Broken records
Published by Mike Stark March 15th, 2006 in Podcast, Laura IngrahamI called Laura this morning to refute a winger’s letter she had read claiming that morale was being undermined by the Democrats… Everything about this call was a broken record, but I especially enjoyed Laura’s assertion that as we get closer and closer to victory, the terrorists become more an more desperate…
Ugh… I’d like to see a mathematician or economist draw the curve of the terrorists desperation over time… Because desperation to me would imply that we would see an asymptoting phenomena, but I don’t think we have… this violence has been steady and sure….
Anyway, something I’m not sure is discussed as much as it should be is our exact role over there… We used to be involved in a reconstruction project, or so I thought… Previous to that, we were fighting a war… Where are we today?
I’m thinking we are hunkered down… That we are trying to stay out of the way of Iraq’s civil war in an effort to keep our casualties down. Really, it’s the worst choice we could be making if that is what we are doing… We are maintaining a presence, but doing next to nothing to protect the Iraqis. Our presence fuels greater resentment and, since we need to maintain supply lines, we continue to be targets…
In essence, we are sitting in the middle of a civil war and doing very little about it.
32 Responses to “Broken records”
Leave a Reply
Search
Login
Donations Accepted
Subscribe
Posts- Comments
- Podcast
Do you have access to US Military intelligence, ground reports, CIA intel, NSA intel, or have travelled to Iraq yourself? The answer to all of those is no. Yet you decide that despite this lack of knowledge, you will make the assessment that:
“I’m thinking we are hunkered down… That we are trying to stay out of the way of Iraq’s civil war in an effort to keep our casualties down. Really, it’s the worst choice we could be making if that is what we are doing… We are maintaining a presence, but doing next to nothing to protect the Iraqis. Our presence fuels greater resentment and, since we need to maintain supply lines, we continue to be targets…
In essence, we are sitting in the middle of a civil war and doing very little about it.”
You have no qualifications to make that assessment. Do you understand that? You are not there. You have no access to information regarding the situation on the ground there. Yet apparently the 4 news stories you read online each day about bombings in the same small, geographic area (Sunni Triangle) allow you to make the determination that civil war is going on and that we are trying to stay out of the way or whatever.
You need to get over your arrogance. Neither you nor I are qualified to make an assessment as far as the overall conditions on the ground in Iraq in regard to the overall situation in the entire country.
I will say, there are almost no stories or bombings or violence in the South, ie Basra or in the North ie Kirkuk.
Chuck,
The same question could be asked of you, Laura Ingram, Rush Limbaugh, etc… Why don’t you question their assertions that the situation in Iraq is improving? Do you think they are getting the intel reports and therefore have some info upper hand?
Probably not. They probably see the same reports that we do about infrastructe in Bagdad beging below prewar levels, the same reports of sectarian violence leading to mass graves, to more and more civilains being caught up in the battles betwee two distinct religious groups (at least the Kurds have the sense to keep their distance so far), the same reports of barber shops being torched, stores that sell liquor being bombed, and girls being kept out of schools that they previously attended. However, they choose to ignore those facts.
So the question remains…why is Mike any less qualified than Laura Ingram to make those assessments? I realiz she has gotten the E ticket tour twice, but do you really think she was shown all there is to see? I’ll trust the AP reporters on the ground over her any day.
She went there.
Mike did not.
Rush even said yesterday that he has not stated that we are ‘winning’ but that its not over yet.
Rush went to Afghanistan.
Mike did not.
Mike has no qualifications at all to make his blanket assesments. Mike said yesterday on Rush that “Iran has won Iraq.”
He has no basis to make that statement except his own anger and biased view of the world.
I haven’t been there but I my eyes can see. Please
justify the deaths of almost 2,500 Americans in Iraq.
Was the liberation of Iraq worth the death of one US
sevice person?
Chuck,
I find it odd that you tell Mike he should get a job and stop wasting his time on this blog when it seems that you are posting with even more frequency than he is.
Yeah, Laura went to Iraq and Mike did not. Surprisingly she didn’t bump into Zogby International team that was there the same time (Jan 18 - Feb 14). Not so surprising, however, was that Laura also failed to actually LISTEN to any of the soldiers there or she might have heard from the 72% of them that think the US should exit Iraq.
And this idea that citizens lack the expertise to criticize their government is pure propaganda. Let’s not wait for future generations to write the book on Bush’s legacy. Let’s close the book on that one NOW.
If I was a solider in Iraq, I would want to go home as well. Who would not want to go home? Wanting to go home does not equal disliking the mission, or thinking the mission is a waste.
Was the liberation of Europe and the battles of WWII worth 407,000 American deaths? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties) Most of those soldiers were drafted while our current Army is an all volunteer force. So is it a crime that all those drafted soldiers died in WWII? Or was it ‘worth it’ to you? Or do you even know anything about WWII and the sacrifices our Greatest Generation made to free the world of Nazism and Japanese Imperialism and allowed you to have the cushy life you now enjoy?
The point about WWII was rendered moot when the
Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th.
I guess if Bush had been president back then,
he would have immediately invaded Argentina.
That was a war that was forced upon us.
Not a stupid war of choice the “chickenhawk”
President Bush chose to enter. Maybe he
would have taken on Hitler if Hitler had
“tried to kill my daddy.”
Do you live in reality?
Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, not Germany.
If the liberals of today were present back then, they would have said “We cant fight Germany! That would distract us in the war against Japan, which was the nation that attacked us. War in Europe is a get diversion from the war against Japan!” (Sound similiar to what Democrats say today about the war in Iraq and Bin Laden).
“Chickenhawk.” Please dont rip off Kos’s terms. Invent your own at least.
We were attacked on 9/11. Saddam was not involved directly with 9/11, however he was allies with al-qaeda and a pain in the worlds ass. The French and Russians through the UN Oil for Food Scandal were giving Saddam money and as soon as he could shake off the sanctions he would resume full scale production of WMDs.
Then he would have given them to those who wished to attack us again directly. And then once they attacked, everyone would yell at Bush “Why didnt you connect the dots!!!??!” You knew Saddam was an enemy of the US and friend to al-queda yet you did nothing! Impeach him for doing nothing!
Uh, Chuck, next time you’re browsing through that font of all knowledge, Wikipedia, brush up on your history. The conservatives of the World War II era thought we should stay out of Europe, despite the fact Nazi Germany was getting ready to wipe our ally, Great Britain, off the map. Some of those conservatives even thought Hitler wasn’t that bad of a guy. (See “Lindbergh, Charles A.” and “Ford, Henry.”)
As for Mike not having been to Iraq…. Well, I’ve never been on the Moon, but I have no doubt astronauts (see “Armstrong, Neil A.”) walked there. When people are killing government officials and Iraqi generals and folks are getting kidnapped right and left and Hummers are getting blown up like Hot Wheels in a kid’s sandbox, I think it is safe to say things are royally screwed up. If the Iraqi military can’t even guarantee the safety of its own generals, that doesn’t say a lot about the rest of the country.
And it’s nice to know parts of southern and northern Iraq are relatively free of violence. But that means nothing. If you’d gone to Minnesota during the American Civil War, you wouldn’t have heard a shot. They weren’t flinging a lot of cannon balls around Indiana. Does that mean Bull Run or the Siege of Vicksburg didn’t happen?
Face it, Chuck. Iraq is a mess and we’re the ones who made it that way. The First Rule of Holes is, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.” By trying to wrestle Iraq into submission, we have come to embrace the very evils we said we despised.
Congrats, Mike. You’ve arrived. You’ve acquired a heckler.
Hey, let’s all ignore the heckler completely until he goes away, then giggle behind his back about how stupid he is.
Thank god you werent running the show during the American Civil War or WWII or the American Revolution. You would have surely given up a early on because ‘things were a mess.’
Things were a ‘mess’ before we got there, its called the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Mass graves, rape rooms, death squads etc.
The sources of the violence in Iraq now are former Saddam loyalists, foreign terrorists, fedayeen, and others. They are not insurgents really. Insurgents dont attack religious sites, or markets, or other civilian targets, they attack government or military targets. These people are cowardly terrorists killers who need to be fought and defeated. Luckily defeatists like you arent in charge but someone who is strong and isnt going to back down because a bunch of killers blow up shit. They must be fought and will be defeated in time.
There is an insurgency and there is sectarian violence so that is why religious sites are targeted. That’s what Mike told Laura. What there is NOT is a puppet government and that is why we are there still. Our presence there has nothing to do with terrorism.
As for the soldiers Laura keeps using to sell her wingnut fantasy, they want to go home and morale is suffering because they have no sense of what the mission is. John Murtha speaks about this because he actually cares about the troops. Laura, on the other hand, comes back from Iraq singing the same happy horse$hit that just goes to show she didn’t listen to the troops.
She interviewed many soldiers on the air. I heard their thoughts directly. They believe in the mission and the cause and are proud to serve.
Chuck,
I think you should trust Laura’s interviews about as much as I assume you trust Michael Moore’s interviews. Now I don’t have any evidence of advantageous editing, but from all of the interviews that I heard, it was apparent that she went to Iraq to document her pre-established views. For example, in one of her interviews she asked the question to a commander (I’m paraphrasing): “Why do these soldiers keep on re-enlisting even when they don’t have to do so?” Obviously she was expecting an answer of “love of country” or something to that effect. The commander answered that the Army worked according to a “hierarchy of needs” such that each soldier was given a substantial monetary package which spurred enlistment. Apparently shocked by this answer, Laura asked, “But I mean money’s not the only thing, right?” The commander answered again that the Army understood the hierarchy of needs of it’s soldiers. It was pretty obvious at this point that Ms. Ingraham had the answers to her interview questions already in her head. She just needed to capture her answers on tape for her radio listeners.
Hmmmm…. What kind of response am I more inclined to believe is the more candid one? Would it be:
A) Answers to questions posed by a partisan radio host who was led around by a military public affairs officer and who is going to put my answer and name on the air, or;
B) Answers to questions posed by an independent survey who keeps my identity anonymous.
Maybe I’m just crazy, but I’d have to go with “B” on this one.
Chuck,
In reply to your whinge: “Yet apparently the 4 news stories you read online each day about bombings in the same small, geographic area (Sunni Triangle) allow you to make the determination that civil war is going on and that we are trying to stay out of the way or whatever.”
Perhaps one of Mike’s four daily online Iraq stories (more than you read daily, I’d wager) included the one from Informed Comment, wherein it is reported:
“Sunni Arabs in Iraq blamed US troops for not protecting Sunni mosques and worshippers from violence. The US military ordered the US soldiers in Baghdad to stay in their barracks and not to circulate if it could be helped.”
[url]http://www.juancole.com/2006/02/dozens-of-mosques-attacked-over-100.html[/url]
I don’t know - sounds like hunkering down and staying out of the way to me. Of course, the report goes on to say that in its present numbers, the US military is as useful as tits on a boar to stop civil war in Iraq.
I wonder how Laura missed that!
You moron.
Sunni Arabs in Iraq blamed US troops for not protecting Sunni mosques and worshippers from violence. The US military ordered the US soldiers in Baghdad to stay in their barracks and not to circulate if it could be helped.
That is just this Michigan Professor guy giving his opinion, its not news. Its sad that you get your news from this guy in Michigan who puts some links up and then gives his opinion based on his own bias and not fact. He later says
This situation underlines how useless the American ground forces are in Iraq. They can’t stop the guerrilla war and may be making it worst. Last I knew, there were 10,000 US troops in Anbar Province with a population of 1.1 million. What could you do with that small force, when the vast majority of the people support the guerrillas? US troops would be useless if they hcad to fight in alleyways against sectarian rioters. If they tried to guard the Sunni mosques, they’d have to shoot into Shiite mobs, which would just raise the level of violence they face from Shiites in the south.
That’s not ‘informed consent.’ That’s just some guy giving his uninformed opinion. He hasnt been to Iraq. he has not access to US Military intel, CIA intel, NSA intel, or any other information. He reads cnn.com and then gives an opinion. This is not even CLOSE to a credible information source. Stop reading it.
Chuck,
Please help us find credible sources of information. What are sources you turn to to get credible information? I honestly want to know. Who should we be listening to? Please list individuals, blogs, radio shows, newspapers, TV channels, etc. that you think would better inform us. You seem to be really good at telling us to stop listening to our “sources” yet you don’t supply us with any alternatives. I can make assumptions about where you get your credible information, but it’s not really fair to you to make these generalizations, is it? So please enlighten us all if you would be so kind.
Online I read mostly yahoo news. I also check cnn.com and msnbc.com as well.
TV wise I watch CNN, Fox News Channel, and NBC nightly news sometimes.
Newspapers, everything in them I have already seen online so I dont really bother with them.
Although potentially damaging to exchange of conservation that has transpired, I would like to return to Mr. Stark’s initial posting. Specifically, I would like to focus on his paragraph beginning “I’m thinking we’re hunkered down…” This paragraph contains several key concepts, one of which is “That we are trying to stay out of the way of Iraq’s civil war in an effort to keep our casualties down.” This assertion is incomplete, because it does not address on-going US military operations in Iraq. What I propose to do is approach Mr. Stark’s prompt from a more conservative point-of-view than most of the people who have posted on his website, save Chuck2.
First, Mr. Stark asserts that the US has attempted to stay out of Iraq’s civil war in order to keep American causality rates down. While Mr. Stark drew this assertion from variety of sources, I do not know what they are. With that in mind, I will have a hard time addressing this assertion precisely. The US military and US government have taken noticeable strides in addressing the growing civil strife in Iraq. From the military standpoint, US Army in combination with Iraqi military have continued their security sweeps in Baghdad and across the country during this mounting civil tension. On March 15, the DOD posted an article outlining the capture of various insurgent weapons caches (1).Today, the US Army began Operation Swarmer (this occured after the posting). Swarmer is a large scale air assault on insurgent arms caches in Northeast part of the country (2). By removing weapons capabilities, violence against US troops and/or Iraqis that support them could decrease.
Second, from the political standpoint, US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has initiated a series of meetings between the various factions of Iraqi, Sunni (no name mentioned), Shiite, and Kurdish (3). This can be viewed as a attempt to solidify the fledging Iraqi government and ease tensions between different cultural, religious, and regional groups. US Army General John Abizaid echoed Ambassador Khalilzad’s mission in an article released on March 15 on the DOD website which stated:
Iraq needs a unity government, and soon, Abizaid said. The new government must build strong ministries “that are not dominated by various sectarian concerns, and move forward in order to move the country towards peace and prosperity and defeat the insurgency.”
The efforts the US military and the US diplomatic corps, along with the members of the Iraqi government and military, should be overlooked. Thank you.
(1)http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/20060315_4496.html
(2)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/20060316_4504.html
(3)It is an op-ed piece, but the facts are still relevant
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/15/AR2006031502180.html?sub=AR
(4)
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2006/20060315_4502.html
EDITS: In the first sentence, conservation should conversation.
In the last sentence of my post, US and Iraqi military and government members contributions should NOT be overlooked.
I typed in haste. Please forgive my mistakes.
I would like to echo Skeffington’s comments and address Mike Stark’s comments in his call to Laura, in particular this part:
“Anyway, something I’m not sure is discussed as much as it should be is our exact role over there… We used to be involved in a reconstruction project, or so I thought… Previous to that, we were fighting a war… Where are we today?
I’m thinking we are hunkered down… That we are trying to stay out of the way of Iraq’s civil war in an effort to keep our casualties down. Really, it’s the worst choice we could be making if that is what we are doing… We are maintaining a presence, but doing next to nothing to protect the Iraqis.”
Here are some sources that describe what the USA is doing in Iraq.
“The USAID Mission in Iraq implements programs in four strategic areas:
Restoring Essential Infrastructure
Supporting Essential Health and Education
Expanding Economic Opportunity
Improving Efficiency and Accountability of Government”
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/
“The U.S. agencies that are leading the U.S. government’s support for the rebuilding of Iraq are the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Department of Defense, and the Department of Commerce. In addition to contracting with the private sector to manage projects that will help rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, the United States has made numerous grants to international organizations and agencies that are providing urgently needed relief to the people of Iraq.”
http://www.usembassy-amman.org.jo/reconstruction_iraq.htm
Here are more sources
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/050913/2005091325.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200410/ai_n9446373
I would like to know Mike’s sources and what he uses to base his thoughts on what’s going on in Iraq.
Chuck, friend:
The statement that the US military command ordered its troops to stay in their barracks is a statement of fact, not opinion. Now, you may not believe it is true, but you may have noticed that throughout Informed Comment there are these things called “hyperlinks” that will take you to the articles upon which the “Michigan professor guy” comments. Try moving your mouse over a hyperlink and clicking it…..see how it takes you to a news article. Amazing, huh?
Maybe you didn’t get the memo - the mainstream media hasn’t done a good job covering the war…they do what you and your pal, Skeffington, do: They read the latest government press releases in a Ted Baxter voice. Bloggers like Professor Cole come in very handy to cull those stories that actually question what our government tells us.
I’ll let you have the last word, Chunk, cos I’d be a *real* moron to spend any more time on you, but consider this before your next round of bile: Laura I. only recently went to Iraq, but she she sure didn’t wait til she got there to form and spew her opinions about the quagmire. The Iraq photos on her website suggest she went there on a pr junket to promote herself. She isn’t a journalist, an academician, an analyst, or even a particularly effective neocon talking head. Take away her mute button, and the average prog has her figuratively pinned to the mat in a Massachusetts liberal minute.
You did not respond to any of the substance of mine nor Skeffinton’s posts. You avoided all our links and points and did not address any of our substance at all.
Chuck-a-Fuck,
You mean like you ignored all the substance of the post containing the direct quotes
of Ann Coulter? You knew all those quotes had been made by her, asking for them was just a way to distract and deflect the conversation. Once you were actually presented with them, you had no further comment. Sean Hannity would be proud of you, you have apparently learned from the master.
Come on, change the subject now, Chuck-a-Fuck, you can do it, come on…..or don’t respond at all - we are guaranteed one or the other from you, you moron.
I do not support extreme or inflammatory comments made by Coulter or any other person on either side. Both sides have people that say stupid and extreme things. I could find plenty of examples on your side.
No one has responded to the substance of mine nor Skeffingtons posts.
Laura is an impudent parasite. She clings to those in power. She’s a mouthpiece for the corrupt dupes in the executive branch. And you’re free to interpret that literally. I’m sure Laura was the recipient -just as Ruuuuush Limbowel- of the VIP Tour of the war zone. If Laura, Coulter ,et al are concerned with The Cause That Is Just,how come they’re not recruiting for military service among college campus’s across America? Have you ever heard either of these two parasites ask anything resembling sacrifice form the college republicans? Do they use their shows,books to ask whitebread America to enlist in the military and join The Cause That Is Just? How come Laura,Coulter, et al are not visiting Walter Reed? In Fact,these bimbo’s should be assigned to serve bj duty at Walter Reed. God knows,they’ve been serving the executive branch for years.
Hannity has been to Walter Reed several times.
Hieronymous Cowherd, Kiki, and William,
It should come as no surprise as to why Ingraham, Coulter, Limbaugh, Malkin, et. al consider people acting in the manner that you are as “Unhinged”.
By using language like “Chuck-a-fuck”, “Bimbos”, “Limbowel”, and “bj duty” you are sinking to the level of making personal attacks (which in a debate only makes you look weak) and diverting the real issue at hand. Why not act like a mature, responsible adult?
Heironomous Coward: “Hey, let’s all ignore the heckler completely until he goes away, then giggle behind his back about how stupid he is.”
How childish. You added nothing to the debate, and instead of making Chuck look stupid, you made yourself look both immature and stupid.
Let’s grow up people!
Laura Ingraham, who underwent a radical mastectomy recently and is no longer a young woman, deserves a great deal of credit for going to Iraq.
That said, my guess is she does not grasp the situation. This is playing out much like the British League of Nations Mandate and I suspect we will enjoy even less success.
The Shi’a hate the Sunni and EVERYONE hates the Kurds. So long (as in the former Yugoslavia) as there is someone who is more feared than the other factions, there is peace. Remove that force and you get a genocidal civil war. Well, that’s what we did ….