June 03, 2005
Basic Training
The new Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, was in Washington this week asking why the US wasn’t doing enough to train Iraqi security forces. The Bush administration now claims 165,000 troops and police have been fully trained (an apparent admission that last year’s claims of 210,000 trained personnel was bullshit), but independent analysts put the number closer to 20,000. Zebari is complaining that his country’s security forces look good on paper, but are poorly trained, led, and equipped.
"It's not the question of numbers, of charts," he explained, referring to the U.S. military's presentations on their efforts to train Iraqis. "It's really the quality of these forces. Is there leadership? Is there performance? Is there delegation of authority?""Definitely, the new army, the new police, need better equipment - at least better weaponry than the insurgents or the terrorists, and we think they could provide that." Zebari said of the Americans.
Yikes! I thought we were training and equipping Iraqis with all possible speed. What the hell have we been doing over there for the last two years? Lieutenant-Colonel James Corum (Ret.) provides the answer,
Early last year I went to Iraq with a small team of American officers to advise the Iraqi military on officer training. ...it quickly became obvious that many of the Iraqi officers were looking for no more than a well-paid sinecure and eventual pension.Still, there were some men who clearly wanted to help build a better Iraq, at great risk to themselves. And while they seemed smart and willing, they lacked even basic professional training. We decided that the best way to help them would be the Templer model [referring to Gen. Gerald Templer who beat the Communist insurgency in Malaya - AP]: sending dozens of the best men to the United States for training. On their return, these men could not only take command of military units but, equally important, could become the teaching staff for the new Iraqi military schools.
This is merely common sense, but at the time it was at odds with the overwhelming desire at the Pentagon to reduce the American troop commitment. As one American Army colonel in Iraq told me, "We'll train the Iraqi Army after the insurgency."
What the hell? President Bush says we're doing everything possible to quickly train and equip Iraqi security forces, and yet,
...by the end of last year there were only two Iraqi officers at the 20-week Infantry Officers' Advanced Course at Fort Benning in Georgia and only one Iraqi officer was sent to the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas last year.
Granted, it would cost the Pentagon $100 million per year to train the number of Iraqi officers Col. Corum believes is necessary to secure their own country, but if Rumsfeld can spend $100 million per year on a missile defense that may never be used (or even actually work), I think he can put a crowbar into the Pentagon's budget for training Iraqi officers.
This is all just propaganda spouted by Terrorist-loving Liberal Media. Everyone knows that Liberal Organizations like the Media, Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross all Hate America.
As Bush said, we are making great progress in Iraq. As Cheney said, the Insurgency is in its last throes. How could you doubt these men? Next thing you will say that Iraq had no connection to 9/11 and had no WMD.
What America needs is more Fighting Men. We don’t need Iraqis help!!! We can secure Iraq and its oil ourselves. What we need to do is urge all real Americans to enlist now. Don’t accept any Democrats cause they are all Fags anyway. Just take real American Republicans who love America. I am sure with the Power of our Evangelical God we will crush the Muslim God and Spread Freedom in the World!!!
Posted by: Aldous at June 3, 2005 05:08 AMBush’s assessment of Iraq from the months before the invasion to the very present day has been a delusion and one that he continues to PT Barnum upon that segment of the public which believes he may one day walk on water.
Great Article, AP! Excellent resources and exquisitely logical presentation and conclusion. Bush&Co. continue to fail Iraq and the American tax payer and our nation’s security. He has to be the worst President in my lifetime save, perhaps, Richard Nixon.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2005 06:52 AMDavid R. Remer:
“He has to be the worst President in my lifetime save, perhaps, Richard Nixon.”
From many perspectives, I agree. I had hopes that his original promises to reach across the aisle, be fiscally responsible, work toward solutions rather than re-election, and rebuild our defense would actually come true. As a conservative, I am very dissappointed. As an American, I am very frustrated. As a veteran, I am confused.
As I have stated before, I’m not sure I would know the truth if it were being told to me.
Posted by: Chi Chi at June 3, 2005 09:46 AMActually, there was a good report in the Washington Post (not a conservative paper) about two weeks ago documenting how Iraqi military leaders uniformly report their units as untrained and unmanned (regardless of reality) b/c they perceive that as a necessary precondition to getting more money. The current system seems to be focused too much on biased self-reporting by Iraqis in an effort to get money rather than on results.
The fact is there is no substitute for experience. Iraqi troops have been taking over operations in many areas far outside Bagdad. It would be more useful to talk about which operations the Iraqi units are currently performing, how well those units are doing, and the planned pace for other transfers, rather than focus on unreliable numbers where there are incentives for both under- and over-reporting.
Posted by: Vetinari at June 3, 2005 09:53 AMAldous,
With all respect, this type of name-calling and blanket allegations (e.g., assuming that any story from the “liberal media” must be false or propoganda) aren’t helpful to a rational discussion of the issues involved here. I would enjoy hearing an alternative perspective, but I see no real point of view from your post aside from a sense of being threatened by “liberals” and a desire to strike out against them.
AP,
I enjoyed the post. Thanks for the work that went into writing it.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 3, 2005 09:57 AMSteve
Read all of Aldous’ various posts before you worry about him representing the conservative point of view and react to it. The good thing about blogs is that after a while you can choose the people whose opinions you like, or at least represent valid lines of reasoning.
If you want conservative positions, look to the other side of the blog. You may not agree with our position, but you won’t find us unreasonable.
AP
It is interesting that you mention that article. I liked it too, because it has actual suggestions about what to do and where to go from here. I thought of posting it myself. It is an interesting example of how the same facts can be interpreted differently depending on one’s point of view.
The problem with sarcastic writing is that many people do not get sarcasm.
Posted by: pedro at June 3, 2005 10:10 AMAldous’ sarcasm is good enough to fool people now? This is too funny.
Posted by: Gandhi at June 3, 2005 10:28 AMYou want my perspective? Fine.
It is my opinion that 49% of the public will believe whatever BushCo says rather than face the fact that they are the bad guys. There is an inherent need for Americans to think of themselves as “Good”. Any evidence that contradicts this worldview is easily ignored if there is another reason no matter how ridiculous. This is why a sinificant part of the Public STILL believes Iraq did 9/11 and had WMD. This is why Amnesty International “hates America”. The Truth is unacceptable therefore the Fantasy is preferred.
This massive self-deception has created one of the most fragmented society since the Civil War. Bush Voters and Anti-Bush Voters are literally existing in different realities. There will never be peace as long as Cheney goes on TV saying, “Iraq has WMD” even after Congress declared Iraq did not. People will ALWAYS sieze the fantasy rather than face the pain that they are wrong.
This is ultimately the reason why there has been no flood of Republican Children rushing to Enlist. Their Conservative Parents will be forced to face the Truth when its Little Johnny’s Neck is on the line. Therefore, they avoid Enlistment and the Draft at all costs.
Posted by: Aldous at June 3, 2005 10:31 AMThe fact is there is no substitute for experience.
Vetinari, surely you’re not suggesting that we stop training US recruits and throw ‘em straight into combat as soon as they get their regulation haircut…
Obviously your statement is true to an extent, but being well-trained and disciplined will keep more of those guys alive so they can gain experience.
It is an interesting example of how the same facts can be interpreted differently depending on one?s point of view.
Jack, if I read your post right, we both liked it because it offered a solution. Unless you’re ok with not actually implementing a solution, I’m not sure how you’re interpreting it differently. It seems like common sense, and it’s appalling that the Pentagon and the White House are dragging their heels on getting Iraqis properly trained and equipped.
Aldous,
Excuse me while I rub the egg off my face for not realizing that your original post was an attempt at sarcasm. =)
But regarding your second and more substantive post…look, I’m a Democrat. I don’t like this administration, and don’t think that their policies are good for America. But I’d have to disagree with the characterization of them as “the bad guys.” That’s too simplistic. These are people with a very different point of view on the world, people who become defensive (and apparently go to some lengths to defend themselves) when they feel threatened. Indeed, I would submit that much of their foriegn policy is a reaction to that sense of being threatened — rather than a proactive effort to improve the situation.
Is that good for America? In my opinion, no. In fact, I think it hurts our interests on multiple levels. But would that count as being “evil” or as being “the bad guys”? In my view, there would have to be some form of malice for these terms to apply. For as much as I disagree with this administration, I don’t see them as acting out of malice.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 3, 2005 11:02 AM“The Truth is unacceptable therefore the Fantasy is preferred”
Amen Aldous! Can you imagine what would happen if the left actually believed or wrote about any of these FANTASIES?
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/ayeariniraq.html
But then again, FANTASIES such as these wouldn’t help the left in the coming elections would they?
Thank goodness you all ignore these things and tell us how it “really” is over there.
Good article AP, gave me some things to read up on over the weekend. Thanks.
Posted by: kctim at June 3, 2005 11:16 AMAP
I advocate doing something about the solution. I believe we will. But knowing how bureaucracies and politics work, I know it will go in starts and stops. This was, btw, the same under Clinton and will be the same under any administration. It may seem counter intuitive, but sometimes you have to leave people alone for a while until they can sort things out. The military is aware of the Malaysia success. Conditions may seem similar, but they are not the same and the solution has to be worked out. Mistakes will be made. It is always easy for us who don’t have to make things work to complain that things aren’t working.
Think about Malaysia for a minute and how long it took to get the system up and running there. Consider also that Malaya had be run by the Brits up to that time and that they had been training and officering Malay troops for about a century before that time. When you compare our successes in Iraq with the challenge, it is not a bad record at all.
As the NYT article points out, things can take time.
Steve Westby,
“These are people with a very different point of view on the world, people who become defensive (and apparently go to some lengths to defend themselves) when they feel threatened.”
I wouldn’t feel quite so bad about the present administration if their “different point of view” was based in reality.
Remember, the mission was accomplished two years ago.
How many of our fine troops have we lost since then?
Rocky,
First of all, I certainly would not presume to defend the administration’s position or actions in Iraq. I don’t feel the war was necessary, for one thing, and I certainly think that big mistakes have been made in how they’ve run things since the mission was “accomplished.”
The only point that I’m trying to make is that I don’t see the administration as “evil.” I see them as having a very different perspective on “reality” from the one that I have. (e.g., If you truly believe that America is under severe threat, it is easy to justify almost any action to preserve its safety). Again, I think that kind of thinking is terrible and ultimately detrimental to our nation’s welfare. I just don’t see them as evil, as acting with some type of malice.
Posted by: Steve Westby at June 3, 2005 12:02 PMChi Chi, it was huge decision and a painful one in some ways to leave the Democratic Party and oppose it for its faults after having been affiliated with it most of my life. I was very sad when I left the many warm acquaintences of my local Democratic party, and it was a very insecure feeling facing my future and my daughter’s future without the clout of the big tent behind me.
But, having made that decision years ago, I have never regretted it. My integrity is intact, and without the big tent party to do my thinking and talking for me, I have had to find my own political voice as an Independent voter.
It took guts for you to say what you did above and I recognize very clearly the disappointment and lack of security making such a public statement as you made above entails. I commend you for having the courage to stand by your convictions when those you trusted failed in theirs. I also believe from my own experience, that you are growing stronger and wiser and more capable as a responsible citizen than most of the people I know. You have just cause to counter that disappointment with pride for holding to the values and convictions you held when you voted.
I believe this country would be so much better off if it were run by independents with conservative and liberal tendencies than by conservatives and liberals without any sense of independence, whatsoever.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 3, 2005 12:07 PMNumber of Iraqi troops trained :
Bush claimed last year the total was 210,000
Bush claims this year the total was 165,000
“Independent Analysts” claim 20,000
According to Bush’s original figure (which has been described as a distortion of the truth)Bush’s amended figure is 78.5% of the claim. The unidentified “independent analysts” have determined that the original Bush claim is only 9.5% accurate. So, if the 165,000 figure is closer to accurate than the 9.5% figure subsequent examples of the quality of the training, motivation of the “trainees”, quantity of the weaponry to be provided, etc. becomes a target of challenge.
The complaints lodged by Zebari pertaining to poorly trained personnel, inferior and insufficient weapons provided by the US, etc. seem to be confirmed by Retired Lt. Colonel James Corum.
Mr. Corum’s observation that the Iraqi “trainee officers” were motivated by a need for being well paid and retirement benefits. WHY did we even entertain the idea that people motivated in such a way were even worthwhile training? I see this condition as our fault (at least in part). Mr. Corum did note that while there were some men who clearly wanted to help (some?) they lacked even basic professional training. He reccomended the Templar method which is proven to be a good one and involves sending men to the US for training. After training they would return to their country (in this case Iraq) and teach in Iraqi Military Schools.
Evidently Mr. Corum’s reccomendations met with a relatively deaf ear since by the end of last year only three (3) Iraquis came to the US for training. THE 100 million $ that it would have taken to train as many men as Mr. Corum reccomened may have had not something but, everything to do with it.
David R. Remer:
We have more in common than I thought. I am still trying to get to know more of the posters/writers/editors.
It is comforting to me to know that both parties have conscientious objectors to they way “their party” is operating. Comforting because I know I am not alone.
I agree completely that the country would be better served with independent leadership with leanings in one direction or another. The goal is workable, sensible ideas that represent the largest portion of America—the middle—not party flag wavers.
Thanks for your post. Look forward to agreeing and agreeing to disagree with you in the future.
David R. Remer:”He has to be the worst President in my lifetime save, perhaps, Richard Nixon.”That’s too kind. Bush43 makes Nixon’s foibles look like quaint peculiarities. Despite Tricky Dicky’s paranoia and distasteful personality, he had many international accomplishments (China, Viet Nam, …) and in the end, he did what was right and resigned. Recent political cartoons have been saying it best:
As Walt Handelsman of Newsday cartooned;
If Watergate happened today Deep Throat would be in Gitmo.
As Chan Lowe of the So. Fla Sun Sentinal cartooned;
If Deep Throat came forward with “the cover up of the real reason for Iraq II goes all the way to the top” the press would say “so what?” Mike Luckovich’s (Atlanta Constitution) response was “anything about Paris Hilton?”
And best of all: Steve Sack of the Star Tribune;
Looking at a picture of RMN an observer says “Lies, Arrogance, and Mangling of the Constituion.” Bush43 replies “Yes, Yes, but what did he do to get him into trouble?”
Also, Why does $100M sound like real money here? Haven’t we spent $200Billion? Thats only 0.05% of the total to date!
Posted by: Dave at June 3, 2005 12:58 PMDave
I know people on the left love the illusions, but we have had some leaks of information. Some very damaging to the administration. How many of these guys are in Gitmo?
Various members of the media attack Bush openly. Any arrests? Any papers shut down? Dan Rather runs a bogus story about Bush. Did the police show up at his door? Newsweek published an unfounded rumor that provokes actual violence. The repercussions are what for Newsweek?
This is a pretty tame police state by anyone’s standards.
It is playtime for liberals. They can stand up and bravely stick their finger in the lion’s face. They can speak truth to power. They can do all these things because they know nothing will happen to them. They know that the faster road to fame and fortune is to trash the administration and claim you are in danger of being oppressed. Get over it boys. The sound and the fury, the bravery and the risk are all in your minds.
When I was in college, the local radicals would protest the CIA. They would say things like, “They kill anyone who speaks against them”. Just like the purported fear of Bush, the statement is self-contradictory.
Jack,
These are cartoons. They are emotive rather than factual, and represent impressions not necessarilty actual events. They are not reality, they parody or exagerate reality.
The real reality? Not enough people give a crap as to how perverted this administration is. They approved torture. They lied to start a war. They are dismantling our social safety nets to provide the wealthy tax “relief” from already being undertaxed. They have destroyed any semblence of fiscal responsibility with a deficit that will burden generations, even if we return to sensible management.
Bush got away with drug abuse in his youth. He got away with desertion as well. (Deny it if you want but if you served you know the name of everyone in your outfit. Why don’t any of his comrades remember him?) He got away with one disastrous business failure after another yet was still “one of the boy’s” because of Daddy. His only successes were an illegal deal involving the Astro’s stadium and insider trading profits. (Not convicted, Daddy was the President, remember)
The Patriot Act destroys any sense of real privacy we have left in this digital age. His judicial choices protect business at the expense of people.
Why do you defend him? Because he’s the “moral” candidate? Because he stopped stem cell research, is anti-choice, and promotes abstinance? Wake up man and stop with the rhetoric and bogus RNC talking points. Stop being defensive and look critically at your handlers as well as those who challenge your world view.
Are you old enough to remember Watergate as it unfolded? I remember telling a fried “This whole Watergate thing is bull. The President would never do such a thing. He’s the President and is better than that.” Live and learn. Remember to learn, especially from the mistakes. And, we’re not in college anymore.
Posted by: Dave at June 3, 2005 02:48 PMDave,
“Bush got away with drug abuse in his youth. He got away with desertion as well. (Deny it if you want but if you served you know the name of everyone in your outfit. Why don’t any of his comrades remember him?) He got away with one disastrous business failure after another yet was still “one of the boy’s” because of Daddy. His only successes were an illegal deal involving the Astro’s stadium and insider trading profits. (Not convicted, Daddy was the President, remember)”
Can you back any of this up with proof? I server honorably in the US Army, won a Bronze Star and an Army Commendation Medal with a “V” for valor, and I don’t know very many people who were in my unit.
Without proof you are just blowing air as far as I am concerned.
I agree tomd.
And Dave, complaining about “talking points” while spouting “talking points” yourself does nothing for your argument.
I’m not old enough to remember watergate myself, but I am old enough to know that we should learn from our mistakes AND to learn from the PAST.
Posted by: kctim at June 3, 2005 03:47 PMhey tomd,
If all that dave said was true about dubya’s past
would you change your mind about him?
If my dad was head of the CIA do you think any of my negative records would be available?
You served your country honorably and you deserve your recognition of service.
Why wasn’t dubya in Vietnam? How did he manage to not be in combat? A certified pilot that didn’t fly in combat when there was an active draft going on? That doesn’t seem shady to you?
Posted by: Jerry at June 3, 2005 04:22 PMThis is not in reference to any posts, this is just information.
HI ALL:
JUST NEEDED TO CLARIFY THIS ISSUE;
“MILITARY AWARDS”
ARE NOT “WON” THEY ARE AWARDED BASED ON THE AWARDEES ACTIONS ON THE BATTLEFIELD, OR ELSEWHERE.
It makes it look like a competition when I see the word “won” used to indicate awarding of any military medal or honors. Therefore, I would hope that you will refrain from using it in reference to the awarding of medals in the future. Use words like issued or awarded in the future.
Further, The Purple Heart, created and first issued in 1776, by then General George Washington, it is still in use today. It was/is awarded to those soldiers wounded or killed on the field of battle while engaging the enemy. Want to compete for that?
As Always,
Wayne
Dave,
“They lied to start a war.”
I suggest that you look up the definition of “lie”. To lie means that you are intentionally deceiving.
What would be the motive for this?
Would he stand to gain financially from this?
Also the desertion charge has been well-researched, and he definitively had an honorable discharge, and if he had deserted that would not have been the case.
On stem cell research, did he really stop stem cell research, or stop public funding for certain kinds of stem cell research that encourage the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of harvesting stem cells then destroying them?
As for the business failures, it definitely helps to have the deep pockets that his parents have.
If you really want to change someone’s mind and affect change, you could start by reading Steve Westby’s comments. But even then you would have to articulate an alternative instead of repeating Bush-bashing rhetoric. All you are doing is fomenting hatred without the air-tight evidence one would expect when making the damning accusations you offer.
Hey Jerry, here’s my two cents:
“If all that dave said was true about dubya’s past would you change your mind about him??
No, because I already know all that. But I also know about a certain Mena airport, some “misplaced” files in the Whitehouse, purported cocain abuse, Ms. Flowers and the other ladies, Ron Brown, Vince Foster, the aspirin factory etc…
But heh, I’m a kook.
“If my dad was head of the CIA do you think any of my negative records would be available?”
Hell no they wouldn’t be available. Look how hard it is to get dean or kerry records and their dads weren’t even the head of the CIA. Sheesh, politics.
Nah. Nothing shady from either side going on here.
AP,
Very good article!
We’ve reached the point where the attempts by Bush & Cheney & Rice to quite literally mislead us no longer elicit much of a reaction.
Bush recently stated the elections in January dealt a ‘serious blow’ to the insurgency. Cheney just said the insurgency was in its ‘last throes.’ During her confirmation hearings, Rice tossed out the number of Iraqis trained at 140,000. Biden replied that was flatly unbelievable. He didn’t even bother to press the issue.
Like Biden, most people don’t even bother anymore to call the administration out on its lies & exagerrations, & simply ignore these attempts to mislead… a rather sad comment on this administration’s credibility.
Posted by: phx8 at June 3, 2005 05:53 PMJerry.
“hey tomd,
If all that dave said was true about dubya’s past
would you change your mind about him?
If my dad was head of the CIA do you think any of my negative records would be available?
You served your country honorably and you deserve your recognition of service.
Why wasn’t dubya in Vietnam? How did he manage to not be in combat? A certified pilot that didn’t fly in combat when there was an active draft going on? That doesn’t seem shady to you?
Posted by: Jerry at June 3, 2005 04:22 PM “
If proof was shown it would disappoint me but I’m not sure I would stop supporting him.
If your dad was head of the CIA, your negative records probably wouldn’t be released, however someone probably would have evidence of them.
As to why President Bush (He IS the President of the United States and deserves to be addressed as such) didn’t serve in Vietnam, Not all persons in the military were sent there. He was a certified pilot flying an aircraft that wasn’t used in Vietnam for one thing and some people had to stay here for homeland defense. Having family connections may or may not have influnced that. I would rather give him the benefit of doubt untill I see evidence otherwise
tomd-
The question is why the fellow who landed on a carrier in a fighter pilot uniform to make a premature speech about victory can get away with such an asinine service record, while others who served in harm’s way somehow get tarred and feathered on what they did in combat (which Bush never saw), despite the fact both were decorated war heros.
Even if you can’t stomach John Kerry, take a look at what they did to John McCain. They had some far right fellow denounce former POW John McCain about what he’s done for POWs and MIA. McCain even demanded an apology from him over it. This is a man who, unlike Bush, flew real combat missions, faced real dangers (including the fire aboard the Forrestal) and spent years as a POW in Hanoi.
Even Kerry, who you likely don’t think much of, got over his opposition to the war enough to put his butt on the line in those swiftboats, one of the most dangerous assignments in the war. He did his duty and followed his orders, and received some pretty substantial medals for that, medals that never came under dispute until a certain president needed to get reelected.
Part of my support for Kerry came from my sense that he was everything that Bush claimed to be, yet a realist about the war to boot, and that he was lined up against a man who couldn’t even manage the discipline to keep his butt going to the drills.
And no, I don’t think Bush outgrew that, because he started planning for his next war while he had his armed forces in the middle of the Afghanistan, and it only took a year or so for him to claim that Osama Bin Laden just wasn’t important anymore.
I wanted a president who is more than quilting of flattering fictions from his supporters. I would have taken McCain over this fellow any day. Show me somebody who’s dealt with the realities of war, instead of someone just prattling on about what a glorious thing it is having never had the guts to put the foot to ass himself.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2005 10:24 PMI think most people would have taken McCain over either Bush or Kerry but we did not have that choice. We are reaching the era of politicians who have not really seen war and we will just get fewer and fewer vets going into politics due to the type of world we live in. I do not care if the president has seen war or not. It is not an issue to most people anymore and intelligent people are well aware of the realities of war whether they have been to battle or not.
I think you rate Kerry too high but that is just my opinion. He did try to get a deferrment but it was denied before going over. Yes he did go but so many at that time used the National Guard to try and avoid going and how can you hold it against them?
Posted by: Mike P at June 3, 2005 10:45 PMTo those who called me a “Bush hater” et. al.:
Bush43 will be remembered as Nero. If there were hard proof of his illegal activities, it has been buried and it would make no difference to you. He has to be given the benefit of the doubt because otherwise all of his actions, all of his agenda, is crap and all the death, destruction, and debt he has caused would be pointless. There needs to be faith in Bush43 because otherwise guilt sets in. He will have made us the “evil empire.”
I don’t have proof of the allegations but I have common sense and the pile of evidence is insurmountable. W is a screw up, he’s screwing up, and he’s screwing the vast majority of us. I just wish you could see it.
Fortunately, I’ve got the capital, experience, and education to survive that jerk. I’m doing “well”. I hope that can be said for you too.
Best wishes,
Dave
PS Stephen, I really like that “quilting of flattering fictions”
Posted by: Dave at June 3, 2005 10:54 PMCould it be that you do not have the proof because it does not exist but is partisan innuendo, allegations, and suppositions? Whether he is screwing the majority of the population anymore than any other politician is of course a partisan question. It appears that the majority of the population would disagree with you or at least disagree when it comes to deciding whether Bush is worse than Kerry would have been. Of course I realize that the normal policy is jsut to pass off those who disagree as just unintelligent partisan sheep.
Posted by: Mike P at June 3, 2005 11:06 PMI just saw this and wondered if anyone else is angered by it?
American justice and democracy: man released from prison after 35 years for TV theft
Junior Allen! Where’s the fist place you’re going when you get out of prison?
“I am getting the Hell outta of North Carolina!”
By Noble Johns
HILLSBOROUGH, North Carolina (BNW) ? Junior Allen spent 35 years in prison for stealing a black-and-white television, yet, the state of North Carolina had all that time to rectify the injustice, but they didn’t. They let that man sit in prison for all those years for that bullshit and didn’t do one damn thing. Now he is a free man, but this case is just an example of life for many Blacks in America’s prisons: just as Michael Jackson once said, “they don’t really care about US,” and these fools called themselves Christians!
Allen, 65, walked out of prison Friday, ending a case that attracted widespread attention, because he remained in jail while other inmates convicted of murder, rape or child molestation were released.
“I’m glad to be out,” Allen told supporters outside Orange Correctional Center. “I’ve done too much time for what I did. I won’t be truly happy until I see a sign that says I’m outside of North Carolina.”
Allen was a 30-year-old migrant farm worker from Georgia with a criminal history that included burglaries and a violent assault when he sneaked into an unlocked house and stole a 19-inch black-and-white television worth $140.
Some state records say Allen roughed up the 87-year-old woman who lived there, but he was not convicted of assault.
Instead, he was sentenced in 1970 to life in prison for second-degree burglary. The penalty for the offense has since been changed to a maximum of three years in prison.
‘At least he’s got some years left’
The state Parole Commission decided last year to release Allen if he behaved and completed a transitional work-release program. He worked at a restaurant washing dishes and floors and had no prison infractions during the past three years.
He did so well he was released several months early — on his 26th try at parole.
His parole could last up to five years, meaning he could gain complete freedom by age 70.
Rich Rosen, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor who took up Allen’s case three years ago, said it was a shame that Allen had not been released decades ago. “At least he’s got some years left,” Rosen said.
Allen did not meet with the parole commission until January 2004. Prior to that time, his record was reviewed regularly by the commission and denied.
Rosen said the parole commission “hasn’t been able to articulate a reason that Allen wasn’t released.”
“He wasn’t the best prisoner, (but) he wasn’t the worst,” Rosen said.
Once outside the prison, Allen got into a car with two friends who were driving him to Athens, Georgia, where he planned to meet relatives and return home to Georgetown, Georgia, near the Alabama border.
Enoch Hasberry, the programs director at Carteret Correctional Center in Newport where Allen went through work-release, said he worries Allen might not adjust well to life on the outside.
“For a black-and-white TV, how much do you have to pay?” Hasberry said.
These crackers in America are rotten to the core with their corrupt criminal justice system; they will lock a nigger down for life for nothing, and then call it justice. How hypocritical can you get?
————————————————————-
What I can not understand is how this guys’ records could pass before the Parole Board 25 times and then on the 26th time he is deemed worthy of release!!! Why? Did he magically start acting in line? Why does he need to serve time on parole? How is parole time determined? Oh, I know, he’ll serve the maximum time possible. Why? You ask! Because North Carolina likes to keep their numbers neat, you know 5 + 35 = 40 , The only thing I can’t understand is this, why his records appeared before the parole board 25 times and then when he appeared on the 26th time, parole was finally granted. North Carolina, be prepared to open your coffers. Why is it that all parolees are given jobs as dishwashers or janitors when released, is that to demean them even more?
Posted by: Wayne at June 4, 2005 12:46 AMI simply need to correct you on your numbers. I don’t know where your getting your data on the “fully trained” troops, but it has never been purported to be 165,000 or so. The number of “fully trained” and ready to fight Iraqis is around 40,000. The additional troops listed are still trainees, and not yet prepared to take over duties. This is pubic record with the Pentagon, Iraqi Survey Group, and several journalists on the ground in Iraq.
Aside from that, a special forces friend of mine has stated in the past that it is very difficult to train many Arabs in that region. This is based on his experience during the first Gulf War.
Posted by: C.J. at June 4, 2005 05:08 AM“Allen was a 30-year-old migrant farm worker from Georgia with a criminal history that included burglaries and a violent assault when he sneaked into an unlocked house and stole a 19-inch black-and-white television worth $140.
Some state records say Allen roughed up the 87-year-old woman who lived there, but he was not convicted of assault.”
seems harsh, but I’ll bet he won’t violently assault anyone else or steal another tv.
While I sympathize with the guy who spent 35 years in prison I am also angry over the criminals who never go to jail for murder because they were not read their Miranda rights.
Why did he steal a black and white TV anyway, was he color blind or, was the system in NC color sensitive.
Equal justice for all is an imperfect system.
Posted by: stevfe smith at June 4, 2005 02:04 PMPosted by: stevfe smith at June 4, 2005 02:04 PM
Why did he steal a black and white TV anyway, was he color blind or, was the system in NC color sensitive.
Equal justice for all is an imperfect system.
Well Steve it was 1970 after all. Technology hasn’t been where it is today. I remember when if you had a computer, if you had 16mb of RAM you were speeding. And you were paying for it through the nose. 16MB for about $400.00 a stick. We’ve come a long way since 1970.
as always,
wayne
tomd:
you stated.
Some state records say Allen roughed up the 87-year-old woman who lived there, but he was not convicted of assault.”
seems harsh, but I’ll bet he won’t violently assault anyone else or steal another tv.
This was the south at the begining of their enlightenment, Do you think for one minute that they wouldn’t get every charge against this man, brought up in court? They never once mentioned it(the alleged assault) in any of the court proceedings. Sounds like a railroading to me, what do you think?
as always,
wayne
Mike P asked:Could it be that you do not have the proof because it does not exist but is partisan innuendo, allegations, and suppositions?Answer: No. Posted by: Dave at June 4, 2005 10:11 PM
I advocate doing something about the solution. I believe we will. But knowing how bureaucracies and politics work, I know it will go in starts and stops.
Jack, that answer is complete bullshit. This is all in the executive branch.
All President Bush has to do is pick up the phone and say, “Don, this is the Commander in Chief of America’s armed forces. The White House email server is bustin’ at the seams with messages from millions of Americans - the people I serve - asking why we’re not properly training and equipping Iraqi recruits so they can defend their country and we can bring our troops home. Make it happen right now, mister!”
I simply need to correct you on your numbers. I don’t know where your getting your data on the “fully trained” troops, but it has never been purported to be 165,000 or so.
CJ, that’s the point of this whole article. Last year, President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld both quoted the number of fully trained Iraqi security forces as 210,000. Rice just used the figure 170,000, and the 165,000 number is used by the US ambassador to Iraq in the article I linked.
Of course it’s all bullshit. Like the Iraqi Foreign Minister says,
“It’s not the question of numbers, of charts,” he explained, referring to the U.S. military’s presentations on their efforts to train Iraqis. “It’s really the quality of these forces. Is there leadership? Is there performance? Is there delegation of authority?”“Definitely, the new army, the new police, need better equipment - at least better weaponry than the insurgents or the terrorists, and we think they could provide that.” Zebari said of the Americans.
After more than two years now, the Iraqi foreign minister is confirming that Iraqi security forces are still poorly trained, poorly led, and poorly equipped.
As of six months ago, “there were only two Iraqi officers at the 20-week Infantry Officers’ Advanced Course at Fort Benning in Georgia and only one Iraqi officer was sent to the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas last year.”
Anyone expecting the Iraqis to protect their own country and have our troops come home is in for a long, long wait.
Wayne said
“This was the south at the begining of their enlightenment, Do you think for one minute that they wouldn’t get every charge against this man, brought up in court? They never once mentioned it(the alleged assault) in any of the court proceedings. Sounds like a railroading to me, what do you think?”
This was in 1970…I know I’m getting older but this was hardly the beginning of the south’s enlightening. I don’t know if they brought up the alleged assault or not. The article says he wasn’t convicted of it. The article does say he had a violent past with burgleries and violent assault in the past. I don’t think he was railroaded. I think if he was given a slap on the wrist he very likely would have gone on to a more violent life. As I said I’ll bet he won’t assult anyone else or steal another tv.
Let me clarify my position on this please. I don’t advocate locking everyone up and throwing away the key. I think there should be no “victimless” crimes at all. I think, however, that a crime with a victim should be punished with more than a slap on the wrist. The punishment should be severe enough to make the criminal afraid to return to his crimes.
Posted by: tomd at June 5, 2005 05:56 AMI think, however, that a crime with a victim should be punished with more than a slap on the wrist. The punishment should be severe enough to make the criminal afraid to return to his crimes.
I don’t know many people who would disagree with you - as long as the punishment fit the crime (don’t need to kill a guy for stealing hubcaps), and the guy really is guilty.
In fact, I live in Singapore where they cane you for most crimes (I was told that it’s more effective than prison because you never forget the pain and humiliation of a public caning) and they hang you for drug offenses - possession as well as dealing and smuggling.
A woman can safely walk alone at night in any part of this city (though I wouldn’t tempt fate by doing it in the foreign worker camps out in the boonies).
Posted by: American Pundit at June 5, 2005 07:14 AMAP,
Point well taken, let me ask you this, “is gum chewing still a canable offense?”
Tomd?
How long would you say it takes for “Enlightenment” to begin, Remember the “Civil Rights Act of 1964?”. That was only 6 years earlier, Hardly enough time, for true enlightenment to take hold, What do you think? Or am I just being cynical?
I will now for the record state that the south no longer tolerates the beliefs of yesteryear in anyway, shape, or form. It is only a shell of its’ former self.it can only be referred to as the south due to it’s geographical location.
As always,
Wayne
I ran into an account of how some of President Bush’s “fully trained” Iraqi troops handled themselves during Operation Lightning,
While Iraqi forces were in the forefront of Saturday’s sweep though the semi-rural region, it was clear the U.S. military was still the driving force.About two hours into the operation, for example, American forces voiced concern that an area covered in tall grass had not been searched. An Iraqi commander said he was reluctant to send his troops into the field for fear of an insurgent attack.
“This is a dangerous area. We need helicopters and the American army,” Iraqi Brig. Gen. Najim al-Ekabi said.
The American soldiers, who had spent months training Iraqi soldiers, tried to persuade al-Ekabi to send his troops, saying it was likely that weapons were hidden in the fields and alongside an irrigation canal.
Army Capt. Jason Blindauer of the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division told al-Ekabi the force had orders to search the area. “No one is going to do it better than your group,” Blindauer said.
Al-Ekabi asked for a private meeting with the Americans and departed shortly afterward in a large convoy, ostensibly to conduct the search.
Maj. Ronny Echelberger later went into the area with American forces and searched a few homes, saying he was not sure the Iraqi search had been sufficiently thorough.
The Iraqi army’s reliance on U.S. troops was evident in other ways. Echelberger had to show an Iraqi brigade commander his location on a map shortly before Iraqi troops launched the operation, and a few minutes later Iraqi soldiers fired hundreds of rounds when they mistakenly thought they saw an insurgent.
“These guys are doing baptism by fire. It takes time,” Blindauer said.
…And lives, too. You gotta feel sorry for those poor bastards, being sent into combat not even knowing how to read a map. No wonder these guys have no confidence and bolt or change sides at the first sign of trouble.
