Media stuck on surge.
By on Jan 11th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Media stuck on surge.
Despite the lack of a timetable, media persist in calling Bush’s troop increase a “surge.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
That damned “liberal media.”
January 11th, 2007 at 8:14 pmare you really supprised?
8 or 9 companies own 95% of this countries media..
the real question is who is the puppet, and who is the master?
January 11th, 2007 at 8:16 pmThe “Surge” is only taking the troop numbers to what it was last year.
January 11th, 2007 at 8:36 pmThe Media seems to want to concentrate only on the surge. Not the change of tactics. ie kicking in doors at 2am
ThinkProgress is stuck on the surge. Wasn’t the idea before the elections that the correct figure for a “surge” is -100000? The Busheviks are very good at distracting…
January 11th, 2007 at 8:43 pmThinkProgress is stuck on the surge. Wasn’t the idea before the elections that the correct figure for a “surge†is -100000? The Busheviks are very good at distracting…
Comment by Random Rightie
Can you find, in yoir mind, truth?
January 11th, 2007 at 9:04 pmWe’re not buying “surge” and we’re not buying “augmentation”. The administration insults our intelligence when they (continuously) lie with euphemisms.
We know ESCALATION when we see it.
And, whatever he calls this next move, I’ll be calling it “OPERATION ENDLESS CARNAGE“—a name which accurately reflects the policy.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:05 pmGeneral Wesley Clark also uses the term “surge.”
http://securingamerica.com/node/2108
A surge needn’t be brief to be called such. Stop arguing semantics.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:06 pmHe’s just practicing for when he starts kicking in doors of political opponents here in our country. This is a president who hates the constitution, hates civil liberties and is destroying everything the founders intended this country to be.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pmwait’ll you hear keith’s special comment…
that man needs special protection, now…
January 11th, 2007 at 9:17 pmToday, Condi Rice responds to Congress when questioned over whether this is an escalation: “It’s an augmentation…”, she claims. More semantics.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:23 pmThe amount of troops added to Iraq includes extending tours and speeding up rotation. I disagree with the “surge”, or whatever we may call it. But, since Bush is hell-bound to do this his mere 17,500 additional troops (not totally additional when you see how this is implemented) is NOT enough! 60,000 or 100,000 might get something done. I doubt that as well, but 17,500 will be just throwing a water drop on a burning building and thousand will die.
Publicus. I love the freedom you and I have to criticize the government. I’m also thankful, those in power understand that it makes more sense to fight terrorism in the Middle East now (without the nukes) than here in the U.S. in a few years with the nukes.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:23 pmI think Surge’s rights are now getting violated.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:32 pmPublicus. I love the freedom you and I have to criticize the government. I’m also thankful, those in power understand that it makes more sense to fight terrorism in the Middle East now (without the nukes) than here in the U.S. in a few years with the nukes.
Comment by paul
That basic premise in it’s pure form does make sense. Unfortunately after it gets digested through the gut of Cheney and Bush, it comes out as one big smelly turd.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:36 pmPublicus. I love the freedom you and I have to criticize the government. I’m also thankful, those in power understand that it makes more sense to fight terrorism in the Middle East now (without the nukes) than here in the U.S. in a few years with the nukes.
January 11th, 2007 at 9:42 pmComment by paul
This president is eroding the balance of power (see 750 signing statements) . Our freedom is being threatned. Terrorists are a threat, yes, but our eroded Constitution by this Administration is a greater threat. Iraq was not the source of terrorists. But they will be in the future thanks to Bush.
paul –
There is no basis for the premise that fighting terrorists in Iraq will in any way stop them from attacking us here. Furthermore, terrorists around the world…not just in Iraq…want to attack us.
I DO agree with you that nukes, both potential and currently existing, are bad news for the United States. However, I have no confidence in the Bush administration to handle this challenging and critically important problem. The administration has such an unbroken record of incompetence and failure that I have no confidence in them at all. And the American people as a whole are increasingly feeling the same way.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:26 pmcorporate mainstream media whores! All of them! Bush Propaganda Machine at it’s finest! They have become mindless zombies afraid to report the truth and instead have sold their collective soul to the devil for a price.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:27 pmHope they enjoy their time in hell!
Let the american people now have their surge – a surge toward what’s now necessary – IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS! Let’s surge them on!
January 11th, 2007 at 10:28 pm5+ years without a domestic terror strike… you have to be happy about that.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:28 pm5+ years without a domestic terror strike… you have to be happy about that.
Comment by paul
They don’t have to strike us again, paul, we’re destroying ourselves from within. Osama bin Laden sits backs and smiles.
January 11th, 2007 at 10:35 pm5+ years without a domestic terror strike… you have to be happy about that.
Comment by paul
–
Pual –
I assume that you attribute that to the Bush administration’s brilliance. I do not. I have no evidence of that. I cannot see how, even theoretically, the war in Iraq could be responsible for that. There are no terrorists left because they are tied up in Iraq? Nonsense, of course. Terrorists are worldwide. They will strike when they are ready. If a pair of idiots in Oklahoma can blow up an office building, terrorists can—of course—do the same.
I think a better guess is that terrorists are quite satisfied killing our sons and daughters in Iraq for now. They’ll attack the U.S. when they’re ready…
January 11th, 2007 at 10:36 pmSo Paul, whaddaya think?
January 11th, 2007 at 11:11 pmall i’ve hear from bush for 5 years is terroist, one lie after the
next…. he’s corrupt, a warlord, what do you expect.
yeh right a surge. listen, i don’t even want to here nothing
more from corrupt bush… when all he talked about was
terror, by the 2′nd week, i didn’t want to hear nothing else,
that was 5 years ago and now this idiot already has 20,000
more in iraq and the insanity of another 100,000
INSANE……. CORRUPT……. ENOUGHT TO PUKE RIGHT OUT OF OFFICE
I
January 12th, 2007 at 12:18 amM
P
E
A
C
H NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Question:
Wouldn’t this the second or third time that the troop levels in Iraq have been increased for a supposedly short period of time? Hasn’t the number of American soldiers in Iraq been slowly increasing?
If those previous boosts to troop levels didn’t achieve their goal to quell the insurgency, what makes Pres Bush that this one will?
January 12th, 2007 at 1:53 amAbdul Qadir Mohammed, a Sunni originally from Anbar Province, said: “Nothing will change. We have heard many similar speeches and nothing happened. We really hope that this new strategy will work but honestly from inside, I feel it will not.
“The Americans should be serious about taking serious measures against the ongoing Iraqi government because it’s the main problem at the moment, by backing the militias and the death squads. The best thing I see in this strategy is the sending of new troops into Iraq and the deployment Kurdish troops in Baghdad because both will not serve as death squads like the Interior Ministry commandos who have killed thousands of Iraqis for sectarian reasons.”
Hasanain Akram, 34, a doctor who was waiting in a petrol queue, said: “I expect that the new plan will make things even worse because both the Kurdish and the Shia troops from the south will only serve their sects and their people. I think if the Americans want to solve the problems in Iraq they should change the Iraqi government because it’s causing the main problems in the country. I’m very pessimistic as everything is bad in this country and there is lack of basic life needs: no electricity, no petrol, not water.
“Nothing is functioning properly in this place. Although I am Shia I refuse to be linked to Maliki and his Shia bloc, and all they have done in this government because they are not representing us and they are very sectarian. So the problem is not with Iraqis, the problem is with the government.
“Instead of sending more troops to kill more Iraqis they should fight against the corruption and sectarianism of the government. I was displaced from Al Adel neighbourhood and may not be able to get back to my house again in my life so what economic improvement are they talking about. Their promises will be just like the last ones that have never been fulfilled.”
Barber Ahmed Hussein, 30, a Shia, said: “Bush’s lies are countless. He kept on saying the situation in Iraq was very good and improving while Iraqis were killed, tortured and kidnapped so it shows how he says nothing but lies.
“I don’t think bringing more American troops will help because these troops don’t actually know what are the main problems in this country. Neither do the Kurds because they don’t even know the place and the language, so they will be of no help. So how would anybody expect any improvements and solutions for the problems if they don’t even understand what the situation is?
“Of course they should work on improving the economy of this country and providing new jobs and fighting unemployment, because most of those who join the militias and the armed groups are desperate jobless young men who had no other choice. But still I doubt that these promises will be fulfilled and I doubt the security situation will improve.”
Sa’ed Mohammed, a 25-year-old unemployed Sunni, said: “The security situation will not improve. The new plan will fail just like the previous ones and the occupiers will never build a country and the Americans are helping the militias to destroy the country which is something that goes with the interests of Iran and Israel. The Kurds don’t like Arabs anyway, so they will fail here and will not be really willing to help the situation.
Qassim Dawood Mujbil, 28, a labourer, said: “If this new strategy by Bush came only to correct his mistakes and improve his image in his own country – not really taking into consideration the real problems in our country – then it will fail and will be unwelcome.”
Sabah Ahmed, a 33-year-old Arabic language teacher and Shia, said: “Bush’s new strategy mentioned nothing about the logistic and financial support of the Gulf states to the Sunnis and it was confined to Iran and Syria for obvious political reasons linked to the relations between the two countries and the United States. Bush wants to punish Iran because of its nuclear projects and Syria for supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, and mentioned nothing about the Saudi support to the Sunni extremists.”
Jasim Abbas al-Janabi, 42, Shia, said: “We feel impatient from just waiting and nothing is changing. I am unable to go to Baghdad any more and run my business between Najaf and Baghdad as I used to do in the past. If Bush really wants to solve the problems and destroy militias from both sides I will be the first one to welcome this new strategy, even if it is done by force.”
News of the extra troops did not trouble Sunni insurgents who spoke to The Times and vowed to continue their fight until all foreign troops withdrew from Iraq.
Abu Mohammed, fighting with the 1920s Revolution Brigades in northern Iraq, said: “America wants to use a magic stick to turn their dreams and fictions about Iraq into reality, which is impossible. The reason is that America is dealing with people who criticised Saddam in the past for all that he did and nowadays they are doing things that are ten times worse than what Saddam did.”
Sunni fighter Ahmed Al Hassani, with Ansar al-Sunna Army in central Iraq and Baghdad, said: “This new strategy was expected. It means nothing to us. We will keep going in our war that does not accept any mid-way solutions. Either they pull out of our country or the war will continue until we achieve victory.
Abu Qutada, a fighting with the al-Rashideen Army: “It’s very clear that America failed completely in Iraq in all aspects, as their politicians are saying. But we say defeated, not just failed, and they are nowadays desperate to find a way out of their troubles here.”
This week, in Baghdad’s Shia slum Sadr City, stronghold of the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, his widely-feared Mahdi Army ordered every man aged 15-45 to register for combat.
However Mahdi fighters said they had orders not to seek out confrontation with the Americans. “We won’t start a fight, but if they do then our people are ready to fight back,” one told The Times.
January 12th, 2007 at 5:38 am1: For example, in October, US Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad and General George Casey, head of US operations in Iraq, listed the passing of such a law as one of the “milestones” they were pressuring the Iraqi government to deliver. Similar calls have been made by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (see eg http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/75418.htm) and Energy Secretary Sam Bodman (eg AFP, 18 Jul 06, ‘US wants new Iraq oil law so foreign firms can take part’).
January 12th, 2007 at 6:08 amAnyone know where I can find the complete video online of Condi’s testimony at the senate foreign relations committee?? The one where she got grilled by hagel and Boxer? “Grilled Rice” , sounds appropriate. Anyways please post the link if anyone finds a source on the web that has the video. You tube deosnt have it, and Cspan has it but deosnt work.
January 13th, 2007 at 2:44 pm