Reply With Quote
These soldiers must be outraged with the Iraq Study Group that Bush assembled. New King of the mixed message.
...in Iraq.
Bill Roggio (an embed that doesn't report from a Green Zone hotel) is in Iraq on his latest embed tour, and his first post is already up. Read it, and you'll note a recurring theme: military personnel in Iraq are fed up with press coverage of the war. To a person, they note the media's failure to report any progress in the conflict, and the deliberate distortion of official reports, ranging from David Kay's assessment of Iraqi WMD, to the recent Marine intelligence assessment of the situation in Al-Anbar Province.
If you've ever wondered what the military and defense contractors think of the "press," Mr. Roggio sums it up rather nicely:
Roggio also relates a vignette from Landing Zone (LZ) Washington, inside Baghdad's Green Zone. Waiting for a flight to Fallujah, Roggio observed two sergeants watching President Bush announce that there would be no "graceful exit" from Iraq, and that we would stay until the job is finished. According to Mr. Roggio, the two NCOs cheered loudly at the president's announcement. Then, he says, they scoffed at a CNN report from Iraq and jeered at the "balcony" reporting that ended the segment.
Come to think of it, when's the last time you saw an American TV reporter do a "stand up" from a U.S. military post in Iraq, or with American troops in the field? Not recently (at least in my memory) and embed totals from the theater tend to confirm that assessment. A couple of months ago, there were a total of nine journalists embedded with U.S. units in Iraq, and many of those were from publications that specialize in military matters--not MSM outlets.
MSM reporters in Iraq rely on Iraqi stringers, and file their reports from the relative comfort (and safety) of their hotels. This technique has resulted in recent stories that were woefully incorrect (at best) and outright lies, at worst. Needless to say, media fabrications describing the "burning" of Sunni mosques and worshippers (from the Associated Press) and accounts of phony airstrikes (courtesy of the LA Times) will only deepen the divide between journalists and the military. In fact, the animus between soldiers and scribblers is so bad that Bill Roggio says he tries to hide his press badge "whenever I can get away with it." And Roggio is one of new breed of independent reporters/bloggers who is genuinely respected in military circles. We can only imagine what the troops think of the local rep from The New York Times.
These soldiers must be outraged with the Iraq Study Group that Bush assembled. New King of the mixed message.
As dubya and Repugs take it up ass, (history will be severe) for Iraq swirling out of control and further into chaos, Yoni tries to blame the press for the disaster, as if the overwhelmingly good news was being suppressed, including "good news" the from US military brass and the Iraq Study Group, and the press was only reporting bad news.
I feel for the poor military ers that dubya and Repugs have betrayed, but it's not their fault dubya sent them to , for absolutely no gain.
Atfter a weekend where 9 US military and 100s of Iraqis killed or injured, the reporters are chicken for not galavanting around even Bagdad that the US military can't stabilize?
Nice comment asshole.
Which is why I have butt-ons on ignore.
Of course the troops are also relegated to Fox News and Hush Limpballs telling them the media and the dems hate them and their mission. When you hear stuff like this over and over you begin to believe it. It is no surprise that the troops don't think the media is fair but whether they are opening schools or giving candy out is not the reason why we had to sacrifice so much in Iraq. Of course the majority of GIs coming back and running for office are primarily Democrats..
I'm sorry but we relied on an Iranian spy (Chalabi) as our primary source of information to invade Iraq..so Yoni before you start blaming sources and the media let's blame Bush for relying on a less that reliable 'source' to start an unecessary war..
The President relied on intelligence analyses, as did Congress when they voted to authorize the use of force.
And, that has little to do now with the way the Mainstream Media is mischaracterizing the realities in Iraq today.
Outcome-based intel analyses are no analyses at all.
Yoni for once be honest with yourself and admit that the President decides on what to give Congress in regards to intel. The excecutive branch in this case gave Congress what they wanted... ADMIT THAT
Since when should we rely on facts?
Well, tell that to the Congress that voted in favor of the AUMF in Iraq.
In other words, it wasn't "outcome-based" intelligence. I will allow that it could have been flawed intelligence -- but, even that seems unlikely given what we know today.
Yoni can't do that George. He's paid a commission on every sucker he can lure.
They saw the same outcome-based intel.Well, tell that to the Congress that voted in favor of the AUMF in Iraq.Of course it was. We gave Tenet a medal for it.In other words, it wasn't "outcome-based" intelligence.
Really? These Committees don't conduct hearings, call witnesses, and grill administration officials?
Why don't you be honest with yourself and admit that up until it became clear President Bush intended to invade Iraq, everybody on the planet, with the possible exception of Hans Blix, believed Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's and had continued his WMD programs throughout the 90's.
Why don't you be honest with yourself and admit that all Saddam Hussein had to do was completely cooperate with UN inspectors and he'd probably (though, sadly) still be the Dictator-elect of Iraq.
I never once bought it. When I saw Powell holding that little vile at the UN, I thought "I smell a rat".
Way to go Nancy Drew.
Wait a minute Yoni.... are you telling me the rubber stamp congress 'grilled' bush and his reasons? the same one who rushed to change the name of french fries?
Hans Blix? The lead wmds hunter in Iraq? The one who came out and said he did not think Iraq had wmds?
Saddam? Right Bush and the boys who told him 'to prove he did not have them' were the preparing for war from day one.. the same folks who said that we would only go to war as a last result..waited what? 45 days?
Paul O'Neil , who happend to know a little more than you do, said that he felt that we were going into Iraq no matter what.. but,but he has an agenda...
I think there were Democrats on the Committee...all of which voted yes to AUMF.
Yeah, him.
No, more like 12 years.
He felt.
It's no secret the neocons in Bushie's administration were always looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. The only surprise is the lengths they went to in order to convince themselves and Bushie it was the only course of action that could possibly be followed.
Well except yours boutons. They give you the freedom to
spout your junk. And don't you ever forget it, never. Without
them you aren't jack!
More left-wing lies from AP
==========================
December 6, 2006
U.S. Military Says 10 Troops Killed in Iraq Today
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:33 p.m. ET
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Ten U.S. forces were killed in four separate incidents Wednesday in Iraq, the U.S. military said.
The military confirmed that the 10 Americans had died but gave no further details.
''Our thoughts and prayers go out to those family members who have lost loved ones today,'' U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Christopher Garver said in a statement.
The deaths raised to at least 2,917 the number of members of the U.S. military who have died since the beginning of the war in 2003, according to a count by The Associated Press.
=========================
you're doing a heckuva job, dubya-in-chief
Ok, let's talk realities.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101001442.html
Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000
By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12
A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.
...
Meanwhile, realities back at the Afghan ranch:
BBC NEWS
Violence 'eroding Afghan hopes'
Optimism in Afghanistan has slumped in the past year amid worsening violence, an ABC/BBC poll has found.
While a majority remain hopeful about the future, the mood has darkened because of concern over the resurgent Taleban, poverty and corruption.
But most people backed Hamid Karzai's government and more than 70% said they welcomed the foreign troop presence.
Nationally, the Taleban proved very unpopular, although levels of support showed significant regional variations.
The poll, a joint project by ABC News in the US and the BBC World Service, surveyed 1,036 Afghans nationwide via face-to-face interviews. An equal number of men and women were interviewed.
It comes with Afghanistan embroiled in the bloodiest period of violence since US-led troops overthrew the Taleban's radical Islamic government five years ago.
Taleban 'greatest threat'
(but I guess dubya is "winning" there, too)
According to the survey, Afghans viewed their country with significantly more pessimism than a year ago. Fifty-five percent thought that Afghanistan was going in the right direction, a drop of 22 points since October 2005.
President Hamid Karzai's approval rating was down by 15 points, although 68% still rated him as good or excellent and a similar figure backed his government.
( Karzai more popular than dubya? you won the wrong election in the wrong country, dubya!)
Nearly six out of 10 people said security was better now than under the Taleban, but 40% reported Taleban violence in their local area.
This figure soared in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar, which have seen the fiercest fighting. Only 43% of respondents in these two provinces believed the country was heading in the right direction, a drop of 35 points since last year.
Most Afghans, 57%, called the Taleban the greatest threat to the country and nationally, the Taleban proved very unpopular.
Seventy-six percent of respondents said their impression of the Taleban was very unfavourable, while Osama Bin Laden was even less liked.
But in six provinces in the south-east of the country, support for the Taleban was higher, with almost half said to give them some degree of backing.
Economic woes
More than half believed that US forces should remain until the security situation stabilised, but there was a rise in the number who said that the US should withdraw within a year.
( in contrast, most Iraqis want the US out )
There was broad opposition to attacks on troops, government officials and police, with nearly 90% saying that suicide bombings could not be justified.
Acceptance of opium poppy cultivation appeared to be rising, particularly in provinces which are major producers. Forty percent said growing opium was acceptable if there was no other way to earn a living.
Official corruption emerged as a widespread problem, and barely a third of Afghans believed that the economy was in good shape.
READ THE FINDINGS
Most computers will open this do ent automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Lack of jobs, poor infrastructure and insufficient medical care remained issues of concern, as did poverty - three-quarters reported monthly household incomes of less than 12,000 Afghanis ($244, £125).
The report also highlighted a growing rural-urban divide, with city dwellers reporting better services and infrastructure, as well as higher ownership of things like mobile telephones and electrical appliances.
Women's rights were seen as having improved since the Taleban - 72% of women described their rights as good.
Yet support for women in management roles remained low and backing for arranged marriages high. Ninety percent of Afghans said hitting a woman was unacceptable.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...ia/6213244.stm
Published: 2006/12/07 12:07:26 GMT
© BBC MMVI
=====================
Some very good news up there. Imagine how much better off Afghanistan would be now if the US had concentrated on Afghanistan/Taleban/Al-quaida rather than starting the phony Iraq war. Afghanistan was the "good war" abandoned by the Repugs to start the "bad war".
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions