Thread: Quagmire....

Is the media hammering McCain and other politicians for issuing false statements, and I'll even say, lies?

The lies are bad enough. But what's disturbing is how ignorant the U.S. public is. Very gullible.

McCain Wrong on Iraq Security, Merchants Say

BAGHDAD, April 2 — A day after members of an American Congressional delegation led by Senator John McCain pointed to their brief visit to Baghdad’s central market as evidence that the new security plan for the city was working, the merchants there were incredulous about the Americans’ conclusions.

“What are they talking about?” Ali Jassim Faiyad, the owner of an electrical appliances shop in the market, said Monday. “The security procedures were abnormal!”
The delegation arrived at the market, which is called Shorja, on Sunday with more than 100 soldiers in armored Humvees — the equivalent of an entire company — and attack helicopters circled overhead, a senior American military official in Baghdad said. The soldiers redirected traffic from the area and restricted access to the Americans, witnesses said, and sharpshooters were posted on the roofs. The congressmen wore bulletproof vests throughout their hourlong visit.
“They paralyzed the market when they came,” Mr. Faiyad said during an interview in his shop on Monday. “This was only for the media.”
He added, “This will not change anything."

Entire & Link: McCain Wrong on Iraq Security, Merchants Say - New York Times

too bad they didn't get him. What a whack job.

^ McCain is definitely a whack job because of his recent statements about Iraq.

4 or 5 more Yanks got popped today. (Won't provide a link. No need to.)

A chopper went down also.

On April 9th there may some more violence.

^ the 9th is the day after easter--- imagine that

Originally Posted by KID

^ the 9th is the day after easter--- imagine that

Easter is completely irrelevant.

Iraq is not Xtian.

I'm do not understand Dick Cheney:

Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam connection

Vice president’s words come as latest Pentagon report again dismisses link

Updated: 11:12 p.m. PT April 5, 2007
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney repeated his assertions of al-Qaida links to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq on Thursday as the Defense Department released a report citing more evidence that the prewar government did not cooperate with the terrorist group.

Entire & Link: Cheney reasserts al-Qaida-Saddam link - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

Too bad the bomb, blood clot, or heart attack missed him last month. Without Cheney Bush might actually be somewhat OK.

^ You have a major point, Sura.

And what's sad about this is, W. was so inexperienced and naiive and easily led that someone else as V.P. may have actually altered some policies and possibly some history.

But it's hard to tell.

Cheney was the President for about 4.5 years.

Now he's mostly the V.P. But even as a V.P. he still has more responsibliities that other VPs in history. A VP's job is basically not to be seen. Go to some charity events. Smile sometimes. But stay in the background, and let ther President be the President.

Definitely not the case here, and there's a reason why.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Definitely not the case here, and there's a reason why.

You mean that those who bought GW the chair also bought him an overcoat ?

The Puppet and the Puppet Master

Bush is so dumb, he is just happy to take the fall. His re-election was well worth it. By the end of his term, he will be the "name you can't speak of" in all conservative family reunions.

I just found this from 2002 titled Iraq Denial and Deception:



President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

Reading it now just beggars belief.

Mad_Dog's link w/ brief excerpt: I am pretty scared. Iraq was going to destroy the Middle East, World, and the U.S.....thank the lord we found out in time.....

Office of the Press Secretary
October 7, 2002 President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio



8:02 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you all coming.
Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.
The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people. The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance, deception and bad faith.

Um....The United States?

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

Entire & Link: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

Originally Posted by Milkman

This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East

Competition detected..

Robert Fisk: Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad

Revealed: a new counter-insurgency strategy to carve up the city into sealed areas. The tactic failed in Vietnam. So what chance does it have in Iraq?

Published: 11 April 2007



Faced with an ever-more ruthless insurgency in Baghdad - despite President George Bush's "surge" in troops - US forces in the city are now planning a massive and highly controversial counter-insurgency operation that will seal off vast areas of the city, enclosing whole neighbourhoods with barricades and allowing only Iraqis with newly issued ID cards to enter.
The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.

The system has been used - and has spectacularly failed - in the past, and its inauguration in Iraq is as much a sign of American desperation at the country's continued descent into civil conflict as it is of US determination to "win" the war against an Iraqi insurgence....

Entire & Link: Robert Fisk: Divide and rule - America's plan for Baghdad - Independent Online Edition > Robert Fisk

After 15 months of planning this attack....and then 4 years and 1 month after starting it...this guy is running for Prez?

April 15, 2007
If Elected ...
McCain Sees ‘No Plan B’ for Iraq War

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON, April 13 — Senator John McCain said that the buildup of American forces in Iraq represented the only viable option to avoid failure in Iraq and that he had yet to identify an effective fallback if the current strategy failed.


“I have no Plan B,” Mr. McCain said in an interview. “If I saw that doomsday scenario evolving, then I would try to come up with one. But I cannot give you a good alternative because if I had a good alternative, maybe we could consider it now.”

Entire & Link: McCain Sees ‘No Plan B’ for Iraq War - New York Times

So, if the current surge fails then we have a flood? Then a tsunami? What then happens when placing every soldier wearing a U.S. flag fails to stop the insurgency?

McCain is a moron.

^^ MD, good points.

The Sunnis mostly and some of the Shia have shifted operations outside of Baghdad recently.

Benefit to opposition of Al-Maliki/U.S.: They may have a lot more control control in the outer areas, while (for example) the U.S. and Al-Maliki government may control Baghdad (which I doubt because violence is not a political indicator. The opponents have left, and/or are sleeping/waiting.)

If the above happens (less violence in Baghdad) it doesn't mean there is control by Al-Maliki and his coalition. It only means that he has control of Baghdad, but no authority over Iraq w/ respect to politics and security.

The fake "surge" is likely a bandaid.

It seems some of the mullahs have been pushing the insurgents out of their neighborhoods and encouraging the young men to join the police forces and Iraqi military.
They have been giving coalition forces a lot more information as to where the insurgents are and what their planning for attacks

One mullah has said that " insurgents have killed our people and are preventing our country from moving forward !!!"

ARE WE SEEING A CHANGE IN THE IRAQI CITIZENS THINKING ????

HAVE THEY REALIZED THAT THE INSURGENTS ARE THE PROBLEM THAT IS KEEPING THEIR COUNTRY FROM PROGRESSING FORWARD AND THAT THE SOONER THE INSURGENTS ARE GONE THE FASTER THAT THEIR COUNTRY WILL BE REBUILT AND GET BACK TO NORMAL???

THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS TO BEEN WON BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND THE REALIZATION THAT THE COALITION FORCES ARE THERE TO HELP THEM AND NOT TAKE OVER THEIR COUNTRY IS THE FIRST STEP !!!

THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS TO BEEN WON BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND THE REALIZATION THAT THE COALITION FORCES ARE THERE TO HELP THEM AND NOT TAKE OVER THEIR COUNTRY IS THE FIRST STEP !!!

After the 650,000 dead on the back of this murderous invasion Kid, you have no hope.
Get out as cleanly as you can, it is the only hope.
vbrep_register("285945")

Originally Posted by KID

It seems some of the mullahs have been pushing the insurgents out of their neighborhoods and encouraging the young men to join the police forces and Iraqi military.
They have been giving coalition forces a lot more information as to where the insurgents are and what their planning for attacks

One mullah has said that " insurgents have killed our people and are preventing our country from moving forward !!!"

ARE WE SEEING A CHANGE IN THE IRAQI CITIZENS THINKING ????

HAVE THEY REALIZED THAT THE INSURGENTS ARE THE PROBLEM THAT IS KEEPING THEIR COUNTRY FROM PROGRESSING FORWARD AND THAT THE SOONER THE INSURGENTS ARE GONE THE FASTER THAT THEIR COUNTRY WILL BE REBUILT AND GET BACK TO NORMAL???

THE WAR IN IRAQ HAS TO BEEN WON BY THE IRAQI PEOPLE AND THE REALIZATION THAT THE COALITION FORCES ARE THERE TO HELP THEM AND NOT TAKE OVER THEIR COUNTRY IS THE FIRST STEP !!!

The Sunnis disagree.

The Sunnis ran the country and enjoyed the spoils for 70 years: uni. positions, government jobs, overseas positions etc.

Over 7/10 of Iraqi citizens state that attacking coalition forces is justified.*

*no link available. Please google.

Bottom line: there are enough people that oppose the "coalition forces."

al-Sadr, Shia, Sunni, Al-Qaeda in al-Anbar, Iranian Shiite allies.


End of story.

I found this just for you milkman



HOW IRAQIS SEE W'S NEW PLAN

GREAT RELIEF - AND SOME CONCERNS


SLIDES = new slideshow("SLIDES"); SLIDES.timeout = 5000; SLIDES.prefetch = -1; SLIDES.repeat = true; s = new slide(); s.src = "/seven/01122007/photos/oped031.jpg"; s.text = unescape("Maliki: Fresh resolve to secure Baghdad."); s.link = "/seven/01122007/photos/oped031.jpg"; s.target = ""; s.attr = ""; s.filter = ""; SLIDES.add_slide(s); if (false) SLIDES.shuffle();




So one resident of Haifa Street, in the heart of Baghdad's badlands, reacted to the new plan to secure the Iraqi capital with the help of thousands of additional American troops.
"Maybe the Americans aren't running away after all," said the resident, a Sunni Arab, over the phone moments after President Bush unveiled his new plan. "The message seems to be that the United States will remain committed as long as Bush is in the White House."
Some 70 percent of Baghdad's violence is concentrated in five neighborhoods, where both Shiites and Sunnis have been the targets of rival death squads for months. Other Baghdadis say the population of those areas will greet the American troops with sweets and flowers.
The fear that the United States, bedeviled by internecine feuds, might cut and run has been at the root of the violence since Iraq's liberation in 2003.
Jihadists have fought not because they hope to win on the battlefield, but to strengthen the antiwar lobbies in the United States and Britain. Some in the new political elite have become fence sitters because they regard the United States as a fickle power that could suddenly change course. Others have created or expanded militias, in case the United States abandons Iraq before it can defend itself against internal foes and predatory neighbors.
The new Bush plan has raised Iraqi morale to levels not known for a year. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who had been dropping hints he might resign because of sheer fatigue, now says he is committed to restoring Baghdad's sobriquet of Dar al-Salaam (The Abode of Peace) by clearing it of al Qaeda and Saddamite terrorists, militias and death squads.
"The plan that President Bush has announced is based on our plan," says Ali al-Dabbagh, al-Maliki's spokesman. "We presented it to him during the summit in Amman last month, and he promised to study it. The result is a joint Iraqi-American plan to defeat the terrorists."
As if to underline that claim, the Iraqi army, backed by a U.S. helicopter gunship, launched a major operation in Baghdad two days before Bush's announcement of the new plan. Over 50 jihadists were killed, and an unknown number captured.
The operation signaled that the Iraqi army, backed by American firepower, was on the offensive. Which brings us to one of the paradoxes of Iraq during the last two years: There has been a great deal of killing, but little fighting. The terrorists, who mainly operate in less than 5 percent of Iraqi territory, have been allowed to strike whenever they wish without being chased by the Iraqi army or the multinational force. The multinational force has been mostly in "self-defense" mode. In 2006, the U.S. forces initiated only 11 operations against the jihadists; the British and the Danes, another three.
The new plan will see more fighting - and so force the jihadists to spend more resources on protecting themselves, and fewer on attacking soft civilian targets.
Iraqis that I've talked to are especially pleased that Bush did not take up the Iraq Study Group's idea of involving Iran in the future of Iraq. The idea of a secret U.S. plan to hand over Iraq to the Iranians (in the context of a grand bargain with the mullahs) has been one of the themes of Sunni jihadist propaganda. The claim has been echoed by some of Washington's allies, including Jordan's King Abdullah II.
Instead, Bush promised to "seek and destroy" networks of support for terrorists, set up by Iran and Syria. That is a sign he understands the broader regional aspects of this struggle. It is impossible to eradicate terrorism in Iraq without eliminating sources of support that lie beyond Iraqi frontiers.
Iraqis also welcome Bush's reasserted commitment to Iraq's integrity and see it as a rejection of ideas to carve the country into three mini-states.
Despite their almost unanimous welcome of the new plan, however, some Iraqis do express a number of concerns.
The first is that Bush might not achieve sufficient unity, both within his own administration and in the broader American political arena, to drive home the message that the jihadists will be hunted down and destroyed.
To address that concern, the president must become "explainer-in-chief," briefing the American people on what is at stake, and showing that the victory that the United States has won in Iraq, by destroying one of the most vicious anti-American regimes on earth, is worth fighting to preserve.
The second concern is that, as on several occasions, the hunt-and-destroy strategy against jihadists may be aborted by political considerations. Iraqis remember how operations in Fallujah, Najaf, Samarrah and Sadr City were called off after U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer, and the Iraqi prime ministers who succeeded him, intervened in response to political pressure.
The third concern is that the so-called room-service mentality of a portion of the Iraqi leadership may come into effect - will they sit back and let the Americans do the dirty work? This would be especially dangerous if the United States is dragged into the war of the sectarians on one side or another. It is important that the United States be, and is perceived to be, a friend and protector of all Iraqis, regardless of sect.
Some of the units used in the pacification of Baghdad are Kurdish; pan-Arabists may exploit that fact to foment chauvinism. It is, therefore, important to also deploy mainly Arab Sunni units both in Baghdad and in al-Anbar, the only one of Iraq's 18 provinces where the central government's presence is thin on the ground.
A fourth concern is that the new plan might be used as an excuse to freeze the democratic process. Local elections, postponed on spurious grounds, must be held as soon as possible to revive local administrations and speed the disbanding of various unofficial bodies, often backed by militias.
Finally, there is concern that plans to hand over control of all provinces to the Iraqi government may be put on hold. Today, Iraqis have full control of five provinces, and were slated to assume control of two more by the end of 2006. The hand-over plan must be completed before the next general election in 2009. This would release U.S. and allied troops of such routine duties as patrolling and asset and personnel protection.
That, in turn, would allow the bulk of the GIs and allied forces to start withdrawal by the end of this year, leaving behind training missions and special units to help destroy the terrorists. Amir Taheri is an Iranian-born journalist and author based in Europe.