US News
Mar 6, 2008, 22:35 GMT
US says it has frustrated terrorists, but seeks vigilance
And Also
Similar articles
- Moment of silence begins 7th annual commemoration of 9/11
- Seven years later, Afghanistan still a daunting challenge
- After seven years, commemorations in US, scepticism abroad
- Acquittal does not ensure release of Guantanamo detainees
- Report: US could have vast archive of Guantanamo tapes
Latest Headlines in US
- 1. Four police officers slain in coffee shop "execution"
- 2. Struggles at home leave Obama hamstrung at Copenhagen (Feature)
- 3. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base (1st Lead)
- 4. Four US police officers shot dead near air force base
- 5. Tiger Woods' slightly injured in car mishap (Roundup)
Via BuzzFeed
Older Talkback
Spread the B.S. George. Pile it on thick and deep.
...that does not make him wrong. Bush has set the course, regardless who is elected next. If they sway from a proactive terror policy they will, sooner or later, suffer for it.
I can't wait to see the democrats deal with this.
'I can't wait to see the democrats deal with this.'
I saw the results of 8 years of them dealing with it on 9/11.
when ever someone says something about bush up pops sp4 right on que .
reminds me of a mercat....
There have been no attacks, because the agencies involved in stopping these attacks are doing their job. There are still problems with airport screening, but the locked and reinforced cabin doors on aircraft are now a deterrent.
Before 9/11, the agencies did not do their job. Before 9/11, you could bring nearly anything aboard a plane, and on 9/10 if you'd asked someone to take their shoes off, they'd have hit you over the head with them.
We've put ample targets in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it's not like our enemies need to strike here. The 9/11 attacks were probably years in the planning, and our intercepts of communications have made that harder.
Hooray for technology ... and why doesn't Bush give credit to the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other agencies actually DOING the work?
Bush is a glory hound, and never credits what (or who) is actually doing the job. Mortgage refi's from 2001-2006 put over $1.2 trillion of cash in people's pockets, and low interest rates let business borrow to expand. The 'tax cuts' did little in comparison, but that's all that has Bush's fingerprints on it; so that's all that we hear about.
RE:
'Chertoff noted other improvements in security, including reinforcement of land borders through hundreds of miles of fencing, the doubling of the border patrol by late 2008 and the scanning of all sea-going cargo for radiation.'
=============================================================
www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articl eId=9065718&intsrc=hm_list
February 28, 2008 (Computerworld) A U.S. government plan to build a 'virtual fence' along the border of Mexico and Canada — using radar, satellites, sensors and communication links to rapidly dispatch border patrol — has all the earmarks of a technology boondoggle.
Congress was told this week that the project is being delayed, and for reasons likely familiar to IT managers: The users haven't been involved in the project's development, and the technology's complexity was underestimated.
The software that manages the virtual fence has proved to be another problem for Boeing. In a report this week, the GAO said Boeing's inability to integrate system components was the result of picking a software system, previously used in law enforcement dispatch, that couldn't handle the demands of the virtual fence. The company's now building a 'next-generation' management system.
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aq7WD3ldH5w4&refer=home
March 7 (Bloomberg) -- Two coordinated bomb attacks killed more than 50 people in Baghdad yesterday, as the U.S. military said it will withdraw 2,000 soldiers from the Iraqi capital.
The assault involved a roadside bomb followed by a suicide attack in Karadah, central Baghdad, at about 7 p.m. local time yesterday, the U.S. military said in a statement. ``This terrorist attack was a senseless act of violence directed against the Iraqi people,'' said Colonel Allen Batschelet, chief of staff for Multi-National Division - Baghdad. At least 54 people were killed and 123 others wounded in yesterday's attacks that ripped through al-Atar Street in the Karadah neighborhood, Agence France-Presse reported.
The 82nd Airborne Division soldiers that will return to the U.S. in the next several weeks were part of an extra 30,000 personnel sent last year to halt insurgent attacks and sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims that took Iraq to the brink of civil war.
The U.S. is in the process of pulling five of 20 combat brigades out of Iraq, totaling about 20,000 soldiers. U.S. Commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has said he wants to take time to assess security in the country after the currently planned withdrawal ends in mid-July.
'Hey, I found the terrorists'
Yup, in Iraq, not wrecking my skyline.
that's kind of the whole pointMar 7th, 2008 - 06:47:57
'Hey, I found the terrorists'
Yup, in Iraq, not wrecking my skyline.
===========================
Since yesterday's attacks show that even at 'surge strength' we cannot control events in Iraq, does that mean that we should leave the troops there anyway, just to keep the terrorists 'occupied' thousands of miles away? Meanwhile Afghanistan has a bumper opium crop to help those same terrorists financially.
Do you realize that al Qaeda is numerically just a few percent of the problem in Iraq; and that the Shia have been under a cease-fire for months now, keeping THEIR violence under control? Yesterday's bombings are just a reminder that fighting an insurgency is not like battling Rommel's panzers.
Our presence in Iraq simply keeps the Shia and Sunni from battling each other, and one reason for the Shia cease fire is for al Sadr to prevent rival Shia factions from battling for control of the Shiite majority.
We have made a huge investment with no long-term payback, unless some magic happens and the Iraqi government actually becomes effective.
Jerk.
...but that doesn't make you wrong. This thing needs to wrap up, and there is no exit strategy on any candidates list. Barak says he'll end it but has no specifics (golly, what a surprise) and anything Hillary says is a lie, because she's responsible for starting it in the first place.
Hillary's was ONE vote, dumbass, and the Iraq vote would have been carried sufficiently without her.
Exit strategy? Start drawing down, and FORCE the Iraqi government to take it over. Tough love. We have a choice of remaining for decades and seeing the current rate of 700 Iraqi deaths per month continue, and the destruction of the U.S. financial base due to growing debt to cover war expenses. Or getting out, and blaming the Iraqis if the place falls apart. They've had YEARS to get their act together. The real problem is that we count on Iraq's OIL, and just as OIL was the real reason for the Iraq invasion, now it's become the real reason for remaining.
Compare the price of oil in 2001 and 2008, and you see the havoc that Bush's policies have brought about for the public. Where was the planning for the increased demand in China and India, giving Chavez another customer for oil? Note the Canadian reaction to re-opening NAFTA - they supply us with the major portion of our imported oil, and are locked into that right now because of NAFTA.
The American people have spoken in the polls - NOW, they have to vote Democratic to bring it to a conclusion.
The error here was in removing Saddam, which freed up Iran, which has become a larger real-time problem than Saddam ever was - that's why we backed Saddam for decades, and Bush Sr. left him in power. We also left Afghanistan to fester, to become a narco state funding terrorism, and working with the fundamentalists in Pakistan to influence THAT country, which actually HAS nuclear weapons. Musharraf has a real problem, and the U.S. friends there are the military, not the population.
'Since yesterday's attacks show that even at 'surge strength' we cannot control events in Iraq, does that mean that we should leave the troops there anyway, '
What you are attempting to ignore is that these attacks used to occur about 3 times a day, now they are down to about once a month. No, we should not leave the 'surge strength' in indefinitely but to say that we should turn it over to the same monsters that we are DEFEATING in Iraq just plain stupid.
'Do you realize that al Qaeda is numerically just a few percent of the problem in Iraq;'
NO, it is simply not true. As of now they are MOST of the problem. The Iranian revolutionary guard and al Qaeda are the only ones left committing acts of violence at this point. They are the ones that Obama/Clinton want to hand Iraq over to.
'Exit strategy? Start drawing down, and FORCE the Iraqi government to take it over. '
Yes, great idea. The Shiites will run to Iran and the Sunnis will rightfully feel abandoned. You say in 1 post that 'Our presence in Iraq simply keeps the Shia and Sunni from battling each other' and in the next that we should just leave and let it happen with Iran and Saudi Arabia using Iraq to fight a proxy war.
Do you know what that would do to oil prices? No, once again you haven't thought any of what you advocate through. Pulling out of Iraq would hand control of the gulf region to the Iranians who could cut off 80% of the worlds oil supply at will. Do you have any idea what that means? Of course not. You are an idiot.
' We have a choice of remaining for decades and seeing the current rate of 700 Iraqi deaths per month continue,'
Firstly that is not the current casualty rate, secondly it is now statistically safer to be an Iraqi in Iraq then it is to be an American in Detroit, St.Louis, Miami, Washington DC or Atlanta. Your overblown phony indignation here isn't going to change the fact that attacks are down in the country by about 80%.
'the destruction of the U.S. financial base due to growing debt to cover war expenses'
Our debt is run up by a congress who behaves like pigs at the trough. Look at Clintons and Obamas earmarks if you want to see why we have a debt problem. Oh, and again, what do you think $300-%00 a barrel oil will do to our economy? (The result of cutting and running?) It would be full on depression like 1929.
'as OIL was the real reason for the Iraq invasion, now it's become the real reason for remaining.'
It is A reason but certainly not the sole reason. How much oil are we getting from Iraq?
'note the Canadian reaction to re-opening NAFTA - they supply us with the major portion of our imported oil, and are locked into that right now because of NAFTA.'
Yes, do note what happens when you have foreign policy illiterates and prima donna know nothings alienating our allies and wanting to appease our enemies. The Canadians would LOVE to renegotiate NAFTA because it was negotiated when oil was at $11 per barrel. We get most of our oil from Canada and they could get more money from China for it.
It is AMAZING to me how STUPID Obama and Clinton are being re. NAFTA.
'The American people have spoken in the polls '
LOL, You mean the 'super-delegates will be speaking for you at the back rooms'... Right?
'The error here was in removing Saddam, which freed up Iran'
Good luck bringing the SOB back. He is 6 feet deep in the dirt looking for his 72 black eyed virgins.
' the fundamentalists in Pakistan to influence THAT country, which actually HAS nuclear weapons.'
Good thing Barack wants to bomb them then, that idiot.
' the U.S. friends there are the military, not the population.'
If we start arbitrarily bombing them like these idiots you want to elect advocate we wont have friends anywhere there...
64000 jobs lost in February; oil is well behind $100, and will not stop; the dollar is free falling; no billions spent with NASA, but in 2 years a lot more billions will be spent to pay the Russians to give the poor American astronauts a ride to space, because no more shuttles... but WHO CARES? Long live GWB, and may all his work give fruit for many more years... HURRAY.
...but that doesn't make me wrong, either.
Hillary has to take responsibility for this war, like anyone who voted for it.
It was the dems who saw Bush as the expeditor of Saddam. This why they voted for the war. WMD's? If they believed that, they are dumber than George. Take your pick.
Yep, they saw a way to get Bush to get saddam, and then blame him for the war. Ol GW stepped in, because he wanted ol Saddam all along. It was the perfect storm.
Nafta renegotiated????????????????? Hahahahahahahahahahhaa!
WHY would they come to the table??? We're not going to cancel it! No way that is happening!
No, we got screwed, by ourselves! It's law now, and only a law can change it. Want to take odds on THAT happening??? Barak the magic negro will mouth some about it after he wins, Hillary too, but it will stay, or some token changes will happen, but nothing substantive.
This is what the Clintons left you with. Now dems want another one. Go figure....?
Of course when they do pull some kind of TV attack, some 'event atrocity' you will be right here declaring everything 'lost' like your moveon.org talking points command you to...idiot
Top General Warns of 'TV' Attacks
The former number two military official in Iraq said March 4 that al Qaeda in Iraq -- the local affiliate of the global jihad movement -- has been crippled by coalition military efforts over the last 13 months and is struggling for relevance.
With violence on the decline and tips from local citizens on the rise, al Qaeda in Iraq is running out of sanctuaries and recruits.
'Al Qaeda's capacity has been degraded significantly to operate inside Iraq,' said Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the recently-reassigned commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq, at a March 4 press briefing at the Pentagon.
'They are struggling to maintain a coherent capacity,' added Odierno, who is soon to become the Vice-Chief of Staff of the Army.
He went on to say that al Qaeda will likely try to keep its name in the news by executing occasional attacks, such as the Feb. 1 suicide bombing in which the organization detonated explosive belts on two mentally disabled women.
'What al Qaeda wants ... is to do an event where they can get on TV every once in a while,' Odierno said. 'That's what they're down to.'
...
His primary concern for long-term security is 'intra-Shiia' violence and Iranian-backed extremist attacks on the fledgling Iraqi government.
'Leave no doubt about it, [Iran] is still supporting the insurgents,' Odierno said. 'This is, in my opinion, about keeping a weak government in Iraq. I think Iran benefits from it.'
www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,163334,00.html
Washington (CNSNews.com) - In the last week of October 2007, there were 30 attacks on U.S. soldiers in the Anbar province of Iraq, just one-tenth as many as the previous year, according to U.S. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, who spoke at a conference on the war on Wednesday.
He further noted that civilian deaths in Iraq have fallen by 70 percent in less than a year, and by November 2007, the number of insurgent attacks in Iraq had dropped to their lowest level since 2004.
The surge has worked and continues to work, said Odierno.
'Obviously, it's too early to declare victory and go home, but I think it's safe to say that the surge of coalition forces - but just as important, how we employed those forces - has broken the cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq,'...
www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-usiraq5mar05,1,3964759.sto ry
Iran still fuels Iraq violence, U.S. says
By Peter Spiegel and Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
March 5, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Two top U.S. military commanders said Tuesday that Iran continues to train and direct violent Shiite militias in Iraq and is attempting to permanently weaken the Iraqi government.
Iran has become the biggest long-term threat to Iraqi stability and is encouraging radical elements among the Shiite population to continue attacks even as some prominent militia leaders push for cease-fires, said Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who just completed a 15-month assignment as day-to-day commander in Iraq.
'This is about keeping, in my opinion, a weak government in Iraq,' Odierno told reporters at the Pentagon. 'I think Iran benefits from that.'
NEW YORK - Actress and humanitarian activist Angelina Jolie said Thursday that the reinforcement of U.S. troops in Iraq has created an opportunity for humanitarian programs to boost assistance for Iraqi refugees.
In an op-ed piece published by the Washington Post, titled 'A Reason to Stay in Iraq,' Jolie details the plight of refugees and says their conditions have not improved since she visited the country last August to urge governments to provide more support.
Jolie, who has been a U.N. goodwill ambassador since 2001, was in Baghdad earlier this month to again highlight the refugee problem. She talked with Gen. David Petraeus, the American military commander in Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the U.S. Embassy said.
.....
The actress, who works on behalf of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, urged America's presidential candidates and congressional leaders to step up financing for aid to displaced Iraqis. UNHCR has asked for $261 million this year _ 'less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq,' she wrote.
Addressing the question of whether the 'troop surge' has worked, Jolie said that 'I can only state what I witnessed.'
'When I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq,' she wrote. 'They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.'
perhaps im wrong but wouldn't it make more sense juat to start a nuclear
war and end this living hell in the world .lets get it over with and then it's done..
...are things really that bad????
Bush can lose 64,000 jobs a month and STILL be above almost every other president for job creation, if you actually believe in such a nonsensical concept. He has produced record employment, tax receipts, low inflation, historic high household wealth all while lowering taxes. Were it not for the war, we'd be in a budget surplus.
Iraq has violence - but no more than, say, Pakistan on any given day, yet when Iraq is quiet, you never hear about it, until someone dies.
45,000 people, per MONTH are dying in the Congo. See the comparison??? Where's the outrage for THAT?
Oil IS $100 per bbl, but none of that is Bush's fault. In fact, if we'd opened ANWR, and drilled off our coasts, like he recommended, which the dems have stymied for decades, we'd almost be oil exporters now!
No, we're gonna miss this guy when the next guy or woman gets in.
I'm going to make sure you're reminded.
Your Talkback on this Story