Wednesday, October 29, 2003

Bush alienating critical support Posted here Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 3:25:08 PM     This is part of a pattern that is creating hotile opinion in the military and intelligence worlds.It may be hard to run an empire if you create this kind ofalienation. Bush disavows background banner in May speech By Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — President Bush tried to distance himself Tuesday from a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" that hung on an aircraft carrier where he staged a fighter-jet landing May 1. He said the banner was the Navy's idea and a reference to the mission of the USS Abraham Lincoln. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended," President Bush declared May 1 aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. By J. Scott Applewhite, AP Military officials agreed that the banner was their idea but said White House aides signed off on it, made it and positioned it prominently behind the spot where Bush made his remarks. Bush, at a news conference, also said he had never suggested that the war in Iraq was over when he landed on the Abraham Lincoln. Since then, 115 American troops have been killed in action and hundreds more wounded. "I think you ought to look at my speech," Bush said. "I said Iraq's a dangerous place, got hard work to do, there's still more to be done." During his remarks on the aircraft carrier as he stood in front of the banner, Bush said, "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." He went on to say, "We have difficult work to do in Iraq. ... The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort." On Tuesday, Bush said the banner was put up by the crewmembers of the Abraham Lincoln to say that their mission was accomplished. "I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff — they weren't that ingenious, by the way," Bush said. Cmdr. Conrad Chun, a Navy spokesman, said the banner was "the ship's idea. The banner signified the successful completion of the Lincoln's deployment." But Bush's advance staff did have a hand in the banner, said other military officials who asked not to be identified. Personnel aboard the Abraham Lincoln asked the White House to make the banner because there were no art supplies aboard the ship, the officials said. The White House advance team then brought the banner to the ship and positioned it behind Bush. White House communications director Dan Bartlett confirmed some of those details. "I received a phone call from the ship. They asked if they could have something that recognized that they had accomplished their mission. We agreed and helped develop a banner that reflected that," he said. The White House communications office, well-known for the care it takes with the backdrops at Bush's speeches, created the "Mission Accomplished" banner in the same style as banners the president uses in other appearances, including one in Canton, Ohio, just a week before the carrier speech. That banner, with the same typeface and soft, brush-stroked American flag in the background, read: "Jobs and Growth." ********

Syrian entry to Iraq - washington post.. Posted here Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 3:03:10 PM     It is important to be accurate about Syria Commanders Doubt Syria Is Entry Point Officers See No Sign Of Foreign Fighters By Vernon Loeb Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, October 29, 2003; Page A19     SINJAR, Iraq -- Commanders of U.S. military forces responsible for monitoring the border between Iraq and Syria say there is no evidence from human intelligence sources or radar surveillance aircraft indicating that significant numbers of foreign fighters are crossing into Iraq illegally.       U.S. and Iraqi forces are working together to secure Iraq's borders against infiltration by foreigners intent on assisting attacks against troops and civilians associated with the occupation. U.S. officials blamed foreign fighters for four suicide car bombings in Baghdad on Monday that killed at least 35 people.   Along Iraq's 300-mile border with Syria, the 101st Airborne Division is guarding the northern portion of the frontier and the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is watching the southern portion.   A 60-mile stretch of border north of the Euphrates River remains unpatrolled by U.S. forces or Iraqi border police but is being monitored by air. Under a project that the U.S. military calls Operation Chamberlain, sophisticated Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) planes are gathering information about vehicle movement and relaying it to ground forces.   Commanders from the 101st Airborne repeated this week that neither the aircraft nor human intelligence sources show significant infiltration from Syria. Foreign fighters could still be reaching Baghdad from Syria, Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait by passing through border posts with valid or forged travel documents, but concerns about illegal infiltration along the Syrian border appear unfounded, the officers said.     ********

Staying in Iraq or pull out? Posted here Wednesday, October 29, 2003 at 1:31:03 PM     On the iraq withdrawl discussion October 29, 2003 Staying The Course Staying The Course Never, in my wildest dreams, did I believe the Bush Adminstration would countenance withdrawing from Iraq before we finished the job. But that seems to be what they are considering--at least the political operatives. There seem to be a lot of rumors floating around to that effect. I hope they are not true. Yes, I opposed the war in Iraq. I felt that the costs would outweigh the benefits. And to a certain degree I feel vindicated. The situation that The Agonist has documented and will continue to document is ugly, no matter the spin. The issue of the day is not whether we should withdraw but how we win. And I believe it is still possible to win. Although I opposed the war, one immutable fact remains to keep us there until the job is finished: We broke it and now we must fix it. Do I like it? No. Am I happy about American boys and girls dying everyday? No. Am I pleased with the way the Bush Adminstration has conducted operations in Iraq after May 1st? No. Should the Bush Administration be run out of Washington for their deceit and ineptitude? Oh yeah, you better believe it. However, all of that does not take away from the moral imperative we face in Iraq. In the words of Carol Mosley-Braun: "We blew the place up; we have to fix it back."And I agree with Chris Suellentrop that this idea is one of the primary moral repsonsibilities of those who wage war. If this Administration decides to cut and run in Iraq they will have crossed a moral chasm that no American should allow. They will simply be beyond the pale. Withdrawing from Iraq, no matter how attractive that option might be is simply immoral and unacceptable. And it is beneath this country to consider it. Let me add a little to and clarify my previous post. When I said that the United States cannot withdraw from Iraq before fixing it I failed to mention one scenario in which the United States could withdraw, maintain our moral position and do the right thing in Iraq. It's a kind of win-win-win scenario that I will flesh out in a later post. Suffice it to say here, that if, and it is a big if, we are able to fully internationalize the situation in Iraq by bringing in the U.N. or at the very least NATO, then I could forsee a case for withdrawing a great deal of our troops in the very near future. I'll develop this a bit more, later. end of quoting   ********