home

More Troops, More Death

More troops, more death. The BBC reports:

More than 3,000 US troops have arrived in Baghdad, the first deployment of extra forces promised for the Iraqi capital by US President George W Bush.

As the deployment began, the US military said four soldiers and one marine had been killed in the restive western province of Anbar.

It took to 25 the number of US deaths in Iraq on Saturday - one of the worst days for US troops since the invasion.

< Conservatives Demand Pardon For Lawless Border Agents | Libby: Out of the Starting Gate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    What a coincidence! (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:30:22 PM EST
    Death Squads? Gosh, they did not even bother to change the name. Guess that would have been way too obvious.

    They have learned from the last go around, but this time they will get caught as a result of their own arrogance.  

    Re: they (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:36:23 PM EST
    Richard Perle: "At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."

    David Frum: "This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on "failure at the center"--starting with President Bush."

    Kenneth Adelman: "I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."

    Parent

    These guys aren't saying what they (none / 0) (#22)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:39:33 PM EST
    appear to be saying in those quotes.

    They are holding Bush responsible not because they don't they don't like what he's doing in Iraq. They do. They think he has screwed up by not moving faster on their agenda, and that that is what is causing these deaths and the mess in Iraq.

    Neo Culpa

    As Iraq slips further into chaos, the war's neoconservative boosters have turned sharply on the Bush administration, charging that their grand designs have been undermined by White House incompetence.

    It sounds unbelievable, but they are upset because the situation is not worse than it is....

    Parent

    The only thing (none / 0) (#11)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:39:59 PM EST
    I would argue with is "They have learned"

    Parent
    What they learned (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:57:15 PM EST
    I would argue with is "They have learned"

    A few things they have learned:

    Tremendous capitol from 9/11 and that is an huge understatement

    War in Iraq, based on duping Congress and the American people.

    Bumper opium crop in Afghanistan. Slush Funds.

    Secret Prisions.

    Making torture legal and tossing the Geneva Conventions.

    Two trillion dollars spent on the WOT all going to their own companies.

    Parent

    Does Hillary or Obama or Edwards (none / 0) (#14)
    by bx58 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:12:51 PM EST
    have any of these crazy bastards on the payroll?

    In which campaigns are they the strongest?

    Parent

    GOP (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:15:04 PM EST
    plans envision broad attack on Iran (none / 0) (#25)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:48:38 PM EST
    US contingency planning for military action against Iran's nuclear program goes beyond limited strikes and would effectively unleash a war against the country, a former US intelligence analyst said on Friday.

    "I've seen some of the planning ... You're not talking about a surgical strike," said Wayne White, who was a top Middle East analyst for the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research until March 2005.

    "You're talking about a war against Iran " that likely would destabilize the Middle East for years, White told the Middle East Policy Council, a Washington think tank.

    Link



    Parent
    I know this (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:59:29 PM EST
    We're nuts.

    We're nuts to allow this.

    As a US citizen, this is nuts. You don't have my vote.

    Parent

    Neocons (none / 0) (#16)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:17:07 PM EST
    To say that our core beliefs remain true is not to counsel self-satisfaction. We got lucky with Reagan. He took the path we wanted, and the policies succeeded brilliantly. He left office highly popular. Bush is a different story. He, too, took the path we wanted, but the policies are achieving uncertain success. His popularity has plummeted. It would be pigheaded not to reflect and rethink.

    But we ought to do this without backbiting or abandoning Bush. All policies are perfect on paper, none in execution. All politicians are, well, politicians. Bush has embraced so much of what we believe that it would be silly to begrudge his deviations.



    Parent
    This I don't understand. (none / 0) (#17)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:24:26 PM EST
    The loose group of us who felt impelled by the antics of the 1960s to migrate from the political left to right

    Honest question.  I don't understand this.


    Parent

    Radicals (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:31:06 PM EST
    Leeden et al were lefties who turned to the right. many of tham still think of themselves as radicals, which they are.



    Parent

    Oh, I get it (none / 0) (#21)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:35:04 PM EST
    they never actually were leftists.

    Parent
    Leeden Interview (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:53:13 PM EST
    He is a known liar, but I think that his spin here is not totally dishonest.
    ML: Well I'm a democratic revolutionary, albeit not a socialist. I haven't read Fukuyama's latest writings, but I wasn't at all convinced by the "end of history" thesis.....

    ....I think you're right to say that I have roots in the left, which is the point I was trying to make when I said I didn't think of myself as a "conservative." Leo Strauss once said that it was hard to understand how the word "virtue," which once meant the manliness of men, came to mean the virginity of women. In like manner I am perplexed at how revolutionaries are now called "conservatives."
    It's very misleading, and very political. The left, which has become reactionary and counterrevolutionary, wants to stigmatize people who advocate democratic revolution, and so they use the word "conservative," which for the left is an epithet.

    RS

    Raw Story

    Parent
    Neocon "democratic revolution" (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:00:31 PM EST
    is what is happening in Iraq, right now. They are mad because they think Bush isn't using enough military force.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#29)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:04:11 PM EST
    we're we're on the same page.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:11:13 PM EST
    I posted all that also for all the people who read here but don't comment here.

    Parent
    What a Surprise (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:44:38 PM EST
    The troop increase goes against most of the advice he has been given by military experts. Lockstep with Lieberman whose advice was: "Mr. President, I have two words for you, 'Be bold'".

    Another problem for Bush was that the military did not necessarily want more troops. Army Gens. John P. Abizaid, the Middle East commander, and George W. Casey Jr., the commander in Iraq, opposed an influx of U.S. forces because they were unconvinced it would change the dynamics on the ground.

    Resistance from Casey and the Joint Chiefs of Staff flared throughout the process. On Dec. 13, Bush went to the super-secure "tank" at the Pentagon to listen to his top generals, only to walk away convinced that some of them were trying to manage defeat rather than find a way to victory.

    WaPo
    via War & Peace

    Are we surprised. Bush did not listen to the experts on the ground in Iraq looking for WMD's either, he fired them instead.

    Parent

    From Muravchik's Operation Comeback (none / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:51:46 PM EST
    Recruit Joe Lieberman for 2008... Lieberman says he's still a Democrat. But there is no place for him in that party. Like every one of us, he is a refugee.


    Parent
    Neocon and Neoliberal are (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:42:14 PM EST
    interchangeable names for them.

    Parent
    I don't either really... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:31:40 PM EST
    ...other than maybe they felt that the political left couldn't produce the results they wanted?

    Parent
    Link (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:33:49 PM EST
    Here is a link.

    Parent
    I didn't even have to read (none / 0) (#23)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 07:42:08 PM EST
    to know that it's a given.  And I've had too much too drink (absent somthing better, but that's a different story).

    Parent
    "They" (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:54:08 PM EST
    ...we must continue to fight. But we need to sharpen our game. Here are some thoughts on how to do it:

    Learn from Our Mistakes. We are guilty of poorly explaining neoconservatism.
    ...
    To say that our core beliefs remain true is not to counsel self-satisfaction... It would be pigheaded not to reflect and rethink.
    ...
    Let the wonder weapons be the icing on the cake.
    ...
    The silver lining in the cloud of anti-Americanism is that every stuffy orthodoxy inspires some bright, independent-minded people to rebel.
    ...
    Prepare to Bomb Iran. Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office.

    Operation Comeback

    Parent
    Higher Powers Deny Bush Claim: a limerick (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    The Bush War cause went entirely bad
    The moment he listened to his other dad
    The Lord advised him "Attack!
    "Peaceful Jesus has your back!"
    But they deny it and say he's gone mad.

    Master of Death (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:45:04 PM EST
    And sicko president Bush has named today, "National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2007.". What a evil moron who has little regard for human life unless, that is, you happen to be an embryo.think progress

    In an effort (none / 0) (#2)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    to further "stabilize" the situation in Baghdad our troops will be joined by the Kurdish militia. At least those who dont run away first. As if having 2 ethnic groups fighting (not including the US) Lets throw a third group in just to make it interesting.

    Boston Globe today (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 05:55:28 PM EST
    Kurdish troops from north deserting
    Loyalties are with militia, not with Iraq

    "The fanatic Sunnis in Baghdad kill the Shi'ites and vice versa. Both of them are outraged against the Kurds. They will not hesitate to kill us and accuse us of being collaborators with the occupiers,"



    Parent
    Looks like Soccerdad (none / 0) (#6)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:12:03 PM EST
    called it.

    The soldiers don't know the Arabic language, the Arab tradition

    yet, we expect them to fight for "Iraq".

    Parent

    More to come I'm afraid. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Slado on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 05:22:41 PM EST
    The new troops also come along with a more aggressive strategy of rooting out the sunni insurgents and the Shiite death squads.  

    Unfortunately that will mean more casualties in the coming months.

    Let's all hope it works instead of just counting bodies.

    While we're hoping for that (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 12:42:04 AM EST
    Let's hope every kid gets an ice cream cone too.

    Because that is just as likely.

    What IS "Plan B?"

    Parent

    Hope.... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 08:22:49 AM EST
    I wish there were a way for it too work so I could hope...but I can't even figure out how it is supposed to work or what "winning" is in Iraq.

    I'm dead serious, not being snarky or facetious.  I must be dim cuz I just don't get it and never did.  

    I'm resigned to hoping the Americans in harms way simply make it out and home alive, and the 3 factions in Iraq can find a way to live together or split the land up before they all kill each other.

    Parent

    You hate to say it (none / 0) (#5)
    by bx58 on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    but the deaths of the thousands of Americans and Iraqis is a drop in the bucket to the millions who will eventually die from starvation and disease because of this squandered wealth.

    As George Carlin said "there's a war on drugs and a war on crime, but no war on homelessness, because there's no profit in it."

    Was he takin a shot at lawyers?

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by aw on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:14:03 PM EST
    he was taking a shot at all of us.

    Parent
    Bush doesn't care (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 06:15:21 PM EST
    Things are proceeding in Iraq exactly the way he and Cheney want them to. They'll be spinning these deaths into a propaganda campaign to justify attacking Iran. You won't be able to count the bodies.

    NYT 1 hour ago (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:46:20 PM EST
    New details also emerged about clashes on Saturday in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, which left five Americans dead. Lt. Col. Scott R. Bleichwehl, an American military spokesman, said the gunmen who stormed the provincial governor's office during a meeting between American and local officials were wearing what appeared to be American military uniforms in an effort to impersonate United States soldiers.

    The sophisticated attack hinted at what could be a new threat for American troops as they start a fresh security plan centered on small bases in Baghdad's bloodiest neighborhoods, where soldiers will live and work with Iraqi forces. Military officials have said that one of their greatest concerns is that troops will be vulnerable to attack from killers who appear to be colleagues.

    It is not uncommon for gunmen to impersonate Iraqi security forces, but this seems to be the first time that attackers have tried to disguise themselves as Americans.

    Link



    Now where are they getting (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 08:48:03 PM EST
    American military uniforms?

    Parent
    NIE's are sooo passé (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 21, 2007 at 09:17:08 PM EST
    Unvarnished NIEs sent to the White House by the Negroponte/Fingar team have not shied away from unwelcome conclusions undercutting administration claims, and have gone over like proverbial lead balloons. An estimate on Iran completed in early 2005, for example, concluded that the Iranians will not be able to produce a nuclear weapon before "early to mid-next decade," exposing Cheney's fanciful claims of more proximate danger. And an NIE produced in April '06 on global terrorism concluded that the invasion of Iraq led to a marked increase in terrorism, belying administration claims that the invasion and occupation had made us "safer.".....

    .....The two unwelcome estimates meant two strikes on Negroponte. Then the White House learned of an impending strike-three - this one an NIE assessing the future in Iraq and apparently casting doubt on the advisability of U.S. escalation. In a classic Cheneyesque pre-emptive strike, the estimate was put on hold; Negroponte was given a pink slip and assigned back to the State Department. There are rumors that Fingar is clearing out his desk as well.


    Ray McGovern

    Bush Timetables (none / 0) (#37)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 07:40:28 AM EST
    George W. Bush, 4/9/99:"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

    George W. Bush, 6/5/99:"I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn."

    No timetable for pullout from Iraq: Bush

    Washington, Jan 22: US President George W Bush distanced himself from predictions US troops could begin leaving Iraq by late summer, stating bluntly there would be no timetable, in an interview published today.

    "We don't set timetables in this administration because an enemy will adjust their tactics based upon perceived action by the United States," Bush told the USA today newspaper.

    Ummm, George? They are adjusting their tactics to account for the fact that their enemy is incapable of adjusting his....

    Edger (none / 0) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:11:05 PM EST
    No. Our enemies are adjusting nothing because the Demos and the Left have them 100% convinced that all they have to do is just hang and we will cut and run.

    Parent
    BTW (4.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:19:43 PM EST
    Myself, I agree with Bush that it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is. And it might be helpful if he also explained winnin' while he's at it. You figure, Jim? Maybe less people would, ummm... die?

    Parent
    Oh... right, of course. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:16:27 PM EST
    How stupid of me. I forgot it was all the fault of that all powerfull 'left' who oppose sending more sitting ducks over there to die for nothing.

    Parent
    Empty words (none / 0) (#41)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:19:30 PM EST
    Since you are TL's self-appointed propaganda minister channeling the wingnut echo-chamber for us, perhaps you can explain just what this slogan actually means.

    .....and we will cut and run



    Parent
    See (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 01:39:15 PM EST
    Jim has a good point here.

    The Iraqi's want US Troops out of Iraq. If they weren't there the Iraqi's wouldn't be attacking them.

    But Bush, in his own words "don't set timetables in this administration because an enemy will adjust their tactics based upon perceived action by the United States".

    So if Bush pulls the troops out of Iraq, the Iraqi's will "adjust their tactics based upon perceived action by the United States", because they won't have any US Troops to attack.

    Hmmmmm.... of course, the Iraqi's would then send a horde of crazed killers to overrun Jim's hometown and behead him in his bed. I forgot about that part.

    What would we do without Jim to keep this all in clear focus for us? The Iraqi's are probably a little pissed that they were invaded in the first place. I see that now. Thanks, Jim....

    I have one question, though...

    Parent

    No cattle... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 02:36:11 PM EST
    "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."

    "I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."

    --George W. Bush

    Parent
    "Cut and Run" means... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 07:04:54 PM EST
    That his stock portfolio which is topheavy with death merchant comapanies such as Lockheed-Martin, Raytheon, etc., will lose value.

    Parent
    Edger, (none / 0) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    dont mind him; he's always coming at it from a Post'68 Stress Syndrome perspective.

    Is that when (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    he was overrun by hordes of crazed freaks and hairies waving flaming draft cards and screaming 'Hell no - we won't go'?

    I guess it would be pretty traumatic...

    Parent

    Stennis update (none / 0) (#48)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 04:45:29 PM EST
    Edger, you were asking the other day if the Stennis were still here in San Diego.  The answer is no, as of yesterday, when it sailed for the gulf with its attack group.

    Parent
    Nimitz, you mean? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 04:46:42 PM EST
    Stennis left last week from WA.

    Parent
    I was asking (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:05:15 PM EST
    about the Nimitz, after seeing this from Steve Clemons at TWN on January 16 about preparations for an attack on Iran:
    We asked a friend out on the West Coast for his assessment of the new deployments, which confirms the actions ARE aimed at Iran, but in a balanced way, all things considered. For something really "up", he warns, watch to see a change in deploying the Nimitz:

    Carrier USS John C. Stennis today (16 Jan 07) departs home port Bremerton, Washington, en route to San Diego to pick up its carrier air wing before sailing west to the Persian Gulf.

    There, the Stennis strike group will join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower strike group. The Eisenhower recently has been operating off Somalia.

    ......
    OK. . .what to watch for if the US really thinks bad things are about to happen?
    On the other hand, increasing to three carrier strike groups would be noticeably more 'robust', belligerent and suggestive of intending or anticipating attack. The difference between two and three strike groups is huge. Two ='s strong and capable, but existing offensive intent is less probable; three ='s 'we don't care about provocation, we're preparing to fight in this new dimension'.

    (An indicator would be to watch for announcements about Nimitz strike group; Nimitz reportedly has completed the routine pre-deployment work-up and is in San Diego.)



    Parent
    My bad (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:29:04 PM EST
    No problem (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 05:31:54 PM EST
    If you happen to be down that way again it would be interesting to know though...

    Parent
    Another commie traitor (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 04:50:59 PM EST

    GOP leaders continue to break ranks from President Bush on Iraq. The latest is House Minority Leader John Boehner, who is getting ready to demand that President Bush report to Congress every 30 days on the progress that the Iraq government and the administration is making in the war,  CNN reports.

    TPM Cafe

    New Low (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:35:40 PM EST
    looks like the scam war is just killing him:

    Mr. Bush's overall approval rating has fallen to just 28 percent, a new low, while more than twice as many (64 percent) disapprove of the way he's handling his job.

    link
    via atrios

    64% ? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 06:43:39 PM EST
    Colbert moments must be hell for him.

    Parent
    Your Liberal Media (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 22, 2007 at 11:59:42 PM EST
    Liz (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 23, 2007 at 03:09:20 AM EST
    has no imagination, and less intelligence.

    Parent