Watching the news, you'd think that the U.S. was losing in Iraq, it's the "insurgents," however, that have had their behinds handed to them all through October. This past month, the Muslim Ramadan ritual was held by Muslims everywhere, it was also the month where the "insurgents" were supposed to make massive gains in Iraq, they were detaling their objectives on Jihad TV, which got broadcast all through the Middle East. Here's a short, sweet list of "insurgent" failures in Iraq to date. (Hats off to Amir Taheri for getting the goods on Iraq yet again, dammit)

*The "insurgents" have failed to seize territory in and around Haditha. A contingent of Sunni Arabs went and flushed them out of that region.

*The "insurgents failed to take Mosul and turn it into a new Fallujah. U.S. and Iraqi Army forces put the smack down on those plans.

*The "insurgents" failed to blow up holy shrines in Karbala and Najaf. The authorities got wind of this little plot and stopped some dozen suicide bombers from carrying out their nefarious deeds.

*The "insurgents" failed to carry out attacks in the U.S. held green zone in Baghdad and got their asses handed to them in the process of trying.

*To try and kill several Iraqi government officials, who were discussing key Iraqi policies. The "insurgents" tried to assinate a few of these officials and failed.

*To prevent Shiite and Sunni Clerics from meeting in Mecca to sign a treaty ending sectarian violence in Iraq. (Sectarian violence, civil war, the last great hope of "insurgents" and liberals everywhere for failure in Iraq) The "insurgents" tried to stop a peace process and failed, dammit.

*Muqtada al-Sadr and his gang of thugs tried to seize the southern Shiite city of al-Amarah and failed. Sadr's gunmen were ran out of town on a rail.

*The "insurgents" have tried using murder, torture and assassination to close hospitals, universities, schools, newspapers, tv station and barber shops. (Barber shops?) However, their tactics have failed to disuade the Iraqis from embracing the 21st century.

*Al Sadr tried to kidnap the Interior Ministry and failed, thanks to Iraqi forces.

*In spite of death threats by the "insurgents" the Iraqi Prime Minister and the former deputy Premier of Iraq have returned to Baghdad and are now living in that city.

*Attempts to "disinfranchise" voters by killing politicians and voting organizers as well as destroying voter lists have failed.

*The "insurgents" failed to cause tension between the Iraqi government and the Grand Ayatollah.

*The "insurgents" threatened to ruin the end of Ramadan by massive suicide attacks. The Iraqis STILL celebrated the end of Ramadan.

Sadly, the "insurgents" enjoy great success in one and only area of the American drive-by media and liberal democrats everywhere.

Dammit.


http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/20213

Aw Darth, you know the saying "one oh-shit cancels 100 atta-boys"? :)
All these successes are merely things that did not occur. Some people would not even rate them as an atta-boy. :(
As you know, truth is in the eyes of the beholder, and some people only see what they want to see. It is a pity there is not better reporting in the mainstream media.

Sadly, the "insurgents" enjoy great success in one and only area of the American drive-by media and liberal democrats everywhere.

Dammit.

Darth, you really do need to expand your sources. I always was curious why you held this Taheri guy in such high regard and then I heard Rush mention him on his show today. As a suggestion you might try getting some of your information from a source other than "The Rush Limbaugh Show".

BTW, you might want to check the latest polls. If you think that only "liberal democrats" are upset about the war in Iraq, you're just not paying attention.

doesn't matter darth. guerilla warfare and "terrorism" isn't about taking territory, or holding it. this is the number one rule anyone fighting a larger and more powerful enemy knows. you nit pick your enemy to death, or until they leave.

iraq, and afghanistan is a bucket of tar. the more you try to get it off the more it sticks. bushes folly is a guarentee that his war machine buddies will continue to make lots of money off this "war" long after he's gone.

Darth, you really do need to expand your sources. I always was curious why you held this Taheri guy in such high regard and then I heard Rush mention him on his show today. As a suggestion you might try getting some of your information from a source other than "The Rush Limbaugh Show".

*sigh* People who listen to Rush tend to get tarred with the idea that Rush is the only source of info to his listeners, that "dittoheads" agree with everything that Rush says, that Rush fans have their minds made up by Mr. Limbaugh. Vile, this is the primary reason why zillions of people will listen to Rush Limbaugh, but nobody ever quite admits it. At least without the stating that they don't agree with everything Rush says. The reason I went and stated that I listen to Rush and like doing so is that I really want to break from that mold, state exactly who I am and where I'm coming from rather than keep my mouth shut over fear I'll be branded a mind numbed Rush robot.

Okay, all that aside you've got me pegged wrong on both ideas that I only get my news from Rush Limbaugh and that I got turned onto Taheri from listening to Rush.

Columnists I read and respect include Ralph Peters, Michelle Malkin, Victor Davis Hansen, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Kathleen Parker and Linda Chavez. There's also one Mr Ryan, I forgot his first name and John Podhoretz. The news websites I puruse include townhall.com, yahoo, aol.com, worldnetdaily and msnbc.com. From time to time I'll wander to blogs like captainsquarters. Oh, and I'll BUY the New York Post and read it, but I'll read other newspapers if they happen to be around, I won't buy them. I may not be the most widely read person here on the boards, but I'd hardly say that I'm just stuck with one source of news, dammit. Oh, and I just remembered that Libertarian wonder, Larry Elder.

The Amir Taheri thing. I got turned onto Mr Taheri after reading Dinesh D'Souza's "What's So Great About America." Limbaugh had nothing to do with it. D'Souza details the troubles between the Middle East and the West. A thumbnail sketch of the history of the Middle East and how it fell behind the West, how the Muslims view the West and strategies Muslims have for catching up with Western Civilization. Some of the Muslims wish to kill Western influence in the Middle East and that means attacking the West. Other Muslims believe that they need to learn from the West. Taheri represents the second view. Taheri represents the Muslims who have the view of the Middle East living in peace with the West, of having responsible governments in the Middle East, of learning toleration as well as women's rights. More importantly, Taheri details things like the fact that the Jihadist views of how things should be ran in the Middle East isn't popular with the average Muslim. The "insurgents" aren't winning in Iraq. The Iranians really don't like Ahmandinejad all that damn much. Taheri gives me hope that peace can be achieved in the Middle East.

WOW!...and here I was thinking things were going badly for the US...

++++++++++++++++++++
Iraqi PM hands Sadr victory over US blockade

Iraqi Shiite militants have won a major political victory when Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki ordered US and Iraqi units to lift a blockade around the flashpoint Baghdad suburb of Sadr City.

American commanders believe Shiite gunmen may be holding a kidnapped US soldier in the east Baghdad slum and since last week their troops have been maintaining a cordon of checkpoints and roadblocks around the area.

Iraqi and US forces have also launched raids inside the district, most recently on Tuesday morning, when they arrested three suspects.

But US forces began lifting the blockade shortly before Maliki's 5.00 pm deadline, triggering a triumphant response from local youths who waved banners from racing trucks and mopeds in an impromptu victory rally.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/061031/1/44gbm.html

*The "insurgents" threatened to ruin the end of Ramadan by massive suicide attacks.?!? Why would suppossedly msulim militants want to 'ruin' ramadan?
*To prevent Shiite and Sunni Clerics from meeting in Mecca to sign a treaty ending sectarian violence in Iraq. (Sectarian violence, civil war, the last great hope of "insurgents" and liberals everywhere for failure in Iraq) The "insurgents" tried to stop a peace process and failed, dammit.ummm...good. This guy is a moron BTW. He's trying to imply that Libs want to US to 'lose' in Iraq then says they cheer for sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is the only thing thats positive for US troops ATM. Its got Iraqs shooting each other rather then at the US.

Ditto on what Ivan said.

*sigh* People who listen to Rush tend to get tarred with the idea that Rush is the only source of info to his listeners, that "dittoheads" agree with everything that Rush says, that Rush fans have their minds made up by Mr. Limbaugh. Vile, this is the primary reason why zillions of people will listen to Rush Limbaugh, but nobody ever quite admits it. At least without the stating that they don't agree with everything Rush says. The reason I went and stated that I listen to Rush and like doing so is that I really want to break from that mold, state exactly who I am and where I'm coming from rather than keep my mouth shut over fear I'll be branded a mind numbed Rush robot.

Nicely put Darth. I doff my chapeau.

I only brought up Rush because you've cited him a few times in your posts, and he's an easy target. I find it difficult to accept him as a "source" because he doesn't "do" anything, he comments on what others do. I've listened to his show from time to time at work, and I find him to be egotistical, overbearing, pompous, and deliberately misleading. I can only surmise he's deliberately misleading because it makes for better shows, and he likes to make gobs of money. He's an extremely wealthy man who claims as his followers the "common folk" who flock to him in droves. I can picture him literally laughing all the way to the bank. He's a showman, a huckster of cheap merchandise, and a fraud. To his credit, I haven't yet decided whether he himself believes any of the stuff he spouts. I can't for the life of me fathom how anyone of more than moderate intelligence can give what he says any weight whatever. On his show the other day he was talking about Michael J. Fox and how he would never make fun of someone with a medical condition because he knows how that is, afetr all, he lost his hearing. He went on about how he doesn't whine or complain about it though, because it's just one of those things you have to deal with in life. A real trooper. He forgot to mention how his hearing loss is likely a result of his Oxycontin abuse. A real jerk.


Okay, all that aside you've got me pegged wrong on both ideas that I only get my news from Rush Limbaugh and that I got turned onto Taheri from listening to Rush.

My mistake. I stand corrected Darth.

BTW - No blood for oil? No blood for Israel?

Bush said that he was "worried that rival forms of extremists will battle for power, obviously creating incredible damage if they do so; that they will topple modern governments, that they will be in a position to use oil as a tool to blackmail the West."

"People say, 'What do you mean by that?'" The president continued. "I say, 'If they control oil resources, then they pull oil off the market in order to run the price up, and they will do so unless we abandon Israel, for example, or unless we abandon allies.'"

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Bush_tells_Rush_hes_deeply_concerned_1101.html

At this point in history, Oil is a very good reason for war. People have fought wars over resources before, why not now? To me, it makes a lot more sense than fighting for an abstract such as "freedom" or against an ideal such as "Communism."

With regards to Israel. They're a very close ally of the US, why shouldn't we help them?

Why are they a very close ally of the US, this is the main reason why incidents like 'USS Cole', 9/11, Afghanistan, US Embassy in Niarobi?, Bali, Madrid, London have all occured, because the US Foreign Policy has been infiltrated by Jewish Americans who use it to protect and finance their Jewish State.

At this point in history, Oil is a very good reason for war. People have fought wars over resources before, why not now? To me, it makes a lot more sense than fighting for an abstract such as "freedom" or against an ideal such as "Communism."
I would be more OK with us going to war over oil, than going to war over false pretenses.

With regards to Israel. They're a very close ally of the US, why shouldn't we help them?
What do they offer us as allies?

I would be more OK with us going to war over oil, than going to war over false pretenses.


What do they offer us as allies?
They control your economy...that's a big "offer" as an ally.

They control your economy...that's a big "offer" as an ally.

They control our economy? How so?

They control our economy? How so?
Just that saying that if you want to know the motivation for something, follow the money trail. I do not believe that the US has some altruistic reason for aiding Isreal...if that were so, there are others far more in need. Strongest motivator for anything corporate is profit. Money does make the world go round...

The Amir Taheri thing. I got turned onto Mr Taheri after reading Dinesh D'Souza's "What's So Great About America." Limbaugh had nothing to do with it. D'Souza details the troubles between the Middle East and the West. A thumbnail sketch of the history of the Middle East and how it fell behind the West, how the Muslims view the West and strategies Muslims have for catching up with Western Civilization. Some of the Muslims wish to kill Western influence in the Middle East and that means attacking the West. Other Muslims believe that they need to learn from the West. Taheri represents the second view. Taheri represents the Muslims who have the view of the Middle East living in peace with the West, of having responsible governments in the Middle East, of learning toleration as well as women's rights. More importantly, Taheri details things like the fact that the Jihadist views of how things should be ran in the Middle East isn't popular with the average Muslim. The "insurgents" aren't winning in Iraq. The Iranians really don't like Ahmandinejad all that damn much. Taheri gives me hope that peace can be achieved in the Middle East.
posted June 14, 2006 (July 3, 2006 issue)
Bunkum From Benador

Larry Cohler-Esses

The neoconservative campaign to equate Iran with Nazi Germany received a setback in May. Bloggers and a few journalists quickly exposed as wholly concocted a story about a new law that would require Iranian Jews to wear yellow insignia. Within days the National Post of Canada--founded by disgraced neocon media mogul Conrad Black and now owned by the no less hawkish Asper family--was forced to apologize publicly for its "scoop." But by then the New York Post, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, right-wing blogs and some wire services had picked up the claim, bringing the phony news to millions.

Few ran retractions. And despite the debunking, the story's powerful visual imagery was likely lasting for casual readers. Over headlines blaring Iran, some papers ran photos of Jews from the Nazi era wearing the yellow stars that separated them from their fellow citizens before their slaughter.

Nevertheless, the debunking exposed the moving parts of a media machine intent on priming the public for war with Iran--as it did earlier with stories about Iraq's nonexistent WMD. Ubiquitous in this campaign, as it was with Iraq, is the PR firm Benador Associates. Its president, Eleana Benador, told me it was her agency that placed the article with the National Post. Its stable of writers and activists, a Who's Who of the neocon movement, includes Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney, Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson and Iranian exile journalist Amir Taheri--the author of the bogus piece. Even among a crowd notable for wrongheaded analyses, Taheri stands out, with a rap sheet that leaves one amazed that he continues to be published. It is here that the role of Benador is key; the firm gives Taheri a political stamp of approval that provides entree to hawkish media venues, where journalistic criteria are secondary.

It was in 1989 that Taheri was first exposed as a journalistic felon. The book he published the year before, Nest of Spies, examined the rule and fall of the Shah of Iran. Taheri received many respectful reviews, but in The New Republic Shaul Bakhash, a reigning doyen of Persian studies, checked Taheri's footnotes. Suddenly a book review became an investigative exposé. Bakhash, a history professor at George Mason University and a former fellow at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, detailed case after case in which Taheri cited nonexistent sources, concocted nonexistent substance in cases where the sources existed and distorted the substance beyond recognition when it was present. Taheri "repeatedly refers us to books where the information he cites simply does not exist," Bakhash wrote. "Often the documents cannot be found in the volumes to which he attributes them.... [He] repeatedly reads things into the documents that are simply not there." In one case, noted Bakhash, Taheri cited an earlier article of his own--but offered content he himself never wrote in that article. Bakhash concluded that Nest of Spies was "the sort of book that gives contemporary history a bad name." In a response published two months later, Taheri failed to rebut Bakhash's charges.

Yet, thanks to Benador and the outlets that publish its writers, Taheri survived to publish again. And again. The concoctions continued, with the full knowledge of his enablers. In a New York Post column last year, Taheri identified Iran's UN ambassador, Javad Zarif, as one of the students involved in the illegal 1979 seizure of hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran. San Francisco State University professor Dwight Simpson wrote the Post politely to request a correction. "This allegation is false," he explained. "On November 4, 1979 [the day of the seizure], Javad Zarif was in San Francisco. He was then a graduate student in the Department of International Relations of San Francisco State University. He was my student, and he served also as my teaching assistant."

"The newspaper didn't print the letter, and I never got an acknowledgment," Simpson told me. When an Iranian friend of Simpson's, Kaveh Afrasiabi, called Eleana Benador about the error, she initially promised to seek a retraction from Taheri if he faxed her Simpson's letter, Afrasiabi related. When he followed up, "she became hysterical," he said. And when Afrasiabi called Taheri himself, "he hung up on me."

Taheri was unreachable by phone. But Benador, who said her client was "traveling in the Middle East," was impatient with dissections of his work. Terming accuracy with regard to Iran "a luxury," she said, "My major concern is the large picture. Is Taheri writing one or two details that are not accurate? This is a guy who is putting his life at stake." She noted that "the Iranian government has killed its opponents." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "says he wants to destroy Israel. He says the Holocaust never happened.... As much as being accurate is important, in the end it's important to side with what's right. What's wrong is siding with the terrorists."

Taheri might seem to be one of Benador's biggest liabilities. In fact, he is right now the agency's proudest coup. On May 30--just days after the National Post's apology for running his false story on Iranian Jews--Taheri was one of a group of "Iraq experts" brought to the White House to consult with George W. Bush on the disastrous situation there. Who needs Hill & Knowlton when you've got Benador Associates?

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/cohleresses

Sedan,

One Andrew Sullivan did a reply on Amir Taheri, I'll use his words to speak for me. Emphasis is mine.

I've long read Taheri and appreciated his columns and reporting. All I can say is: he owes everyone an explanation. How did he come up with this? Was it a garbled misunderstanding? Was it propaganda? After the Iraq WMD debacle, we need to treat all intelligence from interested parties in the Middle East with a great deal of skepticism. The tragedy is: the underlying fact of Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic extremism is true.(note THAT part, sedan Which is why sloppy MSM journalism can only help Iran's leadership, rather than harm it.


http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/05/amir_taheri_wha.ht

note THAT part, sedan Which is why sloppy MSM journalism can only help Iran's leadership, rather than harm it.Mr. Taheri is the one who made up a lie out of whole cloth and you think the media is the problem? You certainly are determined to blame anyone but the one responsible -- your hero, Mr. Taheri.

I'll tell you what my problem with Mr. Taheri is: some of the main selling points going into the Iraq war were provided by defectors and dissidents who told us all sorts of things we wanted to hear. They told us Saddam had WMD's. They told us we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people. They told us they could form a government that would not need our troops to support it. All of these things turned out to be lies. And your Mr. Taheri (along with the rest of the Benador crowd) was a member of this sales team -- telling lies to sell the war, and the idiots who run this country were only too happy to believe them. But Mr. Taheri is not an Iraqi. He is an Iranian. His goal from the start has been a simple one: to inveigle the US into a war with Iran. This by itself might not be the worst goal for an Iranian exile to have. But when that exile is a proven liar I think we should examine every word he says very carefully.

Mr. Taheri does not have America's best interest in his heart.

He has his own.

They told us Saddam had WMD's. They told us we would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people. They told us they could form a government that would not need our troops to support it. All of these things turned out to be lies. And your Mr. Taheri (along with the rest of the Benador crowd) was a member of this sales team -- telling lies to sell the war, and the idiots who run this country were only too happy to believe them.

It is more to the point to note that the people running the country at the time wanted a sufficient number of twits among the populace to *believe* all the lies concerning WMDs and the purported "threat" that Iraq posed.

And they got them. Millions of unthinking dupes in America swallowed the pack of lies whole....

....and thus, the Bushistas got their massively profitable oil "war".

And the military/Industrial owners reaped billions.

And a few hundred thousand brown-skinned furriners got killed.

And the American taxpayers......thanks to the gullible flagwaving morons that make up such a large portion of the populace........got screwed.

Heres a link that might interest you guys. Checkout No. 3

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6120522.stm

A quoted from the link given
"The survey relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption in different countries, as seen by business people, academics and risk analysts."
Interesting, I do not consider people from these groups as being necessarily free from corruption.
Is it just that their definition of corruption is so different from that of the countries they studied?

Nice to see where Haiti is since the US kidnapped their democratically elected leader...