Why would Chuckie Shumer lie about the reason violence is down in Western Iraq, Anbar, and Diyala?

If what Chuckie Shumer said that the US military had nothing to do with the success in Anbar, Diyala, and western Iraq in throwing off al-Qaeda goons is true, why did the Iraqi police name their station after the person who masterminded the liberation of Ramadi from al-Qaeda; US Army Captain Travis Patriquin.

Martin Fletcher of the Times of London spelled out clearly what role the Americans played in destroying AQI’s grip on the region in a story from a week ago

I had met Captain Patriquin while embedded with US troops in Ramadi last November. He was a big man, moustachioed, ex-Special Forces, fluent in Arabic and engaged in what was then a revolutionary experiment for a US military renowned for busting doors down. He and a small group from the First Brigade Combat Team, part of the 1st Armoured Division, were assiduously courting the local sheikhs – tribal leaders – over endless cups of tea and cigarettes.
They were encouraging them to rise up against the hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters – Saudi, Jordanian, Syrian, Sudanese, Yemeni – who had arrived in Ramadi two years earlier, promising to lead the battle against the infidel Americans. What al-Qaeda actually did was recruit local thugs, seize control of the city, and impose a Taleban-style rule of terror. Mayor Latif said that they regularly beheaded “collaborators” in public and left the heads beside the corpses. Mischievous children would then put cigarettes in the mouths of the disembodied heads.
Captain Patriquin may have offered more than mere words. His main interlocutor, Sheikh Abdul Sittar Bezea al-Rishawi, told The Times that he gave them guns and ammunition too. The sheikhs did rise up. They formed a movement called the Anbar Awakening, led by Sheikh Sittar. They persuaded thousands of their tribesmen to join the Iraqi police, which was practically defunct thanks to al-Qaeda death threats, and to work with the reviled US troops. The US military built a string of combat outposts (COPs) throughout a city that had previously been a no-go area, and through a combination of Iraqi local knowledge and American firepower they gradually regained control of Ramadi, district by district, until the last al-Qaeda fighters were expelled in three pitched battles in March. What happened in Ramadi was later replicated throughout much of Anbar province.
Ramadi’s transformation is breathtaking. Shortly before I arrived last November masked al-Qaeda fighters had brazenly marched through the city centre, pronouncing it the capital of a new Islamic caliphate. The US military was still having to fight its way into the city through a gauntlet of snipers, rocket-propelled grenades, suicide car bombs and improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Fifty US soldiers had been killed in the previous five months alone. I spent 24 hours huddled inside Eagles Nest, a tiny COP overlooking the derelict football stadium, listening to gunfire, explosions and the thump of mortars. The city was a ruin, with no water, electricity or functioning government. Those of its 400,000 terrified inhabitants who had not fled cowered indoors as fighting raged around them.
Today Ramadi is scarcely recognisable. Scores of shattered buildings testify to the fury of past battles, but those who fled the violence are now returning. Pedestrians, cars and motorbike rickshaws throng the streets. More than 700 shops and businesses have reopened. Restaurants stay open late into the evening. People sit outside smoking hookahs, listening to music, wearing shorts – practices that al-Qaeda banned. Women walk around with uncovered faces. Children wave at US Humvees. Eagles’ Nest, a heavily fortified warren of commandeered houses, is abandoned and the stadium hosts football matches.
“Al-Qaeda is gone. Everybody is happy,” said Mohammed Ramadan, 38, a stallholder in the souk who witnessed four executions. “It was fear, pure fear. Nobody wanted to help them but you had to do what they told you.”

Chosen Answer:

He lied because it would not help his party to tell the truth…
I have family serving in Iraq…they seldom tell the same stories you find on TV or in the papers…things are better there than before…A lot better…
by: Erinyes
on: 7th September 07

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to “Why would Chuckie Shumer lie about the reason violence is down in Western Iraq, Anbar, and Diyala?”

  1. John M says:

    Actually, violence is up. This has been the bloodiest summer in Iraq yet.

  2. tx_trotter95 says:

    Because, Shumer is nothing more than a self-serving gasbag whose party’s fortunes rest on Iraq remaining bad.

  3. makrothumeo2 says:

    Chuck Schumer lies because he’s a liar…it’s what he does…like fighters gotta fight, Chuckie gotta lie.

  4. That_Guy_Over_There says:

    Did you know civilian deaths are up the third month in a row in Iraq?

    But yeah,it’s amazing how the surge is working where the troops are.That ex[plains why Baghdad has no municipal water supply and averages just over an hour of electricity a day.

    The enemy has all but destroyed the infrastructure since the start of the surge.I think they’ve changed tactics there,buddy.

  5. ret_roch_cop says:

    Shumer’s just another Democrat shill who’s making it up as he goes along. He can’t stand the thought of being proven wrong so he’s closing his eyes and pretending it’s not happening. He’s the Senior Senator from NY who gets less ink than his Junior Senator so there’s probably more than a little bit of envy. The only skill this guy has is as a puppetmaster because you almost can’t see his lips moving when Harry Reid is speaking.

  6. YOU asked!! says:

    He lied because it would not help his party to tell the truth…
    I have family serving in Iraq…they seldom tell the same stories you find on TV or in the papers…things are better there than before…A lot better…

  7. ken says:

    Shumer said the Oil Companies were price gouging after Katrina. The FTC has just finished its investigation on the request of Shumer and found nothing of the sort. So one can conclude Shumer spews whatever he can without re guard for facts. This is a fact so why would he change course now. One can only assume he is spewing rhetoric with no basis in fact. (is this known as liberalease?)

Leave a Reply