Thursday, October 19, 2006

Iraq, Iraq, and More Iraq (Wednesday's Show)

Hi all. I know, I know, I'm a day late. I'm also a dollar short too, but that's probably here nor there. First I need to get a little business out of the way: the Cardinals are going to the World Series!!! Woo hoo!!! Man, what a nailbiter. The game caused me to miss half of the Caffety special. I hope they rerun again. Okay on with the show. We begin tonight with a very disturbing piece from Michael Ware. Through an intermediary CNN has obtained a video from the Islamic Army in Iraq of insurgent snipers shooting US soldiers. At the moment of impact the video dips to black (done by CNN), but the rest we see and I have to say my first thought when I saw this was of how much hate mail 360 was about to get. Anderson explains that they did not make the decision to air this lightly and I say good on them for showing what's really going on over there. I'm tired of the hidden caskets and the injured being transported in the dead of night. The public needs to see what is happening because as members of a democracy we are all responsible. There are 10 incidents in all on the tape and they appear fairly recent. It is suspected the snipers have been trained abroad. US officials refuse to discuss the snipers citing safety. I guess I can understand that, though I'm always wary when they bring up the security excuse. Michael then joins us live to tell us that these attacks are happening every single day and there is a question as to whether or not they might be increasing. Once again, US officials decline to comment because they don't want to let the enemy know their tactics are working. Michael tells us of one sniper who will wait for hours until a soldier shifts position, so that he can hit them between gaps in the body armor. That's unbelievably sickening, but you know, I actually think I read about this guy a couple years ago. Hopefully they've gotten him by now.

Moving on to a piece from Gary Tuchman in which the tape is shown to one of the top ranked US snipers in Iraq. The marine thinks the sniper is actually farther away than the camera man and he believes having US snipers hunt the insurgent snipers is the best way to combat them. People hunting. That's just really creepy, but unfortunately I guess necessary. After the piece we have Brigadier General David Grange live in the studio and he notes that the insurgent sniper actually missed several times in the tape. He also points out that it is apparent that the civilians were not in cahoots with the sniper because they are going about their business, unaware he is there. Finally, he tells us that the US doesn't talk about the snipers that are killed. We then get some Raw Data about attacks, which is preceded by Anderson mentioning Cheney's "last throes" comment. Finally some perspective, even if it subtle. Why that was almost Olbermannesque.

Next up we have another piece from Michael Ware regarding the tape and it is made extremely clear to us that this is a CNN exclusive. Okay guys, don't tick people off with excessive pimping. Michael informs us that the Islamic Army of Iraq is one of the most power insurgent factions in the country and they actually used to be US allies in the 1980's. Don't you love how we train people and give them money and weapons only to end up fighting them 25 years later? The nuts and bolts of how they got the tape is that CNN passed written questions through an intermediary and to their surprise, they got back two tapes. One tape was of the sniper and the other tape was one of the insurgent leaders (face blurred) talking about what they want. It turns out they would not reject negotiations as long as the US is serious. Probably most Americans don't know, but the US has actually been talking with some insurgent groups for quite a while now. The problem is that the insurgents don't want to deal with the Iraqi government because they think it is controlled by Iran. The insurgents are not the same as Al Qaeda, whose agenda is international. After the piece we have Michael live again and he tells us that in mid 2004 a US diplomat began talks with insurgents and they continue to this day.

On now to a piece from Elaine Qujano on Bush's recent comments about Iraq. Tom Friedman wrote a column that says in Iraq we might be about to see the equivalent of a Tet Offensive and Bush agreed that was possible. I'm not saying he's wrong, but why exactly are we listening to Tom Friedman? This is the same guy that for about three years kept saying that in six months Iraq was going to turn around. It got to be such a joke that some people on the internets now refer to a six month increment of time as "a Friedman". Anyway, Bush also acknowledges the bloodshed, but denies a civil war. Yada yada yada. Seriously, does anyone care what this man says anymore? Actually, The Gerg does because he joins us in a taped interview to talk about the comments. The Gerg thinks the Tet Offensive comment has now opened Bush up to Vietnam comments and Anderson brings up Cheney, who apparently thinks the war is going just peachy. Yeah, that sanity ship has sailed. Congress is at a 16% approval rating, but Karl Rove still thinks they'll win. That makes me wonder what he's got in store.

Transitioning now to a Jamie McIntyre piece with the Pentagon angle. Those Iraqi troops they've been relying on so much are still not ready and in fact, the US has had to take back control from some of them. Rumsfeld then says some stuff that is not worth typing. Of note is that there is much speculation as to what the Baker study group is going to come up with. After Jamie we move on to an Arwa Damon piece set in what is known as the Triangle of Death. Well that sounds cheery. The troops Arwa is embedded with are on a mission to locate and destroy bomb making material that is all over the area. It's extremely dangerous work and we see them investigating the area, pulling up wires, and digging up explosives. Mortar rounds are found under tumbleweeds and we learn that since the mission began they have found material for 1000 roadside bombs. Man.

Finally tonight we have Michael Ware and Hoover Institute and CNN fellow Larry Diamond live to discuss the whole Iraq situation and how to solve it. Larry thinks splitting Iraq is a terrible idea and Iraqis don't want it anyway. Michael informs us that the goal of US officials to separate insurgents from Al Qaeda is actually further away than when we started. So great, we're moving backwards. Basically Michael thinks at this point the US is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't and the decision to stay or go is a paradox. It is also brought up that things will most likely change after the midterm elections, which is completely disgusting. I'm really surprised that hardly anyone is pointing out just how horrific that notion is. There are soldiers and Iraqis dying there every day and they're going to wait to try to fix the situation until after the elections?!! W.T.F!!! What kind of people are running this country? Don't answer that. What's ironic is that the only reporter I know of that has pointed this out on television is Shephard Smith of Fox News. Now I don't watch that horrid channel, but I've read the transcript and you can too right here. Bravo, Shephard. People should be shouting this from the rooftops. Going back to the interview, Larry says that Bush needs to declare we will not seek permanent bases in Iraq. Amen to that. Of course I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they're doing. Permanent bases are in The Project for the New American Century's plan and this administration has pretty much followed the rest of the plan, so... Larry then leaves us terrified for the night by saying that basically this whole situation is up to Bush. Yep, the world is doomed. Pretty good show tonight, though kind of weird it was all about Iraq. It's like they were saving their news or something. B+

Screencaps by stormi0611.

I'll let "The Clash" help with my discussion question. In regards to Iraq, should we stay or should we go? Also, how disgusting is it that they're waiting until after the election to do anything about it?

7 Comments:

Anonymous Mathilde said...

They've f--ed it up royally and there is no solution. I was against this war from the start but if we left now Iran would probably try to take over. Some how I think Iraq as a nation is done. Anderson seems a bit pissy lately. He need to gain a few pounds, too.

9:19 AM  
Anonymous ivy said...

@eliza --nothing surprizing. I serously doubt our administration started this war out of pure idealism. Now they want to see which way the wind blows.

9:52 AM  
Anonymous ivy said...

@eliza -- arianna huffington must have heard you -) She blogs about connecting surge of violence in iraq to elections.

12:11 PM  
Blogger eliza said...

@mathilde-I think Iran sort of already has taken over. I've been against the war from the start too. We really are in a FUBAR situation here and it's so completely frustrating because there were people that warned about all of this.

@ivy-Wouldn't it be cool if Arianna really read my little blog? Somehow I think she has better things to read. ;)

1:19 PM  
Blogger Purple Tie said...

I hate that we went into Iraq but I think we've got to stay and try to fix it the best we can. At this point, I think we need more troops and it's sad for me to say that given how much I HATE this war. :/

7:26 PM  
Blogger eliza said...

@purple tie-I don't know. I think it's time to get out. Every study and a lot of people on the ground say our presence is fueling the insurgency. I'm for a phased pull out starting now. Unfortunately, (or maybe fortunately) there are no more troops we can put there.

8:40 PM  
Blogger midnite6367 said...

It's time to go. A majority of Americans no longer believe Bushco's justification for entering into this war. Current military personnel and retired generals have expressed doubts about Rumsfeld and his strategy or lack of one. The troops don't seem to have the proper equipment or protection needed battle and it has triggered a rise in the insurgency.

6:17 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com