The commander of the British forces returning from Helmand said that his forces were having to make up for the time lost by the decision of the US and UK to invade Iraq instead of concentrating on post-Taliban Afghanistan.
A senior British Forces commander says Bush screwed up. Umm, shouldn't this be in a campaign ad tomorrow???
Posted by Richard Bottoms at October 17, 2006 04:51 PMIf you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.
Is that a joke? He must be talking about Halliburton, not the Iraqi people. Come on, when was the last election in Iraq and they still don't have an organized government? A civil war is raging but they're doing "remarkably well" for a country in the midst of a civil war, maybe? Does anyone really believe a word this man says anymore other than his 6-year old fan in Nebraska?
Posted by ann at October 17, 2006 07:52 PMRe the detainee bill signed by shitbird has me so spooked I'm removing my campaign signs for Webb and our lady Congressional candidate from the front yard tomorrow afternoon after I finish off a gallon of Everclear. Who knows, somebody might pass by and see that and conclude I'm a drunken terrorist, and arrange for the Stasi to pick me up and detain me for questioning. Did y'all hear about the fourteen year old girl who was ousted from her classroom and questioned by two Fed agents because she'd posted a dissenting view of the administration on her MySpace website?
And...UN dignitaries of every fuckin' nation praised Chavez's speech a few weeks ago, amazed at his honesty, wishing they too had the courage to speak out but they're AFRAID to do so. Christ only knows what the Dems in Washington are threatened with.
However, the USA has been torturing men, mostly African American men in prisons for decades, but...
Posted by Mal Feasance at October 17, 2006 08:01 PMIf some of you want to know about the long range ramifications of this war and the continued use of our munitions, please go to this site on Depleted Uranium! Parts 1, 4, and 7 are especially important. If your squemish, avoid parts 5 & 6!
This will show you that things are not ...doing remarkably well. And haven't been since the first Gulf War!!
The only way cheney will understand reality is to shutdown the cash flow from the U.S. treasury to haliburton. If democrats control either house, the first investigation should be cheney's welfare to haliburton from the U.S. treasury. We need a better understanding of the $9 billion + no bid cost plus gift to haliburton. If this "rip off" is exposed properly and shutdown, cheney's view of Iraq will change accordingly.
So yes, everything is going remarkably well for cheney and haliburton. Unfortunately, for the U.S. things are deep in the toilet!
If you look at the general overall situation, they’re doing remarkably well.
Since we know cheney wouldn't lie, he must be talking about how well haliburton is doing.
President Bush keeps saying that we'll stand down as Iraqis stand up, but 300,000 Iraqis have supposedly stood up, and none of our troops have stood down. Is there some stand up/stand down exchange rate?
Posted by croatoan at October 17, 2006 10:19 PMYeah, right. Iraqis loyal to their nation will certainly collaborate with the occupying army. (/snark)
Those who are willing to risk their lives for security join the militias instead. An Iraqi army will NEVER be ready if it's supposed to be loyal to the occupiers as it mostly will consist of people who just need the money or who are there to subvert it.
Posted by Johannes at October 18, 2006 05:06 AMBush's "stand up" standard was intentionally selected because it can never be achieved, and provides a convenient excuse for essentially indefinite occupation, which is the voter deception game currently being played.
If a functioning Iraqi army was an essential component to withdrawal, however could von Rumsfeld and Deadeye Dick decide to completely and utterly disband the existing Iraqi Army almost as soon as we took Baghdad? Because its officers were "Baathists"? Please......these geniuses had no problem whatever with "Baathists" until 1991.
And realistically, if American and British firms are going to be exploiting Iraq's almost inconceivable oil wealth (the actual reason for the invasion, after all) they obviously are going to need/require long term protection provided by America's helpful Corporate Opportunity Forces.
Sign up now, kids! Uncle Crony Wants YOU!
Further, although Dimwit-in-Chief failed to predict it, the underlying political goal of the Shia and the Kurds right now is creating their own largely autonomous "federal" areas. How exactly would a centrally controlled army or "security forces" (these damn euphemisms!) contribute to those provincial movements?
It wouldn't, and thus "standing up" is not succeeding or advancing, nor will it.
Posted by euzoius at October 18, 2006 05:52 AMre: Cheney's "remarkably well"
Indeed (my Condi imitation), the fewer brown people to deal with, the better. The dead and mangled troops - collateral damage.
Posted by Sharon at October 18, 2006 05:53 AMstv, th 'stnd-p' rq plcy s mrly crp dcptn. Whl w prch th stnd p plcy, w d ll tht s ncssry t mntn lw lvl f cnstnt wrrng. Ths s ncssry t mntn r prsns n rq. Fr f w lft, thn th rq's wld b n fll llnc wth rn, Syr, tc. Sch n vnt wld prcld S crps pwr vr mddl st l rsrvs.
Ths, th stnd p plcy s smply fr th bnft f th rhd mrcn vtrs. t's prtnd tlk t mllfy th rhds nd t mssg thm bck t thr tlvsns.
W mst lwys kp n mnd rwlln tctcs; ls, t s mprtnt t rmmbr tht t th lvl f th frnt lns, r bys r vctms ls n tht thy r dng thr dmnst wth s lttl spprt s pssbl. Why? Bcs thy r nt n rq t prdc stbl rdr, bt t smply mntn cntrl vr th l rsrvs. n th thr hnd, nbknwnst t r bys, r C prdcs th dth sqds t mntn hvc ths hlpng cnstrct th mdrn frm f cncntrtn cmp, rq styl. Th lft hnd hsn't cl bt th rght hnd. gss thr s blss n th yth f gnrnc bcs knw tht t 20 yrs ld wld nvr hv fgrd n r gvrnmnt bng s dmn crrpt.
Th pnt hr s tht w mst hld th DC whrs nd whrmngrs ccntbl fr ths ntr mddl st ffr, bgnnng snc bt 1967 wth th srl ttck pn th SS Lbrty. f w nvr hld th plctcls ccntbl, thn ths crp pllg ctns wll cntn wtht nd. Hwvr, f w hld th pltcls ccntbl, thn, prhps, th crp bys my b hld t by, vn rgrssng n strngth. cn wsh, cn't ?
[Editor: ignore=off]