Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Here's a copy of the story ABC pulled: At least 50,000 troops in Iraq for 10 years

Raw Story reports:

ABC News has apparently pulled a [Martha Raddatz] story alleging that they had discovered US plans to keep troops in Iraq beyond 2009.

The story, posted around 8 pm Friday, was gone by Saturday morning. The link listed in Google News now takes a user to a default page not found.

"You've requested an ABCNews.com page that does not exist," the page says.

But before ABC killed it, the Freepers quoted it [DCOW]:

Plan one, which officials say Odierno is pushing, calls for a reduction in troops from roughly 150,000 today to 100,000 by December 2008.

Petraeus champions a slightly different approach that would cut the troops down to roughly 130,000 by the end of 2008, with further reductions the following year.

There is also discussion of how long U.S. troops will remain in Iraq. ...

A senior official said one long-term plan would have 30,000 to 50,000 U.S. forces in Iraq for five to 10 years beyond 2009.

But although Google's cache didn't have the story, Yahoo still had a link. Here it is:

abc_story

(Found at http://abcnews.go.com/WN/IraqCoverage/story?
id=3236822&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
.)

Good to know, 'cause somehow I'd gotten the idea that something meaningful was going to happen in September.

NOTE And I'm sure that a sudden Saturday terror story has absolutely nothing to do with keeping this off the Sunday talkshows.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

I see the article just fine.

Technical error or vast conspiracy?

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

When first we practise to deceive! *

All very upsetting, enough to piss off a saint. Couple of things, though. Even if these are plans, or thoughts about plans, or whatever it is this administration does instead of actual planning, the one thing you can count on is that they will screw it all up. On the other hand, again judging by past behavior, these are probably lies. This is the political equivalent of Three Card Monte; throw out canard after canard and move them around and around until everyone gets completely confused and exhausted and looses interest, the same con game front they’ve been playing from the very beginning.

The problem for this collection of shysters is that they’ve played the same con too many times. Turns out war is one of those things you can’t just wing, something that apparently hasn’t dawned on this bunch. They still believe that if they just string it out a little longer they can pull it out, make such a huge complicated mess that no one could ever sort it out. Because that was the original concept, to create war without end, and what better place than the Middle East? It isn’t about the oil, that’s just another feint. The objective is endless war, that’s why Afghanistan was half-assed and left unfinished, why bin Laden was allowed to slip off into Waziristan, why they drove hell or high water into the hornet’s nest that is Iraq, because these people believe that come what may they can use fright to manipulate the populace into keeping them in power. They’ve worked hard to make such a big mess that even if Democrats get into office they won’t be able to hold it for long because the relentless slaughter and terrorism will drive voters back to the Republicans, the Party of War.

When the rest of us read Orwell's 1984 we saw it as a cautionary tale; Karl Rove read it and saw a blueprint, a set of directions. Good news is he's not as smart as he thinks he is; criminals never are. Also there are still some decent people in government who will leak enough information to run these villains to ground. Other good thing is there are plenty of minor characters like Goodling who will rat the big players out to save their own corrupt butts. Everyone seems to have a favorite “Most Important Thing That Must Be Done First” so here’s mine: crank up the Congressional investigations and get as much on the record as possible. That way, IF a Democrat wins the Presidency we can clean out the riffraff in Justice, set up a RICO squad and put the miserable slimeballs in prison where they belong.

Investigations and the Presidency are the priorities, #1 and #2; everything else is secondary, and that’s a tough one to swallow but it’s true. Take care of those two and civil liberties, the war, health care, global warming, equitable taxation and all the rest can be cleaned up later. Fail and it will be endless war under an endless authoritarian theocracy, on and on until the end of time.

* Sir Walter Scott; Marmion, Canto Sixth, Stanza XVII, Lines 532-33

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

If the press of today publishing daily war losses on the front page moved back to February, 1945 like the press of that day in the middle of WWII they would feature daily wounded and dead articles such as these:

"Marines are quagmired on this 8 square mile island. They lost 28,000 killed and wounded in only 34 days of combat in this bloodbath--28000 of a total of 70,000 marines."
That would have been a morale destroyer for the anxious mothers back home. Those 34 days left twice as many killed and wounded as in four years of combat in the Middle East. Back then we simply didn't obsess about it, so civilian morale stayed high and we went on to win the war.

hobson's picture
Submitted by hobson on

How bout this from Jim Lobe here

Indeed, confirmation by his spokesman, Tony Snow, this week that Bush favours a "Korean model" for Iraq where Washington would provide "a security presence" and serve as a "force of stability (for) a long time" spurred new questions about the administration's aims in Iraq and whether they indeed included a permanent military presence.

I see this as a real problem for the Dems in the future. I think Roveco see a Dem winning in 2008. With a Dem Congress, Iraq becomes their war. We know there is no "good" outcome for Iraq over the next few years without enormous changes in US policy. The Israeli/Palistinian conflict does not bode well for a peaceful solution.

So, as with Vietnam, Somalia, Serbia and Iraq itself, the Dems are left with a mess that will leave them open to Repug attack. Casualties will no longer be forbidden material for the right. The deterioration of the armed forces will be the Dems' fault. Any bad outcome in Iraq will belong to them. "If only they had not opposed Bush's policies." And the press will mostly go along with it.

Some Dem haters among the left may not care. I don't see a resurgence among the Repugs after 2008 as working to the left's advantage. If there is timidity among the Dems, and they are still tied to the interests of the rich, being under constant attack as the party in power is not going to embolden them to be more progressive.