Battle For Diwaniyah Rages On In Iraq
In Major Offensive, Iraqi Troops Try To Drive Shiite Militia Out Of City; 21 More Bodies Dumped In Streets
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Will Guardsmen Be Ready To Go?
Pentagon orders will send National Guard members from Oklahoma to Iraq next year, with less time to train and equip. Soldiers are savoring their remaining time at home. Hari Sreenivasan reports.
-
Video
McCain On His Iraq Visit
Sen. John McCain touted his safety during his recent trip to Baghdad. Scott Pelley talks about McCain's trip and his interview with McCain on "60 Minutes."
-
Video
Bush, Congress At Odds On Iraq
Although President Bush blasted Democrats for failing to support the war, Senate and House leaders show no sign of backing off from their controversial war spending bills. Bill Plante reports.
-
-
Photo
Iraqi soldiers look at a kiosk blown up by planted explosives in Mansour, central Baghdad, Saturday, April 7, 2007. Four people were hurt in the blast, according to Iraqi police. (AP Photo/Assad Muhsin)
-
Photo
People wave national flags during a protest in Baghdad, Saturday, April 7, 2007. Some 1,500 people demanded that the government make the streets of Baghdad safer. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)
-
Photo
A U.S. military convoy drives through Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad, Iraq, Friday, April 6, 2007. Iraqi forces backed by American soldiers swept into a troubled, predominantly Shiite city south of Baghdad before dawn Friday, and the U.S. military said as many as six militia fighters had been killed. (AP Photo/Jalal Mudhar)
-
-
Interactive
Iraq: 4 Years Later
The conflict wears on as the nation struggles to rebuild.
-
Photo Essay
Iraq In Pictures
A daily diary with scenes of the latest attacks and snapshots from the effort to rebuild a nation.
Maj. Gen. Othman Farhood al-Ghanemi, commander of the Iraqi army's 8th Division, said the U.S.-Iraqi operation to retake Diwaniyah took shape after a three-month crescendo of violence in which at least 58 people were killed or kidnapped.
In violence leading up to the offensive, many women reportedly were killed after the hard-line fundamentalist militiamen accused them of violating their strict interpretation of Islamic morality.
Al-Ghanemi told The Associated Press that militants were armed with rocket-propelled grenades, Katyusha rockets, Strela anti-aircraft rockets and AK-47 assault rifles. Before the offensive, militants attacked Iraqi and U.S.-led coalition forces 17 times with roadside bombs — some of them armor-piercing explosively formed projectiles.
The U.S. military accuses Iran of providing militants with the deadly EFPs.
In Other Developments:
© MMVII The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Video and Galleries from Iraq After Saddam
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: July 6?July 12
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 29-July 5
-
Photos
Iraq Photos: June 22 ? June 28
- Latest in Iraq After Saddam
- Bombs Claim 50 in Iraq
- Biden Meets with Key U.S. Leaders in Iraq
- Senate Investigates Blackwater Subsidiary
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 95 CommentsToo hi-tech for Iraqis? Paw-leeeze! They made rockets, chemical weapons, had an air force and almost built a nuclear power plant. I'm sure EFP's wouldn't be much of a stretch. But I guess from a political view, anything is impossible.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1623909.ece
Saturday, 7 April 2007, 3:31 pm
Article: Matt Renner
Newly released documents confirm that a Pentagon unit knowingly cooked up intelligence claiming a direct link between Iraq and al-Qaeda in order to win support for a preemptive strike against the country.
According to the IG report, both the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) had throughly examined the possibility of an active relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida and determined there were "no conclusive signs [of a relationship]," and "direct cooperation ... has not been established."
Feith's Office of Special Plans, however, created a briefing based on a previous report, "Assessing the Relationship Between Iraq and al Qaida." The presentation was aimed at discrediting the conclusions of the CIA and the DIA.
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 07:31 AM : Apr 07, 2007
What was so funny about this was on the same day it was released Cheney went on Rush claiming the opposite. You can always tell when they are about to take a hit, Bush/Cheney, they toss some red meat out there for the "Base". The Base HAS to feel that they are killing people and those people are beneath them. They used the EXACT same thing during the Jim Crowe Days. Even though it was shown time after time that Blacks were struggling to be free in the South these people would feed the "base" the lie. Blacks were perfectly happy living in Terror and they were being stired up by "communist". They were disgusting then and still are.
Abu Tibeh and his colleagues %u2014 four Sunnis and four Shia %u2014 were arrested in November when someone told a US patrol that the party offices they were guarding were being used by a death squad. In fact, the party was a moderate secular faction with close ties to the US.
So who on the ground can you trust,sound familiar?
Enemy But We Have To Protect Them. I Think As Long
As They Are Over There They Should Protect Themselfs..They Have All The Ratings And Money.
They Never Have Any Good News On Anything Good
We Do, Only Everything Bad}}}
Because They Are Experts They Hide Behind Freedom Of The Press,,,They Have Killed Many Solders Because Of There Information They Let Out On Everything We Do,,,,If I Was In Charge I Would Tell Them Get Out..Or Go On The Otherside And See
How Long You Will Last...
Im Sick Of The Press All Doom And Gloom
Posted by thehobman at 07:55 AM : Apr 07, 2007
In other words, you want the press to give out rosy propaganda scenarios and ignore the truth.
Agression is ugly, my friend. It has no pretty side.
Ewen MacAskill, Julian Borger, Michael Howard and John Hooper
Saturday April 7, 2007
The Guardian
The US offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned.
In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the US and Iran. But one of the options was for US combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation.
The British declined the offer and said the US could calm the situation by staying out of it.
The British government also asked the US administration from Mr Bush down to be cautious in its use of rhetoric.
---------
In other words, they told Dubya to just sit his a$$ down, shut the hell up and not do anything stupid.
Sure enough, Sadr's militia is a backbone of trouble, seeking conflict and power. They are encouraged by financing from Iraq's enemies, Syria and Iran, whose primary goal is control of Iraq oil.
You can not make the arguement that they are out for Iraqi people, because they are targeting civilians.
Posted by formrusmcsgt
What a fat load of kaakaa.
Wake up, the Guardian is nothing to base real life facts on. They are nothing more than muslim prejudiced journalism spreading rumors and lies.
You cant trust anyone who calls himself "former" marine either. Once a Marine, Always a Marine.
From Debkafile
Earlier, Russian Dept FM Alexander Losyukov stated that no US attack on Iran is expected in the coming days, contradicting a previous quote by Novosti from Russian intelligence officials who predicted a US missile strike against Iran, codenamed Operation Bite, at 4:00 a.m. April 6. Other Russian sources speak of an April attack.
Since when is Russian propoganda in the media an accurate description of the US Military intelligence?
Fat city, nothing but rumors sir, gossip mongoring and rhetorical propoganda.
Just because its posted in the "MEDIA" doesnt make it true.
Would you care to comment, Senator Mc Cain.... Mr. Vice President????
Posted by radiob
So, if two people repeat the same rumor, then it becomes true???
Wake up, stop acting like a 6 year old.
Posted by pwrslm
It seems to work for Fox News and George W. Bush.
'Fair and Balanced'
ROFLMAO!!
Posted by dallison7
Im sure both of them will be here to lick your shoes in not time. Just sit steady and wait.
Posted by radiob
So what, do you want me to applaud you for posting gossip on a news site? Any 6 year old can repeat gossip.
'Fair and Balanced'
ROFLMAO!!
Posted by dallison7
Sure.
If you say so.
They remind me of the statements made by "Baghdad Bob" in the beginning of the war. Pity Bush couldn't have found a position for him and introduced a little more levity in to his administration, he would have made a great WH press secretary.
We now understand from Senator John McCain that he "mis-spoke" when (surrounded by 100 US troops, Humvees, Apache gunships and strategically positioned snipers)he stated that things had "improved in Baghdad" and the American people were not getting "the full story" of that improvement. What appallingly bad judgement. Enough said.
The truth of Iraq and Baghdad appears daily in the news and in the announcements from CENTOM, every time a US casualty is announced. Far from being a destination of choice for capital investment, tourism or migration, it is a failed state - in a state of civil war.
There is absolutely nothing new about the troop surge "strategy." It amounts to nothing more than an off-shoot of "stay the course." This administration has completely run out of ideas on Iraq. It is in a state of utter bankruptcy, simply waiting to hand over its legacy of debt to the next administration. A fundamental rule of performance management is that you need to learn from your mistakes by putting in place actions to ensure that you do not repeat them.
Why do I get the feeling that there is no learning going on.
Posted by radiob at 09:26 AM : Apr 07, 2007
No, thats not my logic. It came from you. Your assumption is a perfect demonstration of your logic.
Mine goes far beyond that simple minded stuff.
He would lose face if American troops are withdrawn.
All other excuses have fallen through.
In the investment world this is known as "sending good money after bad," but in this case it isn't only dollars Bush is losing to avoid losing face.
He would lose face if American troops are withdrawn.
All other excuses have fallen through.
Posted by Iceman_1960 at 09:58 AM : Apr 07, 2007
I guess all the non-iraqi suicide bombers and AQ prisoners are evidence of that. So we should actually follow the idea's of Syrai and Iran, and they will stop financing the sectarian violence in Iraq too, right?
Then we can apologize to the Muslim world for lying about 9-11 and the Pentagon attacks too. Would you also have us give them Nukes to insure that the people of all those Muslim nations dont challenge the authority of the Kaliphate?
What country should the Kaliphate be in, by the way, Iraq, Iran, Syria, or Pakistan? We know that the Taliban lost muslim faith, so it cant be in Afghanistan.
When should we dump the electoral system, before or after we appoint an Islamic Cleric as our President?
hes never had to be fiscally responsible, he always had daddy!!!!
Posted by usadvisor101 at 10:10 AM : Apr 07, 2007
sorry
congress is to blame for that
they are in charge of the bucks, not daddy.
They are demonstrating a RISE IN SECTARIAN VIOLENCE.
Got it, Neocons??? A "RISE" in violence!!
Your stupid 'surge' IS NOT WORKING!!
STOP LYING WHILE OUR KIDS ARE DYING!!
congress is to blame for that
they are in charge of the bucks, not daddy.
Posted by pwrslm
You mean that 'rubber-stamp' Congress that we just got rid of???
we seen that clinton was the only president to have us in the black!!!! a surplus!!!!
then we seen king george give the wealthy tax breaks, which resulted in a huge loss in revenue. then we watched his proposed budget, (which the republican congress passed) plunge us into record debt!!!!
am i right or wrong?? does not the president create the budget then congress decide to pass it or not???? i think i am right.
Step One: The President%u2019s Budget Request
On or before the first Monday in February, the President submits to Congress a detailed budget request for the coming federal fiscal year, which begins on October 1. This budget request, developed by the President%u2019s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), plays three important roles. First, it tells Congress what the President believes overall federal fiscal policy should be, as established by three main components: (1) how much money the federal government should spend on public purposes; (2) how much it should take in as tax revenues; and (3) how much of a deficit (or surplus) the federal government should run, which is simply the difference between (1) and (2).
Second, the budget request lays out the President%u2019s relative priorities for federal programs %u2014 how much he believes should be spent on defense, agriculture, education, health, and so on. The President%u2019s budget is very specific, and recommends funding levels for individual federal programs or small groups of programs called %u201Cbudget accounts.%u201D The budget typically sketches out fiscal policy and budget priorities not only for the coming year but for the next five years or more. It is also accompanied by historical tables that set out past budget figures.
It is good to read that the Iraq army is participating in squelching this chaos.
The citizens of areas controlled by these local and foreign terrorists finally feel secure enough to voice their desire for normality.
This is a good thing. The surge is proving beneficial and should be ramped up ten-fold.
Since the US wrongly disrupted the Iraqi peoples normality, it is only right that the US correct what they broke before they leave the country to their own devices.
Sadly the Global war on terror and the hunt for Bin Laden has also suffered deeply from a very very poor decision by US leader ship. And unfortunately this leadership did not have the foresight nor the planning for the closure of this calamity. The US president has already said that will planning and action will be the responsibility of the next presidency.
When should we dump the electoral system, before or after we appoint an Islamic Cleric as our President?
Posted by pwrslm at 10:08 AM : Apr 07, 2007
You Nazi's absolutely AMAZE me!! Time after time it's proven to you people that Bush has lied to you, OVER and OVER and OVER and what do you do? You just pass along the LIES! Did you MISS the pentigon's report? If you saw it what about it do you NOT understand? We attacked a nation, not on faulty Intel but on LIES. That's right Sparky your Fuehrer and the Gestapo head Cheney LIED to us about Iraq. That's form our OWN military and their investigation once we were there. So we were LIED to and there was NO AQ in Iraq and no Weapons. Now IF we leave what's the chances AQ would stay? After all they are there, by our OWN intel people, for training to us against us in Afganistan. By the way Swastika Breath why aren't you losers upset that the guy who actually DID attack us is still out there laid back and planning? Kinda screws up Your Fuehrers lies doesn't it? Sieg Heil and have a great day! ROFLMAO Dumb as a box of rocks!! ROFLMAO
Posted by Sevenveils at 11:42 AM : Apr 07, 2007
I could not agree more with this statement. Even life under Saddam must seem "normal" when compared to what the Iraqi's are going through now. However, I disagree that re-occupation of Iraq is the solution.
In Iraq we have completely missed the point. The surge is our idea not the Iraqi's. They have no ownership of this intiative. Even it they did, the conditions for its success are not visible. In order for a "surge" to work, there would first need to be a modicom of peace. Yet there is war.
The other reason why it will not work is because we do not call the shots in Iraq - Iran and (to a lesser extent) Syria do. If it were not the case Iraq would not be at war. It is not in the interest of either Iran or Syria to see a peaceful Iraq.
What do we do? Firstly, redouble our efforts to train the Iraqi's. Second, stop sabre rattling. Put up or shut up. If we are not going to talk to Iran or Syria then the President needs to put his money where his mouth is and overthrow their regimes.
I agree, no chance of that.
Posted by radiob at 09:26 AM : Apr 07, 2007
No, thats not my logic. It came from you. Your assumption is a perfect demonstration of your logic.
Mine goes far beyond that simple minded stuff".and if you don't believe it just ask me.
Posted by pwrslm at 09:58 AM : Apr 07, 2007
--------
Posted by pwrslm at 09:20 AM : Apr 07, 2007
+ report abuse
LMAO Right! LMAO Sieg Heil Y'all. LMAO
"By your logic then this story is gossip and all the comments including yours. In other words none of it happened.It does not exist, regardless of source.
Posted by radiob at 09:26 AM : Apr 07, 2007
No, thats not my logic. It came from you. Your assumption is a perfect demonstration of your logic.
Mine goes far beyond that simple minded stuff"..
Posted by pwrslm at 09:58 AM : Apr 07, 2007
And what pwrslm is saying is: if you don't believe it just ask me
-----------
Welcome to the club.
Wait - you mean the Iraqis might be able to stop the violence themselves? Just what the f*ck are WE doing there???
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 95 Comments