posted April 12, 2006 02:41 AM              

Ex-House speaker says U.S. made "enormous mistake" in occupation

MONICA LABELLE
mlabelle@argusleader.com

Article Published: 04/11/06, 2:55 am
VERMILLION - Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.

"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."

Gingrich was at USD for the inaugural Edmund Burke Lecture, named after a man who is known as the father of modern conservatism.

ADVERTISMENT

Gingrich spoke with students and faculty late in the afternoon at Farber Hall, then lectured in the evening at Slagle Auditorium.

Before his lecture, Gingrich was greeted with a standing ovation. He then launched into a detailed narrative of early American history and discussed the challenges young Americans soon will face, including terrorism, rogue dictators, nuclear weapons and Social Security reform.

"We are at one of those great intersections in history when we as a people are going to have to have a great conversation with each other," Gingrich said. Once Americans have that talk, he added, they will ensure a safe, free and prosperous country.

Gingrich spoke about the traits of great leaders such as George Washington, who listened to people to determine what course to take, whether in battle or in legislation.

"In the American model, power comes from God to you. We then loan it to the government," he said. "The key to a leader is you listen first."

Members of the audience said afterward that they found his speech informative and inspiring.

"He did a really good job of telling us about how one person can make a difference," said Renee LaMie of Vermillion.

Dan Sullivan, a USD student, said he enjoyed Gingrich's presentation of American history and current events.

"He gave a really articulate and raw interpretation of events today," Sullivan said. "I thought he responded (to audience questions) with a lot of cogency."

At the afternoon question-and-answer session, the topics ranged from the war in Iraq to nuclear weapons to immigration. Such questions are typical of college students he visits across the United States, Gingrich said.

"I find when you go on a campus, there's a broader interest than politicians would expect," he said.

Mostly, students asked him how he got into politics, he said. He told the USD crowd at Farber Hall that he wanted to be a zoologist as a boy, but a boyhood visit to the battlefield at Verdun in France drew him to politics. Standing on that battlefield made him realize wars and tragedies, such as the thousands who have died in the mass genocides at Darfur in the Sudan, are real and not just stories in history books.

Iran as a nuclear threat was on the forefront of some students' minds as they asked if the United States would be capable of subduing Iran as a nuclear threat.

Gingrich told the students their generation was entering a dangerous period - just as dangerous or more than that of the Cold War. He said the best move would be to replace Iran's government by organizing opposition within Iran.

A student asked if that would be possible now, considering the United States' involvement in Iraq.

"Could we do it technically? Yes," Gingrich said. "We're not using much of our Navy or Air Force.

posted April 12, 2006 02:46 PM              

quote:

---

Your party lost and they are going to keep on losing for the same reasons which cost the democrats previous elections.

---

jwhop....I told you...I DON'T HAVE A PARTY.

At one time, I did tend to "lean" toward the Democratic party...but I've since come to realize that in reality there is actually no difference between them (except for show).

Most of those in power are all part of the NWO...They are the ones to be concerned with..which is representive of BOTH sides!!!!!

You may have noticed how "Commander Corruption," is very chummy with Bush Sr. these days....Or I should say their close friendship (which is long standing}, is more out in the open these days.

They HAVE NEVER BEEN on two different sides...IT'S ALL SHOW...

posted April 13, 2006 02:14 AM              

***********

04/12/06 CNN: Baghdad: Where no one is safe The Iraqi capital is seething with confusion. Murder, assassination and kidnapping are the words of the day. Blast walls rule all. Security is the growth industry in a city ravaged by bloodshed.

04/12/06 Reuters: Car bomb kills 26 amid Iraq political deadlock (update)
A car bomb killed at least 26 people outside a Shi'ite mosque north of Baghdad, some 70 people were wounded in the explosion. Hospital officials said casualty tolls were expected to rise as ambulances were still rushing in with victims.

04/12/06 Azzaman: Iraq’s oil output shrinks as fuel shortages mount Iraq’s oil production has shrunk to 1.8 million barrels a day, way below average output rates prior to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of the country. The northern oil fields of Kirkuk now produce (only) about 300,000 barrels a day for local consumption.

04/12/06 AP: Shiite rivalry blocks Iraq
Bitter rivalry between two powerful clans for leadership of Iraq's Shiite Muslims snarled efforts Tuesday to agree on the next prime minister, the key issue that is blocking a national unity government.

04/12/06 AP: Iraq rebuilding running short on time, money In their makeshift offices in a former Baghdad palace, a small army of American builders and engineers, oilmen and budgeteers is working overtime on last-minute projects to help reconstruct Iraq.

04/12/06 AP: Fort Wainwright soldier killed in Iraq
a Fort Wainwright soldier was killed when a suicide bomber detonated a bomb...in Rawah, Iraq. 2 other injured soldiers were taken to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center...one was classified as "very seriously injured," the other was "seriously injured."

04/12/06 AP: Roadside bomb kills two police in Sulayman Beg A roadside bomb killed two policemen in the town of Sulayman Beg, about 90 north of Baghdad.

04/12/06 Reuters: Gunmen kill two Iraqi soldiers, two others wounded in Baiji Gunmen shot dead two Iraqi army soldiers and wounded another while they were traveling in a civilian car in central Baiji, 180 km (112 miles) north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi military officials said.

04/12/06 Reuters: Two trucks destroyed, drivers killed
NEAR RAMADI - After killing two drivers, gunmen set on fire two trucks carrying goods for the U.S. military on a road between Ramadi and Rutba, west of Baghdad, witnesses and police said.

04/12/06 AFP: Policeman shot dead in Baghdad
In a separate attack, a policeman was shot dead in Baghdad early Wednesday.

04/12/06 AFP: Roadside bomb kills two civilians in Kirkuk
Two civilians died when hit by a roadside bomb south of the northern oil hub of Kirkuk, a police officer said, adding that four others were wounded.

04/12/06 eecho: British base mortared in Basra, police station in Muqdadiyah Two rockets hit the British military base at the Basra airport complex about 3am local time, but there were no damages or casualties. In Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, mortar rounds struck a police station, wounding three policemen.

04/12/06 eecho: roadside bomb wounds two in Baqubah Northeast of Baghdad, a roadside bomb in the city of Baqouba targeted a convoy carrying the deputy of the governor of Diyala province, wounding two of his guards.

04/12/06 eecho: Two officials killed in Baghdad An internal affairs officer at the Interior Ministry was killed by men in two cars while leaving his house in Amil in western Baghdad, and a Housing Ministry employee was killed as he drove to work in the same neighbourhood, police said.

04/12/06 eecho: Car bomb kills two Iraqis in Baghdad The third car bomb exploded in Baghdad, targeting a police patrol in the northern district of Wazziriyah. The blast killed one policeman and two civilians, and wounded four others

04/12/06 AP: Two US soldiers killed by roadside bombing south of Baghdad
Insurgent attacks have killed seven U.S. soldiers since Sunday, including two who died in a roadside bombing just south of Baghdad on Wednesday.

04/12/06 Reuters: Two civilians killed in Khalis
Two people were killed and 20 wounded when a car bomb exploded near a market in the town of Khalis, 80 km (50 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.

04/12/06 Reuters: 3 bodies found in Baghdad
Police said they found the bodies of three men in different areas of the capital. The identities of the victims were not immediately clear.

04/12/06 AP: Gunmen hunt down and kill 3 government employees Gunmen in Baghdad hunted down three different government employees and shot them dead...Interior Ministry was killed...in Amil...A Housing Ministry employee was killed as he drove to work...gunmen shot down an Oil Ministry worker at a bus stop

04/12/06 eecho: Suicide car bomber kills 2 in Tal Afar In the ancient city of Tal Afar, a suicide car bomber drove up to a busy vegetable market and detonated his explosives, killing at least two shoppers and wounding seven others, said police Brig. Abdul-Hamid Khalaf.

04/12/06 Xinhua: Four Iraqis killed by bomb in Waziriya district in Baghdad The source said that four Iraqis, including one policeman and three civilians, were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near a police patrol in Waziriya district in central Baghdad on Wednesday morning.

04/12/06 CincinnatiEnquirer: Milford High grad died at hands of Iraqi soldier As area police and sheriff's deputies prepared for the funeral of Lance Cpl. Bryan Taylor, the Department of Defense announced Tuesday that the 20-year-old Marine died at the hands of an Iraqi Army soldier trained by U.S. troops.

04/12/06 AFP: Iraqi interior minister admits 'death squads' exist Iraq's interior minister has acknowledged the existence of so-called death squads within certain security forces but denied any link with his own ministry.

04/12/06 AP: Indiana hostage’s wife seeks to renew Iraq contacts The wife of Indiana businessman Jeffrey Ake broke the public silence she has kept since he was kidnapped a year ago in Iraq, saying Tuesday she believed he was still alive even though there has been no word about him since days after his abduction.

posted April 15, 2006 01:47 PM            

An Iraqi officer of significant rank approached my translator as I quietly took notes near the banks of the Euphrates River, at a combat observation post named COP Dunlop. He knew I was an embedded American. He had a sense, perhaps, that I was a sympathetic soul, and he wanted to pass along an urgent message.

Franklin Raff

We shook hands and exchanged pleasantries. I learned he was an educated and successful man, an accomplished soldier, and quite knowledgeable about the affairs of the world. He had served under Saddam. He openly spoke about the likelihood of corruption in the new Iraqi Ministry of Defense. We spoke about black-market arms trading, ancient smuggling routes, and the problem of porous borders.

We even discussed personal matters, and the question of his taking a second wife. (I told him the one about a thousand pair of panty-hose hanging from King Solomon's shower-curtain.) We had a reasonably long and genuine conversation about matters of importance to all men. And at a certain moment, he grew a little uneasy and blurted out what he had wanted to say from the beginning:

Why do you people not tell our story? Why do you not say what is going on? Why do you come to our country and see what is happening, you see the schools and the hospitals and you see the markets and you eat with Sunni and Shia soldiers – everybody eats together, everybody works together –you see that Saddam is gone forever and we are free to speak and complain.

You see we are working and eating together and fighting together – Sunni and Shia – you see what we are building here, you see the votes we make as one people. Then you say to the world about a great war and horrible things and how we are all killing each other? We are not animals! We are Iraqis. Look around you! Look!

Non-English speaking Iraqis are distressed and disheartened by American media bias. Many feel personally offended by what they read in translation and hear of in the foreign press. I am not talking about press information and public affairs officers. I am not talking about coalition soldiers (though every one I spoke with on the subject was equally frustrated.) I am talking about Arabic-speaking Iraqis. They see a difference between what we're seeing and what we're saying. What does that tell you about the extent of our problem?

I was truly "downrange" in Iraq, embedded in Baghdad, Sadr City, Fallujah, and a series of remote combat outposts and forward operations bases in the Sunni Triangle. I spent much of my time in areas that were in immediate transition or wholly controlled by Iraqi forces. I wanted to get dirty, and I wanted to see the worst of it.

I was entirely too close to a vehicle-borne IED – intended, possibly, to destroy my party – which tragically killed a U.S. Marine and a young Iraqi boy. I trampled through a mass of depleted uranium, breathed the squalor of a Saddam-era slum, slept uneasily through the bursts of an urban gunfight, and dined on the partially-cooked head of a sheep. But these are not my most disturbing recollections.

Civil unrest is distasteful and at times gruesome, but in much of the Middle East it is an abiding condition. The scenes that flicker in my mind seem graver than the filth, disorder, and sorrow that have been a part of Iraq's dramatic transition. And now that I have returned to Washington, as memories play alongside my daily media intake, they combine to create an increasingly gloomy montage.

It was hilarious at the time. So funny, in fact, I nearly wept. I will never forget the sight of my colleague, a well-known, market-leading radio reporter feverishly clutching his satellite phone as a Chinook transport helicopter flew by, half a mile or so away. He was standing right beside me as he dialed through the time zones to go "live from Iraq":

We're right in the middle of the action! I'm sorry ... I can't hear you! There's a Blackhawk landing right behind me! I can't quite describe what's going on! This is unbelievable!

At the time, you see, we were just outside an Embassy chow hall, quietly discussing the weather. We had just eaten a magnificent lunch. In this combat reporter's trembling right hand was the target of his desperate screams, the satellite phone – his listeners' link to the horror and chaos of war, the sweat and tears, the booming, blood-shod tragedy of it all. And in his left hand – I swear it – a chocolate milkshake.

There is plenty of bombast in the green zone. "On the scene" excitement breeds hyperbole, and many reporters are pretentious and boastful to begin with. There's no need to name names: Most folks can smell manure wrapped in newsprint, no matter who does the wrapping. But I quietly curse when I think of all the self-styled Ernie Pyles in their Baghdad hotel rooms, staring out over the city skyline, giving you news "from the front."

Let me tell you what has become somewhat of a running joke among coalition soldiers. It is evening, and a boom is heard in the distance. Some foreign fighter has blown himself up, and maybe he's taken one of ours with him. Maybe it's an IED. Or it might be an attack on one of our new electrical transformers, engineered to dishearten and confuse Iraqi citizens by depriving them of a nights' electricity. Nobody knows yet, but that doesn't really matter.

Our journalist, "on the line" in his cushy suite, scrambles to the balcony. He sees a puff of dust on the horizon, shivers in the cool night air and the intensity of the moment, and turns down CNN on the television. He e-mails his editor about these explosive developments and then, with a cool beer in hand, begins writing about a great and desperate war. Brothers in the crosshairs. A rag-tag insurrection, gaining momentum in dramatic increments. A few historical references. A scribbled, out-of-context comment overheard in the mess hall. A line or two from some radical imam, if a desirable translation can be found. Bingo: It's a front-page story.

Embedded news-gatherers – even those with military experience, as was the case with me and my immediate company – are essentially expensive luggage. We take up valuable space. We are unarmed, untrained, generally unfit, and we tend to get in the way. We are valuable targets for the border-hopping, media-crazed murderers who seek instability and chaos. But this isn't what irritates our defenders. What bothers them is that when we put pen to paper, we tend to stab them squarely in the back by misrepresenting and over-dramatizing our experiences. It is no wonder a "PRESS" tag will get you a few hairy eyeballs in the field: There's a general consensus that we are liars.

The lies aren't relegated to firsthand reports. I listen to NPR every morning. I read the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and scan any number of online media. As a lifelong and moderately accomplished student of war history and of the works (and memoranda) of men like Sergei Eisenstein and Josef Goebbels, I have been keenly aware of an increasing use of elemental propaganda techniques and tactics in "mainstream" reporting on the war.

Good news from Iraq, for instance, is systematically, if delicately, prefaced with the indication of a biased source. I am almost certain there is a standing order at outfits like NPR's "Morning Edition" to compromise positive stories with selections from an arsenal of useful poll numbers. For good measure, the stories are often relegated to commentary segments of the program, in order to lend a casual and dismissive air to core information.

Let's use, for example, the fact that Sunni, Shia and Kurdish leaders are organizing innumerable micro-summits to resolve their tribal differences in the name of national unity. Participation is nearly 100 percent, negotiations are largely fruitful, and leaders from local imams on up want to reiterate to the press, just like our Iraqi officer did, that despite isolated attacks and foreign insurgent activity, there is no "civil war" going on. So the Pentagon releases selections from this tapestry of reassuring stories in the standard manner along with requisite sound-bytes, interview opportunities, and raw statistics. The news is verifiable, rich in human interest, and undeniably positive. Here's how it plays on "Morning Edition":

The president has admitted he was wrong about WMD, and now, according to the White House, Shia and Sunni leaders are evidently trying to work together to try and quell the burgeoning civil war. Approval ratings for the Bush administration and the war are at an all-time low, so the question is: What's behind these last-ditch efforts, and can they possibly succeed? Joining me to discuss this is NPR senior news analyst Cokie Roberts ...

In the minds of those who do not recognize the telltale signs of subversive delivery, the desired effect is achieved.

This effect – to convince the world that Iraq is a hopeless and violent wasteland, heartbreaking evidence, even, of a trigger-happy cowboy's hubris – is compounded and reaffirmed day after day, as biased and exaggerated reports reverberate through and within thousands of local and syndicated media outlets. As George Orwell explained in his dystopian novel "1984," "If all records told the same tale – then the lie passed into history and became truth."

I wanted to confess to my new friend, the Iraqi officer at COP Dunlop, that we have an autocracy in America that has never been deposed – an imperious corps of convenience-isolationists with short memories and powerful imaginations. I wanted to explain that though there are hardly any soldiers among them, they rule the thoughts and actions of legions of citizens.

I wanted to tell him about our media elite, about how "if it bleeds, it leads," about our 24-hour news cycle, and about the "Journal of Record" and its endless struggle to embarrass and discredit our president. I wanted to tell him that the same folks who tell us they're giving the world "all the news that's fit to print" are the same ones who deep-sixed Babi Yar and ignored the Holocaust, the same ones who bury stories about Saddam's mass graves and "spike" Iraqi efforts to show us the awe-inspiring progress they have made.

I wanted to acknowledge that too many Americans lack the fortitude and patience to stand behind our new Iraqi allies as they forge a new nation. I wanted to explain that certain powerful Americans feel we didn't find quite enough chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to make our multinational effort worthwhile – no matter what we have, in fact, found; no matter what the Iraqis witnessed, no matter our soldiers' experiences and testimony, no matter Iraq's success thus far.

I wanted to tell him that not all media people are liars. But I knew that my thoughts were too complicated to make it through translation. I knew that when I returned to America, the words "civil war" would be plastered all over the mainstream media, just as they were when I left. So I held my tongue.

I returned to what I expected. All the hotshot analysts and commentators are speculating, with that requisite gravitas, about the "roots" of civil war.

I was there. I was in some miserable places, but I saw a miracle every day. I saw a lot of smiles, a lot of hope, and a lot of pride in that traumatized country. I saw a remarkably fraternal affection between Iraqi and coalition soldiers. I saw bustling markets, busy streets, and peaceful demonstrations. I believe I may have witnessed a pivotal time in the infancy of a vibrant, freedom-loving ally in the Middle East.

I did not see a civil war. I did not see the beginnings of a civil war. But I did learn a thing or two about the "roots" of this civil war: Iraq's civil war has been engineered, in no small part, from the comfort of a Baghdad hotel room. It is catalyzed by minor exaggerations, partial facts, and propagandistic suppressions. It will escalate, over time and across media, as minor mistruths beget outright lies, until the truth itself begins to change.

posted April 15, 2006 05:31 PM              

10,000 Iraqi Families Displaced by Violence

Oh yes...the Iraqis have been liberated, their economy is booming and they are greeting Bush with flowers for all that he's done for them. (Wish there was an icon for the middle finger!!)

A displaced Iraqi ShiÕite girl walks outside the compound of a makeshift evacuation center in ShiÕiteÕs district Shoala in Baghdad. (Reuters File Photo)

quote:

---

BAGHDAD, Iraq,
April 14--Some 10,000 Iraqi families have been forced to leave their homes following threats and intimidation in the course of a surge in sectarian violence, an Iraqi official said Thursday.
“We estimate that 10,000 families have been displaced and this number will increase,“ the official from the ministry of migration and displacement told AFP on condition of anonymity.
“Just for Baghdad, the number of families has reached 3,991,“ he said, adding that the displaced tend to come from mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods.
Shiites from violence-torn mixed neighborhoods have generally fled south of Baghdad.
At the end of March, authorities estimated that 4,000 to 5,000 families had been displaced, while former prime minister Iyad Allawi compared the trend to ethnic cleansing.
The government announced it had mobilized some $330,000 in emergency funds to assist the displaced who have fled to the Shiite zones.
Jemini Pandya, spokeswoman for the International Organization of Migration said on March 31 that 30,000 to 36,000 Iraqis had left their homes.
Most of them were from Baghdad, as well as the Anbar and Diyala regions, Pandya told reporters.

---

posted April 15, 2006 07:04 PM            

Retired Gen. Anthony Zinni, who now complains that President Bush cherry-picked pre-war Iraq weapons intelligence and misled the country into going to war, warned six years ago that Saddam Hussein's WMD program was the biggest threat to U.S. interests in the Middle East.

"Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," Zinni told Congress on March 15, 2000.

"Despite claims that WMD efforts have ceased," the general-turned-war critic said, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD missiles, possibly equipped with CBW [chem-bio-weapons] payloads," Zinni said, in quotes unearthed Friday by the American Thinker blog.

Gen. Zinni is currently leading to charge to get Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign - a campaign he began two weeks ago on NBC's "Meet the Press."

During the same broadcast, Zinni addressed the issue of Saddam's WMD threat - sounding like someone who'd developed acute amnesia about his earlier testimony.
"What bothered me," Zinni told host Tim Russert, "[was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn’t fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD.

"Now, I’d be the first to say we had to assume he had WMD left over that wasn’t accounted for: artillery rounds, chemical rounds, a SCUD missile or two. But these things, over time, degrade. These things did not present operational or strategic level threats at best."

In fact, Zinni's flip-flop was so acute he should be suffering from a case of rhetorical whiplash. Here's more from the old Zinni - here telling Congress that Saddam would remain a threat even if he gave up his WMDs:

"Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."

The old Zinni even warned of a potential collaboration between Osama bin Laden and Iraq, telling Congress:

"Extremists like Osama bin Laden and his World Islamic Front network benefit from the global nature of communications that permits recruitment, fund raising, and direct connections to sub-elements worldwide . . .
"Terrorists are seeking more lethal weaponry to include: chemical, biological, radiological, and even nuclear components with which to perpetrate more sensational attacks . . . Three [Iraq, Iran and Sudan] of the seven recognized state-sponsors of terrorism are within this potentially volatile area, and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan has been sanctioned by the UN Security Council for its harboring of Osama bin Laden."

posted April 16, 2006 08:47 PM              

**********

Baghdad postmen pine for days of vicious dogs
From Daniel McGrory and Ali Hussain in Baghdad
IN A city where virtually nothing works and where anyone in uniform is as likely to shoot you as to help you, Faiq Mahmoud still makes his daily postal round.

He must vary his route to outsmart kidnap gangs and sidestep the insurgents roaming his troubled neighbourhood of Aadhamiya in northern Baghdad but he insists that the gunmen will not stop his mail delivery getting through.

A short, slightly built figure, Mr Mahmoud has plodded down these streets for six years, although nowadays he regularly passes dismembered corpses and bombed-out cars. He is supposed to start at 8am but turns up much later. The suicide bombers usually do their worst in the morning. so he appears when he believes that it is safer.

His bosses at the Ministry of Communications are so desperate to keep the service operating that postmen have licence to work as they please. Nobody wants to sport the smart new outfits that replaced the brown overalls they wore during the time of Saddam Hussein.

“A uniform would make you a target,” Mr Mahmoud said. “The kidnappers go for any government employee, so we are in disguise.” He pointed to his striped T-shirt and scruffy jeans.

Yesterday Mr Mahmoud, 42, hid his prized moped in a friend’s house and set off on foot with a bundle of letters hidden in a blue carrier bag, ducking down alleyways, through gardens and tramping over rubbish dumps to avoid the risks of the main roads.

The Post Office turns a blind eye to any of its staff carrying a firearm, but this father of three prefers to go unarmed. “People know me around here so, if the shooting starts, I can duck into someone’s house,” he said with an anxious smile.

Residents smothered him with gratitude. One man burst into tears, kissing Mr Mahmoud on both cheeks and filling his pockets with sweets when he delivered a letter from abroad containing a visa that meant that the family would soon join the exodus.

“It does make me feel good when I see the happiness people get from receiving a letter in their hand,” he said. “It is also a reminder there is some sort of normality amid the madness of Baghdad.”

Much of his time is spent playing detective. So many people have fled the suburb — or have had their homes destroyed — that he must track down the person, not the address. He said: “I have my own intelligence service. I ask shopkeepers, street sellers, children — anyone. But I know this area better than the police.”

A friend and colleague, Saad Hameed, was recently killed by a bomb outside the post office, in Al-Amel, western Baghdad and there was a large explosion outside one of the city’s main post offices last week that killed a dozen bystanders. Safadin Badr, the Deputy Head of Post in the ministry, is reluctant to say how many of his staff had been killed.

The postal service was established in Iraq in 1874. Mr Badr cannot guarantee delivery times but he said that a letter can get from north to south in less than a week. Skirmishes in some districts of the capital mean that it can take a lot longer to deliver a mile across Baghdad.

Customers must drop their mail in makeshift collection centres in ministries or official buildings because the distinctive yellow post boxes have been vandalised. Mr Badr estimated that they are delivering slightly less than 200,000 letters a month. Postmen are paid £114 a month, about half the salary of a police recruit.

Mr Mahmoud has more than 3,000 properties on his route but yesterday, because he could not find some customers and because of a security scare when a US Army patrol opened fire, he managed to deliver only six letters.

He said: “I yearn for the good old days, when all a postman in Baghdad had to fear was someone’s mad dog.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2138132,00.html

posted April 17, 2006 02:02 PM            

Earlier this year there was a town hall meeting on the Iraq war, sponsored by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), with the participation of such antiwar organizations as CodePink and MoveOn.org. The event also featured Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a former Marine who had become an outspoken critic of the war. To this Iraq war veteran, it was a good example of something that's become all too common: People from politics, the media and elsewhere purporting to represent "our" views. With all due respect, most often they don't.

The tenor of the town meeting was mostly what one might expect, but during the question-and-answer period, a veteran injured in Afghanistan stood up to offer his view. "If I didn't have a herniated disc, I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops," said Mark Seavey, a former Army sergeant who had recently returned from Afghanistan. "I know you keep saying how you have talked to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. The morale of the troops I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back despite the hardships. . . ."

"And, Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just arrived back from Afghanistan -- we never got a letter, we never got a visit from you, you didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got was a letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to, but the morale of the troops is very high."

What was the response? Murtha said nothing, while Moran attempted to move on, no pun intended, stating: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was a statement."

It was indeed a statement; a statement from both a constituent and a veteran that should have elicited something more than silence or a dismissive comment highlighting a supposed breach of protocol. This exchange, captured on video (it was on C-SPAN), has since been forwarded from base to base in military circles. It has not been well received there, and it only raises the already high level of frustration among military personnel that their opinions are not being heard.

In view of his distinguished military career, John Murtha has been the subject of much attention from the media and is a sought-after spokesman for opponents of the Iraq war. He has earned the right to speak. But his comments supposedly expressing the negative views of those who have and are now serving in the Middle East run counter to what I and others know and hear from our own colleagues -- from junior officers to the enlisted backbone of our fighting force.

Murtha undoubtedly knows full well that the greatest single thing that drags on morale in war is the loss of a buddy. But second to that is politicians questioning, in amplified tones, the validity of that loss to our families, colleagues, the nation and the world.

While we don't question his motives, we do question his assumptions. When he called for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, there was a sense of respectful disagreement among most military personnel. But when he subsequently stated that he would not join today's military, he made clear to the majority of us that he is out of touch with the troops. Quite frankly, it was received as a slap in the face.

Like so many others past and present, I proudly volunteered to serve in the military. I served one tour in Iraq and then volunteered to go back. Veterans continue to make clear that they are determined to succeed in Iraq. They are making this clear the best way they can: by volunteering to go back for third and sometimes fourth deployments. This fact is backed up by official Pentagon recruitment reports released as recently as Monday.

The morale of the trigger-pulling class of today's fighting force is strong. Unfortunately, we have not had a microphone or media audience willing to report our comments. Despite this frustration, our military continues to proudly dedicate itself to the mission at hand: a free, democratic and stable Iraq and a more secure America. All citizens have a right to express their views on this important national challenge, and all should be heard. Veterans ask no more, and they deserve no less.

posted April 17, 2006 04:31 PM              

Coming home — disillusioned

By Christopher H. Sheppard

Three years ago, I was a Marine Corps captain on the Iraqi/Kuwaiti border, participating in the invasion of Iraq. Awestruck, I heard our howitzers thunder and watched artillery rockets rise into the night sky and streak toward Iraq — their light bathing the desert moonscape like giant arc welders.

As I watched the Iraq war begin, I completely trusted the Bush administration. I thought we were going to prove all of the left-wing antiwar protesters and dissenters wrong. I thought we were going to make America safer. Regrettably, I acknowledge that it was I who was wrong.

I believed the Bush administration when it said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. I believed its assertion that Iraq was trying to buy yellowcake uranium from Africa and refine it into weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb. I believed its claim Iraq had vast quantities of biological and chemical agents. After years of thorough inspections, all of these claims have been disproved.

I believed the administration when it claimed there was overwhelming evidence Iraq was in cahoots with al-Qaida. In January 2004, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that there was no concrete evidence linking Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida.

I believed the administration when it grandly proclaimed we were going to bring a stable, Western-style liberal democracy to Iraq, complete with religious tolerance and the rule of law. We never had enough troops in Iraq to restore civil order and the rule of law. The Iraqi elections have produced a ruling majority of Shiite fundamentalists and marginalized the seething Sunni minority. Iraq dangerously teeters on the brink of civil war. We have emboldened Iran and destabilized the entire Middle East.

I believed the administration when it claimed the war could be done quickly and cheaply. It said the war would cost only between $50 billion and $60 billion. It said that Iraqi oil revenue would fund the country's reconstruction. I believed President Bush when he landed on the USS Lincoln and said "major combat operations have ended."

The war has cost the American taxpayers $250 billion and counting. The vast majority — 94 percent — of the more than 2,300 United States service members killed in Iraq have occurred since Bush's "Top Gun" proclamation. The cost in men and materiel has been far beyond what we were led to believe.

I volunteered to go back to Iraq for the fall and winter of 2004-2005. I went back out of frustration and guilt; frustration from watching Iraq unravel on the news and guilt that I wasn't there trying to stop it. Many fine Marines from my reserve battalion felt the same and volunteered to go back. I buried my mounting suspicions and mustered enough trust and faith in my civilian leadership to go back.

I returned disillusioned by what I saw. I participated in the second battle of Fallujah in November 2004. We crushed the insurgents in the city, but we only ended up scattering them throughout the province. The dumb ones stayed and died. The smart ones left town before the battle, to garner more recruits and fight another day. We were simply the little Dutch boy with our finger in the dike. In retrospect, we never had enough troops to firmly control the region; we had just enough to maintain a tenuous equilibrium.

I now know I wrongfully placed my faith and trust in a presidential administration hopelessly mired in incompetence, hubris and a lack of accountability. It planned a war based on false intelligence and unrealistic assumptions. It has strategically surrendered the condition of victory in Iraq to people who do not share our vision, values or interests. The Bush administration has proven successful at only one thing in Iraq — painting us into a corner with no feasible exit.

I will never trust any of them again.

Christopher H. Sheppard is a former Marine captain who served two tours of duty in Iraq as a combat engineer. He currently is finishing his master's degree in mass communication and lives in Marysville.

From the Seattle Times

posted April 17, 2006 04:55 PM            

Some have the intelligence to read the relevant information and know Saddam retained WMD programs he was hiding from inspectors, some don't.

Some have the wit to read the source reports and find the proof Saddam was trying to get yellow cake from Niger, some don't.

Some have the intelligence to refuse the leftist Kool-Aid. Some don't.

posted April 17, 2006 09:09 PM              

Do their jobs, you say?

I'm sorry, I don't see it as "a job."

It's not their job to invade a country that did nothing to harm them.

It's not their job to kill innocent people.

It's not their job to sacrifice their own lives for a dictator and his cronies...

You'll never convince me it's "their job!"

You remind me of that Coulter wench who told the wounded Viet Nam vet, we didn't win the war because of people like HIM!

posted April 17, 2006 09:19 PM            

It is their job to act as an extension of the military power of the United States..which is a division of the foreign policy of the United States the other being the State Department, both reporting to the President of the United States who makes foreign policy decisions.

That is their job and their only job.

posted April 17, 2006 09:31 PM              

quote:

---

Some whine, others do their jobs.

---

posted April 17, 2006 10:00 PM            

The very same left who attempted to and still are attempting to shield the Butcher of Baghdad, Saddam Hussein who killed up a million of his own citizens...just to keep them in line.

Now, it's the terrorists who are deliberately killing Iraqi civilians but it's the US Military who is badmouthed by leftists who are now attempting to protect them and hand them a victory in Iraq.

posted April 18, 2006 12:51 AM            

If the Texas Air National Guard hadn't been flying obsolete fighters...F-102 fighter/intercepters, Bush would likely have been rotated out. If the Texas ANG had flown F-105's for instance, he probably would have gone to Vietnam.

Calling Bush a chicken hawk or a "chicken" anything is uncalled for and it's not true. A lot of F-102's made some big holes in the ground. In fact, calling anyone who served in the military...National Guard or Reserves a chicken hawk is uncalled for and it's not true in almost every case.

Bush's Honorable Air National Guard Service
By Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.)
September 20, 2004

George Bush and I were fighter pilots. Lt. Bush flew F-102s in the Air National Guard (ANG) -- 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (FIS); I flew F-105s in combat -- 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS). Both our flying assignments were inherently dangerous -- Lt. Bush's because of the high performance nature of the fighter interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required to fly the F-102, and the high risks that come with all weather (night and day) intercept missions.

Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic National Committee's Mr. Terry McAuliffe and the anti-war (weak on National Security) left wing of the Democrat Party have relentlessly attacked the service of Lt. Bush and by inference other pilots and service members in the ANG and Reserve forces as cowards and shirkers of responsibility for not being in Vietnam. Their flippant slandering of our Guard and Reserve forces in an effort to discredit President Bush and win an election is beyond the pale. They have no decency left.

posted April 18, 2006 01:09 AM            

Leftists should give that a try instead of fabricating lies to tell about their political enemies.

posted April 18, 2006 01:28 AM              

by Phil Hirschkorn
CNN

A business school professor who taught George W. Bush at Harvard University in the early 1970s says the future president told him that family friends had pulled strings to get him into the Texas Air National Guard.

Yoshi Tsurumi, in his first on-camera interview on the subject, told CNN that Bush confided in him during an after-class hallway conversation during the 1973-74 school year.

He admitted to me that to avoid the Vietnam draft, he had his dad -- he said 'Dad's friends' -- skip him through the long waiting list to get him into the Texas National Guard," Tsurumi said. "He thought that was a smart thing to do."

While the campaign has not responded directly to Tsurumi's allegations, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett said last week, "Every time President Bush gets near another election, all the innuendo and rumors about President Bush's service in the National Guard come to the forefront."

Bush has said in the past that neither he nor his father sought special treatment for him. "Any allegation that my dad asked for special favors is simply not true," he said in 1999.

Tsurumi said Vietnam was a top topic among the 85 students in his class, when he was a visiting associate professor at Harvard from 1972 to 1976. He now teaches at Baruch College in New York.

"What I couldn't stand -- and I told him -- he was all for the U.S. to continue with the Vietnam War. That means he was all for other people, Americans, to keep on fighting and dying."

Tsurumi got to know Bush when the future president took his "Economics EAM" (Environmental Analysis for from the fall of 1973 to the spring of 1974, Bush's first year at Harvard's business school.

Bush had transferred to Air National Guard reserve status before he enrolled in the MBA program. He had enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard in May 1968 and trained to fly fighter jets until he was suspended from flying status in August 1972 for failing to submit to an annual physical, according to Bush's military records released earlier this year.

Tsurumi said he remembers Bush because every teacher remembers their best and worst students, and Bush was in the latter group.

"Lazy. He didn't come to my class prepared," Tsurumi said. "He did very badly."

Tsurumi concedes that he disapproves of Bush's politics. He wrote a letter to the editor of his hometown newspaper, the Scarsdale Inquirer, that derided the president's claims to "compassionate conservatism."

"Somehow I found him totally devoid of compassion, social responsibility, and good study discipline," Tsurumi said. "What I remember most about him was all the kind of flippant statements that he made inside of classroom as well as outside."

Tsurumi says he is not working for any Democratic group for the Kerry campaign. "The only activity I do is to vote for him," Tsurumi said.

But Tsurumi has been speaking out against Bush by giving newspaper and radio interviews.

The professor's comments come as a former Texas politician, former state House Speaker and Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes, has said it was he got Bush into the Guard.

Barnes, a Democrat supporting John Kerry, says he called the head of the Texas unit in 1968, at the request of a Bush family friend. Bush's father was then a U.S congressman.

CNN's Jonathan Wald and Jennifer Icklan contributed to this story.

posted April 18, 2006 04:35 PM              

quote:

---

In fact, calling anyone who served in the military...National Guard or Reserves a chicken hawk is uncalled for and it's not true in almost every case.

---

Jwhop,

Sorry for my rude comment, it was uncalled for and I apolgize. I hope that you will accept.

I meant no disrespect to anyone who has actually served in the military. I referring to those people that are all gung-ho about going to war, but have never been in the military and have no intention of serving. If you are willing to support going to war, you should be willing to sign up and make a sacrifice in the name of your country.

posted April 18, 2006 11:40 PM            

I just don't subscribe to the Neville Chamberlain school of foreign policy.

I'm sure most people who oppose war under any circumstances believe they're right and have their hearts in the right place.

History records that appeasing dictators is catastrophic in terms of loss of human life. 50,000,000 people lost their lives in WWII as a direct result of attempts to appease Hitler. All the talks, all the so called agreements just gave Hitler time to arm Germany to the teeth and attack Europe when he was ready.

I don't know any military people who want war. I also don't know anyone at all who wants war. But, if war is inevitable and it sometimes is, as was the case with Saddam Hussein and also with Islamic fundamentalist radicals, then war is best fought on our terms, at the time of our choice and on their soil.