Senators Clash With Nominee About Torture

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by queequeger

You're right, bush never said the words 'Iraq is working with al-Qa'ida.' But he and his friends DID say the following:

A) The war on terror is a threat to our existence.

Well, I know what you meant, though it isn't what you said.

B) Al-Qa'ida is the terrorist group that is leading the pack.
C) We have to go into Iraq to make it safe from terrorism.

What we're really engaged in, whether we say it or not, is an effort to draw a country out of the Non-Integrating Gap, and conduct it into an era of developing global connectivity. Dictatorships and undemocratic social orders tend to put nations under isolating bell jars.

Anyone would connect the dots to think Saddam was working with al-Qa'ida. Then when GW said in a tisy [sic] of contempt that he never implied the two were working together. That's funny, an entire country THOUGHT that's what you meant. How stupid of us ALL to get it wrong. I have no doubt that this was engineered to give credence to the whole idea. They do this sort of thing all the time.

I doubt you could read any measure of contempt into his remarks -- he's too much the experienced politician. It doesn't require the example of the President I like so much I voted for him twice to bring up contempt for those opposed to this war in any case: they are so wrongheaded they champion undemocratic fascism over any description of democracy, which is simply perverted and perverse, and only engaged in by people who should be ashamed of themselves, ashamed enough to undergo a drastic revision of their entire philosophy of life in order to escape a quite legitimate charge of fascist sympathies.

And no, al-Qa'ida was not working with the Iraqi government. Saddam hated terrorists, he saw them as a threat that is to volatile to control (funny, he seems to be right about that. If only WE'D figure that out). In fact all this crap about Zarqawi being so beloved by His Lunacy is absurd. They talked with one another, but there was no working relationship whatsoever. Saddam tried on many occasions to blow his ass up, in fact.

And then made it up to him with major leg surgery?

Think about it like this: why the hell would Saddam Hussein want to inflame tensions with the US? He didn't give a damn, the only annoyance he had was the no fly zones. It was in no way in his interest to piss the US off into invading. That's probably why he got rid of all his chemical weapons between the late nineties and 2003. He balked us to show strength, not to get us to attack.

Why? Basically because dictators are, sooner or later, stupid. Occupational hazard. Saddam was no strategist, nor general, nor chessplayer. He didn't figure his interests rightly.

Get rid? Mmmmaybe. Saddam's Bomb Maker details how WMD projects were not suspended but put into abeyance in a biding of time. Not too dissimilar to the likeliest action of a certain neighboring country with four letters in its name. And there's still that mystery convoy of heavy truckloads of something from Baghdad to Syria in April '03. Any of our people who know what that was aren't talking. And don't forget the large amount of twinned-agent Sarin the Jordanians intercepted being trucked from Syria (not a known producer of such weaponry, but I understand Iraq was) to Amman, in aid of Allah knows what.

Heh heh. And that tactic bit him right in the ass, didn't it? Couldn't happen to a lovelier nor more deserving fellow. Again, getting stupid is an occupational hazard of dictators -- and their dictatorships. That's why I'm such a determined partisan of democracy, and of course why I'm annoyed so few of my opposition here can claim the same.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw, there is only one Cellarite who believes George Bush made any such accusation.

You are correct. George Jr did not *specifically* say Saddam conspired for 11 September. He insisted to Richard Clark on 12 September that Saddam must have been complicit. The people that George Jr praises as closest allies - ie Ahmad Chalabi - said Saddam was complicit even in the 1993 WTC attack. Wolfovich would routinely declare both before and after 11 September, "I just don't understand why we are beginning by talking about this one man, bin Laden." The threat was always redirected at Saddam. Some White House theories even proclaimed two Ramzi Yousefs; the second created and trained by Iraqis just to attack Americans. Even the Abu Nidal death in Iraq was really part of Saddam's world wide terrorism campaign - that only existed in White House fantasies.

George Jr gave a 2003 State of the Union address where 11 September, Saddam, and bin Laden were all interlaced in the same paragraph. It was no accident as Urbane Guerrilla always forgets. George Jr never said specifically that Saddam was complicit. He just said enough so that wacko extremists would believe it. George Jr was echoing opinions of his major policy makers - especially Wolfovich, Feith, and Cheney - that Saddam must have been complicit; therefore he was. Also stated was that 11 September could not happen without support at a national level - another specific reference to blame Saddam.

George Jr said enough so that wacko extremists would believe Saddam was involved in the 11 September attacks. It is only silly semantics that he did not specifically say it. George Jr did everything necessary to create that myth. As his own Sec of the Treasury stated in his book, George Jr stated up front that he wanted excuses to attack Saddam.

I am rather surprised Urban Guerrilla admits, "Saddam and Osama were hardly enemies at all". Of course. Saddam was doing everything possible to restore his American ally status. But that is not in the confused and partisan rhetoric from George Jr. Bottom line conclusion is therefore correct: Saddam and bin Laden - are accused by George Jr of conspiring to create 11 September. He just did not say so directly. It’s called propaganda - how to manipulate weaker minds - how even Hitler justified threats and occupation of Czechoslovakia.

Meanwhile Urban Guerrilla confuses the issue. Fact remains that the 2003 NIE summary was rewritten to make claims that did not exist even in the classified NIE document. UT is citing another NIE summary as proof that Al Qaeda is the major enemy in what is really only a civil war. This world wide Al Qaeda conspiracy does not exist. But it does exist where myths were also promoted of Saddam and bin Laden as co-conspirators. None of those myths would exist without George Jr and his administration pushing them.

Anything from the George Jr administration is a lie until first proven otherwise. His credibility (and those who support the mental midget) are that poor.

A war cannot be won if the enemy is not first defined. That is called "Making of a Quagmire" or "A Bright and Shining Lie". Since a political agenda is more important, then this administration will not even admit that it created “Mission Accomplished” – an Iraqi civil war. Instead we have this all but mythical monster enemy called Al Qaeda. Since the political agenda is more important, then this administration will do everything possible so that the war is not lost under his watch. How strange. Nixon wanted and did the same thing including myths that Nam was actually war with Russia and China. At what point do we first move to the truth so that a war can be won? That NIE comes from the same people who even (lied) rewrote a previous NIE summary to promote a political agenda.

[Undertoad]

Remember Zarqawi? Read the section on alleged links to al Qaeda. Read Michael Yon's entries. Read Michael Totten's entries.

[queequeger]

Zarqawi was a major amir of AQI, yeah. He also had ties to the Osama bin Ladin network, along with just about every other sunni terrorist organization in the middle east. Zarqawi was about as connected to Osama bin Ladin as Muqtada al Sadr is to Ahmadenijad.

Tw is very much correct in stating that the AQI in Iraq simply uses the name and is about as connected as the PLO and Hizballah. They might work against a common enemy but they're by no means sisters. He's also right in that they've never been a very big threat in Iraq and are now dwindling into near extinction.

[Undertoad]

AQI has been the main insurgency at least since they bombed the dome of the golden mosque at Samarra, in order to create the conflict boiling towards civil war.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

AQI has been the main insurgency at least since they bombed the dome of the golden mosque at Samarra, in order to create the conflict boiling towards civil war.

The only reason we *know* that is the same wacko extremist propaganda by George Jr's administration. It is not known who did most of what. But we do know from reporters that the actual war is not what American extremists promote.

From the Wall Street Journal of 31 October 2007 entitled "In Baghdad Neighborhood, A Tale of Shifting Fortunes":

In many neighborhoods across the Iraqi capital, Shiite Muslims have defeated their Sunni cousins in the civil war that's raged here over the past two years. Shiites ... have been able to seize real estate, businesses, and municipal services from Sunnis. A mafia-like network of Shiite militias has engineered the takeover of entire neighborhoods. Of the 51 members on Baghdad's City Council, only one is Sunni; the police are almost entirely Shia.

The central government here says the violence is winding down, and the US military point out that civilian deaths have declined recently. But a new, quieter chapter of the civil war is unfolding. Shiite groups are trying to consolidate their on-the-ground gains and push into neighborhoods that have so far eluded their control. The Sunnis, pressed into a corner, are looking for new ways to fight back.

As the report demonstrates, Baghdad is mostly 'ethnic cleansed' of Sunni. Al Qaeda had near zero responsibliity for that. In America, all this was instead blamed on Al Qaeda - since Americans so easily believed George Jr propaganda (even six months ago) rather than learn what reporters have actually been reporting. Fewer remaining Sunnis means diminished violence. Does that mean the civil war is ending? Does that mean Americans are stopping this war?

Nowhere is this dynamic more evident than in the city's Sayidia section, a majority-Sunni enclave where Sunnis and Shiites had lived in relative peace. ...

In February, a white sedan swerved and flipped over in front of Ryad Obaidi's home in Sayidia. ... Hearing tapping sound, Mr Obaidi ... opened the trunk. ... Shocked by the man's story, he decided to join a local band of Sunni fighters. ...

Other unemployed military officers from the area joined the insurgency, but the neighborhood remained peaceful. ... But all around the district, other neighborhoods were falling under the sway of Shiite militants. ... American officials stationed here have watched as Shiite militias made steady inroads. ...

Apparent are no American actions to halt or change this onslaught before or during the 'surge'.

The idea of reconciliation is indispensable to making Iraq into a functioning state - and a key condition for the eventual withdrawal of US troops. But as Baghdad's few mixed areas yield to Shiite forces, that goal becomes harder to achieve. ... It was fast becoming the only safe haven for Sunnis in West Rashid.

Things weren't that way for long. Shiite militants started infiltrating Sayidia from adjacent areas under their control. According to US military officials, their movements were often aided by the Shiite-dominated Iraqi police. ...

Gen Abdul-Karim Khalaf, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, says the accusations that the police are working with Shiite militants are unsubstantiated. "The police forces represent the government, and the government doesn't support one side against the other," he said.

And yet evidence repeatedly says otherwise. Maliki's government has even quashed investigations on government corruption. What is America doing when protecting and financing Maliki's government?

Shiite forces also targeted basic services in the neighborhood, according to US military officials. Electricity lines were cut. Water delivery became erratic. Trash collectors were murdered.

Sunni shop owners were ordered to close down. Shiite gunmen raided Sunni mosques. Last month, only one of 11 mosques remained open. Sunnis started to leave Sayidia.

But some Sunni residents also started fighting back. ... "Almost every night we fought", said Riyad. Gunfire became so frequent and indiscriminate that local resident Abu Hassan observed that fronds of a palm tree in front of his house had become shredded by bullets.

Still, Shiite militant gained ground, and a new band of combatants entered the fray early this year: extremist fighters from al-Qaeda in Iraq, a fundamentalist Sunni group known for slaughtering Shiites. Al-Qaeda fighters trickled in to Sayidia through a neighboring enclave called Dora. ...

Sayidia's desperate Sunnis were initially happy to see the new fighters, hoping they would help fend off the Shiite onslaught. "The Sunnis had no choice but to receive al-Qaeda because nobody else was protecting them" says Mr Ibrahim, the Sayidia dentist.

Instead, the Sunni extremists embarked on a simple but brutal strategy: kill any Shiite they could get their hands on. A peaceful Shiite population had always resided in the neighborhood. They were now targets.

The murder rate in Sayidia went through the roof. "You'll see people walk by a body, and it's like they are immune to it", says US Army 1st Sgt Todd Carlsurd, who has spend months patrolling the neighborhood. ... Far from being any sort of ally, al-Qaeda was living up to its reputation for inciting violence.

Sayidia's Sunni residents regrouped. Recruited by a major Sunni political party, some 300 Sunni fighters joined an ad-hoc police unit ... The Americans patrolling Sayidia, desperate for a solution, went along with the plan. ...

Early this month, the Iraqi government issued an order banning the Sunni [volunteer police] battalion from the streets.

Again, Americans had no choice but to go along with another plan that really does not solve anything. Whereas murder rates across Baghdad decrease during 'a surge' (since most neighborhoods were finished being ethnic cleansed), in Sayalia, deaths increased during the 'surge'. What caused the reduction of street deaths? Ethnic cleansing has completed in most of Baghdad. Where ethnic cleansing is not, violence has been increasing - despite the 'surge'.

Meanwhile where is this world wide Al Qaeda enemy that would threaten America (according to our extremist who promote fear, orange alerts, evil Muslims hiding in America to kill us all) or be responsible for all that violence? Al Qaeda is just another almost irrelevant insurgency group representing just another faction in a multi-party civil war. Of course, many still believe our president's propaganda. But facts about Al Qaeda say otherwise. Each Al Qeada is simply another small militia of fundamentalists who kill who? Shiites. Why does George Jr and the propaganda forget to mention who these Al Qeada really target?

But again, "Mission Accomplished" is a civil war; not a threat to America as our wacko extremists still promote it.

This Wall Street Journal report is a story of the past two years. During that time, American wacko extremists in the US government and in the Cellar have repeatedly posted fears of an 'all consuming' Al Qaeda. Rush Limbaugh rhetoric of fear and hate is still widespread in America among the American 20% that rabidly supports a mental midget. These same Americans who so love violence will even misrepresent Al Qaeda as some worldwide international threat. And yet observe what Al Qaeda really is - in Sayidia.

A trivial Al Qaeda is just another insurgency in the "Mission Accomplished" civil war. Also apparent is how little Americans have influence over this civil war. Even an American puppet government apparently supports Shia 'ethnic cleansing' at the expense of Sunni. So who are Americans really protecting? Americans are stopping Al Qaeda? Yes, just as Sherlock Holmes was stopping Moriarity.

Nothing new here. This summary is what Iraq was three years ago when America created this problem and denied what "Mission Accomplished" was really about. Contrary to so many posts in The Cellar, Al Qaeda is not this massive threat so hyped by wacko extremist. Ethnic cleansing would be a more accurate appraisal. But that would make the mental midget appear to be a liar.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

AQI has been the main insurgency at least since they bombed the dome of the golden mosque at Samarra, in order to create the conflict boiling towards civil war.

Since when does one bombing constitute 'the main insurgency?'

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And now Shia and Sunni are uniting against AQI, having found their rule to be repugnant and unacceptable.

Did I miss a major part of the war? When was AQI in charge? When did they ever have the people's support?

AQI has never held much sway over the Iraqi people, and for the most part succeed in few successful attacks or IEDs. Every time AQI goes up against another insurgent group, they lose. Every time AQI goes into a new town, they are sold out to the US (if the US is there). Every time AQI moves out of an area, the people are happy.

AQI is to the Iraq war as Italy is to WWII. They're involved, and need to be considered, but are in no way a central threat.

[deadbeater]

The Sunni and Shia were all set for civil war anyway. The Shia used the golden mosque bombing as reason to really go after all the Sunnis, including Sunnis who happen to be members of al-Qaeda.

[Undertoad]

And now Shia and Sunni are uniting against AQI, having found their rule to be repugnant and unacceptable.

[Undertoad]

By the beginning of this year, homegrown but foreign-led, foreign-funded AQI controlled most of the cities in Anbar and elsewhere; basically half the area of non-Kurdish Iraq, through a program of extreme violence and fear.

Don't take my word for it. There are only two things you have to read. I beg of you to take my little homework assignment and report back to the thread your thoughts.

Read the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq's Prospects for Security as excerpted by the New York Times.

And then read Michael Yon's Bless the Beasts and Children.

[queequeger]

I don't mean to be contrary (and I will likely read Yon's book... it's in my queue ), but all my coworkers and I laugh when people (or new guys) say AQI 'controls' a city. Usually that simply equates, in real terms, that AQI has a presence there. In any city with any significant Shiite population at all (and no or limited US), JAM or a similarly organized group is usually the one providing security, the one that actually has 'control.' Most places, AQI guys can't move about freely during the day because they'll get shot. You don't much control a city if you can't walk outside, IMHO.

AQI tries their best, they set up checkpoints and flee when anyone with a gun approaches. They did have some tribes working with them for a few months, but they never had a viable claim of land or resources. The ONLY reason they still exist as a threat at all is because no one can secure the damned borders, so they continuously get resupplied and new manning. (yet another argument for put out sufficient troops or get out...)

I'm not contesting that AQI can pull of large scale attacks on civilians. I'm contesting that they're a threat to US forces, and that they are Al Qa'ida. So, if the reason we stay is 'to eliminate Al Qa'ida strongholds,' we can leave. In sincerity, as soon as we walk out the door, AQI will be completely eradicated.

If we want to win this ugly war, we need to pick a friggin goal and work toward it. If the goal is creating a peaceful prosperous nation, we're simply not going to be able to do it unless we take our efforts up about 10 notches. If our goal, as it's now stated, is to make sure that Al Qa'ida doesn't have a foothold... we never needed to stay.

[tw]

Originally Posted by queequeger

If we want to win this ugly war, we need to pick a friggin goal and work toward it. If the goal is creating a peaceful prosperous nation, we're simply not going to be able to do it unless we take our efforts up about 10 notches. If our goal, as it's now stated, is to make sure that Al Qa'ida doesn't have a foothold... we never needed to stay.

Which brings us right back to the question that UT could never answer. What is our strategic objective?

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by queequeger

I don't mean to be contrary (and I will likely read Yon's book... it's in my queue ), but all my coworkers and I laugh when people (or new guys) say AQI 'controls' a city.

This is some sort of appeal to authority I don't understand. Your coworkers are whom I should give a fuck about? Apparently they take a counter-opinion to the National Intelligence Estimate you couldn't be bothered to take my homework of. Can you ask them on what basis, and report back to the thread, or something?

I'm not contesting that AQI can pull of large scale attacks on civilians. I'm contesting that they're a threat to US forces, and that they are Al Qa'ida.

Maybe we can ask for membership cards before we kill them.

So, if the reason we stay is 'to eliminate Al Qa'ida strongholds,' we can leave. In sincerity, as soon as we walk out the door, AQI will be completely eradicated.

They killed everybody in the town, if you'd have bothered to read my links.

They killed everybody in the town.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Your coworkers are whom I should give a fuck about?

My coworkers (and I) are military intelligence collectors and analysts, and fluent arabic linguists (among other things).

The fact is, while I do make a point of reading about this subject A LOT, so much of the things I've read distort the information they receive or receive previously distorted information. A lot of the time we're told by some local schmo 'those al-qa'ida guys over there are killing everyone,' and it turns out to be some other group. A lot of the time, we never get a chance to verify the information before we, well, kill everyone that's shooting.

The number of attacks on US forces that can be verified to come from Al-Qa'ida are slim to none. We're talking single percentage points. The number against civilians is somewhat higher, which is why I say if we're actually trying to stabilize the country we do need to count them amongst our enemies. But, that being said, they have a pretty tedious hold on what little ground they actually DO control, and the whole of Iraq is against them.

[Rexmons]

Does anyone ever get the feeling like the only reason we don't pull out of Iraq is to save face? We went there on the premise of disarming WMD's and after we discovered there was none we would be admitting being wrong by leaving. It's like almost tripping when you're walking and acting like it was all part of your plan, maybe doing a spin and and scoring that invisible 3 pointer.