posted on November 19, 2006 12:21:47 PM new
LIAR_K, SAID THE INCREASED IRAQ VIOLENCE WAS A PLAN TO EFFECT OUR ELECTIONS.
HEY LIAR_K SOMEONE SHOULD TELL THE IRAQIS OUR ELECTIONS ARE OVER.
11/19/06 More Than 50 People Die in Attacks Across Country
By QAIS Al-BASHIR, AP
The sectarian violence continued Sunday, with the deadliest attack in the southern Shiite city of Hillah, where a suicide bomber in a minivan lured day laborers to his vehicle with promises of a job then blew it up, killing 22 people, police said. Police later announced the arrest of three insurgents who had planned the attack — two Egyptians and an Iraqi — and said the suspects claimed the bomber was Syrian.
posted on November 20, 2006 10:18:17 AM new
News this morning said the Pentagon MAY call for sending more troops....for a short while....
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
November 20, 2006
02:14 pm
Bush Hasn't Decided on Troop Levels
(CNSNews.com) -
President Bush said on Monday he hasn't made any decision on increasing or decreasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq - and he won't do so until "I hear from a variety of sources - including our own United States military."
Bush, speaking in Indonesia, noted that Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace "is in the process of evaluating a lot of suggestions from the field and from people involved with Central Command as well as the Pentagon."
The president said he's awaiting those suggestions and recommendations before deciding how to proceed.
Over the weekend, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said more troops should be sent in to Iraq - "because the consequences of failure" would be "catastrophic."
McCain said the violence in Iraq could spread through out the region. "You will see Iran more emboldened.
Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel," he said.
==========
...other news reports said our CIC hasn't made a decision yet on whether he will or not.
No matter what he does...the dems/lefties won't like it.
Nothing has changed in that area....but I'm sure glad he's STILL our CIC...and will be the one making THAT decision.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 20, 2006 11:43 AM ]
posted on November 20, 2006 10:56:58 AM new
HEY liar_k remember when you were saying the increase in violence the Iraq invasion was planed to influence our elections?
Would you like to take back the election statement or should I just chalk it up to yet another lie from you?
You better Email Iraq and tell them the election is over because the violence isn't over.
If I have posted anything below that is untrue please point it out.
Iraq war update 11/20/06.
ON ELECTION DAY AMERICA HAD 2836 DEAD AMERICAN TROOPS. TODAY WE HAVE 2867 DEAD TROOPS UP 41 SINCE THE ELECTION.
AS OF TODAY 11/20/06 WE HAVE 21,678 WOUNDED AMERICAN TROOPS.
AS OF TODAY 11/20/06 AMERICA HAS SPENT 344,000,000,000 ON BUSHES BLUNDERS IN IRAQ.
11/20/06 Reuters: Doctor killed between Hilla and Baghdad
Gunmen killed doctor Ali al-Grari, a professor at Babil University in Hilla, in a drive-by shooting on the main road between Hilla and Baghdad, police said.
11/20/06 AFP: Professor killed in Babel
In Baghdad, unidentified militants opened fire and killed a professor in the faculty of medicine of Babel university, security sources said earlier in the day. Professor Ali Feleeh Hassan was killed in the Mahaweel area near Babel
11/20/06 Xinhua: Professor assassinated in Mosul
Professor Ahmed Hamid al-Taie, head of clinic department in Mosul University was gunned down by unidentified armed men at about 1:30 p.m. in downtown of Mosul city
11/20/06 Xinhua: Iraqi artist killed in Baghdad
A well-known Iraqi actor and director working for the private al-Sharqiya satellite channel was found killed in western Baghdad on Monday, the channel reported. Walid Hassan Ja'az, a well-known comedian in Iraq for his roles in television series...
THE BEST INSURANCE BUSHY HAS AGAINST IMPEACHMENT IS CHENEY.
posted on November 20, 2006 11:03:12 AM new
LOL....I stand COMPLETELY by what I stated.
If you only ONCE knew what you were talking about....it would be a TRUE miracle.
But don't worry....I have NEVER expected to hear the truth from ANY screaming manic. LOL LOL
And I will NEVER understand those like you who continue to use our soldiers deaths and injuries to promote our enemy winning this war.
You want us to admit defeat to our enemies.....WHY? Do you REALLY believe that's going to change their aggression towards us? I don't. Do you really think a nuclear armed Iran is going to make our world safer? I don't. Are you in agreement with IRAN that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth? I'm not.
AND if they think they've 'won'......they're NOT going to stop and call for PEACE....and the fact that you are BLIND to that....is VERY disturbing to those of us who CAN see the danger ahead for our Nation.
ALL at the hands of those YOU support.....
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on November 20, 2006 01:17:32 PM new
It appears from both Fox News and this WA Post article....that three options are being carefully looked at. Each are described in the article.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on November 20, 2006 02:07:33 PM new
Here's part of what Sen. McCain said - in today's WA Times in their article on the DEM calling for a DRAFT:
----
Meanwhile, Mr. McCain, Arizona Republican, continued to call for increased U.S. military presence in Iraq to stabilize the country and prevent what he described as a dire threat to U.S. national security.
"You've got to ask yourself some questions. One, are we winning? And I think the answer is no," he said during an appearance on ABC's "This Week."
"The other is, what are the consequences of defeat?"
"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic. It will spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened," said Mr. McCain, who last week formed an exploratory committee in advance of a likely 2008 presidential campaign.
"We leave this place, chaos in the region, and they'll follow us home. So there's a great deal more at stake here in this conflict. In my view, a lot more."
Mr. McCain said he based his judgment partly on the writings of Abu Musab Zarqawi, the al Qaeda in Iraq leader who was killed in a U.S. air raid in June, and of Osama bin Laden.
"The consequences of failure are so severe that I will exhaust every possibility to try to fix this situation. Because it's not the end when American troops leave.
The battleground shifts, and we'll be fighting them again," Mr. McCain said. "You read Zarqawi, and you read bin Laden. ... It's not just Iraq that they're interested in. It's the region, and then us."
<snipped out Rangel's statement on the draft - repetative>
Mr. McCain, a Vietnam War veteran, also has two sons in military service. His son Jack is currently in the U.S. Naval Academy, while another son, James, enlisted in the Marine Corps this year.
Incoming House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer said there are insufficient troops available for Mr. McCain's suggestion.
"As a practical matter, there are no troops to increase with," the Maryland Democrat said during his appearance on "This Week." "Our objective was to remove Saddam Hussein and create an environment in which a democracy could be established. That has been done."
Mr. Hoyer added that Democrats will continue to fund the war despite their doubts.
"That's not an option, of not supporting our troops in the field and making sure they're as safe as we can make them," he said.
============
Glad to hear at LEAST one liberal who sounds like they will FUND this war.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But by now I think everyone has noticed that those who want our troops brought home NOW...asap....will NEVER address the issue of 'then what happens'.
Do we just sit and wait to be attacked AGAIN?
Why do they NOT want to win this war?
Do they think admitting defeat and HANDING the terrorists a WIN is going to change ANYTHING?
How would they like to see the situation handled.
Nope...as soon as those questions and MORE as asked....the personal attacks start - RATHER THAN sharing their opinions on what should be done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 20, 2006 02:20 PM ]
posted on November 20, 2006 02:28:31 PM new
Both Liar_K and stone can't prove I told any untruths in my last post.
Liar_K says she stands behind her untrue statement and stonehead grunts. Sorry liar_k and stonehead now in Iraq its called CIVIL WAR.
Liar_k and stonehead just can't face the fact their side lost the election. On top of that neither can face the fact their leaders don't know how to run a country. They failed and got BOOTED.
Plus the fact that after Bushy and his gang made soooo many blunders in Iraq. The Generals are now saying Bushy's invasion of Iraq can't be won militarily.
There is still a place for Stonehead in this wonderful country. A country that will soon have better leadership. I can see stonehead trying out for a new Caveman add Geico is running on T.V.
In his tryout Stonehead could grunt and dance around with a feather coming out of his azz. No,on second thought I was wrong. In the Geico Caveman advertising the caveman says a few intelligent lines that stonehead in incapable of.
Liar_k and stonehead have shown us all an example of NEW-CON thinking that went into the Iraq invasion planing. Its no wounder "Iraq can't be won militarily" now.
posted on November 20, 2006 02:40:17 PM new
LOL....sure peepa...sure.
Post a stack of false info...then expect others to prove you wrong ...so then you can repeat your 'ongoing mantra' again.
One of these days VERY SOON, you're going to come out of that cloud you live under and recognize that President BUSH is our CIC. HE will make the final decision on what we do in Iraq. Whether YOU agree with it or not.
========================
And while peepa and other liberals here ONLY want to focus on the deaths/injuries of our brave soldiers - fighting this war against our ENEMIES.....who the liberals OBVIOUSLY support.....there IS other GOOD NEWS about Iraq. News their liberal MSM just refuses to report to the American public.
And months ago when I kept posting ANY 'Good News in Iraq' threads.....they denied everything those who were there report was happening. Always NEGATIVE even about the POSITIVE that was/has been going on there.
==========
I wish everyone would read this full article....but this is what I'd most like you to be aware of:
Mr. Popps said. "They sat around and smoked and drank tea and held 'worry beads.' It was an economy based on incompetence and corruption."
Today, the Pentagon is handing out a score sheet:
• Six new primary care facilities, with 66 more under construction;
11 hospitals renovated;
more than 800 schools fixed up;
more than 300 police stations and facilities and 248 border control forts.
• Added 407,000 cubic meters per day of water treatment;
a new sewage-treatment system for Basra;
work on Baghdad's three plants continues;
oil production exceeds the 2002 level of 2 million barrels a day by 500,000.
• The Ministry of Electricity now sends power to Baghdad for four to eight hours a day, and 10 to 12 for the rest of the country.
Iraqis are now free to buy consumer items such as generators, which provide some homes with power around-the-clock.
Mr. Popps said all this was accomplished despite a concerted effort by terrorists to bomb construction sites and kill workers.
Thursday's kidnapping of private contractors south of Baghdad illustrates the problem. The State Department was forced to increase spending on security, up to $5 billion of the $20 billion, or risk losing more projects to saboteurs.
The Army Corps has ferried reporters to what it considers successful sites in an effort to get a few positive stories on reconstruction. But rarely do any materialize, Mr. Popps said.
"What has hurt the public perception of reconstruction is incomplete leaks to the media that there is a problem with a particular project," he said. "What is sexy to reporters is a police station that has urine in the ceiling. That's what the press prefers to talk about rather than the great successes we have made."
The "urine" reference was contained in the latest bad news story about reconstruction in Iraq. Mr. Bowen reported in September he was reviewing all projects done by the California-based Parsons Corp. in the aftermath of finding serious plumbing problems at the $75 million Baghdad Police College. Mr. Bowen has criticized Parsons, which uses local Iraqi contractors, on other projects, including primary health care buildings.
The company has cited the violent environment as part of the problem. A Pentagon spokesman said the company made all repairs by an Oct. 6 target at no government cost.
There are two key money amounts devoted to reconstruction:
One is $37 billion in cash the U.N. turned over to Iraq in 2003.
The second is $36 billion appropriated by Congress, $20 billion of which was the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.
The remaining $16 billion is evenly divided for building the Iraqi security forces and for various military projects, some controlled by U.S. commanders.
In late September, Iraq rebuilders received some praise from Mr. Bowen. He made one of his periodic appearances before the House Government Reform Committee, where Chairman Thomas M. Davis III, Virginia Republican, said there was some good news out of the war-wrecked country.
"You said accurately in your opening statement that not everything is wrong in Iraq, and that's true," Mr. Bowen responded. "A fair reading of our full report demonstrably underscores that fact.
Indeed, 70 percent of the projects we've visited and 80 percent of the money allocated to them indicate that those projects, from a construction perspective, have met what the contract anticipated."
==========
And this article ALSO makes those unaware of just what shape Iraq was in WHEN we invaded. As it appears many liberals think WE caused all the damage. lol lol
It also might help those who were so upset with OUR tax dollars being LOST...by those who DEMANDED where had it gone. LOL LOL
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 20, 2006 02:43 PM ]
posted on November 22, 2006 10:39:40 AM new
Iraq war update 11/22/06.
LIAR_K SAID THE HIGH DEATH RATE OF AMERICAN TROOPS WAS TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTION. SHE NEED TO TELL THE IRAQ OUR ELECTIONS ARE OVER.
ON ELECTION DAY AMERICA HAD 2836 DEAD AMERICAN TROOPS. TODAY WE HAVE 2869 DEAD TROOPS UP 43 SINCE THE ELECTION.
AS OF TODAY 11/20/06 WE HAVE 21,678 WOUNDED AMERICAN TROOPS.
AS OF TODAY 11/20/06 AMERICA HAS SPENT 345,000,000,000 BILLION DOLLARS ON BUSHES BLUNDERS IN IRAQ.
11/22/06 Reuters: 14 bodies recovered in Mosul
Police said they recovered 14 bodies, including three women in different areas of Mosul, 390 km (240 miles) north of Baghdad.
By SAMEER N. YACOUB, AP
GENEVA (Nov. 22) -- The United Nations said Wednesday that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq's sectarian bloodbath.
THE BEST INSURANCE BUSHY HAS AGAINST IMPEACHMENT IS CHENEY.
Thanks for posting on how few death's we have had in this major war. It only proves how many lives have been saved because of this action.
.
.
.
"Unfortunately there are levels of Stupid that just can't be cured!!" The new Demomoron motto.
posted on November 22, 2006 08:07:23 PM new
stone,
READ WHAT YOUR TYPE OF BACKWARDS THINKING HAS BROUGHT OUR FINE MARINES. SOON BUSHY WILL BLAME THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT FOR ALL THAT WENT BAD AND CUT AND RUN HE HAS NO OTHER CHOICE.
Updated:2006-11-22 17:25:16
Top Marine Says Corps Stretched Too Thin
Commandant: Demands of Iraq Could Affect Future Readiness
By JONATHAN KARL and MARTIN CLANCY
ABCNews.com
WASHINGTON, Nov. 22, 2006 — The new commandant of the Marine Corps has sounded an alarm about Marine readiness. Gen. James Conway said that the demands of Iraq have put strains on the Corps that threaten its worldwide mission.
Either the Marine Corps must be made bigger, Conway said, or the demand for Marines in Iraq reduced. "There is stress on the individual Marine, and there is stress on the institution," he said. Conway met with a small group of reporters in Washington this morning.
Marine deployments in Iraq typically last seven months. The normal schedule calls for 14 months between deployments, allowing for both family time and training, but Iraq's demands have cut the turnaround time to less than a year in some cases. This has a major impact on what Conway called the "bread-and-butter training" for Marines.
"Artillery men are not training artillery," he said, noting that the Marine Corps has essentially stopped full-scale, fire-and-maneuver exercises. Almost all the training now focuses on counterinsurgency, preparing Marines for Iraq. Jungle and mountain training has also suffered, Conway said, making the Marines less prepared to fight the next war.
If there were another emergency in the world, Conway said, "We are not as capable today as we were in 2001.
"The deployment would not be as fast, the fight would take longer. You could see more casualties as the result of that," Conway said, concluding that U.S. forces would succeed but "not with the overwhelming combat power that we would ordinarily be able to provide to that fight."
"The Marine Corps' forte is combined-arms maneuver warfare," said Conway. "It used to be we had 10 battalions a year that would maneuver their forces under live fire. That's tremendous training. We're not doing that. We're not operating together on that scale to provide the nation the capability to deploy and win quickly, thereby reducing the impact on casualties like we previously have been capable of doing."
Currently, there are about 180,000 Marines on active duty. The Corps' size could be increased, Conway said, but it would take time. Recruiters could be expected to add only about 1,000 to 2,000 additional Marines a year.
Could the Marines send more troops to Iraq if asked? Conway obviously hopes that request will not be made —- and he said he's heard nothing at the Pentagon to confirm newspaper reports of an impending troop buildup. But he answered the question with a Marine's response:
"If there is a surge, than by golly, we'll support it," he said. "But the reality of the surge is there has to be a payback." That would mean even less training time, with a cost in readiness.
"It is probably going to have an adverse impact on your force generation," Conway said.
BUSH DOESN'T GET IMPEACHED BECAUSE OF CHENEY. ON SECOND THOUGHT????
posted on November 23, 2006 08:19:50 AM new
Below is what our brave troops deal with on Thanksgiving. America needs to bring these troops home NOW!
Scores Killed in Iraq After Series of Blasts, Attacks
BAGHDAD, Iraq (Nov. 23) -- Three suicide car bombers and two mortar attacks shook Baghdad's Sadr City Shiite slum Thursday afternoon, killing at least 144 people and wounding 236 others, many of them seriously, police said.
posted on November 23, 2006 08:54:01 AM new
Remember those away from home that are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq during the holidays. Remember the families with empty chairs at their tables, those who are visiting graves and those visiting loved ones in hospitals because of these wars.
posted on November 23, 2006 10:05:55 AM new
It was disgusting to read that some wingnuts are expressing thanks that the war is "over there" and not in their backyard....forgetting those empty chairs that you menitioned, Kiara... and graves and wounded without faces, legs and arms that we now have here....forgetting all the children and orphans and innocent people over there now dead or dismembered because our country chose to invade a country over there.
posted on November 23, 2006 08:56:31 PM new
What's disgusting is the stupidity in pretending that an area of the world whose stability is of vital strategic importance to this country, without which life as we know it ceases to exist, is threatened by a religious oligarchy which gives no quarter and with whom there can be no negotiating, is no concern of ours.
posted on November 23, 2006 09:34:23 PM new
desquirrel
posted on November 23, 2006 08:56:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's disgusting is the stupidity in pretending that an area of the world whose stability is of vital strategic importance to this country ""
So why did George Bush Inc. destroy the stability....?????
posted on November 24, 2006 07:36:04 AM new
desquirrel,
What was Stupid was the Iraqi invasion by Bushy and his failed gang of liars. Because of blunders,poor planning and flat lies to the American people Iraq is now in a Civil War.
Looks like Iran and Syria will take charge of Iraq future without U.S. involvement because of Bushy's policies.
You being so worried about Iraq changing the way Americans live. Than you also can understand why so many of us want Bushy out!!!!
What America needs now is strong flexible leader. Not a leader with a stupid "stay the course attitude" and not a leader that refuses to have talks with other Arab countries leaders about Iraq.
America NOW needs a President that has a foreign policy and knows how to lead and not just stupidly "stay the course".
SEE THE RESULTS OF BUSH'S INVASION OF IRAQ BELOW.
Suicide bombers kill 22 in northern Iraq
Associated Press
Mosul, November 24, 2006
A car bomb exploded in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar on Friday, killing at least 22 people and wounding 26, police said.
The explosion, which occurred outside a car dealership, was the first major attack by suspected insurgents since the deadly bombings in the Sadr City slum in Baghdad killed more than 200 people on Thursday.
The explosion in Tal Afar, which is 150 kilometers east of the Syrian border and 420 kilometres northwest of Baghdad, occurred at about 11 am.
posted on November 24, 2006 01:37:22 PM new
desquirrel is SO right. There are just too many that can't see beyond their own noses....to what failure for the US in Iraq would REALLY mean for America.
But it sure appears to me they're more than willing to admit defeat for the US, bring our troops home and GIVE terrorism a boost.
======
An interesting 'take' about our current situation in Iraq...and some of it's implications for America's future.
in part; from today's WSJ op-ed:
"Over the next three centuries, the Pilgrims' ancestors and others fought and bled to improve the "civil" world they fled."
The Revolutionary War took nearly 4,500 lives.
The Civil War, a half-million lives.
The combined dead in World War I was more than 116,000, and
World War II's U.S. battle deaths to defeat Germany and Japan were close to 300,000.
After all that, the United States became the foremost part of "the civil part of the world."
In the mid-1990s, I was talking to a politically sophisticated European lady about Europe's lack of military response to Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of the non-Serbs in Yugoslavia. She said, persuasively I thought, "You must understand how much bloody death has happened across our continent the past century. We have simply been worn out by it." In the event, the U.S. went in to stop another 20th-century genocide on the soil of that civil part of the world.
Her remark has come back to me in recent weeks, watching the paroxysm of antipathy toward the Iraq war and its progenitors.
It would be one thing to say it is simply opposition to and dissent from an unpopular war and an unpopular president. But this has gone beyond that. The rhetoric is emotional and vituperative. I have seen audiences greet speakers denouncing Iraq as a "disaster" and "failure" with bursts of applause.
It is getting harder to distinguish between animosity toward George Bush and animosity toward the entire American enterprise beyond the nation's borders.
As Norman Podhoretz delineated in the September issue of Commentary, columns and articles in journals of foreign policy are equating the tsunami of negativity rolling over Iraq with repudiation of the Bush Doctrine in toto.
One might have expected most of the disagreement to center on the doctrine's assertion of a right to pre-emptive attack.
Instead, Iraq's troubles have been conflated with a general repudiation of the U.S.'s ability to abet democratic aspiration elsewhere in the world.
It is certainly possible that the Iraq effort will, in some obvious sense, "fail." Henry Kissinger now says "victory," defined as an Iraqi government gaining political control over the entire country, is not possible. But we might want to think some before we toss out the infant Bush Doctrine with the Iraqi bathwater.
As stated, the doctrine's strategy is "to help make the world not just safer but better." Some conservatives have denounced the "better world" part as utopian overstretch. Beyond that, the document lists as its goals the aspirations of human dignity, strengthening alliances to "defeat" terrorism, working with others to defuse regional conflicts, promoting global growth through free markets and trade and "opening societies and building the infrastructure of democracy."
It is mainly the latter--the notion of the U.S. building the "infrastructure of democracy" that now, because of the "failure" in Iraq, attracts opposition across the political spectrum--from John Kerry to George Will and on out to neoconservatives confessing loss of faith in the Bush team to the unforgiving ear of Vanity Fair.
No doubt each of these has declared unfealty to the Bush effort for more or less honorable reasons. But someone ought to step back and consider the cumulative political effect of what of late has turned into an unrestrained gang-stomping of the sort normally seen at Miami-Florida International football games.
We are ensuring that no future president, of either party, will project military power anytime soon short of retaliation for a nuclear attack. Every potential presidential candidate, including John McCain, has to be looking at the Bush administration's experience and concluding there is simply no political upside in doing so. We are backing the country's political mind into the long-term parking lot of isolationism, something fervently wished for at opposite ends of the U.S. political spectrum.
The specialists in the foreign-policy community will argue that a new administration can "adjust" policy to changed events and new challenges. That sells short the power of the anti-Bush wave (itself underestimated for three years by the Bushies). This is a new force. Powerful technologies--the Web, TV and (still) newspaper front pages--combine to amplify ancient human barbarities every day from the Sunni Triangle.
The opinions of mere pundits acquire exponential authority, a scary thought. Baghdad has become the blood-soaked, psychological equal of the Somme or Gettysburg. The sense grows daily among the American public that helping "them" is hopeless and "we" should pull back to our shores.
Like the Europeans, we may talk ourselves into a weariness with the world and its various, unremitting violences. No genocide will occur on American soil, but the same information tide that bathes us in Baghdad's horrors ensure that Darfur's genocide will come too near not to notice. Too bad for them, or any aspiring democrats under the thumb of Russia, China, Nigeria, Venezuela or Islam's highly mobile anti-democrats.
We've got ours. Let them get theirs. Does this overstate the buildup of anti-Bush, anti-Iraq sentiment?
Will U.S. policy, in the hands of ideologically frictionless bureaucracies, slide forward? Maybe.
But even the realists and cynics might concede there has been some benefit, perhaps going back as far as Plymouth Rock, in having one nation standing for the conceit, or even the ideal, that men elsewhere with democratic aspirations could at least count on us for active support.
This is the core idea in the Bush Doctrine. If its critics don't start making some distinctions, they may discover that profligacy of opinion in our time carries a very steep price.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 24, 2006 02:34 PM ]
posted on November 24, 2006 05:23:29 PM new
mingo is obviously talking to HERSELF again. But I will agree - she IS stupid.
==============
AIM Report: CNN Apes Al-Jazeera
- November B
November 22, 2006
We not only disagree, we have an obligation to point out that CNN has a long history of making "news" judgments that have demonstrated an anti-American and anti-military bias.
CNN APES AL-JAZEERA
CNN seems to be competing with Al-Jazeera for the award of most anti-American "news" channel.
On October 18, on the program "360 With Anderson Cooper," CNN led off with a report by an Australian reporter for CNN, Michael Ware. They showed a terrorist video tape of snipers shooting and killing American soldiers in Iraq. The tape was made by the Islamic Army of Iraq, described by CNN as just an "insurgent" group.
The network said it was titled, "Latest Sniper Operations in Baghdad," as if this was the work of some Baghdad movie producer. In addition, there was translated voice-over designed to show that these insurgents didn't want to kill any innocent civilians. "People are around them," says the spotter for the sniper, who may also have been the cameraman. "Want me to find another place?"
These terrorists were just targeting American soldiers, as if this made it all right to air the video and somehow justified what they were doing.
Al-Jazeera followed CNN with similar film footage. Usually it's the other way around—terrorist videos show up on Al-Jazeera before going to CNN and other American networks.
This was a smart public relations move on the part of the terrorists. They know that the key to winning the war is demoralizing the American people. CNN is the perfect vehicle.
The CNN tape included 10 incidents altogether. As Ware reported, "there's no way to confirm precisely when or where the attacks took place, or which U.S. units were involved, or what happened to the targeted soldiers." When the shots are fired, we hear the sound of the shot, but CNN fades to black, not wanting to show the actual gruesome deaths.
In response to criticism, CNN said: "The decision to air the insurgents' videotape was a difficult one, but for a news organization, the right one. Our responsibility is to report the news. As an organization, we stand by our decision and respect the rights of others to disagree with it."
The Right Thing To Do
We not only disagree, we have an obligation to point out that CNN has a long history of making "news" judgments that have demonstrated an anti-American and anti-military bias.
During the first Gulf War, CNN's Peter Arnett depicted a war target in Baghdad as a "baby-milk factory," simply because the regime had installed a poorly-made sign to that effect in front of the building. U.S. officials said that it was a chemical weapons manufacturing facility.
In its coverage of Operation Tailwind, CNN aired claims that the U.S. military used poison gas to kill American defectors during the Vietnam War.
AIM led the effort to expose that anti-American propaganda ploy, and heads rolled at CNN when the channel admitted it had gotten the facts all wrong.
More recently, then-CNN president Eason Jordan wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times, admitting that CNN had refrained from telling stories of Saddam's brutality, in order to maintain access to the regime and a Baghdad bureau. Jordan was later forced to resign when he charged, without evidence, that U.S. troops in Iraq were targeting American journalists.
The Terrorist Video
Invited on CNN to discuss the controversy over the network airing the sniper footage, Rep. Duncan Hunter wondered if CNN would air a film during World War II sent in by Hitler's regime "showing Americans going down under .50 caliber bullets on the..beaches of Normandy…" He wondered if CNN would air video provided by the Imperial Government of Japan of U.S. Marines being killed at Iwo Jima.
Blitzer didn't answer Hunter's questions.
Another guest, CNN's military analyst, retired U.S. Army General David Grange, said that "…my concern is the power of information warfare, and how they use it." He said the enemy is "winning the information warfare front" and that "the media in the United States supports that somewhat."
Hunter asked Blitzer: "I think the question I asked when I saw this, Wolf, is, does CNN want America to win this thing?"
Not getting an answer, Hunter added, "And, if I was a platoon leader there, as I once was, and I had a—and I had a news organization which had shown, had—had taken film from the enemy, showing them killing one of my soldiers, and they asked if they could be embedded in my platoon, my answer would be no.
"I go back to the—to the—the days of guys like Joe Rosenthal, who filmed the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima, and Ernie Pyle, who was a soldier's reporter, the guys who were on our side — even though they reported the rough and the tough of the war, they were on our side.
"You can't be on both sides. And I would say, if I was that platoon leader, I would say, absolutely not. Take CNN out of there. You can't be on both sides."
Cheney Grills Blitzer
Lynne Cheney, the wife of Vice President Cheney, made a subsequent appearance on CNN with Blitzer to talk about her new children's book. But when the subject of the terrorist video came up, Cheney asked Blitzer why he hadn't answered the question from Hunter about whether he supported the U.S. in Iraq or not.
This time, Blitzer responded, "The answer of course is we want the United States to win. We are Americans. There's no doubt about that."
But CNN has a strange way of showing it.
To compound the problem, the U.S. State Department has had a policy of putting U.S. officials on Al-Jazeera, the vicious anti-American propaganda vehicle. Then we learned that one of those officials, Alberto Fernandez, went on the channel and declared in Arabic that U.S. Iraq policy was arrogant and stupid. At first, he denied saying those things. Then he admitted making those statements and apologized. This is a serious scandal that demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of the "public diplomacy" effort being waged by the State Department, supposedly on America's behalf.
Such diplomatic buffoonery imperils the prospect of victory in Iraq.
Incredibly, some so-called "experts" on the Arab media have defended Fernandez, saying that attacks on U.S. foreign policy are necessary to establish credibility with an Arab audience. Taken to its logical extreme, this view holds that U.S. foreign policy is to blame for our problems in the Middle East and the solution is to withdraw from Iraq (and much of the rest of the world). That is what the enemy wants.
Ironically, just a few weeks before Fernandez lied about his comments, disgraced himself and embarrassed America, Newsweek had run a sympathetic portrayal of the official, calling him "sassy" and compassionate.
Marc Lynch, a professor at Williams College and author of "Voices of the New Arab Public," a book about Al-Jazeera, was quoted as saying that "Alberto is good at going into heated, lively discussions, thinking on his feet. He's not afraid to get emotional, he'll even lose his temper a bit, which is good on these types of programs."
Let's hope Lynch is not in any position where he can influence official U.S. policy.
Another Gaffe
The story, by Zvika Krieger, noted that Fernandez did run into some criticism when he referred to "revivalist" Sunni Muslim scholar Yusuf al Qaradawi as "a respected scholar and religious leader worthy of the deepest respect."
Qaradawi, a regular fixture on Al-Jazeera, supports terrorism and was in the forefront of those criticizing the Pope for his comments about Islam's record of violence.
"Fernandez gets praise from practically every other quarter," the piece said.
This piece was almost as embarrassing as Fernandez's performance. It's beyond belief that Fernandez still has a job. No wonder a military victory in Iraq is in jeopardy.
=================
And voters form their opinions from what they hear on CNN and other ANTI-American MSM media.
They oppose the war from what they READ and HEAR from ANTI-American sources like CNN...and most of the other alphabet networks. America is in grave danger believing what they hear on these stations.....GRAVE danger.
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on November 24, 2006 05:47:07 PM newAnd voters form their opinions from what they hear on CNN and other ANTI-American MSM media.
And people like you, Linda form your opinions and then vote by reading rag sites and watching faux news. Good thing is that the majority of Americans don't do that, eh?
Weren't you here just a few days ago begging us all to watch CNN as you figured it supported your opinion and theory about the evil Muslims? To you, CNN is perfect if a bit of it supports your agenda and when it doesn't it's totally anti- American. You do the same with the NYT. Make up your mind already!
posted on November 24, 2006 05:52:52 PM new
TO some whining liberals a 'rag' is ANYTHING that is PRO-Ameican.
TO some whining liberals IF the source isn't the MOSCOW TIMES....or any anti-American news 'source'...then they consider it a 'rag'. LOL OL OL
They can't stand anything that's PRO-American.
=========================
The Patriot Post
Founders' Quote Daily
"It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors."
-- George Washington (Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789)
Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (543)
posted on November 24, 2006 06:11:09 PM new
Yes, linda, to you the idea of real democracy is stupid but then you're a Fascist through and through.
You can TWIST my statement around any childish way you want but it's still obvious that YOU don't believe in democracy, freedom of speech or expression....that makes you a Fascist.
Those who publically express their hatred for America at least have the backbone to do it...your form of Anti-Americanism is sneaky, devious....while you call everyone else anti-American it's YOU who are the most hate filled traitor that I've ever encountered.
You have NEVER made a point in here so you just hide like a scared little rabbit behind "everyone who doesn't agree with linda is anti-American, pro-terrorist"
I see you're invoking your god again...going to pray for more torture???
You never did have the backbone to admit that's how you pray.
[ edited by crowfarm on Nov 24, 2006 06:12 PM ]
Unfortunately, the debaters in America and the West have been deprived (by their own academic elites) from the understanding of that enemy. Huge efforts are underway in Europe and North America to convince legislators and media that this is not an ideological war but rather a foreign policy matter. This leads decision-makers to measure in statistics not in concepts, hence the failures in design and policies.
Let's take Iraq as an example:
General Abizaid was asked by a panel of well informed Senators last week, how to "measure" the need to send in additional U.S. forces or to begin withdrawal from Iraq.
In short military sentences, the CENTCOM boss told them it will all depend on the ability of U.S. forces to train, support and direct Iraqi units in their confrontation with the terrorists. The Senators didn't seem the get Abizaid's very accurate point. Both Republican and Democrat legislators wanted a quantitative answer:
"How many additional troops do you need so that we can pull out lots of troops after," they repetitively asked with hints at past and future electoral promises to end the conflict.
Sticking with his analysis, Abizaid (who speaks the language of the region and has studied its ideologies) said the question is not to bring in more troops to Iraq, but to have Iraqi forces begin to win their war. This was the first key in the whole hearing. The man was trying to tell the Senators that more important than bringing in additional 20,000 Marines and soldiers, was to train an additional 50,000 Iraqi troops.
Indeed, the ultimate objective in this war (at least the counter-terrorist part of it) is to help the Iraqis help themselves.
Surely with half a million boots on the ground you can saturate the whole country, but from what? There is no standing army the U.S. is fighting against.
The fight is against a factory that is producing Jihadists, both external and internal. The answer is to build the counter-factory:
i.e. an Iraqi military and intelligence force. And to do so, you have to allow it to fight the battle, with all the sacrifices and setbacks that come with it.
U.S. forces cannot keep fighting instead of the Iraqis, and win the war for them.
Aware of this reality, General Abizaid (along with his colleagues) was trying to explain to Congress that – in the historical context of it – the war against terrorism in Iraq is one of the centers of the global conflict. Even the seasoned U.S. diplomat David Satterfield, who was also testifying on behalf of the State Department, asserted the inescapable reality: it is about the Iraqis' political will.
And in addition to the General and the diplomat, may I stress as an academic, that the matter at the end is psychological.
If Iraqi citizens "see" their army engaging the terrorists and winning, the tide will turn. It is not about how many new troops or about the statistics of death. It is between al Jazeera convincing Iraqis that the U.S. is defeated and that former Secretary of State Jim Baker (co-chair of the Iraq Study Group) is supposedly negotiating the terms of the surrender, and between al Hurra TV showing Iraqi commanders fraternizing with Shia and Sunni villagers after encounters with terrorists and sectarian militias.
It boils down to this: who would the Iraqis send their sons to fight with: The Jihadists of all types or the multiethnic Army?
Without this understanding of the conflict, advocated by Abizaid, decision-makers are left with mostly political calculations:
how to cut deals, how to get out, how not to suffer more losses, and how to be reelected or super-elected in 2008.
General Abizaid instead recommended moves that make sense only if we can see the bigger picture:
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 24, 2006 06:17 PM ]
posted on November 24, 2006 06:20:52 PM new
I hardly think those are your own words linda, everything is spelled correctly......cheating by not giving credit to the REAL writer????
""""Surely with half a million boots on the ground you can saturate the whole country, but from what? There is no standing army the U.S. is fighting against.
The fight is against a factory that is producing Jihadists, both external and internal.""
(good to see you acknowledging that Bush created a terrorist factory)
"""The answer is to build the counter-factory:
i.e. an Iraqi military and intelligence force. And to do so, you have to allow it to fight the battle, with all the sacrifices and setbacks that come with it.
U.S. forces cannot keep fighting instead of the Iraqis, and win the war for them."""
Nice to know you actually CAN learn....surprising though
Oh, so you admit it's not your words...surprise, surprise!
posted on November 24, 2006 06:37:48 PM new
How sad.....more ignorance showing it's ugly head.
THIS has been the policy of this administration...and the reason huge amounts of addition troops WERE NOT sent as the liberals demanded they be. lol
The generals on the ground have ALWAYS been told by this President IF they needed more troops....they'd GET THEM. THEY kept saying THEY didn't want more. THEY wanted more Iraqi's to step up to the plate.
THIS was why Rumsfeld DIDN'T to as the anti-war liberals were demanding. Because the generals DIDN'T WANT MORE troops send. They wanted the Iraqi's to stand up...fight for their country THEMSELVES.
THIS is what the voters OPPOSED....and part of why they voted in DEMOCRATS to change this policy. Of course, we NEVER head a word of what the DEMS planned to do with Iraq - what PLAN they had/have...because THEY DON'T HAVE ONE....only a few radical liberals calling for us to admit defeat and run.
Only FOOLS and those who continue to be IGNORANT of what's BEEN going on in Iraq....didn't ALREADY KNOW this.
This general is just STILL trying to get it through the THICK/political heads in Congress.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Nov 24, 2006 06:42 PM ]
This topic is 7 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new
