The death toll from Iraq terrorist attacks for one 24-hour period between Thursday and Friday has risen to 159. The two attacks on Thursday and a twin bomber attack on Friday targeted Shiites in Baghdad and Diyala province, many of whom were Iranian pilgrims.
The carnage has brought back memories of the bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra in 2006 that initiated a violent civil war. So far this year, the Shiite militia has not responded. However, there have now been 13 major bombings in the last 18 days, and General Petraeus has characterized the situation as "fragile and reversible."
At the very least, the violence shows that al Qaeda is still very active. Earlier this week, however, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said he was confident Iraqi forces would be able to fill the gap to be created by the departure of U.S. troops.
Today, the increasingly hostile Iraq leader expressed outrage over a U.S. raid in the southern city of Kut that resulted in the death of a civilian woman. He said the raid violated the security pact and he demanded that the U.S. military hand over those responsible for trial in Iraq courts.
And yet once again, new information has surfaced concerning the Bush administration's initial build-up to the war. A McClatchy News report was based on statements made by a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist. They said that Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld applied "relentless pressure" on interrogators to use "harsh" methods on detainees to find evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. It was this connection that became one of the Bush administration's main reasons for invading Iraq but, according to the article, no evidence was ever found.
Meanwhile, the Department of Defense, this week, released the obituaries of four military personnel killed in Iraq, ranging in age from 20 to 43. In keeping with the Pentagon's new definitions concerning the categorizing of casualties, three of the four deaths were reported to be non-combat-related.
According to the website icasualties.org, total U.S. deaths in Iraq have now amounted to 4,278, including two whose families are being notified today.
The Department of Defense also released the obituary of one 21-year-old soldier killed by an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan, east of Kabul.
U.S. deaths in Afghanistan stood at 608 as of April 24, according to the Pentagon.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 79
I don't quite get this, Dave;
"At the very least, the violence shows that al Qaeda is still very active."
How is it known that all this mischief springs from that source? Could not any homicidal maniacs perpetrate such carnage, for any number of maniacal reasons?
I do caution, however, that any group or faction seeking to escalate violence and/or chaos, would be awfully tempted at this point, I think, to keep the spotlight off themselves , and al qaeda is certainly an easy "scapegoat" to summons right now . . . (and besides, in this very article you mention others seeking to link folks there to al queda . . . )
Who knows?
It could just as easily be Sunni Separatists combating the rising influence of Iranians in Iraqi politics. The weaponry doesn't necessarily mean it was created and remained in full control of any particular group. They could just as easily been captured or discovered, then used.
I believe we need to watch our usage of the term al Qaeda, as it has come to describe just about every combatant regardless if they are affiliated with the group or not.
Otherwise, great article.
"In March 2007, a pair of truck bombs tore through the Shiite marketplace in the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar, killing more than 150 people. The blast reduced the ancient city center to rubble, leaving body parts and charred vegetables scattered amid pools of blood. It was among the most lethal attacks to date in the five-year-old Iraq War. Within hours, Iraqi officials in Baghdad had pinned the bombing on al-Qaeda, and news reports from Reuters, the BBC, MSNBC, and others carried those remarks around the world. An Internet posting by the terrorist group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) took credit for the destruction. Within a few days, U.S. Army General David Petraeus publicly blamed AQI for the carnage, accusing the group of trying to foment sectarian violence and ignite a civil war. Back in Washington, pundits latched on to the attack with special interest, as President Bush had previously touted a period of calm in Tal Afar as evidence that the military's retooled counterinsurgency doctrine was working. For days, reporters and bloggers debated whether the attacks signaled a "resurgence" of al-Qaeda in the city.
Yet there's reason to doubt that AQI had any role in the bombing. In the weeks before the attack, sectarian tensions had been simmering after a local Sunni woman told Al Jazeera television that she had been gang-raped by a group of Shiite Iraqi army soldiers. Multiple insurgent groups called for violence to avenge the woman's honor. Immediately after the blast, some in uniform expressed doubts about al-Qaeda's alleged role and suggested that homegrown sectarian strife was more likely at work. "It's really not al-Qaeda who has infiltrated so much as the fact [of] what happened in 2003," said Ahmed Hashim, a professor at the Naval War College who served as an Army political adviser to the 3rd Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar until shortly before the bombing. "The formerly dominant Sunni Turkmen majority there," he told PBS's NewsHour With Jim Lehrer soon after the bombing, "suddenly ... felt themselves having been thrown out of power. And this is essentially their revenge."
Subscribe Online & Save 33%A week later, Iraqi security forces raided a home outside Tal Afar andarrested two men suspected of orchestrating the bombing. Yet when the U.S. military issued a press release about the arrests, there was no mention of an al-Qaeda connection. The suspects were never formally charged, and nearly six months later neither the U.S. military nor Iraqi police are certain of the source of the attacks. In recent public statements, the military has backed off its former allegations that al-Qaeda was responsible, instead asserting, as Lieutenant Colonel Michael Donnelly wrote in response to an inquiry from the Washington Monthly, that "the tactics used in this attack are consistent with al-Qaeda."
This scenario has become common. After a strike, the military rushes to point the finger at al-Qaeda, even when the actual evidence remains hazy and an alternative explanation—raw hatred between local Sunnis and Shiites—might fit the circumstances just as well. The press blasts such dubious conclusions back to American citizens and policy makers in Washington, and the incidents get tallied and quantified in official reports, cited by the military in briefings in Baghdad. The White House then takes the reports and crafts sound bites depicting AQI as the number one threat to peace and stability in Iraq. (In July, for instance, at Charleston Air Force Base, the president gave a speech about Iraq that mentioned al-Qaeda ninety-five times.)
By now, many in Washington have learned to discount the president's rhetorical excesses when it comes to the war. But even some of his harshest critics take at face value the estimates provided by the military about AQI's presence. Politicians of both parties point to such figures when forming their positions on the war. All of the top three Democratic presidential candidates have argued for keeping some American forces in Iraq or the region, citing among other reasons the continued threat from al-Qaeda.
But what if official military estimates about the size and impact of al-Qaeda in Iraq are simply wrong? Indeed, interviews with numerous military and intelligence analysts, both inside and outside of government, suggest that the number of strikes the group has directed represent only a fraction of what official estimates claim. Further, al-Qaeda's presumed role in leading the violence through uniquely devastating attacks that catalyze further unrest may also be overstated.
Having been led astray by flawed prewar intelligence about WMDs, official Washington wants to believe it takes a more skeptical view of the administration's information now. Yet Beltway insiders seem to be making almost precisely the same mistakes in sizing up al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Despite President Bush's near-singular focus on al-Qaeda in Iraq, most in Washington understand that instability on the ground stems from multiple sources. Numerous attacks on both U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians have been the handiwork of Shiite militants, often connected to, or even part of, the Iraqi government. Opportunistic criminal gangs engage in some of the same heinous tactics.
The Sunni resistance is also comprised of multiple groups. The first consists of so-called "former regime elements." These include thousands of ex-officers from Saddam's old intelligence agency, the Mukabarat, and from the elite paramilitary unit Saddam Fedayeen. Their primary goal is to drive out the U.S. occupation and install a Sunni-led government hostile to Iranian influence. Some within this broad group support reconciliation with the current government or negotiations with the United States, under the condition that American forces set a timetable for a troop withdrawal.
The second category consists of homegrown Iraqi Sunni religious groups, such as the Mujahadeen Army of Iraq. These are native Iraqis who aim to install a religious-based government in Baghdad, similar to the regime in Tehran. These groups use religious rhetoric and terrorist tactics but are essentially nationalistic in their aims.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq comprises the third group. The terrorist network was founded in 2003 by the now-dead Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. (The extent of the group's organizational ties to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda is hotly debated, but the organizations share a worldview and set of objectives.) AQI is believed to have the most non-Iraqis in its ranks, particularly among its leadership. However, most recent assessments say the rank and file are mostly radicalized Iraqis. AQI, which calls itself the "Islamic State of Iraq," espouses the most radical form of Islam and calls for the imposition of strict sharia, or Islamic law. The group has no plans for a future Iraqi government and instead hopes to create a new Islamic caliphate with borders reaching far beyond Mesopotamia.
The essential questions are: How large is the presence of AQI, in terms of manpower and attacks instigated, and what role does the group play in catalyzing further violence? For the first question, the military has produced an estimate. In a background briefing this July in Baghdad, military officials said that during the first half of this year AQI accounted for 15 percent of attacks in Iraq. That figure was also cited in the military intelligence report during final preparations for a National Intelligence Estimate in July.
This is the number on which many military experts inside the Beltway rely. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution who attended the Baghdad background briefing, explained that he thought the estimate derived from a comprehensive analysis by teams of local intelligence agents who examine the type and location of daily attacks, and their intended targets, and crosscheck that with reports from Iraqi informants and other data, such as intercepted phone calls. "It's a fairly detailed kind of assessment," O'Hanlon said. "Obviously you can't always know who is behind an attack, but there is a fairly systematic way of looking at the attacks where they can begin to make a pretty informed guess."
Yet those who have worked on estimates inside the system take a more circumspect view. Alex Rossmiller, who worked in Iraq as an intelligence officer for the Department of Defense, says that real uncertainties exist in assigning responsibility for attacks. "It was kind of a running joke in our office," he recalls. "We would sarcastically refer to everybody as al-Qaeda."
To describe AQI's presence, intelligence experts cite a spectrum of estimates, ranging from 8 percent to 15 percent."
more at: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0710.tilghman.html
"He conjured up the possibility that Al Qaeda would take over Iraq and then threaten America.
But this is an impossibility even in Iraq, by Bush’s own logic. He talked about how the Sunnis in Anbar province were “suffering under the Taliban-like rule of Al Qaeda, and they were sick of it.” He mentioned that local Sunni leaders “pledged they would never allow Al Qaeda to return” and that “it cannot count on popular support.”
So, if the Sunnis can’t stand Al Qaeda in Iraq (which is made up of fanatical Sunnis), and the Shiites can’t stand Al Qaeda in Iraq, and Al Qaeda in Iraq only has a few thousand troops, as General Petraeus acknowledged, what threat does Al Qaeda in Iraq actually pose—either to the Iraqi government or to the United States?
What Bush won’t say, but is logical to infer, is that if the United States were to pull out of Iraq, the Shiites and the fed-up Sunnis would vanquish Al Qaeda in Iraq in a hurry.
But Bush can’t admit this because that would shred the main fig leaf he has left for his occupation."
http://www.progressive.org/mag_wx091307
Now Dragon Lady Hillary is donning the same fig leaf.
Elections have consequences. Thanks for reminding everyone of the consequences of their vote last November.
But the escalation over there, if you notice, coincides with each positive move our new President makes. There is a lot of money to be made during War. Unfortunately, American is not the country that cashed in this time. Just a select "few" in Washington and their buddies.
If I lived in Iraq, as a human being, all political affiliations aside, I would want American Troops there just to feel safe. Obama is right, it is time for Iraq to "step up". I feel their problem is they do not know who to "step up" to, and have bargained with many devils within their own borders. Ellen B
There are however, a lot of American interests over there. Maybe the foundation for a new investment for our 410k's. Does that make you happy. I for one do not want to use oil. They oil mongers have made enough money, and have used our troops long enough. Ellen B
As is so often the case the official press release from US forces remained far disconnected from reality. It alleged that those captured included a “financier” for a Shi’ite militant group and six other “associates.” It also perplexedly claimed they were captured without incident even while describing the killing of two people, one they determined was “hostile” while the other was a woman.
It wasn’t long, however, until provincial police declared that those captured were all innocent members of a single family, including an Iraqi police captain.
The press release from the US makes no mention of the Iraqi government’s objection, instead lauding the raid as “supporting Iraq in its effort to maintain security and stability.” In spite of this, the US had released the captives by late afternoon. The head of the household said “if the Americans had only knocked, we would have cooperated.”
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/26/us-releases-kut-captives-but-disquiet-remains/
Knock? Get real...these bad boys own your' country...they don't need to knock. Just two deaths...be thankful...
Number Of Iraqis Slaughtered In US War And Occupation Of Iraq "1,320,110"
'turn over those responsible for the raid to the courts'
Now, THAT'S, downright hilarious.
Randy, elections do have consequences, the consequence of this last election is the rejection of the neo conservative world order proposals. If you would bother to check into the driving force behind the Bush Faction of the Republican party, you would find a domination motivation of virtually every move made by that corrupt political organization.
Just take an unbiased look at the public statements of "The Architect" Karl Rove for a full explanation of the concept of world domination.
The Romans had a pretty good handle on their 'known' world for a short time, but by the time their borders were at their most expanded limits, their ability to defend all of it had begun to decay. The Germanic tribes began to hammer at the edges and (not all of a sudden, but) Pax Romana imploded.
At one point in time, "the sun never set on the British empire". That dominance could not be maintained, and after a time, began to shrink. The American Revolution forced their hand at the highpoint of British reign, and showed the cracks of weakness in an overexpanded sphere of influence. From then on, the British empire shriveled up and all but blew away.
The Third Reich was a mighty force, and might very well have established a 'greater Germany' which may have lasted to the present day, but the demented ruler of the Reich, Hitler, thought he and his Aryan minions could take on the whole world at once. This was probably the fastest expansion and contraction of empire to date.
The Soviet empire was mitigated by a direct adversary, the United States, another expanding empire who challenged their expansion at every turn, forcing them to overextend overspend, and in the end, collapse.
Now it is America's turn to be the greatest empire in the world, and foolishly, we've taken on the role with relish, but once again as is always the case, we can't cut the mustard. We have overextended ourselves. We've taken on the same foolhardy expedition, world domination, and since our "victory" in the Cold War, the thrust of our power has been in the taming of the middle east and Asia. We've gone so far as to take on the same demonstrably indefatiguable Afghanistan which was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet empire. At the same time, we're facing unprecedented turmoil in Pakistan, a nuclear power, India, for the time being an ally, also with nukes, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict seems like a sideshow, but the determination of this dispute will have lasting, violent effects, long after it is nominally resolved. Places the world over show signs of turmoil and opposition to the 'Pax Americana' being constructed today. Dave's article here demonstrates that even our favorite whipping boy, Iraq, is not finished being a big pain in the rear for us. Who really believes that this tempest will just whimper down to a simmer and then just evaporate on cue as the last Americans escape with their empire intact?
It's like an armed intruder who shouts, "Now don't call the cops after I leave!"
How far will the American Empire expand before the 'barbarian tribes' start taking painful bites out of the nether reaches of our realm? How long will Americans believe they can lord it over the rest of the world en masse, just as all the empires who collapsed before them? Will humans ever learn the lessons of history, abandon thoughts of supremacy and domination, and spare the innocent the continued misery which still is the mark of empire?
We may soon find out whether human delusions may cost them their biological dominance of planet Earth, even forever. Mother nature may still be able to succeed in controlling the crush of human domination. Natural selection will not favor homo sapiens if our collective behavior continues to be damaging to Earth's ecology. Short of nature's kind intervention, humans may just go on torturing this planet for millenia to come. 'Pax humana', so far, is just a pipe dream. Human delusion rules the day, and the empire. And the human reign over Earth shows signs of weakness. A contraction is due.
Since Bush/Cheney/Rusmfeld never said there was a connection, I'm not sure why this fantasy continues to come up.
Just plain idiotic.
"In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States, basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation (an al Qaeda-Hussein connection) and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission, declassified Defense Department reports as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, 'We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.' "
One was Iran. In early September, and in the words of General Petraeus: “The president of Iran pledged to Prime Minister Maliki, during a recent meeting, that he would stop the flow of weapons, the training, the funding and the directing of these militia extremists that have been such a huge problem.” This was within 30 days of the sharp improvement.
In late October, as deaths in Iraq continued to decrease for both Americans and Iraqis, Ambassador Ryan Crocker acknowledged that Iran may have played a positive role in the reduced level of Shiite Muslim involvement.
At this point, a muzzle was likely put on the subject, for that was the last official recognition of Iran's contribution to the cause.
Another related factor was that shortly after Shiite Iran's pledge, it was announced that two rival Shiite leaders in Iraq had agreed to a truce. The deep tensions between the followers of the two had been responsible for many terrorist attacks.
Another very significant factor was the recruitment of Sunnis who were disenchanted with the violence caused by Sunni al Qaeda. The U.S. armed approximately 90,000 and paid them to supress al Qaeda. Known as the Sons of Iraq, they were reported to be quite effective.
show us the QUOTES if you can.... *ROFL*
"At the very least, the violence shows that al Qaeda is still very active."
I see you've caught some flak for this statement, but I'm going to side with you on this one. Most of the evidence we have regarding attack patterns in Iraq indicates that the vast majority of the "sensational" bombings, that is, the mass casualty events, suicide bombings, etc., are the work of al Qaeda in Iraq elements. That does not mean non-Iraqis. AQI is made up primarily of Iraqi Sunnis opposed to the presence of coalition forces in Iraq, but the leadership consists mainly of foreign fighters from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.
"Earlier this week, however, Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said he was confident Iraqi forces would be able to fill the gap to be created by the departure of U.S. troops."
I would be very wary of comments of this sort by the Prime Minister. He has always had an inflated opinion of the capability of Iraqi forces, an opinion that has consistently been smacked in the face by reality in places like Sadr City and Basra. Many of his military commanders are of the opinion that U.S. help will be needed in the security arena for years after 2011. In fact, we are posturing ourselves to satisfy that need. The rotation of forces into Iraq has changed little, except for the nomenclature used to describe units. We are still sending combat units to Iraq, but we are calling them training brigades instead of brigade combat teams. The training mission is unchanged from the Bush years: bring the Iraqi forces up to speed through joing operations that start with the U.S. in the lead, balance out as capability rises, and eventually have the Iraqis in the lead. The model is the same as it has been for the past 3 years. The only thing that has changed is the name we give to the deploying brigades.
"Today, the increasingly hostile Iraq leader expressed outrage over a U.S. raid in the southern city of Kut that resulted in the death of a civilian woman. He said the raid violated the security pact and he demanded that the U.S. military hand over those responsible for trial in Iraq courts."
For the record, Major General Perkins, the top U.S. spokesman in Iraq, was adamant today that Iraqi officials had in fact been notified of the details of the raid before it was launched.
"They said that Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld applied 'relentless pressure' on interrogators to use 'harsh' methods on detainees to find evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."
None of the techniques used by the United States were remotely close to being as harsh as the techniques used by Taliban, al Qaeda, and Iraqi insurgent fighters.
"It was this connection that became one of the Bush administration's main reasons for invading Iraq but, according to the article, no evidence was ever found."
In President Bush's September 2002 address to the UN, the one in which he made the case for war with Iraq, he maintained links between Saddam Hussein and international terrorism. A 2007 report by the Institute for Defense Analyses supports this assertion, citing Iraqi links to terrorists and terrorism in Europe, Africa and throughout the Middle East. The report establishes links between Iraqi regime members and members of al Qaeda, although there is no clear link between Hussein and bin Laden or Zawahiri. Still, the connection between Iraq and international terrorism, including elements of al Qaeda, was made clear. Iraq was a legitimate target in a "global war on terrorism" that extended beyond Afghanistan, as Bush maintained from the beginning, with or without a link to the 9/11 attacks.
"We now have piracy, we have the kidnapping of Americans and others in Mexico...."
I realize it's fashionable to blame everything on Bush, but piracy off the coast of Somalia has been a problem for more than a decade, since before Bush was elected. The same is true for the kidnapping of Americans not only IN Mexico, but by Mexican drug cartels IN THE UNITED STATES. Phoenix, in particular, is suffering from a staggering increase in kidnappings associated with Mexican drug cartels.
"...The surge began in Februeary, 2007 and was fully implemented by June. The reduction in violence began in October. With all due credit to our troops, the fact is there were other factors involved as well."
A little perspective. Bush announced the surge (personally, as a military guy, I disagree with that characterization because troop levels had consistently risen and fallen in response to the level of violence for the entire period since the invasion--before the first round of elections we had more troops on the ground in Iraq than we did at the height of the so-called surge) in January 2007. Troops began to deploy in February and were all in place in Iraq by June. The actual conduct of offensive operations using surge troops in coordinated efforts did not begin until July. It's called massing combat power. We did not serious offensive raids / attacks / sweeps / operations until we had enough combat forces in place to sustain those efforts. The results of the increase in offensive operations began to become evident in mid-to-late-September. Prior to that, by almost 12 months, the overall level of violence in al Anbar had begun to come down, but that trend was not evident throughout the country.
Sunni tribesmen / elders in Anbar, fed up with al Qaeda's harsh tactics, began to turn on AQI and cooperate with coalition forces. When the surge forces arrived, we were able to take the Anbar model and extend it to other violence-prone areas of Iraq. At the same time, Moqtada al-Sadr, knowing he was a target of surge operations, made the decision to stand down his Mahdi Army. He did this from a position of weakness, realizing that he was at a disadvantage and could be destroyed.
Iran was caught off guard by the surge. Indeed, most of the world was caught off guard. Nearly everyone expected us to withdraw. Bush's surge put Iran on notice that we would not abandon Iraq and that U.S. forces were going to be sticking around for the long haul. There is little doubt that this factored in to the Iranian decision to back off its destabilizing actions.
The overall reduction in violence in Iraq is primarily attributable to four factors: the Anbar Awakening, which was then exported to other provinces, the surge in U.S. and Iraqi forces, Iran's backing off, and Sadr standing down. The surge facilitated the export of the Awakening, influenced Iran's decision, and forced Sadr into hiding.
Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist acts. Key portions of the new Intel Committee report indicate that Bush attacked an Iraqi regime that not only lacked an operational relationship with al Qaeda, but was hostile toward the terrorist network. By making the strategic mistake of attacking Iraq, Bush's policy accomplished the goals of the al Qaeda network. Here's what the report says:
[Bin] Ladin generally opposed collaboration [with Baghdad]. (p. 65)
According to debriefs of multiple detainees -- including Saddam Hussein and former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz -- and capture documents, Saddam did not trust al-Qa'ida or any other radical Islamist group and did not want to cooperate with them. (p. 67)
Aziz underscored Saddam's distrust of Islamic extremists like bin Ladin, stating that when the Iraqi regime started to see evidence that Wahabists had come to Iraq, "the Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution." (p. 67)
Another senior Iraqi official stated that Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called Saddam an "unbeliever." (p.73)
Conclusion 1: ... Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qa'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al Qa'ida to provide material or operational support. Debriefings of key leaders of the former Iraqi regime indicate that Saddam distrusted Islamic radicals in general, and al Qa'ida in particular... Debriefings also indicate that Saddam issued a general order that Iraq should not deal with al Qa'ida. No postwar information suggests that the Iraqi regime attempted to facilitate a relationship with bin Ladin. (p. 105)
Conclusion 5:... Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi. (p. 109)"
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/10/phase-ii-report-conclusion/
Senate investigation finds no Iraq/al Qaeda link EITHER.
View VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDz6e7CdmbA
Nice novella Felix - and jJack, I thought you were going back on your meds...
An important distinction needs to be made here. Not all terrorists are al Qaeda members. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was unquestionably a state sponsor of terrorism, and some levels of the Hussein regime had ties to some levels of al Qaeda. There has been no established link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks, or between Saddam and bin Laden or al-Zawahiri. But there were links between Saddam's regime and elements of al Qaeda, and Saddam's Iraq was a state sponsor of international terrorism.
As I said above, Bush articulated a "global war on terrorism" where Afghanistan was the first, but not the only target. While I personally would have targeted Syria or Iran before Iraq, Iraq was indeed a legitimate target in a truly "global" war on terrorism.
Greg, you are more than likely wasting your breath on this bunch. Such distinctions are lost on demagogues and partisan hacks alike, and for the most part, that's about all you'll find here on Davie boy's pages, with his sychophants patting him on the back, telling him how wise he is.
not for nuttin' but the authorization FROM CONGRESS to use force in Iraq included several "whereas" clauses that seem to refute much of what you say, Demagogue Davie boy......
Here's the abstract for the report I cited above:
"Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime."
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/index.html
Global War On Terror = Media Hype
Those of you who believe in Al-Qaeda and Terrorism have fallen hook, line and sinker for government hype, propaganda to sustain American favor for wars for profit.
Today, the political tensions of the Middle East are driven minimally by indigenous inter-sectarian factors. The systematic and organized attempt - by imperialists and their regional clients - to amplify the myth of an ongoing, all-out sectarian war is precisely in order to cover for the evident absence of actual rifts between the peoples of the Middle East. Why the likes of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Morocco are not waiting around for second invitations to jump on to this sectarian bandwagon should in itself provoke a lot of questioning. Not in the least surprising, and another reason to look into this subject more critically, has been the failure of Western media from putting forth these simple and straight-forward questions.
Sectarianism constitutes an important chapter in the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy. Whilst it could be said that the US viewed the Middle East through a more ethnic prism in the past, it is clear that the sectarian divide has provided the way forward. The declaration of the “New Middle East” agenda during the Bush administration, and its failure in infancy during the 2006 war on Lebanon, essentially served to overload the sectarian aspect in a bid to foster the right conditions for the implementation of this agenda.
So-called “moderate” Arab leaders shamefully find themselves not only aligned with the most rightist, racist coalition in Israel (which continues to steal more Palestinian land by the day), but they in fact work hand in hand with Israel to conspire against resistance movements. Netanyahu and Liebermann have taken it upon themselves to scare the world into insanity, under the pretext of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon capability. Mubarak, Abdullah and cohorts on the other hand, are pioneering the project of spreading fear against a sinister Iranian-led “Shiite” agenda aimed at taking over the Arab heartland which, needless to state, is implemented by resistance movements such as Hizbullah and Hamas.
Sadly, for the imperialists and discredited Arab leaders, the masses no longer buy such crackpot machinations. In the Middle East, we are now witness to a post-sectarian phase; the unity and solidarity that exists between its' peoples - in identifying the key challenges that face this region - is palpable in whichever direction you turn. Western discourse on the Middle East however, remains fixated on talk of civil wars, sectarian strife and religious tension.
The failure of the US (and other Western powers) to move away from a sectarian discourse in accounting for the dynamics of the Middle East, and the failure to impress this reality upon regional Arab clients, will predictably have significant repercussions. There are several very real issues that need to be resolved in this region, and they have precious little to do with the myth of sectarianism. Political agendas can not forever be implemented in the shadow of sectarianism. The sooner the White House realizes this, the better.
It's wars for profit, nothing more. There are no terrorists other than American forces. If foreign forces occupied Ohio then the people of Ohio would be labeled terrorists by them. Plain and simple. There exists only one entity in these foreign countries we send our troops to and they are commonly referred to as Freedom Fighters fighting for freedom from occupying forces. It's a big chessboard and the American people don't get to play. They watch, fed propaganda by the players, cheering from the bleachers.
I've said numerous times that whenever we leave Iraq, there will be a power struggle and the government will be changed. Probably to a strong man who can subjugate the people with fear and intimidation. There will be a lot of blood and people killed in the struggle.
There are probably more Al Queda in Iraq now than there were when Saddam was alive. This has been a breeding ground and training ground for the Al Queda forces.
My hat is off to the troops who have tried so hard to prepare the Iraqi troops to take over. I have little doubt that they will attempt to keep the current government going but will be unsuccessful.
If I'm wrong and Iraq manages to keep a democratically formed government and control the insurgents, I would be very pleased for the Iraqis. But that is not what I am expecting.
My quick conclusion is that a think-tank like that must be staffed with people with political leanings, especially at the later stages of a two-term presidency. I think their conclusions must be held at arm's length until investigated, just like some of the claims of John Rebel, here.
Some of John Rebel's conclusions sound like conspiracy theory at its most paranoid. Not that we can rule out the profit motive from the Iraq war. On the contrary, corporate profit is the order of the day in this conflict, as demonstrated by the successful business models of Halliburton and Blackwater. But to say that so called moderate Arab states such as Egypt are collaborating directly with the right-wing parties in Israel for the purpose of reigning in Iran's exploits is stretching my imagination at least.
I say these things in order to encourage those who wish to speak seriously about the direction of US foreign policy to research their opinions. I surely will be reading up some more. I don't know anything, really. I'm just an underemployed piano player.
All this from Dave's article about the week's events in America's playground, Iraq. Dave ends the article with the latest casualty figures, and I think he must mean them as good news, that is, good that the figures aren't much higher at this juncture.
"Objection! Your honor, counsel is putting words in the witness' mouth." "Sustained."
the story is already going round about rummy and the swine flu in 76....
without much to back it up....
big deal
That perhaps can be explained .........
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/29/usa.iraq
"This war reached our shores on September 11 2001," Mr Bush said, pointing to links between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Jordanian extremist thought be behind many of the suicide attacks in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden. "The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September ... if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi ... and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden," the president said. "
"Greg, perhaps there's a profit motive in the drivel you've chosen to believe?"
It's not drivel I've chosen to believe. I've lived it. I'm a two time Iraq veteran with a Master's degree in International Relations and National Security Studies. I don't make stuff up.
"...there will be a power struggle and the government will be changed. Probably to a strong man who can subjugate the people with fear and intimidation."
I believed that for a while, primarily in 2006 and through to about mid-2007. Now I'm not sure. There is still a strong possibility that such a scenario will play itself out.
"I wouldn't on the face of it accept what is represented in these publications from the Institutes for Defense Analyses without corroboration."
Before looking for corroboration, how about offering some substantive refutation?
"I think their conclusions must be held at arm's length until investigated...."
Do you have some credible evidence refuting the existence of these documents and the contents of them? Or are you just attacking the source in the absence of a real counterpoint?
Rumsfeld made millions on bird flu
The American company made millions of dollars and its shares skyrocketed. The American media called Rumsfeld the bird flu profiteer, having become one of the wealthiest men in America from the earnings from the drug. The Swiss company Roche purchased the rights to the production of Tamiflu, so Gilead made additional profit on that sale. The CNN wrote about that at the time, stating that during the bird flu pandemic, Rumsfeld even intended to sell his shares in Gilead, but was advised to keep his shares and not to make his intentions public.
But Rumsfeld’s name was not just connected with the bird flu, but also with the swine flu in the United States in 1976. The story began when one soldier died in New Jersey from what experts believed to be an identical strain of the swine flu virus from 1918. At the time, Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defence and initiated swift action, convincing the people that the new administration would make sure that every man, woman and child in America are vaccinated. At that time the presidential campaign was underway and candidate Gerard Ford received additional support from this and became the president. The vaccine was produced and distributed across the country at lightning speed. The programme stopped just a month after the elections. The only problem was that the vaccine had been contaminated which resulted in hundreds of people becoming ill from it, while 52 people died."
http://www.javno.com/en-world/who-will-profit-from-the-deadly-flu-this-time_253848
the smear machine is in high gear on this rumsfeld thingie, they've constructed an ENTIRE backstory......
try finding independent confirmation for these "facts" from anything other than a radical wag leftist loon website, and you'll be looking for YEARS....
the ONLY place you find the kind of "information" felix is sharing, is from the lunatic left, or some foreigner, like javno.com--- some middle east propaganda machine *chuckle*
It's government report the White House didn't want you to read: yesterday the Pentagon canceled plans to send out a press release announcing the report's availability and didn't make the report available via email or online.
Based on the analysis of some 600,000 official Iraqi documents seized by US forces after the invasion and thousands of hours of interrogations of former officials in Saddam's government now in US custody, the government report is the first official acknowledgment from the US military that there is no evidence Saddam had ties to al Qaeda.
The Bush administration apparently didn't want the study to get any attention. The report was to be posted on the Joint Forces Command website yesterday, followed by a background briefing with the authors. No more. The report was made available to those who asked for it, and was sent via overnight mail from Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia.
Asked yesterday why the report would not be posted online and could not be emailed, the spokesman for Joint Forces Command said: "We're making the report available to anyone who wishes to have it, and we'll send it out via CD in the mail."
Another Pentagon official said initial press reports on the study made it "too politically sensitive."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/rapidreport/2008/03/report-shows-no.html
Rumsfeld served as Gilead (Research)'s chairman from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001, and he still holds a Gilead stake valued at between $5 million and $25 million, according to federal financial disclosures filed by Rumsfeld.
The forms don't reveal the exact number of shares Rumsfeld owns, but in the past six months fears of a pandemic and the ensuing scramble for Tamiflu have sent Gilead's stock from $35 to $47. That's made the Pentagon chief, already one of the wealthiest members of the Bush cabinet, at least $1 million richer."
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/fortune_rumsfeld/?cnn=yes
"Donald Rumsfeld has made a killing out of bird flu. The US Defence Secretary has made more than $5m (£2.9m) in capital gains from selling shares in the biotechnology firm that discovered and developed Tamiflu, the drug being bought in massive amounts by Governments to treat a possible human pandemic of the disease."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-rumsfeld-makes-5m-killing-on-bird-flu-drug-469599.html
you know *chuckle*
from your own link ace....
Rumsfeld recused himself from any decisions involving Gilead when he left Gilead and became Secretary of Defense in early 2001. And late last month, notes a senior Pentagon official, Rumsfeld went even further and had the Pentagon's general counsel issue additional instructions outlining what he could and could not be involved in if there were an avian flu pandemic and the Pentagon had to respond.
As the flu issue heated up early this year, according to the Pentagon official, Rumsfeld considered unloading his entire Gilead stake and sought the advice of the Department of Justice, the SEC and the federal Office of Government Ethics.
Those agencies didn't offer an opinion so Rumsfeld consulted a private securities lawyer, who advised him that it was safer to hold on to the stock and be quite public about his recusal rather than sell and run the risk of being accused of trading on insider information.
That's the part you idiots always leave out.....
As for the IDA, would you be able to tell us how one gets a position at this think tank? Who hires these folks, and what qualifications do they need? It seems like it could be a great position for someone like yourself - prestige, influence, and a salary well into six figures. But if it is staffed according to political party, patronage style, then right away, "think tank" starts to stink!
Well, I'm sure you, and others of your ilk, believe that to be "true."
That proves NOTHING, unfortunately....
If you read the actual report instead of the posting at the ABC News blog, you'll discover that it said there was no smoking gun. It did not say there were no links. Huge difference.
As for the report being available on CD, it is. I requested and received a copy when it came out. Reading the actual report is quite different from drive by news coverage.
"You've studied this stuff extensively, while I've been playing rock n roll."
Honestly, I'd like to be playing rock n roll. Unfortunately, no musical talent whatsoever.
"But even I can come up with enough to challenge the notion that there was any connection between Saddam and Al Qaida."
Oh, but there was. It was certainly not as extensive as some in the Bush administration implied, but there were links. The captured documents make that clear enough.
"As for the IDA, would you be able to tell us how one gets a position at this think tank?"
I don't know. I imagine it's probably about the same as any think tank, conservative or liberal.
What is needed is for the rest of the world to join together to protect civilization, but the majority of the world is still uncivilized.
The problem is that the US does not look good as a leader to west, look at our stand on so many different issues ... where I think we are wrong and they are right, health care, social safety net, education. Truth is the US is closer to Russia these days than to the more social democracies in Europe and the budding ones in South America. I am not saying we have to go totally socialist, though I think it is important that the government is strong and that it has a responsibility to the people as much as to corporations.
Who is going to love their corporation as much as they love their country? That is why despite all the talk about how bad the government is people have more faith in the government and "us" than they do in any company or business. The big businesses are dying and not taking care of their responsibilities, we better hope the US government will be there - because it is based on all of us.
We have been hoodwinked into abdicating power to the corporations that are corrupt. In Russia is the the police state. We cannot lead if we do not include and respect those we hoe to lead - and we do need their help.
The point is that Saddam was trying to rile up the religious sectors to follow him. He was paying off Palestinian suicide bombers and their families and causing trouble. Corrupt the oil or food program or whatever it was.
Iraq was the weakest link to attack, and though I would not have order the war, it is here and we're stuck with it. Better hope we win it. Most Iraqis think their country is better off. They just have a lot of scumbags that will make trouble whatever is going on. Iraq is on the edge of turning out to be a decent decision, and right in the middle of these corrupt pustules of Islamic totalitarianism too ... it has the potential to start a cure. All the other stuff is pretty minor, though not entirely unimportant.
It was right here......
"The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September ... if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi ... and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden," the president said. "
When Bush made that statement al Qaeda was present in Iraq. I'm not saying they were there before the invasion, but technically Bush's statement was accurate at the time he said it.
Greg.....True, however it's statements such as that one that gave people the idea that he was linking Iraq and Al Quaeda....and a lot of people took such statements the same way.
I won't ask where you get your news from.
From Dahr Jamail, perhaps the single most trusted news source from Iraq (of course I wouldn't expect Bruce to believe any of it, it's not Fox):
Throughout my five years of reporting on the occupation of Iraq, when I’ve asked Iraqis what they feel the most damaging aspect of the occupation is, I have been told that the occupation is “shredding the fabric of Iraqi society and culture.”
The Sahwa (US-created and -backed Sunni militia) clashing with the US-backed Maliki government in Iraq is a classic example of Iraqis being effectively turned against one another so as not to unite against the occupier.
Another example would be the effective creation and exploitation of the myth of sectarianism in Iraq, which has lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and threatens to do so once again.
Of course Bruce knows zippo about the Human Terrain System (HTS) because it isn't spoken about on Fox. Understanding the war in Iraq Bruce requires far more brain cells than you have to spare.
Documentary filmmaker Jason Coppola is directing and producing a film titled “Justify My War.” In the film, an introspective Coppola explores the question of rationalization of the wars being waged by our government, from Wounded Knee to Fallujah. I (Dahr Jamail) asked Coppola for his perspective about the ongoing use of anthropologists by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.
“This seems to be the most powerful weapon against indigenous cultures today. Much more powerful than F-16s and M-1 tanks. We see how well it worked against our own indigenous culture. You need to know a people before you decide what can corrupt them, what can be used to confuse, divide and conquer them. The strongest defense against occupation is an undivided, culturally rooted people, but empires don’t like that.”
Price and Gonzalez, along with several other scholars, felt the problem serious enough to have formed the Network of Concerned Anthropologists and drafted a “Pledge of Non-Participation in Counter-Insurgency” to boycott anthropological work in counterinsurgency and direct combat support operations. They took their stand against “work that is covert, work that breaches relations of openness and trust with studied populations, and work that enables the occupation of one country by another.”
Similarly, in October 2007, the Executive Board of the American Anthropological Association issued a statement that warned its members that activities such as involvement in the HTS program are likely to violate the code of ethics.
To assess your comments as dumb would be complimentary, they're far less.
The American troops or more accurately American war planners have used every covert method to subvert any opposition from paying and arming various factions to then arresting and jailing members of those same factions, as necessary based on circumstances. This isn't a war, it's an occupation to attain total subjugation of an entire population. If this was happening in YOUR country YOU would be labeled a terrorist for the media.
There are FEW Iraqi's happy with the occupation and/or the war at this point. They've seen their country destroyed. There are fewer people with fresh potable water, shorter periods of electrical availability, higher rates of communicable and non-communicable diseases (specifically cancers from depleted uranium), an enormous rate of inflation, zero production of agricultural products (we killed all of the animals and birds being raised for food), a completely polluted system of waterways (polluted with the detritus of war, oil, etc.), the sanitation system is too old and too destroyed by bombs to work, there are temporary walls built everywhere separating communities that once thrived and in general, the country is wrecked.
What you might see on Fox is pure US government propaganda.
Here's what Iraq was like under Saddam, something most people never bothered to ask.
World oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.
Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
To diversify the largely oil-based Iraqi economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.
Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside, where Saddam himself was born and raised, and roughly two-thirds were peasants. But this number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as the country invested much of its oil profits into industrial expansion.
Nevertheless, Saddam focused on fostering loyalty to the Ba'athist government in the rural areas. After nationalizing foreign oil interests, Saddam supervised the modernization of the countryside, mechanizing agriculture on a large scale, and distributing land to peasant farmers. The Ba'athists established farm cooperatives, in which profits were distributed according to the labors of the individual and the unskilled were trained.
You see no one has any idea what Iraq was like before we intruded, and they don't ask nor do they care.
In a June 2000 paper, Piracy in Asia: A Growing Barrier to Maritime Trade, the Heritage Foundation claims that:This conservative think tank (correctly, IMHO) attributes increases in modern-day piracy to decreases in prosperity in the regions affected, i.e. that such activity is driven primarily by economics, not anti-Americanism.
I don't think Ellen was claiming otherwise, but others may connect an earlier statement of hers:...with this one, and reach the erroneous conclusion that this modern-day piracy is somehow a direct consequence of American politics.
Pirates with worldly motives such as financial gain should be somewhat deterred by the resolution of the Maersk Alabama hijacking.
Bush made multiple intertwining references to Iraq, al Qaeda, and 9/11, in his "Iraqui Threat" speech on October 7, 2002:This is just one speech, in October 2002. Between then and the March 2003 invasion, many other references to Saddam Hussein and terrorists were made in the same breath. Whether or not anyone intended to create this impression is secondary. Sheer repetition created that impression.
If someone were guilty of perpetuating this so-called "fantasy," Jack, perhaps you would be so good as to provide pre-invasion statements by the Bush administration made for the purpose of setting the record straight.
You're a resourceful guy. I'm certain that if solid evidence for this opinion exists, you'll provide it -- sourced like a good scholar.
Otherwise, the "never said there was a connection" assertion rings about as true as Bill Clinton's "did not have sex with that woman."
UN Sanctions which never worked, and after 12 years the UN had been thrown out for 4 of which with no response, the Iraqi Government had managed to stop most of the WMD disposials as UN's own security site reports state. The Iraqi Government refused to go a long with most of the sanction rules, without effective response from the UN. Reports from both Britain and Russia, in which Russia has never refused the validity of.
The Iraqi Governments support of terror groups in the Gaza, and other areas, later to be found that they were supporting Al-Quada financially. Training camps that held aircraft fuselages, Bio and Chemical weapon samples for training non-military personel.
A boogeyman: THEM.
Can't have an "us" unless there's a "them," eh?
I beg to differ.
America NEEDS conservative ideas AND liberal ideas as we grapple with the weighty issues before us.
What's YOUR vision for the next few years, Mister Right?
A lot of policies your "side" won't like?
Gridlock? Time and money wasted accomplishing little?
How about folks from both "sides" taking off their armbands and getting things done TOGETHER?
What, is the thought of working with "them" worse than the prospect of having "their" policies rammed down "your" throat?
Some so-called "Right" voices seem to be saying that "failure" of the present administration is the best they can hope for!
Excuse me?
This is the pathetic "vision" of the Right? The self-proclaimed home of free enterprise, responsibility and accountability? Protectors of small business, initiative takers, champions of American innovation? Self-styled patriots and guardians of family values?
What, did everybody lose their Bibles and flags overnight?
Look, nobody said this was gonna be easy. But the more hands and minds we apply to the task, the better our chances of success -- if success is what you want.
Our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. If HALF the people don't bother to participate, they might not get the kind of governance they want.
What a surprise! I submit that We get the kind of government we DESERVE -- ALWAYS.
I also suspect you would be telling ME the exact same thing, if the shoe were on the Right foot instead of the Left.