And the good news from Iraq continues:
Thirty bodies were found Sunday in a grave south of Baghdad, Iraqi forces said.
Iraqi commandos were led to the grave in the Owerij industrial district in southern Baghdad after interrogating insurgents detained in a raid earlier in the day, Col. Selam al-Maamuri of the Interior Ministry said.
The grave, which al-Maamuri estimated was 10 to 14 days old, included the bodies of two women. Al-Maamuri did not identify the dead or say how they were killed.
One insurgent was killed in the raid early Sunday that led to the grave and 13 others were detained, including an Egyptian and a Sudanese man, al-Maamuri said. Some of the detained men confessed to dumping bodies in the grave, he said.
While this is more of the depressing same, I bolded the part that I find particularly interesting. It would be nice to know what the real status of the Iraqi forces currently is, and how long it is going to take to get them to a point where they are capable of providing some semblance of security.
Jim Caputo
I suppose we could have a truthful answer to that question sometime in the not too distant future, but it would require impeachment procedings to begin sometime soon.
Defense Guy
This doesn’t even make sense.
KC
This sort of brings up Cindy Sheehan again. Don’t scream at me yet. I feel sorry for her because her son died, but I certainly don’t agree with her on everything she’s saying either. At any rate, I mentioned in the comments yesterday that some good might come out of her protest. Maybe the attention given her will finally move Congress to push the administration to level with the American people about 1) the state of the Iraqi forces, 2) the current situation with our forces, and 3) what our longterm prospects–we’re supposedly setting up permanent bases there–look like in Iraq. Just take a look at what this woman who lost her grandson has to say and tell me some sort of accountability is not in order.
Jim Caputo
I’ll type slower and be less abstract so you’ll understand. I was implying that the only way to get a truthful answer regarding the capability level of Iraqi security forces would be to replace the current white house administration with another, more truthful, administration.
Let me break it down to an even more basic level for ya…
Bush lies. Cheney lies. Rumsfeld lies. Rice lies.
None of them will ever be truthful about the readiness levels of the Iraqi security forces because we’re not doing a good job of training those people.
Even simpler….
To get the truth, we’d need a president who TELLS the truth.
I hope this was helpful for you. No need to thank me publicly.
Stormy70
Um, ok. Who do you have in mind?
Don Surber
You want a timetable. OK, we will be able to leave at 11:59 AM EDT , Jan. 20, 2009. Happy?
“To get the truth, we’d need a president who TELLS the truth.”
Yes we do. Clinton said WMD, Bush said WMD. No WMD. What does that tell you about our Intel?
Don Surber
By the way, Mr. Obvious says, Note this pattern: Mass Grave
We pull out immediately, the folks that brought you Saddam will come back and kill hundreds of thousands of more “collaborators”
If the Internet had been around in World War II, we’d be speaking Japanese …
jg
Who said pull out immediately? Why are you trying to scare people with Saddam boogeyman stories?
Did you just give credibilty to Clinton or give evidence Bush is a liar?
Blaming the intel is stupid. It may not happen for a few years but the truth will come out that the CIA was told to bring evidence of wmd.
KC
I’m of the mind that the Clinton administration was deceptive with Iraqi intelligence on WMD, though they didn’t go to war over it (arguably, the low level bombing campaign was sort a prelude to war though). See this if you don’t believe me. All adminstrations are deceptive about foreign policy, Clinton’s as we all know, was no exception this rule. Of course, this doesn’t excuse the current administration’s behavior whatsoever.
StupidityRules
Don Surber, if we would pull out immediately, the folks that brought us Saddam won’t come back. Instead we’ll get a bigger Iran, but in the end we’ll get that anyway. Instead of the secular and anti-Iran Baath-party the biggest party of Iraq today is both islamic and friendly towards Iran.
It’s a good idea that Iraq finally got to have a real election. On the other hand I probably would have wished for a diffrent winner…
jg
Thats why we didn’t remove him the first time.
srv
It would be nice to know the truth. I remember how upbeat everyone was last year, with all those 10’000’s (what did Rice say, 120,000?) ready for battle Iraqis.
The MSM investigated, and we got all those stories quoting servicemen and anonymous military brass bemoaning the kool-aid drinking. But I’m sure they’ve come around now, now that the insurgency is in its’ last throes and all.
Since nobody is going to tell us the truth, how about some predictions from all those left/right experts at this site? I predict Sunni/Baathist groups will reject minority status and Kurdish/Shia autonomy with violence until they control most of central Iraq and have at least economic control over the southern oil fields.
StupidityRules
Srv, I really don’t see the Sunni/Baathist being able to take control of the southern oil fields.
When the US forces eventually leaves (except for the permanent bases being built) which they will have to sooner of later, if the Sunni decide to such a landgrab and the Iraqi Shia asks the Iranian Shia for help how would the US then respond, Iraq being a soverign democratic nation? And if the leaders of Iraq ask the US to dismantle their bases? Hopefully all the oil will magically disappear tomorrow. It would solve a lot of problems (and sadly create a heap of new ones…).
jg
The US will never let anyone we don’t like ‘take over’ any oil fields in Iraq.
Jim Caputo
So what you’re saying is the Iraqi people aren’t capable of fighting for themselves against an insurgency in its “last throes”? Or was Dick Cheney full of shit when he said that?
I don’t think it’s a given that you’ll have some brutal dictator in charge if we pull out. More likely, the regime will be some sort of theological model. Not what we’d like, but that’s what probably going to happen there anyway. I don’t think there’s any chance in hell that a sustained democracy is going to exist there for any stretch of time.
Perhaps setting a date would light a candle under the asses of the Iraqis. If they know we’re going to pull our troops out a year from now, they’ll know they have that much time to get their shit together and fight for what we’ve given them so far.
StupidityRules
JG, I would say that they have given them away to islamists thanks to latest election. And since the latest reason (a reason I wouldn’t had opposed if it had been the original reason) for going to war against Iraq it was that it was all about their freedom and how it will bring democracy to the middle east. Don’t think the US medlling with a sovereign nation’s oil wells are going to make that reason more plausable… Think they have to change their reason for the war once more first.
Mike
“I’ll type slower and be less abstract so you’ll understand. I was implying that the only way to get a truthful answer regarding the capability level of Iraqi security forces would be to replace the current white house administration with another, more truthful, administration.”
And who’s that gonna be genius?
Hillary Clinton.Yeah…Clintons never lie.
Kerry? Would he recognize if he was telling the truth? If he was telling the truth in the morning and then changed his mind in the evening, would he then be lying?
Gore? Well…he was well trained. We know he can be trusted.
Wesley Clark? You mean Mr. I changed my opinion of what I said about George Bush so the Moonbats would like me and get me elected?
Dean? I suppose he is capable of telling the truth, which is why so many think he’s an idiot.
I guess in your opinion George Bush killed these people.
Since we all know that if Saddam was still in charge, there would be no killings. That typed slow enough for ya?
srv
StupidityRules –
When (not if) the Sunni/Baathists return to power in Baghdad, they will demand their cut of oil revenues from the south. The Shia will either give it to them or it will be taken. We and the UK will be gone from the south by that point, as the Iranians will have prevailed on their cousins to not allow permanent US bases.
I predict they’ll give them 50% or more of the oil revenues. Otherwise, Iran will be stuck with a proxy war in the south (we would then be approving Saudi financial support for the Sunni/Baathists) and the north (Kurdistan is a whole other variable).
The Iraqi-Shia play in the south is to reach a Kurdish level of autonomy (once they’ve finally accepted that the Sunni/Baathists aren’t going to roll over). They aren’t going to get there depending on us. The Iranian play is to keep us at bay. They aren’t going to get there letting us keep 50,000 troops in Basra once we’ve abandoned Baghdad.
jg –
I predict we’ll ultimately like a Sunni in Baghdad leaning on Basra again than a card carrying SCIRI member who chats with Tehran every day.
KC
Wow Mike, you really don’t think any of these people are more truthful than the President, right? I can’t say much for Clinton or the rest of the list, but with respect to flip-flopper Kerry, I think a lot of what he said during the campaign has subsequently been confirmed (number of Iraqi troops ready, troop armour, etc.). This doesn’t mean he’s a great guy or deserves to be president, it just means that someone else was either unfamiliar with the facts or interested in behaving deceptively during the campaign.
What’s even stranger though, is the fact that you think that because Dean is capable of telling the truth, he’s an idiot. Well, maybe so. But I’d say that says more about the mindset of a lot of us rather than the disposition of Dean’s character. He may be an idiot, but I’d prefer an honest idiot to someone who engages in political distortions and outright deceit for purposes of political gain. Then again, I guess we all deserve to get our fantasies embellished sometimes, right?
StupidityRules
Srv, I gotta disagree with you about the Sunni/Baathists returning to power in Baghdad, they might carve out their own piece of Iraq and claim it to be their own state, but I don’t think they will ever rule Iraq again, I think that’s one of the good things that came out of the US invasion.
Demdude
I don’t think it’s a given that you’ll have some brutal dictator in charge if we pull out. More likely, the regime will be some sort of theological model. Not what we’d like, but that’s what probably going to happen there anyway. I don’t think there’s any chance in hell that a sustained democracy is going to exist there for any stretch of time.
Perhaps setting a date would light a candle under the asses of the Iraqis. If they know we’re going to pull our troops out a year from now, they’ll know they have that much time to get their shit together and fight for what we’ve given them so far.
Demdude
Sorry, the block quote should be reversed above.
jg
They’re always changing the reality while we’re just left behind to try to sort it all out.
Mike
KC Says:
“What’s even stranger though, is the fact that you think that because Dean is capable of telling the truth, he’s an idiot. Well, maybe so. But I’d say that says more about the mindset of a lot of us rather than the disposition of Dean’s character. He may be an idiot, but I’d prefer an honest idiot to someone who engages in political distortions and outright deceit for purposes of political gain. Then again, I guess we all deserve to get our fantasies embellished sometimes, right?”
I didn’t say he was an idiot for telling the truth, I said that what he says when he does tell the truth, or rather what he THINKS is the truth, is idiotic. Dean’s truth isn’t reality, it’s a just another variant on the stupidity that is modern liberalism.
Jim Caputo
I’d take any of them over Bush in a heartbeat. And just we’re clear on the point I was making… I said “MORE truthful. I didn’t say that any future president would be TOTALLY truthful.
But its interesting to see what you consider disqualifying attributes. Now no self-aggrandizing card-carrying member of the right wing-nuttery would ever start such a list without putting a Clinton right up there on the top of it.
Bill and Hillary have certainly lied at times. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t, nor do you. But to my knowledge, no lie that they’ve ever told has resulted in the deaths of thousands. I can’t say the same for W.
Kerry spoke the truth in those debates. I know you’ll disagree with it, and I know that you bought every lie those Swiftboaters told, but when he said we had OBL in those mountains and let him get away, he knew what he was talking about as recent governmental disclosures have shown.
Gore is what he is, not very inspiring and a bit too monotone, but he doesn’t have much of a reputation for fibbery, certainly not one to rival W’s at this point.
And Wesley Clark has been pretty on target on this war from the start. You criticize him for changing his opinion on Bush as if once we decide things we’re never allowed to reevaluate and change our opinions.
Is that really something you see as a positive…someone who, despite all kinds of new information that shows their original assessment of someone was wrong, refuses to change their opinion? I don’t see anything meritorious about such a character trait; in fact, I’d view it as a serious flaw.
You call Dean an idiot. The guy is a doctor..an MD. He’s obviously a pretty bright guy. You disagree with his politics, but clearly he’s an intelligent person. He can actually speak in full and complete sentences. He can even pronounce “nuclear.”
Here’s something you need to come to grips with: just because someone disagrees with your politics, it doesn’t mean they’re stupid. The majority of republicans and democrats holding national office in this country aren’t stupid. Dick Cheney isn’t stupid. He’s cold, heartless, a liar, and may be, at this very moment, helping to cover up the crimes of a traitor (Scooter Libby), but he’s not stupid. Bush is the exception. Oh hell, throw Santorum in there too.
Did he kill them? No. He didn’t commit the actual act of killing them, but he is responsible for their deaths. Any commander-in-chief is. The question isn’t about that though. The question is was there justification for the loss. Sadly, the answer is ‘no,’ a conclusion two-thirds of the country have now reached.
goonie bird
Mass grave found will the liberals blame this on george bush?
Retief
The reality is that the only battle ready troops besides ours in Iraq are the various rival militias of the various parties and ethnicities. Some of them or parts of some of them get to wear governement uniforms. They are battle ready enough to kill some of each other and lots of civilians of the wrong sub-group.