ABC Reporter Upset US Not Suffering Casualties In Iraq

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 05:41:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Is that a fair headline? You be the judge of this:

President Obama Praises Self for Ending War in Iraq on Bloodiest Day of the Year in That Country

Is it bad timing or irrelevant? President Obama’s campaign today released a video praising the president for ending the war in Iraq. It turns out that today has proven to be the deadliest day of the year in that country. [...]

On the other hand, none of the dead appears to be American – which may be all that U.S. voters, and many policymakers, care about.
[Emphasis supplied.]

So is Tapper lamenting that US military personnel were not killed in Iraq today? Apparently Tapper holds the view that the US should still be in Iraq suffering casualties. Will he call for troops in Syria next? Oh wait, how about Iran?

Your So Called Liberal Media engaging in a little warmongering.

FTR, since 2003 (and before that I opposed the Iraq Debacle), I have been calling for US withdrawal from Iraq. The reason was there was no way for the US to pacify the country ever.

But Jake Tapper wants American combat presence in Iraq and American csualties apparently.

I report. You decide.

< Today in "Both sides do it" | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

ABC Reporter Upset US Not Suffering Casualties In Iraq | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

FTR (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:31:23 PM EST

I do not believe Tapper wishes for American casualties, but I was trying to demonstrate what Tapper did to Obama by doing it to him.

Also too, I do have serious doubts that Tapper gives a crap about Iraqi casualties.

: Jake Tapper is an empty suit. (none / 0) (#10)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:23:17 PM EST

It's too bad that he and NBC's Chuck Todd can't be boyfriends, because those two dim Beltway bulbs truly deserve to spend eternity together, marveling at each other's pompous vacuity.

Yes, well (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Zorba on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:50:10 PM EST

We never should have gone into Iraq in the first place. There were no "weapons of mass destruction," and Sadam was not in bed with Al Qaida- far from it, in fact. So, what does Jake Tapper want us to do? Stay there forever? Or just exactly what? Without some kind of strong-man in charge of Iraq, the country is going to devolve into sectarian violence. Sunnis versus Shiiites, Kurds versus Arabs, secular Muslims versus Sharia-law Muslims, Muslims versus the (many fewer) Chritians left in Iraq. Yes, we created the current mess because we got rid of the strong-man, but we really don't have a good answer, nor the will to implement the massive restructuring that would be necessary. Again, I ask, what is Tapper's answer, given that we cannot travel back in time and undo the invasion?

Even if we are there (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 09:59:54 PM EST

That doesn't end bloodshed. It could even amp it up if we aren't 200,000 strong in country, and who can do that anymore? If our troops continue to support the sovereign government amidst sectarian violence, in the end it appears we are supporting one side over another. That only creates more anger, more violence, more Sunni or Shia foreign fighters coming across the borders, more acts of terrorism, more bodies of the assassinated displayed in the streets to collect in the morning.


MT, are you convinced the upswing in (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 12:03:36 AM EST

violence in Iraq is caused by "insurgents" and/or al Q?


: There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 07:24:00 AM EST

until we destabilized it. When we began de-baathification and arrested and imprisoned men simply for being Sunni and being male, my husband saw waves of Sunnis crossing the Syria and Iraq border to fight us. The people of Iraq are tribal and nation borders mean little when their families are being attacked.
Because of the destabilization a group formed calling itself AQ in Iraq. The enemy of my enemy is my friend is what AQ in Iraq is made up of. AQ in Iraq has never attacked the U.S., they fight inside of Iraq and hope to use any kind of alliance with any other branch of AQ to gain fighters, money, weapons. AQ in Iraq is Sunni first, Sunni foremost, their goals are related to the plight and future of Sunnis in Iraq and not global terror and global submission. At least not at this time.
Saudi Arabia doesn't want what has happened to Iraq. Iran is a constant threat to them. Iran was isolated and more contained when Iraq was Sunni controlled in their opinion. Now Iraq is politically an ally of Iran. We've traced big money funneled into Bin Laden's AQ from Saudi Arabia. I have no reason to think that there wouldn't be donors and aid for a group calling themselves AQ in Iraq from wealthy Saudi Arabia for their shared notion of God's war in Iraq.

: The Shia have their own group (5.00 / 2) (#20)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 08:01:08 AM EST

that is responsible for attacks too, and they were listed officially as a terrorist organization when we went into Iraq, made up of and supported through members of Dawa. They are also the people we turned Saddam over to. We turned Saddam over to a group of people that were officially listed by our own selves as a terrorist organization. You just couldn't make this stuff up.

Tapper's a fool. (none / 0) (#12)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:32:17 PM EST

Had he and his Beltway buddies done their jobs a decade ago, rather than act as Bush's media cheerleaders for war with Iraq, we wouldn't be marveling at his utter dimwittery today.


Well, that is the essential problem, (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Zorba on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 09:02:33 PM EST

now, isn't it? So very many formerly at least somewhat leftie pundits fell all over themselves to back the entirely-Bush-created Iraqi "emergency". When the frigging Washington Post newspaper started banging the drum in favor of the Iraqi invasion, I just threw up my hands and was sure that Katherine Graham was rolling over in her grave. As far as I am concerned, the Post is mainly useful as Compost at this point. When the Republicans complain about the "left wing media" and single out the Washington Post, I just laugh.


: Leftie loosey. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by lentinel on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 03:20:28 PM EST

When the frigging Washington Post newspaper started banging the drum in favor of the Iraqi invasion, I just threw up my hands...
I felt the same way about PBS.
And CNN.
And MSNBC.
And Al Franken.
And the good old New York Times.

The (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by lentinel on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 12:17:20 PM EST

ongoing bloodbaths show the utter failure of Bush's mission.
Not that he cares. He got Saddam killed. Made up for Daddy.

I would like the s.o.b. brought to the bar of justice for war crimes and impeachable offenses too many to mention.

But that isn't going to happen.

He'll get a library. Maybe an airport.
Maybe he'll get sent on another humanitarian mission somewhere; Mars, preferably. Actually, Pluto would be better. I kinda like Mars.

He'll get a library? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by NYShooter on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 03:41:29 PM EST

oh, so that's where they're going to display his book.


Book! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by cal1942 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:52:51 AM EST

Coloring or comic?


: finger paint, I think (none / 0) (#35)
by NYShooter on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:49:02 PM EST

rumor has it there's a picture of georgie sniffing his digits.
of course, I can't swear to that:)

Leave Pluto aloooone! (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by caseyOR on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 03:43:44 PM EST

Will people please just stop harshing on Pluto? Hasn't that poor little celestial body suffered enough?


: You're right. (none / 0) (#30)
by lentinel on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 05:20:55 AM EST

It was callous of me to pile on poor little Pluto.
Maybe the only appropriate destination is hell.

I read Tapper's comment differently (none / 0) (#1)
by David in Cal on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:16:50 PM EST

IMHO Tapper was objecting to Obama's exaggeration that he had ended the war in Iraq. He actually ended America's participation in the war.

On a day when so many Iraqis were killed, Obama's comment almost seems to imply that Iraqis are not fully human.

I think the video is clear (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:19:45 PM EST

about the claim.

The scenes are of soldiers returning to the US, not of peace in Iraq.


Audio at :33 - the Welcome Home Parade was (none / 0) (#5)
by jerry on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:41:28 PM EST

0:33 "the Welcome Home Parade was a parade to celebrate the end of the Iraq War"

1:18 "As these wars come to an end..."

2:10 "The President has ended the war in Iraq"


The US war is over (none / 0) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:08:48 PM EST

Thank GAWD! (none / 0) (#13)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:34:04 PM EST

Aren't there 15,000 or so (none / 0) (#17)
by Green26 on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 12:25:34 AM EST

people still at the US embassy in Iraq? Mainly state department people and armed contractors.

No air cover or legal assistance. Being stopped at checkpoints. They're not having an easy life over there.

Probably some remnants of special ops and CIA around somewhere.

The US army and air force part of the war may be over, but there are still alot of Americans in harms way.

Let's see how the US pull out is looking in the coming weeks as the announced insurgent offensive heats up, and starts getting a bit of media coverage.


: No combat troops there of any kind (none / 0) (#27)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 04:22:04 PM EST

One of our friends flies for the embassy in Iraq now. He is not in the service though anymore. He is a contractor and had to be to get the job. Some Marines are allowed to guard the embassy, but that was even in question at one point. Our Marines guard all of our embassies. The Marines guarding our embassy in Syria just repelled an attack on it this month.

For our part (none / 0) (#33)
by cal1942 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 09:04:21 AM EST

Obama has ended the war.

When Bush went in we busted up a delicately balanced power situation both internally and regionally.

Our invasion made the internal turmoil and violence inevitable. It was always a childish pipe dream that a stable democratic form of government could be established.

Even if we stayed for 50 years, as McCain suggested, the violence would have continued and indeed exploded after our departure.

Obama isn't responsible for what Bush unleashed, it was a lose lose situation from the start proposed, promoted and supported by fools.


Attack of the Chickenhawks, again. (none / 0) (#3)
by caseyOR on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:25:10 PM EST

Tapper can take his place alongside such distinguished faux-testosteone addicts as Bill Keller and Tom Friedman. For some people there is apparently no limit to their desire to see the U.S. military throw its weight around, regardless of the consequences to said military and its personnel.

Honestly, I do not understand this mindset, the one that just cannot wait to send U.S. service members into harm's way.

: I don't see any reason (none / 0) (#9)
by NYShooter on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:22:31 PM EST

for you bullies to pick on poor wittle Tommie Friedman. Let's face it, any plain ole "Joe" can pick up a rifle and go fight those evil doers in eyerack. But, it takes a special kind of hero, a Super Patriot, who can freeze our enemies in their tracks by the mere sound of his voice. Sure, some took the easy way out and fought with their guns and grenades.
But, picture this....go ahead, I dare you to imagine "Tenacious Tommie," sneering his lips, jutting his jaw, and challenging those Bombastic Bambies to "Suck On THIS!!" Yeah, he did that....no, really. Right there in the Charlie Rose War Front. I bet you've got a different picture of Tommie now, dontcha?
And, I bet you thought that after scaring the bejesus out of those unholy Osamas, he'd go home to a luxury home and unwind with an expensive bottle of wine. Oh no, Tommie has too much respect for our troops to do something that ostentatious. No, Tom-Boy shows his solidarity for our fighting men and women by retreating to a shabby pup tent, and he stays there for more than hour....sometimes an hour and a quarter.
Check out this dump
about an eighth of the way down.
so, who says our "reporters are out of touch?

: Bu-bu-but casey, ... (none / 0) (#11)
by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 08:28:18 PM EST

casetOR: "Tapper can take his place alongside such distinguished faux-testosteone addicts as Bill Keller and Tom Friedman."
... we were ALL wrong, don'tcha know?
And of course, the more Tom Friedman is wrong, the more book deals and Sunday morning talk show appearances he gets.
;-)

Damned if you do (none / 0) (#7)
by firstfall on Mon Jul 23, 2012 at 07:55:45 PM EST

...damned if you don't. Remember, they wanted the US out. It's up to them now. And who's to say that the US' continued presence wouldn't have just made things even worse in the long run? They have to work out their own social/cultural problems. The US can't do it for them and it's foolish to think it could.

Wrong premise. (none / 0) (#23)
by lentinel on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 03:14:52 PM EST

They have to work out their own social/cultural problems. The US can't do it for them and it's foolish to think it could.

The US didn't go into Iraq in order to solve their social or cultural problems.

It went in because of a combination of a decrepit neo-con agenda, mixed with a lust for control of their resources, plus the warped personal agenda of the sitting president, Bush.

And they succeeded in getting us into the war because of the total lack of opposition from anybody in a position to oppose it. The congress rolled over. The media created a jingoistic frenzy. The NYTimes became Cheney's mouthpiece. And the American people were terrified and meekly accepted the inevitable.


I wasn't talking about (none / 0) (#28)
by firstfall on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 04:46:01 PM EST

...why we went into Iraq. I was talking about how useless and potentially harmful staying would have been. But don't let me stop you from ranting/venting a bit. ;)


: I admit (none / 0) (#31)
by lentinel on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 05:25:18 AM EST

that on this horrible subject that I tend to rant and rave a bit, but when you said,

(The Iraqis) have to work out their own social/cultural problems. The US can't do it for them and it's foolish to think it could.
what time period were you referring to?
When do you think the US thought it could "do it for them"?
My answer would be, "never".
Your thoughts?

That's a mighty fine outline (none / 0) (#29)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 05:11:25 PM EST

and A+ adjective use, some novel verbs too :)


Except (none / 0) (#19)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 07:59:07 AM EST

This is a true statement:

On the other hand, none of the dead appears to be American - which may be all that U.S. voters, and many policymakers, care about.

It's always the first question people ask (or is reported to an American audience) - "Among the dead are 5 Americans."

It's not that they don't care about other people, but we care a whole lot more if there are American casualties.

Listening to BTD talking about CO shooting (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 10:43:46 AM EST

What do I think? I think that crazy happens, and when crazy happens you will use what is on hand and when guns are what is on hand with giant clips and semi automatic.....by God that goes right into my anti social strike out.

A deliberately derogatory headline (none / 0) (#34)
by cal1942 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 09:13:34 AM EST

Tapper's working for the Romney campaign?

What liberal media.