By now you've seen the headlines: Senate: No Prewar Saddam-al-Qaida Ties. What the media isn't telling you is that THIS IS A LIE! Saddam DID have ties to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Yahoo! has been running a link to the story on their home page all day, and virtually all other news sites and television programs have been repeating this "new finding" all day in an attempt to continue the "Bush lied" claim. Aside from the fact that this story is, as Tony Snow and others have said "nothing new", the "conclusion" is A FLAT OUT LIE! This report that concludes no connection was specifically about Zarqawi, and his lack of ties to Saddam. Not about Al Qaeda in general. So virtually every headline you've seen is A LIE, because Saddam DID HAVE TIES to Al Qaeda, but I can't blame you for not knowing. The media has done a great job of ignoring the story.

Do you remember a few months ago, the push by a few GOP congressman to release some of the millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured in Iraq? We got a slow trickle of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the documents, but even they revealed quite a bit, that was quickly burried by the media. While I still want to know when we'll get access to the rest of those documents, I'll set that aside for the moment, as this post is about Saddam's Al Qaeda ties.

Via ABC News March 23, 2006:

A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.

The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.

(Editor's Note: This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Ladn himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.

It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting — on November 13, 1995 — terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden.)

and

An Iraqi intelligence service document saying that their Afghan informant, who's only identified by a number, told them that the Afghan consul Ahmed Dahastani claimed the following in front of him:

That OBL and the Taliban are in contact with Iraq and that a group of Taliban and bin Laden group members visited Iraq
That the U.S. has proof the Iraqi government and "bin Laden's group" agreed to cooperate to attack targets inside America.
That in case the Taliban and bin Laden's group turn out to be involved in "these destructive operations," the U.S. may strike Iraq and Afghanistan.
That the Afghan consul heard about the issue of Iraq's relationship with "bin Laden's group" while he was in Iran.

At the end, the writer recommends informing "the committee of intentions" about the above-mentioned items. The signature on the document is unclear.

(Editor's Note: The controversial claim that Osama bin Laden was cooperating with Saddam Hussein is an ongoing matter of intense debate. While the assertions contained in this document clearly support the claim, the sourcing is questionable — i.e., an unnamed Afghan "informant" reporting on a conversation with another Afghan "consul." The date of the document — four days after 9/11 — is worth noting but without further corroboration, this document is of limited evidentiary value.)

In the interest of full disclosure, I've left in ABC's "editor's notes". Regardless of their personal take and editor's notes, doesn't this information deserve mentioning in these LYING articles that claim to prove no connection, that are only based on no Zarqawi/Saddam connection? Of course that's not even getting in to any of this.

Bottom line? You've been lied to by the media...... AGAIN!

 

I would have assumed this was more symbolic than anything, if not for the word "gigantic" being used. I guess it is a big step, even though it probably won't change anything regarding our troop presence for a while still:

Iraq will take control of its armed forces command on Thursday, a major step on its painful path toward independence and an essential move before international troops can eventually withdraw.

"This is such a huge, significant event that's about to occur tomorrow," U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said of the shift in the Iraqi command. "If you go back and you map out significant events that have occurred in this government's formation in taking control of the country, tomorrow is gigantic."

"It's the prime minister's decision how rapidly he wants to move along with assuming control," Caldwell said. In Thursday's ceremony, the prime minister will take control of Iraq's small naval and air forces, and the 8th Iraqi Army Division.

"They can move as rapidly thereafter as they want. I know, conceptually, they've talked about perhaps two divisions a month," Caldwell said.

I hesitate posting this next paragraph because it's a total guess, but I think if nothing else the positive thinking is a good thing:

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani predicted in a Tuesday meeting with visiting British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett that fighting in Iraq will have abated by the end of 2007, and that Iraqi forces will be able to handle any remaining violence.

Read the rest via ABC News here.

 

***SCROLL FOR UPDATES***

(Note 1)***(This turned out to be a longer post than expected, but it's important that you read the entire thing to understand how deep the deception went on this one)***

(***NOTE 2***, in researching and writing this I've also discovered that these headlines are in fact LIES. Not just because some headlines say "6,000" instead of "nearly 6,000" (5818), but because the Reuters piece clearly points out (if the reader does the math), that AT LEAST 594 (almost 10%) of these civilians "killed" didn't die as a result of violence!!! They died of natural and of other "normal" causes! That's right! So, no Yahoo! News they weren't all "slain" and Reuters and others they weren't all "killed")
(Edit:*I’ve capitalized “AT LEAST” above, so that liberals understand that even under the best set of circumstances for the UN & the media, their lie was only about 10% of the deaths, but it seems much worse. Please read beyond the opening paragraphs!*)

The AP and Yahoo! are up to their old tricks again. They just love misleading headline skimmers with headlines that leave a false impression, but don't quite rise to the level of "lying" (though they've done that before too). Today's example is particularly disgusting. Below is a cropped screen shot of what my eyes were treated to when I pulled up my browser and watched my home page (Yahoo!) load a few moments ago:

That's right: Nearly 6,000 Iraqi civilians slain in May, June

It's clear that the intention of this headline is to leave the reader with the impression that these deaths were collateral damage of U.S. military operations. It's intended to make liberals get excited to have a new number (remember the milking of 2,000 military deaths) to blame evil America for and shout that we're targeting civilians. It's also intended to make folks who are on the fence and even conservatives think "wow, maybe the liberals are right, we are targeting thousands of civilians." Bull!

Before we get to the truth of what this number really is, and how it seems like it might be completely bogus anyway, I have to wonder who chose the headline. Generally when you click one of these headlines on the Yahoo! home page, you're taken to an article with the same headline, usually from the AP or Reuters. Every once and a while, including this case, the AP article actually has a completely different headline. In these cases I always make sure to do a search to see if anyone else is using the headline used on Yahoo!'s home page, to determine if it appears that Yahoo! specifically chose their own headline. In this case they did.

See, usually these AP wire stories that Yahoo! links to already have a headline and it will be the same on Yahoo!'s home page if the story is listed there (honest headlines or not). But this is one of those cases where it seems quite clear that someone at Yahoo! decided to spruce it up a bit, because the actual AP headline reads: Iraq civilian toll spikes to nearly 6,000 (also at The Boston Globe). While I personally find the one Yahoo! used a bit more over the top, they are both VERY misleading, if not down right false.

On to the problem with this "6,000" figure... First of all, I think we can all agree it's intended to appear as if these are the result of "our" war or military. What we're actually talking about, as you'll see if you read the article, is deaths resulting from terrorist attacks and sectarian violence (if that). Wouldn't a more appropriate headline be: Iraq: Insurgents Kill Nearly 6,000 In May/June or even Violence In Iraq Leaves 6,000 Civilians Dead May/June. But those headlines wouldn't lead a casual headline reader to believe that these were killed by the U.S. military, so they just won't do. What was I thinking!?

If the misleading headlines don't piss you off enough (because they occur with such regularity), don't worry it gets much worse! For starters, it appears that this is a figure pulled out of a United Nations report, which makes it questionable enough, but that ain't even the half of it. But before I move on, I do have to give slight credit to Yahoo! Asia News for making clear that this is a UN number in their headline on a Reuters story: U.N. says 6,000 Iraqi civilians killed in May-June, as well as The Sydney Morning Herald who ran the same article, with only a slightly different headline: 6,000 civilians killed in May-June: UN. It's still disturbing that they don't indicate WHO killed these civilians (because as we'll learn, man weren't "killed"), but at least they mention that this is a United Nations claim.

Now, 6,000 civilian deaths is still a pretty explosive and disturbing figure regardless of who killed them, right? Well, maybe most of them weren't killed, but just died the way "normal" people die. Think I'm stepping out on a pretty big ledge there? Follow me for a minute.

Let's first look at how the AP opens this story:

UNITED NATIONS - Nearly 6,000 civilians were slain across Iraq in May and June, a spike in deaths that coincided with rising sectarian attacks across the country, the United Nations said Tuesday.

The report from the U.N. Assistance Mission in Iraq describes a wave of lawlessness and crime, including assassinations, bombings, kidnappings, torture and intimidation.

Hundreds of teachers, judges, religious leaders and doctors have been targeted for death, and thousands of people have fled, the report said. Evidence suggests militants also have begun to target homosexuals, it said.

"While welcoming recent positive steps by the government to promote national reconciliation, the report raises alarm at the growing number of casualties among the civilian population killed or wounded during indiscriminate or targeted attacks by terrorists or insurgents," the U.N. said in a note accompanying the report.

Then we're hit with this:

According to the report, 2,669 civilians were killed in May and 3,149 were killed in June. Those numbers combined two counts: from the Ministry of Health, which records deaths reported by hospitals; and the Medico-Legal Institute in Baghdad, which tallies the unidentified bodies it receives.

At this point in reading the article, one is most likely already surprised that this "spike" in deaths, wasn't at the hands of American military. But still disturbed by the level of voilence. But the AP's own "death count" may cause you to think twice:

The report's figures were higher than some other counts, but even the U.N. said many killings go unreported.

According to an Associated Press tally based on its daily reporting, at least 1,511 civilians were killed, in May and June, with at least an additional 289 police and security forces killed.

The AP tally showed that from January through June 2006, at least 4,191 civilians were killed. The minimum number of police and security forces casualties in that period was at least 805 killed. The AP figures do not include insurgents.

Interesting. The AP's figure is only about 26% of the UN's figure (5818). Not only that, but the AP's TOTAL FOR THE YEAR is only 72% of the UN's May and June number. If you read the article and go back to a section I didn't quote, the UN report says that this year's number stands at 14,338. Again, the AP is saying only 4,191 for the year which is only about 29% of how many the UN is claiming for the 2006 total. Hmmm, notice a trend? The AP's count is between 26 and 29% of the UN's count for both the May/June number and the year's total! Just a slight difference right?

Okay, so we see an almost unbelievable difference in the civilian deaths put out by the UN versus what the AP has counted, but what could be the cause?

It was unclear whether the tally from the Medico-Legal Institute included only those who were killed as a result of violence.

Interesting, so the group that gathered these numbers for the report may have included other deaths, unrelated to the violence!? I (sarcastically) wonder if counting deaths from disease, age, car accidents, etc. might account for such a huge difference in the tallies.

As much as I'd like to say it did, it doesn't end there! The Reuters story I mentioned earlier that can be found at The Sydney Morning Herald and Yahoo! News Asia, contains some interesting bits about how the total tally was gathered. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some numbers seem like they overlap, and may be being counted twice. Either way, the conclusion of the article leaves one seriously questioning this UN "report".

First, what the Reuters piece says about the numbers gathered to make that 5818 (I know, doesn't sound as "cool" when it's not 6,000, right?):

Baghdad morgue officials have said they took in 1,595 bodies in June, 1,375 in May and 1,155 in April. Of those, about 80 per cent were victims of violent deaths, they said.

The UN report included all the morgue entries for May and June in its total of violent deaths along with 1,294 deaths recorded in May by the Health Ministry and 1,554 in June.

Add those 4 figures up and you get that 5818 number. (Note: the one figure not in bold and not included refers to April). First of all, in that first paragraph (the morgue stats) we learn that of the 2,970 they counted, only 80% or 2,376 were the result of violence, according to Baghdad morgue officials. Leaving 594 that either died naturally or by some other cause. Wait a minute, 594 is larger than 10% of the original 5818 number (again, not 6,000 anyway). So more than 10% of what the AP reported were not "killed", but died in a "normal" way. Set aside poor reporting, why would the UN even include these numbers in the report?

On two that second quoted Reuters paragraph... It states that the May/June number from the Health Ministry is 2848. I could be wrong, but I would say that those figures probably include some of those at the morgue, no? Doesn't it seem like we're talking about overlapping numbers, being counted twice? I encourage you to reread this, as it may be hard to follow, as well as read the two full articles, and see what you make of it. Pay particular attention to the first line of that second paragraph I just referred to:

(again)

The UN report included all the morgue entries for May and June in its total of violent deaths...

Why would all morgue death's be included in the UN's count of violent deaths? I hope someone bigger takes and runs with this so we can get some answers.

Beyond just my suspicions of overlapping numbers and obvious tinkering proved above, the Interior Ministry in Iraq issued a report based on figures provided by the Health Ministry that gives WAY LOWER numbers:

Health Ministry figures incorporated in a monthly report issued by the Interior Ministry, however, show a lower level of civilian deaths. According to that report, 935 civilians were killed in violence in May and 889 in June.

WHOA! So Iraq's Interior Ministry/Health Ministry number is only 1824!? That's a far cry from 5818, dontcha think? In fact, the Iraq ministries' numbers are only 31% of the UN's. This is especially interesting, considering that the AP's count was 26% of the UN's. The AP's number was just only 313 less than the Iraq count, a much more reasonable and understandable difference.

So the obvious question is - Who do you trust here? Do you trust the UN's conclusions (we've proven were skewed by at least AT LEAST 595 and probably much more), or do you trust two other counts that are relatively close to each other, and greatly contradict the count of the United Nations.

***UPDATE***
Not surprisingly, the New York Times has joined the party to perpetuate the lies and not do the research and at least discover what little old RightWinged.com did. I'm too annoyed to pick apart the Time's piece, because it's just like the others, only worse. But I will briefly pick on a couple. They found a new way to make the lying numbers sound... cooler? You know, to give the liberals just another line to spout off all over the internet. The opening paragraph reads:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 18 — An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month, the highest monthly tally of violent deaths since the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations reported today.

Ignoring their own headline, and the fact that they don't mention that these weren't at the hands of the United States military, they should have been able to do the simple math to determine that their opening paragraph IS A LIE! We know that 1,595 was the June number provided to the UN by the Baghdad morgue officials, who said that 80% (1,276) died as a result of violence. Even with the strange choice to add that to the Health Ministry's June figure (1,554) you only get a total of 2,830. If you were to somehow still convince me that this highball number was close to accurate, you still only get 94.33 deaths per day.

Again, I don't think that 94 per day figure is accurate either, but it's approximately 6 (or 6%) less than the NY Times lied and said it was, when they claimed the number was over 100 per day.

The Slimes goes on to report other wildly high death count claims from other sources, and waits until almost the very end of the article, on the second page to throw out this bone before burying it in their backyard:

The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an independent Web site that uses news reports to do its tallies, reported that at least 840 Iraqi civilians died in June, compared with an all-time high of 1,100 the previous month.

Big surprise, right? The NY Times lying again and burying numbers that don't suit their agenda. Sometimes I don't know why I bother, it's not like that DNC manual cares what anyone right of Castro thinks anyway.

***UPDATE***
I just checked on the CIA World Fact Book, and I was surprised to see that Iraq's death rate (5.37 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)) is actually substantially lower than our own in the United States (8.26 deaths/1,000 population (2006 est.)) I am curious why they have a lower death rate than us, but that's for another day.

What these numbers tell us is that, given Iraq's population of 26,783,383, an average of 394 die a day. Why didn't the media just go all out and run headlines that read: "394 Iraqis Killed Daily"? Hell, by the standards of the UN, Yahoo, Reuters, The NY Times, and the rest of the media I guess we should prepare to splash tomorrow's papers with the headline: "6,754 Civilians Killed In the United States Daily". It would be just as accurate as all of what we've just seen regarding the Iraq civilians.

Anyway, I better get out of the way before I get trampled, as the rest of the media races to get this "story" out there.

 

*****SCROLL FOR UPDATES*****

As you most probably know, I'm staying with some family until I move back to my home state of Vermont next week, and am not posting much until I've settled in to my own place after my move. But while I'm here in Louisville, I figured I would check out what free movies are available "On Demand" on my cousin's digital cable, and started watching Be Cool, up until 4:00 am ET when I stopped it to see the late repeat of the O'Reilly Factor and BAM.... ZARQAWI DEAD is all over the TV.

AP

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida-linked militant who led a bloody campaign of suicide bombings, kidnappings and hostage beheadings in Iraq, has been killed in a U.S. air raid north of Baghdad, Iraq's prime minister said Thursday.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said al-Zarqawi was killed Wednesday evening along with seven aides.

The Jordanian-born militant, who was believed to have personally beheaded at least two American hostages, became Iraq's most wanted militant, as notorious as Osama bin Laden, to whom he swore allegiance in 2004. The United States had put a $25 million bounty on al-Zarqawi, the same as bin Laden.

read on...

My first thought was very cautious optimism, because we've heard these reports before, but as the live Fox News coverage continues in the background as I'm posting this, it seems that this time it is beyond question, and they certainly got him this time. I was pretty sure that I just heard General Casey say that Zarqawi's identity was confirmed with fingerprints and facial recognition, and the AP via CBS News is reporting that as well:

General George Casey, the top U.S. general in Iraq, says al-Zarqawi's body has been identified by fingerprints and facial recognition.

Of course we all know "he's only one man", but this victory shouldn't be minimized. Congratulations to all those involved in this bombing raid who can feel extra proud today for having eliminated this piece of garbage. Keep up the great work out there folks, this is a huge get.

Back to the "only one man" angle. Yes this is true, just as it would be in the case of Bin Laden. But as we know, the terrorists in Iraq are already a bunch of disorganized losers who were failing so badly that they had to turn to killing Iraqis in hopes of inciting a civil war. I don't think we can go as far as to say they are in a "civil war" at this point, but the terrorists did have some success in creating the beginnings of one and Zarqawi was their leader. I don't want to make any predictions at this point because this could go a number of ways, but I'll just say that this will be a really big positive.

What's really odd is that I'm one of the few bloggers usually awake and posting breaking news at around 3/4 am, but for some reason Michelle Malkin was on this and posting at 3:20. Michelle has updated (and I assume will continue to update as we hear more) and has even been able to rush video of the announcement to the web.

***UPDATE***
Any guesses on how long it takes a far left site claims that Rove is somehow behind this, in some campaign to raise President Bush's poll numbers? Speaking of Rove, didn't TruthOut report that he was supposed to be indicted like 3 or 4 weeks ago?

***UPDATE***
Check out this Yahoo! search on "zarqawi". Notice anything odd? Look at the "sponsor results" at right:
Looking for Zarqawi Collectibles? (partial screen shot below)

Zarqawi collectibles? What are we talkin' here... collectors plates? Beanie Babies Terrorists? Zarqawi Minitures?

Seriously though, it's just an internet marketer bidding on that, and it will just take you to an ebay search of "zarqawi".

Exgaucho notices the same ad on Technorati.

***UPDATE***
Other positive news out of Iraq today, that will probably be overshadowed by the Zarqawi story: Iraq now has interior and defense ministers after a long stalemate

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Embattled Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has won the approval of his Shi'ite Alliance for nominees for the interior and defense posts and will present them to parliament on Thursday, Shi'ite sources said.

***UPDATE***
Expose the Left is highlighting the left's race to downplay this.

***UPDATE***
Blogs for Bush has posted video of the bombing raid that killed Mr. Z.

***UPDATE***
Earlier I predicted that the lefty blogs would say this was a Rove stunt to bring up the president's poll numbers. Well, it seems we don't need lefty blogs when we have elected Democrats with severe cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome. The Washington Times has the story:

Some Democrats, breaking ranks from their leadership, today said the death of terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi in Iraq was a stunt to divert attention from an unpopular and hopeless war.

"This is just to cover Bush's [rear] so he doesn't have to answer" for Iraqi civilians being killed by the U.S. military and his own sagging poll numbers, said Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat. "Iraq is still a mess -- get out."

Update to this update... In a new post about Israel taking out the #2 terrorist on their list, Michelle Malkin takes note of this same Pete Stark quote, and provides Stark's contact information so you can let him know how you feel about it:

WASHINGTON, DC 239 Cannon Building Washington, DC 20515 202-225-5065 202-226-3805 (fax)

FREMONT
39300 Civic Center Dr.
Suite 220
Fremont, CA 94538
510-494-1388
510-494-5852 (fax)

E-mail: PETEMAIL@HR.HOUSE.GOV

Are you kidding me? Regardless of how big you think this is, it is insane to say it's "just to cover Bush's rear". That statement implies that we could have taken Zarqawi out at any time we wanted, but Bush waited to give the order until it could be used to "cover his rear". Free speech is one thing, but this nut is an elected official, and anyone this stupid should be tossed out of office.

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, said Zarqawi was a small part of "a growing anti-American insurgency" and that it's time to get out.

"We're there for all the wrong reasons," Mr. Kucinich said.

more...

The only thing surprising about Kucinich's comments is that they aren't more nutty. But while it's disgraceful that Democrats took the opportunity today to say "it's good, BUT.." and downplay the whole thing, we've lowered the bar enough that we let it slide. Whether that sentiment is accurate isn't the point, let's just have one day of praise for the military doing a good job and killing a really bad guy who is the head of terrorism in Iraq.

I'm almost afraid to scan some liberal blogs to read their comments, because we can pretty accurately predict what they'll say... but I did take a glance at the DailyKOSBS, and of course the comments aren't short on nuttiness and conspiracy theories. The important thing to remember when you read KOS comments, is that these people possess the ability to cancel out our votes! Here's just a taste, I don't have the stomach to read through much more:

Bush's idea of justice is bombs falling out of the sky?

by Johann on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 04:49:28 AM PDT

***Conspiracy theory alert***...

Because it appears he also died September, 2005, June 2, 2005, and March 4, 2004.

Why is he dead again just now? I wonder if Karl's getting indicted tomorrow...

by dqueue on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 08:34:23 AM PDT

Yeah, I'm sure Rove will be indicted tomorrow, better check with TruthOut.org who reported that he was indicted about a month ago.

***Conspiracy theory alert***...

What would two 500lb bombs do to a human body? Those pics of Abu Z look like they just thawed him out just in time for the elections. When was the last time we saw him?

"If you empty you glass each time, it will always come back twice as full." Paul Simon

by barefoot mailman on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 09:01:58 AM PDT

i've been waiting for one for some time now since Bush's numbers have been in the dumps. As for the Z guy, I'm not thoroughly convinced of the story. It hard to believe anything this administration has to say anymore. But, I must admit this is one mighty fine rabbit to pull out of their ass to try and save their hides come November.

I'm a blue drop in a red bucket.

by blue drop on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 09:53:23 AM PDT

just in time to hide the fact they're trying to cut the estate tax for the uber wealthy and plunge us into a trillion dollar more of debt.

-8.50, -7.59 This is your world. These are your people. You can live for yourself today, or help build tomorrow for everyone.

by DisNoir36 on Thu Jun 08, 2006 at 07:04:15 AM PDT

Again, this is only a sample of hundreds of comments that you might like to go laugh at if it weren't so scary that these idiots are actually real people on the other side of their computers, and that we encounter them in our daily lives.

Michelle Malkin links to a and awesome video/slideshow compilation put together by Allahpundit set to a Beastie Boy jam, of Zarqawi, the bombing raid that killed him, and the aftermath. Allahpundit also tossed it up on YouTube so that we might all share it on our blogs:

Others Blogging:
Counterterrorism Blog, HotAir, My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Wizbang, Blackfive, Small Town Veteran, Iowa Voice, Juneau Blog, All Things Beautiful, The American Mind, Gina Cobb, Ed Driscoll, Random Nuclear Strikes, Oregon Commentator, Everything Between, Iraq the Model, Dean's World, Sister Toldjah, Ninth State, Assorted Babble, Captain's Quarters, Outside the Beltway, Big Lizards, Stop the ACLU, bRight & Early, The Anchoress, Pirate's Cove, Gateway Pundit, Macsmind, Betsy Newmark, The Sundries Shack, The Wide Awake Café, The Mudville Gazette, California Conservative, The Political Pit Bull, Leaning Straight Up, The Sandbox, The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler, GOP Bloggers, The Florida Masochist, Palmetto Pundit, Right Truth, QandO, Rightwing Nuthouse, Superfun Powerhour, Texas Rainmaker, The Strata-Sphere

 

***UPDATE***
Sgt. Cardona sentenced to "90 days hard labor and a reduction in rank". To be clear, my initial and continued outrage over this is not that he faced up to three and a half years, it's the fact that he was charged at all, simply for letting a dog bark. Priorities here people.

We know there were abuses at Abu Ghraib and I believe the number of those implicted and punished is around 10 right now, but this is just ridiculous. I also always have to point out that as outrageous at the abuses at the prison may have been, I don't think we've seen anything that amounts to "torture", and certainly not in this case.

AP via Fayetteville Observer

A military jury on Thursday convicted an Army dog handler of using his animal to torment a prisoner at Abu Ghraib.

Sgt. Santos A. Cardona, based at Fort Bragg, N.C., is the 11th soldier convicted of crimes stemming from the abuse of inmates at the prison in late 2003 and early 2004.

Cardona, 32, of Fullerton, Calif., was convicted of dereliction of duty and aggravated assault for allowing his dog to bark within inches of a prisoner's face.

But the panel of four officers and three enlisted soldiers acquitted Cardona of some of the most serious charges he faced, including unlawfully having his dog bite an inmate and conspiring with dog handler to frighten prisoners into soiling themselves.

Cardona, a 12 1/2-year veteran, stood at attention in his green dress uniform as the verdict was read. He faces a maximum penalty of 3 1/2 years.

A sentencing hearing was scheduled to begin later Thursday.

You read that right.... A maximum penalty of 3 1/2 years for allowing the dog to bark near a prisoner's face.

 

Karl Rove expressed confidence for the GOP in this year's elections, in a speech give at the American Enterprise Institute. There was no mention, however, of the indictments that TruthOut and the left have been claming came down this weekend.

Drudge Flash

ROVE: 'WE'RE IN A SOUR TIME. I READILY ADMIT IT.' THU May 15 2006 12:29:11 ET

Ater speaking at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C. on Monday Morning Karl Rove took questions:

QUESTION: It's clear that the position that the administration's in now is not where it would have liked to have been with a few months to go before the mid-term elections. I wonder if you could just say what has gone wrong and how do you turn things around before November.

ROVE: Look, we're in a sour time. I readily admit it.

I mean, being in the middle of a war where people turn on their television sets and see brave men and women dying is not something that makes people happy and optimistic and upbeat.

But I'm absolutely confident that -- I heard this same kind of language about the 2004 elections in roughly the March, April, May, June period of June 2004.

We're going to be just fine in the fall elections.

And we're going to be fine because we stand for things that are important. We stand for strong natural defense abroad and complete victory in the war on terrorism which involves victory in Iraq.

We stand for a strong national defense. We stand for economic policies that are pro-growth, involving tax cuts and free trade. We are strongly for fiscal restraint in the budget process.

And our opponents, at this point, stand for little or nothing, except mere obstructionism. Whether it is the nomination of superbly qualified men and women to the judiciary, or our policies to reauthorize the Patriot Act to keep America safe in a time of global terror, the other party seems to stand for little except obstructionism.

And ultimately, the American people are a center-right country, who, presented with a center-right party with center-right candidates, will vote center-right.

Developing...

 

Iraq has taken some big steps in forming their government, but because it didn't involve a mosque bombing or alleged prisoner abuse, I suspect it won't get a whole lot of play in the media. I'm sure it makes headlines on television today, and if we're lucky it may still be around on Monday to make the papers. But don't expect it to be as heavily pumped as the bad news we see day in and day out. We constantly see people return from visiting Iraq telling us how there has been great progress that isn't being reported, but at least this is getting some mention.

Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraq's president formally designated Shiite politician Jawad al-Maliki to form a new government Saturday, starting a process aimed at healing ethnic and religious wounds and pulling the nation out of insurgency and sectarian strife.

The move ends months of political deadlock among Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds that threatened to drag the nation into civil war. Al-Maliki has 30 days to present his Cabinet to parliament for approval.

Parliament elected President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, to a second term and gave the post of parliament speaker to Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, a Sunni Arab. Al-Mashhadani's two deputies were to be Khalid al-Attiyah, a Shiite, and Aref Tayfour, a Kurd.

The tough-talking al-Maliki was nominated by the Shiites on Friday after outgoing Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari gave up his bid for another term. Al-Jaafari's attempt to stay in office was adamantly opposed by Sunnis and Kurds, causing a monthslong deadlock while the country's security crisis worsened in the wake of December's election.

U.S. and Iraqi officials hope that a national unity government representing Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds will be able to quell both the Sunni-led insurgency and bloody Shiite-Sunni violence that has raged during the political uncertainty. If it succeeds, it could enable the U.S. to begin withdrawing its 133,000 troops.

Seems to be good news, or at least what could potentially turn in to good news. Big news, I think, any way you slice it, as it shows a progression towards something.

The AP article quickly turns to gloom and doom though. I can understand saying "the day wasn't without violence though" and mentioning a few things, but it just rambles on and on listing off attacks, deaths and injuries, and then quickly jumps back to the original subject of the article.

I would paste the "attack" reporting portion, but it's huge, and then I may as well have just copied the whole article. Just check it out yourself. Look how after the paragraphs I pasted above it just goes on, paragraph after paragraph, listing attack after attack, and then in the least smooth way you can imagine, jumps back in:

Al-Maliki has a reputation as a hard-line, outspoken defender of the Shiite stance - raising questions over whether he will be able to negotiate the delicate sectarian balancing act.

Come on AP, I know you only want to report the negative, and hated to have to report this story, but you could have disuised it a little bettter. I don't even have a huge problem with them reporting the negative, although they could have saved that for another article since we get those all day every day, why couldn't this one just be about what it was? But the point is the crappy writing styles that make this the least flowing article I've seen.

I can't describe it, you have to read the article yourself to see how poorly it's put together. Pretty sad.

But back to the point, hopefully this is a good sign. Hopefully, looking back this will be seen as a milestone, despite the lack of reporting.

UPDATE
President Bush praises progress

"There's going to be more tough fighting ahead in Iraq and there'll be more days of sacrifice and struggle," Bush said. "Yet, the enemies of freedom have suffered a real blow today, and we've taken a great stride on the march to victory.

"This historic achievement by determined Iraqis will make America more secure," he said.

"Formation of a new Iraqi government is an opportunity for America to open a new chapter in our partnership with the Iraqi people," Bush said. "The United States and our coalition partners will work with the new Iraqi government to reassess our tactics, adjust our methods and strengthen our mutual efforts to achieve victory in this central front in the war on terror."

More...

 

How many "scandals" or documented "lies" or "contradictions" is the media and the Democratic party going to have to come up with before they finally find one that sticks? Doesn't it seem like at least once a week there is some new controversy that makes worldwide headlines and the anti-Bush media treats it like "this is the one! Finally we're going to take down President Bush!", but then it cools off, necessary corrections are rarely made, and apologies are almost never given.

Well, this week hasn't disappointed, and given us at least two. First was the false idea that President Bush is planning to nuke Iran, and next was the Washington Post's (I guess it was their turn. I think CBS, NY Times, WAPO, all get together and say "okay, it's our turn this week") story that supposedly busted the President for lying in late May of 2003. They tried to say that his claim that we'd found mobile WMD labs in Iraq came after he already knew that the trailers weren't mobile WMD labs. ABC was complicit in the media's misinformation campaign. Obviously the rest of the media picked it up and ran wild.

Finally though, the White House fired back angrily, and McClellan asked for an apology. I still think that sitting back and taking it all these years has done them irreparable damage, but every once and a while they strike back. Sure Rummy gives his little jabs from time to time like "I have a real daytime job" and "get a life" (follow links for Expose the Left's videos). As good as those are, they aren't the type of serious outrage we got from McClellan over this latest incident.

AP by way of Fox News

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan vigorously denied suggestions that Bush was making claims that had been debunked when he said two small trailers seized in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories.

Bush declared in a May 2003 television interview, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was cited at the time as supporting evidence for the decision to go to war.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday that experts on a Pentagon-sponsored mission who examined the trailers concluded that they had nothing to do with biological weapons and sent their findings to Washington in a classified report on May 27, 2003.

One day later, the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency publicly issued an assessment saying the opposite — that U.S. officials were confident that the trailers were used to produce biological weapons. The assessment said the mobile facilities represented "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program." On May 29, 2003, the president repeated the claims from the public intelligence report.

This is the source of the understandable outrage coming out of the White House. The media spun a story to make it seem like the President had been told that the trailers weren't for producing WMDs, but that he ran out to say they did to suit his agenda, which would mean he lied. The facts prove otherwise though, but you know the media won't be so quick to report the true

McClellan dismissed the Post article and a report based on it that aired on ABC News Wednesday morning as irresponsible. He said ABC News should apologize and took issue with the way the Post story was written.

"The lead suggested that what the president was saying was based on something that had been debunked, and that is not true," McClellan said. "In fact, the president was saying something that was based on what the intelligence community — through the CIA and DIA — were saying."

Not that we should expect any better out of any of the media, but we really shouldn't be surprised at ABC's involvement here. They just suspended a producer for his Bush hatred (obviously a necessary PR move), less than a week before hiring anti-war protestor Meredith Vieira to fill the already liberal seat of Katie Couric.

More from the AP via Yahoo! News:

"This is nothing more than rehashing an old issue that was resolved long ago," McClellan said. "I cannot count how many times the president has said the intelligence was wrong."

"The intelligence community makes the assessment," he said. "The White House is not the intelligence-gathering agency."

more...

CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Dyck declined to speak specifically about the classified field report but said in general that producing a finished intelligence report takes time, coordination, debate and vetting.

"This is not a fast process, especially when dealing with complex issues," she said. "It is not typically something that happens in a matter of hours."

Again, I think the White House should stooped low and not taken the high road all these years and blasted the dishonest hate Bush media. I'm glad McClellan struck back a little here, but I'm afraid it's too little too late. I wouldn't care so much if they haven't consistently undermined the war effort though, and done nothing short of operate as propaganda writers for the enemy.

I just wanted to also quickly mention that as usual, Yahoo! News was playing the front page headline game with this again. Even though the story makes clear what really happened, the headline conveys a different message so Yahoo! was sure to run it on the home page. I've busted them for making up their own lying headlines before, but this one appears to actually be the work of the AP (who wrote the story), because I see it being used elsewhere.

 

It would seem that the less than warm welcome John Kerry recently received from anti-war protestors at Harvard has pushed him over the edge, and he's now flip-flopped.... AGAIN... and is pushing for a cut and run strategy.

A sampling of comments Kerry was greeted with (Harvard Crimson):

“Bush Lied. Kerry Complied. Bring the troops home now,” they chanted outside the Kennedy School.

and

“Stop this war, John, grow some balls” the man said. “You can do something, John.”

So I don't if Kerry's recent anatomy change occured naturally or unnaturally, considering we know what a fan of botox and fake orange tans he is. But it does seem that he is basis his foreign policy "plans" on what these protestors told him just a few weeks ago.

Anyway, if you hadn't heard by now Frankenstein's plan is as follows (via Editor & Publisher):

He proposed two deadlines this year: May 15 (when Iraqi leaders must form a true unity government or we will immediately exit); and Dec. 31 (if the unity government does come to be, we pull out all combat troops by this date, leaving behind troops to train Iraqis).

Genius! I wonder if this was his secret plan that he would never reveal to us during the 2004 election, but was saving incase he won.... You know, instead of working with the rest of the government to do what is best for the country. Of course I don't believe he had a "plan" to begin with, but if he did have one (as he claimed) that was the perfect example of how he (like all Democrats) care more about winning, rather than doing what is best for the country.

Well Russert called Kerry out on this flip-flop by showing video of him from 2004 and 2005 where he said he was against timelines and against cutting and running. He doesn't admit a flip-flop, but basically says he's changed his mind. Expose the Left has the video, check it out now.

Ian at Expose the Left, provides a few quotes in noting a couple other interesting moments in the interview. Kerry at one point tries to repeat the media spin we've all heard this week, basically claiming that the President authorized Libby to reveal Plame's name. The reality, when you get past the headlines of these stories is that the President declassified intelligence information to support WMD claims, and it had nothing to do with Plame.

Earlier in the interview I found it interesting when Russert listed off all the chaos that would happen in Iraq if we were to pull out, and Kerry is shaking his head and saying "no, no, no". Thousands of Al Qaeda couldn't flood in John? Iranians couldn't? You wouldn't have militias? "No, no, no." Interesting how these are EXACTLY what you predicted in one of the videos Russert shows of your previous claims of opposing a "cut and run" strategy.

Later they get in to the question of whether or not Kerry will run in 2008. Of course he doesn't know yet (gotta wait and see what the polls say of course), but he lists what issues he was fighting for. Of course it's a cliche list of things that he never laid out a plan for, but it's just the usual "security", "health care", and "stronger America" stuff. And a few seconds later he mentions some of these again as things he still fights for and even calls his little list "simple", and I think in a way inadvertently admits that these are more wishes or goals, rather than plans or ways to reach those ends. This has pretty much been all the Dems have offered lately is just a wish list, but never having any idea how to achieve the goals.

So go check out the video for yourself, but have a pillow ready on your keyboard tray incase the Senator's voice causes you to dose off before Kerry is finished arguing with Russert about how much of the popular vote he got after his introduction.

 

cross-posted at Expose the Left

h/t Drudge

You probably thought that headline was a joke huh? If there was ever a time to use the phrase - "You can't make this stuff up", it's now.

In documents captured in Iraq, as part of the untranslated document dump that is being slowly released to the public we learn that Saddam wanted to use camel's as (involuntary obviously) suicide bombers. Now if I had said this a week ago without the documentary evidence, you'd think I was perpetuating a racist stereotype muslims/camels/sand, etc. But this is all to insanely real.

Beyond the odd weapon choice, the Telegraph reports that this funny little tidbit comes from a potentially more important report, that if translated properly, seems to indicate that Saddam trained the outside terrorists that we're now fighting over there.

via The Telegraph (click for entire article)

Saddam Hussein planned to use "camels of mass destruction" as weapons to defend Iraq, loading them with bombs and directing them towards invading forces.

The animals were part of a plan to arm and equip foreign insurgents drawn up by the dictator shortly before the American-led invasion three years ago, reveals a 37-page report, captured after the fall of Baghdad and just released by the Pentagon. It is part of a cache of thousands of documents that the United States Department of Defence says it does not have the resources to translate.

In the memo, they are described as "estishehadeyeen", Arabic for suicide martyrs, and would almost certainly have been foreign volunteers.

The memo details a training commission to be headed by senior officers, including a colonel from the "Directory of Political Orientation". Their job, says the report, was to "prepare a very intensive training course", "to raise the physical fitness and train in the use of Kalashnikovs and hand grenades".

It continues: "The largest section of the course will be specialised to focus on using the explosive material in the body, in motorcycle, in cars, and in camels". Camels will be "provided by the Directory of General Military Intelligence".

If the translation is correct, it suggests that many of the foreign fighters now attacking coalition forces and bombing Iraqi civilians were directly trained by the Saddam regime, although there are no known reports of camels being used in suicide attacks.

read more

(sarcasm)Wouldn't you be shocked to find out that Saddam was training terrorists?!(/sarcasm)

This is a perfect example of why I created that extremely long post (linked below) on the case for WMDs and Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda. So as documents like this come in and get translated, I can point back to that original post as further support when a liberal wants to whine that a single new document is "just one" and therefore doesn't hold much weight. While this isn't about either of those two things specifically, it does stand to show yet another terror tie. It's piling on, and it would seem we're just getting started.

Previous:
Russian and Turkish Scientists Were In Iraq, Saddam Didn't Believe He'd Be Ousted
The Case For Iraq's WMDs, Al Qaeda Connections, And Russian Involvement

 

cross-posted at Expose the Left

Russia is only looking worse as the story of their pre-war involvement in Iraq continues to unfold. Today, The Washington Times goes beyond the basic reporting we've over the past couple days, regarding Russian spies tipping of Iraq about our military plans.

The Washington Times discusses further findings in the report everyone is citing as the source for all this "new" information, like the Russian and Turkish scientists inside Iraq, having to hide from UN inspectors and Saddam's belief that we'd never take Baghdad. Some of The Times' piece is repetitive, but here's what's different than the rest of the coverage most of us have seen:

In other report findings:

• ?The regime planned to restart production of weapons of mass destruction. It continued to hide scientists from U.N. inspectors right up to the time U.N. inspectors left and the war began.

A seized Dec. 15, 2002, memo, written by an Iraqi intelligence agent posing as a U.N. escort, states, "Inside Bader WMD inspection site, there are Russian and Turkish scientists. When we visited the site, they were forced to hide from inspectors' eyes."

And, Saddam continued to tell his commanders he still had such weapons. "For him, there were real dividends to be gained by letting his enemies believe he possessed WMD, whether it was true or not," the report said.

• The quickly assembled air strike on one of Saddam's residences, Dora Farms, in pre-dawn March 19, 2003, never had a chance of succeeding. Saddam had not stayed there since 1995.

• There was no evidence that Saddam or his top aides planned the insurgency, now in its fourth year; in fact, Saddam was sure the Americans would never advance on Baghdad.

"There were no national plans to transition to a guerrilla war in the event of military defeat," the report states.

This fact helps explain why commanders did not predict, nor plan for, the robust insurgency and al Qaeda terrorists now spreading violence.

Saddam's misguided belief that he would stay in power in 2003 was fed by the support he got from France and Russia, his top aide, Tariq Aziz, told U.S. investigators.

"France and Russia each secure millions of dollars worth of trade and service contracts in Iraq, with the implied understanding that their political posture with regard to sanctions on Iraq would be pro-Iraqi," Mr. Aziz said. "In addition, the French wanted sanctions lifted to safeguard their trade and service contracts in Iraq."

(sarcasm)Shocking, right?(/sarcasm)

Again, hmmm, I wonder why Russia was working against us at the UN? As for those who claim Saddam didn't have WMDs because "he would have used them", this article confirms what I've long said, which is that Saddam never thought we'd actually follow through and that he'd be ousted. His buddies and our "allies" in the UN were reassuring him that there wouldn't be a war, and even when there was he still didn't believe we'd really remove him.

Putin's peeps are predictably denying the entire thing (via AP):

"Similar, baseless accusations concerning Russia's intelligence have been made more than once," Foreign Intelligence Service spokesman Boris Labusov said, according to a duty officer in his department. "We don't consider it necessary to comment on such fabrications."

"To my mind, from my understanding it's absolutely nonsense and it's ridiculous," she said, adding that the U.S. government had not shown Russia the evidence cited in the report. "Somebody wants to say something, and did - and there is no evidence to prove it."

Doesn't the quote in that second excerpt sound like someone saying "too bad you can't prove it!"? Maybe it's just me, but that's the way it comes off.

 

cross-posted at Expose the Left

This is a very long post, but after this I will try to keep my own comments on this (and stories on future released and translated documents) to a minimum, as I suspect we'll continue to see this kind of information roll in for quite some time. In the future, I'll most likely reference this post for background for people who need to catch up, that way I won't have to repeat all of this everytime we learn more. Don't expect to read this in one sitting, but you will probably want to use it as a reference and link resource and as this story continues to develop.

You should already be familiar with the fact that chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra had been pressing for the release of millions of documents and thousands of hours of tapes captured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of the documents and tapes have yet to be translated, but ma