Letters to the Editor
-
3 Friedmans Ago : "insurgency has weakened since the elections."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/30/AR2005123001279.html
Departing U.S. Commander Reports Progress in Baghdad
Washington Post; Saturday, December 31, 2005; Page A12U.S. troops and an expanded Iraqi force have blunted insurgent attacks in Baghdad, the senior American commander in the capital said yesterday, but he predicted the contested city of 6 million people would continue to face "some chaos," making it one of the last from which U.S. forces can fully withdraw.
[ . . . ]
"The insurgency has weakened since the elections," with attacks down since the Dec. 15 vote to elect a new legislature.
- - WaPo, Dec. 31, 2005
-
Interesting thing about Petreus
is he never was in combat prior to Iraq. Google his military record. His first postings were in 75 in Italy. He was in Haiti for 6 months and Bosnia for 6 months. My buddy got a medal for NOT shooting during an altercation in Bosnia, so not sure if that counts as combat or not. Not sure if he was in Kuwait or North Carolina during Iraq I, but one thing is clear, this guy spent more time in Princeton than in jungles or desert insurgencies. There is no doubt that he was one of the best leaders we had in Iraq II. That's born out in many "neutral" documents including Fiasco. But I'm laughing because I may have been sucked into the media maelstrom about this guy. He wrote the book on counterinsurgency so... Wow. A few years in Iraq and Princeton he's the man? We so often bemoan the lack of political leadership, but where is the miiltary leadership? Where are the Ikes, MacArthurs, Pattons,etc. Or how about some salty no BS guys like Chesty Puller or Smedley Butler?
From Smedley (sound familiar?):
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. "
-
the reason we have to wait till September
Is because its an even number of Freidman Units since March '03.
(we wouldn't want to leave any partial FU's laying around!)
-
shooter again fails to notice
that Glenn's post carefully documents the fact that: He has a clear track record as a straight-shooter and as someone who gets things done. is in fact a lie.
-
So what's the point?
In the article, Greenwald refutes exactly NONE of the General's statements. In fact, he admits that most of the GUARDEDLY positive remarks were made before the "civil war" erupted after the mosque bombing in 2006.
The irony of ironies being, as predictable as Greenwald thinks Petraeus is, Greenwald himself is more predictable.
Gee, a slightly hopeful, not-horrendous report came out about Iraq, I wonder if Glenn Greenwald will say it's a lie?
(chews fingernails in anxious uncertainty)
-
A couple of new wing-nuts today....
The troll commanders must be starting their surge.
-
Michael Harold, I know you mean well...
But I have to observe, with the greatest respect (having read and admired so many of your comments), that this type of under-reporting is actually part of the problem. A rough estimate suggests that approximately 100 countries were left off your list of countries in which the U.S. military has established at least on base/facility. It is, as Chalmers Johnson has coined, an empire of bases. The key word here is "empire" - once understood, the fact that the United States will not be leaving Iraq (unless an exodus a la Vietnam occurs) becomes easy to understand (but not accept, unless of course, you're on the right side of the gun).
-
The troll commanders must be starting their surge
No...they're surging
It's important to get it right.
The troops aren't part of a surge. The troops are surging.
Doesn't that make them sound so much MORE effective.
Now repeat the phrase 20 times quickly until it rolls naturally off the toungue.
-
Thanks Shooter and your new Butt Buddie, PocoLoco
Every time I start feeling discouraged about the direction our country is heading, you moronic clowns pop in with a demonstration of just how idiotic and just plain stupid rightwing trolls are and I immediately cheer up.
Keep up the good work.
-
David Petraeus
Great column by Glenn Greenwald.Of course,the Petraeus report is going to conclude that progress is being made in Iraq and victory is right around the corner.
I believe it is now time for the Democrats to begin educating the public on Petraus' track record.
Is there any doubt that this September 15th report is being written right now by Karl Rove's minions in the White House? This way Petraeus can claim that he can't discuss it because of executive privilege.
-
the sad part...
is we will never know any of the facts... There will be no data and no reporting. No photos or real evidence. No honesty. No culpability.
The middle ground of evidence/facts/reality is long gone. I am curious to know how we could get it back...
Wouldn't it be great if there was progress? But they have lied to the point of disbelief. On both sides of the fence.
Seems so hopeless.
-
will the Democrats own this war?
Gen. Petraeus is a tool, just as Glenn points out. He, or others like him, will be the tool of the Democrats in 2008. The question is, will the Democrats come to own this war?
When Lyndon Johnson was the much hated liar that got this county into a disastrous war, it looked like the Democratic Party would be blamed for at least a generation, maybe more, for the horrible mess, deaths, destruction, and carnage. There was simply no way that the Republicans would not withdraw from Vietnam as soon as Nixon could have the plans drawn up to do so safely. The war had destroyed Johnson; and prevented Hubert H. Humphrey from winning when LBJ did not run. (full disclosure --- I voted for HHH, the 'happy warrior' with my first general election vote)
Well, funny thing happened on the way to ending Vietnam - Nixon took responsibility for the war, and would not have US troops leave. The war became a Republican war! We antiwar types turned on him in an instant; he was the new enemy.
Could a similar thing happen again? Could Mrs. Clinton (or whoever wins) decide that for her to 'lose' the 'war' would not be acceptable? Could an American adult win the presidency in this century and not see that withdrawal is a moral and practical imperative?
Could it happen?