Would someone please make sure Dick Cheney gets a copy of this report?

The Pentagon ordered an intensive review, in which over 600,000 pages of documents captured after the fall of the Iraqi government were examined, and they prove what most people - and all of the sane ones - have known for years, and what the Senate Intelligence Committee found in September 2006 (before the Democratic majority!)

There was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Iraq was not a safe haven, nor did the state supply material or financial support to the terrorist network. The study was produced by a federally-funded think tank, the Institute for Defense Analyses, under contract to the Norfolk, Va.-based U.S. Joint Forces Command. The report, entitled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents" was completed last year, but the declassification process has been a rough process, seeing as how it points the finger and screams "J'accuse!!!" at a whole bunch of high-ranking administration officials.

Officials - plural - familiar with the report spoke to McClatchy on condition of anonymity, because the report will not be delivered to Congress until at least Wednesday. But let's revisit some of the lies, just to refresh our memories, shall we?

• President Bush and his aides used Saddam's alleged relationship with al Qaida, along with Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction, as arguments for invading Iraq after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

• Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld claimed in September 2002 that the United States had "bulletproof" evidence of cooperation between the radical Islamist terror group and Saddam's secular dictatorship.

• Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell cited multiple linkages between Saddam and al Qaida in a watershed February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council to build international support for the invasion. Almost every one of the examples Powell cited turned out to be based on bogus or misinterpreted intelligence.

• As recently as last July, Bush tried to tie al Qaida to the ongoing violence in Iraq. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is a crowd that is now bombing people, killing innocent men, women and children, many of whom are Muslims," he said.

The issue of al Qaeda and Iraq has already been an issue in the 2008 presidential race, with John McCain mocking Barack Obama with a sneering "I have some news [my friend]. al Qaeda is in Iraq."

Obama wasted no time in firing back that he had a breaking story himself. "There was no such thing as al Qaida in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade." (Actually, the organization that calls itself AQI emerged in 2004, over a year after the invasion.)

In the final analysis, it will probably not amount to a whole hell of a lot - it doesn't, after all, have any bombshells of previously undisclosed information. But still, that won't stop both sides from at least trying to make a little bit of political hay out of it - the report does show that Saddam Hussein's government did support some regional terrorism, such as Palestinian groups that attack Israel. So just let me say this: when these people start crowing, and flapping their yellow wings and setting up quite the barnyard ruckus, they need to be reminded that the United States does the same damned thing by supporting Jundallah, an al Qaeda offshoot that stages terrorist attacks in Iran. Ditto PKK terrorists who find safe haven in Iraqi Kurdistan and slip into Iran to stage raids and terrorist attacks. So call them on the hypocrisy and point to the facts. And ya know, you can call 'em willfully-ignorant, amoral, lying, murderous thugs, too.

And while you're at it, ask them if they have their checkbooks handy, because this unholy clusterfuck is costing our country three thousand dollars a second.

There's more: "Would someone please make sure Dick Cheney gets a copy of this report?" >>

At the end of the day

Clinton & Obama -- The Democratic debate in CA liveblogged at FDL here, part 2 here, part 3 here, and the final thread here.

The Democratic debate transcript from CNN.

Fact check of the GOP debate from CA: "Romney commits multiple distortions in the last scheduled GOP debate. Others stumble, too."

Barack attack -- "Republican researchers are poring over the Illinois Democrat’s three-year Senate voting record, looking for fresh fodder to be used should Obama become the Democratic Party’s nominee." Via The Hill.

Caning McCain -- "Poor Hugh Hewitt and the rest of right wing talk radio. They are very upset by McCain and are trying to torpedo his candidacy." John Amato

"No Answers, No Deputy" -- "Senate Democrats plan to delay a floor vote on President Bush’s nominee [Mark Filip] for the No. 2 post at the Justice Department until the department responds to several Judiciary Committee oversight letters."

Senate Democrats held up on the economic stimulus package until next week awaiting the return of Clinton and Obama. At the NYT, Herszenhorn wrote that Senate Repubs "blocked a $157 billion economic stimulus package championed by Senate Democrats, who said they would have no choice but to quickly adopt a cheaper, more streamlined plan approved earlier this week by the House." And about that "surrender flag" you mentioned in your article, Mr. Herszenhorn. Maybe you can deliver it to Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., for hiring Bill Kristol.

Al Qaeda leader killed -- Yet another No. 3? How many are there? Read Steve Benen.

A new GAO report on veterans with TBI -- traumatic brain injury -- was posted by Pale Rider at Blue Girl's place. Intel Dump offered a TBI-PTSD study of Iraqi vets from the New England Journal of Medicine.

"U.S. casualties rise in Iraq after falling for 4 months."

Iraq -- "Terrorists aren't Mosul's only problem. The city's Sunni and Shiite Muslim Arabs detest each other, and the Arabs distrust the city's Kurdish, Christian and Turkmen minorities. Although 60 percent of Mosul's population of 1.8 million is Sunni, three-quarters of the provincial government is Kurdish, and the Arabs suspect the Kurds of wanting to take over the city."

Po' paranoid conservatives -- They see enemies everywhere! Yikes! Oh! Eeeeeek! Wouldn't it be smarter to put them on meds rather than putting their kind in office?

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Iraq appeals to Iran for help defusing the Kurdish crisis

As tensions ratchet up between Turkey and Iraq over PKK terrorists who find safe haven in Iraq from which to stage cross-border raids and kill Turkish soldiers, and the United States stands by helplessly, unable to even comprehend the scope of the clusterfuck created by the hubris of George Bush, Iraq is reaching out to Iran for help.

That's gonna go over like a pregnant pole vaulter.

On Wednesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki met with Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki and asked him to help present Iraq's positions at a regional summit meeting in Istanbul scheduled for Thursday. “The prime minister asked the Islamic Republic to present their full support to Iraq during the Istanbul meeting and also to participate in solving the border crisis between Turkey and the P.K.K.,” a statement from Mr. Maliki’s office said. The summit will be attended by representatives from countries in the region, including Syria, Iran, Iraq andTurkey. The United States will be represented by Condoleeza Rice, and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, and a number of other foreign ministers are also expected to attend.

[keep reading]

P.K.K. terrorists have killed over 35,000 Turks since launching their most recent separatist terror campaign in the 80's. For perspective, consider that in 2 decades, the P.K.K. has killed ten times the number of Turks that America lost on September 11.

Turkey, tired of the terrorists who attack them finding safe haven in Iraq, hiding beneath the petticoats of Turkey's NATO ally the United States in the Kurdish north of Iraq, has massed troops on the border and announced that they will pursue Peshmerga and P.K.K. fighters across the border, engage them and kill them.

Iran has been sympathetic to the Turkish position, because the P.K.K. launches terrorist raids into Iran as well. But the situation is not that simple. Iran and Iraq are both Shi'ite majority countries, and the Iraqi government is Shi'ite majority (al Maliki spent many of his years in exile in Tehran).

From the New York Times:

Iraqi diplomats said they were worried that after the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, met with President Bush on Nov. 5, Turkey may take action against the Kurdish guerrillas, a step that could further antagonize Iraq’s Kurds.

“They are under a lot of pressure from the public, so we think they will do something,” said a senior Iraqi official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter. “We hope they will not.”

Mr. Erdogan has asked the United States to help the Turks take “concrete steps” to reduce the P.K.K. threat.

In Washington, Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, confirmed that the United States military was giving “lots of intelligence” to Turkey in its effort to halt the rebel attacks.

As if the situation were not complicated enough, the American forces are still holding five Iranians that were taken into custody in January. Iran says they are diplomats, the United States insists they are members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. “The arresting of Iranian consular officials is a very big strategic mistake,” said Mr. Mottaki. Mr. Mottaki also expressed his displeasure at a comment made by General Petraeus that the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad was a member of the Quds Force, an elite unit of the Revolutionary Guard.

And I would like to point out, again, that Petraeus really hasn't done much, if anything, right. Last summer, he managed to piss Maliki off to the point that Maliki threatened to have the General recalled. Generals have to be politicians, that's how they get past the rank of Captain. But this is 4G warfare. They need to be diplomats. And lets differentiate right now: diplomacy and ass kissing are two completely different things. Petraeus has a handle on the latter, there's no doubt. But the former? Not so much.

There's more: "Iraq appeals to Iran for help defusing the Kurdish crisis" >>

Washington Post: "Al-Qaeda in Iraq Reported Crippled"

Well, the foam-flecked loons will have a field day with that WaPo headline. I can hear the chest thumping and chickenhawk bravado from here. They are already lighting bonfires around which to dance naked while chanting “Boo-Ya, Bitches! We Win! U!S!A! U!S!A!”

They are so predictable.

They will read the first sentence:

The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.

Then conveniently overlook the inconvenient parts…

But as the White House and its military commanders plan the next phase of the war, other officials have cautioned against taking what they see as a premature step that could create strategic and political difficulties for the United States. Such a declaration could fuel criticism that the Iraq conflict has become a civil war in which U.S. combat forces should not be involved. At the same time, the intelligence community, and some in the military itself, worry about underestimating an enemy that has shown great resilience in the past.

"I think it would be premature at this point," a senior intelligence official said of a victory declaration over AQI, as the group is known. Despite recent U.S. gains, he said, AQI retains "the ability for surprise and for catastrophic attacks." Earlier periods of optimism, such as immediately following the June 2006 death of AQI founder Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. air raid, not only proved unfounded but were followed by expanded operations by the militant organization.

[keep reading]

I hate that these jokers make me a conspiracy theorist, but what the hell? I’m just a crackpot blogger anyway, so here goes…is the WaPo article just a piece of a larger PR campaign?

Let’s take stock…last spring more astute observers started noticing that suddenly every single thing that happened in Iraq was the work of al Qaeda in Iraq. If a swarthy man sneezed, it was the work of al Qaeda. By last summer, virtually every report out of Iraq was citing violence by “al Qaeda” – but in reality, al Qaeda in Iraq has never really been more than a bogey-man, even the most generous assessments put their numbers at 10% of the insurgency, and likely only about 4%. (It has been long acknowledged that Shi’ite militias have represented a far greater threat than Sunni insurgents and jihadist fighters professing membership in AQI.)

Then the references slowed down.

And now, the WaPo prints a specious headline (Fred Hiatt is a perennial contender for the Wurlitzer Prize) and yellow feathers fill the air as the self-congratulating cowards and chickenhawks bust out the beer-bongs, launch at one another in belly-bumps and exchange high-fives and Hulk poses. “We’re kickin’ ass!!!”

Of a piece? That’s possible I suppose.

It’s always good news when groups attacking Americans are on the wane. But only if there is some “there” there, and this cast of characters has a lousy track record where honesty is concerned - having lied to get us into the war in the first damned place - so you'll just have to pardon me if I don't come running when the little boy cries "wolf!"

There's more: "Washington Post: "Al-Qaeda in Iraq Reported Crippled"" >>

AQI — the 10 percenters, at best

According to an excellent new article from Washington Monthly, al Qaeda in Iraq makes up — at most — 10 percent of the insurgency there, and quite possibly more like 5-7 percent.

The article notes that, amongst others estimating AQI at 15 percent is the “liberal hawk” we all love to hate, Michael O’Hanlon. The article then logically spills out who else has an investment in hyping AQI numbers:

• Shrub, for obvious reasons;
• Petraeus, ditto (though he’s not mentioned by name, the differing opinion of boots on the ground vs. top brass make this a legitimate inference);
• “Surge” flacks like O’Hanlon;
• Iraqi President Maliki, in part to keep Bush on his good side (see bullet No. 1);
• Ba’athists, who can exploit both actual AQI members and alleged AQI attacks for their own ends;
• Other Sunni insurgents, for reasons similar to the Ba’athists.

Bottom line? Rumsfeld’s intent behind his words aside, AQI is, essentially, dead-enders compared to other insurgency players in Iraq, and it’s dishonest to the American people and the need, or lack thereof, for U.S. troops in Iraq to falsely play up their numbers.

There's more: "AQI — the 10 percenters, at best" >>

Pentagon Simulations Suggest Al Qaeda Take Over Of Iraq Unlikely If United States Withdraws

My brother, who is a strong Republican, and I discussed the future of Iraq the other night. Our debates, while frank, are no longer heated. We have learned that shouting and name calling are not effective communication tools. While he has seldom changed my mind, his views help keep me somewhat grounded. He accepts President Bush's current assessment that if we leave Iraq, Al Qaeda in Iraq will be able to establish safe havens in what would then be a lawless failed state.

The Washington Post published a story Tuesday by Karen DeYoung and Thomas E. Ricks examining the results of Pentagon sponsored war games focusing on what might happen in Iraq after the Americans pull out.

If U.S. combat forces withdraw from Iraq in the near future, three developments would be likely to unfold. Majority Shiites would drive Sunnis out of ethnically mixed areas west to Anbar province. Southern Iraq would erupt in civil war between Shiite groups. And the Kurdish north would solidify its borders and invite a U.S. troop presence there. In short, Iraq would effectively become three separate nations.

That was the conclusion reached in recent "war games" exercises conducted for the U.S. military by retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson. "I honestly don't think it will be apocalyptic," said Anderson, who has served in Iraq and now works for a major defense contractor. But "it will be ugly."

I think everybody assumes an unreconciled post U.S. Iraq would be ugly. That's why Iraqi political leaders really ought to be talking. That is why everybody is concerned that they are not.

What about Al Qaeda in Iraq creating safe havens.

What is perhaps most striking about the military's simulations is that its post-drawdown scenarios focus on civil war and regional intervention and upheaval rather than the establishment of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Iraq.

You should read the entire article, but it would seem the U.S. military thinks President Bush's belief that Al Qaeda in Iraq would gain a foothold in a post United States Iraq is pretty far fetched. The Iraqis don't much like foreigners, be they American, Saudi or Pakistani. The presence of Americans is the only thing preventing the foreign Islamist fighters from quickly exiting either this life at worst or the country at best. The video below is Keith Olbermann's interview of Thomas Ricks. It is very enlightening.



By the way, this post includes a summary of a much longer linked newspaper story, some mini-punditry, and a short video. It reflects the kind of convergence of print and video only possible on the net and best done in a blog. More about media convergence later.

There's more: "Pentagon Simulations Suggest Al Qaeda Take Over Of Iraq Unlikely If United States Withdraws" >>