Iraqi officials can’t get their stories straight.
By on Jan 15th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Iraqi officials can’t get their stories straight.
Iraqi officials are divided on when their security forces will actually be able to secure the country. Just yesterday, two Iraqi officials gave two entirely different reports:
“Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraqi forces would be ready to take over security responsibility for all 18 provinces by the end of 2008.”
– Financial Times, 1/15/08VERSUS
“The Iraqi defense minister said Monday that his nation would not be able to take full responsibility for its internal security until 2012, nor be able on its own to defend Iraq’s borders from external threat until at least 2018.”
– New York Times, 1/15/08
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
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
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
Let’s see which one Dumbya believes….my guess would be the 2012-2018…yeah, that one.
Buck Fush
January 15th, 2008 at 12:03 pmWhen the US lies about Iraq, the Iraqis assume it’s ok for them to lie about it as well.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pmLooks like they know just about as much as we do.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:06 pmWhat do you expect? We still don’t have a military mission statement for our occupation of Iraq.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:11 pmAli al-Dabbagh, watch your ass, the CIA might just rendition you to Kyrgistan.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:15 pmNote to Iraqi assclown spokespersons:
Figure it out, and soon. We’re di mau di, asap.
Clusterfu(k over and out.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:16 pmComment by Buckie Boy
But he wouldn’t support saying that because then he’d be giving the enemy a timeline for surrender. And only Democrats and Iraqi officials do that.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:17 pmSo who’s going to call the Iraqi government surrender monkeys?
From the Iraqi government’s perspective, it is expensive and takes the lives of your men to provide security. If the Americans will spend their money and the lives and blood of their soldiers instead of Iraqis, can you blame their government?
On the other hand, from our perspective, I think we have squandered enough blood and money trying to prop up Bush’s ego. Enough is enough.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:17 pmAgain, their ‘pearl harbor moment’ is paying off.
It seems very interesting that the whole ‘terrah-ist attack’ thing occurred at the very beginning of Junior’s installment as puppet in chief, doesn’t it ?
January 15th, 2008 at 12:18 pmNot interesting, but damning.
You take that fact and add it to how you’ve seen them use it and
there is but one conclusion.
You eff-in-aa it was an inside job.
They have sworn an oath upon taking office and they are not upholding that oath and are evil as well as criminal.
There is only one way stop this train-wreck, and it’s not by voting.
“Iraqi officials can’t get their stories straight.”
See? We ARE having an influence over there. Iraqi officials have learned to talk out of both sides of their mouth just like our own leaders do!
January 15th, 2008 at 12:22 pmThe first quote sounds like Harry Reid and the second quote sounds like Joe Lieberman and John McCain!
January 15th, 2008 at 12:26 pmI much prefer the ‘end of ‘08′ option myself…
January 15th, 2008 at 12:28 pmThe pathetic puppet regime in Iraq, trying to “secure Iraq” from the Iraqi people, so that the Bush crime family can steal their oil. It’s what our Royal Bush smirkingly likes to call “democracy in action”…
January 15th, 2008 at 12:29 pmYou think Iraq can secure its own borders by the end of 2008? HAHA. Leaving now would simply turn Iraq into AQ headquarters with a sponser being Iran. That would make great peace in the region. The whole idea of leaving them now is foolish unless your motive is a terrorist filled Iraq and more power for Iran.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:33 pmSelf determination and democracy.
No, wait, it was WMDs, Nukes and Saddam.
Oh well, mission accomplished, whatever it was supposed to have been at some point.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pmSadaam’s dead, the new elected gummint has had four years to get its shit together, we’re out of there next year.
would simply turn Iraq into AQ headquarters
Yeah, for both AQI terrists.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:34 pmYou think Iraq can secure its own borders by the end of 2008? HAHA. Leaving now would simply turn Iraq into AQ headquarters with a sponser being Iran. That would make great peace in the region. The whole idea of leaving them now is foolish unless your motive is a terrorist filled Iraq and more power for Iran.
Comment by Roger_Roger — January 15, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
####
Memo to you: Iran hates Al-Qaeda. Their Badr Corps in Iraq is AQI’s worst enemy. If America were to leave AQI would be destroyed, and either Badr Corps or Mahdi would take control of Iraq, since they have the most support from most of the people. AQI is funded and supplied by Saudi, not Iran.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:43 pm“….foolish unless your motive is a terrorist filled Iraq and more power for Iran.”
Which is in a nutshell what Boy George did to Iraq. I would use the word criminal instead of foolish, but let’s not quibble.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:51 pmHey Roger, that was a power vaccuum that WE created. Screw democracy for Iraq, if they don’t want to fight for it (and I don’t think they ever wanted it), get someone… anyone who can stabilize the country. It will take a strong, secular hand to subdue the civil war and keep that country under control. Kinda sounds like Saddam was just the man for the job.
I despised Saddam, but I don’t pretend that we have all the answers either. Our real enemy is religious fanaticism, here and abroad. Religious fanaticism was responsible for 911 and all the problems in the middle east. Now why in the hell did we take out a leader who quelled religious fanaticism and was by almost all accounts the most secular (albeit brutal) ruler in the middle east?
Americans will probably never understand. We are mired in a mess that we created long ago. We should appologize for all of our meddling in their affairs and GET THE FU(K OUT OF THERE. Screw Israel, they are costing us everything.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pmthis is all perfectly understandable; let me translate:
by the summer of 2008, bush will pretend to draw-down US forces by having General Betrayus make a bunch of troop movements and rotations, and the Iraqis will pretend to take the lead in security even as US forces continue to pull their strings. All of this staged to influence the US presidential elections in the fall.
In realty, the net number of US forces in Iraq will be almost unchanged as the US forces continue to settle into their permanent bases to guard US oil reserves in Iraq, as the ethnic cleansing, death squads, and religious fanatics quells local violent resistance with brutal oppression.
By the end of 2008 if all goes according to plan, 130,000 or so US troops will be in permanent residence in their permanent bases in Iraq, settled in for at least the next 10 years, or 1,000 years if chief republican loon mccain becomes presnit, or until the US economic glass house shatters.
January 15th, 2008 at 1:45 pm.
“The two statements are completely uncontradictory. Iraqi forces will be ready to take over PRIMARY security responsibility for all 18 provinces by the end of 2008.”
I’d be willing to bet you that won’t occur, especially in the Kurdish north. The Turks have already given up on the Maliki government, as shown by their taking a forward post inside Iraq, to combat PKK terrorists.
How about a hundred?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:10 pmI’m not aware that the U.S. government employs “ministers” so why are ministers advising on how long the U.S. presence will be in Iraq?
January 15th, 2008 at 3:57 pm