Amazing that he’s heard nothing about Bremer’s own request for 50,000 more troops. Happens when you spend your newsgathering time listening to Limbaugh instead, I suppose.
More than 1000 wounded I suppose doesn’t show the need for more troops, not if you just ignore it, anyway.
However, to continue to argue from actual facts, perhaps not presented on Fox, let us look at the actual words of Abizaid when asked about troop levels (from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/29/international/worldspecial/29GENE.html, which you’ll have to pay for shortly):
Notice that this general, who didn’t get to be general by being stupid, couched a request for more troops as a call for de-Americanizing the force and internationalizing it. But not everyone was fooled. From the latest Newsweek, available at http://www.msnbc.com/news/959552.asp?0cl=c1 :
Then there’s this report from today’s NY Times, the lead story on the front page of the paper edition (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/03/international/middleeast/03PREX.html?hp):
Meantime, what’s actually happening on the ground, besides the fact, which I already posted above, that Centcom is deliberately underreporting injuries to troops? This (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64826-2003Aug29.html):
Combined with the underreporting of wounded soldiers, we now have underreporting of overall hostile incidents. Classic wartime news suppression to attempt to make the situation look good.
The picture overall is that the Admin is twisting and turning and trying desperately to get out of the trap it fell into, while the rest of the world folds its arms and watches. Payback for being humiliated and run over? Obviously. Payback is a bitch.
Of course, if they were actually interested in doing the right thing both by Iraq and by the soldiers they sent over there, they’d stop playing politics and actually solve the problem at hand. But that would take courage, integrity, and a recognition that the rest of the world does actually need to be respected, a recognition that could start by actually reporting what’s really going on in Iraq without reporters having to dig to find the truth.
ElvisL1ves: good work.
An interesting point on multinational forces:
Poland has today taken over the responsibilty for some parts of sothern Iraq, though under US supreme command. During the cold war the east block tried some nation building of it’s own by sending military advisers to countries in the mid-east and africa. Now this is nothing new and everyone knows the american reaction to this. It’s interesting, though that each country of the Warsaw Pact had to contribute to this and Poland was the one that assisted Iraq! As a result, some of the polish officers now deployed in Iraq have been there befor and a lot of them speak the language!
Now let’s see how the Poles are greeted. As I read, public opinion in Poland is not in favor of the whole thing and polish casualties will put major pressure on the government.
It is nice to see (re: pantom’s NYT link) that Colin Powell is back in the loop on this. He appeared to have been out gunned by Rumsfeld and the Pentagon in the early days. He deserves to launch a couple of good “I told you sos” in Don’s direction.
-Preferably nuclear-tipped “I told you sos.”
Definitive links there, pantom. Thanks.
First off, Don’t fucking insult me in GD.
Second off, thoses stories you cited are back from July and do not represent a complete picture.
It was alleged in July that Paul Bremer made an unofficial requiest for more troops. This information was disclosed by an anonymous ex-“official.”
Rumsfel has denied that such a request was made, officially or unofficially.
Bremer says he never made such a request.
" Bremer said he had never asked for more troops.
“I agree with the CENTCOM commander, John Abizaid, who said earlier this week in a press conference that he believes we have enough troops here,” Bremer said."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24380354.htm
I find it difficult to beleive that this is all you have to offer to support the contention that it is generally agreed we don’t have enough troops.
Do you beleive that general agreement consists of a single anonymous ex-official by himself?
I thank you for providing your cite. You have provided a concrete example of how a total falsehood is generated with a little help from carelessness, dishonesty, and foolishness.
from http://straighttalkamerica.com/cgi-data/news/files/104.shtml, posted Aug 31, 2003.
I’ve just instituted a personal policy not to allow citeless bs like your post, Scylla, to go unrefuted.
Try reading for a change.
Pantom:
Isn’t it ironic that I do have a cite? Isn’t it also ironic that you failed to read it? Isn’t it unbelievably ironic that your cite doesn’t even work?
Three for three. Admit it. You’re doing it on purpose. Nobody’s that bad for real.
I wasn’t doing it on purpose! Honest injun!
Anyway, this one works:
http://mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Newscenter.ViewOpEd&Content_id=1155
I had a whole paragraph reply after this that got eaten by the hamsters, who are being especially obsteperous tonight. It’s worth your life to get a reply in.
So, just take the above. I already quoted from it.
Pantom:
That’s an interesting piece, and worthy of some thought and comment.
Of course you know that it does not support the statement I am refuting.
I’ll think on it some.
Are you sure? I heard that we’d recently delayed the hand-over indefinitely.
I’m searching for where I read this.
Well, I have been out of the loop for a while, thank Og.
**U.S. Marines formally hand over control of south-central Iraq to Poles
**
Maybe whatever I read was just pertinent to Najaf?
I guess I’m not completely loopy
quote:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/030903/w090339.html
While military control was ceremoniously passed to the Poles in south-central Iraq, the handover of the holy city of Najaf was delayed at least two weeks after the car bombing Friday
outside the Imam Ali shrine that killed between 85 and 125 people.
Lt.-Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said the delay was appropriate and the U.S. marines were needed in the area for a while longer.
The U.S.-led coalition will review the situation in Najaf about mid-month, Sanchez said, after which it is hoped control of the city will be handed over to a Spanish brigade taking **U.S. Troops Delay Exit From Najaf**
I’m not sure what the intention behind this is. The place didn’t seem to be safe while the US was there and it probably won’t be safer when they are gone. What I think will be interesting to see is whether the Poles/Spaniards/whoever-else-is-there will also be attacked directly. I’m afraid they will.
Scylla, I’m pretty sure that, with a little reflection, you’ll realize you’re very far from an innocent party in the matter of posting insults, in GD or elsewhere. Don’t complain when you get it back. With a little more reflection, you’ll acknowledge that posting nonfactual information, or asserting or suggesting that other posts are nonfactual without a basis for doing so, is a fundamental violation of the principle of Fighting Ignorance that this board stands for. Got it? Good.
Scylla: you’re right that McCain doesn’t specifically refute claims that more troops are needed. However, it’s pretty obvious from the overall tone and from the specifics of what he said that he is pretty pissed about the Bush Administration’s attempts to do only the absolute minimum necessary to keep Iraq off the front page, which is what their strategy amounts to these days, IMO. I already posted cites that specifically state that the Administration is underreporting both injuries and hostile incidents, both of which go to that strategy. Basically, it amounts to keeping the situation in a low simmer until November 2004 is out of the way. After that, Bush will deal with Iraq in whatever way he’s chosen, which I’m sure has already been decided.
Between now & then, he wants it to keep quiet, unless of course he can get a nice October surprise out of it. I’m betting they capture either Saddam or Osama between Labor Day and November 2004. Failing that, they’ll produce irrefutable proof of either WMDs or a Saddam-Al Qaeda link.
And before you get all partisan on me, we both know that Clinton - either one of them - would have been equally ruthless in their handling of Iraq or any other war situation. Letting the kind of ruthless bastards that inevitably inhabit the White House get away with this kind of abusive nonsense is inexcusable, though. Voting for Bush - as both you and McCain will - doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything he does. The Administration won’t change its behavior if it knows it can count on its natural core to support it even when it’s wrong.
As any chess player will tell you, the threat is often worse than the execution. You don’t have to not vote for him, you - I’m talking here about the core of the Republican Party - just have to threaten him with the prospect. If there’s one thing a politician knows how to do, it’s count votes. If he figures he’ll lose too many because he’s being inept in Iraq, he’ll quickly decide to become competent, and he’ll do it well before it threatens his election prospects.
Or to put it bluntly, I’d rather lose the election than my life. I do commute every working day into NYC, and I’d rather not have that little nagging feeling at the back of my throat getting a little worse every day because I feel that the Admin isn’t doing its best to keep me and my fellow citizens safe. Even goat-felching bastids like you. 
I don’t care what your opinion is. Don’t insult me in GD. Insult my arguments if you like. Attack them to your heart’s content in whatever terms you like.
But, you’re not allowed to call me names. Do it again, and I use the report button.