Comments on: $1B In Military Equipment Missing In Iraq

Exclusive: Report Shows Vehicles, Machine Guns And More Meant For Iraqi Forces Unaccounted For

[mrconservatv]

A limited hangout is a form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality by withholding key facts is protecting a deeper crime and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out.

A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.

Victor Marchetti wrote: "A ''limited hangout'' is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting - sometimes even volunteering - some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further."[1]

[underdogus]

are safely at home. Let me ask you this - if Bush''''s Iraq War is so noble, why aren''''t you lobbying your government to send Brazilian troops to help the fight? Posted by hungry1968 at 12:57 PM : Dec 07, 2007
yeah baggie pants are ya to busy playing soccer!!

[superdem]

The Pentagon''s Inspector General reported these loses, and still we have right wingers doubting that these things are true. I suppose the IG at the Pentagon''s a flaming leftie who hates America. And still we get right wingers laying the deaths of thousands of Americans at the liberals'' door, because we "encourage the terrorists." You people are SO SICK you need therapy. The more we tell you the truth, the more you retreat into your red, white and blue fantasyland. It''s Bush who''s lying to you ! It''s the Generals he controls who are lying to you ! Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 ! They never had nuclear weapons ! They got rid of their chemical weapons which the U.N. verified ! These "terrorists" are Iraqis who want us out of their country ! They don''t want an American Disneyland Embassy in their capital ! They don''t want us taking their oil ! They don''t want to be forced into treaties with Israel ! Why can''t you understand any of this ? They will fight us however they can even if it takes twenty years !

Waste of breath, I know...

[hungry1968]

You''ve just proven Bushs war strategy was a brilliant one. His idea was bring al-qaeda to Iraq where it could be defeated since the terrorists where spread all over the globe. Fight terrorists in Iraq is a better idea than here at home.
Posted by BaghdadsHere at 12:46 PM : Dec 07, 2007


Shouldn''t he have fought the terrorists in Afghanistan, since that''s where they were and that''s where the 9/11 attacks were planned and masterminded? Since the al Qaeda training camps were in Afghanistan, wouldn''t it have made much more sense to fight them in Afghanistan where all the leaders already were? Also where all of their training materials, weapons, and ammo already was instead of having it spread throughout the Middle East?

Again, your lack of foresight and support for the worst president in world history, is only making life on the ground more dangerous for our troops.

Correction - when I say our troops, I mean American troops. You''re quick to sanction the killing of American soldiers very quickly, but that''s easy to do while YOUR military members are safely at home. Let me ask you this - if Bush''s Iraq War is so noble, why aren''t you lobbying your government to send Brazilian troops to help the fight?

[mrconservatv]

Modified limited hang out is a phrase first spoken by John Ehrlichman and captured in the Watergate tapes. It incorporates the preexisting term limited hangout. Frequently cited as evoking the Nixon administration''s strategy of admitting only what it was compelled to admit, the phrase has also become a political catchphrase used to describe any grudging partial release of information.[1]


AND THE SHOW GOES ON ROUND AND ROUND

[underdogus]

Posted by BaghdadsHere at 12:46 PM : Dec 07, 2007 baggie pants lives in BRAZIL!!! ask him...

[mrconservatv]

WAR IS A RACKET


100 YEARS FROM NOW IT WILL STILL BE A RACKET

[hungry1968]

If Bush didnt have taken the decision to go to war there would be some buildings less in America.
About shooting first and ask later, thats the right way to deal with terrorists cause you must never let them take the next step.
About point my finger, I indeed point it to demoncrats and say: You are responsible for the death of thousands of American troops since you embold the terrorists with your electoral strategy.

Posted by BaghdadsHere at 12:13 PM : Dec 07, 2007


What does it say about George Bush and his administration that he ignored warnings about al Qaeda starting in January 2001?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml


When the democrats wanted a timetable for withdrawal, Bush and his cabal said that would send a clear message to the enemy, and all they would have to do is "wait us out". Then he announces that 5700 American troops are coming home by the end of the year, and the balance of the "surge" troops would be coming home by next summer. Why is it sending a message to the enemy when the democrats want it, but it''s perfectly acceptable when Bush does it?

I''ll be waiting for your next post slamming Bush, unless of course your willing to admit that you''re a hypocrite.

[baghdadshere]

Picture this once: Insurgents are drawn to Iraq BECAUSE of American occupation, if we have fewer American soldiers in Iraq, Iraqis have to stand on their own feet, insurgents would end up killing more Iraqis than Americans, insurency would decrease with decreased American occupation.

Posted by IdlePugilist at 12:24 PM : Dec 07, 2007

Idle_MykeTyson-pugilist....You"ve just proven Bushs war strategy was a brilliant one. His idea was bring al-qaeda to Iraq where it could be defeated since the terrorists where spread all over the globe. Fight terrorists in Iraq is a better idea than here at home.
About anti-american sentiment I wanna tell you that Bush cannot allow terrorists to demolish our buildings just because he dont wanna increase "anti-american" sentiment.

[mrconservatv]

If we had a draft, ya think these ******** "hero" politicians would be declaring wars left and right, on a ******** whim? Huh? No. They''''d think twice about it.




Posted by yahright2 at 12:12 PM : Dec 07, 2007

If those pimps had to be first on the frontline of any military action

THEY WOULD BE REPLACED BY A NEW SET OF PIMPS

[mrconservatv]

A limited hangout is a form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of ...


9/11 THE COVERUP

The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times


The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (although they never bothered to tell the American people about that fact)

BUT HEY THEY GOT BARRY BONDS

Barry Bonds pleaded not guilty Friday to charges he lied to federal investigators about using performance-enhancing drugs.

[jntlw-2009]

More examples of extreme incompetence and lack of accountibility in this unjust Iraqi war by this administration. Bush demands the Congress to fork over $190B for the war and yet allows the loss of $1B due to an accountability of armament and war vehicles to the Iraqi Security forces? How is that cutting spending Mr. Bush? Your scolding Congress for not cutting spending rings kind of hollow now doesn''t it? With that big of a drain on our war spending, we can never afford to supply the Iraqi security forces and we will go broke trying to do so. Somebody better get their butt in high gear and find out what is going on. No more money for this WAR period!

[jack3213]

If this is true, it is pretty sad. But, who is to say this is true? This paper is full of propaganda and nonsense for one, and for two, it reads like a "rag" magazine that wants to get people angry so it appears right. ugh.

[idlepugilist]

Perhaps even conservatives are upset about $1B in weapons missing. The White House needs to provide some answers. Fraud investigations ongoing might give us a better view into how we''ve been continually shafted by Bush''s appointed contractors.

[idlepugilist]

Back to basics: $1B in weapons lost. Who''s profiting? Could oversight be that bad? Could the White House be that complacent with the war that oversight of such an imporant process be forgotten?

[idlepugilist]

type - reason American soldiers continue to die (not deny)

[idlepugilist]

Baghdads, that opinion I can respect. However, I can simply point at Bush''s 2003 statement "Bring ''em on", following his ill-advised choice to attack, which put more fuel on the fire for anti-American sentiment all throughout the middle east. We disagree on what emboldens the terrorists; you might believe the desire to bring troops home causes American deaths, whereas liberals believe an endless increased presence in the War (which George''s own father advised against) is the reason American soldiers continue to deny. Picture this once: Insurgents are drawn to Iraq BECAUSE of American occupation, if we have fewer American soldiers in Iraq, Iraqis have to stand on their own feet, insurgents would end up killing more Iraqis than Americans, insurency would decrease with decreased American occupation.

[idlepugilist]

Prairiefox, isn''t that one of the original stategies for the Iraq War, to be in the political position where America could better dictate access and pricing of oil? Your suggestion is interesting.

[baghdadshere]

BaghdadsHere,
Someone in your position should really hate bush.
Look at what he''''s done to ya...you''''d rather point the finger at liberals and democrats instead of the man who actually made the unjust war decision!
Posted by jh6379 at 12:02 PM : Dec 07, 2007

Baghdads, I''''ve never once seen any post from any liberals stating or implying they hope the US loses the war in Iraq, or asking Osama over for Thanksgiving. The US military Can''''t lose, it''''s inconceivable. No reasonable American hopes the US military would lose. The worst that would happen is a stalemate, where terrorists keep pouring in to Iraq from other countries, American soldiers kill them and suffer casualties, and America has to continue a large military presence for years to come. Oh, wait, that''''s where we''''re at. George should have listened to his father. But you know how kids are, even those in the White House who prefer to shoot first and ask questions later.




Posted by IdlePugilist

I completly disagree with you both. If Bush didnt have taken the decision to go to war there would be some buildings less in America.
About shooting first and ask later, thats the right way to deal with terrorists cause you must never let them take the next step.
About point my finger, I indeed point it to demoncrats and say: You are responsible for the death of thousands of American troops since you embold the terrorists with your electoral strategy.

[vet_sk]

It is not about surrender it is the fact that we went there in the first place. Remember seeing the marchers before the war started, that we me and all the rest who saw through the lies.

Now, yes, we are in Iraq but Bush wants this thing to last and last. He won''''t even agree to any benchmarks: because he has an agenda to stay there forever. It is also like a high school teacher who does not grade: what do you think the students are going to do when they are not help accountable.

This war is a disaster. I was there; I experienced it. That does not make me more patriotic then anyone else who is a good citizen. Good citizens are those people who keep the government honest - so taht it rightly supports everyone''s interests.

We could have saved thousands of American lives and ten of thousands of Iraqis (and if we did not invade) if we had gone in with the Pentagons War plan but instead we went with the "Wisdom" of a President, Vice, and a Defense Sec who have never served in the active military and know what really goes on in war.

And the Bush admin has never been held accountable. Yes, we are frustrated by that! Everyone good citizen should be. Why am I a far-left liberal to suggest we should hold our elected official responsible.

I will also be holding the dems responsible next year for not doing enough to balanace this president.

Did anyone forget the latests lies about the NIE with Iran.