Traitors!

Cue Al and Hawk with how great Iraq is going, the Brits being surrender monkeys, how we always save them, link to right-wing lies, another corner to a pony, etc.

Hip-hip-hoorah!

At least the Brits can be counted on to keep some priorities straight. Maybe we'll be a able to lend them a hand in 2008, if Afghanistan isn't totally overrun by the Taliban and al Qaeda by then.

They were just one Friedman unit away from victory!!!

Yesterday Anthony Cordesman was on NPR's
Day to Day with his analysis of why the
British are leaving Basra: they've been defeated by an extremist group of local
Shiites.

Violence in the Basra area has subsided because the Shiites have taken hold. I don't know how authoritative his analysis is, but I found it
convincing...and interesting.

Britain to Scale Back Iraq Troops

Audio for this story will be available at approx. 4:00 p.m. ET [Feb. 21].
Day to Day, February 21, 2007 · British Prime Minister Tony Blair has
announced a pull back of British troops serving in Iraq. Anthony Cordesman,
a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington, talks with Madeleine Brand.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7520582

"Gore/Edwards/08", the British are NOT surrender monkeys. They are our loyal allies. They are being redeployed to Afghanistan to encircle Iran. If you don't know what I mean, look at a map of south-east Asia and it will all become clear.

The British military is approaching "operational failure," former defense staff chief Charles Guthrie warned this week.

CLICK THE LINK. ALWAYS CLICK THE LINK. Tony Blair denies the British military is approaching "operational failure." In fact, Blair pulled troops because Iraqi troops can shoulder the additional responsibilities.

Link

"In announcing the troop reductions, Blair said they coincided with the increasing assumption of security responsibilities by Iraqi military and police forces. He said British troops would continue to patrol the Iranian border and remain at their main base in Basra through at least 2008, to assist Iraqi forces if needed."

""It is important to show the Iraqi people that we do not desire our forces to remain any longer than they are needed, but whilst they are needed, we will be at their side," Blair told Parliament."

I assumed the pull out was to save the little prince.

Here's the most daming bit from that article:

Vice President Dick Cheney called the reduction "an affirmation of the fact that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well," and White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said the U.S.-led coalition "remains intact" even though the roster of nations contributing troops, excluding the U.S., has fallen to 25 from 35.

But the Pentagon, in its most recent quarterly report to Congress, listed Basra as one of five cities outside Baghdad where violence remained "significant," and said the region was one of only two "not ready for transition" to Iraqi authorities.

Once a promising beacon, Basra suffers from sectarian violence as well as Shiite militia clashes over oil smuggling. Ferocious street battles have broken out between rival Shiite Muslim groups in provincial capitals such as Samawah, Kut and Diwaniya in the last year.

Violence in Basra has increased tenfold since the invasion, with British troops and bases coming under regular attack even in the past month. Doesn't anyone remember the vehicles being sent to rescue the troops from the downed helicopter being firebombed by the locals?

I'm sure Cheney does, which further cements his reputation as a fat fucking liar.

Either that or he doesn't have access to teh Google.

i guess its going to take a few thousand more body bags filled with whats left of your mighty army before you dumb americans see the light. oh well, i should have my broker move my portfolio over to allied plastics or dupont or whatever firm supplies the americans with saran wrap for thier dead sons and daughters. cheers.

I assumed the pull out was to save the little prince.

I don't see how this helps me at all -- oh, you mean that english kid. never mind

Sounds like them Democrats in Britain can't handle the heat.

Compare/contrast:

The British military is approaching "operational failure," former defense staff chief Charles Guthrie warned this week.

and:

The fierce debate at the highest military and political levels in the MoD is reflected in a passage of a leaked memo written by a staff officer at the Defence Academy, an MoD thinktank. It reads: "British armed forces are effectively held hostage in Iraq — following the failure of the deal being attempted by COS [chief of staff] to extricate UK armed forces from Iraq on the basis of 'doing Afghanistan' — and we are now fighting (and arguably losing or potentially losing) on two fronts."

with this:

Cheney Says British Troop Withdrawal Is Positive Sign

..Vice President Dick Cheney said the move was actually good news and a sign of progress in Iraq.

"Well, I look at it and see it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well..."

"In fact, I talked to a friend just the other day who had driven to Baghdad down to Basra, seven hours, found the situation dramatically improved from a year or so ago, sort of validated the British view they had made progress in southern Iraq and that they can therefore reduce their force levels..."

"I want you to know that the American people will not support a policy of retreat," Cheney told the soldiers.

and this:

Presidential spokesman Tony Snow...said Britain's decision was not made on a timeline of the sort the president has rejected for American troops. "What you had is progress first, and then the removal," Snow said.

"The president's made clear all along, we want to move as rapidly as we can to build capability on the part of the Iraqis so they can in fact assume, first, primary responsibility and then eventually sole responsibility," he said.

I hate to admit it, but I am continually amazed at the lack of skepticism on the part of media. It's like they've traded in their Fourth Estate mansion for a cramped guest house in the Executive branch's back yard...

As I suggested in another thread, Blair may be able to salvage some of his legacy, and totally destroy GWB's in the process, by achieving the victory over AQ and the Taliban in Afganistan that eluded the idiot preoccupied with Saddam.

I hate to admit it, but I am continually amazed at the lack of skepticism on the part of media.

Murdoch is supporting HRC. Nothing surprises me anymore.

Al --

Blair denies the degradation of British forces the same way the US administration denies the degradation of their own army and Marines. They are politicians. Lieing is second nature to them. You're either gullible and stupid or ideologically constrained and stupid.

If the UK is seen as having any hand in any military action against Iran, the government will fall. Hence Blair's statement today re same.

Turns out the British came under rocket attack in Basra as recently as...TODAY!

So much for Cheney's observations on progress.

This is what Lieberman confirmed yesterday about shifting the troops to Afghanistan.:
“Ideally you wish some of the troops could have gone into Baghdad to help secure the city. … But I do believe that Prime Minister Blair is going to increase the troop levels in Afghanistan which is also important and takes some pressure off of us.� He also revealed that there's going to be a move by Biden to push for a new authorization to replace the 2002 one.

Turns out the British came under rocket attack in Basra as recently as...TODAY!

That's what the Democrats' defeatist cut and run approach bring you!

Bush is good. Bush is great. And he is one of us. Just like one of us.

He also revealed that there's going to be a move by Biden to push for a new authorization to replace the 2002 one.

I recall that Biden is looking to remove the authorization, not replace it.

To the poster pretending to be me at 1:18: your own email address isn't that hard to make up.

You should try it.

Murdoch has a history of picking political winners and trims his sails to that pick of future political success. In that it is a testament to his judgement, the effer.

Now I made an assumption there, and it wasn't my first choice. This is a peeve of mine.

The Human Rights Commission was there before Hillary and, hopefully, will be there when she is gone. Acronyms are a really sloppy way of denoting something specific without prior reference. They are so overused that there is genuine confusion, at least for me, at times.

So did you mean: the Hunting Retriever Club; Hearing Research Center (he's going deaf); Highway Research Center; Hybrid Ring Control; Home Run Contest; Hard Rock Café; House Republican Conference; and, of course, the Human Rights Commission/Center/Campaign. There are 38 listed acronyms I found.

I should have been more specific. Murdoch's support of HRC is not unexpected -- HRC's acceptance of his support is.

Regarding your other comment, you might notice that I regularly refer to well-known pols by their initials, especially when merely using their surname is ambiguous, and I typically eschew the sexist habit of referring to women by their first name.

From Juan Cole:

This is a rout, there should be no mistake. The fractious Shiite militias and tribes of Iraq's South have made it impossible for the British to stay. They already left Sadr-controlled Maysan province, as well as sleepy Muthanna. They moved the British consulate to the airport because they couldn't protect it in Basra. They are taking mortar and rocket fire at their bases every night. Raiding militia HQs has not resulted in any permanent change in the situation. Basra is dominated by 4 paramilitaries, who are fighting turf wars with one another and with the Iraqi government over oil smuggling rights.

Blair is not leaving Basra because the British mission has been accomplished. He is leaving because he has concluded that it cannot be, and that if he tries any further it will completely sink the Labor Party, perhaps for decades to come.

Disputo --

yeah, but you drop it into the conversation out of the blue with no prior reference. There has been no mention of Hillary Clinton this post at all! It makes no sense.

Press release from Biden (02/17/07):

Washington, DC - Today the U.S. Senate voted to start the debate on a resolution opposing the President's plan to send more troops into Iraq. Senator Biden, the author of the original bipartisan resolution with Senators Hagel, Levin and Snowe expressing disapproval of the President's plan to escalate the Iraq War, voted in favor of beginning the debate.

"Today, the Senate had an opportunity - and responsibility - to debate the single issue that dominates our national life: Iraq. It is on the minds of tens of millions of Americans. It shapes the lives of hundreds of thousands of our men and woman in uniform and their families. We have a duty to debate and vote on the President's plan. We have a duty to debate and vote on our overall strategy in Iraq," said Senator Biden.

Senator Biden has been an early vocal opponent of the President's plan, coming out on December 26, 2006 against the escalation and spearheading the first bipartisan resolution against the plan in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He has said repeatedly that the best way to get the President to change course in Iraq is to show him that the American people - through the voice of Congress - are against his policies.

"But opposing the surge is only a first step. We need a radical change in course in Iraq. If the President won't act, Congress must. That's why I am working on a proposal to revisit the authorization Congress granted the President in 2002 to use force in Iraq. The WMD were not there. Saddam Hussein is no longer there. The 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq," said Sen. Biden.

In a speech last Thursday to the Brookings Institution, Senator Biden also advocated revisiting the original 2002 Iraq War resolution. The Congress gave the President the authority in 2002 to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and, if necessary, to depose Saddam Hussein. Because the WMD were not there and Saddam Hussein is no longer there, Sen. Biden said that the 2002 authorization is no longer relevant to the situation in Iraq and he is working on legislation to repeal that authorization and replace it with a much narrower mission statement for our troops in Iraq. Coupled with the Biden-Gelb plan for a political settlement in Iraq, Sen. Biden believes rewriting the authorization is the best way to start bringing our troops home without leaving chaos behind

gregor on February 22, 2007 at 1:20 PM:

And he is one of us. Just like one of us.

Freaks!

...Almost forgot about that one...

Al: "They are being redeployed to Afghanistan to encircle Iran. If you don't know what I mean, look at a map of south-east Asia and it will all become clear."

LOL. Don't know if this is fake Al or real Al or if that matters. But it's definitely the chuckle of the day. He should be (and probably is) working for the state department.

In John Stewart's hillarious impression of the Queen........

"Hellooo, helloooo, Tony, get the troops out of Iraq NOW you dweeby little fuckwit"

Jon...

So the Pentagon report contradicts the White House view.

Yesterday, Gen Peter keepingPacewiththeWH, spoke in Vancouver, WA for the annual Gen George C Marshall dinner - Agreed with the White House - Pace is not on a "Need to know" level at DoD for Pentagon reports.

As we've seen so many times in the past with Angaloid imperialism (Middle East, Iran, Pakistan/India, China, Afghanistan, et al), once they get into a situation where the opponents are armed with more than rocks and sticks, they either have to withdraw or call on the Americans to save their steak and kidney pies. The shame of it all is the Americans are now stuck with having to save their tea PLUS cooking and cleaning up after them. Inasmuch as the Angaloids are the ones who essentially created the problems in the first place, it should be THEIR responsibility to finish what they started. The troop strength is basically upside-down, where the Angaloids should have the larger portion of the forces while the Americans could be seeking to pull out for other conflicts. Operational strength has around 25 million people from whom to choose their armies to settle up their historical legacies all around the planet while the Americans advise and provide their own "dossiers" on where to strike and when. But, then again, there's the rocks and sticks issue that precludes their continued and successful involvement. The original "W" (Washington (& George)) was correct about getting mixed up in foreign entanglements given the hands-on experiences with the Perfidious Albions. Terriers all, lots of bark and no biting above the ankle.

Wouldn't it be great if the Brits snagged Osama alive and left Bush out of the loop?

Had to go to the dictionary. Still don't know what an "angaloid" is. But I would be careful about imperialism.

The USA is the ultimate successful imperialistic state. Founded by colonialists from foreign lands and successfully expanded over a continent by negotiating or fighting with other colonial claims to foreign land, aboriginal repression and cleansing, and using slaves from overseas to help establish same. Continued sidelining of the aboriginal people and the imported slave class.

Quite a record.

Trex, I think the witness was confused about what was going on in Basra as the British prepare to leave. I'm sure Cheney will explain to you that Iraqis honor British troops leaving Basra with a powerful but festive display of pyrotechnics.

"All great empires eventually collapse from overreach and overspending on their armies..."
--Historian Paul Kennedy

So....the first guy responding says "traitors!" I way traitors to what?...the Brits are just using common sense which is uncommon for the neo-cons and Bush...also, another responds with that we (the USA) are always bailing out the British...maybe he compares the Brits with the French who knew better to lie and lay deceit to start a war in Iraq...The Brits show courage in getting out of Iraq...some morans are saying that we cannot get out of Iraq because it will turn into disaster or chaos...what do you think is going on now?...both disaster and chaos...AND the killing and maiming of our troops...what is it now? Over 3,100 GIs killed in Iraq and for what? Lies and distortions by Bush and Cheney...two draft dodgers who have never tasted combat and talk so tough when somebody else is doing the dying! I say pull out our troops, declare victory and get our troops back home where they belong...Send Bush and Cheney and the rest of the neo-cons to Iraq!!!

From last year: British to evacuate consulate in Basra after mortar attacks
By Thomas Harding in Basra
Last Updated: 3:24am GMT 01/11/2006
The British consulate in Basra will evacuate its heavily defended building in the next 24 hours over concerns for the safety of its staff.
Despite a large British military presence at the headquarters in Basra Palace, a private security assessment has advised the consul general and her staff to leave the building after experiencing regular mortar attacks in the last two months.
The move will be seen as a huge blow to progress in Iraq and has infuriated senior military commanders…

It's clear that the Brits were losing in Basra big time. No wonder the British people hate Blair, hate Bush, and hate the war. Blair has blotched the British escutcheon just as Bush has soiled America's reputation so badly that it will take a generation to improve it even with adults finally in charge of our foreign policy.

Now that law providing for private production of Iraqui oil(which was the real reason behind the war)is finally about to become law, we are now beginning to see the withdrawal of occupying military forces. Of course, some US bases will still be maintained to assure that the oil aggrements (PSA's), allowing Enron et al to extract bloated profits, will not be broken.

Now that law providing for private production of Iraqui oil(which was the real reason behind the war)is finally about to become law, we are now beginning to see the withdrawal of occupying military forces. Of course, some US bases will still be maintained to assure that the oil aggrements (PSA's), allowing Enron et al to extract bloated profits, will not be broken.

It's great to have the Brits back as full allies in the war that has enough local support that there is still a chance. Maybe we could get the Aussie in in more than an all talk and no walk fashion. Meanwhile, let the Americans barge ahead by themselves in Iraq. No point doing anything to abet American empire and they're often counter-effective at counter-insurgency anyways.

I think they are pulling out to keep Prince Harry from getting killed in Iraq.

Keith Olbermann called it "The Blair Ditch Project."

This may not be an original thought, but...

Whatever the reason for the withdrawal, if things truly go to hell in the south after the Brits leave, wouldn't it give some cover to the decider in chief? He'd point to it as proof that we can't leave, can't make timetables, or whatever moronic talking point the shooter gives him that day. Maybe that's why they're half-glass-full about it?

Well, couldn't one say that a given "surge" in one place, Iraq, means that many fewer troops we need even more in an even more important theater, Afghanistan? That's where Al Qaieda really was (and Waziristan etc.), not Iraq. The SCLM should be making more of this. (PS, check Olbermann video out there on how Faux Noise is itself funnier than it's hoked up "1/2 Hour News Hour" show.)

Not only is Blair pulling out his troops, he is joining others in warning the Bush Administration against war with Iran. Seems the poodle is getting teeth.

Here's what The London Times says on Blair's break with Bush:

Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Iran had expanded its nuclear programme, defying UN demands for it to be suspended. Hundreds of uranium-spinning centrifuges in an underground hall are expected to be increased to thousands by May when Iran moves to “industrial-scale production�. Senior British government sources have told The Times that they fear President Bush will seek to “settle the Iranian question through military means� next year, before the end of his second term if he concludes that diplomacy has failed. “He will not want to leave it unresolved for his successor,� said one.

But there are deep fissures within the US Administration. Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, who has previously called for direct talks with Tehran, is said to be totally opposed to military action.

Although he has dispatched a second US aircraft carrier to the Gulf, he is understood to believe that airstrikes would inflame Iranian public opinion and hamper American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. One senior adviser to Mr Gates has even stated privately that military action could lead to Congress impeaching Mr Bush.

Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the President’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical.

The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table�. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.

But Mr Blair, in a BBC interview yesterday, said: “I can’t think that it would be right to take military action against Iran . . . What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the Iranian issue.�

Interesting information on the fight within the Bush Administration as well -- a fight pretty much ignored by the U.S. press along with the impeachment angle.

Here's a link to the entire story:

http://tinyurl.com/3ap93m

Here's more from London on the British pullout and what they leave behind, this from The London Independent:

The partial British military withdrawal from southern Iraq announced by Tony Blair this week follows political and military failure, and is not because of any improvement in local security, say specialists on Iraq.

In a comment entitled "The British Defeat in Iraq" the pre-eminent American analyst on Iraq, Anthony Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. asserts that British forces lost control of the situation in and around Basra by the second half of 2005.

Mr Cordesman says that while the British won some tactical clashes in Basra and Maysan province in 2004, that "did not stop Islamists from taking more local political power and controlling security at the neighbourhood level when British troops were not present". As a result, southern Iraq has, in effect, long been under the control of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (Sciri) and the so-called "Sadrist" factions.

Here's a link to the entire report:

http://tinyurl.com/ysgk9u

Meanwhile, the U.S. media plays Vice President Cheney's lies about the British pullout as though the lies were the truth.

"...Whatever the reason for the withdrawal, if things truly go to hell in the south after the Brits leave, wouldn't it give some cover to the decider in chief? He'd point to it as proof that we can't leave, can't make timetables, or whatever moronic talking point the shooter gives him that day. Maybe that's why they're half-glass-full about it?"
Posted by: hs on February 22, 2007 at 9:23 PM

The British are withdrawing, but they are also redeploying as well in the shorter term. I understood they are to be focusing on the Iranian border area. It seems clear to me that we are pulling out all the stops to pressure the Iranians to make some sort of deal. They offered in 2003, but we snubbed them. Of course, this was before our big slip in the cow pie of the Iraqi occupation aftermath. The NK deal was meat (meant) to show them that we are serious and more importantly... NOW is the time to make the deal.

So, the announcement of a "surge" really isn't much of a real surge substantively in the immediate short term, and the announcement of the British withdrawal isn't much of a substantive withdrawal in the immediate short term-the bargaining window that we are setting with the Iranians. After that window of time is past who knows?

Alamaine, curious that you choose a name that sounds so suspiciously like el Alamein the location of the comprehensive British led defeat of the Afrika Korp during WWII.

Mind you, your grasp of recent history is obviously as shaky as your grasp of spelling.

This is the second time in two days that the British involvement has been linked to imperialism and we need to scotch this garbage once and for all.

The British are a fairly proud bunch of people but have quietly accepted the fact that the UK is effectively a US client state for years.
The only reason Britain went to war in Iraq was because of this status and America's imperial urges, not their own.

People like you Alamaine and George W Bush are the reason that the British are starting to hate America with a real passion.

Alemaine is like the French (cheese eating surrender monkey)word for Germany/German (krauts). Allemagne/Allemand. As well as el-Alemain.

Anybody who can make a "bloated profit" by selling me gasolene for $2.35 a gallon is welcome to it. Eventually I will probably be driving a Chevy Silverado that runs on compressed natural gas and a Chevy Volt hybrid that plugs in, but for the next several years my fuel bill is likely to stay reasonable, barring Iran does something so incredibly rash that it justifies a new major war.