Years ago Rummy's "slog memo" stated "We are recruiting more terrorists than we kill". He was right especially when we kill innocents.
The article "U.S. Troops Kill at Least 3 Iraqi Civilians in Raid" at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503032.html
makes the point that is a bad habit of W's boys in Iraq as "U.S. troops killed at least three Iraqi civilians and injured a child during a raid north of
Baghdad on Tuesday, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. The attack came a day after the U.S. military said it had inadvertently killed nine civilians in an airstrike in Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad. In a statement, the U.S. military said two men and a woman were killed during an assault on "a suspected terrorist cell." Insurgents, the statement said, fired upon U.S. soldiers, who then returned fire. The child was injured in the leg and taken to a hospital, the military said.
Iraqi police and witnesses provided a different account. They said the soldiers entered a tiny house in the village of Dour, 21 miles south of Tikrit, and
opened fire on a family in their beds."
US troops can't be placed in this nightmarish, urban guerrilla warfare situation. It is W's faults not any of our youths should be expected to be able
to instantaneously identify who is an enemy combatant and who is an innocent.
You have to believe that absolutely nothing this crew says is true.
The article "Gates: US won't promise to defend Iraq in accord" at http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN06442345 states "The United States will not promise to defend Iraq nor seek permanent bases there under a planned agreement on future relations between the two states, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Wednesday.
"The status-of-forces agreement that is being discussed will not contain a commitment to defend Iraq and neither will any strategic framework agreement,"
Gates told a U.S. Senate panel. The agreement will set the rules and legal protections under which U.S. forces operate in Iraq. The size of the long-term U.S. presence in Iraq also will be part of the negotiations, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the White House deputy national security adviser, has said."
Who came up with eavesdropping on his own citizens and revoking the Geneva Convention rights against detainees? This vile crew-so don't believe them!
"But Democrats in Congress worry the Bush administration could use the agreement to lock in a long-term U.S. military presence before the next president is
elected on Nov. 4. They say the administration could use it to bind future presidents to Bush's current Iraq policy.
On Wednesday, some Democrats argued any agreement that includes a promise to defend Iraq would require Senate approval.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, told Gates Congress should have opportunity to approve the agreement because U.S. troops and U.S. security are involved.
"Obviously, the stakes are extremely high," he said at the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.
"Congress, I believe, must have the opportunity to approve or disapprove any security commitment, agreement or assurance, pledge or guarantee, regardless of what it is called, that affects our troops and our national security."
Gates told the Senate panel the Bush administration would share information with lawmakers as the agreement with Iraq is negotiated. But he stopped short of
agreeing to submit the pact to the Senate for approval."
Democrats in the Senate will still make the argument that big bro 43 pulled the wool over their eyes when the Congressional agreement for W to proceed against Iraq immediately veered off the inspections and UN tract to the "Shock and Awe" track.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
