Wow, does he sound flustered:

Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, began the 15-minute speech, titled "A Message to the People of Pakistan," with a reference to last month's three-year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

He says al Qaeda operatives in Iraq have perpetrated "800 martyrdom operations in three years, besides the sacrifices of the other mujahedeen, and this is what has broken the back of America in Iraq."

He adds, "We praise Allah that three years after the Crusader invasion of Iraq, America, Britain and their allies have achieved nothing but losses, disaster and misfortunes."

Al-Zawahiri appears to be encouraging the Pakistani people to follow the lead of the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, telling them to stand up against "the Zionist-Crusader assault" on Muslims and overthrow Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

Al-Zawahiri calls Musharraf a "traitor" who placed the country's nuclear program under the supervision of the U.S. government.

"I call on them to strive in earnest to topple this bribe-taking, treacherous criminal, and to back their brothers in the mujahedeen in Afghanistan with everything they've got," al-Zawahiri said.

This is every bit as pathetic as Musab al-Zarqawi's ACME rocket demonstration earlier in the week. al-Zawahiri's cries amount to little more than a confession that al Qaeda has thrown everything it has against America, giving its best and well, err... well it wasn't enough was it?

al Qaeda can keep fighting dying and killing for some time to come, but the corner has been turned, and they now recognize that without a major change in the game, they cannot hope to survive, much less win.

Quite frankly, al-Zawahiri is starting to sound like someone else's dissembling spokesman from not to long ago. I guess that cold, dank cave air is finally getting to him...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

This is interesting, and will almost certainly be seized upon by some (perhaps many) as evidence that the United States is losing the fight against terrorism.

Via CNN:

The State Department's annual terrorism report finds that Iraq is becoming a safe haven for terrorists and has attracted a "foreign fighter pipeline" linked to terrorist plots, cells and attacks throughout the world, a senior State Department official involved in the preparation of the report told CNN.

The report, to be released Friday, also says terrorist groups loosely associated with al Qaeda present the greatest threat to the United States and the world, even greater than al Qaeda itself.

The official told CNN that, with al Qaeda's senior leadership scattered and on the run, autonomous cells inspired by al Qaeda's extremist ideology present a greater challenge because they are smaller, harder to detect and more difficult to counter.

"These micro-actors are launching more attacks, and they are more local and more lethal," the senior official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report had not been released, told CNN Thursday in an interview. This official cited last July's bombings in London by British Muslims with ties to Pakistan as an example of an increase in attacks by local terrorists with foreign ties.

While the official described al Qaeda as "crippled and constrained without the strategic network" it once had, he said there are still indications al Qaeda is planning a spectacular terrorist attack on U.S. soil.

"We have not been able to deliver the knockout punch to al Qaeda, and there is no doubt they are in the planning stages for something big," the official said.

Upon reading this article, my first question was simply this: how does the State Department define a "safe haven?" Afghanistan under the Taliban was a safe haven when it provided more or less official cover for al Qaeda, and the same could presumably be said for present day Sudan, Syria, and Iran.

But Iraq, where terrorists are actively hunted by domestic and foreign militaries, local police, and civilian tribesmen alike? Al Qaeda's "emir" of Samarra Hamid Al-Takhi might beg to differ with the description of Iraq as a safe haven, as would two of his men gunned down by Iraqi military forces today. I don't have numbers in front of me at this time, but I think it probably safe to assume that Iraq is probably among the least safe areas for terrorists right now.

That groups affiliated with al Qaeda are more of a threat than al Qaeda itself should be self evident at this point, as most of al Qaeda's most experienced leaders and operatives are dead or in deep hiding.

This was never more apparent than when top al Qaeda explosives expert Marwan Hadid al-Suri was killed last week acting as a low-level bagman distributing funds to the families of al Qaeda in Pakistan. A healthy terrorist organization would never put a top operative like al-Suri at risk is such an exposed position unless their trusted mid-level manpower was severely depleted. Thus, the "real" al Qaeda may not be dead, but after five years of being hunted down around the globe, they seem to be more a franchise name than an effective operational force.

The key to destroying terrorism, in my opinion, is to reduce or eliminate entirely state sponsorship and several crimp international support, making it increasingly difficult to transfer men, material or knowledge across regions. If you are successful in do that, you isolate terrorists to a local and regional level. Once you've hampered their mobility, they are forced to carry out attacks more or less locally, in the same areas they draw their support from. As you well know, defecating where you eat is toxic, and for terrorists, increases their risk of being captured or killed significantly. Eventually, public support erodes and such organizations end up gutted and minimalized.

Thus, while these micro-actors are indeed initially more deadly, forcing terror to retreat from a global to a micro-level is a significant improvement in the overall war against terrorism, as it reduces the overall lifecycle of terror organizations. We simply need to make sure we are making state sponsorship of terrorism a too expensive proposition in terms of capital (both political and monetary) at the same time, at which point the war against the tactic of large-scale terrorism may very well be won. The White House has taken steps in the past few days to do just that, clamping down on monetary support with the application of Executive orders against Sudan and Syria in the past days alone, placing significant pressures upon their unstable regimes.

Soon, would-be nuclear state Iran may be among the last of the state sponsors of terrorism, and if they continue down their ill-advised and badly miscalculated gambit for nuclear weapons, they may find themselves in a conflict from which their terror sponsoring regime would not be allowed to emerge intact.

The war on terror is far from over, but it seems from my perspective that the major players are choosing their ground for what may well be the final war against state sponsored terrorism of this modern age in this decade. Modern theofascism and the state support of terrorism arguably began in Iran. It seems fitting that the stage may be set so that it may die there as well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 900 words, total size 6 kb.

President Bush has dropped the economic hammer on Syria for the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri early last year.

Via al-Reuters:

President George W. Bush on Wednesday issued an order blocking the assets of anyone connected with the February 14, 2005, assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri.

Bush in a statement said the new order blocks the property and interests of anyone determined to have been involved in Hariri's assassination and that additional steps were being taken "concerning certain actions of the government of Syria."

A U.N. report last year implicated senior Syrian security officials in Hariri's killing and said Syria was impeding the inquiry. Syria has denied involvement.

Bush's order does not designate anyone specifically, but establishes the criteria for who would fall under the order.

In addition to blocking the assets of anyone found to be involved in Hariri's assassination, the order targets anyone involved in an assassination or bombing in Lebanon since October 1, 2004, related to Hariri's killing or implicating the Syrian government, an administration official said.

Iran has garnered most of the media's attention lately due to its nuclear ambitions, but the President has not forgotten Bashir Assad's murderous regime. These sanctions should bring pressure to bear on the Syria-Iran alliance, and it will be very interesting to watch to see if this pressure destabilizes Bashir Assad's already tenuous grip on power.

The full text of the Executive Order is available here.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:32 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

In a rare Internet-posted video, terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi appeared for 34 minutes, blasting the United States for a "crusader-Zionist war" against Islam. Rusty has a nice roundup going at the Jawa Report, and once you've seen that along with the analysis of Bill Roggio and Walid Phares of the Counterterrorism Blog you've pretty much got your bases covered.

That said, I did watch the entire 34 minutes, and think I have a few observations that may be of use.

Throughout the bulk of the video, Zarqawi's eyes seem "heavy," blinking slowly and not appearing to open fully. At first I thought this was possibly the result of the lighting in the room in which the video was shot, but people responding to too-bright lights tend to blink more quickly, not more lethargically. In addition, through some sections of the video, Zarqawi seems short of breath. Some of the film transitions seem abrupt, as if trying to cover this.

In addition, Zarqawi's face seems somewhat bloated when compared to admittedly outdated photos. This may simply be a function of age, fatigue, and what is likely a substandard diet, but it could also be the result of some kinds of medications. This is all blind speculation, of course, but worth considering.

The rest of the video is well covered in transcripts (Rusty's post has a rough one), and so I'd prefer to look at elements of the film not heavily covered.

First things first, I'd like to gently correct Athena at Terrorism Unveilled. Zarqawi is not wearing a suicide vest in this video, just a standard AK-style chest rig, similar to this Chinese model or this upgraded commercial version. For comparative purposes, several versions of suicide vests modeled by would-be suicide bombers can be seen here.

By the way, he does fire a M249 that was likely captured from U.S forces. It is a "hero" shot filmed for propoganda purposes, but it simply serves to remind me that a 15 lb machine gun firing 5.56mm rounds best suited for killing woodchucks is a relatively light-recoiling weapon.

Near the end of the video are several minutes of outdoor footage, including the "hero" shooting video, footage of Zarqawi walking, and a few seconds of video of the flatbed truck above, with what appears to be a machine gun on a fixed mount in the bed.

Up until this point, I'd make the argument that this video could have been shot just about anywhere, but the gun-truck footage throws that in doubt. If this is indeed a fixed-mount, it seems very unlikely that this vehicle has been anywhere near where coalition forces could have seen it. That would seem to indicate that this is either a recently-modified truck, or video was filmed in a very remote region where Zarqawi felt safe enough for an open display of weapons that are not easily hidden.

Perhaps this was not even filmed in Iraq.

And then we have this.. well, err, rocket. It appears to be homemade, and suspiciously close to the size of a paper towel roll. It was fired by a hand-lit fuse, just like every ACME rocket delivered to Wile E. Coyote. It did actually go off, but to what effect we may never know. The warhead on a rocket this small can't be much larger or much more lethal than a Cadbury egg.

The "shell fragments" would presumably melt in your mouth, not on your hands...

This larger rocket is also "ACME-fused," and is most likely unguided, but it would potentially present a downrange threat somewhere, though the rudimentary fins indicate that cold be just about anywhere on a 90-degree arc.

CNN tells us that Zarqawi is mocking the United States military in this propaganda film.

My response?

Beep, Beep.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:25 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 638 words, total size 5 kb.

Via the NY Times:

Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it will refuse to answer questions about a second, secret uranium-enrichment program, according to European and American diplomats. The existence of the program was disclosed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this month.

The diplomats said Iran had also refused to answer questions about other elements of its nuclear program that international inspectors had focused on because they could indicate a program to produce nuclear weapons.

Iran continues down a comically transparent path towards nuclear weapons, while threatening with extinction a country estimated to have well in excess of 100 nuclear weapons of its own, along with multiple delivery systems that it can deliver at will.

Do you ever get the feeling that the mullah's cries for Armageddon are all too sincere?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:35 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.

I'll be in meetings most of the day today, but to tide you over, check out what Ray Robison has uncovered regarding documentation that seems to support the theory that Saddam Hussein was looking into nuclear weapons, here, here, here and here.

Robison, a current military operations research analyst and a former member of the Iraq Survey Group for the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been able to dig up newspaper articles, original Iraqi documentation, and satellite photos of the base where nuclear testing is rumored to have occurred.

Interesting stuff.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:18 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been thinking a lot about sheepdogs lately, if only in the back of my mind. Not the physical kind, of course, but the metaphorical, philosophical beast described by LTC Dave Grossman (Retired), that I was first exposed to in Bill Whittle's excellent "Tribes" some month's ago. Because of Whittle's essay, I've also been doing a lot of soul-searching about what it means to be Grey, and how it all relates to the budding war with Iran.

LTC Grossman's essay "On sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs" was forwarded to me this morning in an email by another retired sheepdog and I present it to you in its entirety:
more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:30 PM | Comments (43) | Add Comment
Post contains 3519 words, total size 21 kb.

To hear Editor & Publisher tell it, you would think that Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick was standing firmly behind his page A1 story from yesterday, where his opening paragraphs strongly asserted that the Bush Administration ignored the "unanimous findings" of a team of weapons experts to purposefully present the American people with false information.

The Post's agenda-driven journalism was destroyed before the first copy of the print edition hit the street.

Warrick's article was a perfect example of modern yellow journalism. He following an increasingly common technique of making a strong assertion in the lede (opening paragraphs)of a story, only providing any balancing coverage much further down in the story, while typically being dismissive of it or giving it little rhetorical weight (Jeff Goldstein provides and excellent look at the phenomena as applied to this story at Protein Wisdom).

Is Warrick really standing firm behind his article? Hardly.

Warricks's new article, hiding on page A18, has backed away from the "unanimous findings" claim that was proven factually inaccurate in his scurrilous lede. A June 7, 2003 NY Times article found by Seixon found that far from presenting "unanimous findings," this third team of experts was "divided sharply" in their opinion of what the trailer represented. Warrick's sources—all anonymous—seem to be contradicting each other, bringing into doubt their credibility.

In addition to the credibility of Warrick's anonymous sources and the discrepanies about the report they issued, all mention of the two teams of military experts that thought that the trailers were mobile bio-weapon labs have been removed from the follow-up story. Unable to address the fact that their existence proves he was presenting a minority view (even one that turned out to be accurate), Warrick seems intent on deleting all references to these contradictory teams mentioned in earlier article. The "smoking gun" has turned out to be what Seixan noted as a "minority report about a minority report."

Is Joby Warrick standing by his story, or is he guilty of spinning, cutting, and running?

I report. You deride.

Update: Blue Crab Boulevard says, "What's 'unclear' here is if Mr. Warrick was aware that he was writing a hit piece or just that bad a writer."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:26 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 3 kb.

The Washington Post, which within the past week blasted President Bush for declassifying a story to defend false allegations by Joe Wilson, collected classified information of its own through anonymous sources and leaked it on page one Wednesday, declaring:

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

Framed the way Joby Warrick presents it in these opening paragraphs, it seems like a slam-dunk case of the Bush Administration lying... but the Post is being less than forthright with it's readers, attempting to bias and shape their perceptions before giving them all the facts.

What facts would those be?

That the one team of inspectors Warrick cites in his opening paragraphs were not the only team to examine these trailers, and that two other teams that initially inspected the trailers did not agree with the team highlighted in the Post article's opening paragraphs. As a matter of fact, one has to navigate a carefully parsed and misleading claim of the "unanimous findings" that were far from unanimous before finding out in the twelfth paragraph that two other teams reached the exact opposite conclusion:

Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of 2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on the condition that he not be identified.

The actual facts are that a single team of nine civilian experts wrote a "unanimous" report that was only unanimous within their one group, while two military teams of experts reached the conclusion that these were bioweapons labs. By careful and I believe willful deceit, the Post would seem to purposefully imply that all experts examining the suspected bio-weapons trailers unanimously came to the conclusion that these trailers were not used to manufacture bio-weapons, and that the Administration blatantly lied in the face of the evidence. The actual facts are that this was not only a not a unanimous report, but that the "unanimous" report of the one team was actually a minority view overall.

This is willful misrepresentation of the facts by Joby Warrick and the editors of the Washington Post in a page one story. There were indeed varied interpretations of the suitability of these trailers to manufacture bio-weapons, yet the Post article purposefully decived its readers to lend weight and column inches to the minority viewpoint that was not unanimous as they suggested.

This appears to be a specific, calculated deception of a national newspaper's readership. The Washington Post must be held accountable.

Update: Seixon finds news reports on these trailers, and determines that the "sharply divided" views of this third team of experts then (2003), is not synonymous with the "unanimous" view attributed to the same team pushed by the Washington Post day.

Joby Warrick's article keeps geting more suspect by the hour...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:08 AM | Comments (72) | Add Comment
Post contains 668 words, total size 5 kb.

1 This has got to be the shabbiest defense of an obvious line of crap that I've ever read. You begin by lying that Bush was defending against false allegations. Wilson's allegations have been proven time and again. Then, you speculate and reach conclusions based on your speculation that the Post purposely didn't spell out that the report wasn't unanimous. Two military experts disagreed with nine civilian experts. Fact: 82% of the experts concluded the trailers had nothing to do with WMD. So, if I understand correctly, we're supposed to completely ignore the report that the so-called bio-weapons trailers story was bullshit because you speculate about the Post's intentions? Pure folly! Don't you think readers are smart enough to see through your nonsensical drivel?

Posted by: Ed at April 12, 2006 02:45 AM (DVIGl)

2 And that was Ed, ladies and gentlemen: a proud member of the "reality-based" community. ;-)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 12, 2006 06:22 AM (0fZB6)

3 Wow, pleased to meet you Ed. Let's try that reading comprehension thing eh? Two TEAMS of military experts not two military experts concluded that they were bioweapons trailers. If you go by team percentage you get to 33% said it wasn't. Head count will required knowing how many people were on those other teams. Of course if Bush releases that information I'm sure it'll lead to another demand for a "leak investigation"... As for the "honorable" Mr. Wilson, well let's just say that a few other people concluded that he was lying about everything he wrote. Those people being of course a bipartisan commission that reviewed the Iraqi intelligence and the providence of his "mission" to secure sweet mint tea. There is also that UK conspiracy where the Butler commission found Bush's SoU statement to be well founded too. But hey, you keep up the good work and keep speaking ignorance to power.

Posted by: Rob Crocker at April 12, 2006 06:34 AM (tWdSj)

4 Ed sez: "You begin by lying that Bush was defending against false allegations. Wilson's allegations have been proven time and again." In what alternate reality? The Duelfer Report (http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/duelfer.html), among others, prove "time and again" that Wilson was, in fact lying. Repeating his lies "time and again" doesn't make them suddenly true.

Posted by: Ric James at April 12, 2006 06:46 AM (MGSmE)

5 I was originally going to post this in reply to http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006736.php, but their registration system is unnecessarily intrusive, so I'll put it here instead... As you say, there were two teams (of experts in some unspecified field which may or may not be relevant) who viewed (i.e. didn't thoroughly investigate) the trailers soon after their discovery (i.e., before they had a chance to do this thoroughly), and they did conclude that these were the sought-after biological labs. The story then goes on to say: "Yet reaction from Iraqi sources was troublingly inconsistent. Curveball, shown photos of the trailers, confirmed they were mobile labs and even pointed out key features. But other Iraqi informants in internal reports disputed Curveball's story and claimed the trailers had a benign purpose" That is, there was evidence that the initial investigators could have jumped to the wrong conclusion. As a result: "Back at the Pentagon, DIA officials attempted a quick resolution of the dispute. The task fell to the "Jefferson Project," a DIA-led initiative made up of government and civilian technical experts who specialize in analyzing and countering biological threats." Which is to say, the DIA had enough contradictory evidence that they felt they needed to mount a thorough investigation to decide the matter once and for all. So they very sensibly decided to put together a big team of truly leading experts. This was going to be the tie-breaker between the two initial reports and Curveball on the one hand, and the counter-evidence on the other. That tie-breaker concluded that the initial reports and Curveball were wrong. But the DIA ended up ignoring their own tie-breaker report. I'm sure that the argument you presented here is exactly how the people higher up the chain justified their decisions to themselves, and they were after all under an awful lot of pressure. The formal report was delivered only a day or so before the white paper saying they were biological labs was released, so there wasn't much opportunity to slam on the brake. Nevertheless, this is not "two reports vs. one", but a messy dispute with one investigation specifically set up to be the final, definitive answer. It was clear from an early stage that, when actual experts in the field showed up, they were sure that the trailers were benign. There was plenty of opportunity to see the right answer, if the administration had been open-minded enough to admit it. The criticism in the original article is fair.

Posted by: Mat at April 12, 2006 06:56 AM (kVBtr)

6 Is the identity of these so-called civilian experts known? Why should we assume they know what they're talking about if they insist on remaining anonymous? Also, surely, what they did in talkiing to the Post was illegal? Has anyone heard anything about a pending investigation?

Posted by: Leonidas at April 12, 2006 07:53 AM (Xu9JJ)

7 And here's another thing: the media goes on and on about how dangerous Iraq is, yet a CIVILIAN team was able to carry out its (dubious) mission with no trouble. Doesn't sound so dangerous, does it?

Posted by: Leonidas at April 12, 2006 07:56 AM (Xu9JJ)

8 "Wilson's allegations have been proven time and again!!??" If you can back this up, you are in the enviable position of being able to make some money! It's a money challenge. There is prize money for any Joe Wilson supporter, apologist and/or cult follower who can name one thing, anything, Joseph Wilson found on his 2002 trip to Niger that proved "false" President BushÂ’s 2003 State of the Union statement, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Posted by: George at April 12, 2006 08:00 AM (iKT22)

9 Regardless of what the Post (or anyone) says, the debate on these trailers is unresolved. There still is no consensus on whether they were for biological warfare agent production or for producing hydrogen for artillery units. What they do agree on is that the trailers were not ideally configured for either use but could be made to work for either. The Kay Report agrees with this and noted "...nothing we have discovered rules out their potential use in BW production." An Iraqi artillery officer says they never used these types of systems and that the hydrogen for artillery units came in canisters from a fixed production facility. It is a known fact that Saddam Hussein was pursuing dual-use technologies that could be converted over to his WMD programs once the U.N. inspections stopped. More information can be found here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40777

Posted by: George at April 12, 2006 08:03 AM (iKT22)

10 If they transmitted their report on 27 May and Bush spoke on 29 May ... how many people think that such a report would have made it to Bush's desk by the time he spoke? Would it even have made it to Chaney's desk?

Posted by: htom at April 12, 2006 08:07 AM (XK5dj)

11 Leonidas: "Why should we assume they know what they're talking about if they insist on remaining anonymous?" From the article: "Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission." Also, the fact that the Pentagon trusted them to do this work in the first place argues in their favour. These aren't lunatic fringe leftists we're talking about here. They're a specialist group specifically set up by the Pentagon to be the undisputed experts in this field. Leonidas: "Also, surely, what they did in talkiing to the Post was illegal?" It could be a breach of contract, but certainly not a crime, especially for the British guy. Also from the article: "Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work." Leonidas: "a CIVILIAN team was able to carry out its (dubious) mission with no trouble. Doesn't sound so dangerous, does it?" Many civilians from many different countries have been killed over the last few years, so it does sound quite dangerous, yes. This team would certainly have worked under heavy military guard though. Also, they were just doing tests on seized equipment inside a military compound. George: "the debate on these trailers is unresolved. There still is no consensus on whether they were for biological warfare agent production or for producing hydrogen for artillery units." There's never going to be any kind of iron-clad consensus on anything in the war debate, and this is no exception. The point of this article, however, is not whether or not the trailers were biological weapons, but whether the administration deliberately ignored evidence in order to beef up its claims. George: "The Kay Report agrees with this and noted '...nothing we have discovered rules out their potential use in BW production.'" From the article: "But Kay said he was not apprised of the technical team's findings until late 2003, near the end of his time as the group's leader. 'If I had known that we had such a team in Iraq," Kay said, "I would certainly have given their findings more weight.'"

Posted by: Mat at April 12, 2006 08:19 AM (kVBtr)

12 Mat, The ultimate accuracy of the civilian team is not the issue here—based upon what I’ve read since the trailers were originally found, I think that I probably agree with their conclusions barring substantial evidence to the contrary. What is the issue is that the Washington Post attempted to frame this article to make it appear that President Bush was willfully misrepresenting the facts in the face of a consensus view. This was not the case. There was not a consensus view, and at the time President Bush made his claims, it was in fact a minority view, albeit one that was ultimately proven correct. Joby Warrick and his editors at the Washington Post willfully misrepresented facts to the point I would consider it fraudulent. If you want to debate a point, debate that, because that is the question under discussion.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 12, 2006 08:34 AM (g5Nba)

13 I'd like to know why you would clean and disinfect a 'hydrogen producing' facility with strong caustic agents to remove any traces of whatever it was producing. If it was something as benign as hydrogen, wouldn't you just leave it alone? When it was found, the inspectors would test it, say "just hydrogen, no contraband here". When you try to hide something, it looks like you have something to hide. I'd also like to see the experts try to produce hydrogen, using said trailers, and see if it really works that well, and maybe explain why producing hydrogen in the field is more efficient than putting canisters on a truck and delivering them to the field units. Then, they can explain the brewing canister, the feeding canisters, the heater/cooler, and so on.

Posted by: Tim at April 12, 2006 08:36 AM (6cJ8H)

14 So your conclusion from everything that's come out in the last 3 years that it WAS a good idea to invade Iraq? It looks like it was a big ol' mistake, at the very least. It sure cost a lot and killed a lot of people. I'd rather have health care and public education. But I'm funny that way.

Posted by: patrioticity at April 12, 2006 08:43 AM (MGcSD)

15 You don't have health care and public education? Or did I miss the US closing down hospitals and schools to pay for the war? I guess all the sick students have been conscripted into the Army ...

Posted by: Steve in Houston at April 12, 2006 08:50 AM (6Gsjh)

16 Actually, Saddam would have killed at least 3 times as many people during the same time frame. Witness the new mass graves uncovered in the Kurdish areas. And this administration has spent far more on education than any previous administration. Yet we still end up with undereducated tools. Funny, that.

Posted by: Tim at April 12, 2006 08:53 AM (6cJ8H)

17 Except Patriot City if you add up all monies paid to the Public education system, you would see the Defense budget dwarfed. Maybe if the school systems made efficient use of the Monies recieved they could do a better job. They could start by dropping the multitude of Social Science classes, except for History and American government and concentrate on Math, reading and Science. When I say reading, I don't mean send the book home with the kid and hope it reads it. Test them on it. And if I remember right, the Constitution does not provide for either Health Care or Public Education. Maybe I am not reading it right, could you point it out to me please? However, it does talk about the defense of the country.

Posted by: James Stephenson at April 12, 2006 08:53 AM (03dXc)

18 Confederate Yankee, "What is the issue is that the Washington Post attempted to frame this article to make it appear that President Bush was willfully misrepresenting the facts in the face of a consensus view" Not quite. The article doesn't claim that Bush was wilfully misrepresenting the facts, but rather that U.S. intelligence officials knew that what he was about to say on their advice was dubious, and let him say it anyway. This article isn't about Bush at all, and therefore isn't really all that politically explosive. "There was not a consensus view, and at the time President Bush made his claims, it was in fact a minority view, albeit one that was ultimately proven correct." I don't agree with your characterisation of this as a minority view. Why would the Pentagon commission a third report when the two existing ones already gave the same opinion? The answer is in the article: there was a lot more information floating around than just two reports, and it was inconsistent. This final investigation was specifically set up by the Pentagon to authoritatively resolve the debate. Hence, not a minority report, but a tie-breaker. You don't just take a vote on these things: you judge the report on the thoroughness of the investigation and the credentials of the people who performed it. The final report was the most thorough, and the best qualified. And that's not my opinion, that's the Pentagon's.

Posted by: Mat at April 12, 2006 08:55 AM (kVBtr)

19 The article "isn't about Bush at all?" Care to explain the subhead for this article on the main page of Washington Post.com? In 2003, Bush administration pushed the notion of banned Iraqi weapons made in mobile "biological laboratories" despite evidence to the contrary. Then you state "I don't agree with your characterisation of this as a minority view." Is this the "new math" I've heard of, where 1 is somehow greater than 2? Again the information may have been inconsistent or even wrong, but the Washington Post presented it in such a way as to make it appear that is wasn't in doubt, and that Bush lied in the face of overwhelming evidence. That is fraud.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 12, 2006 09:02 AM (g5Nba)

20 I'm sorry, I'm not clear on this- how was invading Iraq defending our country exactly? From what? Did I miss the invading Iraqi hordes? James, Bush FY 2006 request for education was $56 billion. As of March 31, 2006, Congress has appropriated $251 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan (not much going to Afghanistan these days), and the total Department of Defense annual budget is around $425 billion. Of course, a lot of funding for education comes from the states. But do you really like what we've gotten for our $251 billion (and counting)? I'd rather have given it to my children. By the way, the Constitution mentions providing for the "general welfare" twice. It's a matter of priorities. “WE THE PEOPLE of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Posted by: patrioticity at April 12, 2006 09:31 AM (MGcSD)

21 Okay, here's the hard question. Exactly how do you propose to "hold the WaPo accountable"?

Posted by: Chap at April 12, 2006 09:35 AM (DdiJA)

22 Again the information may have been inconsistent or even wrong, but the Washington Post presented it in such a way as to make it appear that is wasn't in doubt, and that Bush lied in the face of overwhelming evidence. That is because Bush and the people in the administration continued to state that the mobile labs were proof of WMD, when they knew that there was a strong opinion (that turned out to be fact) that the mobile labs where not for WMD. They talked as if it was a proven fact and they hid the report that contradicted their claim. That is called lying.

Posted by: Mr. Purple at April 12, 2006 09:38 AM (TFSHk)

23 Is it fraudulent for the President of the United States to say that "we have found saddam's weapons of mass destruction" when he possessed credible classified information that we had not?

Posted by: Govs at April 12, 2006 09:42 AM (m0iMp)

24 That is fraud. Bigger'n Dallas. Might want to provide a link to the CIA report on the subject, titled: "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants"; and dated 28 May '03. It's fairly unequivocal, with cute pictures and everything. And Administration officials had actually read it . . . because it came from the CIA, who's charged with integrating intelligence and keeping them informed. The contention that President Bush must've lied because he recapped it the next day is frankly hilarious.

Posted by: Cecil Turner at April 12, 2006 09:45 AM (vCBNT)

25 > "Bush was defending against false allegations. > Wilson's allegations have been proven time and again." No, that is not true. Ambassador Wilson correctly reported that Iraq had never obtained uranium from Niger. Wilson's accurate exposure of President Bush's false claims led to the President having to take back the words he spoke in the 2003 State of the Union address. If Wilson was the liar, why was it that President Bush had to withdraw his words? Why did the Oval Office bring its full force to bear against Wilson in "an organized plot" - even blowing the cover of a CIA agent in wartime to try to punish Wilson? It was because the truth Wilson brought undermined the lies President Bush was using to try to mislead the country into a disasterous war, where we are still mired today, with no end in sight.

Posted by: B-the-1 at April 12, 2006 09:52 AM (jd5eV)

26 Mr. Purple: "They talked as if it was a proven fact and they hid the report that contradicted their claim. That is called lying." It's not that simple. I doubt that Bush had ever heard of this team or their investigations when he made his speech. The problem was that everyone, all the way up the command chain, was hoping to find evidence that would back the invasion. This means that "OMG you must read this!!!" from a bunch of civilians in Iraq turns into "This is an important new perspective" to a Pentagon official, which turns into "That's interesting" to his boss, which turns into "I might mention this in the briefing papers" to *his* boss, and so on until it just fizzles out. The system is biased against bad news, and it's a long way from Iraq to the Oval Office. Which is why I say this isn't really about Bush, and the Washington Post is dreaming if it thinks this is some kind of smoking gun.

Posted by: Mat at April 12, 2006 09:52 AM (kVBtr)

27 Invading Iraq was absolutely essential to our safety. Yes indeed Iraq was deeply involved in the training, funding and harboring of terrorists who were meant to attack both Israel and the US along with any allies we might be fortunate enough to find. Iraq attempted to Assasinate Former President Bush. Iraq had terrorist "conventions" each year where operations were discussed Iraq attempted to blow up Radio Free Europe. And Iraq was producing WMD's.

Posted by: Pierre Legrand at April 12, 2006 10:08 AM (oSDSb)

28 OK. The famous '16 words'. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". Where in that statement does it say "OBTAINED URANIUM"? You must go to the same school as Patriotidiocy does. 'Sought' means they wanted to buy it. They were trying to buy it. Obtained means they DID buy it. Two different things. According to Joe Wilson, the Iraqis did appear to WANT TO BUY URANIUM. They were not, however, successful. And the President didn't say they were successful. Why they backtracked on that, I'll never know.

Posted by: Tim at April 12, 2006 10:12 AM (6cJ8H)

29 It's not that simple. I doubt that Bush had ever heard of this team Nope, the team was sent to confirm the existence of WMD. Bush knew and if he didn't it's just another case of incompetence.

Posted by: Mr. Purple at April 12, 2006 10:18 AM (TFSHk)

30 By the way, the Constitution mentions providing for the "general welfare" twice. It's a matter of priorities. Next line. "...promote the general Welfare,..." patrioticity read good.

Posted by: mishu at April 12, 2006 10:28 AM (njCo0)

31 Mat is right about the Post story being about intelligence officials not passing along bad news. But, frankly, it's worse than that. It's not just that the President spoke about the trailers without knowing that this DIA team had just sent along its conclusions. The point is that those conclusions were actually suppressed. Look at the part about David Kay. He's supposed to be resolving all the WMD issues. But DIA *doesn't tell him* about this technical team's findings *at all* for months! They hint early on that there's been some "backsliding." The report sits on the shelf, labeled "secret," and Kay doesn't learn about it until his time is nearly up. That's what the story is about. It's not about Bush himself, but it captures the hyping, selective treatment of info, and dishonesty with which the administration handled the WMD issue, all in a nutshell. There's no way you can justify it this time. No wonder Confederate Yankee and Captain Ed are trying to twist the whole story into something else.

Posted by: nandrews3 at April 12, 2006 11:31 AM (ykTdx)

32 Should we even be talking about any of this? There will plenty of time for historians to debate these questions -- when the war is over. For, it is best to present the Islamofascist a united front. Yes, moonbats, I know that taking pot shots at the president is fun. And when the war on terror is over, you're welcome to say whatever you want. But for now, why not think of our troops and the message that all of this sends to them?

Posted by: DougJ at April 12, 2006 11:34 AM (UaoRJ)

33 the Constitution mentions providing for the "general welfare" twice. It's a matter of priorities. Yes, a matter of priorities. Who sets those priorities? Well, somewhat indirectly it is us, the voters that send our representatives to Washington that set the priorities. I voted for the guy that prioritized our national defense over another gob of self-destructive entitlements to the do-nothing neo-socialist career-dependent "entitlement" crowd. I got what I wanted from my vote, you did not. Tough lemons, better luck next time.

Posted by: ChrisT at April 12, 2006 11:40 AM (F1thZ)

34 Y'all seem to be in the throes some internet-induced mass psychosis. It'll be interesting to see how long you hold on to this 'Iraq was a good idea' meme while your other Republican comrades are jumping ship left and right. Oops, there goes Newt Gingrich. And oh, Colin Powell, sorry. And Condoleeza "mushroom cloud" Rice admits thousands of mistakes. It'll just get more and more difficult for your brains to accommodate the dissonance. The Bush administration is a bunch of incompetent liars, and if you can't see that, you have reading comprehension problems.

Posted by: patrioticity at April 12, 2006 11:43 AM (MGcSD)

35 What makes you think this war is ever going to be over? It is a open-ended commitment that will last until either the last terrorist commits seppuku or we decide we're tired of wasting our military chasing mice.

Posted by: notDougJ at April 12, 2006 11:47 AM (zmVCy)

36 If there were no WMD's in Iraq then why did my unit have to sit and watch a stockpile of weapons with our chemical suits on for three months with the chemical alarms going off every time the wind changed direction?????

Posted by: SSGT at April 12, 2006 11:52 AM (elhVA)

37 Why did the Iraqis keep a combination of mustard gas/cyclosarin as 'insecticide'? And who uses artillery shells and missiles to deliver said insecticide? I guess they wanted to make sure they got good coverage deep in the marshes.

Posted by: Tim at April 12, 2006 11:58 AM (6cJ8H)

38 What makes you think this war is ever going to be over? We will prevail because we will stay the course and will accept nothing less than victory. Total victory. That's something you moonbats probably aren't familiar with. Victory. Total victory. V-I-C-T-O-R-Y Savor it, let those syllables roll around in your mouth a little as if you were drinking a fine wine. That's what we will achieve in this war. Because this president will accept nothing less.

Posted by: DougJ at April 12, 2006 12:09 PM (UaoRJ)

39 The basis of all this debate is the belief that the US is a tributary empire. We are, quite simply, not. It is difficult to undo forty five years of Soviet propaganda, (which lives on after the Soviets have fallen) but, quite simply, we act on a strategy designed to defend us and our allies. When, for example, the Soviet threat dissapeared, we withdrew what limited support we had lent to South Africa's segregationist regime, to Pinochet's authoritan one, to the military juntas in Guatemala and El Salvador. When we were buying Arabian oil for three bucks a barrel, we had no troops on the Arabian Penninsula. We defended South Viet Nam, I believed at the time, for some material that they could sell us. We do indeed trade with the Vietnamese now, but what do we get? Very little. The Soviets concocted the idea to use against us in the Third World, when it had become apparent that they were getting nowhere with American workers. Saddam offered to sell us all the oil we needed, at low prices, too. I know people believe it, I know that I did, but the evidence, on balance, does not support the theory. (Constant repetition is not evidence.) If we wanted oil, we could be getting more here. If we wanted more oil, we could sell out Israel, as many oil company executives have urged that we do. But, without the belief in predatory warfare, opposition to the war seems irrational. Even pacifists have to admit that there is less killing in Iraq today than were occurring before we invaded. Please, if we were a tributary empire, wouldn't we at least have a positive balance of trade?

Posted by: Michael Adams at April 12, 2006 12:18 PM (bejb0)

40 May, what you have discussed is called intelligence analysis. When you have opposing evidence, then that evidence has to be put into context. The context was that Saddam was caught repeatedly filing purposely false disclosure reports, had used WMD on SEVERAL occasions, and had relationships with several terrorist organizations (whether directly to Bin Ladin or not). When conflicting evidence is taken in context of Saddam's history of cheating and lying, the natural conclusion would be that he was still cheating and lying. Even if nothing Saddam was accused of turned out to be true (which much of it is being proven more every day), many analysts came to that exact conclusion based on that exact context. For those who think that when faced when opposing evidence that analysts should have given Saddam the benifit of the doubt, be honest within yourselves and you will see what a ridiculous position that has become.

Posted by: Ray Robison at April 12, 2006 01:06 PM (CdK5b)

41 Um Ed, in reguards to your comment: "You begin by lying that Bush was defending against false allegations. Wilson's allegations have been proven time and again." which was part of your defense of the Washington Post, please remember that: ""The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium." -Washington Post April 9, 2006

Posted by: gerry at April 12, 2006 01:06 PM (ZFlFl)

42 It's Cherry-Picking time! "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." -- George W. Bush Let's note right from the start that Bush doesn't say, "we may have found the weapons of mass destruction," but instead gives a FIRM CLAIM THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED. To back up that claim, who does Bush rely on? You got one group of independent nongovernmental civilian experts, called in LAST, whose scientific expertise is so great that IT IS THEY WHO ARE CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE the FINAL REPORT -- "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers" -- but on the other side you got a couple of military teams, who know what Bush & Co. want to hear and understand that they better provide it if they're going to have any chance of ever getting promoted. Answer: Bush relies on whoever gives him the answer he wants to hear, and then tells the American public not that anything is disputed, but that the WMD have been found. Anyone truly surprised?

Posted by: Highlander at April 12, 2006 01:16 PM (ZnGgh)

43 Cecil Turner writes: "The contention that Bush must've lied because he recapped it the next day is hilarious." But we're not talking about lying here, Cecil, we're talking about deception through cherry-picking the data. The two military teams concluded that Saddam was up to no good, and their results figure prominently in the link you provide. But what exactly does that link say about whether the labs were in fact used for hydrogen production? It mentions only that such usage would be impractical because they are too large. THAT'S IT!!!!! Now, does the allegation that they are too large really strike anyone here as necessary and sufficient evidence to establish that they were not used for hydrogen production instead of WMD?

Posted by: Highlander at April 12, 2006 01:30 PM (ZnGgh)

44 For one thing, Joe Wilson was very careful to say that no uranium deal was made. NOT that no uranium was pursued or that Iraqi officials even went to Niger. Niger officials confirmed that Iraqi agents were there and were not "entertained" as the Niger officials suspected why they were there; and it wasn't to secure a deal on the best price for cow peas. So Joe Wilson is an idiot of he thinks one can't see through his acts of ommission. This is without even going into his lack of an "official" report on his trip. And I'm so sick of Valerie Plame I could spit. Her name only came up because of her connection in promoting him for that trip to begin with. Second, if memory serves me right, the big "dispute" over the mobile units was the fact that some of the the equipment found there was dual purpose. This is what war opponents have a tendency to seize upon when ever these issues come up. Their constant claims that whatever was found "only had traces of sarin gas" or "that equipment could have been used for weather balloons" or "so what if they had five hundred 55 gallon drums of pesticides stored next to warheads and ammunition stockpiles. They have bugs in Iraq too." Would that these people were so willing to give that benefit of the doubt to their own countrymen and military! If the Iraqis had time to bury a whole fleet of Russian migs in the sand, they had time to do a lot more while we were going the dipomatic route. They must have been laughing their pants off over there the whole time. If anyone thinks for one minute that Joby Warrick wasn't pandering to a certain crowd then you're being intellectually dishonest with yourselves. As Mat said, >"This article isn't about Bush at all, and therefore isn't really all that politically explosive." Well, Mat may see that and interpret the article that way, but ask yourself how many others will? If the intelligence picked up was right about anything, we get stone-cold silence from the left. If it's wrong we get the screamers coming out of the woodwork. Joby Warrick just gave the Kos crowd and DU everything they need to twist this into another vendetta. Just look at the way it's written. These are the people who are still worshipping at the pedestal they've put Wilson on and want to make George Galloway an honorary citizen! Yeesh.

Posted by: Oyster at April 12, 2006 01:57 PM (GLcRB)

45 George, Pay up. Here's the facts: Joe Wilson claimed publicly (TV, newspapers, magazines, speeches, etc. etc.) that Bush lied in his SOTU speech. Here is what Bush said: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Now the key here is to note that Joe said Bush was lying about "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Pay attention to that because here is where the dishonesty comes in. From the REPORT ON THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS ON IRAQ - compiled by SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE we find a lot of interesting, and mostly unpublished information: Page 38 (REDACTED) Based on information from the CIA report from the foreign service, on February 12, 2002, the DIA wrote a finished intelligence product titled Niamey signed an agreement to sell 500 tons of uranium a year to Baghdad (NMJIC {National Military Joint Intelligence Center} Executive Highlight, Vol 028-02, February 12, 2002). The product outlined the details in the DO intelligence report, namely that Niger had agreed to deliver 500 tons of yellowcake uranium to Iraq …REDACTED…. The piece concluded that “Iraq probably is searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program.” The product did not include any judgements about the credibility of the reporting. (REDACTED) After reading the DIA report, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for the CIA’s analysis of the issue. In response, the Director of the Central Intelligence’s (DCI) Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) published a Senior Publish When Ready (SPWR021402-05), an intelligence assessment with limited distribution, which said, “information on the alleged uranium contract between Iraq and Niger comes exclusively from a foreign government service report that lacks crucial details, and we are working to clarify the information to determine whether it can be corroborated.” The piece discussed the details of the DO intelligence report and indicated that “some of the information in… Page 39 …the report contradicts reporting from the U.S. Embassy in Naimey. U.S. diplomats say the French Government-led consortium that operates Niger’s two uranium mines maintains complete control over uranium and yellowcake production.” The CIA sent a separate version of the assessment to the Vice President which differed only in that it named the foreign government service…REDACTED… B. Former Ambassador (REDACTED) Officials from the CIA’s DO Counterproliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President’s Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. …REDACTED…who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided to contact a former ambassadot to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger. (REDACTED)Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador, however, interviews and documents provided the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. The CPD reports officer told Committee staff that the former ambassador’s wife “offered up his name” and a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador’s wife says, “my husband has good relations with both the PM {prime minister} and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” Page 43 (U) Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day. The debriefing took place in the former ambassador’s home and although his wife was there, according to the reports officer, she acted as a hostess and did not participate in the debrief. Based on information provided verbally by the former ambassador, the DO case officer wrote a draft intelligence report and sent it to the DO reports officer who added additional relevant information from his notes. (U) The intelligence report based on the former ambassador’s trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002. The report did not identify the former ambassador by name or as a former ambassador, but described him as “a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record.” The report also indicted that the “subsources of the following information knew their remarks could reach the U.S. government and may have intended to influence as well as inform.” DO officials told Committee staff that this type of description was routine and was done in order to protect the former ambassador as the source of the information, which they told him they would do. DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the “high priority of the issue.” The report was widely distributed in routing channels. (REDACTED) The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, …REDACTED… businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.” Page 44 (U) In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation… So - Joe Wilson, through his own report of the situation he found in Niger, stated that not only did Iraq approach Niger for uranium, but gave details of a meeting that actually occurred between Nigerian officials and Iraq. Niger dropped the issue because of the UN sanctions. So Joe saying the President lied in his SOTU is actually a LIE. According to Joe's current bio at the Greater Talent Network (and at least one other site I have seen), Joe claims: Wilson is now at the center of a major political maelstrom involving the White House, the C.I.A. and the second gulf war in Iraq. In 2002, at the request of Vice President Dick Cheney, Wilson was assigned by the C.I.A. to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was seeking to acquire uranium from Niger for the purpose of advancing his nuclear program. When his investigation turned up nothing, Wilson reported back to officials in Washington that there was no basis for the claims. Wow - Joe claims in public he was sent by Cheney. We know from the report above that Joe's claim is at best an exaggeration. I call it a deliberate lie. But hey - Joe was sent by the CIA - and as a comical side note - the department that created some of the original reports that Cheney was reading was CPD - where Val Plame worked. Coincidence? But there's more. In Joe's own public words he says that he was sent to Niger to investigate if Iraq was seeking to buy uranium. What he found was that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium. Isn't that amazing. But Bush is the one who lied...right? I mean Bush said Hussein was seeking to buy uranium - wait - isn't that what Joe actually reported? It's not what he said publicly though. Pay up George. Wilson lied. That is why the WaPo handed him his head in their lead editorial on Sunday.

Posted by: Specter at April 12, 2006 02:29 PM (ybfXM)

46 This story is example number 75 (or so) on how this unfortunately is a war between us and them and not a war between good and evil.

Posted by: Steve at April 12, 2006 02:31 PM (bE3Eh)

47 Specter, you're missing the forest for the trees. All your selective quoting allows you to do is speak ill of Joe Wilson. You're 100% wrong, but let's put that aside. Because as Joe himself would say, this isn't about him. This is about the fact that Iraq didn't get the uranium, and it didn't have nuclear weapons, so that was not a good reason to invade a country, and put our troops in harm's way, and commit what is conservatively estimated to be $1 trillion, so that our troops can duck and cover in the middle of a civil war. No reason that our government gave us for invading and occupying Iraq turned out to be true. Doesn't that bother you, just a little bit?

Posted by: patrioticity at April 12, 2006 03:14 PM (MGcSD)

48 What I find fascinating about the whole Wilson/Plame scandal is that you had rogue? agents in the CIA engaging in an unauthorized? operation to deceive the American public about President Bush’s credibility. I’ve not yet heard who authorized Mr. Wilson to go to Nigeria and conduct his investigation. Wilson initially claimed that VP Cheney authorized his mission but that turned out to be a lie. Also, why was such a mission entrusted to a nonagent? Why was he allowed to write a fictional account of his mission for the Times with no vetting from the CIA? There are many such questions that can be pursued in this event but nobody is looking into it as far as I know. Another thing that has pique my curiosity is that the Left has despised the CIA for meddling in other nations politics with dubious evidence to back it up, yet here we have a clear-cut case of CIA political meddling in our country and there are no condemnations, instead Wilson is praised as a “hero” by the Left.

Posted by: Homerlicous at April 12, 2006 03:30 PM (bz3yV)

49 Specter, "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein RECENTLY [emphasis added] sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" -- George W. Bush Most likely all that you provide is unsubstantiated nonsense. In any case, you need to realize, dude, that relative to 2003 (when Bush made his statement above), 1999 is NOT recent.

Posted by: Highlander at April 12, 2006 03:37 PM (ZnGgh)

50 You know...I love it when you provide facts from documents and then your told, "but that's not it" or "you made that up" or "it's nonsense."\ Riddle me this oh enlightened ones - why would a liberal paper like the WaPo say that Joe lied. You really should spend more time in the real world rather than you imaginary la-la land.

Posted by: Specter at April 12, 2006 04:21 PM (ybfXM)

51 Specter: You weren't told that that's not it, that you made it up, or that it's nonsense. The report is the report. We all see it, you can't make it up. Your interpretation of it is all fubared though. I'll explain why. First and foremost, Wilson reported that the Prime Minister/Foreign Minister of Niger did not know of any yellowcake sales to Iraq. And this man would also be the person to know about such a transaction if it were to have taken place. So no yellowcake went to Iraq, done deal on that issue. If you're backing the claim that Saddam SOUGHT uranium, you're still off the mark. The article you posted clearly contradicts that. It says the Prime Minister was confronted by a businessman asking to "expand commercial relations". The Prime Minister ASSUMED that was uranium, but that's just an assumption, all the businessman asked was to expand commercial relations. Furthermore, because of sanctions he decided not to trade with Iraq. That doesn't mean he decided not to give uranium to them, he simply ended all trade, which means commercial relations, because of sanctions. And THEN, dubiously enough, it goes on to say that the Prime Minister actually went to the meeting! But alas, no talk if the Iraqi delegation actually wanted uranium or not. So the Prime Minster ASSUMED (emphasis added?), PRE-TALKS, that the Iraqi businessmen wanted uranium, and post-talks there is no mention of uranium. Why do you think that is? That's because uranium wasn't mentioned in the talks, his assumptions were off. His assumptions were merely that, assumptions. You also realize that two days ago the WaPo put out an editorial that was excessively pro-Bush and anti-Wilson, right?

Posted by: clio at April 12, 2006 04:58 PM (yordp)

52 clio, yes I know that about the WaPo editorial - I pointed it out to Highlander and patriotcity. The point was, why would such a left-leaning paper publish that piece so prominently. I mean they slammed Wilson for lying - for twisting and exaggerating the truth. The problem with your analysis is this: You are speaking from the POV of having more knowlege now about what was going on back then. Put yourself in a decision maker's place - in Bush's place. You had CIA saying one thing (that there was a sale; that there were meetings; that Hussein was seeking uranium and not only in Niger; and that Hussein had 500 tons of yellowcake already in-country that was supposedly under the control of IAEA) and INR saying another (no sale). You have what you believe to be a credible foreign service (Italian, France, and then Britain) saying the same things as CIA. You have to make a decision based on that. What do you do?

Posted by: Specter at April 12, 2006 05:16 PM (ybfXM)

53 "For Zarathustra is a great wind; and one must beware of spitting against the wind." At some point 6 months ago these arguments became pointless. If GWB can't win with the "bully pulpit" he can't win. What are you telling us? That papers print leaks? That is what they DO.

Posted by: skip at April 12, 2006 05:27 PM (aDFHl)

54 The reason the Wilson went out there was to find out if any of the alleged yellowcake claims were true. He went out there to find out if Hussein was seeking, or had been seeking, uranium in Niger. His report states that Hussein has not done so. This is exactly the same deal with the bioweapons labs. You have some initial reports that bolster the claims that Hussein wants mass weapons, but the intelligence community questions the information, so they send a team (or man) to clarify what's going on. In both instances, the clarifier had debunked the initial claims, and was subsequently ignored by the Bush administration. The point is, if you're doubtful about the information, and you send someone in to see what's really going on, you're sending him in to trust his report. If you don't agree with that report because it's against your intended efforts, you're not doing your job.

Posted by: clio at April 12, 2006 05:31 PM (yordp)

55 But his report said that Hussein was seeking. That it was clear what Iraq was looking for. Read the ISSC report.

Posted by: Specter at April 12, 2006 05:42 PM (ybfXM)

56 It's not even that clio - it was not a definite thing one way or the other. There are other countries, like Somalia, that were named as possible places that Iraq was approaching. It was the CIA who sent Wilson - and CIA who doubted him. And that's even funnier seeing as it was CPD that sent the original reports that added fuel to the fire. LOL. But you can't even begin to explain how Joe was touting that he knew the document were forgeries during his trip when nobody in our government had seen them yet. Get a grip!

Posted by: Specter at April 12, 2006 05:59 PM (ybfXM)

57 Specter declares: "And to try to parse the word "recently" - the reporsts started surfacing in 1999. The meeting happened in that year or shortly thereafter. It takes a long time to centrifuge U-238 into U-235. The word "recent" was appropriate." Do you know what happened at that alleged meeting, Specter??? Do you have any evidence at all arising from that meeting that specifically shows that Saddam sought uranium from Africa?? Of course, the answer is "no," isn't it?? As clio has already pointed out, you live in a world of unconfirmed assumptions. And how long it takes to process different types of uranium is irrelevant (or if you argue otherwise, explain why your beloved Bush didn't mention uranium processing time.). Go outside, Specter, poll Americans, and find out from them what proportion classify an event transpiring three to four years ago as "recent." Then report back to us with your findings. No, Specter, unless we're talking about geological phenomena, an event happening three to four years ago is NOT recent, though your love for Bush might want to make it so. Consequently, BUSH LIED. Deal with it. "You had CIA saying one thing (that there was a sale" -- Specter When did the CIA EVER say that Saddam was sold uranium after 1991??? Specter asks: "You have to make a decision based on that. What do you do?" Uh, you wait until all the facts are in, RATHER THAN RISK TELLING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T TRUE.

Posted by: Herman at April 12, 2006 07:01 PM (LXrLv)

58 Uh, the only way Bush could have "waited for the facts to be in" would be to sit back and let a city or two get annihilated. Invasion was the only way to know for sure that a lying sack of s**t like Sadaam Hussein had or did not have WMD. Unless your one of those drooling clowns that think Sadaam was trustworthy, and would have been straight with inspections. IN which case I say "begone fool"

Posted by: TMF at April 12, 2006 08:22 PM (cGtRE)

59 Word Games, Word Games. The 16 words in the State of the Union, noted British Intelligence. From all I can determine, Joe Wilson has/had nothing to do with British Intelligence. In England, an investigation conducted with much acclaim, determined that the British determination was accurate/well founded. Joe Wilson decided to interject himself into the situation by saying that those 16 words were incorrect. He has no EARTHLY or TERESTERAL way to know if those words were correct. What he can rely on is his own visit to Niger, not addressed in the State of the Union. According to the Senate report noted above, his report that the Niger former Foreign and Prime Minister believed that Iraqi overtures dealt with uranium. That nugget confirmed previous CIA suspicions that Saddam was seeking yellowcake. Please notice I used the word seeking. I am sure it is difficult to understand, and may be far more difficult than figuring out which definition of "is" to use, yet to most it will be fairly clear. Maybe Joe Wilson didn't lie, yet assuridly he did NOT COMMIT Truth.

Posted by: the Dragon at April 12, 2006 08:23 PM (7LZ2O)

60 Washington Post, July 10, 2004: Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report. The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address. Washington Times: The British government yesterday bolstered President Bush's assertion that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, casting further doubt on former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's claims to the contrary. The conclusion was reached by Robin Butler, who once was Britain's top civil servant, in a major report on prewar intelligence that came five days after the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reached a similar conclusion in its report. Butler Report (Official, British Government): We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well-founded. Factcheck.org: The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain. Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did. * A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.” * A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke. * Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger . * Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium. None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech. But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 12, 2006 08:46 PM (0fZB6)

61 Herman, Read the ISSC report. You are so uniformed as to the reality of the situation that it makes you looke really dumb. DIA and CIA thought that the reports detailing the Iran-Niger connection were true. INR (State Department) thought it was not. That was the dichotomy that caused further investigation. Even Joe said in his report to the CIA that the meeting happened and that Iraq was seeking uranium. Niger did right by denying it. You see you keep trying to say that Wilson did not lie. You have been proven wrong by the documentation. If you care to put up any official documents that disprove my position, have at it. But you know that you are arguing simply from rhetoric and opinion and that you have no proof. But to enlighten you a little bit, here is some basic physics. It takes about 1000 tons of uranium to make a cigar-sized box of yellocake. That is natural uranium - U-238. That is not pure enough to make a bomb. From the cigar box of yellowcake you can get a few grams of U-235 which is weapons grade material. You do that through a process called isotope segregation. That is what the tubes, magnets do - they make a centrifuge. The separation by centrifuge is done in what is called a "centrifuge cascade" - you need a huge number of centrifuges to make a cascade - like over 1000. Once you have that it is just a matter of time to make enough U-235 to build a bomb - about 35 Kg. To build up that amount of material takes several years - and that is if the cascade runs 24/7. They don't - there is maintenance, breakdowns, etc. Ok - very simple explanation. But here is the concern. Decisions were made by Bush based on the information in the 2002 NIE. That particular NIE was developed in a very short time as compared to what it would normally take. As a country we had lost basically all of our human intelligence in the ME. This NIE was developed based on what we knew, or at least thought we knew at the time - and much of that was developed during the Clinton administration. According to the Key Judgements from the 2002 NIE (and remember that the CIA is in charge of the final form and content of the NIE): We judge that we are seeing only a portion of Iraq's WMD efforts, owing to Baghdad's vigorous denial and deception efforts. Revelations after the Gulf war Mb>starkly demonstrate the extensive efforts undertaken by Iraq to deny information. We lack specific information on many key aspects of Iraq's WMD programs. Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. * Iraq's growing ability to sell oil illicitly increases Baghdad's capabilities to finance WMD programs; annual earnings in cash and goods have more than quadrupled, from $580 million in 1998 to about $3 billion this year. * Iraq has largely rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production. * Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents. * Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998. How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material. * If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year. * Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in procuring the necessary equipment and expertise. o Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines, and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes probably are not part of the program.) o Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is underway. o All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly enriched uranium per year. * In a much less likely scenario, Baghdad could make enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by 2005 to 2007 if it obtains suitable centrifuge tubes this year and has all the other materials and technological expertise necessary to build production-scale uranium enrichment facilities. There is more that was in the NIE: Uranium Acquisition. Iraq retains approximately two-and-a-half tons of 2.5 percent enriched uranium oxide, which the IAEA permits. This low-enriched material could be used as feed material to produce enough HEU for about two nuclear weapons. The use of enriched feed material also would reduce the initial number of centrifuges that Baghdad would need by about half. Iraq could divert this material -- the IAEA inspects it only once a year -- and enrich it to weapons grade before a subsequent inspection discovered it was missing. The IAEA last inspected this material in late January 2002. Iraq has about 500 metric tons of yellowcake and low enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA. Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons. * A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of "pure uranium" (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement. * Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources. Reports suggest Iraq is shifting from domestic mining and milling of uranium to foreign acquisition. Iraq possesses significant phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive, however.

Posted by: Specter at April 12, 2006 08:48 PM (ybfXM)

62 Note: all of text between links above should be in blockquotes. The software seems to have had a hiccup...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 12, 2006 08:49 PM (0fZB6)

63 I gotta go with Tim on this. Having had to fill weather balloons in the field, in the middle of the Mojave desert, it is far easier to load a cylinder of hydrogen into the back of a pickup truck. That's the way we did it and you don't even need a full sized cylinder since you use so little gas to fill a balloon the size of the six-pack dualie we were driving in. But hey, maybe the iraqis were engineers instead of craft workers and preffered large, clumsy, complicated, and expensive to simple, efficient, and KISS. Kalroy

Posted by: Kalroy at April 13, 2006 12:28 AM (9RG5y)

64 relative to 2003 (when Bush made his statement above), 1999 is NOT recent To a 5 year old, 4 years ago is ancient history. To a 60 year old its recent. In any case, what's up with Clinton being asleep at the switch allowing Saddam try and get nuclear materiel?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 13, 2006 05:10 AM (l6Jdw)

65 I guess the trolls crawled back under the bridge... "Who's that trip, trip, trapping across my bridge?"

Posted by: Specter at April 13, 2006 10:51 AM (ybfXM)

66 What a wonderful collection of cheap propaganda. If you want to see for yourself how valuable the other two "majority' reports are check for yourself: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/ The two reports honestly state that the two trailers must be mobile WMD labs since the Iraqi source for the inelligence recognized the trailers and neither one of the two teams could think of any use of the trailers and equipment other than mobile WMD labs. Now that's an innovative approach.

Posted by: Volki1 at April 13, 2006 01:30 PM (CNHCQ)

67 Why was a third team of experts sent to evaluate the trailers? The first two teams were split in their determintation regarding use of trailers and more expertise was needed.Since there was disagreement even amongst the first two teams and quite substanial certainty from the third team you would think the Bush administration would be cautious in peddling this tale.Lets give Bush the benefit of doubt that he wasnt informed of the report 2 days after it was sent to the White House and that's being very generous.Why were various members of the administrations still peddling the mobile weapons of mass destruction trailers story well into 2004 when the report came May 27,2003?

Posted by: Baldwin at April 13, 2006 06:04 PM (bsqPj)

68 IS that MR. Ed - proving once again the old equine Paradox, that there are more Horse's Asses in the world than there are horses. As to Joe Wilson - even the wimpy 9/11 called Joey's allegations about as close as lies as one can get without actually calling Joey a liar. Wilson's went to Niger on a govt-paid junket suggested by his wife - he was UNQUALIFIED to make a judgement, gave no WRITTEN report to the CIA (in and of itself unusual) and actually confirmed the suspicion that Iraq was looking to buy Niger yellocake, since the recent Iraqi trade delegation was headed by a nuke expert (confer with the National review - theyve been all over this bogus WIlson story). Seeing as the only commodity other than yellowcake Uranium that Niger exports are goats intestines (sarcasm intended), I am very confident that the trade delegate's head had exertise there. Keep in mind, the Niger trade minister nixed any deal with Iraq. ya gotta wonder why. Over goat intestine, killed hallal-style? I dont think so. SO Joey becomes a proven liar, and Ed has been sipping too much of the MSM koolaide. swhitebull - in the words of my favorite wascally wabbit, what a maroon.

Posted by: swhitebull at April 13, 2006 08:22 PM (qbwpW)

69 Trying to deny the words of the hard left's prophet Joe Wilson is a useless task. "Bush Lied!" is one of the five pillars of liberal orthodoxy and their entire belief system will collapse if it's ever removed in the face of the facts. No matter how many reports, editorials, articles, interviews, etc. exist to counter their misconceptions, their faith remains unshaken. It is truly an amazing thing to see.

Posted by: inmypajamas at April 13, 2006 11:10 PM (IoB4s)

70 George, Where's my MONEY. You stated publicly that you would pay for proff Joe lied. It has been done with nothing to show the opposite was true. PAY UP.

Posted by: Specter at April 14, 2006 09:12 AM (ybfXM)

71 George - apologies - I read your original post incorrectly. I went over to the other site an now have egg on my face for misreading your intentions. Sorry.

Posted by: Specter at April 14, 2006 09:26 AM (ybfXM)

72 "...promote the general welfare..." Cash payments to citizens promotes their specific welfare. Our Founders used words with purpose, and "general welfare" does not mean "whatever."

Posted by: Houston Euler at May 15, 2006 05:48 PM (ik9ho)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Jefferson Morley's Washington Post blog entry today, Talk of Iran Strikes Gets Cool Response, in which Morley summarized world media opinion on threats of a possible attack on Iran's nuclear program, triggered an interesting response from a reader who called himself Farhad Saidieh:

This is a good article, but when have the USA backed down, especially if it would require them to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Iranian regime; the withdraw of the "axis of evil" statement; and then removal of accusations of Iran's links to terrorism/freedom fighters. Even if the USA felt that this may some how be in its interest the Israelis wouldn't allow it and would drag the USA back.
There is another way. It would require the USA to acknowledge that it does not have the right, or moral standing to be the Judge, Jury and Executioner. Only then will the end of the war on Terrorism start.

As you may imagine, I had my own response to Farhad:

Farhad,

Why does it seem you are more interested in ending the War on Terrorism, than on ending terrorism itself? I think you have overplayed your hand and stated your intentions a little too clearly.

Iran is a terrorist state that openly seeks the ultimate weapon, while maintaining long-standing calls for the eradication of Israel. It is no great stretch to see that a nuclear Iran would try to destroy Israel as soon as it thought it was possible. Before dying, the Israeli counterstrike is certain to exact a horrible toll of its own. All told, tens of millions will die in this ever-more-likely scenario, and the Middle East will become inhabitable for thousands of years because of nuclear radiation.

The projected and all-but-promised Islamic first strike will clearly mark Islam as an aberration; a threat to all humanity. I doubt any of the "civilized" nations will think twice about unleashing their own arsenals, conventional or otherwise, in smashing other Islamic states that can be seen as a threat to those not already killed by the Iranian-triggered war.

Islam will be smashed, consigned to the ash-heap of history with other failed religions of past centuries. Is this the future you want for Islam? That is the path you are choosing.

If western powers back down now, Iran will end your world, and your religion, and the only solace you will find is that you outlasted the Israelis by a breath.

This is the future Iran would choose for you. I suggest you find another way.

Too many people in this country are allowing their views on developments in Iran's nuclear proliferation gamble to be colored by their like or dislike of President Bush. This is a mistake.

As Mark Steyn noted in an excellent commentary today:

Anyone who spends half an hour looking at Iranian foreign policy over the last 27 years sees five things:

1. contempt for the most basic international conventions;
2. long-reach extraterritoriality;
3. effective promotion of radical Pan-Islamism;
4. a willingness to go the extra mile for Jew-killing (unlike, say, Osama);
5. an all-but-total synchronization between rhetoric and action.

Later:

Â…the extremist [Iranian President] Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," while the moderate [former Iranian President] Rafsanjani has declared that Israel is "the most hideous occurrence in history," which the Muslim world "will vomit out from its midst" in one blast, because "a single atomic bomb has the power to completely destroy Israel, while an Israeli counter-strike can only cause partial damage to the Islamic world." Evidently wiping Israel off the map seems to be one of those rare points of bipartisan consensus in Tehran, the Iranian equivalent of a prescription drug plan for seniors: we're just arguing over the details.

So the question is: Will they do it?

And the minute you have to ask, you know the answer.

When Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker that the Administration is planning contingencies for possible military strikes against Iran's nuclear sites, and that even our own nuclear options were being considered as a possible response in some scenarios, my initial response was one of "isn't it their job to consider all options?" I did not however, actually think using nuclear weapons was a workable solution, anymore than did the generals in Hersh's anonymously-sourced article who threatened to resign if the nuclear option wasn't removed from the table.

Like the President, I do not desire military conflict—or in light of Iranian intrusion into Iraq, more military conflict—with Iran, and would much prefer a diplomatic settlement where no more lives need be lost. I agree with the apparent assessment of Steyn and others that the Iranian mullahcracy will not stop until they are stopped, and that stoppage, like so many things in the Islamic world, will only occur at the point of the sword.

The American nuclear option of using B61-11 tactical thermonuclear bombs or similar munitions is unsettling and unpleasant, and only to be thought of seriously if all diplomatic efforts fail, and no other military response seems capable. But it is an option, and one that must be considered. They stakes—tens of millions of lives across the Middle East and southwest Asia—are simply too high. Yes, some generals will not want to even consider this option, but generals tend fight the last war, and the civilian leadership most be more nimble in considering what may occur if we fail to stop the Iranians here.

To fail here is tantamount to the total destruction of Israel and the Palestinians, the poisoning of Jordan, Lebanon, and surrounding nations by fallout from Iranian nuclear weapons, and the destruction of much of Iran in retaliation by an Israeli response, even as the Jewish state ceases to exist. It is a price Iran says it is willing to pay, but what of neighboring Iraq, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan? What of other nations that will reap what Iran has sown? They have no say is determining this nuclear winter that ends their lives, and yet they all stand to lose because of an Iranian mullahcracy that has never deviated from its plan to rule the world for Islam, or die.

Iran cannot win this war, but it can destroy much, including Islam itself.

An Iran-triggered nuclear war would wipe out a significant portion of the cradle of civilization, and draw withering fire from suddenly isolationist populations worldwide that would prudently declare Islam a threat to the security of their states. The religion would be banned in many nations, it adherents driven out or underground in others, and the remaining Islamic nations not dying of radiation poisoning and internal wars brought about by this strife will be targeted at the slightest hint of provocation.

How long will the first Islamic nuclear state, Pakistan, last in this environment of well-earned distrust for the Islamic Bomb? What will happen to Pakistan's nuclear weapons when Pervez Musharraf is no longer firmly in charge? If Pakistan falters and control of its weapons is in doubt for even a second, the response will be swift, punitive, and decisive.

If Iran succeeds in its unholy task, Islam itself may die because the remainder of the world will deem it too dangerous to exist. Iran will kill Allah. It may take generations, but Allah will be a god as dead and forgotten as Huitzlopochtli and Heimdall. One billion Muslims armed mainly with small arms cannot compete against the modern world's militaries should the battle ever fully be joined. They will achieve their Islamic Armageddon, but they will go "into the light" alone, as forgotten as the followers of Odin and Ra.

President Bush said in his 2002 State of the Union Address:

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons.

Iran is the most dangerous of those remaining regimes, and it is seeking the world's most destructive weapons. Diplomacy is our first option as it should always be. If all else fails, however, we owe it to the world to resolve the problem of Iran's nuclear ambitions with any and all of the technologies at our disposal.

Too many lives hang in the balance not to take that difficult step.

Update: And time draws short.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:08 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 1402 words, total size 9 kb.

For those you who read Captain's Quarters this is old news, but Ed Morrisey hired two translators to review a section of a captured Iraqi document dated March 17, 2001 that originally translated as:

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

According to this translation, it seems that Saddam's military was actively recruiting suicide bombers to attack American targets in the months preceding 9/11. Did the two additional translators that Ed Morrissey hired reach a similar translation?

Yes.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:34 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 168 words, total size 1 kb.

I seem to be among the last of the political bloggers commenting on Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker, where he writes that the Administration has not ruled out the option of using small tactical nukes (including B61-11s) to eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program.

I can't say that I'm surprised the nuclear option was on the table; I did write about this exact same bomb not once, but twice in a more hypothetical sense more than a week ago, precisely because I think Bush once said something to the effect that "all options were on the table," and to me, "all" does in fact mean all. Predictably, the left thinks that the Hersh article is this week's concrete proof that Bush is the anti-Christ (as if that is a new opinion for them), some on the far right are ready to nuke first and ask questions later, and most center-right blogger's realize that a the use of a B61-11 is a worst-case scenario option to be used only if all other attempts fail.

What does amaze me is rhetoric from some here in the United States willing to label Bush as insane or unhinged for what has been to date a measured, reasonable response, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who claims to have felt a holy light while addressing the United Nations in September, has time and again spoken of an "end times" scenario that his regime is rumored to have pledged to try to bring about. A Holocaust-denier with Messianic delusions runs a End-times-focused regime that has openly stated it would like to see Israel "wiped off the map." They are apparently hoping to trigger a massive nuclear war which they think will bring forth the Hidden Imam, and Bush is the one who is insane for being willing to stop them from acquiring nuclear weapons that could end tens of millions of lives?

The guys at South Park are correct. We are a nation of people with their heads buried firmly in the sand.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:15 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 2 kb.

Drudge is running a link to this AP story, which claims the pilots of an American AH-64 Longbow attack helicopter were shot down, and their burning bodies pulled from the wreckage.

My PC's video isn't working right now, but the video is downloadable at the SITE Institute, where they have two still photos captured from the video that make me immediately suspicious. The timestamp on the video states that the date of the film is March 19, 2000. In addition, the still photo on the right seems to show an airborne helicopter with what appears to be (in the one grainy still photo can I see) skids on the undercarriage.

Current-issue UH-60 Blackhawks that are the predominate utility and MEDEVAC helicopter of the U.S. Army have wheels.

I'll update this after I have had a chance to look at the video later today, but I suspect this may not be authentic footage.

Update: The SITE video is not the same film of the crash as reported in the AP story.
Bareknucklepolitics.com has the correct video. It is of very low quality, but despite that, it is not being disputed by the U.S. military. Without anything else to go on, I'll assume that the downing of the helicopter is real.

Second Update: It now appears that the U.S. military is doubting the authenticity of the video footage, even while a stateside defense contractor says the tape looks authentic. The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discrepancy is that the Army is aware of forensic evidence from the recent crash that does not match up with the footage shown in the video. The contractor would not necessarily have access to this information.

Variables such as the condition of the downed helicopter, the terrain of the crash site, and even the condition of the human remains collected may very well provide the military with evidence suggesting that the footage was either staged, or was footage from a previous crash.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:53 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 333 words, total size 2 kb.

DEAR NEW YORK TIMES: When the largest single fatality-causing event for your (well, our) soldiers in recent months is a single vehicle wreck, isn't it officially time to retire the theme that we're losing the war?

Note: spelling error corrected. (h/t danking70)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:57 AM | Comments (58) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.