PDA

View Full Version : Seized Papers: The Murtha acolytes had better pick up the pace...


patteeu
05-09-2006, 03:42 PM
... if they hope to secure US surrender before it's too late to claim defeat. :fire: ;)

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

Seized Papers Said to Show Qaeda in Iraq Is Worried (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/09/world/middleeast/09zarqawi.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: May 9, 2006

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 8 (AP) — The Council of Holy Warriors, Al Qaeda's branch in Iraq, is worried that its cells in the Baghdad area are ineffective, with one militant describing their activities as nothing more than a "daily annoyance" to the Iraqi government, according to two documents released Monday by the United States military.

The military said it had seized the documents on April 16 during raids in and around Yusifiya, a town 10 miles south of Baghdad that has long served as a base for Sunni Arab extremists. The documents indicate that the group is worried that it is unable to secure a solid base within Baghdad, military officials said.

The documents seemed to be released as part of an American campaign to deflate the image of the local branch of Al Qaeda and that of its leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The documents were made available four days after the military released what it said were clips that the group had cut from a video before posting it on the Web. In those clips, Mr. Zarqawi fumbles with an American-made machine gun. In the version on the Web, Mr. Zarqawi appears as a confident, skilled warrior.

In one of the newly released documents, an unidentified member of the group wrote that the cells in Baghdad are capable of only "hit and run" operations, leading the public to conclude that "the Shiites are stronger in Baghdad and nearer to controlling it," while the mujahedeen "are not considered more than a daily annoyance to the Shiite government."

The other document released Monday outlined the group's strategy in Baghdad. It said the Council of Holy Warriors should focus on the capital and reduce its attacks on Sunni areas.

Focusing on Baghdad, the document stated, would force the United States military to shift more of its resources there, which would allow the militants to regroup in their traditional bases. Those bases include the ones in Anbar Province, where the cities of Falluja and Ramadi are situated.

The writer says that the American and Iraqi government forces "were able to absorb our painful blows," enlist new recruits and "take control of Baghdad as well as other areas, one after the other."

the Talking Can
05-09-2006, 03:45 PM
in other news, a document has surfaced claiming that Niger sold yellowcake to Iraq....this indisputable proof was cited yesterday by.....

Radar Chief
05-09-2006, 03:49 PM
in other news, a document has surfaced claiming that Niger sold yellowcake to Iraq....this indisputable proof was cited yesterday by.....

Deflection? How unexpected.

Here’s the CENTCOM link (http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Shared%20Documents/Extremist%20Page/full_translation_done_may_3.aspx), if anyone’s interested.

mlyonsd
05-09-2006, 04:09 PM
Deflection? How unexpected.

Here’s the CENTCOM link (http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Shared%20Documents/Extremist%20Page/full_translation_done_may_3.aspx), if anyone’s interested.

Rumsfeld and Condi were just in Iraq ya know. I wouldn't be surprised if some conspiracy theory emerges where one of them nonchalantly dropped bogus papers around some empty buildings.

Did they spend the night? Did one of them sneak out their bedroom window undetected and plant the papers?

So many questions.

the Talking Can
05-09-2006, 04:20 PM
Deflection? How unexpected.

Here’s the CENTCOM link (http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Shared%20Documents/Extremist%20Page/full_translation_done_may_3.aspx), if anyone’s interested.

yeah....and what? we watched you loons deny Titanic-sized amounts of facts the last several years...and now a newspaper article about an Al Queda cell is supposed to signify what?

mission accomplished?

wait, this article refutes everything....Iraq is peaceful, we found the WMDs, Osama is behind bars, the fake documents are now real, etc...

Radar Chief
05-09-2006, 04:36 PM
yeah....and what? we watched you loons deny Titanic-sized amounts of facts the last several years...and now a newspaper article about an Al Queda cell is supposed to signify what?

mission accomplished?

wait, this article refutes everything....Iraq is peaceful, we found the WMDs, Osama is behind bars, the fake documents are now real, etc...

Moi a “loon”? :eek: Well, I guess if anyones gonna recognize a “loon”, it’d be tTC. ROFL
And maybe you could quote a post where I’ve “denied” any evidence? I may’ve refuted some of your uninformed assertions, but I don’t deny any verifiable evidence.

jAZ
05-09-2006, 04:58 PM
The significance of these reports are vastly over stated without the very critical detail that foreign fighters (al Queda plus any other outside groups) "make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents" (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html).

Put in it's proper context, this report is what it is... minimally impactful but markedly good news.

patteeu
05-09-2006, 05:37 PM
The significance of these reports are vastly over stated without the very critical detail that foreign fighters (al Queda plus any other outside groups) "make up only about 4 to 10 percent of the estimated 30,000 insurgents" (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0923/dailyUpdate.html).

Put in it's proper context, this report is what it is... minimally impactful but markedly good news.

Bravo for at least admitting that it's good news. :bravo:

But the way you discount it reminds me of the way the Murtha mob was initially screeching about American casualty rates and the need to remove our troops so they wouldn't be targets and when that rate dropped dramatically they shifted seemlessly into complaints about Iraqi civilian death rates.

In this case, the fact that foreign fighters are a small percentage of the insurgency is, no doubt, at least partially due to our success in (a) slowing down the influx of fresh meat and (b) killing/capturing those who are in country. Furthermore, the majority of suicide
bombings against Iraqi civilians (which as I noted above have become of great concern to the Murtha mobs) are reportedly at the hands of the foreign jihadist element within the insurgency. What are you guys going to do when US casualties remain low AND Iraqi civilian casualties drop? What will the next sure sign of imminent US failure be?

jAZ
05-09-2006, 05:39 PM
In this case, the fact that foreign fighters are a small percentage of the insurgency is, no doubt, at least partially due to our success in (a) slowing down the influx of fresh meat and (b) killing/capturing those who are in country.
So are you just permitted to make stuff up as long as it supports your case? If I'm allowed that leeway as well, then let me know. I'll stop making factually supported posts. It's much easier to just make shit up.

patteeu
05-09-2006, 06:01 PM
So are you just permitted to make stuff up as long as it supports your case? If I'm allowed that leeway as well, then let me know. I'll stop making factually supported posts. It's much easier to just make shit up.

Yes, upon further reflection, my logic was flawed. I suppose it's possible that we've been dismantling the domestic insurgency at an equal or greater rate than that of the foreign jihadist element which would mean that the percentage of foreign jihadists is not shrinking as a result of our efforts. Somehow I doubt that that's true, but it's certainly a possibility.

However, even if we accept the proportions of foreign fighters to domestic insurgents in the Iraqi insurgency (I couldn't find the report that CSM article is based on), there is a big difference between the two components. We are unlikely to be able to coopt the foreign fighters, but there are recent indications that many of the Sunni insurgents might be willing to participate in the political process:

Cnn.com (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/05/01/iraq.main/)

...

Meanwhile, in an attempt to reach out to insurgents, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said he has been meeting with seven armed groups in hopes of agreeing a deal to include them in Iraq's political process.

None of these groups include people loyal to al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, according to a statement issued Sunday from Talabani's office.

"These groups who are holding talks with the president are those who believe in a prosperous Iraq. Their will to fight America has waned," said a spokesman in the president's office.

A source close to Talabani said the meetings have been under way for some time.

The groups are realizing that Americans are not their true enemy, the source said, and that they have been "fighting the wrong enemy."

"[These groups] are coming to the realization that one day the Americans will leave -- and that the most important thing is an Iraq that is free from Iranian influence," the source added.

The presidential statement said Talabani also has supported recent talks between U.S. officials in Iraq and armed groups.

...

jAZ
05-09-2006, 06:44 PM
Yes, upon further reflection, my logic was flawed. I suppose it's possible that we've been dismantling the domestic insurgency at an equal or greater rate than that of the foreign jihadist element which would mean that the percentage of foreign jihadists is not shrinking as a result of our efforts. Somehow I doubt that that's true, but it's certainly a possibility.

However, even if we accept the proportions of foreign fighters to domestic insurgents in the Iraqi insurgency (I couldn't find the report that CSM article is based on), there is a big difference between the two components. We are unlikely to be able to coopt the foreign fighters, but there are recent indications that many of the Sunni insurgents might be willing to participate in the political process:
This is important, and I desperately want this thing to end well. That requires that Iraq becomes something other than a mess. I've said for years now that once we are in, we have to succeed. But this has nothing to do with your bogus assessments of the conditions of foreign fighters in Iraq. They could be growing (either in gross numbers or as a % of total insurgents) or they could be contant (by either measure) or they could be shrinking.

Your mental gymnastics (while energizing, I'm sure) provide no information about the facts on the ground. At this point, we know nothing more than that they are (at the time of the article) between 4% and 10%.

And all of that said, none of this discussion changes my underlying point. The nature of the AQ success (or lack of) in Iraq is but a very small reflection of the overall effectiveness of an insurgency.

Any good news is good news, however small it might be. This report seems to be good news. Why do you feel the need to try to make it into something more than it is. It's not a redemption of Bush, it's not a redemption of the failure of the last 3 years. It's not a redemption of the plan to invade Iraq. It's not a redemption of the lies, distortions, disinformation, withheld information, understatement of risks, understatment of costs, over statement of threats, or over statement of value in the WOT.

It is what it is, a seemingly small bit of good news.

patteeu
05-09-2006, 08:05 PM
This is important, and I desperately want this thing to end well. That requires that Iraq becomes something other than a mess. I've said for years now that once we are in, we have to succeed. But this has nothing to do with your bogus assessments of the conditions of foreign fighters in Iraq. They could be growing (either in gross numbers or as a % of total insurgents) or they could be contant (by either measure) or they could be shrinking.

I admitted as much in the post you quoted so climb down off your high horse.

BTW, you may have said for years that "once we are in, we have to succeed" but I seem to recall that even a "stallwart" like yourself has thrown in the towel recently. Am I wrong?

Your mental gymnastics (while energizing, I'm sure) provide no information about the facts on the ground. At this point, we know nothing more than that they are (at the time of the article) between 4% and 10%.

Many of your anti-Bush allies (e.g. Ray McGovern and Ugly Duck) would suggest that you are dangerously close to a lie when you say "we know" based on a study that surely is only based on some degree of guesswork (hopefully educated guesswork) and 2nd hand information much like the intelligence upon which Don Rumsfeld relied when he said "we know" were the WMD are located. If it should turn out that the foreign component of the insurgency is outside your range, I'd expect those people to be all over your "lies." ;)

And all of that said, none of this discussion changes my underlying point. The nature of the AQ success (or lack of) in Iraq is but a very small reflection of the overall effectiveness of an insurgency.

Any good news is good news, however small it might be. This report seems to be good news. Why do you feel the need to try to make it into something more than it is. It's not a redemption of Bush, it's not a redemption of the failure of the last 3 years. It's not a redemption of the plan to invade Iraq. It's not a redemption of the lies, distortions, disinformation, withheld information, understatement of risks, understatment of costs, over statement of threats, or over statement of value in the WOT.

It is what it is, a seemingly small bit of good news.

I don't think there is a need for redemption because victory is what I've expected all along (as long as we can fend off the domestic front in the GWoT long enough to achieve it). This is just more evidence that we are on the right path. Whether a small bit or a large bit, it doesn't surprise me that you would do everything you could to minimize it.

Taco John
05-09-2006, 08:09 PM
Withdrawing troop levels from Iraq does not equal throwing in the towel... It's great spin though.

Ugly Duck
05-09-2006, 08:24 PM
Defeat? No way! The neocon regime will claim victory and begin to withdraw (or at least say they will) right around congressional election time. And it will be trumpeted as a glorious victory to boot, just in time to rescue a few Republican seats. Mission Accomplished!

Pitt Gorilla
05-09-2006, 08:36 PM
Withdrawing troop levels from Iraq does not equal throwing in the towel... It's great spin though.This whole "team" is all about spin.

BucEyedPea
05-09-2006, 08:53 PM
I don't have time to read all the posts here...'cept for the first but I had read more than a short while ago, (approx 6 months) that we had deciminated the foreign fighters which would include alQaeda. But they only came in after we were there first. On the other hand the insurgency was made up of former Baathists. That some of the death squads ( heard similar to those used in Guatamela) and revenge killings were the Shia's on the Sunni's for revenge. They even had torture chambers like the holocaust. Who the heck knows who is doing what over there.

Logical
05-09-2006, 09:30 PM
First the country is much bigger than just Bagdad. Second we all know what can be done to fake documents and video and I would not put it past this administration to do such a thing given how desperate they must be at this point. 31% popularity may not be the lowest but I bet it is the lowest for a wartime President in modern times.

Logical
05-09-2006, 09:41 PM
Bravo for at least admitting that it's good news. :bravo:

But the way you discount it reminds me of the way the Murtha mob was initially screeching about American casualty rates and the need to remove our troops so they wouldn't be targets and when that rate dropped dramatically they shifted seemlessly into complaints about Iraqi civilian death rates.

In this case, the fact that foreign fighters are a small percentage of the insurgency is, no doubt, at least partially due to our success in (a) slowing down the influx of fresh meat and (b) killing/capturing those who are in country. Furthermore, the majority of suicide
bombings against Iraqi civilians (which as I noted above have become of great concern to the Murtha mobs) are reportedly at the hands of the foreign jihadist element within the insurgency. What are you guys going to do when US casualties remain low AND Iraqi civilian casualties drop? What will the next sure sign of imminent US failure be?The rate of deaths is back up to over 40 a month. Just like all wars there are peaks and valleys in death tolls in every war. At least that is what Fox News reported lately.

Ugly Duck
05-09-2006, 09:49 PM
31% popularity may not be the lowest but I bet it is the lowest for a wartime President in modern times.At the height of the Watergate scandal, just before his resignation, Nixon had a rating of 28%. Duhbya is still a good 3 points ahead of the lowest low - they can still pull this off. Unless the dems claim a majority.... then we'll be hearing plenty about corruption and torture and lying and domestic spying and revenge leaks and deceit and cherrypicking, etc., etc., etc., etc.. In that case, Duhbya might go lower than Nixon.

the Talking Can
05-09-2006, 09:49 PM
logic is getting abused worse than Kobe's prom date in this thread...

patteeu
05-09-2006, 10:00 PM
Withdrawing troop levels from Iraq does not equal throwing in the towel... It's great spin though.

It's not as long as you don't do it before your job is done. That's the subtle difference between the cut-and-run types like Murtha and Vlad and the stay-the-course types like Dick Cheney and myself. :p

jAZ
05-10-2006, 02:45 PM
Many of your anti-Bush allies (e.g. Ray McGovern and Ugly Duck) would suggest that you are dangerously close to a lie when you say "we know" based on a study that surely is only based on some degree of guesswork (hopefully educated guesswork) and 2nd hand information much like the intelligence upon which Don Rumsfeld relied when he said "we know" were the WMD are located. If it should turn out that the foreign component of the insurgency is outside your range, I'd expect those people to be all over your "lies." ;)
I was refering to the limit of our knowledge about this topic is what I"ve provided in the article quoted. We in fact know what the article is reporting. But that's all that we know.

As opposed to Rumsfeld speaking clearly about his knowledge of the WMD sites, and them listing them. There was no such qualifying "all that we know" type language.

patteeu
05-10-2006, 02:58 PM
I was refering to the limit of our knowledge about this topic is what I"ve provided in the article quoted. We in fact know what the article is reporting. But that's all that we know.

As opposed to Rumsfeld speaking clearly about his knowledge of the WMD sites, and them listing them. There was no such qualifying "all that we know" type language.

That is such a lame answer. Rumsfeld was referring to the limit of his knowledge based on the intelligence he'd received exactly like you were referring to the article. There is no difference. You didn't have any qualifying language either with regard to the percentages of the foreign fighters. Your only qualifications had to do with not knowing how our activities had impacted those percentages or what those percentages were at some other point in time.

And as for "listing them" ROFL he said in the area around tikrit(?) and to the north and south and east and west of there. Not a very specific "list" if you ask me.

I'm disappointed in this answer, jAZ. I had hoped for more honesty. :shake:

jAZ
05-10-2006, 03:18 PM
That is such a lame answer. Rumsfeld was referring to the limit of his knowledge based on the intelligence he'd received exactly like you were referring to the article. There is no difference. You didn't have any qualifying language either with regard to the percentages of the foreign fighters. Your only qualifications had to do with not knowing how our activities had impacted those percentages or what those percentages were at some other point in time.

And as for "listing them" ROFL he said in the area around tikrit(?) and to the north and south and east and west of there. Not a very specific "list" if you ask me.

I'm disappointed in this answer, jAZ. I had hoped for more honesty. :shake:
If you can't comprehend the difference between...

we know where...
and

all we know is...

I can do nothing to help you on this (or possibly any) topic.

go bowe
05-10-2006, 03:42 PM
Deflection? How unexpected.

Here’s the CENTCOM link (http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Shared%20Documents/Extremist%20Page/full_translation_done_may_3.aspx), if anyone’s interested.assuming that document is authentic, it sure looks as if the mudjahassholes aren't doing so well in terms of numbers in the big city and seem to have some rather annoying logistical problems as well as a few problems moving around due to being "pressured" by our forces...

all in all, that document shows a very dismal picture of their activities, which is just fine by me...

one thing that struck me is that while the author doesn't seem to think that the hit and run attacks (especially the ied's) serve their long term interests, there was no indication that they were going to stop doing them...

go bowe
05-10-2006, 03:54 PM
It's not as long as you don't do it before your job is done. That's the subtle difference between the cut-and-run types like Murtha and Vlad and the stay-the-course types like Dick Cheney and myself. :pyou keep bringing up cheney just to torment us, don't you? :p :p :p

go bowe
05-10-2006, 03:57 PM
If you can't comprehend the difference between...we know where...and

all we know is...

I can do nothing to help you on this (or possibly any) topic.one seems to be a statement of certainty regarding a location...

while the other seems to be a statement of certainty regarding something, which is somehow limited and not coimplete...

both seem like a statement of certainty to me, but my reading comprehension skills have eroded over the years... :( :( :(

Velvet_Jones
05-10-2006, 05:10 PM
If you can't comprehend the difference between...

we know where...
and

all we know is...

I can do nothing to help you on this (or possibly any) topic.
If Rumsfeld said "all we know is..." you would have had a spazm-gazm that he was a wishy-washy person with no conviction and no leadership skills. Your hypocrisy is stunning and is exactly why I think you are intellectually dishonest to the core. You can’t have it both ways. Splitting hairs to the nth degree when it’s a Dem and not allowing any interpretation when it’s a Repub.

Logical
05-10-2006, 06:40 PM
It's not as long as you don't do it before your job is done. That's the subtle difference between the cut-and-run types like Murtha and Vlad and the stay-the-course types like Dick Cheney and myself. :pI cannot believe you want to be associated with Cheney. I don't think I ever fell that low.

banyon
05-10-2006, 06:56 PM
Colin Powell pounded his fist on the U.N. table and said,

These are FACTS, not ASSERTIONS!!!

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."

speech (http://www.un.int/usa/03clp0205.htm)

By patteeu's analogy, this would equal,

"We know there is peanut butter in my pantry, this is a fact, not an assertion. This is based on my own personal knowledge and the testimony of others...

"...As you can see from the surveillance photos, this is a picture of the pantry, and the picture with the door open indicates that this is where the peanut butter sits on the shelf. You can tell by the arrow that highlights the picture..."


"...Here is a picture of my wife organizing the pantry and, as you can see, the peanut butter remains..."

"In my hand is a vial of peanut butter that I will spead on this bread to illustrate that it is the SAME peanut butter that is presently in my home, Brand Jif..."

"As you can see from this grocery receipt, this is the same brand that was purchased in a grocery store on xx date."

"We have four other sources that will attest to the fact that the peanut butter is still in my pantry."

"There can be no doubt that the peanut butter is in my pantry and i will be able to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when I get home."

jAZ
05-10-2006, 07:44 PM
one seems to be a statement of certainty regarding a location...

while the other seems to be a statement of certainty regarding something, which is somehow limited and not coimplete...

both seem like a statement of certainty to me, but my reading comprehension skills have eroded over the years... :( :( :(
See if you can get patteeu to acknowledge a distinction like that.

(btw, that's your observation is exactly my point.)

jAZ
05-10-2006, 07:45 PM
If Rumsfeld said "all we know is..." you would have had a spazm-gazm that he was a wishy-washy person with no conviction and no leadership skills. Your hypocrisy is stunning and is exactly why I think you are intellectually dishonest to the core. You can’t have it both ways. Splitting hairs to the nth degree when it’s a Dem and not allowing any interpretation when it’s a Repub.
ROFL

Wow.

Just.

Wow.

penchief
05-10-2006, 08:51 PM
Deflection? How unexpected.

Deflection? This thread is a deflection. How............ironic?

patteeu
05-11-2006, 08:11 AM
If you can't comprehend the difference between...

we know where...
and

all we know is...

I can do nothing to help you on this (or possibly any) topic.

LMAO

I can see a difference, it's just not one that keeps you from being the same kind of liar that Rumsfeld is. (Keep in mind that I don't think Rumsfeld is a liar and that I think your use of the phrase is perfectly acceptable, but on the Ray McGovern scale it would be lying).

"All we know" implies that there are other unknowns, but if taken literally, it doesn't imply that what you are about to say you know is something less than known.

Think about what you are trying to say here. If Rumsfeld had said "all we know is that the WMD are located at [specific location]," would you be defending him right now?.

patteeu
05-11-2006, 08:17 AM
Colin Powell pounded his fist on the U.N. table and said,

These are FACTS, not ASSERTIONS!!!



speech (http://www.un.int/usa/03clp0205.htm)

By patteeu's analogy, this would equal,

"We know there is peanut butter in my pantry, this is a fact, not an assertion. This is based on my own personal knowledge and the testimony of others...

"...As you can see from the surveillance photos, this is a picture of the pantry, and the picture with the door open indicates that this is where the peanut butter sits on the shelf. You can tell by the arrow that highlights the picture..."


"...Here is a picture of my wife organizing the pantry and, as you can see, the peanut butter remains..."

"In my hand is a vial of peanut butter that I will spead on this bread to illustrate that it is the SAME peanut butter that is presently in my home, Brand Jif..."

"As you can see from this grocery receipt, this is the same brand that was purchased in a grocery store on xx date."

"We have four other sources that will attest to the fact that the peanut butter is still in my pantry."

"There can be no doubt that the peanut butter is in my pantry and i will be able to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich when I get home."


Do you think Colin Powell believed what he said?

patteeu
05-11-2006, 08:18 AM
See if you can get patteeu to acknowledge a distinction like that.

(btw, that's your observation is exactly my point.)

Why do you think that distinction helps you? The "lie" you told was the part where you asserted certainty not about the part where you acknowledged incomplete knowledge. You expressed certainty about the 4% to 10% statistic. There was no implication of uncertainty about that. That's the part that you "lied" about.

jAZ
05-11-2006, 09:22 AM
Why do you think that distinction helps you? The "lie" you told was the part where you asserted certainty not about the part where you acknowledged incomplete knowledge. You expressed certainty about the 4% to 10% statistic. There was no implication of uncertainty about that. That's the part that you "lied" about.
Like I said, "at (the time of the post I made) we know nothing more than..." what I had reported.

Like Rumsfeld said, he knew right were the WMD were (and provided a list of locations to clarify his certainty).

In my case, I was describing the only bit of information anyone bothered to dig up, and I described that lone bit of information as "at this point we know nothing more than... " (turns out we have been misquoting my own post this whole time).

In Rummy's case, he was responding to a direct question about the lack of any WMD (what would be a direct failure given the case for invading Iraq), and he replied without a bit of cautious qualification: "We know where they are."

In my case, we know know little more than what I reported in that thread.

In his case, there was nothing more needed to be known, given his absolute certainty.

If Rummy had bothered to qualify his comments with the same sort of context, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. But doing so would drain the statements of any of the spin needed fend off a media starting to notice that "it's all been a pack a lies".

Radar Chief
05-11-2006, 01:09 PM
Deflection? This thread is a deflection. How............ironic?

The entire topic is a “deflection”? :spock: I guess if you really need to see it that way. :shrug: Looks more to me, though, like a direct blow to the “quagmire” knee jerkers and I see no "irony" in that.
It is kinda funny that you're complain’n ‘bout a “deflection” with a “deflection” from the topic. That’s “irony”. ROFL

Radar Chief
05-11-2006, 01:12 PM
assuming that document is authentic, it sure looks as if the mudjahassholes aren't doing so well in terms of numbers in the big city and seem to have some rather annoying logistical problems as well as a few problems moving around due to being "pressured" by our forces...

all in all, that document shows a very dismal picture of their activities, which is just fine by me...

one thing that struck me is that while the author doesn't seem to think that the hit and run attacks (especially the ied's) serve their long term interests, there was no indication that they were going to stop doing them...

I don’t think it fits their long term goals to be attack’n Iraqis, but I’m sure they recognize the value of IEDs as a weapon since otherwise the only times they’ve actually stood and fought they got smeared.

patteeu
05-11-2006, 01:38 PM
Like I said, "at (the time of the post I made) we know nothing more than..." what I had reported.

Like Rumsfeld said, he knew right were the WMD were (and provided a list of locations to clarify his certainty).

In my case, I was describing the only bit of information anyone bothered to dig up, and I described that lone bit of information as "at this point we know nothing more than... " (turns out we have been misquoting my own post this whole time).

In Rummy's case, he was responding to a direct question about the lack of any WMD (what would be a direct failure given the case for invading Iraq), and he replied without a bit of cautious qualification: "We know where they are."

In my case, we know know little more than what I reported in that thread.

In his case, there was nothing more needed to be known, given his absolute certainty.

If Rummy had bothered to qualify his comments with the same sort of context, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all. But doing so would drain the statements of any of the spin needed fend off a media starting to notice that "it's all been a pack a lies".


And still nothing you've said changes the fact that if we take you literally, you claimed that you had certainty about something you can't possibly know. That's exactly what Rumsfeld did.

In your case, you were talking about the makeup of the insurgency.

In Rumsfeld's case he was talking about the location of WMD.

That's a difference, but it's not a difference that is relevant to the fact that both of you expressed certainty about something you didn't have any business being certain about.

.

In your case, you were basing your claimed knowledge on a news article that in turn was based on a study (which came from sources and methodology that isn't known to either of us).

In Rumsfeld's case, he was basing his claimed knowledge on intelligence (which came from sources and methodology that isn't known to either of us).

That's another difference, but it's still not a difference that is relevant to the fact that both of you expressed certainty about something you didn't have any business being certain about.

The difference you point out is similar to the two differences I just pointed out. It is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not you "lied" in the same way Rumsfeld "lied."

the Talking Can
05-11-2006, 02:02 PM
952 Iraqis killed in April; Talabani calls for unity

The Associated Press

BAGHDAD — President Jalal Talabani urged Iraq's feuding factions Wednesday to unite against surging crime and terrorism, as the government reported 952 people were killed nationwide last month in “terrorist” violence — most of them civilians.

Talabani, a former Kurdish guerrilla commander, said Iraqis feel “shock, dismay and anger” at the ongoing slaughter, including attacks by sectarian death squads that torture and kill their victims before dumping the mutilated bodies in the streets....

USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060511/a_iraqnews11.art.htm)


Including Americans, over a 1,000 people a month are being killed in Iraq...many by "sectarian death squads"....years after "Mission Accomplished".....and there are people still stupid enough to crow about what a rousing success it all is....I mean, really, what's a 1000 dead a month due to war....I call it VICTORY.

Radar Chief
05-11-2006, 02:40 PM
Including Americans, over a 1,000 people a month are being killed in Iraq...many by "sectarian death squads"....years after "Mission Accomplished".....and there are people still stupid enough to crow about what a rousing success it all is....I mean, really, what's a 1000 dead a month due to war....I call it VICTORY.

Could you please quote a post of someone “crow’n” ‘bout this “rousing success”?

If you can take the time from formulating more bumper sticker rhetoric, that is.

go bowe
05-11-2006, 03:34 PM
Could you please quote a post of someone “crow’n” ‘bout this “rousing success”?

If you can take the time from formulating more bumper sticker rhetoric, that is.bumper sticker rhetoric...

now i like that...

is that a radar chief original or did you hear it on air america?

Radar Chief
05-11-2006, 03:41 PM
bumper sticker rhetoric...

now i like that...

is that a radar chief original or did you hear it on air america?


:shrug: I think I first heard (read) it here.
Can’t remember exactly, damn that short-term memory loss. :bong: ;)

Logical
05-11-2006, 04:40 PM
Do you think Colin Powell believed what he said?

I hope he did at the time, if he didn't then he was lying with conviction and I would lose all respect for him as decent upstanding man. A man can be wrong and admit it later, that happens. Lying about something to get something you don't even believe in to support your boss is in my opinion unacceptable, unethical and unforgiveable. He should have resigned rather than do that.

Mohammed
05-11-2006, 11:02 PM
So what? We take vacations too. Bite me.

BucEyedPea
05-11-2006, 11:04 PM
Where?

Loki
05-11-2006, 11:14 PM
Could you please quote a post of someone “crow’n” ‘bout this “rousing success”?

If you can take the time from formulating more bumper sticker rhetoric, that is.

no kidding... :rolleyes:

banyon
05-14-2006, 07:25 PM
Do you think Colin Powell believed what he said?

no. And he has made statements to that effect.

the Talking Can
05-14-2006, 07:41 PM
Could you please quote a post of someone “crow’n” ‘bout this “rousing success”?

If you can take the time from formulating more bumper sticker rhetoric, that is.


uh, every republican in America from "Mission Accomplished" to "the insurgency is in its last throes"....the premise is that Bush's brilliant leadership is responsible for a peaceful Iraq....

those who question anything in Iraq are "terrorist lovers/supporters.. america haters"...i.e. Murtha...which is the ENTIRE point of this thread...

you don't get to support Bush's incompetance and then pretend you didn't...sorry....

May 14, 2006

2 Car Bombs Kill 14 Outside Baghdad Airport
By SABRINA TAVERNISE
BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 14 — Two suicide car bombs tore into the central checkpoint for Baghdad's airport today, killing at least 14 people and wounding 16 at the doorstep of one of the capital's main gateways.

The attack was the deadliest in a day of violence that left 32 people dead, including two American soldiers, in Iraq's bloodiest attacks in weeks.

The first bomber struck at 10:50 a.m. local time in a dirt parking lot roughly the size of a football field where crowds of Iraqis and foreigners waited for rides to the airport and to the largest American military camp in the capital, Camp Victory. Shortly after, the second bomber detonated his payload near another cluster of vehicles, scattering human remains into the dust. One airport taxi driver said he found the head of a colleague in the wreckage.

The bombings were a brazen strike at the heart of the capital's most heavily guarded areas. Foreigners, military service members and hundreds of Iraqi workers and travelers move through the area daily, waiting in cars between two roads and giant slabs of cement.

The ease with which the two bombers drove into the parking area, just east of a statue and a larger more secure lot, demonstrated how far Iraqis still have to go to improve security.

The checkpoint was closed for several hours....

liberal media conspiracy (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/world/worldspecial/15iraqcnd.html?ei=5094&en=c59e33b7a031dd38&hp=&ex=1147665600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)

patteeu
05-14-2006, 07:43 PM
no. And he has made statements to that effect.

I'm under the impression that he made statements after the fact that indicated he thought that intelligence concerns had been withheld from him leading him to make what he otherwise would have considered a questionable presentation. I haven't heard anything about him believing his presentation was questionable at the time he gave it. Have you got a link?

jAZ
05-14-2006, 07:46 PM
And still nothing you've said changes the fact that if we take you literally, you claimed that you had certainty about something you can't possibly know. That's exactly what Rumsfeld did.

In your case, you were talking about the makeup of the insurgency.

In Rumsfeld's case he was talking about the location of WMD.

That's a difference, but it's not a difference that is relevant to the fact that both of you expressed certainty about something you didn't have any business being certain about.

.

In your case, you were basing your claimed knowledge on a news article that in turn was based on a study (which came from sources and methodology that isn't known to either of us).

In Rumsfeld's case, he was basing his claimed knowledge on intelligence (which came from sources and methodology that isn't known to either of us).

That's another difference, but it's still not a difference that is relevant to the fact that both of you expressed certainty about something you didn't have any business being certain about.

The difference you point out is similar to the two differences I just pointed out. It is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not you "lied" in the same way Rumsfeld "lied."
The only *certainty* I expressed was the certain limitation of our ability to know (we know nothing more than). The upper bound on our ability to know (at that point) is the contents of the thread (at the time).

Rumsfeld expressed certainty about the location of WMD without any qualifiying or limiting.

banyon
05-14-2006, 08:18 PM
I'm under the impression that he made statements after the fact that indicated he thought that intelligence concerns had been withheld from him leading him to make what he otherwise would have considered a questionable presentation. I haven't heard anything about him believing his presentation was questionable at the time he gave it. Have you got a link?


1. Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "it will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979&page=1

2. "They're a bunch of ****ing crazies."
To British Foreign Secretary, describing neo-conservatives in the Whitehouse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1302834,00.html

3."I'm not reading all that shit!"
Colin Powell to 9-11 commission, 31 November 2003.

“The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,” Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush’s State of the Union speech? “That was a big mistake,” he said. “It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.”

(finding weak sources on last 2) will try to find more reputable ones

patteeu
05-14-2006, 08:27 PM
The only *certainty* I expressed was the certain limitation of our ability to know (we know nothing more than). The upper bound on our ability to know (at that point) is the contents of the thread (at the time).

Rumsfeld expressed certainty about the location of WMD without any qualifiying or limiting.

For one thing, Rumsfeld's location was something like "Tikrit and the areas north, south, east and west of there" which, if you pull out a globe and study it, you will find covers the entire planet.

But more importantly, you might as well just give up on trying to distinguish what you said from what Rumsfeld said. I'm not buying it. I'm having trouble even understanding why you would think I might buy it.

patteeu
05-14-2006, 08:35 PM
1. Powell was asked about the speech during an interview with Barbara Walters and responded that it was a "blot" on his record. He went on to say, "it will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Politics/story?id=1105979&page=1


Here is an extended excerpt from that article:

...

When asked if he feels it has tarnished his reputation, he said, "Of course it will. It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now."

He doesn't blame former CIA Director George Tenet for the misleading information he says he pored over for days before delivering his speech; he faults the intelligence system.

"George Tenet did not sit there for five days with me misleading me. He believed what he was giving to me was accurate. … The intelligence system did not work well," he said.

Nonetheless, Powell said, some lower-level personnel in the intelligence community failed him and the country. "There were some people in the intelligence community who knew at that time that some of these sources were not good, and shouldn't be relied upon, and they didn't speak up. That devastated me," he said.

...

What he's saying is that he was misled by the intelligence community because someone (at a lower level than George Tenet) had reason to doubt the things Powell was being briefed to say but they didn't speak up. He is saying that he believed the case he made at the UN at the time he made it and only came to regret it and consider it a blot after the fact when he became aware of additional information.


2. "They're a bunch of ****ing crazies."
To British Foreign Secretary, describing neo-conservatives in the Whitehouse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1302834,00.html

3."I'm not reading all that shit!"
Colin Powell to 9-11 commission, 31 November 2003.

“The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,” Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush’s State of the Union speech? “That was a big mistake,” he said. “It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.”

(finding weak sources on last 2) will try to find more reputable ones[/QUOTE]

I didn't see anything in any of those that had to do with Powell's UN presentation and whether or not he believed it at the time.

Radar Chief
05-15-2006, 04:00 PM
uh, every republican in America from "Mission Accomplished" to "the insurgency is in its last throes"....the premise is that Bush's brilliant leadership is responsible for a peaceful Iraq....

those who question anything in Iraq are "terrorist lovers/supporters.. america haters"...i.e. Murtha...which is the ENTIRE point of this thread...

you don't get to support Bush's incompetance and then pretend you didn't...sorry....



liberal media conspiracy (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/world/worldspecial/15iraqcnd.html?ei=5094&en=c59e33b7a031dd38&hp=&ex=1147665600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)

More deflection? That’s a surprise. :rolleyes:
So tTC, where the quotes of anyone “crowing” ‘bout this “rousing success” that you’re claim’n? Or is it just not possible for you to drop the “bumper sticker rhetoric” complete with non-relevant story links in response? :shrug: