Via Central Command:

Iraqi and U.S. forces have removed more than 4,200 mortar rounds from a major weapons cache found outside of an abandoned military base near the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk Sunday.

The buried rounds were discovered by Iraqi Soldiers Sunday morning. The Soldiers removed about 800 mortar rounds before realizing that the cache was much larger than they originally thought. U.S. Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team were called in to help excavate the munitions and secure the area.

The ammunition was buried under concrete blocks with dirt mounded on top. All of the ammunition removed so far has come from one mound located in a field full of similar mounds. The explosives ordnance disposal team at the site expects to find more rounds as the search expands throughout the field.

I'll be interested to see if the shells are all conventional munitions in nature, or if perhaps there is something potentially more interesting in the mix.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

The L.A. Times just cannot stand the fact that another news organization might push a myopic one-sided view of the War on Terror... at least one that conflicts with their own, myopic one-sided view, that is.

Jeff Goldstein responds as well as I ever could, so go read it over there.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

MoveOn.org cares so much about America troops that they...

wait for it...

can't even identify American troops.

But hey, they're getting better. This was actually their third attempt.

They originally tried this one:

This was their second choice:

Better luck next time, losers.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:59 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Ahmadinejad saw a bright light, alright...Zzzap!

Ahmadinejad said that someone present at the UN told him that a light surrounded him while he was delivering his speech to the General Assembly. The Iranian president added that he also sensed it.

"He said when you began with the words 'in the name of God,' I saw that you became surrounded by a light until the end [of the speech]," Ahmadinejad appears to say in the video. "I felt it myself, too. I felt that all of a sudden the atmosphere changed there, and for 27-28 minutes all the leaders did not blink."

Ahmadinejad adds that he is not exaggerating.

"I am not exaggerating when I say they did not blink; it's not an exaggeration, because I was looking," he says. "They were astonished as if a hand held them there and made them sit. It had opened their eyes and ears for the message of the Islamic Republic."

Baztab.com reported that during the meeting, Ayatollah Amoli said that "carrying out promises and restraining from fooling people" is the most important duty, presumably of officials . However, it is unclear whether that comment is made in reaction to the claim made by Ahmadinejad.

Critics And Skeptics
Iranian legislator Akbar Alami has questioned Ahmadinejad's apparent claims, saying that even Islam's holiest figures have never made such claims.

I'd suspect that Ahmadinejad's chances of dying a natural death just decreased tremendously...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:46 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

In Tuesday's Washington Post, columnist Richard Cohen pens a column entitled More Than a 'Mistake' on Iraq that is not only incorrect, but bordering on delusional.

Cohen states:

A line is forming outside the Iraq confessional. It consists of Democratic presidential aspirants -- where's Hillary? -- who voted for the war in Iraq and now concede that they made a "mistake." Former senator John Edwards did that Nov. 13 in a Post op-ed article, and Sen. Joseph Biden uttered the "M" word Sunday on "Meet the Press." "It was a mistake," said Biden. "It was a mistake," wrote Edwards. Yes and yes, says Cohen. But it is also a mistake to call it a mistake.

Both senators have a point, of course. They were told by the president and members of his War Cabinet -- Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld -- that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. In particular, those three emphasized Iraq's purported nuclear weapons program. As late as August 2003, Condoleezza Rice was saying that she was "certain to this day that this regime was a threat, that it was pursuing a nuclear weapon, that it had biological and chemical weapons, that it had used them." To be charitable, she didn't know what she was talking about. [emphasis mine]

In denying that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had in the past pursued a nuclear weapons program, or that it had biological and chemical weapons and had used them, Richard Cohen shows that he is under the influence of the H5N1 strain of Bush Derangement Syndrome, and his grasp of reality is tenuous at best.

The U.K's Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction (PDF), otherwise known as the Butler Report, stated that :

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.

The British government stands behind this information to this day, which pre-dates Joe Wilson's trip to Niger.

On January 1, 2003, The Telegraph reported:

United Nations weapons inspectors have uncovered evidence that proves Saddam Hussein is trying to develop an arsenal of nuclear weapons, The Telegraph can reveal. The discovery was made following spot checks last week on the homes of two Iraqi nuclear physicists in Baghdad.

Acting on information provided by Western intelligence, the UN inspection teams discovered a number of documents proving that Saddam is continuing with his attempts to develop nuclear weapons, contrary to his public declarations that Iraq is no longer interested in producing weapons of mass destruction.

Or perhaps Cohen should read Saddam, the Bomb and Me, from Mahdi Obedei, one of Saddam's nuclear scientists, in the New York Times:

Was Iraq a potential threat to the United States and the world? Threat is always a matter of perception, but our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein's fingers. The sanctions and the lucrative oil-for-food program had served as powerful deterrents, but world events - like Iran's current efforts to step up its nuclear ambitions - might well have changed the situation.

Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary. And there is no question that we could have done so very quickly. In the late 1980's, we put together the most efficient covert nuclear program the world has ever seen. In about three years, we gained the ability to enrich uranium and nearly become a nuclear threat; we built an effective centrifuge from scratch, even though we started with no knowledge of centrifuge technology. Had Saddam Hussein ordered it and the world looked the other way, we might have shaved months if not years off our previous efforts.

The use of chemical weapons in the 1980-Iran Iraq War was well known:

The war was clearly going against Iraq by 1983, when Hussein ordered the use of chemical weapons against Iran. The first of 10 documented chemical attacks in the war was in August 1983 and caused hundreds of casualties, according to CIA sources. The largest documented attack was a February 1986 strike against al-Faw, where mustard gas and tabun may have affected up to 10,000 Iranians.

To this day, no one really knows how many other Iraqi chemical attacks went undocumented or how many Iranians died in them. Iranians call the survivors of the attacks "living martyrs," and the government in Tehran estimates that more than 60,000 soldiers were exposed to mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin and tabun.

The use of chemical weapons against Iraqi civilians was equally infamous.

For Richard Cohen to claim that administration officials "didn't know" what they were talking about when they stated Saddam "had biological and chemical weapons, that it had used them," is to rewrite history, severing all ties with reality and credibility.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:15 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 849 words, total size 6 kb.

Nine days have passed since the first excited rumors surfaced that al Qaeda in Iraq leader Musab al Zarqawi may have died in a dawn raid in Mosul November 19. Shortly thereafter, remains were sent for DNA tests, and it was said that was "highly unlikely" that al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

That was over a week ago, and "highly unlikely" is still all we have from official sources.

But what is "likely?"

It is likely that a conclusive DNA test can be performed in five days or less from commercial sources, and it is probable that samples with as high a priority as al Zarqawi's would be determined before then.

It is perhaps likely that in the event of al Zarqawi's sudden termination, that U.S forces would intentionally keep quite about his death for a period of time, as the uncertainty in the chain of command could cause terrorists to make mistakes that might expose them.

It is highly unlikely that Abu Musab al Zarqawi is dead... but it isn't impossible, and nor is it highly unlikely that his death would be played out with not-quite confirmations and partial denials lasting as long as feasibly possible.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 203 words, total size 1 kb.

Previous:
The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1
The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 2

False claims are a constant in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

In Part 1 of the series we show that Sigfrido Ranucci's film lies about a napalm attack in the Vietnamese village of Trang Bang in 1972. Despite the fact that this infamous incident was immortalized on film in photographer Huynh Cong "Nick" Ut's 1973 Pulitzer Prize winning photo, it didn't keep Rannuci from trying to blame a South Vietnamese Air Force mistake on Americans. Ranucci's film lied.

In Part 2 of the series we show that Ranucci's film lies about, "A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah." But Ranucci's film does not show so much as one helicopter, and Ranucci's "rain of fire" was nothing more than two white phosphorus shell bursts along with one high explosive shell and three magnesium flares. Ranucci's film lied.

And Ranucci's film continues to lie again and again and again.

This time, we'll examine the bodies the "white phosphorus victims" of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

White Phosphorus Pathology
Forensic Pathology is a branch of medical science concerned with analyzing medical evidence for crimes. When applied to the battlefield, forensic pathology can determine if certain wounds are consistent with different kinds of weapons.

In Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Sigfrido Ranucci's film shows in excess of 20 bodies his film claims were killed by the use of white phosphorus munitions in the assault on Fallujah, Iraq, in November of 2004.

But what are the characteristics of white phosphorus weapons?

To answer this question I turn to former Marine Grant Holcomb. While a Captain and the Operations Officer for 2d Battalion, 7th Marine Regiment from August 1990 to April 1991, Holcomb's unit conducted a minefield breach in Operation Desert Storm. He is an honor's graduate of the U.S. Marine Corps Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Warfare Defense School.

He states:

WP catches fire spontaneously in air, burning with a white flame and producing clouds of white smoke - a mixture of phosphorus(III) oxide and phosphorus(V) oxide. The proportions of these depend on the amount of oxygen available. In an excess of oxygen, the product will be almost entirely phosphorus(V) oxide.

When integrated as part of a projectile, the weapon effect is derived from a chemical reaction. However, a WP based weapon is not a chemical weapon.

If a piece of WP hits clothes, it will burn through it. If WP hits skin it will burn deeply in to the flesh and cannot be put out by covering it or splashing it with water. Marines are told to cut burning WP particles out with a knife. It does not "splash" like a liquid and will subsequently leave very distinctive scars. There is absolutely no mistaking a WP burn. [my bold]

So white phosphorus leaves distinctive burns that easily burn though clothing and go deeply into the flesh.

But Where Are The White Phosphorus Burns?
As stated earlier, Sigfrido Ranucci's film Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, shows in excess of 20 bodies his film claims were killed by the use of white phosphorus munitions in the assault on Fallujah, Iraq, in November of 2004.

We will now make a brief examination of screen captures of 19 bodies captured from the low quality film to determine if any deep, distinctive burns are present on any of the bodies. As Confederate Yankee strives to be a work-safe blog, I will provide a link to the picture being discussed instead of embedding the image. The time of the still image capture from the film is included should you want to make your own analysis from other, perhaps higher quality versions of the film. more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1826 words, total size 13 kb.

Its long been an open secret, but at least one liberal is coming clean about their two-faced positions on supporting the troops in Iraq.

Via Newsbusters.org:

It was a classic "gotcha" moment.

Ellen Ratner, the short, liberal side of The Long & the Short of It on Fox & Friends Weekend, just let the liberal cat out of the bag. Discussing the Democrats' approach to Iraq withdrawal proposals, Ratner admitted:

"If you got [Dem leaders] in a room off camera everyone agrees, but people are trying to look tough on security so the Democrats can win the House back in 2006."

Jim Pinkerton, the long, conservative side of the equation, pounced on this rare bit of Dem candor:

"Viewers should note that Ellen basically said that Democrats will think one thing and say another."

Uh, duh...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 152 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I don't often agree with Ms. Ratner, but I have on occasion. This I have to say; She says it like she sees it. I mostly disagree with her, but she is certainly someone I could have a discussion with. If the Democrats had more of her ilk, they would be a force to be reckoned with. Good news though! They don't, and they're not

Posted by: Kevin at November 28, 2005 11:13 PM (Eq/i5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan must be proud of their "Minutemen" friends for specifically targeting children with hand grenades hidden in dolls.

These children are the people Cindy Sheehan wants to abandon. She claims to be "heartbroken" that our troops aren't home.

I wish she cared half as much about these children, but hey, they aren't white, or American, so I guess they aren't worth dying for...

Right, Cindy?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:45 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

Originally posted in the comments at Defense Tech, a military reader weighs in on the debunked Think Progress article being repeated by such frauds as Sigfrido Ranucci.

The "military reader" writes:

"I have to chuckle at the 'chemical WP' story from the 'Think Progress' website.

Can they truthfully say that "Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As 'Chemical Weapon'". Sure they can....technically. That is what the words say. However this is not not some Pentagon policy paper, or tactics manual, or even primer on WMD making that claim. It is a HUMINT field report, from a Kurdish source. And we all know several things by now about this type of reporting.

First, HUMINT reporting can be shaky on several levels, for many reasons. One of the main problem with HUMINT...having a truthful source.

Second, it is a field report. A straight regurgitation of what the source told the reporter. No analysis has been put against this info whatsoever, it is simply an info report. Chances are, the guy who did up the report had no idea what White Phosphorus really is, so the info sounded like it would make a good report on Saddam's treachery. Also, I would bet, that when the report actually reached an analyst who knew a thing or two about Chemical Weapons, it was probably tossed in the burn bag as ludicrous.

Lastly, we have to remember the source was the Kurdish opposition. As we well know now, the Kurds were willing to provides lots of "intelligence" to us, much on it not up to snuff. They did this for many reasons, including money, and to influence us to act against Saddam. Once again, a problem with HUMINT is that sometimes there are motives behind a source, not just the information.

Thus I find it a little ironic that a movement from a certain end of the political spectrum that has chided the President for going to war based on bad intelligence (and worse), is now trying to pillory the Administration and DoD based on the same type of "bad intel" from the same suspect source pool.

Bottom line is that this is not a definitive "Pentagon Document", but rather one piece of suggestive information provided to the DoD. Thus this is not an example of how the Pentagon considers "white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons" as 'Think Progress' would like to have us believe. It is hardly a smoking gun, say in the way if they found a hypothetical document penned by a Pentagon lawyer warning that WP could be considered CW. That would be something with direct influence on policy, this report is not. I don't think that 'Think Progress' is being underhanded in their analysis, just plain wrong. I just don't think they know what kind of report they are referencing, or how to read it.

I then sent sent the following message to Think Progress via their web site's contact form:

Gentlemen,

I've been reading (and commenting) on your story, "Classified Pentagon Document Described White Phosphorus As ‘Chemical Weapon'" for several days now.

A simple reading of the formerly classified document shows that it is nothing more than a transcript of a phone call between two Kurdish civilians. The Pentagon does note label white phosphorus as a chemical weapon, the civilians do. Your contention is false.

If John Podesta took down notes of a phone conversation between Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, that fact that he wrote those notes would not mean that Mr. Podesta endorsed the positions, would it? Of course it wouldn't.

If Think Progress is indeed a "nonpartisan organization" seeking to "provide a forum that advances progressive ideas," don't you think that the idea of advancing truth would warrant a retraction of your erroneous story?

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Bob Owens
Confederate Yankee Blog
http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/

I do not expect a response.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 665 words, total size 4 kb.

139 terrorists killed. 256 terrorists captured. Operation Steel Curtain ends today as a success.

Did I mention that a substantial number of the soldiers fighting for the coaltion were locally-recruited Iraqis?

Via Centcom:

The 17-day offensive, which took place in the cities of Husaybah, Karabilah and Ubaydi, was part of the larger Operation Sayaid (Hunter) designed to prevent al Qaeda in Iraq-led terrorists from operating in the Euphrates River Valley and throughout al Anbar province. The operation made way for the establishment of a permanent Iraqi Army security presence in the al Qaim region and set the conditions for local citizens to vote in the upcoming Dec.15 elections.

Operation Steel Curtain ushered in the first large-scale operational employment of the Iraqi Army, approximately 1,000 Soldiers, in western al Anbar province. The Iraqi Soldiers conducted detailed clearing missions alongside Coalition counterparts and began establishing permanent bases within these three cities. Forces at these outposts will prevent the al Qaeda in Iraq-led terrorists from regaining a presence in these cities and threatening local residents with their murder and intimidation campaign.

Integration of locally recruited Iraqi Army Soldiers in al Anbar was introduced by the arrival of the Desert Protectors. The Desert Protectors were recruited from the al Qaim region and worked alongside the Iraqi Army and U.S. units throughout the course of the operation. Their familiarity with the area and its people was crucial in identifying friend from foe and enabled their Iraqi and Coalition partners to better understand the geographical complexities of the region.

This comes on the heels of a discovery of a large cache of terrorist weapons in Baghdad by 2nd Battalion, 1st Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division the day before.

Iraqi police and military forces are increasingly asserting themselves, and so it is perhaps not surprising that their leaders are feeling confident enough to call for withdrawing coalition forces... if not exactly right now. Some folks seem surprised by this, but they shouldn't be; it has only been our plan since the beginning.

Some are also a bit taken aback by the fact that Iraqi officials have not condemned the insurgency outright. Indeed, they make the statement:

In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

Call me cynical, but I'd interpret that as Sunnis pandering to their insurgent elements in an attempt to get their agreement for furhtering the political process, while Shia and Kurd may have agreed because it would focus Sunni insurgents on the U.S. military forces best equipped to kill them.

The Iraqi government goes forward, insurgents get killed as things wind down, and we leave Iraq with a democratically elected government.

Yeah, I can get behind that.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 4 kb.

This article by radical liberal group Think Progress might make your blood boil, but be careful: they might then try to label it a chemical weapon.

Their spin begins:

To downplay the political impact of revelations that U.S. forces used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Falluja last year, Pentagon officials have insisted that phosphorus munitions are legal since they aren't technically “chemical weapons.”

I too, was shocked that the U.S military used deadly white phosphorus rounds against Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah in 2004. While white phosphorus is an extremely effective obscurant, and it thwarted the ability of terrorist snipers and machine guns to easily slaughter our soldiers by hiding them from view, both night and day, it is all but useless as an offensive artillery round since it can neither penetrate nor burn though the concrete and concrete block construction of the urban battlefield. It was, however, was effective offensively as a "potent psychological weapon."

In a tactical trick called a "shake 'n bake," American mortars or howitzers would drop several white phosphorus shells as close as possible to an entrenched enemy position. The white phosphorus-saturated felt wedges would then deploy and fall to the ground, where some could potentially burn terrorists hiding in trenches and spider holes, but it would almost certainly obscure their vision, no matter what kind of cover they were under.

The terrorists, knowing that American forces preferred to use the dense smoke of white phosphorus to screen attacks, would panic, fearing they were about to be overrun. As the evacuated their entrenched ambush positions, high explosive shells were the fired to kill the insurgents flushed out in the open.

These high explosives, which "aren't technically chemical weapons" as Think Progress is sure to agree, use far more lethal chemical compounds than white phosphorus, and are able to destroy structures, spread fragmenting shrapnel, char, and liquefy flesh with concussive blasts.

Other battlefield weapons that "aren't technically chemical weapons" but are universally far more a lethal threat than white phosphorus include pistol, rifle, and machine gun bullets, hand grenades, RPGs, mines, IEDs, anti-tank rockets, tank gun rounds, and aerial bombs. Indeed, it would probably be accurate to say that the only kind of ammunition less lethal than white phosphorus shells used in the battle of Fallujah would be magnesium flaresÂ… though those could potentially leave nasty burns as well.

Think Progress's spin continues:

The media have helped them. For instance, the New York Times ran a piece today on the phosphorus controversy. On at least three occasions, the Times emphasizes that the phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" that have been “incorrectly called chemical weapons.”

Now why on earth would the New York Times claim repeatedly that white phosphorus rounds are "incendiary muntions" and not “chemical weapons?” Could it be the imposing influence of "Freeper" Maureen Dowd? What about that rabid right-winger Frank Rich?

Or, could it be possible, that the New York Times, long considered as the "newspaper of record," actually interviewed some experts in the field? While a fact-based article might be outdated for a progressive organization lkeThink Progress, I found that my own military artillery experts came to the shocking conclusion that incendiaries catch fire, but aren't chemical weapons like mustard gas, Sarin or VX. Who knew?

But the distinction is a minor one, and arguably political in nature.

No dears, it isn't a political distinction, but a scientific one. Look up a branch of science called chemistry. You might just learn something that all the reputable news sources already know: white phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon.

But hey, if you can't rely on falsified media claims, and science lets your narrative down, can't you always rely on rough intelligence draft from a non-expert's brother over the phone?

DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED
BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ]

. DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION,
THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE
PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN
BORDERS

Of course you can!

A formerly classified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document titled “Possible Use of Phosphorous Chemical” describes the use of white phosphorus by Saddam Hussein on Kurdish fighters:

IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. [Â…]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ.

In other words, the Pentagon does refer to white phosphorus rounds as chemical weapons — at least if they're used by our enemies.

Yes, their “classified Pentagon document" boils down to a single brief phone call between two Kurdish brothers. Not so impressive now, is it?

And why does Think Progress also leave out the warning the report that forcefully states:

WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED
INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED

Just to make this clear: the Pentagon NEVER referred to white phosphorus rounds as "chemical weapons" in this report. Only the conversation of two Kurdish brothers mentioned the term "chemical weapons" and that characterization was never accepted by the military.

Think Progress completely misrepresents the core element of their article.

The real point here goes beyond the Pentagon's legalistic parsings.

"Legalistic parsing," is Think Progress-speak for "facts."

The use of white phosphorus against enemy fighters is a “terribly ill-conceived method,” demonstrating an Army interested “only in the immediate tactical gain and its felicitous shake and bake fun.”

They quoted William Arkin's throughly debunked Washington Post blog entry as a source? You've got to be kidding me.

And the dishonest efforts by Bush administration officials to deny and downplay that use only further undermines U.S. credibility abroad.

After all the erroneous and intentional deceit you've tried to pass off so far, do you really think a link to the organization that pays you is going to hold any credibility at all?

To paraphrase President Bush, this isn't a question about what is legal, it's about what is right.

What do you know... they finally got something right.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:22 AM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 1068 words, total size 8 kb.

1 "What is right" is to use every available, legitimate military tool to disrupt, disable,and destroy the insurgency in Iraq. That includes WP, napalm, bunker busters, scatterable mines, etc. Losing is not an option.

Posted by: olddawg at November 22, 2005 09:20 AM (7nc0l)

2 Personally, I’ve become weary of the naive bunch that believes fighting is wrong (unless you’re wearing Che Guevara apparel!) and thinks there really are “rules” in warfare. It would be great to see everyone play fair, but that’s not what warfare is about. At which point you’re willing to risk your life to kill another, what’s right or fair is no longer a consideration—only winning matters. Yes it’s a Machiavellian perspective, and it’s the perspective employed by our enemies and all those who have won wars in the past. The losers are those who hold back, or blunder because they fail to grasp significance of the situation. Go back to the ancient world. The mass slaughter of the defeated is standard fare. Enslavement, forced resettlement, are all normal features of war. We should count ourselves lucky that this is no longer done (although I do believe it would be if the situation were just right—because I believe human nature has not changed since then). What happens to an insurgent, or terrorist, or enemy combatant matters little to me. I only care that their capture or demise serves to bring us victory. Yes, this is a cruel attitude, but it is the only attitude that wins wars. The time for mercy is after victory is secured, not during the firefight. And remember, the terrorists started this war. I wonder if a 737 can be considered a weapon of mass destruction or count as a chemical weapon? Maybe the left would feel better if we employed suicidal “freedom fighters” to blow up businesses, schools, and public places. I am disgusted when I see their websites condemn our leaders and our troops, but never those who deliberately kill the innocent, especially children. At least we take precautions, rather than seek to kill innocents. Why we even take precautions at the expense of our own lives! Enemies within, and enemies without, the usual arrangement for a state at war; but make no mistake, the words, “Vae Victus” (woe to the vanquished) apply to us just as they did to the Romans.

Posted by: Marshall Neal at November 22, 2005 11:37 AM (WabmA)

3 What you are seeing is the fascinating emplosion of a major US political party. The blameocrats are using false evidence (and have been, check out factcheck.org for new info on the Iraq intel issue)and it may get them short term gain and create the illusion that republicans are on the rope, but when the moderate public sees the truth....

Posted by: Ray Robison at November 22, 2005 01:12 PM (CdK5b)

4 Golly, are suicide bombers and IEDs scanctioned by the Geneva and UN conventions? Limiting what our troops can use in combat against terrorists who have no such limitations is like taking a knife to a gun fight, just doesn't make any sense. All this white phosporus stuff is just so much 'smoke'!!

Posted by: docdave at November 22, 2005 03:43 PM (s65f7)

5 MY GOD! I never knew that my city was trying to kill me each Forth of July by shooting chemical weapons in the air. OH THE HORROR! All of that toxic smoke from fireworks! We should all be dead! GOTT IM HIMMEL, every country on Earth has access to these deadly chemical weapons. Who knew that the peaceful Chinese were selling cheap chemical weapons to individual citizens at the Crazy Bill Firework stand. Maybe my National Guard unit should attack my garage to clean out my stocks of chemical weapons.

Posted by: Greg at November 22, 2005 08:54 PM (yyMom)

6 I'm open side.. a chemist.. P + O2 = fire - point: chemical sucks oxygen. Human being + O2 = life - point: sucks oxygen it's all chemicals guys.. don't dally or dice with death on semantics. Cruelty: an honest guy :: war is cruel :: but whose war is this—I said war not acts of terror! Perspective and basis to this honesty—read "Lunch with Mussolini" by Hansen, 1994. Allied bombing of Berlin and its approaches. Cloud cover stopped HE - unseen targets. Object: smash german war machine. So what did they do? Get the workers, the productive capacity. With what—WP—that's what! Eye witness account: "They told us the bombers had dropped little bombs filled with phosphorus which split open on impact and splashed fire everywhere. They told us the phosphorus keeps eating away at flesh until neutralised. This was the case for some of the less fortunate people around us who were in agony." Cruel, yes, but civilians (as a means of destroying workers in the factories). Gross cruelty. Maybe the Battle of Fallujah was not what many have asserted. But with both track records and the attitudes I have read in this blog's comments, there is a need to prove this by full inquiry as opposed to blind belief.. wouldn't you say? Finally, just why are US taxpayers funding Iraq? I try be straight and honest. Maybe you folks can try match that. I'd like to come back and read about that.. Bye for now.

Posted by: roman eos at November 23, 2005 02:41 AM (PU1Iy)

7 Damn, your own government knows WP is a chemical weapon (WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!) - File: 950901_22431050_91r.txt Page: 91r Total Pages: 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL Filename:22431050.91r PATHFINDER RECORD NUMBER: 16134 GENDATE: 950504 NNNN TEXT: ENVELOPE CDSN = LGX854 MCN = 91107/02896 TOR = 911070142 RTTCZYUW RUEKJCS0771 1070142-CCCC--RUEALGX. ZNY CCCCC HEADER R 170142Z APR 91 FM JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC INFO RUENAAA/CNO WASHINGTON DC RUEAHQA/CSAF WASHINGTON DC RUEACMC/CMC WASHINGTON DC RUEKCCG/USDP-CCC WASHINGTON DC RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC RUEALGX/SAFE R 160504Z APR 91 FM CDR500THMIBDE CP ZAMA JA//IAGPD-OP-CM// TO AIG 9149 RUCJACC/USCINCCENT MACDILL AFB FL//J2// RUSNNOA/USCINCEUR VAIHINGEN GE RUEDBIA/CDR513THMIBDE FT MONMOUTH NJ RUAGAAA/CDR501STMIBDE SEOUL KOR//IABDK-PH// RUAGAAA/CDR524THMIBN SEOUL KOR//IABDK-CX-PC// RUAJMAB/FOSIF WESTPAC KAMI SEYA JA//CSG// RUEOADA/9TIS SHAW AFB SC//INO// RUEHAK/USDAO ANKARA TU BT CONTROLS SECTION 001 OF 002 SERIAL: (U) IIR 2 243 1050 91 /*********** THIS IS A COMBINED MESSAGE ************/ BODY PASS: (U) DIA FOR ITF/JIC/OICC/; DA FOR DAMI-FII-E COUNTRY: (U) IRAQ (IZ); TURKEY (TU); IRAN (IR). SUBJ: IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS BY IRAQ IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS; AND CURRENT SITUATION OF KURDISH RESISTANCE AND REFUGEES (U) WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED --------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE --------------------------------------------------------------------- DOI: (U) 910300. REQS: (U) T-8C2-2650-01-90. SOURCE: [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. KURDISH RESISTANCE IS LOSING ITS STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES' PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED. TEXT: 1. DURING APRIL 1991, THE SOURCE TELEPHONED BROTHER (SUBSOURCE) [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] . DURING THIS PHONE CONVERSATION, THE SOURCE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THE PRESENT SITUATION IN KURDISH AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS -- A. IRAQ'S POSSIBLE EMPLOYMENT OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS -- IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ, BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES (U.S.) LED COALITION. THESE REPORTS OF POSSIBLE WP CHEMICAL WEAPON ATTACKS SPREAD QUICKLY AMONG THE KURDISH POPULACE IN ERBIL AND DOHUK. AS A RESULT, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF KURDS FLED FROM THESE TWO AREAS AND CROSSED THE IRAQI BORDER INTO TURKEY. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, TURKISH AUTHORITIES ESTABLISHED SEVERAL REFUGEE CENTERS ALONG THE TURKISH-IRAQI BORDER. THE SITUATION OF KURDISH REFUGEES IN THESE CENTERS IS DESPERATE -- THEY HAVE NO SHELTERS, FOOD, WATER, AND MEDICAL FACILITIES (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). B. IRAQI GOVERNMENT ULTIMATUM TO KURDS REBELS AND REFUGEES -- ON OR AROUND 2 APRIL 1991, RADIO BAGHDAD ISSUED AN ULTIMATUM TO THE KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES WHO FLED IRAQ AND SETTLED IN REFUGEE CENTERS IN TURKEY. IN THE BROADCAST, IRAQI AUTHORITIES WARNED THE KURDS THEY HAD 10 DAYS TO RETURN TO THEIR TOWNS AND VILLAGES, OR ELSE FACE COMPLETE ANNIHILATION. THE IRAQI BROADCAST ALSO PROMISED THE KURDS THAT NO RETALIATORY ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN AGAINST THEM IF THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). C. KURDISH REBELS ARE LOSING IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES -- KURDISH REBELS WHO WERE FIGHTING IN NORTHERN IRAQ WERE FORCED TO WITHDRAW INTO TURKEY BY TROOPS LOYAL TO SADDAM HUSSEIN. POOR ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND LACK OF HEAVY WEAPONS, AMMUNITION, AND SUPPLIES ARE THE PRIMARY CAUSES OF KURDISH LATEST DOWNFALL. THE ONLY GROUP CURRENTLY FIGHTING SADDAM HUSSEIN'S FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ IS THE "PESHMERGEH" (FRONT WARRIORS). HOWEVER, THIS GROUP IS ARMED ONLY WITH SMALL ARMS SUCH AS M-60 MACHINE-GUNS, AK-47 RIFLES AND UNKNOWN TYPES OF PISTOLS AND REVOLVERS. D. KURDISH REBELS' EXPECTATION OF RECEIVING HELP FROM U.S. LED COALITION FORCE -- THE KURDISH RESISTANCE'S DECISION TO RISE UP AND FIGHT HUSSEIN'S FORCES WAS TRIGGERED BY THE OVERWHELMING MILITARY POWER DISPLAYED BY THE COALITION DURING "DESERT STORM" AND THE PROPAGANDA BROADCASTS OF VOICE OF AMERICA. KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES REALLY BELIEVED THAT EVENTUALLY THE COALITION FORCE WOULD COME TO HELP THEM IN THEIR FIGHTING AGAINST IRAQI FORCES. AFTER LEARNING OF U.S. PRESIDENT BUSH'S "STAY OUT OF IRAQ INTERNAL AFFAIRS" POLICY, KURDISH REBELS AND REFUGEES FELT AS THEY WERE SET UP AND LET DOWN BY THE COALITION FORCE (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). E. SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REASON NOT TO USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE U.S. LED COALITION FORCE DURING "DESERT STORM" -- THE GENERAL PERCEPTION AMONG THE KURDS IS THAT PRESIDENT HUSSEIN DID NOT USE CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE COALITION BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID THAT ALLIES WOULD RETALIATE BY USING BATTLEFIELD NUCLEAR WEAPONS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). COMMENTS: 1. (SOURCE COMMENT) - IRAQ USED WP IN ERBIL AND DOHUK BECAUSE THEY WANTED THE KURDS TO PANIC AND FLEE FROM THE AREA. 2. [ (b)(1) sec 1.3(a)(4) ][ (b)(7)(D) ] 3. (SOURCE COMMENT) - MOST OF THE SMUGGLING OF REFUGEES ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS OCCURRED AT NIGHT. 4. (FIELD COMMENT) - ACCORDING TO THE TIMES' WORLD ATLAS, THE TWO IRAQI PROVINCES ERBIL AND DOHUK ARE ALSO CALLED ARBIL AND DIHOK RESPECTIVELY. //IPSP: (U) PGW 2650//. //COMSOBJ: (U) 211//. ADMIN PROJ: (U) 252132. INSTR: (U) US NO. PREP: (U) 500TH MI BDE. ACQ: (U) TOKYO, JAPAN (910409). DISSEM: (U) FIELD: NONE. WARNING: (U) REPORT CLASSIFIED

Posted by: Exposed Driver at November 23, 2005 01:28 PM (M7BWM)

8 ED, may I be the first to say that you might be the dumbest SOB ever to post here? I throughly debunk a post, and you response is to cut and paste what I just debunked? Short bus, long numbers?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2005 01:44 PM (g5Nba)

9 If this phone between two kurdish bros is not so impressive, why should the Department of Defense find some interest in it? Isn't like that if an information, whatever dumb maybe be, becomes a proof if useful and remains trash if not? May you pardon me for my english.

Posted by: Domiziano Galia at November 24, 2005 05:09 AM (yw20+)

10 Domiziano Galia, Thanks for writing. I thought I would answer your question, "If this phone between two kurdish bros is not so impressive, why should the Department of Defense find some interest in it?" The simple answer is: they didn't. This is one of thousands of raw data reports gathered every single day. Some are treasure troves of useful information.Some are all but worthless. Watch for my next post. As soon as I clear it, I'm relasing an analyst of this from a U.S. Intelligence officer who can directly answer your question far better than I.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 24, 2005 08:53 AM (0fZB6)

11 cs(tear) gas is a chemical weapon, so is a heavy cloud smoke grenade, so are star cluster flares, so are flash bangs. wp, he, incendiary, and tracer rounds are too. big fuckin' deal.

Posted by: meangreeneinsc at November 24, 2005 11:45 PM (WB4NZ)

12 Chemical weapons are generally and acceptably classified under certain categories, namely irritatants, choking, toxic, nerve and incapacitating. None of the chemical agents actually release more energy when oxidized as far as I know and quite a few of them are inert unless mixed with a second chemical (binary chemicals). WP is an incendiary of the same way magnesium can be or phosphorous or potassium. When exposed to certain conditions they are a chemical that undergoes a reaction to release heat and energy (aka a lot of heat/fire) and as a byproduct smoke. At the very least the people who are spouting that this is a chemical weapon should at least read what chemical weapons ARE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon

Posted by: Valentine at November 25, 2005 12:11 AM (acomN)

13 If this phone between two kurdish bros is not so impressive, why should the Department of Defense find some interest in it? Mountains of documents and conversations are gathered every day by the DoD and other agencies, the vast majority of which is simply filed away because there's no way to confirm the intelligence, or it's not really useful on it's own, but may be useful later if other intelligence comes in, and so on and so on. Just because they gather it, doesn't mean they agree with it. Over time, things are declassified. And besides, when you record a conversation, you don't write down your own spin on what is being said, you write down exactly what is being said. Think "No" Progress is just another idiotic, conspiracy fuelled shithole catering for the gullible masses. You're either fooled by them, or not. Your choice.

Posted by: MisterPundit at November 25, 2005 12:28 AM (EM/BR)

14 This is an IIR (WARNING: (U) THIS IS AN INFORMATION REPORT, NOT FINALLY EVALUATED INTELLIGENCE. REPORT CLASSIFIED) these come out about every minute thru routine classified (R 160504Z APR 91 note the R in front of the date time group) message traffic all they are for is to give a heads up to everyone in case it turns out to be confirmed. They are sent out immediately without being verified in any way in tnis case some knucklehead used the word chemical when he should not have, it should read "munition" instead of "chemical" it means nothing most of these (99%) turn out to be nothing.

Posted by: Joe at November 25, 2005 03:51 AM (kEgnJ)

15 The intersting part,is why the anti-war/Democrats/liberals adopt the same line as the terrorist in Fallujah,is there some connection? Time and time again both groups have the same talking points and details,are they being used or collaborating?

Posted by: Puzzled at November 25, 2005 07:25 AM (UsFuZ)

16 ED, may I be the first to say that you might be the dumbest SOB ever to post here? I throughly debunk a post, and you response is to cut and paste what I just debunked? I'm not ED, but I'll point out that what he did was pretty much debunk your debunk. You posted a tiny snippet of a DOD document, and you describe it as if it's a quoted transcript from the brothers. In fact, the document you're excerpting contains no quotes at all; it's a summary of the conversation, written and interpreted by DOD personnel. The classification of WP as a "chemical" weapon was the designation of the person writing the report, not a quote from the Kurds. The most obvious part, omitted by your quote, is the summaries at the top: IIR 2 243 1050 91/POSSIBLE USE OF PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL ... SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL Clearly the person writing the "summary" characterizes WP as a "chemical". Otherwise the summary wouldn't have used that term. The rest of the document is just an interpretation of the conversation, as well... NOT a quote. It's the DOD and Pentagon personnel, not the Kurdish brothers, who decided to call WP a "chemical" weapon. Next time you try to debunk something, make sure you read the whole document first. (And please don't be so lame as to delete this post, as you did before. If your positions can't withstand criticism, perhaps you should choose new ones.)

Posted by: Ron at November 25, 2005 01:15 PM (PArbS)

17 "(And please don't be so lame as to delete this post, as you did before. If your positions can't withstand criticism, perhaps you should choose new ones.)" The report's allusion to "chemical" gives no context to what kind of chemical. Is it nerve, toxic, indendiary? What is it? Also, reporting it as an illegal munition is counter to DoD's own listing. WP is NOT listed as a toxic, nerve, incendiary. Those are prohibited from use in standard operations. WP is used as a smoke munition. It's designed to camoflauge and confuse. End of story. Just because some third world dictator massacres a village using boiling mayonnaise doesn't make mayonnaise an illegal weapon. It makes him a sick MF'er, and it makes people blanche when they think of mayonnaise. That's it. If the report is true (unconfirmed) then it means Saddam used WP in a way that's not intended by our own military. His use does not change OUR use. Get it?

Posted by: The False God at November 25, 2005 02:02 PM (EX0M/)

18 If the report is true (unconfirmed) then it means Saddam used WP in a way that's not intended by our own military. His use does not change OUR use. Get it? Yes, I get it. So I can fire warning shots over the head of a crowd in a movie theater, and it's OK for me to kill someone then because I'm not really using the gun in the same way it's intended to be used by a mass murderer. His use does not change MY use. Nice rationalization. And it's silly to keep hiding behind the "unconfirmed" nature of the report. Unconfirmed doesn't mean false. If the report was false, the Pentagon would be readily able to dispute it. They haven't.

Posted by: Ron at November 25, 2005 02:38 PM (PArbS)

19 What is silly Ron, is continuing to label WP as a chemical weapon for political expediency. WP, as used by the US military, as an obscurant and a signaling device. There are better incendiary devices (thermite), to use and probably are using where applicable. And, if the commanders on the ground want to use thermite, napalm or depleted Uranium on any target they deem necessary, more power to them. You are gaining no traction outside the determinedly deranged anti-Bush partisans but Im sure, gaining many propaganda points with Islamofacists.

Posted by: harry mallory at November 25, 2005 03:18 PM (6mUkl)

20 Ah, once again, the strategy of equating any disagreement with a Bush administration strategy with derangement and sympathy with Islamofacists. How predictable. I think there needs to be a Godwin's Law corollary for that. It's removed all rational thought from the conversation. I shall leave it at that.

Posted by: Ron at November 25, 2005 03:52 PM (PArbS)

21 I can not believe that our troops are so mean as to actually try to obscure the vision of those poor innocents that are trying to shoot and kill them. Oh, Mr. President, the shame of it all.

Posted by: John M. at November 25, 2005 06:59 PM (9OPS7)

22 Today in the Guardian (British left wing paper) They published a story about how Poland has released documents of how Russia would have conducted a nuclear war in Europe. The Russians it seems were going to nuke Germany but not touch Britain and France? (Maybe something about an independent nuke system scared them) The fact remains the darlings of the Liberal elite were going to nuke first in which to steal land. They though that if they only took Germany ,Denmark and the low countries then the US wouldn’t wish to start a full scale nuclear war. The fact the Americans fielded cruise missiles in Europe during the 80s proved to the Russians that the Americans would take the fight to mother Russia. The liberals who cried that Regan was a war mongerer, that America was the bully and that fielding neutron bombs (Actually a shell) was a war crime never seemed to grasp the message that Russia wanted them. Now the main bully is Islam. (lets call a spade a spade) They oppress millions, They export terror and the holy book of Islam actually dictates to the faithful that killing non Muslims in the march to conquer the world is a just cause. (Before anybody calls me a bigot or such, I am an apostate from Islam and the e-mail I posted is false so that I don’t get lots of hate mail from Muslims as I used to do when I first started visiting the net) I can talk about Islam because I understand it. And it makes me cry when I hear intelligent people claim that we don’t have a problem on our hands. Muslims, not neo cons crashed planes into the WTC. Muslims not neo cons blew up 2 American embassies in Africa. Muslims not Neo cons chop off peoples heads and lastly it will be Muslims who set off a Nuclear weapon in the west and not neo cons. Cry foul play all you want. But appeasement didn’t work in 1939 why should it work now.

Posted by: Pounce at November 26, 2005 08:17 PM (KXoQ2)

23 What i'd like to ask Ron is "who cares?"...I mean, we all know WP isn't a chemical weapon as defined by the military. That point cannot be contested. And so what if the report alludes to someone at the DoD calling WP a chemical weapon? Ever heard of someone making a mistake or being confused or just plain not knowing what they're talking about? This whole argument is ridiculous...all it's about is the left trying to make our military and therefore our president and country look bad for their own personal gain. These idiots could care less how we fight a war, or whether we win or lose. They simply look for any angle, no matter how obtuse or irrelevant to further their own agendas. I actually think it's funny to see these smug jerks flaunting their presumed "intellectualism" on a subject they know nothing about and did absolutely no research on before opening their stinking, subversive, traitorous pieholes. Come on Ron, or any of you other stupid twits on the left...show me where our White Phosphorous rounds are chemical weapons. Give me some hard data, some examples of a WP round from an artillery piece killing a person simply by being a WP round. It's SMOKE you idiots! Sgtmech

Posted by: Bill at November 29, 2005 10:49 AM (flhYe)

24 The only good libertroll is one you can hit in the head with a club!

Posted by: RepublicanTeamLeader at January 04, 2006 10:24 PM (ATxdh)

25 So when is are the NeoCons going to stop supporting the Saudi terrorists that attacked us on 911 and get the hell out of their pet project called Iraq and go after the people that actually attacked America? Maybe the neocons (like the nazis) dont care who they are killing as long as they are killing somebody. Maybe that is what the liberal founding fathers meant by "Give me LIBERTY or give me death!"??? Naaa... rightwingers have never even read the writings of the likes of Ben Frankling, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, nor Thomas Paine... newp rightwingers are far smarter than the deists and liberals that made this country in the first place... SOOOO where were the republicans in WWII? Leading America against the Nazis and the Japanese? NOPE they were covering their asses because they were supporting the nazis until public opinion turned against them...traitors ...those neocons are all traitors against this LIBERTY based country that puts the PEOPLE above rich fat cats that think they own America.

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 04:59 PM (FohTw)

26 By the way calling Liberals communists make you RED COATS ...Benedict Arnolds... You see LIBERTY is what founded this country "GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!" But traitors like the rightwingers dont love America and only care about their ignorant little teams that they swear their allegance to instead of to America. Well that is what prison is for...

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:03 PM (FohTw)

27 The neocons have done to the Iraqis (who did not attack nor could attack America EVER) the same way the red coats treated the founding fathers and all the TRUE Americans that lived then. Hope you are proud of becoming exactly what the founding fathers faught against.

Posted by: Gerald Gibson at March 08, 2006 05:07 PM (FohTw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Via Central Command:

Coalition forces acting on multiple intelligence sources and tips from concerned citizens raided a suspected al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist safe house in Baghdad Oct. 31 capturing an al Qaeda in Iraq terrorist named Uthman Faruq Muhammad Abd-al-Hamid (aka Abu Ibrahim). Abu Ibrahim was a technology expert, advisor and supplier to al Qaeda in Iraq terrorists and leaders in Baghdad.

Abu Ibrahim was a computer store owner, a programmer and part owner in an engineering company in Baghdad. Abu Ibrahim admits he supplied hundreds of triggering devices for improvised explosive devices, as well as other technology items, to the al Qaeda in Iraq military commander in Baghdad on multiple occasions. These items include hand-held radios, cellular telephones, wireless telephones, computers, software and computer parts and electronic components.

I guess someone else is going to have to rip Baez and Streisand CDs for al Zarqawi from now on.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Ever willing to downplay any strides towards peace or a more stable Iraq, Armando at Daily Kos is downplaying the significance of Musab al-Zarqawi's possible death after a protracted gunbattle today in Mosul:

The death if Zarqawi would be a positive step in fighting terrorism and, one hopes, suppressing the violence in Iraq.

What it will not be however, is a solution for our troubles in Iraq, whose roots are political in nature. Zarqawi is not and has not been the source of our troubles in Iraq. It is the intractable political problems of the sectarian power struggle between Shia, Sunni and Kurd. [emphasis added]

Will the death of Musab al-Zarqawi (if confirmed) put an end to all violence in Iraq? Of course not. But the vast majority of terror attacks again primarily civilian targets was the direct result of al Qaeda in Iraq attempting to ignite a civil war. If al-Zarqawi did die today along with senior members of the al Qaeda leadership in Iraq, it is reasonable to suspect that suicide attacks against Iraqi civilians will severely decline.

As increasing acceptance and participation by Sunnis the last round of elections proved, the struggles between ethnic factions is not "intractable" as Armando asserts. Shia and Kurdish interests are now being joined en masse by Sunni political groups that realize that ballots, not bullets, will ultimately determine the future of Iraq.

Armando considers defeating terrorists where they live versus where we live "empty rhetoric."

The majority of 25 million free Iraqis might just disagree.

Update: Generation Why? has more.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:50 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Via Little Green Footballs and The Jawa Report, there are now three different reports (via sources of varying credibility) that the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq (and arguably the real power in al Qaeda since Osama Bin Laden is only communicating with mountain goats and Yetis on a regular basis) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi may have died today after blowing himself up once he found himself surrounded by U.S and Iraqi forces.

Via LGF we have this report from the Jerusalem Post:

At least one Arab television media outlet reported that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of the al-Qaida in Iraq, was killed in Iraq on Sunday afternoon when eight terrorists blew themselves up in the in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

The unconfirmed report claimed that the explosions occurred after coalition forces surrounded the house in which al-Zarqawi was hiding.

The Jawa Report has more. Via DEBKAfile:

US forces and forensic experts are examining the bodies of eight high-ranking al Qaeda leaders in Mosul to find out if their chief Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is among them.

A sample of his DNA is in American possession for a match-up.

The bodies they are trying to identify are of 7 men and one woman, who blew themselves up Sunday, Nov. 20, after their hideout in northern Iraq was under siege by a large US force, backed by tanks and helicopters. The bodies are burned black and unrecognizable. Four Iraqi security officers were killed and 10 injured in the operation.

Israeli News source Ynet News is also reporting a similar version of events.

If this is true, (and that is a big if) then the insurgency in Iraq will lose a figurehead and suffer a severe psychological loss.

If al-Zarqawi did survive, things may not be much better. His own family has renounced him, and some family members have stated that they wouldn't hesitate to kill him.

Dead or currently alive, I don't think he'll have a very happy Thanksgiving.

Update: Associated Press is now reporting that:

U.S. forces sealed off a house in the northern city of Mosul where eight suspected al-Qaida members died in a gunfight — some by their own hand to avoid capture. A U.S. official said Sunday that efforts were under way to determine if terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was among the dead.

Lending more credibility to this theory is this bit of information:

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.

American soldiers controlled the site Sunday, and residents said helicopters flew over the area throughout the day. Some residents said the tight security was reminiscent of the July 2003 operation in which Saddam Hussein's sons, Odai and Qusai, were killed in Mosul.

If it is true that the security around this site beyond what is ordinary for other post-combat scenes, it would lend some credibility to the theory that this is a site of some importance.

Time--and DNA tests--will tell.

Correction: YnetNews was previously and incorrectly identified as an Arab news source. Ynet News is in fact the English-language version of the Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli Hebrew newspaper and web portal.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:00 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 553 words, total size 4 kb.

The House rejected the Democratic call for headlong retreat from Iraq by a resounding 403-3 vote this evening.

Democrats denounced it as a political stunt and an attack on Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a leading Democratic military hawk who stunned his colleagues on Thursday by calling for troops to be withdrawn as quickly as possible.

Lets try to have a little bit of honestly, shall we?

Of course the call for a vote was politically calculated—so was Murtha's "surprise" call for a headlong retreat. Despite willful media amnesia, Murtha has been trying to back out, no in, no out of Iraq since 2002, well before the invasion. I'm thankful for Murtha's service to this nation's military, but to call him a pro-war "hawk" is like labeling a Pomeranian an attack dog. When it comes to position on Iraq, Murtha has more flip-flops than an Imelda Marcos/John Kerry timeshare.

The Democrats pulled a shrewdly calculated stunt by trotting out a hero to try to undercut the White House while the president was out of the country. House Democrats had estimated—and no one could blame them—that a Republican House, so flustered by the Democrat's last cheap stunt, would likely drop the ball again leaving the Republicans looking awkward and foolish as Congress headed into a long holiday break.

But the Democratic plan backfired, and backfired horribly. Instead of folding as they typically do, the Republicans grew a spine, and embarrassed the neo-copperheads into voting against their own treachery in a resounding and humiliating defeat.

Congressman Murtha's three decades of military service to his nation was whored away in a cheap bit of failed political theater by the Democratic Party. It is sad, sad sight to see.

Update Fixed some grammar issues pointed out by those turkeys at Bright and Early that weren't quite as obvious when it was Tired and Late.

Update 2: Discriminations uses the deplorable tactic of actually looking at what Democrats said. Scum. Also, excellent points brought up by Real Clear Politics about the three that did vote for an immediate withdrawal: Cynthia A. McKinney of Georgia, Robert Wexler of Florida and Jose E. Serrano of New York.

Update 3: History will look back at the Democrats as political opportunists using Rep. Murtha to make one last desperate bid to lose the Iraq War and retain some minor relevance . Unfortunately for them, the war plan is working and teh United States will start withdrawing troops in 2006 because we have won.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:10 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 426 words, total size 3 kb.

Attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:16 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Previous: The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, Part 1

False claims are a constant in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre, as another scene from Sigfrido Ranucci's film amply demonstrates.

Approximately 18 minutes into the film, we hear this commentary:

Contrary to what was said by the U.S. State Department, white phosphorus was not used in open fields to illuminate enemy troops. For this tracer was used. A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of night of the eighth of November, as we will show you in this exceptional documentary, which proves that the chemical agent was used in a massive and indiscriminate way to end districts of Fallujah.

In the days that followed, U.S satellite images shows that Fallujah was burnt out and razed to the ground.

Tracers are specialized, briefly-glowing bullets used to aim machine gun fire. Traveling several thousand feet per second and emitting small amounts of light lasting just tenths of a second, they are not used as a source of illumination. Rai News24 and director Ranucci have clearly not consulted with any military subject matter experts while in the making of this film, or that preposterous statement would have never been uttered.

But it gets worse.

The film that correlates the quoted text above shows footage of what the narrator claims is, "A rain of fire shot from U.S. helicopters on the city of Fallujah on the night of night of the eighth of November." But the footage shown does not show helicopters or helicopter-borne weaponry.

This is a cutaway view of the "helicopter."

The 155mm howitzer's M825A1 white phosphorus shell present in this picture is packed with 116 white phosphorus impregnated felt wedges. The projectile is approximately 2.5 feet long.

The top picture shows two M825A1 shells in a still from the U. S Army. The bottom image is a still captured from the Rai film. It shows a flare on the left, and two white phosphorus shell bursts that are nearly identical to the M825A1 shells.

As a matter of pure fact, the " helicopter attack" shown in Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre (from 17:54-18:40) shows a grand total of two white phosphorus shells exploding... along with one high explosive shell and three magnesium flares. That's it.

There were no helicopters "raining fire" on Fallujah.

We will however, be discussing helicopters once again before we complete the developing series that is The Lies of Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:04 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

Thanks to Tim Blair, we can see the wonderful world Osama bin Laden would allow for the liberals of this world who don't want us to fight preemptive wars against terrorists and rouge regimes.

Their "rights" under Osama bin Laden, would be:

• a mandatory coversion to Islam.
• the destruction of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, which would be replaced by strict sharia religious law.
• homosexuals would be jailed (and likely executed).


• women and women's pictures would be barred from appearing in the press, magazines, or advertising.
• alcoholic drinks would be banned.
• gambling would be barred.
• Any woman serving "passengers, visitors and strangers" would be out of a job, meaning the end of public employment for women.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:30 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 127 words, total size 1 kb.

I will not question the patriotism nor the sincerity of Congressman John Murtha (D-PA). He is a former Marine who served in Vietnam, and I thank him for his service to our nation at that time. I cannot however, support his call to turn tail and run from Iraq.

Jim Geraghty's reponse to Murtha's speech is close to my own, but this post is not really about my feelings. Instead, I turn to another veteran comments about this war that I had agreed to publish several days ago.

You might recognize him by his handle, Old Soldier. These are his words on this war, unedited.

Make no mistake; we are at war with an enemy motivated by a radical theology diametrically opposed to our foundational religious underpinnings as well as our national ideology of divinely bestowed individual freedom and liberty. We can ill afford political polarization emulating our Vietnam War conclusion; political defeat snatched from the jaws of military victory. For the sake of generations to come, this war against radical Islamic terrorists must be prosecuted to a victorious conclusionÂ… there must be no capitulation or appeasement.

In 1969, as a young man, I went off to war in Vietnam. With the anti-war movement's gain in momentum and the incessant pounding by politicians and the news media that the war was “unwinnable”, public opinion turned against the effort. America lost heart; ultimately, we dishonorably withdrew. Militarily, we had actually won¹ the war, but the politicians and news media turned that victory into what is now referred to as a defeat for the U.S armed forces. That defeat was not a military defeat; it was decidedly a mutinous political surrender – laid at the feet of a lack of fortitude to see the conflict to victory. With our withdrawal came the purgings and the rise to power of Pol Pot; unnecessarily costing millions of lives. Fortunately (or unfortunately is more realistic) we suffered no adverse repercussions as a nation.

In 1990, as an older man, I went off to war in Southwest Asia. Saddam's army had invaded Kuwait. Saudi Arabia asked the United Nations for protection, fearing invasion of their state as well. Resolutions were passed; a coalition formed around the U.S. military and Desert Shield/Desert Storm ensued. This time the political leaders held their tongues; the military commanders prosecuted the war. Victory was accomplished with a minimum loss of coalition lives and done so in very short order.

Since 1968 there have been approximately 150 acts of violence directly attributed to radical Islamic terrorists. On September 11, 2001 they openly declared war on the United States proper. They have shown their absolute willingness to die to prosecute their theological agenda. With our feathers ruffled and our national ego assaulted, we responded with unified determination in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we did not kill just to kill or strike a blow at a despised enemy; we purposely resolved to displace an oppressive theocracy and a despotic dictatorship with freedom producing democratic governances for each nation. With both popular and political unity we resolutely set about to build Free states that would no longer sponsor terror; but would in fact become allies against the oppressive radicals, and become shining free beacons to oppressed nations around them. This was not an easy undertaking; desired results could not reasonably be expected to occur overnight.

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, operational control was initially given to the military commanders and resounding successes ensued. However, since the initial military successes, politicians have become involved, constraining both resources and operations; now “quagmire” becomes the description most often coined by the MSM. Political polarization is being fueled by increasingly noisy anti-war groups. One political party has come to disavow their initial support for the actions taken. Elite liberalism is crying out that this war is “unwinnable”, that, “this country isn't worth dying for.” Their twisted distortion has erroneously caused the enemy to become… us.

Militarily, to be victorious it is imperative to know the enemy; i.e., know his tactics, know his doctrine, know his motivation. Do not confuse “knowing the enemy” with “understanding” his psyche. “Understanding” is a liberalistic warm and fuzzy emotion that contributes nothing to the fight. Our military leaders know our enemy and he can be defeat with the tools we possess. The first tool is actually a toolbox consisting of law enforcement (FBI), intelligence gathering (CIA) and the armed forces. We must mount offensive operations to definitively deny his ability to freely operate. The second tool is our ideology – freedom, liberty, democratic representative governance. We cannot build a free nation where none previously existed if we lose heart and withdraw too soon; abject lesson – Vietnam.

The current polarizing movement is reminiscent of the Vietnam era; only the flames are being fanned by a tremendously biased and self-flagellating MSM fueled by elitist liberalism. Individually, journalists may be opposed to war and that truly is fine. What are not acceptable are their incessant impositions: “peace at any cost” and the “war is unwinnable.” This irresponsible behavior provides the enemy with hope; hope born of our own boisterous and impatient critics; the very same hope given to North Vietnam. Actions bear consequences; some good, some bad. An unbearable consequence is the unwarranted loss of another soldier because our enemy was fortified by America's loss of heart. Our brave Soldiers will maintain the fight to victory, provided they know we remain committed to they purpose.

Afghanistan and Iraq are but two fronts of the war. Once victory is concluded there, we must nurture the fledgling nations to maturity. How many years did we “occupy” Germany and Japan after WWII; patiently developing democratic governments? We are not an occupational army in either Afghanistan or Iraq, but each must be given time to emerge and capably assume responsibility for their own security. Both are firmly on that path. However, once each is secure, you can count on another front opening up; the radical Islamic terrorists will undoubtedly move to another terror sponsoring state. We must have concrete national resolve to engage them until they become totally ineffectual. It may require many years to accomplish the required victories one at a time; but, if we are not committed to victory, this may become the 100-Years War of the 21st Century. Failure, God forbid, would rest squarely on the shoulders of elite liberalism; the same elite liberalism that historically would categorically deny any responsibility.

For reasons involving our national security, ideology, and the safety of your grandchildren, we cannot afford to lose this war – and we will not lose if we resource the first toolbox and let the commanders prosecute the war to victory. If we do not stay the course to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq (and beyond), we will empower our enemy beyond measure. We will unequivocally demonstrate to the radical Islamic terrorists – to that theocracy – that we are not willing to share freedom and our commitment has an expiration date. We will embolden the enemy to initiate more and more attacks against our homeland and most sadly we will no longer be able to nationally lay claim to the phrase, “These colors don't run.”

America, please do not lose heartÂ…, again. Our freedom to exist as a nation is at stake.

I leave you with words spoken almost 45 years ago; words with probably far greater application today than when they were spoken.

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

“In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.” John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, Jan 20, 1961.

¹ According to General Giap, the commander of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong forces, had we continued to prosecute the war – Hanoi would have fallen. Our anti-war movement and political opposition gave the North Vietnamese government the hope they needed to hang on just long enough to finally watch us withdraw.

About the author:
Old Soldier was born and raised on the southeastern Connecticut coast. In 1967 he joined the U.S. Army to become a Warrant Officer and helicopter pilot. In 1970 he returned from Vietnam to the rabid zealot cries of “baby killer” and experienced his uniform being spat upon because he did not denounce his war duty. Other tours include: Korea, Italy, a covert intelligence mission in Central America, the First Gulf War (and by contrast returned to a tearfully humbling red carpet heroes welcome), and several other stateside assignments.

He retired after 31 years active U.S. Army service, achieving: the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Five, and the status of Master Army Aviator. His decorations include: the Legion of Merit Medal, 3 Bronze Star Medals, 3 Meritorious Service Medals, 11 Air Medals, 3 Army Commendation Medals and many more awards and decorations. He currently continues supporting U.S. Army Aviation programs as a defense contractor analyst working in South Alabama.

Update It seems Murtha's speech isn't exactly news... he said roughly the same thing last year.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:32 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1593 words, total size 10 kb.