After George Bush's phony speech last week about bringing home from Iraq the troops next year that already were scheduled to come home, 8th District Republican Rep. Mike Rogers gave the Livingston Press and Argus his usual "me, too" line about how great things are going there.
In a written statement (guess the issue isn't important enough for Rogers to actually talk to his hometown newspaper) reported in Friday's newspaper, Rogers said:
"The bravery and dedication of our troops has had a positive impact in al Anbar Province where communities are now standing up against the brutality of al Qaeda. By bringing local leaders together to reject al Qaeda’s violent ideology, stability and security in that region has improved and as a result we are seeing a draw down of troops coming in the next three months. The President’s shift in strategy must reflect the lessons learned in al Anbar. As we confront the sobering challenges that remain, solutions must take on, more and more, an Iraqi face."
What Rogers failed to mention, of course, is that one of the U.S.' most important allies in Anbar province had just been assassinated. The Sunni shiek, Abdul Sattar Buzaigh al-Rishawi, was killed by a bomb along with two of his guards -- just a week after shaking hands with Bush when Bush sneaked into the country for a brief visit.
Why did Rogers ignore this development in his statement? It occurred early enough in the day for The New York Times to carry a full story on it, and The Times noted that Bush issued a statement on the killing on Thursday.
Even more telling is the information reported Sunday (Sept. 16, 2007) in The New York Times in an Op-Ed piece by pollster Gary Langer titled, "What They're Saying in Anbar Province."
Here's the nut graf:
"In a survey conducted Aug. 17-24 for ABC News, the BBC and NHK, the Japanese broadcaster, among a random national sample of 2,212 Iraqis, 72 percent in Anbar expressed no confidence whatsoever in United States forces. Seventy-six percent said the United States should withdraw now — up from 49 percent when we polled there in March, and far above the national average.
"Withdrawal timetable aside, every Anbar respondent in our survey opposed the presence of American forces in Iraq — 69 percent 'strongly' so. Every Anbar respondent called attacks on coalition forces 'acceptable,' far more than anywhere else in the country. All called the United States-led invasion wrong, including 68 percent who called it 'absolutely wrong.' No wonder: Anbar, in western Iraq, is almost entirely populated by Sunni Arabs, long protected by Saddam Hussein and dispossessed by his overthrow."
Stunning, isn't it. Every Anbar person question called attacks on coalition forces "acceptable." And Mike Rogers says we're making progress there.
The American people don't want our troops there. The people we are supposedly helping don't want us there.
Who does want us there and why?
No comments:
Post a Comment