RhetIraq

Who: Ministry of Electricity
Source: Azzaman
Quotes: From article titled, "Sabotage worsens blackouts"

Ministry of Electricity says the national grid is reeling from a series of sabotage attacks in the past three weeks.

“These attacks have targeted power lines, power stations and transformers causing major blackouts in the country,” a ministry source, refusing to be named, said.

He said Baghdad suffered most as the city of nearly six million people now has one hour of electricity on and ten hours off.

He said the attacks have put two major power generating stations out of service temporarily. In reality “we are now without approximately 1,000 megawatts,” he said.

The country still needs to reach pre-war power generating levels.

Who: Tariq Alhomayed, Editor-in-Chief of Asharq Al-Awsat
Source: Asharq Al-Awsat
Quotes: From editorial titled, "Optimism or Pessimism?"

Those who have been critical about democracy in the Arab world, considered it an American creation and an attempt by the West to surround the region in order to control it once again, are the ones to have benefited; they are now victorious.

Some have reached the gates power, others gained legislative powers while another group became legitimate through the ballot box. We have seen this in Iraq, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, even if only in municipal elections, and finally with Hamas in Palestine. Therefore, everyone who was critical has been victorious, at a time when Washington claimed that one of the reasons for extremism in the Arab world is the absence of democracy, which will undoubtedly bring about moderates to power.

However, the opposite has happened. Extremists have come to power and political Islam has returned to the scene, this time not through cassettes or publications or outlawed groups but through the ballot box. Those in the Arab world who used to falsely claim that these currents did not seek power have been proven wrong. These groups have seized power as the first winds of democracy swept the region, following the September 11 attacks.

Who: Francis J. Harvey, Secretary of the Army
Source: Department of Defense
Quotes: Exceprts from radio interview with Laura Ingraham

LAURA INGRAHAM: Mr. Secretary, the charges were kind of flying fast and furious and these conclusions that the Army is really at the point now with Afghanistan, Iraq, all the other commitments we have obviously in the United States and around the world, is just being stretched to the point where it could just break at any moment. What's your reaction?

SECRETARY HARVEY: Well, needless to say I totally disagree with that. Today's Army is the most capable, best trained, best equipped, best led and most experienced force our nation has fielded in more than a decade. Laura, when I hear talk about breaking or stretched, the barometer I use, the measure I use, is retention. The retention rate in the Army today is as high as it's been in five years. Soldiers vote with their feet like any other organization and they're staying in in record numbers and that indicates to me that the Soldiers have confidence in their leadership, they believe they have the equipment and resources they need to do their job, they have a great deal of job satisfaction and they're satisfied with the quality of life, so regardless of what you hear in all the talk, the best measure is retention and that, as I said, is at an all-time high.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Last year the military, the Army did not meet its recruiting goal. Where are we so far in 2006?

SECRETARY HARVEY: We're going quite well right now, Laura. If we look at the last, going back into the summer of fiscal year '05, going into the summer, we started making our goals and we've done that for seven months in a row.

... it's important to realize that last year, although we missed our goal, we were 99.5 percent of our historic ten year average, recruited about 73,400, and if you look back ten years the average was 74,400. So we were at approximately 1,000 of our historic average. However, we're trying to grow the Army so we need to recruit 80,000. So that's one of the reasons that we didn't make the goal.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Is there any doubt in your mind, Mr. Secretary -- talking to the Secretary of the Army, Francis Harvey -- that if we continue to be the presence, the level that we're at in Iraq right now which is still at about what? We're at about 138,000?

SECRETARY HARVEY: The total of which is around 115, 120 are Army and the remainder Marines.

LAURA INGRAHAM: Right. With that size deployment, if that had to continue over a five year period, what would that ultimately do to the US Army? That has to be something that weighs on your mind.

SECRETARY HARVEY: It does weigh on your mind. You can read in these reports where people speculate that it will break the Army. These are all speculative and opinions that really are not based on any facts.

... Right now, so far so good. If it goes for another five years, that's all speculation.

Who: Ayman al-Zawahiri, #2 Leader of Al-Qaeda
Source: Los Angeles Times
Quotes: From article titled, "Zawahiri Calls Bush a 'Butcher' in Video"

Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri said in a videotape aired today that President Bush was a "butcher" and a "failure" because of a deadly U.S. airstrike in Pakistan targeting the bin Laden deputy, and he threatened a new attack on the United States.

"Butcher of Washington, you are not only defeated and a liar, but also a failure. You are a curse on your own nation and you have brought and will bring them only catastrophes and tragedies," he said, referring to Bush. "Bush, do you know where I am? I am among the Muslim masses."

"The American planes raided in compliance with Musharraf the traitor and his security apparatus, the slave of the Crusaders and the Jews," he said, referring to Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

"In seeking to kill my humble self and four of my brothers, the whole world has discovered the extent of America's lies and failures and the extent of its savagery in fighting Islam and Muslims."

"My second message is to the American people, who are drowning in illusions. I tell you that Bush and his gang are shedding your blood and wasting your money in frustrated adventures," he said, speaking in a forceful and angry voice.

"The lion of Islam, Sheik Osama bin Laden, may God protect him, offered you a decent exit from your dilemma. But your leaders, who are keen to accumulate wealth, insist on throwing you in battles and killing your souls in Iraq and Afghanistan and -- God willing -- on your own land."

"Your leaders responded to the initiative of sheik Osama, may God protect him, by saying they don't negotiate with terrorists and that they are winning the war on terror. I tell them: You liars, greedy war mongers, who is pulling out from Iraq and Afghanistan? Us or you? Whose soldiers are committing suicide because of despair? Us or you?" he said.

"You, American mother, if the Pentagon calls to tell you that your son is coming home in a coffin, then remember George Bush. And you, British wife, if the Defense Department calls you to say that your husband is returning crippled and burnt, remember Tony Blair."

In an Arabic transcription of the entire tape on the Al-Jazeera Web site -- but not aired -- bin Laden made an oblique reference to how to prevent new attacks on the United States but did not specify if those were conditions for a truce.

Source: United Press International
Quotes: From article titled, "19,000 fewer young soldiers than in 2001"

Since September 2001, the number of junior enlisted soldiers -- the bulk of the Army, and on whose shoulders rest most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan -- has declined by nearly 20,000 total, according to Defense Department statistics.

And despite Army efforts to add soldiers to its payroll and historically high retention rates, the active duty force actually shrunk by 6,800 from 2004 to 2005.

These declines come as the Army is trying to increase its force to 512,400 soldiers, up from a baseline of about 480,000 in 2001.

McGinnis [Dave McGinnis, a retired Army and Pentagon analyst and now private consultant who carefully tracks Army personnel numbers] also warns there is another looming problem the Army is not talking about: stop-loss. Stop-loss is a policy that prevents soldiers who complete their service obligations from leaving the Army until their units redeploy from Iraq and Afghanistan. According to McGinnis, between 10,000 and 16,000 soldiers now deployed to Iraq -- and soon to return -- will leave the Army almost en masse.

"When the first rotation came back, the Army fell more than 10,000, from about 309,000 to 297,000 (junior enlisted) in the course of three months, October to December," McGinnis said.

"There is a hidden time bomb sitting there. When stop loss is finally stopped and people held over are allowed to leave, there are another 10,000 to 16,000 that are almost going to disappear overnight," he told UPI. "Once stop-loss is over, the Army is going to be short 30,000 junior enlisted men they had in September 2001."

In the meantime, sergeants can and do serve in any job a private has, so there is no decrement in capabilities. In fact, it's better to have a more experienced sergeant in the job, Hilferty [ Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, spokesman for the Army's personnel chief] said.

Who: Group headed by William Perry, former US Secretary of Defense (1994-1997)
Source: Alternet
Quotes: From article titled, "Former Pentagon chief sees damage to U.S. military"

The U.S. military's ground forces are so stretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that potential adversaries may be tempted to challenge the United States, a group headed by former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry said on Wednesday.

"If the strain is not relieved, it will have highly corrosive and long-term effects on the military," Perry, who served under Democratic President Bill Clinton, told a Capitol Hill news conference.

The U.S. military's ground forces are so stretched by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that potential adversaries may be tempted to challenge the United States, a group headed by former U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry said on Wednesday.

"If the strain is not relieved, it will have highly corrosive and long-term effects on the military," Perry, who served under Democratic President Bill Clinton, told a Capitol Hill news conference.

Who: Representative John Murtha (D-PA)
Source: Associated Press via Information Clearing House
Quotes: From article titled, "Murtha: U.S. should leave Iraq and its 'civil war' by year's end"

"Our troops are the target," Murtha told the newspaper. "We're not fighting terrorism in Iraq. We're fighting a civil war in Iraq. We've got to give them an incentive. We fought our Civil War. Let them fight their civil war."

Murtha, the senior Democrat on the House appropriations defense panel, said many Iraqis think "it's all right to kill Americans" and that most Iraqis want U.S. troops out of the country.

"We're not cutting and running. We're giving the Iraqis incentive to take over," he said.

"There is no reason in the world we couldn't do what we're doing (in Iraq) from the periphery," Murtha said. "I've just come to the conclusion it's going to happen and it's just a matter of time."

He want U.S. troops to be redeployed to areas around Iraq, such as in Kuwait. He predicted there will be fewer than 100,000 troops by midsummer and that the pullout by the end of the year will be boosted by election-year pressures.

Who: US Senate
Source: Haaretz
Quotes: From article titled, "U.S. Senate unanimously passes resolution condemning Iran"

The U.S. Senate on Friday unanimously passed a resolution condemning Iran for its nuclear program and backing efforts to report it to the United Nations Security Council.

The resolution, approved by a voice vote, cites Iran's "many failures ... to comply faithfully with its nuclear non-proliferations obligations."

It "strongly urges" the International Atomic Energy Agency at its special meeting on Thursday to refer Iran to the UN Security Council over suspicions it is secretly trying to develop atomic bombs.

"They're interested in acquiring weapons of mass destruction and dominating the Middle East," Arizona Republican John McCain told a panel. "I don't know of any carrot that works."

Who: Stuart W. Bowen Jr, Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
Source: The New York Times
Quotes: From article titled, "U.S. Rebuilding in Iraq Found to Fall Short"

Because of unforeseen security costs, haphazard planning and shifting priorities, the American-financed reconstruction program in Iraq will not complete scores of projects that were promised to help rebuild the country, a federal oversight agency reported yesterday.

Only 49 of the 136 projects that were originally pledged to improve Iraq's water and sanitation will be finished, with about 300 of an initial 425 projects to provide electricity, the report says.

The planners of the rebuilding effort did not take into account hundreds of millions of dollars in administrative costs, and mostly did not realize that the United States would have to spend money to keep things like power plants and sewage treatment plants running once they had been built, the report says. That ultimately forced the United States to pare the list of projects to cover such expenses.

The report, by the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, adds that the overall rebuilding plan was also devised without a clear understanding of the decrepit state of Iraq's infrastructure after decades of war, United Nations-imposed penalties and sheer neglect.

The report says that the authority planners "envisioned a much more permissive security environment," but does not take a stand on whether the possibility of such problems should have been considered. The security problems that developed increased the cost of projects and materials, causing delays, the report says.

But security costs alone do not account for the drop in the number of projects that the United States will be able to finish.

"Other unforeseen problems, such as initial plans that were hurriedly put together with little knowledge of actual conditions at proposed projects sites," as well as the need to continue financing the projects once they are up and running, also played a role, the report says. As a result, some $425 million was shifted to support the operation of the plants and the Iraqis who were expected to carry them out.

Who: Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA), Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee
Source: Findlaw
Quotes: Excerpts from January 24, 2006 letter to AttorneyGeneral Alberto Gonzalez in preparation for February 6, 2006 hearing concerning the NSA’s surveillance authority:

In interpreting whether Congress intended to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) by the September 14, 2001 Resolution (Resolution), would it be relevant on the issue of Congressional intent that the Administration did not specifically ask for an expansion of Executive powers under FISA? Was it because you thought you couldn't get such an expansion as when you said: "That was not something that we could likely get?"

If Congress had intended to amend FISA by the Resolution, wouldn't Congress have specifically acted to as Congress did in passing the Patriot Act giving the Executive expanded powers and greater flexibility in using "roving" wiretaps?

Wasn't President Carter's signature on FISA in 1978, together with his signing statement, an explicit renunciation of any claim to inherent Executive authority under Article II of the Consititution to conduct warrantless domestic surveillance when the Act provided the exclusive procedures for such surveillance?

How can the Executive justify disclosure to only the so-called "Gang of Eight" instead of the full intelligence committees when Title V of the National Security Act of 1947 provides:

SEC.501.[50 U.S.C 413] (a)(1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title. (Emphasis added)

(2)(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authority to withhold information from the congressional intelligence committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classifed information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods. (Emphasis added)

What case law does the Executive rely upon in asserting Article II powers to conduct the electronic surveillance at issue?

Who: James A. Baker, Department of Justice Counsel for Intelligence Policy
Source: Federation of American Scientists
Quotes: From testimony before US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - July 31, 2002

As Counsel for Intelligence Policy in the Department of Justice, I run the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review that prepares and presents all applications for electronic surveillance and physical search under the Act to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court or Court). In that capacity, and operating within a system created and modified by Congress, I welcome the chance to provide the views of the Department on the nature and impact of the changes that have been proposed.

S. 2659 as introduced would, for FISA coverage of non-U.S. persons, amend Sections 105(a)(3) and 304(a)(3) of FISA, 50 U.S.C. secs. 1805(a)(3) and 1824(a)(3), to change the standard required for FISA surveillance or search from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." Under S. 2659, in other words, the court could authorize electronic surveillance or physical search of a non-U.S. person upon facts constituting "reasonable suspicions" that (1) the non-U. S. person targeted is an agent of a foreign power, and (2) the facilities, places, premises, or property against which electronic surveillance or search is to be directed is used or about to be used by the target. Conforming changes would be made elsewhere in the sections of FISA. Authority for electronic surveillance or physical search of U.S. persons would remain at the current "probable cause" standard.

The Department of Justice has been studying Sen. DeWine's proposed legislation. Because the proposed change raises both significant legal and practical issues, the Administration at this time is not prepared to support it.

The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.

The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.

I assure [you] that we are moving expeditiously to answer these questions, which, of course, require input from agencies other than the Department of Justice that could be affected by the legislation.

Who: Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
Source: The New York Times
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq Rebuilding Badly Hobbled, U.S. Report Finds"

The first official history of the $25 billion American reconstruction effort in Iraq depicts a program hobbled from the outset by gross understaffing, a lack of technical expertise, bureaucratic infighting, secrecy and constantly increasing security costs, according to a preliminary draft.

The document, which begins with the secret prewar planning for reconstruction and touches on nearly every phase of the program through 2005, was assembled by the office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction and debated last month in a closed forum by roughly two dozen experts from outside the office.

A person at the forum provided a copy of the document, dated December 2005, to The New York Times. The inspector general's office, whose agents and auditors have been examining and reporting on various aspects of the rebuilding since early 2004, declined to comment on the report other than to say it was highly preliminary.

"It's incomplete," said a spokesman for the inspector general's office, Jim Mitchell. "It could change significantly before it is finally published."

In the document, the paralyzing effect of staffing shortfalls and contracting battles between the State Department and the Pentagon, creating delays of months at a stretch, are described for the first time from inside the program.

The document also recounts concerns about writing contracts for an entity with the "ambiguous legal status" of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the question of whether it was an American entity or a multinational one like NATO.

Seemingly odd decisions on dividing the responsibility for various sectors of the reconstruction crop up repeatedly in the document. At one point, a planning team made the decision to put all reconstruction activities in Iraq under the Army Corps of Engineers, except anything to do with water, which would go to the Navy. At the time, a retired admiral, David Nash, was in charge of the rebuilding.

Finally, a list of mostly large projects in several infrastructure areas, including oil, electricity, water, health care and security, was settled on. But a bottleneck immediately arose as the contracting process descended into chaos, the document says. One informer for the inspector general said there were "about 20 different organizations undertaking contracting."

"The C.P.A. was contracting, companies were contracting subcontractors, and some people who didn't have authority such as the ministries were also awarding contracts," the informer told the inspector general.

Who: Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defense) & General George Casey (Leader of US Forces in Iraq)
Source: Associate Press via San Jose Mercury News
Quotes: From article titled, "`Forces are stretched,' top U.S. general in Iraq says"

The top U.S. general in Iraq on Thursday called Army forces "stretched" in the war on terror just a day after Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said they weren't.

"The forces are stretched," said Army Gen. George Casey, "and I don't think there's any question of that."

Underlining the political sensitivity of the remarks, the military quickly put out a clarifying statement saying that Casey "was speaking about Army forces in general and not specifically about forces in Iraq."

The Army is hard-pressed, Casey said, "but the Army has been for the last several years going through a modernization strategy that will produce more units and more-ready units."

Casey denied that he had approved modest troop withdrawals from Iraq to ease the strain on the Army.

"That's not true, and the recommendation to begin the reduction of forces came from me based on our strategy here in Iraq," Casey said.

"So, yep, folks are stretched here," Casey said, "but they certainly accomplish their mission, and the forces that you've seen on the ground are absolutely magnificent."

Who: Andrew Krepinevich, Retired Army Officer and Executive Director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
Source: Associated Press via Yahoo! News
Quotes: From article titled, "Report: Deployments Nearly Breaking Army"

Stretched by frequent troop rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army has become a "thin green line" that could snap unless relief comes soon, according to a study for the Pentagon.

Andrew Krepinevich, a retired Army officer who wrote the report under a Pentagon contract, concluded that the Army cannot sustain the pace of troop deployments to Iraq long enough to break the back of the insurgency. He also suggested that the Pentagon's decision, announced in December, to begin reducing the force in Iraq this year was driven in part by a realization that the Army was overextended.

"You really begin to wonder just how much stress and strain there is on the Army, how much longer it can continue," he said in an interview. He added that the Army is still a highly effective fighting force and is implementing a plan that will expand the number of combat brigades available for rotations to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 136-page report represents a more sobering picture of the Army's condition than military officials offer in public.

He wrote that the Army is "in a race against time" to adjust to the demands of war "or risk `breaking' the force in the form of a catastrophic decline" in recruitment and re-enlistment.

Krepinevich did not conclude that U.S. forces should quit Iraq now, but said it may be possible to reduce troop levels below 100,000 by the end of the year. There now are about 136,000, Pentagon officials said Tuesday.

Krepinevich's analysis, while consistent with the conclusions of some outside the Bush administration, is in stark contrast with the public statements of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and senior Army officials.

He said he concluded that even Army leaders are not sure how much longer they can keep up the unusually high pace of combat tours in Iraq before they trigger an institutional crisis. Some major Army divisions are serving their second yearlong tours in Iraq, and some smaller units have served three times.

Who: Douglas Barber, US Army Reservist and Iraq-War Veteran
Source: The Independent UK via CounterCurrents.com
Quotes: From article titled, "The Life And Death Of An Iraq Veteran Who Could Take No More"

By his own admission Douglas Barber, a former army reservist, was struggling. For two years since returning from the chaos and violence of Iraq, the 35-year-old had battled with his memories and his demons, the things he had seen and the fear he had experienced. Recently, it seemed he had turned a corner, securing medical help and counselling.

But last week, at his home in south-eastern Alabama, the National Guardsman e-mailed some friends and then changed the message on his answering machine. His new message told callers: "If you're looking for Doug, I'm checking out of this world. I'll see you on the other side." Mr Barber dialled the police, stepped on to the porch with his shotgun and - after a brief stand-off with officers - shot himself in the head. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Craig Evans, 19, a student at Bournemouth University, was working on a project about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and had been in regular contact with Mr Barber.

Mr Evans said: "Doug said he wasn't the same person when he got back [from Iraq] - he was paranoid, had lost his social skills, his marriage was over, he couldn't walk down the street without worrying something was going to blow up. I made a promise to him that I would do everything I could to get his story out there."

He spent seven months in Iraq, driving trucks and trying to avoid the deadly perils that confronted him. He was haunted by the deaths of his colleagues and by the fear and desperation he saw in the faces of Iraqis. Like many reservists pushed into the front line, Mr Barber said he was not properly trained.

"It was really bad - death was all around you, all the time. You couldn't escape it," he said in an interview after he returned to Alabama with the campaign group Coalition for Free Thought in Media. "Everybody in Iraq was going through suicide counselling because the stress was so high. It was at such a magnitude, such a high level, that it was unthinkable for anyone to imagine. You cannot even imagine it."

Friends said that when Mr Barber returned things started to fall apart and he split from his wife of 11 years. He had been prescribed clonazepam, an anti-anxiety drug that can cause depression. One friend of more than 13 years, Rick Hays, a minister from Indiana, said: "He was a really good guy, pretty level-headed ... He liked to have fun. But when he came back from Iraq the difference in him was so sad."

Who: Various Doctors, see article below
Source: The Washington Post
Quotes: From article titled, "Professionals Fleeing Iraq As Violence, Threats Persist"

The office of Iraq's most eminent cardiologist is padlocked. A handwritten sign is taped on his wooden door in the private clinic in Baghdad: Patients of Dr. Omar Kubasi should call him in Amman, Jordan.

"I think it's part of the plan for the country's destruction," Kubasi said by telephone. "The situation in the last six months has gotten so bad, we couldn't continue."

Ahmed Meer Ali, a 27-year-old resident doctor, is left alone to man the private hospital where Kubasi's office is locked and shuttered. Most of the specialists who worked there, providing care to patients and guidance to Ali, have left.

"They are the ones with specialties from England or the U.S.A. They were the ones teaching me," he said. "Now, some patients even go to Iran to get care. In the past, no one in Iraq would go to Iran."

An official at the Interior Ministry's statistics office said the number of Iraqis traveling overland to Jordan held steady at about 200 to 250 a day from July 2004 to June 2005. Since last July, however, the number crossing the border -- excluding truckers and traders -- has ballooned to 1,100 a day, according to the official.

Um Mustafa and her husband, a businessman, had hoped to stay. But they abandoned that goal when thieves burst into their bedroom, held their young son in a headlock, with a gun to his head, and demanded that his parents hand over all their gold and jewelry.

"We didn't want to leave," said Um Mustafa, 27, who still fears attack and asked not to be fully identified. "We were a very happy family. Wealthy. My husband had a good job. We had money, a house, car and servants."

"I've been through four wars. I never, never felt like leaving before," Um Mustafa said. "Now, life in Iraq has become unsafe. I don't feel safe in my own bedroom -- or in the whole country."

Source: Knight-Ridder
Quotes: From article titled, "Regiment's rotation out of Tal Afar raises questions about U.S. strategy"

The mayor of this city in western Iraq is unhappy that his friends in the U.S. Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment are going home soon, and he's written to President Bush and Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, begging them to extend the regiment's tour of duty until it's finished pacifying Tal Afar.

The mayor, Najim Abadullah al Jibouri, is a Sunni Muslim Arab and a former officer in Saddam Hussein's army who's not from Tal Afar. The provincial police chief in Mosul last summer appointed him a brigadier general to replace the local police chief, a Shiite who was turning a blind eye to police commando units that were "disappearing" suspected insurgents, all Sunnis. Terrorists had blown up the police stations and driven out most of the policemen who weren't killed. On a U.S. recommendation, he was later promoted to mayor.

Since then, al Jibouri has worked hand in glove with Col. H.R. McMaster, the commander of the 3rd ACR, and Lt. Col. Christopher Hickey, who commands Sabre Squadron, which is based inside Tal Afar. The mayor doesn't want them to leave when their yearlong deployment is over in March.

"For you to leave is like a surgeon leaving in the middle of an operation," he [al Jibouri] said.

Al Jibouri said the American cavalrymen in Tal Afar had conducted "the best operation in Iraq, with none of the big destruction like in Fallujah."

Tal Afar has some 250,000 people, and the city is relatively remote and self-contained. The 3rd ACR, which has some 4,700 troops, walled off the city and cleared out terrorists and insurgents block by block, which is harder to do in larger cities such as Baghdad and Mosul. It's even more difficult to prevent insurgents who are driven out of cities such as Tal Afar from finding refuge elsewhere.

The Americans, when they struck back in September, had prepared the battleground carefully. They built a high dirt wall around the city, some three miles by three miles in size, and blocked roads to isolate the worst neighborhoods.

After constructing the berm, U.S. forces, with Iraqi army and police, evacuated the city's residents, funneling them down a controlled route to a holding camp. U.S. troops then accompanied Iraqi forces in house-to-house searches, using pinpoint artillery and air attacks on houses where they encountered resistance.

While there was some collateral damage, it was nothing close to the scale of the combined Marine and Army assault on Fallujah in November 2004.

"Go look in our city," the mayor said. "The children run after the American officers. They know their names. These men are heroes in Tal Afar."

Success in clearing insurgents from the streets also has stoked the Iraqi forces' self-confidence, U.S. officers say, and their capabilities have improved markedly.

On Sunday, a dozen Sunni and Shiite tribal leaders sat down with the mayor at the city's ancient castle, the first such meeting in several years. They said they'd meet again for dinner at some future date to continue their dialogue.

At the same time, however, shops remain shuttered on the major thoroughfare that divides Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods, and the owners are fearful of reopening. Residents often are still afraid to leave their neighborhoods.

Who: Various Iraqis, see article below
Source: Inter Press Service
Quotes: From ariticle titled, "A Town Becomes a Prison"

People of Siniyah town 200 km north of Baghdad are angry over a six-mile long sand wall constructed by the U.S. military to check attacks by rebels.

"Our city has become a battlefield," 35 year-old engineer Fuad Al-Mohandis told IPS at a checkpoint on the outskirts of the city. "So many of our houses have been destroyed, and the Americans are placing landmines in areas where they think there might be fighters, even though most of the time it is near the homes of innocent civilians."

The U.S. military began to use bulldozers Jan. 7 to build a large sand barrier around the town in an effort to isolate fighters who have been attacking U.S. patrols. Oil pipelines from the area which lead to Turkey have been regularly sabotaged by resistance groups.

"They think by these measures they can stop the resistance," Amer, a 43-year-old clerk at the nearby Beji oil refinery told IPS. "But the Americans are creating more resistance by doing these things. The resistance will not stop attacking them unless they pull out of our country."

The clerk said he had not been able to leave his house for several days, and was unable to work or to visit family members outside Siniyah.

"We can't work any more, our income depends on distributing fuel," truck driver Abdul Qadr told IPS at one of the checkpoints. "We are in a very bad situation. The city is isolated now and they are putting barricades everywhere to stop the fighters. Our houses are raided daily while they are searching for foreigners, yet they can't find any of them."

"The Americans think the fighters are coming from outside Iraq," said Qadr. "But they are not. Can't they see the only real solution is to let the people of a country rule themselves?"

Who: Minority Rights Group International (MRGI)
Source: Inter Press Service
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq Tops Nations With Minorities at Grave Risk"

Iraq tops a list of countries whose minorities find themselves most at risk of persecution and even mass killing at the start of 2006, according to a new threat index released Thursday by the London-based Minority Rights Group International (MRG).

The index, the centrepiece of MRG's 2006 edition of the "State of the World Minorities" report, lists minorities in Sudan, including African tribes in Darfur that the U.S. government has said have been subject to "genocide", and Somalia as the next most threatened, followed by Afghanistan and Burma/Myanmar.

"We now have a situation where, when the election results come out, we'll be looking at a government with a political composition that is totally divided by sect or by ethnicity," he [Mark Lattimer, MRG's executive director] said, noting that all the leading political parties got support from their own sect or ethnic group in the December elections.

"At the same time, we've got a country which is sliding further and further into civil war. Clearly, we have very grave violence both on the part of the Sunni insurgents, but also on behalf of government forces against Sunni civilians. At the same time, the smaller minorities in the country, including the Turkmen and Christians and others, have almost no effective political representation."

In some cases, according to the report, governments used the U.S.-led "war on terror" as a justification for repressing their minorities. Such a strategy, however, was likely to backfire in the long run by creating new divisions and fuelling instability.

Source: The Daily Star (Lebanon)
Quotes: From editorial titled, "The real standoff has nothing to do with nuclear weapons"

When it comes to credibility, the Iranians - and others in the region - might also pose a few questions. How can we believe, they might ask, that the West, and particularly the United States, harbors only peaceful intentions toward the region when its closest ally, Israel, is armed to the teeth with nuclear weaponry and yet no one even acknowledges its existence let alone insists on inspection of its facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency?

The first step toward emerging from the nuclear impasse is for there to be public acknowledgement of Israel's weaponry and subjection of the Jewish State to the same rules as every other nuclear power. The next is to begin to remove the biggest single source of aggression in the area by creating a Palestinian state. And the last is to accept that even in a balance of terror, nuclear weapons are locally irrelevant. Wiping out Damascus with a nuclear blast or destroying life in Tel Aviv with chemical or biological weapons is a lose-lose draw. Acceptance of the reality on the ground might hopefully lead one day to the declaration of the oil-rich Middle East as a nuclear-free zone.

Who: Al Gore, former Vice President 1992-2000
Source: US Newswire
Quotes: From "Statement by Former Vice President Al Gore"

"The Administration's response to my speech illustrates perfectly the need for a special counsel to review the legality of the NSA wiretapping program. The Attorney General is making a political defense of the President without even addressing the substantive legal questions that have so troubled millions of Americans in both political parties.

"There are two problems with the Attorney General's effort to focus attention on the past instead of the present Administration's behavior. First, as others have thoroughly documented, his charges are factually wrong. Both before and after the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was amended in 1995, the Clinton/Gore Administration complied fully and completely with the terms of the law.

"Second, the Attorney General's attempt to cite a previous administration's activity as precedent for theirs -- even though factually wrong -- ironically demonstrates another reason why we must be so vigilant about their brazen disregard for the law. If unchecked, their behavior would serve as a precedent to encourage future presidents to claim these same powers, which many legal experts in both parties believe are clearly illegal.

"The issue, simply put, is that for more than four years, the executive branch has been wiretapping many thousands of American citizens without warrants in direct contradiction of American law. It is clearly wrong and disrespectful to the American people to allow a close political associate of the president to be in charge of reviewing serious charges against him.

"The country needs a full and independent investigation into the facts and legality of the present Administration's program."

Who: Scott Ritter, ex-Marine Officer and former UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq
Source: Alternet
Quotes: From article titled, "The Military Recruiter's Lament"

It should come as no surprise to any observer of modern America that U.S. military recruiters are having a difficult time meeting their quotas. Last year, the U.S. Army fell 6,600 recruits short of its goal to enlist 80,000 new soldiers.

"This recruiting problem is not just an Army problem, this is America's problem," [U.S. Army's Vice Chief of Staff General] Cody is quoted as saying. "And what we have to really do is talk about service to this nation -- and a sense of duty to this nation."

Some observers of the recruitment crisis, including the recruiters themselves, have noted that a main reason for the drop off in numbers of new enlistees is the war in Iraq and the growing casualty figures attributed to the fighting in Iraq. This line of argument seems to draw a direct correlation between the costs associated with being a soldier and the decision to enlist.

I frankly couldn't think of a greater insult to the American people than to put forward an argument along those lines.

Americans aren't afraid to put their lives on the line for a worthy cause. It is not military service that is being rejected, but rather military service in support of a cause not deemed worthy of the sacrifice expected.

Gen. Pace and others miss the point completely when they appeal to American patriotism in trying to draw recruits to a U.S. military that is engaged in activities in Iraq that can only be seen as inherently un-American.

We who served would forego the comforts and freedoms of civilian life so that we could guarantee that those very same civilians could live as Americans. We also knew that, when the time came, America would support us by not only providing us with the wherewithal to wage war, but also ensure that before asking us to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of a cause, that it was a cause worthy of that sacrifice.

Today, that contract lays broken and violated. ... Our troops fight and die for a cause most Americans cannot identify with. And the U.S. military is engaged in domestic spying operations against the very citizens it is sworn to defend.

As the recent decision to authorize unwarranted wiretaps illustrates, the Bush administration has exploited the abrogation of constitutional responsibility by the U.S. Congress to position the executive branch of government as an Imperial Presidency. As long as this is the case, and those who wield the reigns of power view the American armed forces as their personal legions useful in the spreading of American imperial power, then I could not in good faith encourage anyone to enlist in the ranks of such a legion.

Who: Defence Minister Antonio Martino
Source: Reuters via Independent Online
Quotes: From article titled, "Italy to pull troops out of Iraq"

Italy will withdraw 1 000 of its 2 600 troops in Iraq by June and aims to finish its mission there by the end of this year, Defence Minister Antonio Martino said on Thursday.

Martino told a parliamentary committee Italy will "gradually end" its military presence and phase into a new type of presence he said would be "substantially civilian in nature".

Italy, which has the fourth largest foreign contingent in Iraq, faces a general election next April where the unpopular Iraq war is likely to become an issue. Most Italians and all opposition parties were opposed to the troop deployment.

Who: Patrick J. Buchanan, Co-Founder and Editor of The American Conservative
Source: Creators Syndicate via Information Clearing House
Quotes: From article titled, "Another Undeclared War?"

Is the United States about to launch a second preemptive war, against a nation that has not attacked us, to deprive it of weapons of mass destruction that it does not have?

But just how imminent in this "grave threat"?

Thus far, Tehran has taken only two baby steps. It has renewed converting "yellowcake" into uranium hexafluoride, the gaseous substance used to create enriched uranium. And Iran has broken the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) seals at its nuclear facility at Natanz, where uranium hexafluoride is to be processed into enriched uranium. But on Saturday, the foreign ministry said it was still suspending "fuel production."

However, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared, "There are no restrictions for nuclear research activities under the NPT," the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Iran has signed.

Here, Iran's president is supported by his countrymen and stands on the solid ground of international law. Yet Secretary of State Condi Rice said last week, "There is simply no peaceful rationale for the Iranian regime to resume uranium enrichment."

Is Condi right?

Unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, which clandestinely built nuclear weapons, Iran has signed the NPT. And Tehran may wish to exercise its rights under the treaty to master the nuclear fuel cycle to build power plants for electricity, rather than use up the oil and gas deposits she exports to earn all of her hard currency. Nuclear power makes sense for Iran

True, in gaining such expertise, Iran may wish to be able, in a matter of months, to go nuclear. For the United States and Israel, which have repeatedly threatened her, are both in the neighborhood and have nuclear arsenals. Acquiring an atom bomb to deter a U.S. or Israeli attack may not appear a "peaceful rationale" to Rice, but the Iranians may have a different perspective.

Having seen what we did to Iraq, but how deferential we are to North Korea, would it be irrational for Tehran to seek its own deterrent?

And, again, just how imminent is this "grave threat"?

"We don't see a clear and present danger," Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA has just told Newsweek.

Some put the possibility of an Iranian bomb at 10 years away. Con Coughlin, defense and security editor of the London Telegraph, writes that the 164 centrifuges in the Natanz pilot plant could enable Iran to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a single bomb – in three years.

Iran has attacked neither Israel nor our forces in the Gulf, and the Ayatollah Khamenei is said to be reining in Ahmadinejad. So, it would seem that Iran does not want a war.

Congress thus has the time to do the constitutional duty it failed to do when it gave Bush his blank check to invade Iraq at a time of his choosing.

Congress should thus hold hearings on how close Tehran is to a nuclear weapon and whether this represents an intolerable threat, justifying a preventive war that would mean a Middle East cataclysm and a worldwide depression. Then it should vote to declare war, or to deny Bush the power to go to war.

The "Bush Doctrine" notwithstanding, if Congress has not put the "military option on the table," neither George Bush nor John McCain can put it there. That is the Constitution still, is it not?

Who: US Agency for International Development (USAid)
Source: Guardian UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Official US agency paints dire picture of 'out-of-control' Iraq"

An official assessment drawn up by the US foreign aid agency depicts the security situation in Iraq as dire, amounting to a "social breakdown" in which criminals have "almost free rein".

The "conflict assessment" is an attachment to an invitation to contractors to bid on a project rehabilitating Iraqi cities published earlier this month by the US Agency for International Development (USAid).

The USAid analysis talks of an "internecine conflict" involving religious, ethnic, criminal and tribal groups. "It is increasingly common for tribesmen to 'turn in' to the authorities enemies as insurgents - this as a form of tribal revenge," the paper says, casting doubt on the efficacy of counter-insurgent sweeps by coalition and Iraqi forces.

Meanwhile, foreign jihadist groups are growing in strength, the report said.

"External fighters and organisations such as al-Qaida and the Iraqi offshoot led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are gaining in number and notoriety as significant actors," USAid's assessment said. "Recruitment into the ranks of these organisations takes place throughout the Sunni Muslim world, with most suicide bombers coming from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region."

The USAid document was attached to project documents for the Focused Stabilisation in Strategic Cities Initiative, a $1.3bn (£740m) project to curb violence in cities such as Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk and Najaf, through job creation and investment in local communities.

The paper, whose existence was first reported by the Washington Post, argues that insurgent attacks "significantly damage the country's infrastructure and cause a tide of adverse economic and social effects that ripple across Iraq".

"In the social breakdown that has accompanied the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime criminal elements within Iraqi society have had almost free rein," the document says. "In the absence of an effective police force capable of ensuring public safety, criminal elements flourish ... Baghdad is reportedly divided into zones controlled by organised criminal groups-clans."

The lawlessness has had an impact on basic freedoms, USAid argues, particularly in the south, where "social liberties have been curtailed dramatically by roving bands of self-appointed religious-moral police". USAid officials did not respond to calls seeking comment yesterday.

Judith Yaphe, a former CIA expert on Iraq now teaching at the National Defence University in Washington, said while the administration's pronouncements on security were rosy, the USAid version was pessimistic. "It's a very difficult environment, but if I read this right, they are saying there is violence everywhere and I don't think it's true," Ms Yaphe said. She said USAid could have published the document to pressure the White House to increase its funding. The administration does not intend to request more reconstruction funds after the end of this year.

Who: Al Gore, Vice President 1992-2000
Source: Information Clearing House
Quotes: From Constitution Hall, Washington DC, speech

As we begin this new year, the Executive Branch of our government has been caught eavesdropping on huge numbers of American citizens and has brazenly declared that it has the unilateral right to continue without regard to the established law enacted by Congress to prevent such abuses. It is imperative that respect for the rule of law be restored.

An executive who arrogates to himself the power to ignore the legitimate legislative directives of the Congress or to act free of the check of the judiciary becomes the central threat that the Founders sought to nullify in the Constitution - an all-powerful executive too reminiscent of the King from whom they had broken free. In the words of James Madison, "the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

Once violated, the rule of law is in danger. Unless stopped, lawlessness grows. The greater the power of the executive grows, the more difficult it becomes for the other branches to perform their constitutional roles. As the executive acts outside its constitutionally prescribed role and is able to control access to information that would expose its actions, it becomes increasingly difficult for the other branches to police it. Once that ability is lost, democracy itself is threatened and we become a government of men and not laws.

The President claims that he can imprison American citizens indefinitely for the rest of their lives without an arrest warrant, without notifying them about what charges have been filed against them, and without informing their families that they have been imprisoned.

At the same time, the Executive Branch has claimed a previously unrecognized authority to mistreat prisoners in its custody in ways that plainly constitute torture in a pattern that has now been documented in U.S. facilities located in several countries around the world.

The President has also claimed that he has the authority to kidnap individuals in foreign countries and deliver them for imprisonment and interrogation on our behalf by autocratic regimes in nations that are infamous for the cruelty of their techniques for torture.

Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is "yes" then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?

This Administration has come to power in the thrall of a legal theory that aims to convince us that this excessive concentration of presidential authority is exactly what our Constitution intended. This legal theory, which its proponents call the theory of the unitary executive but which is more accurately described as the unilateral executive, threatens to expand the president's powers until the contours of the constitution that the Framers actually gave us become obliterated beyond all recognition. Under this theory, the President's authority when acting as Commander-in-Chief or when making foreign policy cannot be reviewed by the judiciary or checked by Congress.

Whenever power is unchecked and unaccountable it almost inevitably leads to mistakes and abuses. In the absence of rigorous accountability, incompetence flourishes. Dishonesty is encouraged and rewarded.

Moreover, if the pattern of practice begun by this Administration is not challenged, it may well become a permanent part of the American system. ... If this President's attempt to dramatically expand executive power goes unquestioned, our constitutional design of checks and balances will be lost. And the next President or some future President will be able, in the name of national security, to restrict our liberties in a way the framers never would have thought possible.

It is the pitiful state of our legislative branch which primarily explains the failure of our vaunted checks and balances to prevent the dangerous overreach by our Executive Branch which now threatens a radical transformation of the American system. I call upon Democratic and Republican members of Congress today to uphold your oath of office and defend the Constitution. Stop going along to get along. Start acting like the independent and co-equal branch of government you're supposed to be.

But there is yet another Constitutional player whose pulse must be taken and whose role must be examined in order to understand the dangerous imbalance that has emerged with the efforts by the Executive Branch to dominate our constitutional system. We the people are-collectively-still the key to the survival of America's democracy. We-as Lincoln put it, "[e]ven we here"-must examine our own role as citizens in allowing and not preventing the shocking decay and degradation of our democracy.

The revolutionary departure on which the idea of America was based was the audacious belief that people can govern themselves and responsibly exercise the ultimate authority in self-government. This insight proceeded inevitably from the bedrock principle articulated by the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke: "All just power is derived from the consent of the governed."

I endorse the words of Bob Barr, when he said, "The President has dared the American people to do something about it. For the sake of the Constitution, I hope they will.

Who: Robert Fisk
Source: The Independent UK via Information Clearing House
Quotes: From article titled, "Osama bin Laden: Is it him? Almost certainly"

It's a game. Bin Laden has no intention of calling an end to his own war and nor has George Bush and nor has Tony Blair. The Bin Laden offer, almost certainly, is intended to be rejected. He wants Bush and Blair to refuse it. Then, after the next attack, will come the next audio tape. See what happens when you reject our ceasefire? We warned you. And we'll ask: is it him?

How about some justice in the Middle East? How about lifting the blanket of injustice that has lain across the region for so many decades? Muslims there will probably like some of the democracy we say we're trying to export to them. They would also like human rights off our Western supermarket shelves.

But they would also like another kind of freedom - freedom from us. And this, it seems, we are not going to give them. So the war goes on. Stand by for more audio tapes, and more threats, and more death.

Who: Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz
Source: Associated Press via Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Quotes: From article titled, "Pakistan PM: No evidence of al-Qaida dead"

Pakistan's prime minister said Friday no "tangible evidence" has been found that al-Qaida operatives were among those killed in a U.S. missile strike on a border village last week.

A senior Pakistani intelligence official earlier told The Associated Press that al-Qaida figures were casualties of the Jan. 13 attack, which killed 13 villagers.

Officials believe at least four foreign militants may also have died, including an al-Qaida explosives and chemical weapons expert and a son-in-law of the terror network's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri.

The intelligence official said the al-Qaida operatives had gathered in Damadola to discuss "new attacks" in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Who: Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda Leader
Source: Jihad Unspun
Quotes: From post titled, "Transcript: Sheikh Osama Bin Laden: "There Is No Shame In This Solution"

Audio Statement By Sheikh Osama Bin Laden January 19, 2006

In The Name Of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance.

My message to you is about the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the way to end it. I was not intending to speak about this subject, because for us it’s obvious; blood for blood, and all praise be to Allah, our situation is getting better and better while your situation is the opposite.

What motivated me to speak out is the repeated fallacies made up by your president Bush commenting on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that “it is better to fight them (Muslims) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land”.

My response to these great fallacies is this. I say that the war in Iraq is boiling up without end and the operations in Afghanistan are continuing in our favor, all praise be to Allah. And the Pentagon’s numbers declare the rise in the death and injuries toll, needless to mention the grave material loss and the mental defeat of the soldiers and the mounting number of suicides among them. So you can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to leave his camp and is dogged by punishments handed out by the Vietnam Butcher (American army) or he gets destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear and humiliation while his nation ignores him. The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be saved from this hell.. The solution is in your hands if these soldiers matter to you.

However, the news about our Mujahideen brothers is quiet different from what the Pentagon publishes. What is published in the media is not the truth or the reality on the ground. What makes the doubts greater is the information leaked out about the intentions of the White House administration in targeting media stations that are trying to publish some of the truth. Documents have surfaced lately about how the world’s freedom butcher (Bush) had intended to bomb the offices of Al Jazeera in Qatar after bombing its offices in Afghanistan and Baghdad.

On the other hand, Jihad is continuing, all praise be to Allah, despite all the atrocities committed by the American army and its agents; to a point where there is no differentiation between its crimes and those of Saddam’s. Its crimes have reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands. As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the Human Rights Watch reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram prisons.

Let me say, despite all the sadistic means used, they did not break the sharp blade of the resistance or the Mujahideen, all praise be to Allah. Instead the resistance is rising stronger. All the reports show that the defeat and grave failure for the cursed quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is only a matter of time, partly due to how much awareness the American people have about the magnitude of their misery.

The wise among you know that Bush does not have a plan to reach his alleged victory in Iraq. If you would compare the small number of deaths when Bush announced his fake declaration on top of the airplanes’ carrier; the termination of the grand operations, with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.

This takes me back to the original subject, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the Mujahideen, all praise be to Allah, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries. The proof of this is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition.

As for the delay in similar operations in America, is not because of the inability to pierce your security measures. Operations are in preparation and you will see them in your own homeland as soon as they are ready, Allah willing.

Bush’s falsehoods have been laid bare. However, the one thing that went over his head, which is at the heart of polls calling for withdrawing the troops is this: “It is better that we (Americans) don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours.”

We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution that prevents wasting billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars that makes clear the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.

If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book "Rogue State," which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all."

Finally, I tell you that the victory in this war is either ours or yours. If it’s is ours, you will be disgraced and this is the direction it is headed, all praise be to Allah. And if it was the latter, then read history and you will know that we are a nation that does not sleep on defeat, and that we will seek revenge for ever, and that the days and nights will not pass until we revenge, like we did on September 11, Allah willing. And you will continue to live in disgrace and fear and in the end you will be defeated.

As for us we have nothing to loose. He who swims in the ocean does not fear the rain. You have occupied our land, you have attacked our honor and dignity, you have spilled our blood, stolen our wealth, destroyed our homes and you have shattered our security. And we will give you the same treatment.

You have tried to prevent us from living with dignity, but you won’t be able to prevent us from dying with dignity. Sitting down and leaving Jihad behind in our religion is a great sin that we fear. And dying under the shade of the swords is the best that we wish for. Do not be deceived with your power and your armaments, it can only make you win some battles but you will loose the war. Patience and standing fast is better than what you have, and it’s the finish line that you should be watching for.

We were patient fighting the Soviet Union with small humble arms for ten years and we depleted their economy till they vanished, all praise be to Allah. You should take a lesson from that, we will be patient fighting you, Allah willing, till either one of us dies. We will never run away from fighting you until the end.

I swore that I will not die except free…. despite the bitter taste of death.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance.

Osama bin Laden
19 Thw al-Hijjah 1426 A.H.
January 19, 2006

Who: Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda Leader
Source: Associated Press via Findlaw
Quotes: From article titled, "Full Text of Bin Laden Tape"

My message to you is about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and how to end them. I did not intend to speak to you about this because this issue has already been decided. Only metal breaks metal, and our situation, thank God, is only getting better and better, while your situation is the opposite of that.

But I plan to speak about the repeated errors your President Bush has committed in comments on the results of your polls that show an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But he (Bush) has opposed this wish and said that withdrawing troops sends the wrong message to opponents, that it is better to fight them (bin Laden's followers) on their land than their fighting us (Americans) on our land.

I can reply to these errors by saying that war in Iraq is raging with no let-up, and operations in Afghanistan are escalating in our favor, thank God, and Pentagon figures show the number of your dead and wounded is increasing not to mention the massive material losses, the destruction of the soldiers' morale there and the rise in cases of suicide among them. So you can imagine the state of psychological breakdown that afflicts a soldier as he gathers the remains of his colleagues after they stepped on land mines that tore them apart. After this situation the soldier is caught between two hard options. He either refuses to leave his military camp on patrols and is therefore dogged by ruthless punishments enacted by the Vietnam Butcher (U.S. army) or he gets destroyed by the mines. This puts him under psychological pressure, fear and humiliation while his nation is ignorant of that (what is going on). The soldier has no solution except to commit suicide. That is a strong message to you, written by his soul, blood and pain, to save what can be saved from this hell. The solution is in your hands if you care about them (the soldiers).

The news of our brother mujahideen (holy warriors) is different from what the Pentagon publishes. They (the news of mujahideen) and what the media report is the truth of what is happening on the ground. And what deepens the doubt over the White House's information is the fact that it targets the media reporting the truth from the ground. And it has appeared lately, supported by documents, that the butcher of freedom in the world (Bush) had decided to bomb the headquarters of the Al-Jazeera in Qatar after bombing its offices in Kabul and Baghdad.

On another issue, jihad (holy war) is ongoing, thank God, despite all the oppressive measures adopted by the U.S Army and its agents (which is) to a point where there is no difference between this criminality and Saddam's criminality, as it has reached the degree of raping women and taking them as hostages instead of their husbands.

As for torturing men, they have used burning chemical acids and drills on their joints. And when they give up on (interrogating) them, they sometimes use the drills on their heads until they die. Read, if you will, the reports of the horrors in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons.

And I say that, despite all the barbaric methods, they have not broken the fierceness of the resistance. The mujahideen, thank God, are increasing in number and strength - so much so that reports point to the ultimate failure and defeat of the unlucky quartet of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Declaring this defeat is just a matter of time, depending partly on how much the American people know of the size of this tragedy. The sensible people realize that Bush does not have a plan to make his alleged victory in Iraq come true.

And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.

And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush's opposition to them is a mistake. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the mujahideen (holy warriors), with God's grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries. The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God's permission.

Based on what has been said, this shows the errors of Bush's statement - the one that slipped from him - which is at the heart of polls calling for withdrawing the troops. It is better that we (Americans) don't fight Muslims on their lands and that they don't fight us on ours.

We don't mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush's election campaign with billions of dollars - which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.

If you (Americans) are sincere in your desire for peace and security, we have answered you. And if Bush decides to carry on with his lies and oppression, then it would be useful for you to read the book "Rogue State," which states in its introduction: "If I were president, I would stop the attacks on the United States: First I would give an apology to all the widows and orphans and those who were tortured. Then I would announce that American interference in the nations of the world has ended once and for all."

Finally, I say that war will go either in our favor or yours. If it is the former, it means your loss and your shame forever, and it is headed in this course. If it is the latter, read history! We are people who do not stand for injustice and we will seek revenge all our lives. The nights and days will not pass without us taking vengeance like on Sept. 11, God permitting. Your minds will be troubled and your lives embittered. As for us, we have nothing to lose. A swimmer in the ocean does not fear the rain. You have occupied our lands, offended our honor and dignity and let out our blood and stolen our money and destroyed our houses and played with our security and we will give you the same treatment.

You have tried to prevent us from leading a dignified life, but you will not be able to prevent us from a dignified death. Failing to carry out jihad, which is called for in our religion, is a sin. The best death to us is under the shadows of swords. Don't let your strength and modern arms fool you. They win a few battles but lose the war. Patience and steadfastness are much better. We were patient in fighting the Soviet Union with simple weapons for 10 years and we bled their economy and now they are nothing.

In that there is a lesson for you.

Who: David Hirst, Guardian UK Reporter from 1963-2001
Source: Guardian UK
Quotes: From Opinion article titled, "Iran and Israel will be kings of the Middle East jungle"

In March 2003, before US troops reached Baghdad, Middle East scholar Volker Perthes wrote that while the risks of this "illegitimate" war were enormous, those of "a US failure to stabilise postwar Iraq would be even higher". With those words looking increasingly prophetic, no one, in picturing the implications of such failure, is now more lurid than the Bush administration. The direness of the prospect has become its strongest argument for "staying the course", but for others it is already a given, amounting to "the greatest strategic disaster in US history", in the words of the retired US general William Odom.

A general US retreat from the region, with troop withdrawal at its core, is no doubt a prerequisite for, and yardstick of, the emergence of a healthy, self-reliant new Middle Eastern order. But, with the kind of ignominious scuttle from Iraq that failure would presumably entail, the region won't just revert to the status quo ante. Instead of Iraq becoming a beacon of all good things it will become the single most noxious wellspring of all the bad ones the invasion was supposed to extinguish - and new ones to boot.

... no one invested greater expectations in the Iraqi adventure than Israel. US success, it thought, would transform its strategic position. But with US failure, Israel will grow more repressive against the Palestinians, and more ready for military action against Iran. Should the US itself deal with Iran in the same violent and partisan fashion as it did Iraq, the adverse consequences of that new adventure will outstrip those of the earlier one. For there is no reason to doubt that Iran's response, from both itself and its strengthened Shia and Islamist allies in the region, will be the devastating one it constantly promises.

Source: The Observer via Guardian UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Why the lights are dimmed in Baghdad"

Amec, the British infrastructure project manager, is warning that much of the reconstruction work it has done in Iraq in the past 18 months could be wiped out if funding for programmes is scaled back.

The prediction comes a week after reports indicated that the White House would not seek additional funds for rebuilding the country once the $18.4bn agreed by Congress in autumn 2003 has been spent.

Amec, through a joint venture with US engineer Fluor, won several major contracts in Iraq from the Coalition Provisional Authority, the interim body that subsequently handed over to the Iraqi government. In March 2004 the joint venture won a $500m deal to rebuild electricity infrastructure and secured a $1.1bn contract to restore its water system. It also has a smaller contract for environmental work.

Amec says the work it has done may not last long. A spokesman said: 'Recently, as much as 25 per cent of work completed has been repairing infrastructure damaged by insurgents. If funding levels are not maintained, insurgent activity could quickly [undo] much of our work over the past 18 months.'

Graham Hand of the British Consultants and Contractors Bureau says that of about 30 British contractors in Iraq two years ago, there are now only half a dozen there. 'When companies first went out, they were told by the government that it was difficult, but would get better. It has got worse.'

Andy Bearpark, former head of operations at the Coalition Provisional Authority and now a UK-based consultant, says: 'The experience of reconstruction has been expensive, difficult and slow. People have not seen the improvements they thought they were going to see. The result is you get an Iraqi population that is disaffected.'

Despite Amec's claim that it has nearly finished what it was asked to do, Iraq's infrastructure appears to be in a worse condition that it was before the war. For example, the electricity supply is still around 4,000 megawatts, about the pre-war level. On average, there is 12 hours of supply a day. Meanwhile, oil production is 1.1 million barrels a day, below pre-war levels.

Source: Associated Press via USA Today
Quotes: From article titled, "Al-Qaeda No. 2 wasn't on site during U.S. attack, officials say"

DAMADOLA, Pakistan (AP) — Pakistan on Saturday condemned a deadly airstrike in which the U.S. reportedly targeted al-Qaeda's second-in-command, as villagers whose homes were destroyed denied the militant was ever there and thousands of Pakistanis protested the attack.

The statement came after U.S. networks, citing unnamed American intelligence officials, reported that a CIA-operated Predator drone aircraft carried out the missile strike Friday and that it was aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri in the Bajur tribal region of northwestern Pakistan.

Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed did not directly blame the U.S. for the attack, which killed at least 17 people, but he said the government wanted "to assure the people we will not allow such incidents to reoccur."

Two Pakistani officials told The Associated Press on Saturday that the CIA had acted on incorrect information, and al-Zawahri was not in the village of Damadola when it came under attack.

An AP reporter who visited the scene in Damadola village about 12 hours after the airstrike saw three destroyed houses hundreds of yards apart. Villagers recounted hearing aircraft overhead moments before the attack. By their count at least 30 people died, including women and children.

The attack was the latest in a series of strikes on the Pakistan side of the border with Afghanistan, unexplained by authorities but widely suspected to have targeted terror suspects or Islamic militants.

Who: General Ahmed Abdul Aziz (Retired Iraqi Army General) & Dr. Abdul Hadi (former Deputy Minister for Trade) - for others, see quotes below
Source: Inter Press Service
Quotes: From article titled, "'Democracy' Brings Bleak Days"

"It is obvious that the situation is much worse than it used to be," retired army general Ahmed Abdul Aziz told IPS. "Can you walk free in the streets? Did you receive your food ration last month? It is essential for most Iraqis to receive the food ration just to feed their families."

The former Iraqi general added: "When you go to the hospital, do you find medicines? The answer is no medicines, no services, no sheets or pillows, no beds, no nursing, and no ambulances to carry you from your house."

"I will not be satisfied until I find that all the people have the will to rebuild their country instead of humiliating their brothers," said Dr.. Hadi. "I want to tell (U.S. President George) Bush that he has destroyed our country for at least the next 25 years. He is the greatest terrorist, Arabs can never forget."

People have no recourse to law any more. "We are not living in a proper way," restaurant owner Qassim Abdul Hamed told IPS. "We are suffering at the hands of those who come in their vehicles just to have meals free of charge."

The restaurant has to go on serving free meals to the Iraqi police, he said. "We can't say a word because they have guns."

"We used to love the American people but not any more," she [Munaim Abid Hassan, a 22-year-old waitress] said. "Hatred is spreading all over now, and everyone wants revenge on them. You (Bush) are bringing disasters to the people of your own country, not only to Iraqis."

Who: Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to Pres. Jimmy Carter
Source: Tribune Media Services International via International Herald Tribune
Quotes: From Opinion piece titled, "The real choice in Iraq"

"Bring 'em on" - President George W. Bush on Iraqi insurgents, summer 2003

"The insurgency is "in its last throes" - Vice President Dick Cheney, summer 2005

"... There are only two options before our country: victory or defeat" - President Bush, Christmas 2005

The administration's rhetorical devolution speaks for itself. Yet, with some luck and with a more open decision-making process in the White House, greater political courage on the part of Democratic leaders and even some encouragement from authentic Iraqi leaders, the U.S. war in Iraq could (and should) come to an end within a year.

"Victory or defeat" is, in fact, a false strategic choice. In using this formulation, the president would have the American people believe that their only options are either "hang in and win" or "quit and lose." But the real, practical choice is this: "persist but not win" or "desist but not lose."

Victory, as defined by the administration and its supporters - a stable and secular democracy in a unified Iraqi state, with the insurgency crushed by the American military assisted by a disciplined, U.S.-trained Iraqi national army - is unlikely.

The U.S. force required to achieve it would have to be significantly larger than the present one, and the Iraqi support for a U.S.-led counterinsurgency would have to be more motivated.

The current U.S. forces (soon to be reduced) are not large enough to crush the anti-American insurgency or stop the sectarian Sunni-Shiite strife. Both problems continue to percolate under an inconclusive but increasingly hated foreign occupation.

Moreover, neither the Shiites nor the Kurds are likely to subordinate their specific interests to a unified Iraq with a genuine, single national army. As the haggling over the new government has already shown, the two dominant forces in Iraq - the religious Shiite alliance and the separatist Kurds - share a common interest in preventing a restoration of Sunni domination, with each determined to retain a separate military capacity for asserting its own specific interests, largely at the cost of the Sunnis.

A truly national army in that context is a delusion. Continuing doggedly to seek "a victory" in that fashion dooms America to rising costs in blood and money, not to mention the intensifying Muslim hostility and massive erosion of America's international legitimacy, credibility and moral reputation.

The administration's definition of "defeat" is similarly misleading. Official and unofficial spokesmen often speak in terms that recall the apocalyptic predictions made earlier regarding the consequences of American failure to win in Vietnam: dominoes falling, the region exploding and U.S. power discredited. An added touch is the notion that the Iraqi insurgents will then navigate the Atlantic and wage terrorism on the American homeland.

The real choice that needs to be faced is between:

An acceptance of the complex post-Saddam Iraqi realities through a relatively prompt military disengagement, which would include a period of transitional and initially even intensified political strife as the dust settled and as authentic Iraqi majorities fashioned their own political arrangements.

An inconclusive but prolonged military occupation lasting for years while an elusive goal is pursued.

It is doubtful, to say the least, that America's domestic political support for such a futile effort could long be sustained by slogans about Iraq's being "the central front in the global war on terrorism."

In contrast, a military disengagement by the end of 2006, derived from a more realistic definition of an adequate outcome, could ensure that desisting is not tantamount to losing.

In an Iraq dominated by the Shiites and the Kurds, who together account for close to 75 percent of the population, the two peoples would share a common interest in Iraq's independence as a state.

The Kurds, with their autonomy already amounting in effect to quasi-sovereignty, would otherwise be threatened by the Turks. And the Iraqi Shiites are first of all Arabs; they have no desire to be Iran's satellites. Some Sunnis, once they were aware that the U.S. occupation was drawing to a close and that soon they would be facing an overwhelming Shiite-Kurdish coalition, would be more inclined to accommodate the new political realities, especially when deprived of the rallying cry of resistance to a foreign occupier.

In addition, it is likely that both Kuwait and the Kurdish regions of Iraq would be amenable to some residual U.S. military presence as a guarantee against a sudden upheaval. Once the United States terminated its military occupation, some form of participation by Muslim states in peacekeeping in Iraq would be easier to contrive, and their involvement could also help to cool anti-American passions in the region.

In any case, as Iraqi politics gradually become more competitive, it is almost certain that the more authentic Iraqi leaders (not handpicked by the United States), to legitimate their claim to power, will begin to demand publicly a firm date for U.S. withdrawal.

That is all to the good. In fact, they should be quietly encouraged to do so, because that would increase their popular support while allowing the United States to claim a soberly redefined "Mission Accomplished."

The requisite first step to that end is for the president to break out of his political cocoon. His policymaking and his speeches are the products of the true believers around him who are largely responsible for the mess in Iraq. They have a special stake in their definition of victory, and they reinforce his convictions instead of refining his judgments. The president badly needs to widen his circle of advisers.

Finally, Democratic leaders should stop equivocating while carping. Those who want to lead in 2008 are particularly unwilling to state clearly that ending the war soon is both desirable and feasible. They fear being labeled as unpatriotic. Yet defining a practical alternative would provide a politically effective rebuttal to those who mindlessly seek an unattainable "victory." America needs a real choice regarding its tragic misadventure in Iraq.

# posted by Todd Tidyman @ 1:13 PM 0 comments

Who: Ayman al-Zawahiri
Source: Al Jazeera
Quotes: From article titled, "Al-Qaida taunts US on pullout"

"I congratulate my nation and bless Islam's victory in Iraq," he said.

"Oh my Muslim brothers, I told you more than a year ago that the pullout of America's troops from Iraq would be a matter of time and Americans are now begging to leave and negotiate with the mujahidin.

"Bush, the liar, was forced to announce in November 2005 that he would withdraw his troops from Iraq.

"Since Bush is addicted to lying, he justified his withdrawal by saying that Iraqi forces have become well-trained. But he did not set a timetable for the pullout.

Al-Zawahiri asked: "If your forces with all its aircraft, missiles, tanks and fleets are moaning, bleeding and looking for an escape from Iraq, then will the hypocrites, conspirators, infidels [the Iraqi government] resist what the 'greatest power in the world' has failed to resist?

"The timetable of withdrawal was set a long time ago and you [Bush] have to confess that you have been defeated in Iraq as you have been defeated in Afghanistan and will be shortly defeated in Palestine if Allah's willing."

Al-Zawahiri went on to call on Muslim nations and charity and relief organisations, particularly Muslim ones, to offer aid to their brethren affected by the earthquake in Pakistan.

"I call you not to offer aid to the Pakistani government," he said. He described its administration as corrupt, saying its army leadership took bribes.

"I call on Islamic people's charity organisations to come to Pakistan and supervise the relief and charity works offered for those hit by the earthquake.

He also denounced the recent parliamentary elections in Egypt.

"The election was an American game in which Islamic movements were allowed to run with a limited number of candidates. And if they win, they will be a minority in the parliament.

"America paved the way for the ruling party to practice all its crimes and get the votes that have been already prearranged."