Come on. You can't put Eli and Rich in the same camp with those dumbasses.
Eli is a straight-up Zionist neocon. If you read his posts at least he takes the time articulate his side. Rich reads like a Libertarian to me. But again, he takes the time to have real discussion. I disagree a lot, but still like to hear it all.
I wasn't putting them in the same camp. I was asking for their perspective.
Come on. You can't put Eli and Rich in the same camp with those dumbasses.
Eli is a straight-up Zionist neocon. If you read his posts at least he takes the time articulate his side. Rich reads like a Libertarian to me. But again, he takes the time to have real discussion. I disagree a lot, but still like to hear it all.
Thanks FB.....I find it ironic that the "if you're not with us you're against us" stereotype thrives amongst the Left who damned Bush for saying/doing the same exact thing.
Putting me in the same box as Dolo on ANY level is about a big an insult as I can imagine.
LW can apologize any time he wants.
I was not putting you in the same box as dolo. I was asking for your perspective. The original writer wanted to know dolo and saba's views. I couldn't care, but I did want to hear your and Vitamin's.
There is but one interesting thing to note about this otherwise vapid thread. That being how the typical 'troop supporting' leftist will only acknowledge the existence of troops when theyve been killed, injured or engaged in improper conduct.
Or before they go into combat or after they leave combat. The "typical troop supporting leftist" does not want to see the troops go into the wrong war for the wrong reason without proper training or equipment.
On the other hand the typical 'troop supporting' rightist will only acknowledge the existence of troops when they are in battle. Wasn't it you who said that dead troops were no big deal since more people died in car accidents?
People question you patriotism because youll only picture an american flag when its being set alight or draped over a coffin.
I question your patriotism because you refuse to picture an American flag draped over a coffin. Because you don't support proper training, equipping or health care for the troops. Because you support sending them into war that was clearly a mistake before it started and is clearly not winnable at this time given the amount of sacrifice you are willing to make.
People question your support for the troops because when you reference them at all it is only as sadistic murderers or incompetent cannon fodder.
Actually I always blame incompetence and murder on the leadership. It is the rightest who blame the troops. People question your support for the troops because you always blame the sadistic incompetent murderous policies of the civilian leadership on the troops.
It's not as if any of you bastards care anyway. The sole purpose of this thread was so all you can have a circle jerk about yourselves.
This thread started as a mourning of five years of war. Then a request for your views on 5 years of war. Instead of caring you decided to change the subject to a personal attack of people who actual care.
Iraq insurgents used children in car bombing: general
Mar 20 11:34 PM US/Eastern
Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday. The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said. [/b]
The general said it was the first time he had seen a report of insurgents using children in suicide bombings. But he said Al-Qaeda in Iraq is changing tactics in response to the tighter controls around the city.
A US defense official said the incident occurred on Sunday in Baghdad's Adhamiyah district, a mixed neighborhood adjacent to Sadr City, which is predominantly Shiite.
After going through the checkpoint, the vehicle parked next to a market across the street from a school, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
"And the two adults were seen to get out of the vehicle, and run from the vehicle, and then followed by the detonation of the vehicle," the official said.
"It killed the two children inside as well as three other civilians in the vicinity. So, a total of five killed, seven injured," the official said.
Officials here said they did not know who the children were or their relationship to the two adults who fled the scene. They had no information about their ages or genders.
"The brutality and the ruthlessness of this enemy hasn't changed," said Barbero, deputy director of regional operations of the Joint Staff. "They are just interested in slaughtering Iraqi civilians, to be very honest."
Attacks on Iraqi civilians are down by a third and sectarian murders have fallen by 50 percent since mid-February when US and Iraqi forces began moving into Baghdad as part of a new security crackdown, the general said.
On the other hand, there has been no let-up in attacks on US forces by Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni extremist groups, he said.
The incidence of car bombings and suicide attacks, which are typically carried out by Sunni extremist groups against Shiites, also have gone up even though their effectiveness is down, he said.
"As our checkpoints, and control points have been more effective, as they try to execute these high profile attacks with these vehicle-borne IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in Baghdad, we're stopping a lot of them at these checkpoints and they are not getting to their intended targets," he said.
But he said they will change their tactics.
Barbero pointed to the recent use of chlorine bombs as another example of the shifting tactics.
Three trucks with chlorine were blown up by suicide bombers over the weekend in Al-Anbar province, killing two policemen and releasing toxic fumes that sickened an estimated 350 people.
Barbero said Al-Qaeda in Iraq appeared to be resorting to use of chlorine bombs to intimidate tribal leaders that have turned against them in Al-Anbar.
"We assess those as relatively ineffective. However, that is an emerging tactic that we are seeing."
"We think it will continue to be exercised in Iraq. Chlorine is readily accessible and we've had a number of these," he said.
He said US commanders remain concerned about the Shiite militias led by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, even though US forces are now operating freely in Sadr City and his Mahdi army militia is quiet.
Sadr is still in Iran but in communication with leaders of his movement in Iraq, he said.
"Where we are with the leaders of his movement is at a pretty delicate point, and I probably don't want to talk any more about his followers, and where we are in our relationship with them," he said.
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.
To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.
The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.
My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.
I'll be honest...last night, i sat on the couch, thinking about where i was when the war started, and listening to bush's address. and, it just made me sad to think how much damage could be done in 4 short years to my country's reputation. and i love this country. But, fuck, man...I mean, Abu Gharib was like 5 disgraces ago at this point...
This war is every example of a rudderless ship. ill conceived, poorly planned, driven by greed and hubris, and sadly, the people who will pay the price are the people who we were trying to 'save,' and those who we sent to save them.
A few years back, adam gopnik wrote a great piece in the new yorker on WWI, and since he is a better writer in his sleep than i will ever be awake, i will put his words here below. yes, they were written regarding WWI, but you can draw your own parallels...
History does not offer lessons; its unique constellations of contingencies never repeat. But life does offer the same points, over and over again. A lesson is many-edged; a point has only one, but that one sharp. And the point we might still take from the First World War is the old one that wars are always, in Lincoln???s perfectly chosen word, astounding. They produce results that we can hardly imagine when they start. It is not that wars are always wrong. It is that wars are always wars, good for destroying things that must be destroyed, as in 1864 or 1944, but useless for doing anything more, and no good at all for doing cultural work: saving the national honor, proving that we???re not a second-rate power, avenging old humiliations, demonstrating resolve, or any of the rest of the empty vocabulary of self-improvement through mutual slaughter.
*********
No one has ever thought that the First World War didn???t have meaning, in the sense of an effect on things that came after, and purpose, in the sense that it happened because people believed it to be necessary. The questions persist. Were this purpose and this meaning worth the expense of life, the deaths of all those nineteen-year-old boys? Was what had been achieved in Europe by 1919 worth knowing that your son gasped out his last breath in the mud, as Kipling and eight million other fathers did? Was the credibility of liberal civilization worth the suicide of liberal civilization? One of the things that twentieth-century philosophy learned, in the wake of the war, is that big words are empty uniforms without men to live out their meanings, and that high moral purposes have no value outside a context of consequences. As the new century begins, the First World War seems as present, and just as great a pity, as it ever did.
I'll be honest...last night, i sat on the couch, thinking about where i was when the war started, and listening to bush's address. and, it just made me sad to think how much damage could be done in 4 short years to my country's reputation. and i love this country. But, fuck, man...I mean, Abu Gharib was like 5 disgraces ago at this point...
This war is every example of a rudderless ship. ill conceived, poorly planned, driven by greed and hubris, and sadly, the people who will pay the price are the people who we were trying to 'save,' and those who we sent to save them.
A few years back, adam gopnik wrote a great piece in the new yorker on WWI, and since he is a better writer in his sleep than i will ever be awake, i will put his words here below. yes, they were written regarding WWI, but you can draw your own parallels...
History does not offer lessons; its unique constellations of contingencies never repeat. But life does offer the same points, over and over again. A lesson is many-edged; a point has only one, but that one sharp. And the point we might still take from the First World War is the old one that wars are always, in Lincoln???s perfectly chosen word, astounding. They produce results that we can hardly imagine when they start. It is not that wars are always wrong. It is that wars are always wars, good for destroying things that must be destroyed, as in 1864 or 1944, but useless for doing anything more, and no good at all for doing cultural work: saving the national honor, proving that we???re not a second-rate power, avenging old humiliations, demonstrating resolve, or any of the rest of the empty vocabulary of self-improvement through mutual slaughter.
*********
No one has ever thought that the First World War didn???t have meaning, in the sense of an effect on things that came after, and purpose, in the sense that it happened because people believed it to be necessary. The questions persist. Were this purpose and this meaning worth the expense of life, the deaths of all those nineteen-year-old boys? Was what had been achieved in Europe by 1919 worth knowing that your son gasped out his last breath in the mud, as Kipling and eight million other fathers did? Was the credibility of liberal civilization worth the suicide of liberal civilization? One of the things that twentieth-century philosophy learned, in the wake of the war, is that big words are empty uniforms without men to live out their meanings, and that high moral purposes have no value outside a context of consequences. As the new century begins, the First World War seems as present, and just as great a pity, as it ever did.
WWI, or The Great War, was also called The War To End All Wars. The war was so horrendous - with rifles, cannons, barbed wire and mustard gas - that people believed that no one would be so foolish as to go to war again.
Shiites, who make up about 60% of the population and suffered discrimination and brutality under Saddam Hussein, say they're struggling, but many remain hopeful that they can eventually finish off the Sunnis.[/b]
They don't need to, they have the U.S. to do it for them.
According to what I've been reading it seems like Prime Minister Maliki cut a deal with the U.S. over the "surge" in Baghdad. Maliki would convince Sadr to have his militia refrain from attacks and in return the U.S. would go after the Sunnis.
On this I disagree. The Sunni terrorists blessedly meeting their demise in Iraq now say they are members of al-Qaeda in Mesopatamia and the mujahadin shura council. As such, they are not even really Iraqi in their allegiance, so much as the wider Islamic nation or umma. More and more, Sunni Iraqis, such as the tribesmen of Anbar and Diala, are killing these saboteurs. Their capture and death should be a celebration for all of us in the civilized world. I would say the same thing about the genocidiers who work for Sadr by the way. And while it would be nice if more of them were getting killed, the fact that they are not going house to house in Baghdad neighborhoods is in itself a victory.
I don't think any of the political solutions both sides say ought to be a precondition for our exit is possible without the demoralization at the least, and hopefully resounding defeat, of the recruiters of bus bombers and cleansers of Baghdad.
I also think the mission in Baghdad right now, what some call an escalation and others call a surge or reinforcements, is a mission of mercy. We are stopping an awful awful kind of total war, a competitive genocide. Our invasion bares a lot of blame for this heartbreaking state of affairs. Point scorers on the anti-war side could reasonably argue that this alone proves the war is a moral and strategic disaster--the fact that mission is the prevention of mass sectarian bloodlust, as opposed to building a pluralistic and free country. I would dissent from that line, but I concede at this stage it's a fair point.
(That said, the arguments looking backwards are academic. I could just as easily tell the opponents of the Kosovo air campaign that the success in NATO in stopping Milosevic from his cleansing schemes proves the indispensability of air power. I would not be getting to the key arguments made by the opponents of that excursion.)
Anyway, those are my thoughts four years on. I have a bit of a nasty prediction for the so-called netroots. This, right now, is as good as it will get in terms of the influence and importance to the Democratic party of the new web activists. You are being kissed right now, and what you write can get a major candidate to change his opinions and influence the contents of spending bills. But as soon as the Dems pick a nominee, moveon.org, myDD, dailyKos etc., gets fucked. The candidate, whoever it is, will tack to the center and probably backpedal on withdrawal. Kissed then fucked.
I can see that you couched your latest "position" in some pseudo journalistic objectivism, but really Vitamin FUCK YOU and all you cheerleaders for this. FUCK YOU. You have blood on your hands, you were a mouthpiece for this and you still don't see it because of your personal ambition. FUCK YOU.
The Sunni terrorists blessedly meeting their demise in Iraq now say they are members of al-Qaeda in Mesopatamia and the mujahadin shura council. As such, they are not even really Iraqi in their allegiance, so much as the wider Islamic nation or umma. More and more, Sunni Iraqis, such as the tribesmen of Anbar and Diala, are killing these saboteurs. Their capture and death should be a celebration for all of us in the civilized world. I would say the same thing about the genocidiers who work for Sadr by the way. And while it would be nice if more of them were getting killed, the fact that they are not going house to house in Baghdad neighborhoods is in itself a victory.
Where is there evidence that the Sunni inusrgency is meeting its demise? The few reports that give any kind of estimate about their numbers say that they've been growing in number since the invasion. There have been plenty of reports about how Anbar province has basically been lost and that the insurgents, through fear, intimidations and public support, have stymied any kind of American or government control. Not only that but the Maliki government has helped out by not paying army or police units that are majority Sunni and not funded development projects in Anbar for the same reasons.
You can also add the fact that the Sunni insurgents are completely self-sustaining now with plenty of arms and money that they don't even need funds from Baathists in Syria anymore if they didn't want to.
The candidate, whoever it is, will tack to the center and probably backpedal on withdrawal.
I disagree here E*i. It's the GOP that will be doing the backpedaling. There will be NO ONE arguing for "stay the course" after the '08 elections, GOP or Dems, no matter who's in charge. The bloodletting in Iraq will have gotten worse, and American support for the effort will be even lower. How could it go any other way at this point?
The Sunni terrorists blessedly meeting their demise in Iraq now say they are members of al-Qaeda in Mesopatamia and the mujahadin shura council. As such, they are not even really Iraqi in their allegiance, so much as the wider Islamic nation or umma. More and more, Sunni Iraqis, such as the tribesmen of Anbar and Diala, are killing these saboteurs. Their capture and death should be a celebration for all of us in the civilized world. I would say the same thing about the genocidiers who work for Sadr by the way. And while it would be nice if more of them were getting killed, the fact that they are not going house to house in Baghdad neighborhoods is in itself a victory.
Where is there evidence that the Sunni inusrgency is meeting its demise? The few reports that give any kind of estimate about their numbers say that they've been growing in number since the invasion. There have been plenty of reports about how Anbar province has basically been lost and that the insurgents, through fear, intimidations and public support, have stymied any kind of American or government control. Not only that but the Maliki government has helped out by not paying army or police units that are majority Sunni and not funded development projects in Anbar for the same reasons.
The candidate, whoever it is, will tack to the center and probably backpedal on withdrawal.
I disagree here E*i. It's the GOP that will be doing the backpedaling. There will be NO ONE arguing for "stay the course" after the '08 elections, GOP or Dems, no matter who's in charge. The bloodletting in Iraq will have gotten worse, and American support for the effort will be even lower. How could it go any other way at this point?
All three major contenders for the GOP nomination back the surge. The senate Republicans lost one of their own, picked up two dems in addition to lieberman, to defeat the Reid resolution last week. If the choice is between a retreat candidate and a victory candidate, I think the victory candidate will probably win. But I am not an oracle. I do think the major presidential nominee will turn the credulosphere's left heroes into Sistah Souljahs to score points with americans who have always been uneasy with the anti-war movement.
The Sunni terrorists blessedly meeting their demise in Iraq now say they are members of al-Qaeda in Mesopatamia and the mujahadin shura council. As such, they are not even really Iraqi in their allegiance, so much as the wider Islamic nation or umma. More and more, Sunni Iraqis, such as the tribesmen of Anbar and Diala, are killing these saboteurs. Their capture and death should be a celebration for all of us in the civilized world. I would say the same thing about the genocidiers who work for Sadr by the way. And while it would be nice if more of them were getting killed, the fact that they are not going house to house in Baghdad neighborhoods is in itself a victory.
Where is there evidence that the Sunni inusrgency is meeting its demise? The few reports that give any kind of estimate about their numbers say that they've been growing in number since the invasion. There have been plenty of reports about how Anbar province has basically been lost and that the insurgents, through fear, intimidations and public support, have stymied any kind of American or government control. Not only that but the Maliki government has helped out by not paying army or police units that are majority Sunni and not funded development projects in Anbar for the same reasons.
I've read those same reports. The U.S. has been working with that tribal group for quite some time, and even before that there were reports about the insurgents splitting with Iraqi groups fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. That still doesn't mean to me that they are declining. Al Qaeda in Iraq might be conducting a campaign in Baghdad right now, but there are still dozens of domestic Sunni groups who are not going anywhere soon.
And to support my claim that it appears the crackdown is on the Sunnis more than the Shiites here are a couple snippets. (Any typos are mine because I have hard copies of these articles. I'm retyping these myself.)
Mahdi Army gains strength through unwitting aid of U.S. Tom Lasseter McClathy Newspapers 2/1/07
The U.S. military drive to train and equip Iraq???s security forces has unwittingly strengthened anti-American Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr???s Mahdi Army militia.
???
U.S. Army commanders and enlisted men who are patrolling east Baghdad, which is home to more than half the city???s population and the front line of al-Sadr???s campaign to drive rival Sunni Muslims from their homes and neighborhoods, said al-Sadr???s militias had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police and army units that they???ve trained and armed.
???Helf of them are JAM. They???ll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night,??? said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army???s 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia???s Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. ???People (in America_ think it???s bad, but that we control the city. That???s not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It???s hostile territory.???
???
Amid recurring reports that al-Sadr is telling his militia leaders to stash their arms and, in some cases, leave their neighborhoods during the American push, U.S. soldiers worry that the latest plan could end up handing over these areas to units that are close to al-Sadr???s militant Shiite group.
???
???Who???s feeding the Iraqi army? Nobody. So JAM will come around and give them food and water,??? Etienne said. ???We try to capture hearts and minds, well, JAM has done that. They???re further along than us.???
Lie Low, Fighters Are Told ???Try at All Costs??? To Avoid Conflict With Americans
Josehua Partlow and Ernesto Londo???o Washington Post February 1, 2007
The instructions delivered by emissaries of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr at a recent meeting in Baghdad were clear to militiaman Massan Abdul Hussein.
???They informed us to hide the weapons,??? Abdul Hussein recalled of the Jan. 21 meeting in the Shula neighborhood.
???
???We should try at all costs to avoid any confrontation with the American forces, and even if they raid our officers or our houses, we should try to avoid a confrontation,??? he said.
???
In recent weeks, Mahdi Army leaders have left Baghdad to avoid being targeted, according to Iraqi and U.S. officials. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki???s office has received reports that some Mahdi Army leaders are moving to Iran and Syria, according to an aide to Maliki.
???
A more likely scenario is that the militia leaders believe than can ???win the whole thing??? if they are not too damaged by the time the United States withdraws, the official said.
Talabani: Mahdi Army Officials Left Iraq 2/15/07 IraqSlogger.com
Mahdi Army commanders have left Iraq in order to ???facilitate??? the security crackdown, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani suggested, and unnamed government source has said that the Mahdi Army leadership have traveled to Iran.
???
The statement say that Talabani added that Sadr was ???very keen on stability of the situation, and on the success of the security plan in Iraq, as he gave the green light to arrest criminals, and this is a positive position.???
???
According to the government source, Iran is interested in preventing the dismantling of the Iraqi Shi???a militias during the security plan, with the expectation that US and Iraqi forces will inflict heavy costs on Sunni armed groups. ???While in Iran they will be able to get more training and then once the Sunnis have been pacified, they plan to return,??? said the official.
Mixed welcome for Baghdad surge Scott Peterson Christian Science Monitor 2/20/07
???
The insurgent stronghold of Dora, with its Sunni majority, has also been a key target of US and Iraqi efforts since the Baghdad security plan was first announced more than a month ago.
???
Maliki???s government, which relies on Mr. Sadr???s supporters to rule, is reported to have pushed for Sunni areas to be cleaned up first.[/b]
Sunni leaders have cried foul, with Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi telling Al Jazeera TV on Sunday that leaks of the plan to Shiite militia chiefs meant a ???golden opportunity for Iraq has been squandered.???
Old Problems Undermine New Security Plan for Baghdad Richard A. Oppel Jr. New York Times February 23, 2007
???
At least two of the national police officers who turned out for the operation were moving ahead of the American troops not to lead the security drive but to warn the residents to hide their weapons and other incriminating evidence.
Some policemen on the sweep advertised their Shiite sympathies. Infiltration by militias has always been a major problem for the Iraqi security forces, and particularly the police, viewed by many Sunnis in the capital as de facto Shiite militia fighters.
Iraq Rebel Cleric Reins In Militia: Motives at Issue Damien Cave New York Times February 25, 2007
???
For now, American and Iraqi officials say Mr. Sadr seems to be cooperating with the effort to pacify Baghdad, ordering his men not to fight even as American armored vehicles roll into Mahdi strongholds in eastern Baghdad. He s
eems to be cleaning house of fighters who could taint him by association with Iran or with death squad killings.
This one is almost - ALMOST - as good as their story about the woman in prison for thirty years in El Salvador for getting an abortion, when she was really in prison for murdering her new-born (I guess to the NYT thats just a fourth tr-mester."
War story told by former sailor disputed
Deployment to Iraq not in personnel record; paper issues correction By Robert Hodierne - Staff writer Posted : Sunday Mar 25, 2007 12:34:28 EDT
The March 18 Sunday New York Times Magazine cover story was a gripping account of the emotional problems some female veterans suffer as results of their war experiences, sexual assaults or both.
One of the women featured in the story was a former builder constructionman Amorita Randall, 27, who served six years as a Seabee. Randall told the Times that while in the Navy, she was raped twice ??? in 2002 while she was stationed in Mississippi, and again in Guam in 2004. She also told the Times that she served in Iraq in 2004, which the Times reported as fact but which it now appears was not the case.
The story was written by Sara Corbett, a contract writer for the magazine. Here???s how Corbett presented it: ???Her experience in Iraq, she said, included one notable combat incident, in which her Humvee was hit by an I.E.D., killing the soldier who was driving and leaving her with a brain injury. ???I don???t remember as all of it "I don???t know if I passed out or what, but it was pretty gruesome."
The story goes on:
???According to the Navy, however, no after-action report exists to back up Randall???s claims of combat exposure or injury. A Navy spokesman reports that her commander says that his unit was never involved in combat during her tour[/b]. And yet, while we were discussing the supposed I.E.D. attack, Randall appeared to recall it in exacting detail ??? the smells, the sounds, the impact of the explosion. As she spoke, her body seemed to seize up; her speech became slurred as she slipped into a flashback. It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness.???
The magazine did not call the Navy to check Randall???s Iraq story sooner, Marzorati said, because they believed that checking rank, years of service and time in Iraq ???would be a perfunctory thing[/b].???
On Sunday, The Times published a correction to the March 18 cover story. In it, the Times states that ???it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq[/b], but may have become convinced she did.???
Yeah....the other day when someone posted an article that said "The N.Y. Times and Iranian Government agree" I thought to myself....."Yep, that about covers the entire full spectrum of humanity and all of their views right there".
Close your eyes and repeat after me....
There is no Liberal Media There is no Liberal Media There is no Liberal Media There is no Liberal Media
This one is almost - ALMOST - as good as their story about the woman in prison for thirty years in El Salvador for getting an abortion, when she was really in prison for murdering her new-born (I guess to the NYT thats just a fourth tr-mester."
War story told by former sailor disputed
Deployment to Iraq not in personnel record; paper issues correction By Robert Hodierne - Staff writer Posted : Sunday Mar 25, 2007 12:34:28 EDT
The March 18 Sunday New York Times Magazine cover story was a gripping account of the emotional problems some female veterans suffer as results of their war experiences, sexual assaults or both.
One of the women featured in the story was a former builder constructionman Amorita Randall, 27, who served six years as a Seabee. Randall told the Times that while in the Navy, she was raped twice ??? in 2002 while she was stationed in Mississippi, and again in Guam in 2004. She also told the Times that she served in Iraq in 2004, which the Times reported as fact but which it now appears was not the case.
The story was written by Sara Corbett, a contract writer for the magazine. Here???s how Corbett presented it: ???Her experience in Iraq, she said, included one notable combat incident, in which her Humvee was hit by an I.E.D., killing the soldier who was driving and leaving her with a brain injury. ???I don???t remember as all of it "I don???t know if I passed out or what, but it was pretty gruesome."
The story goes on:
???According to the Navy, however, no after-action report exists to back up Randall???s claims of combat exposure or injury. A Navy spokesman reports that her commander says that his unit was never involved in combat during her tour[/b]. And yet, while we were discussing the supposed I.E.D. attack, Randall appeared to recall it in exacting detail ??? the smells, the sounds, the impact of the explosion. As she spoke, her body seemed to seize up; her speech became slurred as she slipped into a flashback. It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness.???
The magazine did not call the Navy to check Randall???s Iraq story sooner, Marzorati said, because they believed that checking rank, years of service and time in Iraq ???would be a perfunctory thing[/b].???
On Sunday, The Times published a correction to the March 18 cover story. In it, the Times states that ???it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq[/b], but may have become convinced she did.???
I think it turned out that she was stationed in Guam the whole time. But it "should be true" so I guess "fake but true" is good enough for the paper of record.
Well I guess some weak fact checking is a pretty good rationalization for this war. This is worse than Pat Tillman? Please, now they are saying 9 army officials all knew how he actually died. Regardless, Saba I know its getting really really hard to find ways to defend Iraq, but we all know you can do better than playing gotcha with some NYT article. Yes the "paper of record" is not infallible, now what the fuck are we still doing in Iraq?? I'm hoping for something more substantial than a single sarcastic bitchy sentence, but I won't hold my breath....
Thanks for posting. The discussion between you and Motown was what I had in mind when others think I was calling you dolo. I guess I should have said "Motown? Vitamin?".
I agree with you the only way to win is to completely demoralize the enemy. Which is another good reason for redeploying sooner rather than latter, Since even you don't advocate doing what needs to be done to demoralize the enemy.
We are not going to demoralize the enemy with the methods used so far. Police actions, training Iraqis and torture will not demoralize the enemy. Securing Baghdad will not demoralize the enemy. (I think it is interesting that what the President calls a strategy to win the war against terrorism you call securing Baghdad.)
To demoralize the enemy we first need to pick an enemy. You would clearly pick the Sunnis. Today our enemy includes Sunnis, Shiis, Iran and Syria. Then rules of engagement would have to be changed so that any military aged male and any suspicious man, women or child would be a fair target. Then we would have to reinstate the draft. Then we would have to start equipping the the troops for real which will mean billions and billions more than we are spending now. If you don't support the above, you don't support winning in Iraq.
Meanwhile the people who attacked us on 9/11 (do you even remember 9/11) are back in power ruling a large part of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The candidate, whoever it is, will tack to the center and probably backpedal on withdrawal.
I disagree here E*i. It's the GOP that will be doing the backpedaling. There will be NO ONE arguing for "stay the course" after the '08 elections, GOP or Dems, no matter who's in charge. The bloodletting in Iraq will have gotten worse, and American support for the effort will be even lower. How could it go any other way at this point?
All three major contenders for the GOP nomination back the surge. The senate Republicans lost one of their own, picked up two dems in addition to lieberman, to defeat the Reid resolution last week. If the choice is between a retreat candidate and a victory candidate, I think the victory candidate will probably win. But I am not an oracle. I do think the major presidential nominee will turn the credulosphere's left heroes into Sistah Souljahs to score points with americans who have always been uneasy with the anti-war movement.
V is right that the nominee will kiss the blogasphere good bye. Both the D and R canidate will have a plan for victory that will bring the troops home before spring '09. That is the middle, troops home and victory.
Cut and run and strategy for failure are not terms that have been used by anyone on the left. The word is redeployment. Redeployment allows us to fight the war on al Qiada. Redeployment allows us to prevent Syrian or Iranian troops from entering Iraq and Iraqi troops from invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. This is what Ds have been working towards, but in their partisan hatred of all Democrats Rs have invented phrases like cut and run and failure.
Comments
I wasn't putting them in the same camp. I was asking for their perspective.
I was not putting you in the same box as dolo. I was asking for your perspective. The original writer wanted to know dolo and saba's views. I couldn't care, but I did want to hear your and Vitamin's.
You can apologize any time you want.
Or before they go into combat or after they leave combat. The "typical troop supporting leftist" does not want to see the troops go into the wrong war for the wrong reason without proper training or equipment.
On the other hand the typical 'troop supporting' rightist will only acknowledge the existence of troops when they are in battle. Wasn't it you who said that dead troops were no big deal since more people died in car accidents?
I question your patriotism because you refuse to picture an American flag draped over a coffin. Because you don't support proper training, equipping or health care for the troops. Because you support sending them into war that was clearly a mistake before it started and is clearly not winnable at this time given the amount of sacrifice you are willing to make.
Actually I always blame incompetence and murder on the leadership. It is the rightest who blame the troops. People question your support for the troops because you always blame the sadistic incompetent murderous policies of the civilian leadership on the troops.
This thread started as a mourning of five years of war. Then a request for your views on 5 years of war. Instead of caring you decided to change the subject to a personal attack of people who actual care.
As far as my opinion.
War Sucks.
Iraq insurgents used children in car bombing: general
Mar 20 11:34 PM US/Eastern
Insurgents in Iraq detonated an explosives-rigged vehicle with two children in the back seat after US soldiers let it through a Baghdad checkpoint over the weekend, a senior US military official said Tuesday.
The vehicle was stopped at the checkpoint but was allowed through when soldiers saw the children in the back, said Major General Michael Barbero of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
"Children in the back seat lowered suspicion. We let it move through. They parked the vehicle, and the adults ran out and detonated it with the children in the back," Barbero said. [/b]
The general said it was the first time he had seen a report of insurgents using children in suicide bombings. But he said Al-Qaeda in Iraq is changing tactics in response to the tighter controls around the city.
A US defense official said the incident occurred on Sunday in Baghdad's Adhamiyah district, a mixed neighborhood adjacent to Sadr City, which is predominantly Shiite.
After going through the checkpoint, the vehicle parked next to a market across the street from a school, said the official, who asked not to be identified.
"And the two adults were seen to get out of the vehicle, and run from the vehicle, and then followed by the detonation of the vehicle," the official said.
"It killed the two children inside as well as three other civilians in the vicinity. So, a total of five killed, seven injured," the official said.
Officials here said they did not know who the children were or their relationship to the two adults who fled the scene. They had no information about their ages or genders.
"The brutality and the ruthlessness of this enemy hasn't changed," said Barbero, deputy director of regional operations of the Joint Staff. "They are just interested in slaughtering Iraqi civilians, to be very honest."
Attacks on Iraqi civilians are down by a third and sectarian murders have fallen by 50 percent since mid-February when US and Iraqi forces began moving into Baghdad as part of a new security crackdown, the general said.
On the other hand, there has been no let-up in attacks on US forces by Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni extremist groups, he said.
The incidence of car bombings and suicide attacks, which are typically carried out by Sunni extremist groups against Shiites, also have gone up even though their effectiveness is down, he said.
"As our checkpoints, and control points have been more effective, as they try to execute these high profile attacks with these vehicle-borne IEDs (improvised explosive devices) in Baghdad, we're stopping a lot of them at these checkpoints and they are not getting to their intended targets," he said.
But he said they will change their tactics.
Barbero pointed to the recent use of chlorine bombs as another example of the shifting tactics.
Three trucks with chlorine were blown up by suicide bombers over the weekend in Al-Anbar province, killing two policemen and releasing toxic fumes that sickened an estimated 350 people.
Barbero said Al-Qaeda in Iraq appeared to be resorting to use of chlorine bombs to intimidate tribal leaders that have turned against them in Al-Anbar.
"We assess those as relatively ineffective. However, that is an emerging tactic that we are seeing."
"We think it will continue to be exercised in Iraq. Chlorine is readily accessible and we've had a number of these," he said.
He said US commanders remain concerned about the Shiite militias led by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, even though US forces are now operating freely in Sadr City and his Mahdi army militia is quiet.
Sadr is still in Iran but in communication with leaders of his movement in Iraq, he said.
"Where we are with the leaders of his movement is at a pretty delicate point, and I probably don't want to talk any more about his followers, and where we are in our relationship with them," he said.
Copyright AFP
1) Exaggerated threat of Saddam
http://www.soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=crates&Number=513396&fpart=&PHPSESSID=
2) Overview of Iraq with lead-up, invasion, occupation, post-CPA period to the Summer of 2006
http://www.soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=crates&Number=712775&fpart=&PHPSESSID=
3) Various pieces on the screwed up occupation, i.e. emergence of the civil war, failed reconstruction and training missions, etc.
http://www.soulstrut.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=crates&Number=529020&fpart=&PHPSESSID=
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support -- from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.
To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.
The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military -- a final atrocity against his people.
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.
My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.
May God bless our country and all who defend her.
This war is every example of a rudderless ship. ill conceived, poorly planned, driven by greed and hubris, and sadly, the people who will pay the price are the people who we were trying to 'save,' and those who we sent to save them.
A few years back, adam gopnik wrote a great piece in the new yorker on WWI, and since he is a better writer in his sleep than i will ever be awake, i will put his words here below. yes, they were written regarding WWI, but you can draw your own parallels...
History does not offer lessons; its unique constellations of contingencies never repeat. But life does offer the same points, over and over again. A lesson is many-edged; a point has only one, but that one sharp. And the point we might still take from the First World War is the old one that wars are always, in Lincoln???s perfectly chosen word, astounding. They produce results that we can hardly imagine when they start. It is not that wars are always wrong. It is that wars are always wars, good for destroying things that must be destroyed, as in 1864 or 1944, but useless for doing anything more, and no good at all for doing cultural work: saving the national honor, proving that we???re not a second-rate power, avenging old humiliations, demonstrating resolve, or any of the rest of the empty vocabulary of self-improvement through mutual slaughter.
*********
No one has ever thought that the First World War didn???t have meaning, in the sense of an effect on things that came after, and purpose, in the sense that it happened because people believed it to be necessary. The questions persist. Were this purpose and this meaning worth the expense of life, the deaths of all those nineteen-year-old boys? Was what had been achieved in Europe by 1919 worth knowing that your son gasped out his last breath in the mud, as Kipling and eight million other fathers did? Was the credibility of liberal civilization worth the suicide of liberal civilization? One of the things that twentieth-century philosophy learned, in the wake of the war, is that big words are empty uniforms without men to live out their meanings, and that high moral purposes have no value outside a context of consequences. As the new century begins, the First World War seems as present, and just as great a pity, as it ever did.
WWI, or The Great War, was also called The War To End All Wars. The war was so horrendous - with rifles, cannons, barbed wire and mustard gas - that people believed that no one would be so foolish as to go to war again.
On this I disagree. The Sunni terrorists blessedly meeting their demise in Iraq now say they are members of al-Qaeda in Mesopatamia and the mujahadin shura council. As such, they are not even really Iraqi in their allegiance, so much as the wider Islamic nation or umma. More and more, Sunni Iraqis, such as the tribesmen of Anbar and Diala, are killing these saboteurs. Their capture and death should be a celebration for all of us in the civilized world. I would say the same thing about the genocidiers who work for Sadr by the way. And while it would be nice if more of them were getting killed, the fact that they are not going house to house in Baghdad neighborhoods is in itself a victory.
I don't think any of the political solutions both sides say ought to be a precondition for our exit is possible without the demoralization at the least, and hopefully resounding defeat, of the recruiters of bus bombers and cleansers of Baghdad.
I also think the mission in Baghdad right now, what some call an escalation and others call a surge or reinforcements, is a mission of mercy. We are stopping an awful awful kind of total war, a competitive genocide. Our invasion bares a lot of blame for this heartbreaking state of affairs. Point scorers on the anti-war side could reasonably argue that this alone proves the war is a moral and strategic disaster--the fact that mission is the prevention of mass sectarian bloodlust, as opposed to building a pluralistic and free country. I would dissent from that line, but I concede at this stage it's a fair point.
(That said, the arguments looking backwards are academic. I could just as easily tell the opponents of the Kosovo air campaign that the success in NATO in stopping Milosevic from his cleansing schemes proves the indispensability of air power. I would not be getting to the key arguments made by the opponents of that excursion.)
Anyway, those are my thoughts four years on. I have a bit of a nasty prediction for the so-called netroots. This, right now, is as good as it will get in terms of the influence and importance to the Democratic party of the new web activists. You are being kissed right now, and what you write can get a major candidate to change his opinions and influence the contents of spending bills. But as soon as the Dems pick a nominee, moveon.org, myDD, dailyKos etc., gets fucked. The candidate, whoever it is, will tack to the center and probably backpedal on withdrawal. Kissed then fucked.
I can see that you couched your latest "position" in some pseudo journalistic objectivism, but really Vitamin FUCK YOU and all you cheerleaders for this. FUCK YOU. You have blood on your hands, you were a mouthpiece for this and you still don't see it because of your personal ambition. FUCK YOU.
PS: FUCK YOU
Where is there evidence that the Sunni inusrgency is meeting its demise? The few reports that give any kind of estimate about their numbers say that they've been growing in number since the invasion. There have been plenty of reports about how Anbar province has basically been lost and that the insurgents, through fear, intimidations and public support, have stymied any kind of American or government control. Not only that but the Maliki government has helped out by not paying army or police units that are majority Sunni and not funded development projects in Anbar for the same reasons.
I disagree here E*i. It's the GOP that will be doing the backpedaling. There will be NO ONE arguing for "stay the course" after the '08 elections, GOP or Dems, no matter who's in charge. The bloodletting in Iraq will have gotten worse, and American support for the effort will be even lower. How could it go any other way at this point?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7486653
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/world/...=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/03/africa/web-0303sheik.php
All three major contenders for the GOP nomination back the surge. The senate Republicans lost one of their own, picked up two dems in addition to lieberman, to defeat the Reid resolution last week. If the choice is between a retreat candidate and a victory candidate, I think the victory candidate will probably win. But I am not an oracle. I do think the major presidential nominee will turn the credulosphere's left heroes into Sistah Souljahs to score points with americans who have always been uneasy with the anti-war movement.
I write about this today here
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/50803
PS you got 1000 posts.
E,
I've read those same reports. The U.S. has been working with that tribal group for quite some time, and even before that there were reports about the insurgents splitting with Iraqi groups fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. That still doesn't mean to me that they are declining. Al Qaeda in Iraq might be conducting a campaign in Baghdad right now, but there are still dozens of domestic Sunni groups who are not going anywhere soon.
And to support my claim that it appears the crackdown is on the Sunnis more than the Shiites here are a couple snippets. (Any typos are mine because I have hard copies of these articles. I'm retyping these myself.)
Mahdi Army gains strength through unwitting aid of U.S.
Tom Lasseter
McClathy Newspapers
2/1/07
The U.S. military drive to train and equip Iraq???s security forces has unwittingly strengthened anti-American Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr???s Mahdi Army militia.
???
U.S. Army commanders and enlisted men who are patrolling east Baghdad, which is home to more than half the city???s population and the front line of al-Sadr???s campaign to drive rival Sunni Muslims from their homes and neighborhoods, said al-Sadr???s militias had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police and army units that they???ve trained and armed.
???Helf of them are JAM. They???ll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night,??? said 1st Lt. Dan Quinn, a platoon leader in the Army???s 1st Infantry Division, using the initials of the militia???s Arabic name, Jaish al Mahdi. ???People (in America_ think it???s bad, but that we control the city. That???s not the way it is. They control it, and they let us drive around. It???s hostile territory.???
???
Amid recurring reports that al-Sadr is telling his militia leaders to stash their arms and, in some cases, leave their neighborhoods during the American push, U.S. soldiers worry that the latest plan could end up handing over these areas to units that are close to al-Sadr???s militant Shiite group.
???
???Who???s feeding the Iraqi army? Nobody. So JAM will come around and give them food and water,??? Etienne said. ???We try to capture hearts and minds, well, JAM has done that. They???re further along than us.???
Lie Low, Fighters Are Told
???Try at All Costs??? To Avoid Conflict With Americans
Josehua Partlow and Ernesto Londo???o
Washington Post
February 1, 2007
The instructions delivered by emissaries of anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr at a recent meeting in Baghdad were clear to militiaman Massan Abdul Hussein.
???They informed us to hide the weapons,??? Abdul Hussein recalled of the Jan. 21 meeting in the Shula neighborhood.
???
???We should try at all costs to avoid any confrontation with the American forces, and even if they raid our officers or our houses, we should try to avoid a confrontation,??? he said.
???
In recent weeks, Mahdi Army leaders have left Baghdad to avoid being targeted, according to Iraqi and U.S. officials. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki???s office has received reports that some Mahdi Army leaders are moving to Iran and Syria, according to an aide to Maliki.
???
A more likely scenario is that the militia leaders believe than can ???win the whole thing??? if they are not too damaged by the time the United States withdraws, the official said.
Talabani: Mahdi Army Officials Left Iraq
2/15/07
IraqSlogger.com
Mahdi Army commanders have left Iraq in order to ???facilitate??? the security crackdown, Iraqi President Jalal Talibani suggested, and unnamed government source has said that the Mahdi Army leadership have traveled to Iran.
???
The statement say that Talabani added that Sadr was ???very keen on stability of the situation, and on the success of the security plan in Iraq, as he gave the green light to arrest criminals, and this is a positive position.???
???
According to the government source, Iran is interested in preventing the dismantling of the Iraqi Shi???a militias during the security plan, with the expectation that US and Iraqi forces will inflict heavy costs on Sunni armed groups. ???While in Iran they will be able to get more training and then once the Sunnis have been pacified, they plan to return,??? said the official.
Mixed welcome for Baghdad surge
Scott Peterson
Christian Science Monitor
2/20/07
???
The insurgent stronghold of Dora, with its Sunni majority, has also been a key target of US and Iraqi efforts since the Baghdad security plan was first announced more than a month ago.
???
Maliki???s government, which relies on Mr. Sadr???s supporters to rule, is reported to have pushed for Sunni areas to be cleaned up first.[/b]
Sunni leaders have cried foul, with Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi telling Al Jazeera TV on Sunday that leaks of the plan to Shiite militia chiefs meant a ???golden opportunity for Iraq has been squandered.???
Old Problems Undermine New Security Plan for Baghdad
Richard A. Oppel Jr.
New York Times
February 23, 2007
???
At least two of the national police officers who turned out for the operation were moving ahead of the American troops not to lead the security drive but to warn the residents to hide their weapons and other incriminating evidence.
Some policemen on the sweep advertised their Shiite sympathies. Infiltration by militias has always been a major problem for the Iraqi security forces, and particularly the police, viewed by many Sunnis in the capital as de facto Shiite militia fighters.
Iraq Rebel Cleric Reins In Militia: Motives at Issue
Damien Cave
New York Times
February 25, 2007
???
For now, American and Iraqi officials say Mr. Sadr seems to be cooperating with the effort to pacify Baghdad, ordering his men not to fight even as American armored vehicles roll into Mahdi strongholds in eastern Baghdad. He s eems to be cleaning house of fighters who could taint him by association with Iran or with death squad killings.
War story told by former sailor disputed
Deployment to Iraq not in personnel record; paper issues correction
By Robert Hodierne - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Mar 25, 2007 12:34:28 EDT
The March 18 Sunday New York Times Magazine cover story was a gripping account of the emotional problems some female veterans suffer as results of their war experiences, sexual assaults or both.
One of the women featured in the story was a former builder constructionman Amorita Randall, 27, who served six years as a Seabee. Randall told the Times that while in the Navy, she was raped twice ??? in 2002 while she was stationed in Mississippi, and again in Guam in 2004. She also told the Times that she served in Iraq in 2004, which the Times reported as fact but which it now appears was not the case.
The story was written by Sara Corbett, a contract writer for the magazine. Here???s how Corbett presented it: ???Her experience in Iraq, she said, included one notable combat incident, in which her Humvee was hit by an I.E.D., killing the soldier who was driving and leaving her with a brain injury. ???I don???t remember as all of it "I don???t know if I passed out or what, but it was pretty gruesome."
The story goes on:
???According to the Navy, however, no after-action report exists to back up Randall???s claims of combat exposure or injury. A Navy spokesman reports that her commander says that his unit was never involved in combat during her tour[/b]. And yet, while we were discussing the supposed I.E.D. attack, Randall appeared to recall it in exacting detail ??? the smells, the sounds, the impact of the explosion. As she spoke, her body seemed to seize up; her speech became slurred as she slipped into a flashback. It was difficult to know what had traumatized Randall: whether she had in fact been in combat or whether she was reacting to some more generalized recollection of powerlessness.???
The magazine did not call the Navy to check Randall???s Iraq story sooner, Marzorati said, because they believed that checking rank, years of service and time in Iraq ???would be a perfunctory thing[/b].???
On Sunday, The Times published a correction to the March 18 cover story. In it, the Times states that ???it is now clear that Ms. Randall did not serve in Iraq[/b], but may have become convinced she did.???
Close your eyes and repeat after me....
There is no Liberal Media
There is no Liberal Media
There is no Liberal Media
There is no Liberal Media
I think it turned out that she was stationed in Guam the whole time. But it "should be true" so I guess "fake but true" is good enough for the paper of record.
Regardless, Saba I know its getting really really hard to find ways to defend Iraq, but we all know you can do better than playing gotcha with some NYT article. Yes the "paper of record" is not infallible, now what the fuck are we still doing in Iraq??
I'm hoping for something more substantial than a single sarcastic bitchy sentence, but I won't hold my breath....
I agree with you the only way to win is to completely demoralize the enemy. Which is another good reason for redeploying sooner rather than latter, Since even you don't advocate doing what needs to be done to demoralize the enemy.
We are not going to demoralize the enemy with the methods used so far. Police actions, training Iraqis and torture will not demoralize the enemy. Securing Baghdad will not demoralize the enemy. (I think it is interesting that what the President calls a strategy to win the war against terrorism you call securing Baghdad.)
To demoralize the enemy we first need to pick an enemy. You would clearly pick the Sunnis. Today our enemy includes Sunnis, Shiis, Iran and Syria. Then rules of engagement would have to be changed so that any military aged male and any suspicious man, women or child would be a fair target. Then we would have to reinstate the draft. Then we would have to start equipping the the troops for real which will mean billions and billions more than we are spending now. If you don't support the above, you don't support winning in Iraq.
Meanwhile the people who attacked us on 9/11 (do you even remember 9/11) are back in power ruling a large part of Pakistan and Afghanistan.
V is right that the nominee will kiss the blogasphere good bye. Both the D and R canidate will have a plan for victory that will bring the troops home before spring '09. That is the middle, troops home and victory.
Cut and run and strategy for failure are not terms that have been used by anyone on the left. The word is redeployment. Redeployment allows us to fight the war on al Qiada. Redeployment allows us to prevent Syrian or Iranian troops from entering Iraq and Iraqi troops from invading Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. This is what Ds have been working towards, but in their partisan hatred of all Democrats Rs have invented phrases like cut and run and failure.