U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq

<takes up chant of "Throw the Bums Out!">

BUMS OUT! BUMS OUT!

QUOTATIONS OF THE DAY -

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the
danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
- VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY

The basic republican sales pitch, they are selling fear. How well do you think it is selling?People should remember what Roosevelt said."We have nothing to fear but fear itself". THROW THE BUMS OUT.
Story

This the character and credibility of the man who would be our savior and protect us from evil


OP-ED COLUMNIST

Missing in Action

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: September 8, 2004

resident Bush claims that in the fall of 1972, he fulfilled his Air National Guard duties at a base in Alabama. But Bob Mintz was there - and he is sure Mr. Bush wasn't.

Plenty of other officers have said they also don't recall that Mr. Bush ever showed up for drills at the base. What's different about Mr. Mintz is that he remembers actively looking for Mr. Bush and never finding him.
Mr. Mintz says he had heard that Mr. Bush - described as a young Texas pilot with political influence - had transferred to the base. He heard that Mr. Bush was also a bachelor, so he was looking forward to partying together. He's confident that he'd remember if Mr. Bush had shown up.

"I'm sure I would have seen him," Mr. Mintz said yesterday. "It's a small unit, and you couldn't go in or out without being seen. It was too close a space." There were only 25 to 30 pilots there, and Mr. Bush - a U.N. ambassador's son who had dated Tricia Nixon - would have been particularly memorable.

I've steered clear until now of how Mr. Bush evaded service in Vietnam because I thought other issues were more important. But if Bush supporters attack John Kerry for his conduct after he volunteered for dangerous duty in Vietnam, it's only fair to scrutinize Mr. Bush's behavior.

It's not a pretty sight. Mr. Bush was saved from active duty, and perhaps Vietnam, only after the speaker of the Texas House intervened for him because of his family's influence.

Mr. Bush signed up in May 1968 for a six-year commitment, justifying the $1 million investment in training him as a pilot. But after less than two years, Mr. Bush abruptly stopped flying, didn't show up for his physical and asked to transfer to Alabama. He never again flew a military plane.

Mr. Bush insists that after moving to Alabama in 1972, he served out his obligation at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery (although he says he doesn't remember what he did there). The only officer there who recalls Mr. Bush was produced by the White House - he remembers Mr. Bush vividly, but at times when even Mr. Bush acknowledges he wasn't there.

In contrast, Mr. Mintz is a compelling witness. Describing himself as "a very strong military man," he served in the military from 1959 to 1984. A commercial pilot, he is now a Democrat but was a Republican for most of his life, and he is not a Bush-hater. When I asked him whether the National Guard controversy raises questions about Mr. Bush's credibility, Mr. Mintz said only, "That's up to the American people to decide."

In his first interview with a national news organization, Mr. Mintz recalled why he remembered Mr. Bush as a no-show: "Young bachelors were kind of sparse. For that reason, I was looking for someone to haul around with." Why speak out now? He said, "After a lot of soul-searching, I just feel it's my duty to stand up and do the right thing."

Another particularly credible witness is Leonard Walls, a retired Air Force colonel who was then a full-time pilot instructor at the base. "I was there pretty much every day," he said, adding: "I never saw him, and I was there continually from July 1972 to July 1974." Mr. Walls, who describes himself as nonpolitical, added, "If he had been there more than once, I would have seen him."

The sheer volume of missing documents, and missing recollections, strongly suggests to me that Mr. Bush blew off his Guard obligations. It's not fair to say Mr. Bush deserted. My sense is that he (like some others at the time) neglected his National Guard obligations, did the bare minimum to avoid serious trouble and was finally let off by commanders who considered him a headache but felt it wasn't worth the hassle to punish him.

"The record clearly and convincingly proves he did not fulfill the obligations he incurred when he enlisted in the Air National Guard," writes Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel who has made the most meticulous examination I've seen of Mr. Bush's records (I've posted the full 32-page analysis here). Mr. Lechliter adds that Mr. Bush received unauthorized or fraudulent payments that breached National Guard rules, according to the documents that the White House itself released.

Does this disqualify Mr. Bush from being commander in chief? No. But it should disqualify the Bush campaign from sliming the military service of a rival who still carries shrapnel from Vietnam in his thigh.

Iraq's Terrorist Haven

Thursday, September 9, 2004; Page A26



PRESIDENT BUSH boasted again yesterday that his administration is "on the offensive" against terrorism and is "chasing down these killers overseas so we don't have to face them here at home." At the Republican convention last week, he said his plan for Iraq was to "help new leaders . . . move toward elections and get on the path of stability and democracy as quickly as possible." Yet on the ground in Iraq stands a glaring contradiction to those statements: the Sunni cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra, where the United States has withdrawn its forces, allowing extremist movements and foreign terrorists to take over. These strongholds now pose a serious threat to U.S. forces, to Iraq's interim government and to the plan to hold national elections in January. Yet even as it contends with Shiite militants in southern Iraq and the slums of Baghdad, the U.S. military leadership has announced that it cannot eliminate these sanctuaries for Baathists and suicide bombers before December.

Is it only a coincidence that the Pentagon's timetable postpones a difficult and potentially costly showdown until after the U.S. presidential election? Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, argued at a news conference Tuesday that time is needed to lay the political and mili- tary groundwork. Iraqi forces, they say, are needed for any operation against the Sunni cities and would have to keep order afterward. Those national forces, they say, are not yet ready, even though the United States has been working to equip and train them for more than a year. The Iraqi government is meanwhile attempting to isolate the extremists politically: Prime Minister Ayad Allawi has been meeting with tribal leaders from Fallujah. U.S. forces are attempting to pressure the militants from a distance, through bombing strikes and artillery barrages.
There's no question that any military campaign against Fallujah or its neighbors will have to be carefully prepared; but there's no longer much question that it will be needed. The White House called off a Marine attack on Fallujah in April in the hope that a friendly local Iraqi force would step in and impose order, a decision that has proved to be a serious mistake. The hastily assembled local force never asserted control, and one of its commanders was recently captured and beheaded. A Taliban-like regime now rules Fallujah. Mr. Rumsfeld acknowledged that it is the base of Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian terrorist with ties to al Qaeda whose organization has carried out many of the suicide bombings in Baghdad. The Zarqawi organization, which aspires to operate far beyond Iraq, has made Fallujah the most open and dangerous sanctuary for Islamic terrorism since Osama bin Laden was driven from Afghanistan.

U.S. forces have already suffered painful losses in Iraq: The number of dead passed 1,000 this week, and no end to the violence is in sight. But the Bush administration, whose errors have done much to create this troubled situation, will only compound U.S. losses if it fails to act decisively against Iraq's Sunni extremists and the terrorists they harbor. The planned political transition, on which the chances for progress in Iraq depend, may well collapse if January's elections are derailed or discredited -- and elections cannot be held in the principal towns of western Iraq as they now stand. Even worse is the prospect of a terrorist organization conceded a haven in a country that the United States invaded to preempt just such a threat. The administration was wrong to allow that enemy base; it can ill afford to grant it three more months of grace.

Doesn't Iraq have a soveriegn goverment now? Don't they now have say over what operations the US troops should be undertaking apart from self defense?

I think you should look into that.

Well, shouldn't we just leave and let them handle it, then, McG? If they are competent, they can handle the problems...

Otherwise, the soveirgnity they claim is a joke. Which is it?

Cycloptichorn

strength of character and resolve...

In His Own Words: 'I, Like Others, Became Disillusioned'

The Washington Post
Wednesday, July 28, 1999; Page A11

The following are excerpts of interviews with George W. Bush conducted by Washington Post reporters. The interviews took place May 11 and June 7, 1999, in Austin.

What'd you think about the war?

Well initially I supported the government. My first reaction was ... I'll support my government.

Did you differentiate between supporting the government and supporting the war?

I didn't differentiate at first. I then, as you know, went in the service and over time, though, I, like many others, became disillusioned. I must confess I was not disillusioned right off the bat.

Did you defend the war? People recall that you argued both sides.

I don't remember debates. I don't think we spent a lot of time debating it. Maybe we did, but I don't remember.

We understand your father felt the war should be supported, and that he was put off by the tactics of the anti-war protesters.

I probably felt the same way at the time ... I do remember I think it was the Cambodian bombing, where I began to become, it became apparent over time that decisions were made not in the best interest of our military. It became evident that this was a political war, not a military war. There was a certain predictability and so the military mission was not paramount. It was a political mission. And there was no clarity of purpose ... and it took awhile for that to sink in my way of thinking.

Did you ever consider enlisting in active duty?

Yeah, I did but I got into Guard as a pilot. I got a pilot slot.

Why did you do the Guard instead of active duty?

I was guaranteed a pilot slot. I found out - as I'm sure you've researched all this out - they were looking for pilots. I think there were five or six pilot slots available. I was the third slot in the Texas Guard. Had that not worked out no telling where I would have been. I would have ended up in the military somewhere.

You meant to join the Guard when you took the pilot's qualifying test?

Or the regular Air Force. I was just looking for options. I didn't have a strategy. I knew I was going in the military. I wasn't sure what branch I was going into. I took the test with an eye obviously on the Guard slot, but had that not worked out I wouldn't have gotten into pilot training. I remember going to Air Force recruiting station and getting the Air Force recruiting material to be a pilot. Then I went home and I learned there was a pilot slot available.

Were you avoiding the draft?

No, I was becoming a pilot.

You wanted to serve?

Yes I did.

But when you were asked do you want to go overseas, you said no.

I didn't know that. But I actually tried to go on a Palace Alert program.

That was later.

It was. After I became a pilot.

Palace Alert program was being phased out.

Not really, a couple of my buddies got to go. ...

... But they'd already graduated.

That's true. I couldn't go until actually I'd gotten my -

I was curious about the sequence. You got out of combat school on June 23, 1970. Palace Alert programs were all closed down overseas as of June 30. So could you have gone even if you signed up for it?

I guess not if that's the case, but I remember going to see [the supervisor] to try to get signed up for it. You just ask the commander to put you in. He said you can't go because you're too low on the totem pole. I'm not trying to make this thing any grander than it is. ...


© 1999 The Washington Post Company

uhhhh huhhhhh

*sigh*

Which is it?

Which is what? Neither of your suggestions make any sense.

Please at least make a serious attempt, or maybe insert a smilie or something to indicate I should stop wasting my time.

McG, maybe Cy is trying to point out that Iraq has very limited 'sovereignty' and no say over US troops.

Freeduck got it, sorry it was poorly worded. I shouldn't post on the fly.

Iraq cannot control the cities within it's own borders, and certainly cannot stop/order the U.S. troops to/from doing anything they damn well please, so what's the point of calling them 'soveirgn?' That has no more meaning than saying 'mission accomplished' a year ago.

It's a well-designed trap by our government, and Iraq is caught right in the middle of it. See,

Iraq won't be really soveirgn until they have the power to back up their wishes. Right now they don't have that power because noone in the country gives a damn what the puppet governement says.

But... until the U.S. soldiers leave, it is doubtful that the area will calm down enough to hold real elections. (A side question, McG: do you think that the elections that are being planned for Jan. in Iraq will still go on, seeing as we are not in control of several cities/areas? How can one assure that the election is properly ran if we don't give the vote to all Iraqis?) We can't even be sure that the elections won't transform Iraq into another secular nation - it certainly seems to be headed that way.

All this sucks, but the real problem is that because of appearances, we can't leave until the fighting calms down.

So it's a trap. The U.S. soldiers can't leave until the fighting stops, but the fighting goes on because they are there. There can't be real elections with a ton of fighting going on. So how do we leave, and have a soviegrn Iraq behind us??

Cycloptichorn

Sovereignty, government, Iraq. There is one word missing bull crap. It is similar to an Abbot and Costello skit. Whose on first. It would seem the only ones in charge are the insurgents and the Clerics. They are calling the shots.
What did Bush say Mission accomplished? I wonder what mission he was talking about?

So 18 months after the start of the war, situation report

No wmd
No democracy
No rule of law
Not in control of large swathes of Iraq
No increase in oil production
Lots of dead people
World wide terrorist threat heightened
Billions dollars wasted
Thousands maimed, their lives destroyed

"War...uh what is is good for...absolutely nothin"

To launch a pre emtive invasion on a country that was no threat is one thing. To NOT DO IT PROPERLY is a different order magnitude of incompetence.

And you Americans are about to re elect the Commander in Thief for another 4 years. Where next?

Mission accomplished.

Steve,

I don't know what's next.

Lately I've been considering moving to a more, how would you say, mature country. But I'm having a hard time choosing one....

Damn my laziness! Whenever I think of the work it would take to learn a new language I just give up.

Cycloptichorn

The Iraqi government controlled US forces in Najaf. They held US forces back from taking the ali Imam shrine, and wanted only Iraqi forces to be involved. the Iraqi government also can have US forces quelle any uprisings and keep the peace until a well trained and armed Iraqi national guard can be organized which is underway.

Yes, I do believe the elections will take place and I believe they will be successful because the common people in Iraq want it to be that way. Respected leaders likeali sistani will also see to it that he keeps his people in check as will the eladers of the Kurds in the North.

The US cannot leave until such a time as Iraq can defend itself from threats both internal and external.

It's not a trap. it's called responsibility.

We, the US, dident enter Najaf because Bush dident want too start a religious war by attacking a Muslim church. Iraq dident have anything too say about it except which Iraquies to send in to the city. It was US tanks that finally turned out the Iraq terriosts. One thing ill agree with you about is that we cant leave untill a strong government is in place, thanks to Bush and his bunch of fools.