Al Qaeda Iraq: Getting Their Asses Kicked (Democrats Scared Silly Bush Is Right)

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Papers show 'gloomy' state of insurgency

By SAMEER N. YACOUB, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 26 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A blueprint for trying to start a war between the United States and Iran was among a "huge treasure" of documents found in the hideout of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Iraqi officials said Thursday. The document, purporting to reflect al-Qaida policy and its cooperation with groups loyal to ousted President Saddam Hussein, also appear to show that the insurgency in Iraq was weakening.

The al-Qaida in Iraq document was translated and released by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie. There was no way to independently confirm the authenticity of the information attributed to al-Qaida.

Although the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the document was found in al-Zarqawi's hideout following a June 7 airstrike that killed him, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the document had in fact been found in a previous raid as part of an ongoing three-week operation to track al-Zarqawi.

"We can verify that this information did come off some kind of computer asset that was at a safe location," he said. "This was prior to the al-Zarqawi safe house."

The document also said al-Zarqawi planned to try to destroy the relationship between the United States and its Shiite allies in Iraq.

While the coalition was continuing to suffer human losses, "time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance," the document said.

The document said the insurgency was being hurt by, among other things, the U.S. military's program to train Iraqi security forces, by massive arrests and seizures of weapons, by tightening the militants' financial outlets, and by creating divisions within its ranks.

"Generally speaking and despite the gloomy present situation, we find that the best solution in order to get out of this crisis is to involve the U.S. forces in waging a war against another country or any hostile groups," the document said, as quoted by al-Maliki's office.

According to the summary, insurgents were being weakened by operations against them and by their failure to attract recruits. To give new impetus to the insurgency, they would have to change tactics, it added.

"We mean specifically attempting to escalate the tension between America and Iran, and American and the Shiite in Iraq," it quoted the documents as saying, especially among moderate followers of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most influential Shiite cleric in Iraq.

"Creating disputes between America and them could hinder the U.S. cooperation with them, and subsequently weaken this kind of alliance between Shiites and the Americans," it said, adding that "the best solution is to get America involved in a war against another country and this would bring benefits."

They included "opening a new front" for the U.S. military and releasing some of the "pressure exerted on the resistance."

It pointed to clashes in 2004 between U.S. forces and followers of radical anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army militia as evidence of the benefits of such a strategy. Al-Sadr and his growing followers are among the fiercest advocates of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

It said the "results obtained during the struggle between U.S. army and al-Mahdi army is an example of the benefits to be gained by such struggle."

Al-Maliki's office said the document provides "the broad guidelines of the program of the Saddamists and the takfiris inside al-Zarqawi's group."

"Takfiri" is a reference to an extremist ideology that urges Muslims to kill anyone they consider an infidel, even fellow Muslims. It is the ideology that many Iraqis, especially in the Shiite community, use to describe al-Zarqawi and his followers.

The language contained in the document was different from the vocabulary used by al-Qaida statements posted on the Web. For example, it does not refer to the Americans as "Crusaders" nor use the term "rejectionists" to allude to Shiites.

Much of what is in the statement from al-Rubaie echoes results that the U.S. military and the Iraqi government say they are seeking. It also appears to reinforce American and Iraqi arguments that al-Qaida in Iraq and its operatives are a group of imported extremists bent on killing innocent civilians.

Al-Qaida in Iraq has been blamed for thousands of deaths, hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and assassinations in the past three years. Al-Qaida in Iraq's own hatred of the Shiites is well-documented and al-Zarqawi has repeatedly called on Sunnis to rise up and kill them.
Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_terror_blueprint_5)

Let it be said, Democratic responses to this development will seal their doom in November.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Full text of Zarqawi memo.

Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House Document
Jun 15 8:58 AM US/Eastern
Email this story
By The Associated Press
Text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's

hideout. The document was provided in English by Iraqi National

Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie:

___

The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements.

As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons:

1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance.

2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements.

3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population.

4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons.

5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults.

6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation.

7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform.

Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one:

1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons.

3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance.

4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones.

5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership.

6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it.

7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation.

In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or between America and the Shi'a in general.

Specifically the Sistani Shi'a, since most of the support that the Americans are getting is from the Sistani Shi'a, then, there is a possibility to instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits:

1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it.

2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi'a will weaken and close this front.

3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi'a will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies.

4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi'a, in a war that will result in both parties being losers.

5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help.

6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow the resistance to move among them.

7. To weaken the media's side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi'a.

8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement.

9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people.

The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of Al-Mahdi. However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be accomplished through:

1. A war between the Shi'a and the Americans.

2. A war between the Shi'a and the secular population (such as Ayad 'Alawi and al-Jalabi.)

3. A war between the Shi'a and the Kurds.

4. A war between Ahmad al-Halabi and his people and Ayad 'Alawi and his people.

5. A war between the group of al-Hakim and the group of al-Sadr.

6. A war between the Shi'a of Iraq and the Sunni of the Arab countries in the gulf.

7. A war between the Americans and Iraq. We have noticed that the best of these wars to be ignited is the one between the Americans and Iran, because it will have many benefits in favor of the Sunni and the resistance, such as:

1. Freeing the Sunni people in Iraq, who are (30 percent) of the population and under the Shi'a Rule.

2. Drowning the Americans in another war that will engage many of their forces.

3. The possibility of acquiring new weapons from the Iranian side, either after the fall of Iran or during the battles.

4. To entice Iran towards helping the resistance because of its need for its help.

5. Weakening the Shi'a supply line.

The question remains, how to draw the Americans into fighting a war against Iran? It is not known whether American is serious in its animosity towards Iraq, because of the big support Iran is offering to America in its war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. Hence, it is necessary first to exaggerate the Iranian danger and to convince America and the west in general, of the real danger coming from Iran, and this would be done by the following:

1. By disseminating threatening messages against American interests and the American people and attribute them to a Shi'a Iranian side.

2. By executing operations of kidnapping hostages and implicating the Shi'a Iranian side.

3. By advertising that Iran has chemical and nuclear weapons and is threatening the west with these weapons.

4. By executing exploding operations in the west and accusing Iran by planting Iranian Shi'a fingerprints and evidence.

5. By declaring the existence of a relationship between Iran and terrorist groups (as termed by the Americans).

6. By disseminating bogus messages about confessions showing that Iran is in possession of weapons of mass destruction or that there are attempts by the Iranian intelligence to undertake terrorist operations in America and the west and against western interests.

Let us hope for success and for God's help.
Link (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8LJBG0.html)

[Labrocca]

Good news all around.

[Drocket]

I was going to write out a long, detailed post about how 'convenient' it is for the Bush administration to find all these documents proving how afraid of Al Qaeda is of us following Bush's plan to stay the course. Then maybe throw in a little snark about how the Bush administration doesn't have any history at all of manipulating news using questionable information. Then I was going to say something about, if the US actually DID capture a bunch of Al Qaeda documents, how it would be really, really, REALLY stupid to publicize it for political gain instead of keeping the information quiet and using it to actually catch terrorits.

But I decided not to waste my time doing so since anyone who thinks this is anything other than complete and utter bullshit made up by the Bush administration's propaganda department is too stupid to understand words of more than one syllable.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

And here you have the rationale of why the Democrats base is completely off their rocker and incapable of grasping reality in any way, shape or form.

[Drocket]

You know I'm right.??Anyone capable of tying their own shoes can easily see what a pathetic sham these 'Al Qaeda documents' are.? You could throw 'eliminating the estate tax' and 'privatizing social security' to that supposed list of thing Bush is going right and it wouldn't be even one iota more clear that its bullshit.

Between this and the gay marriage amendments, its becoming pretty clear that pathetic shams are pretty much the only thing the Bush administration has left.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Uh huh.

Anything else you'd like to add to your kook conspiracy theory of the day?

[Drocket]

Well, the 2000 and 2004 elections were quite blatently stolen, but I've mentioned that in the past. I think that's about it for now.

[Alonzo]

When you live in a world where the media is out to get you, liberals want americans to die in war, the ACLU is out to destroy america, and there are mass conspiracies like the "homosexual agenda", I don't think either side can claim superiority in the kook department.

[bobbylien]

Did you honestly think for a second PAD that the conspiracy theory liberals wouldnt just say that its fake? Everything is made up by the lol... "bush propaganda department."

[Drocket]

So lets assume for a minute that the documents are real: the Bush administration actually DID capture a bunch of super top-secret Al Qaeda documents. And the first thing they did with those documents was publicize that they had them for political gain.

They COULD have kept quiet about having them, and used the information to capture terrorists and prevent deaths. Instead they decided to yap to the world about them, guaranteeing that the information instantly becomes worthless. After all, the terrorists are so stupid that they'll forget its possible to tap phones if we don't remind them every 10 minutes - clearly they'd assume that the documents were destroyed in the bombing if we didn't tell them otherwise. Especially now that their super, utra-great leader is now dead, leaving only some random peons to carry on the fight.

As always, we come to the eternal question of the Bush administration: criminals, or criminally stupid? They're either lying through their teeth about what they captured, or else they just threw away a massive advantage for a short-term political boost. If they did, they shouldn't be permitted to run a hotdog stand, let alone a country.

[bobbylien]

Do you think they released all of them? They released documents of no military value. Why not release documents proving their position if they have no other value, the documents were obviously looked over since they werent released right away.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

The Bush Administration?

Do you read, can you read, are you capable of understanding anything in this world Drocket?

Pay attention to facts.??

The Bush Administration resides and works in the White House and Old Executive Office Building.??The United States military is what's doing the work in Iraq.??Not the Bush Administration.

Can you comprehend that???Do you understand that???Are you capable of understanding that there are functions of the government and military that are not the "Bush Adminstration"?

Do you realize that the content of these documents were processed and released by the Iraqi government? "The al-Qaida in Iraq document was translated and released by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie."

So is that the "Bush Administration"???Is the Iraqi National Security Advisor the "Bush Administration"???Is he in on the "Bush Administration Propaganda Team"?

You wonder why I mock liberals?

[Drocket]

Do you think they released all of them? They released documents of no military value. Why not release documents proving their position if they have no other value, the documents were obviously looked over since they werent released right away.

But in doing so, they've publicly announced that they've captured a large number of Al Qaeda documents. Without that announcement, one might very easily believe that they were entirely or mostly destroyed in the bombings that lead to their capture. Since Al Qaeda now knows for sure that the documents are in US hands, the information contained in the documents, information that otherwise could have been used to fight terrorism, is now worthless because Al Qaeda will change their tactics/plans.

The Bush Administration resides and works in the White House and Old Executive Office Building.??The United States military is what's doing the work in Iraq.??Not the Bush Administration.
The Bush administration is the group setting the agenda for both the military and the Iraqi government. To pretend that they're not involved in the decision-making process is to be willfully ignorant.

[bobbylien]

They wouldn't have released these documents if they thought it would hurt their chances of catching some terrorists. Those documents would have had the same impact if they released them 3 months from now. It doesn't make sense that they would have kept important information regarding the location of terrorists written down anyways. Not to mention that terrorists are constantly on the move and that the army has probably moved on any info they found in these documents prior to releasing them.

[Drocket]

'Cause the Bush administration never does anything stupid.

[bobbylien]

'Cause the Bush administration never does anything stupid.

Every administration has its problems, if you want to talk about bad administrations lets talk about the miserable failure that was Mr. Jimmy Carter.

I'm saying that unless you have some proof. You can't claim anything.

[Churchel]

'Cause the Bush administration never does anything stupid.

Every administration has its problems, if you want to talk about bad administrations lets talk about the miserable failure that was Mr. Jimmy Carter.

I'm saying that unless you have some proof. You can't claim anything.


How about we ask the political military counseler (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/03/military_report_secrets/) stationed in Iraq if the administration has done anything stupid.

[bobbylien]

How about we ask the political military counseler (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/03/military_report_secrets/) stationed in Iraq if the administration has done anything stupid.

I didn't mean proof that the Bush Administration has made mistakes. Look at Iraq, that was all you needed to say. Iraq was the biggest mistake that Bush has made.
I meant specific evidence that these documents are fake. Just saying that its "just another move by the bush propaganda department" just doesn't cut it. Show me proof these documents are fake.

[Drocket]

Show me proof that they're real. The Bush administration has had several little 'incidents' in which they've been found to be paying off reporters and planting false stories: they really don't have a whole lot of credibility left. When somebody who has a track record of lies and deceptions comes up with a document that they claim proves them right about everything, despite clear evidence to the contrary (hint: we ain't winning in Iraq), well... Lets just say that taking them at face value isn't exactly a wise choice.

[bobbylien]

In other words.. you have no proof.. at all. You are just shooting out baseless accusations with NO PROOF WHAT SO EVER. Prove it to be fake, you can't just consider anything good coming from the Bush Administration to be fake. You can if you want to, but if you are going to post about it here, please provide some.. scratch that.. ANY PROOF AT ALL.

[Drocket]

The document claims that the US is winning in Iraq, something which is quite obviously not true (and to demand proof that we're not winning in Iraq is like demanding proof that the sun rises in the morning: a demand easily solved by paying attention to reality.)

Beyond that, though - nope, no proof. You'll probably have to wait 20 or 40 years, when that information gets declassified. At the same time, though, its pretty clear that the Bush administration has no proof either, because they have no credibility. To give them any sort of benefit of the doubt, at this point, after lie after lie after lie after lie has been revealed, is to simply be a fool.

[bobbylien]

Thats fine, if you want to participate in conspiracy theories go right ahead. I like to read facts and since you have none.. good day.

[Drocket]

I really wouldn't exactly term it a conspiracy theory to point out that a person with a long history of lies and deceptions for their own personal gain has a long history of lies and deceptions for their own personal gain. That's simply an observation of reality. Said history of lies and deceptions means that they have no credibility left, and that believing that anything they say simply because they say it is pretty much the same as tattooing "I'm gullable: screw me over" on your forehead.

This complete lack of credibility on the person making the claim means that the claim has to be judged entirely on its own merits. In this case, we have a document that claims the US is winning in Iraq, a rather laughable claim for anyone who's paying attention. So we have a document put forth by people with a history of lying which contains within it claims that don't match reality. Its not too hard to put 2 and 2 together.

If you really want to claim that the ability to objectively observe reality is a conspiracy theory, though, go right ahead.

[bobbylien]

Theres objectively viewing things and then theres just being paranoid. You nut job liberals will believe anything you read on some stupid random blog so long as its anti-bush.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

He still hasn't acknowledged that it was the Iraqi National Security Advisor that translated and released this document.

Not a member of the White House staff or U.S. military.

That's stupidity for you.

[Labrocca]

I couldn't care less what the document says. From my standpoint we are winning the war in Iraq. I see that as an obvious observation. On what basis do you believe we are losing? Because soldiers are dying? Because the insurgency still exists? On what basis?

There has been great things done in Iraq and while it's not an overnight success...I think the next 18-24 months will be even better. The groundwork is being laid out for a solid democracy in the middle east. This is a VICTORY in my book.

As for these documents and their secrets...I think it weakens the insurgency when we publicly ackowledge that we have special information. It's like saying BOO in the dark. You might not be a monster but you might get something to jump. A big part of the insurgency is local support. If we can get more locals to support US troops and show them it's futile to help Al-crappa then we only do better. Most people just want to get on with their lives in Iraq. A large portion of their populace doesn't want the insurgents to win.

Drocket...I know what you say you firmly believe. That's fine you can feel that way. However you really aren't backing up your arguement well.

[Drocket]

He still hasn't acknowledged that it was the Iraqi National Security Advisor that translated and released this document.
And you still haven't acknowledged that the Bush administration has more than a little bit to do with what the Iraqi government chooses to do.??The different factions can't even agree with what day of week it is without US negotiators there to guide them.

I couldn't care less what the document says.??From my standpoint we are winning the war in Iraq. I see that as an obvious observation.??On what basis do you believe we are losing???Because soldiers are dying? Because the insurgency still exists???On what basis?
Because the violence in Iraq is continuously expanding.??The US military has given up on protecting 98% of the country and is just focusing on trying to keep Baghdad and the surrounding area safe, and completely failing as Baghdad keeps getting hit harder and harder.??When the US military gives on the majority of a country and can't even keep their small home base area safe, that doesn't exactly qualify as 'winning', in my book.

Then there this rather interesting memo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601768.html?referrer=emailarticle) from the US embassy in Iraq.??The military can't even protect the people working at the embassy, right in the middle of the supposedly-safe green zone.??People working at the embassy actually do so IN SECRET because otherwise they'd be impossible to protect.??Working conditions continue to deteriorate, and electricity is becoming harder and more expensive to get.??Ethnic cleansing is progressing at an ever-faster pace, as those viewed as outsiders are driven out of neighborhoods they've lived in for decades.??Section 15 of the memo is probably the most interesting, as employees of the embassy are demanding to know what arrangements are being made for their safety if the Americans are forced to evacuate. Document shredding has already started in order to protect the identities of people who have work for the US.

And again, this is the SAFE part of Iraq.??Most of the rest of the country has simply been given up on because we don't have enough soldiers to patrol it.

[Labrocca]

That memo makes it even more important that we start showing the iraqi people we are winning. Perception is everything at this point. It's views like yours that are harmful to the soilders and the Iraqies that are fighting for their own freedom.

We are at war Drocket...you say those things as if it's a suprise to anyone. I don't expect serious progress for possibly years.

[Drocket]

When every single statistic shows that Iraq is less safe than its ever been and getting worse by the day, our embassy pretty much has the helicoptors gassed and ready to go (the embassy, BTW, is in a massive concrete bunker surrounded by about 20,000 US troops - to say that it would be hard to overrun is an understatement), and the Iraqis working for the US can't even tell their families, all that can be said is - you have a very strange definition of winning. Its like being in a casino with your last few chips, down $10,000, and claiming that you're on the verge of breaking the bank. Its just a matter of time...

[test]

Your analogy of being on the verge of breaking the bank is totally off base. I stated we are years away from a win. We are however winning....to say it more along your analogy. If I run out of money at the casino I got a lot of credit to borrow from before I call it quit.

Iraq is less safe...we are slowly pulling out troops and giving the Iraq army it's own missions..that's a measurement of good imho and a sign things are going well enough.

[Churchel]

How about we ask the political military counseler (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/03/military_report_secrets/) stationed in Iraq if the administration has done anything stupid.

I didn't mean proof that the Bush Administration has made mistakes. Look at Iraq, that was all you needed to say. Iraq was the biggest mistake that Bush has made.
I meant specific evidence that these documents are fake. Just saying that its "just another move by the bush propaganda department" just doesn't cut it. Show me proof these documents are fake.


That political military counseler went over your head. Think of the hunt for red october where the guy who was killed at the beginning was the political officer on a russian sub. The political military counseler takes their orders directly from washington, and has authority to carry out orders. All of this is done outside the chain of command.

The truth is we do not have any current Iraq vets posting here, and I find it a bit odd not to see very much opinion, positive or negative from the recent vets. Possibly they have the new ones on the 8 year IRR extend forever leash.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

There is no U.S. military equivilent to a political officer as existed in the Soviet army, navy, air force or strategic rocket forces.

Absolutely..... none.

BTW, we do have an Iraqi vet here. Just not from this conflict, I did the last one.

[rastaman]

PAD, you can slant, spin, character assinate all you want. The truth be told--you can't trust "The Bush Administration".

Now you can rationalize all you want for or on the Bush Admin. behavior and motives since 911---But yourself and millions of Bush Loyalist and supporters are floating a slowyl sinking ship.

You know dam well the Bush Admin. are Propagandist and will continue to lie and pander to the American people until the very END.

[bobbylien]

PAD, you can slant, spin, character assinate all you want. The truth be told--you can't trust "The Bush Administration".

Now you can rationalize all you want for or on the Bush Admin. behavior and motives since 911---But yourself and millions of Bush Loyalist and supporters are floating a slowyl sinking ship.

You know dam well the Bush Admin. are Propagandist and will continue to lie and pander to the American people until the very END.

Wow, you actually typed something and didn't just copy/paste. Congrats!

[rastaman]

[attachment=19]

PAD, you can slant, spin, character assinate all you want.??The truth be told--you can't trust "The Bush Administration".

Now you can rationalize all you want for or on the Bush Admin. behavior and motives since 911---But yourself and millions of Bush Loyalist and supporters are floating a slowyl sinking ship.

You know dam well the Bush Admin. are Propagandist and will continue to lie and pander to the American people until the very END.

Wow, you actually typed something and didn't just copy/paste. Congrats!

[rastaman]

PAD, you can slant, spin, character assinate all you want.??The truth be told--you can't trust "The Bush Administration".

Now you can rationalize all you want for or on the Bush Admin. behavior and motives since 911---But yourself and millions of Bush Loyalist and supporters are floating a slowyl sinking ship.

You know dam well the Bush Admin. are Propagandist and will continue to lie and pander to the American people until the very END.

Wow, you actually typed something and didn't just copy/paste. Congrats!


Gee Bobbylien when will you stop posting one liner sound bytes??

I know this is a difficult request---but try using more than 2% of your brain mass. You just might surprise yourself.:P

[Churchel]

There is no U.S. military equivilent to a political officer as existed in the Soviet army, navy, air force or strategic rocket forces.

Absolutely..... none.

BTW, we do have an Iraqi vet here. Just not from this conflict, I did the last one.


I gave you the link so you can read a badly classified pdf, that the military screwed up for a press release. Its up to you to find me wrong then to call me a liar.

Great job going over the first time, I bet we both agree that they are not simillar in any way except for the geography.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Political commissar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A political commissar is an officer appointed by a communist party to oversee a unit of the military. They were first used in the Soviet Union's Red Army by Leon Trotsky, who faced the task of integrating Tsarist officers and troops into the new Red Army, while ensuring their loyalty. The political commissars were appointed by the Communist Party to military units for the purpose of direct political propaganda, and to ensure that Party decisions were implemented. In this system, each unit had a political officer who was not responsible to the normal military chain of command, but instead answered to a separate chain of command within the Communist Party. The purpose of such a system is to ensure the loyalty of army commanders, and to prevent a possible coup d'etat. The political commissar had the authority to override any decision of the military officers, and to remove them from command if necessary. Therefore, sometimes the commissar usurped the functions of a regular military commander, but that was almost never necessary ? the mere presence of a commissar usually meant that military commanders would follow their directives, and the day-to-day duties of the political commissar generally involved only propaganda work and boosting the morale of the troops.

After 1942, the political officials in the army were no longer called commissars, their title becoming politruk, an abbreviation for "political leader" and later zampolit, "deputy of the commander for political work", the change reflecting the level of the authority: zampolit had no rights to interfere with operative orders of a commander. The position was reformed after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. "deputy of the commander for educational work", but is still referred to as zampolit quite often.
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar)

Like I said, the U.S. military has nothing in common with a Soviet era political officer.

There are no officers in any branches that are Democrats or Republicans and ensure that orders from the political party countermand military chain of??command.

Consider this you being proven wrong.

[Old Corps Gunny]

For "Bush propaganda" there seems to be a lot of mid-level and one high-level al Qaeda in Iraq leaders being captured or killed as a result of intelligence gleaned from seized documents and hard drives. As far as this "political military counselor" nonsense, there is no such slot in the table of organization. Orders come from the administration (Commander in Chief to SecDef) to the theater commander, and from him to the various subordinate units. Every officer, and enlisted person, not only has the authority but also a duty to "carry out orders", but it is not done outside the chain of command. The Soviets used that system to ensure to keep an eye on the Soviet armed forces; the zampolit may have held rank, but actually was a member of the KGB. The US doesn't have an equivalent system since every member of the armed forces swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which states the armed forces are subordinate to the Government. This doesn't just mean the President (as the Commander-in-Chief), but includes the Congress as well. Any belief that there is a shadow organization within the military is merely paranoia.