Freedom's Truth

Gas Prices Falling say the pajama-bloggers (btw, kudos on the name!) ... Yeah, but I told you all to SHORT OIL back on August 30. Bad timing to short oil in the midst of one hurricane and before another? Maybe not, the three year runup of oil prices topped out within 2 days of my prediction and has since fallen 25% ...

Don't let lower prices gas get to your head, its still higher than 2 years ago. What's next? I think oil should hit $45 or lower within 6-12 months. Ironically, by falling now, the economy will be bouyed to the extent that an oil price crash below $30 will be much less likely. And we can influence oil's price via supply and demand changes: Drill ANWR, open up offshore drilling, conserve, buy efficient cars, and switch to other fuels.

... for something completely different. (Stay tuned)

Austin Bay, in "Troops Tackle Bad Media", shares StrategyPage's latest on the Iraq reality vs media image:

Remember this quote: First, there is definitely a terrorism problem. Not an insurgency, not a guerilla war, not a resistance. That is the ground truth in Iraq.

obMediabashing comment: Here's a common them in the comments of that Autin bay article. "BTW, the MSM has lost much credibility with me because of their (too frequent) inaccurate and often clueless reporting in the areas in which I personally have some expertise and/or knowledge (like military, aviation or southern border problems). I assume that if they err in these areas I know, they probably also err in the other areas as well. The MSM also does not seem to have an effective self-correcting mechanism or the ability/desire to correct factual or bias-induced errors."

Media Research Center reports on a poll that the media will want to sweep under the rug:

The news media elite are to the left of the public in several policy areas related to the war on terrorism, a poll "of opinion leaders and the general public conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in collaboration with the Council on Foreign Relations," found. While 56 percent of the public believes "efforts to establish a stable democracy" in Iraq will succeed, 63 percent of the news media elite think it will fail; a plurality of 48 percent of the public think going to war in Iraq was correct, but 71 percent of the news media elite consider it a bad decision; the public is split evenly at 44 percent on whether the Iraq war has helped or hurt the war on terrorism, but an overwhelming 68 percent of the news media elite say it has hurt; and 46 percent of the public believe torture of terrorist suspects is often or sometimes "justified," 78 percent of the news media elite contend it is "rarely" or "never" justified. Plus, news media elite approval of Bush's job performance -- at a lowly 21 percent -- is half that of the public's.

I'm light blogging for the break ... Happy Thanksgiving!

swirl around the outcome of a Mosul raid that left 8 Al Qaeda dead, but US now says it's highly unlikely that Zarqawi was killed. Keep the champagne on ice:

US authorities are looking into whether al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a gunfight in Mosul, a US official says. But a White House spokesman said al-Zarqawi's death was "highly unlikely." "Efforts are under way to determine whether Zarqawi wasamong those killed," the US official, in Washington said, speaking on condition of anonymity. White House spokesman Trent Duffy, travelling with US President George W Bush in Asia, said the report was "highly unlikely and not credible."

On Saturday, police Brig. Gen. Said Ahmed al-Jubouri said the raid was launched after a tip that top al-Qaida operatives, possibly including al-Zarqawi, were in the house in the northeastern part of the city.

During the intense gunbattle that followed, three insurgents detonated explosives and killed themselves to avoid capture, Iraqi officials said. Eleven Americans were wounded, the U.S. military said. Such intense resistance often suggests an attempt to defend a high-value target.

Ob-BeatUpOnMedia note - Via FR a CBS story that: "As the U.S. military death toll continues to rise, officials have determined that the insurgents are utilizing media reports to outsmart armed forces."

Our oh-so-helpful media. Go figure.

Senator John McCain gives his formula for victory in a recent speech at the AEI. Some excerpts:

Withdrawing before there is a stable and legitimate Iraqi authority would turn Iraq into a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. We have seen a failed state emerge after U.S. disengagement once before, and it cost us terribly. If we leave Iraq prematurely, the jihadists will interpret the withdrawal as their great victory against our great power.

We must stay in Iraq until the government there has a fully functioning security apparatus that can keep Zarqawi and his terrorists at bay, and ultimately defeat them. Some argue that our very presence in Iraq has created the insurgency, and if we end the occupation, we end the insurgency. But in fact by ending military operations, we are likely to empower the insurgency.

We must adopt a “clear and stay” counterinsurgency strategy. Rather than focusing on killing and capturing insurgents, we should emphasize protecting the local population, creating secure areas where insurgents find it difficult to operate. Our forces would begin by clearing areas, with heavy force if necessary, to establish a zone as free of insurgents as possible. The security forces can then cordon off the zone, establish constant patrols by American and Iraqi military and police to protect the population from insurgents and common crime, and arrest remaining insurgents.

In this newly secure environment, many of the things critical to winning in Iraq can take place--things that are not happening today. Massive reconstruction can go forward without fear of attack and sabotage. Political meetings and campaigning can take place in the open. Civil society can emerge. Intelligence improves, as it becomes increasingly safe for the population to provide tips to the security forces. As these elements positively reinforce each other, the security forces then expand the territory under their control.

Securing ever increasing parts of Iraq and preventing the emergence of new terrorist safe havens will require more troops and money. While the United States and its partners are training Iraqi security forces at a furious pace, these Iraqis should supplement, not substitute for, the coalition forces on the ground.

While we make improvements in our political-military strategy, the latest polls and protests at home show that we need a renewed effort to win the U.S. homefront. A renewed effort at home starts with explaining precisely what is at stake in this war--not to alarm Americans, but so that they see the nature of this struggle for what it is. The president cannot do this alone. The media, so efficient in portraying the difficulties in Iraq, need to convey the consequences of success or failure there. Critics in the Democratic Party should outline precisely what they believe to be the stakes in this battle, if they are willing to suffer the consequences of withdrawal.

Above all, winning the homefront means reiterating our commitment to victory and laying out a realistic game plan that will take America there.

America, Iraq, and the world are better off with Saddam Hussein in prison rather than in power. The costs of this war have been high, especially for the over 2,000 Americans and their families who have paid the ultimate price. But liberating Iraq was in our strategic and moral interests, and we must honor their sacrifice by seeing this mission through to victory.

Hat tip to FR for linking to these graphics. From SacredCowBurgers:

Never mind 9/11, Bali bombings or the 700 soldiers and marines killed in the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom ... "I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started." -Rep Murtha

From Powerline:

AP Writes an Editorial and calls it an article, but even as editorial it makes no sense:

President Bush's efforts to paint Democrats as hypocrites for criticizing the Iraq war after they once warned that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat could backfire on Republicans.Polls show marked declines in support for the war, notably among moderate Republicans, especially Republican women, and independents — voting blocs that the GOP needs to woo or keep in their camp. If Bush castigates Democrats for changing their minds on the war, he might wind up alienating Republicans who have done so, too.

The AP thinks this kind of feeble opining warrants spreading on the wires? Let's deconstruct this. The media has a daily diet of negativity and defeatism on the war. The President challenges that steady diet, and the media thinks this could be politically bad because many in the middle are convinced based on that very defeatism. As if that defeatism reflected in some polls didn't have a source in the very biased reporting we see here!

When faced with "President Bush's efforts to paint Democrats as hypocrites", do they dare to actually analyze the truth of the matter?

Why should they when the answer would be obvious? The pre-war statements of Democrats speak for themselves, and so it is not 'President Bush's effort to paint' but "President Bush pointing out Democrats are" hypocrites on the war. The facts are so blatant the Republican Party put out a video of Democrats' pre-war statements to expose it. They are sharing many of the choice quotes from Democrats who made WMD claims prior to the war:

Sen. Reid: "Saddam Hussein, In Effect, Has Thumbed His Nose At The World Community. And I Think That The President's Approaching This In The Right Fashion." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 9/18/02)

Sen. Reid: "[Saddam] Is Too Dangerous Of A Man To Be Given Carte Blanche With Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Brendan Riley, "Nevada Leaders React To Iraq Bombing," The Associated Press, 12/17/98)

Sen. Reid: "We Stopped The Fighting [In 1991] Based On An Agreement That Iraq Would Take Steps To Assure The World That It Would Not Engage In Further Aggression And That It Would Destroy Its Weapons Of Mass Destruction. It Has Refused To Take Those Steps. That Refusal Constitutes A Breach Of The Armistice Which Renders It Void And Justifies Resumption Of The Armed Conflict." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10145)

Sen. Reid: "The Problem Is Not Nuclear Testing; It Is Nuclear Weapons ... The Number Of Third World Countries With Nuclear Capabilities Seems To Grow Daily. Saddam Hussein's Near Success With Developing A Nuclear Weapon Should Be An Eye-Opener For Us All." (Sen. Harry Reid, Congressional Record, 8/3/92, p. S11188)

Former President Bill Clinton: "We Have To Defend Our Future From These Predators Of The 21st Century. ... [T]hey Will Be All The More Lethal If We Allow Them To Build Arsenals Of Nuclear, Chemical And Biological Weapons And The Missiles To Deliver Them. We Simply Cannot Allow That To Happen. There Is No More Clear Example Of This Threat Than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His Regime Threatens T he Safety Of His People, The Stability Of His Region And The Security Of All The Rest Of Us." (President Clinton, Remarks To Joint Chiefs Of Staff And Pentagon Staff, Arlington, VA, 2/17/98)

Former Vice President Al Gore: "[I]f You Allow Someone Like Saddam Hussein To Get Nuclear Weapons, Ballistic Missiles, Chemical Weapons, Biological Weapons, How Many People Is He Going To Kill With Such Weapons? He's Already Demonstrated A Willingness To Use These Weapons ..." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/16/98)

Former Secretary Of State Madeleine Albright: "[I] Think That Clearly Iraq Is A Very, Very Serious Problem ... Iraq Is A Very Serious Problem, And Clearly Has A Lot Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction ..." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 2/9/03)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "In The Four Years Since The Inspectors, Intelligence Reports Show That Saddam Hussein Has Worked To Rebuild His Chemical And Biological Weapons Stock, His Missile Delivery Capability, And His Nuclear Program. ... It Is Clear, However, That If Left Unchecked, Saddam Hussein Will Continue To Increase His Capability To Wage Biological And Chemical Warfare And Will Keep Trying To Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10288)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA):"We Have Known For Many Years That Saddam Hussein Is Seeking And Developing Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Remarks At The Johns Hopkins School Of Advanced International Studies, Washington DC, 9/27/02)

Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI): "[Saddam] Has Ignored The Mandates Of The United Nations, Is Building Weapons Of Mass Destruction And The Means Of Delivering Them." (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 9/19/02)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "One Of The Most Compelling Threats We In This Country Face Today Is The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. Threat Assessments Regularly Warn Us Of The Possibility That North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Or Some Other Nation May Acquire Or Develop Nuclear Weapons." (Sen. Dick Durbin, Congressional Record, 9/30/99, p. S11673)

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI): "With Regard To Iraq, I Agree, Iraq Presents A Genuine Threat, Especially In The Form Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Chemical, Biological, And Potentially Nuclear Weapons. I Agree That Saddam Hussein Is Exceptionally Dangerous And Brutal, If Not Uniquely So, As The President Argues." (Sen. Russell Feingold, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10147)

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA): "I Certainly Think [Saddam's] Developing Nuclear Capability, Which, Fortunately, The Israelis Set Back 20 Years Ago With Their Preemptive Attack, Which, In Hindsight, Looks Pretty Darn Good." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 8/27/02)

Now, it is amazing to see the AP so scrupulous in avoiding such underlying facts as they discuss this. These quotes prove that Democrats were in no different in posture to the President. Only polls matter when they suit AP's script (poll-reporting is suddenly more prevalent when the President is down).

AP ignores the underlying fact of blatant Democratic double-standards. The AP has not shared a single such quote, either in news articles or in op-eds as news; AP is engaged in an effort to mislead, and it will backfire.

Representative Murtha Holds a News Conference on the War in Iraq, the press listens. Calling him a 'hawk' because this Democrat is not a reflexive left-wing partisan, the press plays up his dissents like they do those of John McCain and others. But the real 'meat' is the same shallow defeatism that the anti-war left has been harping on for years.

MURTHA: And I started out by saying the war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It's a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.

"Advertised" by whom? The perception of the war is 57% of Americans apparently now belive the lie that Bush 'misled' us all into war. This is interesting because even Murtha admits:

A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait. The military drew a line, a red line around Baghdad, and they said, "When U.S. forces cross that line, they will be attacked by the Iraqis with weapons of mass destruction." And I believed it and they believed it. But the U.S. forces -- the commander said they were prepared. They said they had well-trained forces with the appropriate protective gear. Now, let me tell you, we spend more money on intelligence than any -- than all the countries in the world put together, and more on intelligence than most country's GDP. And when they say, "It's a world intelligence failure," it's a U.S. intelligence failure. It's a U.S. failure, and it's a failure in the way the intelligence was used.

Ah, the intelligence was misused' because rather than wringing our hands over the reports, or demand the 19th UN resolution, we actually decided to overthrow a Government?

I am one who, while concerned about the WMDs, never thought that was the main issue. Saddam was and always will be the most dangerous thing we could possibly find in Iraq. No amount of toxins, chemicals or radioactive materials could compare with a single man who killed over one million human beings through his actions. It was Saddam Hussein himself and his regime who, in countless ways, was the real danger in the mideast.

The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq. But it's time for a change in direction.... Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk.

If they have 'done all they can' then we are in hopeless defeat or in already-gained victory. Which is it? If our 'military is suffering' then it is not a victory. But in recent actions in Al Anbar, while we lost 3 men, the terrorists lost 80 men. This is hardly defeat. And as long as we are trading blows with terrorists in remote corners of Iraq with such kill ratios, how is continuing to occupy Iraq as they rebuild Iraq security risking our country?

It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region.

It is evident that the Democratic party is putting partisanship over patriotism. It is also evident that we have achieved many unsung successes.

General Casey said in a September 2005 hearing: "The perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency."

This is a complete mis-statement and mis-representation of the situation, and the core problem with Rep Murtha's position. First: The U.S. troops are not the sole nor even the main target of the insurgency and terrorists in 2005. Over 200 Iraqi police and military security officers and soldiers have been killed in each month since March, rising up until the summer then falling back. A total of 2200 policemen have been killed. Similarly, the number of Iraqi civilians killed this year overall is over 5,000, with most killed in the summer. In contrast, the U.S. has had fewer than 700 killed this year.

Morever, the killers of the civilians, the policemen, the Iraqi and American soliders are increasingly the 'Jihadists' and the Al Qaeda-aligned terrorist network headed by Zarqawi. We now know that Baathists have funded the groups, and that their motivation is not because we are there per se, but because they are no longer the Government. They want to destroy Iraq if they cannot run it.

Here are some other things Casey said in September in testimony to Congress:

First he confidently pointed out how small the enemy really is, and how isolated from the Iraqi people they are: "Senator, what I said was even by our most pessimistic estimates of the insurgency we estimated it to be less than 1 10th of 1 percent of the overall population of Iraq. And I think that's still about right."

General Casey said this in June testimony: " Now, we hear a lot about violence in Iraq, so I thought it might be useful to consider what the insurgents and terrorists have not done in the past year. They have not been able to expand their support base across Iraq, nor have they attracted a broad following, largely because they offer no positive vision for the future of Iraq. They have not prevented the growth of Iraqi security forces, even with almost daily attacks. They have lost their safe haven in Fallujah, and they have not been able to reconstitute another one. They have also not sparked sectarian violence, although they work at it every day, so strong is the Iraqi commitment to something better. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, they have not stopped political and economic development in Iraq."

What Rep Murtha offers is a convenient lie, and a dangerous lie, about what really motivates the terrorists insurgency. He should know better. Jihadism runs deeper than imagined grievances against our actions in Iraq.

General Abizaid said on the same date: "Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy."

General Abizaid also said this, anticipating the kind of proposal Rep Murtha makes:

SEN. JAMES INHOFE: You know, the cut-and-run caucus is alive and well here in Washington. I'd just like to have you make any comment you can make. If we should surrender, if we should cut and run at this time, what would be the result?

GEN. JOHN ABIZAID: In the long run, there's nothing to be afraid of. We can win the fight. It's difficult. It's costly. But the implications of allowing the region to become dominated by the ideology of al-Qaida are the same as the implication in the years previous to World War II of allowing fascism to become the ideology of Germany. It will lead to a big war that none of us can stand. We have to fight. We have to win.

In other words, the consequences of giving up before we win this thing are too grave.

I've been visiting our wounded troops in Bethesda and Walter Reed, as some of you know, almost every week since the beginning of the war. And what demoralizes them is not the criticism. What demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace.

Much of our ground equipment is worn out. And I've told the CEOs of big companies, "You better get in the business of rehabilitating equipment because we're not going to be able to buy any new equipment because the money's not going to be there." George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace."

The best way to have peace is to win wars, to prove that threats we make will be credible. Bin Laden's scorn for the U.S. increased when he saw the U.S. withdraw from Somalia after the 'Blackhawk down' incident, and it is certain that this central battle in the war on terror will decide if global terrorism lasts mere years or many decades.

Pretending that we cannot afford to win a war but can afford to lose it through unilateral withdrawal is ludicrous. Our Federal Government spends over $2.4 trillion a year, and over $400 billion on the military. We can afford to win this war and prepare for the next one, and Rep Murtha should support defense funding accordingly.

I voted against every tax cut. Every tax cut I voted against. My wife says, "You shouldn't say that."

You shouldn't. Really. Those tax cuts have helped the economy and created jobs, and those Democrat policies would have left this country worse off.

And the college campuses always ask me about a draft. "Are you for a draft?" I say, "Yes, there's only two of us who voted for it, so you don't have to worry too much about it." The burden of this war has not been shared equally. The military and their families are shouldering the burden.

Ah, another bad idea he likes. So he wants us to lose the current war, raise taxes, force kids into an army but not send them anywhere, and spend a lot of money on weapons but never use them. I'd ask how he got elected with such a nutty set of beliefs but then I remember he is a Democrat.

Our military has been fighting this war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, captured or killed his closest associates, but the war continues to intensify.

If "Our military has accomplished its mission" How is that consistent with a "it's a flawed policy wrapped in illusion". The policy was to accomplish certain goals. He admits many goals were met. If we have accomplished many of them, then his criticisms are self-contradictory! Of course he mentions nothing about other key accomplishments: The political progress in getting an assembly elected, a Constitution written and a Constitution affirmed in a vote of 10 million Iraqis.

Our troops deserve a lot of credit. They have sacrificed a lot to win these milestones towards victory. The one thing lacking, the crucial lacking element, is the measure of stability in Iraq to say that peace is at hand. Those 2,000 lost young men and women represent some of the finest people in our nation.

Yet Rep Murtha does them little credit to use them as props for saying: "Deaths and injuries are growing, and over 2,079 of confirmed American deaths, over 15,500 have been seriously injured -- half of them returned to duty -- and it's estimated over 50,000 will suffer from what I call battle fatigue. And there have been reports at least 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed."

NO kidding. He almost talks as if there was a war on or something. Yet, so many errors, even here: "are growing"? False, Iraqi deaths have declined since the summer. U.S. soldier casualties are at lower rates than late last year, and are as high as they are mainly because our military is aggressively chasing the terrorists out of two-bit towns in al-Anbar province. Most indicators are of a weakened insurgency since the summer.

We've now received two reports. So I've just come from Iraq and I've looked at the next report. I'm disturbed by the findings in the key indicator areas.

I am disturbed by his bias and selective reporting:

Oil production and energy production are below prewar level. You remember they said that was going to pay for the war, and it's below prewar level.

Iraq earned an estimated $18.2 billion in oil export revenues during 2004, and is getting high revenues in 2005. The insurgents have attacked oil pipelines and infrastructure and cut off about 500,000 barrels a day of production through sabotage of infrastructure. From January through October, production averaged 1.8 million barrels a day: Attacks on oil costing Iraq at least $28 million a day

Lamenting this misses the point that - financially - due to high oil prices, this is still $30 billion dollars, far more than was collected in 2003 or 2004. Next year, as security improves, the amount of oil will increase.

On electricity, output is above pre-war levels.

Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent.

It takes a Democrat to shed tears over the grave damage of unspent Government money.

And I said on the floor of the House, when they passed the $87 billion, the $18 billion was the most important part of it because you've got to get people back to work; you've got electricity; you've got to get water. Unemployment is 60 percent. Now, they tell you in the United States it's less than that. So it may be 40 percent. But in Iraq, they told me it's 60 percent, when I was there. Clean water is scarce and they only spent $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects.

First: Iraq's economy has grown strongly:"GDP growth was estimated at 54 percent in 2004. This year is also expected to be strong, with GDP growth predicted at 34 percent. Iraq's "New Dinar" currency, introduced in 2003, has been performing strongly, appreciating by about 25 percent against the dollar in the past two years." Daily Star

Second, when the UN looked at unemployment in Iraq, they counted it at 20%. Maybe it is higher than an offical count, but the assumptions given above are based on no real data, just pessimistic assumptions.

Clear water is "scarce", compared to what? It reminds me of the "Afghanistan remains third world country". What does he expect? A shopping mall in every village? An SUV in every garage?

Here's a few facts from latest State Dept. weekly report: UN/UNICEF rehabbed water and sanitation in 368 schools, several hundred more on the drawing boards. PCO complete 96 water treatment projects and 105 more in progress.

One new report on a new water treatment plant says: "The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Gulf Region South District (GRS) has quality assurance responsibilities on 14 water treatment units and three water pipeline projects that will increase that drinkable water flow within the Najaf area. ... 28,109 people who are able to be served by one unit. Multiply that times 14 plants and these units can serve 393,926 people. And that is a substantial gain for the people of Najaf.”

Now that is just one project, helping hundreds of thousands. Add in water treatment plants in dozens of cities, and you have progress. At the time of transition to sovereignty June 2004, there were just over 200 reconstruction projects started. Today, there are over 2,700 projects started, valued at $6.4 billion. More than 1,600 projects are finished, with a value of $1.8 billion.

And, most importantly -- this is the most important point -- incidents have increased from 150 a week to over 700 in the last year.

This would be important, if it were true. Actually, the numbers were much higher at earlier times. There are fewer incidents now than in 2004.

Instead of attacks going down over a time when we had additional more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revolution at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled.

What?!?! A "revolution"?!?! Is he mad?!?! There was no revolution. There were some incidents in Abu Graib. They occured in 2003. They were exposed in 2004. They were exposed after the violence ramped up in late March and early April 2004. That violence was the direct result of a deliberate strategy of the insurgents to ruin the one-year anniversary of the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein. As a consequence, we had a battle of Fallujah I. That battle left Fallujah in the hands of the "Fallujah Brigade", a strategy of co-option that failed and led to the need for the 2nd battle of Fallujah, where the insurgent were driven out of Fallujah. Simultaneously, al-Sadr made his war with America for a time. Abu Ghraib had nothing to do with these events, except for giving propaganda points to drive unpopularity of the occupation. However, the insurgency itself was operating prior to those events and had a plan to ramp up attacks anyway.

You look at the timeline. You'll see one per day average before Abu Ghraib. After Abu Ghraib, you'll see two a day -- two killed per day because of the dramatic impact that Abu Ghraib had on what we were doing.

This completely simplifies and mis-represents the real ebb and flow of the battle for Iraq during this low-level insurgency. One example: Mosul. Last December, 2004, was the high water mark for the insurgency in Mosul, after fleeing Fallujah, many came to Mosul and created havoc. Police stations were overrun, the police officers fled, and the military had to be called in repeatedly. The insurgents were able to bring 50 or more men to gun battles to face U.S. forces. They drew blood in many cases, but kill ratios were extreme and in our favor.

No more. Mosul has a much lower level of activity.

Another case, consider this: "While the fighting has been sporadic, commanders on the ground have characterized the operation as some of the heaviest since Operation Steel Curtain began. Intelligence reports indicate that the strong resistance to the Iraqi and coalition push into the city is due in large part to the fact that terrorists believe they are trapped and have nowhere else to go."

This sounds no different than Fallujah in November 2004, Samarra last fall; no different from Ramadi earlier, or Baghdad neighborhoods in May that got ringed by Iraqi troops. What is different is the place: Ubaydi, a two-bit town near the Syrian border. We have kicked terrorist butt from Mosul to Tikrit to Baghdad to Karbela to Fallujah. And now, this year, we have been fighting up and down the Euphrates rat lines. We are grinding the terrorists there into dust, and they are in some of their last outposts.

"Officials suspect that many of terrorists now fighting in Ubaydi fled from Husaybah and Karabilah, the first two cities secured by Iraqi and coalition Forces at the beginning of the operation."

Now look at the map. There are no more towns left in Iraq!

And the State Department reported in 2004, right before they quit putting reports out, that indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

Oh, I see. Global terrorism increases at the same time as our war, therefore global terrorism increases *because* we are at war?

I said over a year ago now, the military and the administration agrees now that Iraq cannot be won militarily. I said two year ago, "The key to progress in Iraq is Iraqitize, internationalize and energize."

First, the military and administration have of course NOT said that we cannot win this war militarily, and emphatically have said the opposite. Look at the words of General Abizaid, or the recent comments of President Bush. Rep Murtha has dissembled by failing to note that the administration and any observer knows that Iraq cannot be won only by military means. And the blowhard Representative's statements of the obvious are exactly what the Bush administration has been saying for at least 18 months.

What do you call a fool who criticizes the administration for not doing what they are manifestly doing, then proposes to do exactly what they are already doing.

Iraqitize - never mind the Constitution, the assembly, the Iraqi Government, the training of forces - let's talk about what is happening every day in Iraq, like this Iraqi-lead cordon-and-search operation in Baghdad:

Iraqi and U.S. Forces detained dozens of terror suspects during searches in south Baghdad as Operation Clean Sweep continued to clear neighborhoods of terrorist activity.

“Operation Clean Sweep was intended to clean out an area that was known to be used as a way for terrorists to come towards Baghdad from the south as well as an area that a lot of vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices and IEDs were coming from,” said Lt. Col. Everett Knapp, commander of 1st Battalion, 184th Infantry Regiment.

In anticipation of the Dec. 15 nationwide elections, the Soldiers of 1/184th Inf., as well as Iraqi forces from the 4th Public Order Brigade and 1st Commando Brigade, raided about 350 homes and detained 49 suspected terrorists. Military officials said 10 of the suspects were forwarded to detention facilities. Some of the 1/184 Soldiers set up the outer cordon of the mission while others shadowed their Iraqi counterparts during the operation. “The Iraqi Soldiers really took the lead (on this mission),” Knapp said. “They don’t need translators; they can tell who the good guys are and who doesn’t belong in a certain situation.”

Of course, this was a joint operation. Most Iraqi operations they are doing on their own.

I believe and I have concluded the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, the Saddamists and the foreign jihadists. And let me tell you, they haven't captured any in this latest activity, so this idea that they're coming in from outside, we still think there's only 7 percent.

Wow, so much defeatist nonsense, where to begin.

It is false that U.S. troops are the primary target; the sad body count numbers indicate that Iraqi civilians are the primary terrorist target.

It is false that "U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis", that is a slur against Sunnis as well against U.S. troops. We are treating Sunnis well, and most Sunnis do not support the insurgents. Civilian tips have been essential in this war and the tips only get better.

And the comment 'they haven't captured any in the latest activity' fails to note the many, many cases of foreign jihadists being captured or killed. Consider this:

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Multi-National Forces used multiple intelligence sources and tips from concerned citizens to locate a known al Qaeda in Iraq safe house harboring terrorists and foreign fighters Nov. 7.

Upon arrival at the terrorist safe house, Multi-National Forces detained numerous terrorists and foreign fighters; among them was Sadiq Ayadah Husayn Matar (aka Abu Ahmed), the al Qaeda in Iraq Emir of Sadah.

Abu Ahmed admitted to being the al Qaeda in Iraq Emir of Sadah. He was responsible for all terrorist operations in Sadah. He also coordinated and conducted terrorist operations in the surrounding areas within the al Qaim region. He was in charge of directing, planning and executing bombing, mortar attacks, and ambushes against Iraqi security and Coalition Forces.

Abu Ahmed, as one of the five senior al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist leaders in the al Qaim region, which includes Husaybah, Karabilah, Sadah, Ubaydi, and al Qaim, was connected to numerous al Qaeda in Iraq senior terrorist leaders. He admitted associations, as well as conducting coordinated terrorist operations, with other senior terrorists and foreign fighters in the region. These senior terrorists were responsible for all terrorist and foreign fighter activities in the region to include the smuggling of foreign fighters into the al Qaim region from Syria. I believe the same today. They don't want input. They only want to criticize.

So, Rep Murtha is wrong on two counts. First, we are capturing terrorists in this operation, and second many of them are foreign fighters.

Why is Rep Murtha insistent on this fallacy of no foreign fighters? Because if the source or ongoing impetus of the insurgency is foreign, then it puts as a lie the concept that the insurgency is due to native resentment of an 'occupation'. The insurgency is paid for by baathists, the bombs are blown up by Jihadists. None of them are patriots for Iraq. But the real Iraqi patrioats are the ones supporting the Iraqi Government and the movement towards Iraqi democracy. Whether they like U.S. troops in Iraq or not, they and most Iraqis see the necessity of it until Iraq can defend herself.

I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted -- this is a British poll reported in the Washington Times -- over 80 percent of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition forces and about 45 percent of Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified.

I dont trust biased-worded polls that can mean anything and nothing at once, and I've already debunked my share of "opposed to presense" polls that translate into "dont leave yet but dont hang around". Here is a poll that can be trusted: Iraqis affirmed the Iraqi Constitution by 3 to 1 vote in October. 10 million Iraqis were in that poll. It showed clearly what Iraqis do want. They want to have a Federal democratic country where they can enjoy more freedom than any other people in the mideast.

This nonsense that it takes our withdrawal to get Iraqis "incentivized to take control" mises the big picture: Iraqis are now in control of their own country. If the Iraqi Government elected in December wants the U.S. forces to leave, we will leave. It will be the decision of the new, sovereign Government of Iraq.

And that is the bottom-line fallacy of Rep Murtha. He and the Democrats are caught in some time-warp, as if we are still in May 2004, and we are running a colony and the insurgent are 'freedom fighters'... we've been through that, done that, over that! Iraq is now an emerging democracy, and in December will pick its first permanent Government. Iraq will be master of her own destiny, for good or ill, then. I hope for good. And I hope it will finally seal the fate of the terrorists so completely that we understand the need to patiently complete the mission. I hope it will finally enable our own military to declare victory and hand off more responsibility to the Iraqi security forces themselves.

When our troops do leave Iraq, let us not go skulking or defensive or abashed. Let us leave proudly, knowing that we destroyed a dictatorship and secured freedom for a people and helped build a democratic nation in the midst of the Arab world. America and especially our military should be proud of Liberating Iraq, and I hope one day Americans will think of this with pride.

Iran in turmoil as their new crazy President, the one who wants to wipe Israel off the map, fires competents to replace them with cronies. American intelligence claims Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons and recently showed IAEA the evidence to back it up. We know this because our media "helpfully" told us of the 'secret' (not any more) information shared with the IAEA, information of a highly detailed technical nature on Iran's nuclear program, which made it clear that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, and may well have one within 3-5 years.

Nutcases with nuclear weapons. Yikes. And yet our country is self-flagellating over the fact that our effort to overthrow a genocidal maniac was marred by assumptions of WMD capabilities that were overestimated. Yikes, do we really think complacency is a better approach to these situations than over-caution?

Some Democrats are calling on America to let themselves get defeated in the Iraq war effort. They propose we prematurely withdraw at a time when Iraq still needs our presence to fully establish a stable and peaceful society. We have had tremendous successes in the liberation of Iraq: two successful elections and a third on the way in Iraq this year; Iraq has move from dictatorship to transitional Government, then to an elected Government; Iraqi security forces are becoming more and more capable; and the Iraqi economy is booming. But the terrorist insurgency still clings to hope that America will give up before they do. Quitting World War II in 1944 would have left Hitler and Tojo in power, and quitting now will leave terrorists in Iraq to conclude they can outlast us even if they cannot outwit us.

The only thing that can defeat us is defeatism itself. Let us not defeat ourselves with the foolish notion of running away from a critical fight that we must win. Let us Finish the job and win the victory that we have almost won.

Discovery of prisoners heartens Iraq's Sunni minority: The U.S. military saves Sunni men from a jail:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S. troops' discovery of 173 mostly Sunni Arab men beaten and malnourished in a secret Interior Ministry jail has sent a jolt of optimism through Baghdad's disaffected Sunni minority.

"This is like a dream - the American forces free Iraqi prisoners tortured by the government?" said Huthayfa Mohammed, 20, a Sunni Arab who can't find his brother after Iraqi police detained him. "This is brand new."

Mohammed sat in a coffee shop Wednesday in the Sunni neighborhood of Adhemiya in northeast Baghdad, where men played cards and dominoes and smoked water pipes. And he smiled. Now people know the truth, he said.

Like Mohammed, much of the Sunni Arab minority has taken heart in the recent discovery, which was announced Tuesday. The idea that the U.S. military may be trying to help the Sunnis has given them an instant boost in confidence that the parliamentary elections in December could make them players in the next government.

Sunnis, who dominated the government under Saddam Hussein, largely stayed away from the polls in January. Some were boycotting the parliamentary election and others were afraid of potential violence, but their absence essentially handed the government to their traditional rivals, the Shiites.

The U.S. military's discovery of the men is "an indication that the Americans would like to show the Iraqis how they are really trying to handle the whole situation in an even-handed policy and make them feel more confident in the American policy," said Dr. Hassan Bazzaz, a Sunni professor of political science and international affairs at Baghdad University. "It's definitely going to ... give a better chance for the Arab Sunnis and tarnish the others."

In the Sunni neighborhood of Adhemiya on Wednesday, Mohammed Jassim was hard at work painting banners for youth movements and political parties. About 10 white banners hung on the walls to dry in his narrow shop. He pointed to one in the back of the store with blue, red and yellow writing.

"In order to stop raids and assassinations and the art of torture Participate in the next election." "I'm going to have full days for the next week," Jassim said.

It's as if the Sunnis might finally realize that all the stuff about freedom, democracy and human rights wasn't a phony ploy after all; heck, we really meant it. And yes, it does beg a bunch of questions about whether this country can really govern itself in the way we would want them too; sure, every other mideast Muslim country engages in these abuses - Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen; but Iraq we hope would be different. We didn't expect perfection nor even our standard of policing, but 'dirty-war' tactics of brutalizing prisoners (many innocent) to get at a few bad guys is exactly the kind of tactics the US has foregone in the GWOT. To let abuses like this happen is to throw away a liberation and give it to new bosses, just like the old bosses. The leaders are quick to condemn it:

In Baghdad, Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari and other officials told reporters that detainees had been found in a basement of an Interior Ministry complex in the heart of the capital. "I was informed that there were 173 detainees held at an Interior Ministry prison and they appear to be malnourished. There is also some talk that they were subjected to some kind of torture," Jafari said. U.S. and Iraqi forces discovered the inmates when they went into the compound suspecting that individuals there may have been mistreated, the Pentagon said.

... "In order to search for a terrorist, [Iraq's new security forces] used to detain hundreds of innocent people and torture them brutally," Mohsen Abdul Hamid, leader of the Iraqi Islamic Party, told the news agency.

The Interior Ministry has been staffed partly with members of sectarian militias (read: Badr brigades, which is at least better than al-Sadr's Mahdi army). They have a national duty, not a partisan one, and the alleged abuses, if true, show some in the Interior ministry failed their national duty in favor of sectarian ends and brutal tactics. I'm glad our soldiers were able to shut it down.

The troubling fly-in-the-ointment is the thought that however morally repugnant such tactics have been, in cases like Latin America's 'dirty wars', terrorizing the communities of the insurgents and simply killing suspects and sympathizers has been effective in stemming insurgencies. (It's also spawned hunts for war criminals.) Even countries as civilized as Great Britain stooped to such tactics in taking on the IRA in the 1970s (to their shame). This is a test of our ability to win by foresaking the easier paths.

Via FR, soldier pleas for help for an Iraqi boy:

"hey knight fans its ARMYKNIGHT. for those of you who dont know me i am an AMERICAN SOLDIER currently in IRAQ. my patrol team "BULLETS" meet a young boy while out patroling a bad town where we took mortar fire from. His name is Ali. while talkin to ALI we found out that his father was killed by the "WAhabee" arabic for the bad guys - for helping out the Americans. He is now the man of his house at 12 years old. We went into his house not knowing that day would change the lives of all the "BULLETS". There we saw a mud hut about the size of a small SUV. with 6 small girls, mother and grandmother, with Ali. There is no running water, no heat, and they all sleep on the floor with small blankets that don't even keep them warm. these people are in a bad way and it brought all of us combat hardened men to tears. We try to help them out as much as possible but suplies are limited here. The "Bullets" want to give this family as much as possible and we need your help. If you want to help boxes of food and wenter gear like sweaters and stuff would be much appericated. If you can, end boxes to ....

Thanks and GOD bless. SPC.Timothy Morningstar C section Svc BTRY, 4-1FA CAMP TAJI Apo AE 0937"

And while they are not concerned about poor orphans and springing tortured prisoners, they are risking life and limb to go about the business of killing terrorists:

The U.S. military reported that three Marines and 80 insurgents had been killed over the past 48 hours in western Iraq, where a U.S. offensive came up against more than 100 insurgent bombs and mines. In addition, the military said three soldiers were killed Tuesday by a roadside bomb northwest of Baghdad.

Another report says: Strong insurgent resistance Monday and Tuesday apparently "is due in large part to the fact that insurgents believe they are trapped and have nowhere else to go," the U.S. military said in a statement.

Kill the terrorists, feed the children, free the people. It's a trifecta! America's heart is showing, right through the bullet-proof vests.

Scrappleface satiricaly writes:

(2005-11-16) — In the wake of yesterday’s 79-19 Senate vote to force President George Bush to lay out his strategy to end the war in Iraq, the White House today issued what it called ‘pre-emptive compliance’.

“Even though this Senate bill isn’t law yet,” said White House spokesman Scott McClellan, “The president didn’t want the Congress, especially our Republican brethren who sponsored this measure, to wallow in ignorance about our strategy in Iraq.”

The Bush administration sent the following message to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN, with a request that it be distributed to all members of Congress.

United States Iraq Strategy 1. Kill terrorists. 2. Train Iraqi forces to kill terrorists. 3. Help Iraqis build schools and infrastructure. 4. Leave behind first democracy in Arab world.

The White House spokesman said an ‘executive summary’ of the strategy would be available later today for Senators who don’t have time to read the full document.

Oh, if only truth weren't stranger than fiction.

Jordan Captures Wife of Suicide Bomber who was herself an attempted suicide bomber:

Jordan on Sunday arrested the Iraqi wife of a suicide bomber, who tried but failed to blow herself up in attacks that killed 57 people, after police were tipped-off to her existence by an al-Qaida claim that a total of four bombers had carried out the attacks.

The woman failed to blow herself up at the Radisson SAS hotel on Wednesday night after apparently struggling with the cord on her explosives belt, Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher said. Her husband saw her fumbling and "pushed her out of the ballroom," he said. "Once she was out, he blew himself up." Officials said the woman, age 35, would confess on state-run TV later Sunday.

The dramatic turn in the case came as Jordanian officials identified the three suicide bombers, including the woman's husband, as Iraqis, in their first detailed explanation of who carried out the deadly attacks.

The woman was identified as the sister of Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's former right hand man in Iraq's volatile Anbar province.

The involvement of al-Zarqawi in the triple hotel bombings is a worrying development for the region, indicating that the feared terrorist or his leaders have deadly designs and abilities beyond war-ravaged Iraq's borders.

Jordan's deputy premier said the four Iraqis drove into Jordan from Iraq on Nov. 4, just five days before the attacks and rented an apartment in western Amman. They took taxis to the attack sites on Wednesday.

Kofi Annan's first visit to Iraq, the UN Secretary general lamented the UN workers tragically killed in 2003, in one of the first of many terrorist bombings by Zarqawi's terror network in Iraq.

Here is what is wrong with this - why is this the first visit by Annan? And why, two years later, do we have to read this:

Iraqi officials have been pressing the United Nations for months to significantly increase its involvement in humanitarian, political and reconstruction activities. The U.N. mission in Iraq opened two offices outside Baghdad in Basra and Arbil late last year and will soon open another in Kirkuk.

There are over 100,000 American soldiers on the ground in Iraq. There has been tens of billions spent by the U.S. to bring Iraq up. Iraq has had two elections, with most of the election work done by Iraqis themselves, some paying with their lives to build democracy; yet UN officials have offered little more than dour assessments and pessimism. The UN has been critical of our actions, but has done little to help, certainly less than they could have done. In the cases where they did intervene, their actions were less-than-helpful (Brahimi's praise of Baathists in Spring 2004 was one example).

It's time for Kofi Annan to repay the debt he owes Iraq by his involvement in the oil-for-food scandal. If he's not going to resign over that, at least call for great UN support for the mission in Iraq.

Re-Examining Jemaah Islamiyah in the Wake of the Zawahiri Letter, looks at the importance (or unimportance) of the battle in southeast Asia:

One theme resonating out of the Zawahiri letter is the changing focus and narrowing scope of al-Qaeda’s agenda. While “al-Qaeda’s strategic Arab ideologues” [2] still pay homage to the concept of the global ummah, endogenous and exogenous forces now direct al-Qaeda’s resources and energies to key battlefields in the heart of the Islamic world, seemingly moving it back from peripheral conflicts to a struggle for the heartland. Pre-eminent among these battlefields is Iraq. This is not to imply that al-Qaeda has abandoned the end-state of a global caliphate; however, the leadership understands that in its decentralized if not weakened state, al-Qaeda must leverage its resources and attention against the most important and geographically central conflict. Furthermore, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s elevation, arguably as the dominant Salafi-jihadi figure, has forced a shift in al-Qaeda’s focus.

As Iraq gains importance, all other battlefields, including the JI southeast Asia battlefield, are less important. Another corollary is that by fighting them 'over there' we are indeed shaping the battlefield and preventing a fight 'over here'. Further, as the Amman bombing demonstrate, terrorism in Muslim lands against Muslims forces the Al Qaeda terrorists into a contradiction, killing Muslims in the name of Islam. These political extremists are pushing themselves into a corner, marginalized by the Arab 'street', which will eventually seal their fate.

Mideast Democracy Summit Ends in Rancor.

I actually found this funny. Most of the participants were not democratic leaders or nations. For example:

"Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa, center, participates in a discussion with Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, left, and Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, right, on the sidelines of a Nov. 12, 2005, forum on democratic reforms for the Arab world in Manama, Bahrain, that also was attended by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. (AP Photo/Hasan Jamali)"

Translating the discussion, it went something like:
FM al-Sharaa: So what if they vote for the wrong people? Can you make that illegal? Maybe just one candidate?
Secty-Genl Moussa: I think you just have another election until you get it right.
FM al-Sharaa: And these women, why do they need a vote, do they know anything?
FM al_Faisal: We solve that simply. Dont let women drive in the first place, they are terrible drivers. If that cant get to the polls, then dont worry about them voting.
FM al-Sharaa: Very perplexing. You know when Rice said "We continue to support the Syrian people's aspirations for liberty, democracy, and justice under the rule of law," I have to wonder where she gets that idea. We have a poll taken of political dissidents, given by our security forces, and you know what - we find a majority don't have political aspirations at all! Of course, it takes a day or two to beat it out of some of them, but still ....
Secty-Genl Moussa: Have you tried the Salmon moouse? It's really good.

Via Iraq the model, story of Chaplain Carlos Huerta and his attempt to give blood and save an Iraqi 9-year-old victim of a terrorist attack. I am reminded of the comment from Bin Laden, that the U.S. and hte west is weak because we love life, while they love death. This man loved the life of an Iraqi muslim child far more than the terrorists who just wanted him dead so he could be a grisly statistic, but loving life looks like strength to me. Grab a hanky.

Another reason to like Sistani. How many times has Sistani helped the US, even from its own mistakes? (For example, Sistani's insistence on elections proved to be the linchpin for political acceptance from the Shiite community and much of Iraq as a whole. Had we gone Sistani's route, and had elections in June 2004 instead of January 2005, we would have advanced the political agenda by 6 months, thereby curtailing the insurgency all the more.)

Now Sistani is getting out of the endorsement business, a wise move for his own credibility but also a good sign that the fears of a theocratic state will not materialize. The secular political parties are more organized now, and will I hope form he governing majorities. Such a 'centric' coalition will be a good governing majority for Iraq's important next stage of democratic development. As Omar of ITM says:

The coming election will certainly not be extensively governed by emotions like last time, well, at least when it comes to the Sheat, from what I hear and see here I tend to believe that voters are going to be more careful with whom to vote form.

And I’d like to remind those who persist to say that Iraq is a failed case that next month we will have witnessed three democratic carnivals within only one year, on January, October and one yet to come on December and I believe this alone is a striking proof on the accomplishments of a nation that has just emerged from the horrors of 35 years of tyranny and suppression and what adds to the value of the proofs of this success is that more of the community factions have joined the march and I want to remind you also that we’re human and we do err, one elections is not enough to state whether we’re successful or not and it is dead wrong to judge a country this way; we’re moving forward and nothing can stop the progress, this something I’m damn sure of.

Those who fear the influence of religion in politics might consider both of the above examples cited - Cleric Sistani and Chaplain Huerta - as examples of the benevolence that can flow from religious leadership when used properly and not abused.

The headline says "Rowley employs anti-war campaign style" but what they really mean is that former FBI "whisteblower" is sinking to the depths of Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean-style smears against our efforts to liberate Iraq from tyranny and terrorism, as she gears up for a run for Congress:

"This was a lied-into war that is a quagmire now," the 50-year-old Rowley recently told a group of rural Democrats in a garage in this small town south of the Twin Cities. "It could be worse than Vietnam. The truth is we can't win, and there's still an ongoing deception."

WOW. 4 mis-statements and/or lies in 2 sentences ... she sure does have that left-wing Democrat spin down perfectly for a new candidate:

1) No lies pre-war, see Bush's latest refutation of that smear. This Democrat will never admit that the belief was shared by both Democrats and Republicans, who both saw the same reports and were told by the experts of the calculations of WMD stockpiles. Nor will she admit that WMDs *were* found, in small amounts: Bio-weapons samples; the nuclear weapons program materials found in a Baghdad rose garden, hidden until such as time as needed by future weapons developers; the tons of uranium yellowcake, under seal, but available for pilfering when IAEA wasnt looking; the shells Polish soldiers found with Sarin. etc. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam was defying the world, because Saddam himself had HIS OWN GENERALS believe that they had WMDs. Saddam's military was given impression that they had WMDs; military defectors that came to the west debriefed intelligence agencies on what they "knew"; this information became the conventional wisdom; this in turn informed the UN actions against Saddam. This sequence explains how intelligence agencies came to believe that Saddam had WMD stockpiles. But why do it? Was it one big con to project more power than he had? Perhaps, and if so it was a bluff that might remind Saddam to never play poker against G W Bush. But lets not call Bush and the administration 'liars' for taking the CORRECT approach to serious WMD threat that was believed out there. Or we risk making wrong decisions in Iran, North Korea, etc.

2) The "worse than Vietnam" is one of those hippy-dippy inane comments that project historical ignorance of the first order. First, in terms of casualties, Iraq is an order of magnitude *less* dangerous than Vietnam (2,000 killed versus 58,000 killed). Second, the political configuration is vastly different. We have a popularly elected Government facing essentially a terrorist group. The VietCong was supported both both local populace and by the North Vitenamese govt.

3) "We can't win": This defeatist nonsense is the most dangerous and wrong-headed notion of all. We CAN win, and we ARE winning in Iraq, as proven by the establishment of Iraq's democratic institutions and the passage of the Constitution. The economy, social situation in Iraq, and many other metrics are vastly improved over Saddam's era. Moreover, if the goal was removal of saddam hussein, well, once his trial is done, that will be a finalized operation.

4) "Quagmire" It is NOT a quagmire, except for the terrorists, who are losing badly, finding themselves losing popularity both inside and outside Iraq, have NO effective political program to defeat Iraq's democracy. In short, while the US has a plan for eventually leaving ("stand up the Iraqi security forces until they bear the brunt of it"), the terrorists have only defeat as an option.

The article notes "her trip to Texas in August to lend support to Cindy Sheehan's anti-war protest". That is important, because, as we noted, Sheehan herself was in the company of a number of left-wing extremist groups, who have latched on to the war in Iraq as a way to gain further traction for their extremist agenda. For the Democrats to fall into the hands of such extremists is a sign of their political crack-up. How well Rowley does will be a bellwether on America's commitment to the war in Iraq. For the sake of the mission, then, one hopes her campaign falls flat.

A thought on Veteran's Day: Does America deserve the Corps?

America spits in the Corps’ face when the majority say the Marines should surrender, and that is precisely what withdrawal before total victory is. Perhaps the majority of this country feel surrender is honorable, but as it has been to the Marines since their creation, it is the most vile of notions, not to mention incredibly stupid given how the terrorists stand no chance of defeating the Corps. Only 21st Century Americans would suggest surrender when victory is assured.

Fortunately for the United States, you can rest assured that on this 230th birthday of the Corps, the Marines will press on ‘til victory, with or without the respect and support of our employers.

Iraqi women are the trailblazers in the emerging democratic Iraq.

Meanwhile, the enemy of democracy and women's rights, and civilization, is attacking women and children in Iraq today:

More than 30 people have been killed and at least 20 others wounded in a suicide bomb attack on a restaurant in Baghdad, Iraqi officials have said.

... In the Baghdad attack, a man with explosives strapped to his body walked into a restaurant close to the Palestine Hotel in the city centre shortly before 1000 and blew himself up. The BBC's correspondent there, Jim Muir, described the scene as utter carnage.

The bomb was not one of the biggest bombs yet seen in Baghdad, but it was particularly lethal because it exploded in a confined space, he said.

The restaurant is popular with Iraqi police officers and security guards.

A statement on an Islamist website often used by al-Qaeda in Iraq said: "[One of] our martyrs' brigade embedded himself among the infidel police and security forces in the restaurant."

Al Qaeda attacks civilian targets. If this was America, we would be outraged, angered, upset, and would de

Some people think we should leave, and let the killers who do these things win in Iraq. Some people think that the most important thing for us to do in the war on terror is to put more ankle-biting regulations on those who are on the front-lines fighting the battle. Some people think that when we abuse a terrorist in prison (rather than, say, lining him in front of a wall and shooting him), we are 'creating' the terrorists who do this.

Hogwash.

Here's what the 'trailblazers' mentioned above have to face:

Others face the threat of violence. Narmin Othman, the minister of women's affairs under the Iraqi interim government and current minister of environment, who attended the conference in Jordan, survived an assassination attempt this summer. Three bodyguards were wounded, but this brave woman was defiant after the attack, saying "This is a cowardly act that will not prevent me from carrying my duties." The current minister of state for women's affairs, Azhar Al-Shakly (who attended another conference for Iraq women IWF hosted in Washington, D.C. in July) receives threats regularly and recently lost her brother to an assassination. In spite of these dangers, these Iraqi women remain committed to ensuring women are fully represented and allowed to participate socially, economically, and politically in their country.

Most observers in America have the completely wrong picture of what the war in Iraq is about and who is on which side. This is not a battle between America and Iraq, nor is it a Sunni vs Shia civil war. This is a battle for the soul of Iraq, with a small terrorist-centered insurgency on one side, supported by some Iraqis (but fewer and fewer over time), and the emerging Iraqi democratic Government on the other, with the coalition and most Iraqi people in their corner. It a battle between the future and its democratic hope against the forces of tyranny, repression, and hatred for western freedoms and values. This is a battle also for the soul of Islam, what kind of religion it will be in the hearts and mind of Arabs and Muslims. We are winning that battle in Iraq simply because the vast majority of Iraqis want democracy, freedom, and a civil society that is not at war with western civilization.

Two elections and more to come mean the civil center is building and stabilizing. Most of Iraq is now becoming better and more secure, as the insurgency narrows to a few provinces, in particular Al-Anbar in the west. The dark forces can still win via intimidation and fear if there is not spine from the US and Iraqi Government against the insurgents. As I've said before, "the only thing that can defeat us is defeatism itself."

Zarqawi's group takes 'credit' for the terrorist bombing murders in Amman, an attack that was carried out by four Iraqis, and he gains new enemies with his attack:

In Zarqa, Munder Moomeni, a 38-year-old former soldier who lives next to Zarqawi's house, 13 Ramzi Street, described his former neighbour as "a bastard".

"By killing Jordanians here in Jordan, civilian Jordanians going to a wedding, they did something that not even a Jew would do," he said.

Similar condemnation came from the next room where his wife, Umm Mahmoud, uttered a stream of invective against Zarqawi. Deeply conservative, the heavily pregnant woman was reluctant to let herself be seen by a non-Muslim visitor.

"Yesterday we watched on television what had happened in Amman," she said from behind a veil. "The carnage was so bad, so awful, we could not eat all day long."

Ah, but if that same carnage was in Tel Aviv or in New York, how would they feel? Comments like "did something that not even a Jew would do" indicate an incredibly prejudiced/racist set of people, that basically have a lot of hate for other people, including us...

Think about this as well: "I am not ashamed of what his group is doing fighting the US occupation of Iraq, but killing civilians, killing Muslims here in Jordan is shaming." ... he is not ashamed by Zarqawi killing over 1,000 Iraqi civilians, many police, etc.? He has no concern for Iraqi peace in general? He thinks fighting an 'occupation' that led to Iraqi elections is a good thing? Why, is democracy bad?

I hope that a taste of what terrorist muslims have given to Jews, westerners and others, now visited on muslim arabs, may chasten would-be sympathizers when they think about whether muslims blowing up non-muslims (or shia Muslims) is okay.

One of Saddam Hussein's closest aides and a key leader in the terrorist insurgency, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, has died, Iraq's former ruling Baath party says.

This is potentially big positive news, alas, cannot be confirmed and may even be a ruse by the insurgents.

al-Douri had close ties to Islamists and was reported by Saddam's state-run newspaper in 1993 to have hosted a conference of over 1000 terrorists urging them to "conduct holy jihad against the United States". ... He was the "King of Clubs" in the deck of cards and had a $10 million bounty on his head.

Jonah Goldberg is fending off silly attacks from emailers on Andrew Sullivan's blog that are demanding some self-flagellation over the 'torture' of terrorist prisoners. Along the way, these emailers throw in some red herrings:

"Goldberg's argument is a non-starter. Our torture policy is not just immoral - it's been implemented on people who are far, far from "mass murderers." Just look at Abu Ghraib ... or Ashcroft's pathetic record on, you know, actually prosecuting real terrorists. Our torture policy is the worst of all worlds--it inflicts torture on innocent people thus creating far more many terrorists than would have existed if we had not tortured anyone at all."

This statement that we are "creating far more many terrorists", I've read and heard a number of times.

It's absolute and utter garbage. It's worse than merely being wrong; it places moral blame in the wrong place, for the wrong reasons, and based on no evidence. In effect, it is accusing innocent bystanders of murder. Let's check reality:

1) Not a single terrorist we have actually caught has stated this. None has said that US treatment of terrorists or captured prisoners is their reason for what they do. All were radicalized over a period of many years based on issues that go far deeper than our conduct in the GWOT.

2)They are doing it because their world-view, formed by radical Islam, demands that they fight a particular war. One against us. Such a drastic world view is not going to care about tactics on either side much.

3) Most of the terrorists have been fighting us since well before any of these incidents came to light, indeed before anything happened. In the case of someone like Zarqawi, it's been about 10 years or more - before Operation Iraqi Freedom, before 9/11, before Bin Laden was a household word in the US.

4) These are people who justify killing women and children, blowing up churches and mosques, killing in markets, hotels, discos, etc. These are people who wantonly lead mines on roads to kill either troops or civilians. These are people who are beheading prisoners are otherwise abusing their victims. If humane treatment of prisoners was their 'cassus belli', and given the sensitivity we have to public pressure, then terrorism is the worst form of expression.

This 'we are creating terrorists" lie is a huge red herring thrown out by those who have more interest in embarrassing the US than in winning the war on terror. We need to refute this "We create the terrorists" nonsense and nip it in the bud.

As we show respect for the soldier's of wars past, it is past time for our political circus acts to show more respect for the troops right now in Iraq. Good luck on that. There is now a large vested interest in denigrating the war to get at Bush. Our soldiers and their morale, respect and service are just collateral damage in an arena where political enemies matter more than the terrorists. The latest shameful behavior has been the rehash of the run-up to the war (for what, the 4th or fifth time?)

The President Strikes Back and is lauded by blogs for Bush for finally standing up to his critics and refuting the phony charge about pre-war intelligence. Bush said:

While it is perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war.

These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. Many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.

Why is this dead-horse-flogging even getting traction? The Democrats were all lined up to use indictments of White House officials to condemn the whole prewar effort. Never mind that Joe Wilson's claims have since proven to be lies (he never refuted an Italian sourced document that turned out to be a forgeries, because it appeared after his visit; his report did not debunk Iraq's interest in Niger's uranium; and his claims to do his work at instigation of VP Cheney proved groundless.) The jist of the argument from the leakers at the CIA was that CIA had the right answers and the White House ignored them.

Wrong. Woodward's book has the most telling quote from US CIA director George Tenet to President Bush, who asked in December 2002 on Iraq's weapons ... "It's a Slamdunk" was the reply. The 'slamdunk' was the conventional wisdom of all the intelligence agencies. The post-war presumption that there was nothing of merit is as erroneous as the pre-war estimations, as proven by numerous links with North Korea, Libya, Pakistan, etc. Saddam retained capabilities and intentions to build WMDs, as the Deulfer report noted.

Yet such nuances are lost in the hysterics of the "Bushlied" crowd. We cannot respect the troops and support the troops without respecting and supporting the mission they are fighting and dying for. That mission, of liberating Iraq, has had a legitimate justification throughout and is on course to be successful as Iraq's democracy blooms.

How the military secured the Baghdad Airport road with "Army 101" tactics: "Between April and June, 14 car bombs went off along the airport road, called Route Irish by the military. There were 48 roadside bombs, officially known as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, and 80 small-arms attacks. Sixteen people were killed. In the past two months, there have been no car bombs and nine IEDs. One Iraqi soldier has been killed."

Business travel overseas kept me from blogging lately. Bush pushing a conservative judicial nominee, Democrats having Senatorial tantrums, Washington obsessed over the Wilson/Plame leak investigation and sundry political sideshows, and the media declaring Bush an unpopular lame duck. The Iraq war moves on, the political momentum of Iraq's democracy gaining steam as they head into December elections, but ignored by a media obsessed with the cost of the war and not its positive consequences. Nothing's changed.

And around the world, Terrorists kill in Delhi, and angry Muslim youths riot and burn cars in Paris.

I was coincidently near Delhi at the time of the vicious terrorist bombs that killed dozens. Who did it and Why?:

"Initially no group claimed responsibility however the next day a less well known group calling itself the Islami Inqilabi Mahaz (Islamic Revolutionary Group), has claimed responsibility.

The many and varied varieties of jihadis have numerous names and subgroups but all share a murderous intolerant ideology that grows out of Islam. Despite all of the experts coming and talking on TV about al-qaeda and jamaa-islamiya etc and about their organisational structures, leadership and following all of these groups merely represent temporary nomenclatures of radical Islam. Radical Islam is the ideology feeding the creation of these groups and their actions."

It would be easy to say this is about Kashmir, the irritant for this particular terrorist group. But what to say about the cause for those similar bombings in London in July? What the world finds once again that terrorism affects us all, and civilization's common enemy in these terrorists. And the common thread of the global terrorist threat? It's the Jihadism stupid.