By Larry Johnson
closeAuthor: Larry Johnson
Name: Larry Johnson
Email: larry_johnson@earthlink.net
Site: http://NoQuarterUSA.net
About: Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.[1] He has worked as a private consultant on issues of international terrorism and security for the U.S. Government and private companies. Johnson has appeared as a consultant and commentator in many major newspapers and news programs.[2]
Contents [hide]
1 Background
2 Views
2.1 1996
2.2 1998
2.3 1999
2.4 2000
2.5 2001
2.6 2003
2.6.1 Plame affair
2.7 2008
3 Notes
4 References
5 External links
[edit]Background
Larry Johnson moved to Washington, D.C. in 1979 to begin work on a Ph.D. at the American University. Although he completed successfully all coursework and comprehensive exams, he did not write a dissertation. In 1978 and in 1983-85 he worked in Latin America on community development projects as a community organizer. Returning to the United States in 1985 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency, thanks in part to a letter of recommendation from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) that helped to "open doors" for him at the Agency.[3] Johnson entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985 and was a classmate of Valerie Plame. Every member of that class was undercover. After a year in the Career Trainee program, which included a stint with the Afghan Task Force, Johnson was assigned as an analyst in the Middle America Caribbean Division in the Latin American Affairs Office of the Directorate of Intelligence. He received two Exceptional Performance awards and was promoted ultimately to Senior Regional Analyst for Central America.
Johnson remained undercover in the CIA until October 1989, when he resigned from the CIA and started a new job in the Office of Counter Terrorism at the Department of State. Johnson played an instrumental role in launching the Terrorism Rewards program international advertising campaign (working with Diplomatic Security officers Brad Smith and Michael Parks). [4] Johnson also was involved in a variety of crisis management response operations, including the release of hostages from Lebanon and liaison with the Pan Am 103 families. He left government service in October 1993 and started his own business as a consultant.
After leaving government service, Johnson became a frequent guest on many major television news shows when a question of terrorism came up. He was first interviewed by CNN following the capture of Carlos the Jackal. Johnson subsequently appeared on CNN, ABC's Nightline, CBS, the BBC, MSNBC, the Jim Lehrer News Hour, NBC, and NPR. In December of 1999, for example, Johnson was hired by NBC to serve as its terrorist expert for the Y2000 and was in Time Square with Tom Brokaw and Katie Couric ("a lot of fun and the best way to see in the New Year"). Johnson also was hired in January 2002 as a Fox News Analyst and remained under contract until February 2003.
Since 1994 a significant focus of Johnson's consulting work has been with the U.S. military special operations forces in scripting and conducting military counter terrorism exercises. He traveled under orders from the U.S. military to Iraq in May 2006 to work on a short term project.
A registered Republican who supported President Bush in 2000, Johnson became a strong critic of the Bush administration in May 2003 for its conduct of the war in Iraq and, a few months later, for its role in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame.[5] He was also featured in the 2004 political documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Since Robert Novak's controversial disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in July 2003, Johnson has contributed to public discourse on intelligence matters, often sparking further controversy. He has been interviewed by both the mass media and the alternative media and published commentaries on a variety of issues, including the Plame affair, the controversy concerning Mary McCarthy, and the resignation of Porter Goss as Director of Central Intelligence.
[edit]Views
This article or section may contain an inappropriate mixture of prose and timeline.
Please help convert this timeline into prose or, if necessary, a list.
[edit]1996
In 1996, Johnson noted that terrorism worldwide was on the decline. "Terrorist incidents [both internationally and in the US] have fallen to levels not seen since the 1970s. Whether measured by the number of incidents, the number of fatalities, or the number of groups, raw statistics demonstrate that the level of terrorist violence has declined since the mid-1980s. In fact, the evidence suggests terrorism was more widespread and deadly 10 years ago."[6]
He also wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Times suggesting that the newer and more deadly terrorist threat to the U.S. was embodied by "networks of terrorists, mostly foreign, working within its borders." Exemplifying this threat was Ramzi Yousef, one of the masterminds behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In the article, Johnson suggests that enhanced cooperation between intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA, is mandatory to meet the growing threat of terror networks.[7]
[edit]1998
In 1998, Johnson argued that while overall terrorism was declining, the threat from bin Laden and al-Qaeda should be the focus of American counterterrorism policy:
The nature of the threat posed by Bin Ladin is highlighted by my final chart, number 7. Osama Bin Ladin and individuals associated with him have killed and wounded more Americans than any other group. This chart also illustrates that groups such as Hamas and the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) prior to 1998 have killed more foreigners in the anti-US terrorist attacks. If we take into account the bombings of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama's status as the most lethal terrorist is certain.[8]
In addition, he told USA Today that bin Laden had participated in "virtually every major attack of terrorism against the United States" in the 1990s. Johnson underlined the threat posed by bin Laden, saying that he was possessed by "hatred and craziness." If left unanswered, "he would continue to terrorize Americans around the world. He has no compunction about killing women and children. He's a complete egalitarian in his murderous attitude."[9]
[edit]1999
In an interview with PBS's Frontline for its 1999 program, Hunting bin Laden, Johnson discussed Osama bin Laden.[10] According to Johnson, Americans had "tended to make Osama bin Laden sort of a superman in Muslim garb." "Actually," he continues, "Osama bin Laden, in my view, represents more of a symptom of a problem, and the problem is this: the Saudi Arabian government, not just Osama bin Laden but many people in Saudi Arabia, have been sending money to radical Islamic groups for years." Johnson continued:
When you look at who's killed Americans in the last 10 years, the individuals he's supported and backed--I'm basing that upon the initial information that's been released in the indictments and conversations with others in the intelligence communities--Osama bin Laden has been the one killing Americans. No other terrorist group in the world has been out killing Americans except for Osama bin Laden.... Osama bin Laden remains out there as the one really targeting us. So, we recognize that he's the threat. He's serious about wanting to kill Americans, but as long as he's in Afghanistan, as long as he doesn't have access to a cell phone, as long as he can't just hop on a plane and travel wherever he wants without fear of being arrested, his ability to plan and conduct terrorist operations is extremely limited. We have to recognize [that] he would like to do a lot of damage. He would like to kill Americans, but wanting to is different from being able to, having the full capabilities in place.[11]
In the interview, Johnson doubted the ability of members of bin Laden's organization to plan and put their lives on the line:
There's not another Ali or Mustafa out there at this point and Osama bin Laden in my view has not been a very effective organizer or leader. He talks a great game and puts out terrific threats as far as stirring the passions in the United States and maybe firing up the imaginations of some young Muslims throughout the world. But when push comes to shove, can he get a group of people who are together who will say: we are going to plan an operation, we're going to put our lives on the line, we're going to go out and try and kill people and we don't care what the consequence is? It hasn't happened.[12]
Frontline asked:
[Is it] ... fair to say what you're saying is that the president of the United States, his national security advisor, his deputy national security advisor for counter-terrorism, are basically blowing smoke [about the danger posed by bin Laden] and his followers]?
Johnson responded:
They're grossly exaggerating the problem. They are hyping it. They shouldn't be talking about rising terrorism. Instead of saying "terrorism's rising," it's not. "Terrorism is spreading," it's not. "More people are dying from terrorism," not the case. But what they should be saying is, "There's one individual out there that really doesn't like us, and he's made it his mission in life to kill Americans, and we've gotta deal with him." But we need to have a voice of reason in that process instead of putting ourselves out crying wolf, because this is essentially what's taking place right now. They call it the administration that cries wolf.[12]
[edit]2000
Johnson co-authored an article in 2000 with Milt Bearden which focused on the threat posed by al-Qaeda specifically, rather than terrorism trends in general. Beardon and Johnson note that new information emerging about the bombings at Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 points to the threat posed by Imad Mugniyah and Osama Bin Laden will require "a coordinated policy that will employ a full range of covert, clandestine, diplomatic, and military operations," concluding:
The Clinton Administration has shot its bolt on the terrorist problem with small effect, and no last minute show of force will change the record. A new administration can start afresh with a more sharply defined set of terrorism goals – Mughniyeh and bin Laden and their protectors for starters – and bring the full, coordinated force of American diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities to bear on the problem.[13]
[edit]2001
After Johnson's testimony to the special forum at the U.S. Senate, Gary J. Schmitt, executive director and CEO of the Project for the New American Century, refers in the Daily Standard (blog) to an op-ed piece Johnson wrote two months prior to the 9/11 attacks, claiming that Johnson argued that the US had little to fear from terrorism.[14]
In an editorial entitled "The Declining Terrorist Threat," published in the New York Times on 10 July 2001, Johnson says:
Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.... None of these beliefs are based in fact.... While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.[15]
Ten days after the 9/11 attacks, after quoting the above passage, Timothy Noah concludes a post in his "Chatterbox" feature at Slate: "Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong."[16] Johnson defended himself against such attacks:
The rightwing is resurrecting an op-ed I wrote in July 2001. I stand by the full article. It is still relevant today. I am accused, incorrectly, of ignoring the threat of terrorism. In fact, I correctly noted that the real threat emanated from Bin Laden and Islamic extremism. President Bush, for his part, ignored the CIA warning in August 2001 that Al Qaeda was posed to strike inside the United States.[17]
After September 11, Johnson appeared several times on FOX News to address the question of military action against terrorism. On 14 November, he defended the FBI's proposal to interview 5,000 students in the U.S. suspected of having information relevant to the September 11 investigations:
I think they should talk to everyone that they feel they have a need to talk to. I mean, look, this is war. This is not a legal proceeding. This isn't the O.J. Simpson trial. The folks that attacked us -- they murdered Americans. And we've got to recognize that in wartime, we should do things differently.[18]
[edit]2003
In January 2003, Johnson wrote an analysis of the relationship between the upcoming U.S. invasion of Iraq and the threat of transnational terrorism. According to Johnson, Bremer's response was to tell him that "it didn't matter what Saddam did or didn't do, we were going to war."[19] The paper warned that an invasion would "do little to destroy the infrastructure of radical Islamic terrorism responsible for the 9-11 attacks." Noting that Saddam Hussein's regime has been a longtime supporter of regional terrorist organizations such as the PLO, Johnson examines contacts between Saddam Hussein and transnational terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda:
There is no doubt that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism—i.e., a country that provides financial support, safe haven, training, or weapons and explosives to groups or individuals that carry out terrorist attacks. . . . According to Central Intelligence Agency data, there is no credible evidence implicating Iraq in any mass casualty terrorist attacks since 1991. . . .
Johnson notes that the period immediately leading up to 2003 saw a rise of activity surrounding terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suggesting that "Iraq is willing to help a movement that it would otherwise oppose on ideological grounds. Nonetheless," Johnson concludes, "it is important to understand that Iraqi entreaties to Al Qaeda, are most likely intended as a tactic to bolster Iraq’s ability to fight off a U.S. invasion rather than a deep-seated theological and ideological commitment to the terrorist agenda of Bin Laden.[20]
In that analysis Johnson also warns that the U.S.-led invasion was likely to backfire:
In fact there is a serious risk that a U.S. led war against Iraq may crystallize the diffused anger in the Arab and Muslim world — a heretofore unattained goal of bin Laden and his followers — and persuade more Muslim youths to take up the terrorist banner against America and her citizens.... If we decide to invade Iraq we must be prepared for the contingency that our attack will inspire young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims, especially young adults to the cause of jihad, a U.S. attack may enable Islamic extremists to attract new followers.[20]
Johnson also gave interviews on the topic of what to do with captured al-Qaeda leaders; while he did not condone torture, he suggested that a "sleep deprivation and reward system" might be useful for getting information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:
I don't see a constitutional right to have eight hours of sleep. You shouldn't subject someone to freezing but they don't get to wear mink coats, either.[21]
In May 2003, Johnson joined members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in condemning the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes:
It is a misuse and abuse of intelligence. The president was being misled. He was ill served by the folks who are supposed to protect him on this. Whether this was witting or unwitting, I don't know, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.[22]
[edit]Plame affair
After Robert Novak wrote a column identifying the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson as a CIA officer, the media invited Johnson to comment on the ensuing scandal because he had been a member of the same Career Trainee class with Valerie Plame Wilson. For example, in October 2003, he appeared on Democracy Now to discuss the Plame affair. He told interviewer Amy Goodman that Valerie Wilson's cover should have been respected whether she was an "analyst" or a "cleaning lady": "if she's undercover she's undercover, period. If the media allows themselves to get distracted with those kinds of curve balls, they ignore the issue."[23]
He told a Senate Democratic Policy Committee in October 2003, "My classmates and I have been betrayed. Together, we have kept the secrets of each other's identities a secret for 18 years. Each and every one of us have kept that secret, whether we were in the CIA, in other government service or in the private sector. But this issue is not just about a blown cover. It is about the destruction of the very essence, the core of human intelligence collection activities: plausible deniability, apparently, for partisan domestic political reasons."[24]
Johnson testified at a special joint hearing of Congressional and Senate Democrats on 22 July 2005 about the consequences arising from the Plame affair.[25]
[edit]2008
In 2008, Johnson emerged as a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and a strong critic of Barack Obama. Larry Johnson's blog, NoQuarterUSA, became a rally point for Clinton supporters wary of Barack Obama's qualifications to be president. Supporters of Barack Obama insist that a story that first appeared on Johnson's blog--a report that Republican operatives have a tape of Michelle Obama making racially insenstive comments about caucasians--has been "refuted" Barack Obama's Fight the Smears website.[26]. However, Johnson never claimed to have the tape and reported that the Republican operatives controlling it intended to release the tape sometime after the Democratic Convention in August 2008. On October 21, however, he asserted that the operative in possession of the tape had been instructed by the McCain campaign not to release it.[27]
[edit]Notes
^ http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-political-coverage/
^ Larry C. Johnson, "About Me," No Quarter (personal blog).
^ "Former CIA Official Larry Johnson Delivers Democratic Radio Address," transcript posted on official Democratic National Committee's website for The Democratic Party, July 23, 2005], accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Interview with Larry Johnson, confirmed by his supervisor
^ "Ex-CIA official Blasts Bush on Leak of Operative's Name: Democrats' Radio Address Focuses on White House Aides' Role," CNN July 23, 2005, accessed November 21, 2006.
^ Gail Russell Chaddock, "Why Terrorists Pick On the French," Christian Science Monitor (5 December 1996) p. 1.
^ Larry Johnson, "Terrorists Among Us," New York Times (20 August 1996) p. A19.
^ Terrorism Today
^ Lee Michael Katz, "The Hunt for Bin Laden," USA Today (21 August 1998) p. 1A.
^ See Transcript of original interview with Larry C. Johnson, as broadcast on Frontline in 1999. Cf. "Interview: Larry C. Johnson," for Hunting bin Laden, transcript of interview broadcast on Frontline subsequently on 13 April 2001. See also dedicated PBS webpages for media links: Iraq and the War on Terror, Frontline PBS, online featured programs, accessed 19 November 2006.
^ frontline: hunting bin laden: interviews: larry c. johnson | PBS
^ a b [1].
^ As posted in [2].
^ Gary Schmitt, [ 07/25/2005 "Meet Larry Johnson: The CIA official Turned Democratic Spokesman Has a Pre-9/11 Mindset," Daily Standard (blog), July 25, 2005, accessed November 20, 2006.
^ *Larry C. Johnson, "The Declining Terrorist Threat," The New York Times 10 July 2001: A19.
^ Timothy Noah, "(Not Exactly a) Whopper of the Week: Larry C. Johnson," Chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics (blog), hosted by Slate September 21, 2001, accessed November 20, 2006. Note the full context of this quotation:
It is, to be sure, a little bit cheap (and slightly at odds with the usual parameters of this feature) to criticize someone for making an erroneous prediction, particularly after a tragedy. Chatterbox is especially reluctant to tag Johnson because Johnson's op-ed was argued forcefully, backed up meticulously with factual data, and bravely at odds with conventional wisdom at the time of its publication. Add in that Johnson now makes his living as a consultant to corporations about terrorism, and therefore had everything to gain by exaggerating the dangers terrorism poses, and the guy practically looks like a hero. Chatterbox, who two decades ago was an editor for the New York Times op-ed page, would have published Johnson's piece had he still been an editor there this past July. In his capacity at Slate, Chatterbox might well have written up Johnson's prediction, and perhaps even endorsed it.
But boy, is he glad he didn't! Johnson's analysis, we now see, was bold, persuasive, and 100 percent wrong. Sadly, a mistake this embarrassing cannot be ignored. As a fellow skeptic, Chatterbox in all sincerity wishes Johnson better luck next time.
^ Larry C. Johnson, "Johnson vs. President Bush," re-posted and updated by SusanHu at DailyKos (blog) July 25, 2005.
^ FOX News Interview with John Garrett (14 November 2001) Transcript #111405cb.260.
^ [3].
^ a b Larry C. Johnson, "Setting the Record Straight on Iraqi Terrorism," posted in Booman Tribune: A Progressive Community (personal blog) 27 January 2003. accessed 19 November 2006.
^ Qtd. in Toby Harnden, "CIA 'pressure' on al-Qa'eda chief," The London Telegraph 5 March 2003: 16.
^ Qtd. in Nicolas D. Kristof, "Save Our Spooks," The New York Times 30 May 2003:A6.
^ Democracy Now (3 October 2003)[4]
^ U.S. Senate, Democratic Policy Committee Meeting on the CIA Operative Leak, (24 October 2003).
^ Letter to the Senate.[Needs full source citation; see "References" section.]
^ Tumulty, Karen (2008-06-12). "Will Obama's Anti-Rumor Plan Work?", Time Magazine. Retrieved on 20 June 2008.:"a story that apparently first made a big splash on the Internet in late May in a post by pro-Hillary Clinton blogger Larry Johnson"
^ Whitey Tape, API, Phil Berg, and Andy MartinSee Authors Posts (1090) on September 4, 2007 at 2:17 PM in Current Affairs
Ignore for a moment that many in the media are misrepresenting the actual casualties–US and Iraqi–in Iraq. The real goal of the surge was to create enough security so that the political process could move forward and the sectarian rift be bridged.
So how is that going? Not well. Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times are front and center in doing what good journalists do. They report the facts. The Newsweek piece, Baghdad’s New Owners, confirms my earlier prediction that we would see a decline in civilian casualties in Baghdad because of the “success” of the ethnic cleansing. As you drive the Sunnis out of their neighborhoods there are fewer Sunnis to kill. Babak Dehghanpisheh and Larry Kaplow write:
Thousands of other Sunnis like Kamal have been cleared out of the western half of Baghdad, which they once dominated, in recent months. The surge of U.S. troops—meant in part to halt the sectarian cleansing of the Iraqi capital—has hardly stemmed the problem. The number of Iraqi civilians killed in July was slightly higher than in February, when the surge began. According to the Iraqi Red Crescent, the number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) has more than doubled to 1.1 million since the beginning of the year, nearly 200,000 of those in Baghdad governorate alone. Rafiq Tschannen, chief of the Iraq mission for the International Organization for Migration, says that the fighting that accompanied the influx of U.S. troops actually “has increased the IDPs to some extent.”
Also worth your time is Tina Susman’s piece in today’s Los Angeles Times. The so-called success in Al Anbar does nothing to address the fundamental issue of reconciling Shias and Sunnis. In fact, the arming of the Sunnis and their willingness to cooperate in protecting their home turf is simply self-preservation. The Sunni tribes recognize that they will be fighting the Shias and must be armed and ready to do so. According to Susman:
Despite the plan, which has brought an additional 28,500 U.S. troops to Iraq since February, none of the major legislation that Washington had expected the Iraqi parliament to pass into law has been approved.
The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has increased, not decreased, according to the United Nations’ International Organization for Migration and Iraq’s Ministry for Displacement and Migration.
Military officials say sectarian killings in Baghdad are down more than 51% and attacks on civilians and security forces across Iraq have decreased. But this has not translated into a substantial drop in civilian deaths as insurgents take their lethal trade to more remote regions. Last month, as many as 400 people were killed in a bombing in a village near the Syrian border, the worst bombing since the war began in March 2003. In July, 150 people were reported killed in a village about 100 miles north of Baghdad.
Same points I made on Friday. But don’t expect these facts to sway the Congress. The Democrats appear to be in a “squat and quiver” mode. Some are willing to challenge the Bush lies about the so-called progress in Iraq. But most are more worried about taking too firm a stance because it could affect their re-election chances. And we all know it is more important to elect people who do nothing of substance and take no stands of principle because . . . .Hell, come to think of it, I cannot come up with one good reason to vote for such clowns.
The current policy towards Iraq is harming the United States (it also is not doing much for the Iraqis if your keeping tabs). I gave money to Democratic candidates in 2006 and fully expected a change. Instead of a change in policy we are confronted with careerist legislators who love the perks but do not have the courage to confront an Administration caught in demonstrable lies. This is unacceptable. My checkbook is closed for 2008. Maybe George Bush had it right. He said, “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
If the Senate and the House buy into the lie that the surge is working then I am inclined to believe it does not matter whether we elect a Democrat or Republican. We need to elect people who will fulfill their promises to voters. I am tired of being played for a fool.
(small, medium and large sizes; for both dogs and cats)
+ 
From JOSH MARSHALL’s TPM - a morning giggle:
Adding to today’s giggles, the NYT euphemistically headlined a story in its Washington section: “Envoy’s Letter Counters Bush on Dismantling Iraq Army.” In normal parlance, Bush lied, again, and Paul Bremer exposed him on it.
A new book that’s out by Robert Draper quotes Bush saying he never approved or wasn’t told about plans to disband Iraq’s army. Well, Bremer wasn’t going to take the blame for one of the biggest mistakes of the war alone, so he sent the NYT letters proving that Bush knew and approved of the plan.
Mr. Bremer provided the letters to The New York Times on Monday after reading that Mr. Bush was quoted in a new book as saying that American policy had been “to keep the army intact” but that it “didn’t happen.”
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents. In releasing the letters, Mr. Bremer said he wanted to refute the suggestion in Mr. Bush’s comment that Mr. Bremer had acted to disband the army without the knowledge and concurrence of the White House.
“We must make it clear to everyone that we mean business: that Saddam and the Baathists are finished,” Mr. Bremer wrote in a letter that was drafted on May 20, 2003, and sent to the president on May 22 through Donald H. Rumsfeld, then secretary of defense.
After recounting American efforts to remove members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein from civilian agencies, Mr. Bremer told Mr. Bush that he would “parallel this step with an even more robust measure” to dismantle the Iraq military.
One day later, Mr. Bush wrote back a short thank you letter. “Your leadership is apparent,” the president wrote. “You have quickly made a positive and significant impact. You have my full support and confidence.”
Does this mean that Bremer will have to return his Medal of Freedom? Jess wanderin’…
I remember that (in the movies anyway), when things got rough, the good guys always checked in with reason and responsibility (where are good guy or gal Democrats i.e. the mike becomes silent when Bush asserts). When is the
last time that President Bush, for example, reminded us that Islam is peaceful religion. The military-only solution to Iraq and Iran has become not just the
mission of Bush - it has become America’s instinctual revenge and entertainment and this is why Bush can and will proceed unabated. It is this gap in our thinking and policy (there have never been any plans for post-Iraq), carved out by 9/11, which I think may be part of the plans of New World Order. The NeoCons have successfully reduced reason to instinct and this is why fear sells and ceasefires are only meant as periods for rearmament (and with black market armament no less).
“(where are good guy or gal Democrats i.e. the mike becomes silent when Bush asserts) …”
Just remember that you can’t hear a wolf howl on the tundra unless there’s a news camera there to record it. I.e., there are surely countless Dems who’d love to comment on, for example, the story that Leslie cites that shows Bush is both a liar and probably also totally clueless. But can they get on the air?
The best way to find out what the Dems are thinking is to sign up for as many senator/rep newsletters as you can. You’ll be shocked to find out how many KEY issues they’re working hard on that you’ll never hear about in the MSM.
Right now, I have MSNBC on — what a waste — and they’re going on and on over well-trod info about Mitt Romney’s campaign. God almighty. The same crap over and over. Whereas a REAL news organization would be all over the NYT story + have Larry on to talk about the surge + other experts on to critique Petraeus’s PR campaign + the scary prospect that Bush will attack Iran + more. But, no, we’re endlessly analyzing already-discussed information about Romney. Pathetic.
Two rather important key issues they are apparently NOT sufficiently concerned about are getting out of the Iraq disaster, and preventing the madmen in the WH from bringing an even larger disaster on the country - and the world - by attacking Iran.
But then rearranging the deck chairs is a lot easier than dealing with the swarm of torpedoes that are headed straight for the ship.
All we got are the deck chairs, Shirin. Half of those deck chairs fully support the Titanic too.
That’s right, and that’s why we’re screwed.
As I have been saying all along, if you think the Democrats are going to save the situation, then I have some lovely oceanfront property in Baghdad for you.
Mr. Johnson,
I think we can sum up why the surge hasn’t worked to the fact that we have 160,000 troops while the Iraqi’s have millions of people.
For every innocent we kill, torture and/or rape, the insurgency only grows larger.
The Brit strategy was the best; “get out now before we are overrun!”
CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this morning correcting Rep. Charles Boustany [R-LA], who recently returned from a dog and pony show in Iraq to claim that “sectarian deaths are down,” Blitzer quoted the LA Times and said:
BLITZER: And Congressman Boustany, you say that the number of casualties is going down. But we took a closer look — and The Los Angeles Times did as well — citing Iraqi Health Ministry numbers. In June, it was 1,227 civilian deaths in Iraq. In July, it went up to 1,753 civilian deaths in Iraq. And in August, the month that just ended, 1,773 civilian deaths in Iraq. Those numbers are going in the wrong direction.
Boustany is an Arabic name. Interesting.
And CNN, which I just switched to, is all over the death/injury of two girls who fell down an obscured mine shaft. Sad? Yes. Terrible? Yes. But the top news story? Give me a fucking break.
Just like last week they were endlessly talking about Larry Craig. Larry King even had a special about it on Saturday night. Larry Craig is a pathetic SIDE SHOW. Bush et al. probably liked it that he seized all the headlines and air time. Better that than serious critiques of what’s really going on in Iraq.
Lately, I’ve started watching Seattle local tv news once in a while. It’s astonishing to me how much more seriously they provide daily reports on Iraq and the troops. Mixed in with all the usual local tv news mayhem stories.
I just wish I could get the English version of Al Jazeera but all the satellite/cable companies are afraid to add it.
Susan,
Can you get the online English version of al Jazeera here on your computer?
I’m glad Larry gave a nod to the L.A. Times. I get their daily newsletter — very nicely organized and worthwhile — and find a lot of their stories worth reading. (It’s disgusting their corporate holders want the LAT to cut back on international news coverage — hope it doesn’t happen.)
A few weeks before the aggression against Iraq began, the L.A. Times had a front page story with big headlines about Rummie’s visits to Baghdad in the ’80’s. They went into some detail about one of the visits in which Rummie was dispatched to Baghdad specifically to reassure Saddam that all the U.S. government’s criticism about his use of chemical weapons was really just for public show, and would in no way affect their wonderful relationship with him.
At the time I thought surely that this would cause shock waves across the country. Instead, the story died with hardly a ripple.
And so it has been over and over and over again with revelations that should have at least caused the American public to pause before taking the next sip of their latte, and the news media to look up from their government-issued scripts long enough to at least say SOMETHING. But it never does. The lemmings just keep running pell mell for the cliff.
Ugh, O’Hanlon is back writing more NYT opeds about how the surge is working. Only this is rich, in his oped, the unsourced evidence he cites to claim civilian fatality rates are down a third since 2006 doesn’t support his claims. Plus, the LAT, the AP, and the NYT all refute his claims with sourced data. What a jerk!
How nice that this “war critic” gets to write this crap right before Betrayus goes public with his report. And you’d think he’d at least read his own newspaper!
More morning giggles…Frederick Kagan of the Fightin’ Armchair Kagans compares Anbar Province to Gettysburg and Bush’s trip there to Lincoln’s trip to Gettysburg. Would that make Bush president of Iraq?
The Kagan’s ? Get a load of this crap in the WSJ…..
Revolution sometimes is a good thing….. of course I mean peaceful but its time. Unfortunately the American people are to busy watching out for themslves…..
If Kimberly Kagan had any ethics. Monkeys would be Superior Court Judges…..
The Tide Is Turning in Iraq
By Kimberly Kagan
Word Count: 1,330
The initial concept of the “surge” strategy in Iraq was to secure Baghdad and its immediate environs, which is why its proper name was the “Baghdad Security Plan.” But as President Bush pointed out during his surprise trip to Iraq, operations and events on the ground are already showing successes well beyond Baghdad in Anbar, Diyala and Salahaddin provinces — formerly al Qaeda strongholds and hotbeds of the Sunni insurgency.
Considering the speed with which these successes have developed, and the rapidly growing grass-roots movement among Iraqis to support the effort, there is every reason to be optimistic about the …
You all are so very wrong.
The surge IS working. Not as promised. But it is working. It will and in fact has allowed the administration to stretch out this whole fiasco long enough to drop it in the lap of the next administration, or until the bombing of Iran can serve as another distraction for us to get behind and support with a new brand of magnetic ribbon for our vehicles.
At least until the price of fuel tops five dollars per gallon.
fortyluv… your posting would be funny if the American people did not have a fetish for ribbons and stupidity…..
I do not blame the politician for this. I blame the voter who does not do their homework, does not bother to vote, or votes a party line because that is the way their family has always done it…
No body can be this stupid to just buy into most of the political fear mongering that is replacing our nightly news…..
Susan:
“The best way to find out what the Dems are thinking is to sign up for as many senator/rep newsletters as you can. You’ll be shocked to find out how many KEY issues they’re working hard on that you’ll never hear about in the MSM.”
Does the phrase ‘global peacebuilding initiative’ or is the concept of ‘peacebuilding’ re: the Middle East peace process ever applied in these Dem newsletters? I have been positing the same hypothesis i.e. a ‘global peacebuilding initiative’ since 9/11 and, yes, I do get responses and critique. However, intelligent people tend to want to express themselves and format their policies in their own words and so, I haven’t heard peacebuilding applied by Reps or Dems i.e. Kucinich has proposed a Department of Peace not a Department of Peacebuilding. What happened when Bush visited Iraq - did he discuss the detailed plans for national reconciliation in Iraq or did he simply allude to the surge working?
Thanks for your reply
enuf of those kind of giggles Leslie. the last one had me gag on my chocolate covered doughnut… Jeezzz…..
The surge will never work. No matter what is done. We should just start the withdrawal process, and let the Iraqi people decide who and what kind of help they want. I see the Baghdad Obsenity has been completed for the emmesaries… I could think of a thousand better uses of it for the Iraqi people…
I agree with take on media coverups, lack of coverage. Mostly avoid TV, except for a couple of shows occasionally… don’t get anything newsworthy, only stuff alllowed to slip thru, or retakes of stuff already common knowledge to web and blog readers… waste of time (and money), IMHO…
PrhcrLady,
Hee, hee!
Even if the surge did work, it would be besides the point. Because we shouldn’t be invading and occupying countries that haven’t attacked us. Spreading our military so thin, that they’re serving multiple tours of duty without enough rest or training, trying to police a civil war we helped create for years without end and without an exit strategy.
Susan:
I’m glad Larry gave a nod to the L.A. Times. I get their daily newsletter — very nicely organized and worthwhile — and find a lot of their stories worth reading
I guess the times is OK.. I think the best newspaper in America in the SF Chronicle..
It has been my daily habit for 30 years, I went to college in the Bay Area and brought the paper back with me to indiana…I LOVE THE CHRON!!
( Breakfast without the green section is a bitter, sad day)
Regards
Peacemaking News!
Stratfor
“INTELLIGENCE SUMMARY
09.04.2007
“IRAQ: Sixteen representatives from Iraqi Sunni and Shiite factions agreed on a peace plan after four days of secret talks in Finland, said the Crisis Management Initiative, a conflict prevention organization that set up the meeting. The peace plan recommends resolving political disputes with nonviolence and democracy, disarming factions, and developing a national security force to combat militias. Representatives from South Africa and Northern Ireland attended the meeting to offer lessons from their own successful peacemaking efforts.”
Wow America - how entertaining is that?
Phil… Nice a “planning meeting” in Finland funded of course by US Taxpayer money……
There is an old saying, it goes, “when you secure an objective, make sure you tell the enemy”……
Wow, Philip, that oughta frost ole Condi and her so-called “diplomats”…..who haven’t done squat…..deliberately, of course, to make things better over there.
Now if only we coud get Crisis Management I. people to work on stopping the pre-emptive strike on Iran….
For what it’s worth, here’s another reason the Surge ™ isn’t going to work: we have to get cooperation from our erstwhile allies. The British are pulling out of Basra [which is their call], the Russians and Chinese are only too happy to let us be bogged down.
A couple of useful observations:
1. Al-Anbar was never part of the Surge™, in fact our troops were withdrawn from there to stabilize Baghdad and its environs to buy political reconciliation time. Of course, that was January. It is also worth noting that Al-Anbar isn’t quiet enough to visit except in an airbase with a 17-mile perimeter on a surprise visit. No vehicle traffic is permitted to roll in Fallujah, as has been the case for the last several months, but bodies are still being found [with the police suspected as being involved], and it is also where the 14 soldiers died in their helo. Whether it was ground fire (the Army says no as of the latest I’ve seen) or piss-poor maintenance (Yeah, that’s SO much better to send troops on birds not ready to fly) is irrelevant. The soldiers were on a rescue mission when they went down, meaning there was someone out there that needed rescuing under fire.
http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/iraq/000628.php#more (via Firedoglake)
2. In addition to the joint exercises (Russia and China)we now have the report in the BBC today that the British troops have been finding Chinese weapons with the Taliban, which they did not have before. This looks to me like the Chinese are doing what we did in Afghanistan in the ’80s, arming the enemy to knock us down a peg. I challenge anyone to show that this is good news or that we shouldn’t tar China and Iran with the same brush for the same treatment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6975934.stm
3. The Surge™ is a politically expedient way to buy time, nothing else. That is why the goalposts keep moving from political reconciliation, the benchmarks (18 of which 8 came from the WH, and the Iraqis are 0-fer on them in real terms), the “Petraus Report” is written by the WH (already admitted), fudged casualty numbers, and this photo op in Al-Anbar. Wars run politically (instead of militarily for keeps) never succeed.
My error, the Assad base perimeter is 13 miles, not 17.
Although it is rather funny that Bush thinks anyone other than US soldiers “lives there” so he can get a true picture of Iraqi attitudes. Just sayin’.
Sandy,
Actually, Condi cannot even get her own work published e.g. she has unpublished work, as I recall, re: foreign policy in Lebanon . ‘Fear sells’ dictates, however, that Al Sahab (OBL’s and Zawahiri’s mouthpiece) get full and immediate attention even when the contents contain nothing new as has been the case on several occassions. Bottom line - any brief windows of opportuntity for peacebuilding efforts in Iraq (e.g. national reconciliation for starters) opened by the surge will not be considered ‘Foxworthy’, if you will.
Oh crap! Condi fancies herself enough of an expert on Middle East foreign policy to WRITE about it?! Gee, I think I’ll write a book about nuclear physics then. I’m at least as qualified to do that as she is to write about the Middle East.
Rob -
If the objective of a global peacebuilding initiative was secured then Maliki would be talking about national reconciliation but also such issues as reuniting families from civil war, the soil quality in the Fertile Crescent, rebuilding Iraq with e.g. energy efficiency in mind, perhaps a P4 facility for the study of pathogens etc. This sounds ridiculous, of course, but it is a measure how far the peace process is behind in a world whose precedents are derived by globalization and which is ruled by opportunists.
Phil
Objctives? I am still trying to figure out how DoD is measuring success? Besides a media campaign….
There wasn’t meant to be any unity or reconciliation!
Mission accomplished.
Iraq: Three from one doesn’t add up
By Nir Rosen
Gelb - a former editor and columnist for the Times and president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations - advocates dismembering Iraq into three parts, a Kurdish north, a Sunni center and a Shi’ite south, in what he calls the “Three State Solution”.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EK27Ak05.html
Nir Rosen rocks! Don’t care too much for his book, but his reports are wonderful.
Another great and very courageous independent American journalist who reported from Iraq (and was never once imbedded with the military) is Dahr Jamail. His book comes out next month, and should be excellent. It is available for pre-order on Amazon.
Cee -
Read the interview with McClatchy and Maliki (below) and you will see that “national reconciliation” is the phrase used by Maliki and other leaders in Iraq. My point is that peace processes based on a single issue e.g. violence do not seem to get very far in these times in which globalization has replaced the Cold War
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/19316.html
An interview with Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki
By Leila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Malaki said
Our responsibility is to break down the barriers that have been erected recently between Sunnis and Shiites, Arabs and Kurds in the interest of national unity.
Philip,
The neocons are never going to allow this to happen
Cee, I don’t take Maliki seriously anyway. He is just saying what he thinks he needs to say to keep his job - all empty blahblahblah.
Shirin,
The article I cite re: Condi is
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/22/INGDFR1UV512.DTL
WANING INFLUENCE
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finds that her
star is fading
Joel Brinkley
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Thanks Philip.
As for her star fading, it was never lit at all as far as I am concerned. She gave me the creeps before I even knew anything about her. Something about her just creeped me out big time. Later on I understood why.
Wow! Condi Rice wrote an article on how to rebuild Lebanon after refusing to do anything to stop its destruction by Israel - brilliantly, typically hypocritical.
Oh yes - I looked over the comments, and loved the one that said “Condi Rice couldn’t negotiate a peace treaty with the Amish”! That about says it.
Shirin,
I’m reposting your reply to Other Tom aka CBS aka Zogby et al. Because he’s been banned. But deleting his comment also deletes any replies.
Comment by Shirin | 2007-09-05 02:54:41 | Edit This
Katie Couric is an abject fool. Falluja is a model of something working right?! The city is a closed area with entry and exit closely monitored, no vehicular traffic allowed, and still they are finding bodies every day. They think it is the police doing the killing. This is a model of something right?
GAWD!
Thanks, Leslie. I could have similarly responded to every other point in that article, but it was the end of the day and I was tired, and besides, it gets my blood pressure too high to even read that stuff.
[...] Johnson has his own take on the surge. The Newsweek piece, Baghdad’s New Owners, confirms my earlier prediction that we [...]
I had to come back to post this. I found it at Pat Lang’s blog
Watch the Sunni Tribes
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: August 29, 2007
The only possible solution in Iraq is to create a loose federation in which each sect controls its own areas and Baghdad serves as an oil-funded A.T.M.
I’ve been saying divide and conquer was the plan. Good luck to Malaki and that unity thang.
Thomas Friedman is a self-important, puffed-up, overblown empty bag of hot gaseous substance.
As a Middle East expert he makes a good cocktail waitress.
Katie Couric is an abject fool. Falluja is a model of something working right?! The city is a closed area with entry and exit closely monitored, no vehicular traffic allowed, and still they are finding bodies every day. They think it is the police doing the killing. This is a model of something right?
Well our family watched the Couric piece tonight on Falluja..Only the 2nd time we have watched her.
Always thought she was a good cream puff host on the Today show, But i think she is out of her league in real journalism and think CBS made a real mistake hiring her. It would appear that militarily fulluja has been put down..But that’s not the real issue is it? We walked into what i consider a religious war, a civil war and a terrorist’s paradise.
Now the speaking points are..oh now the Sunni’s are on our side..WHAT? Correct me if i’m wrong, but didn’t we go to war against them? It was the shiites (sic) that were the folks going to greet us with flowers? I can’t figure out who the heck we are fighting this month…
Tonight my wife and I watched a commercial about the surge talking about how we can’t give up now because
of the sacrafice we have already paid…And then the lady said ‘ we don’t want another 9-11 ‘
We both turned to each other and said ” what the hell does Iraq have to do with 9-11?” We have opened Pandora’s box and if we push just alittle bit harder everything will be put back into the box..but all the king’s men couldn’t put humpty dumpty back together again….
Here is where we are in the 9th month of 2007..No good or logical choices to solve the Iraq war.
If we just keep pouring gas on the fire in Iraq we won’t have another 9-11..If we pull out the terrorists take over…I worry that my son will get hurt and pay for the idiots in DC that play a poor game of chess with the world politic and have brought shame to my beloved country.
We can’t even turn over the problem to the UN because…Well we kindof blew it with the UN didn’t we? Sorry about the venting….
Well, hoosierhoops, I pretty much agree with you, except here: “We walked into what i consider a religious war, a civil war and a terrorist’s paradise.”
No, you did not walk into a religious war, and it really irks me to hear people say that. Iraq has no history of serious sectarian or ethnic conflict, not during its eighty-some years as a modern-day nation-state, and not in its many centuries of history before that. There was no religious war going on when you “walked in”, not even an incipient one. On the contrary, you created the conflict that is going on now, which is in fact not a religious war anyway, but a power struggle among groups that want to take over control of the country.
Iraq’s social history is one of coexistence, cooperation, and intermixing - so much so that it is difficult to find a family that is purely one thing or another. Intermarriage between Sunnis and Shi`as is so common that no one ever even mentioned it, and intermarriage between Arab and Kurds, or Arabs and Turkmens is not so unusual either, and was often undertaken to solidify relationships between tribes or families. Intermarriage between Muslims and Christians is also not terribly remarkable in urban areas, there have been marriages between Muslims and Jews, and probably Christians and Jews, though I do not personally know of any families like that. I AM personally acquainted with a Yezidi/Assyrian Christian couple.
Iraqis did not used to ask each other about their religious or ethnic background. Sometimes ethnic background was obvious because of someone’s name, sometimes not. It was simply not a factor in deciding whom to associate with. Most Iraqis thought of themselves as Iraqi first, and after that came the rest.
There is a lot more I can say about this issue, but it is late now. I beg you to give up this idea that you innocently walked into an ongoing religious war. You walked into no such thing, and in any case it is not a war over religion, it is a struggle for power.
Plus, there was no war until we invaded!
Very true, of course, Leslie, and there was also no “insurgency”. Odd, isn’t it, how now the U.S. cannot leave until Iraq can provide its own security against an “insurgency” that exists because of the U.S. presence there.
I believe that is what is called circular reasoning.
PS Hoosierhoops, just in case it isn’t clear, when you “walked into” Iraq there was no religious war, no civil war, and anything but a terrorists’ paradise. The “ancient hatreds kept at bay only by Saddam’s iron fist” we keep hearing about are a fabrication. Though there is some tension between the two main sects of Islam that have coexisted in Iraq for centuries, there are no “ancient hatreds”, the tensions are largely of recent origin, and were mainly political, and did not have much effect on the society until after you “walked in”.
As for the paradise for terrorists’ part, that is purely your creation. If anything Saddam had created a bit of a hell for terrorists, or at least a very unfriendly place for them, and had done an excellent job of keeping them out. Oh, sure, a couple of old, worn out Palestinian former terrorists had retired there, and in fact one of them had actually become part of the “peace process”, and spent a couple of years in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of the Palestinian “team”, with Israel’s blessing. That one was the only big “terrorist supported by Saddam” that the Bushies ever managed to grab. Funny how they never mentioned that he had been equally supported by the Israeli government!
The Hoopster isn’t done venting yet….
Because I’m not very smart politically and I don’t know alot I need to ask a couple questions..
People keep talking about neocons..They have controlled policy ect..
What exactly is a neocon? I know the GOP.. I know who the Democrats and indy’s are..
But where do the neocons fit into this picture?
Bush is a Republican, so how do the neocons write and carry out policy? probably a stupid question.
( I ask alot of them )
My grandfather, who was a well known and respected labor leader in his day told me this as a young boy..
“NEVER EVER VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN” how smart was he? When I was 12 years old he introduced me to JFK at the Indianapolis Airport prior to a fund raiser in Indy. People talk about JFK’s smile..I’ll never forget his eyes..so clear..and kind..That’s what a young boy remembers..
So i’ll stop now…
Regards
HoosierHoops,
It’s good to ask questions. We’re all helping each other get up to speed.
Here’s a rundown of who they are, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, John Bolton, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams…aka “empire builders.” The Neocons are well represented in the Bush administration and they’ve played and continue to play a large role in Bush’s policies, such as the Iraq War, preemption, torture, etc.
Here’s a primer on their beliefs.
And if you really want to know more about them, visit their organization the Project for the New American Century or PNAC. Read a few of their letters and statements regarding the Middle East.
thanks leslie: I printed your links out..
I read in bed tonight..
Good night..
Shirin: I didn’t walk into anything..the republicans did…( i know what you mean though)
interesting version on Iraq..thanks for your input.
Good evening
Regards,
Hoosierhoops, regarding reading in bed, I take my laptop to bed with me at night - wireless networks rock! Now, some people might say it is rather sad to take a laptop to bed, but think about it. When I am finished with it, I shut it down, close the lid, and it doesn’t bother me until I open it up again the next morning. It doesn’t even snore! :o}
And when I say “you” I am responding to your use of “we”, so if you want me to use “they”, then you must use the third person also.
Larry had a comment a couple of months ago (perhaps a whole Friedman Unit [= 6 months, so named because TF kept saying the next six months will be critical / we'll turn the corner / we'll see improvement in Iraq, over and over and over]) where he observed there were 20+ separate groups in Iraq jostling for their own agendas. We have the WH admitting that they are arming terrorists that actually attacked our soldiers. We have the WH granting safe haven for OBL and his minions in Pakistan, and also preventing the search into the money trail used by the 9/11/01 hijackers.
So, if there’s 20+ groups (and probably more now, perhaps Larry has an updated number), who are the allies? Why are we in the middle if we don’t know who to fight and who to protect? It can’t change weekly if we think we will solve this. Either that or we disarm EVERYBODY, and the arms manufacturers won’t allow that to happen.
The goalposts have been moving since before 3/03.
Go back a couple of years to the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq, rolled out to much fanfare in 2005, and promptly ignored after that by the WH. It was mostly a benchmark document without a plan to get there [although it was sold as a "plan" where the D's didn't have a "plan for Iraq"]. We have a duly elected government that
iswas recognized by the WH as the legitimate and sovereign represntative of Iraq.Now W is snubbing them because he doesn’t like them, and is permitting ominous comments from government reps and Allawi dabbling in regime change [where IS that money coming from, it's illegal to hide the source in the US], one wonders why W would go with the guy that got 1% in the last election with purple fingers. I cannot see how any puppet, even a well funded one, can unify Iraq, and Allawi is probably more hated that W in Iraq, maybe even more than Chalabi.
One last note: IF SecDef Gates follows through on his pledge about troop rotations, they will be drawing down by about 30,000 come April, as the 15 month deployments expire with no replacements. Big IF in my view, but I am pretty sure the WH will try to blame the D’s for any extensions. The only reason the D’s couldn’t be blamed before was because someone leaked the memo a couple of days early. An orderly withdrawal would be better, but if the Bush bio is accurate, they aren’t going to come home.
“We have the WH admitting that they are arming terrorists that actually attacked our soldiers.”
Can we please try to avoid falling into using the Bush regime’s own propaganda? Attacks on occupation forces are by definition not terrorism. The people who attack the occupation forces are by definition not terrorists.
Actually, I would stand by this comment, for a couple of reasons:
IF the “terrorists” only confined their attacks to the US soldiers as occupiers you would be correct. However, they have been engaged (according to several sources) in civilian attacks for political and sectarian purposes, even ethnic cleansing, and how is that not terrorism?
And, as you noted, the WH actually did call them terrorists, which makes it all the more curious as to why we would be arming them. We are arming the Shia as well as the Sunnis. So, what better way to drive home the point that the WH really does not care about what happens to the troops than by showing just who the WH considers as our friends. It’s only a matter of time before these arms the WH is handing out now is used on our troops.
What actual evidence is there that the same people have been doing the attacks on the occupation AND on civilians? Based on the information I have, though there may be some overlap, they are not the same groups.
Oh yes, and don’t overlook the blatant double standard. Any time the Americans kill civilians it is “regrettable but unavoidable collateral damage”, because after all, they were not targetting the civilians, no matter how many of them they manage to kill, and how few so-called “bad guys”, and no matter how inevitable it was that they would be killing more civilians than so-called “bad guys”. However, any time the resistance harms a civilian in an attack on the occupation, the assumption is that they were targetting the civilians, and they are labeled terrorists. So, either the Americans are terrorists because they kill tens or hundreds or even thousands of civilians for every so-called ‘bad guy”, or else the civilians killed by resistance fighters who are attacking elements of the occupation are also “regrettable collateral damage”. You can’t have it both ways if you are going to be honest about it.
Oh, yes, and are you aware that resistance groups and fighters have spoken out very strongly, and taken actions against those who are attacking civilians? Perhaps not, since it is unlikely that information has made it into the U.S. media.
And are you aware that so-called “Sunni insurgents” have been fighting against the Al Qa`eda knock-off groups since way before genius Petraeus got the idea of “recruiting” them to fight on “his side”? Hint: They are not allies of the Americans, and they are not fighting “on the side of” the Americans. They are using the Americans to help them fight against people they have seen as a threat and an enemy from the beginning. And as an added bonus, while the Americans are stupidly seeing them as allies, they don’t have to divide their resources between fighting two different enemies.
Terrorism is not the same thing as resistance. Attacking a foreign occupation in your country is not terrorism.
Great thread everyone…
HH… I think your grandfather was a wise man… JFK was a hero to many, although as we know, he did have his faults and short comings… But he, more than anyone I can remember, was able to inspire those around him to greatness. I mean by that: he made everyone believe and then act to make things better.
What say you about the candidates and their campaign so far. I have ruled out any repubs, and have narrowed the dems down to 4-5, and am leaning more and more toward one, but looks like my primary vote won’t count in Dem primary. Lots of voting shenanigans going on too in other states…
IMPEACH !!!! It’s the RIGHT thing to do!!!