"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Embedded TIME Reporter: Bush Lied In Speech Yesterday About Iraqi
Security Forces

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/01/...time-reporter/

Yesterday, President Bush claimed that Iraqi security forces
"primarily led" the assault on the city of Tal Afar. Bush
highlighted it as an "especially clear" sign of the progress Iraq
security forces were making in Iraq.

"The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent
anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year's
assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition
battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army - with
six Iraqi battalions supporting them...This year in Tal Afar, it was a
very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security
forces - 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions
providing support."


TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S.
troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on
Anderson Cooper yesterday. He said Bush's description was completely
untrue:

"I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was
with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling
with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S.
green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following
an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as
and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The
Iraqis led nothing."


Who will I believe? Bush or a journalist from Time magazine? Hmmmm

Look, when we were in the first Gulf, Iraqis were a bunch of scared little
sissies (worse than liberals - like they have never been in a fight). They
were afraid to fight us, so I do believe that they may not be the best to
protect the Iraqi populace. However, they are not fighting Americans now,
but insurgents who are usually Iranians, Syrians or other Arabs. They are
also fed up with outsiders from both sides, and I think American training is
finally giving them the edge. I am in touch with some of my buddies, one of
whom is now a gunnery sergeant in the Marines. He has gained some respect
for the Iraqis - in the way they can be trained and the way they fight. I
wish I could post the progression of his emails to me. A year ago he said
Iraqis could never be trained, now he thinks that there is a good chance
Americans will be out of there sooner than he thought. So it does look
better.

He also says that most embedded journalists are liberal scum looking for
excuses to make the war look worse than it is.

On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:49:19 -0600, "Dan J.S." wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Embedded TIME Reporter: Bush Lied In Speech Yesterday About Iraqi
Security Forces

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/01/...time-reporter/

Yesterday, President Bush claimed that Iraqi security forces
"primarily led" the assault on the city of Tal Afar. Bush
highlighted it as an "especially clear" sign of the progress Iraq
security forces were making in Iraq.

"The progress of the Iraqi forces is especially clear when the recent
anti-terrorist operations in Tal Afar are compared with last year's
assault in Fallujah. In Fallujah, the assault was led by nine coalition
battalions made up primarily of United States Marines and Army - with
six Iraqi battalions supporting them...This year in Tal Afar, it was a
very different story. The assault was primarily led by Iraqi security
forces - 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions
providing support."


TIME Magazine reporter Michael Ware, who is embedded with the U.S.
troops in Iraq who participated in the Tal Afar battle, appeared on
Anderson Cooper yesterday. He said Bush's description was completely
untrue:

"I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was
with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling
with al Qaeda. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S.
green beret special forces with them. Green berets who were following
an American plan of attack who were advancing with these Iraqi units as
and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The
Iraqis led nothing."


Who will I believe? Bush or a journalist from Time magazine? Hmmmm

Look, when we were in the first Gulf, Iraqis were a bunch of scared little
sissies (worse than liberals - like they have never been in a fight). They
were afraid to fight us, so I do believe that they may not be the best to
protect the Iraqi populace. However, they are not fighting Americans now,
but insurgents who are usually Iranians, Syrians or other Arabs. They are
also fed up with outsiders from both sides, and I think American training is
finally giving them the edge. I am in touch with some of my buddies, one of
whom is now a gunnery sergeant in the Marines. He has gained some respect
for the Iraqis - in the way they can be trained and the way they fight. I
wish I could post the progression of his emails to me. A year ago he said
Iraqis could never be trained, now he thinks that there is a good chance
Americans will be out of there sooner than he thought. So it does look
better.

He also says that most embedded journalists are liberal scum looking for
excuses to make the war look worse than it is.



Chris Mathews interviewed a journalist about the same battle. He said the
President presented the facts. Chris seemed shocked!

The fact that a Special Forces soldier may have accompanied the Iraqi battalions
does not mean that the Iraqi battalions were preceeded by Special Forces units.
Of course, most non-military types wouldn't know any better.
--
John H

"It's not a *baby* kicking, beautiful bride, it's just a fetus!"
[A Self-obsessed Hypocrite]