Topic: War
Mission Accomplished Sign has Meaning The mainstream media greatly downplays "Mission Accomplished". But they say very little.by Kevin Roeten
(conservative)
Sunday, May 10, 2009
This morning Diane Sawyer (GMA) brought a "Mission Accomplished" sign out, and couldn't wait to get rid of it because of her distaste. A more personal bias of the war in Iraq by the media has likely never been seen. The rest of the cast seemed to have the same disrespect for the sign, and anyone has to ask "What do they not know?" Or probably more succinctly "What are they refusing to believe?
The first and foremost mission of going into Iraq was to remove Hussein from power. He could have removed himself peaceably, but he chose not to. He was eventually killed by execution by the people he maligned for so long.
But one might wonder how one could think that the mission was actually accomplished. We know that Hussein was removed from power, and according to the AP, the grand total of 110,600 Iraqis actually died since the American incursion: Michael Medved : Honest Numbers on Iraqi Deaths Deserve Honest ... This seems to contrast with irresponsible estimates of 10x that high, while most of those deaths were accomplished by terrorist IEDs.
We know that no innocent Iraqi was ever targeted to be killed by the military. Also independent elections have taken place to revitalize the Iraqi dream. And we know that not a drop of Iraqi oil was taken from Iraqi soil.
In Iraq 3100 schools have been renovated, 38 new schools have been built, Iraqi women are now allowed to attend schools, Iraq's air force now consists of three operational squadrons, Iraq's police force has over 55,000 fully trained and equipped police officers, there are more than 1100 new building projects, there are 1,192,000 cell phone subscribers, cell phone use has gone up 158%, and the Baghdad Stock Exchange opened on 6/04.
All of the previous facts, and many others, can be verified on the Department of Defense website: [[link edited for length]].
So many things mainstream media never says: as promised on 2/08 by Col. Michael A. Bills, commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, US and Iraqi troops were in full control of Mosul by the end of 7/08. Mosul was one of the last bastions of terrorists left in Iraq. (Mosul footage here.)
Overall, attacks in Mosul and in Ninevah province have declined from 50 a day at the start of the year, to the present number of 10 a day. Major Ra'ad Jalal, an Iraqi officer, revealed: "The security situation in Mosul is improving. It's safe here now. I'd be happy to come here even without all of this protection." [12/08]
The continued assaults are fewer, but they don't diminish the momentous progress. Capt. Hunter Bowers, who presently is in Mosul, summarized his thoughts about their progress in a recent e-mail: "We have had some great success here and a lot of it has to do with the integration of the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police."
Hussein has been removed, over 40 million Iraqis are now free to run their own country with their own oil, and America and its allies do not have to worry about a terrorist nuclear bomb on their front doorstep made by Hussein.
The mission has been more than accomplished. But what does that say about the media?
The views expressed in this
article are those of Kevin Roeten only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kevin Roeten is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
At least, that is what I also remember the "mainstream" media telling us, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that was why the war was necessary.
It also doesn't seem that wise to use the "Department of Defense" as your statiscal and information source concerning the legitamacy of a war that was enabled by the Department of Defense.
Since it was on foreign soil and we were uninvited, maybe the Iraqi citizens could be consulted. Of course, it will be hard to get an opinion out of the dead ones.
I'm afraid you don't have any memory loss. You just don't read pertinent info. Try reading one of my prior columns with the AP verifying that 550 tons of yellowcake had arrived from Iraq. You remember yellowcake is the precursor to nuclear weapons, don't you?
Hi Gene,
Maybe you could get Walt to read a little better. And you also know that the mainstream media is in the liberal's back pocket. You also seem to forget that WMDs were only ONE of the reasons to oust Hussein, right?
It seems quite wise to use the DOD as a source, because they are the ones that did everything in Iraq. You don't think the media did anything, do you?
It was on foreign soil, but to say we were uninvited shows mass disinformation on your side. Did you check all the info? I guess the Iraqi citizens helping the allied forces topple Hussein's statue downtown Baghdad was missed by you. What else did you miss?
Kevin, President Bush has publicly stated that Iraq was not involved in 911 and he admitted that they had no WMDS. [link edited for length]
Also from the 911 report we know that none of the attackers of 911 were from Iraq. Most were from Saudi Arabia, a country we have not taken any action against. In fact during his trips there W was sometimes photographed doing the Arab smooch with the Saudi diplomats.
As for the yellow cake, it was there since before the gulf war, and had been secured by UN weapons inspectors. According to the AP article which first released this story:
"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
After some saber rattling by W, Saddam had agreed to allow weapons inspections again, but W was chomping at the bit to invade. If W was concerned about the yellow cake, restarting inspections again might have made more sense, than an attack which killed 4000 good US soldiers, 100,000 Iraqi civilians and cost half a trillion dollars.
I have to believe W had other motives. Paul O'Neil was the treasury secretary during the early Bush years. According to him W was talking about attacking Iraq in cabinet meetings long before 911. There is also the Project For a New American Century, a neo-con think tank during the 90's whose members include many people who later served in the Bush administration. One of the papers they published was called Rebuilding America's Defenses. It advocated a stronger US presence in the middle east, but suggested there would not be public support for it without a galvanizing event like a new Pearl Harbor. Well 911 provided that event. (I'm not suggesting the neo-cons perpetrated 911, but just that it became the event they needed.)
We also have to note that the Bush administration failed to capture the alleged leader behind 911, Bin Laden and also did not secure our own borders. Those are two things that should have been fundamental for our security and for retaliating against the perpetrators of 911. But instead of doing that we attacked a country that had nothing to do with 911.
You say the Iraqis are free. I would say that the fact that there's an insurgency going on suggests otherwise. If things were really going so well over there they would love the US. No one kills the goose that lays the golden egg.
Unfortunately, you've erred again. Bush said that Iraq did not give the order to start 9/11. Hussein not only aided and abetted al-Qaeda, but he had several bases in Iraq for them. He also said that they hadn't found any WMDs yet. They found quite a few later on.
You didn't have to be from Iraq to be involved in 9/11. You had to be part of al-Qaeda. But you knew that, right?
If you would have read the article I provided, you would have seen that the yellowcake found in Bagdad was found in 2003, not 2001. The inspectors did not know about that.
After Hussein kicked the inspectors out the first time, he would not let them back in. Where are you getting your info from?
Why can't you believe that Bush's motives involved no WMD threat to the US, and to make a Democracy in Iraq? Knowing that an incursion would decimate the economy, Bush was not 'chomping' at the bit to invade. That's a pretty big leap you've made.
You might believe a lot of things. But Bush just attempted to limit casualties as much as possible, rebuild Iraq's economy, and do it without taking a drop of oil.
Bush outlined each reason for going into Iraq to depose Hussein. But you seem to have forgotten all of them. You also do not mention how bin Laden has not been captured YET.
Please get back to me once you have looked at other resources of info.
Who ever convinced you that the Bush Administration was lying? The DOD has defended us many times. Who else should I believe, the media? That sounds like your job.
As for the yellow cake, I'm afraid David doesn't have it right. Check my comments to his.
I won't even say what should be done to those who believe they're being lied to by the past Administration, when they're being lied to by somebody alright. It's just not the past Administration.
The Iraqis are a heck of a lot freer than they were. It sounds lie you've totally glossed over my 5th paragraph.
It sounds like the terrorist uprisings are almost all but dead in Iraq. I don't call them 'insurgencies' because it doesn't fit the definition. It fits the liberal media, however. Just what exactly do you call yoursef?
Hi Kevin:
You are absolutely right.
Bush accomplished his mission, but it was not the one you and him mentioned.
Actually his mission, as ordered by his CFR's controllers, was to proceed with the destruction of America, and I have to concede that he did an excellent job.
Using a bogus war on terrorism, he created the Department of Homeland Security, eliminated Habeas Corpus, kept the south border open, and destroyed most of the few freedoms still existing in this country.
Now Obama is proceeding to conclude the job Bush, and Clinton, and the other Bush, and the rest of the traitors before them, did so well.
Mission accomplished!
1) In the video for which I posted a link above, W was asked by a reporter what Iraq had to do with the attack on the world trade center. W answered “Nothing.”
2) Saddam did agree to allow weapons inspections again in 2002 as stated in this article: [link edited for length]
3) There was little or no evidence of a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Quoting from section 10.3 of the 911 report:
“Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke’s office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled “Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks.” Rice’s chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no “compelling case”that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.”
4) With regard to WMDs being found please give us your source.
5) With regard to building democracy in Iraq, what section of our constitution says that’s one of our government’s functions? Also if it is a policy of our government to replace tyrannies with Democracies then why don’t we do that in other places like Somalia, North Korea, China, Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia?
1) Did you miss one of my answers for a typical detractor? Bush of course said Hussein did not order or cause 9/11. But he aided and abetted terrorists---including al-Qaeda. He even allowed their training camps inside Iraq.
2) Hussein kicked out inspectors in 2002. They were never let back in. They were even curtailed in what places they could look when they were in Iraq. There wer places they never got to see.
3) There were mountains of evidence of Hussein's cooperation with al-Qaeda. There was even documentation found later by allies that this was the case. Didn't you ever see the news? The memo sayng that there was no 'compelling' evidence aligning Hussiein with al-Qaeda has been proved wrong too many times to even mention.
4) See #4 on my column "Obama Did not Inherit Anything from Bush". It's all right there.
5) Who ever said it was necessitated by the Constitution that the government must replace a tyranny (Hussein) with a Democracy? After Hussein was made to step down, al-Qaeda started to throw everything they had at our allies. That was when it was decided that we had evidenty hit the mother-lode of al-Qaeda terrorism and had to eliminate it in order for Iraq to set up a democratic sovereign state. It looks like we've done pretty well so far.
Keep defending the Roman Catholic Church, the Bush Adminstration, and Conservative extremism in general, Kevin Roeten. You provide great entertainment for us who know better than to swallow everything that religious dogmatists, governments, and political partisans tell us to keep themselves in power and us under control. You are a fool to aid them, unless you are one of them.....which makes you a traitor to the rest of humanity!
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
