Home  >  Community  >  The Vendio Round Table  >  IRAQ WAR SINCE ELECTION 11/07/06

<< previous topic post new topic post reply next topic >>
 This topic is 7 pages long: 1 new 2 new 3 new 4 new 5 new 6 new 7 new
posted on December 2, 2006 01:42:01 PM new
those who refuse to grasp the truth....will forever live in ignorance.

Guess which liberal made this statement?

"The vote is the vote. I voted to authorize. It was the right vote, and the reason I mentioned the threat is that we gave the--we had to give life to the threat. If there wasn't a legitimate threat, Saddam Hussein was not going to allow inspectors in. Now, let me make two points if I may. Ed [Gordon] questioned my answer. The reason I can't tell you to a certainty whether the president misled us is because I don't have any clue what he really knew about it, or whether he was just reading what was put in front of him. And I have no knowledge whether or not this president was in depth--I just don't know that. And that's an honest answer, and there are serious suspicions about the level to which this president really was involved in asking the questions that he should've. With respect to the question of, you know, the vote--let's remember where we were. If there hadn't been a vote, we would never have had inspectors. And if we hadn't voted the way we voted, we would not have been able to have a chance of going to the United Nations and stopping the president, in effect, who already had the votes, and who was obviously asking serious questions about whether or not the Congress was going to be there to enforce the effort to create a threat. So I think we did the right thing. I'm convinced we did."

posted on December 2, 2006 01:46:04 PM new
The answer is, [from the WSJ editorial editor]

The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who voted for the Iraq war, then declared he was against it, then gave a mind-bogglingly convoluted explanation for his vote**, then lost the presidential election, then said he had been wrong after all to vote for the war, then asserted that the servicemen who are "stuck in Iraq" are a bunch of uneducated losers, then explained that what he meant was that the man who beat him in the presidential election (and who holds two Ivy League degrees) was an uneducated loser--all, by the way, after he served in Vietnam.

posted on December 2, 2006 01:55:44 PM new
Don't forget now "waco"peepa....that since the dems won both houses....those who voted for them are going to have to PROVE to those voters they can actually accomplish something/anything besides TALKING.

AND also dont forget old michael moore has THREATENED the dems that he's giving them ONE MONTH to get us out of Iraq....or he'll come down on them harder than he did on the republicans.


Meanwhile the dems still have a month or so to try and put together SOME plan.....now that they have to PROVE themselves to those who bought into their promises [lies].

WSJ today

Cut-and-Run Bait-and-Switch

The New York Times has another postelection epiphany:
In the cacophony of competing plans about how to deal with Iraq, one reality now appears clear: despite the Democrats' victory this month in an election viewed as a referendum on the war, the idea of a rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option.

This is a "news analysis" by David Sanger, but it echoes a theme the Times has sounded repeatedly since the election. First was this Nov.12 editorial:
The Democrats will not be able to savor their victory for long. Americans are waiting to hear if they have any good ideas for how to get out of Iraq without creating even wider chaos and terrorism.

Criticizing President Bush's gross mismanagement of the war was a winning electoral strategy. But criticism will not extricate the United States from this mess, nor will it persuade voters that the Democrats are ready to take back the White House....

The Democrats will also need to look forward--and quickly. So far they have shared slogans, but no real policy. During the campaign, their most common call was for a "phased redeployment"--a euphemism for withdrawal--of American troops starting before the end of this year.

Three days later, a "military analysis" by Michael Gordon took issue with the view "the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months":

This argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

Pre-election calls to cut and run are looking increasingly like a bait-and-switch.

Even John Kerry*, who before the election was issuing intelligible if irresponsible cut-and-run calls, has returned to his usual tenebrous form, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday:
I hope we can all work together, but we've got to be tougher in our approach. I believe personally--and I've said this publicly--that you have to set a date for the expectation of when the Iraqis will take over their responsibility. And if you don't get tough and have those kinds of benchmarks, then they have an excuse to avoid it altogether.

All together now: Two, four, six, eight! For the expectations of when the Iraqis will take over their responsibility we've got to set a date!

David Keene of the American Conservative Union describes a telling conversation between a pair of Beltway Democrats (ellipsis in original):

An old Democratic friend of mine stopped by the Monocle last week and while there ran into a Democratic senator of long acquaintance. The Senator was, of course, quite pleased with the outcome of the election and is looking forward to the perks and responsibilities that go with being in the majority.

The two talked for a few minutes, but the Senator was more than a little taken aback when my friend asked him what he and his fellow Democrats intend to do with the war they managed to acquire with their new majority. "What do you mean?" he said. "Iraq is Bush's war and his problem."

"Oh, no," my friend responded, "it was his war until Nov. 9, but your party ran condemning the war, Bush's management of it and promised to end it in one way or another. Now, you guys are going to have to come up with a plan because you are in the majority and with the majority comes responsibility ...
especially on problems voters believe you promised to solve."

It was a sobering thought and the senator was momentarily speechless, but then got very, very cautious and assured my friend that most Democrats believe it would be dangerous to do anything precipitous. Fortunately, there was no one from MoveOn.Org at the next table.

Keene concludes: "Iraq is many things, including a tar-baby that congressional Democrats are going to find as difficult to get away from as the Republicans they so gleefully beat up over the last few years."

We'd put it a little differently: Iraq is a challenge, as well as an opportunity, for America, and if both major parties at last find it necessary to face that challenge responsibly, that is good for the country.

"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
posted on December 2, 2006 02:32:32 PM new
Here's a funny from RS....

""at otwa she seemed quite content to talk to herself if no one responded I recall her totem posting if there was no response ,

(Ive always felt the probably does this in real life also )""""

posted on December 2, 2006 04:32:04 PM new
This is just part of a news story on women in the military and their roles in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Women take on major battlefield roles

By SHARON COHEN, AP National Writer 2 hours, 13 minutes ago

In Iraq and Afghanistan, women warriors are writing a new chapter in military history, serving by the tens of thousands, fending off enemy fire and taking on — and succeeding in — high-profile roles in the battlefield and the skies as never before.

"The American public is beginning to realize that women are playing an equal part in this war and that they are facing the same risks," says Duckworth, who lost both legs in the 2004 insurgent attack. "This is the first time in our nation's history ... when it's normal to see female names as part of the war wounded or those killed in action."

More than 155,000 women have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002, according to the Pentagon, nearly four times the number during the Persian Gulf War. Females now account for 15 percent of the active duty force.

The number of women casualties — 68 dead and more than 430 injured — represents a tiny fraction of the total. Still, by one estimate, the deaths exceed the number of military women who lost their lives in Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War combined.

The public, long accustomed to seeing disabled male veterans and grieving widows clutching folded U.S. flags, has adjusted to a new set of somber images: women soldiers coming home with life-changing injuries and tearful farewells to mothers, wives and daughters.


There is even a comment on brass ovaries.

[ edited by kiara on Dec 2, 2006 04:40 PM ]
posted on December 3, 2006 07:07:14 AM new
Hey liar_k,

Looks like you are now a UN-American thinker that hates the newly elected lawmakers before they even take office.

You seem to hate and want the new lawmakers to fail. You want the same lawmakers that will soon be PROTECTING THIS COUNTRY TO FAIL. How UN-AMERICAN OF YOU BEAST.


12/02/06 91 Die in Triple Car Bombings in Baghdad (update)
Three parked car bombs exploded in central Baghdad on Saturday near a predominantly Shiite area packed with vendors, killing at least 91 people and wounding dozens, officials said.

posted on December 3, 2006 04:05:15 PM new
It is not a "civil" war for the simple reason that there is no such thing as "Iraq" for there to be a war over. It was created by the British and the UN. The war is the same thing that's been going on for centuries.

You have Saudi Arabia fighting Iran through the funding of proxy militias adhering to different Muslim sects. Not very complicated, but with tremendous consequences.

posted on December 3, 2006 06:50:37 PM new
Since Bushy's invasion of Iraq 2900 Brave American troops have died. Up 10 since yesterday and still counting.

There is no Iraq another NEW-CON says.


Since the PHONY religious backed NEW-CON EXPERIMENT IN GOVERNMENT FAILED and came crashing down. The new-cons are out in gaga land.

posted on December 4, 2006 05:41:52 PM new
Since Bushy's invasion of Iraq 2904 Brave American troops have died. Up 4 since yesterday and still counting.

12/04/06 Reuters: Bodies of 52 people around Baghdad
Police found the bodies of 52 people around Baghdad in the 24 hours to Monday evening, an Interior Ministry source said. Most had gunshot wounds and many had been tortured -- victims of suspected sectarian death squads


posted on December 5, 2006 12:46:40 PM new
Another garbage posting from the liberal propaganda terrorist bigdopa.

dishonorable dohhhh paaaaa, dishonorable dohhhh paaaaa, dishonorable dohhhh paaaaa, dishonorable dohhhh paaaaa, dishonorable dohhhh paaaaa, dishonorable dohhhh paaaaa, dishonorable dohhhh paaaaa, dishonorable dohhhh paaaaa.

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.

Are YOU a Bunghole?

Take the bunghole quiz here.
posted on December 5, 2006 12:57:13 PM new
Since Bushy's invasion of Iraq 2907 Brave American troops have died. Up 3 since yesterday and still counting.

Roundup of violence in Iraq - 5 December
By Mohammed al Awsy
McClatchy Newspapers

at 8 o'clock this morning a mini bus with an employees from the sheaat endowment were going to their work in selekh area north east Baghdad in mohammed al kassim highway when a car bomb exploded in front of the mini bus. when the mini bus slowed down unknown gunmen threw a hand grenade inside the bus killing 15 employees and injuring another 9 employees .

at 8:30 this morning an IED exploded in AL YARMOUK area ARBA'A SHAWAREE, it exploded at the Iraqi army checkpoint, 2 soldiers were killed and 2 others were injured .

at 10 o'clock this morning 3 car bombs exploded a few seconds after one another near WAHED HUZAIRAN gas station in bayaa area western Baghdad, those car bombs were aiming at the civilians who were lining up to get kerosene from the station, 15 civilians were killed and 25 others were injured .

at 11 o'clock this morning a car bomb left by the roadside exploded near a local market in AMIL area western Baghdad, 2 civilians were killed and 7 others were injured .

at 11:30 this morning a car bomb exploded in 7th nisan street in AMIL area western Baghdad, 3 civilians were killed and 5 others were injured.

at 4 o'clock this evening a car bomb exploded near the former security building were a police academy is located, 3 police were killed and 6 others were injured .

in mahmodiyah area southern Baghdad a car bomb left by the roadside exploded, one civilian was injured.

at 12 o'clock this noon mortars fell in AL KAHIRA area eastern Baghdad near FARAJ local market, 2 children were killed and 10 civilians were injured .

at 1 o'clock this afternoon an IED exploded at the national police patrol in AUQBA BIN NAFA'A square in KARADA area, 2 police were injured and 2 civilians were injured .

today 60 dead bodies were found in Baghdad, 3 were found in bayaa, 1 hurriyah, 7 amil, 2 shoala, 2 risla, 1 shurta rabiaa, 4 doura, 3 turath, 1 ghazaliyah, 1 taji, 4 haifa street, 1 mishahda, 1 adil, 1 khadhra, 3 yarmouk, 3 mansour, 3 jihad, 7 sadr city, 3 shaab, 4 new baghdad, 2 husseiniyah, 2 habibiyah and 1 kamaliyah.


posted on December 6, 2006 05:46:04 AM new
As of November 4, 2006 in Bushy's invasion of Iraq. 18,000 troops stricken with Diseases and needed Air Transport? What is that all about?

Diseases - Medical Air Transport Required

Army Navy Marines Air Force Total
15,575 487 1,148 785 17,995

posted on December 6, 2006 12:24:37 PM new
Last I heard, we're STILL fighting in Iraq.

When that changes....be sure and let us know, "waco"peepa.

"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
posted on December 6, 2006 08:28:17 PM new
ALLELUIA beast you will be the first I let you know when changes happen in Iraq Nam.

update 11/6/06 Since Bushy's invasion of Iraq 2919 Brave American troops have died. UP 12 BRAVE TROOPS SINCE YESTERDAY.

They BEAST LIAR_K is that enough change in Iraq Nam for you in one day.

Lets all watch Tony Snow TRY to lie Bushy out of the new Iraq Invasion report.

I just wish somebody would give Bushy a BJ so we can START IMPEACHING HIM.

posted on December 6, 2006 08:38:41 PM new
"waco"peepa, I'll remind you once again...that there are MANY reports being produced right now.

ALL offering recommendations on which way the President MAY decide to go from here.

Being the C-I-C means the final decision rests with HIM.

That appears to be something you just can't grasp. Try harder.

Nothing's changed in Iraq....we're still at war....our brave soldiers are still fighting for FREEDOM and LIBERTY for the Iraqi's who are fighting right along with them.

Someday soon MAYBE you'll be able to see the liberals made PROMISES to get vote....that THEY just can't keep. Disappointment will set in but you'll get over it .....eventually....MAYBE.

"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
posted on December 6, 2006 08:46:41 PM new
Panel: U.S. underreported Iraq violence

By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer 2 hours, 54 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.

In its report on ways to improve the U.S. approach to stabilizing Iraq, the group recommended Wednesday that the director of national intelligence and the secretary of defense make changes in the collection of data about violence to provide a more accurate picture.

The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

"The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents.

"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," the report said.

A request for Pentagon comment on the report's assertions was not immediately answered.

Some U.S. analysts have complained for months that the Pentagon's reports to Congress on conditions in Iraq have undercounted the violent episodes. Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq watcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said in a November report that the Pentagon omits many low-level incidents and types of civil violence.

posted on December 6, 2006 09:29:51 PM new
Gee where are all the 'reporters/journalist' lol....that are supposed to be REPORTING these things?

Might they be hiding out...rather than doing their job?

Then we have the other side to this coin. Where reporters/journals are reporting 'happenings' that never happened....or at least that they can't substanciate they EVER happened. lol lol Does the most recent AP unsustanciated 'so called' report ring a bell with any of the anti-war posters here? LOL LOL

Then we also have cases where reports are taking 'supposed FACTS from Iraqi's who are on the enemy side' and calling them FACTUAL too.

Sure is getting to the point where one just can't trust ANY report. I'll stick with military reports....reporters....they're the most believabe now a days, imo.

"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
posted on December 6, 2006 09:59:32 PM new
U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said.

Some U.S. analysts have complained for months that the Pentagon's reports to Congress on conditions in Iraq have undercounted the violent episodes.

I am pleased that this is finally being acknowledged. The amount of violence is no surprise to those who read numerous news sources from around the world or to the ones involved in the midst of it. The violence has been reported but probably not by the rag sites that some rely on for their limited knowledge of world events.

posted on December 6, 2006 10:23:37 PM new
LOL....oh yes, some liberals would much rather believe sources like the treason times who have to do so many corrections on the 'errors' they make.....and then we have the dan rather type reporters that offer as PROOF....false documents....then now we have the AP reporting on BURNED people in Iraq....but can't substanciate their own reports.

Then of course we have the USSC not willing to protect the nyt from all it's 'unmentioned sources'....lol lol lol

Yep...let's believe that biased MSM. 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
posted on December 7, 2006 12:09:40 AM new
But I was talking about those who read numerous news sources from around the world and are more aware of what is happening. That includes those from any political party.

posted on December 7, 2006 12:18:36 AM new
posted on December 6, 2006 09:29:51 PM
Gee where are all the 'reporters/journalist' lol....that are supposed to be REPORTING these things? """

Well, from what I heard FIRST HAND from reporters in Iraq is that it is SO DANGEROUS to leave their compound that REAL news IS hard to get....ya know , when they leave the compound they're tripping over all those rose petals and candies that Rummydummy said the Iraqis would shower the Americans with!!!

Seriously, things ARE SO BAD IN IRAQ that reporters have a very difficult time getting information...it's a struggle especially with fitful electricity ...they have to rely on IRAQIS to get them the FACTS...

posted on December 7, 2006 12:30:52 AM new
I think about 90 journalists have been killed since the start of the war, more killed than any other war. Other media assistants have been killed along with them.

posted on December 7, 2006 11:10:08 AM new
Liar_k BEAST,
Just before our elections you stated the increased violence in Iraq was to effect our elections.

Its been about a month since our elections. On November 7th we had 2,836 dead American Troops. Today 12/07/06 we have 2,920 dead American troops up about 84 dead American Troops since the elections. The violence since our Elections has not let up and in fact we now know is getting worse.

(Kiara showed us all more lies from Bushy and his GANG. "U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said."

I point these facts out so other people can see your NEW-CON lies and tricks EXPOSED! We all know your lies and tricks don't work any longer but your so disconnected from reality by now you keep trying anyway.

If Bushy stalls and doesn't implement most of the Iraq Invasion panel's SUGGESTIONS. BUSHY SHOULD BE IMPEACHED. America has had enough of Bushy's his gang and his supporters BULL ROAR.

The Majority of Americans are beginning believe Bushy is the worst President the U.S. ever had.

posted on December 13, 2006 10:00:40 AM new

Iraqi civilian deaths are not being reported accurately.

Dr. Cole is a Ph.D. an expert in Middle East and South Asian history. He is from the University of Michigan, and he is the person who runs a blog called Informed Comment.



Dr. Cole...

Well, I'm very grateful to Representatives Kucinich and Paul for this opportunity to address this important issue.

Ladies and gentlemen, I speak here today about the social and political context of the violence in Iraq. Based on my daily and extensive reading of the Iraqi press and Western reporting, I believe that the seemingly high numbers for excess Iraqi deaths owing to political violence and criminal violence since 2003, reported in the 2006 Lancet study, are nevertheless plausible.

Let me just give you some case studies to show what I'm talking about, because it's often -- the report has been criticized with regard to statistics to reported deaths that appear in the press. I want to emphasize to you that the press just isn't reporting very many of the actual deaths in Iraq.

For instance, security clearly collapsed in the southern Shi'ite city of Basra, population 1.3 million, in spring of 2006. Iraqi officials maintained in April that for the previous month, one Iraqi had been assassinated each hour. This is in the city of Basra, one city.

These -- some 750 deaths had gone completely unreported in both the Iraqi and the Western press. If you go back and do a Lexis search for Basra in March and April of 2006, you won't see any deaths reported at all there.

It is not clear that the al-Maliki government's deployment to Basra of the 10th Army Division this past summer made much of a difference in the violence, which is committed by militias and tribal mafias fighting turf wars over petroleum smuggling and other sources of wealth. It is entirely possible that the 750 a month are still dying in Basra, but that these deaths are going unreported. Again, if you just look at the daily wire service reports coming out of Iraq, these kinds of deaths for Basra are not being mentioned.

Families are often afraid to draw attention to themselves by publicly reporting deaths in guerrilla violence, and sometimes they're even afraid to retrieve the body of a loved one from the morgue, lest morgue officials report them to the guerrillas for a bribe.

The estimate given by the Iraqi Health Ministry on November 9th, 2006, of 150,000 Iraqis killed since the war began by -- actually, according to what the Health minister said, was with regard to deaths caused by Sunni Arab insurgents.

He was very specific in the cause of the death of that he was announcing. So it wasn't a global estimate of 150,000. As I understood it, it was from that particular source.

So we add in the number of deaths from criminal activity -- and there's quite a lot in Iraq -- from Shi'ite militias, which the Ministry of Health didn't refer to, and from U.S. military action. Actually, the Health Ministry is probably pretty close to the Lancet estimate, if you extrapolate it out.

Let's just consider the humanitarian disaster in a place like Diyala province northeast of Baghdad. This is a mixed region near to Iran with a population of 1.3 million. It has a Sunni Arab preponderance, but it has Shi'ites and Kurds. In the provincial elections of January 2005, the Sunnis boycotted the polls. As a result, the provincial council consists of 20 Shi'ites, 14 Sunnis and seven Kurds. The Shi'ites have the predominance on the council, and they therefore have brought in their guys in the police, in the army and so forth. So the governor and the police chief of Baqubah, the capital of the province, are Shi'ites. The Shi'ites dominated local police, have been supported in recent weeks by the 5th Army Division, which is Shi'ite and commanded by a Shi'ite officer.

Sunni Arabs have organized local militias in their districts to keep the police and army out. This is being coded as lawlessness by the U.S. press and military, but it is actually a rejection of dominance by the new elected Shi'ite political elite. And the U.S. military is careful to say that it is not supporting one side or another in the sectarian violence in Diyala; it says we're just supporting the elected government. Well, as it happens, the elected government is mainly Shi'ite, so the U.S. military actually is supporting one side.

The reports coming out from Baqubah and Diyala generally through November are -- show a steady drumbeat of violence.

On Sunday, November 5th, in response to the announcement of the death sentence for Saddam Hussein, hundreds or perhaps thousands of unarmed Sunni Arab protestors gathered in Baqubah carrying posters of Saddam. They also raised banners criticizing the al-Maliki government. It's often alleged by the Shi'ites that Baqubah is a hotbed for al Qaeda, but here we have the Sunni Arabs showing support for the secular Saddam. Local police fired into the crowd, allegedly killing 20 and wounding 23. These are largely Shi'ite police firing on Sunni Arab protesters. The Times of Baghdad, al-Zaman, branded the repression "a massacre."

And most days through November, you find reports like that on November 13th. CBS News reported 50 bodies were found, discarded like trash in Baqubah. On the same day, 40 bodies that had accumulated in the morgue had not been claimed were buried. On November 15th, AP reported that Iraqi police, backed by U.S. forces, discovered the bodies of 10 kidnap victims found blindfolded with gunshots in a house in Baqubah.

And then major violence broke out in mid-November. On Saturday, November 18th, Sunni Arab guerrillas in Baqubah attacked a police checkpoint, killing two policemen and wounding two others, and then opened fire on residents -- these are Shi'ite residents -- after pulling them from their homes or automobiles. They shot at Shi'ite seasonal workers returning to Baghdad from orchards in the east of Baqubah, killing eight; in response, U.S. and Iraqi Army forces fought the guerrillas for many hours in the street. And again, the Iraq army that's been deployed to Baqubah is the 5th Division, which is largely Shi'ite.

Rocket-propelled grenades and light-arms fire caromed through the city, leaving 18 persons dead and 19 wounded. It was unclear how many of the casualties were guerrillas. On Sunday, the curfew was lifted, but the main street was closed off. The guerrillas still had control over four districts in Baqubah. They attacked another police checkpoint. The police said that in a separate incident, guerrillas loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr set fire to numerous shops in the market in revenge for attacks on their own offices in the city. Al-Zaman's correspondent in Baqubah -- this a major Iraqi newspaper -- wrote on Monday, November 20th that the city, he said, "is living through a powerless security situation. Police patrols disappear from the principal streets early in the day and various armed groups thereafter have enormous sway." Reuters reported the same day that a senior police officer who declined to be named said, quote, "There is not a day that passes without dozens of people being killed either from bombs, shootings or assassinations. This has been going for months."

And I want to underline that no newspaper or wire service is reporting dozens of daily deaths in Baqubah that so many are being missed lends credence to the higher estimates for the deaths in the Lancet study.

Many days no deaths at all are reported, sometimes only one or two make the news. But this senior police officer, an eyewitness, maintains
that dozens are dying every day.

And this story that I'm telling goes on through November into December. And reports are coming in from little towns around Baqubah; it's not just the capital. On November 26th, it was reported that police found 21 bodies of Shi'ites in Balad Ruz, a mainly Sunni city. On November 26th, AFP reported that guerrillas in the small town of Kanan (ph) in Diyala, 12 miles south of Baqubah, kidnapped at least 20 Iraqis of mixed tribe and sect. Usually the kidnapped don't show back up alive. On November 27th, it was reported in the Arabic press that Sunni Arab guerrillas fought a pitched battle with police in the city of Buhriz near Baqubah, defeated them, chased them out of their headquarters, and set it on fire and completely took over the city. So the guerrillas pushed the police out.

Now, the story that I'm telling you could be told for other areas of Iraq, not just Diyala. The so-called "Triangle of Death" in Babil province, just south of Baghdad, which includes towns like Yusufiya, Mahmudiyah, Iskandariyah, Latifiyah, see similar kinds of daily grind of violence. A lot of the killing seems to be just people shooting people down. The press tends to favor reports of car-bombings, but car-bombings produce a relatively small percentage of the deaths. It's mostly just sniping and gunfire at one another.

News-gathering in contemporary Iraq is extremely dangerous and difficult. The collection and publication of social statistics has been affected by the violence and the anxieties that it spawns. Scientifically weighted household surveys are one instrument to supplement the desultory and staccato news reports about casualties in Iraq. It is clear that the level of sectarian violence and reprisals has increased substantially since February of 2006, when Sunni Arab guerrillas blew up the Askariya shrine in Samarra, among the holiest of the sites for the Shi'ites.

The violence is now being pursued at the neighborhood and clan level, often at night or in dense urban tenements, such that the U.S. military appears unable to stop it. Indeed, the presence of so many U.S. troops in Iraq and the way in which they're often dragged willy- nilly into sectarian fights, such as Diyala, is probably impeding the natural process whereby Iraqis would be forced to compromise with one another.

Dr. Cole is a Ph.D. an expert in Middle East and South Asian history. He is from the University of Michigan, and he is the person who runs the blog Informed Comment.

From Congressional Hearing on Civilian Casualties in Iraq

posted on December 13, 2006 11:38:45 AM new
Or then again, maybe not.

posted on December 13, 2006 11:59:30 AM new
juan cole ROFLMHO at hellens favorite BLOGGER.

Not all American's view HER juan cole in the same manner she does.

from a WSJ op-ed -

Meanwhile, Yale faces a new challenge. In the next few days the university may hire Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan, to fill a new spot as a professor of contemporary Middle East studies.

Mr. Cole's appointment would be problematic on several fronts. First, his scholarship is largely on the 19th-century Middle East, not on contemporary issues. "He has since abandoned scholarship in favor of blog commentary," says Michael Rubin, a Yale graduate and editor of the Middle East Quarterly.

Mr. Cole's postings at his blog, Informed Comment, appear to be a far cry from scholarship. They feature highly polemical writing and dubious conspiracy theories.

In justifying all the time he spends on his blog, Mr. Cole told the Yale Herald that "when you become a public intellectual, it has the effect of dragging you into a lot of mud." Mr. Cole has done his share of splattering.

He calls Israel "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East." That ties in with his recurring theme that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee effectively controls Congress and much of U.S. foreign policy.

In an article titled "Dual Loyalties," he wrote, "I simply think that we deserve to have American public servants who are centrally commited [sic] to the interests of the United States, rather than to the interests of a foreign political party," namely Israel's right-wing Likud, which was the ruling party until Ariel Sharon formed the centrist Kadima Party.

Mr. Cole claims that "pro-Likud intellectuals" routinely "use the Pentagon as Israel's Gurkha regiment, fighting elective wars on behalf of Tel Aviv."

Last January, Mr. Cole participated in a "teach-in" at Yale that could have been an audition for his possible hiring. According to the Yale Daily News, he told students that U.S. efforts "in helping create a constitution for the 'new Iraq' have increased factionalism." He concluded that "this is a recipe for continued social turmoil and continued global war."

Mr. Cole says that he is often unfairly attacked for being anti-Semitic, when in reality he claims he is only critical of Israeli policy.

But Michael Oren, a visiting fellow at Yale, notes that in February 2003 Mr. Cole wrote on his blog that "Apparently [President Bush] has fallen for a line from the neo-cons in his administration that they can deliver the Jewish vote to him in 2004 if only he kisses Sharon's ass." Mr. Oren says "clearly that's anti-Semitism; that's not a criticism of Israeli policy." (Exit polls showed that 74% of the Jewish vote went to John Kerry.)

Mr. Cole appears to be the only prominent academic in America to have embraced "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," a highly controversial paper by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard.

Mr. Cole told the Chicago Sun-Times yesterday that the paper argues the "virtually axiomatic" point held by the rest of the world that a "powerful pro-Israel lobby exists." The result is that "U.S. policy toward the Middle East has been dangerously skewed."

But the paper has been roundly attacked for sloppy generalizations. The two authors claim that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel." Even Noam Chomsky, a far-left critic of Israel, wrote that we "have to ask how convincing their thesis is.

Not very, in my opinion." But Mr. Cole praises the two professors for seeking "to end the taboo [on discussions of the "Israel lobby"], enforced by knee-jerk accusations of anti-Semitism."

Mr. Cole wants to enforce his own taboos on free expression. In February, he told the Detroit Metro Times that the federal government should close the leading cable news channel. "I think it is outrageous that Fox Cable News is allowed to run that operation the way it runs it," he said in summarizing his view that Fox "is polluting the information environment." He went on to claim that "in the 1960s the FCC would have closed it down. It's an index of how corrupt our governmental institutions have become, that the FCC lets this go on."

Appointing someone as hotheaded and intolerant as Mr. Cole to a prestigious appointment at Yale wouldn't seem to make any sense.

The drive to hire him can be explained in part by the same impulses that prompted Yale to admit Mr. Hashemi.

"Perhaps the folks who still want to let Taliban Man into the degree program are also thinking Cole would make a great faculty advisor for him," jokes Mr. Taylor, the alumnus leading the NailYale protest.


Then we have the campuswatch group....they keep close 'eyes' on what's going on in our universities/colleges.

Critics charge that Professor Cole has forsaken a scholarly approach (his expertise is on on nineteenth century issues) in favor of politicized angry writing on the contemporary Middle East. They may have a point.

Look at Professor Juan Cole's recent petition letter to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, signed by numerous academics.

How will the Jewish presidents read this letter? Most likely, not favorably.


Imo, juan cole has LONG been anti-semetic


"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 Dec 13, 2006 12:22 PM ]
posted on December 13, 2006 12:20:38 PM new

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins. When you insult a troll, he wins. When you scream at a troll, he wins. The only thing that trolls can't handle is being ignored.

posted on December 13, 2006 12:21:20 PM new
You are currently ignoring posts from Linda_K. Click here to view them.

   This topic is 7 pages long: 1 new 2 new 3 new 4 new 5 new 6 new 7 new
<< previous topic post new topic post reply next topic >>

Jump to

All content © 1998-2020  Vendio all rights reserved. Vendio Services, Inc.™, Simply Powerful eCommerce, Smart Services for Smart Sellers, Buy Anywhere. Sell Anywhere. Start Here.™ and The Complete Auction Management Solution™ are trademarks of Vendio. Auction slogans and artwork are copyrights © of their respective owners. Vendio accepts no liability for the views or information presented here.

The Vendio free online store builder is easy to use and includes a free shopping cart to help you can get started in minutes!