Soldiers Who Challenged War Spin Die in Iraq

Less than a month ago, on August 19, 2007, The New York Times published a letter from seven U.S. soldiers who wrote the newspaper as they were finishing a 15-month deployment in Iraq.

The letter contradicted claims about the supposedly improving character of the occupation that was already being circulated by General David Petraeus and his aides in anticipation of the U.S. commander in Iraq's testimony this week to Congress.

No, wrote the soldiers, they were not greeted in Iraq as the "liberators" Vice President Dick Cheney imagined four years ago. Rather, they said, they had came to recognize their presence as that of "an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome."

No, wrote the soldiers, the occupying force was not winning the hearts and minds of the people of Iraq. And to believe that this might be possible, they suggested, was "far-fetched."

No, wrote the infantrymen and noncommissioned officers of the 82nd Airborne Division, they did not believe the hype about how the war had turned a corner and was now going better.

"(We) are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day," confided Buddhika Jayamaha, an Army specialist; Wesley D. Smith, a sergeant; Jeremy Roebuck, a sergeant; Omar Mora, a sergeant; Edward Sandmeier, a sergeant; Yance T. Gray, a staff sergeant; and Jeremy A. Murphy, a staff sergeant.

The letter from the soldiers offered an honest, spin-free account of what is really happening in Iraq, straight from men serving in the thick of the fight. And it called into question virtually every statement that Petraeus would make to Congress.

So there was agonizing irony in the news reports that, while Patraeus was patrolling the safe corridors of official power in Washington, two of the truth-telling soldiers had been killed when a cargo truck in which they were riding crashed in Baghdad.

According to press accounts from Iraq, Staff Sergeant Gray, aged 26, and Sergeant Mora, aged 28, died less than a month after the publication of the letter that said the United States had "failed on every promise" made with regard to the occupation.

Their deaths follow the earlier wounding of another of the seven soldiers, Staff Sergeant Murray, who was shot in the head during the period when the letter was being prepared. Murray is expected to survive.

At a time when the sloganeering pundits of talk-radio and rant-television attack critics of Petraeus for daring to challenge the general's politically-convenient account of circumstances on the ground in Iraq, the letter from Gray, Mora and their comrades delivers the most powerful critique of the commander's claims.

Titled "The War as We Saw It," the letter reads:

Viewed from Iraq at the tail end of a 15-month deployment, the political debate in Washington is indeed surreal. Counterinsurgency is, by definition, a competition between insurgents and counterinsurgents for the control and support of a population. To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome, can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far-fetched. As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere. What soldiers call the ''battle space'' remains the same, with changes only at the margins. It is crowded with actors who do not fit neatly into boxes: Sunni extremists, Al Qaeda terrorists, Shiite militiamen, criminals and armed tribes. This situation is made more complex by the questionable loyalties and Janus-faced role of the Iraqi police and Iraqi Army, which have been trained and armed at United States taxpayers' expense.

A few nights ago, for example, we witnessed the death of one American soldier and the critical wounding of two others when a lethal armor-piercing explosive was detonated between an Iraqi Army checkpoint and a police one. Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

As many grunts will tell you, this is a near-routine event. Reports that a majority of Iraqi Army commanders are now reliable partners can be considered only misleading rhetoric. The truth is that battalion commanders, even if well meaning, have little to no influence over the thousands of obstinate men under them, in an incoherent chain of command, who are really loyal only to their militias.

Similarly, Sunnis, who have been underrepresented in the new Iraqi armed forces, now find themselves forming militias, sometimes with our tacit support. Sunnis recognize that the best guarantee they may have against Shiite militias and the Shiite-dominated government is to form their own armed bands. We arm them to aid in our fight against Al Qaeda.

However, while creating proxies is essential in winning a counterinsurgency, it requires that the proxies are loyal to the center that we claim to support. Armed Sunni tribes have indeed become effective surrogates, but the enduring question is where their loyalties would lie in our absence. The Iraqi government finds itself working at cross purposes with us on this issue because it is justifiably fearful that Sunni militias will turn on it should the Americans leave.

In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a ''time-sensitive target acquisition mission'' on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse -- namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force.

Given the situation, it is important not to assess security from an American-centered perspective. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

Coupling our military strategy to an insistence that the Iraqis meet political benchmarks for reconciliation is also unhelpful. The morass in the government has fueled impatience and confusion while providing no semblance of security to average Iraqis. Leaders are far from arriving at a lasting political settlement. This should not be surprising, since a lasting political solution will not be possible while the military situation remains in constant flux.

The Iraqi government is run by the main coalition partners of the Shiite-dominated United Iraqi Alliance, with Kurds as minority members. The Shiite clerical establishment formed the alliance to make sure its people did not succumb to the same mistake as in 1920: rebelling against the occupying Western force (then the British) and losing what they believed was their inherent right to rule Iraq as the majority. The qualified and reluctant welcome we received from the Shiites since the invasion has to be seen in that historical context. They saw in us something useful for the moment.

Now that moment is passing, as the Shiites have achieved what they believe is rightfully theirs. Their next task is to figure out how best to consolidate the gains, because reconciliation without consolidation risks losing it all. Washington's insistence that the Iraqis correct the three gravest mistakes we made -- de-Baathification, the dismantling of the Iraqi Army and the creation of a loose federalist system of government -- places us at cross purposes with the government we have committed to support.

Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict -- as we do now -- will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run.

At the same time, the most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. ''Lucky'' Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, ''We need security, not free food.''

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.

Until that happens, it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit. This suggestion is not meant to be defeatist, but rather to highlight our pursuit of incompatible policies to absurd ends without recognizing the incongruities.

We need not talk about our morale. As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through.

Staff Sergeant Yance Gray and Sergeant Omar Mora will not make it home alive from the deployment they thought they were finishing when they wrote the Times. But they have, indeed, seen their mission through.

Members of the U.S. Armed Forces swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic (and to) bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."

By seeking to reveal the truth about the disastrous war in Iraq, Gray, Mora and their comrades bore true faith and allegiance to the Constitution that they had sworn to defend. The soldiers died with their honor intact, and their country has lost a pair of honest American heroes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (182)

1. Will ANY of the neo-con Right try to attack these men?

   Paint them as "isolated incidents" or "a few disgruntles"....and, to use HAPPY's term from the criticisms of Petraeus "attack the military"....simply because as the "grunts on the ground" they're not supporting the ideological idiocy that they're being told to fight and die for?

   Sadly, I think the answer will be yes.

   Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 10:59pm

2. OK, so why wasn't this letter given to the Senate to review ahead of the Petraeus visit?

   Posted by ACook at 09/12/2007 @ 11:09pm

3. In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are -- an army of occupation -- and force our withdrawal.

   wow. i've been saying this for 4 years (yes, i existed before my appearance here)

   just today, i posted "why always america, american, america" instead of "iraq, iraqi, iraq"?

   not trying to be smug--this is all to sickening for pride.

   this letter should be sent around the world to show that there are good people of the u.s. who understand the cruel stupidity of their so-called "elected" leaders.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 11:26pm

4. OK, so why wasn't this letter given to the Senate to review ahead of the Petraeus visit?

   Posted by ACOOK 09/12/2007 @ 11:09pm

   because these soldiers aren't "authorities" on iraq.

   they are only authorities on an earthly hell that no one dares believe to be true, especially since they are the ones who opened the gates of hades. give me a break

   Posted by frosty zoom at 09/12/2007 @ 11:29pm

5. "One thing everyone should be aware of is that General Petraeus's own son is in line to serve in Iraq. The General is indeed in a world of shit."

   Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/12/2007 @ 11:21pm

   Why? What does it matter to you? Your son is no longer in the line of fire.

   Posted by ACook at 09/12/2007 @ 11:36pm

6. "this letter should be sent around the world to show that there are good people of the u.s. who understand the cruel stupidity of their so-called "elected" leaders."

   Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/12/2007 @ 11:26pm

   OK, no more cloak-n-dagger, where do you really live?

   Posted by ACook at 09/12/2007 @ 11:40pm

7. "We'll just have to get the word out ourselves."

   Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/12/2007 @ 11:31pm

   And how's that "campaign" going?

   Posted by ACook at 09/12/2007 @ 11:43pm

8. "That's a pretty ignorant thing to say."

   Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/12/2007 @ 11:43pm

   No it's not...What you said about General Patreaus being in deep sh*t because his son is in the line of fire, kinda sounds smug and arrogant. It's as if you're saying and waiting for some kind of tragedy to strike.

   Just to let you know, my son went into boot camp a couple of weeks ago.

   Posted by ACook at 09/12/2007 @ 11:54pm

9. Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 10:59pm

   I asked the question...I guess I figured it'd be one of the GUYS on the Right, not one of the women....not ACOOK.

   Posted by Mask at 09/12/2007 @ 11:55pm

10. Posted by ACOOK 09/12/2007 @ 11:36pm

    Colder than Nurse Ratchet.

    Posted by canaar at 09/12/2007 @ 11:57pm

11. ACOOK, do me a favor?

    Go rent "Born on the Fourth of July" and watch Caroline Kava as Mrs. Kovic....

    and please don't become her!

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:00am

12. "ACOOK, How do you feel about the message these soldiers sent to the NYT and how do you feel about the deaths of the two Sargeants?"

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/12/2007 @ 11:44pm

    The deaths of the two Sargeants are very tragic. My heart and prayers go out to their families. As far as the letter goes, its one of many that, hopefully, been read both in the House and Senate. Now, if Congress is truly serious about bringing the troops home, then they need to stop with the dog and pony shows and get their act together.

    Posted by ACook at 09/13/2007 @ 12:01am

13. I asked the question...I guess I figured it'd be one of the GUYS on the Right, not one of the women....not ACOOK.

    Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 11:55pm

    Mask, I was not disputing anything in the letter. I asked why wasn't the letter read in the Senate while they were questioning Patraeus?

    Posted by ACook at 09/13/2007 @ 12:07am

14. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/12/2007 @ 11:31pm

    you know, i have dreamt about calling rush for years.

    maybe if i call from detroit (better yet, bloomfield hills) and talk like RIO through the handlers, start off with rush the same way and the wham-o.

    nah, tape delay. (probably two minutes--they're already light years behind reality.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:07am

15. OK, no more cloak-n-dagger, where do you really live?

    Posted by ACOOK 09/12/2007 @ 11:40pm

    earth. and you?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:08am

16. Why? What does it matter to you? Your son is no longer in the line of fire.

    Posted by ACOOK 09/12/2007 @ 11:36pm

    such selfishness.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:08am

17. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/12/2007 @ 11:42pm

    the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, 'round and 'round...........................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:10am

18. And how's that "campaign" going?

    Posted by ACOOK 09/12/2007 @ 11:43pm

    sir acook sir

    why do you want to slaughter people?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:12am

19. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 12:12am

    Did you even read my post to Frankgrits and his return posts to me? Refresh your screen again.

    Posted by ACook at 09/13/2007 @ 12:17am

20. Just to let you know, my son went into boot camp a couple of weeks ago.

    Posted by ACOOK 09/12/2007 @ 11:54pm

    i thought about tearing apart more of your nonsense. then i read your last sentence.

    godspeed to your son. i pray he will not be sent to iraq or afghanistan. and if he goes, i will ask you about his well-being every time i see you appear on a thread. may he escape unharmed from this insanity.

    i could not be more sincere.

    FZ

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:18am

21. Mr. Nichols, what is so unfathomable and detestable is that anyone would stoop so LOW as to attempt to use the tragic deaths of two enlisted men for political advantage?!----Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/13/2007 @ 12:05am

    Excuse me folks, I gotta turn in....would somebody ask RIO if the name "Pat Tillman" rings a bell with him, and point out a few articles from 2004?

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:20am

22. Now, if Congress is truly serious about bringing the troops home, then they need to stop with the dog and pony shows and get their act together.

    Posted by ACOOK 09/13/2007 @ 12:01am

    much better.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:20am

23. you know...i'm...not a weepy man. i hate what has happened in iraq, i have argued and written on this subject, but for the last few months i have tried not to think about the war. i'm certainly not the "yeehaw amuhrukuh", flag waving, patriot type. "god bless the usa" makes me want to vomit when i think of all the fine men and women who went off to fight, thinking their leaders knew what they were doing...listening to that awful warbling hick crap.

    so i just say a prayer for them from time to time, thank god those who did this will be gone soon, and try to convince myself i did a little something...i remember the ultimately sad and suffering nature of this world and shake my head, cursing the folly of my fellow shaved apes, ask myself if i could/should do more, then get back to living my life.

    but when i read this, i came close to crying. i thought about the students of mine who went there, especially the one who came back, his smile not quite so bright. i had warned him before he signed up..."you were right", he told me when we were alone...

    but i wondered if the one who wrote this was still alive as i read it. he should have been in college, not paying the price for having the misfortune to serve under criminally negligent vile incompetants.

    the morons who got us into this little slice of hell should be strung up. may they burn in their own hell, which will probably look strangely like the hell they sent these soldiers to.

    for a second time in half a century, stupid people in suits have sent others in uniform to die in an unnecesary bloodbath.

    sickening.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 12:21am

24. Now, if Congress is truly serious about bringing the troops home, then they need to stop with the dog and pony shows and get their act together.-----Posted by ACOOK 09/13/2007 @ 12:01am

    Okay, ACOOK....benefit of the doubt time....what does that MEAN exactly? What do you want to see them do?

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:21am

25. Mr. Nichols, what is so unfathomable and detestable is that anyone would stoop so LOW as to attempt to use the tragic deaths of two enlisted men for political advantage?! But then, that is what the nation blog is all about isn't it FRANK?

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/13/2007 @ 12:05am

    RIO, i think its more likely that mr. nichols is sickened by all this death.

    aren't you?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:21am

26. Posted by ACOOK 09/12/2007 @ 11:09pm

    well it was in the ny times...wait, those guys dont read newspapers, do they?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 12:23am

27. When I said Petraeus is in a world of shit, I was referring to his tenuous position being a top Commander and having to suffer the anxiety of having his own son in the line of fire because of decisions he may have to make. So if you don't understand, don't get personal. I wish your son luck. He'll need it.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 12:03am

    I understand your position. I guess wasn't expecting you to type something like that. You of all people on this blog know too well what's a stake. With the exception of a few like IM, USC1, LVLB, and I think a couple more, many here will never know what's it's like to serve in the military.

    Posted by ACook at 09/13/2007 @ 12:26am

28. Never mind, can't sleep....here ya go, RIO (and it's not from some "liberal Demoncrat media outlet"...it's the "Weekly Standard"!)

    All Star

    Remembering Pat Tillman, NFL athlete and U.S. Army Ranger, 1976-2004. by Michael Goldfarb

    04/23/2004 1:33:00 PM

    TODAY THE NATION REMEMBERS Pat Tillman, a standout safety for the Arizona Cardinals who was killed in action yesterday during a firefight in eastern Afghanistan. The national press considered Tillman something of an enigma. His decision to leave a lucrative career in the NFL in favor of enlisting, with his brother Kevin, in the U.S. Army drew a great deal of media attention in the summer of 2002. Tillman, however, declined to offer any explanation for his actions and simply informed the press of his hope to join the elite Army Rangers. In truth, no explanation was needed. Whether it was the loss of a friend in the September 11 attacks, or merely an overwhelming sense of duty, honor, and patriotism, his selfless actions were reminiscent of a bygone era of noblesse oblige. Tillman was successful in his quest to join the Rangers, of course.

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:26am

29. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/13/2007 @ 12:05am

    did you read the letter? considering its contents and the statements of the soldiers who wrote it, i'd say the honored dead would consider it a tribute to them and what they were trying to do - tell the bloody truth.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 12:27am

30. Posted by ACOOK 09/13/2007 @ 12:17am

    yes, i saw them.

    but after this:

    "Why? What does it matter to you? Your son is no longer in the line of fire."

    i became quite upset.

    anyways, sorry if i misunderstood.

    BTW please see Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 12:18am

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:34am

31. The man is the biggest fraud in the country.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 12:28am | ignore this person

    2nd biggest fraud...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 12:35am

32. Okay, ACOOK....benefit of the doubt time....what does that MEAN exactly? What do you want to see them do?

    Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 12:21am

    First off, Mask, this is a left leaning question and you know I don't lean left. But, as I said to Frank, if Congress is truly serious about bringing the troops home, then they should move hell and high water and to do it. Anything else they say or do to the contrary is a dog and pony show.

    Posted by ACook at 09/13/2007 @ 12:37am

33. Posted by ACOOK 09/13/2007 @ 12:37am

    Why is it a "left-leaning question"...when it merely asks for specifics of YOUR statement? You said "Now, if Congress is truly serious about bringing the troops home, then they need to stop with the dog and pony shows and get their act together."

    Do you WANT them to bring the troops home? If not, then you support the continueing "dog and pony shows" and asking them to do something different is disengenuous because you really DON'T want them to get "serious" but continue.

    If so, then you want them to try to get us out of Iraq ASAP....which I somehow doubt.

    I just wanted to find out which one? And why you think YOUR opinion is more informed about what the situation in Iraq is, than the men who wrote that letter...which you (and RIO) have YET to comment directly on and say "they're right"..."they're wrong"...or even a lame "they're just using a subjective view, they don't see the Big Picture as Gen. Petraus does, and they don't realize we're winning" and treat them like petulent children.

    (Okay THAT was "left leaning"...since I'm sure anything not fully supportive of this debacle is defined as such by you...yes?)

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:42am

34. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 12:34am

    Thank you. I'm going to bed now.

    Posted by ACook at 09/13/2007 @ 12:43am

35. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 12:44am

    oh frank - you get the "coolest quote of the week" with that one. great find.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 12:47am

36. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 12:44am

    Uh, careful FRANK...you don't want this brought back up...AFTER January 20th, 2009, do you???

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:47am

37. Okay, obviously my gal ACOOK is gone night-night....too many mean ol' boys picking on her....so I'll crash too.

    Somebody flag it if they can get RIO to actually COMMENT on what's in the letter.

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:48am

38. Why? What does it matter to you? Your son is no longer in the line of fire.

    Posted by ACOOK 09/12/2007 @ 11:36pm | ignore this person

    Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt. Abraham Lincoln - 16th president of US (1809 - 1865)

    Looks like Acook just removed all doubt!

    Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 12:54am

39. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 12:42am

    Mask this isn't about whether you or others feel the soldiers were "right". It's about how and what they're feeling. And they have the right to express those feelings. This isn't about my opinion or yours. It's about the ugly business called War and that will never change.

    Yes, I want them to come home, but I would like to see their transition done right.

    Posted by ACook at 09/13/2007 @ 12:58am

40. Posted by LILLIAN 09/13/2007 @ 12:54am

    I'm going to tell you like I told Frosty, re-read my post to Frank and his post me and then you can speak. Otherwise your statement comes off a little foolish. Don't you think?

    Posted by ACook at 09/13/2007 @ 01:03am

41. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 12:44am

    oh frank - you get the "coolest quote of the week" with that one. great find.

    Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/13/2007 @ 12:47am

    well, if you think that's cooler than my GORN quote, whatever.

    try qwikiquote [en.wikiquote.org]

    "Quotations can be valuable, like raisins in the rice pudding, for adding iron as well as eye appeal."

    Peg Bracken

    BTW raisins are great in mashed sweet potatoes

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 01:08am

42. Something about this letter doesn't pass the smell test. I thought that the American soldiers were tightly-controlled pawns in this war game and could not say anything that does not toe the "party line." If that's the case, how in the world did a letter like this ever make it past the Army (military) censors? Seriously, we're supposed to believe that the government would be able to cover up alleged fratricide of Pat Tillman, but this letter which portrays an entirely different picture than the one the Army portrays gets through?

    The letter from the soldiers offered an honest, spin-free account of what is really happening in Iraq

    Um, well first of all, John, what makes you think that this is "spin-free?" Perhaps because it's written by American soldiers that happen to agree with your POV?

    Local Iraqis readily testified to American investigators that Iraqi police and Army officers escorted the triggermen and helped plant the bomb. These civilians highlighted their own predicament: had they informed the Americans of the bomb before the incident, the Iraqi Army, the police or the local Shiite militia would have killed their families.

    But somehow it's OK to inform Americans of Iraqi Army wrong-doing after the incident? Why wouldn't their families be killed for informing the US after the fact, too?

    As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, ''We need security, not free food.''

    And we're supposed to provide this by leaving?

    it would be prudent for us to increasingly let Iraqis take center stage in all matters, to come up with a nuanced policy in which we assist them from the margins but let them resolve their differences as they see fit.

    Isn't this what the administration has been saying all along? We will be there only until the Iraqis are stable and strong enough to govern themselves? It seems to be working as more reports come out that Sunnis and Shiites are working together with us against al-Quada (at least according to Katie Couric LOL)

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 02:11am

43. One question that maybe ACook or FG can answer...

    How long does it take a letter to get through to the military (APO address if I recall correctly)? When I used to write friends in the military, it always seemed to take longer than a week for them to get the letter and vice-versa. Yet this letter was written sometime after August 12th (when one of the "authors" was shot in the head) yet was printed in the NY Times on August 19th. Presumably, the letter was received no later than August 18th. Is that possible for a letter from the military to make it in less than a week, particularly from a war zone? Just curious.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 02:21am

44. I'm going to tell you like I told Frosty, re-read my post to Frank and his post me and then you can speak. Otherwise your statement comes off a little foolish. Don't you think?

    Posted by ACOOK 09/13/2007 @ 01:03am | ignore this person

    OK, I re-read all...and had the same reaction the second time.

    First, let me be clear...if your son ends up in a war zone, you will both have my sincerest and most heartfelt prayers for his safe return.

    However...

    there is a very valid reason that Frank and Frosty and Mask and I all received your comment the way we did. Your comment (not Frank's) is the one that seems to come off as "smug and arrogant". When I coupled that with the following one about how only the 'righties' posting on this board can understand about military service?...sorry, but it's not my quote that sounds foolish, is it?

    These facts may come as revelations to you but...many of us 'lefties' also know about military service and all of its implications. Fully half of my family has served...my father, a career lifer in the Army, served in 2 wars...wounded several times in combat. Children in Korea and VietNam wore my clothes, my shoes, played with my toys, read my books. I have uncles that died in combat, many other realtives that served, fought, were wounded, decorated...cousins, brothers, nieces, nephews...one who just graduated from Marine boot and is now at Camp Pendalton. There are many of us here who also know the fear and apprehension...the pride and joy...the tears and sorrow. You need to also give us credit for understanding.

    And, revelation number two...this direct experience is NOT a prerequisite for concern about the war in Iraq as your "What does it matter to you? Your son is no longer in the line of fire" comment would seem to indicate. While Frank and Frosty have given you a pass on that comment because of your son, I'm not so sure I'm ready to do the same. Those who have supported this war have placed you and your family in a very, very serious and difficult situation. I don't think those who have questions about why, need to be IN your same situation in order for their concerns to be considered valid, which seems to have been your point.

    Unless you are going to spend some time clarifying these 'points' of yours...the Lincoln quote seems to be a pretty appropriate response.

    Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 03:09am

45. I'm sure all the democrats read it or at least saw it. The republicans don't read the New Youk Times. They listen to Rush Limbaugh.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/12/2007 @ 11:19pm

    I think the reason most republicans don't read the news versus listening to Limbaugh is probably because half of them can't read. If you make less than 200K and vote republican, you are a complete idiot. You are screwing yourself and helping the ultra wealthy.

    You won't hear morons like Limbaugh point things out like that. No, they'll point out how moralistic it is to go into another country and kill thousands in the name of democracy. Remember, the reason we really went into Iraq was WMD. Then the Bush administration tried to spin the 9/11 attack onto Sadam, which by the way, they are at full speed ahead doing again, and once again, these moronic republican voters buy into this.

    So why would they care what the real soldiers say, as long as Bush, through Limbaugh and the Fox Commedy Broadcasting Company tell them that everything is going great and that we are showing the infidels "the way" to Christianity. I guess they figure that it isn't the meek who shall inherit the earth, but rather the stupid shall inherit the earth.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/13/2007 @ 06:48am

46. Wow, the usual right-wingnuts seem to be avoiding this thread like the plague. I wonder why that is...

    The "if you don't support the Bush policy you hate America" tactic reveals its glass jaw in this case, no?

    Posted by BlueSpark at 09/13/2007 @ 07:59am

47. Posted by WOLFGANG1 09/13/2007 @ 06:48am

    It's called intellectual laziness.

    A news article, even from a paper with an established bias, is likely to require (or inspire) some measure of additional thought on the part of the reader.

    I know too many people who have acquired all their political knowledge wholesale from bloviating talk shows like Rush's or Bill O'Reilly's. In today's hectic world it's so handy to be able to spew out talking points without having to waste precious moments with personal reflection. Hell, these guys will not only tell you what to "think", but how to feel as well.

    Can't beat that.

    Posted by drhammer at 09/13/2007 @ 08:10am

48. With one nuke potentially unaccounted for in the US after last weeks "anomaly" in the handling of nukes by our military, ships in the Persian Gulf on highest alert off the coast of Iran and a Command-wide stand-down of our Air Force scheduled for Friday,

    LOOK WHO'S COINCIDENTALLY PLANNING TO BE PRESENT AT STRATCOM ON FRIDAY:

    Vice President Dick Cheney, will take the White House's case to key political battleground states Friday. Cheney will speak about "the global war on terror" at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library & Museum in Grand Rapids, Mich., and deliver a speech at the U.S. Central Command and Special Operations Command headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.

    A "COINCIDENCE TOO FAR."

    Take cover, Cheney's attack against the US launches tomorrow.

    Remember where Cheney was on 9/11?

    IN COMMAND:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

    Posted by plunger at 09/13/2007 @ 08:34am

49. Posted by LILLIAN 09/13/2007 @ 03:09am

    LILLIAN, please remember to forget everything I post on this thread to maintain your "black or white" view of the world.

    A friendly reminder.

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 09:24am

50. Yet this letter was written sometime after August 12th (when one of the "authors" was shot in the head) yet was printed in the NY Times on August 19th. Presumably, the letter was received no later than August 18th. Is that possible for a letter from the military to make it in less than a week, particularly from a war zone? Just curious. -----Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 02:21am

    See, I KNEW it. No "letter" can arrive at the NY Times only days after somebody who wrote it was killed! It must be some kind of liberal media trick!

    THAT's the "real story", not that soldiers on the ground are telling us something in direction contradiction to Administration spin and what "the reports" say.

    (sarcasm button off now)

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 09:30am

51. Mask:

    Whoa there, Trigger! It's an honest and legitimate question, since I've had a different experience (key word...experience) with the military pony express. Remember, a lot of people believed that letter about George Bush until they found out it was forged.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 09:54am

52. soldiers on the ground are telling us something in direction contradiction to Administration spin and what "the reports" say.

    You're doing the same thing as Nichols...assuming that there is no "spin" to what these soldiers say. When soldiers come out in favor of the war, do you grant them the same respect or do you brush them off as Bush's pawns?

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 10:00am

53. I listened to the House and Senate question Patreus on NPR off and on this week. The general sold the plan. It all sounded plausible, doable, reasonable. The Dems did nothing to refute the claims Bush's general and ambassador made. Nothing is going to change until Jr is out of office. All of you poor bastards on stop loss are sol until then.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 10:03am

54. Mask:

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/13/2007 @ 10:03am

    See what I mean?

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 10:11am

55. "Remember, a lot of people believed that letter about George Bush until they found out it was forged."

    A lot of people believed that the letter in question was genuine. It was not.

    The content, however, was true. The BBC had been running the story for almost a year prior to the Rather episode, and still sticks by it.

    Our brave flyboy president has never denied its content.

    Posted by drhammer at 09/13/2007 @ 10:15am

56. Remember, a lot of people believed that letter about George Bush until they found out it was forged.----Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 09:54am

    See, I KNEW IT. Bill Burkett and Dan Rather wrote that letter!

    All our boys and girls in Iraq no things are a LOT better than the Librul Media report, support the Surge, continueing the occupation until 'victory', and oppose the surrender monkeys!

    And even if a few don't, they're probably like John Kerry and shot themselves!

    Thanks USC!

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 10:17am

57. When soldiers come out in favor of the war, do you grant them the same respect or do you brush them off as Bush's pawns? -----Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 10:00am

    No, USC, I guess I'll treat those guys like YOU treat THESE guys....make insinuations that their letters are faked!

    Fair's fair, right?

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 10:19am

58. LILLIAN, please remember to forget everything I post on this thread to maintain your "black or white" view of the world.

    A friendly reminder.

    Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 09:24am | ignore this person

    Mask, my black or white view extends no farther than you...that you're an ass.

    Everything else is shades of gray requiring thoughtful analysis...in which I always engage.

    Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 10:20am

59. Which stands in stark contrast to your Maskian penchant for regurgitating wing-nut pablum and jumping to conclusions about other people's views in your never-ending quest to 'score points' on them.

    hehe!

    Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 10:24am

60. GENERAL Petraeus is a brave soldier just doing his job. And like all soldiers he should not be questioned like he so rudely was by some Senators this week.

    (The opposite goes for Murtha, Kerry and these dweebs!)

    I make sense in a vicodin haze....trust me!

    Posted by rushlimb at 09/13/2007 @ 10:28am

61. . We have let madmen lie us into madness.

    Now they want to attack Iran.

    Does anyone think that will end the madness?

    Impeach Bush. Stop the madmen. Stop the war while we still can.

    .

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 09/13/2007 @ 10:38am

62. Has anybody ever worked at a company that was trying to go public? It makes me think of what is going on with "The Surge" strategy. All the goals of Patreus are being pursued by the officers beneath him; out in the field they are doing everything they can to make their objectives work, regardless of the situation. Lots of square pegs being forced into round holes--it has to work, at least until Jr is out of office.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 10:51am

63. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 10:19am

    You're not answering the questions, Mask.

    It seems you don't like it when the tables are turned on you.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 10:52am

64. I'll ask again since Mask has posted enough to muddy the waters...

    Is it possible for a letter to/from the military to make it from a overseas to the US in 6 days or less? My experience has been that it takes longer.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 10:58am

65. Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 10:52am

    Sure I'll answer....and you won't.

    I'll take it as the honest opinion of troops in the field and give it credence, just as I do those troops who oppose the occupation and want us out ASAP.

    I will NOT cast aspersions on them or claim their story (or letter in this case) is faked....as you did.

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 10:59am

66. Everything else is shades of gray requiring thoughtful analysis...in which I always engage.----Posted by LILLIAN 09/13/2007 @ 10:20am

    Like "Gore can live his life as he likes and tell the rest of us we need to cut back" kind of thoughtful analysis...or more like....

    Can you produce a specific post where John says "I have lots of money, ergo I alone know how money works"?----Posted by THRAWN 12/08/2006 @ 01:17am

    "Not those words exactly Thrawn. More a combination of many posts over the year or so I've been around here."---Posted by LILLIAN 12/08/2006 @ 10:39am --BLOG | Posted 12/08/2006 @ 12:01am

    Only a Rainbow Will Win--Katrina vanden Heuvel

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 11:01am

67. Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 10:58am

    ROFLMAO....I'm "muddying the waters"?!?!?

    You "hint" that the soldiers' letter may be faked, and blow off their criticisms....and I AM muddying the waters?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 11:02am

68. Is it possible for a letter to/from the military to make it from a overseas to the US in 6 days or less? My experience has been that it takes longer.

    Posted by USC1

    You are aware that soldiers have access to the internet, right?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:08am

69. "Like "Gore can live his life as he likes and tell the rest of us we need to cut back" kind of thoughtful analysis...or more like...."

    Posted by MASK

    You can't control what Al or anyone else does. You can only control your own actions.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:10am

70. To the parents and families of Staff Sergeant Yance Gray and Sergeant Omar Mora, I offer my condolences and prayers that your valient soldiers, your sons, did not die in vain. They were true to their mission even while their leaders at home failed them. They are gone but I'm confident that their memories will be kept alive in your hearts forever. They are the best that this country could ever have hoped to produce. You should be very proud of them. We will keep their fight alive until all of their brothers are safely home. God bless you.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/12/2007 @ 11:18pm

    Well said, FG. Seconded.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/13/2007 @ 11:14am

71. Posted by ACOOK 09/12/2007 @ 11:36pm

    Colder than Nurse Ratchet.

    Posted by CANAAR 09/12/2007 @ 11:57pm

    A heartless uncaring "woman", to be sure. But what else could we expect?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/13/2007 @ 11:16am

72. "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day, the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.' - H.L. Mencken 1920

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 12:44am

    We have met the enemy, and he is us - Pogo.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/13/2007 @ 11:20am

73. You can't control what Al or anyone else does. You can only control your own actions.----Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/13/2007 @ 11:10am

    What's your point, MT?

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 11:21am

74. Posted by DR DECIBELS 09/13/2007 @ 11:20am

    I think FRANK missed the point of my earlier post on his quote from H.L. Mencken....

    in January 2009, that may apply to his Main Gal, HRC, too!

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 11:21am

75. Mask:

    You were taking attention away from my question, which btw, was also directed at FG. If I did not want an honest answer to that question, why would I direct to him also, given that he is decidedly against the war? He might very easily come back and say that mail delivery only takes a few days, in which case my question (and that's all it was) would be answered. What will your response be should someone mention that it takes two weeks for a letter to be delivered?

    And I never claimed the letter was faked. I was very specific about stating that their story could be just as full of "spin" as liberals here claim about soldiers in favor of the war. So what makes them believe one story over the other? Could it be bias?

    Did I hint that the letter was faked? You could say that if asking questions is a problem for you. But as you have admitted, people can fake letters about our president's service record. What makes you think that they couldn't do the same in this case?

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:22am

76. You are aware that soldiers have access to the internet, right?

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/13/2007 @ 11:08am

    Yes. Has anyone bothered to ask?

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:23am

77. Is it possible for a letter to/from the military to make it from a overseas to the US in 6 days or less? My experience has been that it takes longer.

    Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 10:58am

    Yes. The letters my father wrote from VN arrived within 1 week. And he wrote EVERY week.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/13/2007 @ 11:26am

78. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 11:21am

    I'm hoping that, the prediction having come true, the next one will be what we NEED - intelligent, thoughtful, you know, everything chimpface ISN'T.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/13/2007 @ 11:27am

79. Posted by MASK

    It's self explanatory.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:29am

80. Yes. Has anyone bothered to ask?

    Posted by USC1

    Then why would you use the time line as an excuse to doubt the authenticity of the letter?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:30am

81. But as you have admitted, people can fake letters about our president's service record. What makes you think that they couldn't do the same in this case?

    Posted by USC1

    Are you suggesting the NYT failed to verify the sources? Possible, but very unlikely, especially after all this time.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:34am

82. It's self explanatory.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/13/2007 @ 11:29am

    Seemed pretty damned straightforward to me.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/13/2007 @ 11:36am

83. Dr. Dec

    Thanks. Question answered. (Was that so hard, Mask?)

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:38am

84. Posted by DR DECIBELS

    Poor mary suffers selective obtuseness.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:41am

85. MT

    Given the problems that NYT writers have had in the past, I'm not willing to say that they are above it (lying, fraud, not verifying sources).

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:42am

86. Posted by USC1

    Why do you think most informed individuals question anything and everything this administration says?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:49am

87. For those who might be wondering about my position on the war, I finally got around to asking someone I trust (a friend in the military) what his opinion was about the war (by e-mail...haha). His response will have a great influence on my stance from here forward. (Yes, Mask, even if it's against the war.)

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:50am

88. Posted by USC1

    Do you understand what an anti-insurgency campaign entails?

    Do you appreciate that the problems cannot be solved with military might, that the situation requires a political solution?

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 11:59am

89. ....to use HAPPY's term from the criticisms of Petraeus "attack the military"....simply because as the "grunts on the ground" they're not supporting the ideological idiocy that they're being told to fight and die for?

    Sadly, I think the answer will be yes.

    Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 10:59pm

    MASK,

    The quality of your thought process & blog posts are slipping! USC had you pinned, you over assume and are careless (these days) to jump to conclusions....is this because of the realization that the Dems are more defensive these days on Iraq?

    Moving on....Do you think there were any right wing attacks on these 7 men BEFORE they posted their letter in the NYT? I know you're good at googling, show me! Now, perhaps easier for you, show me a preponderance of `attacks' post-letter??

    You may recall I stated retired military is free to speak but criticisms by active duty military is more difficult and to be weighed "case by case"! No one can deny that some or even most Iraqis want us out (last BBC poll published 2 days ago said 53% want us to stay)...thus, for 7 actives to say the same is hardly surprising nor convincing....same with what they saw as to bomb planting witnessed by civilians who didn't report since there were many instances elsewhere where civilians DID report...

    Frankly, I have no problem with what these 7 men did in writing the letter and I take it as true in their personal experiences in Iraq....I just am puzzled why such a huge deal by the Left! The right really didn't react in any overtly critical fashion....prove me wrong!

    The Left is clinging to every little thing that supports their view and 7 mens' views just had to be leveraged off of!

    Posted by Happy at 09/13/2007 @ 12:02pm

90. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 11:48am

    That's why I come here...to get the "other side." However, I'm not so inclined to just accept what The Nation says at face value either. I'm a skeptic, I guess, but naturally more inclined to accept things that agree with my viewpoint. After all, it's the right one (haha). (Reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker...Be reasonable and see it my way!)

    As far as the war goes, I am able to admit that I don't know the whole story, but neither does anyone else for that matter. I just hope and pray that we're doing the right thing.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 12:06pm

91. The Left is clinging to every little thing that supports their view and 7 mens' views just had to be leveraged off of!

    Posted by HAPPY

    You still haven't figured it out yet, huh? And from a self proclaimed "genius."

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 12:08pm

92. Given the problems that NYT writers have had in the past, I'm not willing to say that they are above it (lying, fraud, not verifying sources).

    Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 11:42am

    And Armstrong Williams, who made 250K (TAXPAYER DOLLARS) to "catapult the proganda"?

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/13/2007 @ 12:09pm

93. Posted by MTSPENCE05 09/13/2007 @ 11:59am

    The problem is the insurgents and weapons are coming from Iran and Syria. Essentially, Iran is waging war with us by proxie. To stop it, we have to negotiate with Iran and Syria...not exactly the kind of people that foster trust.

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 12:14pm

94. Dr. Dec.

    That's what I''m talking about. Everyone has an agenda/bias. Can't trust anybody (cue Twilight Zone music).

    Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 12:17pm

95. The problem is the insurgents and weapons are coming from Iran and Syria. Essentially, Iran is waging war with us by proxie. To stop it, we have to negotiate with Iran and Syria...not exactly the kind of people that foster trust.

    Posted by USC1

    And Saudi Arabia, too.

    It is in the interest of Iran and Syria to have a stable, peaceful neighbor. This administration, however, will not negotiate with either. This administration wants to continue to act unilaterally. (And, to be honest, I fear a Dem administration may not be able to negotiate in good faith with Iran.) This administration views admitting to mistakes as a weakness. They are running out the clock. That's all there is to it.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 12:22pm

96. Given the problems that NYT writers have had in the past, I'm not willing to say that they are above it (lying, fraud, not verifying sources).

    Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 11:42am

    If the letter is not authentic, I wonder why we haven't heard from the purported authors

    Posted by Hman23 at 09/13/2007 @ 12:26pm

97. And I don't believe Iran is waging war with us by proxie. Iran is pursuing its interest, as it should. It is ignorant arrogance for the US to feel Iran has no business in Iraq.

    Anyone with half a brain would have anticipated the outcome of destroying Saddam's Iraq.. For that reason (among many others) I have absolutely no faith in this administration's ability to make the most of this bad situation.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 12:26pm

98. Did I hint that the letter was faked? You could say that if asking questions is a problem for you. But as you have admitted, people can fake letters about our president's service record. What makes you think that they couldn't do the same in this case?----Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 11:22am

    which was preceded with...

    "And I never claimed the letter was faked."----Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 11:22am

    So the letter was faked. The opinions of the soldiers was faked. The national polls which show 65-70% of Americans want us out of Iraq immediately are faked. The news stories about Iraq being in chaos are faked. Are the casualty numbers faked?...hmmm?

    The ONLY truth comes from the White House and General Petreaus.....that about it?

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:31pm

99. Posted by HAPPY 09/13/2007 @ 12:02pm

    HAPPY, HAPPY, HAPPY....it's of no matter. Didn't you read USC1....letters are faked all the time.

    Of course that's not claiming that THIS letter is faked....just ...oh...pondering things.

    Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:33pm

100. FROSTY

     It is the dull man who is always sure, and the sure man who is always dull.

     its like mr. mencken was looking into a crystal ball, and saw chimpy mushmouth...

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 12:35pm

101. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 12:06pm

     FRANK, think a minute, huh?

     You quoted H.L. Mencken on the types of people they elected President and how they might someday elect a fool.

     Mencken didn't know Bush....OR Hillary. But he was a cynic about ALL politicians and that's what his quote relates to.

     So, if Mencken's cynicism can be applied to ONE President, it can be applied to ANY President.

     Seriously the DUMB thing to do is be a cultist to a politician...whether Bush or Rush....or Hillary or Gore.

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:36pm

102. Posted by HMAN23 09/13/2007 @ 12:26pm

     Well, HMAN....like USC, I'm not saying anything, but you know people turn up dead in Ft. Marcy Park all the time...and Hillary can't account for her whereabouts all the time.

     So it may be no surprise that we can't find the REAL authors of that letter.

     Mind you again, like USC, I'm not making any specific claims...just asking a question!

     (heheh....calm down, FRANK...it's a joke. Foster committed suicide)

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:38pm

103. whats this faked letter crap? first they jump on kerry for sugesting its smarter to stay in school than volunteer to serve under a dangerous and moronic (an dangerously moronic) presidency determined to ever take the stupidest of paths...then they insinuate that the letter may read a little too...educated and eloquent to have been written by a pack of grunts...

     gotta love it!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 12:39pm

104. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 12:44pm

     FRANK, if you want to read a modern Menckenian....look at Ari Berman's articles on She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed.

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 12:48pm

105. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 11:48am

     excellent

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 12:49pm

106. Doesn't the convenience of these patriots deaths have a similiar ring to the Tillman case. Don't doubt that the War Criminals in Washington will do anything to quiet the voices of their critics. It is just more convenient in Iraq and Afganistan since Friendly Fire is always an option. The Democrats are a spineless lot and we are faced with another S Korea. Dr Bob (presently on medical assignment in S Lebanon)

     Posted by Dr Bob at 09/13/2007 @ 12:56pm

107. Perhaps the letter is read on KO and printed in the NYT, because they recognize the magnitude of our troops sacrifice, and aren't covering for the hsuB/cHeney admin and their crony war profiteers:

     BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

     BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We're making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we're making today will be a small price if we're able to stop al Qaeda here, if we're able to stabilize the Middle East, it's not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

     ...

     House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), in a conference call from Iraq, told reporters Wednesday that it is fair to draw a link from the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to the current fight in Iraq because of the continued presence of al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists in the country.

     "If you look at where 9/11 came from, it clearly was from al Qaeda, [and] when you look at the violence in Iraq, it's from al Qaeda [and] radical jihadists," Boehner said.

     In reality, al Qaeda represents as little as 2% of the Sunni insurgency, and is responsible for 8%, if not less, of attacks in Iraq. As a 20-year intelligence veteran who has worked with military and intelligence units tracking al-Qaeda inside Iraq concluded, the terrorist network "is a microscopic terrorist organization."

     http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/12863.html

     XXXXxxxxxXXXxxxXXxxXxxxXxxx

     As if that weren't enough, consider what Boehner had to say about Saddam's connection to 9/11.

     Again, from the transcript:

     MATTHEWS: Do you believe [Saddam] had a role in 9/11?

     BOEHNER: Not a direct role, a supportive role.

     MATTHEWS: What was the support?

     BOEHNER: Training terrorists, training camps in Iraq…

     MATTHEWS: For 9/11?

     BOEHNER: For terrorists. There is no question that he supported their activities. He supported the training camps up in northeastern Iraq. There is no question about it.

     MATTHEWS: So Saddam Hussein was in league with the al Qaeda group?

     BOEHNER: He was providing cover for them, yes.

     MATTHEWS: I keep trying to find that evidence, Congressman, and I can't find it. Nobody has come up with that. The vice president was asked about it, the president was about that, they both admitted recently that he had no role in 9/11.

     BOEHNER: I didn't say a direct role. In terms of training and allowing terrorists to be trained up in northeastern Iraq, his aiding…

     MATTHEWS: Was he an accomplice for the 9/11 attack?

     BOEHNER: Listen…

     MATTHEWS: You say not direct, that means indirect. What was his indirect role? Did he help 9/11?

     BOEHNER: Not directly.

     http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8595.html

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/13/2007 @ 1:00pm

108. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/13/2007 @ 12:39pm

     I have to admit, IBB....when I posted (Posted by MASK 09/12/2007 @ 10:59pm) last night...I never considered the possibility that our Neo-Con/Right friends might try to "hint" that the letter was faked?!?!?!?

     But it IS smarter than attacking those guys.... less than 2 days after they got testy over people "attacking a military man"!

     Gee, I wonder what USC would say if somebody hinted that Petraeus' report was faked?

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 1:00pm

109. I just hope and pray that we're doing the right thing.

     Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 12:06pm

     well, saddam was an asshole. no doubt.

     but why not get rid of these guys?:

     1. Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Age 61. In power since 1989. Last year's rank: 7

     2. Kim Jong Il, North Korea. Age 62. In power since 1994. Last year's rank: 1

     3. Than Shwe, Burma. Age 72. In power since 1992. Last year's rank: 2

     4. Hu Jintao, China. Age 62. In power since 2002. Last year's rank: 3

     5. Crown Prince Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. Age 81. In power since 1995. Last year's rank: 5

     6. Muammar al-Qaddafi, Libya. Age 62. In power since 1969.Last year's rank: Dishonorable mention

     7. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan. Age 61. In power since 1999. Last year's rank: Not mentioned

     8. Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan. Age 64. In power since 1990. Last year's rank: 8

     9. Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe. Age 80. In power since 1980. Last year's rank: 4

     10. Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea. Age 62. In power since 1979. Last year's rank: 6

     some of those would be very easy targets, others are "friends" and business partners.

     invading a country that has never attacked you can never be right.

     http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_02-13-2005/featured _0

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 1:09pm

110. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 1:00pm

     "Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government."

     http://tinyurl.com/yth78o

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/13/2007 @ 1:10pm

111. the hypocrisy barely fits in the internet

     Commentary

     U.S. Money Aids World's Worst Dictators

     February 13, 2006

     Benjamin Powell, Matt Ryan

     Parade magazine recently ranked the twenty worst dictators currently in power. Many names are familiar--Fidel Castro, Muammar Qaddafi, Kim Jong-Il, Robert Mugabe and others. They are all guilty of human rights violations and in some cases have committed outright genocide. But there's another trait common to all twenty leaders--every single one has received foreign aid from wealthy Western countries.

     Popular Washington, D.C., rhetoric says that development aid should be dispensed to corruption-free countries with laws and policies conducive to supporting sustained economic growth. President Bush created Millennium Challenge Accounts to funnel aid to such countries. However, few countries have qualified for the program and little money has actually been disbursed. Instead, we find that both the U.S. and its partner countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), have contributed a great deal of aid to these oppressive regimes.

     Parade ranked the Sudan's Omar al-Bashir as the world's worst dictator. During his reign OECD countries gave his regime more than $6 billion in non-military aid. The U.S. accounted for more than $1 billion of that aid. Kim Jong-Il was ranked as the second worst dictator and received a little over $1 billion in aid, with more than half of it coming from the U.S. Than Shwe of Myanmar, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan round out the top five dictators on the list. The U.S. contributed $32 million to Myanmar, $1.1 billion to Zimbabwe, and $385 million to Uzbekistan.

     Overall, OECD countries contributed aid to every one of Parade's 20 worst dictators. Combined, these leaders received nearly $55 billion in aid. The U.S. contributed to 19 of the 20 worst dictators; King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia was somehow left off of the U.S. gravy train. In total, the U.S. contributed more than $7 billion in aid to these leaders. In North Korea, Belarus, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan the U.S. contributed more than 20 percent of the total aid these countries received from OECD countries.

     Government-sponsored aid has failed to promote economic growth in the third world. From 1970 to 2000, more than $400 billion poured into poor African countries with no development to show for it. Parade's list of dictators makes our foreign aid record even more disturbing. Not only has it failed to promote development, in many cases our aid has supported oppressive dictatorships.

     Following Hamas's recent victory in Palestine's elections, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threatened to cut off aid to Palestine, saying, "The United States is not prepared to fund an organization that advocates the destruction of Israel, that advocates violence and that refuses its obligations." Perhaps the U.S. should apply that policy to the dictators on Parade's list as well. By providing aid to these dictators the U.S. has given them a source of funds to use to secure political support and likely prolonged their oppressive reigns.

     The first rule of development policy should be to do no harm. Unfortunately OECD and U.S. aid have failed to promote development and actively promoted harm by aiding oppressive dictatorships. This kind of aid also unfortunately tends to undermine economic freedom by politicizing economic life in the recipient country and by preserving inefficient regimes. Over the last 30 years development aid has lowered measures of economic freedom in both dictatorships and democracies. To better promote freedom, and consequently development, we should end economic development aid to dictators and democracies alike.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 1:10pm

112. Er, PROFIT, you think?

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/13/2007 @ 1:11pm

113. But it IS smarter than attacking those guys....

     Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 1:00pm

     Yup; probably why so many of them are sitting this one out. Kinda hard when sites like writers on www.military.com pen the following:

     "Consider the tremendous amount of moral courage that it takes to put oneself on the line like this. Whether you agree or disagree with the stance these soldiers take, hats off to them for having the guts to write this piece. Only a person with exceptional love for his or her country would take this kind of risk. And because I know people will ask, I think these soldiers will be fine under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for two reasons: 1) they included a disclaimer, and 2) they didn't disclose any information that would compromise OPSEC (operational security). There is always room in the military for professional dissent."

     http://tinyurl.com/2hgfmm

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/13/2007 @ 1:13pm

114. sorry, some editing errors above; but you get the drift.

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/13/2007 @ 1:13pm

115. Posted by HMAN23 09/13/2007 @ 1:10pm

     Can you imagine (rightfully so I think) how ape-sh** USC or other neo-cons would go if it was...

     "Despite The Nation's repeated statements that the letter will reflect evaluations by Sgt. Mora and Sgt. Grey, the left-wing magazine's editors said it would actually be written by Code: Pink, with inputs from other members of the anti-war movement."????

     Yet Petraeus and Crocker are honest brokers, and the letter from The Seven is possibly faked!

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 1:16pm

116. Posted by HMAN23 09/13/2007 @ 1:13pm

     Well, give PONTI, BARRY, etc. a chance, maybe they're waiting to see how Rush and Sean "explain" it to them. After all, they explained to those chaps how a 70% disapproval for the war "really meant" that "folks want us to win, they're just a bit impatient"...and how Bush's 30% approvals are because he didn't cut spending and pushed amnesty...not because of his fine work on the War on Terror.

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 1:20pm

117. Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 12:14pm

     so, supplying arms is an indicator of untrustworthiness. let's have a little look:

     LEADING PURCHASERS OF U.S. DEFENSE ARTICLES & SERVICES TOTAL VALUES OF AGREEMENTS CONCLUDED [CRS Report for Congress]

     1996-1999

     2000-2003 2003 1 Egypt $5.8 bill. 1 U.A.E. $7.1 billion* 1 Egypt $1.7 billion 2 Saudi Arabia $4.6 bill. 2 Egypt $6.2 billion 2 Saudi Arabia $700 mill. 3 Israel $4.3 billion 3 Israel $5.1 billion 3 Israel $580 million 4 Bahrain $610 million 4 Saudi Arabia $2.7 bill. 4 Jordan $330 million 5 Kuwait $490 million 5 Kuwait $1.7 billion 5 Kuwait $310 million

     By David Morgan Sep 6, 2007

     WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is sharply increasing its use of military aid as a reward for countries that cooperate with its war on terrorism, despite concerns about human rights and political instability, researchers said on Thursday.

     The Center for Defense Information found large increases in government and commercial U.S. arms sales in recent years to 25 countries in the Middle East, Asia and Africa that have become allies against Islamist militancy since the September 11 attacks.

     The nonpartisan Washington-based think tank said half the countries were identified by the State Department in 2006 as having serious, grave or significant human rights problems. Several have weathered serious political turmoil in recent years and some, such as Pakistan, now appear to be unstable.

     The list also includes Yemen, Azerbaijan, Thailand, Indonesia, Chad and Mauritania.

     The center's analysis of U.S. data showed government-to-government U.S. arms sales to the 25 countries rocketed to $3.9 billion in 2006 from about $400 million a year earlier. The 2006 figure accounted for about 22 percent of the total $18 billion in U.S. foreign military sales last year.

     Government projections for 2007 and 2008 call for spending levels well above those recorded from 2001 to 2005, it said.

     "The trend is continuing in a steep upward climb," said Rachel Stohl, a co-author of the study.

     Officials at the State Department and Pentagon were not immediately available for comment.

     In a major initiative this year, Washington announced in July it would funnel military aid worth more than $43 billion to Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states over 10 years to help protect them against Iran and fears of spillover from militant chaos in Iraq.

     The package drew criticism that Washington had lost interest in promoting democracy in the region, a goal that it emphasized heavily in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

     The Bush administration announced plans earlier this year to sell India military cargo planes and related gear worth up to $1.1 billion in the first major U.S. aircraft deal with New Delhi.

     do the right thing--hah!

     make some money is a better way of looking at it!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 1:27pm

118. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/13/2007 @ 12:35pm

     qwikiquote-aholic you shall be.

     "Hypocrisy in anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised" - Tolstoy

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 1:30pm

119. Gee, I wonder what USC would say if somebody hinted that Petraeus' report was faked?

     Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 1:00pm

     THE REPORT IS FAKED*

     *well, fudged

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 1:31pm

120. I was very specific about stating that their story could be just as full of "spin" as liberals here claim about soldiers in favor of the war. So what makes them believe one story over the other? Could it be bias?

     First, as someone has already pointed out, if the letter hadn't been genuine, the military would have been the first to bring the purported authors forward. Second, since the military's official position is that the surge is working and progress is being made, anything that is openly published adverse to that by people who are actually under military command carries a degree of credibility as they are putting their careers at risk with no indication that publication of the letter will bring them any profit.

     FROSTY Re the dictator's list, incidentally, Sapurmurad Niyazov, a.k.a. Turkmenbashi, died earlier this year.

     Posted by brunowe at 09/13/2007 @ 1:32pm

121. "Consider the tremendous amount of moral courage that it takes to put oneself on the line like this. Whether you agree or disagree with the stance these soldiers take, hats off to them for having the guts to write this piece. Only a person with exceptional love for his or her country would take this kind of risk. And because I know people will ask, I think these soldiers will be fine under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for two reasons: 1) they included a disclaimer, and 2) they didn't disclose any information that would compromise OPSEC (operational security). There is always room in the military for professional dissent."

     http://tinyurl.com/2hgfmm

     Posted by HMAN23 09/13/2007 @ 1:13pm

     Only a person with exceptional love for humanity would take this kind of risk.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 1:33pm

122. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/13/2007 @ 1:00pm

     check out bechtel's logo--the world floats in a sea of blood [en.wikipedia.org]

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 1:38pm

123. Dr Bob (presently on medical assignment in S Lebanon)

     Posted by DR BOB 09/13/2007 @ 12:56pm

     god bless you doc.

     how's the food? them "terrorists" (please not sarcasm) sure can cook!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 1:39pm

124. FROSTY Re the dictator's list, incidentally, Sapurmurad Niyazov, a.k.a. Turkmenbashi, died earlier this year.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 09/13/2007 @ 1:32pm

     so many dictators, so little time............................

     thanks (i worried about the 2005 data--i found 2006 and he was still there)

     FZ

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 1:44pm

125. As far as the war goes, I am able to admit that I don't know the whole story, but neither does anyone else for that matter. I just hope and pray that we're doing the right thing.

     Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 12:06pm

     We aren't....

     Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/13/2007 @ 1:51pm

126. The ability of, say, American observers to safely walk down the streets of formerly violent towns is not a resounding indicator of security. What matters is the experience of the local citizenry and the future of our counterinsurgency. When we take this view, we see that a vast majority of Iraqis feel increasingly insecure and view us as an occupation force that has failed to produce normalcy after four years and is increasingly unlikely to do so as we continue to arm each warring side.

     No single country or small group of unrepresentative countries can maintain security while the Iraqis sort things out among themselves. As stated by these soldiers, and what has been apparent for quite some time, America is seen as occupiers NOT liberators, so American forces must leave and be replaced by a truly international peacekeeping force that has no other interest.

     Bush's rejection of UN help is shameful and demonstrates once again his inability to face reality. If all Bush cares about are oil companies getting a cut of Iraqi oil and defense oriented businesses profiting from the war, then he is not much of a leader of the free world and has damaged American credibility for decades.

     Posted by Metteyya at 09/13/2007 @ 2:01pm

127. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 1:31pm

     The dubiousness of the Petraus report is immediately suspect....I was merely pointing out that USC trusts one, but not the Seven Letter....based solely on his ideology.

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 2:22pm

128. MT

     And I don't believe Iran is waging war with us by proxie. Iran is pursuing its interest, as it should. It is ignorant arrogance for the US to feel Iran has no business in Iraq.

     What exactly is Iran's interest? What are the terrorists' interests? If you think they should pursue their interests in Iraq, then why shouldn't the US? For that matter, what do you think the US interest is? And, if Iran is not waging war with us, why do we keep finding Hezbollah and Quds fighters, and Iranian weapons which are used to blow up Iraqi civilians?

     Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 2:23pm

129. Interesting thread: Not one of the regular wingers who post their nonsense on every thread here has bothered to show their face. The one that did had nothing to say about the thread, only wanted to talk about Hillary and the Hsu problem.

     Posted by jpolston at 09/13/2007 @ 2:25pm

130. USC1-There are weapons being found that have come from all over the world.Some of our troops have been killed with our weapons that have been sold on the black market.That will happen in this type of war.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/13/2007 @ 2:27pm

131. Gee, I wonder what USC would say if somebody hinted that Petraeus' report was faked?

     Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 1:00pm

     They did or at least said it was written by the Bush administration...despite the fact that Petraeus at the very beginning stated that his assessment was his alone. I actually read the transcript and it seemed like he was being honest and forthright...it wasn't all sugar and sunshine.

     But I guess it HAS to be a lie because he agrees with Bush. (I think that's how your logic works, isn't it?)

     Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 2:37pm

132. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 12:31pm

     There is so much silly, twisted logic in this post that I don't have the time to point it out to you.

     Suffice it to say that when Dr. Dec stated that it took less than a week for a military letter to be delivered, I considered the issue settled.

     But I still think its funny that you said someone could fake a letter about the president, but are incredulous when someone has questions about another letter.

     Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 2:42pm

133. LL

     A reasonable assumption and probably true. However, why do you and nearly all if not all of the left deny that Iran may well be providing direct support to the insurgents and possibly Al Qaeda?

     Because the Sunni insurgents and AQI are enemies of Iran's Shi'ite allies in Iraq. Iran's most likely ally is SCIRI and it's military arm, the Badr Organization. I think it quite possible that Iranian Revolutionary Guards are assisting them, but considering how many Badr people have insinuated themselves into the military and the police, it seems unlikely that Iran is also supporting Sunni insurgents. Iranian support for Sadr's Mahdi Army is possible, however the Mahdi army has only been an intermittent opponent of the US and spends more time ethnically cleansing Sunnis.

     Posted by brunowe at 09/13/2007 @ 2:46pm

134. LvLiberty-It's unlikely that Iran would provide aid to AQ.I've never denied that Iran might be doing something.I've only said that there is no evidence that they're doing anything, officially.We are doing something there officially,however.I learned about all the different weapons being used in Iraq from the military channel so I have no doubt that it is correct.They even displayed many captured weapons to prove their point.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 09/13/2007 @ 2:49pm

135. They did or at least said it was written by the Bush administration...despite the fact that Petraeus at the very beginning stated that his assessment was his alone.

     Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 2:37pm

     See, I found this statement by Petraeus puzzling, to say the least. Given that before the report, administration officials were admitting that the White House was going to write the report based on his input.

     At this point, I am not sure what to believe.

     "Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government."

     http://tinyurl.com/yth78o

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

136. And USC1 -

     Counldn't the letter have been sent by email?

     Posted by Hman23 at 09/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

137. Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 2:37pm

     Allow me to paraphrase another poster....

     "Did I hint that the Petraeus Report was faked? You could say that if asking questions is a problem for you. But as you have admitted, people can fake reports about a presidential candidate (like John Kerry's) service record. What makes you think that they couldn't do the same in this case?"

     There....nothing claimed, just questions asked?

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 2:56pm

138. However, it seems very apparent that the language of their letter goes beyond mainly military observations and echoes the talking points of far left anti-war groups. ----Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/13/2007 @ 2:38pm

     and what does that indicate to you?

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 2:58pm

139. Like "Gore can live his life as he likes and tell the rest of us we need to cut back" kind of thoughtful analysis...or more like....

     Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 11:01am | ignore this person

     HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

     Hey Mask, look, you did it again...put quotes around your own words and pretended I said them!

     And this time you dredged up some old Thrawn post to pretend that I'm the one who doesn't understand about 'quoting someone' (and I noticed you STILL can't find the place where I was quoting John...I'm sure you'll post that one when you find it, huh Frida?)

     HAHAHAHAHA!!!

     Posted by Lillian at 09/13/2007 @ 3:06pm

140. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 2:22pm | ignore this person

     your intention was fully understood by moi

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 3:06pm

141. What exactly is Iran's interest? What are the terrorists' interests? If you think they should pursue their interests in Iraq, then why shouldn't the US? For that matter, what do you think the US interest is? And, if Iran is not waging war with us, why do we keep finding Hezbollah and Quds fighters, and Iranian weapons which are used to blow up Iraqi civilians?

     Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 2:23pm

     usc, you need to find some better info.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 3:07pm

142. how's the food? them "terrorists" (please not sarcasm) sure can cook!

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 1:39pm

     ouch! how embarrassing!

     doc, please NOTE sarcasm. the lebanese people rock!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 3:08pm

143. A reasonable assumption and probably true. However, why do you and nearly all if not all of the left deny that Iran may well be providing direct support to the insurgents and possibly Al Qaeda?

     You cannot have it both ways with your assumption.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/13/2007 @ 2:33pm

     eek!

     iran provided the u.s. with some of its best post 9/11 intelligence.

     the shii'a government of iran is loathe to the sunni al-qaeda

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 3:12pm

144. But I guess it HAS to be a lie because he agrees with Bush.

     Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 2:37pm

     birds of a feather...................

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 3:13pm

145. Iran's most likely ally is SCIRI and it's military arm, the Badr Organization.

     Posted by BRUNOWE 09/13/2007 @ 2:46pm

     you forget to point out that BUSH HOSTED THESE FOLKS AT THE WHITE HOUSE!

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 3:15pm

146. While the NYT-7 had their own frustrations with the War, there are other realities as well....long, detailed reporting by embedded journo....

     for full article: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/09/counterinsurgency_su.php

     Counterinsurgency success in Haswa

     By Bill Roggio September 13, 2007 3:50 AM

     Combat Outpost Corregidor, Baghdad Province: A crucial indicator of success or failure of the "surge" – ....To gage the progress of the surge, we visited Combat Outpost Corregidor, which is situated in the Baghdad Belts, the regions surrounding the capital where the insurgency has staged attacks into the capital and established bases of operations.

     We saddled up with Bravo Troop, 1st Battalion, 89th Regiment of the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, commanded by Captain Christian Cosner......

     .....headed out from Camp Striker, part of the sprawling network of Camps south of Baghdad, to Camp Corregidor, a combat outpost near the town of Al Haswa in southern Baghdad Province.

     The first leg of the trip was down Main Supply Route Tampa,....used to be particularly dangerous for Iraqi and Coalition forces– over twenty attacks a week were reported on this segment of Tampa just a few months ago. Today the attacks on this stretch of Tampa have been averaging two to three a week, and some weeks no attacks are encountered......and uneventful convoys have become the norm for Bravo Troop and other units operating in this area....

     Al Haswa Today

     Today, the change in the region couldn't be more dramatic. There are numerous Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police Volunteer checkpoints throughout....

     The future

     The impact of the surge in the Haswa region is impossible to ignore. The Sunni insurgency has gone fallow while the Mahdi Army is under assault. Attacks on US forces have dropped significantly. Reconstruction projects are underway. The local markets are open and packed with people, while local farmers and merchants are looking to push their products to markets outside the region....

     David Tate contributed to this report

     Posted by Happy at 09/13/2007 @ 3:27pm

147. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 1:00pm

     yeah, sometimes you think you've covered all your bases, then, "wham"!

     but yeah, that was a great way to squirm a little advantage...gotta admit.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 3:31pm

148. Posted by HMAN23 09/13/2007 @ 2:55pm

     Yes. That had already been brought up.

     Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 3:51pm

149. Mask:

     I think I see why you're having such a problem with this. You're trying to pigeon-hole me as someone who is only trying to discredit the servicemen instead of as someone who was trying to reconcile his personal experience with what Nichols wrote. But like I said, the question has been answered. Problem solved.

     Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 4:01pm

150. Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 4:01pm

     Maybe I'm missing that FINE DISTINCTION, USC. You're saying the letter may be faked, but NOT "discrediting the servicemen"?!?!??!

     So, you think the servicemen DON'T agree with what's in that letter....that the Times just "made it up" and signed their names to it?!?!?

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 4:20pm

151. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/13/2007 @ 3:31pm

     USC probably "road-testing" this talking point. Until the service guys are able to be interviewed, it could provide some CYA...some.

     LVLIB's stab at it is that somehow because they sound like the "radical left-wing anti-war types", they are "compromised" (or something) Which begs the question...how SHOULD they say they oppose the war, which (to LVLIB) WOULDN'T sound like the "radical left-wing anti-war types"?!??!

     RIO and ACOOK have attempted to shift the focus to the Times, Mr Nichols, etc.

     Wracking my brains but can't come up with any more ways for this to work.

     1. Denial/hint at fakery.

     2. Impugn the soldiers' reputation by linking them to "radicals".

     3. Dodge/obfuscate/change subject.

     Pretty much all there is. Maybe "infiltrators"..."they aren't really soldiers, they're left-wingers PRETENDING to be soldiers"...but a check of Army records would destroy that.

     or "They're suffering from Post-Traumatic...they don't know what they're saying!"....a good chance (or something similar).

     or (as I noted earlier) "They're a TINY minority of the soldiers...it says right here in 'The Weekly Standard' that 'majorities of the troops think they're doing a good job' and 'many interviewed by TWS said they supported the Surge'!"

     That's about it.

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 4:28pm

152. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 3:12pm

     I'm back for a minute.

     Zoomer, please tell the idiot, (because he's doing a life sentence on my ignore list), that whether or not Iran is supplying anyone in Iraq with weapons, it pales in comparison to the weaponery we supplied SADDAM in his battle with Iran. Talk about calling the kettle black huh?

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/13/2007 @ 3:48pm

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 4:33pm

153. One thing everyone should be aware of is that General Petraeus's own son is in line to serve in Iraq. The General is indeed in a world of shit.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/12/2007 @ 11:21pm

     UP TO HIS NECK...

     And then Bush drives by in his speedboat....

     Posted by w_m_bear at 09/13/2007 @ 4:35pm

154. So, you think the servicemen DON'T agree with what's in that letter....that the Times just "made it up" and signed their names to it?!?!?

     Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 4:20pm

     This is just the kind of story Rush Limbaugh fabricates at every turn -- and the dittoheads gobble it up.

     Posted by w_m_bear at 09/13/2007 @ 4:39pm

155. These are the types of folks who put W in office. They can't spell their own names, but they can vote....well, I guess they won't be voting now since their heading to prison for a very very long time.

     http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/13/national/main3257183.shtml

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/13/2007 @ 4:43pm

156. What exactly is Iran's interest? What are the terrorists' interests? If you think they should pursue their interests in Iraq, then why shouldn't the US? For that matter, what do you think the US interest is? And, if Iran is not waging war with us, why do we keep finding Hezbollah and Quds fighters, and Iranian weapons which are used to blow up Iraqi civilians?

     Posted by USC1

     Iran shares a long border with Iraq (a long, bloody border).

     And while I view this administration's reports of Iranian weapons, and Iranian special forces in Iraq with suspicion, it could very well be true. The attitude of the US is belligerent towards Iran; there is talk of "regime change" and bombing Iranian targets. Do you really believe the Iranian government does not have explicit interests in what develops next door? What would the US do if the situation was reversed? This administration--much like many of the fools that support it--believes it can have it all its way. The years since the invasion have demonstrated just how ignorant, infantile such notions are. Only so much can be achieved with the force of arms. It's sad that lesson was not learned from the US involvement in Vietnam.

     I find it more than interesting that the administration ignores the men and materials flowing across the Saudi border. It is Shia Arabs in Iraq against Sunni Arabs; all this talk of Al Qaeda is misinformation that this administration uses to confuse the issue.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 4:45pm

157. No fine distinction, Mask, but I think you spend so much time "spinning webs" that you have difficulty recognizing a simple, straight-forward question. However, the question has been asked and answered so there's really not much else to say about it.

     Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 4:52pm

158. The situation in Iraq requires a political settlement. How do the Shia and Sunni in Iraq reconcile their differences? It is not something the US can force upon them. And if the US continues to pursue a hostile, provocative policy vis-a-vis Iran, then Iran will have no choice but to work against the US efforts to establish a stable, viable government in Iraq.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 4:53pm

159. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/13/2007 @ 4:45pm

     Please, Rio, you know these guys are all tools and have been brain-washed by the administration. Their opinions count for nothing. Stop peddling your Bush bias smut here.

     (So Mask doesn't get confused...that was sarcasm.)

     Posted by usc1 at 09/13/2007 @ 4:54pm

160. Col. Peter Baker, the commander of the Fort Sill, Okla.-based 214th Fires Brigade, said the U.S. strategy was working but needs more time.

     "It takes time to build relationships with the Iraqis. It's gotta be just a very deliberate process," he said.

     Baker also pointed out that Petraeus had sent a letter to troops before going before Congress in which he gave them a preview of what he had to say. "It was a recognition that there's still a ways to go," he said.

     Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/13/2007 @ 4:45pm

     Rio, Since when has it been part of the DOD's mission to "... build relationships with the Iraqis. It's gotta be just a very deliberate process." Hey you are using the Colonel's quotes, so I would gather that you then follow his line of reasoning.

     I keep trying to make the point that the friggin military doesn't carry out any political dealings. They don't win the hearts of people, they kill people. That is what the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines are geared up to do, kill people.

     I remember when we originally attacked Iraq and all the news folks kept quoting Rummy saying that we were softening the Iraqi defenses and an Air Force general came out and said, "I would just like to point out that when they say we are softening the enemies defenses, we are killing people."

     If Bush wants to win the minds and hearts of the Iraqi people, he'd be better off sending in the peace corps. If he wants to secure oil installations and set up bases to protect those installations, then he sends the military.

     Pull your head out and see what the hell is really going on over there. We are not in Iraq for the good of the Iraq people, nor are we there to set up a democracy. If Satan himself would fall in line and get the people over there to fall in line, Bush would be very happy and the U.S. would be doing oil business with Satan.

     This isn't a holy crusade. It's about global positioning for the oil industries.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/13/2007 @ 5:03pm

161. Posted by WOLFGANG1

     Establishing a democracy in Iraq under the present circumstances is a pipe dream. You cannot spread democracy with military force. The democracy bullshit is exactly that, just like WMD's and Al Qaeda camps in Iraq under Saddam.

     "I keep trying to make the point that the friggin military doesn't carry out any political dealings. They don't win the hearts of people, they kill people. That is what the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marines are geared up to do, kill people."

     The military can lock up, kill, wall off as many neighborhoods into "strategic hamlets" as they want (does anybody know where the term "concentration camp" originated?) but it will all be of no avail. The administration is simply running out the clock.

     Posted by mtspence05 at 09/13/2007 @ 5:15pm

162. all this talk of iran in iraq. "how dare they?!"

     hasn't anybody ever considered that the u.s. is in a far more comprimising situation?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 5:43pm

163. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/13/2007 @ 1:00pm

     check out bechtel's logo--the world floats in a sea of blood [en.wikipedia.org]

     Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 1:38pm

     Ouch:

     Bechtel has maintained strong relationships with officials in many United States administrations, including those of Nixon, Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush.[citation needed] The company also has strong ties to other governments, particularly the Saudi Royal Family.

     Recently, the company has come under criticism for alleged mismanagement of the Big Dig project, its financial links to the bin Laden family, and the manner in which it received Iraqi rebuilding contracts after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.

     Posted by hsuBfools at 09/13/2007 @ 5:58pm

164. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/13/2007 @ 5:58pm

     did you see the clip i posted for you about the Philippines?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 6:18pm

165. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 4:28pm

     the true pathos is that we are such nice, dippy, do-good liberals, we're trying to help them out...cause THEY ARE SO WRONG! lol!

     and no matter how much help we give them so they can argue this with us better...

     they are still so obviously wrong...har har har!

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 6:27pm

166. IBBS, MASK

     please check: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat/allcomments?pid=231554&rpg=3

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 6:30pm

167. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 6:30pm

     thats disturbing....

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 6:33pm

168. thats disturbing....

     Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/13/2007 @ 6:33pm

     but hey, we survived ¿unchanged?

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 6:43pm

169. MASK

     here's why the trolls look like they just swallowed a gut bomb.

     i just watched comrade katie couric call it "the grey - mora letter". this could be a sort of cronkite-bunking-vietnam moment.

     Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/13/2007 @ 6:48pm

170. Posted by USC1 09/13/2007 @ 4:52pm

     USC, think I know the answer to this but here goes...

     You have even the slightest embarassment that to hold onto your political ideology (or loyalty)....that it takes you besmirching foot soldiers in Iraq, just because they dare to say something in opposition to it?

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 8:43pm

171. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 6:30pm

     It's dicey, FROSTY....on the one hand you've got a monster of a lizard-man, with twice my strength...

     but he was defeated with a bamboo cannon by the coolest Canadian ever!

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 8:45pm

172. ON SUPPORTING AND DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION

     Bush and Bush's generals also took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States which they have flagrantly violated in many ways over the years since the initial invasion and occupation. They are without honor.

     Enlisted personnel swear to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, but they also swear to obey orders of superior officers and the president. The soldiers who wrote the letter deserve the highest honors that the country can award them. They have defended the Constitution against its enemies, foreign and domestic, while carrying out the orders of their superior officers.

     Bush's generals swore to defend the Constitution against all of its enemies, foreigh and domestic, They did not swear nor were they required to swear that they would obey the orders of superior officers or the president. The founding fathers foresaw the possibility of a presidential coup d'etat and gave the commissioned officers the means of preventing it. In effect they swore not to conduct a war in volation of the Constitution as it was written and amended and as it has been interpreted by the courts that were established therein, not as interpreted by the president or his co-conspirators. Had they acted as honorably as the soldiers we praise, there would not have been an invasion and occupation.

     Posted by outrider4 at 09/13/2007 @ 8:56pm

173. Had they acted as honorably as the soldiers we praise, there would not have been an invasion and occupation.

     Posted by OUTRIDER4 09/13/2007 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person

     very good indeed

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/13/2007 @ 9:03pm

174. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 8:45pm

     uh, that's SECOND coolest.

     :+)

     no, peter jennings isn't #1--he's tied

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 9:36pm

175. very good indeed

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/13/2007 @ 9:03pm

     yep.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 9:38pm

176. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 9:36pm

     You? heheh. Or Austin Powers?

     Posted by Mask at 09/13/2007 @ 9:58pm

177. Posted by MASK 09/13/2007 @ 9:58pm

     i'll pick #37, even though he was born in the u.s. [en.wikipedia.org]

     ;--]

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/13/2007 @ 11:34pm

178. Had they acted as honorably as the soldiers we praise, there would not have been an invasion and occupation.

     Posted by OUTRIDER4 09/13/2007 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person

     very good indeed

     Posted by JOHANNESROLF 09/13/2007 @ 9:03pm

     I agree with you whole heartedly, but there is that grey area where the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces, but you are correct where a soldier can refuse an order that is contrary to the constitution or the rules put forward by the Geneva convention.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/14/2007 @ 06:51am

179. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/13/2007 @ 11:34pm

     Actually FROSTY, in all seriousness...the greatest Canadian was former PM Lester Pearson.

     He saved the whold dang world in 1956!

     Posted by Mask at 09/14/2007 @ 09:11am

180. Absolute nonsense and would not have prevented the Iraq invasion. This was and remains a legal war under international and US law.

     Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/14/2007 @ 12:38pm | ignore this person

     absolute nonsense.

     the joint chiefs could have refused and resigned. there would not have been any war. I imagine they too were lied to.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/14/2007 @ 6:32pm

181. but of course professional soldiers love war, that's where they get their promotions. any generals killed in action in Iraq?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 09/14/2007 @ 6:33pm

182. THIS TO ALL THE SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN WHO VOTED TO GIVE BUSH HIS OWN WAR DECLARING POWERS, THE BLOOD OF EVERY AMERICAN SOLDIER AND EVERY IRAQ WHO DIED IS ON YOUR HANDS FOR THE REST OF LIVES. YOU CAN RUN BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE FROM THE TRUTH. HANG YOUR HEADS LOW FOR YOU HAVE SHAMED YOUR SELF IN THE EYES OF GOD, AND YOUR FAMILY'S, AND IN AMERICA AND THE WORLD. REPENT AND VOTE TO BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW. YOUR FOUNDING FATHERS GAVE THE ONLY TOOL YOU NEEDED THE CONSTITUTION WITCH YOU TOOK AN OATH TO UP HOLD, "WHY" ARE YOU NOT UP HOLDING OUR AND YOURS THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES ON AMERICA.

     Posted by RAS1142 at 09/15/2007 @ 05:42am