I can't find a figure for how many people from the UK, or Canada, think Hussein was connected to 9/11. Possibly, pollsters in these countries don't think it a question worth asking.
'Regarding the P.R. use of shopping scenes at Baghdad’s Dora market as proof of Bush’s progress, some American soldiers assigned to the project complained about how the showcasing concealed critical shortcomings.
Under pressure from field commander Gen. David Petraeus, U.S. forces got about 300 shops to reopen in time for VIP visits (compared with more than 850 shops before the U.S. invasion). But some storekeepers had few goods to sell, stayed open only a few hours and took part in the charade because they were paid $2,500.
“Although they sell dust, they are open for business,” said 1st Lt. Jose Molina, who was in charge of monitoring and disbursing the grant money. “They intend to sell goods or they may just have a handful of goods. But they are still counted.”
Another U.S. soldier, Staff Sgt. Josh Campbell, told the Post correspondent, “personally, I think it’s a false representation. But what can I say? I’m just doing my job and don’t ask questions.” [Washington Post, Sept. 4, 2007]
Though the stage-managed VIP tours might look like obvious deceptions to U.S. troops on the ground, they proved to be extremely effective in coloring the judgments of members of Congress and think-tank analysts.'
So, Scotty, could you check with those soldiers who told you they see "merchants are back in business"? Were they talking about merchants who are really back in business, or the ones paid thousands to fake it for a few hours for visiting politicians and journalists?
Oh, but wait a minute. If there were significant numbers of merchants really back in business, there wouldn't be a need for the fakery, would there?
So, are 1st Lt. Jose Molina and Staff Sgt. Josh Campbell lying about the "Potemkin market"?
Or did the Washington Post just make it all up? I haven't seen any denials, rebuttals or retractions of this story.
"Spin" is faking normal commercial activity by paying store-owners thousands to open for the benefit of visting VIPs. "Spin" is saying 'merchants are back in business' when that refers to only a few empty stores temporarily.
What did your soldier friends who stand by their story say, exactly? "Some" merchants? "A few" merchants? Were they talking about Dora market, or about somewhere else? Where? Where are "merchants back in business" in the normal, spin-free sense?
Talking of spin, Petraeus' 75% figure has finally been explained (kind of):
'When Petraeus told an Australian newspaper last week that sectarian attacks had decreased 75 percent "since last year," the statistic was quickly e-mailed to U.S. journalists in a White House fact sheet. Asked for detail, MNF-I said that "last year" referred to December 2006, when attacks spiked to more than 1,600.
By March, however - before U.S. troop strength was increased under Bush's strategy - the number had dropped to 600, only slightly less than in the same month last year. That is about where it has remained in 2007, with what MNF-I said was a slight increase in April and May "but trending back down in June-July."
Petraeus's spokesman, Col. Steven A. Boylan, said he was certain that Petraeus had made a comparison with December in the interview with the Australian paper, which did not publish a direct Petraeus quote. No qualifier appeared in the White House fact sheet.'www.washingtonpost.com
If the surge were really working, Petraeus would surely be being candid about the statistics, instead of spinning them.
My flashback was occasioned by press reports yesterday that senior Army officers in Baghdad were trashing the conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate and the GAO analysis on grounds that they employed "flawed counting methodology used by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency."
Speaking of flawed counting methodology, someone has inserted into the president's mouth the claim that:
"Our troops have killed or captured an average of more than 1,500 al-Qaeda terrorists and other extremists every month since January of this year."
Finally, some good news! But wait. As a homework assignment, I invite readers to look up what has been said previously about how many al-Qaeda fighters may be in Iraq. Then do some arithmetic and try to calculate how many of them may now have been killed more than once...'www.truthout.org
Some more good news......The surge is still working! - Scotty
If the whole point of the surge is to allow the government time to solve the political problems and there has been little progress in that area, I don't see how it can be said to be working. Will more time help? Even if we were to begin a responsible draw down of our troops today, it would take at least one to two years to get all of them out of Iraq according to Congressman (and retired Vice-Admiral) Joe Sestak, D-Pa.
"Even for those convinced that the surge in Iraq is a mistake – or we have reached the point where our goals cannot realistically be attained – the manner in which we manage the transition from a major war to its aftermath is crucial for our national security. And therefore Congress owes the public a careful explanation why and how it will be done. Americans may be tired of this war, but they still expect us to salvage as much as possible from the situation and protect our broader interests in the region and the world.
This is not about just “getting the troops home.” Rather, the important concept to pursue is a strategic redeployment from Iraq that enhances our security by giving us the leverage to begin to unify Iraqis. However many Americans want to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq now, we must still face what will happen there once we leave. And while some may try to characterize this as President Bush’s war, it is our nation’s war in terms of how the consequences will affect us. A careless redeployment endangers our 160,000 troops and over 160,000 civilian contractors in Iraq. The withdrawal process is when military forces are at their most vulnerable – it took six months to redeploy our 6,000 troops safely from Somalia in the mid 90s and we inserted 17,000 troops for their withdrawal and protection.
I am very impressed with this man's thinking on this tough issue. I hope everyone will take the time to read his statement and to read or listen to his speech on C-Span: First link This is an audio/video link.
Dwight (Edited to correct Congressman Sestak's name spelling error)
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Dwight,
Posts: 4330 | Location: Anchorage, AK | Registered: 06-05-02
I guess you're basing that bald assertion on what soldiers tell you - surely not on the dubious statistics and spin of partisan cheerleaders for the surge.
So what did your soldier friends who stand by their story about merchants being back in business, streets being safe and so on say, exactly? Were they talking about Dora market, or about somewhere else? Where? Where are "merchants back in business" in the normal, spin-free sense? Did they mean in al Anbar or elsewhere?
I guess you're basing that bald assertion on what soldiers tell you - surely not on the dubious statistics and spin of partisan cheerleaders for the surge.
So what did your soldier friends who stand by their story about merchants being back in business, streets being safe and so on say, exactly? Were they talking about Dora market, or about somewhere else? Where? Where are "merchants back in business" in the normal, spin-free sense? Did they mean in al Anbar or elsewhere?
You do realize, the more you say the "surge" isn't working, the more of a chance it won't work. LOL
It doesn't really matter what anyone calls the report; if it consists of manipulated statistics - like a dramatic fall in 'sectarian' violence created only by arbitrarily renaming some of it 'criminal' violence - it'll be no basis for what Sestak mentioned, salvaging as much as possible from the situation. You can't base a workable policy on propaganda.
What's really important is what happens next - what sustainable progress has been made, not what latter-day five o'clock follies Petraeus can cook up.
If there is a battle of spin (but is it "spin" to call it the Bush Report - the Whitehouse has said that it will write the thing, having previously said that Petraeus would author it) the Democrats seem to be winning it.
'"I don't think General Petraeus has an independent view," Dianne Feinstein, a prominent Democratic senator from California, told Fox television.
Dick Durbin, the second ranking Democrat in the Senate, was even more blunt. He told reporters: "By carefully manipulating the statistics the Bush Petraeus report will try and persuade us that the strategy is working."
The scepticism about Gen Petraeus's candour was reflected in a new Washington Post/ABC News poll yesterday revealing that more than half of Americans believe that Gen Petraeus will attempt to sugar-coat the situation in Iraq. Some 66% believe that Mr Bush will resist any exit from Iraq, no matter what the general says in his testimony to Congress.'www.guardian.co.uk
The significant part may be that, whatever is said in the coming week, the surge will probably go on. Bush doesn't seem to have any other ideas, and the Democrats have neither a big enough majority nor (it seems) the will to stand up to him.
A new word: "takhalasu" - an Iraqi word for purged, meaning killed or driven away. Takhalasu explains the relative peace of some areas in Iraq, apparently. Will it enter the Iraq lexicon, along with "WMD", "shock and awe" and "IED"? 'Shock and awe' doesn't seem so fashionable any more.
