 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! December 3, 2005 In the LeadBy GreyhawkIn the wake of President Bush's speech at Annapolis it appears a battalion of journalists has been dispatched with marching orders to discredit his claims of progress in Iraq. We applaud the efforts of true fact checkers - those who keep our politicians honest. Unfortunately, most of the current efforts of the media "quick reaction force" are a discredit to those who do consider non-partisan efforts at bringing the truth to the American public an important service. Frequent commenter Wilson Kolb brings to our attention one such example. Under the headline "Embedded TIME Reporter: Bush Lied In Speech Yesterday About Iraqi Security Forces" the political website Think Progress details what they believe is an example of fraud in the President's speech. First, here's the passage they question: The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year's assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army -- with six Iraqi battalions supporting them. The Iraqis fought and sustained casualties. Yet in most situations, the Iraqi role was limited to protecting the flanks of coalition forces, and securing ground that had already been cleared by our troops. This year in TAL Afar, it was a very different story.And here's the statement Time magazine reporter Michael Ware made to CNN's Anderson Cooper - which they feel effectively debunks the above: COOPER: You know this is not one of the shows where we take sides. I really try to just look at facts on the ground, and the President in his speech talked about the battle of Tal Afar. And in his speech today, he said that it was led primarily by Iraqi security forces, eleven Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support. He used this as compared to the battle of Fallujah as an example of how much better the Iraqis are doing. Earlier, I talked to Time Magazine’s Michael Ware, the Baghdad bureau chief who was embedded during the entire battle. I want to play you what he said about the Iraqi units he saw.First, note that Ware acknowledges the placement of Iraqi forces in the battle - "I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda" - this statement is all that's needed to confirm the President's account. Anyone thinking the President meant anything other than that by "in the lead" is fooling themselves. But Ware's problem is with the Special Forces advisors; their presence indicates the Iraqis aren't ready to go it alone. But the "argument" boils down to this: the President says progress is being made towards a goal where Iraqi forces can carry the battle themselves, and his detractors counter that it isn't true - because they haven't yet reached that goal. But let's really "think" about "progress", because Ware (perhaps unwittingly) confirmed the other quoted paragraphs of the President's speech too. Two years ago they broke and ran at every opportunity - this is certainly true of the April '04 battle in Fallujah, when one Baghdad-based Iraqi unit mutinied on the road to Fallujah and refused to join the battle (see Bing West's outstanding book No True Glory : A Frontline Account of the Battle for Fallujah Last November they fought in Fallujah - clearing and holding immediately behind the front line US troops, and none have broken and run since. Now as the clear and hold operations extend to other towns in al Anbar those units are in the lead. As Ware notes, they have Special Forces advisors with them, calling the shots, directing, etc. That is why the advisors are there. To assume they would not do so is patently ridiculous. His argument that they were not "in the lead" because they had Special Forces advisors with them "right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaeda" is equally ridiculous - and an insult to the courage and resolve of Iraqi troops and the Special Forces. No one - certainly not the president (who, if you want to be mince words, actually said "The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security forces") is claiming the Iraqis are ready to go without our help. This is the whole reason we're still there. Ware has invented his own definition of what the President meant by "in the lead" - and it's not one the President shares. How can I be sure? Because as the President has made clear, when the Iraqis are ready to go without Special Forces advisors is when we come home - victorious. Ware didn't mean to confirm everything the President said - but in fact he did. That's the danger of attacking rapidly without a well thought out plan. Posted by Greyhawk / December 3, 2005 4:44 PM | Permalink 1 TrackBackThis was posted a few days ago at Think Progress: Yesterday, President Bush claimed that Iraqi security forces “primarily led” the assault on the city of Tal Afar. Bush highlighted it as an “especially clear” sign of the progress Iraq securit... Read More 26 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
- highly recomended.) 
Dang Greyhawk,
You are fun when the wankers really get you going. The media have recognized that their artificial construct of a quagmire and defeat is under attack and they are scrambling to cover their butts.
Since W has joined the fray, I think we have a chance at the truth prevailing. His poll numbers bumped up this week also, good gravy could it be working?
Cordially,
Uncle J
By Ware's standard, the British never "lead" any battle in WWII, because Eisenhower was in charge.
By the way, check out the 500 Wilson clones in the comments at the link. "Group Think" would be a better name for that site - "Hive Mind" better yet. "Progress" is pure false advertising. The Time reporter never even said "Bush lied" - but every reader there believes he did. Do any of these people question anything they read? Scary.
Anyone with critical thinking skills abandoned the Left long ago. Those remaining are "poorly educated, easily led."
Ware has always been a punk, and Anderson Cooper has an axe to grind with Bush because of his own sexuality.
f
[deleted - offensive]
Wow, didn't take long for the Bush=Hitler crowd to show up. I kind of laugh at the Bush=Hitler stuff because if it were actually true then Bush would have initiated the “Final Solution” and all Muslims and libs would be in concentration camps by now. Oh and don’t even try to compare Gitmo to Auschwitz you wankers(no gas chambers if you haven’t noticed).
Wilson: From all of the hordes of Republicans, I wish to offer my unreserved thanks. Without wingnuts like yourself making the Democratic Party look like the official gathering place for loose-brained loudmouthed jerks, we might not have gained so many nonaligned and "small-d" Democratic votes, and making sure the Republican base was well-motivated to turn out and vote, in '02 and '04.
Thanks for making a Republican victory possible.
PS- Things look close in '06--- do you think you can ramp up your posting on sites like this one? Maybe spread youself out a little, so you can do a better job of confirming the stereotype of the Anti-Victory Wingnut Democrat to more people than before? You do it so well...
"Offensive," oh come on Greyhawk. Puhleeze. But okay, for the polite:
Gee, Fred, you didn't mention the prominent gay Republicans like David Dreier and Ken Mehlman. You didn't even mention the Faux News anchor who was recently outed, Shepherd Smith.
So, do as a good Republican do you only gay-bait the opposition? Hey, it's a long tradition with you wingnuts.
And speaking of stereotypes, maybe we could dispense with another one about Republicans:
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
You post a civil thoughful article which at the very least could serve as a point of departure for some useful 'discussion' and you get Wilson instead.
Pathetic in every sense of the word. Wilson do you understand HISTORY at all? At All?
What happens to social groupings that prove themselves to be irrelevent to the changing social conditions around them? What happens to those who cannot or will not support their own National Structures? What happens to those whose every 'contribution'to society is an ad hominen attack without any pretense of objectivity or constructive criticism?
Keep up the good work. If you can't learn from history the least you can do,I fear, is to suffer the repetition of it.
Frankly I never thought it was a great tactical move to paint yourself into the essentially a waste of space corner, but I guess you know best.
The more I hear from 'your' side the more worried I get about the long-term consequences. Hopefully I am just over-cautious, but since you can NEVER win because you really offer NOTHING,and since this supposed 'equilibrium' is very much unstable and is creating in effect 'two solitudes', I don't see how the direction can be anything but down.
Good Luck with the landing.
I heard a different segment with Ware, where he basically disparaged everything - all of the training of Iraqi forces is a sham, no place is being handed over to the Iraqis, etc.
On the one hand, I have respect for him, because he is one of the few journalists that does take chances. But I have not gotten over his statements when he was receiving intel from the insurgents last year and rationalizing not helping to catch them. I also have issue with the fact that many of his opinions expressed does not match other journalists or milbloggers who are on the same scene.
Implied in the derision the left directs at Iraqi soldiers is that they are cowardly dogs who will never grow enough spine to defend themselves or their country. I thought this sort of group libel was long ago forbidden by the commisars of political correctness.
Amazing -- Wilson brings this up on another thread, inspiring Greyhawk to put together a post that thoroughly shreds Wilson's original take on this.
Maybe there is value in having Wilson around ... as "inspiration" for the rest of us, to stay on top of the rhetorical game.
Then again, maybe not ... ever think, Wilson, that the best thing to do to further your agenda is to put a stop to your irresponsible abuse of free speach?
Then again, your agenda will collapse under its own weight, anyway, since it is not based on sound principle and rational thought.
Michael Ware was on the now-defunct Aaron Brown show on CNN last year, telling the viewers that all the marines killed in Fallujah died for nothing because we couldn't win. All we were doing in Iraq was creating a massive army of "young men just as motivated as the marines," who would be victorious because there were just too many of them.
Then he started weeping.
Seriously.
re: Iraqi soldiers curling into ball, refusing to fight, etc.
I'm sure it happened. It happens in all armies. You never know what your reaction to being under fire will be until it happens. The adrenaline- inspired flee or fight response is a known part of the human condition - in any tense situation.
Mike Yon's post about the day the Deuce-Four commander was wounded includes an example of his GIs freezing in combat. The early days of WWII in Africa Americans often "froze" - Rick Atkinson's book "An Army at Dawn" gives several examples. And if you aren't familiar with Patton's response (and the response to Patton) you really need to watch the movie.
As for such soldiers, some go on to overcome that fear and do great things, others die, others find their skills are best used elsewhere.
How many froze in the latest battles? I don't know - but I know who won.
So Ware's description is accurate - his analysis is flawed, or is outright enemy propaganda. Osama bin Laden has said since day one of his jihad that cowardice among his enemies would ensure his victory.
Mainstream journalism has gone deeply into debt, trying to prove that Iraq is a quagmire. They have spent most of their credibility in this attack on Bush. They will be called to account, to repay. Some will need to find other jobs.
What happens to social groupings that prove themselves to be irrelevent to the changing social conditions around them? What happens to those who cannot or will not support their own National Structures? What happens to those whose every 'contribution'to society is an ad hominen attack without any pretense of objectivity or constructive criticism?
I'll tell you what happens: They become Republican political operatives who start "milblogs" to flog their rightwingnut politics under the phony guise of supporting the troops, who in fact they couldn't care less about.
The CNN reporter you refer to has a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of Special Forces in Iraq. SF have been training Iraqi units, so it certainly makes sense to have them accompany Iraqi troops into combat, and also to lend the planning and command and control capabilities of the U.S. military. But the ratio of SF advisers to Iraqi soldiers in these operations probably ranges from 1:50 to 1:250. So for CNN to argue that our SF guys were doing the majority of the fighting is incorrect.
Ah, yes, the inevitable sweeping statement that lumps the entirety of those to Wilson's right into the scheming Halliburton devotee operatives hell-bent on peddling their political agenda no matter what the cost. Ok, now I'm exagerating too- apologies. Apart from the rather non-sensical rants in bold italics (very effective gimmick- I almost jumped out of my seat with a Yeeeah!), I don't think it's appropriate to accuse anyone here of not caring for our troops. That's a cheap shot, and not very well aimed at that, considering the obvious base of military knowledge threaded through the "pro" entries versus the "con", which are usually confined to dissecting GW's speeches or regurgitating other blogs.
Now, would you like to know what I really think?--Wk
Perhaps later once you're back on the meds.
Or not. Either way would be fine.
Here's your typical chest-beating, nut-scratching milblogger:
http://w3t.org/?u=elf
Sorry, where exactly did it say the person in the article had a blog? Oh wait: it didn't, but hey they guy said he supported the war and you love guilt-by-association smears so it must mean he's a milblogger!
Do you order these links from ACME? Have you started printing out cards titled: "Wilson Kolb, Genius" yet?
If he didn't have a milblog, he should have. It's a great way for Republicans to fake patriotism and military credentials.
There is absolutely no concern displayed here, at any time, for the welfare of the troops.
A look at a few Dawn Patrols gives the lie to that, Wilson ... as does the frequent posts regarding Soldiers' Angels, and the recent Valour-IT project.
Beyond that, you just NEVER see Greyhawk or any of his amen chorus talking about inadequate armor on the vehicles ...
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001854.html
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/002694.html
... lack of care in veterans hospitals ...
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001030.html
... and on a more general note ...
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001815.ht
ml
... lack of adequate equipment ...
See the posts on armor, above.
... and the bonehead plays like not sending enough troops in the beginning that allowed the looting of the big ammo dump whose explosives have been blowing up soliders ever since in the form of IEDs.
(not a big one, but it does address the issue) http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/001654.html
... which puts things in the proper perspective and proportions, as do all these posts -- which is the difference between Greyhawk's commentary, and yours, Baghdad Willy.
I am sure the owner of this site can list other examples, as well ... please do, Greyhawk.
What I have just quoted, from your posts, are, by the standard you apply to my President, LIES -- except that in the case of these quotes, their lack of truth is verified by the links shown here, without the need to stretch every snippet of news that might favor my position to the point of total distortion.
And, there may be a hidden agenda here, too ... given your belief that the war was started because Saddam was going to switch from USD to Euros as his currency-of-choice, I wonder if you were heavily invested in Euros in anticipation of such a move, only to lose big when we removed the Butcher of Baghdad from power ... and now you want to take out your losses upon the one you think caused it.
You might say the same thing about currency-trader and MoveOn sugar daddy George Soros, as well ... no wonder you two sound alike.
If you have any shred of decency left, please focus your discussions on facts and reason, instead of cherry-picking and wild speculation ... for your usual method of operation has now been weighed thoroughly, and found wanting.
In other words, you don't have any proof that he has a milblog, but presumed such to fit your prejudices.
'scuse me, Pattycake, but I never quite claimed he had a milblog. I said he was typical of the milbloggers. Which he is, being a lying phony.
"Here's your typical chest-beating, nut-scratching milblogger:"
Hm. Looks like you're claiming he's a milblogger. Keep backpeddling.