Grandma in Iraq, April 3, 2006, "Saving Farmland in Iraq" by Suzanne Fournier

Grandma
in Iraq
Suzanne Fournier of
Alexandria,
grandmother of 15,
posts from Iraq.
Fournier is the Public
Affairs Officer for the
Gulf Region Southern
District, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers,
Iraq.
MONDAY, APRIL 03, 2006
Saving farmland in Iraq
I’d like to tell you about another water project that is very different than any we
have in the United States. I know this seems strangely different than problems
facing our farming communities, but let me try to explain why this drainage
system and project are very important here in Iraq. The picture above is the
Euphrates River. Iraq is fortunate to have two vibrant rivers, the Tigris and the
Euphrates. The land between these rivers, known as Mesopotamia, the cradle of
civilization, is some of the most fertile land in the Middle East. This land has
sustained those who lived here for many centuries.
As you would expect, farmers use the water from these two rivers to irrigate their
crops. They farm with trenches for the water to flow between the rows of
vegetables like you see in this picture. The soil has a high salt content
contaminating runoff with sodium in the form of calcium, potassium and sodium
chlorides. After irrigating the cultivated land, this runoff water is unusable for
other purposes. The historic solution is to drain irrigation runoff water through a
series of canals into a drainage system and out to the Persian Gulf. If farmers
reuse this water, it will eventually ruin the fertile farmland.
Years ago, Iraq built a series of drainage canals to collect this water. One drainage
system collects farmland runoff water from the Euphrates Valley five provinces of
Babil, Najaf, Diwaniyah, Muthana and Dhi Qar and empties it into the drain that
collects water from the Baghdad area. The water from these two drains flows
together and moves by natural gravity downward toward the Persian Gulf. Before
it gets to the Gulf, the water must cross the Euphrates River so it is piped under
the Euphrates and then continues in an open drainage ditch out to the Persian
Gulf.
Here is a picture of the inside of a project building located near my home away
from home in Nasiriyah. Iraq. It is called the Nasiriyah Drainage Pump Station and
is the largest drainage pump system of its kind in the Middle East. It stood empty
for many years, but is necessary to make this drainage system work properly.
The pump station construction started in 1982 by a Brazilian firm and was on
again, off again, construction for the past 24 years. The 12 pumps and 12 swinging
gates were purchased in Austria. The purchasing of equipment from a variety of
different foreign countries was typical of the Saddam regime and is one of
challenges we face with reconstruction. Construction of this project was frquently
disrupted by political upheaval, war, lack of funds, flooding and finally the
collapse of the cofferdam.
I am explaining this in an effort to help you understand the multiple challenges

faced by Iraq even for a situation that appears as simple as a drainage system to
solve the irrigation problem. The purpose of this large pumping system is to push
the water under the Euphrates River instead of relying upon natural gravity
because gravity isn’t working.
This picture shows you the size of the structures that will use these circular
openings and accomodate the water flowing through the building.
Right now this contaminated drainage water is backed up and overflowing in the
Nasiriyah area raising the ground water table. This water is concentrated with salt
and is destroying the regional agriculture productivity; it is seeping into the
Euphrates causing downstream contamination for two-million Basrah residents and
the drainage ditches are overflowing, flooding and ruining productive farmland.
This pump station will help to keep 232 square miles of agriculture farmland
fertile.
I know that in Iraq, you all thought pump station were only for oil, but this pump
will keep one of the most fertile agricultural regions the Middle East vibrant and
productive. It will keep farmers employed, feed Iraq’s people and provide another
source of revenue. Iraq can produce rice, grain, dates and vegetables for a healthy
agricultural economy and export commodity.
This is where the water exits the

pump station and goes into the syphon and under the Euphrates, you can just
barely see the Eurphrates River over the top of the dammed area. You can also see
the size of this structure by the car parked in the basin area.
This work at the Nasiriyah Drainage Pump Station is being done cooperatively with
the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Iraq Ministry of Water Resources. it is
expected to take a year to complete. It isn’t an easy process or it would have been
completed years ago.
I won’t bore you with the technical jargon, but let me just say challenges include
installing 12 pumps, 12 swinging gates and 14 support system to operate the
pumps, gates and the siphon structure. Finally most of this equipment has been
sitting here since the 1980’s so some is deteriorated or parts are missing.
Keep in mind, all these problems are greater because the former regime drained
the marshlands. Draining the marshes compounded the historic salinity problem in
Southern Iraq because plant life in the marshes acted as a natural filtering effect
removing much of the salt from the water. There are several theories for why
Saddam drained the marshlands and experts all have their own thoughts. The most
popular theory is so he could drive his tanks across this area to attack Iran;
another was that he was punishing the Shia people for rebelling against him and
still another was to drive the marshland people back to Iran because refugees
could hideout in the marshlands.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me take one minute to address a question that was raised today regarding my
blog. I work for the US Army Corps of Engineers, they pay my salary and I
volunteered to come over here as their employee to officially represent and
communicate Iraq reconstruction work completed by the US Army Corps of
Engineers.
This blog is done on my own time, I've tried to give you a personal view of what
I've observed here, the people, the land and reconstruction activities. Apparently
some people are unhappy that I am communicating with you directly, because they
are challenging that I haven't informed you that I am a public affairs officer and
my job is to work with the news media and American public.
I've explained my job with the Corps several times in my blogs. If I have misled
anyone, I sincerely apologize, that was clearly not my intent. I believe the
American taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are being invested
in Iraq and I believe my current job puts me in a unique position to provide
personal observations since I have traveled the Southern provinces of Iraq for the
past eight months.
The Enquirer has decided to open this blog to comments from anyone who wishes
to post comments. I appreciate their openess and willingness to support freedom
of expression.
posted by Suzanne Fournier @ 2:03 PM 86 comments
86 Comments:
At 2:11 PM, Jeff Hamilton said...

propaganda: n.
the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping
or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause

or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an
effect
At 3:30 PM, Anonymous said...
"...gravity isn’t working."

oh my, nobody could have forseen that gravity would not work. stuff
happens.
At 3:35 PM, Candrian said...
Over at the Cincinnati Enquirer's online site, Cincinnati.com, there's a

blog about Iraq written by military staffer whose job is to generate
positive news about U.S. efforts to rebuild Iraq.
Grandma in Iraq is the title of the blog, written by Suzanne M. Fournier,

a Public Affairs Officer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
ie, this blog is a lie.

At 3:50 PM, Emma Morrow said...
Grandma,
You have an EXCEPTIONALLY good blog, incredibly interesting and more

in-depth reporting than anything you get on the network news.
As you might have noticed, the Bush-Haters have defecated on your

blog, but I just wanted to assure you that your contributions here are
well-read and well-appreciated by those of us who want to understnad
what's really happening to Iraq.
God Bless you, God Bless our troops and God Bless America.
Whatever Granny!
More crap spoon-fed to us by a govt that won't just tell us the truth!
Why? cuz the truth hurts.

The fact that you didn't disclose you worked for the U.S. military is sad,
pathetic and unsurprising.
I, for one, have grown used to our government lying to us in every

conceivable way -- so why not a blog from a "Grandma in Iraq"?
The fact that you try to justify it as an effort "on your own time" shows
you are still trying to spin your way out of this mess.
I weep for the future.
"The military don't start wars. Politicians start wars." General William
Westmoreland
Testifying before the senate budget committee, CONDI Rice said "large
portions" of the Iraqi infrastructure had been modernized and about
227,000 (not 400,000) "quality" Iraqi troops had been trained and
equipped to battle a insurgency alongside US forces.
But THEN SHE ADMITTED that the process of raising an Iraqi army and
police force had got off to a bumpy start. "To be fair, we made a
mistake earlier. We relied on NUMBER rather than on QUALITY," she
said. Military officials say that of the 227 000 trained and equipped
Iraqis, fewer than 100 000 have been organized into battalions as
fighting forces.
The NUmber of Independently Fightinf Iraq battalions has Gone from

THREE TO ZERO. yes ZERO IRAQI battalions can gight w/out us.
Rice also clashed with senator Conrad, who took issue with her
assessment that the Americans had boosted the capacity for clean
water for seven million Iraqis and four million had better sewage
operations.
Conrad cited official figures showing the percentage of Iraqis with clean
drinking water had DECLINED from 50% before the war to 32% now.
Those with decent sewage were down from 24% to 20%.

When Rice countered that it might be the difference between delivery
or capacity, Conrad shot back: "We can improve capacity, that's great.
But at the end of the day, what matters to people is to get it!"
RICE, VISIBLY SHAKEN< BACKED OFF and recognized that US forces had
shifted the focus from large-scale reconstruction projects to more local
efforts "to make certain that there is also better delivery for Iraqis".
Electricity Hits Three-Year Low in Iraq 3.02.06

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_powerle
ss
Former Iraqi Prime Minister: Iraq Is In A Civil War
"It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an
average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is
not civil war, then God knows what civil war is…We are in a terrible
civil conflict now."
In 2004, Bush said it was unacceptable to question the credibility of

Allawi’s assessment of Iraq:
"Well, Prime Minister Allawi was here; he is the leader of that country.
He’s a brave, brave man. When he came, after giving a speech to the
Congress, my opponent questioned his credibility. You can’t change the
dynamics on the ground if you’ve criticized the brave leader of Iraq."
If you want News about how well the Govt is doing in Iraq, listen to the
govt shilld.
IF you want the truth about how well the Govt is doing in Iraq, find the
Congressional testimony.
At 5:27 PM, David F said...
I'm not sure why "Anonymous" has chosen this as his forum, but I do note
that, from the beginning of this blog to the end, you've always
identified your employer. I'm happy that you have written this blog. I
doubt that "Anonymous" has anything to contribute, but I'm sure that he
hasn't anything but empty rhetoric and unsustainable statistics to offer.
Thanks to all who are doing the great work over there, not in spite of
the under-reporting and blogger attacks, but even moreso because of
it! :) Hope you have a great trip home soon, too.
The Enquirer has decided to open this blog to comments from anyone
who wishes to post comments.
...which the paper only did because today bloggers got wind of this PR
flak project and called bull**** to editors at the paper. (The Enquirer's
political blog has always allowed anonymous postings.)
Congratulate the Enquirer's newfound openness all you want, but be
honest and state that they only did it after scrutiny and criticism from
outside.
While we're taking about openness, Ms. Fournier, please state online
who at the Enquirer hired you to run this blog and when, and to whom
at the paper do you report?
We look forward to your prompt and thorough reply.
At 5:44 PM, Dr. Joe said...
Suzanne, I have read your weblog for several months and I have very
much appreciated that you volunteered to go to Iraq and that you have
shared your own observations. You have contributed a lot to my
understanding of the situation in Iraq, which is very complex. I'm
grateful that you have told us what you saw in ways anyone can
understand. God bless you and God bless America.
While we're taking about openness, Ms. Fournier, please state online
who at the Enquirer hired you to run this blog and when, and to whom
at the paper do you report? We look forward to your prompt and
thorough reply.
Ditto.
Okay, Granny in Iraq, out with it. Who are you really. Anonymous
number one vants to know, and he has vays to make you talk, ja? I have
read your blog, and knew you worked in the Army as a civilian, and
enjoyed your descriptions of Iraq, the people and especially the kids.
You put yourself in harm,s way, away from home and family to help
people in need. Anonymous number one does not believe anyone could
do that, so you must be part of a vast conspiracy to blind the American
public, Ja? Please ignore him, or her. They are sarcastic, angry, hateful
little people (and judging from the tone of his or her blog, very self
important) and all they want to do is tear down. You are helping to
build up. Keep up the good work, we are behind you. Signed;
Anonymous number two.
The sad part is I'm not very surprised to learn that the Pentagon is
planting propaganda in our newspapers.
I think it's sad this country has come down to an "us vs. them" mentality
and if you're not on the "right side" or express views similar to yours
(i.e. whichever political way you lean), then you are wrong, a liar, etc.
Truly, truly sad.
I'm glad we live in a country which allows freedom of expression, I just

which we'd use that right more wisely.
At 10:19 PM, furtail said...
I only raised the issue that Grandma works for the Army as a public
affairs person because, although I do believe Grandma can bring her
own observations to the table, I would doubt that anything
"controversial" or "negative" from the military's point of view would be
allowed. I've read three posts so far; they all seem to be quite rosy and
wonderful. I've met many people who've traveled to Iraq and not a
single person has described Iraq the way Grandma has. That is why I
suspected that the blog wasn't very genuinely her own thoughts (I
suspect that if she's an intelligent, articulate, thoughtful human being,
then not every post would be so "rosy", it just defies logic). The posts
rather remind me when I was in high school, and I would read editorials
in Pravda during Soviet times. Yes, propaganda. I would like to know if
Grandma talks to ordinary Shia (70 % of whom want the US to leave).
What do they think of the US activities? Do you get to go to their
homes?
At 10:34 PM, furtail said...

I just noticed that the tagline on your blog states that you are a public
affairs officer. That tagline was NOT present until I posted a question
yesterday and apparently some other people called the Enquirer editor
about your status. Is this correct? Why the disclosure now? It seems
really strange...
What's the matter, Ms. Fournier? Can't you answer for yourself? I
thought you were rough and tough regular Army?
When are you going to tell us who at the Enquirer hired you? Or are you
just going to hide behind the cover of these Bush flaks?
At 11:27 PM, Lauria said...
I do not doubt that some progress has been made in restoring Iraq's
infrastructure, but from documented reports to Congress, I must
conclude not nearly enough has been done, and none of us should
forget that the rebuilding would not be necessary, had we avoided
invading a sovereign nation under false pretenses.
Yes, Granny's posts are too overtly rosy to be logical. It is a war zone,
after all, where good news is the exception rather than the rule.
I'm not surprised that this blog was produced, written and directed by
someone in our government, because it isn't the first time this
administration has used the media to further its propaganda. Radio
hosts, newspaper reporters, tv newscasts, and even a fake reporter in
the White House pressroom have been utilized to further Bush's agenda.
At 1:36 AM, Paul said...
Mrs. Fournier, I look forward to reading your blog every weekend. There
was never any confusion as to what your job was in Iraq and why you
were making posts to your blog. Don't worry about a few who only like
to defame something that is useful and enlightening to others. I'm sure
a lot of the readers enjoy your postings, I know I do. Thanks for all the
information and good stories.
At 3:00 AM, Anonymous said...
I wonder what Paul finds enlightening in Grandma's blogs. It is a big

contradiction to say that lies are enlightening. A public relations person
is hired to make their employeer or his cause or both look good. They
are image sellers. Hello people! Aren't you curious about the real
progress being made in Iraq. After all our young men and our tax dollars
are being used in Iraq everyday.
At 5:00 AM, Fred Bieling said...

So many Anonymous commentors here.... Who is who?
This is a great blog because it offers a personal, real-life view of things.

I've read it many times and I don't fault the author at all for anything.
She's clearly indicated what her affiliation and role is. however,
cincinnati.com should have made her military affiliation more obvious.
I'm no pro-Bush, anti-Bush or anything. I just appreciate the fact that

this person is donating her time so that people like me can get more
information we can't get anywhere else.
I especially like the photos and would like to see more of them. The
first posts about the schools she visited are still very fresh in my mind
and that must have been a year or more ago.
I really appreciate what Grandma is doing and I think we should thank

her, and probably do something for her when she gets back.
At 7:54 AM, Jon Greenbaum said...
I don't get it. You expect us to believe you that you write this on your
own time? You're kidding, right? I don't even believe that you are a
Grandma. The Bush administration has lost all credibility with the
American people and it is because of weak attempts at propaganda like
your blog. Bush and Cheney lied about why they invaded Iraq (did you
see Bush evade Helen Thomas' question? He kept talking about 9/11 and
Afghanistan which kind of proved her point) and they've covered it up
by spending millions on propaganda. That propaganda was planted in
the Iraq media. But big surprise! Now they are planting propaganda in
the domestic media.
It's great that some Americans want to help the Iraqi people who have
suffered under years of sanctions that the U.S. pushed through the UN.
According to the World Health Organization the sanctions meant that
Iraq wasn't able to address the infrastructure damage we inflicted in
the Gulf War. The WHO points out that a half a million children died as
a result of those sanctions. Later studies identifiy that number at more
like only a quarter of a million children. OK, U.S. foreign policy only
killed a quarter of a million children. Your job is to twist that reality to
blame the problems on Saddam Hussein and put lipstick on a the U.S.
foreign policy. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died for lies and
ideology. The Bush neocons wanted a free market utopia in Iraq. Reality
intervened. Now, despite the attempts of the U.S. Army corps to fix
stuff, the reality is that the U.S. presence in Iraq is causing chaos, not
preventing it. The unemployed Iraqi youth in the brigades are not
stupid. They know what Bush and Bremer tried to do and they are
pissed off and willing to die to expel us. If we don't hand the country
over to a multinational peacekeeping force the country will continue to
slide into the fire. You can deceive yourself all you want that you are a
good American just trying to help the poor people of Iraq, but the
reality is that you are a tool of the Bush administration's attempt to rob
the Iraqi people of their nation and resources. I don't believe in good
and evil but if there was such a thing you'd have to ask yourself which
side you are on.
Come home. We need you here. You aren't helping anybody over there.
You are the bandaid applied to the side of the hornets nest that we
have just wacked and continue to meddle in.
At 9:21 AM, Jon Garfunkel said...
There's nothing wrong with an Army public affairs officer writing a

"blog" from Iraq.
The question is whether the Cincinatti Enquirer wants to abrogate itself

from the business of reporting.
It would have far greater journalistic value if you were to use this
forum with Ms. Fournier to have a moderated Q&A interaction. A "blog"
is the cheap way out, and you know it.
Ms. Fournier,
We're still waiting to hear who at the Enquirer hired you and to whom
you report.
There's nothing confidential about that information. We await your

reply.
At 11:00 AM, Shawna H. said...

Mrs. Fournier-
I know for a fact you are an upstanding, honest person. And definetly a
real grandma. Thank you for serving your country as you do. It has
greatly upset me to see all the negativity about what you are doing to
help others. Those that do not believe that their is "rosiness" over in
Iraq, get off your high and mighty horses, and self-centeredness and
come to reality. The media sure as heck has not once depicted Iraq as
the civialin DOD and military personell see it. The media only shows the
negative side of things. Try doing the job we do daily. We fight to
protect you so shut the hell up.
Mrs. Fournier please don't let the ignorence of several bloggers affect
you. You are doing a terrific job. I myself am very proud of you and say
to you and my fellow soldiers:
THANK YOU FOR A JOB WELL DONE!!!!!!!!!
"HOOAH!! It's an Army thing you wouldn't understand"
We fight to protect you so shut the hell up.
Wrong. You fight to protect us so we won't have to shut the hell up like
the dictatorships that we're not supposed to be like. It's called the Bill
of Rights.
Like it or not, the Consitution says anyone, including you, has the right
to criticize our government. If you don't understand that, it's unclear
what you're defending.
At 11:33 AM, Shawna H said...
To those that do not understand the US Government and Military:
1) Mrs. Fournier is not part of the military. She is a civlian working

WITH the military to help others.
2) Try going to a recruiting office and ask and see just how many
"rights" we that chose to serve our country give up so that you can rest
at night. So you can have your freedom of speech and expression and all
you other freedoms.
3) You know its interesting how so many are "defaming" this blog. All its
about is helping the farmland over in Iraq so that the people can survive
and live. Not all Iraqies are bad.
To Mrs. Fournier and all those that serve our country whether AD, ARG,
IRR etc
KEEP IT UP YOU ARE ALL AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At 11:34 AM, Emma Morrow said...
And Democrats wonder why the American Public doesn't think they are
patriotic...
You only need to read the comments on this blog to understand how
deeply Hatred has perverted the Left.
At 11:36 AM, skipsailing said...
It doesn't really take much courage to post snitty anonymous comments

on a blog. doing that isn't "truth to power" it's abject poverty of spirit.
the true bigots and haters in America today are to be found on the left
side of the political spectrum.
Scanning through the comments here I am appalled at the lack of good

manners, the poor language skills and the unwillingness of so many to
tolerate another POV.
We are lectured by left continually about tolerance, yet they show no

tolerance themselves. We are supposed to accept all sorts of insults to
our culture in the name of "progess" while those who make these
demands behave like the semi literate boors they really are.
Reading The posting by Grandma in Iraq lead to quite an insight. The

issue with which she is contending is similar to the issue facing farmers
in the Southwest. Arizona for example faces the fact that as the water
they need comes from further away it's cost rises and its quality
diminishes.
If you smarmy unkempt lefties can get over yourselves long enough to
actually do some research, may I suggest that you look up the history of
the Salton Sea? Agricultural tailwater from surrounding high volume
farms is killing this accidentally created body of water.
Another interesting insight provided by Grandma in Iraq is that Sadam's

government went about its business in a very haphazard manner. While
the pumping station itself is no doubt quite necessary the bizarre
collection of hardware from all sorts of diverse suppliers showed that
baksheesh not common sense drove the aquisition process under
Saddam.
the left, of course, cannot recognize that Saddam ravaged Iraq for his
own personal gain. to do so would be tantamount to admitting that the
US is doing a masterful job of recovering from thirty years of
depredation.
Just the story of the Marsh Arabs alone, so completely ignored by the
left and their lackies in MSM, should tell anyone exactly what kind of
person Saddam was.
I don't see this as propaganda at all. Those who term it such are simply
thoughtless bigots. And thanks to our current educational system,
thoughtless bigots are a dime a dozen in America today.
Thank you Grandma, for your service to our country. Please remember:
nihil illegitimata non carborundum.
Grandma,
I think your blog is excellent and found the information provided to be

very insightful and educational. My only qualm would be that it should
have been delivered in a more transparent manner. I think the
disclosure currently at the top of the blog should have been there from
the beginning. That being said I think your message is important to be
conveyed and deserves a forum. I just wish the Enquirer would have
been a bit more clear about your job description.
At 12:24 PM, Bob Sanderson said...
I think that it is great that "Grandma" posts her views and that they are
consistent with her employer the US Government and fit in nicely with
her PR job.They should be prefaced and clearly marked with her role
and employer in Iraq. Plesase get your message out honestly and let
people weight it given the right information.
The Cinci Enquirer should know better.
and by all means:

God Bless you, God Bless our troops , God Bless America and God Bless
the Cinci Enquirer.
i've read your blog before, and didn't know you were a public affairs
officer, but did think that your postings were a little too well-crafted to
be simply a casual blog. it all makes more sense now.
At 12:25 PM, Bob Sanderson said...
I think that it is great that "Grandma" posts her views and that they are
consistent with her employer the US Government and fit in nicely with
her PR job.They should be prefaced and clearly marked with her role
and employer in Iraq. Plesase get your message out honestly and let
people weight it given the right information.
The Cinci Enquirer should know better.
and by all means:

God Bless you, God Bless our troops , God Bless America and God Bless
the Cinci Enquirer.
At 12:34 PM, Marleen L. Samuelson said...
Transparency is the key to honest communication. I think the Cincy

Enquire needs to explain how it came, by stealth, encourage a public
affairs officer to extend her role by blogging. I'm sure I just couldn't
start promoting my ideas with them as say Mom or Auntie which I am.
At 12:39 PM, Chyndra said...

I don't understand why Grandma needs cover to tell the story she is
telling. If it is solely public works, we as Amaericana need to hear how
all the hundreds millions of our Tax dollars are being spent and what
results we are getting with our nation building activities in Iraq.
At 12:48 PM, skipsailing said...
Marleen, you make no sense at all. yet your comments are pretty
typical here.
let's face it, if you didn't know the provenance of the author you would
either accept or reject her blog based on your own understanding of the
situation.
but once you determined that the author has a relationship with the
American government and it's dreaded military you instantly assume
that nothing the author writes is to be trusted.
Sneering cynicism is hardly an effective substitute for honest inquiry.

You seem to prefer the former and not the latter.
How sad for you and all the other whining ankle biting watergate
wannabes that are spewing their venom here.
shame on you.

Here's a perfect example of the kind of thoughtless bigotry the left now
uses in the place of honest debate.
Candrian's very words:
"Grandma in Iraq is the title of the blog, written by Suzanne M.

Fournier, a Public Affairs Officer for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
ie, this blog is a lie."
This is you, american left, in all your glory. Candrian simply calls the
author a liar based on absolutely no facts at all.
the left has sunk to the lowest level of discourse, simple name calling.
School yard bullies have more ability than this.
How sad that there are so many nasty, angry cowards out there who's
sole act of "courage" is to post a bigoted comment on a website.
How pathetic
...and by all means please let us know how you came to blog here and
who at the Enquire supports your blog cause I'd like to blog a few ideas.
My son is in Iraq for his second tour of duty with the Marines. He has
some candid things he'd like to share here about the security situation
and what we need to do to begin to win the Iraqis over to our way of
thinking and doing things. We already have them voting!
God Bless the Marines

At 1:45 PM, seguin said...
JEEBUS! Who put out the Troll Feed?
Hey, whiny jackasses - you don't like it, then LEAVE AND QUIT
CLUTTERING UP THE COMMENTS SECTION! Somebody might have
something useful to say!
This post is directed toward user 'skipsailing' regarding his or her earlier
post. I will attempt to analyze the most important parts.
"I am appalled at ... the unwillingness of so many to tolerate another

POV."
What is the other POV that is not being tolerated? Is it the view that it's
acceptable for the Enquirer to withhold the *extremely relevant*
affiliation/job of the author? There's nothing wrong with being
intolerant of this occurrence.
"We are lectured by left continually about tolerance, yet they show no
tolerance themselves."
Yes, progressives *are* not tolerant of misleading "news" because a

well-informed populace is critical to democracy. Are you against
democracy?
"We are supposed to accept all sorts of insults to our culture..."
If your culture is one of propaganda and government control of the

people (rather than by and for the people) toward the ends of very few,
then yes, this culture will be insulted.
"If you smarmy unkempt lefties can get over yourselves..."
I thought you said the true bigots and haters are to be found on the
*left* side of the political spectrum and that you were appalled at the
lack of good manners? I guess you changed your mind.
"...long enough to actually do some research, may I suggest that you

look up the history of the Salton Sea?"
Nobody has written that every fact in this blog is a lie. What a stupid
half-argument you just almost made.
"The left, of course, cannot recognize that Saddam ravaged Iraq for his
own personal gain. to do so would be tantamount to admitting that the
US is doing a masterful job of recovering from thirty years of
depredation."
So that makes it ok that the Bush administration cherry-picked reports

to show that there were weapons when there was insufficient evidence
to make that determination. It really is black and white with you
people. Saddam was "bad," so, no matter what this administration has
done (even though they planned to take over Iraq well before the
presidency, and then fit the "facts" to the policy), it must be purely
"good."
It has been the lack of scrutiny of our officials and the cowering to
vague fear and bigotry on the part of people like you that allowed all
this to happen. And yes, many are not tolerant of what you have done.
"[This damning evidence] should tell anyone exactly what kind of person
Saddam was."
No one refutes the "kind of person" he was -- don't you see how
manipulated you've been that you think that this is a major point of
contention. No wonder you hate the left, you've been tricked into
thinking that they deny such points as these. This truth may be hard to
deal with, but don't come crying to me - blame the right-
wing/media/Bush gang that feed each other while they take from you
(assuming your net worth is below a certain threshold or you can’t be
“paid” by the implementation of your own religious doctrine as law).
"Thank you Grandma, for your service to our country."
Ah, finally we agree.
- Mike L.
ny923atYahoo.com
ps. You criticized anonymous postings, however, you are almost equally
as anonymous as your username is not tied to any personally
identifiable information.
It seems very odd and unethical that a newspaper's online division

would allow US Army Corp of Engineer PR person to blog out comments
which by any standard are only promotional for the current US
administration's use of our military.
Hey, Cincinnati Enquirer - at best you've mislead your regional and

national readers. At worst, you've become a mouthpiece for the biggest
military boondoggle in US history.
Too bad, huh.
Jim
Oakland
Mike L. -- you're my hero.
And shame on the Cinci Enq. for failing to disclose "Grandma"'s true
background.
Here's where to get information about what's really going on from

people who don't have the option of leaving when the sh*t really hits
the fan:
http://www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

nothing like an angry liberal to demonstrate the physical manifestations
of an excess of hubris.
chyndra, best of luck to your Marine. You must be quite proud. It takes
real parenting skill to raise a child with the courage and fortitude to
join the marines.
Now as to anonymous comments: here's the big difference. I leave a

trail. My screen name is applied to every posting I make here and
elsewhere while anonymous could be anybody and is often quite a few
people. so there is no way to track comments for consistency of
thought.
Frankly I'm pleased that the debate has shifted from this fine blogger to
my comments. The lady who writes the blog has important things to do.
More important than fending off the swarm of angry harpies posting
here as "anonymous".
If I have offended anyone's delicate sensibilities that's just too bad.
Whiners. you guys couldn't lift chyndra's son's rucksack. the best you can
do is express righteous indignation in the comments section of what is
actually a very interesting blog.
Oh and based on seguin's oh so pithy insight one can assume that a troll
is anybody that disagrees with the left's recieved wisdom.
did I get that right Seguin?
At 4:02 PM, SUPERIOR AMERICAN said...

Grandma! Grandma! Cookies! I want Cookies! And hugs and hot
chocolate!
Please?!Please?!Please?!
You should be called Superior Grandma.

Don't worry what the naysayers say. You gotta have faith. I mean thats
all we Bush People have anyway.
Yes, skipsailing, you do leave a trail.
And with luck, a couple biohazard suits, a hose, and disinfectant, it can
be taken care of.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,89811,00.html
"CENTCOM Eyes Blogs to Shape Opinion

InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Jason Sherman | March 03, 2006
In a bid to find new ways to influence public opinion about U.S.
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, a small media affairs team in Tampa
has burrowed into the mushrooming cyber world of blogs and persuaded
hundreds of Web sites -- which then link to thousands of other sites --
to post content prepared by military public affairs officials.
Since last July, the Florida-based U.S. Central Command's public affairs
staff -- in an effort recently praised by Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld for its innovation -- has been initiating contact with editors of
Web sites that cover operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, offering the
same news releases and stories written by military officials that are
made available to journalists affiliated with traditional media outlets."
More at the above link.
don't you just wish those pesky military types would just stop trying to
win?
At 5:31 PM, Morris Coleman said...
Unfortunately, this forum has become a left vs. right battleground and
lost all of its meaning, even as I am typing this, more meaning is being
lost (for the simple fact that I am adding to such a superfluous thing as
commentary on a blog). But here is the dichotomy of it all, we need to
hear both sides. Everyone is free to speak their mind and is free not to
listen to the other side. You can be a puppet of the left or the right,
but it seems there is little objectivity here. Those who make the
paranoid attacks against the government are in fact the very thing they
despise. They have chosen, as they are protected to choose, to only
listen to one side. This blog (and others like it: CENTCOM) is simply
another avenue to get information. If you want to get a more rounded
view you should look at multiple sources. Besides, it is a blog and
should be taken with a grain of salt. It is also on the Internet, so full of
information, misinformation and billions upon billions of pages of
nonsense, check your sources and find out if they are credible (with
that in mind, a higher percentage of Americans trust the military than
the media, honestly, I can't give you numbers or the exact facts, but
I've seen it and it's disproportionate, of course, it all depends on who's
doing the polling, but maybe we should look at multiple sources to find
the middle ground, especially when it comes to world affairs). And if
you want to look further into it, look at the fact that there is more
news out there than Iraq or Bush or, here's the shocker, America; try
BBC or BBC World, or Al Jazeera, their lack of being American gives a
better look at the stories that are covered and there is less bias and
more newsworthiness. Now, there is a smart quip for every single
comment here (and I'm sure a few even within my comments), but
there's no sense in being witty to anyone that will listen, but not hear,
that has already passed judgement, someone who is as worthy an
opponent in an argument as a wall. This is red comments talking to red
and blue to blue because the high emotion has made sides, with or
against, in this silly blog commentary forum social disection where no
one is actually absorbing because the frivolous thoughts are
meaningless (the blog on the other hand has much meaning no matter
who wrote it because it has sparked a dialogue of sorts, not a very good
dialogue, but maybe once all the emotions are out we can get to the
point, maybe then we can really learn from one another). If someone
argues with themselves in the woods and no one is around, do they
make a sound, or better yet, is there an argument? All this anger stems
from some place, and it's not about being lied to or feeling misguided,
that is misplaced, probably by the same people that supported the war
until they were convinced they were misguided and have done a
complete 180 because of the betrayal, and instead of supporting parts,
they want to get as far away as possible and set themselves apart as a
staunch anti-war activist (much like a homophobic homosexual).
Betrayal leads to severe rivalries, even if one is wrong, just to prove
the point that the other was wrong too, expelling countless energy
(possibly a new green way to produce power for this country) to
contradict everything the other says, even when the former makes
sense. A running theme is that of the mistrust of government. Question
government, but lacking any trust shows apathy toward a system for
change that will not change, though it will, (why try to change it when
it's all against me and it won't do any good anyways?) A system of
victims. Another key issue of this blog commentary is the hopping on
the bandwagon without knowing the issue, but a part that is picked;
therefore, taken out of context. Fundamentalists use this tactic all the
time to make a point where none really exists by simply choosing what
will further thier cause (they too, like to use emotion in their
arguments). Another group of folks got half the story and made the rest
up as suits their cause. To bash left or right is insulting; to lump people
as one within that group is insulting; to defame the character of
someone, without any basis, who is stating their opinion shows there is
really no argument to be made; using emotion is a false argument
(unfortunately it works). Once you get to name calling, you've lost me.
Once you lump everyone, you've become intolerant. And not everyone
on this forum is doing that, but many are overwhelmingly negative. My
analysis of the questions here is much like my analysis of the news from
US sources - we are asking the wrong questions because we hop on a
bandwagon of false truths (yes, I said false truths because too often do
we take one source and make that our rally cry when, now here's
something to remember, the first report is generally always wrong). I
urge everyone who has written a response to go back and actually read
what they have written, and if they are objective, they will see 90
percent has been written emotionally, which is good for TV, but not
good to base facts on (facts that I see, but I don't believe from either
side). I'm not going to quote any statistics or cleverly point out all the
errors in again, 90 percent of all postings, or take quotes from
Webster's Dictionary because define one word for me that I can't tear
apart with another, and I'll show you someone who's right (not
conservative, but correct). As for the infamous "they" and the right to
keep anonymous, understand "they" is simply you or an extension of you
and the very attack, attacks your own character because the
government is made up of you, and therefore you are lying to yourself,
and therefore you are full of self hate (seems extreme and full of
fallacy, but did I mention to go back and read what you originally
wrote; you is the term for all in this forum if you hadn't gotten that by
now). And to add to the paranoia of many, you have the right to be
anonymous, but the accused also has the right to face their accuser;
besides, there's no need to be anonymous because if the government is
really watching then think about how you posted your comments and
then realize you were using a computer and then realize that they are
watching you so I wouldn't make any international phone calls, because
they will get to you some way (possibly by planting people where you
work, your neighbors or through the very newspaper you read, which
will fill your head with more rumors than the magazine rack at the
grocery store checkout). The issue I truly see is not really about this
blog at all, but about the distrust of the administration (an inherent
problem in most arguments is lumping the administration and
government into a single entity, which would be like saying since in a
republic the people make up the government, then everyone is part of
the same administration and we are no longer able to dissent for fear of
the government watching, which by they are, but they are much
sneakier by planting people, just like the movies). There is a distinction
between the elected administration and its appointees and the millions
of people who work for the government and work for you the people,
who swear allegiance to uphold the constitution (this is much more than
any have done or be honored to do). Oh, I believe I missed the point (as
many others have as well). The point is why there wasn’t full disclosure
and the answer to that is actually quite simple - that in today’s age of
blogs, information and misinformation readily available on the Internet
(and the obvious media and PC savvy people out there know this) no
one thought to use a simple search engine to find a little more about
the person they are attacking before making allegations. Google it, it
really works. Narrow down, use common sense. There is no argument
because in all reality, people only feel duped because they were too
lazy to do any of their own research if they were questioning the
phantom person who was placed by the Pentagon to get into your
newspapers and take over your brain making you become one with the
administration, nonsense. I don’t see the difference from average
everyday person writing a blog about their life and the average
everyday person who writes a blog about their life (and works for a
government agency). It may be viewed as a conflict, but it’s not posing
as hard news and shouldn’t replace hard news because after all, it is a
blog. Besides, it is still about their experience and no one can say it’s
not when they aren’t that person – half empty, half full. No one can
speak for me when I can speak for myself. I guess many of us feel
paralyzed to solve any real problems from a grass roots level or even in
our own personal lives and that’s why we blog or read blogs or attack
blogs because we feel like we can change something if enough people
will rise up against a faceless adversary that is ourselves. Left and right
is the new religion and we are taking sides praying to the Almighty
Donkey or Elephant. We'll never be free from our politics; therefore,
this forum is a senseless battle that has lost all meaning. Even as I write
this, its meaning was lost.
Wow dude, try to use paragraphs. It makes for an easier read, not that
anyone on the planet is going to read your entire post. But I would have
gotten further if you had used paragraphs.
Here is a report from a real Iraqi over at riverbend:
I don’t think anyone imagined three years ago that things could be quite
this bad today. The last few weeks have been ridden with tension. I’m
so tired of it all- we’re all tired.
Three years and the electricity is worse than ever. The security
situation has gone from bad to worse. The country feels like it’s on the
brink of chaos once more- but a pre-planned, pre-fabricated chaos
being led by religious militias and zealots.
School, college and work have been on again, off again affairs. It seems
for every two days of work/school, there are five days of sitting at
home waiting for the situation to improve. Right now college and school
are on hold because the “arba3eeniya” or the “40th Day” is coming up-
more black and green flags, mobs of men in black and latmiyas. We
were told the children should try going back to school next Wednesday.
I say “try” because prior to the much-awaited parliamentary meeting a
couple of days ago, schools were out. After the Samarra mosque
bombing, schools were out. The children have been at home this year
more than they’ve been in school.
Skip honey, come home.
Editor & Publisher, the leading journal covering the newspaper industry
just reported about this blog. From the article:
(Enquirer assistant managing editor Chris) Graves declined to say why

the blog had been started or how Fournier had been recruited for the
position, noting it had started under her predecessor, Dave Heller, who
is now with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Calls to Heller, Enquirer
Editor Tom Callinan and James Jackson, the paper's vice
president/online, were not immediately returned. E&P also e-mailed
Fournier in Iraq, but has yet to receive a response.
I am sad to hear much of the discussion here because all I do is worry

about my son. He is a career soldier and didn't think twice about going
back.
That said, his feeling is that this war is off the track. He feels the
soldiers are doing a great job but that the war is being lost by the
people in the pay grades above his that designed the strategy and
tactics for the war.
He thinks in the past six months there has been a great change in how
the population in his area (SHiite) views the troops. They are going on
patrol alot less and feel like we are giving up the territory to militias.
This all makes me more worried and I think that should also be blogged
somewhere.
At 10:36 PM, smintheus said...

If you were to read British, or German, newspapers from 1915, you'd
find similar propaganda telling you, dear reader, that all is going well
with the Nation's great crusade to make the world safe for us. On the
streets, you would also hear denunciations of anybody who was thought
to be insufficiently patriotic...that is to say, who was not absurdly
enthusiastic about the government's policies.
This blog is out and out war propaganda of the classic sort. There are
two outrages here. One, that the Enquirer would not make a serious
effort to warn readers that the blogger is a government flack. The
second and bigger outrage is that they would allow a government flack
to use their site in the first place, with or without transparency.
Reporting ought to be the business of reporters. If the newspaper

wishes to give space to non-professionals, then oughtn't they be giving
equal prominence to an informed critic of the Bush administration's Iraq
policies?
I'm a well-known critic, have written extensively on line about the

unfolding fiasco that is the Iraq war (check out this website for some
fun documents that you won't see being discussed here at this blog). I
also live in Cincinnati. I'd be happy to provide a little balance to the
Enquirer's blog palette.
Who hired you anyway, Grandma in Iraq? A lot of people have asked,
including the good folks at Editor & Publisher, but not a peep from you
or the newspaper. Perhaps everybody recognizes what a PR disaster this
is turning into?

The only thing I can say is she has more guts than all these other babies
crying about things. If you think she is lying -- go over there and see for
yourself -- otherwise shut up. If you think she is lying -- ask all the other
Western journalist that are giving you the "unbiased" news how many
days they have been out of their cozy hotel rooms in the past month.
Not many -- they are too lazy to get the real news.
At 12:05 AM, SUPERIORAMERICAN said...
Superior argument Anon.
At 12:37 AM, D said...
BS propaganda. This blog is a lie!
To user 'skipsailing':
You posted recently but did not address my post above which is critical
of many of your earlier claims.
Please take a look and share your thoughts with us. Thank you.
It's the other one that's signed:
-Mike L.
ny923atYahoo.com
The Cincinnati Beacon just published this open letter to Enquirer editor
Tom Callinan asking for answers to who hired Ms. Fournier and to whom
does she report.
Mike, if you want to debate with me, think up a screen name or start a
blog. It can't be that hard.
One can divide people into two groups, the people who are doing
something and the people who aren't.
here we have an interesting blog produced by someone who is doing

something. At the end of her day this lady will have worked to
accomplish something of value.
and the harpies who post here? What will they have accomplished at
the end of the day? what is the finished product that these righteously
indignant twits can point to with pride?
Years ago, in my callow youth, Paul Simon wrote a song about folks like
the harpies here. Here's the snippet that comes to mind when I read
some of the nastier comments posted on this blog:
"And we speak of things that matter

with words that must be said
can analysis be worthwhile
is the theatre really dead?"
and blah, blah, blah.
The world needs people who are actually focused on getting something
done. Sadly they bear the burden of those who would rather just talk.
I'm looking forward to another insightful post from our gracious hostess.
Let me respond to smintheus.
Well I don't know about the newspapers of 1915, but I do know a bit
about the next big war that followed 1915. Was there dissent, of course
there was.
there are a few stark contrasts though: first, patriotism wasn't such a
bad thing back then. America has always had her detractors but within
the country itself people were proud to call themselves American.
I'm proud to be an American now. That doesn't mean that I blindly

follow President bush and heartily approve of everything he does.
Hardly, bush is no where near as conservative as I and thus I find some
of his ideas to be distasteful.
but, you know Smintheus, we are in a war and it's important that we
win. so I keep my criticisms of the war effort to myself because that is
IMHO the patriotic thing to do.
Many folks, most notably those one the left side of the poltical
spectrum, find old fashioned patriotism to be, well, old fashioned.
What these folks ignore is that the fact that most americans truly do
love thier country.
further, out of respect for the brave men and women actually fighting
in these far away wars, we should mind the caution "if you can't say
anything nice, don't say anything at all". If you support the troops, then
you should mind your manners.
Your pseudo outrage at the blog here is laughable. Oh my, you're

outraged! but why?
Again, many on the left side of politics have adopted a sneering

cynicism. This intolerant thoughtless response to everything that isn't
"approved" results in the kinds of bigotry we see in smintheus' post.
Here's an example: "reporting ought to be the business of reporters...".

Oh really? and what sacramental blessings have been conferred upon
these magical beings you call 'reporters'? How did these 'reporters'
achieve such an exalted state that they, and only they, have the god
given right to 'report'? Stuff and nonsense smintheus.
If you don't trust the contents of this blog, don't bleeping read it. Take
your righteously indignant self elsewhere but spare us your pseudo
intellectual musing.
And why is the newspaper that supports this blog under any obligation
to "give equal prominence" to anybody? Is there some little known
amendment to the constitution that mandates this?
I suppose that if the Enquirer really needed to published the

disconnected musings of angry pompous gas bag they would need look
no further than smintheus. he is, as he says "a well known critic" who
lives in cincinnati. And I'm sure that the shot at the spot light so rudely
stolen by a grandmother doing an interesting job in Iraq would be most
welcome by this guy.
But smintheus does make a point: the gracious author of this blog was
HIRED. That is, somebody is paying her to do something other than
bloviate on some comments section.
It is easy to imagine that this is truly smintheus' issue here. Grandma's

getting paid to write and smintheus is eating his heart out.
skip == righteously indignant sneering disconnected smarmy unkempt

angry pompous gas bag, true bigot, pseudo intellectual, harpie, hater
and semi literate boor no where near as conservative as I giving
intolerant thoughtless responses to everything that isn't "approved".
You don't have anything nice to say. You don't support the troops.
Shut up skip.
At 2:18 PM, transparent Joe said...

Editor of the Cinci Enquirer apologized for not being upfront with the
information regarding Grandma's PR position and employer. This was
the key deception and he admitted it! He refused to say how it
happened and who was responsible.
A sad affair for a great paper.
Skipsailing, I can't see an ounce of sense in anything you say.
I point you to propaganda of WWI, which you can't be bothered to

investigate, and you confuse it with WWII. The Iraq War, like WWI, but
arguably unlike WWII, is a war of choice. Indeed, both Iraq and WWI
were sold to the public by whipping up largely baseless fears, by making
stuff up; and then the wars dragged on, for years, without any obvious
progress and no plan to change strategy so as to achieve military
success. In both cases, governments sought to maintain public support
for their failed policies by means of aggressive propaganda campaigns.
These included demonizing those who dare to speak up.
And here you have the nerve to float some of those very elements of
propaganda ('If you can't support the gov., then shut up.')
Why do you suppose patriots speak out against governmental

incompetence and wrong-doing? In the hopes of improving things, of
holding the government accountable? Or merely to annoy you
personally?
As for my criticisms directed against the newspaper for its failure to be

transparent, how could anybody defend it? It has itself admitted to a
failure of transparency.
Interesting psychological profile you've created for me. Small probelems

though: I already do have a job. Oh, and my blogging already has gotten
as much publicity as any publicity-hound could want. But carry on.
One learns so much about a person by examining closely the words that
are chosen.
Here's a good example. My interlocutor uses the word "sold" when

discussing the run up to the war.
For a person who is trying (vainly it seems) to prop up your creds I'm
surprised that you'd chose a word like that.
the war wasn't "sold" to me. I did'nt "buy" it like some bill of goods from
the DLC.
The Iraq excursion always made sense to me from a strategic, tactical

and logistic POV. It was the right move in what will be a long war.
YOU may have chosen to see no progress in Iraq but I see enormous
advances there. I remain highly optimistic about the ultimate outcome
of this war and I find the vitriol level in postings such as yours to be
inversely proportional to your expectations concerning your own
predictions.
In short, the more the evidence contradicts your prophecies the more
angry your posts will become.
Further, comparing "the great war" to iraq is just a not so clever way to
say quagmire without invoking viet Nam. Not even a nice try.
I don't see the government doing anything other than attempting to

offset the MSM's myopia on the war. The legacy media has gotten the
war in Iraq wrong and they are starting to realize that. The response to
the west virgina question should have sent the boys in board rooms
scurrying. They've clearly lost their audience.
The American military has long employed a variety of means to get

thier message out, this blog is simply a modernization of the kinds of
public affairs activities our military has always used.
that this is suddenly offensive to you speaks more to your thin skin and
lack of historical insight than to any nefarious plot by the people in the
pentagon.
You see boogie men everywhere it seems.
and then you misquote me: I was speaking directly to a support of the
troops. many on the american left have tried the "I support the troops
but not the mission" BS. If that applies to you, I am merely suggesting a
way you can support the troops. Stop giving aid and comfort to our
enemies.
how hard is that to understand? The only hope the killers and thugs in
the middle east have is that fools in america will some how pull off
another viet nam.
so all this blather simply gives them hope. And hope is among the things
our enemy must be denied.
Can you understand that? Let me say it a different way: It's not about
your rights, its about your responsibilities. An adult understands this. If
your words make the situation worse for our soldiers in Iraq then don't
say them. OK?
As a matter of fact I do take unfounded whining personally. I have a

huge stake in the outcome in iraq, and so do you. do you imagine that if
we lose there it will be bad for bush and bush alone? Are you really that
self centered?
do you feel lucky? Are you expecting that the next terrorist attack in
america will somehow spare iraq war critics while mowing down "neo
cons" and others who disagree with your POV?
Really? Because if we lose in Iraq, America will face a long tough

hammering as our enemies seek to consolidate their gains. Again, if you
really knew any history, you would know that.
and what obligation does the newspaper actually have to "be

transparent"? It isn't a government agency, it's a private enterprise.
Ever wonder how much of the news that actually winds up in print is
based on press releases? Are newspapers typically advising their readers
that stories are in fact based on the work of PR "flacks"?
simply put, the anger here isn't about anything other than the typical
righteous indignation of American left. That IBM or Progressive
Insurance would have a PR department that employs "flacks" that
produce Press releases and attempts to "spin" stories doesn't get your
undies in a bunch, but let someone from the Army corps of engineers
talk about good deeds done by Americans in Iraq and whammo, instant
Ire.
Who are you trying to kid? Me or youself?
Defend it? from what? Some poster who has arrogated to himself the
role of judge and jury?
Yes, it is an interesting psychological profile. All your "self touting"

reminds me of Richard Nixon. You say you are a well respected blogger,
Nixon said he wasn't a crook.
Got a dog named checkers perhaps?
At 4:27 PM, ihadnothingtodowiththis said...
I couldn't agree with Morris Coleman any more than I already do.
Skipsailing, The Iraq war wasn't sold? Oddly, that's exactly the
terminology Andrew Card used in the summer of 2002, about not rolling
out a new product in August.
Don't like the comparison to WWI? Perhaps because it doesn't help you
to maintain that over-confidence that things are going spiffingly in this
war. The whole civil war unfolding, of course, is making it harder and
harder to maintain that fiction however, isn't it?
MSM don't know what's really going on in Iraq? Like Tom Lasseter for
Knight Ridder, who unlike you is actually out and about talking to
Americans and Iraqis.
The rest of what you say, such as accusations of aid and comfort to the
enemy, is just abusive. So Ann Coulter.
It wasn't sold to me. My point is quite straightforward. Your use of

words, those with a pejorative connotation did not go unnoticed by this
reader.
ah, the current anti war boogie man: civil War. No definition, no
metrics, no evidence. There's a civil war because the anti war crowd
wants one.
yeah, right. the anti war crowd NEEDS a civil war, because otherwise
there would be little or nothing to whine about, and you guys can't have
that, no can you?
another point that just seems wasted on the bigoted left (yes, that
means you pal). When that question was asked at the president's press
conference in west virginia the crowd errupted.
CNN sensing the shift immediately panicked and did a "show" with guys
in Iraq Vs Guys in the states. Hugh Hewitt and Michael Yon disagreed
with the apologists from the MSM. Most notably that lover of the enemy
Michael Ware.
The MSM is simply not looking good right now, and neither are their
clients: people such as yourself. too many egregious errors, too much
reliance on the old tricks without any recognition that the rules have
changed, a complete inability to grasp the fact that Americans are
walking away from them in droves.
One of the very nicest things about the internet is the ability to select
our information sources. You read whom you chose and I do likewise.
here's my list:
ITM, Michael Yon, Captain's quarters, NRO, The Belmont Club, the
fourth rail, the mudville gazette (which is how I found this marvelous
blog), the middle east form, MEMRI and the strategy page.
that's plenty enough to give me a glimpse of what's going on. I feel

quite well informed, thank you very much.
and by virtue of these sites I have the opportunity to interact with both
iraqis and soldiers.
Please note: no Juan Cole, no Daily KOS, no DU. You get your info from
your sources and I have mine.
Juan cole's savage attacks on Stephen vincent destroyed any pretense

to credibility the putative professor might have had. To level an attack
so wrong and vitriolic that the grieving widow felt compelled to respond
is simply beyond the pale.
the man is to shunned, put to the hiss of honorable men everywhere.
conspicuous in its absence is any rebuttal to my contention that PR

operations are common place in America. Are you willing to concede,
sir, that you simply over reacted because of the nature of this blog's
fine author's employment? It certainly seems that way to me.
You compare me to Ann coulter and I will take that as a compliment. I

don't watch TV so I don't know how she comes across there. I don't read
popular political books because I'm more interested in history right
now, so the only exposure I've had to her writing is the occassional
magazine article. She's acerbic, witty and conservative. And she's well
paid.
Once again, sir, are you dining on your own heart?
At 5:34 PM, mintmilano said...
"I believe the American taxpayers have a right to know how their tax
dollars are being invested in Iraq and I believe my current job puts me
in a unique position to provide personal observations since I have
traveled the Southern provinces of Iraq for the past eight months."
The problem is that you are still being evasive about the connection
between these two things. The way our tax dollars are being invested...
is in paying you to put up this one sided fake journalism.
You have repeatedly represented the fact that you are a paid
spokesperson and the fact that you write this blog as if they were
unrelated things. You say it is on your own time, but it is also clearly
within the scope of what you say your job is. Are you or are you not
specifically paid for doing this by the military ? In your official duties, is
this blog represented as part of your job ? Does it appear on your
resume, performance reviews, and is it known to your superiors ?
Let's get down to brass tacks here. Everybody with any sense of reality
knows that Iraq is in a terrible state now. Your "work" is essentially an
attempt to give reinforcement of a small group of people on one
extreme of the political sphere that have decided they prefer to believe
lies over the truth. Now, I have no illusions that I am going to change
those peoples' minds; they do not have what it takes to admit they were
wrong about this war in the first place, which is why they seek out your
"work". Cincinnati is full of people like that, which is why you are
associated with a backwater rag like the Enquirer instead of a real
paper (well, your lack of journalism credentials and ethics might have
something to do with it too).
I believe taxpayers have a right to know that I am NOT being paid to

call you out.
Yes, let's get down to brass tacks.
Starting with this unfounded generalization:
" Everybody with any sense of reality knows that Iraq is in a terrible
state now."
Really? is that so? How do you measure this sir? Against what objective
standard?
What is really interesting is the subtle bigotry contained with the

sentence. Basically this guy says that if one disagrees well, then one
simply has no sense of reality. Now that's the writing style of a person
with a truly open mind. right?
this next quote is even more entertaining:
"Your "work" is essentially an attempt to give reinforcement of a small

group of people on one extreme of the political sphere that have
decided they prefer to believe lies over the truth."
if indeed this small group of people did as you suggest, why would they
need reinforcement? According to folks like you they've already "drank
the koolaid" so Grandma's work here is done, no?
and of course there's more of that oh so subtle bigotry. This time the
underlying assumption is that anyone who admires or respects the work
of this blog's author is simply incapable of telling fact from fiction. yes
once again we see the open mindedness of this poster on display.
so in two sentences we have this: Only fools would disagree with

mintmilano (good cookie BTW) and those fools are fools because they
cannot, as only people like mintmilano can, discern the truth.
yes, its truly amazing how arrogant some folks can be. And look how
well that arrogance has done at the ballot box. John Kerry used
mintmilano's techniques everyday. And it worked oh so well.
yeah, right.
it's good that you have no illusions about changing people's minds
because it will take far more that what you have on offer to do so.
although you might try by listening to those who disagree with you,
instead of simply offending them.
or is giving offense a critical part of your style?
Further, you might try reading a few milblogs. You know, blogs written
by men and women doing what you lack the courage to do: fight in iraq.
Should you deign to do this you'll find that many, many members of our
fine military spend their off duty hours sharing their thoughts, their
actions, their fears and their hopes.
Unlike you, they do something important with their lives. so does

grandma here.
comparing her to you, well, I'd take grandma anyday. She's smart,
articulate and brave.
and all you are is angry and boorish.

pity, that.
I could go on. for example let me point out that I have more than
enough courage to admit that I was RIGHT about Iraq, from the get go.
Oh and one final thing. I have pointed out elsewhere that "journalism
ethics" is an oxymoron. We've watched the media self destruct over the
past couple of years and its a process that won't be stopped by
pandering to the likes of you.
The entire field of journalism is under assault right now and well it
should be. Examples of poor performance, agenda driven reporting,
smear campaigns and out right lies are everywhere to be seen.
If journalism as a trade wishes to regain whatever credibility it once

had, the current effort in Iraq offers a valuable opportunity.
the media in america is at a cross roads. they must recognize new

technologies and audiences and they must rid themselves of the ghosts
of all those anklebiting watergate wannabees that have traded true
morality for a shot at a pulitzer.
At 7:20 PM, mintmilano said...
skipsailing, you've got nothin', which is why you are now trying to turn
this whole thread into a personal pissing match. Degrading this
conversation helps you because you don't like the direction it's going.
However, that's not your choice to make, tempting as it is to point out
some of the numerous examples of hypocrisy in your most recent post
alone.
You're the one that is, apparently, saying everything in Iraq is peachy-
keen. This is at odds with the basic fact that many thousands of people
have died violent deaths before their time and continue to do so every
day (because people like you bought Bush's story and thought a war
would be a great idea). Are you actually denying this ?
"The entire field of journalism is under assault right now and well it
should be. Examples of poor performance, agenda driven reporting,
smear campaigns and out right lies are everywhere to be seen."
I have to say, you got that right.
THE WAR IS A LIE AND YOU KNOW IT
The Plame Game

What Murray Waas’s big scoop may really tell us about Bush’s pre-war
deceptions.
By Greg Sargent
Web Exclusive: 04.04.06
Murray Waas’s latest scoop -- in which he broke new ground with a

detailed account of the Bush administration’s deceptions about Iraq --
has won plenty of plaudits already. But its true larger significance is
still crying out to be explained.
To do this we need to step back and look at his revelation in the

context of the ongoing investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame. If
you do, you can see that what once were a bunch of disparate subplots
-- the pre-war duplicity, the 2004 election, the Libby indictment, the
continuing investigation into Karl Rove -- suddenly can be woven
together into one grand narrative that makes coherent sense in a way
that much of this story didn’t before. And the resulting storyline is not
a pretty one.
Waas's story -- presuming it’s right, and his track record has thus far
been admirable -- suggests a plausible motive for both “Scooter” Libby
and Karl Rove to have misled the grand jury about Plame. Their motive
for doing this has hitherto been rather difficult to explain. Why, many
have asked, would Libby and Rove have lied and risked perjury charges
about a transgression that may not have been illegal in the first place?
Waas’s story suggests a possible answer. The story begins as follows:
Karl Rove, President Bush’s chief political adviser, cautioned other

White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush’s 2004 re-election
prospects would be severely damaged if it was publicly disclosed that
he had been personally warned that a key rationale for going to war had
been challenged within the administration. Rove expressed his concerns
shortly after an informal review of classified government records by
then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley determined
that Bush had been specifically advised that claims he later made in his
2003 State of the Union address -- that Iraq was procuring high-strength
aluminum tubes to build a nuclear weapon -- might not be true,
according to government records and interviews.
Hadley was particularly concerned that the public might learn of a
classified one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate,
specifically written for Bush in October 2002. The summary said that
although “most agencies judge” that the aluminum tubes were “related
to a uranium enrichment effort,” the State Department's Bureau of
Intelligence and Research and the Energy Department's intelligence
branch “believe that the tubes more likely are intended for
conventional weapons.”
Three months after receiving that assessment, the president stated

without qualification in his January 28, 2003, State of the Union
address: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our
intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-
strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
There are several things we can take from this. The first is that,
according to Waas, since October 2002 there has existed a smoking-gun
that proved Bush had been told that some intelligence officials thought
the tubes were for conventional weapons, not nukes -- well before he
repeated the tale in his 2003 speech. The administration did
acknowledge under fire six months after the speech that one chunk of
evidence of Saddam’s nuke ambitions -- the alleged procurement of
uranium effort -- was wrong. But Bush's advisers largely defused that
controversy by insulating the president from it. Meanwhile, the
administration leaned heavily on the tubes story, which was central to
its rationale for war.
It's already known that some administration officials had pre-invasion
doubts about the tubes, and that Bush more or less was told about
those doubts. But Waas’s discovery, presuming he's right, is a big step
forward. It constitutes concrete proof of those doubts -- and concrete
proof of the extent to which Bush had been informed of these doubts
before the invasion.
That leads to the second, equally important point. Waas also reports
that Rove thought as early as the summer of 2003 that the document
was radioactive enough to potentially destroy Bush's re-election
chances. Waas adds that Bush advisers thought that if doubts about the
tubes came out, it would be much harder to shield Bush from criticism
for them than it was for the uranium tale -- because there apparently
existed hard evidence that the president had been told of those doubts.
Now fast forward to early 2004. That’s when Libby testified before the
Plame grand jury. Patrick Fitzgerald’s indictment alleges that Libby lied
about how and when he learned Plame’s identity and disclosed
information about her to reporters. Rove, too, misled the grand jury by
failing to mention a conversation with a reporter about Plame. (Rove
subsequently disclosed it, but only after a discovered e-mail jogged his
memory. Libby has pled innocent, and Rove wasn’t indicted, though he
reportedly remains under investigation).
That’s where matters stand now. Now let’s try to fit these pieces
together.
The thing about the Plame investigation that never quite seemed to
make sense was this: Why would Libby or Rove deliberately mislead the
grand jury, risking perjury charges when it wasn’t clear the leak was a
crime?
Thanks to Waas, for the first time, we may now know for a fact that
Rove and other Bush advisers viewed the truth about the run-up to war
as something that could destroy his re-election prospects. It is entirely
plausible that Bush advisers calculated that if it came out that they’d
outed Plame, Congress would have been forced by the resulting
firestorm to run a far more aggressive investigation of Bush’s pre-war
deceptions – and possibly uncover the smoking gun Waas reports on,
among other things. Remember, Libby and Rove testified in early 2004,
during the heat of a presidential campaign which Rove himself had
apparently concluded was at risk if existing hard evidence of Bush’s
deceptions surfaced.
So it seems plausible that Libby and Rove sought to minimize the

chance of the aggressive congressional oversight that might have
resulted if it became known that they’d outed Plame. In short,
misleading the grand jury about Plame may simply have been a key
piece of a broader effort to get past the election before the truth about
the run-up to the war surfaced to sink his campaign.
That interpretation is consistent with what was going on at the time.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, headed by Bush ally Pat Roberts,
was investigating pre-war intelligence -- and as would subsequently be
learned, managed to sidestep the central question of how the White
House used that information to build the case for war, a maneuver that
made it clear that Roberts was trying to postpone that line of inquiry
until after the election. What’s more, the White House was throughout
refusing to release presidential daily briefs that may have revealed
what Bush knew and when.
Meanwhile, other things suggested that the White House was doing
everything possible to prevent an aggressive effort by the press to
unearth what now looks to be solid evidence of the White House’s pre-
war duplicity. As Josh Marshall put it in a post about the Waas story:
We saw this and the cover-up it spawned firsthand. While I and

reporters from CBS were working on this story through 2004, it was
clear that folks on the Hill would agree to talk and then suddenly un-
agree when they got the call from the White House. The White House
worked doggedly at almost every turn to get the story killed or delayed
beyond the election, which they of course did.
The cover-up on this one is deep. Really deep. And much of it has yet to
be uncovered.
The history of recent presidential deception tells us that the small,

initial cover-ups, ones which at first appear to make little sense, are
frequently motivated by a desire to prevent other, larger damaging
revelations from surfacing. If Waas is right, it seems plausible that the
whole sordid saga unfolded this way:
White House officials, including Bush himself, withheld critical
information it had about doubts over supposed evidence of Saddam's
nuke ambitions in order to better make the case for war. Then they
subsequently discovered that hard evidence existed of that duplicity.
Then, anxious that this evidence might surface before the 2004
reelection, they engaged in a relentless campaign to cover up what
really happened during the Iraq run-up and to prevent an aggressive
congressional investigation until after the election. They relied on Pat
Roberts to run a pseudo-investigation; they withheld the daily briefs;
they leaned on Hill allies not to talk to the press. And they obscured
their role in the outing of Plame to prevent an outcry that would have
certainly forced Congress and the press to probe far more aggressively
than they did. And they succeeded: If Congress and the press had been
more aggressive -- and this may be the real significance of Waas's story
-- it's perfectly possible that John Kerry would now be president.
If that’s how it happened, then it may be only a matter of time before

the whole story comes tumbling out. Waas has reported that there’s a
piece of paper out there that proves Bush deceived the nation during
the run-up to the war. The nation’s premiere investigative reporters,
one would think, would very much like to see that piece of paper for
themselves. And if there’s one thing recent history tells us, it’s that the
small, short-term cover-ups never do succeed in preventing the larger
story from coming to light. That larger story is still waiting to be told in
all its gristly detail – and, eventually, reporters other than Murray Waas
will get around to telling it.
Update: Above, "the alleged procurement of uranium" was changed to

"the alleged procurement of uranium effort."
Greg Sargent, a contributing editor for New York magazine, writes bi-
weekly for The American Prospect Online. He can be reached at
greg_sargent@newyorkmag.com.
© 2006 by The American Prospect, Inc.
What a total crock of bs. How well things are going in Iraq. They
com[are things to the way it was just before invasion and now. Why not
compare it to how it was before sanctions and now?
Our reconstruction attempts dont even match the way it was in Iraq
before the current invasion and occupation. I think the big problem will
start when Iraqis realize the U.S. and Brits have no intentions of
leaving. They went there to have permanent bases and make a colony
in an OIL rich region. Iraq.
Ah yes the irrefutable "you got nothing" defense. It works so well for
spike lee in that cool commerical a few year back that you thought
you'd try it here, eh?
it is such a well reasoned and thoughtful response to any riposte in any

debate. It's a wonder you don't find yourself saying that everyday there
mintmilano.
Now you wish to blame me pesonally for the violent deaths of people in
Iraq. Well OK, that's fine.
Do I think we need to kill people? YOu bet I do. We need to kill enough
jihadis to discourage the rest, and we're just about there.
let's just take one battle in Iraq, shall we? How about fallujah? Second
assault. We lost more than 100 fine men. Men of a caliber far higher
than you mintmilano. Men with courage and skill and pride. We lost
them and our lives are diminished.
but what did those guys do? Well let's see. Dear Mr Zarqawhi had
proclaim fallujah to be his city. He and his loyal jihadis claimed to own
the town.
Well when the marines were done Zarqawhi had fled. Please note that
while he continually calls for martyrdom, he seems less than willing to
become a martyr himself.
Our guys had killed more than 1500 jihadis. My guess is that's probably
closer to 4500, but we'll never know because so many of them are
buried under the rubble of the houses they hid in.
Well some jihadis got out. And they told the tale of fighting against the
Marines. Lethal firepower, relentless pursuit 7/24 aggression, no time
to sleep, eat or even run. Some of them attempted to escape by
dressing as women, at tactic they revived just yesterday.
All this blather about us generating more jihadis is uninformed BS. After
fallujah Zarqawhi complained publically that he was having trouble
getting recruits. The will to fight was seriously diminished
That's what we must do, destroy our enemies will to fight. It's a new
kind of war that blends hard fighting with hearts and minds PR
campaigns with international diplomacy with black operations.
but it's a war we must win if we don't want continuous 9/11's as one
faction after another of radicalized Islamic facists attempt to secure
their place in paradise by killing innocent Americans.
Look at their tactics in Iraq. They've stooped to bombing mosques.

These people will stop at nothing, they have no scruples, no morals and
no discipline.
While you're over here engaged in overheated whining about

journalistic ethics those people over there are planning ways to kill
more infidels.
It's a shame that you're incapable of seeing the real enemy in this war.
It isn't grandma, and it isn't me and it isn't george bush.
Do really think that these people will spare the anti war crowd when
they plan their next attack on the great satan? Do you really think that
a defeat for America in the GWOT will not be a defeat for you and your
righteously indignant friends?
YOu need to think again. You need to wake up and smell the coffee.
We're in a war and you've sided with our enemy. that may make you
popular with your particular crowd but it also makes you a object of
derision for those of us who truly understand what's at stake here.
Calling me names and sneering at me on some web log is probably the

best that you can do. I respond to your type of post because America
needs to engage you, our domestic enemy, just as we need to engaged
our foreign enemy.
Now run along back to the student union and tell your friends that
you've encountered an actual war monger. It should make you oh so
popular.
At 8:18 PM, dodo said...
nice blog, hi granma
afaik you will have to learn to ignore the anti-bush/war/america/ that

frequent the iraqi blogs, they like nothing better than to rain on any
good news parade , while sitting on their fat asses pontificating about a
country they know absolutely nothing about.
Its nice to read positive outlooks even in a warzone, tough shit to

'Anonymous' and other posters if its not all car bombs and other
atrocities.
I dont know what is so honourable about inventing lies to attack an

innocient country like Iraq. They had absolutely nothing to do with
9/11. Also..they had no WMD. no proven ties to Quad either.
Iraq didn't even have a plane in the sky throught the whole invasion. No
radar..that was knocked out before the so called, ''war'' started. A large
country like the u.s. and England beating down on a defenseless little
country of 24 million, half starved from years of sanctions.
At 2:33 AM, Eagle said...
The Saddam Tapes: Another Intel Failure
The documents that have been retrieved and translated -- largely by

private scholars and even bloggers -- ironically show the CIA was pretty
much right in its assessment of Saddam, despite being brutally
criticized. To wit:
Saddam had WMD before the war, likely shipped them to other
countries and planned to build them again. He was a real threat.
Saddam had links to al-Qaida that included: meetings in 1995 between

Iraqi officials and the terrorist group; Saddam's knowing acquiescence
to the formation of Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaida offshoot, in northern
Iraq; and the entry of key al-Qaida operatives Ayman al-Zawahiri and
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi into Iraq in 1999.
Saddam trained terrorists -- possibly even al-Qaida terrorists, though
this hasn't been proven -- at a facility at Salman Pak that included a
real commercial jet for hijacking practice.
Russia, Germany and France helped bolster Saddam's regime and arm it,
despite U.N. sanctions on Iraq on which they signed off.
These are all significant facts -- and should by themselves dispel doubts
Americans have about going to war with Iraq.
Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force
says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war
by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger
seats were removed.
Saddam's Terror Training Camps

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of
radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four
years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents
and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq.
CIA can't rule out WMD move to Syria
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms

Ever notice when the U.S. Govt. needs support to attack some country
or try and gain public support, the phoney tapes start to appear?
Supposidly from ben laden.
Meanwhile the guy probally died years ago, but anything to gain support
for another illegal invasion of an oil rich country.
I very much don't think things will ever change in this world, as long as
big corporations are making the decisions.
Part 1.
Well, what we've done -- we use many techniques, but probably the
most common is that we'll go to a country that has resources that our
corporations covet, like oil, and we'll arrange a huge loan to that
country from an organization like the World Bank or one of its sisters,
but almost all of the money goes to the U.S. corporations, not to the
country itself, corporations like Bechtel and Halliburton, General
Motors, General Electric, these types of organizations, and they build
huge infrastructure projects in that country: power plants, highways,
ports, industrial parks, things that serve the very rich and seldom even
reach the poor. In fact, the poor suffer, because the loans have to be
repaid, and they're huge loans, and the repayment of them means that
the poor won't get education, health, and other social services, and the
country is left holding a huge debt, by intention. We go back, we
economic hit men, to this country and say, “Look, you owe us a lot of
money. You can't repay your debts, so give us a pound of flesh. Sell our
oil companies your oil real cheap or vote with us at the next U.N. vote
or send troops in support of ours to some place in the world such as
Iraq.” And in that way, we've managed to build a world empire with
very few people actually knowing that we've done this. The average joe
and military person is just an object to help Governments to achieve
there goals. $$$. and control and power over other countries.
http://www.mccullagh.org/image/d30-32/fuck-you-bush-sign.html
At 11:51 PM, Kate said...
Ma'am,
Thank you so much for sharing your unique point of view with us.
You write beautifully, and your descriptions make me feel like I'm
standing next to you instead of thousands of miles away. I can see why
your employers trust you to communicate clearly and succinctly in a
very complex situation. I particulary enjoyed your description of the
drainage project - I'm trained as an engineer, and I could not possibly
have described it better myself, even in technical jargon to other
engineers.
I really appreciate the photographs you've posted. Beautiful people,

beautiful land. I hope that eventual peace in one form or another will
give us a chance to know them better.
Thank you for the hard work that you do, and for taking what little
personal time you have to describe your days for our benefit.
Understanding breeds acceptance and more understanding, and we
could all use a big dose of that, now and always.
Very respectfully,
Kate in Cincinnati
At 3:02 PM, J Booth said...
Suzanne
Some among us will not get it until too late, if at all. Rather than work
toward positive change, their life's work seems to be that of tearing
down others.
Thank you very much for the positive work you are doing. I hope and
pray what you can accomplish will in the long run outweigh the misery
others continue to foster.
Continue to tell it like it is and those who say "propaganda" will be seen
for the fools they are.
Thanks again
JB

The u.s. sure wasted no time in trying to run rough shot over other
countries, once Russia was no longer a world power. It was only Russia
that kept them in there place all these years.
School yard bullies at there best.
How about a blog from a real Iraqi grandma. We get enough propaganda
thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home
Grandma in Iraq
• Home
• Cincinnati.Com
•
•
•
• What's RSS?
• Contact Us
Blogs @ Cincinnati.Com
• What's new at Cincinnati.Com
• Jim Borgman
• Paul Daugherty
• Pop Culture Review
• Grandma in Iraq
• Politics Extra
• N. Ky. Politics
• Photographers
• Television
• Roller Derby Diva
• Art
• Classical music
• Reds
• Bengals
• Ben-GALS
• High school sports
• NCAA
• Bearcats
• CiN Weekly staff blog
Previous Posts
• Electricity in Iraq
• Traveling Northwest to Najaf
• Water... the lifeblood of Southern Iraq
• Fire Stations in Iraq
• Border forts along Iraq/Iran border
• Celebrating with Iraqi Policemen
• Provincial governments moving forward
• Iraqi High School Girls Speak Engish
• Beautiful Iraqi Children Smile
• Religious Holidays in Iraq
Copyright 2005 Cincinnati.Com. Use of this site signifies agreement to terms of
service updated 12/19/2002.

Grandma in Iraq, April 3, 2006, &quot;Saving Farmland in Iraq&quot; by Suzanne Fournier

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Grandma in Iraq, April 3, 2006, &quot;Saving Farmland in Iraq&quot; by Suzanne Fournier

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Grandma

MONDAY, APRIL 03, 2006

Saving farmland in Iraq

I am explaining this in an effort to help you understand the multiple challenges

This is where the water exits the

At 2:11 PM, Jeff Hamilton said...

: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause

At 3:30 PM, Anonymous said...

"...gravity isn’t working."

At 3:35 PM, Candrian said...

Over at the Cincinnati Enquirer's online site, Cincinnati.com, there's a

Grandma in Iraq is the title of the blog, written by Suzanne M. Fournier,

ie, this blog is a lie.

You have an EXCEPTIONALLY good blog, incredibly interesting and more

As you might have noticed, the Bush-Haters have defecated on your

At 4:03 PM, Anonymous said...

Why? cuz the truth hurts.

At 4:06 PM, Anonymous said...

I, for one, have grown used to our government lying to us in every

I weep for the future.

At 4:10 PM, Anonymous said...

The NUmber of Independently Fightinf Iraq battalions has Gone from

Those with decent sewage were down from 24% to 20%.

Electricity Hits Three-Year Low in Iraq 3.02.06

Former Iraqi Prime Minister: Iraq Is In A Civil War

In 2004, Bush said it was unacceptable to question the credibility of

At 5:27 PM, David F said...

At 5:40 PM, Anonymous said...

We look forward to your prompt and thorough reply.

At 5:44 PM, Dr. Joe said...

At 6:19 PM, Anonymous said...

At 6:45 PM, Anonymous said...

At 9:11 PM, Anonymous said...

I'm glad we live in a country which allows freedom of expression, I just

At 10:19 PM, furtail said...

At 10:34 PM, furtail said...

At 11:24 PM, Anonymous said...

At 11:27 PM, Lauria said...

At 1:36 AM, Paul said...

At 3:00 AM, Anonymous said...

I wonder what Paul finds enlightening in Grandma's blogs. It is a big

At 5:00 AM, Fred Bieling said...

At 7:45 AM, Anonymous said...

This is a great blog because it offers a personal, real-life view of things.

I'm no pro-Bush, anti-Bush or anything. I just appreciate the fact that

I really appreciate what Grandma is doing and I think we should thank

At 7:54 AM, Jon Greenbaum said...

There's nothing wrong with an Army public affairs officer writing a

The question is whether the Cincinatti Enquirer wants to abrogate itself

At 9:53 AM, Anonymous said...

There's nothing confidential about that information. We await your

At 11:00 AM, Shawna H. said...

THANK YOU FOR A JOB WELL DONE!!!!!!!!!

"HOOAH!! It's an Army thing you wouldn't understand"

At 11:16 AM, Anonymous said...

We fight to protect you so shut the hell up.

At 11:33 AM, Shawna H said...

To those that do not understand the US Government and Military:

1) Mrs. Fournier is not part of the military. She is a civlian working

KEEP IT UP YOU ARE ALL AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 11:34 AM, Emma Morrow said...

At 11:36 AM, skipsailing said...

It doesn't really take much courage to post snitty anonymous comments

Grandma in Iraq, April 3, 2006, "Saving Farmland in Iraq" by Suzanne Fournier

Grandma in Iraq, April 3, 2006, "Saving Farmland in Iraq" by Suzanne Fournier

Yes, progressives are not tolerant of misleading "news" because a