You couldn’t make this stuff up
June 11, 2007 at 12:07 pm by John F. Sugg in Not-lantaLet’s see if I get this. Sunni insurgents in Iraq are often the allies of al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. So, what does the Bush crime cartel do? Why, it’s giving arms to those very same militias in order for them to fight al-Qaeda (which, it’s worth remembering, wasn’t in Iraq until GWB invited it via his deceit-propelled war of conquest). What will happen to those arms? Yep, they’ll end up killing Shiite Iraqis — and American soldiers.
The Bushies’ justification, by the way, was that it had had some success with the program in Anbar province. They must have neglected to read the reports that the anti-al-Qaeda alliance in Anbar was crumbling.
If that isn’t sufficient to make you slap your forehead this Monday morning — and I swear I’m not inventing this — it appears the military considered developing a “gay bomb.” No, not the sort of bomb the religious fruitcakes would want — one that would kill gays — but one that would turn enemy soldiers into sex-crazed homosexuals.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
As I have said before, your calendar must have a recurring appointment to blow a gasket and purge your Bush hating catch phrases into a column or blog each week. This week featured “Bush crime cartel” and “deceit-propelled war of conquest”. Such a shame that you have to damage your normally excellent writing with such hackneyed talking point clichés.
This may well be an ill advised plan, but, Gen Petraeus has demonstrated skill in pacifying whole cities before (Mosul) with unusual tactics. To pretend that we here in Atlanta understand the politics and alliances over there better than he does is ludicrous. You may be right, but I trust his judgment better than our own.
You must have neglected to read the entire article about the “crumbling” alliance.
Direct contradiction of your point about killing US soldiers is in your linked article – “Since the tribes began working with U.S. forces to resist al-Qaeda in Iraq — and since they began receiving significant amounts of weapons and vehicles — violence in the province and deaths of U.S. soldiers there have fallen dramatically.”
Contradiction of the “crumbling” headline – It said the alliances were purging one member, Abu Risha. Allow me to quote the article linked by your blog entry;
“Welch, a U.S. Army Reserve officer in Baghdad who specializes in tribal and religious affairs, said that “you will see, I think, in the next few days a complete severing” of relations between Abu Risha and other members of the council, and the formation of a new group. Suleiman said 12 Anbar tribal leaders have signed an agreement to form a new coalition that would result in the dissolution of the Anbar Salvation Council and the purging of Abu Risha. “Those people have thrown themselves in the arms of the U.S. forces for their own benefit,” he said.”
Yes, the current alliance is crumbling because the members of that alliance are seeking to strengthen it by expelling a bad apple. That is a GOOD thing, John.
I am amazed you missed the general point of the article….but then again, you didn’t miss it did you? It just didn’t serve your purpose, so you cherry picked a sentence or two to make a point contradicted by your own source. Weak.
I agree, the gay bomb is laughable. There are so many scientists researching seemingly crazy things, often resulting in useable science, it isn’t hard to predict finding something that ludicrous.
June 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
Dale, I think you misread the news reports. The WashPost story states: Anbar Salvation Council would be dissolved because of growing internal dissatisfaction over its cooperation with U.S. soldiers and the behavior of the council’s most prominent member, Abdul Sattar Abu Risha. Suleiman called Abu Risha a “traitor” who “sells his beliefs, his religion and his people for money.” Abu Risha, who enjoys the support of U.S. military commanders, denied the allegations and said the council is not at risk of breaking apart.
Thus, the largest group in the region says things are falling apart. Another guy, perceived by his fellow Iraqis as a toady, says it’s not. The utter incompetence of the Bush crime cartel — which isn’t hyperbole, but a reasoned assessment of the illegal actions of the regime — is beyond belief.
June 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
dissolved and reformed without Risha…. The council is dissolving and reforming immediately “within a few days”
I will re-quote, with editing for brevity, from my post above and the article you linked,…..“ a U.S. Army Reserve officer in Baghdad who specializes in tribal and religious affairs, …. “you will see…. next few days a complete severing†of relations between Abu Risha and other members of the council, and the formation of a new group. ….12 Anbar tribal leaders have signed an agreement to form a new coalition that would result in the dissolution of the Anbar Salvation Council and the purging of Abu Risha. “Those people have thrown themselves in the arms of the U.S. forces for their own benefit,” he said.
The others consider Risha a traitor (ie “bad apple”) and are cutting him out. The article clearly states that they will continue to cooperate with us, what else would “those people” (referring to the 12 remaining tribal leaders) throwing themselves into our arms for their benefit mean? As the article states they see Al Quaida as a greater enemy than the US. It does not say they will not cooperate with us. It also doesn’t mean they won’t turn against us or anyone else int he future, but the efforts so far have, again quoting your link, dramatically “reduced violence in the province and deaths of U.S. soldiers”.
According to a Post reporter, Risha enjoys the support of unnamed military caommanders. According to a clearly identified military expert, the new coalition enjoys our support. I know which statement I trust to be timely and accurate.
Oooooh, “regime” another cliche.
I know they are the “Bush Crime Family” with a long history of illegal profiteering back to Prescott Bush and the Nazis…continued by GHW Bush and the “New World Order”….then W lied us into war….against international law…..Guantanamo….Halliburton no bid contracts….war for oil……avenge Daddy…..blah blah blah …..most of these allegations of so-called “illegal actions” can be proven factually to be incorrect. Not all, but most.
I will trade the extreme Left one “Bush Crime Family” conspiracy for one extreme Right “Mena, Arkansas” fever dream and call it even
Competence is another matter and too subjective when two people differ as much as we do on the subject of the Bush Administration. In the war, I can make a strong case that, as war has gone historically, this one is a raging success. The case for the economy is easy, but most journalists can’t see the silver cloud for the dark lining.
June 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Gay bomb… Oh. My. God.
I’m not sure if I’m about to have an uncontrollable laughing fit or a stupidity-induced migraine.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Dale – Even if this is a workable strategy, as you so nobly hold out hope that it is, do you really have confidence in anyone behind this operation *besides?* Patreas? Cheney and the rest of them couldn’t strategize their way out of the Cagle Dairy Maze, much less this colossal clusterfuck. The less they have to do with daily operations, the better off we’ll be. No, in case you’re going to ask: I don’t trust our President. You shouldn’t either.
Lord only knows what else he can fuck up in the next 18 months.
June 11th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Didn’t we try this with Afghanistan re: the Soviet Union? Didn’t that turn out, uhm, kinda bad?
June 12th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Souldrift – I have a great deal of trust and confidence in the people wearing those uniforms, not just Petraeus. I agree, the more the folks in DC keep their hands off this thing, the better it will go. That goes for Bush and Cheney as much as it goes for the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader stopping the loser talk, as well.
To me, trust means believing someone will do what they say they are going to do. I believe Bush has shown that trait to a fault.