I understand that Maliki supported this plan, which is understandable, since as US troops Stand UP, Iraqi troops can Stand Down.

Geo. Will: "...Because their allegiances are to sectarian factions, they are not responsive to legitimate central authority. They are part of the problem."

This is an understatement; any attempt to get the Iraqis to "stand up" while we "stand down" -- all of the confidence the Bush admin. places in the iraqi military and civil police -- ignores the fact that there is an implicit/becoming-explicit CIVIL WAR going on.

For the last few years, their ENTIRE STRATEGY has been based on this fallacy: that iraq security forces care more about law, order, and nationalism -- than they do about adressing ancient tribal/sectarian/semi-domesticated primate religious differences.

ie. REVENGE.

======

We need to get the fuck out of Vietn... um, Iraq ASAP.

BTW: I'm going out on a limb here;

I predict that within the next two weeks (Jan 20 by my estimation) -- we will see the start of the Iraqi version of the 1968 TET OFFENSIVE.

====

For those interested in real solutions, visit Shark's Plan for Iraq.

re: "Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits and oil revenue from a safe haven in Iraq...'

Was it just me, or did a few million other Americans watching this think,

"...which... um... YOU ALREADY CREATED THANKS TO YOUR INVASION!!!!"

??

Fucking irony on a grand scale.

Sean, you - and hundreds if not hundreds of thousands - are trying to use logic & common sense, which are two qualities utterly lost on someone like W who lives on fantasy, magical thinking ('if I say it often enough it will become so'), & a state of total denial. Add to these his attitude, amply demonstrated over the past 5 years, that US troops lives' lost don't matter, as long as he's remembered as a victorious War Prez & his ego is gratified, and the picture of the monster we're dealing with is complete. He's Marie Antoinette with a 'let them eat cake' attitude, except in his case it involves lives.

He & Cheney need to be removed - preferably impeached, tried, convicted & then executed - or at least neutralized - asap. I hope the new congress will be willing & able to cut him off at the balls, but I'm not sanguine.

Bush says - *We will interrupt the flow of support from #### and #####. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in ####.*

deja fucking vu

This says it all

Ain't much more needed.

Has anyone considered getting the leaders of the region along with the leaders of the factions to discuss what it would take for a peace deal??

Just asking.

Why? That wouldn't distract the US public from BushCo's spectacular failures elsewhere, & it doesn't fit in with his fake macho Texas cowboy self-image. Therefore it's unlikely. I suspect such a solution might also be beyond his imagination or comprehension, & doubt he'd do it even if one of his own advisers recommended it,if it wasn't what he already had decided he wanted to hear.

Yes and he IS The Decider!

To my mind Bush's Iraq Plan is consistent with his previous actions in this country. Evidently it won't lead to the ultimate victory. However, the positive side of this plan is that more troops will enjoy the adventures of war.

Just thought I'd point out: as with every aspect of Iraq, SHARK has been CORRECT in all of his predictions (from pre-invasion to post-occupation!).

This latest one, although not all that hard to call -- was especially prescient regarding the DATE for the beginning -- which at the time I made -- was over a week away.

FYI: Nalle, (et al right-wing, Bush blowin' apologists) -- have been WRONG on EVERY aspect of Iraq.

Who's yer daddy, deluded conservatives?

=======


from Jan. 11 --

"I predict that within the next two weeks (Jan 20 by my estimation) -- we will see the start of the Iraqi version of the 1968 TET OFFENSIVE."

=====

Amazing, eh?

Folks, check this. It's a sad reminder of Dave Nalle's legacy hereabouts -- and how he's truly one of the most manipulative, cynical, heinous political 'writers' on BC property.

To be such a rabid, distorting, apologist/defender for this horrible American tragedy -- especially in the face of SO MUCH MOUNTING EVIDENCE -- is an intellectual crime on a gigantic scale.

ie, Yer evil, Nalle -- and like Bush, history is already starting to 'judge' you harshly.

Say yer sorry for your sins, Dave.

Try to gain some respect.

Yeah, Shark. It sure is terrible of me to point out good things our troops were doing in Iraq, why, I'm an evil, evil bastard to have HOPE. Hope is the worst characteristic of humanity, damn Pandora for finally letting it out.

I have always been on the side of the Iraqi people, and you won't admit it, but there WAS a time when it looked like our intervention there was going to work out to their best advantage, and that was a very good thing.

Sorry to see you've been reduced to stalker status. There used to be depths to which you would not stoop, but I guess you have now fully embraced the role of ghost pointing a hollow sleeve and moaning senselessly. So much rage, so little positive to contribute.

Dave

IMO the stupid bastards in Iraq no longer deserve whatever help we can give them: they don't want it, for one thing, and for another, everything we do build or repair there they tear up - just because WE did it, even if it's for their benefit. In any event, we the average US taxpayers have paid more than our share or what we "owe" or anything else; if anybody deems the Iraqis are "owed" anything further, let THEM pay for it themselves, i.e. let Bush & Cheney & their ultrarich buddies ante up out of their OWN pockets. WE the US people owe NOTHING. The money being wasted is far better spent on repairing our OWN cities, highways, & infrastructures.

Heh

On the point about dredging up old articles for hindsight review and comparison.

I think it's a great thing, to be able to look at a body of work on a topic, compare what was said to what is actual. It allows a reader to discern just what value to place upon a writer's judgment and understanding.

The idea is that if they showed a decent understanding and solid judgment over a period of time, they become a more worthy source of information and analysis, whereas if they completely fuck up time and again, questioning their thought process is indeed required.

The record is important, as is remembering that such documentation is there, and making it available when pertinent.

Thanks, Doh, I too think it's RELEVANT, especially since Cheney is out Marketing Iraq BIGTIME -- and it's a replay of shit we've seen and heard for years now.

Nalle wrote that article some TWO YEARS ago, and it was obvious to many at the time that Iraq was already lost. Nalle then -- like Cheney now -- was in the "glass half full" mode -- trying to convince readers that Iraq's positives outweighed the negatives.

I think the US casualties were at some 1500 or so then. Now they're past 3000 -- not to mention the billions $ wasted.

For all my rude, sardonic Sharkian tendancies -- [despite?] -- I've been consistent and correct on Iraq from Day One. My worthy opponents have been consistently wrong on EVERY ASPECT of Iraq.

It is enlightening to be able to dredge up the history of the debate -- and folks like Bush, Cheney, and even our own highly esteemed Dave Nalle probably wish that the record wasn't available.

But it is.

And frankly, when someone is MARKETING a WAR that causes more American deaths for a lost [probably unworthy] cause -- then they need to be called on it.

And Nalle, you have equal access to ALL OF MY POSTS going back before you were even on Blogcritics. Have at it, peewee: I -- unlike you -- stand by my words and value my personal integrity.

Shark -- "stalker" or "patriot"??

Nalle on SHARK: "...so little positive to contribute."

Nalle, can you understand how in a certain universe, posting bullshit like "No One Died In Iraq Today" is an incredibly cynical, manipulative, HIGHLY NEGATIVE thing to do?

Ignoring Reality has a price; but the people paying it happen to be American soldiers -- while you sit on yer ass in yer pimped-out duck blind outside of Austin and try to delude your fellow americans into thinking Iraq is/was worth it.

It's not. It never was.

And your blindness epitomizes that of this administration. It's serious business -- playing apologist cheerleader for a corrupt, ill-conceived war.

War is not to be taken lightly.

BTW: I understand that -- as we 'sit and debate' -- that this is not about political ABSTRACTIONS -- especially with yer boy Bush sending another 21,000 troops into Harm's Way for a Mistake.

**DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?




** THE Reason MCH is so adamant about his obsession.

Shark.....I couldn't agree more.

Nalle:
People like you have to be held to account just like Cheney and Bush.

Assuming you are allowed to keep your role here on BC spreading your doctrine of false ideology over and over and over virtually non-stop, while results on the ground in Iraq and elsewhere, continue to contradict with your OPINION OR SATIRE, we "commenters" have a duty to magnify the gravity of your dangerousness to the innocent reader who may happen across this site.

No one in good conscious can allow you and your sole mouth piece CLAVOS to continue your insanity unchallenged.

If you don't like it......just stick to writing in your diary in the confines of your modest compound somewhere outside Austin, Tx.

No One Died in the Compound Today.
Just a stray dog and my ego.

the lie works best when the liar believes...

On the topic, and one I will use frequently, now that it is available...

the Tao of D'oh

The Tao has been restricted (but not wiped out altogether), D'oh...

Ah yes, more's the pity, Clavos. Simple to fix if you just free register with youtube.

Sometimes I forget.

So, instead...we will touch upon an olde syndrome of "monkey, killing monkey..."

We do aim to entertain as well as enlighten.

excellent

No one in good conscious can allow you and your sole mouth piece CLAVOS to continue your insanity unchallenged.

Though I dispute your characterization of us as insane, no one has left either of us unchallenged.

We've both been challenged by every lefty on the blog, martin. Most of them multiple times.

That's not a complaint, either; the very essence of debate is challenge and counter-challenge, and I welcome being challenged civilly and intelligently.

Oh,and BTW: it's conscience.

D'oh,

I am registered. I've even got videos posted.

Just wanted to point it out. It wasn't restricted last week?...

Glad your conscious enough to catch my spelling errors, but you could look in the mirror or objectively look at the past and improve the conscience part.....

My conscience is perfectly clear, martin. You (and anyone else) can disagree with me all you want, but my having an opinion is not weighing on my conscience at all.

And there's no reason for it to do so.

I have no beef with Clavos - only with the those who hyped the occupation as some kind of upbeat adventure bringing Freedom to the People (at the same time minimizing body counts - and focusing anywhere but on the devastation - and complaining about the lack of rosy news coverage)

Bears repeating:

Troll: "...I have no beef with Clavos - only with the those who hyped the occupation as some kind of upbeat adventure bringing Freedom to the People (at the same time minimizing body counts - and focusing anywhere but on the devastation - and complaining about the lack of rosy news coverage)"

~And take your pithy summaries onto your bridge!

Shark, Martin, Troll, etc.

I'm perfectly fine with being held accountable for my past articles. I have nothing to apologize for and I stand by what I've written and my entirely honest and IMO laudable motivations. Yes, I have not always been right, but I've tried to do good.

In the case of the Iraq war I have written about a dozen articles out of my total output of over 320, so it's hardly my main interest. Some of those articles have been positive or about positive things happening in Iraq, like free elections and economic progress, though never really postive about the idea of the war itself.

I have written this sort of article because I perceived a lack of coverage of these aspects of the situation in the media and on BC. For every bit of overlooked good news I brought to light or incorrect bit of spin I've corrected, BC has published at least 5 articles about negative aspects of the war or attacking the administration and its policies. If you believe in the 'fairness doctrine', I'm it as far as BC goes.

From the very first article I wrote on the War in Iraq, Shark has responded with personal attacks and empty, angry rhetoric. I no longer take him seriously. He does not think about what he writes or the content of what he is responding to, he merely rants angrily without ever adding anything positive to the discussion.

Shark isn't alone, and he's become part of a small chorus of people whose main interest seems to be to extinguish free speech and diversity of opinion on blogcritics. As an editor I have tolerated their behavior, published their articles and generally been polite to them, despite endless insults and personal attacks. I have never deleted a comment or asked for a user to lose his access despite some truly abominable behavior. I have been reasonably couteous to people who have treated me like crap, who have spread lies about me, and called me every name imaginable.

I put up with all this shit because I believe in free speech. I think the behavior of those who attack me and have tried to silence me says everything about their lack of character and moral bankruptcy. I doubt they think about such things, but their behavior reflects on their credibility and diminishes their effectivenes as advocates for their beliefs. I think that most people see through their hatefulness.

I think it's unfortunate that this sort of behavior has had a chilling effect on free speech and diversity of opinion here on blogcritics. It would be nice if we could have a dialog on issue like Iraq, rather than seeing anyone not toeing the leftist party line shouted down, insulted and ultimately driven away. We've lost a bunch of good writers because of this sort of behavior, and I think that's a shame.

I don't plan on being silenced so easily and I almost wish I actually was the warmonering Neocon I've been accused of being so that I could speak out and add that perspective to the debate, but I'm not going to play that role just to annoy certain people.

I'm going to continue to respect free speech, tolerate dissent and write what I believe to be true, whether I get praised or reviled for it. I may not always be right, but I will always be honest. So carry on.

Dave

Nalle, I've been right about Iraq from Day One.

Not only have you been wrong about almost every aspect of Iraq, but you've been a cheerleader posting "good news" from Iraq as if the fact that somebody has a new cell phone or a satellite dish on their cave is worth the deaths of American soldiers.

And as far as the "personal attacks" -- Nalle, at least I have the honesty and balls to do it explicitly; you do personal attacks, too -- it's just that they're implicit and couched in a camoflage of semi-intellectual bullshit.

As far as "empty rhetoric" from Shark; that aint' true either: I say more in three lines than you do in three pages. It's usually profound aphorisms and/or jokes that aren't readily accessible to the average motard. Usually, one has to work to get to the depths of what I say.

As far as "extinguishing free speech" -- FUCK YOU. That's just not true, which makes it a... dare I say it... a LIE, Davey. I've been a huge advocate for free speech here and elsewhere.

As far as "...I think the behavior of those who attack me and have tried to silence me says everything about their lack of character and moral bankruptcy."

What a crock of shit. No one is trying to silence you; and I -- specifically -- am only trying to mock your IDEAS -- which usually don't even rate a "debate". And as you know, I don't believe in didactic debates. It's all bullshit. You have your Reality Tunnel; I have mine. I'm here only to contrast the two.

As far as: "....It would be nice if we could have a dialog on issue like Iraq, rather than seeing anyone not toeing the leftist party line shouted down, insulted and ultimately driven away."

WHAT A LOAD OF BULLSHIT AND SELF-PITY. We've had a fucking 'DIALOG' on Iraq for years, Nalle; that's WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG.

Ya big crybaby.

Anyway, Professor, you wanna play elitist-pig, condescending, pedantic lecturer to the Liberal Pinheads on Blogcritics, that makes you the Alpha Feral Dog hereabouts.

Picture me on the front porch of my pimped-out duck blind with a 30.06 loaded with profound jokes and scattershot sarcasm.

If ya can't stand the heat, get out of my gated community.

Dave - climb down off the soap box

this has little to do with left or right or silencing a point of view...that's a distortion to deflect criticism

it has to do with your presented Pollyanna notions about nation building and marketing a deadly product...as we have learned (again) in Iraq wishful thinking is not a sound basis for policy

"a distortion to deflect criticism
Pollyanna notions about nation building
marketing a deadly product
wishful thinking is not a sound basis for policy"

All of which EPITOMIZE what the Bush Admin. has put this nation through, btw.

======


Troll, ironically, one of my favorite personal mantras is:

"Things are always better than they seem." -- Pollyanna


I love that.

(I fell in love with Mills in Tiger Bay)

SHARK: "I've been right about Iraq from Day One."

Given what I've seen from you here, you should be hanging your head in shame for being right. Why would anyone be proud to be a herald of doom and failure? It sickens me to see you celebrating the death of our troops and the torment of the Iraqi people.

Your attitude and the attitude of people like you are directly responsible for our failure in Iraq. To see you boasting about it like a little child sickens me. You're a sociopath.

Dave Nalle,

You are typical of the "rights" viewpoint.
At the very start of the absurd war, you and your kind clearly told us all on the LEFT that you are either with us or your with the terrorists.

When things didn't go as you expected, you went to your Rove handbook and tried to SPIN your way to success. "NO ONE DIED IN IRAQ TODAY".

You continually say the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror.

Now that it is as obvious as the nose on your face, that this war is getting us nowhere and was TOTALLY ill-conceived, you and your ilk, go back to your standard approach, of claiming us "leftists" as unpatriotic, don't support the troops, would rather be right than happy etc.....

YET ALL WE ARE SAYING IS ........

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!

AND......

[Edited. Knock it off Martin, you know better than that. Comments Editor]

"You continually say the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror."

Al Qaeda has at least 20,000 terrorists in Iraq and Iran has at least 30,000 terrorist 'agents' similar in concept to their Hezbollah operatives there. I would think that anyone with half a brain would realize that made what was going on in Iraq part of the 'War on Terror', but there are still people like Martin who would rather bury their head in the sand, lie to themselves and to others, and pray desperately for a US defeat because their personal hatreds allow no hint of truth into their dark little brains.


Dave

Link to source for those numbers please, they stand in contrast to current Pentagon reports, or anything we have been told up to this point that has any confirmation at all.

At the last committee hearings , the 5% figure was still asserted for the total number of "outside agents" operating in Iraq.

sources please - not disputing your statement but I'd like to see where the info came from

thanks again

"there are still people like Martin who would rather bury their head in the sand, lie to themselves and to others, and pray desperately for a US defeat because their personal hatreds allow no hint of truth into their dark little brains."

Who's head is in the sand?

It's pretty obvious to even our stupid President by now (except for maybe you and Cheney) that his war on terrorism in Iraq is a total farce and he will have to start standing troops down soon, while he hopes the Iraqi's can stand up.

I do not want defeat in Iraq.

I believe we should Impeach Bush and Cheney, send them to Iraq as Ambassadors and increase our troops along with a multi-national coalition force and clean up the mess BushCo. started.

No more war protests.
100% support by the American people and the world, but we have to start, by admitting our LEADERS were wrong, impeach them and ask the world for forgiveness and then start to get it right, even through force.

uh....Vox - ?

Heh, good luck troll.

I twigged to it immediately, since intel sources have the entire al Qaeda membership worldwide at less than 20,000...so it appears that Vox has some news for them when it comes to Iraq.

I will wait for the links, but it does appear that some folks are still in the habit of just making shit up to suit them. Here's to hoping I am incorrect and that there is some miraculous new source that has all this figured out, and probably knows where the WMDs, Atlantis and the Lindberg baby are.

But I doubt it.

Martin - please explain what your idea of 'getting it right' is

Vox - that kind of shit flat pisses me off

I mean correcting what we've done wrong.

In other words, establish some peace and stability and some form of government and then getting out.

the 5% figure was still asserted for the total number of "outside agents" operating in Iraq.

5% of what? The population? That would be over a million.

Al Qaeda itself claimed 20K terrorists in Iraq at one point, and I believe an Iranian opposition group has stated that there are 32,000 Iranian agents in Iraq. But when I went to look for a hard figure, I found the astonishing figure of 132,000 iranian agents in an arab newspaper online. That number seems insanely high. With that many agents there we'd be looking at full-scale pitched warfare, not just terrorism.

Dave

all is too reminiscent of Chalabi and the WMDs

Oh, I'm sure the Iranian group in question is inflating the number. But as I understand it they have given the US forces a list of names and descriptions of the agents for them to combine with their list from the 'catch and release' program, which apparently detained thousands of suspect Iranians during the past year. And with the new policy, the current orders are to shoot anyone on that list on sight.

Dave

The 5% number was in total insurgents as given in congressional testimony by numerous military and intel officials in the last 6 months, C-SPAN has all the transcripts and video.

In those same reports, the totals of the entire insurgency were quoted as between 20 and 50 thousand, depending on source.

Interesting to see where all this new bullshit comes from, I am with troll in that it seems like more made up bullshit (Chalabi) than anything with corroboration, hence my asking for links to these numbers.

It constantly amazes and hurts me to see all this bullshit over Issues. Rather than sitting down for actual discussion, agreeing on basic facts and trying to hammer out solutions there appears to be a huge propensity for bullshit and mudslinging.

That's NO way to find answers, but it appears to many of the partisans who are killing our Republic as sure as any cancer, that it's better to slam your opponents than actually solve a problem.

the Tao of D'oh

btw - from Martin's #40 it appears that I'm wrong and it does have to do with silencing voices

troll - it seems like this link is still needed to be laid out here for folks to think about.

But I'm silly like that.

vox poopuli: "It sickens me to see you celebrating the death of our troops and the torment of the Iraqi people."

that is complete bullshit. hot shit, that is the most shitty piece of shit i've seen all shitty day! shit.


"Your attitude and the attitude of people like you are directly responsible for our failure in Iraq."

uh huh. wow. you want responsibility? i don't think it's shark or anyone saying "i dunno about this war... seems like a bad idea..." i think you need to look to whomever came up with this weak-ass strategy. i think that's pretty damn obvious.

you're joking, right?

Dear Comments Editor (Dave?):

Please restate the comments policy for me as it's been sometime since I've read it and am only using language that I've seen time and time again in other comments.

It was not a personal attack.

I presume that anything to do with Peace is deteremined to be subversive and aiding and abetting the enemy?

Now I know (we all) where you stand.

"which apparently detained thousands of suspect Iranians " -- Dave Nalle

I don't believe this for a minute. Why didn't we hear of this before? I can recall Rummy saying something about a couple of outside foreign agitators or deadenders, but I don't believe there's large numbers of Iranian behind this insurgency.

But hey, let's say you and your leader BushCo. are right, so what....he created a breeding ground for these people to come to the aid of their fellow Shia by meddling in Iraq in the first place.

It's interesting that in our age of video and archiving, so many appear to forget that people can go and look at what some said previously...check the record and compare prognostication to what actually happened.

This has been brought up in other places around BC as of late, and I do think it's massively excellent that BC itself provides this concept in microcosm.

2/06/03

I don't believe this for a minute. Why didn't we hear of this before?

I imagine the administration didn't want to publicize a policy where they merely caught and released terrorist invaders - after photographing and fingerprinting them. As for why you hadn't heard of it, I presume that's because you don't read a newspaper or use any of the online news services. The 'catch and release' controversy isn't exactly a new story. It's been going on since 2003.

Dave

*and I do think it's massively excellent that BC itself provides this concept [of an accessible archive] in microcosm.*

agreed...except my comment in which I proved the completeness and consistency of all possible branches of mathematics the other day seems to have disappeared

Dear Comments Editor (Dave?):

Please restate the comments policy for me as it's been sometime since I've read it and am only using language that I've seen time and time again in other comments.

Martin, I'm not the comment editor and I don't edit comments on principle, as I have previously discussed. I'm perfectly happy to let you expose your foolishness any way you like.

There used to be a link to the comments policy at the end of every comment thread, but it appears to have disappeared.

Maybe Christopher Rose will help us out here.

It was not a personal attack.

I presume that anything to do with Peace is deteremined to be subversive and aiding and abetting the enemy?

Now I know (we all) where you stand.

The comments editor is a socialistic European peacenik, so I doubt he's editing you on that basis.

dave

"I presume that's because you don't read a newspaper or use any of the online news services."

But Dave.....I get all the objective news I need from your OPINION AND SATIRE PIECES....

Why on earth would I need anything else?

Someone please check the archives.....


PS: Comments Police.....since I don't read newspapers or use an online news source, I may be too dumb to know if Dave is attacking me personally or merely stating his opinion or if this is satire.

So I'll leave it up to you to review it and edit it as you did in my #40....

Thank you management.

the irony - complaining about an edited comment in which you call for another to 'shut up'

Troll,
I must have missed that, where did I tell someone to shut up?

perhaps my memory is wrong - I thought that that was part of what was edited

if not - accept my apology

Mine could be screwed up as well.....but I think
I said

GET THE FUCK OUT

NOT

SHUT THE FUCK UP

Editor?

Waking from some twisted nightmare about being stuck inbetween Dave Nalle and Martin Lav in a public urinal, I find this.

Martin, you were rude beyond belief or necessity so I edited it out. End of story. Your debating rival is not a lot better but as he's so passionate about freedom of speech it seems fair to let you duke it out. But don't forget, it's about the issues.

Finally, if the best Mr Nalle could come up with to describe my views is "socialist European peacenik", everybody should discount two thirds of everything he says, cos that's how wrong he is!

"The comments editor is a socialistic European peacenik..."
- Dave Nalle

Yes, far worse than a phoney Texas chickenhawk...

Well, at least "phoney (sic) Texas chickenhawks" usually aren't socialists.

And, thankfully, they're not European.

Sadly MCH doesn't even have the balls to be a socialist.

And Chris, you know my description of you was meant in the kindest way. When I call you a socialist I mean the soft, cuddly and generally incompetent European kind, not the crazy self-destructive American kind.

Dave

troll: the irony - complaining about an edited comment in which you call for another to 'shut up'

Indeed. But telling someone to shut up (or get out, same difference) at least leaves that person ability to disobey. Editing out comments is pure and simple censorship.

Christopher Rose has no respect for freedom of speech and should be fired.

Dave: No , I don't know that at all. I DO know it was inaccurate, as is much you write here as you are entirely the prisoner of your own preconceptions, despite your repeated claims to be a free thinker. If only!

JR: If the primary motive of the comments space was to defend freedom of speech, it wouldn't have a comments policy or an editor.

You are welcome, as is everybody here, to make such points as you like. That's why your comment above is still there in all its intellectual glory. When remarks go beyond healthy debate, editing is entirely needed. This may be unfortunate but it's true.

Thanks for your contribution.

for a slightly more conservative picture of the number of Iranian operatives in Iraq see here

here's the group with the large estimate

I am still unable to find info on the massive flight of agents/insurgents/terrorists out of Iraq

it seems that this is just more spin and 'irrational exuberance' from the apologists Dave Lumpy and Vox

First linkage of the day is for troll...what would we do without him guarding the bridge of fact checking?

the Tao of D'oh

I don't understand why D'oh keeps linking to poorly recorded music videos as some sort of commentary. Clearly too subtle for me.

Here's a link which might actually be helpful, to Iraq the Model where the writers who are actually in Baghdad, as opposed to sitting in a cubicle in some US office on their spotty behinds. If you look at the first article, you'll find a translation from Al Sabah newspaper about the terrorist flight from Baghdad and into Syria, with another link about terrorists fleeing to the Iranian border.

Dave

Obviously too subtle, but that's ok, I don't do it for you.

And we asked specifically for credible sources, NOT some rants on blogspot that links to other, questionable sources.

troll's link fu > yours

theTao of D'oh

The questionable source is the largest circulation newspaper in Baghdad. What do you want, a signed letter from al Zawahiri?

Here's another link to an article based on information from a US intelligence officer in Iraq.

And here's an article on the same subject from The New York Sun, which also addresses the general issue of insurgent morale.

Sorry I don't haave a clever video link to go with it.

Dave

I see Vox...what politicians and spinmiesters are calling flight from Baghdad military strategists might call repositioning troops as in the quote from al-Sabah: *experts consider this a failure in protecting the plan's secrecy*

but thanks for the links...I couldn't find much of anything

The links are what they are. There appears to be some debate over whether the leak of the date of the offensive in Baghdad was intentional or not. Personally I find the decision to start shooting Iranian agents on sight far more interesting.

Dave

"[Edited. Knock it off Martin, you know better than that. Comments Editor]"

Mr. Rose et all.....


My comment of "get the F out" was not directed to our dear Mr. Nalle, it was meant to speak to the US military in Iraq, that they should get the FUCK out and

GIVE PEACE A CHANCE


Sincerely yours.....

Vox, your first link is to the pajama place, another set of bloggers, that was a reference in your previous comment's link.

Nice try, but two bloggers sourcing each other does not a reliable account make.

As for the local Iraqi papers and such, it has already been widely reported and properly sourced that the military is paying people for press and articles and blogs and the like, as part of psyops/propaganda military operations.

Goes a long way towards explaining why ANYONE trying to get an accurate picture there is in for some serious difficulties, and why folks like me ask for source material to look at.

The NY Sun editorial is a bit better, but it's all opinion, none of the facts are sourced in the editorial, and the piece itself is clearly labeled opinion, not vetted news.

Just for you, Vox.

I'm glad you specified that 'Pajama Place' is another set of bloggers; for a moment I thought ol' VP had accidently hit the wrong button & sent one of his Favorites instead.

If that's the case Martin, I erred and apologise. Sure didn't seem like it at the time though.

"If that's the case Martin, I erred and apologise."

No worries, apology accepted.

"Sure didn't seem like it at the time though."

You're mistaken, you said you were mistaken, just leave it at that, but I can understand that one would think this based on the level of frustration that Dave Nalle's "flip-flopping" would evoke in people.


Thanks

Vox, got any links to cute photos of adorable Iraqi children holding "art exhibits"?

xxoo
Haley Mills

Message #3:

SHARK wrote:

"BTW: I'm going out on a limb here; I predict that within the next two weeks (Jan 20 by my estimation) -- we will see the start of the Iraqi version of the 1968 TET OFFENSIVE."

======

Mon. Feb. 13, 2007

(AP) "John McCain said Monday he fears an offensive by Iraqi insurgents similar to the Tet Offensive by the Viet Cong that sent US casualties soaring in Vietnam..."