Quote: CBS video: US to stay in Iraq 'longer than anyone's expected'; PM fears country 'nearly out of control' Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki is telling his inner circle that the situation in Iraq is "nearly out of control," according to CBS News intelligence sources.
Pentagon sources tell the network that General Casey will require 100,000 more Iraqi troops than the 325,000 who were to be trained in order to secure the nation. The security situation, however, has worsened and Iraqi troops have proven to be less effective than their American counterparts. Additional American troops may be called up to help train the new Iraqi security forces, and the U.S. may also double the number of advisors in each Iraqi unit.
As of Tuesday morning, the Pentagon is reporting 103 US casualties in the month of October.
Prime Minister Maliki has ordered that all checkpoints in Baghdad be lifted. Lara Logan of CBS News reports that some American troops expect that violence will now increase and are left questioning why U.S. Commanders would allow checkpoints to be removed now. The move is widely seen as a victory for Muqtada al-Sadr of Sadr City, who controls one of the largest militias in Iraq.
The Inspector General warns that Iraqis don't even have the capacity to fund or maintain their army. The Pentagon is being called upon to provide better weapons and armored vehicles to Iraqi security forces. The Pentagon's Inspector General has found that 14,000 small arms provided to the Iraqis are now missing. The lost weapons were never registered and can not be audited.
WASHINGTON - The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.
In its "Desert Crossing" games, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence officials assumed the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by the George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are currently about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak of about 160,000 in January.
A spokeswoman for U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
_"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
_"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic — especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
_"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
_"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
_"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
_"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners."
Beware the advice of successful people. They do not seek company.
Isn't this the same report that states that the best way to defeat Global Terrorism is to defeat it in Iraq? That fighting and defeating the insurgents and terrorists there will deflate the recruitment of new terrorists just as well as the war became a rallying cry for them?
"Whoever leaked this report forgot to mention a key finding of the intelligence community: If we defeat the terrorists in Iraq, there will be fewer terrorists inspired to carry on the fight. In other words, defeating terrorists in Iraq not only secures that new democracy, but prevents future attacks here at home. This is a dramatically different message than the selective leaks to the media," he said in a statement.
Basically, it seems that the conclusion of the report is that, no matter what we do, some crazy ass Muslims will use it as an excuse, just like they use cartoons and papal speeches, to declare jihad.
Well, isn't that just fucking peachy for you fascists..using another sovereign nation to deflect terror is a great pronouncement...
?
Isn't this a dead issue?
I had thought that the invasion was shown to have galvanised moderate Muslims against the West, and increased the number of fanatics?
Quote:
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
Great. If only Dick and Rummy had read this beforehand.
No one wants to leave, and give the Iraqis anarchy as a parting gift. But if that report is right, its going to happen even if troop numbers are increased dramatically, its not going to restore order.
In some ways that is a sensible military solution.
Japan and Germany were capable of integration post WW2 because both were exhausted states.
The populace was so tired of death, famine, plague and war that they were happy to fundamentally change their ethos. Japan for the first time in its history stopped being militaristic, and Germany lost its nationalism (which is why the abundance of German flags at the recent World Cup was such a notable thing).
But that is a military solution, not an ethical solution. Television means that a country can not indiscriminately kill civilians to the point that they will accept any change, so long as the killing stops.
TV is the handbrake for politicians who would forego human rights.
Quote: First Amongst Daves said: In some ways that is a sensible military solution.
Japan and Germany were capable of integration post WW2 because both were exhausted states.
The populace was so tired of death, famine, plague and war that they were happy to fundamentally change their ethos. Japan for the first time in its history stopped being militaristic, and Germany lost its nationalism (which is why the abundance of German flags at the recent World Cup was such a notable thing).
But that is a military solution, not an ethical solution. Television means that a country can not indiscriminately kill civilians to the point that they will accept any change, so long as the killing stops.
TV is the handbrake for politicians who would forego human rights.
Yeah, this thing has been fucked up from the beginning. I believe that invading Iraq and ousting Saddam is/was right, but the handleing could have been better. We needed more troops to wipe out the remenants of Saddam's military. Also, we were hamstrung by not being able to sweep in from the north out of Turkey to trap them because the Turks wanted to follow up behind our troops and snuff out the Kurds. Had that gone off, we'd have seen less of an insurgence which would have allowed for more trained Iraqi troops and an ability to concentrate better on quelling sectarian violence. As it is now, the only thing we can do is a full out offensive with more troops than we currently have deployed now with better equipment than we have them armed with.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Agreed. The administration's first big mistake was letting there be looting during the early days of the war. A lot of the weapons being used against us right now came from that looting.
The second big mistake was allowing insurgents to murder Americans and drag their bodies through the streets of Fallujah. Fallujah should have been reduced to a crater the next day. That would have nipped a lot of this shit in the bud right then and there.
Quote: the G-man said: Agreed. The administration's first big mistake was letting there be looting during the early days of the war. A lot of the weapons being used against us right now came from that looting.
Nah, I think mistakes were made earlier than that, mostly when it came to long-term planning and making assumptions about what would happen (and also, I think there was too much ideology and machismo and not enough practical strategy in play.)
Quote: The second big mistake was allowing insurgents to murder Americans and drag their bodies through the streets of Fallujah. Fallujah should have been reduced to a crater the next day. That would have nipped a lot of this shit in the bud right then and there.
Or it would have made things a lot worse for our troops, and inspired the insurgents to avenge Fallujah.
You can't intimidate a fanatic with death, either his own or his countryman's. If they're willing to martyr themselves and make heroes out of fellow martyrs to encourage others to do the same, wholesale slaughter and destruction is probably the biggest mistake you could make. The battle-cry will be "Avenge Fallujah!"
ANyway, if we're fighting to protect the Iraqis, isn't blowing whole cities to bejeezus kinda the opposite reason of why we're over there?
Beware the advice of successful people. They do not seek company.
My point was not to imply that you were. My point was that, while I agree with you that it would be preferable to not blow whole cities to bejeezus, it doing so would have prevented future attacks it should have been done. In addition, while this might have led to Iraqi deaths in the short term, if it led to the ultimate stabilization of the rest of the country it could save more lives in the long run.
Actually there is a fair chance that destroying a city and its inhabitants would cause insurgents to think twice about killing American soldiers, in the same way Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped the Japanese war effort. But its a nonsense.
American generals and war planners have a refined sense of proportionality. Soldiers die in wars. Its a job risk. Generals know this. So when an American soldier dies, generals know that it was a risk of the job, and instead of reducing a city and its civilian population, men, women and children, to corpses, they think of more effective ways to try and mitigate the risk.
In addition to the plain common sense of American generals, we also have American diplomats. they know that with every civilian death reported upon in the Middle East, their job to hold the line and prevents this from erupting into a pan-Arab confrontation becomes so much more difficult. Destroying Fallujah and its civilian inhabitants would render this impossible, as well as severely alienating many of America's allies in the region and elsewhere. Alienating allies jeopardises American interests in the region, as well as American citizens' lives, so they wouldn't let that happen.
Finally, we have the American public, and their right to vote. If a city was destroyed by American forces, the American public would be properly outraged at such a morally offensive war crime. Politicians supporting the war would be ousted. Americans have as sense of decency, humanity, and fair play which comes from being the world's pre-eminent democracy.
For all these reasons, and more, G-man's proposal is no more likely than the risk of my growing four extra arms and becoming a pro basketball player.
Quote: Finally, we have the American public, and their right to vote. If a city was destroyed by American forces, the American public would be properly outraged at such a morally offensive war crime. Politicians supporting the war would be ousted. Americans have as sense of decency, humanity, and fair play which comes from being the world's pre-eminent democracy.
Or, as with Reagan's 1986 bombing of Libya, the bulk of the American people would applaud it as a perfectly justified response to the taking of American lives.
Yep. I agree. Cruise missiles into Qaddafi's bathroom was an appropriately measured response with a sad consequence (the death of Qadaffi's young step-son). Qadaffi himself says he would have done the same thing, curiously.
Quite a differnet thing to wiping Tripoli from the map.
Quote: First Amongst Daves said: Cruise missiles into Qaddafi's bathroom was an appropriately measured response with a sad consequence (the death of Qadaffi's young step-son)...Quite a differnet thing to wiping Tripoli from the map.
Reagan did more than a lob a couple of cruise missiles into Kaddafi's bathroom
On April 14, 1986 at 17:36 Greenwich Mean Time, twenty four F-111Fs of the USAF 48th Tactical Fighter Wing took off from the Royal Air Force base at Lakenheath, England. Twenty eight refueling tankers took to the air from bases at Mildenhall and Fairford, while five EF-111 Ravens equipped with high-tech jamming equipment soared skyward from a fourth base. Operation El Dorado Canyon was underway. The target: Libya. The American aircraft roaring through the English skies that evening were embarked on what would become the longest fighter combat mission in the history of military aviation, and the first major USAF combat mission in more than a decade.
...the F-111s from the British bases joined a dozen A-6 strike aircraft launched from the carriers Coral Sea and America and thundered through Libyan anti-aircraft fire to drop more than 60 tons of laser-guided bombs on five targets. Five F-111s hit Gaddafi's barracks compound with sixteen 2,000-lb. Paveway II gravity bombs. Five more American warplanes struck the military sector of the Tripoli International Airport. Army barracks and an airfield at Benina and the naval port at Sidi Bilal were also bombed. The raid lasted eleven minutes. Four Libyan MIG-23 interceptors, five Il-76 transports and two Mi-8 Hip helicopters were destroyed. Libyan radio reported many casualties...
Maybe Reagan didn't level the entire city, but he definitely did more to Tripoli than Bush did to Fallujah.
OK, thanks for the correction. 60 tonnes of explosives is a lot more than I had understood it to be.
But your citation otherwise backs my point: Tripoli is still standing. Your citation refers to 5 targets. That's precision deployment against military targets, not indiscrimate slaughter of civilians. Its not like the burning of Tokyo in WW2.
And that's how it should be. The military has no right to target civilians in a conflict anymore (On a total tangent, that's always been my personal problem with Palestine - blowing up buses full of innocent people is morally bankrupt, regardless of how legitimate the cause, and you can't support those who authorise it).
There is some irony to this conversation, since Tripoli sits on the site of ancient Carthage, which was utterly destroyed by the Romans.
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government Monday ordered Blackwater USA, the security firm that protects U.S. diplomats, to stop work and leave the country after the fatal shooting of eight Iraqi civilians following a car bomb attack against a State Department convoy.
The order by the Interior Ministry, if carried out, would deal a severe blow to U.S. government operations in Iraq by stripping diplomats, engineers, reconstruction officials and others of their security protection.
The presence of so many visible, aggressive Western security contractors has angered many Iraqis, who consider them a mercenary force that runs roughshod over people in their own country.
Sunday's shooting was the latest in a series of incidents in which Blackwater and other foreign contractors have been accused of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens. None has faced charges or prosecution.
Yeah, it's a blow to our security situation. But why was an unaccountable mercenary force allowed to operate indiscrimately in Iraq to begin with?
Well this just reminded me of a lot of things. My current sig line, PJP, the country in general. Man, would more people, especially in the media have that kind of honesty.
The previous hearings in the You Tube video were partly on account of this infamous incident in Fallujah.
(click)
some excerpts from the link:
Quote:
The families' two-year quest to hold those responsible accountable has taken them not to Falluja but to the sprawling Blackwater compound in North Carolina. As they tell it, after demanding answers about how the men ended up dead in Falluja that day and being stonewalled at every turn, they decided to conduct their own investigation. "Blackwater sent my son and the other three into Falluja knowing that there was a very good possibility this could happen," says Katy Helvenston, the mother of 38-year-old Scott Helvenston, whose charred body was hung from the Falluja bridge. "Iraqis physically did it, and it doesn't get any more horrible than what they did to my son, does it? But I hold Blackwater responsible one thousand percent."
In late 2004 the case caught the attention of the high-powered California trial lawyer Daniel Callahan, fresh from a record-setting $934 million jury decision in a corporate fraud case. On January 5, 2005, the families filed the lawsuit against Blackwater in Wake County, North Carolina. "What we have right now is something worse than the wild, wild west going on in Iraq," Callahan says. "Blackwater is able to operate over there in Iraq free from any oversight that would typically exist in a civilized society. As we expose Blackwater in this case, it will also expose the inefficient and corrupt system that exists over there."
Scott Helvenston was a walking ad for the military. He came from a proud family of Republicans; his great-great-uncle, Elihu Root, was once US Secretary of War and the 1912 Nobel Peace Prize-winner. Scott was tall, tan and chiseled and, by all accounts, a model soldier and athlete. At 17 he made history by becoming the youngest person ever to complete the rigorous Navy SEAL program. He spent twelve years in the SEALs, four of them as an instructor, and then tried his luck with Hollywood. He trained Demi Moore for her film G.I. Jane and did a few stints on reality television. In one, Man vs. Beast, he was the only contestant to defeat the beast, outmaneuvering a chimpanzee in an obstacle course. Once the cover boy on a Navy calendar, he also had several workout videos.
If it had been up to Katy Helvenston, her son wouldn't have been in Iraq at all. "We had argued about him going over there," she recalls. "I believe that we should have gone into Afghanistan, but I never believed we should have gone into Iraq, and Scott bought the whole story about Saddam Hussein being involved with Al Qaeda and all that. He believed in what he was doing.
I'm still just fascinated by this phenomena. This ability to get swept up in patriotic fervor to the point where you end up dead for something that just wasn't so.
As far as Blackwater is concerned. If we're not winning hearts and minds, I think they play some role in that. Sure atrocities happen in all wars and we're no different. Odds are though that if any misconduct from military personnel is found out, chances are good that there will at least be an investigation and/or trial. With these mercenaries, theyr'e free to wield force with impunity and no accountability to anyone. I think in the long run that contributes to getting real soldiers dead.
So glad Waxman is going to hold hearings. Accountability is good.
RNC Chair Mel Martinez says that resting the troops is demeaning to them. Wanker…
Quote:
‘Martinez: “I think we would demean their service if we were to say to them that there had to be a parity between the time in service out of the country and the time at home.”
Their proposal challenging Bush's war policy falls four votes short of the 60 needed to avoid a Republican filibuster.
By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer September 20, 2007
WASHINGTON -- -- For the eighth time this year, Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked a Democratic move to challenge U.S. policy in Iraq, turning aside a plan to give troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan more rest between deployments.
The vote marked another victory for the Bush administration, which had lobbied hard against the proposal by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and continued to command the allegiance of congressional Republicans despite persistent public unhappiness with the war.
Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA), right, and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) hold a news conference to reintroduce their amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill.
And it punctuated Democrats' struggles to persuade GOP lawmakers to back even moderate legislation designed to limit the administration's conduct of the war.
Though Senate Democrats are working on other measures challenging the White House -- among them, a proposal to scale back the mission of U.S. forces in Iraq -- the defeat of the Webb measure for the second time in two months clouded the prospects for any meaningful legislation opposing the war.
On Wednesday, Democrats fell four votes short of the 60-vote supermajority needed to prevent a filibuster of Webb's proposed amendment to the defense authorization bill.
Just six Republicans joined 49 Democrats and one independent in voting for the Webb amendment, which also narrowly failed to overcome a filibuster in July when seven GOP lawmakers voted for it. Forty-three Republicans and one independent voted against the proposal Wednesday.
Frustrated Senate Democrats accused Republicans of abdicating their constitutional responsibility to look out for the well-being of the military.
"In blocking this bipartisan bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated that they are more committed to protecting the president than protecting our troops," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in a statement after the vote.
But Republican lawmakers, many of whom were backing a nonbinding alternative, rallied against Webb's proposal as a "backdoor" attempt to force a precipitous pullout, and secured more "no" votes than they did in July.
"Every one of us care about the men and women who are serving in the military," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading champion of the current U.S. military strategy in Iraq, who said the measure would "emasculate this surge" just as it was showing signs of success.
"Let us win," McCain said.
Now I have no idea if anyone here actually supports what the Republicans did yesterday but man, how is this even defensible?? "Support our troops" needs to more than just an empty slogan.
Well this just reminded me of a lot of things. My current sig line, PJP, the country in general. Man, would more people, especially in the media have that kind of honesty.
I'm assuming you mean how pro-war I was in '03 and '04 and how now I feel somewhat betrayed by my Party. Let me just say I have always had some liberal tendencies (I know it's hard for you to believe) and if it wasn't for foreign policy and unfair taxes I would have been voting Democrat long ago. The war in Iraq is an abomination and the reason for that is how badly it was mis-managed by Rumsfeld. Looking back I now know that going to war without France and Germany and even Russia supporting us was a bad idea. But when you had leaders in charge there that had opposing the USA at every step as the cornerstone of their foreign policy they left us with little choice. I would not have been as pro-war then if I knew what I know now though and I'm sure that is what you are trying to say. History will probably say Bush's greatest failures were his inability to break ties with bad eggs in his cabinet. Who knows, in 20 years if peace has broken out in the middle east they may be pointing to a stable democracy in Iraq and say that was the catalyst. (let's hope that that is the case) Regardless, it seems that it is time for us to get out of Iraq as soon as possible and save our troops and give them the well needed rest they deserve.
*and as far as Blackwater goes that is a disgrace to this country. Get those fucking thugs out of there.
Well this just reminded me of a lot of things. My current sig line, PJP, the country in general. Man, would more people, especially in the media have that kind of honesty.
I'm assuming you mean how pro-war I was in '03 and '04 and how now I feel somewhat betrayed by my Party. Let me just say I have always had some liberal tendencies (I know it's hard for you to believe)
No. Not at all actually. I have some very traditional and conservative tendencies on certain matters and am very left wing on others. I think most of us are. It's only the media and Kool Aid drinkers of either side that like to paint everything in stark "us or them" extremes.
Quote:
and if it wasn't for foreign policy and unfair taxes I would have been voting Democrat long ago. The war in Iraq is an abomination and the reason for that is how badly it was mis-managed by Rumsfeld. Looking back I now know that going to war without France and Germany and even Russia supporting us was a bad idea. But when you had leaders in charge there that had opposing the USA at every step as the cornerstone of their foreign policy they left us with little choice.
I like to think they were looking at ALL the intelligence. As opposed to us who were getting a very one sided assesment of facts.
Quote:
I would not have been as pro-war then if I knew what I know now though and I'm sure that is what you are trying to say. History will probably say Bush's greatest failures were his inability to break ties with bad eggs in his cabinet. Who knows, in 20 years if peace has broken out in the middle east they may be pointing to a stable democracy in Iraq and say that was the catalyst. (let's hope that that is the case) Regardless, it seems that it is time for us to get out of Iraq as soon as possible and save our troops and give them the well needed rest they deserve.
What is the quote. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. this is not only Vietnam, it's the British occupation of the same land 100 years ago. I Dont think we'll be successful any more than they were.
Quote:
*and as far as Blackwater goes that is a disgrace to this country. Get those fucking thugs out of there.
By Jason Webb Reuters Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 12:07 PM
MADRID (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein was prepared to take $1 billion and go into exile before the Iraq war, according to a transcript of talks between U.S. President George W. Bush and an ally, Spanish newspaper El Pais reported on Wednesday.
During a meeting at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003, Bush told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that Saddam could also be assassinated, according to the transcript published in El Pais in Spanish.
In Washington, White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe declined to comment on the report.
"The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1 billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction," Bush was quoted as saying at the meeting one month before the U.S.-led invasion.
Asked by Aznar whether Saddam could really leave, Bush replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."
A spokesman for Aznar's private foundation had no comment on the transcript or its authenticity. El Pais, which was critical of the Iraq war and of Aznar's government, did not say how it obtained the transcript which it said was made by a Spanish diplomat who attended the meeting. ad_icon
In it, Bush spoke openly about pressuring countries who were members of the United Nations Security Council at the time to support a resolution authorizing force, but that, whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."
"(Former Chilean President Ricardo) Lagos should know that the Free Trade Agreement with Chile still has to be approved by the Senate, and that a negative attitude on this could endanger its approval," he said, adding aid to Angola also depended on U.N. support.
"And (Russian President Vladimir) Putin should know that his attitude is endangering Russia's relations with the United States," he was quoted as saying.
BAD COP
"For my part, I'll try as of now to use the most subtle rhetoric possible, while we try to get the resolution approved."
Bush was dismissive about former French President Jacques Chirac, who he said "thinks he's Mr. Arab" and described the United States as playing a game of "good cop, bad cop" with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
"I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop," Bush said.
The U.S. president referred optimistically to the reconstruction of Iraq which he thought "could be organized into a federation."
In case the war endangered energy supplies, "the Saudis would help us and put all the oil necessary into the market," said Bush, who considered Europeans to be complacent about Saddam.
"Maybe it's because he's dark-skinned, far away and Muslim, lots of Europeans think everything's okay with him," he said.
"Saddam Hussein won't change and he'll keep on playing games. The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is," Bush said.
In March 2003, days before the war, the United Arab Emirates proposed to a summit of Arab leaders that Saddam and his top aides should step down and go into exile. It was the first time an Arab state had made an official call of this kind.
In a communique issued after the summit in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Arab leaders said they opposed any attack on Iraq and made no reference to the UAE's proposal.
Spokesperson Dana Perino was asked about the transcript published this week by the Spanish newspaper El Pais. It purports to be from a meeting just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq between President Bush and the prime minister of Spain. In it, President Bush is clearly set on a path for war, although he denied so publicly at the time.
Perino was mostly non-responsive to the questions, but notably the White House did not dispute the authenticity of the transcript:
On March 17, 2003 President Bush issued the warning: “Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing ,” yet now thanks to a transcript leaked to the Spanish newspaper El Pais, we learn that more than three weeks prior to that Bush had told former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar that “The Egyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein. It seems he’s indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he’s allowed to take $1 billion …” When confronted about the leaked transcript yesterday, Whitehouse spokeswoman Dana Perino did not dispute its accuracy.
The entire war could have been averted for letting him get away with $1 billion. That’s just than one tenth of 1% of what this insane invasion and occupation of Iraq, that continues claim the lives of our country’s bravest men and women, has now been forcast to cost. Think about that just for a second. Every single death, Iraqi and American coalition alike, could have been saved and Bush could have had Saddam’s oil, but apparently he didn’t even seriously consider it. Topping that, he then lied in public to the entire world about it just so he could have his war regardless.
By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer 26 minutes ago BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government Monday ordered Blackwater USA, the security firm that protects U.S. diplomats, to stop work and leave the country after the fatal shooting of eight Iraqi civilians following a car bomb attack against a State Department convoy.
The order by the Interior Ministry, if carried out, would deal a severe blow to U.S. government operations in Iraq by stripping diplomats, engineers, reconstruction officials and others of their security protection.
The presence of so many visible, aggressive Western security contractors has angered many Iraqis, who consider them a mercenary force that runs roughshod over people in their own country.
Sunday's shooting was the latest in a series of incidents in which Blackwater and other foreign contractors have been accused of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens. None has faced charges or prosecution.
Yeah, it's a blow to our security situation. But why was an unaccountable mercenary force allowed to operate indiscrimately in Iraq to begin with?
You neglected to mention, Whomod, that virtually all of these private security forces were reinstated, after a few days of negotiation with the Iraqi government. Which would indicate that they're not this terrible disruptive trigger-happy force in Iraq that you allege.
While I agree with you that accountability is good (i.e., external investigation), you make these private security forces sound like Nazi storm troopers.
Whereas, in truth, most of them are former U.S. military personnel who took these private defense jobs. So they bring a considerable amount of training and discipline to their jobs.
The previous hearings in the You Tube video were partly on account of this infamous incident in Fallujah.
(click)
some excerpts from the link:
Quote:
The families' two-year quest to hold those responsible accountable has taken them not to Falluja but to the sprawling Blackwater compound in North Carolina. As they tell it, after demanding answers about how the men ended up dead in Falluja that day and being stonewalled at every turn, they decided to conduct their own investigation. "Blackwater sent my son and the other three into Falluja knowing that there was a very good possibility this could happen," says Katy Helvenston, the mother of 38-year-old Scott Helvenston, whose charred body was hung from the Falluja bridge. "Iraqis physically did it, and it doesn't get any more horrible than what they did to my son, does it? But I hold Blackwater responsible one thousand percent."
In late 2004 the case caught the attention of the high-powered California trial lawyer Daniel Callahan, fresh from a record-setting $934 million jury decision in a corporate fraud case. On January 5, 2005, the families filed the lawsuit against Blackwater in Wake County, North Carolina. "What we have right now is something worse than the wild, wild west going on in Iraq," Callahan says. "Blackwater is able to operate over there in Iraq free from any oversight that would typically exist in a civilized society. As we expose Blackwater in this case, it will also expose the inefficient and corrupt system that exists over there."
Scott Helvenston was a walking ad for the military. He came from a proud family of Republicans; his great-great-uncle, Elihu Root, was once US Secretary of War and the 1912 Nobel Peace Prize-winner. Scott was tall, tan and chiseled and, by all accounts, a model soldier and athlete. At 17 he made history by becoming the youngest person ever to complete the rigorous Navy SEAL program. He spent twelve years in the SEALs, four of them as an instructor, and then tried his luck with Hollywood. He trained Demi Moore for her film G.I. Jane and did a few stints on reality television. In one, Man vs. Beast, he was the only contestant to defeat the beast, outmaneuvering a chimpanzee in an obstacle course. Once the cover boy on a Navy calendar, he also had several workout videos.
If it had been up to Katy Helvenston, her son wouldn't have been in Iraq at all. "We had argued about him going over there," she recalls. "I believe that we should have gone into Afghanistan, but I never believed we should have gone into Iraq, and Scott bought the whole story about Saddam Hussein being involved with Al Qaeda and all that. He believed in what he was doing.
I'm still just fascinated by this phenomena. This ability to get swept up in patriotic fervor to the point where you end up dead for something that just wasn't so.
As far as Blackwater is concerned. If we're not winning hearts and minds, I think they play some role in that. Sure atrocities happen in all wars and we're no different. Odds are though that if any misconduct from military personnel is found out, chances are good that there will at least be an investigation and/or trial. With these mercenaries, theyr'e free to wield force with impunity and no accountability to anyone. I think in the long run that contributes to getting real soldiers dead.
So glad Waxman is going to hold hearings. Accountability is good.
While I agree that accountability is good, would that you would hold the same standard of accountability to Democrats. Such as Bill Clinton's two failures to capture Osama Bin Ladin. Or an investigation of Clinton's overtures for campaign donations from the Chinese, prostituting out the Lincoln bedroom, that resulted in lapses of technological security, that allowed the Chinese to develop ICBM's that can now reach the United States. Or investigations of the corruption of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and other Democrat officials.
What's losing hearts and minds for democracy in Iraq is the threat of their being killed for helping --or even being seen helping-- the Americans. Because of calls by Democrats to leave the country prematurely, leaving pro-American Iraqis to be slaughtered.
You have contempt for, and allege the worst about, American soldiers (be they private security, or American enlisted personnel) as trigger happy thugs. Well, these guys are in situations where to act less defensively can often cost them their lives.
Also, in your zeal for accusing U.S. forces of alienating Iraqi citizens, you neglect to give any acknowledgement of what Iraqi citizens are doing in these photos in your above quoted post. What are they doing? They just ambushed an SUV with 4 of these U.S. private security officials, burned them alive in their SUV's and machine-gunned them to death, then dragged their charcoaled bodies through the streets, dismembered them, gleefully dragged their corpses through the streets, and hung them like sides of beef from a local bridge. These four men were just driving through, en route to another job, not firing indiscriminately on Iraqi citizens, when they were ambushed, slaughtered, dismembered and gleefully hung up as trophies.
All this barbarism toward private Americans just driving through town.
But private security personnel in Iraq, according to you, are the murderous trigger-happy thugs.
Maybe you'd like to fly to Bin Ladin's cave in Afhganistan and write him a press release of this, Whomod.
While I agree that accountability is good, would that you would hold the same standard of accountability to Democrats. Such as Bill Clinton's two failures to capture Osama Bin Ladin.
As for the rest, Rex summed it up nicely, thank you very much. The U.S. military prosecuting Iraq war atrocities, the Congress investigating atrocities. Even the Administration condemning atrocities means nothing to you from the sound of it. Rather I think you believe that America can do what it wants and not have to answer to anyone.
It's a waste of time talking to you since you refuse to critically examine anything. Rather you like to wave flags and lob accusations at anyone who doesn't nod approvingly of this debacle whenever anyone says "progess is being made' and "we're winning hearts and minds". A few more slogans and a few more critics silenced and and we'll be in candy and flowers land lickety split!
Maybe you'd like to fly to Bin Ladin's cave in Afhganistan and write him a press release of this, Whomod.
i dunoo... I watch a lot of cable news and whenever i hear right wing pundits talk, it's all nothing but comments like these that are supposed to silence and stun people somehow. Like that retarded women in the last clip I posted a page ago where she tells a critic that she'd look good in a burka. Ok. so what? Is that supposed to pass as intelligent dialogue and discussion? Or is that just a few loaded words and names strung together designed to somehow lamely paint anyone who discusses this war as agents or stooges of Bin laden.
Like all advertising and slogans, they do have an expiration date. The GOP and their cheerleaders are still unaware of this apparently or they're just in denial about their effectiveness..
String Iraq, 9/11, and/or Osama together a few more times and people might again believe.
I dunoo...They usually work for people who haven't been desensitized by an argument they just don't want to have to deal with anymore. I know repetition isn't very finesseful nuance, but truth doesn't really suffer entropy.
I dunoo...They usually work for people who haven't been desensitized by an argument they just don't want to have to deal with anymore. I know repetition isn't very finesseful nuance, but truth doesn't really suffer entropy.
Originally Posted By: whomod
As for the rest, Rex summed it up nicely
It's kinda sad that you have to hide behind rex.
Pundits are like lawyers. They'll argue a point, no matter how disproven just to be the voice of the opposition (or to defend failed policy because it's their sides policy). If you have facts and truth on your side, then I think, You don't have to resort to personal attacks, diversions and flat out falsehoods like saying Al Queda is the #1 enemy in Iraq or linking 9/11 and Iraq or Osama Bin Laden etc.
Yes, that goes for both the right and left. With Iraq though, the right has a pretty shoddy track record in the truth department so they're not exactly coming at people willing to give them a wide latitude for trust anymore.
As for "hiding behind" Rex. I think I've made similar postings in regards to Wonder Boy in the past. That Rex beat me to it either shows he's a plagiarist, like minded, or he just knows who he's ridiculing. I choose the latter.
Now why would YOU phrase it like that though? Who's hiding? Why would I hide? Everything here seems like a bulb goes off in ones head that says, Wonder Boy is on MY SIDE therefore I have to run in and defend him and mock the one 'attacking' him. At least it SEEMS that way to me. Maybe I'm wrong.
