Ignoring reports of poor performance, Fox analyst touted presence of Iraqi forces on Haifa Street
SUMMARY: On Special Report, Fox News' Bret Baier aired a quote by retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales Jr., who uncritically touted military operations on Haifa Street in Baghdad as "evidence of the Iraqi army and the police on the march." But Baier did not mention first-hand accounts of various battles for Haifa Street that indicated that U.S. forces led the fighting, Iraqi forces performed poorly, and residents accused Iraqi forces on Haifa Street of "atrocities."
On the January 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report, during a report on a speech by Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who pledged to take down all "lawbreakers," Fox News military analyst and retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales Jr. uncritically touted military operations on Haifa Street in Baghdad as "evidence of the Iraqi army and the police on the march." Scales stated that Iraqi troops and police "are beginning to move into places like Haifa Street ... trying to capture some of the high value targets," which Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier presented as evidence that the Maliki government is taking the necessary steps to establish security in Baghdad. Baier then reported that "[s]enior administration officials say Prime Minister Maliki is no longer just saying the right things, he's starting to do the right things." But neither Baier nor Scales indicated that they were basing their reports on eyewitness accounts of purported Iraqi troop and police movement, and neither mentioned that, in firsthand accounts of various battles for Haifa Street, The New York Times and CBS News reported that U.S. forces led the fighting, Iraqi forces performed poorly, and residents accused Iraqi forces on Haifa Street of "atrocities."
In a January 25 article, the Times reported that, while Iraqi army units, in Scales' words, "move[d] into places like Haifa Street," U.S. soldiers led in the fighting -- sometimes without the Iraqis:
In a miniature version of the troop increase that the United States hopes will secure the city, American soldiers and armored vehicles raced onto Haifa Street before dawn to dislodge Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias who have been battling for a stretch of ragged slums and mostly abandoned high rises. But as the sun rose, many of the Iraqi Army units who were supposed to do the actual searches of the buildings did not arrive on time, forcing the Americans to start the job on their own.
When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns. As the morning wore on and the troops came under fire from all directions, another apparent flaw in this strategy became clear as empty apartments became lairs for gunmen who flitted from window to window and killed at least one American soldier, with a shot to the head.
Whether the gunfire was coming from Sunni or Shiite insurgents or militia fighters or some of the Iraqi soldiers who had disappeared into the Gotham-like cityscape, no one could say.
"Who the hell is shooting at us?" shouted Sgt. First Class Marc Biletski, whose platoon was jammed into a small room off an alley that was being swept by a sniper's bullets. "Who's shooting at us? Do we know who they are?"
[...]
At one point the Americans were forced to jog alongside the Strykers on Haifa Street, sheltering themselves as best they could from the gunfire. The Americans finally found the Iraqis and ended up accompanying them into an extremely dangerous and exposed warren of low-slung hovels behind the high rises as gunfire rained down.
American officers tried to persuade the Iraqi soldiers to leave the slum area for better cover, but the Iraqis refused to risk crossing a lane that was being raked by machine-gun fire. "It's their show," said Lt. David Stroud, adding that the Americans have orders to defer to the Iraqis in cases like this.
[...]
Ultimately the group made it back to the high rises and escaped the sniper in the alley by throwing out the smoke bombs and sprinting to safety. Even though two Iraqis were struck by gunfire, many of the rest could not stop shouting and guffawing with amusement as they ran through the smoke.
One Iraqi soldier in the alley pointed his rifle at an American reporter and pulled the trigger. There was only a click: the weapon had no ammunition. The soldier laughed at his joke.
As, the Media Channel website noted, in a January 17 online-only CBS News video, chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan reported that Iraqi army forces, in earlier fighting along Haifa Street, not only appeared to be taking heavy casualties, but also, according to residents, "carrying out atrocities":
LOGAN: This is day 12 of the battle between Iraqi forces and Sunni gunmen at war on Haifa Street in the center of Baghdad. It's only a mile and a half away from the heavily fortified Green Zone, yet no one, neither Iraqi nor U.S. forces, has been able to stop it.
"Shame on this government that they can't make one street safe," said this man, who didn't want his face shown. He's one of several security guards at this government building on Haifa Street who are trying to help the Iraqi army.
This mostly Shiite army has already paid a heavy price in the fight, as these gruesome pictures obtained by CBS News show. A group of Iraqi soldiers appear to have been shot multiple times, some at close range to the head.
But the Iraqi army, in turn, is accused by residents on Haifa Street of carrying out atrocities. Other video, obtained by CBS News, shows the bodies of Sunni residents with obvious signs of torture.
Dr. Quarish al-Kasir, a resident who was rescued from his home on Haifa Street by U.S. troops last Saturday, told CBS News that he and his sons had witnessed uniformed Iraqi soldiers executing a group of unarmed men and shooting two women.
KASIR: Then I started to look again from the window -- oh, this is blood; blood coming from the head. My son, younger son, Kim, he started to turn yellow. I say, "OK, go, go, go, go, and sleep."
LOGAN: Another Haifa Street resident, who wouldn't be identified for fear he'd be killed, blamed the fighting on the U.S.
"They told us they would bring democracy. They promised life would be better than it was under Saddam," he said, "but they brought us nothing but death and killing. They brought mass destruction to Baghdad."
LOGAN: Lara Logan, CBS News, Baghdad.
From the January 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: But within hours of the [Maliki] speech, a car bomb tore apart a Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad, killing at least 26 Iraqis. And later, two rockets and several mortars hit near the U.S. embassy in the heavily fortified Green Zone. Five people were wounded, but none seriously, in what one official called the heaviest bombardment there in months.
Senior military officials believe some of the recent increased violence is a direct reaction to an increased crackdown in Baghdad by Iraqi and U.S. troops, even before the full contingent of additional U.S. troops arrives.
SCALES: We're already seeing evidence of the Iraqi army and the police on the march. They're beginning to move into places like Haifa Street and into some of the more contested areas in Sadr City, trying to capture some of the high value targets.
BAIER: Senior administration officials say Prime Minister Maliki is no longer just saying the right things, he's starting to do the right things.
Mission Accomplished!! Of course I'm being facetious, the sad reality is that this type of violence will continue and perhaps even escalate unless American troops leave the country once and for all. That's the bottom line!
Pretty sad,
How many of the little remaining group of war supporters remember that we were going to go in, liberate, and leave peace and democracy behind in a cakewalk?
How many of them thought 3 or 4 years ago that they'd be bragging in 2007 that the military was on main street?
I know when I'm makiing vacation plans, I always look for the place with the most armed soldiers downtown. Now that's what I call Freedom!
No doubt HBL...Someday they are going to find W. sitting on the sidewalk, unshaven, with a half empty bottle of wiskey in his hand, pajama top, shouting 'God damned we made a mess outta that one didn't we!?'He doesn't travel. I do. It's not he who is a disgrace. It's us. All of us. Left and Right. Bad
If you do a search on Fox News military analyst Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, Jr, you will find he like all the Fox News military analysts are making money off the Iraq war as consultants for defense contractors or work for lobbying firms with defense contractors as their clients. Never, never believe a word of what any former military guru says because he has a personal investment in keeping the war going.
I just heard that Melanie Morgan and John Gibson are reporting , that according to Insight.com magazine, the Kucinich Campaign is investigating reports that joint American and Iraqi forces have downed a helicopter containing over two dozen werewolf and zombie insurgents loyal to radical Anti-American Cleric Barak Hussein Obama.
Insight.com has just issued a statement that the original source of their story was a post on Left Wing Smear Web-Site Media Matters for America. They apologize for the misunderstanding, but stand by the verocity of their reports and will continue to do so until the story in thoroughly investigated by the Fair and Balanced Fox News team of Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller, and Pat Robertson.
This is just in... FOX confirms the story!
Sean Hannity is reporting that Barak Hussein Obama has denied the story, thereby confirming the story as absolute gospel truth because evryone knows what liars Obama and the Democrat Party are.
" Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it "
This is pertinent. I recall back in the early 70s, when we were bogged down in Vietnam, the issue was whether to pull out or stay and try to achieve victory, even though there was clearly no tactical answer to how to do that. Those who supported staying and escalating the war, used an agrument that can be applied today if you substitute the place and the enemy.
To wit: " if we withdraw from Vietnam/ Iraq, the communists/ terrorists will take over the world "
Despite what our clueless leader and his closeted Nazi V.P. say, leaving Iraq , in either a phased or all-at-once manner is not going result in a terrorist takeover of the world. What the administration and its band of marionettes fail to understand is that it is our presence in Iraq that fuels much of the violence. Bring our troop home and the insurgents have no easy target to point at and no excuse for fighting.
If the formerly oppressed Shia choose to exact revenge on the Sunnis, that should be dealt with by the Iraqi government. Iraq is not the 51st state, it is a sovreign nation. We must respect that, and let the Iraqis work out their own disputes.
You know, all this time I thought it was Osama Bin Laden who perpetrated 9/11.
U.S. forces in Iraq: something like 120,000.
U.S. forces in Afghanistan, where Osama Bin Laden actually is/was: around 20,000.
This fact alone shows how much of a joke Bush's "war on terror" is. And you are correct in pointing the finger primarily at Dick Cheney for this catastrophe.
" What the administration and its band of marionettes fail to understand is that it is our presence in Iraq that fuels much of the violence. Bring our troop home and the insurgents have no easy target to point at and no excuse for fighting. "
Is that really what you think? Were we in Iraq when Al queda bombed the USS Cole? Were we in Iraq when Al queda bombed the WTC in '93? Were we in Iraq when Al queda bombed the US embassy in '98? Were we in Iraq when Al queda attacked the NYC in '01?
I think what you really mean to say is that you're tired of fighting terrorists and have decided to roll over like a dog and let the enemy kill you. Al queda doesn't care where the US military is, they will continue to attack it and continue to kill innocent civilians until they achieve their goal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda Perhaps you don't even know what their goal is. Or, perhaps you don't worry about being killed by Al queda because you aren't an American or an ally of America and you aren't a civilian or in the military. Therefor don't feel threatened by Al queda. That's gotta be it, because the only other people who don't realize the danger of Al queda are liberals, who seem to think this is just some kind of farce that will all go away when they come down from whatever drug they are on. And, man! You people must have some awfully powerful drugs if that's what you think.
Proud Christian... the mistake you make is assuming the Al Qaida and Iraq were one in the same. This was the spin of the administration to glob all the threats together into one. They inferred to us that the Al Qaida threat was linked to Iraq, thus one of the primary reasons for invading Iraq. The fact is, as stated by the 9-11 commission, that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaida. It's simplistic and naive to continue to make this link in light of what we know now.
Also, you assume that liberals want us to lose in Iraq, that they love Al Qaida, etc. Nothing can be further from the truth. Nobody wants us to lose, but if we create an even bigger problem with clumsy decisions, then the world will turn against us, and we can expect to have worse attacks and bigger problems in the future. And this is the frustration we see today in the US and the rest of the world.
It's more like the Administration has been trying to be "tough" on terror. Well, the problem there is that this is not a boxing match, it's really a chess game. A very complex chess game. And if you make stupid moves, you lose the game. Since Bush and Co. had played a very stupid game of chess, they have created the mess we're in now.
" This was the spin of the administration to glob all the threats together into one. They inferred to us that the Al Qaida threat was linked to Iraq, thus one of the primary reasons for invading Iraq. "
And that shows the mistake you are making. The reasons we went into Iraq were: Remove Saddam AND his ability to create/use WMD's, Iraq's support of terrorist activities (maybe not specifically al queda), persecution of ethnic and other groups not in power. This isn't the complete list of Bush's concerns with Iraq, but are some of the key ones. And you can't deny that ALL the major countries of NATO and many in the UN believed that Saddam had restarted his WMD program. Whether his program was not as far along as originally thought isn't the issue, the issue was that he threatened to use them and had used them in the past. And refused to let inspectors in to find out the truth.
But, if you wish to continue to believe that we went into Iraq to fight al queda and steal Iraq's oil, you go right ahead and believe that.
Well, once again, I see you're a victim of the spin. Bush and Co., as we know today, sought to ignore the intelligence on WMDs they didn't like, and spew the intelligence supporting the WMDs theory. And we know now, of course, there was no WMD threat. On the issue of supporting terrorist, the primary Admin spin was about Al Qaida, which again, turned out to be false. While it was true that other intelligence services believed Saddam had WMDs, no one had the smoking gun. And it is not true that Saddam would not allow inspectors in. Prior to the start of the war, Saddam finally let the inspectors have free reign, as per Bush's demand, but the Admin decided to attack anyway.
You are silly to think I'm the one making the link between Al Qaida and Saddam, that was YOUR post. But I do tend to believe that the war was more about oil than not. You've got to stop watching Fox news, they don't report the news, they spin it up.
" You are silly to think I'm the one making the link between Al Qaida and Saddam, that was YOUR post. "
Did you read something I didn't? Where did I say there was a link between al queda and Iraq? You, also, use the word "administration" as if Bush controlls the entire world. He doesn't. To deny that more countries than just the US had intelligence that showed the potential of WMD's in Iraq is ludicrous. If you think Bush planted all that information (even when it was Clinton's 'administration') just to collect more profits from higher priced oil shows that delusion isn't only in FOX news. BTW, what news organization do YOU recommend I get my information from? Is there one you trust that I can glean info from so I can continue to debunk your theories?
I won't try to argue points with you anymore, as you a clearly dilusional. Of course, being a "proud Christian" then certainly only YOU can be correct, as God told you what to believe, and anyone else's opinion must be from Satan or Allah. Also you need to read my posts more carefully, because you seem to be putting words in my mouth. But just to put the record straight, I would say that Bush and Co. have behaved in a most unChristian like manner. I would say on the whole you haven't debunked anything other than your reputation.
" the mistake you make is assuming the Al Qaida and Iraq were one in the same. "
" Well, the problem there is that this is not a boxing match, it's really a chess game. "
" I won't try to argue points with you anymore, as you a clearly dilusional. "
Of course you won't argue points with me anymore. You have been wrong with each one you tried before and now you're frustrated because I have shown you that. You claimed I ass/u/me the link between al queda and Iraq, but failed to back it up with staements that I made. I am not proud that you are wrong, I'm just trying to help you understand your mis-statements so you can learn from your mistakes.
So, while the problem is clearly the fact that you acknowledged that the rest of the world came to the same conclussion about WMD's you say Bush didn't have the 'smoking gun' to uphold his reason for attacking. You are following the common tactic of the liberal ('if I'm wrong I'll leave enough excuses to show I'm right'). You call the war we are in a "game" and say liberals don't want the US to lose and prefer we pull out of Iraq. But, give yourself an 'out' by saying that if we don't pull out quick enough then the US may still be attacked by al queda. So, if we stay we are the evil empire going after the poor countries oil (your belief), if we leave then al queda will still attack us because we made a mess of things (your belief) all the while this war on terror is a game to you (your belief). And to top things off, I ask for a news reference for the future and you can't (won't) provide one. Then to end it all, revert to the common liberal practice of calling people names when you lose your arguements. There are so many that do that, it's almost funny and too predictable.
Proud-Christian?
Proud of what? Your ability to spew asinine talking points? Do you really believe any of the crap you just posted? I certainly hope not. That tired old "We weren't in Iraq when 9/11 happened" is the most idiotic thing Bush has uttered, and that's saying a lot. The absolute fallacy of the logic, or lack thereof, inherent in that sentence is profound. It is a sinister, pathetic attempt to distract the public from the abject stupidity of this administration's foreign policy. I know it works on Bush's drooling knuckledragging base, but they won't abandon him unless he's caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
The majority of the funding for Al Queda tracks back to Saudi Arabia. So, why aren't we blowing their palaces up?
Hint: Maybe it has something to do with the Caryle Group.
" Caryle Group " (sp?)
That's a new one from you conspiracy theorists. I thought you all believed the illuminati were behind everything. Of course, remember if you think Bush and/or his cronies are behind all of this for their own gain, then you must admit he is the smartest/most powerful man on earth. Are you ready to admit that? If not then your point is worthless...albeit fun to read
Watcher Il posted:
" Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it "
This is pertinent. I recall back in the early 70s, when we were bogged down in Vietnam, the issue was whether to pull out or stay and try to achieve victory, even though there was clearly no tactical answer to how to do that. Those who supported staying and escalating the war, used an agrument that can be applied today if you substitute the place and the enemy.
To wit: " if we withdraw from Vietnam/ Iraq, the communists/ terrorists will take over the world "
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I guess Cambodia (you could make the argument they fell before SV, but the tide was nigh...), Laos, Ethiopia, Guinea, Madagascar, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, Afghanistan, Grenada and Nicaragua didn't count? Indochina would have probably fell at the time, but due to our involvement in SV it gave those governments time to bolster their defenses.
Add to that left wing terrorist attacks in Europe (France, Italy, West Germany and Belgium) and in Latin America all can be attributed to Communist and Marxist regimes after the fall (exception Cambodia) of SV.
Proud Christian you have swallowed some bald face lies about liberals. We want Al-Qaeda defeated as much as you do. Its how Bush and co. are going about it that has me alarmed. We want victory in Iraq as well. I dont believe you have a realistic understanding of possible outcomes. The military is extremely limited in what it can achieve. At this point we are supporting Shias in ethnic cleansing of certain neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are now sectarian fault lines, the table is set for years of violence. We are putting pressure on the govt to reign in the Shia death squads, but I am sure you read the daily reports so you know how well that is going. I could even support Casey's plan to draw down, exhibit lower profile, and target the more extreme, violent groups.
There are 4 million Sunnis in Anbar province. They have 80% support of the population- as per a marine counter-insurgency expert an insurgency needs 40% support to succeed. The Sunni insurgents merely have to play spoiler. They dont have to confront us militarily, they know they would lose. They have effectively played spoiler for 4 years now. They can continue ad naseum. This civil war will continue for 5,10, maybe 15 years experts are saying. The players will need to exhaust themselves as the Lebanese did 2 decades ago.
The chances of me being killed by Al-Qaeda is nil. You should be ashamed. Al-Qaeda has achieved its goal if you think like this. The Taleban and Al-Qaeda are gathering for a spring offensive in Afghan we should be surging there, where incidently the generals are calling for reinforcements.
There are many christians and not much Christianity it seems to me.
" We are putting pressure on the govt to reign in the Shia death squads, but I am sure you read the daily reports so you know how well that is going. "
And that's why this article is appearing on mmfa to begin with? Read what your 'daily reports' are telling people: "When the Iraqi units finally did show up, it was with the air of a class outing, cheering and laughing as the Americans blew locks off doors with shotguns." . Thank you liberal news corp for keeping the American people well informed on events in Iraq. I just wish they would keep their beliefs out of it (air of a class outing). Your liberal news is saying we are failing in Iraq, and it seems that you believe them. I, on the other hand, am an optimist. I believe we CAN win this war on terror and it won't be by leaving Iraq to fend for themselves and hope that al queda doesn't ever attack the US again.
PC I don't really want to argue with you, since having delt with you in the past I know you are sssooo PROUD that even God could not make you change your mind about anything.
All I want to do is provide the chance to learn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
My favorite quote:
"We think that military intervention would be the worst possible solution". -Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, January 20 2003
(hhhmmmm, perhaps those "traitorious" French were actually the smart ones?)
Here is a source about Iraq's WMD programs, I especially like what Carl Levin (From the great state of Michigan, can you tell I live there?) had to say on the issue.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/06/iraq.wmd.report/
"But Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the committee, said 1,750 experts have visited 1,200 potential WMD sites and have come up empty-handed.
"It is important to emphasize that central fact because the administration's case for going to war against Iraq rested on the twin arguments that Saddam Hussein had existing stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that he might give weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda to attack us -- as al Qaeda had attacked us on 9/11," Levin said."
I think its important that you understand, liberals want this war to go well too. We just don't like how its being done and all the evidence is showing us we are right. In my opinion we should be sending Iraqi forces through intensive training, so that we can one day leave. Also make sure Iraq has a decent education system, that would also help reduce violence.
(also reduce the fraud and under the table deals by US companies, it sort of make us look bad ("Hey look its a US citizen, that's the country where the Vice President's old company can get no-bid contracts and not do the work they are contracted to do, but still get paid!" "Hey lets set up a system like that!")
PC I recommend you read John Burns and Sabrina Tavarise (sp?) as well as the excellent multimedia reports on NYT. The NYT documents numerous instances of quiet heroism by our troops and daily sacrifice. Try to see the forest through the trees. You seem hyper-vigilante for any bias. However the NYT reports reality, the forest if you will. The piece documents Iraqi soldiers skipping searches, arriving late, disappearing, rifling through CDs, laughing- you dont want to call it class outing fine with me. The reports are usually written with great detachement, although Sabrina recently noted how many of her contacts are now dead or in another country. John Burns (recalling his interview this summer on Bill Maher)and Sabrina Tavarise have written and spoken about having "great hope" for Iraq.
I believe we are being weakened while we are in Iraq. We are formenting militant Islam there, not reducing it. It is time we draw down, exhibit low profile. The Shias are refusing to bargain with the Sunnis. We are providing the Shias an unnaturally strong position by fighting the lion share of the Sunni insurgency in Anbar province. The Sunnis believe they can topple the govt. Both beliefs are flawed. It is going to take years before either side realizes that, longer if we continue our present strategy.
What is alarming is that the moderates and professionals have left the country. Most of the doctors, engineers, teachers and business men who were suppose to help establish democracy in Iraq are refugees in other countries. They are gone along with 2 million other Iraqis. Iraq is left with extremist and moderates who have become extremists.
I do not base my opinions on the NYT alone. You should note that the media you read has you convinced that we can win. You should be skeptical and vigilant of their reports as well. It is obvious to me that this insurgency will not be defeated unless we can come up with several hundred thousand troops. Even then it would take years. We spend 2 billion dollars a week in Iraq. It is off budget outlay, meaning that we are not even paying for it. Our children will be paying for it.
Correction On False Post:
BLR Posted this Wrong Info. :
“The fact that Carter has been cowed into apologizing for his book is proof that this country is worse off than you think it is. It's very sad.” -
BLR / Thursday January 25, 2007
TRUTH IS:
Former President Jimmy Carter fully supports his Book. In the whole of the book, Carter decided to take one sentence out that he’s agreed should be edited out. Carter is 100% behind his book and his efforts to promote peace in that region.
He was not Cowed to apologize for his book. He stands totally behind the whole book. However, the Carter attackers are still against the man who has done more to promote peace in the region than any other President. I know Carter is better at achieving peace than the war hungry GWB. Carter is the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate of 2002. They should award a War Mongering Prize to you know who.
In My Reply to B.L.R. I Said:
OK....You said it, so now you have the burden of truth. If you can’t prove he apologized for his book, then I will think of you as a :
B.L.R. <=> Bad Lying Republican’t
I have been waiting but I haven’t heard from BLR?
- U.S.-backed Iraqi troops on Sunday attacked insurgents allegedly plotting to kill pilgrims at a major Shiite Muslim religious festival, and an Iraqi official estimated some 300 militants died in the daylong battle near Najaf.
Some 300 militants were killed in the Najaf fighting, along with five Iraqi security forces, a provincial spokesman said Monday, citing reports from officers at the site. The figure could not be independently confirmed.
Authorities said Iraqi soldiers supported by U.S. aircraft fought all day with a large group of insurgents in the Zaraq area, about 12 miles northeast of the Shiite holy city of Najaf. - from the AP on Jan 29.