Comments on: Pentagon Publicly Touts ‘Progress’ In Iraq, Secretly Acknowledges ‘Violence at An All-Time High’

By: michael armstrong sr.

michael armstrong sr. — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:29:09 +0000

we done it with the indians lets do it with the terist dont laugh at my segesthion because addicthion is the ansewr my spelling may suck but if you plant whiskey canabis any thing addictive where it can be found easaly these people will become brave fearless and verry careles and they will probly talk alot. ps. your well come

By: eSecuritization - Latest updates on structured finance and securities. » Serious

Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:46:21 +0000

[...] Reality, now: [...]

By: jds

jds — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:26:12 +0000

Here is an example of Kerry’s history of insulting the military. He did not aim his remark at W.

—————————————
During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to “the perpetuation of war crimes.”
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who turned against the war, made the observations in answers to a 1972 candidate questionnaire from a Massachusetts peace group.

After Kerry caused a firestorm this week with what he termed a botched campaign joke that Republicans said insulted current soldiers, The Associated Press was alerted to the historical comments by a former law enforcement official who monitored 1970s anti-war activities…

…In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army “a greater anathema.”

“I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown,” Kerry wrote. “We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply ‘doing its job.’

“Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities,” he wrote.

…Kerry filled out the candidate questionnaire at the request of Massachusetts Political Action for Peace, an anti-war group that decades later turned over its historical documents to university researchers.

By: jds

jds — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 17:19:03 +0000

FRIENDLY REMINDER

clasâ€§siâ€§fied:â€‚[klas-uh-fahyd] – adjective –
(of information, a document, etc.)
a. bearing the designation classified.
b. available only to authorized persons.

By: Otherworld » Is it November 7th, yet?

Otherworld » Is it November 7th, yet? — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 14:49:27 +0000

[...] Pentagon Publicly Touts â€˜Progressâ€™ In Iraq, Secretly Acknowledges â€˜Violence at An All-Time High.’ [...]

By: John+Deek

John+Deek — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 07:44:01 +0000

# 3, #6. Hey BEN(dover) and Jason. Your so hepped up on this Kerry thing.. what are you feelings about the joke bush made about not finding the Weapons of Mass Destructions that so many of our soldiers died searching in vain for? Or are you too busy copulating with your inbred relatives to notice the irony of your selective outrage?

By: wills

wills — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 05:47:39 +0000

It just occurred to me that this article does not say which Iraqis are taking over control? The small military forces we have been able to train or the insurgents? I think I read an article not too long ago that said the insurgents were in control of certain parts of the rural areas and that ammo site that went up seems to show that no one has real control of Baghdad either.

By: dogfish

dogfish — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:57:08 +0000

(newbie) Please excuse the double-post.

By: dogfish

dogfish — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:55:22 +0000

“W” says he’s not replacing Rumsfeld. This could be an even bigger pre-election blunder than Kerry’s misstatement. This could, also, be an indication that Bush intends on “staying the course”, regardless. The least that George could do is provide the country some fresh faces and saner ideas about how to manage the war. Just my 2Â¢.

By: dogfish

dogfish — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:50:10 +0000

“W” says he’s not going to replace Rumsfeld. That could be even more of a pre-election blunder than Kerry’s misstatement. This is a sign that Bush intends on “staying the course”, regardless. The least George can do is provide some fresh faces and saner ideas about how to manage the war. Just my 2Â¢.

By: dogfish

dogfish — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:38:59 +0000

test

By: dogfish

dogfish — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 03:36:56 +0000

test

By: TerrytheTurtle

TerrytheTurtle — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:05:06 +0000

#116 – what I think is not that important, Paul, but the polls of the Iraqis indicate that, yes, they do want the US out and they would prefer local Iraqi soldiers exclusively. Then these are the same Iraqis who say that attacks on US soldiers are justfied.

By: Marie

Marie — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:50:18 +0000

RUCerious, :)
Some of us did see that Bush was a false candidate, but we were outshouted and ignored by the media and the public at large who believed the public relations job done on the candidacy of GWB.
It is, at least, a comfort to come here and commiserate with others of like mind after years of being subjected to the Hollywood-style coverage of the phony GWB.

By: paul

paul — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:33:53 +0000

#114. TerrytheTurtle. You’re right about the women’s rights in prewar Iraq.

You seem pretty intelligent. I am sincerely curious. If you were an Iraqi, would you want the U.S. pull out?

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:05:16 +0000

Marie – well put.
Does anyone else remember Bush touting the fact that he is the only MBA president, and intended to run the gummint like a business?
We should have seen the red flags waving at that time, as every business he ever ran went straight to shit.

By: TerrytheTurtle

TerrytheTurtle — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:55:59 +0000

Paul limited rights for women is not accurate. Being a secular dictator, Saddam’s regime was much more open for women than any of it’s neighbors.

Can we protect liberty and freedom for the Iraqiâ€™s without bloodshed, or is it not worth it because they are Iraqiâ€™s?

This assumes that the violence is simply all in opposition to ‘liberty and freedom’. I don’t think that’s the case, you have a good old-fashioned power struggle between sects mixed in with a violent resistance to foreign occupation.

I thought Rice’s out-of-context comment was illustrative of the callousness that she and the administration share when considering the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

By: Marie

Marie — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:43:54 +0000

The repugs have pounced on the Kerry flap because it has taken the focus off the increasingly horrible news coming out of Iraq.
Much as they would like to squelch the news and claim everything is going very well, these nasty little memos and notes and reports that come out of Iraq belie everything they’d like the public to believe.
The current word war between the White House and Kerry should be turned back on the repugs — they are the ones who got us into the hopeless mess in Iraq, now estimated to take DECADES to resolve, if ever.
Thanks, GW, you have spent a lifetime screwing up everything you touch, and now that includes the USA.

By: barfly

barfly — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:39:29 +0000

My contention is those were the conditions in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, (no freedom of speech, torture, limited rights for women, no elections, etc). Are liberty and freedom rights reserved for us? Can we protect liberty and freedom for the Iraqiâ€™s without bloodshed, or is it not worth it because they are Iraqiâ€™s?

Comment by paul â€”

It seems rather simplistic, as we were also culpable for helping keep Saddam in power. If you were an Iraqi listening to American propaganda, would you believe a government who’d done all we have done to Iraq when they say they are there to bring Iraqis democracy?

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:26:48 +0000

And what color, exactly does FUBAR come out as?