Security politics

Posted: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:17 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: Security

The Washington Post covers the White House's credibility problem when it comes to intelligence about Iran: "The administration, conscious of its low credibility, believes it has gone out of its way to convince doubters that Iran is not Iraq all over again... Much as the Vietnam Syndrome dogged the foreign and military policies of a generation of U.S. presidents, the Iraq Syndrome has become an ever-present undercurrent in Washington."

The New York Times says Bush’s statement yesterday that certain factions inside the Iranian government are supplying Shiite militants with roadside bombs that have killed US troops "amounted to his most specific accusation to date that Iran was undermining security in Iraq. They appeared to be part of a concerted effort by the White House to present a clearer, more direct case that Iran was supplying the potent weapons - and to push back against criticism that the intelligence used in reaching the conclusions was not credible.”

For the House debate over the non-binding resolution opposing a troop increase, "The extent of the Republican opposition to Bush's plan is the only suspense left," says USA Today.

House Democratic aides pointed out yesterday that Bush's speech happened to be scheduled for the same time when the biggest detractors of a troop increase within his own party's ranks were set to speak on the House floor. The Los Angeles Times covers the group of 11 Republicans who spoke out. "What remains unclear is how many GOP war critics will get behind the next step in the debate - Democratic efforts to go beyond symbolic opposition to Bush's pursuit of his Iraq policy." Also today, Rep. John Murtha is expected "to announce a strategy for imposing limits on Bush's ability to carry out the troop increase."

Murtha will deliver a videotaped message to MoveOn members at house parties across the country tonight, urging them to write their members of Congress and call for them to oppose Bush's planned troop increase.

The Washington Times notes that Democratic leaders yesterday tried to keep a lid on an intraparty fight of their own, quelling "voices within their own party who want to 'defund' the war in Iraq, while Republicans said that is exactly what the majority party intends to do."

Roll Call's Stuart Rothenberg looks down the road at whether or not Republican lawmakers will manage to distance themselves from Bush over Iraq in the next two years. "It is almost impossible for GOP Members of Congress to talk about Iraq - about what is happening on the ground and about what to do about it - without being drawn into a discussion of the president and his policies. Even more than that, Republicans will have to figure out what they’ll do about - and with - the president when their national convention rolls around 18 months from now. Does anybody really believe that Republicans will be able to put together a convention that ignores the president of the United States?"

The Boston Herald details the proposal Sen. John Kerry (D) will introduce today, which will seek "to punish war profiteers, root out cronyism in post-war contract awards and give new protections to whistleblowers."

The Chicago Tribune writes that the husband of failed House candidate Tammy Duckworth (D), who lost both legs serving in Iraq, is now being deployed to Iraq himself.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard's attack on Sen. Barack Obama (D) has forced the "main contenders in this year’s Australian federal elections... into a surprisingly early and forceful debate on the country’s involvement in the US-led coalition in Iraq," says the Financial Times. Howard suggested last weekend that "that terrorists would want Mr Obama elected because of his proposal to withdraw US troops from Iraq by March 2008... The spat has left political commentators questioning the normally astute centre-right prime minister’s judgment."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

And the Saudis are arming Sunnis...but you don't hear Bush talk about invading Saudia Arabia. If this were a parlimentary system we could remove Bush with a no confidence vote and install a more trustworthy administration. Since we can't, the Congress needs to ramp up its oversight and the media has to work overtime digging, questioning, pressing for the truth. All Americans have to take responsibility for our policies or we are going to end up in a nuclear war.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:30 AM)

How can we believe an administration who's lied to the world before on the weapons in Iraq? Do we take a huge chance that they learned their lesson this time around? What do we know as the facts? I am full of questions that the President either refused to answer in his press conference on Wednesday, or were never asked by the press. When our president pleads with us to believe him solely because he is our president, without any admission of guilt for lying before, ther is definitely something wrong. We appear to have a totally ineffective and inept president and Executive Branch. And, the GOP is not helping amtters at all by their support for his policies. We have no exit strategy, no plan to engage in diplomacy with Iran, Syria and others and continue to have people claiming they know they are correct in using military force to solve a political problem. We are prisoners of our own device and have an administration that is the butt of sad jokes the world over, all due to their ability to hoodwink the US electorate just enough to squeeze their way into power for 8 long years. The Anerican public has had more than enough of this folly and refuse to be shoved aside by the Republicans as being uninformed and totally incorrect of the situation in Iraq. They blame it on the media, a common scapegoat for bad policy gone very sour. Iran may be getting weapons into Iraq. So are we. In fact, didn't Rumsfeld under the Reagan adminstration actually sell major weapons of mass destruction to Iraq in their war with Iran? We are so full of hypocracy that it isn't even funny anymore (if it ever was and I don't mean that it was humorous). With Bush's popularity diving to depths not seen even by Nixon during his bleakest hours, this man just needs to step aside and either leave office or just be a care-taker for the next year or so. I don't know if he could ever change his policies, since he has never claimed to be wrong about anything (infallibility? No wonder Pope John Paul II never thought much of Bush!) Maybe it is time to let him rot on the vine as a lame duck or impeach him? No matter what lies ahead, we are in for one heckuva ride that this country has never before seen. It will be something that you can someday tell stories about to your grandkids. At least, I hope you'll be able to do this...

Nick, Ohio (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:44 AM)

This administration has NO credibility so NO PROBLEM

mikeeg,abdn,wa (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:44 AM)

Martha Raddatz, in defense of Bush as to his recent saber rattling musings on Iran, has been able to arrive at the conclusion that Bush is just trying to protect American troops, though neglecting to tell us how she came to possess this information, or whether she has conversations with Jesus. Dang that liberal-baised media!

JIrby, Colorado Springs, Co (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:49 AM)

It's a fact that Iran is arming the Shia militias, and there's evidence that outside arms are reaching other forces as well. I don't know about Saudi directly aiding any of the insurgents...most of the arms seen from foreign forces are of Russian origins. Saudi uses US equipment. Countries that use Russian stuff include Syria, Iran, Egypt and Yemen.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:13 AM)

Amy - Where did you get your information about the Saudi's arming the Suni's? Thanks.

Ryan, Michigan (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:15 AM)

Yesterday, February 14th, 2007, 2500 AMERICAN TROOPS went into three neighborhoods of northeastern Bagdad. They were in the areas of Bayda, Ur, and Shaab.they were accompanied by 200 IRAQI TROOPS. Colonel Townsend commander of the Third Striker Brigade said that more Iraqis would eventually arrive. "You've got to remember that our surge plans are ahead of the Iraqis, the Iraqis are still getting set." American officers and soldiers describe the Iraqi security forces as eager.But they acknowledged that full competence would be harder for them to achieve. After reading all this, my question is why these Iraqi troops are still not well trained? We have been there 4 years and one would think there would be something to show for it.And how are these Iraqi forces suppose to take the lead in these individual surges if there are so few and they are not well trained?

Desmond (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:23 AM)

Ryan, it doesn't matter if the Saudis are arming the Sunni's or if Iran is arming the Shiites. Truth of the matter is, Iran has a reason for feeling the way it does. It is surrounded on three sides by countries friendly to the United States. Two of those countries have US Troops in them and the other is armed to the teeth with weapons given to them by the US Government. Add to that a President who has shown he will attack with little or no provocation and Iran has some concerns about their own security. If I were Iran's leader, I think I might want to have the bomb too. We sell more arms throughout the world than the next six countries combined and we are worrying about Iraq getting arms under the table from Iran!!!! That is beyond hypocrisy. If we can give arms to support our allies, why can't they get arms to support theirs. Putin is right. The way we do business is just creating another arms race.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:38 AM)

bush sends weapons to iraq everday and left stockpiles of weapons unprotected after invasion.

ex-marine,vietvet,america (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:47 AM)

bush sends weapons to iraq everday and left stockpiles of weapons unprotected after invasion.

ex-marine,vietvet,america (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:48 AM)

Russia will sell arms to anyone, at cut rate prices. If you look at dollar amounts, yes, the US sells quite a bit. But if you look at unit numbers (ie, individual vehicles, aircraft, etc), Russia is by far the largest supplier of weapons around the world. A LARGE chunk of our weapons are sold to friendly western governments in Europe, Australia and Japan. Hardly a "threat". It's easy to get carried away and say we sell more dollar for dollar...but consider an American C-17 costs about $202 million...the Russian equivelant (an IL-76) costs about $12-25 million, depending on if you buy a new or used one. America's biggest clients include Canada, UK, Norway, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, Denmark, Italy, Saudi Arabia, etc. Hardly a list of belligerant states. Russia sells to Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, China, and a variety of third world despot countries in Africa.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:58 AM)

ex-marine, many of those stockpiles were stored or hidden to help an insurgency. Additionally, it was tactically unsound to have entire units stay idle to guard munitions in the earlier part of the war...it wasn't Bush's decision, it was the decision of the ground commanders. We are still finding caches of munitions even to this day.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:00 AM)

if iran and syria use russian weapons would they not be marked in cyrillic? if iran is "manufacturing" the "improvised" explosive devices--quite a neat trick all by itself--used by the shia insurgents, would those not be marked in persian? the infamous power-point shows english/european numbering and lettering. i vote for the vanished stockpile of pre-war weapons.

kathleen,glastonbury ct (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:13 AM)

Chris, where's the proof that the Iranian government is arming the Shiite militias? Should we believe that President who told us there were WMDs in Iraq? The one who told us Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program? The one who told us the Baathists were in league with Al Qaeda, their sworn enemies? The one who told us the Iraqi government was an active part of the 9/11 attacks? The one who told us major combat operations were over years ago? The one who told us troop draw downs could begin by the end of '05? And '06? And '07? Under the circumstances I don't think it's being overly skeptical to want something besides his word on the matter.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:14 AM)

Chris, Abilene, TX--Thanks for the interesting, informative post on Russia's extensive military deals with a long list of "belligerent" countries including Venezuela and Iran. I find it odd that one doesn't hear very much about Russia in the news these days, even though a new "Cold War" seems to be brewing with Russia and China on one side and the US on the other side regarding several world issues including North Korea and Iraq. And I wonder what's been going on with the "suitcase nukes" that have been floating around Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union lately.

Olivia, Peoria, Ill. (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:26 AM)

To continue the story about the Neighborhoods in Bagdad, Lt. Col. Avanulas Smiley, meet with a former Iraqi Army officer, a Shiite. The Iraqi officer said he was worried about the loyalty of the Iraqi security ofrces. and compared them to criminals. "You really don't know what's inside them." Tthe challenge we have is geting the I.S.F. to the point that when we de-surge, we can get the I.S.F. to where they can do the job on their own" Colonel Smiley said. Staff Sgt Kenley Beazer,wondered about what would happen when the Iraqis were in charge of Bagdad. " As far as taking over the whole city by themselves, it will never hapen. they rely too much on U.S. forces. As soon as we pull out, I give it six months. then it goes back yo as bad as it was before."

Desmond (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:28 AM)

And AlZawahiri is smiling all the way to the bank, waiting for the American House and Senate Democrats to do what his terrorists could not do over the past four years: defeat the American military presence in Iraq P.S.: how long have American soldiers been in Bosnia,(Clinton's great war) keeping a shakey ceasefire, and stopping wholesale slaughter of Albanian muslims from occurring?? Can we get a resolution bringing them home too? After all, one good post-pullout genocide deserves another, just like 'Nam and Cambodia, 1919 Russia, etc.

jtb (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:32 AM)

John, I have proof...I was shot at by an SA-16 missile once, and Iraq never had those in their inventory. The only countries in the region that have those are Iran and Syria. I was shot at while over Karbala, a known Sadr stronghold. There's reports from all over of non-Iraqi sourced weapons being used, found and confiscated.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:35 AM)

Right on, Robert! I despise our hypocrisy in how we believe that we should be able to have any weapon we want, and we can give whatever we want to our "friends" but the countries that we have decided are "evil" must not be allowed any sort of comparable weapons program. That's crap. We would never allow another country to say to us "You can't have X"...if the UN told us we had to get rid of any WMD's we had, do you think we would? Would we kick the inspectors out? I'd be shocked if we didn't. But we are good, and they are evil, so it's okay.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:37 AM)

chris can you tell me where you get your info so I can check and decide for myself. I know all about sound military strategy which I have yet to see from the top military brass and bush(bush gets credit cause hes the WAR PRESIDENT,his description of himself). those stockpiles I was talking about were the ones Gen. Petraus saw and spoke about and media reported on. Im sure there were plenty hidden too, but those were not the ones I was talking about.

ex-marine, vietvet, america (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:43 AM)

Carrie, you need to know who you're dealing with when it comes to N. Korea and Iran. The leadership there can't be thought of in the same context as normal governments.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:04 PM)

ex-marine...it's funny that vets that are against the war, such as yourself, can say "I know all about blah blah blah" because you were in the military at some point in your life. Yet when current military personnel say something, you run around yelling "where's your proof? you don't know what you're talking about!". Whatever.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:06 PM)

ex-marine, as for my sources, it's mainly personal experience and intel briefings. Sorry, I can't post the briefings on an unclas forum. But you need to realize that Newsweek and IVAW aren't the end-all-be-all sources of information.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:10 PM)

Didn't the U.S. supply the Afghan rebels with "Stinger Missiles' in order to shoot down Soviet helicopters in the 1980's Afghan war? Should the Soviet Union have taken military action against the U.S.? Supplying arms to "political allies" is a "dirty part" of war.

David, Baltimore, MD (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:25 PM)

Chris, I appreciate your bravery and willingness to serve, and it must have been harrowing to be shot at by an SA-16. It just doesn't prove that weapon was supplied by the Iranian or Syrian government directly to the insurgents. People get killed every day in Iraq with munitions that came out of American factories, but the US Government isn't supplying them (except of course to our own troops). Stuff gets out there on the world market and it's bound to end up just about anywhere. JTB, one VERY important difference between Bosnia and Iraq is that we ARE maintaining an uneasy ceasefire. In Iraq the more troops and money we send the worse the violence becomes. Al Maliki is on record saying he wishes we'd just leave so he could settle the Sunni problem for good. Witnesses regularly report seeing attackers wearing police or military uniforms, proof that we're training insurgents unknowingly. Oh, one other difference in Bosnia; The Bosnian factions started in on each other. We unleashed the earthly hell in Iraq because neocons thought they'd naturally gravitate toward a multicultural, open democracy. We opened Pandora's Box and now there's no way to to close the lid.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:41 PM)

Not one solitary word that comes from the Bush regime nor any of it's suggorates can be believed. Whatever, Iran is or is not doing, must be verified by those 100% disconnected from this Administration...we have a President and a regime that lies, deceives, is dishonest and is immoral. If we cannot be assured that Iran is state sponsering tampering in Bush's Iraq debacle, than it is a given, it is a lie.

Coy Reese, Shady Spring, West Virginia (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:43 PM)

The forces fighting US troops in Iraq are primarily Sunni (ex-Baathists and Al Queda). Iran is not arming these forces. Iran is arming Shias who are fighting the same ex-Baathists + Al Queda. These Shia forces work for the governing coalition in Iraq. Shia forces are not fighting Americans except when they're attacked by Americans (I think). They are probably our allies (an enemy of my enemy). Bush is just looking for an excuse for regime change in Iran. All hell will break loose in Iraq if he attacks Iran. The real 'Axis of Evil' is Bush/Cheney/Rove.

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:45 PM)

Chris you have got to be kidding. Now you are sure that a certain kind of weapon can only be found in Iran and Syria and nowhere else because of your personal experience. Of course you can't tell us about your sources, we should just take your word for it! You remind me of someone else-maybe you should sign in as Georgie, Crawford, TX.

Aimee, Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:48 PM)

Chris with all of your knowledge I would think Bush would tap you for one his advisors. Now don't be upset, as I don't know, but could you identify that missle that was shot at you as a SA-16 as it went by you or I assume the missle missed you and landed elsewhere.

Seattle Sue (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:01 PM)

JTB - is that short for Jeb Bush? I for one think it is much more honorable to continue to fight ethnic cleansing in Bosnia than in Iraq or Iran - but I don't own stock in oil companies or Halliburton. That is the big difference, Clinton sent them on a humanitarian mission, georgie did not, he sent them on a "lets get Halliburton the big bucks because dickie, all my family , and all my friends own stock in Halliburton." I say dismantle Halliburton - no more contracts to them, not even for the toilet paper or bad meals sent to Iraq, bet the war would end pretty quickly then.

Melba Isom, White Bluff, TN (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:10 PM)

Chris Abilene, I'm not saying it's good that Iran may be supplying shiites in Iraq with arms,I say "may be" because I'm sick to death of people saying "trust us" on classified information that has made us fools before. Does the U.S. really have any room to talk? We helped make Saddam what he was when we funded and armed him to fight the Iranians for us, same with Afghanistan against the Russians. When we fund and supply our own loony "allies" to fight someone else, we should expect to make enemies.

Mindi, Sacramento (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:16 PM)

Chris another Chris, Matthews interviewed General Myers and asked him about an ammunition dump 9 miles in diameter and why it was not guarded. Myers answered that we had other higher priorities. At that time we had 1400 people looking for WMD that did not exist.

Rufus Gibbons, Kennett, Mo. (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:27 PM)

We are all so very fortunate to have Chris' postings. We silly, ignorant fools are obviously not quite capable of "understand[ing]" such complicated issues.

Jorge Blush, Fantasyland (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:31 PM)

I keep hearing from Republican on the non-binding resolution debate, "if we quit in Iraq now they will just follow us home. Are the talking about the Iraqi's or the terrorist or both? And on what evidence do they base these assumptions? Maybe someone could enlighten me on that.

scott (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:33 PM)

Chris, you still didn't answer the question about if you have financially profited from the war and if where you get your information comes from those who are making money from the miserable situation in Iraq. And, as far as Russia being wrong in selling arms to despotic governments, didn't we sell arms to Chile under Pinochet, Iran under the Shah, to Indonesia, to Iraq under Saddam. We will sell anyone arms who we feel it is in our best interests to sell them to. The only difference is Russia does it cate rate.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:33 PM)

The White House doesn't have a credibility problem - they have NO CREDIBILITY PERIOD. Regardless of what they say, that idiot-in-chief is gonna get us into war with Iran before he leaves office, thinking he can get the flag waving behind him so he doesn't leave in the disgrace that he is.

Brian, Cedar Hill, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:41 PM)

chris if you want to denigrate the army times, navy times and VFW magazine thats your right cause those are some of my sources. the only people I question are the ones like you who use the bush mantra of "I know whats going on so TRUST ME", well trusting bush and his kind are what got us into this mess and I do not beleive, based on everything I see and read and people I talk to, that most troops past and present beleive as you say they do, so we disaree, aint democracy great.

ex-marine, viet vet ,america (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:43 PM)

jbt==When was the last time you heard of American troops being killed in Bosnia(Clinton's war)? If you come back with a fact, I will check it out otherwise I will just assume it's just more of your spin. I forgot all the liberal media would not report something negative about Clinton's war.

Seattle Sue (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:56 PM)

didn't the NY Times bolster Bush's last claim of WMD in Iraq? some more good reading I'll bet!

stix-illinois (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:30 PM)

Robert, our friend from Abilene TX has answered every other question in three different sections of First Read. He must be a secret agent, and if he told us he'd have to kill us. Either that or he's really Tom Clancy.

Scott in South Texas (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:55 PM)

Robert, I have to tell you I read your blog yesterday at 2:30 about your service, and I have to tell you it was very eloquent and I applaud you for being a veteran who is not afraid to oppose the mission, not the troops. So many times, all we get is the rhetoric from military personnel, God Bless them, that believe that you can't have both. You can't oppose the war but support our troops. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is no "WINNING" in Iraq. I challenge anyone to give me the definition of what winning in Iraq looks like. All we can do is try and get out with as few of casualties as possible both ours and theirs. I love America, and I love our troops. I do not condone the way this man, and I use that term loosely, is running our country into the ground and through the mud. All we can do is encourage ALL our fellow American's no matter what they believe, to use their voice in a constructive manner. Bush, and his posse, have us teetering on the edge of dictatorship and the rocks are crumbling from beneath us. Don't let George W. Bush polorize this country more than it already is. God Bless America and God speed to our men and women in harms way!

Susan, Nebraska (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:59 PM)

Aimee/Sue, we determined the missile was an SA-16 based on the characteristics it displayed during the attack. It could NOT have been an SA-7 or 14. The SA-7 or 14 could NOT have engaged us the way this missile did. Only an SA-16 or the more advanced, new SA-18 could. Additionally, we know Iraq only had stocks of SA-7s and SA-14s. Iraq never purchased the SA-16. But Iran and Syria did. Considering the location of the engagement, it's heavily Shiite with Sadr's militia influencing the area.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:10 PM)

Robert, I have no "profited" from the war. I am an AF Captain and I make the same pay every other Captain makes. As for the "I'd tell you but I'd have to kill you" stuff...no, it's not like that. But you have to appreciate the fact that I can't just splash military information across a public website. I can tell you things that aren't considered classified, but details I have to leave out.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:13 PM)

The Date marking on the “Iranian Anti-Tank Rocket Propelled Grenades” shown in slide #15 of the officially released Power Point Presentation of the Sunday 02-11-07 by Senior U.S. military officials in Iraq is FABRICATED. It seems to be a forgery/phony. As it is seen in one of the pictures of slide #15 the line under the number marking”P.G.7-AT-1” shows the marking “LOT: 5-31-2006” as an apparent manufacturing date of this grenade. Why this date marking LOT: 5-31-2006 is a fabrication? Because ONLY in United States it is customary to write a calendar date as “month-day-year”. The rest of the world (O.K. in Europe, Iran, etc.) is accustomed to write a calendar date as “day-month-year”. So I am speculating that this marking of Lot: 5-31-2006 is done by someone/entity that is accustomed with American way of writing a calendar date and not a European or Iranian way of writing a calendar date. I picked this observation from the interview of Iran's Ambassador to the United Nations with Charlie Rose broadcasted on 02-13-07 and decided to check it for myself. Also, beside this belligerent fabrication have anyone wondered why would Iranian arm factories put a “Return Address” of serial number and fabrication date that equate to “Made in Iran within the past year” on such sensitive weapons ????.....that were smuggled into Iraq….. by Iraqi hired smugglers???? Also, why these markings are in English and not in Persian? Please CHECK into it. P.S. The Power Point Presentation cited in Washington Post, in on-line column of Dan Froomkin dated 12-02-06. Posted at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/iran-in-iraq/?resultpage=1&

Linda, CA (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:20 PM)

Chris - I don't need to be schooled in the differences between North Korea/Iran and the United States. That does not change the point I was (and am) making - it is hypocrisy for us to tell other countries what sort of weapons they can and cannot have when we are not willing to accept the same sort of direction ourselves. We can do whatever we like in the name of national defense - including invading Iraq - and we don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks, but other nations need a permission slip from the US to do the same...especially the ones we have branded evil.

Carrie, NW Iowa (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:26 PM)

Susan's post is typical of the point I'm getting at. She applaud's a a vet's viewpoints and his thoughts and opinions are deemed worthy of listening to, because he opposes the mission. I'm accused of being a "spook", a "mole", a war profiteer, or ignorant because I'm a vet and I support the mission. Those who oppose the mission are "eloquent", and those who support it risk being written off as a "Tom Clancy" wannabe.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:27 PM)

I'd like to add that many of the IEDs earlier in the war were basically some old Iraqi artillery shells (or other explosives) tied together and detonated with blasting caps. The IEDs found lately have been MANUFACTURED...they weren't made in someone's garage. They were made with machine tools in a factory.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:29 PM)

Linda, I've seen several formats used around the world. US military equipment tends to be marked with year/month/day. For example, when we sign off forms, we'll put the date in a format that looks like 20070215. I've seen month/day/year in places like Kuwait and Qatar as well. You're saying you have definitive proof, when you're speculating.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:41 PM)

Carrie, I think there have been plenty US leaders that have wanted to rid us of nukes. But put yourself in their position. When you go to the table, you have to make that decision considering what the Russians, etc would be willing to do. They aren't willing to destroy their stockpiles. It's a cat and mouse game, and honestly I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. It's easy to sit on our couches and say "just get rid of them all and let Russia be the one explaining why they didn't". It's not as simple as that. I've learned to be careful about sitting on the sidelines thinking "gosh, that's such an easy decision" and then when it's your turn, you realize you were wrong. When I was a copilot, I used to think that being an aircraft commander wasn't that big of a deal...sometimes it's not. But somedays I wish I was the copilot who only had to worry about raising the gear, and didn't have 5 other crewmembers (and passengers) looking to me for a decision.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:46 PM)

Sierra, one of the largest problems that has grown over the past year or so has been the rise of the Shiite militias. True, they typically conduct attacks on Sunni rivals. But it's the US troops' jobs to protect all Iraqis, and that has led to many confrontations with the militias over the past year. The fact that the Iraqi government has failed to control the militias has led to the increase in militia violence. Hopefully the Iraqi government realizes that this can't continue.

Chris, Abilene, TX (Sent Thursday, February 15, 2007 4:57 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=57337