on the ground" I'm going to puke. Who the hell is the CiC here? Some general in Iraq? The CiC is responsible for having enough troops in place to allow success for the mission. That ain't happening.

There was no clear reason to go into Iraq, there was little international support, and there is little public support for it now.

This is a fiasco of the worst degree and the crooks in charge of this mess won't be having to pay for it in the years to come.

...which cannot be done without approval of POTUS. Idiot or no idiot he's still in charge and is fully responsible for this mess.

Why oh why couldn't someone have worn a condom some 50 years ago?

The whole lot is the most miserable group of fools ever to inhabit the White House. I'm ashamed to admit that I supported him the first time around. Talk about buyer's remorse.

They need mo' money.

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday September 26, 2006
The Guardian

George Bush suffered a serious rebuke of his wartime leadership yesterday when his army chief said he did not have enough money to fight the war in Iraq. Six weeks before midterm elections in which the war is a crucial issue, the protest from the army head, General Peter Schoomaker, exposes concerns within the US military about the strain of the war on Iraq, and growing tensions between uniformed personnel and the Pentagon chief, Donald Rumsfeld.

....

The criticism comes amid an unprecedented show of defiance from the army chief, Gen Schoomaker. The general refused to submit a budget plan for 2008 to Mr Rumsfeld, arguing the military could not continue operations in Iraq and its other missions without additional funds, the Los Angeles Times reported yesterday. The seriousness of the protest was underlined by Gen Schoomaker's reputation as an ally of the Pentagon chief. The general came out of retirement at Mr Rumsfeld's request to take up the post.
"It's quite a debacle," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute thinktank. "Virtually everyone in the army feels as though their needs have been shortchanged." Gen Schoomaker's defiance gives a voice to growing concern within the military about the costs of America's wars, and the long-term strain of carrying out operations around the world.

Link: Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Army chief tells Bush: there's not enough money for Iraq war

Maj. Gen. John Batiste, the former commander of the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, had complained loudly about the handling of the Iraq war since he retired 11 months ago -- but no one invited him to present his views to Congress.


"I find that outrageous," the general said. "I have a sense for what I'm talking about."



snip


"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader," said Batiste, wearing a pinstripe suit, calling himself a "lifelong Republican" and bearing a slight resemblance to Oliver North. "He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq or the human dimension of warfare. . . . Bottom line: His plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today."


Further, Batiste charged, Rumsfeld "reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war" and created an environment where U.S. troops "are doing unconscionable things."


"Our world is much less safe today than it was on September 11," Batiste said, echoing the administration's newly leaked intelligence estimate. Batiste, who retired in protest rather than accept a three-star promotion, was a persuasive witness

but he probably hates america and doesn't support the troops, right?

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Does AP stand for Al-Qaeda Propaganda?

By Matt Margolis


According to Jules Crittenden over at The Boston Herald, the Associated Press, "the reliable just-the-facts news agency you and I once knew, no longer exists. Amoral propagandists have taken over."

The AP has had one or two exemplary war correspondents in Iraq. But this strange war has changed so many things. In late 2004, as the U.S. military was moving to rid Fallujah of the terrorists who controlled it, the AP wanted some eyes inside the city. It hired Bilal Hussein. He gave the AP photos of insurgents setting up ambushes and firing at Americans. He gave them photos of terrorists posing with their freshly slaughtered victims. His pictures helped the AP win a Pulitzer Prize.


A blogger named Darleen at Darleen's place said it very well in December of 2004:

“I have trouble with how cozy this AP photographer is with the terrorists. I realize he’s a Hussein from Fallujah, so his own personal feelings and associations may be on display here, but did The Associated Press . . . employ Nazis to get photos showing attacks on the Allies and the execution of Jews?”

Read the whole thing for more troubling examples.

It's called getting both sides of a story - not surprised at all that this upsets you.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Does AP stand for Al-Qaeda Propaganda?

By Matt Margolis



According to Jules Crittenden over at The Boston Herald, the Associated Press, "the reliable just-the-facts news agency you and I once knew, no longer exists. Amoral propagandists have taken over."

The AP has had one or two exemplary war correspondents in Iraq. But this strange war has changed so many things. In late 2004, as the U.S. military was moving to rid Fallujah of the terrorists who controlled it, the AP wanted some eyes inside the city. It hired Bilal Hussein. He gave the AP photos of insurgents setting up ambushes and firing at Americans. He gave them photos of terrorists posing with their freshly slaughtered victims. His pictures helped the AP win a Pulitzer Prize.

This is incorrect.

The Associated Press is an organization that newspaper publications are members of. Member of the AP can trade/use articles. For example, an article orginally written in the Washington Post can be used in a small local newspaper, if it's a member of the AP.

The article written in newspapers are usually written using the "Spiral Method." The "Spiral Method" is putting the most important information and facts at the top of the article, and then giving the less pertinent info. on the second, third, fourth, fifth paragragh, etc.

This is why an orginal article in newspaper A will be taken by another newspaper - with the same title/headline - but only part of the article will be reprinted. The bottom and often less important info will not be included (it's edited.)

AP is the same at the Reuters press article sharing organization.

This article does not make any sense at all.

State of Denial

is a new book by bob woodward.

insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. "It’s getting to the point now where there are eight-, nine-hundred attacks a week. That's more than 100 a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces

"The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse

Woodward also reports that the president and vice president often meet with Henry Kissinger, who was President Richard Nixon’s secretary of state, as an adviser. Says Woodward, "Now what’s Kissinger’s advice? In Iraq, he declared very simply, ‘Victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.'" Woodward adds. "This is so fascinating. Kissinger’s fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will."

Woodward reported for two years and interviewed more than 200 people, including top officials in the Bush administration, to learn these and other revelations

Bob Woodward: Bush Misleads On Iraq, Tells 60 Minutes' Mike Wallace Kissinger Is Regular Visitor To White House - CBS News

Al Qaeda Suffers Huge Losses In Iraq

By Matt Margolis

Al Qaeda confirms that 4,000 of their insurgents have been killed in Iraq.

Sunni Tribal Leaders Back Shi'ite Prime Minister

By Mark Noonan

This will be depressing for terrorists and, unfortunately, our Democrats as well:

BAGHDAD, Sept 27 (Reuters) - Sunni tribal leaders who have vowed to drive al Qaeda out of Iraq's most restive province met the Shi'ite premier on Wednesday, marking what Washington hopes will be a breakthrough alliance against militants.

Sattar al-Buzayi, a Sunni sheikh from Anbar province who has emerged in recent weeks as a leader of a tribal alliance against Osama bin Laden's followers, said he and about 15 other sheikhs had offered their cooperation to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

"We agreed to cooperate," Buzayi told Reuters. "We haven't agreed to anything specific, but we agreed to cooperate."
Maliki's office issued a statement praising the chiefs for their committment to fighting the militants.

"This is admired and respected by all Iraqis. We are fully prepared to back your efforts," the prime minister said.

In the end, this is what is needed to finish off the terrorists in Iraq - we've made it so that it is impossible for the terrorists to win in Iraq, but in order to completely crush the terrorists, it will take the active cooperation of all of the people of Iraq. It could be that these Sunni leaders finally realise that their future lies in a united and democratic Iraq, and its time to get rid of the al-Qaeda psychopaths.

This will not be easy - there is age-long bad blood between Shia and Sunni, especially in Iraq where they've long lived so close together and continuously rubbed each other the wrong way. But this is a hopeful sign, and I'm encouraged by it.

Blogs for Bush: The White House Of The Blogosphere

What's depressing about this for "our Democrats"?
Please explain, SK.