Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
>>>I would be very interested in knowing why these assesments were so different and why we're sure this one is correct.<<<
MITCHELL: Everything‘s changed. And in fact, look, we should say one word about the intelligence guys. They got it wrong on Iraq. They relied on Curveball, infamously.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
MITCHELL: They decided this time—they were about to release this report, send it to Congress last spring. They got new information, multiple streams of information, I‘m told human intelligence, electronic intelligence, all of these streams coming together. They said, Whoa, let‘s not release this. They brought in outside experts. They scrubbed it. They didn‘t want another Curveball, and they got it right, we are told.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22114621/
BLITZER: Well, let me ask you this, is it possible that this new NIE -- because we know that the 2005 NIE was wrong, the 2002 NIE on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was wrong.
Is it possible this new one that has just been made public, declassified, is it possible they got it wrong again?
HERSH: It's been four years since we've had any positive evidence of a parallel secret program to build a bomb. And we've been all over the country. One of the things that that NIE, that they finished last year, actually, that they were working on last year, it was a result of a lot of covert operations. I also was writing about the fact that we had people on the ground inside. We checked every place we thought there was some secret activity and we found nada -- nothing.
So, sure, it's possible. Everything's possible. But this is -- this is a pretty remarkable document, given the hostility to it inside the White House that it's been made public.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/04/sitroom.02.html
>>>he says that there was a dispute in the intelligence community between the C.I.A. and D.I.A<<<
I'm sure there were more disputes than that since the NIE is put together by 16 separate intelligence agencies. That said, you have to assume that the final product is a compromise all of them feel they can stand behind.
>>>I do believe that the NIE report was just finalized and Bush propably was briefed on it after his Oct. 20th (or whenever it was) speech<<<
Got a rational reason for believing that or just covering for Bush at any cost?
Here's Andrea Mitchell chiming in on this. You know.........one of the star witnesses for Bush apologists in the CIA leak case. Still like her style?
BUSH: Well, David, I don‘t want to contradict an august reporter such as yourself, but I was made aware of the NIE last week. In August, I think it was John—Mike McConnell came in and said, We have some new information. He didn‘t tell me what the information was. He did tell me it was going to take a while to analyze.
MATTHEWS: Well, you have to ask—the president is known for his lack of curiosity, but on a question of war and World War III, wouldn‘t he have said to the guy who works for him, Well, give me an indication, is it going down or up, this threat of war?
MITCHELL: And should I moderate my rhetoric? Is there going to be a shift here? I know you haven‘t established, you haven‘t proved it. You‘re still bringing in your experts.
It is incomprehensible to me that the president of the United States could be told by his director of National Intelligence, We have new information on Iran, which was the key foreign policy issue seizing him and his team, and not ask, So what is it? How could he not ask? How could they let him go out and give speeches that are carefully vetted that talk about nuclear holocaust and World War III? The vice president on October 21. It is just impossible to believe. And in fact, we were told yesterday by their own briefers that he was briefed along the way all these months as they were working on it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22114621/
>>>Sy Hurst must have known this and sat back on the story for a year because he's a neocon.<<<
For once there's a grain of truth in your post (by accident incidentally). Hersh DID know about it a year ago and talked about it but got trashed by the WH as usual and the story disappeared.
BLITZER: The stunning intelligence turnaround on Iran's nuclear weapons program comes as little surprise to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Seymour Hersh. He wrote back in July of 2006 in "The New Yorker" about the lack of evidence that Iran was trying to build a bomb.
Sy Hersh is joining us now live here in THE SITUATION ROOM.
He also wrote an article in November of last year, 2006: "The Next Act: Is A Damaged Administration Less Likely to Attack Iran or More?," in which you said there was a new National Intelligence Estimate circulating, suggesting they didn't really have a nuclear weapons program that was ongoing any longer.
SEYMOUR HERSH, "THE NEW YORKER": Exactly right.
BLITZER: So what do you think?
HERSH: Well, I...
BLITZER: I mean if you knew that a year ago, you know, what does that mean?
HERSH: At the time, I wrote that there was a tremendous fight about it, because Cheney in the White House -- the vice president did not want to hear this. So that there was a fight about that intelligence. And, actually, for the last year, I think the vice president's office pretty much has kept -- you know, the vice president has kept his foot on the neck of that report. That report was bottled up for a year.
The intelligence we learned about yesterday has been circulating inside this government at the highest levels for the last year -- and probably longer.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0712/04/sitroom.02.html
You still think Bush had no idea until yesterday?
Right. Don't know where I got that spelling from. But it's him....
>>>If you have proof that he was then feel free to share it<<<
Sy Hurst on CNN right now saying the info released in the new NIE "has been discussed at the highest levels of this administration for a year now."
Before you trash the source, consider the fact that the Bush WH has crapped on Hurst since they took office and he's been spot on every time.
>>>Bush wasn't briefed on the findings of the NIE report until last week<<<
Of course not. And I have invented a 400HP car that runs on saltwater. Interested?
>>>You seem to be saying that Bush should not use the latest NIE, but should psychically foresee what a future NIE is going to say.<<<
I'm saying the exact opposite. That he should use the latest NIE. Sounds like the latest report was available to him in August........two months before he warned that Iran could be in the process of starting WWIII with their nuclear bomb arsenal under construction.
>>>I see headlines saying that this NIE contradicts or repudiates Bush, I guarantee you those words are not in the report, but are the spin of the news services.<<<
Tell me with a straight face that what you've heard from Bush & Cheney concerning Iran gave you the impression that Iran could have a nuclear weapon no sooner than the middle of next decade but that the weapons program has been shut down since 2003.
"It is also stood in marked contrast to Mr. Bush's rhetoric on Iran. At his last news conference on Oct. 17, for instance, he said that people "interested in avoiding World War III" should be working to prevent Iran from having the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/04/national/main3571727.shtml
>>>since you are unable to grasp the fact that the fanatics of Islam are at war with Western civilization<<<
Lousy diversion even by your standards. I've never denied that and it was neither mentioned, nor suggested in my post.
>>>the killing will go on until every suicide fanatic is dead<<<
Does that mean the killing will go on until every suicide fanatic has blown himself up or does it mean the US military will capture and kill all suicide fanatics? If you envision the latter, what's the method of identifying a suicide fanatic before he blows himself up?
>>>It is the strategy of Bush et al, to accelerated this process using free markets and free people to show that there is a better way to live<<<
You're still not addressing the fact that the most accomplished terrorists we've been introduced to so far all lived in democracies and knew full well what free markets and a better way of life looks like. If you're serious about the w.o.t. I'm afraid you at least need to acknowledge this.
>>>Or 12 million maybe. ;)<<<
Definitely :)
>>>in an alliance to stop these fanatics by killing or jailing them<<<
Didn't do the math did you? 60% of roughly 20 million Iraqis remaining in the country adds up to 4 million Iraqis who root for the death of US troops. So the plan is to jail or kill 4 million Iraqis who either want to kill US troops or support those who do?
>>>ought to see secular democracies all through the ME<<<
A little surprised to see you walk down this dead end street with me....again. But since you are.....I'll repeat: If democracy was the cure for terrorism, how do you explain the 19 hijackers of 9/11 - most of whom had lived in western Europe or the US for years prior to the attack, tasting democracy at its best every day.
Or better yet......the busted 2006 plot to blow up airliners flying from the UK to the US. Most of the "Islamo faschists" involved in that attack were born and raised in democratic United Kingdom.
"The key suspects are reported to be British-born Muslims,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_transatlantic_aircraft_plot
Are you big enough to admit that this invalidates both yours and George Bush's argument that terrorists will no longer be terrorists if you allow them to exist under democratic rule?
>>>An Iraq that can....be an ally in the GWOT<<<
I know you're passionate about this but.......reality check NOW......please? Hard to pick a good place to start but I choose the fact that 60% of Iraqis approve of killing US soldiers. If you still think that sounds like a good foundation on which to build support for US troops then remember that we're dealing with people who think the death penalty is proper punishment for a school teacher who allows her students to name their toy bear muhammad.
Not asking for precise numbers here....only ballpark, so how many hundreds of years and how many trillions of dollars do you think it will take to make trustworthy allies out of these crackpots? And do you still think it sounds like a good investment stirring things up in their neighborhoods rather than going all out keeping them out of ours? US borders are still designed for easy illegal entry 6 years into the WOT.
An entire post in bold and underlined.....? Scary what this war has done to some people's brains. To Bush republicans like yourself, the welfare of Iraqi muslims has become more important than the welfare of americans. Since the entire global population knows that Bush republicans don't give a flying fu#k about anyone but themselves and prefer dead muslims to live ones, the only rational explanation is that what you're really concerned about is the legacy of George Bush.
Other than that........listened to Murtha elaborate on this on Hardball tonight and what he's really saying is that the military part of the surge MAY have worked....but so what? The Iraqis are NOT stepping up to take advantage so things can revert back to chaos any time.
He also confirmed what others are saying which is that part of the reason for the reduction in violence is that the country is simply broken. 4 MILLION Iraqis have fled and are seeking asylum all over the ME, Europe and the US, or you could say that 17% of the population is on the run from what you keep selling as a success. Those who are still there live in neighborhoods that have either been ethnically cleansed or segregated.
I'm happy that some military progress seems to have taken place but at what cost, to what cause and for how much longer? Do you ever ask these questions or are you too focused on being able to call it a success no matter what the sacrifice?
If that debate was as rigged as all the cry babies suggest, please explain why those liberal plants asked several questions about religion and national security - conservative's favorite topics - but not one single question about health care - a favorite with both liberals and the american people but probably conservative's least favorite topic.
>>>It's been said here at least a few times, lol, that neither party represents the peoples interest<<<
Which in the minds of the self described conservatives on this thread makes you a terrorist appeaser, a Saddam loyalist, a Bush hater and a Hillary lover. At least we have a better understanding now of how totalitarian states are born in the first place.
>>>It seems genetic that conservatives have difficulty connecting the dots.<<<
Actaully they seem to have difficulty with a lot of aspects of adult life......like this modern republican who's clueless about 5th grade math. This is his letter to the editorial page of the local newspaper:
Construction more deadly than war
The Department of Defense reports 3,397 deaths from hostile action since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Federal Emergency Management Agency reports, for the same time period (2003-07), 1,324 deaths in the line of duty among firefighters and police officers in the 50 states. By comparison, 5,763 construction workers were killed on the job in 2005 alone (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
War is the failure of diplomacy, is inherently dangerous and death is a foreseeable consequence.
When conducted professionally, as our armed forces are today, the risk is minimized to a level comparable to other dangerous occupations. While the media thrive on reporting combat deaths, the reality is that U.S. forces in Iraq are the best trained, best equipped fighters in the world and are no more at risk than cops, firemen and constructions workers at home.
Miguel Verde
Sarasota
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20071126/OPINION/711260492/-1/HELP0530
Why not go one step further and point to 40,000 annual traffic deaths which should prove that driving a Ford in Omaha is more dangerous than driving a Humvee in Baghdad.
>>>we gave permission for Saddam to use helicopter gun ships we sold to him in the no-fly zone where he gunned down and slaughtered over 200,000 Shia and Kurds - and we wonder why they don't trust us.<<<
All that's forgotten now thanks to the surge. Those extra 30,000 soldiers fixed everything. Centuries old tribal conflicts and anger towards america. Gone. It's amazing but I hear it all the time here so it's probably true.
>>>the concensus view of this board seems to be that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was more desirable than a free democratic Iraq<<<
How about some perspective here instead of Bush friendly slogans? Weren't SH's "mass graves" where 200,000 "innocent Iraqis" were buried one of the reasons for the war once the WMD part collapsed? Turns out those were the good old times for Iraqis since two or three times that number have been slaughtered as part of Bush's liberation effort.
And maybe they have a democracy in theory but whatever it amounts to you seem to like it much better than they do.
Iraq: The World's Fastest Growing Refugee Crisis
10/23/2007
Since November 2006, Refugees International has led the call for increased assistance to Iraqi refugees and displaced people.
The displacement of Iraqis from Iraq is now the fastest-growing refugee crisis in the world.
The UN estimates that over 4 million Iraqis have been displaced by violence in their country, the vast majority of which have fled since 2003. Over 2.3 million have vacated their homes for safer areas within Iraq, 1.5 million are now living in Syria, and over 1 million refugees inhabit Jordan, Iran, Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen, and Turkey. Most Iraqis are determined to be resettled to Europe or North America, and few consider return to Iraq an option. With no legal work options in their current host countries, Iraqis are already exploring the use of false documents to migrate to Western nations.
The violence in Iraq has reached a deadly tipping point: Most Iraqis feel threatened.
“Iraqis who are unable to flee the country are now in a queue, waiting their turn to die,” is how one Iraqi journalist summarizes conditions in Iraq today. While the US debates whether a civil war is raging in Iraq, thousands of Iraqis face the possibility of death every day all over the country. Refugees International has met with dozens of Iraqis who have fled the violence and sought refuge in neighboring countries. All of them, whether Sunni, Shi’a, Christian or Palestinian, had been directly victimized by armed actors. People are targeted because of religious affiliation, economic status, and profession – many, such as doctors, teachers, and even hairdressers, are viewed as being “anti-Islamic.” All of them fled Iraq because they had genuine and credible fear for their lives and the lives of their loved ones.
Neighboring countries are being overwhelmed by the massive influx of Iraqi refugees.
Syria and Jordan are rapidly becoming overwhelmed by the numbers of Iraqis seeking refuge in their urban centers. Jordan, Lebanon and Syria consider Iraqis as “guests” rather than refugees fleeing violence. None of these countries allows Iraqis to work. Although Syria is maintaining its “open door policy” in the name of pan-Arabism, it has begun imposing restrictions on Iraqi refugees, such as charges for healthcare that used to be free. In Jordan, Iraqis have to pay for the most basic services, and live in constant fear of deportation. It is also becoming increasingly difficult for Iraqis to enter Jordan or to renew their visas to remain in country.
UNHCR does not have enough resources to assist Iraqi refugees in the Middle East.
Although they have received additional funds for this crisis in 2007, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees can’t provide adequate protection and assistance to Iraqis. The agency lacks the resources to process refugees’ documentation adequately. Without staff to monitor borders, UNHCR depends on national governments for updated information on new arrivals. UNHCR is also unable to provide significant assistance to Iraqis, and receives very little support from other UN agencies that seem slow to acknowledge the extent of the crisis. The fact that Lebanon, Syria and Jordan are not state parties to the 1951 Refugees Convention further reduces UNHCR’s ability to protect refugees.
Conditions for Palestinians from Iraq and other third country nationals are especially desperate and bleak.
Many Iraqis resent the preferential treatment Palestinians received under Saddam Hussein’s regime. As a result, several militia and sectarian groups have singled out Palestinians as recipients of a collective “fatwa” (or death sentence). Three hundred and seventy-two Palestinians from Iraq are living near the Al Tanf border crossing between Iraq and Syria in a makeshift refugee camp located in the no man’s land between both borders. They have been denied entry by the Syrian government and they refuse to return to Iraq. As a result, they have been living in increasingly desperate circumstances. Similarly, in Jordan, dozens of Palestinians remain in a camp where they have been since April 2003, awaiting resettlement.
Another vulnerable group is the Iranian Kurds in Jordan; 192 have been living in between the Iraqi and Jordanian borders since January 2005. Another group of 313 had previously been let into Jordan and allowed in a refugee camp. Both groups are awaiting resettlement.
Policy Recommendations
The United States must begin by acknowledging that violence in Iraq has made civilian life untenable, creating a refugee crisis that is essentially exporting the nation’s instability to neighboring countries. To deal with this crisis, Refugees International proposes the following:
1. Given its central role in Iraq, the US should lead an international initiative to support Middle Eastern countries hosting Iraqi civilians. The US should recognize and support the constructive role Syria is playing in hosting Iraqi refugees and help it keep its borders open.
2. Donors must continue to increase their support to UNHCR and other UN agencies must participate in the relief efforts for Iraqi refugees.
3. Western countries, including the US, must agree to resettle particularly vulnerable groups, without prejudice to their right to return to their country as recognized under international law.
http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/9679
>>>base an argument based on ONE poll that you searched for that you think justifies your position<<<
Idiot. As if Iraq is littered with pollsters going door to door. We're lucky if we get two credible polls a year out of there and this happened to be one of them. Got a different poll addressing the same issue?
>>>Your quote again shows that there is increased security- he then goes on to SPECULATE that it won't last<<<
Actually that's not what the strategists are saying. Read this again, maybe twice:
"Privately, what the strategists are telling me is that things could turn on a dime. We could see the violence revert back almost instantly. However, their belief is that that won't happen."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/20/sitroom.02.html
If they really understood the dynamics in play, shouldn't they be able to better explain the reasons for the drop in violence and shouldn't they be more confident that the drop in violence is more permanent in nature rather than something that can "revert back almost instantly"? Why would they even say something like that if as you keep harping "the surge has worked"?
One more thing. Who's a better judge on the result of the surge - you or the Iraqi people?
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm
>>>I don't share your belief that our troops are the cause of the instability.<<<
I see. 60% of Iraqis hate US troops to the point where they want them dead but this doesn't mean the troops are a source of agitation and provocation.
>>>please explain how the increased troops during the surge has resulted in the casualty rate plummeting??<<<
I can't explain that and nobody else seems to have a good explanation either.....except you of course. For now I put more stock in reports from those who are actually in Iraq than from guys like you who's only objective appears to be some kind of face saving operation for George Bush and the war effort in general.
Admirals and generals are very careful to caution that these are very positive trends, but we can't read too much into them yet. Privately, what the strategists are telling me is that things could turn on a dime. We could see the violence revert back almost instantly. However, their belief is that that won't happen. Among the U.S. forces here, they have the -- they have the confidence they can keep the levels of violence to where they are now, until at least the summer of next year. But what happens after that, no one knows because the name of the game now, Wolf, is reconciliation. By building Sunni militias, by America essentially now working with 72,000 Sunni insurgents, putting 45,000 of them on the U.S. government payroll, that has seen a massive decline in attacks.
So, yes, I can feel changes. There is a certain life returning to the city. But, honestly, Wolf, this is a segregated metropolis. People live in heavily guarded sectarian enclaves. This is a world divided. There is still great tension, great distrust and, honestly, I don't see the path forward happening how most people hope.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/20/sitroom.02.html
>>>it would be more irresponsible to just pull out than to stay and continue to work towards producing a stable nation.<<<
What if the presence of US troops is the root much of the instability you think they should stay and work on? They could chase their own tails there for all eternity. The question is simple: How do 130,000 troops create stability for 25 MILLION Iraqis when 60%-70% of the population not only want the troops gone but think it's ok to kill them?
US surge has failed - Iraqi poll
More than 2,000 Iraqis were questioned in all 18 provinces
About 70% of Iraqis believe security has deteriorated in the area covered by the US military "surge" of the past six months, an opinion poll suggests.
The survey for the BBC, ABC News and NHK of more than 2,000 people across Iraq also suggests that nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6983841.stm
>>>it is quite apparent that the Bush govt is very anti israeli.<<<
LOL......thanks for the late night laugh. If this is anti-Israel then please let me pass away in peace before rolling out pro-Israel. I think I've earned that respect along with millions of others who pay taxes here.
"Perhaps the greatest consequential costs (and not included in Stauffer’s $3 trillion estimate) are those resulting from the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, which is almost universally believed in the Arab world to have been undertaken for the benefit of Israel—hundreds of billions of dollars, 2,500-plus U.S. and allied fatalities and untold tens of thousands of Iraqi fatalities, and reduced Arab travel and investment in the U.S. and purchases of U.S. goods and services by Arab countries.
Adding the “unincluded” totals to the total from Table 1 gives a grand total of $107.9613 billion total aid to Israel through FY 2006. For the convenience of those who wish to look up more details, citations for the foreign aid and DOD appropriations bills for the past five years are given in Table 2 above."
http://www.wrmea.com/archives/July_2006/0607016.html
You addressed the same issue two months ago but that's of no value now in therms of establishing your train of thought on the war and your bogus compassion for muslims?
Oh well....
No, you pay attention.......to your own posts. You have a history of bringing up free elections and rape rooms as justification for the war. In the posts below you even use it to justify a continuation of the war having all the benefits of hindsight.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=22956168
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/replies.asp?msg=22956566
Like I said.........your humanitarian concerns for muslims ring a little hollow since they only seem to apply to muslims George Bush says we should be concerned about.
Try again. You speak of Iraq's treatment of women and their lack of free elections as good reasons for the war while you speak of SA - where identical conditions exist - as a good ally. If you were consistent with your concern for human rights, shouldn't you be calling for war with Saudi Arabia?
>>>How about no rape rooms for his sons amusement?
How about no chopping off of hands of his critics
How about holding free elections??<<<
Trying to figure out what's up with your bleeding heart here. Did a search of your posts under "Saudi Arabia" and found that you seem to hold that country in rather high regard. Above all......I sure as hell didn't find any reservations on your part over the treatment of Saudi women. You see......the Saudis not only rape women as a sport but their "justice system" also punishes rape victims to lashes in public square for allowing themselves to be raped.
"The case, which has sparked media scrutiny of the Saudi legal system, centers on a married woman. The 19-year-old and an unrelated man were abducted, and she was raped by a group of seven men more than a year ago, according to Abdulrahman al-Lahim, the attorney who represented her in court.
The woman was originally sentenced in October 2006 to 90 lashes. But that sentence was more than doubled to 200 lashes and six months in prison by the Qatif General Court, because she spoke to the media about the case, a court source told Middle Eastern daily newspaper Arab News."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/20/saudi.rape.victim/index.html
Also didn't see any grief expressed over the absence of free elections in SA.
"Saudi Arabia has no parliament, instead there is a national "Consultative Council" who are 150 Saudi citizens that are appointed by the king for a period of four years to serve as an advisory role. The size of the council has been increasing steadily over the years, and it does have its own committees and a limited ability to discuss proposed legislation, but its primary function is to advise the king.
No political parties or labor unions are permitted to exist. In the 1990s the Arab Socialist Action Party and the Communist Party of Saudi Arabia were disbanded and their members were released from jail, after agreeing to cease and desist their political activities. The Green Party of Saudi Arabia appears to be the only active political party in the kingdom, but they are an illegal organization.
In 2005, the first Saudi Arabian municipal elections were held, but as they were non-partisan elections, no political parties were allowed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Saudi_Arabia
So what's with your selective outrage? Tell you what I think. Iraqi politics plays a big role in the legacy of a republican president (and a republican party) you hold dear while SA doesn't. Pretty close?
Michael Ware's back in the streets of Baghdad. I'm guessing this is a reporter you would shed no tears over should he have an accident while on duty. Calls it as he sees it and unlike most of his colleges he actually operates outside the green zone and outside of american humvees.
This is amazing insight if you're interested in what may be the real story rather than the story that backs your philosophy at every turn.
Earlier today:
"Meanwhile, there's been a dramatic drop in the violence in Iraq, with the U.S. military now reporting stunning declines in the number of attacks and the number of casualties.
But can these gains hold without a political solution? And joining us now from Baghdad, our correspondent, Michael Ware -- Michael, clearly, the statistics are showing some favorable trends right now. But I take it the U.S. military itself is worried that the positive numbers that have been reported lately -- that could turn around down the road.
What's going on?
MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, surely, Wolf.
I mean the first thing that has to be said is this -- there has been a spectacular success. I mean, as the U.S. military is reporting, you know, attacks are down by 55 percent than what they were just back in June. Civilian deaths in Baghdad are down by a massive 75 percent. Indeed, we're seeing levels of violence that we haven't seen since January 2006 -- since before the Samarra mosque bombing which sparked the civil war.
Now, will it last?
This is the million dollar question. Admirals and generals are very careful to caution that these are very positive trends, but we can't read too much into them yet. Privately, what the strategists are telling me is that things could turn on a dime. We could see the violence revert back almost instantly. However, their belief is that that won't happen. Among the U.S. forces here, they have the -- they have the confidence they can keep the levels of violence to where they are now, until at least the summer of next year. But what happens after that, no one knows because the name of the game now, Wolf, is reconciliation. By building Sunni militias, by America essentially now working with 72,000 Sunni insurgents, putting 45,000 of them on the U.S. government payroll, that has seen a massive decline in attacks.
It's also seen neighborhoods in Baghdad protected, essentially by U.S.-backed Sunni militias.
The problem is, is there going to be real reconciliation at the political level with this Shia-dominated government?
And all signs right now point to no. So perhaps the success may amount to nothing. And the generals are warning that if there's no reconciliation by next summer, we may be looking for a new strategy -- Wolf.
BLITZER: The -- you've been away for a while. Now you're back. Actually, you've been there for more than four years covering this -- this war.
Have you felt any really discernible difference on the streets of Baghdad or elsewhere since you've come back?
WARE: Well, yes and no, I have to say. I mean, yes, look, honestly, this is a much more peaceful city than it used to be. But we still have dozens and dozens of people dying every week. Now, I mean the American military celebrated last Friday, because across the country there was only 33 attacks.
Now, can you imagine in any other country in the world, be it Israel, be it America itself, be it Pakistan, that there were 33 attacks in a day?
That would be a horrific day. Yet here, that's cause for celebration. There very much is still a war going on.
So, yes, I can feel changes. There is a certain life returning to the city. But, honestly, Wolf, this is a segregated metropolis. People live in heavily guarded sectarian enclaves. This is a world divided. There is still great tension, great distrust and, honestly, I don't see the path forward happening how most people hope.
BLITZER: Michael Ware, be careful over there.
Thanks very much.
WARE: Thank you, Wolf.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/20/sitroom.02.html
Scott McClellan: Bush/Cheney lied about CIA leak
"(CBS/AP) Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan blames President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for efforts to mislead the public about the role of White House aides in leaking the identity of a CIA operative.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest-ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice president, the president's chief of staff and the president himself."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/20/politics/main3528548.shtml
>>>DO you think Bush really wants to keep troops there if they aren't needed.<<<
Have no idea what Bush wants. Do you? He's made enough fu#@ed up decisions by now that I would never make a fool of myself trying to second guess the moron.
>>>We both don't know what happening on the political front and what progress has or hasn't been made.<<<
Actually I think we both know exactly what's happening on the political front which is exactly nothing. When something worthwhile does happen I guarantee you we will hear about it through televised grandstanding in the rose garden.
>>>Congratulations on finally acknowledging that the surge has worked in it's first objective.<<<
I didn't say that. I said things seem to have calmed down but I don't think either you or I know why. Is it because a lot of troops have been deployed in what used to be the most violent areas, creating temporary stability? Or have those troop levels driven the trouble to other, more remote parts of the country where news coverage is spotty? Or has there been a naturally occurring ethnic cleansing where many sunnis and shiites have gone separate ways?
Whatever the case, I can't bring myself to thinking that 30,000 additional troops all of a sudden resolved a 1,000-year old tribal rift and made everyone forget who 3 1/2 years ago invaded and destroyed their country, slaughtering 2% of the population in the process.
I'm in rare agreement with you here eddy. Things seem to have calmed down which according to the surge objective should have given the Iraqi government a chance to bring things to order. So what's the latest on that? Shouldn't things be coming together now and shouldn't there be talk about reducing troop levels? Awfully quiet about all that and all we hear is how critical it is that we don't even mention pulling troops out. Know what's going on?
>>>what did the clinton administration do to avert the risks of terrorism?<<<
John McLaughlin, former CIA director:
"President Clinton did aggressively pursue Osama bin Laden. I give the Clinton administration a lot of credit for the aggressiveness with which they went after al Qaeda and bin Laden."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/24/cnr.04.html
David Kay.......weapons inspector appointed by GW Bush:
"Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.)"
http://www.slate.com/id/2094415/
>>>Decision time for US over Iran threat<<<
Two days ago (Nov. 14 2007)
"What would happen if the U.S. launched a shock and awe style
attack against Iran?
Members of Congress today put that question to top military strategists. The answer -- dire consequences for both sides.
Let's turn to CNN's senior Pentagon correspondent, Jamie McIntyre -- Jamie, not a very optimistic scenario.
What did they say?
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SENIOR PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, right Wolf. You would expect a debate over the pros and cons of attacking Iran to have a mixed reaction. But this panel on Capitol Hill found basically very few pros and a lot of cons.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MCINTYRE (voice-over): Even with its military stretched to the limit in Iraq, the U.S. retains the ability to launch punishing air strikes against Iran -- targeting both terrorists and nuclear facilities.
But what would the air war accomplish?
Not much, according to military strategists who testified before a House subcommittee on national security.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON (RET.), FORMER ADVISER TO COLIN POWELL: The more widespread strikes, while devastating -- they would be -- would solidify a nation of 70 plus million people -- a great number of whom are under 35 years of age -- a nation that is anything but solidified. And the uniting factor would be nationalism and a visceral hatred for America.
COL. SAMUEL GARDINER, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): We can destroy three to five years of construction. We know how long it took to build those. But the effect on the nuclear program, we may accelerate it. As a strategist, I would say you don't take military action when you don't know the outcome.
MCINTYRE: In fact, the strategists argue, going to war with Iran would just reinforce the belief it must have nuclear weapons to protect itself.
PAUL PILLAR, FORMER CIA OFFICIAL: Many would see the U.S. action as a blow not against proliferation of weapons, but against a Muslim country with a regime that Washington doesn't happen to like. So the dominant global consequence, in my judgment -- especially in the broader Muslim world -- would be an increase in anti-Americanism.
MCINTYRE: The experts predict the ranks of Iran's Revolutionary Guard would swell, its support of terrorism would increase and any moderates would be undercut. Still, some experts argue the military option should not be taken off the table because without it, Iran simply has no incentive to compromise.
ILAN BERMAN, AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY COUNCIL: Iran is not likely to bend to sanctions if it thinks all it has to do is weather sanctions and then there's nothing else is coming down the pike. One of the world's most dangerous regimes should not be allowed to acquire the world's most dangerous weapon.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
MCINTYRE: But even the lone voice in favor of maintaining the military option as a threat called it "deeply flawed and dangerous" and says it has to be weighed very carefully about the situation of living with Iran as a nuclear power -- Wolf.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/14/sitroom.02.html
>>>Most, if not all of the taxes I'm paying.....you're paying, is going to some friggin bankster. Money flushed down the toilet........don't get any services for it........<<<
If the democrats were any different than the republicans they would point this out and score big.....but they can't do it for obvious reasons.
What's the average $60,000/year american wage earner paying in taxes? I'm guessing around 30%. Most western europeans making the same money may pay 35% or 40% but look what they get in return. Healthcare, dental and secure retirement for everyone, free college for their kids save for nominal fees for supplies and housing, public transportation that will get anyone almost anywhere anytime and an overall infrastructure that makes us look like our clocks stopped 20 years ago. But we're # 1.....always.
>>>Either Hillary is a scum for doing this or she isnt which is it<<<
Of course she is. I said as much in my first post on this. Just taking note that your outrage over it seems a bit hypocritical considering what's been going on with your guy since 2001.
>>>Either the article I posted about Hillary shows how scummy she is or it is insignificant like you said<<<
The most insignificant thing about this discussion is you for whining about plants at democratic candidate's townhall meetings after you've spent the past 7 years defending a president who not only hasn't held a genuine townhall meeting in his life but has also arrested opponents who got to close to where he planned to speak. And best I can tell he's also the first president in history getting caught with a plant in the WH press room. A gay prostitute plant no less.
"The Bush administration has provided White House media credentials to a man who has virtually no journalistic background, asks softball questions to the president and his spokesman in the midst of contentious news conferences, and routinely reprints long passages verbatim from official press releases as original news articles on his website."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/02/02/white_house_friendly_reporter_under_scrutiny/
"Jeff Gannon... had previously worked as a $200-an-hour gay prostitute who advertised himself on a series of websites with names such as hotmilitary stud.com."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
Some would say you're sympathizing with the wrong crowd if you're concerned about scum.
Tell you what.......you know how to use the search function. So use it and then report back with anything you found that I have posted in favor of Hillary Clinton. Then we can talk...
Well......you always seem to require special tutoring so why should this one be different? It's simple. Politicians from both parties take measures that make them look good in front of audiences, be it pre-screening or planted questions and it's about as news worthy as it is to report that politicians lie imo.