Bush administration will delay major assaults until after U.S. elections

White House plans delay of major assaults in Iraq

Bush administration officials don't want to jeopardize election


By Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will delay major assaults on
rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections next month, say
administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives could
affect the U.S. presidential race.
Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in
insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and
Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallujah
and Ramadi -- where insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military
casualties could be the greatest -- until after Americans vote in what is
likely to be a close election. "When this election's over, you'll see us
move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in
strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.
http://www.dailyreviewonline.com/Sto...460141,00.html

UK INDEPENDENT: by Patrick Cockburn

"American generals in Iraq triumphantly announced at the weekend that they
had successfully taken over Samarra and killed 125 insurgents. They failed
to mention that this is the third time they have captured this particular
city on the Tigris river north of Baghdad in the past 18 months.

The campaign to eliminate the no-go areas under rebel control in Iraq is
getting into full swing. Fallujah is being bombed every night and may soon
be subjected to ground assault. Najaf was recaptured from Shia militiamen in
August and much of the city is in ruins.

The current US military campaign is very much geared to getting President
George Bush reelected to the White House in November. The aim of the bombing
is to prove to American voters that their army is on the offensive, but
without substantially increasing US casualties.

The situation on the ground in Iraq is far worse than what is portrayed by
the media. Ironically, this is because it is now so
dangerous for journalists and television crews to leave their heavily
guarded hotels in Baghdad that they cannot refute claims by the
American and British governments that much of Iraq is safe.

Nothing could be more untrue. I have spent most of the past year-and-a-half
travelling in Iraq, and I have never known it so bad.
The roads all around Baghdad are cut by insurgents. At Mahmoudiyah, just
south of the capital, rebels in black masks felt confident enough last week
to establish a checkpoint on the main road to Najaf.

In Baghdad, US planes regularly bomb Sadr City, home to two million out of
the capital's five million people. Haifa Street, a resistance bastion 400
yards from the Green Zone where American generals give relentlessly upbeat
briefings, can only be entered by US heavy armour supported by
helicopters...."

jasmine

"jasmine" <> wrote in message
news:ckg7ad$eru$...
> White House plans delay of major assaults in Iraq
>
> Bush administration officials don't want to jeopardize election
>
>
> By Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times
>
> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will delay major assaults on
> rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections next month, say
> administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives
could
> affect the U.S. presidential race.
> Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes
in
> insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and
> Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake cities such as Fallujah
> and Ramadi -- where insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military
> casualties could be the greatest -- until after Americans vote in what is
> likely to be a close election. "When this election's over, you'll see us
> move very vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in
> strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.
> http://www.dailyreviewonline.com/Sto...460141,00.html
>
> UK INDEPENDENT: by Patrick Cockburn
Patrick Cockburn who wrote this article (on the Independent web site) is an
Irish journalist who has been a Middle East correspondent for the Financial
Times and the Independent since 1979. Among the most experienced
commentators on Iraq, he was one of the few journalist to remain in Baghdad
during the first Gulf War. He is based in Jerusalem as a correspondent for
the Independent, and has been filing reports on the US-led occupation of
Iraq.

>
> "American generals in Iraq triumphantly announced at the weekend that they
> had successfully taken over Samarra and killed 125 insurgents. They failed
> to mention that this is the third time they have captured this particular
> city on the Tigris river north of Baghdad in the past 18 months.
>
> The campaign to eliminate the no-go areas under rebel control in Iraq is
> getting into full swing. Fallujah is being bombed every night and may soon
> be subjected to ground assault. Najaf was recaptured from Shia militiamen
in
> August and much of the city is in ruins.
>
> The current US military campaign is very much geared to getting President
> George Bush reelected to the White House in November. The aim of the
bombing
> is to prove to American voters that their army is on the offensive, but
> without substantially increasing US casualties.
>
> The situation on the ground in Iraq is far worse than what is portrayed by
> the media. Ironically, this is because it is now so
> dangerous for journalists and television crews to leave their heavily
> guarded hotels in Baghdad that they cannot refute claims by the
> American and British governments that much of Iraq is safe.
>
> Nothing could be more untrue. I have spent most of the past
year-and-a-half
> travelling in Iraq, and I have never known it so bad.
> The roads all around Baghdad are cut by insurgents. At Mahmoudiyah, just
> south of the capital, rebels in black masks felt confident enough last
week
> to establish a checkpoint on the main road to Najaf.
>
> In Baghdad, US planes regularly bomb Sadr City, home to two million out of
> the capital's five million people. Haifa Street, a resistance bastion 400
> yards from the Green Zone where American generals give relentlessly upbeat
> briefings, can only be entered by US heavy armour supported by
> helicopters...."
>
>
>
>

jasmine

"jasmine" <> wrote in message
news:ckg7ad$eru$...
> White House plans delay of major assaults in Iraq
>
> Bush administration officials don't want to jeopardize election

I certainly appreciate your concern, but posting this kind of propaganda
to newsgroups won't change the situation. At one time, I was
disgustingly hopeful and optimistic, assuming that exposing wrongs could
turn things around. We all know that the war in Iraq is going from bad
to worse and that the next targets are likely to be Iran and Syria.

With troops already stretched thin, reinstatement of the draft is a near
certainty. The only reason that there have not been any major protests
about the war in Iraq is because all of the armed service personnel
voluntarily joined up. All of this will change once the draft is
reinstated. We have also been reassured that even though no weapons of
mass destruction were found in Iraq and even though there was no
connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, the destruction of Iraq has made
the world safer.

> By Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times
> WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will delay major assaults
> on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections next month,
> say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military
> offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.

You have fallen victim to media propaganda. Notice that this quote does
not entertain the notion that President Bush will be defeated in the
upcoming election. No. It indicates that AFTER Bush is reelected (or
perhaps re-appointed, since he was never elected in the first place),
the war in Iraq will begin in earnest.

> "When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said
> one senior administration official involved in strategic planning,
> speaking on condition of anonymity.

Is this what John Kerry has said he will do, should he be placed in
office? No. Once again, the article indicates that Bush will "win" the
election. The entire system is currently geared for another four years
of the Bush administration. There is too much at stake to have it go any
other way. The American people will cast their ballots, and in all
likelihood, Bush will be our next president. As we have seen before,
there is more to winning an election than just getting the most votes.

"I hear there's rumors on the Internets we're going to have a draft,"
Bush said. "We're not going to have a draft -- period. The all-volunteer
Army works."

And we all know that Bush never lies.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-deb10.html

>
>
> Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent
> successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar,
> administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake
> cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi -- where insurgents' grip is
> strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the greatest -- until
after
> Americans vote in what is likely to be a close election. "When this
> election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior
> administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on
> condition of anonymity.
>
http://www.dailyreviewonline.com/Sto...460141,00.html

One-Shot Scot

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:30:15 +1300, "jasmine"
<> wrote:

>Patrick Cockburn who wrote this article (on the Independent web site) is an
>Irish journalist who has been a Middle East correspondent for the Financial
>Times and the Independent since 1979.

The Independent is the most left wing press in UK and the Financial
Times has lost all credibility.

vonroach

"One-Shot Scot" <> wrote in message
news:6P-dnf4ePabOdvbcRVn-...
> "jasmine" <> wrote in message
> news:ckg7ad$eru$...
> > White House plans delay of major assaults in Iraq
> >
> > Bush administration officials don't want to jeopardize election
>
> I certainly appreciate your concern, but posting this kind of propaganda
> to newsgroups won't change the situation.

By "propaganda", you are positing that the post of the LA Times and
Independent (2 quite reputable papers) is wrong? Albeit they do get it wrong
and do write quite pro government big business "spin" ( a much nicer word).

At one time, I was
> disgustingly hopeful and optimistic, assuming that exposing wrongs could
> turn things around. We all know that the war in Iraq is going from bad
> to worse and that the next targets are likely to be Iran and Syria.
>
> With troops already stretched thin, reinstatement of the draft is a near
> certainty. The only reason that there have not been any major protests
> about the war in Iraq is because all of the armed service personnel
> voluntarily joined up. All of this will change once the draft is
> reinstated.

Yes..and watch the country explode into a situation that will make 1969-70
look like a birthday party.

We have also been reassured that even though no weapons of
> mass destruction were found in Iraq and even though there was no
> connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, the destruction of Iraq has made
> the world safer.

and as we can see it increased terrorism. and placed terrorists in a country
that were not in before..with many willing and able to join the ranks where
there were not before.


>
> > By Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times
> > WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will delay major assaults
> > on rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections next month,
> > say administration officials, mindful that large-scale military
> > offensives could affect the U.S. presidential race.
>
> You have fallen victim to media propaganda. Notice that this quote does
> not entertain the notion that President Bush will be defeated in the
> upcoming election. No. It indicates that AFTER Bush is reelected (or
> perhaps re-appointed, since he was never elected in the first place),
> the war in Iraq will begin i nearnest.
>
> > "When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said
> > one senior administration official involved in strategic planning,
> > speaking on condition of anonymity.
>
> Is this what John Kerry has said he will do, should he be placed in
> office? No. Once again, the article indicates that Bush will "win" the
> election. The entire system is currently geared for another four years
> of the Bush administration. There is too much at stake to have it go any
> other way. The American people will cast their ballots, and in all
> likelihood, Bush will be our next president. As we have seen before,
> there is more to winning an election than just getting the most votes.
>
> "I hear there's rumors on the Internets we're going to have a draft,"
> Bush said. "We're not going to have a draft -- period. The all-volunteer
> Army works."
>
> And we all know that Bush never lies.
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-deb10.html
>
> >
> >
> > Although American commanders in Iraq have been buoyed by recent
> > successes in insurgent-held towns such as Samarra and Tall Afar,
> > administration and Pentagon officials say they will not try to retake
> > cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi -- where insurgents' grip is
> > strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the greatest -- until
> after
> > Americans vote in what is likely to be a close election. "When this
> > election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously," said one senior
> > administration official involved in strategic planning, speaking on
> > condition of anonymity.
> >
> http://www.dailyreviewonline.com/Sto...460141,00.html
>
>

jasmine

"vonroach" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 22:30:15 +1300, "jasmine"
> <> wrote:
>
> >Patrick Cockburn who wrote this article (on the Independent web site) is
an
> >Irish journalist who has been a Middle East correspondent for the
Financial
> >Times and the Independent since 1979.
>
> The Independent is the most left wing press in UK and the Financial
> Times has lost all credibility.


Neither is true, but then you do define a troll.


>

jasmine

"jasmine" <> wrote in message
news:ckhbf9$84p$...
>
> "One-Shot Scot" <> wrote in message
> news:6P-dnf4ePabOdvbcRVn-...
> > "jasmine" <> wrote in message
> > news:ckg7ad$eru$...

> I certainly appreciate your concern, but posting this kind of
> propaganda to newsgroups won't change the situation.

<<By "propaganda", you are positing that the post of the LA Times and
Independent (2 quite reputable papers) is wrong? Albeit they do get it
wrong and do write quite pro government big business "spin" ( a much
nicer word).>>

I have taken issue only with the LA Times article, and only with these
two sentences:

1. "The Bush administration will delay major assaults on rebel-held
cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections next month..."

What exactly does this statement mean? If Bush loses the election in
November, he will intensify his reign of terror in Iraq during the two
months he has left in office?

Or, after Bush is elected (or re-appointed by the Supreme Court) in
November, he will intensify his reign of terror in Iraq for the next
four years?

I think the LA Times is predicting that Bush will win the election and
keep the war going indefinitely. After all, if Bush could rig the last
election so successfully, there is no reason why he can't just as easily
rig the next one, as well.

And all of the phony polls showing a dead heat between Bush and Kerry
are part of the plan. It's a lot easier to rig a close election than it
is to rig a lopsided one in which the pre-decided winner has very few
votes. After all, the phony vote tallies have to resemble the previous
week's phony polls in order to give the election result some
credibility.

Of course, the final count can be manipulated by skewing the electronic
votes and destroying, losing or disqualifying the paper ballots. Bush
could actually win by a landslide.

2. " "When this election's over, you'll see us move very vigorously,"
said one senior administration official involved in strategic planning,
speaking on condition of anonymity."

Same comments as above.


*** *** ***

By Mark Mazzetti, Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration will delay major assaults on
rebel-held cities in Iraq until after U.S. elections next month, say
administration officials, mindful that large-scale military offensives
could affect the U.S. presidential race. Although American commanders in
Iraq have been buoyed by recent successes in insurgent-held towns such
as Samarra and Tall Afar, administration and Pentagon officials say they
will not try to retake cities such as Fallujah and Ramadi -- where
insurgents' grip is strongest and U.S. military casualties could be the
greatest -- until after Americans vote in what is likely to be a close
election. "When this election's over, you'll see us move very
vigorously," said one senior administration official involved in
strategic planning, speaking on condition of anonymity.
http://www.dailyreviewonline.com/Sto...460141,00.html

One-Shot Scot

Ya think??

Maverick Dude

> and as we can see it increased terrorism. and placed terrorists in a
> country
> that were not in before..with many willing and able to join the ranks
> where
> there were not before.

Better there than in the US. Don't you realize that the war in Iraq is
causing us to fight the terrorist on their turf and not on ours? Iraq has
become a fly trap for terrorist. The Bush administration is obviously doing
something right since there has not been another terrorist attack in the
United States since 9-11.


--
RnR Lesnar
It's True, It's True- Kurt Angle
Bush/Cheney 2004

RnR Lesnar

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:01:43 -0500, "RnR Lesnar"
<> wrote:

>
>
>> and as we can see it increased terrorism. and placed terrorists in a
>> country
>> that were not in before..with many willing and able to join the ranks
>> where
>> there were not before.
>
>Better there than in the US. Don't you realize that the war in Iraq is
>causing us to fight the terrorist on their turf and not on ours? Iraq has
>become a fly trap for terrorist. The Bush administration is obviously doing
>something right since there has not been another terrorist attack in the
>United States since 9-11.

Bin Laden was supposedly claiming throughout his organization that
US would not have the guts to go to full-scale war after terrorist
attack, that Americans were corrupt and cowardly.

Well, he obviously was wrong. The jihadis got the message - "don't
you dare any more such stuff or else..."

Now they don't dare to attack outside "lands of Islam" unless for the
goal where they can gain more than they lose: like the attack just
before elections in Spain, when the expected gain exceeded probable
losses.

Terrorism is "warfare style of the weak": there is a method and a goal
in the warfare. It's not some "insanity".


---
It didn't require strong character at all
in our refusal, disagreement and stubborness
granted, we had a bit of necessary courage
but all things considered it was a matter of taste
Yes, taste
in which there are fibers of soul and the cartilage
of conscience

bulba@bulba.com