Kerry - Iraqi PM is a liar

Time to review the T&Cs again... NO DIRECT ATTACKS AGAINST OTHER POSTERS! If you have a point to make, make it using facts, not attacks.

Those looking to believe Bush do so only because they do not want to acknowledge the reality of the situation in Iraq. What progress exactly has been made 15 months after the invasion? Water is scarce and polluted; hydro is still rationed; women are being kidnapped and held for ransom; children are escorted to school; curfews are in place; unemployment is rampant; prostitution is out in the open; oil pipeleines are blown up almost weekly to the point of stopping the flow; The Shia population once fully backing supporting the coalition has now split into factions outwardly defying and attacking coalition troops; clerics are being assassinated; government officials are being assassinated; Kurds are now being assassinated; there are over 60 attacks a day against Iraqi and coalition forces, never mind the mounting death toll of troops and civilians. How is all of this progress or even better when compared to pre-invasion?

On top of all of this, something in the vicinity of 13 towns are controlled by Ba'athists or militants; Fallujah is by far the biggest failure in that the town was turned over to a Ba'athist general and Iraqi troops, the latter refusing to go after their own and the former imposing strict Sharia law.

Why would anyone listen to Bush who sounds like he is in deep denial when his secretary of state, coalition officers and members of his own party acknowledge that the security issue is grave? The fact of the matter is that Bush believers have not been paying attention to his administration's rhetoric, so I will provide a little synopsis of how they have characterized the causes of situation over the last 15 months:

Previously oppressed people venting
Untidiness
Thugs looting
100,000 prisoners released causing trouble
Fedayeen remnants
A few hundred Syrians
Iranians
Terrorists
Al Qaeda terrorists from Afghanistan led by Zarqawi
A few hundred militants in total
A few thousand militants in total
Sadr militants

Ba'athist loyalists will give up when Saddam is captured or killed
The insurgents will increase attacks leading up to sovereignty.
The insurgents will increase attacks (on the already increased obviously) leading up to the election.

Then what? Does Bush and his followers actually believe that it will end there? It will get worse! The Brits left 30,000 behind in their attempt over a decade or so to bring western style democracy to Iraq, when exactly will it get better?

There is no finer example of propaganda than this statement from Rumsfeld

I picked up a newspaper today and I couldn't believe it. I read eight headlines that talked about chaos, violence, unrest. And it just was Henny Penny -- "The sky is falling." I've never seen anything like it!

The U.S government have some people convinced that Muslims taking pictures of buildings is a cause for alarm, enough to pick them up and ship them off to Guantanamo Bay, but they want you to believe that what you witness in Iraq is freedom and progress. Such backward thinking and blind apology for failure is disturbing to me.

I think a certain individual needs to take his valium...

Linda Vester just had two members of congress on her show, one Democrat, one Republican, who have just returned from Iraq. They have CONFIRMED what the Iraqi Prime Minister said in full. That is, there are basically three provinces of the 18 or 19 (I forget which) that still have some problems with terrorists and insurgents. These are being handled, perhaps not as expeditiously as we would like, but they are being handled. The rest of the country is enjoying relative calm and peace.

Now, I guess these two congressmen, one from each party, are lying as well? Both in President Bush's pocket? Get real. Kerry spoke out of turn, he doesn't know what he is talking about, and he hasn't BEEN there. These two guys have.......Kerry is simply on the attack as his campaign sinks into the sea....

I have been to Iraq. I have seen first hand the good and the bad there. the News media only report when something is bad. They do not report the fact that the U.S. military have established hospitals and are providing care where none was before. They don't report that American G.I.'s are the first there to help pick up the pieces when terrorist do attack. It is the arm of an American who holds the child and provides care. You never see this, all you see is the Terrorist. Shame on the media for not reporting the truth.

I think Kerry is showing just what a slimey back-stabbing turncoat he really is. He's doing everthing he can to sabotage the efforts toward democracy in Iraq as a party platform.

Phoenix,
The point is Saddam wouldn't have passed weapons easily to anyone. His ego wouldn't have allowed him to.
Many elements in Pakistan on the other hand would LOVE to give a nuke to Al-Qaeda.
North Korea would have no problem selling Al-Qaeda a nuke or anything for money

With trade sanctions and a tight watch on Iraq, Saddam was infact quite well contained. In fact far better contained than we thought in terms of WMDs. Except for corporations that use subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands like Haliburton, GE and Conoco to skirt the laws against doing business with terrorist states, there was very little arms materials gettin in.
Saddam was an egotist who never let Al-Qaeda or anyone shine brighter and be more of a threat than he wanted to be.

North Korea on the other hand because it is an internationally irresponsible state as well as an economic basket case has and is continuing to sell any kind of weapons system it has for money, to absolutely anyone.

Pakistan is a country that is virtually schziophrenic in its behavior. It's culture is so weighted to radical islam but currently controlled [and i use that term VERY loosely] by a secular military that one can't even begin to predict what it will produce. It is the country that has shipped Nuclear capabilities to IRAN and Lybia and i repeat,many factions there would LOVE to send a nuke to Al-Qaeda.

Saddam was a foolish target for the US to attack. I will admit this is even clearer in 20/20 hindsight, I however was ambivalent on invading Iraq. Now that many of the excuses for going there have been proven to be lies it is VERY hard for me to understand why we had to RUSH into anything there.

Originally posted by jrsdls
I have been to Iraq. I have seen first hand the good and the bad there. the News media only report when something is bad. They do not report the fact that the U.S. military have established hospitals and are providing care where none was before. They don't report that American G.I.'s are the first there to help pick up the pieces when terrorist do attack. It is the arm of an American who holds the child and provides care. You never see this, all you see is the Terrorist. Shame on the media for not reporting the truth.

Same with Vietnam. When I was there we were winning the war hands down and the people at home thought we were losing. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a humilitating defeat for the communists and the people at home thought it was a defeat for the US. The US cannot take a stand on anything without the enemies within sabotaging the effort.

If this were 1942 and John Kerry came out saying these types of things, he would most certainly be tried for treason. The reality is that John Kerry NEEDS the US to fail in iraq in order for him to have a snowflake's chance in Hell of being elected President. And since he can't cause the US to fail he has to make it appear (At least to the uninformed voters... of which there are many) that we are failing. What he, and his ilk, fail to understand is that all of this pollicking is actually embolding the terrorists into a self-fullfilling prophecy.

the CIA which is there on the ground in Iraq has assessed it:
tenuous stability
political fragmentation [read another Bosnia or Cosavo]
CIVAL WAR!

Add to this it is a festering ground and harbor for terrorists.

You Bushies seem to be wandering around in Dreamland.

Thank You John Kerry for speaking the TRUTH.
.

John Kerry would not know the truth if it smacked him in the face. The man is so much of a liar that he even believes himself.

Originally posted by slank
Phoenix,
The point is Saddam wouldn't have passed weapons easily to anyone. His ego wouldn't have allowed him to.
Many elements in Pakistan on the other hand would LOVE to give a nuke to Al-Qaeda.
North Korea would have no problem selling Al-Qaeda a nuke or anything for money

With trade sanctions and a tight watch on Iraq, Saddam was infact quite well contained. In fact far better contained than we thought in terms of WMDs. Except for corporations that use subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands like Haliburton, GE and Conoco to skirt the laws against doing business with terrorist states, there was very little arms materials gettin in.
Saddam was an egotist who never let Al-Qaeda or anyone shine brighter and be more of a threat than he wanted to be.
..........................................................
VERY hard for me to understand why we had to RUSH into anything there.

slank thanks for a calm and deliberated answer,

I do not share your view of the Iraq invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussien - we'll just have to disagree on that subject.

In making your points about NK threat it seems in a way you are promulgating an attack and invasion of NK as the proper move in place of Iraq.

China I believe would take great exception to that so I don't believe thats in the cards for now.

In the case of Pakistan - AQ Khan was selling know how and tech without government backing.

al Qaida does have much influence in Pakistan and we do need to be very very careful in watching how things go there.

Iran seems to be missing as a country of interest from your dialog and I daresay that is another reason we must be successful in Iraq if there is to be any hope of containment in the future.

So, what have have is Consistency from Kerry.
It's about time he showed some.

Belittle the goals of the current administration, make sure that a lot of time is spent saying how "I" would handle things. And how it is being mishandled by the Other guy. Be "happy" when things go wrong.

Demean, demoralize, our soldiers. Make their efforts seem worthless.

He's not flip-flopping on this, it's the real Kerry. We've seen it before in the 70's, here we go again..This time, a better Haircut...

Trying to pin the blame on the media is a juvenile tactic, especially when the media has had many restrictions imposed on their roaving about Iraq in the name of security. But these people are not the media, and the list goes on:

Congressman Doug Bereuter R.

Was the preemptive military strike to remove Saddam in America's best interest? That is a question that receives a sharply divided response in our country with the trend being against the preemptive military action we launched. I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition. The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible. Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. From the beginning of the conflict it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world. www.antiwar.com...

Sen. John McCain R.-

It's still my view, (that we need more troops on the ground) and I think we're paying a very heavy price for not having done that, and I also believe that we should never have allowed sanctuaries to come into being in places like Fallujah (search).
Having said that, I think we've made progress in the north, I think we're adjusting to some of the mistakes we made and the recent increase in the level of violence is tragic, but not too surprising in that I think the insurgents recognize that we're most vulnerable politically in this run-up to the election.

Sen. Richard Lugar R. reading an excerpt from a marine�s letter

�This war is one that cannot be won by Marines and soldiers. The only thing we can do is keep a lid on it and buy time. We chase the Mujahadin around, and in so doing catch and kill a few or at least deter their actions. However, in a society with no jobs, a faltering economy, and little to no infrastructure there is plenty of incentive to fight. That incentive needs to be removed. Marines and soldiers don�t remove it. Civil affairs teams and NGOs do. There are not enough of these people in Iraq, and they are not organized in such a way so that they can respond to specific needs�

Se. Chuck Hagel R-

No, I don't think we're winning. In all due respect to my friend Jon Kyl, the term hand-wringing is a little misplaced here. The fact is a crisp, sharp analysis of our policies are required. We didn't do that in Vietnam, and we saw 11 years of casualties mount to the point where we finally lost. We can't lose this. This is too important. There's no question about that. But to say, `Well, we just must stay the course and any of you who are questioning are
just hand-wringers,' is not very responsible.

The fact is we're in trouble. We're in deep trouble in Iraq. We need more regionalization. We need more help from our allies. We need the Iraqi people to come around us in a more supportive way. That means more jobs, more development. The hearings we held this week in the Foreign Relations Committee were an eye-opener on the long side of this. We've spent a little over a billion dollars over the last year in helping get jobs and economic development.

Now I know the twin pillars of this are security, development, and the third pillar, of course, is an
independent Iraq governed by Iraqis but hope and a destination of where the Iraqi people are going, where they believe they're going and confidence in us is a big part of this. And I think we're going to have to look at some re-calibration of policy.

P.M appointee Ayad Allawi-

Terrorists are coming and pouring in from various countries into Iraq to try and undermine the situation in Iraq. They're coming from Afghanistan, Pakistan, from Europe, from Morocco, from Syria and so on.
Iraq is on the front line of fighting these terrorists. And, God forbid, if Iraq is broken or the will of Iraq is broken, then London would be a target, Washington will be a target, Paris will be a target, Cairo will be a target, as we have seen in the past."

Cities that fell to the militants; Fallujah, Ramadi, Samarra, Najaf, Karbala, Sadr City, Kufa, Tall Afar- �Besides these centers of rebellion, large sections of Iraq remain beyond government control... These include Sunni Muslim areas north and west of Baghdad and, perhaps, southern Shiite cities such as Basra, where sections resist US or British troops.�
www.greenleft.org.au...
scoop.agonist.org...

For months now Rumsfeld and Myers have been setting the stage to blame the Iraqi military and police force for the inevitable failure, while the man responsible for raising the level of violence by locking out the Ba�athist members, Mr. Paul Bremer may very well be elevated to Secretary of State if Bush wins again.

I have been to Iraq. I have seen first hand the good and the bad there. the News media only report when something is bad.

I have a friend whose son just returned from Iraq. Her son was devastated that the positive things our soldiers are doing are being ignored by the media. He is upset that people are against the war and is convinced that if the media would start reporting the real story, the positive difference that has been made in the majority of the Iraqi's lives, people would be more supportive. He said that the Iraqi's ARE grateful and appreciative but of course THAT doesn't make good news.

I think it's sad that this man put his life on the line and is proud to have done so and he comes home and feels as if he has to justify why the U.S. went into Iraq and he has to tell people how much of a difference the soldiers have made. No soldier should have to toot his own horn. The media is being irresponsible in their representation of the war in Iraq.

As for Kerry, well, if he thinks he can do a better job with International relations I would have to say that calling the PM of Iraq a liar was a pretty dumb thing to do. Seems to me he is burning bridges before he even gets into office which is not a very smart thing to do! Even my 3 year old twins know better than that!

Jemison

Originally posted by slank
the CIA which is there on the ground in Iraq has assessed it:
tenuous stability
political fragmentation [read another Bosnia or Cosavo]
CIVAL WAR!

Add to this it is a festering ground and harbor for terrorists.

You Bushies seem to be wandering around in Dreamland.

Thank You John Kerry for speaking the TRUTH.
.

First of all, show me where I said that it was ME saying that. No, read the post, take your Valium.

It was two congressmen, one from EACH party who JUST GOT BACK FROM IRAQ. Now...what part of "two congressmen, one from each party, that just got back from Iraq", are you having trouble understanding? Read the post...I say again, read the post....

In addition, I too have been to Iraq, both this war and the last. I have spent two, count 'em, TWO 120 day tours in the AOR. While the whole country is technically a war zone, we worry about having SAM's shot up our waazoo in only a few places.

So, Mr. slank, believe who you wish. People who have BEEN there, or Kerry, a proven liar and political hack who hasn't, is falling further behind every day, and will say ANYTHING to try to stop the slide...but DON'T try to push your bull on me...I've been there, done that, got the T-shirt...you're sitting behind your computer reading about it.....

From what I heard, the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, came to Congress to thank the United States of America for liberating his country. He blasted the media for focusing on the bad and ignoring the good. He gave a rousing speech that had both Republicans and democrats applauding.

Then......30 minutes later John F'n Kerry blasted him, and the effort in Iraq.

Is this the way Kerry plans to win the heart and minds of our allies?

I would like to think that if anyone knows how the situation in Iraq is going, it would be the Iraqi PM. I have to agree with Bill O� Reilly on this one (you can read his newsletter if you wish on his site).

Quote: �The reason the Times and some other liberal media operations continue to downplay Zarqawi and, indeed, the entire worldwide terror threat is twofold: first, the liberal press does not want another pre-emptive strike against terrorists like the one the USA launched against Iraq. By denying Zarqawi was an al Qaeda guy, the liberal media can falsely claim Saddam had nothing to do with al Qaeda.

And secondly, the anti-Bush press believes that terrorism is the president's strongest issue. So keeping the very real danger of coordinated terror down is good political strategy for those who want to see President John Kerry.� End quote.

With such a close election race it is hard to trust the liberal media (and the extreme rightwing media whackos for that matter) who I think will bend the truth in order to get rid of one candidate or the other. (If this is not obvious to you then I direct you to CBS and the Bush National Guard Documents) I do feel a sense of �downplay� within the press about the accomplishment made in Iraq or the War on Terror. Not to say there isn�t any bad news and that we do not have a long road ahead of us, because we do. Just like someone said above, there is good news and there is bad news, if you are only bent on noticing the bad (which is all over the American liberal media outlets, and is not hard to find) then that is what you will zero in on. So where is all the good news that our Liberal Press is not printing out or covering?? It�s out there buried deep within the american media and with a little research you can find it. A fair and balanced news media outlet (which in America or any other country who has an agenda, is hard to find) will report the good with the bad. The following is articles that the liberal press doesn�t care to cover: (Many more if you care to search for it)
www.brutallyhonest.org...
www.usnews.com...
www.netwmd.com...://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_10_12.phpe538.html
www.chiroweb.com...

I can understand that the war and Bush supporters do not wish to believe the democrats, so I can only conclude that those like Affirmative Reaction think the republicans I quote are lying. The stories are not at all gelling between those who claim to have recently been in Iraq, whether they be military or public servant. Perhaps this man is lying or maybe he is a fabrication of someone's imagination:

I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and na�ve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons...

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war...we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas...

Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. ..

Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality...

Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them...We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us... www.lewrockwell.com...

Is this Baghdad resident lying also, and who is better equipped to comment, soldier or citizen?

We woke up to several loud blasts a few days ago. The sound has become all too common. It�s like the heat, the flies, the carcasses of buildings, the broken streets and the haphazard walls coming up out of nowhere all over the city� it has become a part of life...The areas outside of Baghdad aren�t much better off. The south is still seeing clashes between the Sadir militia and troops. Areas to the north of Baghdad are being bombed and attacked daily. Ramadi was very recently under attack and they say that they aren�t allowing the wounded out of the city. Tel Affar in the north of the country is under siege and Falloojeh is still being bombed.

Everyone is simply tired in Baghdad. We�ve become one of those places you read about in the news and shake your head thinking, �What�s this world coming to?� Kidnappings. Bombings. Armed militias. Extremists. Drugs. Gangs. Robberies. You name it, and we can probably tell you several interesting stories. riverbendblog.blogspot.com...

And how are those few cities holding up;

fighting in Sadr City www.boston.com...:.shtml
Assassination in Mosul www.news.com.au...
car bombing in Baghdad www.abc.net.au...
Attack in Samarra www.cjtf7.com...
Marine killed in al Anbar province www.chinadaily.com.cn...
U.S soldier killed in Tikrit www.turkishpress.com...
U.S helicopter shot down in Nassiriyah www.turkishpress.com...
Air strikes in Fallujah www.turkishpress.com...
roadside bombs in Baquba www.channelnewsasia.com...
Anti-insurgent offensive in Ramadi www.cjtf7.com...
car bomb in Kirkuk olympics.reuters.com...
Assassination in Basra news.scotsman.com...

It is a well known fact that diplomats are rarely if ever escorted into the hot spots, while the green zone is a protective barrier from within which the coalition forces and foreigners retreat. These cities and towns mentioned above may be construed to be just a few by some, but when measured by population alone the few becomes an overwhelmingly significant number.

Basra 1.3 million (2002);
Sadr City 2.5 million;
Baghdad 5.6 million;
Mosul 1.7 million;
Tikrit 30M;
Kirkuk 730M;
Samarra 126M(1998);
Ramadi 400M;
Nassiriyah 500M;
Fallujah 250M.
Total 13.136 million.

Iraq 25.375 million.

The total of these fews cities is more than half the population of all of Iraq, a far more damaging fact than a disinformation campaign's reference to a few cities.

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
I can understand that the war and Bush supporters do not wish to believe the democrats, so I can only conclude that those like Affirmative Reaction think the republicans I quote are lying. The stories are not at all gelling between those who claim to have recently been in Iraq, whether they be military or public servant. Perhaps this man is lying or maybe he is a fabrication of someone's imagination:

You obviously don't watch the news or the speeches by public figures, except Kerry obviously.

The cities you named for the most part lie in those three out of 18 provinces that still have trouble.

You can believe whom ever you wish, but don't try to tell me what I have experienced. You haven't a clue in the world. When you get up off your dead rear-end and go there for yourself so that you can speak from experience instead repeating the rhetoric and lies of the left wing loonies like Kerry who have a stake in the FAILURE of our mission, or posting diatribes from supposed soldiers who are there (it has been suggested that this individual does not exist, and I will be making some phone calls on my DSN line tomorrow to see what I can find out!) then perhaps you will have a clue...as of now, you don't....

I agree Iran is a problem, but Iran is a self-contained country. If it attacks someone everyone knows where it is and can attack back. In it's own selfish interest it would be much less to take rash actions against us or israel. While it is not impossible for them to give or get a WMD to Al-Qaeda I think it is a stretch to that is going to easily happen.

If Al-Qaeda or other terrorist group gets a WMD/nuke they have no reason in the world not to use it.

By far the most likely way Al-Qaeda or any rogue terrorist group would get a WMD/nuke would be from North Korea or Pakistan or as a third possiblity is a stray nuke acquired from the dismantled Soviet Union.

One of my most resolute problems with the Bush administration is the fact they have done virtually nothing to locate, contain and acquire nuclear materials around the world. This material could be used to produce a nuke or more likely a dirty bomb.

The fear in this nation should not be of stable states to any degree as it should be of rogue, totally without control, groups. And keeping an sharp eye on those states that act as sieves, releasing weapons, materials and know-how to any number of disreputable groups.

[edit on 23-9-2004 by slank]