Quotes of the Morning: Free Speech on the March

“Q Does the President agree with General Abizaid's assessment today, that Iraq is in danger of civil war because of the recent sectarian violence?
MR. SNOW: I think what he said -- I think he specifically avoided ‘civil war.’ I think he said he was worried about sectarian violence, and also reiterated something we've talked about on a number of occasions, which is the importance of security Baghdad -- which is why, pursuant to General Casey's recommendations, you're going to see a little more of a troop presence in Baghdad, to try to suppress some of those. Obviously, sectarian violence is a concern.”
-Press Gaggle with White House Spokesman Tony Snow, August 3, 2006

“Actually, he did say civil war.”
-Skippy

“Sectarian violence probably is as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular. If not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."
-General John Abizaid, August 3, 2006

“Q I think he did say that he thought civil war was a possibility.
MR. SNOW: Okay. Well, I don't think the President is going to quibble with his generals on their characterizations. I think the more important thing that General Abizaid -- at least based on what I saw -- was saying that, again, it's very important that we go ahead and go in and secure Baghdad as one of the key things, because that is where people are tying to create broader sectarian strife with pretty large and visible acts of violence.”
-Press Gaggle with White House Spokesman Tony Snow, August 3, 2006

“Please! This is supposed to be a happy occasion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who.”
-King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail

“This is probably good news, right? I mean heck, if the Iraqis are killing each other they’ll probably be too distracted to turn their attention on our troops.”
-Skippy

“Iraq is not on track to become another Iran despite the disconcerting images last week of Iraqis burning U.S. flags and chanting ‘Death to America,’ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.
[…]
The protests in Baghdad on Friday were organized by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr in response to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah. Crowds of al-Sadr supporters from across Iraq's Shiite heartland chanted ‘Death to Israel, Death to America’ in the one of the biggest pro-Hezbollah rallies since the conflict began July 12.
Rice, during an appearance on NBC's ‘Meet the Press,’ was asked whether the United States has helped create another fundamentalist Islamic regime in Iraq, such as the one in Iran. Rice said she did not like what the protesters said, but she believes that Iraq today is better off than when sectarian differences were oppressed through the iron rule of Saddam Hussein.
‘That people would go out and demonstrate and say what they feel is the one sign that perhaps Iraq is one place in the Middle East where people are exercising their right to free speech,’ she said. ‘No. I don't like what they said.’"
-Associated Press, August 6, 2006

“It is a good thing that the Iraqis are chanting ‘Death to America’. It just shows that they are entertaining their freedom of speech. Things are looking up in Iraq. They are accepting the benefits of American Freedom™ and are fresh faced and ready to take on the world.. or more specifically our military. How’s the war going on our side?”
-Skippy

“Due to shortfalls in equipment and personnel, as many as two-thirds of the Army Reserve’s stateside units are not ready to go to war, according to Lt. Gen. Jack C. Stultz, chief of the Army Reserve.
‘The units that we’re deploying into the theater are trained, equipped and ready,’ Stultz told Stars and Stripes on Thursday. ‘The challenge we’ve got are the units we’ve got here at home.
‘And I would submit to you that probably two-thirds of those are not ready.’
The Army Reserve is the final Army component to weigh in on the readiness shortfall issue. The leaders of both the active Army and the Army National Guard have said two-thirds or more of their U.S.-based units are not rated as combat-ready.”
[…]
The issue, Stultz said, is the 24-month mobilization limit imposed by the partial mobilization order signed by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Reservists can be involuntarily mobilized repeatedly, but once the cumulative 24-month limit is reached, the only way to use them again is if they volunteer, Stultz said.
With Army policy setting a 12-month ‘boots on the ground’ minimum for all Iraq and Afghanistan deployments, plus the typical Reserve minimum of two to three months of training and mobilization time on top of that, a single mobilization for an Army Reserve soldier lasts at least 14 months.
That means a second involuntary deployment isn’t feasible, because the Army Reserve can’t send a reservist home in the middle of a deployment when the soldier hits his or her 24-month limit, Stultz said.
The 24-month limit is an increasing problem as the Army Reserve is now entering its second cycle of yearlong Iraq and Afghanistan deployments, Stultz said.
[…]
The only person who can decide to ease the Army Reserve’s personnel shortfall is Bush, who alone has the power to expand the mobilization order to include second involuntary yearlong deployments, Stultz said.
‘It has to be a presidential decision,’ he said. ‘We don’t have the authority.’”
-Stars and Stripes, August 5, 2006

“Oh goody.”
-Skippy