THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

nimh wrote:

Talk about tripe, though, is there any chance of us doing without 'funny' pictures of Bush in diapers and so on? They're about as funny or appropriate, IMHO, as timber posting pictures of trainwrecks on the Democratic presidential candidates thread.

Say no more.
Done.

A thread would be a great idea. I love that stuff, no matter who's the butt, as long as it's funny.

Thanks! Hell, perhaps one should open a special thread for them, for those who do like 'em. Or post 'em on some thread that is more specifically labelled as intending to make fun of / about / from GWB etc.

Do the Shi'a stay on the sidelines?

There are all sorts of potential 'vectors' of violence in Iraq, not at all of which are directed at us, but all of which, by definition, complicate what we are trying to accomplish in the country.

We know much less than we need to about the character of the guerilla violence being directed at US troops. But by and large it seems to come from elements within the Sunni Arab population of the country.

At the same time, those same groups appear to be behind the continuing attacks against Shi'a political leaders.

For instance, a couple days ago suspected Saddam loyalists assassinated a leading member of the al-Hakim family, Muhannad al-Hakim. That family is the moving force behind the most important Shi'a political organization, SCIRI, and just as importantly SCIRI's militia, the Badr Corps.

These attacks, of course, must be seen in the context of the earlier assassination of the former head of SCIRI, Ayatollah Mohamed Bakr al-Hakim.

Will they fight back?

To date, this is the shoe that hasn't dropped in Iraq -- a move to open fighting from the well-armed and highly organized Shi'a militias who've decided to stay largely on the sidelines.

To a great degree that makes sense. We're fighting the Sunnis in the center of the country -- their sectarian enemies. So the Shi'a can sit back and have us and the ex-Baathists bloody each other.

Their numerical preponderance in the country isn't going anywhere. So they can afford to wait for the reversion to Iraqi sovereignty which will certainly mean power for them. By a cruel arithmetic, we're doing their dirty work for them.

(Ed. note: references to 'Sunni' and 'Shi'a' and 'ex-Baathists', in this context, should be taken as very general references to allegiance groups and shouldn't be taken to mean that all the members of these groups are implicated in these activities.)

But Sunni paramilitaries -- call them whatever you want -- are hitting Shi'a groups like SCIRI very hard. If the Shi'a start hitting back, the situation on the ground in Iraq could begin to change very quickly. And that must certainly be the strategy of those mounting these attacks.

-- Josh Marshall

Sure thing ....BTW John Galt stopped the engines of the planet.

Attacks Decline in the Iraqi City Samarra

By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI
Associated Press Writer

December 20, 2003, 2:36 AM EST

SAMARRA, Iraq -- After emerging as one of the worst trouble spots for U.S. forces in Iraq, the violence in Samarra tapered off this week amid raids by American troops and calls by Muslim clerics for insurgents to halt attacks that lead to civilian deaths.

There has been no significant fighting in Samarra since Tuesday, although American troops said they remain cautious and aren't ready to declare victory in the city north of Baghdad.


The reason for the drop in attacks is unknown: U.S. troops in the city said they didn't know that Sunni clerics had called for an end to guerrilla attacks and attributed the relative quiet to the capture of Saddam Hussein.

An Iraqi insurgent, meanwhile, said the peace in the restive city was just a temporary response to the massive presence of U.S. troops.

"There is total siege of the city," the insurgent said on condition of anonymity.

The insurgent also expressed concern that any attacks against the U.S. troops, who descended on Samarra in a pre-dawn raid Wednesday, would likely result in civilian deaths.

"They are all over the streets," he said of the approximately 2,500 soldiers from the Army's 4th Infantry Division. "If we hit them, people are bound to get hurt. If one shot is fired, the whole street will be shot up."

He also said the attacks would resume when the bulk of U.S. troops leave: "We will study our options and see what is the best way to carry on the resistance."

U.S. forces have encircled the city of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad. Backed by armored vehicles and Apache helicopters, troops have conducted door-to-door searches intended to stamp out guerrilla resistance in the city of 180,000. They also re-imposed an 11 p.m. to 4 a.m. curfew.

The 4th Infantry Division, based in nearby Tikrit, launched Operation Ivy Blizzard following an earlier raid in the Samarra area in which U.S. soldiers snared a suspected rebel leader and 78 other people. Some 2,500 troops have taken part in the raids.

The raid came as clerics condemned attacks by insurgents that end up hurting the civilian population of the city, part of the so-called Sunni triangle where U.S. forces have encountered the fiercest resistance in Iraq.

"It is a sin to attack Americans if these attacks lead to the destruction of property and the death and injury of children, the old and other civilians," Sheik Ezeddin al-Rifai, one of Samarra's 100 clerics, said in a statement.

The cleric did not condemn the resistance, calling it a "legitimate act" in principle and calling for U.S. forces to withdraw from Samarra.

Another cleric also criticized the insurgent attacks.

"The city has suffered a great deal from the resistance and U.S. counterattacks. Many young people, children and old people have died," said Sheik Sayed Mahdi Kadhem, head of the Alliance of Religious Scholars of the province of Salahuddin, where Samarra is located.

Meanwhile, people in the city are split over the apparent lull in the fighting.

"Resistance in Samarra is over," said Sabah al-Rahmani, a shopkeeper, with a note of disappointment in his voice.

But his brother, Ahmed, was more defiant: "It's not over, there's a pause," he said.

Others welcomed the first signs of peace to a city, where the violence disrupted ordinary life.

"We are afraid of being hit," said Karima Sami, whose husband's college classes were canceled whenever there was fighting. "We are afraid even when we stay home and mind our own business. We want security. I don't care who is in charge."

The recent U.S. raids have angered many in the city. Residents complain that soldiers have damaged buildings and knocked down doors, without knocking, as they search for insurgents. Azhar al-Hayati claimed her mother-in-law died from a heart attack after her home in the al-Hadahda neighborhood was searched on Friday. "They were very polite and courteous, but my mother-in-law was so scared when she saw them," she said.

Shopkeeper Sabah al-Rahmani said a friend was arrested Thursday just because gunpowder was found on the ground about 200 yards from his car repair shop.

"If the Americans want calm, they should stop their raids and stop arresting people," said Sheik al-Rifai. "They arrest people and then release them and say they are sorry."

Sgt. First Class Trevor Sauders, a 4th Infantry platoon commander from Colorado Springs, Colo., said the atmosphere in Samarra appears more relaxed.

"I see change in people, the way people are looking at us. There are a lot more smiles and a lot more waving," said Sauders, who attributed the decline in attacks to Saddam's capture.

"People realize that he is not coming to power anymore, that it's a hopeless cause," Saunders said. "Those who were scared of Saddam are now helping the coalition," he said.

But he said he would remain cautious.

"There are still bad people out there wanting to do bad things," he said.

Copyright © 2003, The Associated Press

The 9/11 Report Raises More Serious Questions

About The White House Statements On Intelligence




By JOHN W. DEAN


Tuesday, Jul. 29, 2003

The recently released Report of the Joint Congressional Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks Of September 11, and its dismal findings, have been well reported by the news media. What has not been widely reported, however, are the inescapable conclusions that must be drawn from a close reading of this bipartisan study.

Obviously, Republicans were not going to let Democrats say what needed to be said, or maybe Democrats did not want to politicize the matter. But since the facts could not be ignored or suppressed, they reported them without drawing certain obvious, not to mention devastating, conclusions.

Bluntly stated, either the Bush White House knew about the potential of terrorists flying airplanes into skyscrapers (notwithstanding their claims to the contrary), or the CIA failed to give the White House this essential information, which it possessed and provided to others.

Bush is withholding the document that answers this question. Accordingly, it seems more likely that the former possibility is the truth. That is, it seems very probable that those in the White House knew much more than they have admitted, and they are covering up their failure to take action.

The facts, however, speak for themselves.



Bush's Claim Of Executive Privilege For His Daily Intelligence Briefing



One of the most important sets of documents that the Congressional Inquiry sought was a set of copies of the President's Daily Brief (PDB), which is prepared each night by the CIA. In the Appendix of the 9/11 Report we learn that on August 12, 2002, after getting nowhere with informal discussions, Congress formally requested that the Bush White House provide this information.

More specifically, the Joint Inquiry asked about the process by which the Daily Brief is prepared, and sought several specific Daily Brief items. In particular, it asked for information about the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief relating to Osama Bin Laden's terrorist threats against the United States, and other Daily Brief items regarding Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and pre-September 11 terrorism threats.

The Joint Inquiry explained the basis for its request: "the public has a compelling interest ... in understanding how well the Intelligence Community was performing its principal function of advising the President and NSC of threats to U.S. national security."

In short, the Joint Inquiry wanted to see the records. Bush's public assertion that his intelligence was "darn good" was not sufficient.

The Inquiry had substantial background material, for the Clinton Administration's national security team had been very forthcoming. As a result, it warned President Bush of the inevitable consequences of refusal to provide access to the requested Daily Briefs.

The Inquiry told Bush: "In the absence of such access, we will have no choice but to extrapolate the number and content of [Daily Brief] items on these subjects from the items that appeared on these subjects in the Senior Executive Intelligence Brief and other lower level intelligence products during the same period."

Bush nevertheless denied access, claiming Executive Privilege. While the Inquiry did not chose to draw obvious conclusions, they are right there in the report for everyone else to draw. So I have drawn them, to see what they look like.



Revealing Information In the 9/11 Report



After pulling together the information in the 9/11 Report, it is understandable why Bush is stonewalling. It is not very difficult to deduce what the president knew, and when he knew it. And the portrait that results is devastating.

The president's briefing of August 6, 2001 was the subject of public discussion even before the Inquiry started its work. As the 9/11 Report notes in a footnote (at page 206), "National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated in a May 16, 2002 press briefing that, on August 6, 2001, the President Daily Brief (PDB) included information about Bin Laden's methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997." (Emphasis added.)

At that May 16, 2002 briefing, Rice went on to say that the Brief made clear that one method Bin Laden might choose was to hijack an airline, taking hostages to gain release of one of their operatives. She said it was "a generalized warring" with nothing about time, place or method. And she added, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."

Unfortunately, Rice's statements don't fit comfortably with the Inquiry's information. It appears from the 9/11 Report that either Rice was dissembling, or the CIA was withholding information from the President (and hence also from Rice).

But as we have been learning with the missing Weapon of Mass Destruction, the CIA has consistently been forthcoming. So it seems that it is Rice who should explain herself.



A Closer Look At Rice's Statement



Note again that Rice stated, in explaining the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief, that it addressed Bin Laden's "methods of operation from a historical perspective dating back to 1997."

What exactly did it say? We cannot know. But the Inquiry's 9/11 Report lays out all such threats, over that time period, in thirty-six bullet point summaries. It is only necessary to cite a few of these to see the problem:



In September 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information that Bin Laden's next operation might involve flying an explosive-laden aircraft into a U.S. airport and detonating it. (Emphasis added.)

In the fall of 1998, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information concerning a Bin Laden plot involving aircraft in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas.

In March 2000, the [Intelligence Community] obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives of Bin Laden's network might strike. The Statute of Liberty was specifically mentioned , as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plans. (Emphasis added.)



In sum, the 9/11 Report of the Congressional Inquiry indicates that the intelligence community was very aware that Bin Laden might fly an airplane into an American skyscraper.

Given the fact that there had already been an attempt to bring down the twin towers of the World Trade Center with a bomb, how could Rice say what she did?

Certainly, someone could have predicted, contrary to Rice's claim that, among other possibilities, "these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."



The Unanswered Questions



Is Rice claiming this information in the 9/11 Report was not given to the White House? Or could it be that the White House was given this information, and failed to recognize the problem and take action? Is the White House covering up what the President knew, and when he knew it?

The Joint Inquiry could not answer these questions because they were denied access to Bush's Daily Brief for August 6, 2001, and all other dates. Yet these are not questions that should be stonewalled.

Troublingly, it seems that President Bush trusts foreign heads of state with the information in this daily CIA briefing, but not the United States Congress. It has become part of his routine, when hosting foreign dignitaries at his Crawford, Texas ranch, to invite them to attend his CIA briefing.

Yet he refuses to give Congress any information whatsoever about these briefings, and he has apparently invoked Executive Privilege to suppress the August 6, 2001 Daily Brief. It can only be hoped that the 9/11 Commission, which has picked up where the Congressional Inquiry ended, will get the answers to these questions.

Rest assured that they will be aware of the questions, for I will pass them along.

David Kay, the head of the effort by the United States to find the banned weapons cited by President Bush as a primary reason for going to war with Iraq, is considering stepping down in the next few months before the group he leads completes its search and issues a final report, government officials said Thursday.

Dr. Kay is widely respected as thorough and straightforward even among critics of the war who have raised doubts about whether the threat from Iraq was as dire as the administration made it out to be. Should he leave, Democrats and some weapons experts said, it could fuel a perception that the United States is winding up the hunt without having found any caches of biological or chemical weapons.

"Kay's departure is very convenient in the effort to change the subject," said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, a senior Democrat on the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, referring to what he said were attempts by Mr. Bush to deflect attention from the administration's assertions that Iraq possessed stores of banned weapons. He added, "Kay set a very high standard of proof. He wants real evidence of the presence of weapons. That apparently is not a standard that is going to be met."

The organization Dr. Kay leads, the Iraq Survey Group, issued an interim report in October citing extensive evidence that Saddam Hussein had pursued banned weapons programs, including attempts to acquire missile technology from North Korea. But the report said the group had found no actual weapons, and Dr. Kay said at the time that it would take another six to nine months to complete his work, suggesting that his final report would land in the middle of the presidential election campaign.

The White House continues to maintain that banned weapons will be found in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters on Tuesday that a hole the size of the one Mr. Hussein was found in could hold enough biological weapons to kill tens of thousands of people, and that it could be some time before the United States gets the help it needs from Iraqis to find the hiding places.

Bush said in an interview on Tuesday with ABC News that what was known about (Iraq)'s weapons programs was enough to justify the war, and he seemed to play down the distinction between actual weapons and weapons programs. "So what's the difference?" he responded when pressed on the topic during the interview.

Quote:

The organization Dr. Kay leads, the Iraq Survey Group, issued an interim report in October citing extensive evidence that Saddam Hussein had pursued banned weapons programs, including attempts to acquire missile technology from North Korea. But the report said the group had found no actual weapons, and Dr. Kay said at the time that it would take another six to nine months to complete his work, suggesting that his final report would land in the middle of the presidential election campaign.

Oh. Of course. Makes perfect sense now.

Quote:

The White House continues to maintain that banned weapons will be found in Iraq. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told reporters on Tuesday that a hole the size of the one Mr. Hussein was found in could hold enough biological weapons to kill tens of thousands of people, and that it could be some time before the United States gets the help it needs from Iraqis to find the hiding places.

Quote:

Bush said in an interview on Tuesday with ABC News that what was known about (Iraq)'s weapons programs was enough to justify the war, and he seemed to play down the distinction between actual weapons and weapons programs. "So what's the difference?" he responded when pressed on the topic during the interview.

Can't we take off our partisan caps for a moment and admit Saddom was a murderous monster who deserved what he got?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Can't we take off our partisan caps for a moment and admit Saddom was a murderous monster who deserved what he got?

The ends still don't justify the means.