At a time when reports from Iraq seem bleak at best, columnist Cal Thomas expresses his hope “that success may be closer than we think” in this column on today’s Opinion pages. He quotes from documents seized by U.S. soldiers last month and reportedly authored by an al-Qaida operative that depict the insurgency as disorganized and faltering. He concludes: “These documents ought to encourage not only the U.S. government, but also American public opinion, that the virtues of patience and commitment are likely to achieve the stated objectives of freedom and a self-sustaining Iraqi government.”
You’d like to share Thomas’ optimism, but news reports Tuesday still painted another picture: The new government remains unformed (with a May 22 deadline looming), at least 511 Iraqis have been killed this month, and at least three more U.S. soldiers have died this week.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- LonnythePlumber on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- LonnythePlumber on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- XXX on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- DavidB on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Monkeyhawk on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- Monkeyhawk on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- DorisKing on Huckabee felt costs of campaign
- Jed on Let immigrants run
28 Comments
I think we all hope and pray that this is true.
Part of the problem, all of the problem in my opinion is what to believe? I try to find another source for some things. Like the “It is just a God damn piece of paper!” comment attributed to G.W. Bush. Considering what I do believe that he has done, such a comment is mild. But for some reason it just did not feel right, so I searched for a second source. There were several the quoted the saying, but all lead back to the origin paper that reported it. Checking the paper out it appears to be a one man ran news report and by his own admission he was a bush hater. So I did not put a lot of stock in the quote, I think the real truth is bad enough that I do not want to buy into something that is not.
I see now and again a Bush supporter stating that they have/had found WMDs, so I generally check that source out too. But agree with the statement that if they had it would be all over the air waves and every paper from the Washington post to the Rush spring Gazette would have the banner headline. One that was quite memorable was a link stating that in translated document it stated exactly where they were and what happen to them! I went to the link which lead to a site at of all places Fort Leavenworth. The Document that said where and what happen to the WMDs… showed up in Arabic! Which if I want to lie I would say I am rusty in, the truth is it was all Greek to me!
I just love when either side of this issue states there is proof, that leads to nothing more then spin.The insurgency as it is now called, is made up of different groups and Al Qaeda is but a small part of it.So whether Al-Qaeda is “In its last throws…On the ropes or in its last days make little difference.I put no more credence in Cal Thomas then I do Rush, both tend to say it is raining to explain the moisture on my pant’s leg.
Tracy – I also hope it is true. However, like the WMDs and the direct links to al-Quada that were claimed by the same sources, I have my doubts. I’ll believe it when I see it.
The Zionist are really big on “documents” lately.
When Iran’s president called the myth a myth, suddenly 60 years worth of “proof documents” popped-up from a Zionist toaster { hidden away in Germany no less }.
The Zionists will give you “documents” all the way back to the “big-bang for enough money.
Didn’t Rumsfield tell this over a year ago? And didn’t he tell us US troops would be in Iraq for months not years?
Sounds like “light at the end of the tunnel” to me.
Ben,I’m really hoping this light isn’t a train.
We are going to establish a permanent base in Iraq.
Joe – a base which we will have to defend forever from resistence to our occupation.
Actually, it is my understanding we are building numerous permanent bases.
*A* permanent base? How about 14 permanent bases that we’ve been building since day one? Colon Powell was right. We broke it, we own it, and everything is going exactly as planned. The insurgents? Nothing more than a little glitch. A couple of thousands American troops’ lives is worth it, when we will, in the end, own the oil.
Maybe the reason Bush never had an exit strategy was that he never intended to exit!
Cal Thomas is quoting a single source who is unknown, but presumed to be an Arab Al Qaeda member. Because this person is discoraged about the insurgents’ progress, we are to believe that staying the course is the correct thing to do.
I guess if you have already made up your mind as to what the conclusion should be, it is easy to cherry pick support for that position. This does not seem like very convincing support to me.
The stories about the formation of an Iraqi government would seem to me to be a better guage of progress in that contry. The insurgency is a political problem requiring political solutions.
The Jews run our military and, yes, they never planned to leave Iraq. They want a free-hand to invade Lebanon and Syria, so they pushing us to now “take-out” Iran.
That’s what has driven-up the price of crude { notice how the price of crude has come down somewhat, as they’ve been put-off getting Iran attacked }.
Zionist Israel will self-destruct, as more becomes known about their “activities.”
Read the twisted version of the news on AIPAC.com, as it’s almost funny.
It’s AIPAC.org, and they grinding away in the UN { Bolton }.
AIPAC: “Security Council Proposal Seeks Hizballah’s Disarmament”
Hizbollah kicked Israel out of Lebanon once so the Zionists want the UN to make them stop defending Lebanon.
I miss “bullet-boy.”
Let’s all bow our heads and have a moment of silence for the “bulleted-one.”
Okay, we all hope it’s true.
But six months from now, can we come back to Cal Thomas’s comments?
Hey, I’ve got an idea–I’ll bet The Wichita Eagle that Cal Thomas is wrong. If he is, you all have to stop running him twice a week.
If he’s right, I’ll renew my subscription.
The truth is that as long as the US maintains a illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq, their patriots are going to fight back . . . just like we would if a bunch of Middle East Muslims occupied us.
It’s not that complicated, really.
Hey, maybe they can find the Weapons of Mass Destruction while they’re at it . . .
Lefthook,
I suppose that would explain why the insurgents are attacking their own people?
War records often show that belligerents are on the verge of defeat or exhaustion. That, however, does not mean that they are beaten. In WWI German U-Boat activity had britain down to 2 months’ food supply in early 1916. Similarly, the British naval blockade of Germany denied her some of the essential raw materials for making high explosives (Germany developed a synthetic process because of this). American entry into the war on the side of the Allies was countered by the loss of Russia due to the revolution.
In WWII German physicists were just as far along as their Allied counterparts in nuclear weapons development in the late 1930s. However, the German High Command counted on a short war. Nuclear weapons wouyld be a distraction of manpower and money in such a circumstance. On the other hand, US policy makers saw a prolonged war and therefore betthat nuclear weapons would be a decisive factor.
In Vietnam, the US won the vast majority of battles but still lost the war. Being ‘on the ropes’ doesn’t guarantee victory any more than being in a dominant position guarantees victory.
For the insurgents, they only need to keep up a low intensity, low expense terror campaign for perhaps several more years. This would force the US and her allies (potentially) to commit large sums of money and manpower to the region. Would US/Allied populations put up with another decade of war and casualties, along with the expense.
The situation for us is analogous to germany’s in WWII and our own in Vietnam. We want a short decisive war. However, al Quaeda is in much the same position as the North Vietnamese, the IRA, the Basque separatists, etc. They look for a long, prolonged, engagement.
Brian – I would add that the insurgents are also similar to the insurgents against King George in the 18th Century. They are fighting on their soil for their country.
ben,I’d agree with you in a wider sense. A number of the insurgents are not Iraqis, but they are Islamists and Arabs for the most part. there is a movement on the fringes for the re-establishment of the caliphate…that means the old Arab empire from the edges of India/China to Spain and north to Iran and Afghanistan. In that sense, I believe many are fighting for ‘their land’.
Brian – according to our own defense department very few are non-Iraqis.
Good analysis, Brian. It’s the same song, played over and over again with the right-wingers hoping that this time it’ll come out differently.
Nathan, of course there’s Iraqi on Iraqi violence. That’s what are guys are for–to train the Iraqis how to form death squads and take out the opposition.
We’ve done it for decades in Central and South America, we did it in Vietnam. What do you think they do at the School for the Americas there in Georgia?
They train terrorists (i.e., right-wing death squads, militias, counter-insurgents whatever you want to call them) to kill and maim so that we can do business as usual with the governments we like instead of the Sandinistas or Allendes . . .
Of course, it’s going on Iraq too. How could it NOT be?
Remember the British commandos dressed as insurgents with a carload of explosives? The ones the British knocked down a prison wall to free so that the legitimate Iraqi gov’t couldn’t try them or question them?
Remember that?
I rest my case.
This just in–yet another example of US death squads in action.
If we really want to stop terrorism, we might start with our own.
*****US Secretly Backing Warlords in SomaliaBy Emily Wax and Karen DeYoungThe Washington Post
Wednesday 17 May 2006
More than a decade after U.S. troops withdrew from Somalia following a disastrous military intervention, officials of Somalia’s interim government and some U.S. analysts of Africa policy say the United States has returned to the African country, secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu.
The latest clashes, last week and over the weekend, were some of the most violent in Mogadishu since the end of the American intervention in 1994, and left 150 dead and hundreds more wounded. Leaders of the interim government blamed U.S. support of the militias for provoking the clashes.
U.S. officials have declined to directly address on the record the question of backing Somali warlords, who have styled themselves as a counterterrorism coalition in an open bid for American support. Speaking to reporters recently, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States would “work with responsible individuals . . . in fighting terror. It’s a real concern of ours – terror taking root in the Horn of Africa. We don’t want to see another safe haven for terrorists created. Our interest is purely in seeing Somalia achieve a better day.”
This afternoon Rumsfield acknowledged that there are no troop reductions in sight. That doesn’t make any sense if the insurgency is “on the ropes”
It seems that Mr. Ed Friedmann is on to something, hmm,.
Aipac Case Impacting Security Clearance
By JOSH GERSTEIN – Staff Reporter of the SunMay 17, 2006
A D V E R T I S E M E N TThe Pentagon is invoking the prosecution of two pro-Israel lobbyists and a Defense Department analyst for illegal use of classified information as a basis for stripping security clearances from government contractor employees who have dual citizenship in America and Israel or family members living in the Jewish state.
In at least three instances, Defense Department attorneys have used or attempted to use the case involving the former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to justify withdrawing a security clearance or denying one in the first place, according to a Virginia lawyer who closely tracks such disputes, Sheldon Cohen.
“In my personal experience, I know of at least three cases,” Mr. Cohen told The New York Sun yesterday. “I assume they’re raising it in every Israel case.”
Asked why government lawyers were invoking the Aipac case in security clearance disputes with no known connection to the pro-Israel group, Mr. Cohen said, “The only reason to possibly use it is to implicate anybody with a connection to Israel, to imply they cannot be trusted. There is no other conceivable reason to bring it up….”http://www.nysun.com/article/32862?page_no=1
onward to victory!!!!!
Can a person with dual citizenship have undevided loyalty to the United States? NO.