Freedom's Truth

Within 72 hours, America faces the most important election choice in decades. Voters will determine where America and our civilization will go in the global war on terror and in leading the world. This election is about our fundamental national security and our nation's future. Why? WE ARE AT WAR. The central issue for America is terrorism; the central battlefield of terrorism today is in Iraq; and so the future of Iraq and the future of America is intertwined. In this war on terrorism (or more precisely,war on global Jidahist terrorism), we have a choice: 9/10 Senator versus a 9/11 President.

Kerry wants a Global Test, letting allies who were corrupted by Saddam influence our security policies, and letting the UN dictate our national security agenda. This January, Kerry said that the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated. Since then we've had Madrid bombings killing over 200; bombings in Baghdad, Basra, and other cities in Iraq, killing hundreds; kidnappings and murder in Iraq; attacks in Saudi Arabia against westerners that killed dozens; deadly bombings in Jakarta; we had over 100 Al Qaeda arrested this year in Pakistan, finding out that finanical buildings in New York City and Washington DC were targets. We had Beslan, the slaughter of 300 Russian schoolchildren and parents. Now even Osama Bin Laden threatens us over the election. Exaggerated, Senator?

I've shared 50 reasons to support Bush, and I've noted that Bush is like Lincoln, an oft-criticized yet steady leader in challenging times. Bush's leadership in the war on terror has been stellar.

President Bush was right to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's rule and remove the threat he posed both in pursuing WMDs and supporting terrorists groups including Al Qaeda. Skeptics talk of "no links" between Saddam and Al Qaeda, yet the 9/11 report included mention that Saddam offered Osama Bin Laden safe haven in Iraq in 1998, one of many contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda that stretched across a decade. Zarqawi the terrorist is another thread of connection. Deposing Saddam helped convince Gadhafi to end Libya's WMD dreams. Deposing Saddam also ended the reign of terror of a genocidal thug who murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - his own people.

The Liberal press often been defeatist on Iraq. For example, they misled about what Paul Bremer and General Abazaid say; they have downplayed or ignored Good News from Iraq. The perspective of history is needed. The Bush administration deserves much more credit than they get for navigating well, albeit imperfectly, the perils of post-war occupation in a post-totalitarian society like Iraq, beset by terrorist opponents determined to throw the effort of course. We are in the midst of an effort to make Iraq a free and democratic state; It is not without risks, costs and difficulties; it requires perseverence and courage; but it is definitely noble and worthwhile endeavour.

Soldiers have a more positive view than the media; they see Iraq is turning around. We can also see that Iraqis want democracy and support elections, and even Iraqi Muslim clerics now support elections. Many Iraqis enjoy free speech on radio and on campus. Some Iraqis are grateful to USA for their new freedom, many applaud our liberation efforts, and Iraqis have thanked coalition soldiers for their efforts; many express pragmatic views freely now; some Iraqis speak out against terrorism and defend US deposing Saddam, saying: "what the Americans did was truly a liberation." Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi has also thanked America and showed himself a full ally in building the new Iraq. Many pro-democracy Iraqis, Iraqi bloggers and Iraqis on message boards support Bush's reelection, because these Iraqis want to secure the freedom and democracy they are just starting to taste.

The murderous, merciless, civilian-killing, terrorist organizations, led by killers like Abu Zarqawi, pose a threat. Yet coalition forces are killing and capturing terrorists including outsiders every day. Coalition is making progress in Iraq in gradually extinguishing the insurgency. In August defeated Mahdi army in Kut, ended the Mahdi Army's chockhold on Najaf and ended the shrine standoff without harm to it. The Mahdi Army in Sadr-city agreed to disarm in October, and 18,000 weapons were turned in. The coalition military in recent months has pacified Tikrit, won over Samarra, quelled activity in Diyala, and returned Tal Afar to civil order. We also hit back in Hit. Over 100,000 of the Iraqi security forces are trained, with more trained every day; Iraqi forces on duty are thwarting attacks and stopping catching terrorists. Iraqi police and army have risked death and given their lives to defend the new Iraq. With coalition and Iraq security forces improving, the insurgent havens being reduced, victory is in our grasp in Iraq, and will be secured as elections and democratic insitutions take root, and as Iraqis take on more of their security.

Kerry doesn't see it that way. He has seen it many different ways, as political calculations shifted, on both Iraq and many other issues. Kerry gone from supporting "Standing Up to Saddam Hussein" (although he voted against the Gulf War in 1991) and touting the WMD dangers, to flip-flopping and repackaging Bush's plans as his own to opposing our essential effort to liberate Iraq. Kerry has insulted our Iraqi interim Government allies and dismissed the contributions of coalition partners. He was wrong on Zarqawi. Kerry has a "weak,wobbly, and wrong" record on national defense, he's been feckless and a non-leader. Iraq will be Kerry's second Vietnam, a country that Kerry would 'cut and run' from. Is that fair to allege, given his promises to win in Iraq? Kerry cannot have it both way. His claims beg a question: "How can John Kerry ask our troops and our allies to spend blood and treasure in an intervention he calls a 'collosal mistake'?"

If Kerry were to answer it, there is no assurance it would be an honest answer. Kerry has made a habit of lying about our military and embellishing anecdotes. THIS IS NOT A GOOD MAN.

Actions speak louder than words. Bush is the proven leader who has acted well in times of crisis. Kerry's 20 year Senate record is long on his talking and short on real accomplishments. This says it all, both for America and for Iraq. The price of a Kerry victory is too high. If you are an American voter who wants the US effort in building freedom and democracy to succeed in Iraq, and wants the US to aggressively deal with terrorist enemies and defeat Jihadist terrorism, vote Bush. I think America will agree with me and make the right choice.

As America faces its Presidential electoral decision, we are facing a moment of decision in Iraq: Striking and defeating the insurgents in Fallujah. A Marine Brig. Gen., Dennis J. Hejlik, deputy commander of the 1st MEF, stationed at Camp Fallujah, says:

We are gearing up to do a major operation, and when we are told to go, we will go. When we go . . . we're going to go in there and whack them."

Coalition strikes have increased and insurgent counterattacks have ramped up as well. Unfortunately, insurgents killed 8 marines with a car bomb, when a car bomb went off next to a truck southwest of Baghdad, between the capital and Fallujah. Also in that report, news of coalition strikes on Fallujah:

On Saturday, insurgents fired mortars at Marine positions outside Fallujah. U.S. troops responded with "the strongest artillery barrage in recent weeks," according to Marine spokesman 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert.

Later in the afternoon, a Marine Harrier jet bombed a guerrilla mortar position inside Fallujah, then strafed it with machine-gun fire, Gilbert said. He had no reports of insurgent casualties.

Another coalition strike reported on a Fallujah target:

"A US navy jet in support of the First Marine Expeditionary Force dropped precision ordnance on a weapons cache site," said Major Francis Piccoli. "We destroyed the site and there was a large secondary explosion"

The talks over Fallujah have been fruitless so far:

Mohammed Bashar al-Faydhi, a spokesman for the Association of Muslim Scholars ... said that a bid to mediate a peaceful solution to the Fallujah standoff had failed because of the government's demand that the city hand over extremists. ... "There is no good news on the horizon in finding a solution,"

And that means an inevitable decision, to be made by PM Allawi to give final go-ahead:

U.S. officials insist that the final order for an all-out attack will come from Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi and that Iraqi forces will join the fight.

This will be the largest battle since "major operations" were completed in May 2003. The report notes an estimate of up to 5,000 Islamic militants, Baathists and criminals that have made Fallujah a next for terrorists. The time is near.

A U.S. Marine on patrol near Fallujah:

Iraq Weekly Update from Dept of State:

• Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI) is moving ahead with preparations for the January 2005 Iraqi election. Voter registration begins November 1.
• Iraq removed from the state sponsor of terror list.
• One year anniversary of the New Iraqi Dinar. Currency is stable.
• Approximately 40% of Iraqis served with potable water and project underway to increase that. 648,000 cubit feet of water treatment capacity under construction. USAID sewer repair project in Basrah on wastewater treatment completed, using 330 local Iraqis on the project.
• Electricity for most of country is on 9-16 hours per day. Above 16 hours/day for Baghdad. 100,000 MWH production avg in last 7 days.
• $13 BILLION in oil export revenue for Iraq so far this year. This compares with $5 BILLION last year.
• Crude oil production is at the 2.5 MBPD target.
• Iraq Telecom and Postal commission adding phone lines. In Baghdad, reactivated and added switches, adding 213,000 lines.
• Polio vaccination campaign: 70% of the 4.7 million children to be reached had been vaccinated. Part of the global effort to end polio world-wide.
• Project to build 12 primary health care facilities underway.
• 107,000 trained police, army and national guard. (Ed note: So much for Kerry's phony claims last month that there were only 5,000 trained forces. Allawi was accurate, Kerry was inaccurate.)
• Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Fund Status. The fund is $18 billion apportioned. Committed: $14.8 billion; Obligated: $10 billion; Disbursed: $3.4 billion.

Osama Bin Laden made his play to influence the elections, but it won't work unless Americans use his statements for partisan ends. Well, guess what the Kerry campaign is trying to do? See also David Brooks: "The Osama Litmus Test":

Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political. On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president: "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job." Kerry continued with a little riff from his stump speech, "I am absolutely confident I have the ability to make America safer." Even in this shocking moment, this echo of Sept. 11, Kerry saw his political opportunities and he took 'em. There's such a thing as being so nakedly ambitious that you offend the people you hope to impress.

Kerry campaign saw a soldier's family as a campaign prop only; Bush saw them as a family in grief. ... I saw this story on a minor newpapers and was going to link it a few weeks back, but forgot. Now Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes followed up, and reports. The story in full:

Canton, Ohio - ON MAY 5, 2004, Peggy Buryj, got the worst news a mother can get. Her son, Jesse, had been killed in Iraq. Jesse was manning the turret of a Humvee at a checkpoint in Karbala, south of Baghdad, when he noticed a dump truck racing towards his vehicle. Despite warnings, the driver did not stop. Jesse fired more than 400 rounds at the truck, killing the driver. But the truck didn't stop. It rammed his Humvee, tipping it over. Jesse suffered massive internal injuries and later died on the operating table.

Jesse's funeral got significant media attention in Canton. The military told Mrs. Buryj (pronounced "boo-dee") that her son's action saved the lives of at least three soldiers. "My son was a big hero in these parts," she says. "Canton really turned out for my son's funeral."

Six weeks later, Peggy Buryj claims that she received a phone call from a representative of John Kerry's presidential campaign. The caller identified herself as "Linda" and asked Mrs. Buryj, a registered Democrat, if she would appear at a Canton rally for John Kerry. Buryj agreed, but with a condition. She wanted to ask Kerry one question: "Why did you vote against the $87 billion for support troops in Iraq?"

"And I wanted to ask him--because I never hear journalists ask him, or anybody ask him--what was his reasoning for voting down the money?"

Buryj understood that her request was politically sensitive. So she told the Kerry campaign that she was willing to ask Kerry in

private, before the event, or in a phone call. She promised that she would not go public with his answer. She even offered to sign a confidentiality agreement pledging that she would not talk to reporters about Kerry's answer.

"They were inviting me because of my son," she says. "You know, they were using me for their benefit, you know? Local hero's mother, you know?" Buryj notes that the Kerry campaign did not invite the Rameys, parents of Staff Sft. Richard Ramey, who died in Iraq February 8, 2004. "They were Republicans," she says. "I'm a Democrat."

Nevertheless, she wanted to attend the rally. "I wanted to go. I just wanted an answer to my question."

She never heard back from the campaign.

A month later, Buryj received a call from the Bush campaign. President Bush wanted to meet her, in private, along with the families of two other fallen soldiers from Stark County. There would be no reporters in the room. She was not asked if she supported the president.

Bush spoke to a rally of 5,000 at the Canton Memorial Civic Center on July 31. Afterwards, he met for 20 minutes with Buryj, the Rameys and the family of Sgt. Michael Barkey, who had been killed in Iraq on July 7. Buryj says she cried when she saw Bush. "He cried on my shoulder as much as I cried on his."

I called Peggy Buryj after reading about the episode in a letter to the editor published Friday in the Canton Repository. The letter was written by Bob Ackerman, the father of a soldier now in Iraq who has become a close friend of the Buryj family. I asked Buryj the obvious question: Why go public with this story now, so soon before the election. "I didn't go the press about it," she says. "Bob Ackerman asked me if I would mind if he told the story. I didn't mind." I have no way of independently verifying Buryj's story. The parents of fellow Canton-area soldiers support her account. But the Kerry campaign strongly disputes it--suggesting she is lying on behalf of President Bush. "There is no evidence anyone from the Kerry campaign ever called her," said Jennifer Palmieri. I asked Palmieri if she had knowledge of a woman named "Linda" from the Kerry-Edwards office in Canton. Her response was immediate: "There is no one with the campaign named Linda."

Buryj spoke in halting phrases as she tried to articulate why, exactly, she wanted to speak with Kerry. "Basically, because I'm struggling with . . . why would he? . . . To me it was . . . As a military mother . . . Why? Why? What good reason could he have for voting against that money? There is no reason in my mind for him to vote down that money. And I will never understand that."

I asked if Kerry could have said anything that would have helped her understand his vote.

"I don't know. Maybe, if he would have answered the question. He voted for the okay to go to war. And then he voted down the money. As a military mother, you don't know how that offends me. That just offends me to the quick. And he's running for president. He wants to be our leader. He wants to be commander-in-chief. I think that's a fair question. I don't expect to get special treatment. But they called me. They called me wanting me to attend."

She continued: "When John Kerry says wrong war, wrong time wrong place--you don't know how that cuts me to the quick. That's like saying my son died for nothing. That to me is just a slap in the face. I talk to several military mothers, you don't know how many, and that hurts us. That hurts us."

Buryj is not angry at Kerry. It is possible, she speculates, that her request for an answer to her question never got beyond the Kerry campaign's Ohio staff. "In all fairness to John Kerry, it might not ever have gotten back to him." Nevertheless, she is disappointed.

And she's still waiting for an answer from the Kerry campaign.

I'd like an answer to that question as well; and the 22 questions Woodard asked of Kerry about Iraq that Kerry never answered (but Bush did).

A wonderful blog done by A Soldier in Iraq with letters of thanks from an Iraqi family he helped. He claims he's not a hero. ... I just checked my dictionary - yup, he's a hero!

The Real October Surprise comes out - Osama Bin Laden speaks to Americans by talking like a 2004 Democratic Convention speaker, a Michael Moore with a beard and a Mullah's cap:

Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you ...we saw transgressions and the coalition between Americans and the Israelis against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, "And he moved the tyranny and suppression of freedom to his own country, and they called it the Patriot Act, under the disguise of fighting terrorism. ... he didn't forget to transfer his experience from the rulers of our region to Florida to falsify elections to benefit from it in critical times ... He was more interested in listening to the child's story about the goat rather than worry about what was happening to the towers." - Osama Bin Laden

Bill Roggio's Fourth Rail fisks the whole speech, and comments:

The tape is interesting as it does not promise new and spectacular attacks or claim to seek the clash of civilizations. Osama almost sounds demoralized, begging and pleading for peace, stating "any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked." These aren't the words of a mightly warrior worthy of the praise of the Ummah, but the words of a beaten man. ...

Osama's motivations for issuing this speech are unknown, but it is obvious the timing of this tape was meant to somehow influence the elections. ... al Qaeda is monitoring the American media, is in tune with the arguments of the antiwar crowd and is skillful in using these arguments to attack the Bush administration. The Left and the Democrats have been putting forward antiwar arguments for over a year, and have provided our enemies with much ammunition to work with. Osama bin Laden's speech is almost indistinguishable from those made by Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and Al Gore, John Kerry, Michael Moore and a host of other Democrats and Leftists. A word to the wise, which will not be headed: if you don't want to sound like your country's most dangerous enemies, perhaps you should stop speaking like them.

Belmont Club says Osama is asking for a 'time out':

He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.

And we know from our Iraq and Arafat experience, they only do this when they are weakened. OBL is alive, yes, but on the ropes. And he wants us to leave him alone. As a fourth rail commentator put it:

We have to stay the course. The fact is that even though we do not have Bin Laden in our hands, it should be evident that we are winning our war with Al Qaeda. We have destroyed 75% of them and they have been reduced to political pandering. Sure Iraq is a mess, but Al Qaeda has been disrupted to the point that we see Bin Laden trying to almost beg for a truce.

Truth Laid Bear Says Bush is helped by "The Batman Effect". He also has a links-o-rama roundup of blog commentary.

My commentary:

Osama did say one Republican red-meat Red State thing: "As you spoil our security, we will do so to you." His calculation is apparent: Violence and threats would have only helped Bush; playing the "Hudna" ploy, i.e., calling for appeasement, seems to be the way to divide the American people so he can slip the noose. Let's not over-estimate their strategic thinking here - Osama has seen how Bush is pummelled by political opponents, and how it affects him. Osama is clearly aware of the DNC talking points, because he repeats them! Osama knows that violence would help Bush, and is hearing the Kerry talking point that Bush didn't get Bin Laden at Tora Bora.

Since Osama's goal is for breathing space, a 'time out' - appeasement - he wants to improve the electoral chances for that outcome. The Best Way for Osama to improve the appeasement faction's chances is to (a) show "proof of life" and (b) taunt USA that the faction of aggressive response, i.e., Bush, is failing. Conclusion: He needs to first show his face and second he needs to underscore the Michael Moore points.

Most people are looking at the message and missing the point - which is that the messenger is the message here. The message, of stock-in-trade Bush-bashing, should convince the Bush haters that there is something wrong with what they believe, but alas it won't.

The critical element in the video is the 'proof of life'. Osama's ultimate taunt to Bush would be to survive Bush's term in office. We must not underestimate the factor of Bin Laden being alive in influencing the election. Recall that it was a central piece of Kerry's recent stump speeches. Many people, including me, thought that Osama was probably dead (Andrew Sullivan had the same reaction I did. So did LGF: "After being so certain for the past three years that Osama bin Laden had been atomized by the blast of a daisy cutter in Tora Bora, I admit to some disappointment that he’s still consuming oxygen and frightening small children.") We should not underestimate the number of people who will be disappointed merely in the continued existence of OBL and think Bush didn't do his job. Never mind that Khalid Sheik Muhammed, the 9/11 matermind, and hundreds of Al Qaeda representing the vast majority of the organization are dead or in custody since 9/11, OBL is the symbol of Al Qaeda's continued threat.

Osama's "Madrid Plan" for Spain was a bombing, because that wuld make Spain recoil at the horror. It worked. Violence only angers the US, so Osama needed a different plan. To influence the election, he needed to see what the opponents of the President were doing and line up his own actions to help Bush's opponents make their case. And the "Tora Bora" story that Kerry told had one crucial element missing - where was Osama? Osama's "proof of life" video was the "October Surprise" to prove to America that Bush has yet to do his job. And leftists eat it up like pigs eating scraps, echoing the Osama talking points that reverb and echo leftist talking points. Example - A Belmont Club commentator joins OBL in taunting Bush:

People can shout all they want about what Kerry believes about OBL, but the sound won't drown out what we all KNOW about Bush and OBL: In three years, Bush has failed to beat him. OBL is on top right now, making his tapes, insulting the American people and planning his next mayhem here and abroad.

Do not be complacent and say "oh, it won't work". If you hear any comments like the above - the video already has worked.

The idea that Bin Laden wants Bush re-elected is nonsense. Bin Laden clearly, obviously, and certainly wants Bush defeated and Kerry to beat him. Not because he favors Kerry, but because Bin Laden wants to survive a Bush Presidency, as Saddam survived (for a while) the Bush senior Presidency and beyond. Bin Laden would declare a great victory if Bush were defeated, and his life expectancy would rise, even if Kerry were to be as aggressive as Bush (which I doubt); Kerry, the "weak, wobbly and wrong" (as Zell Millers says) Senator, would in his administrative transition take 6-9 months of "getting one's act together". Time would be on Osama's side to slip the noose.

Not everyone thinks it helps Bush to have this out there - LGF quotes CBS: The airing of a tape of Osama bin Laden capped a week of bad news for President Bush that threatened to derail his candidacy in the final days of the presidential election. Gee, they almost sound gleeful at Bush's troubles.

No matter. The Bush administration is merely reminded, in the words of a Robert Frost poem: I have Promises to Keep, And Miles to Go Before I Sleep. There is work to be done. Or as Bush would say, "I have a charge to keep" reciting the Methodist hymn:

"A charge to keep I have, a God to glorify,
a never-dying soul to save, and fit it for the sky.

"To serve the present age, my calling to fulfill;
O may it all my powers engage, to do my Master's will!"

Bush is the man to do this work, to finish the task of defeating Al Qaeda. He has a "a charge to keep." I have a charge to keep as well. One more post, then light-blogging mode for the last 72 hours of the campaign.

Yet another twist - and perhaps the definitive story - on the weapons. Via Nick Stix - "Pentagon: US Forces Removed 250 Tons of Al Qaqaa Explosives Early Reports Exaggerated Quantity of Explosives"

In a noontime press conference today at the Pentagon, Pentagon spokesman Larry Dirita and Army Maj. Austin Pearson, an ammunition management officer who was at the Iraqi ammunition depot Al Qaqaa in spring, 2003 with the Army 3rd Infantry Division, cast doubt on the New York Times/CBS News report alleging that 377 tons of Iraqi munitions had disappeared from the site, after it had come under American control in April, 2003. Maj. Austin estimated that his unit removed 200-250 tons of munitions, and Mr. Dirita emphasized that reports that 141 tons of RDX explosives were at the facility under IAEA seal may be mistaken, and that perhaps only three tons of RDX were at the facility.

Together with the 200-250 tons that Maj. Austin’s unit removed from Al Qaqaa, the new information [that only 3 tons of RDX were at al Qaqaa facility] could explain the disposition of virtually the entire weapons cache at Al Qaqaa.

TNR's Marty Peretz on Saddam's killing fields - via FR post:

There was more horrid news out of Iraq this month: evidence that some 300 women and children had each been shot in the head and buried in a mass grave. One hundred fifty-six men were buried nearby in the same killing field. Alas, there are 40 such mass graves that we know of. A team of archaeologists, anthropologists, and technicians has been assembled by the hard-pressed Army Corps of Engineers — which came to the country primarily to bring relief to living Iraqis — and is doing the intricate, grisly work of exhumation. The site in Hatra, north of Baghdad, as The Boston Globe reported, is the first to be "scientifically exhumed." And why not bring in other competent experts, who have worked in Bosnia, for example, to disinter others? "[B]ecause European forensic teams won't collect evidence that might be used to win death penalty convictions." How delicate! The last refuge of scoundrels is not patriotism. It is finicky liberal humanitarianism.

Let me immediately allay your suspicions. These trenches of innocent dead were not filled recently. It is true that killers still furtively murder in some places in Iraq. Ideological thugs also dragoon people out of their homes and behead them for video showings. But no one can organize a vast massacre and bulldoze the victims into a pit. Hatra and other sites of monstrous cruelty, resting places for the hundreds of thousands of victims of the Baath, are Saddam Hussein's macabre legacy. That legacy would remain a living one, continually swelling itself, had George W. Bush, a president whose electoral legitimacy I still doubt in late-night private moments, not launched a war against it.

The story the New York Times ran on Monday, that set off the frenzy from both right- and left-handed bloggers and journies to figure out the truth here, was at its heart another hand-wringing post-war looting story, that instead of being reported when it happened (if it happened) in May 2003, was unloaded by the New York Times one week before an election.

This story was timed for a reason: Timed by the statements of El Baradei, who's main opponent for renweal as IAEA chief is the Bush administration; timed by the Times, looking for their last-minute scandal to unseat Bush; timed for a last-minute Kerry campaign push. Curiously, the Kerry campaign had stump speech and TV ads ready to go on the issue, reinforcing claims he made even before the story broke, in the debates. This was and is clearly partisan agenda-driven journalism.

Despite the conflicting facts, we should note that at the end of the day, the facts in the exploding Qaqaa story do not prove much at any strategic level (unless the Russians and Saddam's IIS took the explosives to Syria in a convoy that also contained stores of anthrax and Sarin). It has been noted that the 300 tons is a drop in the bucket to the 100,000 tons of weapons U.S. military has destroyed - it is also, alas, a drop in the bucket compared to other weapons looted.

They don't prove that the Iraq war was right or wrong, was conducted overall well or not at a strategic level. If the pre-war story is true, it's a feather in the cap for distrusting the 'allies' on the take from the oil-for-corruption scam.

If this was an example of post-war looting, and was found out as such at the time, this would be yet another hand-wringing story that was run back in May 2003. (Remember those? We lost the national treasures according to one story - well, actually we didnt, the museum's major works were still there, and what was taken of value was an 'inside job'). We lost much in the looting of schools, hospitals, etc. Looters also took stuff from Saddam's palaces, businesses, hotels, and, yes, ammunition dumps. RPGs, mines, and artillery shells were taken from one of thousands of weapons caches. Part of this was deliberate Saddam policy that turned hospitals and schools into armories, and weapons were in every nook and cranny of the country. The military was wrongly blamed for the fact that fresh out of defeating Saddam with low casualties we didn't end the looting pronto (it took a few weeks to calm things down). What would have ended it would have been if we started shooting looters left and right.

But we did shoot a few rioters in one town in April 2003. In a town called Fallujah. Ten Fallujah citizens were killed while protesting and rioting against U.S. military action in late April 2003; we were taking over a school or some such innocuous but provocative activity. That event set Fallujah on a course that was more unstable than the rest of Iraq. Should we have started shooting looters in Baghdad, Basra, Karbala, and Mosul? While the remnants of fighting remained? Would that have helped? Saddam's security melted away rather than stay on the job, so a populace eager to be "Ali Baba" had no police force and no tyranny to hold them back. This was the heday time when an Iraqi wrote a sign "Sexy Whiskey Freedom" - the breath of freedom. Would it have helped to choke that off with violence against looters?

It is ironic that the time of Bush's greatest triumph sowed seeds for his current challenge in re-election and the 'silver bullet' that Kerry and Edwards are tying to use, even today. Somethimes the time of greatest danger is when you are complacent, and vice versa. The back-seat-driving second-guessing Kerry/IAEA/NYTime takeaway is that we were irresponsible in letting this particular 300 tons out of 600,000 tons that was in Iraq get away. This while at the time, we toppled a totalitarian regime and the concern was one of starvation (didnt happen), refugees (none), food and water sanitation (we brought aid), and civil order in the cities (an issue that required 30,000 troops in baghdad alone).

One area of plausible monday-morning QB correction was the troop strength used to hold Iraq. Were more troops needed? It depends. We defeated the army and invaded Baghdad with only a portion of our invasion force planned. We were left with cold realities of consequences of a war quickly won using half the front we expected, due to Turkey not helping us out. This meant no 4th ID in Iraq for 3 more weeks. By the time the full compliment arrived, things had stabilized, and the question moved on to getting international and Iraqi help on security. The U.S. troops labelled this site a 'medium priority' security site, likely appropriate.

The U.S. military and occupation surmounted so many difficulties successfully, yet any endeavor has obstacles and problems. In wars, 'the enemy gets a vote' as General Tommy Franks would say. That vote is weakening in some ways, and emboldened in others, but is living on borrowed time strategically. The casualty rate in October is the lowest since June, and yet we were more aggressive this month and pacified more (thanks to Mahdi Army disbanding and Samarra) than in any previous month, except August when we ended al-Sadr's hold on Najaf.

In truth, we DID win a victory worthy of "mission accomplished" in April 2003. What we also did was open the next chapter in the global war on terror, during the occupation period, that still continues. That second war in Iraq is an attempt by our enemies, both Jihadist and baathist, to deny us a victory for democracy and freedom in Iraq.

The 'bear market' in defeatist thinking about Iraq is nearly over. That bear market - the hope for defeatists tonight - rests on a Kerry victory. If Kerry wins, Iraq and its people will lose. If Bush wins, the vote will be a mandate to stay the course of being agressive in defeating global terrorism - we will do what is necessary to defeat terrorism. This Qaqaa story is the last dying gasp of those who think that if things go wrong in wars and their aftermath, it 'proves' the impossibility of success; it's the last change for America to follow Spain's lead into retreat.

I fear greatly the consequences if we go that path.

Kerry and Edwards claim Bush 'didn't do his job'. Really? Bush made the strategic decision to defeat Saddam - he did; he made the strategic decision to rebuild Iraq with the CPA - he did; he made the strategic decision to stay the course, hand over power by June 30th, get Iraqi democracy set up by scheduling elections, invite the UN and other countries to assist, and move Iraq toward sovereignty and freedom. Bush has done all that, while having our military work with Iraqi government to defeat the insurgents.

We each have a job. Bush has done his. Kerry and Edwards voted against the $87 billion that would have helped our military do their job in Iraq. Kerry failed to do his job, he has no place talking about others not doing theirs. Kerry will say anything to get elected, but he record belies him as a non-leader with few accomplishments who can talk the talk but not walk the walk.

With Kerry defeated (I hope), the situation for Iraq brightened immediately. Then it will not be a question of if we win in Iraq, but when we win in Iraq. And that is an explosive story I'd like to see reported, soon.

Dick McDonald on all the ways kerry is not a good man.

Kerry the war protester lives on - the man who lost Vietnam will now try to lose Iraq.

Here's some commentary on the political fallout of the explosives at al Qaqaa, aka exploding Caca: Jim Glassman, Mariani, Tyrell on Black Cat Stories and Kerry's Lies.

NFBIC BLASTS THE KERRY CAMPAIGN ATTEMPT TO USE AL-QAQAA AS POLITICAL LEVERAGE

“Kerry’s claims that he supports the troops, but this former Navy Lieutenant turned Armchair General and his Democrat Surrogates continue to flip-flop when they openly attack the fighting skills and leadership of the military men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Kevin L. Martin Communication Director of the NFBIC and former Navy Petty Officer.

A freeper reports on Dick Morris' political take:

"On Hannity and Colmes, Dick Morris just pronounced Kerry the loser because of his vile attack on Bush and the Army for "losing 400 tons of deadly weapons." Morris says it's over and Kerry has hanged himself by again trashing the military in his greed for public office. Morris also believes that in the next month or two the NY Times and CBS will take mortal hits.

I agree. Kerry wanted the office in the worst way, and has gone about campaigning in the worst way, or at least in ways that make me grimace at the prospect of him as President. He will be awful in many, many ways. He has the worst instincts on foreign policy of grovelling to the UN and our enemies akin to Carter; the integrity and ethics of Clinton; and the non-leadership that only a man who would say "I really did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" could bring to the office - all rolled up together. Why is the race even close?

Updating this to include the ABC story as well ...

FOX NEWS (Brent Baier reporting) shows the satellite images that Pentagon has, showing two trucks outside bunkers at the Al Qaqaa facility. The trucks were moving materials from the Al Qaqaa facility - two days before the war started....

More from Brent Baier's report via transcript posted on FR:

The last time the international atomic energy agency could definitively say what was in the bunkers is January of 2003 when IAEA inspectors logged all the explosive there is. Fox news obtained the IAEA action report the inspectors filed at that time. The total tonnage of high explosives, HMX, And R.D.X. logged in that report is 219 tons, not 377 tons according to the documents. An IAEA spokesperson said the other 158 tons of missing R.D.X. Was stored elsewhere outside of the facility, but the organization has yet to provide documentation of those logs. In January 2003, the inspectors stated that 219 ton of explosives was stored in nine different bunkers. The inspectors then locked all the bunkers attaching IAEA tags and seals to the doors. But on the bottom of the first page of the action report is this warning. "Of note was that the sealing ton bunkers was only partially effective because each bunker had ventilation shafts on the sides of the buildings. These shafts were not sealed and could provide removal routes for the H.M.X. While leaving the front door locked." So even though IAEA inspectors returned in march of 2003, they only checked some of the seals and cannot definitivety say that all or any of the explosives were inside those bunkers.

The story the New York Times peddled on Monday looks to be discredited and debunked. The real story is something else entirely, and is still a work in progress.

UPDATE: Work in progress? an understatement! ... Ready to close on the story and move on, but now we have this: Embed journie video with the 101st on April 18th, and ABC NEWS reports it as: "Video Suggests Explosives Disappeared After U.S. Took Control. Evidence Indicates U.S. Military Opened Al-Qaqaa Bunkers, Left Them Unguarded". They say: "Experts who have studied the images say the barrels on the tape contain the high explosive HMX, and the U.N. markings on the barrels are clear."

FR discussion on David Kay's comments on it: CNN's Aaron Brown just interviewed chief inspector David Kay, while observing the chained door and seal, also the containers and material. Kay claimed it was an officially sealed bunker and the materials were HMX a/o RDX, which is stored as powder, but Key pointed out that this was only one bunker. Further, he chided the military for apparently not properly identifying the materials and controlling the security for this bunker.

The KSTP story: Officials with the 101st airborne division and G.P.S. technology confirms our position on or near the southern edge of the Al Qaqaa installation back on April 18, 2003 ... "We weren't quite sure what we were looking at, but we saw so much of it and it didn't appear that this was being secured in any way," said photojournalist Joe Caffrey. "It was several miles away from where military people were staying in their tents." ...

KerrySpot has issues with the report: Label not specific enough "could be one of the 79 other substances". Also "This doesn’t quite explain how all this could be taken down a road full of heavily armed U.S. forces". And all the other reasons that a take-away in the month of April would be difficult ... unless what remained there in April 18th was a remnant ... Now, military reports from 3rd ID and the 101st stated that the doors were open when they got there, the Fedayeen had a 2 day battle in the area, that the standard practice was to take things out of bunkers and scatter them. That leads one freeper to conclude: It appears, putting this together with the satellite photos, that the Iraqi's were busy transporting these materials out of Al Qa Qaa, but were not quite through with the job, before cutting out ahead of our advancement.

I don't know the answer, but I do know that this particular discussion is misplaced in the heat of an election. This was another hand-wringing looter-story (remember those?) that managed to slip into a time warp from May 2003 and arrive one week before an election.

We have a ton of data we didn't have on Monday, but since some of it conflicts were are not closer to a real resolution on this: None, some or all of the explosives at Al Qaqaa was taken from that facility in the time-frame of March to early May 2003, by Iraqis either working for Saddam or not.

This leads us back to the beginning of this story. This was another hand-wringing post-war looting story, that instead of being reported when it happened (if it happened) in May 2003, was unloaded by the New York Times one week before an election. The timing is suspicious. This story was timed for a reason: Timed by the statements of El Baradei, who's main opponent for renweal as IAEA chief is the Bush administration; timed by the Times, looking for their last-minute scandal to unseat Bush. Curiously, the Kerry campaign had stump speech and TV ads ready to go on the issue, reinforcing claims he made even before the story broke, in the debates. This was and is a story that is clearly agenda-driven journalism.

While Russian diplomat denies reports of helping Saddam move weapons, someone on FR passes on first-hand account from one of the troops who was there. Al Qaqaa was used as a temporary HQ by 101st, these guys were all over the place there, nothing like IAEA sealed explosives there:

As soon as this Al-Qaqaa story "broke" I thought of calling my friend (an officer and unit commander attached to the 101st during Operation Iraqi Freedom) to find out what really happened. Well, I just got off the phone with him and after joking that he was directing traffic for all the Iraqi trucks that looted explosives out of Al-Qaqaa, I asked him what this story is really all about.

Turns out several of his unit's men were with the 2nd Brigade that first arrived at Al-Qaqaa, secured it, spent the night, then moved out. The day they left, the 101st Division Command Staff (which my friend was attached to) then moved into Al-Qaqaa and set up temporary HQ for TWO WEEKS! While there he walked around and inside bunkers and saw all sorts of stuff stacked up and lying around: AK-47s, RPGs, rockets, bombs, ammo, and black powder used in making weapons as that's what the Al-Qaqaa facility was - manufacture and storage.

Did he see any IAEA sealed bunkers? No. Did he see anything other than field weapons/munitions? No. Did they allow Iraqis to drive trucks into HQ and help themselves to weapons? Gimme a break! Would the 101st Division Command Staff HQ next to 380 tons of HMX, RDX and PETN during combat? I would think not.

My friend's parting thoughts were that this was likely Kerry's "October Suprise" to be leaked right before the election, leaving the Bush team no time to rebutt or explain, but it got leaked too early. Turns out this highly explosive story is one big DNC dud.

Comment here (JUST PRESS THE COMMENT BUTTON AND A WINDOW WILL COME UP, PLEASE USE IT): what do you think of the Qaqaa story? have I beaten it to death or do I need to say more on it?

Is the NYTimes a) excellent journalists doing their job b) Liberal hacks trying to trash Bush c) evil minions of the UN/NWO conspiracy.

What do you think of where the RDX/HMX went? (1) Saddam took it before we came in April; or (2) looters took it after we came in April.

Which is more important, the political boomerang on Kerry and political or whether it was taken away in March 2003 (under Saddam) or April 2003 (under looters)?

Do you agree with these statements: "1) If Senator Kerry had shown up for more than 25% national security meetings held while he was in the Senate, he may have understood that the situation in Iraq is far more complicated than appears. He simply doesn't understand the complexities of world affairs." 2) "Kerry repeated and promoted a story that was false, malicious and maligned our troops." 3) "Kerry lied." 4) "Kerry showed inompetence by saying something without having all the facts lined up."

Which is the most important story:
1) Kerry misled and embellished (during the debates) about meeting the whole UN Security Council in late 2002 before the Iraq war authorization vote.
2) Kerry met secretly with the Vietcong in Paris 1971 and collaborated with them to undermine our war effort in Vietnam.
3) Kerry improperly and falsely blamed the Bush administration over the missing al Qaqaa explosives.

Earlier I linked to the Drudge headline, here's the real deal - Washington Times hits paydirt on al-Qaqaa missing explosives story, the Russians did it:

John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."

Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.

Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said. The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said. The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said.

But wait there's more:

The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.

A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.

The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6. "The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.

There were no fewer that 5 site visits, counting the 3rd ID (April 4th), 101st (April 10th), and three visits by an Army task force unit, by the end of May. There is no evidence that HMX and RDX was found by any unit at any time. It is impossible that this huge amount could have been taken out during those weeks undetected, with so many American vehicles moving on these same roads. And - the coup de grace - the experts on the case here say "almost certainly" the high-explosive material was removed prior to the war.

Financial Times has the same story. Case Closed? I'll sleep on it and see how the MSM takes it in the morning. It's not like the New York Times never reported on Russian-Saddam links before.

Kerry Met Our Enemies Secretly In Paris Why? "Vietcong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris Peace talks were being used as the communications link to direct the activities of anti-war activists meeting with them in Paris."

Just as the Kerry campaign geared up to abuse this phony story, they themselves learn a difficult lesson: Live by the Headline, Die by the Headline. The Kerry camp rushed to judgment saying: "[T]his administration failed to guard those stockpiles – where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept. Today we learned that these explosives are missing, unaccounted for and could be in the hands of terrorists. Terrorists could use this material to kill our troops and our people, blow up airplanes and level buildings." Kerry went on to accuse President Bush of "unbelievable incompetence" over the missing explosives.

We now know that this Kerry campaign statement is all wrong - worse than wrong, defamatory:

(1) It was never in our custody to begin with:

Drudge Report

GERTZ // THURSDAY // WASH TIMES: Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned. John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, “almost certainly” removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

This may explain what Saddam agents on Syria border were moving prior to war.

Clifford May, citing Belmont Club, mentions another point:

What's more, the Belmont Club argues today, persuasively I think, that the Times "interviewed the wrong unit commander" because it was the Third Infantry Division that first searched Al Qaqaa "with the intent of discovering dangerous materials," almost a week before the 101st arrived.

If the 3ID had found tons of HMX and RMX, we'd have heard about it. On April 5, the Washington Post reported on their discoveries at "Al QaQa," including "vials of white powder, packed three to a box," and stocks of "atropine and pralidoxime, also known as 2-PAM chloride, which can be used to treat exposure to nerve agents...."

If the 3ID got so close and personal that they were counting the vials in boxes, how likely is it that they would have missed 380 tons of HMX and RMX?

(2) There is no evidence to support the claim that the material was looted after April 10th 2003, and plenty of evidence to suggest it was implausible to impossible:

AP: "Commander Says Unlikely Large-Scale Removal of Explosives Occurred After U.S. Invasion"

The infantry commander whose troops first captured the Iraqi weapons depot where 377 tons of explosives disappeared said Wednesday it is "very highly improbable" that someone could have trucked out so much material once U.S. forces arrived in the area.

Two major roads that pass near the Al-Qaqaa installation were filled with U.S. military traffic in the weeks after April 3, 2003, when U.S. troops first reached the area, said Col. David Perkins. He commanded the 2nd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, the division that led the charge into Baghdad.

Perkins and others in the military acknowledged that some looting at the site had taken place. But he said a large-scale operation to remove the explosives using trucks almost certainly would have been detected.

... the Pentagon said a statement, "The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continwally for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd I.D.'s arrival at the facility."

(3) The "380 tons" is wrong. This number contradicts reported IAEA numbers from first quarter of 2003. First, there was only 3 tons of RDX at Al Qaqaa: ABC News and Fox News (FR links on ithere - ABC - and here (FOX), both got ahold of the IAEA after-action reports from January 2003. Those reports show that only 3 tons of RDX was at the facility during the last inspection.

IAEA Annex lists on page 79 the controlled expolosives - HMX, RDX, TATB, HNS, PETN. Their main relevance is these are materials for high explosive shaping charges useful for nuclear implosion triggers.

There was in the IAEA reports in early 2003 presentation on unaccounted-for HMX material. They noted that, rather than 226 tons that was there in 1998, only 196 tons remained. According to Iraq's declaration the remainder was moved and used for other purposes: El-Baradei on Feb 14,2003

Use of HMX The IAEA has continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosive HMX. As I reported earlier, Iraq has declared that 32 tonnes of the HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying.

El Baradei on Jan 27, 2003:

Another area of focus has been to determine how certain other "dual use" materials have been relocated or used - that is, materials that could be used in nuclear weapons production but also have other legitimate uses. A good example is the Iraqi declaration concerning the high explosive "HMX" - which states that, out of the HMX under IAEA seals in Iraq at the end of 1998, some had been supplied to cement plants as an industrial explosive for mining. The whereabouts and final use of the removed material are matters that will require further investigation - although it will be difficult to verify the disposition of the HMX that is declared to have been used.

El-Baradei on January 9th, 2003:

The relocation and consumption of some dual use materials has been among the questions raised in connection with Iraq's backlog of semi-annual declarations. The high explosive "HMX" is a prime example of such material. The removal of Agency seals on the HMX and the declared relocation and consumption of some of the HMX must be explained and documented by Iraq before the Agency can reach a conclusion with regard to the use of such material. The Iraqi declarations indicate that out, of the 228 tonnes of HMX available in Iraq at the end of 1998, 196 remained at the facility where the HMX was previously under IAEA seal. Iraq also declared that it had blended the remaining 32 tonnes with sulphur and turned them into 45.6 tonnes of "industrial explosive" provided mainly to cement plants for mining. The material balance, current stock, whereabouts and final use of such material are currently being investigated.

UPDATE on point #3: There is less there than met my eye originally on the HMX. Defense Link on the Iraqi letter had the HMX tonnage that matched IAEA reports (195 tons):

In an Oct. 10, 2004, letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohammed J. Abbas, general director of the Iraqi Ministry of Science and Technology's Planning and Following Up Directorate, reported that 195 tons of high-melting explosive, 141 tons of rapid-detonating explosive, and 6 tons of pentaerythrite tetranitrate, another type of explosive commonly known as PETN, "registered under the IAEA custody were lost" after April 9, 2003.

There was 196 tons of HMX under seal according to Al Baradei in January 2003. The discrepancy is RDX: Only 3 tons of RDX from reports on the IAEA last site visit, from a previously declared 141 tons. Only 199 tons, not 380 tons. Now, the 342 tons total from the Iraq letter does not match the Kerry/ NYTIMES claim number of 380 tons. Why? Explanation is simply metric vs English, from the original Times article: "A chart in his letter listed 341.7 metric tons, about 377 U.S. tons, of explosives as missing."

Sumnmary: Kerry jumped the gun on his talking-points. For Kerry to scream "incompetence" based on a phony story with nothing to back it up shows his desperation and shamelessness. There is plenty of reason and evidence to conclude the HMX was taken prior to US military showing up on the scene, possibly moved with the help of Russian, and no evidence to support Kerry's wild charges.

UPDATE 2: Freeper reports on Bremer's Fox appearance:

Bremer is doing a great job.

1. Highly unlikely the ammo was moved after our soldiers got there. Bremmer was on the ground and described the traffic conditions in Iraq at that time; extremely limited.

2. Would have required a huge effort to load 380 tons onto trucks while our soldiers were around in tanks.

3. We know from previous experience that Saddam moved things when the IAEA was coming to town.

4. We know the ammo as there in early March; after that, no one ever saw it or the seals.

5. He thinks it's irresponsible for anyone (read Kerry) to suggest we know what happened to the ammo because we don't know.

That's as good as summation as any of where things stand now. In the end, the tale of when and where a tiny fraction of Iraq's 600,000 tons of weapons went is not a big story. But Kerry's eagerness to blame America first, shoot first and ask questions later, is a big story.

Marine snipers defeat insurgents in Hit: Marines from 23rd Marine Regiment won a decisive battle against a heavy insurgent threat recently in Hit, with snipers.

Sullie Endorses Kerry and show that Even His Supporters know he Stinks:

I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government's job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign's constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man's record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point--about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good.

Note to Sullie: If you simply can't support Bush due to that gay marriage thingie, at LEAST consider saying 'no endorsement' when you have a phrase like the one bolded.

MORE NEWS STORIES DEBUNK THE NEW YORK TIMES as more and more first-hand witnesses tell what really was there at al Qaqaa in April 2003. (Hint: No HMX or RDX was ever found by our military.) Here is Star Tribune with "Questions". As an MSM source, they are carrying as much weight as they can on the NYTimes version, but a few points pop up that spoil the fun:

Lt. Col. Fred Wellman, deputy public affairs officer for the unit, said the brigade did not have orders to search the site. When the troops arrived a day or so after Baghdad's fall on April 9, 2003, looters were already throughout the facility, Wellman said.

NBC News quoted Army officials on condition of anonymity Tuesday night that troops from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division arrived at Al-Qaqaa on April 4, finding "looters everywhere" carrying what they could out on their backs. The troops searched bunkers and found conventional weapons but no high explosives, NBC quoted the officials as saying.

AP treads a similar meme - the early April searches weren't cursory, looting was going on already, and military was just barrelling through. but in all the reporting, something is consitent: We never found the stuff. There is no evidence that at any time the US military actually found this material at al-Qaqaa; no evidence despite the verbal somersaults of the Times, they let it get carted away. The US military didn't find it on April 4th, they didn't find it on April 10th, they didn't find it on May 29th, nor thereafter.

Washington Post says Pentagon pegs the time of disappearance down to a few months:

Trying to account for the disappearance of nearly 400 tons of powerful explosives from an Iraqi military facility, the Pentagon yesterday identified a 2 1/2-month period in the spring of 2003 in which defense officials now suspect the material was removed.

But the period covers several weeks before Baghdad fell as well as several weeks afterward, leaving it unclear whether the explosives vanished at a time U.S. forces were in position to secure them, Pentagon officials said.

The assumption that it was there at those later dates doesn't hold as the most plausible explanation, based on the nature of this powdered material, which needs to be taken away in trucks to be moved. Most plausible story is one of "it was gone before we got there". And the 380 tons is still a drop in the bucket, compared with the 18,000 weapons that were turned over by the Mahdi army last week; compared with the 3,000 sites in the region with artillery shell and ammunition etc; compared with the 110,000 tons we've destroyed and another 100,000 yet to destroy.

Kerry, in his desperation, is slipping into irresponsible demagoguery and lying. Lying now in a way that maligns our troops, and accuses them of 'incompetence' when in fact they did nothing wrong. Here's a missive I got that encapsulates it:

The New York Times featured a flawed article ... John Kerry seized on the New York Times headline to launch a political attack on President Bush, saying U.S. troops "failed to guard those stockpiles" and that is "one of the great blunders" of the war. Senator Kerry and the New York Times leave the impression that these weapons went missing recently and U.S. troops were derilict in their duty to guard the stockpile--neither of which is true.

Network and cable news programs repeated the incomplete report and Sen. Kerry's attacks more than 100 times on Monday.

But last night NBC "Nightly News" reported that on April 10, 2003, one day after Baghdad fell, U.S. troops entered Al Qaqaa, accompanied by an embedded reporter from NBC, and found no such weapons.

It also turns out that our troops have found and destroyed or are destroying 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives.

This was a planned "October Surprise" one-two punch from the agenda-driven press and Kerry campaign in cahoots from the get-go. So It's no surprise that Kerry turned around immediately and made commercials on this. How could he cut ads so quickly on this issue? Here's the inglorious ad where Kerry is Lying:

John Kerry: “The obligation of a Commander in Chief is to keep our country safe."

• John Kerry failed in that obligation in his 20 years in the Senate. He failed when he voted against the First Gulf war; he failed when he proposed cuts in intelligence spending; he failed when he opposed defense programs and weapons; he failed when he wouldnt even show up to the majority of intelligence committee hearings; he failed when he called Ronald Reagan's service to the country "8 years of moral darkness". He failed by being obsessed with globalism and the UN prerogatives and insufficiently caring about the terrorism threat for the many years prior to 9/11.

John Kerry: "In Iraq, George Bush has overextended our troops and now failed to secure 380 tons of deadly explosives."

• Overextended? Kerry rather than proposing more troops is promising to 'bring troops home'. Which is it, Senator flip-flop? The current level of 130,000 is what the Generals have asked for.
• 380 tons? Hmmm. Let me cite from an earlier post that linked to LGF: 110,000 tons of weapons destroyed in Iraq; in June 2004, the Army Corps of Engineers had destroyed or accounted for at least 248,000 tons of weaponry in Iraq; This 380 tons is 0.2% of the total. And the cited link notes that an estimated 600,000 tons of weapons were in Iraq.

" The kind used for attacks in Iraq, and for terrorist bombings."

• This is the most misleading of the statement in the whole ad. This is *not* explosive material that will just explode on contact. See the cite from NRO. It's like corn starch, light enough to blow away. It is precursor that needs mixing and shaping to make bombs.
• The pentagon made clear today - NO EVIDENCE this material was used in any bombings in Iraq. NONE.

"His Iraq misjudgments put our soldiers at risk, and make our country less secure."

• Kerry's facts are all wrong: It was not taken on 'our watch'. It is most unlikely the material was stolen by looters. The site was verified not to have the material in May 2003. The misjudgment and the incompetence is in Kerry's words - making allegations that he cannot substantiate, except by throwing out the most biased headline of the season as 'proof' his distortions and lies have validity. It's repulsive. Kerry is not a good man.

Kerry: " And all he offers is more of the same."

• Funny statement coming from a man who's plan on Iraq is a pale sustitute for Bush's plan. Bush's plan offers elections by January. Kerry complained about the 'rising death toll' and yet in October the death toll is falling, despite aggressive actions by the coalition (the opposite of what the LA Times said would happen).

Kerry: "As President, I’ll bring a fresh start to protect our troops and our nation. ”

• Another repulsive statement from the man who voted against the weapons systems in prior years and against the $87 billion last year. Kerry already failed the 'protect the troops' test by insisting on a global test; by criticizing, in effect, the troops in the battlefield. He's plan is no 'fresh start' - it is defamation (of our President) and defeatism.

In summary: Kerry is lying. He lied in the debates about meeting the whole UN; he is lying in his blaming the US military and Bush administration even after news reports discount the possibility this powdered material was looted; he has been lying all along about "chaos in Iraq" and about how it is a "collosal mistake". By lying I mean specifically that Kerry is saying things he knows not to be true, and doing it solely for political impact. Yet his defeatism will defeat us yet, if he is elected.

For if he is elected ... Terrorists will rejoice: Insurgent Abu Jalal: 'We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud'...

UPDATE: CHENEY ON KERRY:

"If our troops had not gone into Iraq as John Kerry apparently thinks they should not have, that is 400,000 tons of weapons and explosives that would be in the hands of Saddam Hussein, who would still be sitting in his palace instead of jail," the vice president told supporters in his first comments on the controversy that erupted Monday.

"Senator Kerry is playing armchair general and not doing a very good job," Cheney told his Florida audience in an area of the state with several military bases. "American fighting men and women have made the world safer and it's time for John Kerry to own up to that fact."

Cheney also invoked the name of retired Gen. Tommy Franks, to rebut another of Kerry's criticisms — that the Bush administration wasted a chance to catch terrorist leader Osama bin Laden when the United States had al-Qaida fighters surrounded in Tora Bora in Afghanistan.

Franks "stated repeatedly it was not at all certain that bin Laden was in Tora Bora," said Cheney. "He might have been there or in Pakistan or even Kashmir." "Now John Kerry sitting 6,000 miles away, he is trying to cast doubt on these amazing performances" by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, Cheney said.

Kerry frequently asserts that the administration "outsourced" the job of hunting down bin Laden to Afghan warlords.

"U.S. Special Forces were on the ground, and in charge of the operation around Tora Bora," Cheney said. "They relied on Afghan fighters to help them kill and capture Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in Tora Bora. They knew the landscape."

Cheney said Kerry "likes to say we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan in order to go to Iraq. But again listen to General Franks, who said neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq." Cheney also noted that Franks said that in a global war, armies have to be able to weigh in on many fronts at once.

"Given the choice between John Kerry's version of events and General Franks, I'll go with the general every time."

UPDATE 2: More on the Kerry/NYT story timeline, from FR:

NEW YORK TIMES' INK BARELY DRY BEFORE KERRY ON ATTACK

Before 1:30 am Monday Morning, Kerry Campaign Advisor Joe Lockhart Alleged Cover Up. "Today, the Bush administration must answer for what may be the most grave and catastrophic mistake in a tragic series of blunders in Iraq. How did they fail to secure nearly 380 tons of known, deadly explosives despite clear warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency to do so? And why was this information unearthed by reporters - and was it covered up by our national security officials?" (John Kerry For President, "Lockhart Statement On Reports Of Missing Explosives In Iraq," Press Release, 10/25/04; CNN's "The Morning Grind," 10/25/04)

Kerry Said U.S. Troops "Failed To Guard Those Stockpiles." "After being warned about the danger of major stockpiles of explosives in Iraq, this administration failed to guard those stockpiles - where nearly 380 tons of highly explosive weapons were kept." (John Kerry For President, "Kerry Statement On Bush's Failure To Secure Explosives In Iraq," Press Release, 10/25/04)

And Called Supposed Failure To Safeguard Iraqi Explosives Depot "One Of The Great Blunders" Of War. "Kerry, who hopes that appearances by Clinton in at least three battleground states this week will mobilize supporters, seized on news reports that tons of explosives had disappeared from a military installation south of Baghdad after the United States invaded Iraq. 'The incredible incompetence of this president and this administration has put our troops at risk, and put this country at greater risk than we ought to be,' Kerry said, calling the missing explosives 'one of the great blunders' of Bush's war effort." (Michael Finnegan and Mark Z. Barabak, "Sharper Barbs As Nov. 2 Nears," Los Angeles Times, 10/26/04)

NEW YORK TIMES AND KERRY CAMPAIGN AREN'T ONES TO LET FACTS GET IN WAY OF GOOD STORY

NBC Nightly News Reported That On April 10, 2003, One Day After Baghdad Fell, U.S. Troops Entered Al-Qaqaa And Did Not Find Explosives. NBC'S JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: "April 10, 2003, only three weeks into the war, NBC News was embedded with troops from the Army's 101st Airborne as they temporarily take over the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation south of Baghdad. But these troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing. The U.S. troops did find large stockpiles of more conventional weapons, but no HMX or RDX, so powerful less than a pound brought down Pan Am 103 in 1988, and can be used to trigger a nuclear weapon. In a letter this month, the Iraqi interim government told the International Atomic Energy Agency the high explosives were lost to theft and looting due to lack of security. Critics claim there were simply not enough U.S. troops to guard hundreds of weapons stockpiles, weapons now being used by insurgents and terrorists to wage a guerrilla war in Iraq." (NBC's "Nightly News," 10/25/04)

No Materials Under IAEA Seals Were Discovered When Coalition Troops Searched Site In April 2003. "Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said U.S.-led forces searched the Qaqaa facility after the invasion. 'Coalition forces were present in the vicinity at various times during and after major combat operations,' he said. 'The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility. While some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals.'" (Colum Lynch and Bradley Graham, "Iraqi Explosives Missing, U.N. Is Told," The Washington Post, 10/26/04)

IAEA Head Told U.N. Security Council Explosives Were Unaccounted For One Month Before Invasion. "IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council one month before the allied invasion that Iraq had moved some of its highly explosive HMX from the Al Qaqaa site. The United Nations could not verify Iraqi claims that it used the explosives for commercial uses. The missing explosives include HMX as well as RDX, two highly explosive substances used to make C-5 plastic devices that can be used for legitimate commercial purposes, or by terrorists to bring down an airplane." (Rowan Scarborough, "Pentagon Responds To Missing-Explosives Report," The Washington Times, 10/26/04)

"The Pentagon Also Said Allies Have Cleared More Than 10,000 Arms Caches Since April 2003, Destroying More Than 240,000 Tons Of Arms And Explosives. Another 162,000 Tons Are Awaiting Destruction." (Rowan Scarborough, "Pentagon Responds To Missing-Explosives Report," The Washington Times, 10/26/04)

Site In Question Was "Medium Priority" On List Of "More Than 500 Sites" With Iraqi Weapons Caches. "One senior official noted that the Qaqaa complex where the explosives HMX and RDX were stored was listed as a 'medium priority' site on the CIA's list of more than 500 sites that needed to be searched and secured during the invasion." (James Glanz, William J. Broad And David E. Sanger, "Huge Cache Of Explosives Vanished From Site In Iraq," The New York Times, 10/25/04)

KERRY AND NEW YORK TIMES IGNORE FACTS, STAY ON ATTACK

Kerry Still Falsely Claims "Explosives Vanished" Because Of Bush Administration Failures. "Yesterday, we learned that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives vanished from one of Iraq's most sensitive military installations, after the invasion. Just as the Bush Administration's failure to secure Iraq's borders has led to thousands of terrorists flooding into the country, their failure to secure those explosives threatens American troops and the American people. Before the war, the explosives were monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which warned the Bush Administration that they could fall into the wrong hands. And it urged the Bush Administration to secure them. But we rushed to war in Iraq without a plan to safeguard sensitive sites like this one. And now, the explosives are missing, unaccounted for, and could be in the hands of terrorists - used to attack our troops or our people." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks In Green Bay, WI, 10/26/04)

New York Times Ignores NBC News Report. "The White House sought on Monday to explain the disappearance of 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq that American forces were supposed to secure, as Senator John Kerry seized on the missing cache as ;one of the great blunders of Iraq; and said President Bush's 'incredible incompetence' had put American troops at risk. ... [E]ven as Mr. Bush pressed his case [against Kerry], his aides tried to explain why American forces had ignored warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency about the vulnerability of the huge stockpile of high explosives, whose disappearance was first reported on Monday by CBS and The New York Times." (David E. Sanger, "Iraq Explosives Become Issue In Campaign," The New York Times, 10/26/04)

CBS Flashback 04-04-03: U.S. Searches 'Suspicious' Iraqi Site (Al Qaqaa)

U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare at an industrial site south of Baghdad. But a senior U.S. official familiar with initial testing said the materials were believed to be explosives. Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said the materials were found Friday at the Latifiyah industrial complex just south of Baghdad. "It is clearly a suspicious site," Peabody said.

CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin reports that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction continues at sites where the U.S. thought chemicals weapons might be hidden.

"And although there are no reports of actual weapons being found, there are constant finds of suspicious material," Martin said. "It obviously will take laboratory testing to find out exactly what that powder is."

The senior U.S. official, based in Washington and speaking on condition of anonymity, said the material was under further study. The site is enormous and U.S. troops are still investigating it for potential weapons of mass destruction, the official said.

"Initial reports are that the material is probably just explosives, but we're still going through the place," the official said.

While this may sound like the stuff IAEA is talking about, it turns out that, oops, its not:

Peabody said troops found thousands of boxes, each of which contained three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare. He also said they discovered atropine, used to counter the effects of nerve agents.

The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site. U.N. inspectors visited the plant at least nine times, including as recently as Feb. 18. The facility is part of a larger complex known as the Latifiyah Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa.

Note: Reports of White Powder. In little boxes along with chemical warfare instructions. No report of tons and tons of HMX, a white powder explosive. No report of anything found under IAEA seal. First-hand report given to KerrySpot:

I can tell you what happened at my squad level. When we arrived there, humvees with Mark-19's and other mounted weapons immediately secured the parameter with appropriate manpower backup. On the foot level we broke up into squads and went building to building and cleared them; mind you, we couldn't do them all. But we found what had been typical finds, caches of AK-47's, artillery rounds and bullets. There was absolutely no talk of a big find, and what I could sense no worries of anything that should have been there. Of course, we were still worried about the possibilities of chemical weapons but they never panned out.

And this:

But I was there at Al QaQaa on April 10th with the 101st, I can rest assure you that [NBC producer interviewed on MSNBC earlier today] Lai Ling Jew is lying about it, she seems to be expressing a convenient contrary opinion of the time. The very first thing we do when we move into an area is clear it of any enemy combatants, including going inside warehouses full of ordinance, which we did immediately when we reached there.

And this:

Another gentleman sending me e-mail from a ".mil" address writes: Operational plans in modern warfare are continually rolling and are available to combat commanders in a real time network environment. The original pre-invasion Operation Plans listed the Al-QaQaa weapons depot as a priority security site. After the 101st Airborne Division inspected the site, the security priority was downgraded and the Operational Plan was modified.

They came, they conquered, they searched the site. Nothing significant found. No IAEA seals. No WMDs. (It begs a question: If Iraq could hide the HMX, could they hide something else, like WMDs themselves?) KerrySpot also quotes this gem from the MSNBC report:

Then in March, shortly before the war began, the I.A.E.A. conducted another inspection and found that the HMX stockpile was still intact and still under seal. But inspectors were unable to inspect the RDX stockpile and could not verify that the RDX was still at the compound.

WHOA. The IAEA couldnt verify that the RDX stuff was there? And earlier, in February, they stated point-blank that 50 tons of HMX had been diverted? What gives? The Last but not least:

Now, Pentagon officials say U.S. troops and members of the Iraq Survey Group did arrive at the Al QaQaa compound on May 27. And when they did, they found no HMX or RDX or any other weapons under seal at the time.

That was May 27, 2003. t was all gone by then. KerrySpot also points to Captain's Quarters on how unlikely random looters or even insurgents were to have taken this material. It would be a 'mission impossible' for anyone without large trucks. The White Powder was useful only to those who (a) knew what it was, (b) knew where it was and how to get at it behind those IAEA seals and wherehouses, (c) knew how to transport this white powdery material. Any looters had between April 4 and May 27 to find and take undetected something the US military didn't find there through a thorough search. This was a secured site, given medium priority and by May 27th, it was confirmed that no HMX or RDX was there.IAEA reports themselves indicate the RDX was gone prior to the war

Did random looters and insurgents find what the US military didn't and carry away 40 dump truck loads in a matter of weeks, taking something the 101st didnt find when searching the bunkers in this large complex? Occam's razor demands a different Conclusion: Saddam and his regime moved the materials prior to the arrival of US troops.

The story-line about the QaQaa weapons cache going missing keeps unravelling for the Kerry-UN-NYTimes-CBS alliance that tried to lay the blame on Bush. I am going to start calling these kinds of stories that try to tarnish an enemy of the MSM but end up embarrassing the press exploding caca journalism - it's blowing up in their face like a trick cigar. The centerpiece of the story is that the US military let explosives slip away from under their noses. But the Missing Explosives Story Missed Some facts:

By Monday night it was learned that NBC News had imbedded reporters with the 101st Airborne as they took over the facility on April 10, 2003. The conclusion of NBC, “the troops never found the nearly 380 tons of some of the most powerful conventional explosives, called HMX and RDX, which is now missing.” The Pentagon makes the same claim.

Blogs are on fire on this - Key points:

• Belmont Club notes NBC's report that "the RDX explosive was already gone by the time US forces arrived" and comments that if so, "The price of passing the "Global Test" was very high."
• Truth laid Bare in "NYT's October Surprise Collapses" shows how like the CBS-phony-draft-memos story, the real story is shoddy Agenda-driven journalism and the New York Times knew they were skewing the facts. How? He compares the page one hysteria making it appear like they were stolen recently to the page three "rowback" that indicates uncertainty as to whether the US ever had the explosives in custody.
• More evidence explosives were taken by Saddam pre-war - from the IAEA itself! Guardian in Feb 2003 on El Baradei's report to the UN:
  We have also continued to investigate the relocation and consumption of the high explosive HMX. As I reported earlier, Iraq has declared that 32 tonnes of the HMX previously under IAEA seal had been transferred for use in the production of industrial explosives, primarily to cement plants as a booster for explosives used in quarrying. ...Iraq has provided us with additional information, including documentation on the movement and use of this material, and inspections have been conducted at locations where the material is said to have been used. However, given the nature of the use of high explosives, it may well be that the IAEA will be unable to reach a final conclusion on the end use of this material.
  The Washington Times found that info relevent today: "IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council one month before the allied invasion that Iraq had moved some of its highly explosive HMX from the Al Qaqaa site." But the New York Times did not.
• NRO: "IAEA and its head, the anti-American Mohammed El Baradei, leaked a false letter on this issue to the media"
• Along the same trail, Hewitt has a roundup and insight on how the IAEA may have distorted what Iraq told them: " The significance of this story: It will confirm the ominous, uncoordinated-but quite-real-alliance between liberal political elites and liberal media elites that works to distort news in order to influence elections."
• What HMX is and why it wouldnt be good 'looting' material: "The kinds of trucks you would need to haul it are like grain hoppers, and lots of them. You can't stack it on pallets. That is why the nonsense about vandals running off with the stuff is just that — nonsense."
• NRO links to Daily recycler showing evidence that Kerry is incompetent, lying, desperate, and all those other adjectives Joe Lockhart used to describe the President yesterday.

On the last point, Kerry is using MSM attacks on the President as a crutch and a launching pad for his own attacks; NEVER MIND FACTS, BLAME AMERICA from the RNC responds to the Kerry statements. Kerry is showing poor leadership and irresponsible behavior. Consider this - Kerry took bad intelligence and reporting and made statements that were false based on it. By the Michael Moore/ Howard Dean standard, Kerry Lied. Let us recount Kerry's deceptions and lies (HT to comment writer here):

• Bush wants to bring back the draft using a bill THAT THE DEMOCRATS WROTE.
• Documents "proving" that Bush did not fullfill his duties are valid (when they were actually forgeries)
• He met with ALL of the UN Security Council Members and they "supported" him. When actually he met with 3 (Singapore, Cameroon and France) and he really means Chirac supports him!
• Accuses the Repubs of voter fraud while his followers at ACORN committing massive fraud.
• Bush fails to secure explosives that went missing BEFORE WE WENT INTO IRAQ!

Report: Explosives already gone when U.S. troops arrived

NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad. While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC. The International Atomic Energy revealed Monday that it had been told two weeks ago by the Iraqi government that 380 tons of HMX and RDX disappeared from Al Qaqaa after Saddam Hussein's government fell.

Moreover, N Y Times Knew this to be the case so we must conclude: New York Times Deliberately Misled Readers Re Iraq Depot.

A New York Times story splashed down today and the wires followed. UN's IAEA is once again is pointing fingers as U.N. Warns of Explosives Missing in Iraq: Iraq told the nuclear agency that the explosives had vanished from the former Iraqi military installation as a result of "theft and looting ... due to lack of security."

First,Iraq informed the IAEA. The IAEA knew nothing on its own. All the UN did was make the information public. The IAEA neither guarded it, nor helped find it, it's just playing the role of the finger-pointer. Here's the who knew what when timeline:

McClellan said the IAEA informed U.S. mission in Vienna on Oct. 15 about the missing explosives at Al-Qaqaa. He said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice was notified "days after that," and she then informed President Bush.

ElBaradei told the council the agency had been trying to give the U.S.-led multinational force and Iraq's interim government "an opportunity to attempt to recover the explosives before this matter was put into the public domain."

But since the disappearance was reported Monday in The New York Times, ElBaradei said he wanted the Security Council to have the letter dated Oct. 10 that he received from Mohammed J. Abbas, a senior official at Iraq's Ministry of Science and Technology, reporting the theft of 377 tons of explosives.

The letter from Abbas informed the IAEA that since April 9, 2003, looting at the Al-Qaqaa installation had resulted in the loss of 215 tons of HMX, 156 tons of RDX and six tons of PETN explosives.

Diplomats said there was nothing to suggest that ElBaradei, who had irritated the Bush administration before the war by insisting there was no evidence that Saddam had revived his nuclear program, had intended to keep the report a secret until after the Nov. 2 election.

Read between the lines. Is it just possible that the Bush administration itself leaked this information? Why? so that UN couldn't dump on it at the worst possible time, i.e., the "5 days out time" that Gore lackeys used on Bush's DUI in 2000 or that was used against Arnold in 2003.

There are few points worth noting: Since April 9 2003. Meaning whatever loss took place a long time ago. Pentagon says: "unclear whether 380 tons of high explosives reported missing from a weapons facility in Iraq disappeared before or after it fell under control of US forces." In other words, plausible that Saddam moved it, shipped it out of the country (Syria?) etc.

DiRita said US forces visited the Al-Qaqaa site several times after the US invasion of Iraq as part of a US-led search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and related material. But he said it is unclear whether the missing explosives were at the site during those visits.

"The forces searched 32 bunkers and 87 other buildings at the facility. Some explosive material was discovered, none of it carried IAEA seals. They did find stuff there. They probably secured it or destroyed it," he said.

DiRita said Iraq was swimming in weapons and ammunition after the war. More than 500 weapons sites were identified after the war, and some 200,000 tons of ammunition have been destroyed by US forces. "I'm told they (US forces) made several visits to that facility looking for WMD related (material), and obviously we need to learn more about exactly what it is they saw there," he said.

This site was just one of thousands in an Iraq awash in arms. Here are some quotes to show the context:

In strategic sections of Iraq, just about every school, hospital or Baath Party building that U.S. forces come across is stacked high with ammunition, according to Gen. John Abizaid, overall commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. The number of sites is a logistical nightmare for the coalition, which can't remove the arms fast enough and lacks manpower to guard all the caches. Abizaid's military command estimates it will take five years to destroy all the explosives already confiscated.

"There is more ammunition in Iraq than any place I've ever been in my life, and it is all not securable," Abizaid told senators.

In just the sector of central Iraq patrolled by the Army's 4th Infantry Division, more than 3,000 arms caches that must be destroyed, moved or guarded have been found, Abizaid said. And there is much more yet to be found, he said.

The last point is key: This weapons site was one of 3,000 arms caches.

This was a known problem. It was a known serious problem. Much was being done to address it. LGF reports on how much was done: 110,000 tons of weapons destroyed in Iraq - and "in June 2004, the Army Corps of Engineers had destroyed or accounted for at least 248,000 tons of weaponry in Iraq." The cited link notes that an estimated 600,000 tons of weapons were in Iraq. The explosives lost at Al-Qaqaa was a drop in an ocean of armaments in Iraq.

It is not news that insurgents have been able to buy what they want on the weapons black market. Nor is it news that looters and scavangers have snuck into weapons dumps to smuggle material out, creating risks for them and for soldiers guarding the caches. Compared with a few hundred tons of explosives found missing, it is also newsworthy that we have destroyed over 100,000 tons of materials, thousands of bombs and shells, etc. In the recent weapons buyback in Sadr-city we got 18,000 weapons.

Blaming the Bush administration, as Kerry did, for the fact that Saddam and/or looters took explosives out of one of the thousands of ammo dumps in Iraq is unreasonable when put in the context of the huge amount of arms found and the huge amount we destroyed. The incompetence of the administration, for attacking a country so awash in arms! Next time, lets invade Denmark, much less chance of an explosives cache being left untended!

UPDATE: I rewrote the essay. The real comparison that shows the minisule nature of this complaint is the LGF number: 110,000 tons of weaponry destroyed.

Zarqawi's roaches are on the move into outskirts of Fallujah thanks to our bombing pressure.

Meanwhile, Iraqi Govt still negotiating to save Fallujah from terrorists:

"The negotiations are ongoing. They are not suspended," an Iraqi Defense Ministry source told Reuters. "The Iraqi government is doing all it can to save the people of Falluja from these terrorists."

All of you who think Bremer made a mistake in disbanding the baathist-led Army and refusing to fill Army ranks with baathists who worked for Saddam, Read This.

Thought for the day: The MSM will start 'realizing' that Iraq is going pretty well, despite the terrorist violence ...oh, round about NOVEMBER 3rd! LA Times has the media meme Warming Up Before The Show.

And now this, the Wash Times story is about Kerry and the UN, not the Osama/ToraBora issue, but in Wash Times commentary we get Osama ghosts or stand-ins?

Just think of the mainstream media as a bunch of hard-copy blogs ... only slower.

Arab-Europeans Fighting on Side of Terrorists says Dawood, Iraq's minister of state:

Large numbers of Arabs with European passports have entered Iraq and are fighting on the side of the terrorists in the so-called “Death Triangle”, Iraq’s Minister of State for Security Qassem Dawood said yesterday.

The Iraqi official said terrorists from many countries were converging on Iraq to multiply attacks ahead of the US presidential election next week. Some have been captured and would be put on trial in Baghdad.

.... “It seems that many militant groups have asked their members to converge on Iraq for big fireworks,” Dawood said. “Among those we have arrested are Saudis, Syrians, Egyptians, Palestinians, Sudanese and Tunisians.”

He also confirmed that the man captured by the Americans in Fallujah on Friday was “a senior associate” of Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi. And he chastised the media for their lies about Fallujah: “They are creating the impression that the people of Fallujah support the terrorists,” Dawood said. “This is a lie that must not be allowed to stick. The people of Fallujah are hostages to the terrorists. They are sending heartbreaking messages to the government to rescue them. And this is what we are trying to do.”

Wake up, people: The terrorists are trying to make Iraq look bad so America retreats and the Jihadists win a 'victory' with the blood of Iraqis and Americans. Don't let them do this!

Bradly MacNealy's Update From Iraq on the geography of terrorism:

Some people want to believe there was no connection between 9-11, Afghanistan and Iraq. So we reviewed the recent history of terrorists (Islamic Extremist) and their ties to Saddam's regime and have sought out the truth to explain the reasons why we believe the terrorists’ center of gravity was and is right here in Iraq.

Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal took refuge in Baghdad in 1999. Nidal’s group is guilty of murdering 407 people, ten of them Americans, and wounding 788 others in attacks in 20 countries.

On April 18th, 2003 Khala Khadar al Salahat, a known terrorist, surrendered to U.S. Marines in Baghdad. Salahat and Nidal supplied the plastic explosives used by Libyan terrorists to destroy Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988. That attack killed 259 people, 35 of them were American college students.

Abu Abbas, mastermind of the hijacking of the Italian Cruise ship Achilles Lauro in 1985, was captured by U.S. Army Special Forces near Baghdad on April 14th, 2003. Abbas had been living in Baghdad under Iraqi protection since 2002.

Ramzi Yousef, who planned the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, entered the U.S. on an Iraqi Passport. Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was indicted for mixing the chemicals used in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, fled to Baghdad where the Iraqi government provided him a house and a salary for years.

Saddam is known to have supported Palestinian suicide bombers through his "Arab Liberation Front" which awarded $10,000 to the family of each bomber who conducted a terrorist attack. Between March 2002 and March 2003 these attacks killed 223 people including 12 Americans, and wounded 1209.

Abu Musab Zarqawi, a known figure in Osama Bin Ladin's network, is the #1 Terrorist target in Iraq today and is the Al Qaeda leader responsible for a series of terrorist attacks and beheadings in Iraq. Zarqawi is now holding and threatening to be-head the innocent humanitarian aide worker Margaret Hassan.

Another known 9-11 connection was in January of 2002, Nawaz al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Midhar met with Iraqi diplomat Ahmed Hikmat Shakir in Malaysia. Shakir escorted them to an Al Qaeda 9-11 planning meeting. Shakir was arrested six days after 9-11.

It is clear that we are here for the right reasons, but being away from home has caused our families tremendous stress and strain. We pray that our family members and friends back home understand that the sacrifices they are making will not be in vain. Family separations have caused hardships but the results will make the world a safer and better place. It may not be obvious because the good news is often obscured or overshadowed by the bad news, but please know we are making progress in changing a part of the world that will ultimately make all Americans safer. Thanks for your support and please keep the prayers flowing.

Catfish 6 Bradly MacNealy TF 185th Aviation "In the Sunni Triangle" Commanding

A Brother's Mission, story of a man who went back to help in Iraq.

Dozens murdered, execution style by the terrorist thugs of the insurgency. This crime is a reminder of the stories of Kurds and Shia who were killed through mass executions then dumped into mass graves. A shocking reminder of what awaits all of Iraq should the coalition effort at building a free, stable, and democratic Iraq fail.

CIA coup plot foiled by Porter Goss, and an "October Surprise" by the Democrats is deflected.

Meanwhile, Lehman says we know where Osama bin Laden is hiding, but some are saying that Osama is dead. Froggy thinks OBL is dead. Convincing point: Terrorists ship videos of beheadings to Al Jazeera on a regular basis, but Bin Laden can't produce a single picture or video with his mug next to a paper dated post 2001? He's got to rely on low quality audio tape that could be dice-and-splice jobs or a stand-in? This at a time when AQ operatives are using internet sites and instant messaging? Come now, where is the "Proof of Life" here. Furthermore, if we believed he was dead, how would it help us to telegraph it and make OBL a 'martyr'?

This realization that Osama is - one way or another 'out of commission' - has been around, but the living/dead/hiding-in-a-spider-hole options never had relevance to us not 'in the know' until Kerry started mouthing off that he would have caught Bin Laden. Arrogant monday-morning QB'ing, even if OBL did slip the noose in December 2001. But what if Kerry has it all wrong? How does he know OBL got away? Or was there in the first place? Through intelligence? (Hmmm, meaning the same crowd in link one that was trying to run up a report that deflected blame from them to Bush.)

Now we have blogosphere speculation - via Powerline, LGF, Hugh Hewitt, INDC, etc., about a Monday Washington Times story on "Kerry, foreign policy, and truthfulness" something "regarding a previous criticism of Bush's foreign policy". Protein Wisdom has a linkorama summary on the speculation. It's quite possible it has to do with Osama and ToraBora and what really went down, and what the men on the Senate Intelligence Committee really know about it; sometimes truth is stranger than Satire.

UPDATE: While surfing on this story, found this - TOmmy Franks Rebuts Kerry.

UPDATE2: The real Washington Times story. Kerry embellished ('misled') on meeting UN members prior to his 2002 vote. He said he met all of them - he didn't. This is a man who said that being in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 *while Nixon was President* was "seared in his memory". A man who said "I was there when they signed the [Gulf War] ceasefire." No, he wasnt, he was there 3 weeks later. Whether this new Kerry flub/fib/exagerration hits the MSM fan or not, remains to be seen. Washington Times is a VRWC paper to the Liberals. But Kerry campaign will at minimum have to do some sort of "Rowback" on the story.

Bill Roggio's Fourth Rail has some great articles on: The battle for the Sunni Triangle , Zarqawi's Al Qaeda allegience, Failing the Global Test in Darfur and Kerry's dangerous multilateralism. And after that feast, for dessert, Tommy Franks correcting Kerry on Tora Bora.

The story Innovative Tactics Are Winning the Battle Against Insurgents shows how Col Pittard in Diyala province is winning the war against insurgents with a mix of a strong presence, outreach to former Saddam officers (paid members of an 'Advisory Council' that convinces hostiles to lay down arms), :

Roadside and car bombings, while still a serious threat to his 6,000 soldiers, fell 60 percent from their June peak while direct attacks plummeted by 85 percent, according to the military. As mortar and rocket strikes on Camp Warhorse, headquarters of Pittard's 3rd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, have subsided, body armor no longer has to be worn at all times and outdoor volleyball and basketball courts have come into use.

... Pittard has troops continuously stationed inside Baqouba, the provincial capital some 35 miles northeast of Baghdad. "We don't allow even the slightest sign of open resistance," he said. When the Diyala Province town of Buhritz flared up over the summer, Pittard threatened to destroy it and a sizable U.S.-Iraqi force went in to kill or wound some 50 insurgents. But at the same critical moment, as leaflets circulated demanding U.S. troops stay out, Pittard drove into the center of town, held a news conference for Iraqi media and asked: "What do you need in Buhritz?"

... In his favor, Pittard says, is a solid provincial governor and police chief, $560,000 for weapons buybacks and an amnesty program that assistant Gov. Ghassan Abass Jassim says has attracted more than 400 militants. Jassim claims the province has become the safest in central Iraq. "In the future maybe there will be zero terrorists in Diyala, especially as projects that bring more employment come on stream," he said.

Ex-generals and colonels, who Pittard says had been fired, now sit on a Military Advisory Committee and are encouraged to negotiate with the insurgents. The Americans pay them a salary of $250 a month.

The gamble, Pittard says, is paying off. He says the advisers have weakened links between the hard-core fighters and less militant rebels. Some of the rebels were once soldiers under the command of the officers-turned-advisers and still respect them. They have helped persuade several others to surrender. An insurgent leader, Ahmed Hamid Jassim, recently laid down his weapons and pledged in writing to the committee he wouldn't take them up again, Pittard said. "If he breaks his promise, they'll probably kill him," he said.

While Col Pittard speaks of "irreversible momentum", it certainly isn't completely pacified. The article notes that 13-15 cells are active in the province (a 'cell' may be 4 or 5 guys who do mortar hit-and-run or set up IEDs). Another attack near Baquoba in Diyala province occured today, when Insurgents died in an attack on American troops in Buhruz (N.B. for Al Jazeera 'Iraqi fighters' read 'anti-Iraqi-government insurgents'):

Fierce fighting erupted in the town of Buhruz northeast of Baghdad near Baquba after Iraqi fighters attacked a US patrol with small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades early on Friday morning. A US military spokesman later claimed that nine Iraqi fighters had been killed and three others wounded in the fighting.

We might change that count to 12-14 cells instead of 13-15. And yet, an ineffective attack, a strong presense, and continuing pressure to lay down arms and work productively will extinguish the insurgency eventually.

In triying to verify the lower casualties in this province, I learned that there were 21 combat deaths in Baquoba in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and only 1 combat death since August 1. I also found this at Iraq Casualty Count:

Looking Ahead, There Have Been No Reported Deaths Since 10/18/04, A Hiatus of 3 Days as of 10/21 (the Date This Analysis Was Prepared), As A New Counter-Insurgency Effort Has Begun. Thus There Appears to Be a Potential for an Even Longer Hiatus. The Last Time Deaths Slowed Extraordinarily, Wth Hiatuses of 5 and 6 Days, Was in February/March 2004, During the Counter-Offensive Prior to the Anniversary Insurgency. Time Will Tell if We are Experiencing a Temporary Suppression of Casualties, as we Did Six Months Ago, or If the Insurgency is In Fact Broken.

The October casualty rate continues to be a positive trend compared to the previous 2 months. Considering that the Shiite Mahdi army has turned in weapons, that the coalition and Iraqi govt troops have retaken Samarra and are operating on the offense in Al Anbar and are making incursions into Fallujah - considering all this, the coalition and Iraq government is in a much better and stronger position than 4 weeks ago in Iraq.

While the MSM frets wrongly of too much religious influence in elections both here and in Iraq, Iraq the Model reports on the flipside: The Shia clerics in Iraq are endorsing Democracy. Strongly! As in ...

"Those who don’t participate in the elections will end up in hell”

Now, I've done GOTV work myself, but I've never tried a motivational message that strong! This endorsement by the Shia clerics creates more momentum for democracy in Iraq. Kurds and Shiites will fully participate and most Sunnis, i.e., 85% of Iraqs overall, want the elections to take place.

Wherever you are, vote! As the cleric statement said in Iraq, holds too for citizens in America: “we must bear the responsibility and we must all participate in the elections because it’s a patriotic duty and not doing so is like treason”

From the news of high-level terrorists captured, this stood out: "Intelligence sources said the man captured was previously thought to be a relatively minor member of the terror network. But because so many of al-Zarqawi's associates have been captured or killed, he moved up to take a more important role."

This is a good sign our operations are grinding the enemy down. The terrorist groups, like the mafia, have a hierarchy in their gangs; they have their 'Emirs' of cells or gangs that report up to senior leaders. When we take out an "Emir", he is replaced; when we take our senior members, junior members move up.

It's tough to know where we stand, the intelligence community can only make estimates based on what they know of shadowy groups, and they share only what they want to share. But these scorecards of the terrorists that have been reported killed/captured/at-large are useful for keeping track: Terrorist Scorecard in the global war on terror, includes Zarqawi's Tawhid al Jihad minions (but likely not updated). Iraqi Most Wanted Scorecard of Saddam and the 'deck of cars' and other nefarious enemies of the New Iraq.

Al Jazeera says "Iran nuclear deal 'tied to US election'" and notes the Iranian calculations:

Samore said he thought the Iranians were "waiting for the US elections" on 2 November, with different calculations depending on whether incumbent President George Bush or his challenger John Kerry wins. Samore said the Iranian goal is to have the international community recognise its right to uranium enrichment, which makes fuel for civilian reactors but can also manufacture the explosive material for atomic bombs.

... The Iranians might try to take advantage of a Kerry victory by agreeing to a three-month full extension from November until when Kerry takes office in January.

The subtext: Iran won't make any concessions until they know who is running the US next year. With a Kerry victory, Iran will try to get the same deal North Korea got in 1994. They will demand assurances we won't topple them, further emboldening them if we give that to them. Then they will break the deal and have 'fait accompli' nukes by the end of the decade.

Americas enemies are on the fence, and we know who they are rooting for and what they hope to have happen. The only thing stopping their plans is a Bush re-election.

Media bias strikes again ... and General Myers rebuts Post characterizations in a statement he released:

I am very disappointed in the mischaracterizations that appeared in The Washington Post today regarding our Afghanistan war planning efforts, “Second-guessing actions in Afghanistan.”

The assertion that I “raised doubts about the war plan,” is incorrect and unfounded. Numerous military leaders came together immediately following the events of September 11th and formulated plans we began executing a month later. We discussed every available course of action, which we take very seriously, and do every time we engage our military men and women in armed conflict.

It is wrong to characterize these discussions and planning sessions as ‘second guessing’ or ‘doubting’ anyone.

The media drumbeat to undercut and discredit two amazing military victories is incredible and disheartening. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan war executions exceeded expectations; they are classic examples of the right way to win wars. This "second-guessing" plotline is pure political-agenda-driven media bias, meant to dump on the Bush administration and help the Kerry campaign.

AP reports: "The U.S. military has arrested a "senior leader" in the network run by ... Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, along with five others during overnight raids in ... Fallujah, officials said Saturday."

Questionable verbiage like "terror mastermind" and "insurgent stronghold" elided. It's not a 'stronghold' if we can go in and catch them! :-)

If you want proof of media bias, here it is: Allawi support 'plummets'. Did the media tell you before that Allawi had approval ratings of 66% back in July? Do you recall the media bothering to mention that at all in the last 2 months, say when he was in Washington? You know, in between calls that Allawi is a 'puppet' or other such things? No. And I know this, because I read the AP dispatches on Iraq each day. I caught and shared the item about Allawi's popularity on this blog some time back when I found it, but it was a quick and obsure blip in the media that disappeared fast.

So, we have the media with this piece of information and they hoard it until another piece of information less stellar comes along so they can use it to emphasize negative motion and say:

Just over 45 percent of those surveyed said Allawi had been effective since taking office in June, down from over 66 percent in July, and support for his government plummeted from 62 percent to 43 percent over the same period.

That is how the MSM operates. Emphasize the negative. Right now, Allawi has favorables in the upper 40s. Is that bad? "Plummet" - haven't seen that since the media tried to trumpet post 9/11 ratings for Bush, they were so eager to get his ratings to plummet and they never did! Worry not about Allawi's popularity - I think he is a hero who braves death every day and deserves 80% approval ratings, but his rating is about what Bush was getting in the US earlier in the year, it is higher than Kerry's favorables were last month. This is not a huge negative, but is likely a sign that after the honeymoon period, many Iraqis still waiting for progress. We need to flush out insurgents for that to happen. And yet Allawi is actually popular: the 'most popular politician' got only one percent more than Allawi on the 'who do want in the national assembly? question.

But there is a huge positive undercurrent being missed here. They are actually having polls in Iraq! And people are free to give answers. Ignore the media's biased questions about 'if there is fundamentalist Islamic state'. Respect for religion is not the same as desire for theocracy. What is occuring in Iraq is the building of the culture of Democracy.

Connect the dots, a summary of media reports and government reports linking Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda. A corrective to the amnesia of the media.

The terrible lack of accountability at the UN is one more reason to question John Kerry as "unfit for command". Kerry has not only decided we need a global test, he has also felt that dying under a UN flag is more worthwhile than under an American flag:

KERRY: It depends what you mean by that, Frank. If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.

It's an incredible quote and a window into Kerry's thinking that goes back to the early 1970s when he said US shouldn't intervene except under a UN flag. So much for sovereignty! of course, where we did have an opportunity to bring allies together - he blinked. He voted against the use of force in 1991 to eject Saddam out of Kuwait.

The difference between Bush and Kerry is not about asessing threats, but about what to do with the threats. Kerry's quotes on Iraq from 1991 to 2003 assessed Saddam Hussein as a major threat:

'[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go observed and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation." (November, 1997)

"We’ve been sliding into a fundamental policy of containment, which I share with Major Ritter the notion is disastrous to our overall proliferation interests and disastrous with respect to the Middle East and our interests with respect to Saddam Hussein and Iraq . But we have to make a decision whether we’re prepared to do what is necessary, and I mean to the point of a sustained targeting of the regime; not the Iraqi people, but the regime.” (Oct 1998)

"But it is something that we know--for instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people, and there is some evidence of their [terrorists] efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them. (September 2001)

“I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq – Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991.” (July 2002)

“I believe the record of Saddam Hussein’s ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force if necessary.”

“I would disagree with John McCain that it's the actual weapons of mass destruction he may use against us, it's what he may do in another invasion of Kuwait or in a miscalculation about the Kurds or a miscalculation about Iran or particularly Israel. Those are the things that--that I think present the greatest danger. He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat." (October 2002)

“If You Don’t Believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.” (January 2003)

Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who must be disarmed. (March 2003)

So Kerry's assessment was that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and that regime change was a worthy goal. That was until the war became an issue for Kerry to use against Bush to win the primary and the election. Now he says that "Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.", even though the reality is the Saddam-Al Qaeda connections are there.

The issue is about how to respond to threats. John Kerry's lifetime record is clear - he's weak-on-defense and weak on American sovereignty:

Kerry came into office in 1984 opposing Reagan's military spending and Reagan's Cold War policies (which helped win the Cold War). He voted to kill all these weapons: the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M-1 Abrams Tank, every aircraft carrier laid down from 1988, the Aegis anti aircraft system, the F-15 Strike Eagle, the Block 60 F-16, the P-3 Orion upgrade, the B-1, the B-2, the Patriot Anti Missile System; He voted to Kill the FA-18 and the F117. Kerry voted to defund the development and deployment of practically every weapons systems since 1988, including many of the weapons systems that won the last three wars. That is why Zell Miller asked mockingly how Kerry would send our military to kill terrorists: "With what? Spitballs?!?"

Beyond that, he’s voted to cut pay for military families 12 times, and voted against the $87 billion for Iraq reconstruction and armor for our troops, for the most cowardly of political reasons. (As VP Cheney said "If they can't stand up to Howard Dean in the primaries, how can they stand up to Al Qaeda?")

But it gets worse: Kerry voted to kill anti-terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%. John Kerry voted to cut intelligence spending by a cumulative $6 billion. He voted against the death penalty for terrorists in 1999. While he has voted to cut defense spending 38 times, Kerry voted to increase U.S. funding for U.N. operations by 800%! He wants the UN to handle it.

He has evoked the same sentiment the French did in 2002: "We could have moved from a position of strength, in my judgment, and I think it represents a failure of diplomacy of a massive order, and that is what war is: War is the failure of diplomacy."

There is a reason why the mainstream media and Kerry campaign wants us to forget Kerry's record. It's not popular. (Kerry is an extreme Liberal on other issues as well: He voted for the biggest tax increase in US history, against Bush's tax relief that gave middle-class a tax cut, ended the death Tax and the Marriage Penalty. The non-partisan National Journal has labeled him the Most Liberal Senator for 2003 and in 5 other years, and he has a lifetime ADA rating more Liberal than Ted Kennedy.)

We don't need a Senator who shook hands with Communists in the 1980s while opposing Reagan's successful Cold War policies; we don't a weak-on-defense dovish Liberal jumping into the War on Terror. The MSM/Kerry script is for Kerry to mouth tough talk about killing terrorists, kill a few geese, spread doom-and-gloom about the current status quo, promote a plan that conveniently lifts from the Bush plan already laid out in May while stirringly calling it a 'fresh start', scare-monger about the draft, then wait for the voters to line up for you.

What is forgotten in all of this is the critical point that Iraq was liberated from Saddam Hussein, a liberation that would only have happened through the use of force. Force the Kerry was for, before he was against. When asked if US troops would have gone into Iraq under Kerry's watch - Kerry has flipped and flopped and dissembled (even to the point of claiming "not necessarily" when Bush claimed reasonably that "Saddam would still be in power" if Kerry's methods prevailed). But Kerry got nailed on Letterman of all places - Kerry answered no when asked point blank if American troops would be in Iraq today if Kerry was President. No. American troops were the only thing that toppled and captured Saddam and secured it for a new page in history. Which means quite simply this never would have happened without Bush:

Bush was right to depose Saddam. Kerry's assessments from 1991 to 2003 were more correct than his flip-flops since, flip-flops that expose his pro-UN anti-American-sovereignty underbelly. Tactical issues regarding the occupation are no excuse to switch from the man who has the correct vision on the global war on terror (Bush) to the man whose vision is flawed and whose record is frankly pathetic regarding national defense and national security.

The Biggest Corruption Scandal in World History and the UN decides where to place blame - on the critics!

UN officials privately have lashed out at conservative media in the United States for its coverage of the scandal [Ed note: freedom of the press is so inconvenient for these guys], and Annan mentioned a "campaign" against the United Nations without giving further details.

"There is no doubt that the constant campaign and the discussions have hurt the UN," Annan said. "It has done damage."

When it's not covering its rear, the UN is busy saying no to Iraq, this time on helping on Saddam's trial:

The United Nations won't train judges or prosecutors for the Iraqi tribunal that will try members of Saddam Hussein's regime ... "The Secretary-General (Kofi Annan) recently stated that United Nations officials should not be directly involved in lending assistance to any court or tribunal that is empowered to impose the death penalty," Stephane Dujarric said at a news conference. "In addition ... we have serious doubts regarding the capability of the Iraqi Special Tribunal to meet the relevant international standards."

Uh huh, you don't think they meet your 'standards' so you won't life a finger to help them understand those standards and live up to them. Kofi Annan is actively hostile to our efforts in Iraq.

This is the organization that John Kerry thinks has more legitimacy than the U.S. as a flag to fight under!! ... more in a followup post.

One reason why I am a big fan of Iraq the Model is his sharing of Iraqi and Arab views. On the question, 'If John Kerry is elected, will the Iraq strategy be changed?' he reports from the BBC Forum: "The majority of the commentators seemed to agree that whoever going to be elected, he won’t change the strategy of the USA in Iraq and the region ... Few posters had a clear stand favoring one candidate. Most of those supporting Kerry were Arabs, while supporters for Bush where mainly Iraqis." Notable comments:

“Yes, as Mr. Bush said; the world has become a better place without Saddam. For me, it became a happier place, only our happiness is not a complete one yet because of the foreign terrorists who entered our country”. Ibrahim-Baghdad.

“No, because it’s the Zionist lobby that steers the wheel of the American policy regardless of who the president was, Kerry or Tom and Jerry. I, like all other honest Iraqis wish for Bush to win so that he can keep the course of sterilizing the world from the germs that use Islam as a cover” Ahmed Al Shammari-Baghdad.

“What I’m going to say now is going to be what history will show: GWB and Tony Blair will have a great influence on opening the doors of the Arab countries for the coming democracy and they will help the people of those countries open their minds, because they’re the ones who took the decision alone and their people are the ones who sacrificed, and here goes Afghanistan marching on the way to democracy and after that Iraq and the rest will follow” Fadi Fokee-Egypt.

“If John Kerry wins, I’m going to grieve to death because Iraqis want Bush to accomplish the mission. As an Iraqi, I’m going to have a party when Bush gets reelected. I know that time is needed for things to settle down in Iraq and what’s going on right now is a natural side effect for the fall of the past regime” Shakir-UK.

Hat-tip to Fred, link about Democratic Ferment on Campus:

Within the relatively safe confines of Baghdad's university campuses ... Students and professors alike are still learning what democracy is and debating how to execute it on campuses - or whether universities are ready for such debates at all. ... Iraqi campuses provide a haven for open political thought. The discussions are much more progressive than they are off the grounds, in large part because campuses are among the few places that aren't overburdened by security problems.

Iraqi Govt and UN at loggerheads over UN's foot dragging on support of upcoming elections:

The Iraqi government, backed by the United States, wants Annan to despatch a huge contingent of U.N. monitors to Iraq's capital Baghdad -- primarily to provide legitimacy to what some observers suggest might evolve into a truncated election that shuts out voters from insurgency-hit provinces. But the secretary-general, who has called the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq ''illegal'' and condemned the killings of civilians, is dragging his feet, refusing to make any commitment. Responding to Iraqi criticism, Annan told reporters Thursday he does not plan to send his staff into an increasingly violent Iraq unless there is ''genuine improvement in the security environment or solid arrangements for the protection of the staff.'' Annan also made clear the United Nations is not ''planning'' or ''organising'' the elections. ''We are offering support and advice. And we will continue to do that.'' On Wednesday, Iraq Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari was quoted as saying: ''We feel very disappointed that the participation of U.N. employees is not up to the required level and there is a limited number of officials, and we are at the end of October.'' The world body now has only 35 international staffers in Iraq, of which six are election experts. In contrast, the United Nations had more than 600 international employees monitoring elections in Afghanistan last week.

Investor Business Daily editorial - "Fumbling Freedom" takes UN to task for their lack of help to Iraq and explains the crass motivation:

Another possible reason for U.N. foot-dragging in Iraq is more crass. When the Butcher of Baghdad reigned, the U.N. was quite eager to run the oil-for-food sanctions in Iraq. From that work, it got billions in commissions — and some U.N. officials, including Annan's point man, Benon Sevan, is accused of taking bribes. Annan himself may be tainted. His son, Kojo, won a plum job with Cotecna — the main firm overseeing the program.

Now the gravy train has stopped. The U.N. has its own oil-for-food investigation going on, and its findings are due any day now. Meanwhile, the Duelfer report released by the CIA last month revealed deep corruption in the oil-for-food program.

On Thursday, the U.S. vowed to protect U.N. election workers. We'll see if the U.N. responds, though we doubt it. For seven years, the U.N. found there's more money in sanctions than in elections.

At its core, the oil-for-food program wa a hugely corrupting influence that infects our "allies" and the UN against the proper removal of Saddam Hussein. Hussein figured correctly with his payoffs - all Hussein lacked was a UN-kowtowing President (like Kerry) in the White House.

The UN effort thus far in Iraq is worse than pathetic. We have 130,000 troops and the UN has 35 people. The US and the Iraqis will have to pull off this election without help from the UN.

Via FR, a WSJ on Progress in Iraq mentions this tidbit: "One reason for this progress is that we're finally being helped by a substantial number of Iraqi troops. The force that took Samarra included 3,000 Americans and 2,000 Iraqis, with the latter providing local knowledge and helping secure sensitive sites like mosques. More recently around Mahmudiya, U.S. forces rounded up a number of suspects, but it was only the arrival... of the Iraqi National Guard that allowed them to identify... a top Zarqawi paymaster.... "

Abu Ghraib sentence handed down: 8 Years for Iraq Abuse Case.

Refusal to deliver fuel "not out of fear"

Bill Hershey's Iraq News mentions Allawi's bravery in the face of assassination attempts, army base amenities, and reconstruction progress. One point made:

The Corps, which currently manages nearly 700 active reconstruction sites across the country, will soon harness the language skills of the Iraqi engineers as the Iraqi engineers gain new information and awareness of technology and new practices working alongside the American engineers.

On FoxNews, some analyst was yapping about how bad things were in Iraq and that there was no potable water (false) and they needed get the military to do the reconstruction. Be there, done that.

Iraq insurgents getting money from other countries including both Syria (Saddam has some money stashed there), and Saudi Arabia (anti-American sympathizers funding our enemies). This is troubling because an external base and funding are two prerequisites for successful insurgencies. We will have to close the funding and arms trail down to defeat the insurgency.

Kerry cold callers are Hitting a new low with calls that say "you son is dead".

No WMD, but Hussein's threat clear

Renovating Fallujah, one terrorist hideout at a time: "A U.S. Marine air strike today destroyed a known insurgent command and control facility in northern Fallujah. Multinational forces observed activities at the outpost for 30 days, officials said. The insurgents were seen reinforcing fighting positions, storing ammunition and emplacing improvised explosive devices."

Pictures from Iraq like this one, girls in Samarra near a tank:

Stephen Hayes corrects the record on the Kerry campaign's claims about Abu Zarqawi made in recent days. Just a few of the debunks claims:

Susan Rice: "Before the invasion, he was in non-Saddam controlled area,"

Refutation: "A variety of reporting indicates that senior al Qaeda terrorist planner al Zarqawi was in Baghdad [redacted]." ... "The HUMINT reporting indicated that the Iraqi regime certainly knew that al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad because a foreign government service gave that information to Iraq. " ... "The Senate Intelligence Committee report says that Zubaydah was the "senior al Qaeda coordinator responsible for training and recruiting." Zubaydah, who is in U.S. custody, is often cited by skeptics of the Iraq-al Qaeda connection because he told interrogators that he thought it "unlikely" that bin Laden would establish a formal alliance with Iraq for fear of losing his independence. But the skeptics often ignore other aspects of Zubaydah's debriefing. Again, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report, Zubaydah "indicated that he had heard that an important al Qaeda associate, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and others had good relationships with Iraqi Intelligence."

Susan Rice: "didn't pose any imminent threat to the U.S.," ... "was not in any way cooperating with al-Qaeda."

Refutation: "According to Jordanian officials and court testimony by jailed followers in Germany, Zarqawi met in Kandahar and Kabul with bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders. He asked them for assistance and money to set up his own training camp in Herat, near the Iranian border. With al Qaeda's support, the camp opened and soon served as a magnet for Jordanian militants." ... "the Senate report describes Zarqawi as an "al Qaeda associate.""

There is much more in the Hayes' piece that paints the full picture. Zarqawi was a terrorist. He was both an agent of Iraqi interests and Al Qaeda operations. The nexus is there now, and it was there before we invaded Iraq as well, when Zarqawi the Al Qaeda terrorist was building up the Ansar Al-Islam terrorist group, a group Saddam had helped foster.

Hussein and Terror deserves a visit, for laying out the conections so well.

Two shoes drop: Al Zarqawi pledges allegiance to Osama. And any pretense that the Iraqi terrorists are ignoring the US election can be dropped now - Iraqi Terrorists thrilled by comments from John Kerry:

"Those of us from the Ansar Al-Sunnah Army celebrate and congratulate the Muslims and all of our mujahideen brothers in the Tawheed wal-Jihad Movement on the occasion of their inclusion on the list of terrorists... Praise be to Allah, it increased the joy in our hearts that John Kerry, the presidential candidate, has criticized the Bush government for taking so long in making this declaration. The one who may become the president of America is already struck with terror by our brothers from the Tawheed wal-Jihad Movement. The repeated attacks that have targeted the evil Bush are now echoing on Kerry, even though he is not yet a president. This is what Allah means when he commands us to ‘terrorize your enemy and the enemy of Allah.’”

Before you go vote, check out an entry for Hugh Hewitt's symposium question of why to vote for Bush: 50 reasons to Vote For Bush, a wonderful photo essay ... I especially liked these items: "That the American Flag will be seen around the world as it truly is -- the harbinger of freedom and the last, best hope of Earth. ... That men like this are hunted to the ends of the Earth and destroyed. ... That the secret assassins of tyranny continue to fall before the secret soldiers of Democracy. ... That the body bags of Beslan are never seen in Baltimore. ... And that freedom reign ..."

I sent my entry in too, "A Lincoln For Our Age". I was just trying to explain why a country's divisions and our current situation are not really novel, and not really Bush's fault, but in writing I realized that indeed George W Bush shares some characteristics with Lincoln. So I extended it to be a full endorsement essay. As our nation needed Lincoln then, it needs a man like G W Bush now. It was a point Rudy Guliani made - at certain times when the ideas and character of a party or a person are more necessary than ever. George W. Bush is the right man for our times, navigating a difficult and treacherous world and rising to the challenge of defeating global terrorism. (This doesnt even touch on the fact that Kerry represents extremism and elitism on cultural issues, has a dangerous litmus test for judges; and Kerry's record on taxes gets an "F" from the National Taxpayers Union, he is a tax hiker and would be a disaster for tax policy reasons alone.)

BTW, I already did vote for Bush, early. No turning back now. Bush will win by 8 points was my prediction in February. I still feel somewhat confident in my prediction; I also predicted that Kerry would pick Edwards, 4 months before it was announced. Polls are lining up with a Bush polling lead of 4pts or so (RCP avg), if you account for usual anti-GOP bias in polls, and a final "gut-check" on candidates that gives most undecideds to Bush - 8 point Bush victory. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Matthews: And just who was it that invited us into Iraq? To slaughter and lay waste a land already living in third-world conditions?

The land has been liberated. You may want to visit this blog by Iraqis: Iraq the Model, or this one Hammorabi to get a perspective of the Iraqis who are living there now. They say universally they feel free from what was horrible life under Saddam, a regime that killed 300,000. (think of it - lay 1,000 9/11s end-to-end, that is what he did, killing many of them by having his goons pack them into trucks, drive into the desert, machine-gun them down, and burythem in mass graves.)

Here is what an Iraqi Chaldean bishop says:

"It is sad to say that we have not been well informed about what is happening in Iraq. Western Europe and pacifists have been blinded to what is going on in our country." ... "Regardless of what some may say, something new is sprouting here, a democracy, young, but real, and in need of help. Regardless of what many Europeans may think or argue, as an Iraqi I believe that we shall always be grateful to the US for our liberation. I say it as an Iraqi, as a Kurd, as a Catholic bishop. Our people were saved and can now hope in a better future."

Other comments:

"The American soldier is trying to protect me from the terrorists and the American president saved me from Saddam's regime. If this is an occupation then I show my deepest respect to it and if such suicide attacks are called resistance then let the resistance go to hell." - Hoshyar Zakhoi-Duhok/Iraq

"I want freedom and democracy and so do most of my friends and relatives, and the vast majority of Iraqis I’ve known all my life. So do hundreds of thousands of IP, ING members, hundreds of political organizations and millions of Iraqis who are defending the American administration’s dream (you know, because we can’t have a dream!), and who wait anxiously for the upcoming elections. Are we not Arabs and Muslims? Or were we brainwashed by the American propaganda to believe that their dream was ours? ... This is not an adventure and this is not a neo-conservative dream. This is OUR dream. The dream of millions of oppressed Iraqis who saw what dictatorship can do and who were dying to witness a moment of freedom, to live a peaceful life, a life that carries hope and make dreams not that impossible, a life similar to yours, or is it too much to hope for? We had this dream before anyone heard about neo -conservatives." - Omar Fadhil, Baghdad

Certainly not Osama Bin Laden. That was never his territory. Until now, of course.

Response: Saddam trained, sponsored, harbored and supported terrorists for over 2 decades, including harboring a terrorist (Abu Nidal) who killed Americans. The 9/11 Report notes many connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, including an offer by Saddam to give safe harbor to Osama Bin Laden:

p60: "Bin Laden sought the capability to kill on a mass scale ..." [attempted to buy uranium, but were hoodwinked]

p 61:"To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi [Sudanese extremist ally of Bin Laden] brokered an agreement that Bin laden would stop supporting activities against Saddam ... In 2001, with Bin laden's help they [Kurdish extremists] reformed into an organization called Ansar Al-Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar Al islam against the Kurdish enemy. (NOTE: There is plenty of evidence linking Iraqi intelligence to Ansar Al Islam. That linkage has served the insurgency, and Zarqawi is one of those links!)

p61: "With Sudanese Govt acting as intermediary, Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 and early 1995. Bin Laden is said to ask for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.(55)" NOTE: This statement is infuriating, because in the footnote they cite CIA memoranda with sources that did claim requests were fulfilled, in particular training requests. The report was that an Iraqi military bomb-making expert and the chief of Iraq's intelligence services met with Bin Laden and trained his group on bomb making techniques in 1996. This piece of intelligence was passed to the US in 1996.

Page 66: “In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraq intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis.”

Page 66: “According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States.”

Page 128: On November 4, 1998, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations. The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah. The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led (Richard) Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq-Al Qaida agreement” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq”.

And perhaps you have heard of the terrorist training camp in Iraq - Salman Pak. There, foreigners were trained in how to hijack airplanes, using a real 707 fuselage ... More terror links in Iraq:

The terrorist leaders Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal both died in Iraq...Abu Abbas in our custody.

Ansar al-Islam terror leader Aso Hawleri, also known as Asad Muhammad Hasan, was captured in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul in 2003. Ansar al-Islam's spiritual leader, Mullah Krekar, was taken into custody in the Netherlands in September 2002 and later was deported to Norway.

Ahmed Walid Raguib al-Baz, a 1st Lieutenant in the terrorist Palestine Liberation Front, was Killed on 3/20/03 near Baghdad. Abu Nidal terror operative Khala Khadr Al-Salahat was captured in Iraq in April, 2003.

Iraq was a place with barely a wish and a prayer of ever making war against the USA.

Untrue. Ever since the Gulf War I, we had 'no fly' zones and a state of semi-war with Saddam's regime due to the no-fly zones and sanctions. This was already low-level war. And in 1998 Clinton signed a law making 'regime change' official US policy!

Does this action by our government now mean it's okay to kill the guy next door because he has bad thoughts?

Saddams WMD programs, sponsoring of terrorists, torture chambers and mass graves were not 'bad thoughts'.

Bush has made America and the world less safe than it has ever been. Those are Pope John Paul II very words.

The Pope is an authority in many things, but even the Vatican has no crystal ball about whether this will make the world safer. It is fairly clear that Iraq is a better place for it. Saddam would not have been deposed any other way and his sadistic sons would be brutalizing Iraq decades from now.

The Deulfer report makes clear that Saddam was successfully undermining the sanctions regime with oil-for-corruption schemes, buying illicit arms, paying his WMD scientists, and waiting for a break to build up his WMDs. Saddam was also paying via Abu Wael the Ansar Al-Islam group, and was harboring terrorists. Liberating Iraq saved us and the world a lot of trouble down the road.

It is also true, that - right now - with terrorists and insurgents fighting us, we have more violence than if Saddam were left alone. BUT, that is temporary, and if we peresevere, the insurgency that is already faltering will peter out by next year, and Iraqi elections will secure a stable and democratic government for that nation. LONG TERM, that is a great positive for the nation. Iraq's repression is over, and while the violence currently is distressing, we forget that under Saddam's repression tens of thousands of people were taken EACH YEAR. That means that ALREADY, despite the terrorist violence, we are saving Iraqi lives.

Do you see the truth about yourself now? You're not pro-life: you're pro-war

I am in favor of the liberation of Iraq. I am sorry you don't support this opportunity to spread freedom and democracy in a land that was brutalized by one of the world's worst tyrants. Do you see the truth about yourself now? You are narrowmindedly against liberating a people and defeating a menace. You are against winning a central component in the war on terror.

Supporting liberation does not make me 'pro-war' anymore than Churchill was 'pro-war' for standing up to Hitler; the war was started and declared by the terrorists long ago. It was only after 9/11 that we woke up to it. As part of that war, we are going after not only the mere hijackers, but the rogue nations that helped and sponsored them, and pursued WMDs that could fall into their hands.

In 2002, Bush identified 3 nations - Iraq, Iran, North Korea - as particular dangers. Since then, we realized that Libya was a danger too and Bush administration successfully defanged that WMD threat. Bush has attended to those 3 dangers with distinct, multilateral strategies. In all 3 areas, his strategies are the best available options. In Iraq, sanctions were fraying and only a retreat or "regime change" would solve the problem. We choose, correctly, the latter. In the process we have paid a bitter price, but we also - liberated a nation of 25 million; removed a state sponsor of terrorism; implemented changes that will introduce democracy to a part of the world that lacks it; put in place a freedom of press and media that is creating cultural change in the Arab mindset; created a secnario where we can defeat terrorism not on our soil, but on mideast soil.

I am pro-victory. Others prefer defeat, but I don't want USA to be defeated by the evil that men like Saddam and Osama bin Laden represent.

(That's a grave contradiction, in case you haven't noticed.)

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." What we are doing in Iraq is a good thing. As one commentator put it:

On September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush said "Freedom itself was attacked today by a faceless coward, and Freedom will be defended". And that is what he is doing. In the process, he has freed 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq. Thank God we had a moral, courageous leader for our President on 9/11. Sometimes I think it was meant to be, that 3,000 of our people would die, as tragic and horrifying as it was, in order for 50 million people to be freed. I don't have any doubt that Iraq will be successful as a democracy, and the Iraqi people will be our staunch allies in the war against terrorism.

So, naturally Bush is your man. If you're so concerned about genocide and ruthless dictators, let me introduce you to some Bush's on kissing terms with . . .

Let us complete Afghanistan and Iraq, and then deal with the next challenges in turn.

the only difference being that China, Korea, Saudi Arabia, South & Central America never threatened daddy Bush and they don't have a single drop of oil baby bush can make a fast buck on.

Saudi Arabia doesnt have oil? China and [North] Korea didnt threaten the USA? You miss other obvious differences - only Saddam is on record with offering safe haven to Osama Bin Laden, having his intelligence officers meet with Al Qaeda over a period of 8 years, giving $25,000 to familis of suicide terrorists. What country in central and south America is part of terrorism and/or WMDs? If by 'North Korea' that is the country we are NOT on kissing terms, although the Clinton admin toasted Kim Jong Il once.

If you really think there are better candidates than Saddam's regime in Iraq for regime change, name them. Please name a dictator that is worse than Saddam - and tell me if you favor deposing him instead of Saddam. Or do you propose DOING NOTHING AT ALL? And all your hypocritical pathos about the unborn is a smoke screen, sadly.

You really want to oppose the ending of a regime that did this by talking about what is best for kids ... You can rationalize not intevening for many reasons. But Saddam killed too many innocent children for you to honestly pretend you are doing it to save kids.

In the Red Zone is a new book by Steven Vincent billed as a 'journey into the soul of Iraq' - a journey too into the minds of Iraqis suffering from Post-Tyranny-Stress Disorder:

She was a Sunni Muslim, an attractive, thirty-something writer, one of the few women I met who eschewed a scarf in public. And she was overjoyed at the demise of Saddam. “I am so happy! Freedom at last! The world is open to me now!” she exclaimed during a small social function at an art gallery in Karada. “Can you recommend some American magazines I might send my writing to?”

I promised I’d draw up a list of suitable periodicals, then added—carelessly, for this was my first trip to Iraq—“You must not mind seeing American soldiers on the streets.” The woman’s smile vanished. Her brow darkened and she shook her head. “Oh, no. I hate the soldiers. I hate them so much I fantasize about taking a gun and shooting one dead.” Stunned by her vehemence, “But American soldiers are responsible for your freedom!” I replied.

“I know,” the woman snarled. “And you can’t imagine how humiliated that makes me feel.”

... France may see us as a barely-restrainable “hyperpower”; the Iraqis—at least in the beginning of the “occupation”—saw us as simply omnipotent. The ease with which our armies overran their country reinforced that idea, as did America’s chest-thumping over its technological know-how. As a result, many Iraqis developed a warped view of U.S. competence and intentions. Since America was all-powerful, they reasoned, we couldn’t make mistakes or act incompetently: such blunders must really be part of some Bush Administration master strategy.

Take, for example, the looting and fires that wracked Baghdad immediately after Saddam’s fall. Where we might blame a catastrophic lack of Pentagon foresight, numerous Iraqis contended that America encouraged the looting in order to demonstrate the Iraqi people’s inability to govern themselves. Approaching the status of an urban legend was the story of GIs who broke open the National Museum and invited passersby to help themselves to priceless antiquities. A cab driver swore to me that he had witnessed American soldiers exhorting crowds to ransack government buildings with hearty cries of, “Go on, people, take what you want!” I heard similar stories about Americans urging the pillage of expensive homes in Karada—although in my perambulations through the neighborhood, I saw no evidence of such damage. But that is incidental: the real point of these stories isn’t truth, but rather the comfort they provide Iraqi people in shifting the blame for acts of criminal vandalism from themselves to devious Uncle Sam.

The overestimation of U.S. capabilities also distorted Iraqi notions of what to expect from our country. Since America was omnipotent, why couldn’t it gin up the electrical grid, restore peace and tranquility, and provide employment to everyone—today? Here again, the U.S. was victim both of Iraqi projections and its own high-tech wizardry. Try to explain to an Iraqi housewife the difficulties of repairing an electrical system decades out of date and beset by saboteurs, and she’d cock a skeptical eyebrow. This from a nation with weapons so smart they can look up a target’s address in the Baghdad yellow pages? No, the only reason America dropped the quality-of-life ball was that Bush wanted to keep Iraq downtrodden and dependent.

Not every Iraqi thought this way, of course. Still, I encountered these sentiments often enough to recognize that they pervade the nation’s self-image and compensate for another, equally unrealistic, but even more debilitating characteristic: severe feelings of defeat and impotence. As Raphael Patai wrote in his classic, and controversial, 1974 book, The Arab Mind, “The encounter with the West produced a disturbing inferiority complex in the Arab mind which in itself makes it more difficult to shake off the shackles of stagnation.”

A good illustration of Patai’s observation was the conversation I had with Ahmed, the piano player at Fifties. Possessed of a superb knowledge of the American songbook, Ahmed would play, at my request, medleys of Sinatra songs, accompanying himself in a reedy, but serviceable, voice. One night, however, he ventured beyond “Angel Eyes” and “A Quarter to Three” to give me the low-down on the Iraq situation. “The only reason America invaded was to steal our national resources,” he confided, during a break from his ivory-tickling. Ahmed’s proof? America didn’t actually have to invade Iraq in order to topple Saddam, he noted; all it really had to do was beam down special radiation from super-secret satellites orbiting overhead, which would scramble Baath Party communications and enable “the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam.” Why hadn’t they overthrown him before? “Saddam wasn’t in power just by himself, you know—he had very powerful backers.” And who were these backers? “The Jews,” Ahmed replied. You see, Jews not only supported Saddam, the pianist maintained, but also manipulated him into attacking Iran in order to “keep the Arabs down and—”

At this point, I requested he play “Send in the Clowns,” and escaped to my room.

Bill Hershey has WW IV's Evening News from Iraq, noting our heros in Iraq doing great things.

Raids in Duluiya and strikes on Fallujah: "U.S. warplanes hit the rebel- held Iraqi city of Falluja overnight ... U.S. and Iraqi forces also surrounded the town of Duluiya, north of Baghdad, raiding homes, detaining scores of suspected rebels and calling in helicopter strikes on suspected insurgents hiding in surrounding orchards."

On the campaign front, Sen Lugar says Kerrys misused his Iraq statements

Putin Calls a Bush Loss a Victory for Terrorists, saying: "I believe that the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at the coalition as at President Bush personally. The goal of international terrorism is to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term."

And, as if on cue, the terrorist Yasser Arafat endorses Kerry.

Kerry has picked up other 'helpful' endorsements. Belmont Club examines former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir Mohammed's endorsement of Kerry and his sordid behavior as a political thug who jailed and tortured opponents. It makes understandable how he could say: “Bush has shown that despite his protests, he is the cause of the tragedies in Afghanistan, Palestine and Iraq." The fall of the Taliban and the rise of elections in Afghanistan is a tragedy? Democracy and freedom in the Muslim world does threaten the friends of the terrorists.

Bush speaks on Zarqawi in his New Jersey speech:

"The case of one terrorist shows what is at stake. The terrorist leader we face in Iraq today, the one responsible for beheading American hostages, the one responsible for many of the car bombings and attacks against Iraq is a man named Zarqawi. Before September the 11th, Zarqawi ran a camp in Afghanistan that trained terrorists in the use of explosives and poisons, until coalition forces destroyed that camp. (Applause.) He fled to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with some 2,000 terrorist associates. He operated in Baghdad and worked with associates in northern Iraq. He ran camps to train terrorists, and conducted chemical and biological experiments, until coalition forces arrived and ended those operations. (Applause.) With nowhere to operate openly, Zarqawi has gone underground and is making a stand in Iraq.

Here, the difference between my opponent and me is very clear. Senator Kerry believes that fighting Zarqawi and other terrorists in Iraq is a "diversion" from the war on terror. I believe that fighting and defeating these killers in Iraq is a central commitment in the war on terror. (Applause.)

If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces in Iraq, does Senator Kerry think they would be leading productive and peaceful lives? (Laughter.) Clearly, these killers would be plotting and acting to murder innocent civilians in free nations, including our own. By facing these terrorists far away, our military is making the United States of America more secure. (Applause.) "

"Who is responsible for this polarized nation?" asks an email, that blasts

"We are more divided now that at any time since the Civil War"

Bush has had higher average approval ratings that either Bill Clinton *or* Ronald Reagan. And the latest Gallup poll has Bush up 8 points against Kerry, the same margin that Bill Clinton was re-elected by in 1996. The Reagan and Clinton eras were plenty partisan, this is nothing special. Heck when has politics *not* been bitter and partisan? 1957? back in 1819? Certainly not in my lifetime! What is different is what is at stake in this election. We have matters of national security, homeland security and a war against terrorism at stake. Bigger issues than in any election in a while. So the sense of urgency is keener, the emotions more raw.

This election is a lot like Lincoln's second presidential election in 1864, when a war (Civil War) wasn't going as well as some hoped; hundreds of thousands of America's son died in a Civil War on Lincoln's watch; war weariness was growing, and Lincoln's many decisions were being nitpicked by Democrats and even some in his own party; pro-war Democrats and also Copperheads who opposed it from the start. Some thought that negotiation could work to bring Confederacy back. Others derided Lincoln's many mistakes in the war, the bad generals, the corruption, and the ceaseless death.

The Democrats though couldnt decide whether to be 'anti-war' or 'pro-war' in 1864. So they split the difference, writing a copperhead platform and putting General McLellan at the top of the ticket. Curiously, McLellan, the waffler of Army of the Potomac, the man who could have won the Civil War in 1862 had he pursued the taking of Richmond properly, ran, like Kerry today, on a special plan and 'I can do better', using his military background as his credentials. (History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce). Like Kerry, he looked and played more Presidential than the homespun backwoods Lincoln, but like Kerry there were doubts about his decisiveness (McLellan's botched campaigns were proof enough). In the summer, it looked like Lincoln would lose, and that was the Confederacy's greatest hope. Lincoln was the most vilified President in our history, if you read the editorials against him your hairs would grow on end.

Indeed it could have been asked in 1864: WAS LINCOLN RESPONSIBLE for the polarized nation? AND OH, how many mistake did lincoln make! So many battles, so many lives lost, and in mid-1864 what was there to show for it.

In a single 30 minute charge in Cold Harbor in June 1864, a useless pointless charge that General Grant later recalled as his only true battlefield regret, 1,300 young union men were slaughtered, to no effect. (More men than have been lost since 9/11 in the whole global war on terror effort in both Afghanistan and Iraq.) But a curious thing happened after that dread defeat. General Grant, unlike all the other Union Generals, did not retreat and lick his wounds. Instead, after this setback, his organized his troops, and marched _ SOUTH. In the midst of a 'quagmire', Grant did the one thing required for ultimate Union victory: Stay on the attack, no matter the cost.

The Confederacy had been teetering on defeat in 1864, but was hanging on to the hopes of Lincoln's defeat - and getting saved by the indecision of the North. But Sherman's Victory in Atlanta was 1864's "September surprise" that split the confederacy in two and made it clear the war would end with victory for the Union. Union hopes were lifted. Lincoln won re-election, the Union and our Nation was saved. Lincoln's stubbornness in pursuing victory, fighting and running through strategies and Generals until he found one that would win victory, not negotiating with the Confederates on the key demand of Union, and not backing down saved the Union. Lincoln was the right man for the time, and we know him now as one of our greatest Presidents.

We might not face a test as big as 1864, a decision to save our country, but we will determine on November 2nd the path we take in the war on terror and against several global threats. It would be better for our nation if we rose to that challenge and not stoop to indecision or retreat.

It is said that Bush made mistakes after 9/11. Really? Since 9/11, although we convered several threats (shoe bombers, Lackawanna al qaeda cell, etc.) no attacks in the US. The NATION made mistakes PRIOR to 9/11, not understanding the threat, not taking it seriously when Al Qaeda declared war on us, not going beyond a 'law enforcement' response to bombings like Khobar towers, the USS Cole, and Kenya embassy bombings. All political parties, and Presidents from Carter through Reagan and Clinton responded, but inadequately, to terrorism. But since September 20th, 2001, Bush has responded forcefully. A Taliban regime in Afghanistan is now replaced by a first appointed and soon-to-be elected Afghan President; WMD threats in Libya have been removed and the AQ Khan network that was trading nuclear arms technology was shut down; and saddam hussein was deposed, a prime sponsor who trained (at Salman Pak), harbored (Abu Nidal, Abu Zarqawi), funded (Algerian GIA, Hamas, palestinian groups) and aided terrorists.

Saying that going to Iraq was taking the eye off the ball of terrorism, ignores the 9/11 report that shows: Saddam Hussein offered safe haven to Osama Bin Laden; Abu Zarqawi sought refuge in Iraq after the fall of the Taliban in 2001; Saddam's regime helped support the Al Qaeda affiliated Ansawr Al Islam. It also ignores what we now know of Saddam's corruption in the oil-for-food program, and how he was using that money to bribe the west, get sanctions removed, and re-establish WMD programs. WMD programs that, thanks to the AQ Khan network (that Bush administration busted up in their multi-lateral proliferation secuirty initiative), might have led to Iraq being a nuclear power quite quickly. Instead, deposing Saddam helped convince Libya to give up similar WMD dreams, and a threat that the CIA wasnt even aware of prior to 2003 was removed!

Now it's true that Saddam Hussein killed 400,000 of his people so in a sense is a larger menace to his own people than terrorists are to us. That is why some Iraqis have said that we found WMDs in Iraq - the WMD was Saddam Hussein himself.

Now we are in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and the War on Terrorism continues. The United States can unite around victory in Iraq and Afghanistan, a victory for democracy and freedom (that Afghanistan's October 9th elections proved could happen, even in such a backwater nation). Iraqi polls show that 80% of Iraqis want elections to be held there in January, on time.

We won't be able to unite in victory around Kerry:

• not after kerry gratuitously insulted the Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi, by questioning his credibility for daring to express optimism (and on the facts kerry cited, Allawi was more accurate - there are 200,000 Iraqis in security services today, far more than kerry acknowledges)
• not after insulting allies as the 'bribed and coerced' the war as a 'mistake', yet incredibly claims he can get more troops from other countries for this war he thinks costs too much.
• not when he speaks of a 'global test' and implies that the U.S. needs to do something more than make the simple determination 'is this required for our national security?'
• not when he retreats into a 9/10 mindset of thinking that law enforcement strategies only, to reduce terrorism to 'nuisance' levels, is an acceptable approach, ignoring the fact that rogue regimes and the political and military threats are intertwined, that we *have* to go after rogue regimes, and that Iraq was of course one of them;
• not when he shaved his positions on Iraq for political calculation and popularity; saying in may 2003 that he supported the war', then 'I'm the anti-war candidate' when there were difficulties. Such calculation and waffling is not the straight course that we need at this time, and it gives our enemies a signal that he will 'cut and run' if the price of victory becomes too high.

As an Iraqi friend has said about the US election impact in Iraq: Meospotamian blog:

In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to "cut and run" to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. It is crucial for them to remove this insurmountable obstacle which stands in their way. They fully realize that with continued American and allies' commitment, they have no hope of achieving anything.

On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the "insurgent elements" here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand eventually. Note that we are not saying that President Bush is perfect, nor even that he is better than the Senator, just that the present situation is such that a change of leadership at this crucial point is going to send an entirely wrong message to all the enemies.

Life and death in many countries is on the line. Most of the lives lost in the War on Terrorism since 9/11 were lost in a single day - 9/11 itself; the cost in all US military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan combined is less than were lost in a single training accident for D-day invasion, and less than a fraction of the losses in a single hour on D-day. We could decide to retreat or turn back from our successful efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Like the citizens in 1864, we have a press that likes to create war-weariness. We need reminding that yes, Iraq has everything to do with the War on Terror: Abu Zarqawi, Ansar Al-Islam, and Saddam's 1998 offer of safe haven to Osama by Saddam. The democratic governing model in Iraq is desired by 80% of Iraqis, will succeed, and will change the future course of Middle East governance. The Invasion of Iraq is both justified and well worth it, for our long-term security and the future of Iraq and the region.

We ought to stay on the course that will yield victory in this current effort and not turn away. That course has been laid by President Bush, quite ably. The Lincoln of the global war on terror has been vilified globally as Lincoln was nationally, but the Union that is this nation and is western civilization can and will hold together as he leads us on to a greater victory for freedom and democracy against it's current greatest foes, global Jihadist terrorism and WMD-wielding rogue nations.

For these reasons and for many reasons besides, I strongly support President Bush, the Lincoln of our times, for re-election.

Via FR the Kuwait news agency reported rumors that "a man ‏ ‏suspected to be the leader of the Jihad and Tawheed militant group, Abu Musaab ‏Zarqawi, was detained in US led military operations." US Army denies it, so discount it (but note the good news that some members of his network were captured according to MNF).

David Warren doesnt believe the rumors either, but does think we are serious about winning, in this column about Fallujah:

We should hope the present battle will be definitive, in the project of building an at least nominally democratic Iraq. ... While the media will continue, at least until the U.S. presidential election, to depict the situation in Iraq as absolutely hopeless, it is worth remembering that they so depicted the situation in Afghanistan. Not even I thought the Afghan election would come off without tragedy. But it did, it was a national festival and triumph, a dancing on the graves of the Jihadis. All the allies had to do was kill enough of them. And that's what the allies are doing now, in Fallujah.

H/T to Little Green Footballs, The Truth About Iraq has, well, the truth about Iraq.

Mesopotamian blog opines about the U.S. elections, justifying his comments by noting "since this matter is going to have a direct impact on our lives and very existence ... it would not be extravagant .. to take part in those elections, rhetorically speaking". And so he does, favoring Bush's re-election with a clear STAY THE COURSE message:

Actually, the American elections are rather more crucial for us at the moment than our own ... the majority of the Iraqi people are for the new Iraq, and that the “insurrectionists” do not represent but a small minority, nevertheless the balance of forces on the ground would be seriously upset were it not for the support of the American and allied forces and nations. This small minority is dangerous, desperate, ruthless and absolutely prepared to commit any kind of atrocity to further their aims and vent their spleen, as has been clearly demonstrated almost everyday. They are well financed and connected with parties and interests beyond the border who consider it a matter of life and death to thwart all U.S. efforts and abort this attempt at creating a democratic state in the area. ...

... President Bush now represents a symbol of defiance against the terrorists and it is a fact, that all the enemies of America, with the terrorists foremost, are hoping for him to be deposed in the upcoming elections. That is not to say that they like the democrats, but that they will take such an outcome as retreat by the American people, and will consequently be greatly encouraged to intensify their assault. The outcome here on the ground in Iraq seems to be almost obvious. In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to “cut and run” to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. ...

On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the “insurgent elements” here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand eventually. Note that we are not saying that President Bush is perfect, nor even that he is better than the Senator, just that the present situation is such that a change of leadership at this crucial point is going to send an entirely wrong message to all the enemies. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many in the U.S. don’t quite appreciate how high the stakes are. The challenge is mortal, and you and we are locked in a War, a National Emergency; and in such circumstances partisan considerations must be of secondary importance.

The Belmont Club had a Friday Oct 15th roundup of operations in Iraq, showing the ramping up of strikes and attacks on Fallujah. The Fallujah assualt began to include ground operations as well as air strikes this week. AP on October 15th reported two U.S. Marine battalions moving in. Since that time, the coalition and Iraqi troops have established a cordon around Fallujah, allowing only foot traffic. CENTCOM reported striking "planning centers for terrorist operations" in central Fallujah and other targets. Consider that a mini-'shock and awk':

Since approximately 1 p.m. Thursday, Multi-National forces have destroyed a key planning center, a weapons transload and storage facility, two safe houses, a terrorist meeting site and several illegal checkpoints used by the Zarqawi network.

We had negotiations and ongoing strikes on a two-track basis - carrot and stick. The U.S. was skeptical negotiations would work, for obvious reasons explained here. Allawi has used strong language to make clear that Fallujah must turn over the terrorists to escape an assault - no Hudna tricks for him:

"If they do not turn in al-Zarqawi and his group, we will carry out operations in Fallujah," Prime Minister Iyad Allawi told a meeting of the 100-member National Council. "We will not be lenient."

Fallujah insurgents distance themselves from terrorists, in signs that the resistance may be fracturing. Yet Zarqawi's kidnapping cells still operate in Fallujah:

''I don't believe al-Zarqawi has any presence in Iraq. It's a myth that the Americans have created in order to confuse the situation,'' said Sheik Ali Ibrahim Faris, head of the Union of Tribes in western Iraq.

However, the sheik seemed to acknowledge the presence of outsiders distinct from homegrown Fallujah fighters. ''There are many groups on the scene. Some are here to get back at the Americans at the expense of the Iraqi people,'' he said.

Evidence of a Fallujah connection to hostage-taking emerged Friday when the employer of two freed Lebanese captives said the men were kidnapped on the Baghdad-Fallujah road and held in Fallujah. Travel agent Fadi Yassin said the building where they were held was hit by U.S. bombs Wednesday and Fallujah insurgents rescued them from the rubble.

Strategy Page has analysis on the negotiations and battle strategy:

Negotiations with the tribal and religious leaders of Fallujah have broken down. Apparently the Sunni Arab leaders in Fallujah refused to turn over terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Many of the Fallujah leaders dislike al Zarqawi and his followers, but they also fear them. Al Zarqawi's followers are mostly foreigners, and they consider themselves "holy warriors." Most of the suicide bombers come from the al Zarqawi crew, and the Fallujah leadership don't want to lose a lot of their people fighting suicidal foreigners. Moreover, many of the religious leaders in Fallujah, which has always been a center of Sunni Arab Islamic conservatism, admire or agree with al Zarqawi and his followers. The breakdown in negotiations led to an increase in American bombings overnight and, this morning, the advance of American and Iraqi troops into the outskirts of Fallujah. This sort of advance has been seen before in the last two weeks, but each time it was done to trick armed groups in Fallujah to react as if it were a major attack. This allows American intelligence troops to closely observe how the enemy would respond to a major attack. But it is thought that today's advance may be the real thing.

Not only did negotiation break down, but American troops detained Khaled al Jumeili, a cleric "who led the city's delegates in negotiations with the government" and also was an insurgent ringleader in Fallujah. With the lines drawn, and negotiations broken down, and since Iraq Government and Iraqis also support a military response and insurgents too spoiling for a fight, there is nothing to stop the battle.

The first step was for the MNF and Iraqi Government to establish a cordon around Fallujah. Fallujah is becoming a noose, and an old battlefront of the Spring, the Jalon neighborhood of northeast Fallujah, is being revisited. October 17th Channel news Asia:

"US troops and insurgents battled on the edge of the rebel-held Iraqi city of Fallujah after deadly night-time air raids ... On the ground, insurgents and US forces traded fire on the edge of Fallujah as a major operation by the Americans to flush out Zarqawi carried on."

"There have been direct clashes between the Americans and insurgents in Jolan. US loudspeakers blared 'Come out and face us you cowards',"one man said who fled the city amid the escalating violence.

MSNBC reports:

Fierce clashes between U.S. troops and insurgents broke out on a highway east of Fallujah and in the southern part of the city, witnesses said. The road, which leads to Baghdad, has been completely blocked. Residents reported fresh aerial and artillery attacks as explosions boomed across the city.

Plumes of smoke were seen rising from the Askari and Shuhada neighborhoods in eastern and southern Fallujah as families began to flee the area, residents reported. They said a Humvee was seen burning in the eastern edge of the city. Hospital officials said three civilians were injured in the clashes.

By sundown, U.S. troops had pulled back, setting up a checkpoint southwest of the city, witnesses said.

The stepping up indicates that a Fallujah assault is both inevitable and imminent. The battle is joined. While U.S. military that this is not an attempt to re-take Fallujah immediately, this is the beginning of the endgame. As reported on CNN, one of the Marines said that "we've been waiting for this for a longtime."

UPDATE: Via FR a London Telegraph report says "militants are ready" for a fight:

Hundreds of fighters marshalled on the city's main street yesterday armed with machine guns, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, and assault rifles. Fighters are also stationed on the rooftops to repulse American-led Iraqi forces.

Abdullah Janabi, one of the leaders of the rebel Shura or Islamic council that controls the city, said that negotiations had collapsed completely over demands that foreign militants be expelled from the city before Iraqi troops enter. He warned that a fiery welcome was being prepared for any "invaders". "Those who invade the city of mosques will be entering their last days," he said. "We will all give our blood to defend this place from the infidel."

The American military has established a cordon around the city, ensuring that access is restricted to those on foot. The rebel checkpoints that had been established on approach roads have been withdrawn, apparently to lure the American military into the city.

At dawn yesterday, the Americans launched further air strikes targeting strongholds of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ... A senior Pentagon official said that there was no plan to enter Fallujah and take back the city during the holy month of Ramadan, which began on Friday. Instead the military is determined to isolate Zarqawi and severely limit his operations.

UPDATE MNF reports on latest Fallujah strikes:

Fallujah, Iraq -- Multi-National Force-Iraq conducted strikes the night of October 16 against an armed Al Zarqawi terrorist checkpoint in the Jolan district of the city of Fallujah. The strikes occurred at about 10:40 p.m. The terrorists operating this illegal checkpoint were heavily armed and were using the blockade to disrupt traffic, intimidate and harass local citizens, and interrogate and detain local civilians.

The checkpoint consisted of complex barriers and was considered key to the Zarqawi network’s ability to control movement into and out of the city. ... Iraqi security forces and Multi-National forces continued increased security operations by establishing a dynamic cordon around the city.

Since October 14, Multi-National forces have struck numerous Zarqawi network locations, including safe houses, training locations, a command and control planning center, and a weapons storage site. In the last month, the coalition has also struck large stockpiles of illegal explosives, including those used to build car bombs. Numerous Zarqawi operatives have also been captured.

Capturing numerous Zarqawi operatives? Good news, a 'rollup' of his network is ongoing.

Via FR, World magazine is now on the case of the Saddam-Al Qaeda documents that CNS reported 2 weeks back; The World got it checked by Whalid Phares and other experts. The MSM is still silent, but this story is starting to have 'legs':

Walid Phares thumbed a sheaf of documents, all in Arabic and nearly all bearing the spherical slogan of Iraq's intelligence service, or Mukhabarat. The Middle East scholar, a Lebanese-American Christian who speaks four languages and is a recognized expert on Islamic militants and terrorism, has interrupted a sick day (prior engagement with a root canal) in order to evaluate 42 just-leaked intelligence documents confiscated by U.S. forces in Iraq.

Moistening his finger and translating out loud, Mr. Phares read from the pages in his third-floor office in downtown Washington ... Finishing, he rapped the papers with his fingers and concluded: "This is a watershed. This is big." Mr. Phares is one of at least four eminent Middle East experts to agree that the documents—published for the first time last week—demonstrate that Saddam Hussein collaborated with and supported Islamic terrorist groups, including the current terror nemesis in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The papers, obtained by Cybercast News Service (CNS) and released Oct. 4, "establish irreversible evidence that there were strategic relations between the Baathist regime and Islamist groups that became al-Qaeda," Mr. Phares said after reviewing them at WORLD's request on Oct. 6. In addition, the documents link al-Zarqawi-associated groups throughout the Middle East, including al-Qaeda, on Saddam's payroll and acting under his direct authority. Evidence and the word of experts, however, is having little effect on the John Kerry campaign, which has staked its bid for the White House on what it calls a flawed rationale for war in Iraq. Only hours after the CNS website absorbed so many hits over the revelations that its server crashed, vice-presidential candidate John Edwards blasted the president's war strategy in a televised debate with Vice President Dick Cheney. "There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th—period," Mr. Edwards said. "In fact, any connection with al-Qaeda is tenuous at best."

Sen. John Kerry, too, insists on the stump that the president's "two main rationales—weapons of mass destruction and the al-Qaeda/Sept. 11 connection—have been proved false." But the documents suggest otherwise. They include an 11-page memo, dated Jan. 25, 1993, listing "parties related to our system . . . expert in executing the required missions." The memo cites Palestinian, Sudanese, and Asian terror groups, and shows a developing relationship with groups affiliated with al-Qaeda, including Mr. al-Zarqawi, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar—figures who are now on the U.S. most-wanted list for ongoing assaults in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Jan. 25, 1993, memo also describes an intelligence service meeting with a splinter group led by Mohammed Omar Abdel-Rahman. Mr. Abdel-Rahman is a son of the blind Egyptian, Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, accused of inspiring the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and arrested in 1994 for targeting New York landmarks. Pakistani officials caught the younger Abdel-Rahman last year, and say he helped lead authorities to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, one of the 9/11 attack planners.

A separate memo, dated March 18, 1993, asks intelligence officers to provide "details of Arab martyrs who got trained" in conjunction with post–Gulf War "committees of martyrs act." In reply another office supplied 92 names with nationalities, all "trained inside the ‘martyr act camp' that belonged to our directorate." In all, 40 are linked to Palestinian groups, 21 are Sudanese, and others range from Eritrea, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, and Egypt. Most of the trainees completed a government-sponsored course on Nov. 24, 1990, and were sent on missions throughout the Arabian Peninsula.

Accompanying the memos are separate notations signed by Saddam Hussein's secretary, suggesting the president himself had reviewed and endorsed each action. "Saddam was personally overseeing the details" of training terrorists and assigning their missions, Mr. Phares said. "From 1993 on, Saddam Hussein connected with Sunni fundamentalists in the Arab world. He was in touch with the founding members of al-Qaeda."

... CNS reporter Scott Wheeler received the data from an unnamed "senior government official" who is not a political appointee. The source said the documents have not been made public because Bush administration officials have "thousands and thousands" of similar documents waiting to be translated and "it is unlikely they even know this exists."

Confriming the consistent sentiment of this blog, Iraq the Model reports recent Baghdad poll results: "80.5% of Iraqis showed that they want elections to be held at time without any delay. The poll that was conducted by Al Sabah center for public opinion studies.."

Speaking of polls, RealClearPolitics is my favorite place for Presidential Bush v Kerry polling results. It looks like Bush has opened up more of lead after the third debate, the polling average lead for 10/12-10/15 is now 3.4% to Bush. 'It aint over 'til its over'.

Ray from Davids Medienkritik debates Mr Soros, making the case that American intervention can and has brought democracy and freedom to many countries, and that Europe shares much blame for their anti-American animosity:

... military action ultimately brought freedom, liberation and democracy to Japan and Germany following the Second World War despite the tremendous cost to the United States and its Allies in both human lives and financial resources. America’s military liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan from regimes of mass murder has also provided those nations with an historic opportunity to establish free societies. Democracy will not come easily or cheaply. No one has ever said it would. But the alternative, a terrorist state, is something that the free world simply cannot afford.

From the 'picture worth a thousand words' dept:

Victor Hansen on the election choice: "A war for our lives, or a nuisance to our lifestyle?" An excellent must-read. Synopsys: "Mr. Kerry believes that we must return to the pre-9/11 days when terrorism was but a "nuisance."

John Kerry in January said that the terrorist threat was exagerrated - before Milan, before, Basra and Baghdad bombings, before Beslan, before other attacks in several other countries. This attitude came back again in remarks to the New York Times, speaking of terrorism getting reduced to a 'nuisance' like prostitution. Kerry's problem was not just the verbiage he used; he talked of terrorism as a mere law-and-order issue, not as the political-military threat of global Jihadist terrorism that we call World War IV. The "nuisance" gaffe by Kerry was derided by Dick Morris and others. As Dick Morris said:

Bush flipped Libya by his aggressive and successful action against Saddam. Now he must use a robust American presence in Iraq to intimidate Syria and Iran and to get the Saudis to be tougher on terror. Then, with a successful track record behind him, Bush (along with China, South Korea and Japan) can begin to close in on North Korea.

But this model of a War on Terror is far from the mindset and the planning of the leadership of the Democratic Party. Shortly after 9/11, Leon Furth, Al Gore's chief national-security adviser, warned against attacking Iraq and urged a law-enforcement approach to terror in language almost identical to Holbrooke's and Kerry's. The same misguided mindset characterized the Clinton administration's core thinking on terror that is, the "defense" that paved the way for 9/11. It is fundamentally, deeply and unalterably wrong.

The "Collosal Mistake" was not made in Iraq. The "collosal mistake" was made years ago when we failed to take terrorism as seriously as we should have.

The election choice wrt to terrorism can be summed up this way: Do we choose a 9/10 Senator, who has called terrorism threats 'exagerrated', who has advocated a law-enforcement approach to terrorism and suggested we can tolerate it to some extent, and who wants to straijacket our response under a 'global test'. Or do we choose a 9/11 President, who wants not only to chase down terrorists, but to end the rogue regimes that support them; who has deposed two tyrannies that were sponsoring and harboring terrorists; who shut down WMD programs in countries like Libya and Iraq and closed a rogue nuclear weapons technology trading network; worked with allies to capture and kill most of the Al Qaeda organization, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Muhammed and more than 3/4ths of the Al Qaeda leadership?

With Madrid, with Beslan, with so many attacks before and after 9/11, we know the terrorism threat is serious. Clearly, we can no longer afford a 9/10 response to terrorism in a 9/11 world.

The Presidential election is a clear and stark choice on foreign policy as well as other issues. As Bush campaign has put it: "John Kerry is a Massachusetts liberal on the economy, on foreign policy and on cultural issues."

A post-election op-ed from Afghanistan Democracy Comes to Afghanistan that calls the election an "historic step toward freedom" and says "the free presidential election held in--and by--Afghanistan was a success for the Bush administration and its policy of bringing democracy to the Muslim world." The author explains the sturdy Afghani desire for democracy in several vignettes:

But in the end, the legendary defiance of the Afghan won the day. A phrase I heard over and over--as I visited polling booths and asked why they were taking a risk to cast a vote--was, "We're Afghans!" It was as if it had been rehearsed.

"We know war. We don't care about these threats," said 63-year-old Haji Enayatullah, as he waited his turn in a line of about 100 at a polling center set up at the Haji Yaqoob Mosque. His turban and garb adding dignity to his words, he continued: "This is the first time we get to elect a president. Nobody wants to miss that. I don't even care who wins. I just like the fact that he will be selected by the people of Afghanistan." Nor was the defiance limited to the older Afghans. At the Hazrat-e-Noman Mosque, 28-year-old Wahid, also waiting in a long line, said, "If we let the terrorists scare us, we won't be able to choose our future. This is a very important day for our history. We want a better future." ...

"Not only do I not want international troops to leave, I want them to stay here for many years," said a man I encountered near a thoroughfare, as U.S. tanks crunched by. A 22-year-old called Farhad--who'd spent almost all his life in exile in Iran, but had moved back--explained things to me by placing a can of Coke (what else?) on a bench and putting his hands on either side of it. Talking of his erstwhile place of exile, he said: "Iranians see their country and see that on one side Iraq's been liberated, and on the other Afghanistan's been liberated. No one in Iran likes the fundamentalists. They are praying they are next. Bush has brought peace to Afghanistan, and he will do that to Iraq. Will he do that to Iran?"

By 2008, Iran will either have democracy or the bomb. I shudder to think where we would be against that threat if we follow the Kerry 'global test' policy of letting the limp-noodle UN sanctions be our only tool against the WMD-proliferating terrorist-supporting 'axis of evil' nations.

This election is one proof that the cynics are wrong about whether democracy can exist in Muslim countries. The desire for democracy is universal and universally healthy; freedom and democracy's advance is desirable for our national security. The Bush policy of advancing democracy and freedom in the Muslim world is our true long-term 'War on Terror' solution that will drain the swamp that Jihadist extremism swims in. And it's working!

Hat-tip to FR, reporting a MEMRI breaking news item:

SADDAM’S ITALIAN LAWYER GIOVANNI DE STAFANO TOLD A LONDON-BASED DAILY THAT A MEETING WAS HELD BETWEEN HIMSELF AND OSAMA BIN LADEN AT THE RASHID HOTEL IN BAGHDAD IN 1998. (AL-SHARQ AL-AWSAT, LONDON, 10/15/04)

UPDATE: Comments sections suggests the MSM will bury this. History suggest they are right. After all, the 9/11 Report said that Saddam offered Osama Bin Laden safe haven in 1998, yet this fact was not reported in the mainstream press (conservative columnists excepted); the MSM took the 'no collaborative links' and ignored the fine print of a decade of contacts and meetings. This Saddam-Osama meeting may have been in conjunction with that offer, although the intel reporting was related to a visit from Saddam's intelligence to Afghanistan and Bin Laden in July 1998.

UPDATE 2: Headline changed to clarify and explain - it is the lawyer who saw and met Osama in the Hotel; and this news actually was out before. What is new is that that the lawyer was in Baghdad at the time and is not an anonymous source ... that beats about 90% of MSM 'reporting' on administration/intelligence events right there! This reporting was already known to our intelligence agencies and was a part of the Feith 50 points of possible Saddam-Osama contacts:

25. Bin Laden reportedly visited Baghdad for consultations in March 1998. Giovanni De Stefano, an international lawyer visiting Baghdad on business, had a chance encounter with Bin Laden in the lobby of the Al-Rashid Hotel, during which the two men introduced themselves and engaged in polite conversation. De Stefano did not, at the time, recognize Bin Laden’s name. Five months after the chance encounter, agents of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked the American embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania.

We don't have to ask if the media will bury this particular story - they already have!!!

PS: Also from MEMRI's recent filings, if you can take it, a gruesome account of a hostage of Iraqi terrorists, who was witness to the murder of another hostage.

This site says of these scenes from Iraq that these are The pictures they dont want you to see. See for yourself.

And ask yourself one question - if Iraq were voting in our election, who do you think they'd be voting for?

Embedded in a story about how the U.S. marines arrested Sunni Muslim cleric Khaled al-Jumaili of Fallujah, the cheif negotiator (and presumably insurgent ringleader), is the reporting that some Iraqis welcome strikes on Fallujah:

"Allawi must attack Falluja in whatever way necessary because they are the main reason for instability in Iraq," said Iman Jadoa, 40, a clerk from the southern Shi'ite city of Basra.

NO SUICIDE BOMBS IN FALLUJA

Others asked why no suicide car bombs ever hit Falluja, and said the city needed to be taught a lesson if Iraqis were to be able to vote in peace.

"I consider any invasion of Falluja a great step -- that's where the terrorists are," said Samkoo Mohammed-Ali, a university student in the peaceful Kurdish city of Suleimaniya. "Why are there no bombings in Falluja? It's because a mosquito doesn't sting itself."

That last quote was precious. Iraqis are getting tired of the violence. Better "them" (the terrorists) than "us" (normal, civilized, peaceable Iraqis). Another indicator that terrorists are losing their grip.

An article about Randy Stiles, a U.S. Government worker and email-writer from Iraq, who is lucidly sharing the perspective from one who is There:

Stiles writes, "What's amazing is the resilience of the Iraqis. They are truly remarkable. Every Iraqi serving his country faces kidnapping and assassination. And the threats are not limited to themselves: their families are threatened as well."

He tells two anecdotes to back up his assessment. One involved a briefing he had attended the day before, apparently a regular weekly session: "One of our briefers wasn't there," he writes. "He had been killed 4 days prior on an ambush. The amazing thing was, the Iraqis actually apologized for not having their best briefer. Amazing.

Then the other day I was over at the Police Academy (the one that took the car bomb yesterday). I talked to a tiny (4'11) female Iraqi police officer. She conveyed to me that when she leaves work everyday, she is often followed. She takes elaborate counter- surveillance measures to lose them. Another female police officer who was a friend of hers was killed on the way home the day before. And yet, even today, there are more volunteers to sign up to be members of the Iraqi Police than there are slots to put them in. The Iraqis refuse to give in to the terrorists, and daily risk their lives, and their families' lives, to make Iraq work. They have shown me the true meaning of 'service'."

The author points out that "The Kerry campaign in particular has sought to portray the Iraqi people as unworthy of our support". This and much else besides refutes that unkind view. Many Iraqis are risking all they have for a better future. We should take notice of their resolve, it's a good example to follow.

needs Democracy too ... Reform Syria website is dedicated to that. It has a recent entry:

Arrests in Syria. The Ba'athists in Syria are nervous. The killing in Damascus of a Hamas official brought home the reality that Syria's leadership can ALSO be a target. So, the Ba'athists have rounded about 80 suspects across Syria in order to breakdown any cells of intelligence working against them. This says much about the Syrian Mukhabarat one-dimension approach of mistreating the innocent public at the expense of the real danger to their rule.

is how FOX 41 News headlines the new attacks. The U.S. military has both ground and air attacks underway, with two Marine battalions involved:

Warplanes and artillery pounded the city as two U.S. Marine battalions attacked rebel positions to "restore security and stability," 1st Lt. Lyle Gilbert, a spokesman for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, told CNN. "It is going to be a long night," he said. Maj. Francis Piccoli, spokesman for the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, told The Associated Press that two Marine battalions were engaged in the fight backed up by aircraft.

... Fallujah residents said the Americans were attacking several areas with rockets, artillery and tanks. One resident said U.S. forces were using loudspeakers in the west of the city to urge Fallujah fighters to lay down their arms "because we are going to push into Fallujah."

Diplomacy by other means is at work. The demands we required and made - Fallujah leaders handing over Zarqawi - simply cannot be met, just as the Taliban couldn't hand over Osama Bin Laden. The reason is simple - the tribal leaders of Fallujah are being controlled by the terrorist organization and not the other way round. A clash is inevitable.

BTW, this lays to rest the smear that the U.S. military is holding off offensive operations until after the elections - a smear the L.A. Times felt was fitting for front page "news". The U.S. has aggressively engaged Samarra, south of Baghdad, Ramadi, Tal Afar / Mosul, Hit, Sadr City, and now Fallujah, all in the same month. This is most of where the insurgency is strongest.

After the military victory in Samarra, Soldiers Win Over Residents on the Streets of Samarra. This MNF report is worth posting in its entirety - this is exactly the end-game in the rest of the Sunni triangle that we are hoping for:

Samarra, Iraq – Soldiers with B Company, 1st Battalion, 14th Infantry walk through the streets, accompanied by two gun trucks. During the mission, time is made to speak with members of a youth soccer team and buy ice cream cones for grateful children.

Company leaders speak with merchants offering everything from watermelon to hubcaps. Virtually every resident stops and stares at the passing throng, most of them smiling and waving. After an hour on patrol, the Soldiers turn and head back to their forward operating base.

The situation would be unremarkable, if not for the location. Less than two weeks prior, anti-Iraq forces controlled Samarra and most of the residents stayed inside out of fear. “We couldn’t have walked through this area a week ago without being shot up with RPGs,” said 1st Lt. Greg Longo, a B 1-14 platoon leader from Calumet, Mich. Claims have been paid for damage to homes, and uniforms have been bought for a local youth soccer team.

“We’re winning over those folks that may have been borderline before,” Longo said. “It’s night and day as far as their reception toward us now and before.”

Sgt. Anthony San Luis, a B 1-14 team leader from Dededo, Guam, noted that barely a week prior to this patrol, Samarra residents were in fear of the Soldiers. After the main thrust of Operation Baton Rouge ended, Soldiers went scouring for remaining insurgents and many of the residents misunderstood the U.S. intent.

“When we were going into their houses, they thought we were going to kill everybody,” San Luis said. “We explained that we were just there to get the bad guys. We started passing out candy, playing with the kids. When they realized we’re not there to hurt, but to help, you could see the relief.”

And now, the Soldiers are welcomed. “We patrol, keep security, and we make sure any problems the civilians want to address, we solve or point them in the right direction,” San Luis said. “You see a big difference. They’re happy, giving us the thumbs-up, like in other places where we’ve established ourselves. It makes me really happy that I can help these people. This is a big step in changing how things are in Iraq.”

Private 1st Class Jim Torres, a squad automatic weapon gunner from Tacoma, Wash., said that Iraqi National Guard members are also helping keep the new-found peace. “It looks like they’ve got it under control,” he said admiringly.

Besides bringing safety to the streets, there’s also the matter of rebuilding the dilapidated city. That’s where the civil affairs teams come in. Local contractors are now bringing electricity and water to Samarra, providing supplies to schools and hospitals, and cleaning up streets, mosques, and playgrounds. The contractors provide updates to the 415th Civil Affairs unit on their progress and also bring up any needs. With projects on tap for schools, hospitals, roads, and mosques, about the only thing not seen in Samarra these days are the insurgents.

Next year, in Fallujah!

John Kerry used and abused the military at the start of his career, and he is using and abusing it today. Now we have this -

A Freeper interviews the Swift Vet Group Founder, Admiral Hoffmann, reminding again of what Kerry did wrong in 1971:

One by one, the witnesses at the Winter Soldiers Investigation in Detroit were called up to the makeshift platform to testify to the gruesome crimes they had “personally seen” committed by brother soldiers in Vietnam.

Shock tales of decapitations. Tear-gassing people for fun. Wires being attached to genitals and the power charge being turned up. Women raped. Villages gunned down. Innocent children and babies massacred. Each bloody, savage, monster crime worst sounding than the last. All done at the hands of the American soldier.

And most of it done, you know -- “just for kicks.”

Much of the testimony given during the investigations, the Detroit Free Press could not corroborate -- even with 10 days advance notice. When the Free Press asked witnesses for affidavits, they were not able to produce them.

The Naval Criminal Investigative Service conducted their own inquiry. Several of the identities of those “appearing” before the Detroit Winter Soldiers Investigation were found to be totally fake. The names of real veterans were stolen and used by fake witnesses when they were testifying to all those savage, beastly acts they supposedly saw committed by our servicemen in Vietnam.

The NCIS has sworn statements and corroborating witnesses from the actual veterans whose names were stolen for use in this charade. Not only were the real veterans not present at the Winter Soldiers Investigation -- one veteran whose name was fraudulently used has never been to Detroit in his entire life!

And then there are the “Special 11” witnesses at the Winter Soldiers Investigation who also testified to seeing their brother soldiers commit war crimes so awful, no animal should be found doing such things. Ah yes. The very “Special 11.”

Wait a minute. What is it again that makes these 11 war veteran witnesses so special? Refresh my memory? Oh, that’s right: Our National Archives show no military records for these 11 “war veterans” whatsoever. No record that they have ever served in any branch of the U.S. military. Lies. Fraud. Fake witnesses. False testimony.

This is the legacy of Kerry’s Winter Soldiers Investigation. And he didn’t stop it at Detroit. Next stop: Washington, DC.

In the spring of 1971, Kerry presented before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, headed by William Fulbright, the same undocumented maligning testimony of shock and horror tales that were told at the Winter Soldiers Investigation.

This time the whole world was listening -- including our enemy. They loved Kerry’s testimony. They made great use of it. They ritually tormented our POWs in their cells by playing Kerry’s taped words over and over, while taunting our POWs with: “This is the voice of your own American Naval Officer. Even your own American Naval officer says you are war criminals. So you see it is true. You are war criminals.“

When Kerry’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was done, his exercise in anti-war political theater had succeeded. The anti-war, anti-Vietnam soldier sentiment in America had reached its fevered pitch.

“Baby killers!“ became an instant part of the American lexicon. And the brave winter soldiers war game had successfully killed the reputations of two million veterans.

Certainly there were some atrocities committed in Vietnam in some places at some times. There are in every war. The difference is, John Forbes Kerry stood on the world stage and announced that savage, beastly atrocities committed against innocent babies and other civilians were the casual day-to-day rule -- not the gross exception to the rule -- of the Vietnam soldier.

John Forbes Kerry -- testified against his comrades-in-arms before a captive world audience -- and committed wholesale character assassination on every one of them, providing no proof of his accusations. No supporting evidence. No documentation. No sworn statements. No corroboration. Just one ugly, maligning tongue…

Zell Miller asks "What if they were reporting on Iwo Jima today?" His answer is worth a read; an excerpt:

... At 7 a.m., Cutie's morning show opens with a shot of hundreds of dead bodies bobbing in the water's edge. Others are piled on top of each other on shore. After a few seconds, one can see Marines digging graves to bury the dead.

Cutie: "There is no way the Marines could have expected this. Someone got it all wrong. No one predicted this. This has been a horrible 24 hours for our country. This is a slaughterhouse. After all this fighting, Marines control only about a mile and a half of beach and the casualties are now over 3,500 and rising rapidly. We'd like to know what you think. Call the number on the bottom of the screen. Give us your opinions on these three questions:
1. Were the Marines properly trained?
2. Is this nothing of an island worth all these lives?
3. Has the president once again misled the American people?

A great piece by Zell Miller.

After reading this, I turned to watch CNN Tuesday night. The 'smirking imp' Aaron Brown starts by saying that violence was raging in Iraq. Turns out Marines and ING took out some Mosques in Ramadi (he failed to mention it was Iraqi NG troops), and our air strikes flattened a terrorist meeting place - killing 'suspected' insurgents. Since the insurgents are only 'suspected' perhaps the insurgency is not real? Sadr city comes up; weapons handover is reported but reported it is going slowly; a factoid thrown in that enough arms to equip a division was handed over in May. we hear the statement from a US military official that if there are not enough weapons handed in, the neighborhoods will be swept clean of weapons. CNN reporter predicted more violence after 5 days. (And yet the reality is this, US and Iraqi government are on offense.) Aaron ended his report from Iraq with a comment "well that will keep us from sleeping tonight". It is mind-boggling, but a day of positive steps forward in Sadr City, firm resolve by our officers, and aggressive action by our forces was treated as grim, sardonic news by CNN. (This leaves aside the unreported graduation of hundreds of Iraqi national guard troops and other positive news.)

I'm mad as Zell and I'm not going to take it (ABC,CBS,CNN,PBS) anymore!

This is not another article about how well we've done building Iraq's infrastructure, improving it's electricity, schools, etc. We have done great things there, but that doesn't win wars. And while this blog is a 'quagmire-free' zone, I've stated in the past that there was a possibility of defeat for us and victory for insurgents. ( I felt it remote at most times, except the time of greatest danger, when the UN was meddling in Iraq's affairs. The UN was a greater danger to Iraq's future than the cleric al-Sadr.)

Victory is in our grasp. Barring the election of John Kerry, all the necessary components for Strategic victory are in place. No, we haven't won yet, but we are like the Allies in 1944 after the D-Day beach-head was secured. We are past the point of being thrown back in the sea. While some has gone wrong, too much is starting to go right for us to lose, so long as we persevere. There is a historic inevitability that will start playing out soon that will yield a democratic, free and stable Iraq. And the few enemies in Iraq, the 7,000 or so insurgents trying to stop it, will find it impossible to stop our progress.

The strategic necessary imperatives for victory are to:

• Maintain our resolve and leadership to fight to win in Iraq, i.e., re-elect Bush, keep Allawi and hold the alliance together
• Train up Iraqi forces to maintain law and order
• Clear out remaining insurgent havens (Ramadi, Fallujah, Al-Anbar) and return them to full Iraqi Government control
• Set Iraq on a path to elections in January 2005 and democracy to remove the 'cassus belli' of insurgency
• Root out and destroy terrorist cells

Of all of these, all have operations in place, and all but the first can achieve success simply through sufficient effort and persistence.

First, resolution and alliance. When Allawi said today - "We are going to prevail against the forces of evil here in Iraq," he told reporters. "Whatever it takes, we'll do." - we know, after Samarra, after the pounding that Fallujah has been given with Allawi's assent, that he means it. He will not cave to pressure. The Iraqi leadership is committed to the same goals we are. This is key.

Other allies: The victory of Karzai and Howard of Australia is a clear indication that the 'global electorate' stands up against terrorism. Other allies are standing with us, and with the Vatican announcement, we may even get more help (at a time when, thanks to new Iraqi security forces, they will not be much needed). The linchpin of that alliance however is President Bush, and a Kerry victory will deal the alliance a severe blow. It would be an "own goal" for our efforts against terrorism and in Iraq, and give the terrorists and insurgents someone new to 'test' his will. Bush's will has been tested, but Kerry has signalled in many ways an unwillingness to accept casualties. Kerry has signalled defeatism and a retreat-oriented policy. So a Kerry victory (now about a 40% chance) is the one remaining danger.

The state of the threats, our insurgent and terrorist enemy: The handover of Mahdi Army weapons seems to be going successfully. AP Reports

"We are fed up with fighting," said Hassan Kadhim, 31, as he unloaded guns and mortar rounds from a pickup truck. He hoped to use the money to start a business.

The will of the enemy to fight is dissipating, I would rather we use the stick than the carrot on this army, but an arms buyback program is cheaper that using Marines, bombs and tanks to rout them out of these neighborhoods. For those who are skeptical, though, and that includes some U.S. military, this doesn't change the strategic calculus. The Mahdi Army is dissolving. It will dissolve further over time, either by negotiation or by force.

A failure in this program would not change the strategic course. The fly in the ointment remains the use of Iraqi forces only, but there is little danger of a Fallujah-like recurrence - any insurgent activity will be met with whatever force we need to put it down, including MNF. Moreover, these include Iraqi National Guard, forces that have been joining the U.S. forces in many operations, and have improved significantly in recent months.

The Mahdi Army's threat though was always less dangerous compared with the Sunni/Baathist and Zarqawi network threats. But the trend is encouraging, and taking out one front helps us focus more on the single-front threat in the Sunni triangle. We have made progress against the terrorists, but we will have to do more to destroy the terrorist networks, by first eliminating their safe havens in Fallujah and elsewhere. We are systematically doing that, but it will take some months. But the trend, judging by Tal Afar and Samarra, is encouraging.

The political configuration is encouraging as well. Sistani has called on his followers to vote and join the elections. Most Iraqis want elections. Even Fallujah representatives have said that they too want to vote. The circle of democratic action widens and the space for insurgent action narrows. Six months ago, Iraq was a different place. Six months from now, Iraq will be a new place yet again, only better.

I earlier wrote of Bush's re-election as the "tipping point" for our success in Iraq. Tommy Franks agrees: "

“I believe they (insurgents) are influenced by what they see in our media,” he told The Associated Press. “They see if they blow something up it’s front-page news ... (and) the presidential candidates will talk about it.

“After Nov. 2, that dynamic will leave. The problem won’t go away, but it’ll be diminished ... This will be a long process, but there will come a time when the insurgents have less opportunity to create mischief for us,” he said.

The Afghanistan election destroyed the myth of U.S. imperialism, and the Iraqi election is destroying the myth of an Iraqi 'resistance'. And the American election, when Bush is re-elected, will destroy the myth that America runs when it is bloodied. And soon, when the world turns its back on the insurgency, when Iraq is free, soveriegn and democratic, with Iraqis patrolling the streets, there is no reason left for them to fight. Except those terrorist sadists who want only blood - they will get back what they have given to others.

Then, we will have won. Finally.

Stuff you are not getting, or getting underplayed, in most of the MSM:

Iraq Fighters tried to make their own WMDs

The French Connection to Saddam: "A major French arms maker was offering to refurbish surface-to-air missiles for Iraq - possibly illegally - just weeks before America went to war with Saddam Hussein ..."

The Real Deal in Fallujah, from a Lt Colonel to an FR posting to here, a report on what was really hit in one of those infamous Fallujah strikes:

An example of the media reports; I just saw today on the news where they reported innocents wounded and killed in the raids on Fallujah last night. No wonder everyone hates us. Here's the real story...The operation was actually the destruction of a cache of weapons with vehicles around that were taken out by air, artillery and ground forces. There were many many secondary explosions as the arms cache exploded. Incidentally this was in a remote location where no collateral damage was possible. Weapons were seen being transferred from a large truck (semi) into SUV's and pick up trucks. There were many people around helping. We had eyes on them for a long time to ensure this was an enemy target. We win on the ground, we lose in the news. It was also all video'd.

US military sees good news in Iraq, according to a military report on Iraq that was declassified.

Reported in the Telegraph as "Vatican buries the hatchet with Blair and Bush over Iraq", the Vatican now supports troops in Iraq to secure democracy and security there:

[Vatican] comments appear to be part of an orchestrated campaign to galvanize military and financial support for a democratic Iraq among critics of the war, such as France and Germany. Both countries have refused to contribute troops to Iraq as long as U.S. and British occupation forces remain in the country.

CNS publishes Iraqi documents relating to WMDs. Here is just one mentioned:

Pages 14, 15: March 11, 1993 memo from the Iraqi Intelligence Service detailing plans for a meeting with "one of the leaders from the Egyptian Al-Jehad" terrorist organization.

Is that Egyptian Islamic Jihad leader Zawahiri (now the #2 man in Al Qaeda, or #1 if Bin Laden met his grave in Tora Bora)? We know he met with Saddam in Baghdad in 1993. 'Sheik Ali Othman Taha' is mentioned in that document as a go-between to another man.

Deulfer report analyzed and examines the under-reported side of the report about Saddam's WMD ambitions:

His terrorist regime was secretly planning to reproduce them [WMDs] as soon as it was feasible. ... Many of the underreported details in Mr. Duelfer's lengthy document remind us of Saddam's fanatical warmaking intentions and his evil WMD plans for the future. Perhaps more importantly, the telling of it underscores the wisdom of Mr. Bush's pre-emptive doctrine to eliminate this dangerous threat before he was capable of striking again.

The Casualty rate in Iraq is 12 Coalition deaths so far in October. That is the lowest rate since February and one of the lowest since the invasion of Iraq. A sign the insurgency is weakening? Better force protection? Just a lucky spell? Time will tell.

A response to a blog comment:

"Finally, I think President Bush failing to admit to any mistakes" For a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question like that, Bush gave the best possible answer. History will judge Bush's decisions, strategic and tactical, but on the fundamental decisions, Bush was firm. Bush was RIGHT in liberating Afghanistan and Iraq, and Bush was further right to defend those decisions.

To be fair, one shouldn't just ask one candidate about their mistakes, you need to ask both - "Does Kerry admit any mistakes in his 20 year very Liberal voting record in the Senate?"

• Does Kerry regret his lies about the military in Vietnam in 1971, smearing them as like the army of Genghis Khan and his accusing them "committing war crimes on a daily basis"?
• Does Kerry admit his mistake of Opposing Reagan's Cold War policies?
• Does Kerry admit he was wrong to vote against the First Gulf War authorization?
• Does Kerry admit he was wrong to miss so many intelligence hearings, that he was wrong to propose cutting the intelligence budget, and was wrong to never raise the issue of the 'wall' between intelligence and law enforcement?
• Does Kerry admit that raising taxes 98 times was a mistake?
• Does Kerry admit that he was wrong to oppose the death penalty for terrorists in 1999?
• Will Kerry admit he is wrong to suggest a solution to Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions is to give them enhanced uranium nuclear fuel?
• Does Kerry admit he was wrong to say "the threat of terrorist was exaggerated" last January?
• Over 200 members of Congress, and the President, have visited Baghdad since its liberation. Does Kerry he was wrong not to do the same?

I could go beyond national security and ask about Kerry's mistakes in raising taxes 98 times while opposing every middle-class tax cut to come his way, opposing the defense of marriage act, opposing drilling in ANWR and other energy-independence policies, joining Democrats to filibuster mainstream judges while supporting Liberal litmus tests for them, etc.Kerry has a very Liberal, undistinguished, and very questionable record, a record that got an "F" from the National Taxpayers Union and poor ratings from most groups that are not Liberal advocacy groups. From where I sit, Kerry's the one with the baggage of errors and mistakes in his record to account for, and he has refused to do it.

PS: Hugh Hewitt on the many strange positions and statements of Kerry. It leads to one inescapable conclusion: Kerry is unfit to lead our nation.

Rumsfeld visited Baghdad this weekend, after earlier inviting other Defense Ministers to a meeting on the USS Kennedy in the Persian Gulf. Rumsfeld understands how to beat the terrorist insurgency in Iraq: "The United States and its allies in Iraq are engaged in a battle of wills with insurgents, Rumsfeld told U.S. marines" In addition to this meeting, Rumsfeld met in Baghdad with U.S. commanders, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte and interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

They undoubtedly discussed the combination of political and military tools needed to use to end the insurgency - to break that will to fight and to bring Iraq better into civil order. The U.S. military is playing the 'bad cop' and Allawi and his negotiators the 'good cop', working the recalcitrant tribes and communities to break away from helping insurgents to supporting the Iraqi Government.

This is working on the insurgent's will. Al-Sadr Consider this remarkable statement in the above quoted article: Representatives from Falluja said the city wanted to take part in the elections and could accept the return of Iraqi security forces.

In addition, we have news of Mahdi Army agreeing to disarm: "In Sadr City on Saturday night, loudspeakers at various mosques were relaying word of an agreement and exhorting Mahdi Army members to lay down their weapons." (LA Times). The Iraqi Government gave Mahdi Army 5 days to give up arms:

The Iraqi government will give Shi'ite militiamen five days to hand in weapons under a weekend peace agreement, National Security Adviser Kassim Daoud said on Sunday. He said the Iraqi interim government would commit more than $500 million to rebuilding Sadr City, a dilapidated slum which has been damaged in battles with U.S. troops.

Daoud said Iraqi police and National Guard would play a role in Sadr City under the agreement which starts Monday and reserved the right to seek support from U.S.-led multinational troops to maintain security.

The last point - reserving the right to use MNF troops - is crucial. The statements from MNF and Allawi Govt state point-blank the 'no-go' type of deals are not on the table, we won't repeat the bad experience of Fallujah again where local forces were co-opted and we couldnt or didnt respond. This deal apparently is not like that. The U.S. military remains the 'backup' force should anything get out of hand that requires MNF involvement. They would only keep an Iraqi-only police force if the militants are disbanded and gone. This makes sense, there are plenty of safe and secure locales that US forces dont patrol because they are not needed.

They won't let a Fallujah-type situation happen anymore, and in fact have plans in the pipeline to liquidate Fallujah's militant haven in the next few months. That Fallujah negotiators are putting proposals on the table is a strong indicator that they understand bloodshed is inevitable if the town doesn't willingly return to Iraqi Government control.

Rumsfeld's visit is not just a morale booster and public relations. It's the pre-Iraqi-election strategic review, to make sure our plans and strategies to quell insurgent activity and secure all of Iraq will be carried through to success. Our goal is to secure all of Iraq by January 2005 sufficient for the elections held there.

If we succeed, the insurgency will effectively be over by February 2005. We don't need Kerry to reduce troop levels. We may be able to do it next year, if the efforts to break the insurgency succeed.

Election success a big defeat for Taliban says AP, reporting the comments of Afghan and U.S. officials:

"Yesterday was a big defeat for the Taliban and a huge defeat for al-Qaida," Lt. Gen. David Barno, the top American commander in Afghanistan, told The Associated Press. "It shows that the political process is overwhelming any influence they may have."

Voters also said the Taliban had been exposed as weak.

Bismillah Jan, a driver for an aid group in this southern city, where the Taliban began, said his fear of attacks on Saturday quickly disappeared when he saw the heavy security on the way to the polling station where the atmosphere "was like a festival." "This government has the support of the world and the help of God," said the 20-year-old, who recently returned home after a spell as a refugee in Pakistan. "The Taliban are weak and they are fading day by day."

Observers judge the election to be fair:

"A fairly democratic environment has generally been observed in the overall majority of the polling centres," the local Free and Fair Elections Foundation of Afghanistan (FEFA) declared, a day after the fraud claims tainted the massive voter turnout and jubilation among electors.

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which contributed to the 230 foreign monitors, said Saturday's demand by 14 opposition candidates to nullify the landmark election was "unjustified". Any dispute about the validity of the election results "should be dealt with as the law provides," said Robert Barry, head of the OSCE support team. "The millions who came to the polls clearly wanted to turn from the rule of the gun to the rule of law," he said.

... President Hamid Karzai, who is expected to win, called the vote a "defeat of terrorism."

"It was...really tremendously inspiring to see millions of Afghans come out of their homes and villages and mountainous areas and travel for hours in snow and rain and dust storms to line up and vote," he told BBC television from Kabul. "The Afghan people yesterday won the day, against terrorism, against all those who said that Afghans could not make it."

The MSM is playing up opposition complaints about the ink used to make sure voters vote only once, but also note that "United Nations and Afghan officials overseeing the voting largely dismissed their concerns". It's also clear the U.S. administration is well pleased. NYTimes reports:

Celebrating the democratic expression, President Bush said in St. Louis on Saturday, "Today is an appropriate day for Americans to remember and thank the men and women of our armed forces who liberated Afghanistan."

Further, U.S. State Dept congratulated the Afghan people:

"The Afghan Nation has spoken -- it has voted for democracy and freedom. This is a triumph for Afghanistan. Once again, the Afghan people have shown that they have seized the moment to establish democracy and secure their freedom. All Afghans should be proud of what their country has achieved today," Ambassador Khalilzad said. Khalilzad continued, "Today's elections were a profound success, as demonstrated by the high voter turnout and the Afghan people's enthusiasm and pride in their country's first election for head of state in their 5,000-year history."

Initial reports indicate that voter turnout was extraordinarily high. Long lines were reported at polling stations throughout the country, and voting hours were extended to accommodate the turnout. In Bamiyan, for instance, Afghans stood in line for up to two hours in the snow to cast their vote. The participation of women in the election also appears to be high, even in areas such as Kandahar and Khost where some observers thought their turnout would be low. "Afghans, men and women alike, have once again met the challenge of this historic day," said Khalilzad.

Howard's democratic win means the continued commitment of key coalition members in Iraq. Afghanistan's vote means an example has been set. If Khandahar can vote, so can Kirkuk; if Kabul, so can Baghdad. And so too, someday, Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh, and the rest of the MidEast. Soon.

The Taliban's threats were hollow. They didn't stop this remarkable and historic event, Afghanistan's first election in history, an election with. Democracy moves forward, and terrorism shrinks further into the shadows. We will know we have won the war on terror when elections in Muslim countries like Afghanistan cease to be historic news.

"He's capable and dynamic," she said. "He acts on his words. He always says that he will fight terrorism."

Bush supporter? No. Nor is it an Aussie voter explaining support for Austrialian Prime Minister John Howard's re-election. (See Belmont Club analysis on Howard's relection win - Howard won handily in an encouraging mirror of the Bush-Kerry matchup.)

Nope. It's an Allawi supporter in Iraq, quoted in an article on the upcoming Iraq election.

"I will vote for Ayad Allawi because he is tough and knows very well how to deal with Iraqis," said Suad Hamid, a 46-year-old Muslim Shiite housewife.

Iraqis are impressed with Allawi because he appears to be strong and decisive. "He is the only (one) who can bring security," said Saeb Salman, 28, who has a cigarette stand on a main street in central Baghdad.

Even Mona al-Hussein, who said she did not trust the former exiles, said she may end up voting for Allawi. "He's capable and dynamic," she said. "He acts on his words. He always says that he will fight terrorism." She conceded that Allawi has yet to succeed in crushing the insurgents. "I don't blame him, it's a difficult task."

Allawi's determination to end the militants' control of Samarra, Fallujah and Najaf has impressed many Iraqis, said Baghdad University professor Abdul-Razzaq Naas. Naas predicted that the religious parties will not do well in Baghdad. "Most Iraqis are secular when it comes to voting. They don't believe in religion as part of the state," he said.

With our 'hand-picked' Karzai likely to get re-elected, and Allawi likely to continue support for a time, the voters in both countries are signalling a "yes" to the question: "Are you on the side of Western civilization against the global terrorist network?"

There is a claim that 'confusion reigns' here. But these voters seem particularly discriminating on issues of leadership and being able to DO what it takes to eliminate a scourge. One that many Iraqis oppose as strongly as American voters.

Who are we to judge? We have idiots in America who actually claim that a draft is coming - despite a 402-2 vote to turn it down (only Democrats voted for it, 100% of Republicans against it), despite Bush's ironclad "it's not going to happen on my watch" comment, despite the Bush plan to bring troops home from Cold War deployments in Germany, despite the huge victories in Afghanistan and Iraq that proved we can do so much more with fewer troops than ever before. Yet idiots keep making ignorant claims about the draft coming back. HOW DAFT CAN THEY BE?

The Democrats are flunking, but Pro-War on Terror voters are passing the test globally. They know who we need to win this fight and they are picking accordingly.

Lowrysays "George W. Bush was terrific during Friday night's debate." and he mentioned this:

Bush smoked John Kerry out on leaving Saddam in power. Kerry said Saddam would "not necessarily" be in power if he had the choice. How utterly Kerryesque.

Indeed. That was another striking "Huh?" moment, where Kerry once again left it vague whether he would have even deposed Saddam by force or not. It's clear that Saddam would not be deposed any other ways except full-scale military invasion. Kerry was for this invasion before he was against it.

The Little Election that Could is happening now. Go on, Afghanistan, prove the defeatists and terrorists wrong!

UPDATE: Fantastic Pic of voters in Afghanistan from Fred. Thank you Fred!

Says AP Report:

Storming into the insurgent stronghold of Samarra with the Americans, the 202nd and other Iraqi units seized two holy sites and a large industrial complex, conducting house-to-house searches and raids on militant hideouts, according to U.S. military accounts. "The good news is that the Iraqi forces are on their feet and getting better every day," said Maj. Gen. John Batiste, who commanded the operation. "Our work to train and equip Iraqi security forces is beginning to pay off in spades." ...

In Samarra, each of the five assaulting task forces included an Iraqi unit partnered with one from the U.S. 1st Infantry Division, which clearly delivered the knockout punch.

But in mopping up operations, Iraqi army troops, National Guardsmen and commandos appear to have scored points with some of the city's 250,000 residents.

"We noticed a more positive approach by the Iraqi soldiers compared to our experience with the Americans. Iraqi forces were also disciplined and they treated Samarra residents with respect. They took the city's social and religious sensitivities into consideration," said Suheil Mohammed, a 25-year-old college student. A trader, Omar Mohammed, said he "felt a part of our dignity was restored" when he saw Iraqi soldiers patrolling the streets.

Now, the Iraqi forces in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, are challenged to keep the city secure as U.S. units gradually withdraw. Once declared largely militant-free, Samarra and other cities fell into insurgent hands as local authorities were corrupted, co-opted or eliminated.

Bush got his wood tonight. Bush Won. He was funnier, left it to Kerry to make more flubs. My view: The abortion question was when I knew Bush had won. The question was "Can you reassure that you won't use taxpayer money to pay for abortion?"

Kerry gave a 2 minute flipflop waffle special, and Bush came out and said "I dont know what he just said". Then Bush gave a clear answer 'the answer is no', and then made clear that Kerry was against partial birth abortion ban, against the other prolife proposals and votes that made his previous statements pure posturing. Bush hit a home run talking about the culture of life, while exposing Kerry as a fraud. And Kerry was yapping "labels don't mean anything".

This encapsulates the whole campaign. Kerry has been running from his record, constructing the best back-seat-driver second-guesser. A man who has had zero accomplishments in his 20 years in the Senate, but in the debate Friday said the word "Plan" 31 times. He has a plan for everything. But those plans are not reflective of his real record, they are reflective of a say anything do-nothing candidate constructing the policies that will get him elected.

So, in that answer, Bush scored a TKO: He exposed Kerry's Liberal record, showed how Bush's straight style is the opposite of Kerry's obfuscation, and at the same time showed Bush has the leadership to make a call and stick with it, and the integrity to stand up for it. "It's not that simple" Kerry said as rebuttal, as if to prove the point that Kerry waffles to avoid political responsibility for his positions.

Other views: Powerline's live-blogging comments. and New York Times: "Bush seemed to pull himself out of the ditch he had driven himself into in the first debate. The format served him well. He looked comfortable and sounded confident. .. Kerry was level, but occasionally wordy and his answers sometimes seemed unfocused. "

Kerry's lies about the Patriot Act and Tora Bora

My view: BUSH WON. He won on foreign policy, being the consistent defender of American interests and fighting the global war on terror . He won on domestic policy both values and economic issues. And he won by pointing out Kerry's political waffling as incompatible with the leadership needed to win the war on terror.

A few tactical points:

Kerry was asked what to do about Iran. He didn't answer, except 'get tough' after 2 minutes of non-responsive complaining about Bush. Bush comes back with "remember the axis of evil? Iran, North Korea, and Iraq." One down, two to go.

K: "I've never changed my mind about Iraq." ... "I would have brought our allies to our side."

B: "Sanctions were not working" ..

K: "The goal of the sanctions was to eliminate WMDs. They worked" ... "[Without the war in Iraq] Osama might be in jail or dead" ... [on Iraq] "I have laid out a different plan"

B: "They are not gong to follow an American President saying 'follow me in a mistake'."

K: "The right war was Afghanistan."

B: "It's a fundamental misunderstand ing that the war on terror is Osama Bin Laden ... This is a global conflict."

Kerry over-reached with his foolish talk of the war on terror being just about Osama. Anyone who has followed Iraq, Beslan, Milan, Jakarta, Bali, KNOWS that global terrorism is bigger than 1 man and also bigger than just Al Qaeda. When Kerry said: "The right war was Afghanistan." He totally blew it on the war on terror.

The right war was Afghanistan, and dozens of other countries where we rolled up Al Quaeda, and in the countries that sill harbored terrorists. And that included Iraq. In January, Kerry said the threat of terrorism was exagerrated. Now he claims he can be better at winning a war he doesnt even understand. I think if the American people saw it the way I saw it, they will give the President the clear edge in really understand ing the global terrorist threat.

Bremer corrects the record and defends the Bush policy in Iraq - in a NY Times column. Choice cuts:

"I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

... Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism."

Claudia Rosett calls it "Saddam's Sugar Daddy" - the oil-for-corruption scandal.

As Duelfer documents, Oil-for-Food allowed Saddam to replenish his empty coffers, firm up his networks for hiding money and buying arms, corrupt the U.N.'s own debates over Iraq, greatly erode sanctions and deliberately prep the ground for further rearming, including the acquisition of nuclear weapons. ...

Saddam followed a deliberate strategy of using bribes in such forms as contracts for cheap oil via the U.N. program, or outright gifts of vouchers for oil pumped under U.N. supervision, to gain political influence abroad. He grossly violated U.N. rules, with illicit trade agreements, oil smuggling, and arms deals (conventional, but still deadly) — and the U.N. did not stop him. By 2001, Saddam was able to thwart many of the constraints sanctions were meant to impose on his regime. His strategy, notes the Duelfer report, succeeded "to the point where sitting members of the Security Council were actively violating resolutions passed by the Security Council." [Ed note: Think Cheese-eating surrender monkeys]

But no one has ever heard these facts from the U.N. itself, certainly not from such prime violators as France, Russia, and Syria ...

Blessedly, the Duelfer report clears away much of the U.N. murk. Volume I, devoted to sources of financing and procurement for Saddam's regime, provides hundreds of pages of damning details — lifting much of the cover that U.N. secrecy gave to Saddam, his business partners, and the U.N. itself (which had effectively become one of his chief business partners, thanks both to the 2.2-percent commission collected by Annan's Secretariat, and the deals parceled out by Saddam to pivotal member states). Duelfer's report, released Wednesday, includes not only general descriptions of Oil-for-Food corruption, but names, dates, methods, networks, and dollar amounts — a roster dubbed adroitly by Reuters as Saddam's "Weapons-of-Mass-Corruption."

On the WMD front, Duelfer reports that while no weapons of mass murder were found, Saddam had made a point of preserving the know-how. By corrupting the U.N. setup of sanctions and Oil-for-Food, he was deliberately amassing the resources and networks to go right ahead as soon as sanctions were gone. Among Duelfer's findings was that Oil-for-Food riches had positioned Saddam to massively ramp up chemical-weapons production in a matter of months. ...

UPDATE: Now This - Rampant Illegal Arms Purchases by Saddam "The report suggests that Mr. Hussein was justified when, speaking at a gathering of leaders of the Iraqi armed forces in January 2000, he boasted that despite efforts by the United States and the United Nations to isolate Iraq, he would still be able to buy just about whatever he wanted. "We have said with certainty that the embargo will not be lifted by a Security Council resolution, but will corrode by itself,"

Hammorabi has a pic of child victims of Zarqawi:

I went there looking for his take on the al-Sadr situation, and got instead a reminder of what we are up against and why we fight.

After being revolting, at last al-Sadr is Disarming:

A rebel militia led by Moqtada Al Sadr yesterday pledged to disarm in what could be a major advance for US-Iraqi efforts to calm violence in Iraq ahead of elections due in January. The proposal, which meets a key demand of the interim government, was announced by Ali Smeism, a top Sadr adviser, on Al Arabiya TV.

The Mahdi's Army was on drugs and getting whupped in Operation Iron Fury 2, but I think it was Allawi threatening to behead al-Sadr that must have convinced him. This is nothing to lose one's head over, don't want to be too headstrong, need to stop heading down a blind alley, they've headed off further conflict and we are headed in the right direction. The formerly revolting and now disarming al-Sadr has kept his head on his shoulders - for now.

Whacky Gadhafi "slams use of Islam for terror", but thinks good ol' fashioned National Resistance Movements are legit, even against a Government about to hold elections.

Militants warn Fallujah insurgents to be cautious:"The mujahedeen (holy fighters) in Samarra were duped by the so-called peace initiative," says an insurgent press release.

Arab countries cant decide on agenda for Iraq international conference. Interesting. This is the kind of 'summit meeting' that Kerry claims is his 'big idea' to do Iraq differently, already set up and about to happen. This Arab division proves Bush's point about how these conferences are really of limited usefulness. If the Arab countries can't even agree on an agenda, how can they agree to take bold steps for peace and democracy?

Key Findings in the Duelfer Report.

UPDATE: Powerline comments. Here is a simple but obvious reason why the world thought he had WMDs. From the ISG:

Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. Early on, Saddam sought to foster the impression with his generals that Iraq could resist a Coalition ground attack using WMD. ... In March 2003, Saddam created further confusion when he implied to his ministers and senior officers that he had some kind of secret weapon.

Powerline concludes: "No wonder it was hard for our intelligence agencies, and other countries', to get accurate information about Iraq's weapons. Even Iraq's own military commanders didn't know whether the WMDs existed or not."

UPDATE 2: Heritage weighs in.

UPDATE 3: Duelfer at UN Was Stymied By Albright Clinton administration didn't want any weak WMD report from UNSCOM, so stymied the making of such a report in 1999-2000, and put inspections on back-burner.

Powerline examines the AP report in it. Surprise, Scott Lindlaw is still biased!

UPDATE 4: Spartacus has the ISG greatest quotes.

The old news in the story is that we still haven't found WMDs, and Duelfer is saying what Kay said in January - they are not there. Were they there before the war, then shipped to Syria? They didn't find evidence of that. But Duelfer did find ongoing programs, efforts and the intent - once sanctions were lifted - to more aggressively pursue WMDs. the new news in Duelfer's report is Saddam's bribes and actions to get out from under sanctions and get back on the WMD track.

The President is standing firm on the ultimate decision:

The Duelfer report also raises important new information about Saddam Hussein's defiance of the world and his intent and capability to develop weapons. The Duelfer report showed that Saddam was systematically gaming the system, using the U.N. oil-for-food program to try to influence countries and companies in an effort to undermine sanctions. He was doing so with the intent of restarting his weapons program, once the world looked away.

Based on all the information we have today, I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison. He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction. And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies. Saddam Hussein was a unique threat, a sworn enemy of our country, a state sponsor of terror, operating in the world's most volatile region. In a world after September the 11th, he was a threat we had to confront. And America and the world are safer for our actions.

"The Duelfer report makes clear that much of the accumulated body of 12 years of our intelligence and that of our allies was wrong, and we must find out why and correct the flaws."

The media will call this last statement an admission of failure/mistakes to hurt Bush. It's a statement that Kay made in January but Bush at the time didn't join. But 12 years of intelligence that got off track is a nice way of speaking the whole truth while making clear this is a wider issue than what the president said or did. We had 12 years of little human intelligence and a body of UNSCOM estimates based on the reality that Iraq was a riddle wrapped in an enigma. The estimates got off track. It's not too hard to see why our CIA - who didn't know that India and Pakistan would test nukes in 1998; who didn't know Libya had a full nuclear weapons program; who were caught napping on RPNK and Iran - why they didn't have accuracy in Iraq.

It will be harder to explain why - even post 9/11 - we have to assess imprecise threats conservatively with respect to our security. We should make Pessimistic assumptions about enemies and threats, not optimistic ones. If 9/11 taught us anything, it is the price of complacency. This is why in the end Bush is right: "I believe we were right to take action, and America is safer today with Saddam Hussein in prison. He retained the knowledge, the materials, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction. And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies." Correct. The core threat was there and we were right to depose Saddam and liberate Iraq.

Guardian has some juicy details, like:

" Citing Iraqi intelligence, it claims that in 1988, Iraq paid $1m (£588,000) to the French Socialist party and that the then Iraqi ambassador to Paris, Razzaq al-Hashimi, handed the money to the then French defence minister, Pierre Joxe."

CIA Report linked from here, and here are some CIA report quotes:

"... Moreover, the IIS paper targeted a number of French individuals that the Iraqi's thought had close relations to French President Chirac, including, according to the Iraqi assessment, the offi cial spokesperson of President Chirac's re-election campaign, two reported "counselors" of President Chirac, and two well-known French businessmen. In May 2002, IIS correspondence addressed to Saddam stated that a MFA (quite possibly an IIS offi cer under diplomatic cover) met with French parliamentarian to discuss Iraq-Franco relations. The French politician assured the Iraqi that France would use its veto in the UNSC against any American decision to attack Iraq, according to the IIS memo.

From Baghdad's perspective, the MFA concluded that the primary motive for French continued support and cooperation with Iraq in the UN was economic. According to Tariq Aziz, French oil companies wanted to secure two large oil contracts; Russian companies not only wanted to secure (or lock in) oil contracts, but also sought other commercial contracts covering agricultural, electricity, machinery, food, and automobiles and trucks products. ...."

Strategy Page on our offensive operations in Iraq, taking out insurgents with combined coalition and Iraqi forces:

October 6, 2004: With Samarra under government control, American and Iraqi troops have now moved to Babil province, just south of Baghdad, and arrested 160 people suspected of criminal activity. ...

The combat is organized so that American troops take care of the particularly difficult chores, while getting the Iraqi troops and police into the action as soon as possible. The idea is, quite simply, to make the Iraqi forces look good, and to build their confidence. There's been a lot of trial and error in creating new Iraqi police and security forces. Many Sunni Arabs, with police and military experience, could not be trusted. Many Sunni Arabs still believe that they should be running the country. Shias and Kurds, kept out of key police and military jobs for generations, required more time and training to get them up to speed. The quickest way to get police and military experience is to do the work under intense circumstances. The country needs to be rid of all these gangs and armed factions, and the police and army need the experience. If all this can be carried out without too many of the police and troops running away, the new government will have a security force that can bring peace to the country.

This shows new progress in our standing up of Iraqi security forces. The US still needs to do the heavy lifting, but the Iraqi security forces, through on the job training, can do the rest.

So Says an American who has been there for over a year, working for the CPA and travelling around Iraq.

Operation truth has a story of a victim of Saddam daring to speak out. He got years in jail, and might have been killed. Op truth has their own opinion on the war, as do I, as does Michael Moore. It's important to remember that we wouldn't have that freedom of speech without the soldiers protecting our national security and our freedoms.

Cheney chewed up Edwards like a St Bernard devoured a "Ken doll". Not quite that imbalanced, but in the first half, Edwards demagogic points were rebutted point-blank time after time. But on one point, the Bush/Cheney camp are missing the rebuttal point. This is the Kery/Edwards talking point that Saddam was not involved in 9/11. We need the Bush side to remind the "say anything do nothing" pair of grandstanders that we are in a war with TERRORISM, not the 9/11 Hijackers. They need to say:

"LOOK, you keep talking about Saddam's lack of connections to 9/11 ... 9/11 was a terrible and horrific attack. But it is not the only terrorist attack. we were attacked in 1996 Khobar towers, Cole, Embassy bombing, Achille Lauro, and since 911 we've had Madrid, Bali, Istanbul, Beslan ... We declared war - not on Al Qaeda, not on the 9/11 hisjacker, but on the WHOLE GLOBAL TERRORIST THREAT. And to attack that threat, rip it up, and remove it, you have to go after those rogue regimes, like Saddam Hussein's that aided, trained, sponsored, and harbored those global terrorists. Saddam Hussein did those things. He aided, funded, trained and harbored terrorists.

And that is just ONE good reason why removing him from power was the right thing to do."

It's becoming a bad habit for the media, to mislead and quote an official out of context ... Media quotes Bremer out of context. At the end of a lengthy article, this nugget is tucked away:

Bremer could not be reached for comment Tuesday. His wife, Frances, reached at their home in suburban Maryland, said her husband had been quoted out of context and his remarks were supposed to be off the record. "He said there were not enough troops to contain the looting when he got there," but there are sufficient forces now, she said. "He completely believes in the invasion, and we both are ardent supporters of the president."

UPDATE: Bremer on Tuesday corrects the record:

During a speech Tuesday at Michigan State University, he said his remarks had been somewhat distorted by the media. "We certainly had enough (troops) going into Iraq, because we won the war in a very short three weeks," Bremer said. But he added: "As I look back now ... I believe it would have been better to stop the looting. that was found right after the war. "One way to have stopped the looting would have been to have more troops on the ground. That's a retrospective wisdom of mine, looking backwards. I think there are enough troops there now for the job we are doing."

This is nothing but an anti-Bush media trying to spin every story in a way to hurt President Bush.

UPDATE 2: Found a better worded report of Bremer's comments. The bias in some reports was to misinterpret Bremer's comments to suggest that troop levels were too low throughout his time in Iraq, when in fact Bremer's point was much narrower, focussed on the immediate post-war period: Bremer tells group U-S didn't have enough troops upon arriving in postwar Iraq

WASHINGTON The former head of the U-S occupation in Iraq says the U-S didn't have enough troops on the ground after Saddam Hussein was toppled -- and "paid a big price" for it. Paul Bremer says he's "more convinced than ever" that ousting Saddam was the right thing to do. But he's told an insurance group in West Virginia there weren't enough troops in Iraq in the immediate postwar period. That, he says, established an "atmosphere of lawlessness."

It should be further noted that this was the result of the unexpected speed of victory, and the fact that Turkey denied us the northern invasion route, leaving 4th infantry 'out to sea' for a month, waiting to unload later in Kuwait.

From CNS News: Iraqi Intelligence Document directing Terrorist operations

In the name of Allah the compassionate the kind

(The Eagle/Iraqi slogan)
Top secret, personal & urgent

Republic of Iraq
The bureau of presidency
The secretary

Issue # 425/ K
Date: Jan.18th.1993
Rajab 25th.1413 Hijri

Esquire Comrade Ali Al-Reeh Al-Sheikh/ a member of
The Arabian Bureau-Ba’ath party leadership.

Subject: instruction

In a continuity with our former book#7184/K on Dec.20th.1992, its decided that the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements, or Asian (Muslims) or friends.

Take the necessary steps
Stay well for struggle

Signature of the president’s secretary
Jan.18th.1993

Coalition and Iraqi Govt seize insurgents: "More than 3,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops launched an operation in the southern approaches to Baghdad on Tuesday, seizing a suspected insurgent training camp and capturing more than 160 alleged rebels, the U.S. military command said."

IRANIANS CAPTURED IN SAMARRA

... Military sources also confirmed that following extensive clashes between U.S. troops and the rebel militia, a large number of armed agents working for Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were arrested. Naqib’s comments came after U.S. forces separately confirmed the arrests of 80 Iranian fighters who had posed as regular Iraqis.

Freeper-link lunch special ...

Scandal du jour for UN: Hamas on UN payroll

In Samarra, we are finding that Half the insurgents are foreign fighters from North Africa: "an initial interrogation has determined that the insurgents arrived from such countries as Egypt, Sudan and Tunisia."

Saddam's terrorism ties continue to be debated in the press: Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, & the 9-11 hijackers received assistance from Iraq says this report, listing the many Iraq / Al Qaeada points of contact through the 1990s. The points look to be the Doug Feith 50 that Hayes' "Case Closed" referred to. That particular memo was uninteresting to Dan Rather and 60 Minutes.

Rumsfeld responds to misquotes by press, correcting the press reports that Rumsfeld was downplaying links.

The CIA conclusions in that paper, which I discussed in a news conference as far back as September, 2002, note that:

* We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

* We have what we consider to be very reliable reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade, and of possible chemical and biological agent training.

* We have what we believe to be credible information that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities in Iraq.

* We have what we consider to be credible evidence that al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

* We do have one report indicating that Iraq provided unspecified training relating to chemical and/or biological matters for al Qaeda members.

I should also note that the 9/11 Commission report described linkages between Al Qaeda and Iraq as well.

Other than the bureaucrat-speak "Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven opportunities" - I couldn't have said it better myself.

Caption: A member of the New York National Guard looks at documents found in a building in Samarra, Monday, Oct. 4, 2004. Some of the papers included a booklet featuring Osama Bin Laden and the 9/11 attacks.

Here's something you won't see in the New York Times, since it will help President Bush: Exclusive from Iraqi documents: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties

Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com , show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

Never mind, move along, nothing to see here ...

Iraq militants to form united front, rein in Zarqawi. Report notes that militants say they command 7,000 fighters.

and operating from Iraq as a terrorist ordering assassination hits on Americans. With his use of Iraq as a base, just as Bin Laden used Afghanistan as a base, what conclusion does our CIA draw? Nothing here, we don't know, never mind. It's mind boggling. The Real Story is:

A U.S. official familiar with the new CIA assessment said intelligence analysts were unable to determine conclusively the nature of the relationship between al-Zarqawi and Saddam. "It's still being worked," he said. "It (the assessment) ... doesn't make clear-cut, bottom-line judgments" about whether Saddam's regime was aiding al-Zarqawi.

So the headline should be "CIA on Zarqawi-Saddam connection: WE DONT KNOW". Remind me again, Mr Novak, of this CIA v Bush battle. Or is this just an ongoing proof of CIA incapacity to actually tell us anything intelligent.

But the media headline is worse: "no evidence Saddam had ties to Islamic terrorists". WHICH IS A LIE! There is plenty of evidence, even if leave out Zarqawi - Hamas suicide bombers, the GIA, Ansar Al-Islam, Abu Nidal, etc. There is evidence like the 50 points of contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda:

26. Between April 25 and May 1, 1998, two of Bin Laden’s senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdallah Qassim, reportedly visited Baghdad for discussions with Saddam Hussein’s son -- Qusay Hussein -- the “czar” of Iraqi intelligence matters. Qusay Hussein’s participation in the meetings highlights the importance of the talks in both symbolic and practical terms. As a direct result of these meetings, Iraq reportedly made commitments to provide training, intelligence, clandestine Saudi border crossings, and weapons and explosives to support Al Qaeda.

27. By mid-June, 1998, operatives of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda reportedly were at the al-Nasiriyah training camp in Iraq receiving instruction and training from Iraqi intelligence and military officials on reconnaissance and targeting American facilities and installations for terrorist attacks. Another group of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives from Saudi Arabia reportedly were trained by intelligence officials in Iraq to smuggle weapons and explosives into Saudi Arabia, and, upon returning to Saudi Arabia, successfully smuggled weapons and explosives into that country. A third group of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda operatives reportedly received a month of sophisticated guerrilla operations training from Iraqi intelligence officials later in the Summer of 1998.

Why does Knight Ridder lie like this? Take a single data point and turn it into a blanket statement to 'disprove' the Saddam terrorism link? Any connection with an election in 30 days? The links are not certain, but the timing is suspicious!

The flypaper/roach motel strategy is working! We caught a nest of foreign terrorists! Iraq Grabs 42 Foreign Fighters in Samarra:

Iraqi forces have captured 42 suspected foreign fighters in a sweep in the rebel stronghold of Samarra, Iraqi Defense Minister Hazim al-Shalaan said on Monday.

Shalaan told Al Arabiya television that the foreigners included 18 Egyptians, 18 Sudanese and one Tunisian national, who were among 105 suspected insurgents detained in the town north of Baghdad.

"They (foreigners) have been handed over to coalition forces and after they are interrogated they will be returned to Iraqi forces," Shalaan said.

Jim Krane went after Bush before when he turned a US coup in capturing an Al Qaeda operative into questioning the war in Iraq: "A letter seized from an al-Qaeda courier shows Osama bin Laden has made little headway in recruiting Iraqis for a holy war against America, raising questions about the Bush administration's contention that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror." His bias was enough to make someone take notice.

Now that terrorism heated up in Iraq, did Jim Krane write any words that said: "Spate of Car Bombings lays to rest questions that Iraq is central front in the war on terror"? Nope, instead he writes nonsense such as: U.S. military is fighting the most complex guerrilla war in its history.

There he goes again. Lining up with MSM buddied doing yoeman's work for the Kerry campaign (eg, look at NYT and their tubes), he wants to convince us that our own military are bumblers and the enemy brilliant and winning.

This defeatist nonsense ignores a few basic facts: First, the size of the enemy. He says "the estimated 20,000 insurgents" - 20,000. Did we face that many before? I mean, that few, in the many counterinsurgencies our marines faced this past century?

Then the elements of the insurgency. The three dozen or so guerrilla bands agree on little beyond forcing the Americans out of Iraq.

This statement is specious nonsense and contradicted by his own article:

The largest insurgent bloc is composed of Iraqi nationalists fighting to reclaim secular power lost when Saddam Hussein was deposed in April 2003.

First, "Iraqi nationalists" is an insult to the nationalistic pro-democracy Iraqis building the new Iraq. These people are thugs, Baathists, Calling them 'secular' is foolish, since they are getting much help and are in alliance with Salafists and extremist Sunni clerics. The article quotes "an insurgent leader in Fallujah who identified himself as Abu Thar, a 45-year-old former colonel in the Iraqi army." We know that most of the 'insurgency' is simply former Saddam Hussein regime elements fighting to regain power.

The second is a growing faction of hardcore fighters aligned with terrorist groups, mainly that led by Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The U.S. military believes they want to turn Iraq into an anti-Western stronghold that would export Islamic revolution to other countries in the region.

What is not mentioned here is that these groups are Salafists or Wahhabists; nor is it mentioned that terrorists have come into Iraq to join the fight; nor is it mentioned that many such terrorists have been killed in our precision air strikes. What is also not mentioned is that many Baathists are posing as Jihadists as a way of creating the kind of 'energy' needed to bring more people on board their cause. Nobody will follow Saddam's henchmen for being Saddam's henchmen but maybe they will follow Allah.

A third group consists of conservative Iraqis who want to install an Islamic theocracy, but who stay away from terror tactics like car bombings and the beheading of hostages.

It is insulting to conservatives of any stripe to call these extremists 'conservative Iraqis'. Moreover, it is insulting to men like Al-Sistani, who might fall in the pro-Sharia camp, but who is not part of any opposition to US presence in Iraq. If they don't do the terrorism and the beheadings, then what do they do? The Association of Muslim Scholars acts as a front group for the extremists. As "Iraq the Model" pointed out, the group was formed by clerics who Saddam Hussein had installed. They support the terrorism by issuing fatwas against working with the U.S., refusing to join the political process and inciting violence. They claim they are not terrorists merely because they don't do the dirty work themselves. But they aid, abet and support it. No doubt that when money changes hands to free kidnap victims, they get their cut.

To call this group 'separate' from the rest of the insurgency misses the point. They have links to the regime of Saddam Hussein. They are linked also to the terror networks. This Unholy Trinity is a 3 pronged alliance - An AXIS of Iraqi Insurgency - that is working together.

The fourth, al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, seeks to make the cleric the nationwide Shiite leader.

Didn't this 'reporter' get the message? Mahdi Army was so decimated in Najaf that al-Sadr is, once again, contemplating dissolving the Mahdi army, so he can get into politics.

Ordinary criminals also pitch in on attacks when they are paid. And gangsters who abduct people regularly sell their hostages to terror groups, which have beheaded some.

There are 2 separate issues here: First, the Baathists and al-Sadr hired criminals. Second, the general anarchy has increased organized crime, especially kidnap gangs. But the second is not 'insurgency' of any type, it is just criminality.

But the bottom line is this: He speaks of dozens of guerilla bands, but on deeper inspection there are really 4 elements in the insurgency, 3 out of 4 of them linked closely together in the Sunni-based insurgency, 1 of the 4 the al-Sadr/Mahdi army faction. That's not 'dozens', that's effectively a 2 front war, with the Sunni front have multifarious elements and tactics at their disposal. Complex? Hardly.

Hoffman and other independent experts feel the insurgents are succeeding, with death tolls spiraling and a guerrilla-induced climate of fear that has reduced the U.S.-led rebuilding effort to a shambles.

Other experts, like me, will point out that September, while dangerous, was about as bad as May, and less bad than either April or last November. We can point out that 'havens' like Tal Afar and Samarra become 'former havens' and the security forces gain ground. We are succeeding and the insurgency are creating havoc but failing to do anything positive except create violence. It is specious nonsense to talk of a 'shambles' of US-led rebuilding when more has been done here in the last 18 months for Iraq than in the previous 18 years under Saddam. Examples: Electricity generation up 20% from pre-war levels, and fairer allocation so more of the country has electricity; The rebuilding of schools, hospitals and water treatment plants; The booming Iraqi economy.

Abu Thar, the former colonel who was interviewed by an Iraqi reporter for The Associated Press inside insurgent-held Fallujah, gloated over his compatriots' successes, saying U.S. leaders were publicly contradicting each other about the state of the war.

Yes, we are aware of the 'enemy within', but he ought not gloat. We will win this war and prove that we are strong enough to defy critics and our enemies both. He also said U.S. counterattacks that kill women and children are turning public opinion in the militants' favor. No mention of the effect of killing scores of insurgents at a time.

"We see the conflicting statements by the U.S. administration on Iraq as another sign of their defeat," Abu Thar said.

DO WE NEED TO READ ANYTHING MORE TO UNDERSTAND HOW HARMFUL DEFEATISM AND NEGATIVITY IS TO OUR CAUSE? The enemy gauges their chances based on how divided we are! They are clearly emboldened by the negative expressions of say Sen Kerry:

"More volunteers are coming to us because they are fed up with the humiliation and the misdeeds of the Americans. They feel it is a national and religious duty."

Clowns to the left of me, joker's to the right ...

Public opinion is the war's central front and it is tilting against the Americans, said James Dobbins, a former Bush administration envoy to Afghanistan and now a military analyst for RAND Corp. "If we can't protect the population, we can't secure its trust and support," Dobbins said. "If we or the Iraqi government lose that, we ultimately lose the war."

Contentless and vague defeatist statements. There is NO evidence that the tilt favors our enemies. Indeed the democratic center in Iraqi is going stronger. Polls numbers last showed that Allawi got high ratings, above 60%. The vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, exactly what we want.

U.S. military officers concede the situation is tough, but they say the intensity of the conflict could be much worse. And they argue that insurgents also alienate Iraqis with indiscriminate attacks - such as the car bombings Thursday in Baghdad that killed 35 children and nine adults.

Note the bias here based on the change in tone. In the statements the defeatist author wants to highlight the statement leads, with a tail-end clause describing who said it. These statements lead off with "they argue" ... Let's rewrite: Insurgents also alienate Iraqis with indiscriminate attacks - such as the car bombings Thursday in Baghdad that killed 35 children and nine adults, commanders say.

Commanders say U.S. strategy focuses on boosting Iraqi government control while fighting only the most necessary battles. "History is replete with insurgencies that failed," one general said privately during a discussion of Iraq.

History is also replete with insurgencies that triumphed. Vietnamese guerrillas ousted the United States in 1973. Afghan militias similarly embarrassed the Soviet Union in 1989.

The journalist now tries to argue with a general and fails in the attempt. Two success is hardly a historical record of note. And the strategic order of battle is ignored. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan were proxy superpower battles,

If Iraqi insurgents succeed in toppling the U.S.-backed government, analysts believe the stark differences in the groups' goals could lead to a civil war that might break Iraq into rival fiefs.

This is nonsense. RUMSFELD debunks this in a Rita Cosby interview: "No one sees any sign of civil war in that country at the present time. There, obviously, used to be worries about it, and there have been ethnic conflicts in the past. But at the moment, that isn't the risk. The risk is that the terrorists and the extremists and the people who are running around chopping off people's heads and killing innocent men, women and children will take over that country. And imagine a country ruled by people who go around chopping off people's heads. That's a dark future. The Taliban rule is a perfect recent example of what Iraq would look like."

Bad decisions by the U.S.-led occupation administration are widely blamed for stoking the war. Those cited most often are the disbanding of the Iraqi army and the banning of Saddam's political leaders from public life, both of which are said to have converted potential allies into enemies.

The breath-taking idiocy of this comment is a marvel of illogic. Because we didnt bring these wolves into the fold, they went off and started killing Americans and bombing other Iraqis. And we were supposed to improve the situation by letting these thugs stay in the army and in Government?!? Then, we would be talking about something far worse - an insurrection inside the Iraqi security forces and a real 'coup d'etat' type of possibility. It's not happening, because the New Iraq is committed to democracy and the old power structure has been swept awaay.

The decision not to use the Baathists has been confirmed as correct by their behavior since then. They are dangerous thugs who murder to gain power.

Independent analysts say 16 months of escalating warfare by U.S. troops with little practical experience in fighting insurgents have made clear the difficulty of defeating militants who mount attacks while hiding and moving among civilians.

More ahistorical idiocy. The marines have a century of knowledge fighting 'small wars', and won most of their fights of this type. This is

The analysts say the most promising chance for victory lies in U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces. U.S. and Iraqi troops reclaimed the city of Samarra from insurgents over the weekend, but it's unclear how much fighting was done by the Iraqis.

Iraqis took the Golden Mosque. Iraqis are patrolling the streets. It's a good start.

"The United States can buy the Iraqi government time to get organized, but the U.S. has become too unpopular and lost too much support among the population to be able to itself win a counterinsurgency campaign," Dobbins said. The U.S. military has few homegrown models for counterinsurgency success. Its last two major campaigns - in Somalia in 1993 and in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s - failed.

Again, that a historical idiocy, the only war in world history was Vietnam. Must have the Kerry disease. It treats our professional military like bumblers who can't learn from Israel or never defeated a guerilla army, like we did in the Philippines (1898-1902). The fact is, we know how to win guerilla wars. And guess what we are doing in Iraq? We are winning a Guerilla War, and this article talks about the hundred things our military commanders have been doing for the last 18 months to win hearts and minds, defeat the insurgents, and turn Iraq into a democratic nation.

Both times, a tenacious enemy fought hard enough to force U.S. troops from its soil. No one has said Iraqi insurgents are as tough as the Communist Viet Cong, and the United States had little incentive to stay in Somalia once militias made things difficult. "Vietnam was not easy, but it was certainly far less complex and more straightforward," Hoffman said.

There is no more complexity to a baathist-led insurgency than a communist-led and Soviet-funded guerilla war in Vietnam. The retaking of Samarra was a cakewalk compared to the retaking of Hue City during the Tet offensive.

As the militants gain strength, they progress to fielding combat troops, Betts said. In Iraq, large formations of Iraqi insurgents have met with mixed success. U.S. commanders claim their troops killed more than 4,000 al-Sadr fighters in April and August. But Sunni fighters in Fallujah and other cities have mounted daring attacks and melted away with few killed.

This paragraph uses juxtaposition rhetoric to mis-lead to a desired erroneous conclusion. We are told "As the militants gain strength, they progress to fielding combat troops" yet in Iraq, that has been rarely tried and 'mixed success' is the wrong answer. Fixed formations have been routinely destroyed by the US military, not only the Mahdi army in August in Najaf, but also the insurgents in Tal Afar and Samarra recently. Guerillas always mount attacks and then melt away. Yet in Fallujah, we are killing the insurgents even in their lairs.

This AP article by Jim Krane took snippets of negative predictions, added the spice of hypothetical extrapolations, threw in the ravings of a baathist thug insurgent and treated it like wise counsel, to make a tossed salad of defeatism. There are few real facts to back it up. The one thing the defeatists have right about our effort to defeat the terrorists opposing the new Iraq is this: We haven't won .... yet.

Jennifer Glass had a report on "The World" tonight, interviewing men who were becoming policemen in Fallujah. While Fallujah is billed as a 'rebel' city where the insurgents come and go at will, there still is a police force - and candidates are lining up to join it!

One 20 year old said he needed to support his family, and had no problems with the Americans and had no business with the insurgents. An interviewed policemen said that he had 3 things protecting him: God, his Glock (handgun), and his Galant. The Galant helped him outrun some insurgents, said the reporter. He said it was dangerous but he needed to stay in, if he didn't then life "would be like a jungle".

The police chief of Fallujah insists he does not collaborate with the insurgents. But some are suspicious. Certainly they are intimidated.

The world then had a surprisingly upbeat (for the pro-pessimistic World show) update on Sammara. There was a 3 day battle; most of the hard fighting on the first day. The Samarra insurgents were Baathist members of Saddam's regime, mixed with some 'foreign terrorists', a total of about 400-500; while 125 were killed and many captured, the rest are unaccounted for; they simply melted back into the city. In the fighting in Samarra, there were many civilian casualties.

The Samarra operation had one US KIA: "Sgt. Michael A. Uvanni, 27, of Rome, N.Y., died Oct.1 in Samarra, Iraq, he was conducting combat operations and was shot by a sniper. Uvanni was assigned to the Army National Guard’s 2nd Battalion, 108th Infantry Regiment, Morrisonville, N.Y."

Right now there are two Iraqi amry battalions in Samarra and they are there to stay. That is classic counter-insurgency operations. The reporter indicated that the U.S. had revamped the local police force, and retrained a number of individuals, and that Iraqi Government security forces were patrolling the streets of Samarra now. This is, if it holds, a significant rollback of insurgent strength.

The real positive news in both stories is that Iraqi Government forces are standing up stronger than they have in the past. With this trend, it may soon be a matter not of if we can win and have peace in Iraq, but simply when.

Now that Kerry's totally chaotic and despairing campaign has gotten a whiff of hope, there is now the flip-psychology... I HATE THAT POST by Hoke, because he made it sound like USA *deserves* the disaster that would befall us if Kerry won; we simply arent up to the rigors of kicking terrorist butt come hell or high water. No, far better to say that MSM bias will convince the deluded american voter to pick phony 'war hero' Kerry, who put in for medals so he could bug out quick, come home, and denounce the war to leave South Vietnam and veterans to hang out to dry, conspire with Communists, then have a 20 year record of trashing our military, missing intelligence meetings and voting for DoD cuts. Yes, better to say we are hoodwinked than that we would go the way of Spain out of war weariness.

AND KERRY IS THE MAN TO LEAD US IN THE WAR ON TERROR? The man when asked the most serious threat we faced, answered not 'global terrorism' but proliferation, yet whose answer to it seems to be:
1. We made a mistake to act on perceived threats in Iraq.
2. We are making a mistake to have sanctions on rogue nations like Iran.
3. We should try with North Korea those things which failed in the past.
4. We should stop developing defenses and systems in the US.
5. We should pass a 'global test' on interventions (this was a freudian 'permission slip' by Kerry).

THIS IS LUNACY. If you were an evil anti-American GirlieManchurian Candidate, you couldnt come up with a worse set of plans to HARM OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. I am not alone in this of course. Blogs for Bush links to a Mark Steyn comment on Kerry's debate statements:

If John Kerry is so polished and eloquent and forceful and mellifluous, how come nobody has a clue what his policy on Iraq is? As he made clear on Thursday, Saddam was a growing threat so he had to be disarmed so Kerry voted for war in order to authorize Bush to go to the U.N. but Bush failed to pass ''the global test'' so we shouldn't have disarmed Saddam because he wasn't a threat so the war was a mistake so Kerry will bring the troops home by persuading France and Germany to send their troops instead because he's so much better at building alliances so he'll have no trouble talking France and Germany into sending their boys to be the last men to die for Bush's mistake.

Have I got that right?

Yes, it is right, and we still have that nagging question: How can John Kerry ask our troops and our allies to spend blood and treasure in an intervention he calls a 'collosal mistake?'

"if we have an American man or, God forbid, a woman, pleading for his or her life just before decapitation, it will have the same effect as the Madrid bombings. Enough of us will want to change the channel and the alternative will be Kerry."

I want to believe the opposite, that the violence has hardened us already to the difficult task of simply persevering until victory. I have preached here on the costs of war before, and said price of cowardice - that courage reaps dividends. A Kerry victory would lead to 'loss of will' in Iraq, it is the path of 'least resistance', which in war means the path to defeat. The disaster that Kerry would bring will cost us dearly in the long run. Sure we can take the risk of a new horse mid-stream, but do the American people feel lucky? It's no risk to me though, it is all known and quantified downside. Kerry is so wrong for America, his policies in all areas are just bad bad bad, we should be shocked he is even in the running.

"The threat of terrorism has been exaggerated"-John Kerry, January 2004

Another post correcting Kerry on Tora Bora

UPDATE: Top Ten Curious Things Kerry said in debate

Kudlow puts Kerry to His “Global Test”

Kerry is stuck in a September 10 mentality

The post-debate reverberations continue. Bush won the debate says Deb Saunders, Dick Morris opines Kerry won on style, Bush won on substance. Hugh Hewitt's scorecard and his big takeaway - "Global Test" is a big problem. Rush called that Kerry's "Kitty Dukakis" moment. Rocky Mountain News notes that Kerry's 20 year weak-on-defense record was not focussed on. I think of when Zell Miller spoke of at the GOP convention. It is indeed a pity that President Bush didnt rebut Kerry's 'body armor' blather by reciting the litany:

No one should dare to even think about being the commander in chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home. But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution. They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism, it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace. They were wrong. They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.

And no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Together, Kennedy and Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that are now winning the war on terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security.

But Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Enduring Freedom. The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq. The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Gadhafi's Libyan MiGs over the Gulf of Sidra.

The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War. The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on -- against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein's scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile, against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the commander in chief of our U.S. Armed Forces? U.S. forces armed with what? Spit balls?

Note the Tora Bora reference. Kerry may have borrowed the 'outsourcing' and Tora Bora critique from The Atlantic Monthly. But wherever he got it, it is wrong. Powell, Franks, and host of others in that operation refuted Kerry's claim; Tora Bora was a success that US forces were intimitely involved with Afghan forces, that ground to dust over 1000 enemy. CentCom debuty Cmdr General DeLong refuted it as well:

KERRY KNEW HE WAS LYING WHEN HE SAID IT: In light of the oft-repeated assertion by John Kerry that President Bush took resources from Afghanistan in order to perform the operations in Iraq - former CentCom commander and number 2 in the War On Terror Lt. General Michael DeLong had the following to say...

KMC: General welcome to the Kevin McCullough Show

DeLong: Kevin its a pleasure to be here.

KMC: When you hear John Kerry last night, in the debate, talking about the robbing of Afghanistan to serve Iraq...I'm going to play this clip, I want you to hear this comment and then I'd like to get your reaction to it.

CLIP: (John Kerry) "The President made the judgement to divert forces from under General Tommy Franks from Afghanistan before the Congress even approved it, to begin to prepare to go to war in Iraq."

KMC: That assertion he (Kerry) made multiple times throughout the debate last night, Lt. General Michael DeLong, former number two at CentCom - was that your experience or did you have knowledge of that to be true? That the Bush Administration robbed Afghanistan to pay Iraq - so to speak?

DeLong: It's completely untrue, what happened is...The way we went to war in Afghanistan, first of all was different than the Soviets. We used Afghan forces with our ground forces on purpose so that they'd be the heroes of the war. So that they would feel good about themselves in the end, and be able to have a country united. We never had more than around 9000 soldiers there at any one time and today there is 10,000. So I can say unequivocally not one single troop, nor airplane, nor piece of equipment left Afghanistan to go to Iraq. It was a conscious decision on General Franks, the President and Sec. Rumsfelds part to insure that the war on terrorism not only stayed at its current rate but accelerated because going into Iraq, we did not know how that would make the terrorists react. So we went overboard. And the same day we went into Iraq we carried out a huge, huge operation in Afghanistan. So it (the statement by Kerry) is NOT correct.

KMC: As a former commander of those operations how do you personally feel when you hear a man who is seeking the office of Commander-In-Chief get something so basic in terms of the raw facts of the matter, that's so easily provable - so wrong?

DeLong: Well, first of all its an election year. He's running for President - he doesn't have the Presidential background to fall back on. He's picking and choosing and taking things out of context, and I feel sorry that that's the way he has to go. And if I thought those were things he really meant I'd take offense.

And for what it's worth General Franks roundly disputed Kerry on the

Practically every issue that Kerry touched on in the debate has these kinds of 'gotcha' elements. "Facts" that are arguable, or worse, simply untrue. Kerry has created a minefield with his own statements; it's rich fodder for the Bush campaign: GOP has Kerry's top ten flip flops and Over a dozen factual errors or flip-flops from Kerry. It's mindboggling how erroneous a Senator could be. Kerry was factually wrong about the subways at the GOP convention, a 'factiod' that means nothing; why did Kerry lie/mis-state unnecessarily on that?

On Iraq, some Kerry blowback: Right War, Right Place, Right Time says Debra Burlingame: "Kerry is wrong: Iraq is central to defeating al Qaeda". She's a 9/11 widow. Hanson says Kerry is is "a captive of the pulse of the battlefield" and predicts strategic disaster that follows from such vaciallation. A clear Kerry flip-flop is noted:

Kerry 1: "But the president made a mistake in invading Iraq."

... 2 minutes later ... LEHRER: Are Americans now dying in Iraq for a mistake?

KERRY: No, and they don't have to,...

RCP says: "You do not have to have a PhD in logic to notice the egregious contradiction here. If your view is that invading Iraq was a mistake and U.S. soldiers are dying in Iraq (which they are) then our brave troops are, in fact, dying for a mistake."

Indeed. You are still back to square one on Iraq, even after a debate where many claimed that Kerry spoke 'clearly'. He did. He clearly fudged it. The question I still have and which convinces me that Kerry would be a disaster as President, at least with respect to our policy on Iraq. His criticism and calling the war a mistake, his lamenting the cost, his base consisting of voters who want to bug out of Iraq, all point to him being unable to do what it takes to win in Iraq.

Kerry's Iraq problem though, can now be viewed as part of Kerry's overall problem with leading the U.S. in a time of war; Kerry flunks leadership with his Global Test. Kerry thinks global popularity, not U.S. national security interests should be the gating factor for deciding when to intervene. People worried more about style and the media desperate to jump-start Kerry's campaign will say he won. But look under the hood on his statements, and Kerry's debate performance confirms that he is unfit to lead at this time, in the War on Terror, a time when hard choices need to be made to put US security first, even when it may disturb the comity with some other nations. Bush did the right thing to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein and remove him from power. Kerry is wrong to say that it was a mistake, it was a key and correct part of the war on terror.

Iraqi boys in Samarra pose for a pic from a US soldier:

Iraqi men and boys are blindfolded and arrested, with Iraqi police officers saying they are suspected of being a gang of kidnappers, in the town of Qurna, 50 miles north of Basra, October 2, 2004:

That Kerry spoke of Is Now Online. Test you skills to see if you can make U.S. national security interests pass 'the global test'.

Al Qaeda members an ignorant lot, says a former member. "I have seen that they are committing actions that should not come from a group claiming jihad.” Kidnapping, murder, calling policemen and Imams that disagree "infidels", etc. The real insight here is that this is considered a revelation and not stunningly obvious.

Earlier Tal Afar, now Samarra: Coalition and Iraqi Government declares victory

The U.S. commander whose troops spearheaded the attack said 125 insurgents were killed and 88 captured in fighting since Friday in what appeared to be the first major push to wrest a string of cities from guerrillas' hands before elections in January.

One American soldier has also been killed in the assault, in which 2,000 U.S. troops and 3,000 Iraqi soldiers swept into the city. Commanders said Saturday they controlled 70 percent of the city.

Samarra is an ancient city that once was a Christian monastary and then for a time in the 9th century the capital of the Abbasid Caliphate. Since the fall of Saddam, it has been 'Sunni triangle' insurgency trouble spot. We noted two months back how Zarqawi's terror network had moved into Samarra and made it a key base. During the summer, the insurgency used intimidation and terror attacks make Samarra an insurgency haven:

In June, two Samarra policemen were gunned down in the street. One died immediately, but the second was taken to the hospital where insurgents tracked him down and killed him ...

insurgents blew up the homes of four pro-US figures on July 1 and a suicide car bomber, dressed in a police uniform, levelled Samarra's national guard headquarters on July 8.

The result of this was a predictable degradation of Samarra's local police and Government, intimidating into doing nothing to stop insurgents in the city. The U.S. had no other option than to use air strikes against insurgent targets in Samarra.

This changed in early September when coalition forces moved into Samarra and re-installed the local Government. It was part of a deal with local leaders to re-flow reconstruction aid in exchange for an end to insurgent attacks on US forces and Iraqi police. MNF announced it as:

"Iraqi Security Forces partnered with Multi-National Forces and entered Samarra at about 10 a.m. Sept. 9 to reseat the city council leadership and conduct an assessment of the police stations."

But the insurgents didn't let up: They attacked a city council meeting on September 14th; a suicide bomber attacked a U.S.-Iraqi checkpoint on September 19, killing three people and wounding seven; and in late September showed up on the streets of Samarra waving their banners.

A serious and complete rooting out of the terrorists was needed. And that apparently is what Samarra is getting. A brigade-size force of U.S. and Iraqi national guard troops moved into Samarra's center early Friday morning: "Supported by tanks and aircraft, troops were going through the city sector by sector, clearing buildings and mosques." The scope of the operation can be understood by the estimates of the enemy force: "more than 2,000 Iraqi insurgents and 250 foreign fighters were in the city".

MNF reports this operation consists of "About 1,000 Iraqi Security Forces, supported by Soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division" in Samarra: They "observed insurgents in speedboats downloading ordnance on the banks of the Tigris River" and responded and destroyed two boats killing the insurgents. "The Iraqi Security Forces and 1st Infantry Division Soldiers ... were attacked by AIF with rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire. In multiple engagements throughout the morning Soldiers destroyed mortar sites, RPG teams, and vehicles carrying anti-Iraqi forces, killing numerous AIF." Yet another wonderful benefit of this operation was the rescue and release of a Turkish kidnap victim:

Officials say soldiers of the 1st Infantry Division rescued Yahlin Kaya, a construction company employee, during their sweep through Samarra. He worked for the 77 Construction Company in the city.

Belmont Club in "Appointment in Sammara" (a man of many literary references) has an excellent analysis of the Samarra offensive. He notes remarkable tactical surprise. A key mosque in the city, the Golden Mosque, was seized by the 36th Iraqi Commando Battalion, capturing 25 rebels and their weapons.

The fact that the First Infantry Division and the Iraqi Army were able to keep the approach of multi-battalion forces secret from the enemy in the heart of the Sunni triangle is one of the most impressive aspects of this operation. The insurgents were surprised in a stronghold where they could expect to enjoy every intelligence advantage. Nearly as impressive was the lightning seizure of the Shi'ite shrine by the 36th Iraqi Commando battalion. ... the entire multinational operation implies a degree of coordination, command and control that speaks volumes about the degree of improvement of the Iraqi Army.

He notes the progress since the Spring: Iraqi armed forces are better, our intelligence is better.

This quick victory in retaking Samarra on the ground, rooting out terrorists and killing them by the score is clear momentum in the direction of defeating the terrorist insurgency. We must clean out the areas where insurgents were controlling and intimidating local populations and we are doing it. It is not cheerleading, nor hope, to say "we are winning" but the only reasonable conclusion on can make out of the facts on the ground.

Another sign that we are winning is the emphasis in reporting, when biased media like Reuters goes from "U.S. retreating, in a quagmire" stories to "children killed" stories. For example: "The Iraqi Red Crescent said it had evacuated 25 wounded people late on Friday, including a young girl who later died." No doubt, if 2 or 6 or a dozen of the victims were young girls, it would have been noted; if 1 out of 25 wounded were non-combatants, what of the other 24? Young males? traces of gunpowder on their hands? We'll not be told. There have been unfortunate civilians casualties, some clearly victims of continued insurgency carelessness, but the coalition is continuing to do all it can to minimize civilian casualties. Still, the inevitable blunt violence of war gives lessons to residents not to encourage any 'resistance' in their neghborhood. Intl Herald Tribune noted a comment from an Iraqi:

"It took me three hours to get to a safe place," said Abu Muhammad, a laborer, standing on Samarra's outskirts on Saturday as a thick plume of dark smoke rose up behind him. "Not all of us are the resistance. You can see the resistance. Go see the bodies in the streets of Samarra. "Snipers are positioned over houses. They shoot at us when we try to go out," he said, not specifying whether he meant American or insurgent gunmen.

Residents of Fallujah can practice the "Not all of us are the resistance" statement for the upcoming retaking of that city.

UPDATE: ANother view on Samarra, calling the brigade sized attack a 'resumption of major operations'. Perhaps, but with 125 rebels dead, and only 1 coalition KIA, this sounds similar to the kinds of operations done in August and in May against the Mahdi army. Also worth noting, the WashPost reports: "The police department and city council were co-opted months ago by an insurgency dominated by former members of ousted president Saddam Hussein's government, officials said." The former regime is the organizational and financial 'brains' of the operation, criminals the 'brawn', and salafist/Al Qaeda extremists the terrorist 'heart' of the insurgency.