Balkinization: Dick Cheney = Baghdad Bob

Comments:

Exactly which pre war objectives have our troops failed to achieve?

That looks, smells and tastes like success to me.

I am not imagining that Saddam is currently toasting his success in whatever hell Allah reserves for mass murderers.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 3:45 PM

Finding WMD's.

Easy answer, no?

# posted by

Anne : 4:32 PM

anne:

Leaving aside for the moment the 500 some nerve and mustard gas artillery rounds, the hundreds of tons of pesticide with the precursors for nerve gas and the ongoing WMD programs we have found in various military facilities, the pre war objective was not to find WMD, it was to get Iraq out of the WMD business.

That objective was accomplished.

The only failure would be if Saddam shipped some portion of his WMD stocks to Syria in the convoys of trucks and planes which left Iraq for Syria before and during the war which, at the very least, moved tons of industrial equipment marked by the UN as dual use gear which could make WMD.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 4:58 PM

This is from President Bush's Radio Address at the commencement of the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

"A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet, whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted."

Its pretty clear that "helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country" is an objective that the United States has neither achieved nor had enormous success toward achieving.

# posted by

QuiteAlarmed : 5:04 PM

Its pretty clear that "helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country" is an objective that the United States has neither achieved nor had enormous success toward achieving.

Assuming this was an actual basis for the war -- I doubt it -- then of course you're right.

What's interesting is the dishonest way the Administration and its supporters try to have it both ways. On the one hand they claim we can't leave "until the job is done". On the other hand they claim we've accomplished all our goals -- in which case, one has to ask, "why are we still there?". The shifting, often contradictory rationales advanced for the invasion of course contribute to this sophistry.

# posted by

Mark Field : 5:09 PM

QuiteAlarmed said...

This is from President Bush's Radio Address at the commencement of the 2003 invasion of Iraq...

Nice almost gotchya moment. The objectives for the war were laid out in the SOTU prior to the AUMF and in the AUMF itself. A piece of rhetoric in a speech as the war is getting underway was not a reason given to give the go ahead.

The objective was not to create Shangra La in Iraq.

The objectives were regime change, putting Iraq out of the WMD business, establish a friendly democratic government and deny al Qaeda and its allied terror groups like Ansar al Islam and Ansar al Sunna a sanctuary in Iraq.

All of these objectives have been accomplished.

Saddam has been brought to justice and hung while his regime has been eliminated.

Iraq is out of the WMD business.

Iraq has held three successful democratic elections enacting a constitution and electing two governments.

Iraq has become al Qaeda's grave yard. Our military has killed Zarqawi and most of his leadership. al Qaeda admits to losing 4000 KIA in Iraq. Given that al Qaeda strength in Iraq at its height may have been 1500, that means three waves of fighters have come to Iraq to die. The Sunni in Anbar province are at war with al Qaeda and drove them into Baghdad. Iraqi intelligence reports that al Qaeda is now fleeing Baghdad ahead of the US reinforcements to Diyala province on the Iranian border.

If you think this does not constitute success, try looking at it from the graves of Saddam and Zarqawi...

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 5:36 PM

Bart:

The objectives were regime change, putting Iraq out of the WMD business, establish a friendly democratic government and deny al Qaeda and its allied terror groups like Ansar al Islam and Ansar al Sunna a sanctuary in Iraq.

Really, I shouldn't even bother, but addictions can be hard to break. :-)

Regime change. OK, we did that. And since Saddam Hussein is now dead, there is no possibility of his coming back.

Put Iraq out of the WMD business. Since Iraq was not in the WMD business, this objective was achieved before we even set foot there. The most you can point to is spent shells from the 1980-1988 war and pesticide factories that could be converted to make WMD. The sanctions had, in fact, effectively put Iraq out of the WMD business. The most any honest advocate of the war can claim is that eventually the sanctions would have collapsed and Iraq would have resumed production. You may see this as a legitmate cassus belli; I see it as too remote.

Establish a friendly democratic government. Depends how you define friendly and democratic. If by democratic you mean there were contested elections, Iraq is a democracy. If you mean some Shangra-la like a government not allied with death squads that kill 100 men a night by driving power drills through their skulls, Iraq leaves a lot to be desired. If by friendly you mean relies on us to prop it up, the government of Iraq is friendly. If you share George Bush's belief that the Iranian government is an enemy, can you please explain why we are backing the most pro-Iranian elements in Iraq?

Deny Al Qaeda and its allies a sanctuary in Iraq. This was the case or very nearly the case even before we invaded. There was an Ansar al-Islam base in the Kurdish area outside Saddam's control fighting our Kurdish allies. If we regarded this base as a threat, we could have sent in some Special Forces to act in conjunction with the Kurds to destroy it. An easier and less drastic measure than taking over the entire country. There were a few covert operatives such as Al-Zarqawi in Iraq before we invaded. There are almost certainly at some such operatives there today.

The Sunni in Anbar province are at war with al Qaeda and drove them into Baghdad. Good to hear. Of course, al Qaeda was not in Anbar province in the first place before we sent troops in. But the fact that the people of Anbar have driven out al Qaeda had not made the province any less of a war zone between our troops and the insurgents. So if Anbar province has driven out al Qaeda, if they are not making WMD, and if there is no chance of Saddam coming back, can you please explain why it is so important for our troops to remain in Anbar getting shot at?

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 8:22 PM

"Bart" DePalma asks cluelessly (or is it disingenuously?):

Leaving aside for the moment the 500 some nerve and mustard gas artillery rounds, the hundreds of tons of pesticide with the precursors for nerve gas and the ongoing WMD programs we have found in various military facilities, the pre war objective was not to find WMD, it was to get Iraq out of the WMD business.

"Bart" has turned several dozen aging and decrepit shells from pre-Gulf War I into "500 some nerve and mustard gas artillery rounds". I've corrected him on this before elsewhere, but he'll just trot out the same ol' rotten tripetime and time again.

Patent nonsense, of course (and even the maladministration has enough sense of shame not to flog this dead horse).

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:22 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

[T]he pre war objective was not to find WMD, it was to get Iraq out of the WMD business.

Then it wasn't accomplished. To "get [someone] out of [a] business", they have to be in it. If they were already out of it, it's undisputable that you've accomplished literally nothing ... and doing nothing can be done a hell of a lot cheaper than with 3000+ U.S. soldiers' lives and a half trillion dollars.

That should be obvious. But then there's "Bart".....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:25 PM

The objective was not to create Shangra La in Iraq.

Wow. Talk about majestic "straw men"....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:29 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

Iraq has held three successful democratic elections enacting a constitution and electing two governments.

If they were so "successful", why all the 'do-overs'?

... al Qaeda admits to losing 4000 KIA in Iraq. Given that al Qaeda strength in Iraq at its height may have been 1500, that means ...

Ummmm. Good question. What? What does it mean? Not sure that the answer(s) is/are really one(s) we should be ecstatic about....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:35 PM

From the Star Tribune in 2004:

Let's be clear: The failure of the administration's evidence on Iraq's WMD is not a case of 20-20 hindsight, as some apologists for Bush assert. The president himself was flat-out wrong when he said last week that Saddam Hussein refused to "let us in." Before the war, Blix's weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq examining the specific sites and looking for the precise materials mentioned in the brief Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council. And they were finding nothing. Very few people worldwide bought the American case for war -- before the war started.

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:38 PM

enlightened layperson:

Deny Al Qaeda and its allies a sanctuary in Iraq. This was the case or very nearly the case even before we invaded. There was an Ansar al-Islam base in the Kurdish area outside Saddam's control fighting our Kurdish allies. If we regarded this base as a threat, we could have sent in some Special Forces to act in conjunction with the Kurds to destroy it.

Indeed. But the Dubya maladministration nixed such a strike before the war a couple of times. Might have reduced the political support for the war they wanted. And believe me, they wanted war. Real bad, so bad they could just taste it. Well, Dubya, it's gonna take a lifetime washing the taste of sh*te out of your mouth. Same for you, "Bart".

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:41 PM

Enlightened Layperson said...

Put Iraq out of the WMD business. Since Iraq was not in the WMD business, this objective was achieved before we even set foot there.

Do you have any evidence that Iraq destroyed their WMD and ended their WMD programs?

On the most conservative end of the spectrum is the Duelfer report, which found that Saddam mainatined all of his WMD programs and intended to restart WMD production as soon as his allies on the Security Counsel managed to lift UN sanctions. Without any physical evidence and based only on the word of Iraq's WMD chief Kamal, Duelfer assumed that Iraq destroyed its WMD stockpiles in in the year after the Persian Gulf War.

However, captured and translated tapes of Saddam's staff meetings in 1995 reveal Kamal telling Saddam:

At one point Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and the man who was in charge of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction efforts can be heard on the tapes, speaking openly about hiding information from the U.N.

"We did not reveal all that we have," Kamel says in the meeting. "Not the type of weapons, not the volume of the materials we imported, not the volume of the production we told them about, not the volume of use. None of this was correct."

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Investigation/
story?id=1616996

Are we supposed to assume that Saddam destroyed all of his WMD based on the word of this man without any evidence???

In fact, Duelfer probably is not all that certain of the destruction of the WMD given that he and Kay stated that they could not rule out that some or all of the WMD were shipped to Iraq's ally Syria as claimed by some of Saddam's officers.

The most you can point to is spent shells from the 1980-1988 war and pesticide factories that could be converted to make WMD.

There was nothing "spent" about the 500 shells we found full of sarin and mustard gas. I invite anyone here to sip a thimbleful of this "spent" sarin.

Establish a friendly democratic government. Depends how you define friendly and democratic. If by democratic you mean there were contested elections, Iraq is a democracy. If you mean some Shangra-la like a government not allied with death squads that kill 100 men a night by driving power drills through their skulls, Iraq leaves a lot to be desired.

More accusations without proof. What evidence do you have that Iraq's government is running death squads? Quite the opposite. Iraq has arrested over 600 Shia militia over the past week or two and Sadr has told his militia to lay low.

If by friendly you mean relies on us to prop it up, the government of Iraq is friendly.

The government is in no danger whatsoever if we leave. Quite the contrary, the Shia government has been complaining that we are restraining them. If we left, the Sunni would be stopped in a very brutal fashion.

If you share George Bush's belief that the Iranian government is an enemy, can you please explain why we are backing the most pro-Iranian elements in Iraq?

Remember that democracy thing? The Shia are 60% of the country and were elected to run things. The Iraqi shia feel more of a kinship with the Iranian Shia than the Sunni minority who murdered 300,000 Shis just since the Persian Gulf War.

Deny Al Qaeda and its allies a sanctuary in Iraq. This was the case or very nearly the case even before we invaded. There was an Ansar al-Islam base in the Kurdish area outside Saddam's control fighting our Kurdish allies. If we regarded this base as a threat, we could have sent in some Special Forces to act in conjunction with the Kurds to destroy it.

You have been watching too many Rambo movies. The Kurds would not have moved out of their territory to face al Insar / al Qaeda and the Iraqi Army with the support of a single SF group dropped hundreds of miles behind enemy territory with no way out. That would have been madness.

The Sunni in Anbar province are at war with al Qaeda and drove them into Baghdad. Good to hear. Of course, al Qaeda was not in Anbar province in the first place before we sent troops in.

Captured Iraqi documents indicate that Zarqawi was recruiting Iraqis to fight with al Qaeda in Afghanistan in 2002. The only Iraqis Zarqawi would deal with were Sunni and the Sunni were in Baghdad and Anbar. Zarqawi obviously had cells there at least as early as 2002. You do not go traipsing around Saddam's home territory without his police state knowing about it.

Just as tellingly, the al Qaeda /al Insar terrorists were routed out of the Iranian border camp fled into Anbar.

So if Anbar province has driven out al Qaeda, if they are not making WMD, and if there is no chance of Saddam coming back, can you please explain why it is so important for our troops to remain in Anbar getting shot at?

Most of our troops are in Baghdad and not Anbar. The troops which are in Anbar are embedded with Iraqi units. Unless the Iranians have started allowing al Qaeda to run money and fighters through its country and into Diyala, then they are still moving through Anbar and need to be interdicted.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:53 PM

Rich said...

From the Star Tribune in 2004:

Before the war, Blix's weapons inspectors were on the ground in Iraq examining the specific sites and looking for the precise materials mentioned in the brief Powell presented to the U.N. Security Council. And they were finding nothing.

Blix's men failed to find anything we found after the war, which hardly vouches for their effectiveness. Indeed, if memory serves, one of the more effective parts of Powell's demonstration were the satellite photos of trucks arriving and leaving a site before one of Blix's "surprise inspections."

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:56 PM

Appearing on Meet the Press, Colin Powell said that he he was wrong about WMD when he appeared before the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003:

"it turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading."

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:57 PM

The Kurds would not have moved out of their territory to face al Insar / al Qaeda and the Iraqi Army with the support of a single SF group dropped hundreds of miles behind enemy territory with no way out. That would have been madness.

The Kurds would not have had to move out of their territory or face the Iraqi Army. To repeat, Ansar Al-Islam was based in Kurdish territory outside the control of the Iraqi Army. The Kurds would, therefore, would simply have been moving against an intruder on their own turf. Any forces we sent in to aid them would have been operating in Kurdish, i.e., friendly territory.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 2:26 AM

GOODFELLAS (1990)

Henry Hill: [narrating] As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster. To me, being a gangster was better than being President of the United States...
...And then there was Jimmy Two Times, who got that nickname because he said everything twice, like:

Jimmy Two Times: I'm gonna go get the papers, get the papers.

* * *

DICKIE TWO TIMES (2007)

Wolf Blitzer: And joining us now, the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's good to see you again, Wolf.
...One of the most dangerous jobs in the world is to be number three in the al Qaeda organization, because a lot of them are now dead or in custody...
...we've been very successful with going after al Qaeda...
...We have successfully defended the country...
...It's been a remarkable performance...
...The fact is, we've been enormously successful...
...the world is much safer today...

Wolf Blitzer: But there is a terrible situation [in Iraq].

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, there is not. There is not.
There's problems, ongoing problems, but we have, in fact, accomplished our objectives...
...So there's been a lot of success.
...We are moving forward. We are moving forward.
...Bottom line is that we've had enormous successes, and we will continue to have enormous successes.

# posted by

Ben : 6:12 AM

"Bart" DePalma pretends we're stoopid:

Blix's men failed to find anything we found after the war, which hardly vouches for their effectiveness.

Neither Duelfer nor Blix found anything of note. Even Dubya has more respect for our good sense in abandoning the bogus "we found them" claim. "Bart", OTOH is a troll straight out of Freeerville (and has cited to such many a time for "proof" of his claims)....

Cheers,

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:18 AM

Bart:"whatever hell Allah reserves"

Wouldn't that be the same hell the christian god reserves for war-mongering fools who create breeding grounds for terrorists under false pretenses? Or do Muslims get a special hell?

# posted by

John : 9:08 AM

Enlightened Layperson said...

The Kurds would not have had to move out of their territory or face the Iraqi Army. To repeat, Ansar Al-Islam was based in Kurdish territory outside the control of the Iraqi Army.

Repeating it does not make it true. al Insar / al Qaeda were at war with the Kurds and the Kurds had no sway around that camp. After the liberation started, the Kurds refused to assist us against the Iraqi military until we helped them take care of the al Insar / al Qaeda camp, which they considered a major threat.

Moreover, if the US sent in a single SF group with the Kurdish Peshmerga hundreds of miles from friendly territory, Saddam would have delighted in surrounding and destroying our invading troops with his army and parading them around as war criminals.

A familiar refrain of the critics of the war was that 130,000 troops was an insufficient invasion force and you are talking about sending in a couple hundred without a supply line.

That would be the equivalent of dropping an SF group in the middle of Iran to attack one of their terrorist training camps. Madness.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:06 AM

Bart writes:
"Nice almost gotchya moment. The objectives for the war were laid out in the SOTU prior to the AUMF and in the AUMF itself."
...
"The objectives were regime change, putting Iraq out of the WMD business, establish a friendly democratic government and deny al Qaeda and its allied terror groups like Ansar al Islam and Ansar al Sunna a sanctuary in Iraq."

That was in the AUMF? Invade Iraq?

Bart writes:
"Exactly which pre war objectives have our troops failed to achieve?

That looks, smells and tastes like success to me."

That means US troops can leave, then?

# posted by

John : 10:20 AM

JT Davis said...

BTW, who or what is "al Insar" or are you just al Insane?

al Insar Islam was a terrorist group made up of Sunni and Kurds aligned with al Qaeda and with contacts with Iraqi intelligence which warred on the Kurds attempting to set up a fundamentalist state in Kurdistan. The Kurdish Peshmerga bloodied al Insar pretty badly and Zarqawi took over the group in 2002 after fleeing our Afghanistan operation with hundreds of other arab al Qaeda.

De Palma is a "cut and paste" troll.

It is quite unlikely that an objective of the invasion of Iraq was the denial of sanctuary to Ansar al Sunna since no such group existed until after the invasion.

"U.S. officials believe that the group was founded in September of 2003 as an umbrella organization for Islamist guerrillas, with former members of Ansar al-Islam at its core."

:::chuckle:::

My friend, a cut and paste artist is one who steals content from elsewhere and posts it without atribution...sort of like what you did here with the Wikipedia entry about Ansar al Sunna.

Ansar al Sunna is simply a splinter group of al Insar Islam fighters, who long preexisted our liberation of Iraq.. Even the anonymous Wikipedia wizards got most of that right:

U.S. officials believe that the group was founded in September of 2003 as an umbrella organization for Islamist guerrillas, with former members of Ansar al-Islam at its core...The group's leader has been identified Abu Abdullah al-Hassan bin Mahmoud, who is believed to be the brother of a major Ansar al-Islam fighter, although his background is unclear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaish_Ansar_al-Sunna

BTW, at no time did the strength of Ansar al-Islam (who are Kurdish separtists also) ever exceed 700-1000 members and it was more like 300 to 500, until the PUK decimated them without Rambo or Jack Bauer's help.

I commend for your reading Chapter 13 of the book Masters of Chaos by Linda Robinson giving the most detailed report on the Viking Hammer operation against this camp based on interviews with the SF who fought the battle.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:24 AM

bitswapper said...

Bart writes: "Exactly which pre war objectives have our troops failed to achieve? That looks, smells and tastes like success to me."

That means US troops can leave, then?

James Fallows makes just this argument in a recent article in the Atlantic. Fallows get the facts right about our various successes in Iraq, which makes his policy argument for a "Mission Accomplished" withdrawal much stronger than the usual cut and run because our troops can not win gnashing of teeth.

There are two major problems with this policy prescription:

1) While we have denied a sanctuary for al Qaeda and its allied terror groups and seriously bloodied them, the enemy is still active and receiving support. We either have to stay with sufficient forces to conduct counter terror ops or Iraq becomes a sanctuary for al Qaeda. It would be nice if the enemy would realize that they have no hope, but they are religious zealots who seek death and are in it for the multi generational long term.

2) This last purpose is more optional. If we take off now, the Shia will crush the Sunni terror networks in a very bloody pogrom. Even if we do not care about the resulting bloodbath, I can foresee al Qaeda leading the battle for the Sunni and being able to gain new recruits from all over the Middle East to help their co-religionists.

As I have posted before, this is a long term war where the options are often bad or worse. The question is whether we have the will to win this war of wills.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:37 AM

jt:

Linda Robinson? Do you mean this Linda Robinson? She sounds as delusional and ill-informed as you are, but then, perhaps it's just intentional disinformation. In either case, you both lack credibility.

This is getting boring. Try reading the material before commenting on the legitimacy of the content.

Unlike the "anonymous source" driven media reports and wikipedia entries, Robinson names the SF personnel from whom she obtained the eyewitness accounts of various SF operations since the creation of the organization.

The fact that the SF whom she interviewed dispel some liberal myths about El Salvador and Iraq is all to the better.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:43 AM

JT:

I have previously posted links here to the captured and translated Iraqi Intelligence documents which describe meetings between al Qaeda and Iraq, Iraqi overtures to al Qaeda to conduct actions against Saudi Arabia, a report with photographs of Zarqawi's recruiting efforts in Iraq to send fighters to fight us in Afghanistan (without any mention of an attempt to arrest Zarqawi), Iraqi support for an al Qaeda attack in the Philippines, the Iraqi training programs for foreign jihadi suicide terrorists with the purpose to attack "US interests," and the Operation "Blessed July" plan to attack western interests around the Middle East.

These are known as primary sources which would be admissible in a court of law as admissions by a party opponent.

Feel free to post the primary sources for the Senate Committee conclusions.

Indeed, show me where the Senate members or staff which drafted this report ever reviewed the Iraqi documents to which I linked.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 12:00 PM

Bart:"While we have denied a sanctuary for al Qaeda

There have been dozens of documented successful al Qaeda in Iraq since we invaded, so many that listing them here would look overwhelm the readability of the page. How is that 'denying they sanctuary'?

On the one hand:We either have to stay with sufficient forces to conduct counter terror ops or Iraq becomes a sanctuary for al Qaeda.

Or, on the other hand:If we take off now, the Shia will crush the Sunni terror networks in a very bloody pogrom.

Which is it? It really looks as though you're saying we have to stay to prevent al Qaeda from gaining a foothold, or we can leave and the Shia will crush them. I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but the logic looks contradictory - we stay to keep them out, or leave and the Shia crush them. Doesn't that imply they are there now? If they're there now, again, how have we denied they sanctuary?

# posted by

John : 12:21 PM

Sorry for the typos. I meant:

There have been dozens of documented successful al Qaeda attacks in Iraq since we invaded, so many that listing them here would overwhelm the readability of the page. How is that 'denying they sanctuary'?

# posted by

John : 12:41 PM

Bart DePalma : 9:56 PM

Bush... "Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere."

Hahaha!

How can anyone who professes to be a believer in the culture of life, like Little Bush, mock the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history that has needlessly cost the lives of over 3000 US troops?

Are you laughing at yourself for mindlessly supporting him?

# posted by

Anonymous : 12:53 PM

bitswapper said...

Bart:"While we have denied a sanctuary for al Qaeda

There have been dozens of documented successful al Qaeda attacks in Iraq since we invaded, so many that listing them here would overwhelm the readability of the page. How is that 'denying they sanctuary'? (Corrected version)

You are confusing defeating the enemy with denying him sanctuary.

Defeating the enemy means that he is no longer able or willing to wage war against you. That has not happened and will take a very long time.

In contrast, a sanctuary is a place where the enemy can plan, train, supply and reinforce without worrying the some US SOF team is hunting them down. In Iraq, our forces have killed at least 4000 al Qaeda by their own admission and most of their leadership. al Qaeda keeps having to move and thus does not have a place to rest and refit. That is denying the enemy a sanctuary.

al Qaeda's attacks would be far worse if they had a chance to stop, catch their breath and prepare them without being killed or captured every time they turn around.

It really looks as though you're saying we have to stay to prevent al Qaeda from gaining a foothold, or we can leave and the Shia will crush them. I mean, maybe I'm missing something, but the logic looks contradictory - we stay to keep them out, or leave and the Shia crush them.

The Iraqi Shia will crush the Iraqi Sunni in a very bloody manner if we leave. al Qaeda is not Iraqi, it is a foreign invasion force. While the Shia may deal with al Qaeda along with the Iraqi Sunni, to date the Shia counter attacks all seem to be against the Iraqi Sunni.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:23 PM

Here is an interesting op-ed discussing the effects on al Qaeda and the Baathist terrorists of this battle of attrition in Iraq which is harming them far more than it is our troops.

http://www.nysun.com/article/47363

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 1:26 PM

You are confusing defeating the enemy with denying him sanctuary.

That makes sense. But, al Qaeda never had sanctuary in Iraq, and there was no reason to think it ever would have. Now that we're occupying Iraq, their numbers and activities are dramatically up. So it seems that while one might argue that we've succeeded in keeping them from finding safe haven in Iraq, we've also inadvertently somehow helped their recruiting efforts. One pseudo step foward, one real step back.

Its really Pyhrric to say the least. Trying to pass that off as 'success' is misleading. Maybe Cheney has a future as a used car salesman.

# posted by

John : 2:48 PM

More good news for the embattled El Supremo:

Saddam still dead.

# posted by

Anonymous : 3:58 PM

It appears that, as usual, JT cannot back up this arguments. However, I would be pleased to post my primary sources for a second time here. I will post the descriptive summaries and the link to the translated captured Iraqi document.

These documents were translated by a variety of arabic speakers on the internet. Various media interviewed these translators but none challenegd any of their translations.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/
2006/03/18/
us_puts_iraqi_documents_on_the_web/

All of these documents were among just a few hundred the government released before the CIA negligently released Iraqi documents detailing how to build a nuclear weapon and shut down the site. For those of you who think that Saddam destroyed his WMD programs in 1991, these nuclear weapon designs were dated in the mid 90s. There are reportedly 30,000 boxes of unreleased captured documents to go...

Here are the ones we have now which I have found translated on the internet:

In the Pentagon/FMSO document ISGZ-2004-009247 there is a clear report about the relation between Iraq and Bin Laden that dated back to 1995. This document contains a 9 page report from the Iraqi Intelligence Apparatus and it is titled “The Saudi Opposition and Achieving the Relation and Contact With Them”. In the report they talk about there meeting with Osama Bin Laden and that Bin Laden in 1995 and how to establish relations wiht him. In the meeting Bin Laden asked the Iraqis for joint operations with them against the Foreign forces (US military) in the land of Hijaz (Saudia or Saudi Arabia).

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/
1600579/posts

One of the documents released by the FMSO project contains the records of the Iraqi regime's early connections to Osama bin Laden, starting in 1994 and continuing at least through 1997. It comes in the middle of document ISGZ-2004-009247, a review of Iraqi Intelligence Service contacts in the region and summaries of the combined efforts that they produced.

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
archives/007505.php#comments

With the recent release of FMSO DOC-EX Operation Iraqi Freedom Documents, much remains in Arabic. One such document titled the Iraqi Intelligence Service (Mukhabarat) document is an English printout of an FAS look at Iraq’s Mukhabarat.

http://inbrief.threatswatch.org/2006/03/
released-iraqi-mukhabarat-note/

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group.

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/
Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp

Another document released by the FMSO from the captured files of the Iraqi Intelligence Services shows that Uday Hussein, in 1999, ordered a series of bombings and assassinations in London, Iran, and in the autonomous areas of Iraq. Document ISGZ-2004-018948 shows a response from a Saddam Fedayeen operative to Uday himself outlining the plan, known as Operation Blessed July:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/
archives/007506.php#comments

Earlier we have seen the translation of document ISGP-2003-00028868 (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600367/posts ) where it talks about Training Non Iraqi Foreign Arab Terrorists in February 2003 to help the Iraqis in their war against the coalition forces. Some may have dismissed this document by saying that the Iraqis wanted every possible help on the eve of the war, and thus they argued that there was no connection between Saddam and terrorists. However now comes this Iraqi Intelligence document CMPC-2003-005935 that is dated November 22 1999 and it talks about the plan for the year 2000 and that includes the Training of Arab Feedayeens which mean training non Iraqi Foreign Arab Terrorists. Who are those Feedayeen Foreign Arab Terrorists? Are they Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc…? This document is another proof of Saddam great connection to Terrorism and dated back to the year 1999-2000, a long rooted connection to terrorism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/
1617431/posts

An Arab regime, possibly Iraq, supplied how-to manuals for Arab operatives working throughout Afghanistan before 9/11, and provided military assistance to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,202277,00.html

Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/
1610012/posts

Our Afghani source #002 (info on him in paper slip '1') has informed us that Afghani consular Ahmed Dahistani (info on him in paper slip '2') had spoken before him of the following:

1-That Usama Bin Ladin and the Taliban group in Afghanistan are in contact with Iraq and that a group from the Taliban and Usama Bin Ladin's group had conducted a visit to Iraq.

2-That America possesses evidence that Iraq and Usama Bin Ladin's group had cooperated to strike targets inside America.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
translated%20document%20001.pdf

In regards to the Iraqi intelligence documents that discussed Al Zarqawi presence in Iraq, as posted on the Foreign Miliarty Services Office (FMSO) website (document ISGZ-2004-019920 ) it appears that the some in the Iraqi intelligence apparatus provided the accurate information about Zarqawi presence in Iraq with attached pictures of him, but when the information reached the Director or a Director of the Iraqi intelligence he dismissed it as not accurate. This is interesting since it seems there was an intended cover up by this top Iraqi Intelligence officer about the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq despite the much stronger evidence that he was already in Iraq.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/
f-news/1598259/posts

In the Prewar Iraq documents posted on the Pentagon/FMSO website I found document ISGP-2003-00028868 where on pages 20, 21, and 22 of the pdf document there is a top secret memo on how to train and use the Arab Feedaeyeens as Suicide Bombers or as the memo call them “Estishehadeyeen” which means in Arabic “Suicide Martyrs”. The Arab Feedaeyeens are definitely foreigners non Iraqi Arabs who came to Iraq from all over the Middle East and North Africa and they were greatly welcomed by Saddam regime and trained by his military and intelligence apparatus to become Suicide Bombers. The Iraqi Feedaeyeens are known as “Feedaeyeen Saddam” so not to confuse between the two groups. This document proves that not only there were non Iraqi Arab terrorists in Iraq before the war but they were also trained by Saddam regime on how to become suicide bombers by using their own bodies, or suicide bombers using cars and motorcycles full of explosive, or even become suicide bombers using Camels carrying explosives.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/
1600367/posts

Summary of al Qaeda in Iraq before the liberation.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/
0,,2092-2058597_3,00.html

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:30 PM

Arne, have you changed handles to JT or is JT just imitating your 5 posts in reply to my one spamming style?

In either case, whoever is posting as JT appears to be out of evidence, if not name calling and attacking the messenger.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:35 AM

JT:

Just checking...

BTW, how is that search going for the primary sources backing up the Senate Committee report to which you cited?

Evidence is one of those things which "real attorneys" use to prove their cases. A politician's opinion is generally inadmissible as evidence.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 2:51 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

al Insar Islam was a terrorist group made up of Sunni and Kurds aligned with al Qaeda and with contacts with Iraqi intelligence which warred on the Kurds attempting to set up a fundamentalist state in Kurdistan.

Huh? The Kurds were trying to set up a "fundamentalist state in Kurdistan"?!?!?

That along with the iggnerrence about "al Insar Islam" should reveal to all and sundry that "Bart"'s an ignoramus about things in Iraq, and manufactures sh*te out of thin air, and should be treated with laughter and ridicule and nothing more.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:19 PM

"Bart" DePalma:

Another document released by the FMSO from the captured files of the Iraqi Intelligence Services shows that Uday Hussein, in 1999, ordered a series of bombings and assassinations in London, Iran, and in the autonomous areas of Iraq.

Kind of like Dubya issuing orders for the killing of alleged al Qaeda in Pakisatn and Yemen?

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:29 PM

Arne, I know you have dismissed Free Republic in the past as a bunch of nuts. But do you know anything about their methodology and how they manage to reach such different results from, say, Pat Roberts and his committe? In spite of what Bart is implying, I assume the Senate Intelligence Committee based its findings on primary sources.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 8:33 PM

Enlightened Layperson:

Arne, I know you have dismissed Free Republic in the past as a bunch of nuts.

Oh, no. You have me wrong. Free Republic is the party organ of the Republican party....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 9:32 PM

Enlightened Layperson said...

Arne, I know you have dismissed Free Republic in the past as a bunch of nuts.

The arabic speaking engineer who posts his translations on Free Republic has been interviewed and I presume his work checked by a number of media including the paper to whom I linked. No one alleges his translations are inaccurate in any way. Thus, this attacking the messenger song and dance is simply meant to distract from the Iraqi documents themselves.

Have you read them yourself?

But do you know anything about their methodology and how they manage to reach such different results from, say, Pat Roberts and his committee. In spite of what Bart is implying, I assume the Senate Intelligence Committee based its findings on primary sources.

There is no evidence of which I am aware that Senator Roberts' committee considered any of these primary source documents. Unless the committee members have been following the translations on the internet, they would not have heard about most of them from the major media apart from a couple reports from ABC.

Given that these documents contradict our estimable CIA's claims concerning the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda and the House Intelligence Committee had to demand CIA to release these documents on the internet, I sincerely doubt that CIA provided any of them to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

This is why I asked JT to back up the Senate conclusions with cites to actual primary source documents. These documents have been declassified so there are no classification issues which would prevent the committee from citing these documents in their report if they had considered them at all.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:15 PM

"Bart" DePalma says:

Given that these documents contradict our estimable CIA's claims concerning the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda and the House Intelligence Committee had to demand CIA to release these documents on the internet, I sincerely doubt that CIA provided any of them to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Ummm, no they don't. At best, they're ambiguous, at worst irrelevant. And the authenticity and corroboration aren't there either. If there was a "there" there, the maladministration would be jumping all over them like flies on ... well ... But even the maladministration isn't going to further embarrass themselves with this kind of nonsense (they did that once with the "translations" of the intercepts that Powell trotted out and all the Chalabi crapola they swallowed whole; they seem to have learned ... while "Bart" is still mouth-breating along with the rest of his Freeper creatures).

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 4:20 PM