Monday, February 20, 2006
Pundit RhetIraq: Patrick Buchanan
Who: Patrick J. Buchanan, Columnist
Source: Creators Syndicate Inc. via WorldNetDaily
Quotes: From opinion piece titled, "Churchill, Hitler and Newt"
You can always tell when the War Party wants a new war. They will invariably trot out the Argumentum ad Hitlerum.
Before the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam had become "the Hitler of Arabia," though he had only conquered a sandbox half the size of Denmark. Milosevic then became the "Hitler of the Balkans," though he had lost Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia, was struggling to hold Bosnia and Kosovo, and had defeated no one.
Comes now the new Hitler.
"This is 1935, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as close to Adolf Hitler as we've seen," said Newt Gingrich to a startled editor at Human Events.
The Iranians, said Newt, "have been proactively at war with us since 1979." We must now prepare to invade and occupy Iran, and identify a "network of Iranians prepared to run their ... country" after we take the place over.
"I wake up every morning thinking we could lose two major cities today and have the equivalent of the second Holocaust by nuclear weapons – this morning."
What about diplomacy?
"We should say to the Europeans that there is no diplomatic solution that is imaginable that is going to solve this problem." Newt's reasoning: War is inevitable – the longer we wait, the graver the risk. Let's get it over with. Bismarck called this committing suicide out of fear of death.
My own sense of this astonishing interview is that Newt is trying to get to the right of John McCain on Iran and cast himself – drum roll, please – as the Churchill of our generation.
Ahmadinejad is the president of a nation whose air and naval forces would be toasted in hours by the United States. Iran has missiles that can hit Israel, but no nuclear warheads. Israel could put scores of atom bombs on Iran. The United States, without losing a plane, could make the country uninhabitable with one B-2 flyover and a few MX and Trident missiles.
Why would Ayatollah Khameinei, who has far more power than Ahmadinejad, permit him to ignite a war that could mean the end of their revolution and country? And if we were not intimidated by a USSR with thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on us, why should Ahmadinejad cause Newt to break out in cold sweats at night?
Currently, the "nuclear program" of Iran consists of trying to run uranium hexafluoride gas through a few centrifuges. There is no hard evidence Iran is within three years of producing enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb.
And if Iran has been at war with us since 1979, why has it done so much less damage than Gadhafi, who blew up that discotheque in Berlin with our soldiers inside and massacred those American kids on Pan Am 103? Diplomacy worked with Gadhafi. Why not try it with Iran?
Yet, Newt and the War Party appear to be pushing against an open door. A Fox News poll finds Iran has replaced North Korea as the nation Americans believe is our greatest immediate danger. And a Washington Post polls finds 56 percent of Americans backing military action to ensure Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.
Instead of whining about how they were misled into Iraq, why don't Democrats try to stop this new war before it starts? They can begin by introducing a resolution in Congress denying Bush authority to launch any preventive war on Iran, unless Congress first declares war on Iran.
Isn't that what the Constitution says?
Before we go to war, let's have a debate of whether we need to go to war.
Source: Creators Syndicate Inc. via WorldNetDaily
Quotes: From opinion piece titled, "Churchill, Hitler and Newt"
You can always tell when the War Party wants a new war. They will invariably trot out the Argumentum ad Hitlerum.
Before the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam had become "the Hitler of Arabia," though he had only conquered a sandbox half the size of Denmark. Milosevic then became the "Hitler of the Balkans," though he had lost Slovenia, Croatia and Macedonia, was struggling to hold Bosnia and Kosovo, and had defeated no one.
Comes now the new Hitler.
"This is 1935, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is as close to Adolf Hitler as we've seen," said Newt Gingrich to a startled editor at Human Events.
The Iranians, said Newt, "have been proactively at war with us since 1979." We must now prepare to invade and occupy Iran, and identify a "network of Iranians prepared to run their ... country" after we take the place over.
"I wake up every morning thinking we could lose two major cities today and have the equivalent of the second Holocaust by nuclear weapons – this morning."
What about diplomacy?
"We should say to the Europeans that there is no diplomatic solution that is imaginable that is going to solve this problem." Newt's reasoning: War is inevitable – the longer we wait, the graver the risk. Let's get it over with. Bismarck called this committing suicide out of fear of death.
My own sense of this astonishing interview is that Newt is trying to get to the right of John McCain on Iran and cast himself – drum roll, please – as the Churchill of our generation.
Ahmadinejad is the president of a nation whose air and naval forces would be toasted in hours by the United States. Iran has missiles that can hit Israel, but no nuclear warheads. Israel could put scores of atom bombs on Iran. The United States, without losing a plane, could make the country uninhabitable with one B-2 flyover and a few MX and Trident missiles.
Why would Ayatollah Khameinei, who has far more power than Ahmadinejad, permit him to ignite a war that could mean the end of their revolution and country? And if we were not intimidated by a USSR with thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on us, why should Ahmadinejad cause Newt to break out in cold sweats at night?
Currently, the "nuclear program" of Iran consists of trying to run uranium hexafluoride gas through a few centrifuges. There is no hard evidence Iran is within three years of producing enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb.
And if Iran has been at war with us since 1979, why has it done so much less damage than Gadhafi, who blew up that discotheque in Berlin with our soldiers inside and massacred those American kids on Pan Am 103? Diplomacy worked with Gadhafi. Why not try it with Iran?
Yet, Newt and the War Party appear to be pushing against an open door. A Fox News poll finds Iran has replaced North Korea as the nation Americans believe is our greatest immediate danger. And a Washington Post polls finds 56 percent of Americans backing military action to ensure Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.
Instead of whining about how they were misled into Iraq, why don't Democrats try to stop this new war before it starts? They can begin by introducing a resolution in Congress denying Bush authority to launch any preventive war on Iran, unless Congress first declares war on Iran.
Isn't that what the Constitution says?
Before we go to war, let's have a debate of whether we need to go to war.
Congressional RhetIraq: Rep. Ron Paul
Who: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)
Source: Information Clearing House
Quotes: From floor speech in congress, February 16, 2006;
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very dangerous legislation. My colleagues would do well to understand that this legislation is leading us toward war against Iran.
Those reading this bill may find themselves feeling a sense of déjà vu. In many cases one can just substitute "Iraq" for "Iran" in this bill and we could be back in the pre-2003 run up to war with Iraq. And the logic of this current push for war is much the same as was the logic used in the argument for war on Iraq. As earlier with Iraq, this resolution demands that Iran perform the impossible task of proving a negative – in this case that Iran does not have plans to build a nuclear weapon.
There are a few things we need to remember when thinking about Iran and this legislation. First, Iran has never been ruled in violation of its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Second, Iran concluded a Safeguards Agreement more than 30 years ago that provides for the verification of Iran's fulfillment of its obligation to not divert nuclear energy programs to nuclear weapons development. Since this agreement was reached, the International Atomic Energy Agency has never found any indication that Iran has diverted or attempted to divert source or special nuclear materials from a peaceful purpose to a military purpose.
But, this does not stop those eager for conflict with Iran from stating otherwise. As the Washington Post reported last year, "U.S. officials, eager to move the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council – which has the authority to impose sanctions – have begun a new round of briefings for allies designed to convince them that Iran's real intention is to use its energy program as a cover for bomb building. The briefings will focus on the White House's belief that a country with as much oil as Iran would not need an energy program on the scale it is planning, according to two officials."
This reminds us of the quick move to justify the invasion of Iraq by citing Iraq's "intentions" when actual weapons of mass destruction could not be found.
The resolution's second resolved clause is a real misrepresentation of the Iran/EU3 talks. The "efforts of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom" were not "to seek...suspension of enrichment and reprocessing related activities..." As the EU3-Iran Paris Agreement makes very clear, the suspension of enrichment is a purely voluntary measure taken by Iran and is "not a legal obligation."
This is similar to the situation with Iran's voluntarily observation of the Additional Protocols (allowing unannounced inspections) without legally being bound to do so. Suspending voluntary observance of the Additional Protocols is not a violation of the NPT. But, those seeking to push us toward war with Iran are purposely trying to connect the two – to confuse voluntary "confidence building" measures taken by Iran with the legally-binding Treaty itself.
Resolved clause four of this legislation is the most inflammatory and objectionable part of the legislation. It lowers the bar to initiating war on Iran. This clause anticipates that the US may not be successful in getting the Security Council to pass a Resolution because of the potential of a Russian or Chinese veto, so it "calls upon" Russia and China to "take action" in response to "any report" of "Iran's noncompliance. That is right: any report.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a drumbeat for war with Iran. Its logic is faulty, its premises are flawed, and its conclusions are dangerous. I urge my colleagues to stop for a moment and ponder the wisdom of starting yet another war in the Middle East.
Source: Information Clearing House
Quotes: From floor speech in congress, February 16, 2006;
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very dangerous legislation. My colleagues would do well to understand that this legislation is leading us toward war against Iran.
Those reading this bill may find themselves feeling a sense of déjà vu. In many cases one can just substitute "Iraq" for "Iran" in this bill and we could be back in the pre-2003 run up to war with Iraq. And the logic of this current push for war is much the same as was the logic used in the argument for war on Iraq. As earlier with Iraq, this resolution demands that Iran perform the impossible task of proving a negative – in this case that Iran does not have plans to build a nuclear weapon.
There are a few things we need to remember when thinking about Iran and this legislation. First, Iran has never been ruled in violation of its international nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Second, Iran concluded a Safeguards Agreement more than 30 years ago that provides for the verification of Iran's fulfillment of its obligation to not divert nuclear energy programs to nuclear weapons development. Since this agreement was reached, the International Atomic Energy Agency has never found any indication that Iran has diverted or attempted to divert source or special nuclear materials from a peaceful purpose to a military purpose.
But, this does not stop those eager for conflict with Iran from stating otherwise. As the Washington Post reported last year, "U.S. officials, eager to move the Iran issue to the U.N. Security Council – which has the authority to impose sanctions – have begun a new round of briefings for allies designed to convince them that Iran's real intention is to use its energy program as a cover for bomb building. The briefings will focus on the White House's belief that a country with as much oil as Iran would not need an energy program on the scale it is planning, according to two officials."
This reminds us of the quick move to justify the invasion of Iraq by citing Iraq's "intentions" when actual weapons of mass destruction could not be found.
The resolution's second resolved clause is a real misrepresentation of the Iran/EU3 talks. The "efforts of France, Germany, and the United Kingdom" were not "to seek...suspension of enrichment and reprocessing related activities..." As the EU3-Iran Paris Agreement makes very clear, the suspension of enrichment is a purely voluntary measure taken by Iran and is "not a legal obligation."
This is similar to the situation with Iran's voluntarily observation of the Additional Protocols (allowing unannounced inspections) without legally being bound to do so. Suspending voluntary observance of the Additional Protocols is not a violation of the NPT. But, those seeking to push us toward war with Iran are purposely trying to connect the two – to confuse voluntary "confidence building" measures taken by Iran with the legally-binding Treaty itself.
Resolved clause four of this legislation is the most inflammatory and objectionable part of the legislation. It lowers the bar to initiating war on Iran. This clause anticipates that the US may not be successful in getting the Security Council to pass a Resolution because of the potential of a Russian or Chinese veto, so it "calls upon" Russia and China to "take action" in response to "any report" of "Iran's noncompliance. That is right: any report.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a drumbeat for war with Iran. Its logic is faulty, its premises are flawed, and its conclusions are dangerous. I urge my colleagues to stop for a moment and ponder the wisdom of starting yet another war in the Middle East.
Military Lawyer RhetIraq: Alberto Mora
Who: Alberto J. Mora, Former Navy General Counsel
Source: The Boston Globe
Quotes: From article titled, "Report: Pentagon warned on torture, abuse"
The Navy's former general counsel warned Pentagon officials two years before the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that circumventing international agreements on torture and detainees' treatment would invite abuse, according to a published report.
Legal theories granting the president the right to authorize abuse in spite of the Geneva Conventions were unlawful, dangerous and erroneous, Alberto J. Mora advised officials in a secret memo. The 22-page document was obtained by The New Yorker for a story in its Feb. 27 issue.
The memo from July 7, 2004, recounted Mora's 2 1/2-year effort to halt a policy that he feared would authorize cruelty toward suspected terrorists.
It also indicates that some lawyers in the Justice and Defense departments objected to the legal course the administration undertook, according to the report.
Mora said Navy intelligence officers reported in 2002 that military-intelligence interrogators at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were engaging in escalating levels of physical and psychological abuse rumored to have been authorized at a high level in Washington.
"I was appalled by the whole thing," Mora told the magazine. "It was clearly abusive and it was clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values."
Mora said he thought his concerns were being addressed by a special group set up by the Pentagon. But he discovered in January 2003 that a Justice Department opinion had negated his arguments with what he described as "an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the president's commander in chief authority."
When the first pictures from the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib appeared in the press in spring 2004, Mora said, he felt stunned and dismayed that what he had warned against had taken place, and in a different setting than Guantanamo.
Source: The Boston Globe
Quotes: From article titled, "Report: Pentagon warned on torture, abuse"
The Navy's former general counsel warned Pentagon officials two years before the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that circumventing international agreements on torture and detainees' treatment would invite abuse, according to a published report.
Legal theories granting the president the right to authorize abuse in spite of the Geneva Conventions were unlawful, dangerous and erroneous, Alberto J. Mora advised officials in a secret memo. The 22-page document was obtained by The New Yorker for a story in its Feb. 27 issue.
The memo from July 7, 2004, recounted Mora's 2 1/2-year effort to halt a policy that he feared would authorize cruelty toward suspected terrorists.
It also indicates that some lawyers in the Justice and Defense departments objected to the legal course the administration undertook, according to the report.
Mora said Navy intelligence officers reported in 2002 that military-intelligence interrogators at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were engaging in escalating levels of physical and psychological abuse rumored to have been authorized at a high level in Washington.
"I was appalled by the whole thing," Mora told the magazine. "It was clearly abusive and it was clearly contrary to everything we were ever taught about American values."
Mora said he thought his concerns were being addressed by a special group set up by the Pentagon. But he discovered in January 2003 that a Justice Department opinion had negated his arguments with what he described as "an extreme and virtually unlimited theory of the extent of the president's commander in chief authority."
When the first pictures from the Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib appeared in the press in spring 2004, Mora said, he felt stunned and dismayed that what he had warned against had taken place, and in a different setting than Guantanamo.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
UN RhetIraq: Report to Conclude "Close Gitmo"
Who: UN Commission on Human Rights
Source: The Independent UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Close Guantanamo now, UN tells White House"
A UN report is expected to call on the United States to close its Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba without delay and transfer the near-500 supposed "enemy combatants" held there to American soil to guarantee them access to fair trials.
A leaked draft of the document, written over 18 months by five independent experts in international law appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights, says the inmates at Guantanamo are being denied their rights to mental and physical health to a degree that sometimes amounts to torture.
The final version of the report will be released in Geneva tomorrow or Thursday, one of the authors, Manfred Nowak, confirmed. The delay is allow for formal responses by the US government to its many criticisms.
Source: The Independent UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Close Guantanamo now, UN tells White House"
A UN report is expected to call on the United States to close its Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba without delay and transfer the near-500 supposed "enemy combatants" held there to American soil to guarantee them access to fair trials.
A leaked draft of the document, written over 18 months by five independent experts in international law appointed by the UN Commission on Human Rights, says the inmates at Guantanamo are being denied their rights to mental and physical health to a degree that sometimes amounts to torture.
The final version of the report will be released in Geneva tomorrow or Thursday, one of the authors, Manfred Nowak, confirmed. The delay is allow for formal responses by the US government to its many criticisms.
Monday, February 13, 2006
News RhetIraq: CIA Official Fired - Opposes Rendition/Torture
Who: Robert Grenier, Head of CIA Counter-Terrorism Centre
Source: The Sunday Times
Quotes: From article titled, "CIA chief sacked for opposing torture"
The CIA’s top counter-terrorism official was fired last week because he opposed detaining Al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad, sending them to other countries for interrogation and using forms of torture such as “water boarding”, intelligence sources have claimed.
Robert Grenier, head of the CIA counter-terrorism centre, was relieved of his post after a year in the job. One intelligence official said he was “not quite as aggressive as he might have been” in pursuing Al-Qaeda leaders and networks.
Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counter-terrorism at the agency, said: “It is not that Grenier wasn’t aggressive enough, it is that he wasn’t ‘with the programme’. He expressed misgivings about the secret prisons in Europe and the rendition of terrorists.”
Grenier also opposed “excessive” interrogation, such as strapping suspects to boards and dunking them in water, according to Cannistraro.
Since the appointment of [Porter] Goss, the CIA has lost almost all its high-level directors amid considerable turmoil.
Goss is believed to have blamed Grenier for allowing leaks to occur on his watch.
Since the appointment of Goss, the CIA has lost almost all its high-level directors amid considerable turmoil.
AB “Buzzy” Krongard, a former executive director of the CIA who resigned shortly after Goss’s arrival, said the leaks were unlikely to stop soon, despite proposals to subject officers to more lie detector tests.
Krongard said it was up to President George Bush to stop the rot. “The agency has only one client: the president of the United States,” he said. “The reorganisation is the way this president wanted it. If he is unwilling to reform it, the agency will go on as it is.”
“History will judge how good an idea it was to destroy the teams and the programmes that were in place.”
Source: The Sunday Times
Quotes: From article titled, "CIA chief sacked for opposing torture"
The CIA’s top counter-terrorism official was fired last week because he opposed detaining Al-Qaeda suspects in secret prisons abroad, sending them to other countries for interrogation and using forms of torture such as “water boarding”, intelligence sources have claimed.
Robert Grenier, head of the CIA counter-terrorism centre, was relieved of his post after a year in the job. One intelligence official said he was “not quite as aggressive as he might have been” in pursuing Al-Qaeda leaders and networks.
Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counter-terrorism at the agency, said: “It is not that Grenier wasn’t aggressive enough, it is that he wasn’t ‘with the programme’. He expressed misgivings about the secret prisons in Europe and the rendition of terrorists.”
Grenier also opposed “excessive” interrogation, such as strapping suspects to boards and dunking them in water, according to Cannistraro.
Since the appointment of [Porter] Goss, the CIA has lost almost all its high-level directors amid considerable turmoil.
Goss is believed to have blamed Grenier for allowing leaks to occur on his watch.
Since the appointment of Goss, the CIA has lost almost all its high-level directors amid considerable turmoil.
AB “Buzzy” Krongard, a former executive director of the CIA who resigned shortly after Goss’s arrival, said the leaks were unlikely to stop soon, despite proposals to subject officers to more lie detector tests.
Krongard said it was up to President George Bush to stop the rot. “The agency has only one client: the president of the United States,” he said. “The reorganisation is the way this president wanted it. If he is unwilling to reform it, the agency will go on as it is.”
“History will judge how good an idea it was to destroy the teams and the programmes that were in place.”
News RhetIraq: Helmand Province, Afghanistan
Source: The Independent UK
Quotes: From article titled, "The province where the Taliban were never defeated"
The Taliban never really fell in Helmand province. While the outside world was celebrating the end of the Taliban regime after the fall of Kandahar in 2001, the Taliban were still in control of most of Helmand.
Over the past year, Helmand has emerged as one of the main centres of the Taliban insurgency. Although it is only now attracting the attention of the outside world, the Taliban insurgency has been raging in Helmand ever since the original victory of US-led forces in Afghanistan in 2001.
But over the past year the insurgency has rapidly grown in intensity, with the import of tactics from Iraq. There has been a spate of suicide bombings, beheadings, and attacks on soft targets, where previously the Taliban preferred to attack US and Afghan forces head on.
The story of why American forces have been unable to score a decisive blow against the Taliban in Helmand is a combination of the nature of the region, and the failure of the US-backed Hamid Karzai government to do more to reconstruct it. Most NGOs do not dare venture into the dangerous province.
Unlike Kunar province in the east, another major centre of the insurgency, Helmand does not have a rugged and unpoliceable mountainous border with Pakistan. Most of the border is flat and featureless desert. But it has always been noticeably porous.
Drug smugglers have always crossed freely, paying Afghan and Pakistani border guards to turn a blind eye. The same Pashtun tribes live on either side.
Helmand produces more raw opium than anywhere else in the world. There is no other economy. Before the Soviet invasion, Helmand was a wealthy agricultural area. But irrigation systems collapsed in the years of the jihad waged against the Soviets, and today opium poppies are the only viable crop.
Quotes: From article titled, "The province where the Taliban were never defeated"
The Taliban never really fell in Helmand province. While the outside world was celebrating the end of the Taliban regime after the fall of Kandahar in 2001, the Taliban were still in control of most of Helmand.
Over the past year, Helmand has emerged as one of the main centres of the Taliban insurgency. Although it is only now attracting the attention of the outside world, the Taliban insurgency has been raging in Helmand ever since the original victory of US-led forces in Afghanistan in 2001.
But over the past year the insurgency has rapidly grown in intensity, with the import of tactics from Iraq. There has been a spate of suicide bombings, beheadings, and attacks on soft targets, where previously the Taliban preferred to attack US and Afghan forces head on.
The story of why American forces have been unable to score a decisive blow against the Taliban in Helmand is a combination of the nature of the region, and the failure of the US-backed Hamid Karzai government to do more to reconstruct it. Most NGOs do not dare venture into the dangerous province.
Unlike Kunar province in the east, another major centre of the insurgency, Helmand does not have a rugged and unpoliceable mountainous border with Pakistan. Most of the border is flat and featureless desert. But it has always been noticeably porous.
Drug smugglers have always crossed freely, paying Afghan and Pakistani border guards to turn a blind eye. The same Pashtun tribes live on either side.
Helmand produces more raw opium than anywhere else in the world. There is no other economy. Before the Soviet invasion, Helmand was a wealthy agricultural area. But irrigation systems collapsed in the years of the jihad waged against the Soviets, and today opium poppies are the only viable crop.
News RhetIraq: Afghanistan vs. Iraq (5 Feb - 12 Feb)
Source: The Independent UK
Quotes: From a portion of article titled, "Into the valley of death: UK troops head into Afghan war zone"
... 89 killings in the last eight days in Afghanistan compared with 54 in Iraq during the same period.
Two invasions, two insurgencies
Sunday 5 February
Afghanistan: 38 people killed in Kandahar province as Afghan and US forces fight about 200 insurgents. Six Afghan policemen are later killed in a landmine attack. A Taliban commander is killed. Total dead: 45
In Iraq, six people were killed, including two US soldiers in a roadside bomb attack. Total dead: 6
Monday 6 February
Afghanistan: Four Afghans killed in protests against cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed. One US Marine and a suspected insurgent are killed in eastern Afghanistan. Total dead: 6
In Iraq, six people killed, including a US Marine in a bombing in Anbar. Total dead: 6
Tuesday 7 February
Afghanistan: Suicide bomber drives a motorbike packed with explosives into police headquarters in Kandahar, killing 13. Four protesters killed trying to storm a Nato base in north-western town of Maymana. Roadside bomb kills three. Total dead: 20
In Iraq, 12 people killed, including a Sunni community leader in Fallujah and four US Marines in two bombings in Anbar. Total dead: 12
Wednesday 8 February
Afghanistan: Three more killed protesting against the cartoons in southern town of Qalat. Total dead 3
Iraq: Five Iraqis killed in suicide car bomb attack on US-Iraqi checkpoint near the Syrian border. Total dead: 5
Thursday 9 February
Afghanistan: Hundreds clash during sectarian violence in the western city of Herat as Shia mark the festival of Ashura, leaving at least five dead and 51 wounded. Total dead: 5
In Iraq, a police colonel is killed in Ramadi. Total dead: 1
Friday, 10 February
Afghanistan: Eight Afghan soldiers killed in a roadside bomb attack in Kunar province on the border with Pakistan. Taliban rebels purportedly urge Muslims in the east to rally against the government and coalition forces over the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohamed. Total dead: 8
In Iraq, at least nine people are killed in a car bomb attack on a mosque in Baghdad. Two US soldiers are killed in a roadside bombing. Two police officers are killed. Total dead: 13
Saturday 11 February
Afghanistan: Cross-border firing from the eastern Khost province hits the tent of a nomad family in Pakistan, killing two women and injuring at least four children, according to Pakistani officials, who said the four rockets and shells were apparently fired by US forces fighting militants. Two Nepalis working for a foreign security company kidnapped in the capital Kabul. Total dead: 2
In Iraq, six militants killed by US helicopter fire. Iraqi officer assassinated and another killed by bomb. Civilian killed in Balad. Total dead: 9
Sunday 12 February
Afghanistan: A 150-strong team of Royal Marines commandos make final preparations for their deployment to Afghanistan today. They are the first combat troops to be deployed after Britain pledged more than 3,000 troops as part of a Nato expansion in the country.
In Iraq, a doctor is shot dead in attack on a hospital in Hawija. Two civilians are killed in a roadside bomb attack in Baghdad. Total dead: 3
Quotes: From a portion of article titled, "Into the valley of death: UK troops head into Afghan war zone"
... 89 killings in the last eight days in Afghanistan compared with 54 in Iraq during the same period.
Two invasions, two insurgencies
Sunday 5 February
Afghanistan: 38 people killed in Kandahar province as Afghan and US forces fight about 200 insurgents. Six Afghan policemen are later killed in a landmine attack. A Taliban commander is killed. Total dead: 45
In Iraq, six people were killed, including two US soldiers in a roadside bomb attack. Total dead: 6
Monday 6 February
Afghanistan: Four Afghans killed in protests against cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed. One US Marine and a suspected insurgent are killed in eastern Afghanistan. Total dead: 6
In Iraq, six people killed, including a US Marine in a bombing in Anbar. Total dead: 6
Tuesday 7 February
Afghanistan: Suicide bomber drives a motorbike packed with explosives into police headquarters in Kandahar, killing 13. Four protesters killed trying to storm a Nato base in north-western town of Maymana. Roadside bomb kills three. Total dead: 20
In Iraq, 12 people killed, including a Sunni community leader in Fallujah and four US Marines in two bombings in Anbar. Total dead: 12
Wednesday 8 February
Afghanistan: Three more killed protesting against the cartoons in southern town of Qalat. Total dead 3
Iraq: Five Iraqis killed in suicide car bomb attack on US-Iraqi checkpoint near the Syrian border. Total dead: 5
Thursday 9 February
Afghanistan: Hundreds clash during sectarian violence in the western city of Herat as Shia mark the festival of Ashura, leaving at least five dead and 51 wounded. Total dead: 5
In Iraq, a police colonel is killed in Ramadi. Total dead: 1
Friday, 10 February
Afghanistan: Eight Afghan soldiers killed in a roadside bomb attack in Kunar province on the border with Pakistan. Taliban rebels purportedly urge Muslims in the east to rally against the government and coalition forces over the cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohamed. Total dead: 8
In Iraq, at least nine people are killed in a car bomb attack on a mosque in Baghdad. Two US soldiers are killed in a roadside bombing. Two police officers are killed. Total dead: 13
Saturday 11 February
Afghanistan: Cross-border firing from the eastern Khost province hits the tent of a nomad family in Pakistan, killing two women and injuring at least four children, according to Pakistani officials, who said the four rockets and shells were apparently fired by US forces fighting militants. Two Nepalis working for a foreign security company kidnapped in the capital Kabul. Total dead: 2
In Iraq, six militants killed by US helicopter fire. Iraqi officer assassinated and another killed by bomb. Civilian killed in Balad. Total dead: 9
Sunday 12 February
Afghanistan: A 150-strong team of Royal Marines commandos make final preparations for their deployment to Afghanistan today. They are the first combat troops to be deployed after Britain pledged more than 3,000 troops as part of a Nato expansion in the country.
In Iraq, a doctor is shot dead in attack on a hospital in Hawija. Two civilians are killed in a roadside bomb attack in Baghdad. Total dead: 3
News RhetIraq: Afghanistan and British Troop Levels
Source: The Independent UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Into the valley of death: UK troops head into Afghan war zone"
Suicide bombings and firefights, Western troops under attack, sectarian clashes between Shia and Sunni, foreigners taken hostage. Days of escalating violence have left dozens of people dead and more than a hundred injured. This is not Iraq but Afghanistan, a conflict which has now overtaken on the grim league table of body counts - 89 killings in the last eight days in Afghanistan compared with 54 in Iraq during the same period.
... the first batch of 5,700 British troops being sent to Afghanistan - will begin deploying this week in a mission lasting at least three years at a cost of £1bn.
... last week John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, appeared to pave the way for a "significant" withdrawal from Iraq even if the country continued to face serious problems.
Senior commanders are deeply concerned about fighting a "war on two fronts". General Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the Army, has written to Lieutenant General David Richards, the British commander who will lead Nato forces in Afghanistan, asking if he has enough troops to cope with the spiralling turmoil. Lt Gen Richards is believed to have asked for another infantry battle group, about a thousand men, but this is not feasible with the continuing commitment in Iraq.
Lord Guthrie, the former chief of defence staff, said: "The British Army is already dangerously overstretched and maintaining a force even of this size over the years will be difficult."
There are now lethal similarities in the methods used by the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nato commanders acknowledge that terrorist techniques are being imported from Iraq to Afghanistan and Islamist fighters are entering the country in ever-increasing numbers from Pakistan.
The place where this is most evident is the province of Helmand, where most of the British forces will be deployed, and where a resurgent Taliban and their al-Qa'ida allies have killed almost 100 US and Afghan troops in the past few months - the total number lost by British troops in the Iraq war.
Ministers have said that one of the main roles of the British troops would be to help eradicate Afghanistan's massive opium crop. But the task force would be deployed under a Nato mandate which does not allow eradication.
Thirteen people were killed on Tuesday by a suicide bomber in Kandahar, a common weapon in Iraq, but relatively unknown until quite recently in Afghanistan. The Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah said: "More and more people are joining us to be suicide bombers. The suicide bombers will continue against coalition forces and their agents. This is part of our military strategy."
Quotes: From article titled, "Into the valley of death: UK troops head into Afghan war zone"
Suicide bombings and firefights, Western troops under attack, sectarian clashes between Shia and Sunni, foreigners taken hostage. Days of escalating violence have left dozens of people dead and more than a hundred injured. This is not Iraq but Afghanistan, a conflict which has now overtaken on the grim league table of body counts - 89 killings in the last eight days in Afghanistan compared with 54 in Iraq during the same period.
... the first batch of 5,700 British troops being sent to Afghanistan - will begin deploying this week in a mission lasting at least three years at a cost of £1bn.
... last week John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, appeared to pave the way for a "significant" withdrawal from Iraq even if the country continued to face serious problems.
Senior commanders are deeply concerned about fighting a "war on two fronts". General Sir Mike Jackson, the chief of the Army, has written to Lieutenant General David Richards, the British commander who will lead Nato forces in Afghanistan, asking if he has enough troops to cope with the spiralling turmoil. Lt Gen Richards is believed to have asked for another infantry battle group, about a thousand men, but this is not feasible with the continuing commitment in Iraq.
Lord Guthrie, the former chief of defence staff, said: "The British Army is already dangerously overstretched and maintaining a force even of this size over the years will be difficult."
There are now lethal similarities in the methods used by the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nato commanders acknowledge that terrorist techniques are being imported from Iraq to Afghanistan and Islamist fighters are entering the country in ever-increasing numbers from Pakistan.
The place where this is most evident is the province of Helmand, where most of the British forces will be deployed, and where a resurgent Taliban and their al-Qa'ida allies have killed almost 100 US and Afghan troops in the past few months - the total number lost by British troops in the Iraq war.
Ministers have said that one of the main roles of the British troops would be to help eradicate Afghanistan's massive opium crop. But the task force would be deployed under a Nato mandate which does not allow eradication.
Thirteen people were killed on Tuesday by a suicide bomber in Kandahar, a common weapon in Iraq, but relatively unknown until quite recently in Afghanistan. The Taliban commander Mullah Dadullah said: "More and more people are joining us to be suicide bombers. The suicide bombers will continue against coalition forces and their agents. This is part of our military strategy."
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Journalist RhetIraq: Christopher Allbritton
Who: Christopher Allbritton, Journalist for Time Magazine (among others)
Source: Back to Iraq 3.0
Quotes: From blog entry dated January 31, 2006;
I’m back in Iraq’s capital after two and a half months away, and in that time I faced upheavals in my personal life, and three weeks in Beirut. The two are more or less unrelated. But Baghdad is almost exactly the same as when I left, despite the fact that there’s been a monumental election here — the full import of which has yet to be felt.
Well, it’s not exactly the same. I’ve been back a day and I’ve already received an earful on the high price of petrol: 250 dinars for a liter as opposed to 20 dinars it was in the summer of 2003 and the 30 dinar or so it was when I left in mid-November. Fuel subsidies are being lifted and people are feeling the squeeze.
If only there were fuel for the city’s power stations. Electricity is down to about two hours a day in Baghdad, doled out in fits and spurts of 15 mins or so at a time. Sometimes, gloriously, we get a solid hour, but it’s rare. Generators pick up the slack, and since you have rising fuel costs, you start to see the double squeeze that poor Iraqis are feeling.
Add on to that incessant guerilla attacks on the country’s oil infrastructure that has left exports below pre-war levels and there’s no money coming into the government. Insurgents have hit upon pipeline sabotage as a means to cut off Baghdad’s funding, so no matter what the composition of the government — when it’s finally done — it won’t be able to do much. So the new government, which is still being negotiated, will probably be viewed with the same resentment as the current Jaafari government does, except we’ll be stuck with these guys for four years now.
The mood here among reporters, I think, is grim. Jill Carroll’s kidnapping is still unresolved, despite hopeful rumors of her release soon. Those, so far, have gone unrealized.
Yes, Baghdad is the same as always. As the tagline to “Jarhead” goes, “Welcome to the Suck.”
Source: Back to Iraq 3.0
Quotes: From blog entry dated January 31, 2006;
I’m back in Iraq’s capital after two and a half months away, and in that time I faced upheavals in my personal life, and three weeks in Beirut. The two are more or less unrelated. But Baghdad is almost exactly the same as when I left, despite the fact that there’s been a monumental election here — the full import of which has yet to be felt.
Well, it’s not exactly the same. I’ve been back a day and I’ve already received an earful on the high price of petrol: 250 dinars for a liter as opposed to 20 dinars it was in the summer of 2003 and the 30 dinar or so it was when I left in mid-November. Fuel subsidies are being lifted and people are feeling the squeeze.
If only there were fuel for the city’s power stations. Electricity is down to about two hours a day in Baghdad, doled out in fits and spurts of 15 mins or so at a time. Sometimes, gloriously, we get a solid hour, but it’s rare. Generators pick up the slack, and since you have rising fuel costs, you start to see the double squeeze that poor Iraqis are feeling.
Add on to that incessant guerilla attacks on the country’s oil infrastructure that has left exports below pre-war levels and there’s no money coming into the government. Insurgents have hit upon pipeline sabotage as a means to cut off Baghdad’s funding, so no matter what the composition of the government — when it’s finally done — it won’t be able to do much. So the new government, which is still being negotiated, will probably be viewed with the same resentment as the current Jaafari government does, except we’ll be stuck with these guys for four years now.
The mood here among reporters, I think, is grim. Jill Carroll’s kidnapping is still unresolved, despite hopeful rumors of her release soon. Those, so far, have gone unrealized.
Yes, Baghdad is the same as always. As the tagline to “Jarhead” goes, “Welcome to the Suck.”
News RhetIraq: Iraqi Quality of Life
Source: Azzaman
Quotes: From article titled, "More belt-tightening in store for Iraqis"
Iraqis will have to do without their almost free food rations and stand yet another spiral of hikes in fuel prices.
This exactly what any new government must to do to meet conditions the World Bank and international creditors and donors have set for the country.
The outgoing government is reported to have agreed to these conditions, which among other things, require that Iraq to enter into long-term partnership deals with foreign firms to develop the country’s massive oil wealth.
Fuel prices will have to be raised to levels comparable to those in neighboring countries, according to the deal.
The sources said millions of Iraqis dependent on food rations for a living need now to prepare themselves to do without government-subsidized food.
Any further hikes in fuel rates are bound to backfire on the new government and are very likely to lead to large-scale rioting.
But the scrapping of food rations will have far graver consequences as millions of Iraqis will find it almost impossible to make ends meet without them.
Quotes: From article titled, "More belt-tightening in store for Iraqis"
Iraqis will have to do without their almost free food rations and stand yet another spiral of hikes in fuel prices.
This exactly what any new government must to do to meet conditions the World Bank and international creditors and donors have set for the country.
The outgoing government is reported to have agreed to these conditions, which among other things, require that Iraq to enter into long-term partnership deals with foreign firms to develop the country’s massive oil wealth.
Fuel prices will have to be raised to levels comparable to those in neighboring countries, according to the deal.
The sources said millions of Iraqis dependent on food rations for a living need now to prepare themselves to do without government-subsidized food.
Any further hikes in fuel rates are bound to backfire on the new government and are very likely to lead to large-scale rioting.
But the scrapping of food rations will have far graver consequences as millions of Iraqis will find it almost impossible to make ends meet without them.
Pundit RhetIraq: Schnabel and Carment on Post-Conflicts
Who: Albrecht Schnabel (Senior Fellow, Research Programme on Human Security) and David Carment (Director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Canada's Carleton University)
Source: Inter Press Service
Quotes: From article titled, "Bungled Peace-Building Opens Door to Terrorism"
Washington's attempts to bring security to Iraq and Afghanistan are not only making life harder for local people, they are breeding more terrorists, warn international security experts.
Under its anti-terrorism agenda, the U.S. has centralised power and security in post-conflict Iraq and Afghanistan, which ironically creates perfect conditions for terrorists and criminals.
"There is a great fear that unstable states and post-war societies provide an ideal breeding ground for terrorist training and activity," said Albrecht Schnabel, a senior fellow with the Research Programme on Human Security in Bern, Switzerland.
"Yet almost three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is characterised by chaos, violence and disintegration. The methods used to rebuild Iraq's security sector are simply making matters worse," he told IPS.
The United States is avoiding widely recognised peace-building processes that involve external military powers quickly creating a basic security environment and then allowing domestic peace- and nation-building efforts to succeed.
"The overall objective of external military forces in post-conflict societies is to eliminate violence in the society," said David Carment, director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Canada's Carleton University. "The U.S. focus in Afghanistan is to eliminate terrorists and their bases."
That different focus can compromise efforts by international participants to bring peace, he said.
The recent U.S. tactic of rearming some warlords in parts of Afghanistan and using them to fight the Taliban has angered rival warlords who had turned in their weapons under a U.N.-sponsored disarmament programme in 2003 and 2004.
"You can't build a nation by supporting warlords," said Schnabel.
Carment calls recent U.S.-led efforts to target Afghanistan's opium trade "simplistic" and predicted that violence in the region will escalate and hurt local people. "It will take a minimum of five to 10 years before there will be any signs of stability across Afghanistan," he said.
Source: Inter Press Service
Quotes: From article titled, "Bungled Peace-Building Opens Door to Terrorism"
Washington's attempts to bring security to Iraq and Afghanistan are not only making life harder for local people, they are breeding more terrorists, warn international security experts.
Under its anti-terrorism agenda, the U.S. has centralised power and security in post-conflict Iraq and Afghanistan, which ironically creates perfect conditions for terrorists and criminals.
"There is a great fear that unstable states and post-war societies provide an ideal breeding ground for terrorist training and activity," said Albrecht Schnabel, a senior fellow with the Research Programme on Human Security in Bern, Switzerland.
"Yet almost three years after the toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iraq is characterised by chaos, violence and disintegration. The methods used to rebuild Iraq's security sector are simply making matters worse," he told IPS.
The United States is avoiding widely recognised peace-building processes that involve external military powers quickly creating a basic security environment and then allowing domestic peace- and nation-building efforts to succeed.
"The overall objective of external military forces in post-conflict societies is to eliminate violence in the society," said David Carment, director of the Centre for Security and Defence Studies at Canada's Carleton University. "The U.S. focus in Afghanistan is to eliminate terrorists and their bases."
That different focus can compromise efforts by international participants to bring peace, he said.
The recent U.S. tactic of rearming some warlords in parts of Afghanistan and using them to fight the Taliban has angered rival warlords who had turned in their weapons under a U.N.-sponsored disarmament programme in 2003 and 2004.
"You can't build a nation by supporting warlords," said Schnabel.
Carment calls recent U.S.-led efforts to target Afghanistan's opium trade "simplistic" and predicted that violence in the region will escalate and hurt local people. "It will take a minimum of five to 10 years before there will be any signs of stability across Afghanistan," he said.
News RhetIraq: Norquist and Diamond on "Illegal Wiretapping"
Who: Grover Norquist (Conservative Activist) and Larry Diamond (Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution)
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Quotes: From article titled, "Political opposites aligned against Bush wiretaps"
Despite coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, they agree on one other major issue: that the Bush administration's program of domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency without obtaining court warrants has less to do with the war on terror than with threats to the nation's civil liberties.
"My view on the terrorists is that we should find all of them and kill them," said Norquist. "But we should also protect our civil liberties, which the terrorists are trying to destroy."
Diamond, whose academic specialty is the building of democracies, has taken his opposition one step further, joining a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union last week to halt the president's program.
"I teach about democracy and the rule of law, the quality of a democracy," he said. "I meet so many people around the world who want to look up to the American model, and a spying program like this really harms us."
"I give Bush credit for his vigilance since 9/11," said Diamond. "I'm very much in sympathy with the need to monitor al Qaeda and terrorists, to uproot them, interdict them, catch them and when necessary to kill them. But we can't roll over on something like this."
Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says he knows some fellow conservatives have labeled him a traitor for condemning the same administration that instituted the biggest tax cuts in recent American history -- cuts for which Norquist vigorously lobbied. But an even greater disloyalty, Norquist responds, would be to allow what he regards as the trampling on civil liberties to go unimpeded.
"The president's friends are exactly who you want telling him this," said Norquist. "No one else has the credibility. We are being team players by telling him, not by keeping quiet."
Norquist said one of his main concerns is that, once the government becomes so intrusive, there is no way to prevent continued erosion of individual rights.
"Even if you believed an angel was making these decisions, and that's not what I'm saying, at some point the person in the White House will change," he said. "Hillary Clinton might be making these decisions."
Referring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: "It's not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don't break the existing laws."
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
Quotes: From article titled, "Political opposites aligned against Bush wiretaps"
Despite coming from opposite ends of the political spectrum, they agree on one other major issue: that the Bush administration's program of domestic eavesdropping by the National Security Agency without obtaining court warrants has less to do with the war on terror than with threats to the nation's civil liberties.
"My view on the terrorists is that we should find all of them and kill them," said Norquist. "But we should also protect our civil liberties, which the terrorists are trying to destroy."
Diamond, whose academic specialty is the building of democracies, has taken his opposition one step further, joining a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union last week to halt the president's program.
"I teach about democracy and the rule of law, the quality of a democracy," he said. "I meet so many people around the world who want to look up to the American model, and a spying program like this really harms us."
"I give Bush credit for his vigilance since 9/11," said Diamond. "I'm very much in sympathy with the need to monitor al Qaeda and terrorists, to uproot them, interdict them, catch them and when necessary to kill them. But we can't roll over on something like this."
Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says he knows some fellow conservatives have labeled him a traitor for condemning the same administration that instituted the biggest tax cuts in recent American history -- cuts for which Norquist vigorously lobbied. But an even greater disloyalty, Norquist responds, would be to allow what he regards as the trampling on civil liberties to go unimpeded.
"The president's friends are exactly who you want telling him this," said Norquist. "No one else has the credibility. We are being team players by telling him, not by keeping quiet."
Norquist said one of his main concerns is that, once the government becomes so intrusive, there is no way to prevent continued erosion of individual rights.
"Even if you believed an angel was making these decisions, and that's not what I'm saying, at some point the person in the White House will change," he said. "Hillary Clinton might be making these decisions."
Referring to what some see as a conflict between fighting vicious terrorists and upholding all civil liberties, Norquist said: "It's not either/or. If the president thinks he needs different tools, pass a law to get them. Don't break the existing laws."
Report RhetIraq: Iraq Reconstruction
Who: Government Witnesses before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Source: NY Times via Information Clearing House
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq's basic services are worse now than before war began"
Virtually every measure of the performance of Iraq's oil, electricity, water and sewerage sectors has fallen below pre-invasion values, even though $16 billion of U.S. taxpayer money has already been disbursed in the Iraq reconstruction program, several government witnesses have told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Of seven different measures of infrastructure performance presented Wednesday at the committee hearing by the inspector general's office, only one was above pre-invasion values. Those that had slumped below those values were electrical generation capacity, hours of power available in a day in Baghdad, oil and heating oil production and the numbers of Iraqis with drinkable water and sewage service.
In addition, two of the witnesses said they believed that an earlier estimate by the World Bank that $56 billion would be needed for rebuilding over the next several years was too low.
At the same time, as Iraq's oil exports are plummeting and the country remains saddled with tens of billions of dollars of debt, it is unclear where that money will come from, said one of the witnesses, Joseph Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the Government Accountability Office.
And those may not be the most serious problems facing the physical infrastructure, said Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an independent office. In one sense, focusing on the plummeting performance numbers "misses the point," Bowen said. The real question, he said, is whether the Iraqi security forces will ever be able to protect the infrastructure from insurgent attack.
"What's happened is that an incessant, an insidious insurgency has repeatedly attacked the key infrastructure targets, reducing outputs," Bowen said. He added that some of the performance numbers had fluctuated above prewar values in the past, only to fall again under the pressure of insurgent attacks and other factors.
The chairman of the foreign relations committee, Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, began by billing the session as a way of deciphering how much of America's original ambitions in the rebuilding program were likely to be fulfilled with the amount of money that Iraq, the U.S. Congress and international donors were still prepared to spend.
Source: NY Times via Information Clearing House
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq's basic services are worse now than before war began"
Virtually every measure of the performance of Iraq's oil, electricity, water and sewerage sectors has fallen below pre-invasion values, even though $16 billion of U.S. taxpayer money has already been disbursed in the Iraq reconstruction program, several government witnesses have told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Of seven different measures of infrastructure performance presented Wednesday at the committee hearing by the inspector general's office, only one was above pre-invasion values. Those that had slumped below those values were electrical generation capacity, hours of power available in a day in Baghdad, oil and heating oil production and the numbers of Iraqis with drinkable water and sewage service.
In addition, two of the witnesses said they believed that an earlier estimate by the World Bank that $56 billion would be needed for rebuilding over the next several years was too low.
At the same time, as Iraq's oil exports are plummeting and the country remains saddled with tens of billions of dollars of debt, it is unclear where that money will come from, said one of the witnesses, Joseph Christoff, director of international affairs and trade at the Government Accountability Office.
And those may not be the most serious problems facing the physical infrastructure, said Stuart Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, an independent office. In one sense, focusing on the plummeting performance numbers "misses the point," Bowen said. The real question, he said, is whether the Iraqi security forces will ever be able to protect the infrastructure from insurgent attack.
"What's happened is that an incessant, an insidious insurgency has repeatedly attacked the key infrastructure targets, reducing outputs," Bowen said. He added that some of the performance numbers had fluctuated above prewar values in the past, only to fall again under the pressure of insurgent attacks and other factors.
The chairman of the foreign relations committee, Senator Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican, began by billing the session as a way of deciphering how much of America's original ambitions in the rebuilding program were likely to be fulfilled with the amount of money that Iraq, the U.S. Congress and international donors were still prepared to spend.
Pundit RhetIraq: Scott Ritter on Invading Iran
Who: Scott Ritter, former UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq
Source: Santa Fe New Mexican
Quotes: From article titled, "Ex-U .N. inspector: Iran’s next"
The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.
“We just don’t know when, but it’s going to happen,” Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.
Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.
He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, “will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves.”
“How do I know this? I’ve talked to Bolton’s speechwriter,” Ritter said.
Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don’t overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Source: Santa Fe New Mexican
Quotes: From article titled, "Ex-U .N. inspector: Iran’s next"
The former U.N. weapons inspector who said Iraq disarmed long before the U.S. invasion in 2003 is warning Americans to prepare for a war with Iran.
“We just don’t know when, but it’s going to happen,” Scott Ritter said to a crowd of about 150 at the James A. Little Theater on Sunday night.
Ritter described how the U.S. government might justify war with Iran in a scenario similar to the buildup to the Iraq invasion. He also argued that Iran wants a nuclear energy program, and not nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration, he said, refuses to believe Iran is telling the truth.
He predicted the matter will wind up before the U.N. Security Council, which will determine there is no evidence of a weapons program. Then, he said, John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, “will deliver a speech that has already been written. It says America cannot allow Iran to threaten the United States and we must unilaterally defend ourselves.”
“How do I know this? I’ve talked to Bolton’s speechwriter,” Ritter said.
Ritter also predicted the military strategy for war with Iran. First, American forces will bomb Iran. If Iranians don’t overthrow the current government, as Bush hopes they will, Iran will probably attack Israel. Then, Ritter said, the United States will drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
News RhetIraq: Iraq-Niger Connection
Source: National Journal
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq, Niger, And The CIA"
[Below are excerpts. This entire article provides a very good timeline of this entire episode.]
Vice President Cheney and his then-Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were personally informed in June 2003 that the CIA no longer considered credible the allegations that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger, according to government records and interviews with current and former officials. The new CIA assessment came just as Libby and other senior administration officials were embarking on an effort to discredit an administration critic who had also been saying that the allegations were untrue.
CIA analysts wrote then-CIA Director George Tenet in a highly classified memo on June 17, 2003, "We no longer believe there is sufficient" credible information to "conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." The memo was titled: "In Response to Your Questions for Our Current Assessment and Additional Details on Iraq's Alleged Pursuits of Uranium From Abroad."
"On or about June 12, 2003," the indictment stated, "Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."
In the memo, the CIA analysts wrote: "Since learning that the Iraqi-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq purchased uranium from abroad."
The memo also related that there had been other, earlier claims that Saddam's regime had attempted to purchase uranium from private interests in Somalia and Benin; these claims predated the Niger allegations. It was that past intelligence that had led CIA analysts, in part, to consider the Niger claims as plausible.
But the memo said that after a thorough review of those earlier reports, the CIA had concluded that they were no longer credible. Indeed, the previous intelligence reports citing those claims had long since been "recalled" -- meaning that the CIA had formally repudiated them.
The memo's findings were considered so significant that they were not only quickly shared with Cheney and Libby but also with Congress, albeit on a classified basis, according to government records and interviews.
On June 18, 2003, the day after the new Niger assessment was sent to Tenet, Robert D. Walpole, the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, briefed members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the findings. And on the following day, June 19, 2003, Walpole briefed members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence as well.
Six days after the memo was sent to Tenet, on June 23, 2003, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and -- as part of an effort to discredit Wilson -- passed along to her what prosecutors have said was classified information that Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA, according to allegations contained in Libby's indictment.
On July 8, 2003, Libby and Miller met again. During a two-hour breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, according to testimony Miller gave to the federal grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Libby first told her that Plame worked for the CIA's Weapons, Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Office.
Around the same time, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and at least one other senior Bush administration official leaked information to a number of journalists about Plame's CIA employment and her role in recommending her husband for the Niger mission.
Columnist Robert Novak, on July 14, 2003, published his now-famous column identifying Plame as a CIA "operative" and alleging that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger.
That Cheney was one of the first people to tell Libby about Plame, and that Libby had written in his notes that Cheney had heard the information from the CIA director, Gillers said, might make it more difficult for Libby to mount a credible defense of a faulty memory. "From a prosecutor's point of view, and perhaps a jury's as well, the conversation [during which Libby learned about Plame] is the more dramatic and the more memorable because the conversation was with the vice president" and because the CIA director's name also came up, Gillers [Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University] said.
The disclosure that Cheney and Libby were told of a CIA assessment that the agency considered the Niger allegations to be untrue, and that Tenet requested the assessment as a result of the personal interest of Cheney and Libby, would "demonstrate even further that Niger was a central issue for Libby," said Gillers, and would "make it even harder, although not impossible, to claim a faulty memory."
Quotes: From article titled, "Iraq, Niger, And The CIA"
[Below are excerpts. This entire article provides a very good timeline of this entire episode.]
Vice President Cheney and his then-Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby were personally informed in June 2003 that the CIA no longer considered credible the allegations that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium from the African nation of Niger, according to government records and interviews with current and former officials. The new CIA assessment came just as Libby and other senior administration officials were embarking on an effort to discredit an administration critic who had also been saying that the allegations were untrue.
CIA analysts wrote then-CIA Director George Tenet in a highly classified memo on June 17, 2003, "We no longer believe there is sufficient" credible information to "conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." The memo was titled: "In Response to Your Questions for Our Current Assessment and Additional Details on Iraq's Alleged Pursuits of Uranium From Abroad."
"On or about June 12, 2003," the indictment stated, "Libby was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Division. Libby understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA."
In the memo, the CIA analysts wrote: "Since learning that the Iraqi-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq purchased uranium from abroad."
The memo also related that there had been other, earlier claims that Saddam's regime had attempted to purchase uranium from private interests in Somalia and Benin; these claims predated the Niger allegations. It was that past intelligence that had led CIA analysts, in part, to consider the Niger claims as plausible.
But the memo said that after a thorough review of those earlier reports, the CIA had concluded that they were no longer credible. Indeed, the previous intelligence reports citing those claims had long since been "recalled" -- meaning that the CIA had formally repudiated them.
The memo's findings were considered so significant that they were not only quickly shared with Cheney and Libby but also with Congress, albeit on a classified basis, according to government records and interviews.
On June 18, 2003, the day after the new Niger assessment was sent to Tenet, Robert D. Walpole, the national intelligence officer for strategic and nuclear programs, briefed members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence regarding the findings. And on the following day, June 19, 2003, Walpole briefed members of the House Select Committee on Intelligence as well.
Six days after the memo was sent to Tenet, on June 23, 2003, Libby met with then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller and -- as part of an effort to discredit Wilson -- passed along to her what prosecutors have said was classified information that Wilson's wife, Plame, worked for the CIA, according to allegations contained in Libby's indictment.
On July 8, 2003, Libby and Miller met again. During a two-hour breakfast at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington, according to testimony Miller gave to the federal grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Libby first told her that Plame worked for the CIA's Weapons, Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Office.
Around the same time, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove and at least one other senior Bush administration official leaked information to a number of journalists about Plame's CIA employment and her role in recommending her husband for the Niger mission.
Columnist Robert Novak, on July 14, 2003, published his now-famous column identifying Plame as a CIA "operative" and alleging that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger.
That Cheney was one of the first people to tell Libby about Plame, and that Libby had written in his notes that Cheney had heard the information from the CIA director, Gillers said, might make it more difficult for Libby to mount a credible defense of a faulty memory. "From a prosecutor's point of view, and perhaps a jury's as well, the conversation [during which Libby learned about Plame] is the more dramatic and the more memorable because the conversation was with the vice president" and because the CIA director's name also came up, Gillers [Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University] said.
The disclosure that Cheney and Libby were told of a CIA assessment that the agency considered the Niger allegations to be untrue, and that Tenet requested the assessment as a result of the personal interest of Cheney and Libby, would "demonstrate even further that Niger was a central issue for Libby," said Gillers, and would "make it even harder, although not impossible, to claim a faulty memory."
News RhetIraq: Bush Admin Use of Pre-war Intelligence
Who: Paul Pillar, CIA Senior Analyst of Middle Eastern Affairs 2000-2005
Source: The Guardian UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Bush ignored CIA advice on Iraq, says former spy"
The CIA official in charge of intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of ignoring assessments that sanctions and weapons inspections were the best way to deal with Saddam Hussein, and that an invasion would have a "messy aftermath".
In an article in the next edition of the bimonthly journal, Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar, has become the highest-ranking CIA official from the prewar period to accuse the White House of manipulating the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
The allegations contradict the findings of two official inquiries into the intelligence debacle, which have largely blamed the CIA and absolved the administration. They also emerged on the day it was reported that Lewis Libby, a former aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney, had told a grand jury that he had been "ordered" by "his superiors" to leak classified WMD information to the press to bolster the case for going to war.
"It went to war without requesting - and evidently without being influenced by - any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq." The "broadly held" intelligence assessment, he said, was that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections programme to supplement the sanctions already in place.
"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war - or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."
Mr Pillar said a CIA assessment of the implications of a US-led occupation had "presented a picture of a political culture that would not provide fertile ground for democracy and foretold a long, difficult, and turbulent transition", including guerrilla attacks and sectarian conflict.
Source: The Guardian UK
Quotes: From article titled, "Bush ignored CIA advice on Iraq, says former spy"
The CIA official in charge of intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of ignoring assessments that sanctions and weapons inspections were the best way to deal with Saddam Hussein, and that an invasion would have a "messy aftermath".
In an article in the next edition of the bimonthly journal, Foreign Affairs, Paul Pillar, has become the highest-ranking CIA official from the prewar period to accuse the White House of manipulating the intelligence on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
The allegations contradict the findings of two official inquiries into the intelligence debacle, which have largely blamed the CIA and absolved the administration. They also emerged on the day it was reported that Lewis Libby, a former aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney, had told a grand jury that he had been "ordered" by "his superiors" to leak classified WMD information to the press to bolster the case for going to war.
"It went to war without requesting - and evidently without being influenced by - any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq." The "broadly held" intelligence assessment, he said, was that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections programme to supplement the sanctions already in place.
"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war - or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath."
Mr Pillar said a CIA assessment of the implications of a US-led occupation had "presented a picture of a political culture that would not provide fertile ground for democracy and foretold a long, difficult, and turbulent transition", including guerrilla attacks and sectarian conflict.
Poll RhetIraq: Iraqi Public Opinion
Who: Iraqi Public
Source: Program on International Policy Attitudes via WorldPublicOpinion.org
Quotes: From poll published January 31, 2006 titled, "What the Iraqi Public Wants"
[Note: Unless otherwise noted, all percentages are for overall results. The poll also provides a breakdown of Shia, Kurds and Sunni. Where a particular group is an outlayer to the Overall total, they have been included below.]
Do you think the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq or to remove all its military once Iraq is stabilized?
80% - Plans Permanent Bases
18% - Plans to remove forces once Iraq stabilized
If the new Iraqi government were to tell the US to withdraw all of its forces within six months, do you think the US would or would not do so?
23% - Would withdraw
76% - Would not withdraw
Which of the following would you like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do after they take office?
35% - Withdraw within 6 months
35% - Gradually over 2 years
29% - Only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq
The 35% of respondents who took the position in favor of the near-term exit of US forces from Iraq (six months) were asked: “Which of the following reasons for withdrawing US-led forces is the most important to you?” and given four options.
20% - It is offensive to me to have foreign forces in my country.
11% - The presence of US forces attracts more violent attacks and makes things worse
2% - Iraq can take care of itself
2% - I do not like the way US forces have treated Iraqi civilians
Was a good idea for Iraqi leaders to have agreed at the Arab League conference that there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq?
87% - Yes
Do you approve or disapprove (strongly or somewhat) of attacks on US-led forces in Iraq?
47% - Overall approve
16% - of Kurds approve
41% - of Shia approve
88% - of Sunnit approve
Do you approve or disapprove (strongly or somewhat) of others in Iraq?
7% - Approve attacks on Iraqi government security forces
1% - Approve attacks on Iraqi civilians
Respondents were asked what would happen in a variety of areas if US-led forces were to withdraw from Iraq in the next six months.
67% - day to day security for ordinary Iraqis would increase
30% - day to day security for ordinary Iraqis would decrease
35% - Violent attacks would increase
64% - Violent attacks would decrease
33% - Inter-ethnic violence would increase
61% - Inter-ethnic violence would decrease
31% - Presence of foreign fighters would increase
56% - Presence of foreign fighters would decrease
What would be the performance of the Iraqi state if the US withdraws within the next 6 months?
73% - Willingness of factions in parliament to cooperate would increase
22% - Willingness of factions in parliament to cooperate would decrease
67% - Availability of public services; electricity, schools would increase
25% - Availability of public services; electricity, schools would decrease
34% - Amount of crime would increase
64% - Amount of crime would decrease
Do you think that recent parliamentary elections were or were not free and fair?
66% Overall - were fair
33% Overall - were not fair
5% of Sunnis - were fair
94% of Sunnis - were not fair
Do you think that the government to be established by the newly-elected parliament will or will not be the legitimate representative of the Iraq people?
68% Overall - Will be legitimate
31% Overall - Will not be legitimate
6% of Sunnis - Will be legitimate
92% of Sunnis - Will not be legitimate
Do you think that Iraq today is generally headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?
64% Overall - Right direction
36% Overall - Wrong direction
6% of Sunnis - Right direction
93% of Sunnis - Wrong direction
Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?
71% Overall - Worth it
22% Overall - Not worth it
13% of Sunnis - Worth it
83% of Sunnis - Not worth it
Do you think that six months from now Iraqi security forces will be strong enough to deal with the security challenges that Iraq will face, or do you think that Iraq will still need the help of military forces from other countries?
59% Overall - Will still need the help of military forces from other countries
39% Overall - Strong enough to deal with security on its own
73% of Kurds - Will still need the help of military forces from other countries
22% of Kurds - Strong enough to deal with security on its own
Would you prefer to have the US or the UN take the lead in Iraq’s economic reconstruction?
21% Overall - US
59% Overall - UN
18% Overall - Neither
43% Kurds - US
53% Kurds - UN
3% Kurds - Neither
4% Sunni - US
48% Sunni - UN
46% Sunni - Neither
Would you favor having a major conference where leaders from the US, Europe, the UN, and various Arab countries would meet with leaders of the new Iraqi government to coordinate efforts to help Iraq achieve greater stability and economic growth, or do you think it is best for other countries to stay out of Iraq’s affairs?
64% Overall - Favor conference
34% Overall - Best for others to stay out
40% Sunni - Favor conference
57% Sunni - Best for others to stay out
For the following, do you approve of US Nonmilitary assistance?
* Assisting with economic development
* Assisting with oil industry
* Training Iraqi security forces
* Helping to build Iraqi government institutions
* Helping to mediate between ethnic groups
* Infrastructure (roads, electricity)
* Helping Iraqis organize their communities to address needs
Nearly all of the above were within +/- 5% of the following responses:
25% - Approve, US doing good job
46% - Approve, US doing poor job
27% - Disapprove
Do you approve of the recent efforts of the Arab League to help Iraqi leaders achieve national reconciliation?
73% - Approve
22% - Disapprove
Approval of key points in Arab League Declaration
99% Overall - All groups should participate in the political process
97% Overall - Terrorism should be rejected
87% Overall - There should be a timetable for withdrawl of US-led forces in Iraq
64% Kurds - There should be a timetable for withdrawl of US-led forces in Iraq
Source: Program on International Policy Attitudes via WorldPublicOpinion.org
Quotes: From poll published January 31, 2006 titled, "What the Iraqi Public Wants"
[Note: Unless otherwise noted, all percentages are for overall results. The poll also provides a breakdown of Shia, Kurds and Sunni. Where a particular group is an outlayer to the Overall total, they have been included below.]
Do you think the US government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq or to remove all its military once Iraq is stabilized?
80% - Plans Permanent Bases
18% - Plans to remove forces once Iraq stabilized
If the new Iraqi government were to tell the US to withdraw all of its forces within six months, do you think the US would or would not do so?
23% - Would withdraw
76% - Would not withdraw
Which of the following would you like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do after they take office?
35% - Withdraw within 6 months
35% - Gradually over 2 years
29% - Only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq
The 35% of respondents who took the position in favor of the near-term exit of US forces from Iraq (six months) were asked: “Which of the following reasons for withdrawing US-led forces is the most important to you?” and given four options.
20% - It is offensive to me to have foreign forces in my country.
11% - The presence of US forces attracts more violent attacks and makes things worse
2% - Iraq can take care of itself
2% - I do not like the way US forces have treated Iraqi civilians
Was a good idea for Iraqi leaders to have agreed at the Arab League conference that there should be a timetable for the withdrawal of US-led forces from Iraq?
87% - Yes
Do you approve or disapprove (strongly or somewhat) of attacks on US-led forces in Iraq?
47% - Overall approve
16% - of Kurds approve
41% - of Shia approve
88% - of Sunnit approve
Do you approve or disapprove (strongly or somewhat) of others in Iraq?
7% - Approve attacks on Iraqi government security forces
1% - Approve attacks on Iraqi civilians
Respondents were asked what would happen in a variety of areas if US-led forces were to withdraw from Iraq in the next six months.
67% - day to day security for ordinary Iraqis would increase
30% - day to day security for ordinary Iraqis would decrease
35% - Violent attacks would increase
64% - Violent attacks would decrease
33% - Inter-ethnic violence would increase
61% - Inter-ethnic violence would decrease
31% - Presence of foreign fighters would increase
56% - Presence of foreign fighters would decrease
What would be the performance of the Iraqi state if the US withdraws within the next 6 months?
73% - Willingness of factions in parliament to cooperate would increase
22% - Willingness of factions in parliament to cooperate would decrease
67% - Availability of public services; electricity, schools would increase
25% - Availability of public services; electricity, schools would decrease
34% - Amount of crime would increase
64% - Amount of crime would decrease
Do you think that recent parliamentary elections were or were not free and fair?
66% Overall - were fair
33% Overall - were not fair
5% of Sunnis - were fair
94% of Sunnis - were not fair
Do you think that the government to be established by the newly-elected parliament will or will not be the legitimate representative of the Iraq people?
68% Overall - Will be legitimate
31% Overall - Will not be legitimate
6% of Sunnis - Will be legitimate
92% of Sunnis - Will not be legitimate
Do you think that Iraq today is generally headed in the right direction or the wrong direction?
64% Overall - Right direction
36% Overall - Wrong direction
6% of Sunnis - Right direction
93% of Sunnis - Wrong direction
Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the US-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?
71% Overall - Worth it
22% Overall - Not worth it
13% of Sunnis - Worth it
83% of Sunnis - Not worth it
Do you think that six months from now Iraqi security forces will be strong enough to deal with the security challenges that Iraq will face, or do you think that Iraq will still need the help of military forces from other countries?
59% Overall - Will still need the help of military forces from other countries
39% Overall - Strong enough to deal with security on its own
73% of Kurds - Will still need the help of military forces from other countries
22% of Kurds - Strong enough to deal with security on its own
Would you prefer to have the US or the UN take the lead in Iraq’s economic reconstruction?
21% Overall - US
59% Overall - UN
18% Overall - Neither
43% Kurds - US
53% Kurds - UN
3% Kurds - Neither
4% Sunni - US
48% Sunni - UN
46% Sunni - Neither
Would you favor having a major conference where leaders from the US, Europe, the UN, and various Arab countries would meet with leaders of the new Iraqi government to coordinate efforts to help Iraq achieve greater stability and economic growth, or do you think it is best for other countries to stay out of Iraq’s affairs?
64% Overall - Favor conference
34% Overall - Best for others to stay out
40% Sunni - Favor conference
57% Sunni - Best for others to stay out
For the following, do you approve of US Nonmilitary assistance?
* Assisting with economic development
* Assisting with oil industry
* Training Iraqi security forces
* Helping to build Iraqi government institutions
* Helping to mediate between ethnic groups
* Infrastructure (roads, electricity)
* Helping Iraqis organize their communities to address needs
Nearly all of the above were within +/- 5% of the following responses:
25% - Approve, US doing good job
46% - Approve, US doing poor job
27% - Disapprove
Do you approve of the recent efforts of the Arab League to help Iraqi leaders achieve national reconciliation?
73% - Approve
22% - Disapprove
Approval of key points in Arab League Declaration
99% Overall - All groups should participate in the political process
97% Overall - Terrorism should be rejected
87% Overall - There should be a timetable for withdrawl of US-led forces in Iraq
64% Kurds - There should be a timetable for withdrawl of US-led forces in Iraq
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
News RhetIraq: Valerie Plame
Source: Newsweek
Quotes: From article titled, "The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert"
Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.
Quotes: From article titled, "The CIA Leak: Plame Was Still Covert"
Newly released court papers could put holes in the defense of Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, in the Valerie Plame leak case. Lawyers for Libby, and White House allies, have repeatedly questioned whether Plame, the wife of White House critic Joe Wilson, really had covert status when she was outed to the media in July 2003. But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done "covert work overseas" on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion.
Editorial RhetIraq: Richard Mellon Scaife's Flagship
Source: Pittsburgh Tribune Review
Quotes: From 1/17/2006 editorial titled, "The war in Iraq: Time to move on"
We didn't agree with Jack Murtha in November when he called for an immediate withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. The timing was not right. But the times have changed.
When the Pennsylvania congressman made his call, critical December parliamentary elections were ahead; cut-and-run talk was inappropriate.
But successful elections have passed. And contrary to what some may say, Iraqis are stepping up to the plate, as evidenced by the number dying in defense of their fledgling republic. Native Iraqi terrorists and those of the al-Qaida brand also are starting to battle each other.
There's a growing sense of self-determination, which is a critical trait on the road to democracy.
That said, the world situation has changed dramatically since November. The nuclear saber-rattling of neighboring Iran is heading for a showdown. To meet that threat should diplomacy fail, the United States must begin the six- to nine-month logistical process of drawing down its Iraqi force and repositioning it to respond, if need be, to the Iranian threat.
This is not retreat. This is not cut-and-run. This is a recognition of the reality in Iraq -- one that has evolved into an Iraqi problem that only the Iraqis now can solve -- and that the paramount world security threat now is Iran.
On CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday night, Jack Murtha predicted the "vast majority" of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end if not sooner. We hope he's right. The time has come.
Quotes: From 1/17/2006 editorial titled, "The war in Iraq: Time to move on"
We didn't agree with Jack Murtha in November when he called for an immediate withdrawal of United States forces from Iraq. The timing was not right. But the times have changed.
When the Pennsylvania congressman made his call, critical December parliamentary elections were ahead; cut-and-run talk was inappropriate.
But successful elections have passed. And contrary to what some may say, Iraqis are stepping up to the plate, as evidenced by the number dying in defense of their fledgling republic. Native Iraqi terrorists and those of the al-Qaida brand also are starting to battle each other.
There's a growing sense of self-determination, which is a critical trait on the road to democracy.
That said, the world situation has changed dramatically since November. The nuclear saber-rattling of neighboring Iran is heading for a showdown. To meet that threat should diplomacy fail, the United States must begin the six- to nine-month logistical process of drawing down its Iraqi force and repositioning it to respond, if need be, to the Iranian threat.
This is not retreat. This is not cut-and-run. This is a recognition of the reality in Iraq -- one that has evolved into an Iraqi problem that only the Iraqis now can solve -- and that the paramount world security threat now is Iran.
On CBS's "60 Minutes" Sunday night, Jack Murtha predicted the "vast majority" of U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by year's end if not sooner. We hope he's right. The time has come.
