THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

...

The administration lied in that it made statements as facts when they had in their possession doubts of those facts from various sources at the time they made statements. Sometimes it was more than just doubts.

...
It was simply not a matter of not knowing any better; they knew better they just chose to ignore the qualifiers and doubts and sometimes just plain made up stuff in order to invade.

Also, since there was both confirming and refuting evidence that Saddam still had WMD, Bush knew that unless the evidence was not mixed he should reject the idea that Saddam still had WMD.

A Long View
America's military commander and ambassador in Iraq see progress -- and the need for a prolonged commitment.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007; Page A16

GEN. DAVID H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker testified yesterday that the surge of U.S. forces in Iraq has led to military and political progress and that ultimate success in the mission is possible. But the real bottom line of their presentation to two congressional committees was a deeply sobering one: "Substantial U.S. resolve and commitment," as Mr. Crocker put it, will be needed for some time to come, not only to meet U.S. goals but also to avert the devastating consequences of an early withdrawal. "Our current course is hard," said Mr. Crocker. "The alternatives are far worse."

Gen. Petraeus cited statistics showing a sharp drop in violence in Baghdad and Iraq as a whole in recent months -- in marked contrast to congressional auditors who last week reported that they could not determine whether sectarian violence had been reduced. He said a Marine detachment and an Army brigade could be withdrawn this year and overall U.S. troop strength returned to pre-surge levels by next July. But the general said it would be seven months before he could deliver a judgment about a further reduction of U.S. forces. "Like Ambassador Crocker, I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort," he said.

Mr. Crocker's testimony was striking for its defense of Iraqi political leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who have been written off as hopelessly sectarian even by some Washington-based administration officials. The ambassador argued that Mr. Maliki and other leaders have "a deep sense of commitment and patriotism" and "the will to tackle the country's pressing problems, although it will take longer than we . . . anticipated." As the U.S. official charged with pushing Iraq's politicians to act, it's perhaps not surprising that Mr. Crocker would cite the small steps they have taken as "seeds of reconciliation." He was more convincing in describing the likely consequences of failure: "Undoubtedly, Iran would be a winner in this scenario, consolidating its influence over Iraqi resources and possibly territory," he said. "In such an environment, the gains made against al-Qaeda and other extremist groups could easily evaporate, and they could establish strongholds to be used as safe havens for regional and international operations."

The reports by the general and the ambassador seem to presage a bid by President Bush to pursue the essential strategy of the surge -- pacification of Baghdad and other population centers, combined with efforts to promote national political accord -- in his remaining time in office. Gen. Petraeus alluded to one alternative that could win considerable congressional support -- a shift of mission "to one that is strictly focused on transition and counterterrorism" -- but dismissed it as "premature."

But the commander didn't answer the most important question facing the president. "The fundamental source of the conflict in Iraq," he said, "is competition among ethnic and sectarian communities for power and resources." The surge was intended to give Iraqis the opportunity to resolve that competition peacefully -- and by that measure it has failed. Mr. Crocker suggests that with more time it may yet succeed. Still, the question remains: If the political reconciliation the president expected is not possible in the near future, should the missions of American forces remain unchanged? That's a question that the president must answer.

Quote:

Also, since there was both confirming and refuting evidence that Saddam still had WMD, Bush knew that unless the evidence was not mixed he should reject the idea that Saddam still had WMD.

No, Bush should have known that when evidence is mixed, you report to America and the Congress that the evidence is mixed. Not that it's a 'slam dunk.'

When the evidence is mixed, and you don't report it so, you are lying. There's no way to spin that.

Cycloptichorn

"Political progress?" When did Petraeus or Crocker say there was politcal progress in Iraq? This is news! Why didn't the Bush administration shout this from the highest building?

Mr. Crocker's testimony was striking for its defense of Iraqi political leaders, including Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who have been written off as hopelessly sectarian even by some Washington-based administration officials. The ambassador argued that Mr. Maliki and other leaders have "a deep sense of commitment and patriotism" and "the will to tackle the country's pressing problems, although it will take longer than we . . . anticipated."

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 12 ?- In his first state visit to Iran, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki today discussed the security situation in Iraq with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and asked for Mr. Ahmadinejad's support in quelling the violence that threatens to fracture this country.

"We had a good discussion with Mr. Ahmadinejad," Mr. Maliki said at a news conference in Tehran, the Iranian capital, after the two met. "Even in security issues, there is no barrier in the way of cooperation."

Mr. Ahmadinejad said that "Iran will give its assistance to establish complete security in Iraq because Iraq's security is Iran's security."

For Mr. Maliki, the visit was a kind of homecoming, since he had spent a part of his exile years during Saddam Hussein's rule living in Tehran. Many members of Mr. Maliki's Shiite political group, the Islamic Dawa Party, fled to Iran to escape the wrath of Mr. Hussein's security forces. Iranian leaders are close to Dawa and other religious Iraqi Shiite parties, because Iran is governed by Shiite Persians.

Ordinary Iraqis are generally more suspicious of the Iranian government because the two countries waged war from 1980 to 1988, and because the Persians have been the traditional rivals of Arabs for influence in the Middle East.

It was not clear what form Iranian support on security would take, or how it would be received by the American authorities. Mr. Maliki's visit came at a time when the American ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, and American military commanders have increasingly accused elements in Iran of stoking violence in Iraq.

American generals have said people or groups in Iran are providing training and financing to Shiite militias here. Mr. Khalilzad said last month that Iran was urging Shiite militias to step up attacks against the American-led forces in retaliation for the Israeli assault on Lebanon.

The United States has also been pressuring Iran to end its uranium enrichment program, which White House officials say could result in a nuclear weapon.

The initial American reaction today was cautious. In Washington, Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman, told reporters: "As you know, though, we've repeatedly expressed our concerns, as have others, about Iranian interference in Iraq's internal affairs. That is something that we remain concerned about.

"And while certainly we would welcome any statements of support for Iraq's government and democracy, and any pledges to act in a responsible way that does not interfere in the internal affairs of Iraq,'' he said, "we certainly want to make sure that any statements made were followed up by real concrete actions to address some of the concerns that are out there.''

Mr. Maliki said today that the American accusations of Iranian interference in Iraq will not affect economic deals that have already been signed between the two countries.

"All the political, security and economic accords that have been signed with the Islamic republic's officials will be carried out," he said.

Mr. Maliki is leading a large delegation that includes Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser, who is close to some Iranian officials. The Iraqis are scheduled to meet on Wednesday with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader, and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a powerful former president. Mr. Maliki's predecessor, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, visited Iran in July 2005.

ican, Why do you persist in telling the same lies as this administration?
...

...
two things i'm wondering about :
1) is mr. maliki still counting on the support of the iranians ?
2) what is the current american view of maliki's meetings and discussions with the iranian administration ?
hbg
...

The point; Ican, is that they sexed up and cherry picked the intellegence to fit around their preconceived plans to invade Iraq and get rid of saddam hussien. (There is a moutaint of evidence to prove it; just google it.) They were told of doubts of WMD and ties to AQ post Clinton and before the invasion and yet they acted towards the American public as though any many miniute we were going to be attacked in the form of a mushroom cloud. They knew that wasn't so; yet they said it anyway. (left proof on previous post)They brought up all that bit about Niger knowing in advance intellegence was already highly questioning it. The list is a mile long and hard for any honest person to refute.

ican ...

revel wrote:

The point; Ican, is that they sexed up and cherry picked the intellegence to fit around their preconceived plans to invade Iraq and get rid of saddam hussien. (There is a moutaint of evidence to prove it; just google it.) They were told of doubts of WMD and ties to AQ post Clinton and before the invasion and yet they acted towards the American public as though any many miniute we were going to be attacked in the form of a mushroom cloud. They knew that wasn't so; yet they said it anyway. (left proof on previous post)They brought up all that bit about Niger knowing in advance intellegence was already highly questioning it. The list is a mile long and hard for any honest person to refute.

If that evidence is so very abundant then you ought to be able to access it and post it. But, please be aware, I do not consider opinion articles evidence. There is too much evidence to show such articles usually are too narrowly selective of the information upon which they base their conclusions.

However, there is one point that I know to be highly relevant and to my satisfaction to be true. Al-Qaeda did establish sanctuary for itself in northeastern Iraq in December 2001 and thereafter grow rapidly. That in my judgment was sufficient reason for invading Iraq, just as al-Qaeda establishing sanctuary for itself in May 1996 in Afghanistan was sufficient reason for invading Afghanistan.

My evidence does not come from the Bush administration. It comes from other sources both before and after the USA invaded Iraq. I've posted it here several times.

If I were to conclude that George Bush and some (or even all) of the rest of his administration are frauds as well as incompetents, it would be irrelevant to the validity and consequences of my evidence.

At some point, I truly hope you are eventually perceptive enough to realize that our war with al-Qaeda was declared not by Bush or our Congress; it was declared by al-Qaeda. Your compulsion to equate the whole thing with Bush is a child like avoidence of reality.


By the way, yes, I remember that you declared that you do not care what I think about you. However, I do care what I think about you. I sincerely want reason enough to change my mind about you.

Earlier this week, in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell claimed the new expansive FISA legislation passed by Congress prior to the August recess ?- the so-called Protect America Act ?- had helped to thwart a an alleged terror plot in Germany.

A government official later told the New York Times that McConnell was wrong, and that the intelligence had been collected under the old FISA law which required warrants. A chorus of House Democrats immediately raised concerns about McConnell's claims.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) demanded McConnell back up his sworn statement. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) said the Protect America Act "played no role in uncovering the recent German terrorist plot." House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes urge McConnell "to issue a public statement immediately" correcting his remarks.

In a statement released today, McConnell unapologetically acknowledged he lied to the Senate:

During the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on September 10, 2007, I discussed the critical importance to our national security of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the recent amendments to FISA made by the Protect America Act. The Protect America Act was urgently needed by our intelligence professionals to close critical gaps in our capabilities and permit them to more readily follow terrorist threats, such as the plot uncovered in Germany. However, information contributing to the recent arrests was not collected under authorities provided by the Protect America Act.

Read the statement here. McConnell would be well-advised to officially correct his testimony.

Note that in the statement, McConnell does not apologize, but rather uses it as another opportunity to call for Congress to authorize the "unnecessary and dangerous" expansion of the administration's spying power.

UPDATE: Here's exactly what McConnell said in his Senate testimony:

MCCONNELL: [The new FISA law] was passed, as you well know, and we're very pleased with that. And we're better prepared now to continue our mission; specifically Germany, significant contributions. It allowed us to see and understand all the connections with -

LIEBERMAN: The newly adopted law facilitated that during August?

MCCONNELL: Yes, sir, it did. [Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 9/10/07]

Filed under: Ethics

BAGHDAD (AP) -- The most prominent figure in a revolt of Sunni sheiks against al-Qaida in Iraq was killed Thursday in an explosion near his home in Anbar province, police said.

revel wrote:

The point; Ican, is that they sexed up and cherry picked the intellegence to fit around their preconceived plans to invade Iraq and get rid of saddam hussien. (There is a moutaint of evidence to prove it; just google it.) They were told of doubts of WMD and ties to AQ post Clinton and before the invasion and yet they acted towards the American public as though any many miniute we were going to be attacked in the form of a mushroom cloud. They knew that wasn't so; yet they said it anyway. (left proof on previous post)They brought up all that bit about Niger knowing in advance intellegence was already highly questioning it. The list is a mile long and hard for any honest person to refute.

If that evidence is so very abundant then you ought to be able to access it and post it. But, please be aware, I do not consider opinion articles evidence. There is too much evidence to show such articles usually are too narrowly selective of the information upon which they base their conclusions.

However, there is one point that I know to be highly relevant and to my satisfaction to be true. Al-Qaeda did establish sanctuary for itself in northeastern Iraq in December 2001 and thereafter grow rapidly. That in my judgment was sufficient reason for invading Iraq, just as al-Qaeda establishing sanctuary for itself in May 1996 in Afghanistan was sufficient reason for invading Afghanistan.

My evidence does not come from the Bush administration. It comes from other sources both before and after the USA invaded Iraq. I've posted it here several times.

If I were to conclude that George Bush and some (or even all) of the rest of his administration are frauds as well as incompetents, it would be irrelevant to the validity and consequences of my evidence.

At some point, I truly hope you are eventually perceptive enough to realize that our war with al-Qaeda was declared not by Bush or our Congress; it was declared by al-Qaeda. Your compulsion to equate the whole thing with Bush is a child like avoidence of reality.


By the way, yes, I remember that you declared that you do not care what I think about you. However, I do care what I think about you. I sincerely want reason enough to change my mind about you.

Oil Buddies

An article in tomorrow's Times reports that the long-negotiated compromise which seemed to be leading towards an Iraqi oil law -- a key 'progress' benchmark -- has apparently collapsed. All gone down the drain.

The story though connects up with another one we told you about just a couple days ago -- the decision of the Kurdistan regional government to sign an oil exploration deal with Dallas-based Hunt Oil, run by Mr. Ray L. Hunt.

The Shia and Sunni leaders believe the Kurds are opting for a sort of oil secession that puts them outside the whole concept of a law to share the country's oil resources. And the Hunt deal is apparently the straw that broke the camel's back, shall we say.

But remember, Hunt, in addition to being the son of legendary Texas John Birch Society extremist H.L. Hunt, is also a pal of the president's. Indeed, President Bush has twice appointed Hunt to his Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. So while the president is striving to get the Iraqis to meet these benchmarks one of his own pals -- and more importantly, political appointees -- is busy helping to tear the whole thing apart.

In Iraq, Little Pressure for Reforms

By ROBERT H. REID - 17 hours ago

BAGHDAD (AP) ?- The debate in Washington over troop numbers is intense. But in Baghdad, there's been little sense of alarm or urgency among the Iraqi politicians who would have the most to lose if the United States decides to begin a major pull back.

Both Sunni and Shiite leaders have been largely convinced for weeks that President Bush would press to keep forces in Iraq until he turns the White House over to a successor.

That has set up one of the grand ironies of the troop build-up that began early this year.

Washington threw more personnel and firepower into Iraq to give the Iraqi leadership more room to settle disputes and adopt U.S.-backed reforms.

But the signals this week of just modest troop withdrawals ahead ?- perhaps back to pre-surge levels of about 130,000 ?- mean the Shiite-led government feels little pressure to accelerate work toward true political reconciliation.

Instead, they are focusing their energy on shoring up their positions: outflanking political challengers, leaning on more-radical Shiite factions to behave and flirting with Sunni sheiks to build personal alliances.

Iraq's national security adviser was asked Wednesday to explain why the government has been so slow to enact power-sharing agreements that Washington deems necessary for lasting peace. He had nothing new to offer.

"Of course we want to do it, but they are so complicated," Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said.

In Iraq's political reality today, Shiites who account for 60 percent of the population hold the country's political power and have no intention of yielding it to Sunnis.

Neither side has given up on violence to achieve its goals.

"Many Sunnis continue to see their political pre-eminence as a birthright. And most Shiites believe that their numerical superiority and the oppression they suffered under Saddam Hussein give them the right to dominate the new Iraq," one war critic, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, noted this week.

Senate Democratic leaders rejected the call for only limited reductions by next summer.

"This is unacceptable to me, it's unacceptable to the American people," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

That overarching truth is often obscured by the arguments over how many troops should stay in Iraq ?- or by the dysfunctional nature of Iraq's government.

Many Shiite leaders clearly believe they have little to lose by offering the Sunnis only limited concessions. The Shiites outnumber Sunni Arabs three to one and dominate the ranks of the army and national police.

Sunni leaders, meanwhile, hold on to the hope that their fellow Sunni Arab neighbors such as Saudi Arabia will rally to their side as counterweights to Shiites with close ties to powerful Iran.

Many ordinary Iraqis are no less frustrated than American officials by the stagnation and standoffs. But there is little they can do but suffer on.

"U.S. troops have been in Iraq a long time but the situation remains the same," said Abdullah Hussein, a Shiite in Baghdad. "If they withdraw or decrease their forces, the situation will stay the same. It is up to the Iraqis themselves to establish security."

American officials tend to see the Iraq war as a conflict between outsiders ?- al-Qaida in Iraq and pro-Iranian Shiite hard-liners ?- against a struggling democratic government.

But many of the gunmen in the streets have ties to the Iraqi politicians who American soldiers are fighting and dying to defend.

Shiite militias ?- some with links to Shiite leaders ?- have driven many Sunnis from many Baghdad neighborhoods, establishing a form of peace-by-explusion that is unwittingly maintained by American troops. And Sunni extremists suspected of links to some Sunni politicians have been no less menacing to Shiites in areas around the Iraqi capital.

Former U.S. diplomat Peter Galbraith offered a grim picture of Iraq's future.

"Iraq after an American defeat will look very much like Iraq today," he said last month ?- "a land divided along ethnic lines into Arab and Kurdish states, with a civil war being fought within its Arab part."

Robert H. Reid is correspondent at large for The Associated Press and has reported frequently from Iraq since 2003.