My thought for the day is based on all these reports we're hearing of the Iraqi paramilitary guys shooting civilians who refuse to fight and marching them out as shields etc, I think Saddam is giving Pol Pot a run for his money. And it's only going to get worse once we hit Baghdad. The sooner we rid the world of this scumbag the better.
Kurdish rebels are close to taking Kirkuk: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._afp/iraq_war_kurds_kirkuk&cid=1514&ncid=1478 The Kurds see Kirkuk as their likely capital of a new state, so I don't know if this is really a good thing.
Oh, sorry. Rah rah rah. Go team! I think I've got that down, but I'll work on it some more. Actually, according to unnamed sources, the White House is monitoring these boards and will react accordingly. (hi Condi ) Sheesh! Hail the Keyboard Warriors!!!
According to Rumsfeld's estimates before the war started, Iraq will surrender today after the Iraqi people revolt against him.
Note the title of this story, then read the story: British Troops Uncover Evidence of Chemical Weapons Doesn't the coalition have the same equipment? Is that a sign that we are planning on using chem / bio weapons?
British govt now saying that they're not sure if Iraqi soldiers really "executed" British troops, and British military officers who were there have said to the dead soldiers' family members that they were killed in battle, not execution-style: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030328/wl_nm/iraq_britain_execution_dc_4 This is now, by my count, the third significant anti-Iraq story since the war began that has later been retracted. 1. "Chemical plant" found in Najaf, thus proving Saddam has WMD 2. "Major civilian uprising" in Basra, thus proving that Iraqi civilians approve of the US invasion 3. Summary executions of British soldiers, thus proving the inhumanity of the Iraqi regime
According to our friends, the Germans (cough, cough), Saddam is probably "sitting pretty". http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/313629|oddlyenough|03-28-2003::10:51|reuters.html
This is why I'm angry at the hawks for crying wolf so many times. I don't know whether to believe this story or not. If true, this is horrible. At the same time, given obie's post above, I can't help but wonder how long until this gets retracted.
Bush "frustrated" by media coverage of the war, saying that it's going quite well. Media counters with discussions with military leaders, saying that there have been problems. Could tagalong media people be removed from the troops at this point?
British commander: We are "nowhere near" capturing Basra. I thought Basra fell four or five days ago. Really -- I'm not trying to be cynical or sarcastic about this. I know that we said we had it and then we didn't, but I thought this whole thing ended on or about Monday. This has been a really, really crappy news day for the coalition.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030328-051513-1554r CAMP DOHA, Kuwait, March 28 (UPI) -- British "Prime Minister Tony Blair will seek approval from the Cabinet Friday to send another 5,000 British troops as reinforcements to Iraq after a request from U.S. President George W. Bush, British officers at the coalition command headquarters in Qatar have been told. The British reinforcements will free the 120 Challenger-2 tanks of the 7th Armored Brigade, now besieging the southern city of Basra, to head north to join the main battle against the republican Guard south of Baghdad." "U.S. commanders, needing more armor in the battles against the Republican Guard, have been pressing their British allies for more support in the north. The 7th Armored Brigade would increase the current U.S. tank strength of the 3rd Division by about 60 percent. After a British raid on the Baath party headquarters in As Zubaya Wednesday to capture the local paramilitary leaders, Arabic-speaking intelligence officers interrogated the captured defenders. They were told that volunteers from al Qaida were taking part in the town's defense and helping to organize the pro-Baghdad resistance. Transcripts of the interrogations have been shared with U.S. military intelligence. If an al Qaida role can be confirmed, and if al Qaida members can be captured, this would go a long way toward vindicating the Bush administration's claim of links between the Iraqi regime and the war on terrorism."
Exactly right. Could the story be true? Absolutely. I don't think anyone on either side of the issue would deny that there are elements in Iraq who would not hesitate to commit an act like this. Yet, the story says "several bloodied uniforms" but only three women are reported as captured or missing. Is the reporter simply "cheerleading" and describing three, or two or even one as several? Or is the Bush adminstration hiding the real number of casualties, MIAs and POWs? Or are they "spinning" a substantially true story of possible torture, by referring to women as victims when in fact it may have been "several" but of both genders or men only in the hopes of making the atrocity worse (as if the gender in any way mitigates the atrocity of torture)? Or is it a simple lie? You just don't know what to believe.
Exactly how does AQ sympathizers' presence in Iraq now prove any pre-war dealings between AQ and Saddam? Chechnya is proof that AQ is the sort of group that likes to go where the action is.
I substantially agree with Obie that positive spin and, shall we say, hopeful misstatements, seem to be the norm. So, I don't mean to nit-pick. However, 1. My recollection on the chemical plant is that no one ever said with finality that it was a current WMD facility or that WMD were there. The briefing I saw had General Brooks saying "we don't know." 2. Basra uprising - I think it has been pretty clear that Basra is not under control. The spin here was overly optimistic, but I think the story is more muddied than a clear fabrication. 3. As regards stories concerning executions or torture of POWs, we know that these POWs are being hidden and access by Red Cross denied. We also know that Saddam's regime is brutal and sadistic, with torture a common tactic. So, I think that no additional evidence of his inhumanity is really required. It is very frustrating that the press is not in a position - and doesn't seem very inclined - to test the facts on the ground. But I'm not about to go into Basra and risk death to find out either, so it's understandable. I also find it frustrating that both the Administration and the military puts a positive gloss on everything, but I figure this is par for the course. The best an individual can do is try to judge the overall picture, rather than the truth or falsity of specific events that are literally being turned into narrative stories as they are happening.
Read the AP article that I linked on the last page. It says "no evidence" of any chemicals. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, someone could go around for ever and say that the site could possibly have been a chem weapons plant, but the burden of proof is really on the people who say that it was. They have failed. It wasn't muddled when the story broke, though. It was the clear signal, long sought by the Coalition, that the Iraqi people wanted this invasion to happen. Then it was a handful of people, no more. There's a huge difference. This wouldn't have been so egregious if it wasn't for the fact that Tony Blair himself announced in the Thursday press conference that British troops were executed, and expressed his shock and horror at it. That was, by more recent accounts, a serious misstatement.
I agree with your points. But you are asking for immediate proof in the middle of a war zone. This is not a trial and the story may still evolve to prove out the underlying hopes of the Admin & military, even if their hopes for proof are not proven out by each specific instance. I have found the specific answers to specific questions to be frustratingly cautious (sans Blair's statement) with the requisite caveats and "we'll sees." The press has been far to cavalier to run with statements and craft a context and a story around them. My one big complaint involves the Administration's attempt to weave a definitive story on the collected force of of unproven allegations and facts which it portrays as "intangible" proof to rationalize the war. But this is nothing new. It's been happening since the moment Bush took office on every public policy topic imaginable.
reporter: why did you want to rush in to iraq and get to baghdad as quick as possible? gen. richard myers: because we could.