I just read about this story on the CNN website.  Of course, Al Quida is blamed and one of their "experts" said:  "such attacks could actually be a measure of the success the United States is having in the restive province"... ridiculous.  How can people of good conscience sit around and let this violence continue?  It's time to hit the streets and demand the end of this occupation; accountability from those who got us in to this mess; and restore some simblance of transparency to our government. 

by Judy Ramsey (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 93 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 2:05:51 PM

  (0+)

Yes, just when will the citizenry get up off their behinds and take to the streets by the millions to say enough is enough??? It is our duty to speakly loudly and clearly and constantly that we do not want this occupation to continue. I hope that the members of IVAW, MFSO, VFP and their supporters are successful in getting the attention of the press this weekend. We must not be silent!

by paz love (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:25:56 PM

  (0+)

I think this war has involved more bribes than any in US history. Based on what I have read from many sources, the whole damn war was run on bribery at every level. Congressmen bribed by defense contractors, Sheiks bribed by the CIA, pallet-loads of cash sent to bribe local police and militiamen, and who knows who else.

Weapons are being handed out by the hundreds of thousands too.

The billions of dollars that have “gone missing” in Iraq are not missing, they are just not accounted for in the official budget.

by John R Moffett (89 articles, 18 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 697 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 3:49:05 PM

  (0+)

I am glad Rob you are there putting out articles telling the truth about real Iraq. What is really terrifying is that the US is supplying DU known as Depleted Uranium ammunition to the Iraqi government to fight their people.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 8:06:15 PM

  (0+)

Rob,

You may not agree that we should have invaded Iraq (nor do I), but at least you could attempt to get both sides of the story. It is a tightrope we walk in Anbar, for sure, but please don't be so smug in your prophecies.

Please cease your veiled cheerleading for failure in Iraq. If you had a sincere desire to know the whole truth (and not just one side of it), you would study the intricacies of life in Iraq, rather than just taking the word of the first two-bit 'reporter' with a callous opinion that you come across.

by Frank Staheli (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 37 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:25:55 PM

  (0+)

What in the world are you talking about? You think that Rob is supporting Al Qaeda? What planet are you from???

by paz love (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 71 comments) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:28:39 PM

  (0+)

Rob you don't need to say anything anymore. Just let the DU Depleted Uranium do the talking. That is what is going to happen.

by Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments) on Thursday, Sep 13, 2007 at 11:41:54 PM

  (0+)

True progress in Iraq would be wonderful. But, when the leader of the region is so easily killed, you have to question whether claims of progress are legitimate. If they are not legitimate, then maybe they are lies. The Bush admin has a long, despicable history of lying about things in Iraq. Is it unpatriotic to distrust a chronic liar and to want to know the truth. You don't "buy" the message of the Liar-in-Chief's chosen messenger. You scrutinize it carefully, double checking the claims. It took one event, 48 hours after Petraeus started his testimony, to demonstrate just how unsafe Anbar still is. And Risha, when you take a look at who he is/was, does not look like the kind of partner who would provide the kind relationship with integrity that you describe as best.

But hey, they're buying cigarettes. Things must be good. Let's all run up a flag celebrating retail sales (and don't give me crap about being a socialist. I own and run a small business with employees.)

As far as your talk of Victory, or Winning in Iraq, here's my take:

Time to Confront the Desperate Losers Who Speak of Victory in Iraq

Regarding your put-down of Rowley, one could say the same about the guy you choose-- Mr. Yon-- who apparently doesn't work with others. Keep in mind, Rowley qualified as a journalist to be embedded with the US troops and then, courageously, also went on to embed with Iraqi forces, a much more dangerous gig.

by Rob Kall (952 articles, 4177 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 14, 2007 at 7:01:24 AM

  (0+)

Hi Frank,

I am perplexed by your contradicting statements of your own volition. You claim to not agree with our invasion of Iraq - and invade is a euphemistic term, I prefer illegal occupation or pre-emptive war of aggression - yet you allude to claims that some sort of victory is possible, by suggesting Rob is cheering for failure in Iraq.

Can you explain what victory means to you? What will victory look like? When we achieve victory, what benefits will be derived and by whom? If you are in agreement that we should have not invaded Iraq, then would not victory be correcting the mistake, not furthering it?

The truth is we failed the moment we went into Iraq. We invaded a sovereign nation that posed no threat to our people or borders, and ignored the real terrorist that escaped into Afghanistan's mountains. Our government then used flimsy, manipulated, and outright fallacious information to sell an unfounded war to the American people and their Congress. Nothing but one twisted fallacy of war propaganda after another, to hide the hideous truth, has been uttered by this administration, yet you imagine victory is possible?

If victory were defined as aggressively invading another nation, occupying it, and then ultimately conquering it, as imperialists through hegemony, then victory, in terms of a modern day war crime, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, would then be somewhat accurate, as odious as it is.

Even allowing for an extremely narrow and flawed definition of victory, in terms of the AUMF of 2002, have we not then already achieved victory? Saddam Hussein is dead and removed from power. Although it has been irrefutably proven they were never in existence in the first place, have we not infallibly proven that the threat of WMD's no longer exists?

The Al Qaeda you reference, that is now in Iraq, after we created a power vacuum by toppling Saddam, is verifiable not the same Al Qaeda that poses the true terrorist threat on a global scale. Further, they represent less than five-percent of the violence, according to the GAO, that exists in Iraq. The vast majority of violence in Iraq is sectarian in nature. The Al Qaeda in Iraq today we created and now you wish to continue fighting them? Is this not a self-fulfilling prophecy of circular madness?

Even if I accept your notions, for the sake of discussion, if the military killed every last insurgent, terrorist, and Al Qaeda member in Iraq, we would still be hopelessly sandwiched in between a civil, sectarian war. Even Bush's latest apologist, General Petraeus, admitted to Congress there is little political progress in Baghdad and the solution is not a military, but diplomatic and political one for the Iraqi to solve among their many fractures sects.

My intent is not to provoke, but to inject some intellectual honesty into this debate and find some common ground with Bush holdouts to help understand why 71-percent of this nation long ago lost faith and trust in this President. Holding America, our troops and Congress hostage, in order to coerce more money for a failed foreign policy to save a President's legacy, instead of lives, and the greatest blunder of our generation, is a lethal game with real and deadly consequences.

There is simply no freedom in fear. There is no honor in deceit. Virtue and victory cannot be found in a war of aggression with the blood of, by some accounts, over one million innocent Iraqis on our hands. Justice is only served when peace is favored over unwarranted hostility and diplomacy, combined with moderation and restraint, is the true show of strength of a great nation. Violence as first repsonse is the final refuge of the impatient and the incompetent minds of cowardly and narrow-minded men.

Further, vigilante acts of professed benevolence -- combined with willful deception -- are never an acceptable defense to perpetrating a war crime, regardless of the perceived good intentions or eventual outcome.

I respect your service as someone who has served in the military and has been to Iraq. While we are bound by different covenants - you are a Mormon and Republican, I am an atheist and a Democrat – but as humans, we must seek the truth in a time when propaganda is rampant, but clarity and truth are essential to end this horrifying tragedy and heal our country.

Please, with all due respect, if you wish to comment on Op Ed News, do so without pithy, condescending sayings that do not add any substantive advancement to your viewpoint. Bush's deeply unpopular war, which that opinion is sustained by almost three-fourths of our nation now, I more than suspect it is not because we are all simply "rooting for Al Qaeda" as you infer, but we have resigned our awareness to the empirical facts.

We have many highly intelligent, erudite writers, members, and editors that will reach out in kind when courtesy is granted on your end. Hit and runs ad hominem attacks on the Editor-in-Chief, Rob Kall, will not serve you well here.

Best,
Frank J Ranelli, Associate Editor

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Friday, Sep 14, 2007 at 1:18:54 AM

  (0+)

That was so much more thorough, and intelligent, and mature, than the reply I was tempted to make. I, too, am tired of being insulted as an al Qaeda lover, or someone rooting for us to lose. I see no evidence that our military presence will achieve "victory" as the President defines it (a unified, integrated, representative democracy that can govern and defend itself) in a year, 5 years, or 10 years. Certainly there will not be such a "victory" before we run out of troops and money to keep large numbers of forces there. A withdrawal before the job is done is inevitable, because it is not within the ability of the US military, through security and/or the application of force, to achieve a reconciliation between the various religious sects. The question is, how much longer are we going to prolong the inevitable?

by Robert Sargent (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 318 comments) on Friday, Sep 14, 2007 at 7:33:40 AM

  (0+)

Dont sweat that Rob. That is straight troll-talk. Pretend that you are against the war and then parrot the admin line straight. It is so transparent. It is funny that those who say, "don't take the word of so and so at face value", are the same ones who take the word of the admin at face value. We all knew what Petreus would say. He was going to say exactly what Bush wanted him to say or he would have been replaced like every other General that had the temerity to doubt the faulty Bush logic. Mix in his potential political aspirations and who is really shocked?

I would be more surprised if there were not some legs to this story, it fits more with the propaganda pattern this admin has sold in perpetrating this illegal war.

 Peace.

by Anthony Wade (160 articles, 2 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 890 comments [19 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 14, 2007 at 5:19:51 AM

  (0+)

US creates  its own phantom figures and those figures are toppled.  But as usual, we here  must undestand the simple thing -IT IS NOT THE US BUSINESS TO DO ANYTHING IN IRAQ or any other country as a matter of fact. WE are criminals, we  invaded, we killed, we destroyed. If those people lived under Saddam  and it was not that  nice for them- well we could open our borders and invite them, we could  pressure diplomatically, we could push for changes, we ... . But we killed them. They are killing back and it does not matter how they call themselves - Al Qeada or AL Hui- Duh or how our stoodges call them.  They do not want us there. We have to leave. And if someone  thinks that we have to impove the life conditions there-let him go to New Orleans. For goodness sake, people- how long does it take to understand a simple decency- you do not  behave like a rapist who first  rapes a woman and then tells her to tidy herself  because she looks disgusting?  We are the rapists. We raped Iraq. Let's  have enough decency and run away like all the rapists do. It is good for the soul.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 14, 2007 at 9:17:24 AM

  (0+)

I have to admit I do agree with the fact that the whole thing was a preemptive plan of occupation, regardless of the outstanding consequences in the whole region.

The end result is Mayhem not only for the poor Iraqi people but also for the Region!!

You all are spending so much time fighting each other, that you miss the whole point!!!

Does any one amongst you deny the fact that the big neighbor of Iraq is wide awake to have Iraq on a silver platter? And please don’t tell me that you need evidence and proof!!

Ahmadinejad has already spat it out in a press conference a couple of days ago. It was so plain that even his own faction criticized his selling out information to the “enemy”. He said that very soon the situation in Iraq would be ripe for

 the mullahs to fill in the power vacuum!!

One could either be naive or too occupied with infightings not to realize that the mullahs with the threat of a nuclear bomb, would lose the chance they longed for , for so long, and not  fill in the vacuum as they have been trying to do so. It seems that it takes the world or a bomb to convince people that there is a real threat there and it is not the tribes vowing to sell themselves to the US, but the Iranian regime that has already bought 130000 staff in high places in Iraq.

I suggest you turn to Iranian news media that churn out all sorts of realities that sound impossible to the foreign ear. But in fact they are the very truth of the Iranian strategy that has been left written in Khomeini’s will. The Revolutionary Guards Corps had started implementing this will since 1987 by establishing and training the Quods force. Even then some very prominent intellectuals and writers scoffed the very fact and the information that had leaked out. But let’s face it, if we don’t take this serious this time, I think there will be no time to left to revisit the possibilities.

The menace in the region and Iraq is the Iranian state sponsored terrorism and unless we all don’t take it seriously enough the Whole region will fall into Islamic extremism.

by summer (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 7 comments) on Friday, Sep 14, 2007 at 9:35:55 AM

  (0+)

Please note that the Shiekhs’ death has been spelled out as a national loss in Iraq, declared in official news papers there and also spoken of by other tribes’ men. So before prejudging this sheikh’ efforts and insulting him, I would take into consideration the Iraqi public opinion, and what other sheikhs are saying on his death. Only recently there have been adverts and announcements in Iraqi press condemning his death and blaming it on the Iranian proxies. This as assertion that he was a prominent figure in the Independent Iraqi struggle against Iranian meddling and this had long made him as a target.

He also supported the Iranian opposition which is very active there to reveal Iranian involvement in Iraq.

by summer (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 7 comments) on Friday, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:20:14 PM

  (0+)

nuclear that is.  It would be very much advisable if you stop pondering into other people's business ( Iranians I mean) and  look around. It is our Prez, not theirs which is mad and proved it. It is our VP which is evil and proved it. It  is our army which invaded and destroyed two countries and  created that ' vacuum'.  We live here, not in   Mesopotamia- we have nothing to do there.  It is our society that condoned  the atrocity of about 1 million people killed- even Saudi Arabia, whose citizens performed 9/11 did not  'sell it' to their people. We are the only ones who  chant the death in hysterics. 

Whoever even thinks about attacking another country, Iran or any else is a criminal and an enemy  of this country.  It would  be betrayal of the worst  kind- a betrayal of our children.  The one and only way to still repent- is to acknowledge the truth- that we screwed up, that we put criminals in power and that those cirminals use us for their shallow purposes. Otherwise we all are doomed.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Sep 14, 2007 at 12:54:36 PM

  (0+)

I think you are right my friend. But a coin has two sides…if we ask governments not to interfere in internal affairs of other nations, we also have to ask responsible writers and intellectuals – I think that includes people like you and me and every one else here too- to be wise enough to side with the nations of each problem stricken area.

A good example is this very article which is attacking a sheikh who is loved locally by his people and respected for his struggle against the Iranian proxies and Al Qaida agents. now this is a long history and research that requires matriculation. I have done an extensive research, but seeing that there is no use to publish it here in this lobby, I was reluctant to upload it (unless of course people show some openness to here all reasoning!)

Now If I were one of these Intellectuals and responsible writers I would have some local news paper or an opposition to the government of the discussed country to have a say in this. This way the whole issue would be fairly “trialed”, and the “accused “would have a fair chance to speak out!! Thanks for bearing my comments.

by summer (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 7 comments) on Thursday, Sep 20, 2007 at 8:28:19 AM

  (0+)

Isn't the important story here the tribes in Anbar having a bellyful of Al Qaeda in Iraq blasting their women and children, demanding to marry their daughters, seizing their houses, and other infuriating actions? If the administration concocts phony stories to claim credit for something not their doing, that does not diminish the importance of Sunnis, despite their hatred of the occupation, organizing to push another group of foreigners out because they have revealed themselves to be unconcerned with the fate of the Iraqi people. That's the real story here.

The tribes are taking aid fron the US forces just to prepare for a war with the Shia? I think the Saudis will give them that help if it comes to that. Sadly, it probably will.

That's Michael Ware's take on this and he seems as good a source of what's really going as there is.

Rowley was there what, six weeks?

Petraeus lied and took credit? Gee, no kidding.

by Dutchmajician (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Saturday, Sep 15, 2007 at 12:14:11 PM

  (0+)