Four Years after "Mission Accomplished", Bloodshed Continues in Iraq

Four years after US tanks rolled into Baghdad, only military vehicles cruised the streets of the capital on Monday as the authorities tried to prevent insurgents marking the anniversary with deadly car-bomb attacks.

Thousands of supporters of Iraq's radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr were set to stage a massive rally to demand US soldiers leave the country in the central city of Najaf.

Despite a massive US and Iraqi security operation launched eight weeks ago in Baghdad to stem sectarian violence and insurgent attacks, the daily bloodshed shows no let-up, with at least 23 people killed in attacks including car bombings on Sunday, the eve of the anniversary.

The threat of car-bomb attacks, which have killed thousands in the capital alone over the past year, prompted authorities to impose a 24-hour vehicle ban in Baghdad beginning Monday morning when the night curfew lifts.




MORE:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/ ... s_in_iraq/

A clarification from Bush's new mouth piece on the meaning of that "mission accomplished" banner.

White House: We 'paid price' for 'Mission Accomplished'


If "half ass" is an accomplishment, then Bush did his job.

When it comes to being an ass, the War Chimp has never done anything in half measures, he's all ass, all the way.

this will be 1 of the top liabilities for mcsame in november.

4000 dead american troops since his maniacal declaration.

most voters will repudiate the chimp on this issue.

Ho-Hum....here comes another EX-commander saying what we knew all along. Too bad he and all those other EX this or EX that didn't have the balls to say this when it would've actually had an impact.

EX-COMMANDER IN CHIEF ACCUSES BUSH OF GROSS INCOMPETENCE

LOVE THE COMMENTS, ESPECIALLY THIS ONE:

It's interesting that Ricardo Sanchez was released from his duties after being involved with "... authorizing harsh tactics for the treatment of Iraqi prisoners."

You mean BushCo have their limits? I thought it was "all good"? And what has all those harsh tactics done years later to help end the war?

He was released as the scapegoat for the harsh treatment. The real reason was he told them he was no longer 100% committed to supporting an obviously flawed occupation. (They were out of their f***ing minds.)

Bush Reveals True Reason for War in Push for Iraqi Agreement

BY BENNET KELLEY

For five years the Bush administration has played wack-a-mole with the American people as to why we are in Iraq, with a new justification quickly spawning after the hollow core of the prior position was exposed. WMD's was followed by fighting Al Qaeda and ultimately bringing democracy to the Middle East. Last week the proverbial mole may have met his maker and exposed the true reason over a million Americans have been put in harm's way.

In May 2004, President Bush explained that our mission in Iraq was "to see the Iraqi people in charge of Iraq for the first time in generations." A week into his second term, Bush said he would "absolutely" honor any request for withdrawal of U.S. troops by a sovereign Iraqi government, only to then ignore multiple request over the next three years and polls showing near unanimous support among Iraqi's for a timeline for withdrawal.

All this was laid bare this month as the Iraqi government went on the offensive in its call for U.S. withdrawal by 2010. Far from embracing the desires of a sovereign Iraq, the White House instead feebly attempted to claim Prime Minister Maliki's statement was mistranslated, while the McCain camp argued that Iraqi's really want the U.S. to stay until 2020. Apparently their view of a "free Iraq" is an Iraq that is free to do what we tell them to do.

The Iraqi demand for a deadline for withdrawal of U.S. troops comes in the context of ongoing negotiations with the U.S. over a Status of Forces (SoF) Agreement in which the White House is seeking to define its legacy through (i) an indefinite occupation; (ii) more than 50 permanent bases (including five mega-bases); (iii) the unlimited ability to pursue the "war on terror" in Iraq (including ability to arrest Iraqis without consulting government); (iv) control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000 feet; (v) supervision of Iraq's defense, interior and national security ministries for ten years; and (vi) immunity for U.S. forces and contractors. In addition, the U.S. wants the right to unilaterally determine whether an act by another country (i.e., Iran) constitutes a "threat" to Iraq and respond as it deems fit in order to "protect" Iraq.

The Iraqi's have rejected this invitation to be an American colony as "arrogant" and an affront to their sovereignty, but the White House is playing hardball and recently cost the Iraqi's $5 billion by blocking the transfer of certain Iraqi currency reserves out of the declining dollar.