Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Iraqi Soldiers Bail on Baghdad. Must be More of that Bushevik "Success" We Keep Hearing About

An Iraqi military unit battling Shite militias in Sadr City abandoned its position Tuesday, throwing into question just how far, or not, the United States has come in reaching its goal (not the original goal, mind you, but something like Goal #5) of having a Democratic Iraqi government and military able to secure itself against rebel militias. According to the NY Times, the soldiers' retreat left a critical roadway on the front line undefended for hours, and resulted in several heated exchanges between American soldiers and the roughly 50 Iraqi troops involved in the fleeing.

"If you turn around and go back up the street those soldiers will follow you," said Captain Logan Veath, a company commander in the 25th Infantry Division, to the Iraqi commander. "If you tuck tail and cowardly run away they will follow up that way, too." But the unit left anyway, leaving senior American and Iraqi commanders scrambling to regain lost ground with a replacement unit alongside the American troops.

If this is a foreshadowing of things to come, then we are colossally fucked, people. Is this Bush's idea of the Iraqi army "standing up"? And should this sort of episode continue to occur, will America ever be able to "stand down," as the president, vice president and GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain keep promising? Highly doubtful. At this rate, McCain's other implication, that we'll be hemmoraging in that war-ravaged country for the next 100 years, is the more likely scenario.

Let's face it, Iraqi soldiers throwing in the towel is definitely not a good sign, no matter how you spin it. It shows the fear and frustration they have in waging this mess of a war that's now in its sixth year. It also shows a lack of desire and commitment. And it raises the possibility that these people just don't want what we want. Five years later, the government is not a functioning Democracy in any sense of the word. The Iraqi military is not able to stand up and defend the country. Simply put, on the political front, there is little or no progress. And militarily, as we are constantly reminded by the Busheviks and McCain, without our soldiers there the country would fall into 'anarchy and genocide' (which some rational folks think is exactly what's been there for years now).

Bush and Cheney have us on a death spiral that's not getting any better. Five years, 4000 dead soldiers and $500 billion spent and what do we have to show for it? Fleeing Iraqi soldiers. We are constantly told there's tremendous success being made, but we're still mired in sectarian violence and Iraqi troop failures. The Bushevik contradictions are astounding. They have no clear mission, and no clear end in sight. They say we can leave when we've achieved success and finished the mission, yet every time they point to this great progress and success they declare that troops can't come home and may in fact need to be there longer than expected. It's a smoke and mirrors show worthy of the best American carnival.

Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential hopefuls, need to start ratcheting up their rhetoric about this disaster of a war. They need to pound the Busheviks hard for getting us into this mess. They need to shine a light on McCain's incessant war-mongering and supreme delusion that we're actually accomplishing something over there. The only thing we're accomplishing is a reprise of Vietnam, where we're gonna kill tens of thousands of our soldiers, and then, when we're finally fed up, we'll throw in the towel. And just like Vietnam, the Iraq war will go down in history as an utter failure; a vanity project of delusional U.S. presidents. The key question here is, how much are Obama and Clinton willing to do, and how quickly, to stanch the bloodshed and put an end to this debacle?

On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. We're very pleased to announce that one of last year's grant recipients, Cynthia Wade, just won an Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject for "Freeheld." We are proud of Cynthia and to have supported this film. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us continue to achieve our very important mission.
Thank you.


Anonymous said...

Ostroy and the Democrats are politically invested in America's failure in Iraq. If America does well in Iraq, it will have negative results for Democrat politics. If America fails in Iraq, the Democrats get the political advantage.

Democrats are cheering for America's defeat and this blog is a great example of it.

Anonymous said...

No 9:29, you don't understand the Dems' voters postions at all. Why mouth the Repub talking points? Can't you think for yourself?

We Dems, want out of Iraq because it was based on lies, is costing us way too much in human lives and treasure and it is IMMORAL!!

Not to mention the debt we have run up that will saddle our children and grandchildren for decades. We have huge problems at home that folks like 9:29 don't want to talk about because they do not think government plays a role in our domestic problems.

Get it 9:29???????

The Ostroy Report said...

Anon 9:29, you have it all backwards...but what are we to expect from someone like you who's been piss-drunk on Bush/Cheney/Rove/Hannity/Limbaugh'syummy Repug Kool-aid for years now.

If the Iraq war were a business, ...the venture capitalists were Republicans; the business plan was drafted by Republicans; the chairman, CEO, president and senior management team were/are Republicans, middle management Republicans; the short-term and long-term plans were created by Republicans; and the bankrupt earnings report is the result of gross inefficiencies and negligence of Republicans.

The only ones truly "invested' in America's failure, my poor, brainwashed partisan friend, are Bush, Cheney and the GOP.

And if you truly believe all that partisan crap about Democrats and national security, then you're dumber than I thought. Check your history books. Democrats have no problem fighting wars...just really stupid, wasteful ones.

Anonymous said...

9:29 must not understand reality.

In November, he will feel realty loud and clear.

Think 1994.

Anonymous said...

"I believe ... that this war is lost" - Dirty Harry Reid

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." - Bill Clinton (Operation Desert Fox)

Anonymous said...

I realize that no Clinton would ever lie, but if Iraq was based on Bush lies and Republican plans can someone please tell me why it was the Clinton administration that put the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 into law? What was its purpose if not to support Bush lies ?

Can someone please tell me why Clinton attacked Iraq 5 years earlier for the same reason as "Bush lies" ? Could a Clinton lie ?

Anonymous said...


And your point is?

Of coures Iraq is lost!!!!! Where have you been for the lat 5 years?

Bill Clinton: And that is what Repubs do, bring up past presidents because they can't engage is a reality based dialog.

Come on, is that all you've got?

Sad, Very sad.

Anonymous said...

Republicans wake up! (yea the 28% of you who still support a sinking ship)

You had your chance and for what you wanted to do, you blew it big time. I will concede the Supreme Court picks which are going to continue to ruin our country for the rest of my life.

Now as usual, we Dems will have to clean up the mess you have brought us going way back to Reagan.

It will take decades to correct what destruction Republicans have brought us.

The above poster is right:

Think 1994!

Anonymous said...

Too bad voters didn't listen to Reagan before foisting W on us!

From the Reagan Diaries:

"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his n'er-do-well son around
this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who
lives in Florida; the one who hangs around here all the time looking
shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real
job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll
hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."

From the REAGAN DIARIES------entry dated May 17, 1986.

Anonymous said...

I have to laugh at this statement Andy.

And it (Iraqi desertions) raises the possibility that these people just don't want what we want

Geeze Andy do you think that the fact that bears dont use outhouses "raises the possibility" that bears shit in the woods?"

Anonymous said...

Any discussion of Iraq is a waste of time if we don't address who can beat McCain in the election. It is going to be more of the same if McCain is president no matter how we rant and rave in blogs; and, it's going to be McCain if Obama is the nominee. There is no doubt about that. He was pathetic in the debate last night; he did not put to rest his many problems about his credibility; and, his long, dull, rehash of what he plans to do and the audacity in using the word "unite" should have convinced everybody he's can't beat McCain.

Anonymous said...

Clinton sucks too. Neither Democrat is qualified to be President.

Anonymous said...

Marc Cooper (Huff po):

During Tuesday night's Pennsylvania debate, George Stephanopoulos didn't flinch from trying to smear Barack Obama by association with former 60's radical Bill Ayers. Too bad George didn't ask Hillary about her own summer spent working for a law firm run by Communists....

...Compare and contrast those facts with Hillary's own association with 60's radicals. In the summer of 1969, when Hillary was just entering Yale Law School, she went to work for the foremost radical law firm in, yes, Berkeley. Carl Bernstein recounts the episode in his Hillary biography of last year titled "A Woman in Charge."

This is what Bernstein told interviewer Jon Wiener last summer:

"That summer she went to work at the most important radical law firm in America at that point: Treuhaft, Walker and Bernstein in Oakland. They defended the Panthers. Two of their partners were members of the Communist Party--including Bob Treuhaft, who was married to Jessica Mitford. I talked to Bob Treuhaft not long before he died, and he said he was certain that Hillary came there because she subscribed to some of the kind of law they practiced and the kind of clients they defended. In her so-called autobiography, "Living History," she put in a couple of sentences about living in Berkeley with Bill that summer and working at that law firm, but she makes it sound like their work focused on postal rate increases. There's not a word about radicals."

Very little has been written about this episode. One piece, in a conservative paper, goes into great detail speculating on what cases the young Hillary Clinton might have been working.

I have no desire to flesh out any of this information as my position is simple. Every one deserves the best legal defense possible, and I have no problem with Hillary having worked for a law firm run by Communists and engaged in defending Huey Newton and other radicals accused of killing cops and other violent acts.

But the hypocrisy by Clinton on this matter and the acrobatic cherry-picking by Stephanopoulos are simply staggering.

Anonymous said...

10:54 I bet if you go back far enough and dig deep enough you may find out Hillary borrowed a red crayon from a school chum and never gave it back.

The obvious point is Hillary no longer associates or supports unsavory, unpatriotic and dangerous people. Obama continues to be friends with Wright and Ayers to name the two that have been made public. Aside from the obvious concern, I wonder who his appointees will bew and who will advise him. We know almot nothing about him except what has leakcd out.

Anonymous said...

MSNBC just showed and praised Michelle Obama for saying, in essence, that she's not elite, she went to Princeton and Harvard, but she's a product of the public schools and from a working class family. She, and 98 percent of the population are from the working class and attended public schools. The difference is she got to go to Princeton and Harvard although her grades and tests were low. She's not a product of the public schools; she's a product of affirmative action. Not only were low grades and test no problem, apparently as middle class as her parents were, money was no problem and provided somehow. At the least, she was allowed bo borrow tuigion money without much collateral.

This kind of support for Obama is driving people toward voting for McCain, despite the wisdom in this blog by Ostroy.

Anonymous said...

The only strategy Bush has for Iraq is to run out the clock and pass his losing war on to his successor. If Dugya's apologists want to support him, let them show the winning strategy.

Anonymous said...

10:54. Obama finally got a taste of what Hillary's has endured from the beginning in press and in these debates. And he's screaming like a spoiled brat. He's been "treated unfairly". Yeah, so what. So he's just joined a very long list including Gore, Kerry and Hillary. Not one of them screamed and hollored. HE's such a baby. OF course Gore and Kerry should have fought but Obama can't do that either. And Soros, who founded MoveON has directed that group to urge everyone to email letters of complaint about the mean way they treated Obama to ABC. We've had an "adolescent" as president for eight years. We simply cannot now elect a "child."

Anonymous said...

In the NY Times this morning Krugman, a liberal and Brooks, a conservative address the problem with Obama as a candidate or eventually, a president.

Krugman also points out Obama's h faulty remarks about the Clinton era.

Brooks points out the dire consequences if OBama, as President, does what he says he'll do in his campaign promises.

Iraq is as serious as it can be according to these two journalists, so they address the problem as it relates to Obama and what he has promised.

Anonymous said...

There is a very disturbing email circulating about Obama.It is supposedly sent by missionaries in Kenya who maintain a huge number of Obama's relatives are there and one, a cousin, who has received millions from (friends of Obama) to support his (the cousin's) poltical campaign which went awry. There has been chaos and human suffering since the cousin claimed the election was "rigged." Obama, who they claim is very much a Muslim, plans to say our USA election is rigged if he's not elected and thereby cause race rioting in our country. I know what lies these emails can say in order to hurt someone, but I tell you it's really disturbing to read despite any doubts.

Is this at taste of what's to come?

Anonymous said...

I read 2:24 and went to GOOGLE> to check it out. Go to and type in OBAMA'S KENYA CONNECTION by CIA officer, retired, Larry Johnson, 1/31/08. Apparently the circulating email is true. And, the weird part is Dick MOrris, Fox News consultant, and former Clinton aide, is involved in helping Obama support his consin in the Kenya politics. Huge mess.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Oh my lord...It's on the internets, so it's got to be true, right?

Next we'll be reading on these boards that Elvis is alive, Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster exist, and the moon landing was staged in a Hollywood basement, because 2:24 and 3:04pm read it on some obscure website. Sheesh....

Anonymous said...

The news coverage today has been about the extreme volatile rage being demonstrated by the Obama supporters because he was asked some tough questions about his shady associates. They wonder why thse issues were discussed. Everybody seems to forget character IS the issue when electing the most powerful leader in the world.

But what concerns me is how easily his supporters take to the phones, emails, and threats. One commentatory said he wouldn't like to meet one on the street today. This display, with the threats Ferraro and her associates got; with the threats some Super Delegates said they've gotten and the comments by a blooger on this site about riots if Obama doesn't win, really frighten me. We've always accepted the outcome of our elections no matter how controversial or disapointing some have been. I'd hate it if we're slowly becoming a Third World Country where elections are determined by guns and fights.

Chill out Obama people.

Anonymous said...

"extreme volatile rage"?? What channel was this on? I've heard of Obama's supporters complaining about the debate, but I haven't heard of riots, shootings, beheadings or anything that can be characterized as "extreme volatile rage."

Please post a link that demonstrates this rage. Thanks.

Otherwise, it seems like you're just yet another person trying to generalize and make-up stuff about Senator Obama's millions of supporters...

Anonymous said...

As any observer knows there is not one single channel devoted to the truth. What generally happens is a news story breaks that is relevatory, and that story is never seen again.

Obviously you did not hear about the death threats to Geraldine Ferraro and her associates when she appeared, in person, on the news and revealed that frightening development. The story was never repeated on any of the other channels. However, she was on screen in person telling her news.

Only once did I see super delagates saying that they'd received threats to vote for Obama or else. Never shown again.

Only one time did I see a correction on TV about Hillary's hsoptal-death story that all had accused her of falsitying. f

Last night one commentator said there'd been such anger and rage that he hoped not to meet an Obama supporter on the streets.

I can't give a link because there's nobody "watching the store" as a matter of duty. So you and others and I continue to be in the dark about most of what's happening, most of the time.

The news story about Obama's relative running for office in Kenya was a news report by a CIA officer but it never made the mainstream media.

And what really amazed me was when a Clinton supporter, months ago, mentioned Obama's drug use, he made the error of saying he "implied" from that news -- rather than he "inferred." That night Keith Olbermann showed the clip of the speaker and made fun of the man using the incorrect "implied.". The next time I saw that clip on the Dan Abrams's show, the Clinton support said "inferred" instead of the incorrect "implied." THE TAPE HAD BEEN ALTERED TO CORRECT THE MAN'S GRAMMAR. THEY ALTER TAPES EASILY AND NO ONE CAN TELL.

That's why we have to keep asking quesitons.

Anonymous said...

Part of the displayed objection to Obama's ABC interview was the response of MOVEON which urged all its email recipients to mail in protest. And, of course MOVEON has contributed milliions to Obama's campaign. There is an organized "machine" behind Obama's campaign contrary to popular belief.

Sidney Condorcet said...

9:17AM, you are no different than those dastards who kept pushing the Vince Foster murder baloney, the Hillary is a lesbian lies, and the many other completely fabricated insinuations about the Clintons. However, your target now is Obama. Anything you hear at least once by any person, in any news outlet, whether credible or not, whether verified or not, is proof that Obama is up to dirty deeds and his supporters are murderous, enraged zealots threatening the lives of Ferraro, news anchors, and anyone who dares vote against Obama. You are either drunk or mad...

Anonymous said...

Sidney, My heart goes out to you. You are hopelessly stupid, or need remedial reading.Either way, I'm sorry.

I SAW Ferraro on TV making those remarks. My heart went out to her too because she was terrified and horrified.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Yeah, I SAW Bill Clinton on TV saying he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." I've seen countless members of the Bush administration on TV say that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the surge has worked. I've seen a lot of things on TV that wasn't true.

Who's hopelessly stupid and gullible? Next you'll say that professional wrestling is a competitive sport because it looks that way on television. Sheesh...

Anonymous said...

If you had a broader and more comprehensive education you would know that to Clinton and the Jesuits who taught him, he had not had sexual relations with "that woman." Fellatio is not considered such by the Jesuits with whom he studied. This was published in quite a few reliable publications at the time, but it was a fact ignored by the mass media.

Even later he said he had an inappropraite relationship but he did not say sexual.

I heard the same WMD reports and went to sources which indicated that Bush was lying. I was against the war.

It takes some effort, intellecutal curiosity and intelligence to track down stories. We are just beginning to do that with Obama and it turns out to be too little too late.

I'm too elite to watch or even think about wrestling. I used to be for and identify with Obama. I was for him before I was against him.

It should read "A lot of things on TV that aren't true."

Anonymous said...

12:11 Since Sidney said "that wasn't true", I think you meant to say "A lot of things on TV that weren't true."