Sunday, August 31, 2008

Occupation Iraq: Bush Ignored Commanders On Ground

And, according to the New York Times' resident propagandist, he WON the WAR because of it. I told you that was going to be narrative for the next five months!!!!

Oh, I won't miss paying a buck for shit-shoveling propaganda, readers, not at all. I'll be LESS ANGRY here from now on because I won't be reading and purchasing lies every day.

"Doubt, debate preceded 'surge'; Bush move at odds with initial advice" by Michael R. Gordon, New York Times News Service | August 31, 2008

WASHINGTON - In January 2007, at a time when the situation in Iraq appeared the bleakest, Bush chose a bold option that was at odds with what many of his civilian and military advisers, including his field commander, initially recommended.

Translation: When Bush says he'll let the commanders on the ground decide, HE LIED AGAIN!!!!!!!

Bush's plan to send more than 20,000 troops to carry out a new counterinsurgency strategy has helped to reverse the spiral of sectarian killings in Iraq.

Well, if you are the ones CARRYING OUT the FALSE FLAGS and you STOP, yeah, I guess you would have won the war!!!!

See Occupation Iraq: Saturday Shit Shovel and associated links.

But Bush's penchant to defer to commanders in the field and to a powerful defense secretary delayed the development of a new approach until conditions in Iraq, in the words of a November 2006 analysis by the CIA, resembled anarchy and "civil war."

When the White House began its formal review of Iraq strategy that month, the Pentagon favored a stepped-up effort to transfer responsibility to Iraqi forces that would have facilitated American troop cuts.