Breaking News
Hurricane Ida Targets US Gulf Coast
They got it wrong the first time.
We’re at a major turning point now.
Don’t screw it up again.
More later…
Kristy Sanchez-Trujillo
T-Mobile Outage
T-Mobile
Megan Gale
Sylvie Van Der Vaart
Clash Of The Titans
Ashley Neufeld
Afton Williamson
Kyrstin Gemar
Tesla Coil
Xperia X10
Cany Vossough
Reza Vossough
Ninel Conde
Julia Louis Dreyfus
Guardians of Childhood
Botox
Chase Utley
Prince Of Persia Sands Of Time
Cherokee
Christopher Lee
Prince Charles
Prince William
Prince Harry
Cleveland Browns
Ernie Accorsi
Reina Flynn
Reid Gray
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Quinn Gray
SEPTA
Burlington Northern
Star Wars The Old Republic
Nightmare On Elm Street
Gerard Butler
Amrit Dhaliwal
Louise Linton
Gwen Stefani
Curtis Lavelle Vance
Anne Pressly
H1N1 Vaccine
Melody Ross
Oasis Of The Seas
Disney Cruise
Selita Ebanks
Anthony Sowell
JJ Redick
Axe Body Spray
Christopher Walken
Dragon Age Origins
Apparently General Abizaid does not view this to be quite the disaster that many proclaim it to be. I cannot find a link to the text of his speech to the Naval War College, but it certainly did not sound like we were losing. In fact, the only aspect that it sounded like we were losing was the public opinion here at home.
Wow. Really. The head of Centcom thinks everythings hunky dory? The guy who’s gotta go to the President thinks everything’s just super? Shocking.
Next thing you know, Scotty McClellan will be telling us that Iraq isn’t a disaster, and you know you can trust Scotty to give you the straight dope.
Jebus, that avatar! ROFL!
Great post, Oliver. I don’t agree with all of it, but you did raise some very compelling points.
Of course Gen. Abazaid isn’t going to say that we are not making progress, lest his career end. Especially considering how Gen. Shinseki was Swift-boated when he dared to question Dear Leaders strategy.
But you and Howard Dean clearly know better than the Generals on the ground.
Ya, this administration is really in touch with the military command. General Pace had to publicly correct Rumsfeld about military policy on the responsibility of US soldiers to stop prisoner abuse if they see Iraqis engaging in it. Classic.
You’ve got it precisely backward JD. From troop levels to torture, this administration has turned its back on commanders who don’t tell them what they want to hear.
So, if there is such a disconnect, explain to us mindless rubes here what was wrong with what General Abizaid had to say.
Let me see if I understand your standards around here, when General A says something, it is to be accepted as gospel truth, because it coincides with your prediliction to disagree with all things Bush, and we are to believe him because he is a General, boots on the ground, etc … When General B says something, that does not coincide with what you believe, he is a mindless drone that does nothing but say what the Administration wants to hear.
No, JD, we believe General Shinseki because most of what he has said has proven to be true. Gen. Abizaid may or may not be correct, but an intelligent person considers the motives of the person making the claim.
To say that progress has been made in Iraq doesn’t make it a worthy fight. More progress would have been made on terrorism (you know, national defense) if we never went into Iraq.
Back to the actual topic of this thread, Democrats need to continue to come out and say forcefully, “I voted to give the authority to start this war because I trusted my president, but he lied/misled us and the troops.”
Yes, Dems trusted President Bush. So you are saying that Democrats shouldn’t trust your president? I can see you are learning.
So General Abizaid may or may not be correct, but that is of no concern to you, since you attribute impure motives to him. Nice.
Vote for us: We’re Gullible!!!
Man, I love Dems…
So, explain to me how General Abizaid was/is wrong …
Pres Edwards just returned from Baghdad today after a long conference with Iraqi Pres. Bin Laden. Brandishing his umbrella to the crowd, Pres Edwards spoke movingly about how sincere Pres Bin Laden’s desire for peace was ; about the good work he has done at schools and daycare centers and with highways (Sen Murray had already told us about some of this). And he indicated Pres Bin Laden had assured him there was no genocide in Iraq and that those satellite photos of piles of dead bodies were more Republican trickery – just like they did to poor ol’ Dan Rather. In addition Bin Laden, who does not drive a SUV, indicated he had no knowledge of all the skyscrapers that had recently been blown apart in the US, but that he thought the same people that dynamited the New Orleans dikes ought to be considered suspects. Pres Edwards indicated the remarks by Bin Laden had him resting a lot easier, that he had had a real pleasant trip (although there was this pervasive bad odor) and that he trusts Bin Laden and now we know we need to focus on domestic conservatives as the real enemy.
Dugger Future News Service
JD, putting aside General Abizaid’s assessment of the situation, what are your criteria for a “winning” situation in Iraq? Are we there yet? Are we nearly there yet? In your opinion, what are the reasons we are losing out on public opinion here at home? Have most Americans been fooled? If so, how? Or are there some valid reasons for dissatisfaction?
I just don’t understand how anyone can honestly come to the conclusion that the only problem in Iraq is the opinion of the American public. That’s sort of f#cked up. On one hand, we’re being told that our troops our helping to nurture a democracy, yet some of us are willing to dismiss public opinion of our own country in the process. Geez…
Indeed, JD. It is easy to show that Abizaid lied and shaded the truth in his speech at the War College.
Here is a summary of Abizaid’s speech
He said that the questions he getsfrom some in Congress convince him that they have the idea that we areabout to pushed out of Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no relationbetween this and the reality on the ground.
An absolute lie. Nobody–especially in Congress–thinks that we’re going to be forced out of Iraq. The point Abizaid hides is that we can lose in Iraq but maintain an indefinite presence in that country.
You will never see a headline in this country about a school opening or a power station being built and coming on line, or a community doing well. Only the negative things will get coverage in the media.
Abizaid shades the truth. Look, in any media outlet the bus accident that kills 20 is going to get much more play than the school that gets a new roof. And Abizaid really shouldn’t brag about power plants when post-invasion Iraq isn’t capable of providing the power output of pre-invasion Iraq after nearly 3 years.
The insurgency is in four of 18 provinces in Iraq, not all 18.
Another goofy comment by Abizaid. The fact is the insurgency is taking place in Iraq’s most populated provinces.
Again, if things are going so swimmingly why is it that 3 years after ‘Misssion Accomplished’ probably one of the most hazardous things you can do on this planet is to travel between downtown Baghdad and the Baghdad Intl. Airport?
Iraq now has more than 200,000 soldiers and police under arms, and
that number is growing.
How many of those troops are Class A ready? Abizaid knows the number is about 5% of that 200,000 figure.
Our primary enemy is not the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan; it is Al Qaida and their ideology.
Another outright lie. Our own military intelligence knows AQ or AQ-symps comprise less than 5% of Iraq’s insurgency.
So then, jadegold, it should be fairly simple for you, frame, Oliver, et al to point out exactly what General Abizaid was wrong about in his speech. So far, you have all just ignored what he said completely, dismissing it out of hand. It it is so clearly just telling the Administration what they want to hear, then it should be easy for you intellectual giants to point out the multitudinous errors contained therin.
So General Abizaid may or may not be correct, but that is of no concern to you, since you attribute impure motives to him.
JD–any military leader is going to be extremely positive about the organization or mission he or she heads. The fact is if they aren’t–they’ll be replaced and it could be a career ender.
Anecdote: I worked with an O-6 who was on the fast track; everyone said he was a mortal lock for flag rank. Anyway, he headed a program that wasn’t in terrible shape nor was everthing running smoothly. One day, this O-6 gives an interview to one of the tech trade rags. In the interview, the O-6 was very candid about what was going great in his program and what wasn’t. All 100% accurate.
When the interview hit the street, the O-6 spent the better part of a month having to do the ‘rug dance’ for various flag officers and Pentagon officials. When he had concluded getting his face shot off–he was reassigned 2 months later to an admin position at a base that was in the final stages of a BRAC. His career was over.
Outright fallacy as promoted by jadegold – that myth about the road to the airport still being impassible is simply preposterous.
A General states his primary goal and mission, and you proclaim him to be a liar. A bit full of yourself today, huh ?
Is there, or is there not primarily peaceful existence in 14 of 18 provinces. You classify this as some goofy statement when all it is is a statement of fact.
Nobody believes that? Nobody? Pretty broad assessment on your part. If I produce one person who believes that we are about to be pushed out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then you have demonstrably lied. Note that the General was speaking of his impressions, so unless you know his thoughts better than himself, you are just mind reading.
How about this. Go read some milblogs, not just the three that Kos and Atrios send you to. Read some things from the people on the ground that think differently than you. Try out some diversity of ideas, that is one of the things you like, right?
You sure do throw around “lie” pretty easily for a person’s opinion, and more importantly, differences of opinion. But I suppose you know better, being a General on the ground and all …
“that myth about the road to the airport still being impassible is simply preposterous”
Oh this is rich. Myth? You know that myth that was a reality just a few months ago?
April 26, 2005:
“He prays because the four-lane, six-mile stretch of road leading from central Baghdad to the country’s main airport remains one of the most dangerous stretches of highway in Iraq, if not the world.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0426/p01s03-woiq.html
Nov. 4 2005:
“For 2 1/2 years, the road was, in many ways, a symbol of the U.S. failure to secure Iraq. Military convoys roared past in a frantic attempt to escape the looming dangers of suicide bombers, grenades, rockets and booby-trapped litter. But insurgents’ relentless attacks claimed a steady toll … Then, two months ago, the killings stopped …he turnaround was owed to simple, boots-on-the-ground military tactics, Army officials said.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302600.html
It took us two and a half years to finally, actually put “boots on the ground” on the airport road? So the road is safe now right? Wrong.
Nov 27 2005
Congressman Tim Murphy is expected to make a full recovery after his accident en route to the Baghdad Airport. However, these types of accidents aren t unusual on Baghdad roads, especially between the city and what used to be the Saddam Hussein International Airport …
One of the leading causes of death and injury here are road accidents,” said D’Agata. “And although the airport road is now one of the most militarily secured roads in the country, it remains the most dangerous road.”
According to D Agata, the road has been damaged from many explosions and bombs. In either direction certainly going to the airport and certainly getting away from the airport it remains very dangerous, D Agata explains.
http://kdka.com/local/local_story_331230656.html
Way to go JD.
Did you actually read your own link from kdka ? It goes on to explain, which you conveniently left out, the fact that the ongoing “danger” is from the large military vehicles and the lack of lane markings. Not quite the bogey-man scenario you would have us believe.
So it was dangerous, and with an increased military presence, it became safer. Now, you claim it is dangerous because it is in disrepair from the prior bombs?
“That myth was a reality a few months ago”. Am I to assume that since you refer to it in the present as a myth, that you now know it is no longer true ? And, since you claim it was a reality a few months ago, but do not state that it is currently the reality, are we to assume that the former reality is no longer the current reality?
I have to admit, it is fun to try and argue like you folks.