Cheney Does His Best Nixon on Meet The Press

[Nbadan]

http://brouhaha.blogs.com/brouhaha/images/dick_4.gif

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; Page A12


Vice President Cheney offered a veiled attack yesterday on critics of the administration's Iraq policy, saying the domestic debate over the war is emboldening adversaries who believe they can undermine the resolve of the American people.

"They can't beat us in a stand-up fight -- they never have -- but they're absolutely convinced they can break our will, the American people don't have the stomach for the fight," Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

The vice president said U.S. allies in Afghanistan and Iraq "have doubts" the United States will finish the job there. "And those doubts are encouraged, obviously, when they see the kind of debate that we've had in the United States," he said. "Suggestions, for example, that we should withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq simply feed into that whole notion, validates the strategy of the terrorists."

Cheney unapologetically defended the 2003 invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, saying the administration would have done "exactly the same thing" even if it knew before the war what he acknowledged knowing now -- that Iraq did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Yet he also gave a bit of ground, as he was pressed repeatedly by interviewer Tim Russert about statements that turned out to be wrong or damaging to his credibility.

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000427.html)

You know, I'm almost certain Richard Nixon was saying the same thing about the Vietnam anti-war movement in the late 60's.

[George Gervin's Afro]

dick was asked if their policies created more terrorism.. he said in his opinion it had not.. of course he also thought the insurgecny was in it's 'final throes' and that 'we would be in fact greeted as liberators'.. etc.. dick's track record has been of the mark.it was good to see darth vador squirm a little bit.. Ain't like the fox news softball interviews hey dick?

[101A]

http://brouhaha.blogs.com/brouhaha/images/dick_4.gif

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; Page A12



Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/10/AR2006091000427.html)

You know, I'm almost certain Richard Nixon was saying the same thing about the Vietnam anti-war movement in the late 60's.

And he was right; N. Vietnamese generals/decision makers have said exactly that. Cheney is accurate now. It doesn't change the fact that there is going to continue to be people who protest the war. We live in a democracy, if a strong majority want us out of a war - guess what? - we're gonna get out of that war.

Dan, if you don't think our allies AND enemies recognize that, you are about as naive as they come. Whey the hell else do you figure the insurgecy continues? They knoiw they can't beat us militarily; what could be their goal? Simply to keep it up long enough to make us quit. Because, ultimately, the side that wins a war isn't the one that inflicts the most damage, or kills the most soldiers. It is the side that doesn't quit first.

[George Gervin's Afro]

And he was right; N. Vietnamese generals/decision makers have said exactly that. Cheney is accurate now. It doesn't change the fact that there is going to continue to be people who protest the war. We live in a democracy, if a strong majority want us out of a war - guess what? - we're gonna get out of that war.

Dan, if you don't think our allies AND enemies recognize that, you are about as naive as they come. Whey the hell else do you figure the insurgecy continues? They knoiw they can't beat us militarily; what could be their goal? Simply to keep it up long enough to make us quit. Because, ultimately, the side that wins a war isn't the one that inflicts the most damage, or kills the most soldiers. It is the side that doesn't quit first.


I understand where your coming from but we stopped at 58,000 dead in Vietnam and we, as a country, had enough. How many is enough? Until the job is done? What's pretty sad about this whole Iraq endeavor as that we still don't know if this is going to work. Iraq, like Vietnam, is not recognized as being necessary by the majority. When Bush and Dick continually try to tie the Iraq war with the broad war on terror they look desperate. In my opinion the Iraq war should stand on it's own merits we Bush should not continually try and have to justify it. The American public is smarter than most people acknowledge and that is why the new propoganda promotional tour is not working. When we were attacked at Pearl Harbor the country felt the necessity to get involved in WWII and was willing to sacrifice our young going into combat. Now? I wouldn't want my son joining the miltary with a Republican in office.. No offence to my bretheren on the opposite side of the isle but with a party in control that does not hesitate when going to war concerns me. I'm all for taking the fight to the terrorist , such as Afghanistan, but I question the wisdom of those who go to war with less than a clear exit strategy or coherent foreign policy.

[boutons_]

"the insurgecy continues"

dumb spin for the sheeple. The Repug fiasco war is no longer an insurgency against the American invaders.

It's a civil war between the Shiites and Sunnis for control of the country AFTER the US leaves, sooner or later.

Those two groups, and al-Quaida, AND IRAN (our REAL enemy) know the US will not stay for 50 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. They know the US has not sent and cannot send enough troops to control Iraq and Aghanistanl ( leaked US military report admits Anbar province is now lost militarily because it is lost politically)

With the majority of Americans now having turned against the war as pointless, and considering the Iraq war is a distraction from the real war on terrorism, the Repugs have already lost their Iraq war politically in the USA.

[101A]

" the Repugs have already lost their Iraq war politically in the USA.

...thanks for repeating my point, B.

[George Gervin's Afro]

...thanks for repeating my point, B.


While I agree with the substance of what boutons is saying you cannot deny his point. the 'insurgency' can wait 10, 20 30 yrs.. As I mentioned in my previous point most everyone involved has acknowledged this liberation experiment may not work.. we can say that we will not leave until their military can handle it's own business but we will never know until we leave... at that point IF they cannot handle their own business then this will all be for naught... just like Vietnam... If it does succeed than we will have done a great thing ... 50/50 proposition at best..Bush's and the boy's legacy rides on this pony..

[101A]

...50/50 proposition at best..Bush's and the boy's legacy rides on this pony..

As much as I want it to work...you are being generous to the adminstration with that assessment.

[boutons_]

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2006/09/11/GR2006091100033.gif


Has anybody heard ANYTHING positive to offset reports such as the following?

Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?

=================

Situation Called Dire in West Iraq

Anbar Is Lost Politically, Marine Analyst Says

( dickhead/rummy will destroy this guy's career, a la Gen. Shensheki )

By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 11, 2006; A01

The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq recently filed an unusual secret report concluding that the prospects for securing that country's western Anbar province are dim and that there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there, said several military officers and intelligence officials familiar with its contents.

The officials described Col. Pete Devlin's classified assessment of the dire state of Anbar as the first time that a senior U.S. military officer has filed so negative a report from Iraq.

One Army officer summarized it as arguing that in Anbar province, "We haven't been defeated militarily but we have been defeated politically -- and that's where wars are won and lost."

( US will finally be defeated logistically as it is just too damn expensive in lives and $$$ and lost opportunities to support a foreign war with no end in sight. Heaven forbid the Shias start hitting the sitting duck US military after they neuter the Sunnis. )

The "very pessimistic" statement, as one Marine officer called it, was dated Aug. 16 and sent to Washington shortly after that, and has been discussed across the Pentagon and elsewhere in national security circles. "I don't know if it is a shock wave, but it's made people uncomfortable," said a Defense Department official who has read the report. Like others interviewed about the report, he spoke on the condition that he not be identified by name because of the document's sensitivity.

Devlin reports that there are no functioning Iraqi government institutions in Anbar, leaving a vacuum that has been filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, which has become the province's most significant political force, said the Army officer, who has read the report. Another person familiar with the report said it describes Anbar as beyond repair; a third said it concludes that the United States has lost in Anbar.

( lest we forget: Al Quaida has NO politica power in Saddam's Iraq, but al Qaida is THE politcal power in dubya's Anbar province.
You're doing a heckuva job, dubya! )

Devlin offers a series of reasons for the situation, including a lack of U.S. and Iraqi troops, a problem that has dogged commanders since the fall of Baghdad more than three years ago, said people who have read it. These people said he reported that not only are military operations facing a stalemate, unable to extend and sustain security beyond the perimeters of their bases, but also local governments in the province have collapsed and the weak central government has almost no presence.

Those conclusions are striking because, even after four years of fighting an unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq, the U.S. military has tended to maintain an optimistic view: that its mission is difficult, but that progress is being made. Although CIA station chiefs in Baghdad have filed negative classified reports over the past several years, military intelligence officials have consistently been more positive, both in public statements and in internal reports.

Devlin, as part of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) headquarters in Iraq, has been stationed there since February, so his report isn't being dismissed as the stunned assessment of a newly arrived officer. In addition, he has the reputation of being one of the Marine Corps' best intelligence officers, with a tendency to be careful and straightforward, said another Marine intelligence officer. Hence, the report is being taken seriously as it is examined inside the military establishment and also by some CIA officials.

Not everyone interviewed about the report agrees with its glum findings. The Defense Department official, who worked in Iraq earlier this year, said his sense is that Anbar province is going to be troubled as long as U.S. troops are in Iraq. "Lawlessness is a way of life there," he said. As for the report, he said, "It's one conclusion about one area. The conclusion on al Anbar doesn't translate into a perspective on the entire country."

( sorry, guy, the US and Iraqi govt control only the Green Zone, and selected Bagdad neighborhoods )

No one interviewed would quote from the report, citing its classification, and The Washington Post was not shown a copy of it. But over the past three weeks, Devlin's paper has been widely disseminated in military and intelligence circles. It is provoking intense debate over the key finding that in Anbar, the U.S. effort to clear and hold major cities and the upper Euphrates valley has failed.

The report comes at an awkward time politically, just as a midterm election campaign gets underway that promises to be in part a referendum on the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war. It also follows by just a few weeks the testimony of Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee early last month that "it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

"It's hard to be optimistic right now," said one Army general who has served in Iraq. "There's a sort of critical mass of tough news," he said, with intensifying violence from the insurgency and between Sunnis and Shiites, a lack of effective Iraqi government and a growing concern that Iraq may be falling apart.

"In the analytical world, there is a real pall of gloom descending," said Jeffrey White, a former analyst of Middle Eastern militaries for the Defense Intelligence Agency, who also had been told about the pessimistic Marine report.

Devlin, who is in Iraq, could not be reached to comment. Col. Jerry Renne, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, said Saturday that "as a matter of policy, we don't comment on classified documents."

Anbar is a key province; it encompasses Ramadi and Fallujah, which with Baghdad pose the greatest challenge U.S. forces have faced in Iraq. It accounts for 30 percent of Iraq's land mass, encompassing the vast area from the capital to the borders of Syria and Jordan, including much of the area that has come to be known as the Sunni Triangle.

The insurgency arguably began there with fighting in Fallujah not long after U.S. troops arrived in April 2003, and fighting has since continued. Thirty-three U.S. military personnel died there in August -- 17 from the Marines, 13 from the Army and three from the Navy.

A second general who has read the report warned that he thought it was accurate as far as it went, but agreed with the defense official that Devlin's "dismal" view may not have much applicability elsewhere in Iraq. The problems facing Anbar are peculiar to that region, he and others argued.

( agreed, but where else is the US mlitary and faux Iraqi security forces have anywhere near complete,and lastingly stable, control? )

But an Army officer in Iraq familiar with the report said he considers it accurate. "It is best characterized as 'realistic,' " he said.

"From what I understand, it is very candid, very unvarnished," said retired Marine Col. G. I. Wilson. "It says the emperor has no clothes."

( http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Insane King dickhead and his court jester Georgie-kins are naked! )

One view of the report offered by some Marine officers is that it is a cry for help from an area where fighting remains intense, yet which recently has been neglected by top commanders and Bush administration officials as they focus on bringing a sense of security to Baghdad. An Army unit of Stryker light armored vehicles that had been slated to replace another unit in Anbar was sent to reinforce operations in Baghdad, leaving commanders in the west scrambling to move around other troops to fill the gap.

( aka, Rummy's "the (too small) army we have". )

Devlin's report is a work of intelligence analysis, not of policy prescription, so it does not try to suggest what, if anything, can be done to fix the situation. It is not clear what the implications would be for U.S. forces if Devlin's view is embraced by top commanders elsewhere in Iraq. U.S. officials are wary of simply abandoning the Sunni parts of Iraq, for fear that they could become havens for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

One possible solution would be to try to turn over the province to Iraqi forces, but that could increase the risk of a full-blown civil war. Shiite-dominated forces might begin slaughtering Sunnis, while Sunni-dominated units might simply begin acting independently of the central government.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

==============

Don't shoot the messenger (actually, I don't GAF if you do). I want the neo-con/Repug fairy tale of Iraq as shining light of democracy that spreads peace and love throughout the M/E to become reality. But it's very clear that fairy tale will remain forever a fairy tale that never should have been a war plan.

[PixelPusher]

Don't shoot the messenger (actually, I don't GAF if you do). I want the neo-con/Repug fairy tale of Iraq as shining light of democracy that spreads peace and love throughout the M/E to become reality. But it's very clear that fairy tale will remain forever a fairy tale that never should have been a war plan.

Relax. They're not going to shoot you. They'll just call you names like "Defeatocrat" and "Neville Chamberlain", then ask why you hate america so much.

[DarkReign]

Relax. They're not going to shoot you. They'll just call you names like "Defeatocrat" and "Neville Chamberlain", then ask why you hate america so much.

:lmao

[George Gervin's Afro]

Relax. They're not going to shoot you. They'll just call you names like "Defeatocrat" and "Neville Chamberlain", then ask why you hate america so much.


don't forget a 'cut-n-runner' and 'appeaser'... those are my personal favorites..