http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1242/1356147370_95b0e2cea6_o.jpg

This MoveOn.org ad states, "Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed."

That is a bald-faced lie (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/iraq-changes-attitudes-118262.html). Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't MoveOn at the forefront of the "Bush lied" and the "support our troops" movements? Now they outright lie and attack an honorable soldier in an ad?

We absolutely do not need political posts here, and I miss my dog too

Steve-

If the Cowboys have to start another game without Newman at the corner, than I hope they give someone else a chance other than Jacques Reeves. All Reeve's did the entire night, besides the one gift when Burress slipped, was escort NY receivers to pay-dirt. At my age and with my out of shape fat behind, I could had done that. I hope Newman gets healthy fast.

As far as the subject, check out Danny Bonaduce videos on the Youtube.com. You may not always agree with the guy, but you'll get a kick out of his tact and attitude. At the very least, I find him entertaining.



Bobby

Steve ,

We both predicted that the move-ons and kossaks would be the worse nightmare of the Democrats .

Rep. John Boehner,was quick to exploit the position the ads put the Democrats in


"Democratic leaders must make a choice today: Either embrace the character assassination tactics Moveon.org has leveled against the four-star general leading our troops in the fight against al Qaeda, or denounce it as disgraceful."

"Gen. Petraeus and the other commanders in the U.S. Armed Services have dedicated their lives to defending the very freedom that enables MoveOn.org the right to free speech. I support that right, but I find the way they have chosen to exercise it today to be disrespectful and downright reprehensible,"

A letter was sent to Sen Maj. Leader Harry Reid by other Senators asking him to disavow the party fromm the moonbats ads.


"The ad is distasteful and frankly, below the level of respect that America's commanding general in Iraq has earned. No matter whether any senator supports or opposes the war in Iraq, we should all voice recognition and appreciation of Gen. Petraeus' long and distinguished record of service to our country."

Of course it would've been helpful if Reid himself hadn't called the General a liar on Friday .


“He has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual”

ABC News: Dems Bash Upcoming Petraeus Report (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3575785&page=1)

General Petraeus is co-author of the new Army manual on counterinsurgency .

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf

He was unanimously appointed commander of operations in Iraq after he spent a lot of time with both Houses of Congress briefing them on his plan .

General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the Multi-National Force-Iraq on February 10th, 2007, following his assignment as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth. Prior to assuming command at Ft. Leavenworth, he was the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, which he led from June 2004 to September 2005, and the NATO Training Mission- Iraq, which he commanded from October 2004 to September 2005. That deployment to Iraq followed his command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), during which he led the “Screaming Eagles” in combat throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His command of the 101st followed a year deployed on Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia, where he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the NATO Stabilization Force and the Deputy Commander of the US Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force-Bosnia. Prior to his tour in Bosnia, he spent two years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving first as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as the Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps.

General Petraeus was commissioned in the Infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander - Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti; and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm. He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings. In 2005 he was recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of America's 25 Best Leaders.

Question the General on his facts and his judgement all they want . That is fair game. But I dare any of them to call the General a liar to his face. He has at least earned the right to a fair hearing and the respect to not have his integrity impugned .

Tom-

Nice picture. Maybe others will be encourage to share their photos. Sorry to see all the injuries during the game, especially to Eli Manning. You're Giants played good on offence. Like the Cowboys, your defensive secondary has a lot of work ahead.



Bobby

I wish we were still in the days of challenges against public personal insult. I would love to see Patreus stand 20 paces away from scumbags like Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein, and the rest who openly called him a liar with a gun in his hand and see if they are willing to back up their positions. I have a feeling that not one of them would have the guts to say the things they said if they suspected that they might actually have to face the consequences of their statements. They are a bunch of cowards, scumbags, liars, traitors (yes, I said it) and they are impugning an honorable man with their words. They claim to "support the troops" but don't seem to have any problem with insulting the leader of those troops. I would love to see Patreus call them out for the personal insults they have perpetrated uponm him. Unfortunately, Patreus is too much of gentleman and much too good for Congress to ever do such a thing. But there is no reason that Bush shouldn't be calling for investigations of "treason and sedition". Based on their statements to the media alone, charges of treason and sedition could definitely be systained for all 4 of them and many others.

Kennedy in particular is a piece of $h!t. He comes out and says that "Patreus is coming out and giving a report card on Patreus", when it was he and his other Democrat friends that demanded a report from Patreus in the first place. And Kennedy is not the one who should be talking about report cards, given his history of hiring people to take tests for him in school. Waxman is another complete scumbag for saying that the "numbers don't mean what they say", when they clearly do. And Harry Reid, who I have absolutely no respect for, is "completely, 100% dead wrong." And Feinstein has no right claiming that Patreus didn't write the report, and that Bush did, when they know full well that it is a lie.

The Dems have gotten away from trying to claim that there has been no military success in Iraq (which was their reason for being against the surge in the first place) to now claiming that there is no POLITICAL progress. For the past two years, they have been demanding that the Bush administration and supporters of the war "define victory in Iraq". Meanwhile, they have made it clear that they are using an ever-changing definition of "losing", going from a lack of military progress to a lack of political progress, to having a "bad reputation in the international community" to anything else that fits their agenda. I say that the Republicans should start demanding that they define "losing" for the record, and then explain why they are actively working toward a loss in Iraq.

And can anyone explain to me why there is a "joint committee on Iraq" in the first place? Was there ever a "joint committee on Germany" or a "Joint committee on Japan" in WWII? Why is congress even involved in the war? That's not their job, it's Bush's job.

Finally, how smart is it, just days after a poll was released showing the vast majority of Americans have more faith in our military leaders than our political leaders, and indicating that Congress now has the lowest approval rating of any Congress in polling history, for the political leaders to insult the top military leader?

Elliot

I wish we were still in the days of challenges against public personal insult. I would love to see Patreus stand 20 paces away from scumbags like Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein, and the rest who openly called him a liar with a gun in his hand and see if they are willing to back up their positions. I have a feeling that not one of them would have the guts to say the things they said if they suspected that they might actually have to face the consequences of their statements. They are a bunch of cowards, scumbags, liars, traitors (yes, I said it) and they are impugning an honorable man with their words. They claim to "support the troops" but don't seem to have any problem with insulting the leader of those troops. I would love to see Patreus call them out for the personal insults they have perpetrated uponm him. Unfortunately, Patreus is too much of gentleman and much too good for Congress to ever do such a thing. But there is no reason that Bush shouldn't be calling for investigations of "treason and sedition". Based on their statements to the media alone, charges of treason and sedition could definitely be systained for all 4 of them and many others.

Kennedy in particular is a piece of $h!t. He comes out and says that "Patreus is coming out and giving a report card on Patreus", when it was he and his other Democrat friends that demanded a report from Patreus in the first place. And Kennedy is not the one who should be talking about report cards, given his history of hiring people to take tests for him in school. Waxman is another complete scumbag for saying that the "numbers don't mean what they say", when they clearly do. And Harry Reid, who I have absolutely no respect for, is "completely, 100% dead wrong." And Feinstein has no right claiming that Patreus didn't write the report, and that Bush did, when they know full well that it is a lie.

Elliot, I am so sick of these scumbags it makes me want to puke all over them. But then I'm not sure which is worse, their treason or the GOP's failure to hold them accountable and make certain the American people know damn well what these traitors are doing. Yeah, tom mentioned Boehner's comments and a letter sent to Democrat leaders, but that's not good enough.


The Dems have gotten away from trying to claim that there has been no military success in Iraq (which was their reason for being against the surge in the first place) to now claiming that there is no POLITICAL progress. For the past two years, they have been demanding that the Bush administration and supporters of the war "define victory in Iraq". Meanwhile, they have made it clear that they are using an ever-changing definition of "losing", going from a lack of military progress to a lack of political progress, to having a "bad reputation in the international community" to anything else that fits their agenda. I say that the Republicans should start demanding that they define "losing" for the record, and then explain why they are actively working toward a loss in Iraq.

That's the only solution Democrats have offered - move the goal posts as needed. Again, the GOP needs to assert itself and do exactly as you say.


And can anyone explain to me why there is a "joint committee on Iraq" in the first place? Was there ever a "joint committee on Germany" or a "Joint committee on Japan" in WWII? Why is congress even involved in the war? That's not their job, it's Bush's job.


Elliot, I've said it many times, the left believes they have all the answers and therefore anything the rest of us say is irrelevant - EVERYTHING is their business - and as the media pointed out, "Lantos and Skelton made it clear in opening remarks (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/255204) that Petraeus was not about to change their views of the futility of the war." Facts don't matter.


Finally, how smart is it, just days after a poll was released showing the vast majority of Americans have more faith in our military leaders than our political leaders, and indicating that Congress now has the lowest approval rating of any Congress in polling history, for the political leaders to insult the top military leader?

The only justice I got out of the first day is Petraeus' opening remarks:


"Although I have briefed my assessment and recommendations to my chain of command, I wrote this testimony myself. It has not been cleared by, nor shared with, anyone in the Pentagon, the White House or the Congress until it was just handed out."

We've had weeks of preemptive strikes on the report as "the Bush report" and claims (like on this board) that the Bush administration would write their spin on the whole thing. With four stars glistening in their faces he put them in their place at the outset.

Steve-

If the Cowboys have to start another game without Newman at the corner, than I hope they give someone else a chance other than Jacques Reeves. All Reeve's did the entire night, besides the one gift when Burress slipped, was escort NY receivers to pay-dirt. At my age and with my out of shape fat behind, I could had done that. I hope Newman gets healthy fast.

You and me both. Reeves' play was reminiscent of the Saints' Jason David on Thursday - a game which partly killed my fantasy hopes for the weekend (along with the Dallas D). Between Brees, Steven Jackson and the Dallas D I had -2 points, lol.


As far as the subject, check out Danny Bonaduce videos on the Youtube.com. You may not always agree with the guy, but you'll get a kick out of his tact and attitude. At the very least, I find him entertaining.

He is entertaining, if I get time I'll check it out.

Dear speechless, sorry I jumped the gun. I didn't realize you were already on the political forum :)

tickle

Hello:

Can't we all just get along?

The war is/was lost. It was lost before we went in, because we had no justification for going in... It was lost right after we went in, because we were stumped when they didn't throw flowers... And it was finally lost when the bungling eventually cost the support of the American people. That happened a few years ago.

Another reason they lost is because they never could define victory. This surge, for example, was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation. They went on vacation instead...

I'm not one, however, who thinks that disaster won't befall Iraq when we leave... It surely will. But, I doubt it will be a much bigger disaster than the one we've already inflicted upon the Iraqi people.

That disaster, of course, is one you'll blame on everybody BUT the dude who brought it to you in the first place. You know, just your regular ole head in the sand kind of stuff.

excon

dear speechless, sorry I jumped the gun. I didnt realize you were already on the political forum :)

tickle

No prob, I was just wondering if you knew where YOU were. :D

The Unbearable Lightness of Intellect at Moveon.Org
Rick Moran
How truly stupid can you be.

American Thinker Blog: The Unbearable Lightness of Intellect at Moveon.Org (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/09/the_unbearable_lightness_of_in.html)

With nearly 70% of the American people basically on their side of the Iraq War debate, Moveon.Org has done surge supporters the biggest favor possible by making perhaps one of the biggest political goofs in recent memory.

The liberal group's ad in yesterday's New York Times sliming General Petraus has caused a monumnetal backlash against the left, causing even some of their most fervent supporters on the Hill to run for cover. And now the GOP, smelling blood, have introduced a measure condemning the Moveon ad and the organization itself for its smear tactics:


The resolution, authored by Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), is cosponsored by 11 Republicans, including Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs panel.

“The despicable attack MoveOn.org launched against General Petraeus today should be condemned by all Members of Congress, including the Democratic leadership,” Boehner said. “I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to join in support of this resolution so the House speaks with one voice rejecting the character assassination tactics employed by this extremist group.”


What a Godsend to the Republicans. By focusing attention on the dirty tactics of the left, Democratic Congressmen who themselves were questioning General Petreaus's veracity yesterday must now tread more softly lest they too are lumped in with the loons from Moveon.Org.

Robert E. Lee supposedly said he would rather face a stupid general than an incompetent one. Now we know why.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~


This surge, for example, was supposed to buy Iraqi leaders time to unify their nation. They went on vacation instead...

Excon .Your comments about the Iraqi government does not take into account the historic agreement that al-Maliki was able to forge between the various factions over a number of issues that divide them .Seems to me he accomplished more during his summer recess than Harry Reid and San Fran Nan Pelosi did on theirs.

Hello:

Can't we all just get along?

All we are saying, is give Petraeus a chance...

Ex, I'm all for getting along, would you tell MoveOn and, Harry Reid and co. what that means?


That disaster, of course, is one you'll blame on everybody BUT the dude who brought it to you in the first place. You know, just your regular ole head in the sand kind of stuff.

No, no, no. I think we've all admitted mistakes and things we wish were done differently so that won't fly. I am like you ready to get along and at least start acting like we're on the same side. The right has called for that many times, the left only cares about winning elections.

What a Godsend to the Republicans. By focusing attention on the dirty tactics of the left, Democratic Congressmen who themselves were questioning General Petreaus's veracity yesterday must now tread more softly lest they too are lumped in with the loons from Moveon.Org.

Robert E. Lee supposedly said he would rather face a stupid general than an incompetent one. Now we know why.

It's a Godsend if they manage to do something with it. I think we should all write, call and otherwise hammer our congressmen to get on board with this resolution.

I think we should do what the soldiers want... make all these nay-sayers get in the trenches and fight with them... let them see what its like, then tell the general he's doing wrong...

Comments on this post
Excon agrees: I'm a naysayer. I was in the trenches. The war is lost.

No disrespect to your opinion Excon, but I know several soldiers who are there and say otherwise. I support my troops and appreciate their sacrifices, and I would rather listen to them than the politicians and anti-war groups. Most of them are still of the belief that they are doing good. I think there are few who will say we are "winning" this war, but in this case, is there really a win?

Latest editororial by Kathleen Parker :

On the sixth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks, Americans were treated to two starkly contrasting images that speak centuries of difference between the U.S. and its enemies.

In Frame One, we see Gen. David Petraeus testifying before Congress on the status of the war in Iraq. In Frame Two is Osama bin Laden in a new video -- resplendent in white robes, his beard recently rinsed dark to conceal the gray -- promising that Islam will subjugate the West.

One an image of courage, integrity and honor; the other a caricature of manhood.

Then there is a third frame. It is a full-page ad in Monday's New York Times placed by MoveOn.org and attacking Petraeus' integrity: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" reads the caption. And then, "Cooking the Books for the White House."

The fog of war, it seems, has seeped into the left wing of the blogosphere.

One may disagree with the war -- and even find informed fault with Petraeus' report -- but impugning the character of the war's commanding officer while American forces are still fighting is what's known as betrayal. If Petraeus were ordering the mass murder of civilians, this would be a different matter. But last time we checked, American forces were fighting to prevent innocent people from getting killed.

Thus, the ad reveals more about the character of those who placed it than it does of Petraeus. It also reveals a dangerous lack of judgment. Put it this way: If Petraeus is viewed as the bad guy, will they know evil when they see it? (Hint: It has a beard and lives in a cave.)

Because bin Laden and Petraeus hit the same news cycle -- and no, I'm not suggesting that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11 -- it is convenient and instructive to compare the two men. Visually, they are opposites. One is bearded and operates in shadow. The other, clean-shaven and open-faced, operates in full daylight, exposed and open to scrutiny.

They are night and day, darkness and light.

"Virtually impotent" were the well-chosen words homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend used to describe bin Laden, saying he's a man on the run, living in a cave.

Impotence is a strong word for a woman to use around men, but it is apt here in multiple ways. Impotence gets to the heart of a deeper matter -- bin Laden's sense that he has been minimized by external forces. Freedom is his boogeyman. His need to control others is symptomatic of deep-rooted insecurities.

It is appropriate, meanwhile, that he is a cave dweller. The cave -- both Plato's allegorical house of illusion and primitive man's earliest shelter -- is a proper home for a delusional man trapped in the distant past. Bin Laden and his cohorts are the embodiment of the primitive, infantile male, acting out their frustrations through cowardly barbarism.

It may take a certain kind of courage to fly an airplane into a building, but it takes no courage to murder defenseless people whose crime was getting to work on time. Yet, on the tape released Tuesday, bin Laden praises one of the hijackers of Flight 11, saying that the dead man "recognized the truth."

"It is true that this young man was little in years, but the faith in his heart was big," says bin Laden.

Giving the devil his due, bin Laden is crafty. He flatters young men, promising virgins in the afterlife, then convinces them to strap on bombs or fly planes into buildings. The young men die and bin Laden gets a new outfit. Quite a trick.

In another contrast, bin Laden wants to subjugate the world, while Petraeus leads men and women who want to release the world from subjugation. One fights for the submission of others; the other fights for their liberation.

You don't have to be an American exceptionalist to recognize that there is a difference. One is good, the other is not.

In fairness, MoveOn's ad was aimed at the Iraq war and wasn't intended, either by omission or commission, to be a commentary on bin Laden. But the distorted judgment that prompted an attack on Petraeus as America relives the horrors of 9-11 hints at a sinister alignment with darker forces.

Bin Laden must be very pleased. He could not have done better himself.


The good, the bad and the very ugly -- OrlandoSentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/columnists/orl-parker1207sep12,0,3915211.column)

Thus, the ad reveals more about the character of those who placed it than it does of Petraeus. It also reveals a dangerous lack of judgment. Put it this way: If Petraeus is viewed as the bad guy, will they know evil when they see it? (Hint: It has a beard and lives in a cave.)...

In fairness, MoveOn's ad was aimed at the Iraq war and wasn't intended, either by omission or commission, to be a commentary on bin Laden. But the distorted judgment that prompted an attack on Petraeus as America relives the horrors of 9-11 hints at a sinister alignment with darker forces.

Bin Laden must be very pleased. He could not have done better himself.

I don't always agree with Kathleen's positions on things but when she's on she's dead on. Nicely done Ms. Parker.

In two days of reporting in my paper on the Petraeus report, I've learned more about what Petreus didn't say (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/62235/), what I should think about what little they've reported he did say, and what Democratic Presidential candidates on the committee think (http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1417000.html) than what the general has said. I intend to write my paper about this. It would be nice to get some more news and less analysis of what news they report. It would also be nice if congressmen would spend more time actually listening to the general and ambassador instead of campaigning during the "hearing."

And speaking of bin Laden, did you by chance happen to come across this column by Rod Dreher (http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/372990.html) of the Dallas Morning News?

Rudy apparently got his NY Times space for the same price as MoveOn. For now the ad can be seen here (https://www.joinrudy2008.com/contribute/index/times). He takes on Hillary and her comments to Gen. Petraeus, basically calling him a stooge and a liar:


"It is a policy that you have been ordered to implement by the president. And you have been made the de facto spokesman for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief." -Hillary Clinton

Personally I find believing anything Hillary says requires a willing suspension of disbelief (http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/insultingblacks.html), as did Jack Reed's response to Bush's speech last night:


"We intend to exercise our constitutional duties (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091400342_2.html) and profoundly change our military involvement in Iraq. We ask Americans of good will of whatever party to join us in this historic effort to restore the strength and security of the United States."

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article2)." Or at least that's what the constitution says.

Did any of you catch Rudy on Hannity and Colmes last night?


"The problem with the Democratic approach is it's withdrawal for the purpose of withdrawal..."

HANNITY: Well, I'm going to play that ad — that specific sound bite in just a second here. But I want to get one general impression about this because the president clearly tonight seemed to be reaching out to the Democrats in terms of offering, “Hey, this is what we all want here.” But right away, we heard Senator Reed come out and say that this is only more of the same. And we know Harry Reid is on record saying that after General Petraeus' testimony this week, that the president's plan is unacceptable. It seems like there's nothing that he could say to the Democrats that will get them on board.

GIULIANI: He may get some on board. I mean, I was really impressed with several Democrats who went to Iraq in the last month or two and came back saying that they were very surprised and it changed their position because there had been considerably more success with regard to safety and security that General Petraeus has had than anybody thought he could have and they thought it was worth further — worth investing more time and more support and trying to get it to even a greater level of success.

So maybe that's sort of the Democratic talking point response, but there may be some Democrats that the president wins over to kind of a national objective here. After all, you know, I remember when Congressman Clyburn said that if the surge is successful, it may be a problem for the Democrats. Well, there may be some Democrats thinking not as Democrats but sort of like in the overall picture here because if the surge is successful, it's not a problem for Democrats. It's actually a success for America, and we're all Americans.

Indeed.

I'd say Rudy had a productive day K O to Hillary ;the Slimes ,and Move on.org with a single blow ! I think the next move should be some group demand that the difference between the discount rate and the rate normally charged be investigated by the IRS as a possible campaign donation violation or taxable income to Moveon.org.

BTW nice pick up taking Brandon Jacobs from my scrap heap. Maybe I would've kept him if there wasn't talk of both him and Eli being out for extended periods.

I'd say Rudy had a productive day K O to Hillary ;the Slimes ,and Move on.org with a single blow ! I think the next move should be some group demand that the difference between the discount rate and the rate normally charged be investigated by the IRS as a possible campaign donation violation or taxable income to Moveon.org.

Yep, Rudy had a good day. The Slimes' argument is they offer they don't show favoritism, and offer "advocacy groups $64,575 for full-page, black-and-white advertisements that run on a “standby” basis" but "if we have room, we try to accommodate them” for a specific day. Right, the NY Times shows no favoritism...


BTW nice pick up taking Brandon Jacobs from my scrap heap. Maybe I would've kept him if there wasn't talk of both him and Eli being out for extended periods.

I figured you'd like that move. You may be able to get him back though, I'm going to have to make a move or two in the next few weeks. But, if Ward does well your Gnats may end up with that dreaded running back by committee. Ya think?

You never know who's going to be available, I grabbed Robbie Gould off waivers today on another team and hoping for Vincent Jackson on Sunday.

Right, the NY Times shows no favoritism...


According to The American Spectator the swift boaters had a difficult time running ads in the slimes.

The American Spectator (http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12023)


So much for being an an equal opportunity advertiser.

DemocracyNOW INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:

AMY GOODMAN: When Republican Senator John Warner asked Petraeus whether the strategy in Iraq is making America safer, the four-star general responded by saying, “I don't know.” Later, Petraeus clarified his statement and said Iraq “has very serious implications for our safety and security.”

On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd grilled General Petraeus about why he was ordered to testify on September 11 and about the military’s strategy of arming former Sunni insurgents.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I don't think it’s a coincidence that this important hearing is taking place on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. There seems to be another attempt to link in the mind of a confused public the war in Iraq to the attacks perpetrated on us on 9/11 by al-Qaeda. Is this just a big sales job? Please answer this clearly and succinctly, so that the American people can understand: is there and was there any connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Iraq?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Not that I am aware of, Senator.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, it’s getting to be like the change of seasons around here. Every few months someone from the administration comes up and says, “Just give us six or twelve more months, and things will look better.”

Your argument for the surge back in January was that military success would create space for political progress. That didn't work. Now, the new buzzword is “bottom-up.” You’ve talked about military success, but, by the President's own reckoning, that success is meaningless without political reconciliation.

Are six months or twelve months really going to make a difference on the big questions. Why should we keep giving you more and more time? Why? Why should we keep giving you more and more time, General Petraeus?

You’ve touted success in Anbar province. Just a few months ago, the tribes in Anbar province were shooting and killing Americans. Recently they decided they dislike the terrorists there more than they dislike Americans, so they are cooperating with us for the time being, while we give them money and arms. This recalls to my mind our policy in the 1980s in Afghanistan of arming the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. We all know how that short-term policy hurt our long-term interest. What guarantee can you give us that the tribes in Anbar are not going to turn around and use the guns that we gave them against our troops once they feel we no longer serve their interest? Isn't that a short-sited policy?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Senator, first of all, we are not arming the tribes. We have not provided weapons to them. What we did initially is basically give a thumbs up when they asked if it would be OK if they pointed the weapons they did have -- they were already well enough armed -- at al-Qaeda, because they had come to reject the Taliban-like ideology and barbarity of al-Qaeda in the Euphrates River Valley.

AMY GOODMAN: That was General David Petraeus responding to questions from Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

To talk more about the Petraeus hearings, Arun Gupta joins us here in the studio. He’s a reporter and editor of The Indypendent, a bimonthly newspaper based here in New York. His most recent article is called “Meet Gen. David Petraeus: His Militia Strategy Plunged Iraq Into a Civil War, And Now He's Back for More.” Arun Gupta is currently writing a book on the history of the Iraq war that will be published by Haymarket Press.

Welcome to Democracy Now! Your assessment of what Petraeus’s message was to Congress?

ARUN GUPTA: Well, I think his message is the same thing the Bush administration has been saying for the last four years, which is “stay the course.” And there is no real strategy that the White House has, beyond trying to stave off defeat for the next year, so it can leave the war to its successor. And all this stuff about, “Well, you know, the surge is working, and we're going to draw it down next summer,” again, it’s part of the same kind of treadmill we’ve been on, the same rhetoric that we’ve been hearing.

Tell us who David Petraeus is. Arun, you’re the first person to mention General Petraeus on our show years ago.

ARUN GUPTA: Yeah. What we were talking about two-and-a-half years ago was Petraeus’s role in helping to set up the Special Police Commandos. In 2004, 2005, he was given the mission to train all Iraq military and police forces. And, in fact, in July 2004, Newsweek had this cover of him, saying that Petraeus was going to train Iraqis to take over the fight. Now, the reality is, is that was, of course, a failure, because three years later he was back with an escalation of US forces.

Now, one of the key things that Petraeus did was they decided -- him and his command decided -- that they were going to create this paramilitary force, the Special Police Commandos. They armed them. They funded them. They trained them. And they also issued the usual denials: “Oh, we're not giving them any weapons. This is an Iraqi initiative.” And so, now he’s saying the same thing with the Sunni militias.

So, anyway, the Special Police Commandos quickly morphed into Shiite death squads that were used against the Sunni insurgency and against Sunnis, in general, throughout Iraq. And this played a key role in terms of stoking and fomenting the civil war, because you had these death squads wearing government uniforms, being armed and trained by the US, going around killing Sunnis randomly. It generally alienated the Sunni Arab population from the government and drove them into the arms of the resistance.

Now what Petraeus is doing is he’s funding and arming these Sunni militias. And there are reports that have stated clearly with these militias saying, like, “Yes, we’re getting weapons from the US government.” And part of it is, is that they do want to fight al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is another Sunni-based group. It’s an Iraqi-based group. But their main purpose is they want this money and weapons and aid to fight the Shiite militias.

So here we have them, like in 2004, setting up these Shiite militias, and now he’s setting up these Sunni militias to fight these Shiite militias. And what it portends is just an absolute disaster for Iraq. And, of course, it will also be used as justification: “Well, we can't leave because a bloodbath will result.” But we’re not looking at the fact that it’s the US that’s creating this bloodbath.

ARUN GUPTA: Also during his tenure, 190,000 weapons went missing. These were Pentagon weapons that were supposed to go to Iraqi Security Forces. A report came out last month stating that there was no proper bookkeeping done. There were more weapons, but what it found was that 190,000 assault rifles and handguns, along with all sorts of body armor and other military equipment, had just completely gone off track. There were no records of it kept. Such simple things as recording the serial numbers were not done.

And, of course, the fear is that this is just going to turn up all sorts of places. The Turkish government has already claimed that it has seized more than 1,000 of these guns in Turkey that are being used by anyone, from criminal enterprises to anti-government militants. And there’s also reports that they’ve turned up as far away as Italy.

So -- and this was part of the Petraeus strategy, that he was just throwing all this money and weapons and aid at the Special Police Commandos, because they were so desperate to create a strategy to defeat the Sunni insurgency. And, of course, by the time he left his mission in 2005 of training Iraqis, there was only one battalion that was considered ready. In one year, that’s what his work amounted to.

And now a report just came out, a commission set up by Congress of four retired US generals, in which they stated that the National Police, which is what the Special Police Commandos are now known as, the National Police are so corrupt, so riven with sectarianism, they’re so hated by the public, the Iraqi military and other police services, that they should just be completely disbanded. And yet, none of this is being talked about in Congress or the media.

ARUN GUPTA: I don't think there is any real credibility in terms of talking about what Iran is involved with, because this administration clearly has been trying to stoke a war against Iran. And it also beggars the imagination that somehow Iran is going to be supplying groups that it’s hostile with, whether it's Sunni insurgents in Iraq or whether it's the Taliban, who it went to war with in the 1990s. So I think this is just part of the administration's drumbeat to create some sort of military action against Iran before it leaves office.

ARUN GUPTA: I think they missed a great opportunity, in terms of focusing on Petraeus’s past record, because he's been given a free pass, that he’s someone who has great credibility and impartiality, rather than, you know, really revealing that he played this critical role in stoking the civil war. But more so, you know, what we need to focus on is how Petraeus and Crocker are really just trying to play down the clock so that the Bush administration doesn't have to have a significant withdrawal, so it could dump the problem on his successor, probably a Democratic president, and then leave them the enormous burden of figuring out what to do with Iraq.

Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge
By Gareth Porter
Inter Press Service

Wednesday 12 September 2007

Washington - In sharp contrast to the lionisation of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the U.S. Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an -kissing little chicken" and added, "I hate people like that", the sources say.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus's agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus's role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia - the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

Fallon also expressed great skepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, The Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.' "

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" - a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defence Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that U.S. troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

Fallon Derided Petraeus, Opposed the Surge (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091307L.shtml)

---------

DemocracyNOW INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT:

AMY GOODMAN: When Republican Senator John Warner asked Petraeus whether the strategy in Iraq is making America safer, the four-star general responded by saying, “I don't know.” Later, Petraeus clarified his statement and said Iraq “has very serious implications for our safety and security.”

Does anyone actually watch DemocracyNOW? I see no contradiction in the General's statement to Warner. Warner asked a political question, Petraeus told the truth both times.


On Tuesday, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd grilled General Petraeus about why he was ordered to testify on September 11 and about the military’s strategy of arming former Sunni insurgents.

SEN. ROBERT BYRD: I don't think it’s a coincidence that this important hearing is taking place on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. There seems to be another attempt to link in the mind of a confused public the war in Iraq to the attacks perpetrated on us on 9/11 by al-Qaeda. Is this just a big sales job? Please answer this clearly and succinctly, so that the American people can understand: is there and was there any connection between the attacks of September 11, 2001 and Iraq?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Not that I am aware of, Senator.

Gee, that had lots to do with the reason Petraeus was testifying now didn't it? Please don't tell me you're one of those who think the alleged Iraq-9/11 connection was the reason we invaded.


SEN. ROBERT BYRD: General Petraeus, Ambassador Crocker, it’s getting to be like the change of seasons around here. Every few months someone from the administration comes up and says, “Just give us six or twelve more months, and things will look better.”

Your argument for the surge back in January was that military success would create space for political progress. That didn't work. Now, the new buzzword is “bottom-up.” You’ve talked about military success, but, by the President's own reckoning, that success is meaningless without political reconciliation.

Are six months or twelve months really going to make a difference on the big questions. Why should we keep giving you more and more time? Why? Why should we keep giving you more and more time, General Petraeus?

For one, the president is the Commander-in-chief, not the Senate.


You’ve touted success in Anbar province. Just a few months ago, the tribes in Anbar province were shooting and killing Americans. Recently they decided they dislike the terrorists there more than they dislike Americans, so they are cooperating with us for the time being, while we give them money and arms. This recalls to my mind our policy in the 1980s in Afghanistan of arming the Taliban to fight the Soviet Union. We all know how that short-term policy hurt our long-term interest. What guarantee can you give us that the tribes in Anbar are not going to turn around and use the guns that we gave them against our troops once they feel we no longer serve their interest? Isn't that a short-sited policy?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Senator, first of all, we are not arming the tribes. We have not provided weapons to them. What we did initially is basically give a thumbs up when they asked if it would be OK if they pointed the weapons they did have -- they were already well enough armed -- at al-Qaeda, because they had come to reject the Taliban-like ideology and barbarity of al-Qaeda in the Euphrates River Valley.

Is that all the General said? No.


PETRAEUS: Senator, first of all, we are not arming the tribes. We have not provided weapons to them.

What we did initially is basically give a thumbs up when they asked if it would be OK if they pointed the weapons they did have, they were already well-enough armed, at Al Qaida because they had come to reject the Taliban like ideology and barbarity of Al Qaida in the Euphrates River Valley.

And at this point, their salaries in Anbar Province, of the vast majority of these individuals are being paid by the central Iraqi government because they have been picked up as members, have either joined the army or joined local police forces up and down the Euphrates River Valley.

So, there is a connection to a national chain of command and to a national salary structure that does give considerable leverage to the national government over those individuals. It's very significant, again, that they have taken on Al Qaida, because although I have not sought to connect Al Qaida with 9/11 -- Al Qaida Iraq with 9/11 in any respect, Al Qaida is very much part of the sectarian violence.

They are really the most barbaric and lethal accelerant on the Sunni-Arab side and within Baghdad, in particular, the element that has -- had been trying to carry out the displacement of Shia, until, in fact, our forces have increasingly dealt with them there. There's still work to be done in those neighborhoods against Al Qaeda, and certainly very much against Shia militia as well.

Take that Sen. Byrd and DemocracyNOW.


ARUN GUPTA: Well, I think his message is the same thing the Bush administration has been saying for the last four years, which is “stay the course.” And there is no real strategy that the White House has, beyond trying to stave off defeat for the next year, so it can leave the war to its successor. And all this stuff about, “Well, you know, the surge is working, and we're going to draw it down next summer,” again, it’s part of the same kind of treadmill we’ve been on, the same rhetoric that we’ve been hearing.

President Bush told us from the beginning that the war on terror would last well beyond his time in office. He's right, and we can't quit, and we have no plan from the Democrats other than to call this general a liar and a stooge and demand we withdraw for the sake of withdrawal so hopefully more Democrats can win elections.

Road2DC (http://www.road2dc.com/)

General David Petraeus testified before Congress on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, four days before the deadline for his report to Congress on the War in Iraq.

You can say whatever, but the BUSH administration HOLDING testimony regarding the war in Iraq on 9/11 to give the appearance to those who do not choose to think, that the war in Iraq surely had something to do with the 9/11 attack on the WTC and the Pentagon is and was unconscionable. Thank God, General Petraeus made it clear that the BUSH administration's war in Iraq has and had nothing what so ever to do with the attack on 9/11/01; in that Petraeus did well.

On Saturday, September 15, 2007 Washington D.C. will be the site of what promises to be the largest protest ever against the Iraq War.

Martha I will be paying attention to this rallly instead

http://gatheringofeagles.org/media/GOE3UPDATEDLEAFLET.jpg


I think it was very approriate that the testimony occurred on 9-11 . I wrote this to my cousin who is serving on the General's staff in Baghdad after General Petraeus'testimony .

The libs are all over the exchange between departing Republican Senator John Warner and General Petraeus. Evidenty it is big news (probably front page tomorrow) that when asked if the surge is was making us safer ,the General of course answered in the only way he honestly could . He said he doesn't know .

But since I'm not under oath in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee I'll take a stab at it.

Today is the 6th anniversary of the attacks on the US on 9-11-2001 . OBL has since been chased into a cave where he is perfecting that Animal Planet love scene with a goat,generously applying Grecian Formula to his rat nest beard,and occasionally producing youtube quality rants on video tape . His last message was a rambling diatribe that strays in many ways from the consistent messages that were his fatwas of the 1990s.He has been rendered irrelevent .

We live in a world where all it takes for jihadists to deploy is get some phoney papers and an air ticket to their target of choice. Given that they have all these abundant choices to choose from ;they choose to take that flight to Damascus and hike across the border where they foolishly take on the best Army in the world instead of a shopping mall in hometown USA. .In the process, they hastening their departure to their harem in the sky.

Since the surge the General reported there have been detained or killed nearly 100 key leaders and 2,500 rank-and-file fighters.On 9-11 there were 19 of them . They are being killed there instead of here. Given that fact the question appears to be rhetorical .

Kudos to the General and to y'all !

BTW there was clearly a working relationship between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. That was not the reason for removing Saddam . But the administration unfortunately underplayed it.

See below

The 9/11 Commission report tells us in detail that the terrorist attacks on America on 9/11 were set in motion in December 1998. They report that interrogations of the plot's mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, demonstrate that the plot was set in motion in "late 98 early 99" at a meeting in Khandahar, Afghanistan. This also happens to be the time that Iraq came under bombardment by the United States. The timing is no accident.

The commission reported that the only time Osama bin Laden was in Khandahar during the time of "late 98 early 99" was between December 18 and December 24, 1998, after he gave an interview to ABC News in which he declared that "To seek to possess the weapons that could counter those of the infidels is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then this is an obligation I carried out and I thank God for enabling us to do that. And if I seek to acquire these weapons I am carrying out a duty. It would be a sin for Muslims not to try to possess the weapons that would prevent the infidels from inflicting harm on Muslims."

The Timing

Reports from multiple sources indicate that immediately after his press conference and interview, bin Laden left Khandahar and he didn't reappear until February 1999 when another capture/kill attempt was debated and missed.

Why was the 9/11 plot set in motion at that time? Bin Laden had been bombing Americans at hotels and embassies with increasingly large attacks since 1992. Khalid Sheik Mohammed's plan of hijacking planes and flying them into buildings had been developed before 1995 and known to bin Laden since 1996. So what made him suddenly take that leap to authorizing an attack on the scale and complexity of 9/11?

We must recall that in December of 1998, the United States was being politically torn apart by an impeachment of its President. The U.S. was involved militarily in the Balkans as well as Iraq. The United States had come to blows with Iraq over Saddam's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors.

In early December of 1998, the threat from Al Qaeda seemed no more-or less-than usual, and when President Clinton was given his December 4, 1998, Presidential Daily Brief with the CIA article titled, "Bin Laden Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks," the threat was concerning, but not unusually so.

The Plot

Something changed on December 17, 1998. All of a sudden Counter-Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and CIA Director George Tenet held an emergency meeting to discuss a new terrorist threat. On December 16, 1998, the United States had begun bombing Iraq with Operation Desert Fox. Sometime between the 17th and 18th, al Qaeda's strategic planner and number two man, Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri, issued a proclamation: "…we openly and loudly declare that we will retaliate for what is happening to the sons of our nations in Iraq, since the crimes committed by the United States against our Islamic nation will not go unpunished."

Was this just another militant Islamic threat that got America's counter-terrorism leaders to hold an emergency meeting or was it something larger? Hindsight is 20-20, and today we know that the 9/11 plot was being set in motion. Al Qaeda had vowed to retaliate against the United States if the United States bombed Iraq, and when Iraq was in fact bombed, the 9/11 plot was set in motion sometime within the next 150 hours.

According to numerous U.S. media sources, including ABC News, Time, Newsweek, and The Guardian, the threat of Al Qaeda retaliation upon the U.S. was more than sympathy. It was cooperation. All four reported that on or about December 21, 1998, (right in the middle of the 150-hour period when the plot was apparently set in motion) Iraq asked bin Laden to move his headquarters to Iraq. The 9/11 Commission confirms this as well. Those same four media sources also declared that in the days when the 9/11 plot was set in motion, Iraq and bin Laden had decided to work together.

The Guardian reported, "Saddam Hussein's regime has opened talks with Osama bin Laden, bringing closer the threat of a terrorist attack using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, according to U.S. intelligence sources and Iraqi opposition officials. The key meeting took place in the Afghan mountains near Khandahar in late December. The Iraqi delegation was led by Farouk Hijazi, Baghdad's ambassador in Turkey and one of Saddam's most powerful secret policemen, who is thought to have offered Bin Laden asylum in Iraq."

Hijazi was reported to have traveled through five American aircraft carrier battle groups, thousands of American aircraft, through Pakistan, and into the winter mountains of Khandahar, Afghanistan on December 21, 1998, and he was described by the Italian newspaper, The Corriere della Sera, as "…the person who has been responsible for nurturing Iraq's ties with the fundamentalist warriors since 1994."

In February 1999, An Arab intelligence officer who knew Saddam Hussein personally predicted in Newsweek: "Very soon you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity run by the Iraqis."

At the same time, Saddam himself—long described as too secular to work with Islamic radicals—called for Islamic Militants to fight on his behalf: "Oh sons of Arabs and the Arab Gulf, rebel against the foreigner...Take revenge for your dignity, holy places, security, interests and exalted values."

A Time magazine cover story entitled "The Hunt for Osama" quoted a U.S. official as saying, "We have evidence that bin Laden may be planning his boldest move yet—a strike on Washington or possibly New York City in an eye-for-an-eye retaliation." A State Department aide said, "We've hit his headquarters, now he hits ours."

ABC News did the most extensive piece on the Iraq/bin Laden meeting, with correspondent Sheila MacVicar going into detail about the cooperation between Saddam and bin Laden.

The conclusion is inescapable that the 9/11 plot was set in motion, at the very least, in retaliation for America's war on Saddam, and likely at the direct urging of Saddam via Iraq's Faruq Hijazi. If the reports of the day are any indication, the deal was made in exchange for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

States sponsor terrorism as a means of deniable attack, and since Saddam and bin Laden both had vested interests in attacking the U.S. as well as maintaining deniability, it's likely these killers would lie about it as well. Similarly, terrorists and spies alike compartmentalize compromising information, and so the 9/11 attackers likely never knew about Saddam and bin Laden's private deal—even Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably didn't know about Hijazi's meeting with bin Laden at the time the plot was set in motion. But thanks to our own mass media, we know. All that we had to do was "connect the dots."
AIM Report: Media Reports Connect Saddam to 9/11 Plot - March A (http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4425_0_4_0_C/)

July 21, 2001 the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper “Al-Nasiriya” carried a column headlined, “American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin. The article predicted that bin Laden would attack the US “with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.”
The same column also insisted that bin Laden “will strike America on the arm that is already hurting,” and that the US “will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs” ;an apparent reference to the Sinatra song “New York, New York”. Zell Miller read that Iraqi newspaper article on the floor of the Senate.

Here is a confirming article by CNN from 1999 that Saddam offered bin Ladin asylum .

CNN - Bin Laden reportedly leaves Afghanistan, whereabouts unknown - February 13, 1999 (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/)


Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.

And here is a 1999 Guardian report about the comnnection :

Saddam link to Bin Laden | The Guardian | Guardian Unlimited (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html)

Investigative reporter Laurie Mylroie has for years linked Sadaam to the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing PBS - frontline: gunning for saddam: interviews: laurie mylroie (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html)

More below

Since the invasion Iraqi documents have been found that confirms the connection .



The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
Last Updated: 12:14pm BST 27/04/2003



Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.

A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

The letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service.

It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames.

The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent.

Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials.

The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."

Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.

A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda.
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F27%2Fwalq27.x ml)

DLC/REPUBLICAN "GREATER GOOD" Does NOT Include the Greater Population

Here is the GREATER GOOD for which All REPUBLICANS and the DLC NEW DEMOCRATS, disguised as NDN and NDC, REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT Candidates are doing all possible to bring about, a globalized HAVE and HAVE NOT SYSTEM, the DLC REPUBLICAN DEMOCRATS in cooperation with the REPUBLICANS have a secret plan of borrowing an ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY, a sufficient amount of money to be able to break the governments, of, by and for the combined people of the United States and all other countries DOWN FOREVER, bankrupting governments where only the HAVES will be in control of the HAVE NOTS; all over the world.

GRAVEL told us that the Treasury Dept. leaders called him in and told him that the debt for the United States is not 9 TRILLION; but 59 TRILLION, and GRAVEL had the courage to tell the American people. No other candidate had the courage to tell the American people the enormity of the debt being womped on us.

GRAVEL HAS GRIT and needs to be our next president of the United States and leader of the FREE WORLD. WE THE PEOPLE, the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION, MUST get a leader, like Mike Gravel, that will represent the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION and Mike Gravel will represent us.

If the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION continue "lemming voting" like the RIGHT WING MEDIA and the 20% DLC New Class [that have separated themselves from the common population into a new class] tell us; we, the 70% COMMON POPULATION WILL HAVE ALLOWED THE DESTRUCTION OF ANYTHING FAIR AND FREE FOR THE 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION -- us. We are in the middle of a RIGHT WING WAR against the 70% MAJORITY COMMON POPULATION --- ALL OVER THE WORLD, and 20% of our population, the New DLC Class chose to desert the common population. We must rise to the challenge and not vote in a DLC COOPERATOR as President of the United States.

The following excerpt and urls are from truthout.org:

Finance ministers and central bankers have long fretted that at some point, the rest of the world would lose its willingness to finance the United States' proclivity to consume far more than it produces - and that a potentially disastrous free-fall in the dollar's value would result.

But for longer than most economists would have been willing to predict a decade ago, the world has been a willing partner in American excess - until a new and home-grown financial crisis this summer rattled confidence in the country, the world's largest economy.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091407R.shtml

And, this RIGHT WING-DLC REGIME BORROWS MORE MONEY:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091207T.shtml

Road2DC (http://www.road2dc.com/)

General David Petraeus testified before Congress on the sixth anniversary of 9/11, four days before the deadline for his report to Congress on the War in Iraq.

You can say whatever, but the BUSH administration HOLDING testimony regarding the war in Iraq on 9/11 to give the appearance to those who do not choose to think, that the war in Iraq surely had something to do with the 9/11 attack on the WTC and the Pentagon is and was unconscionable. Thank God, General Petraeus made it clear that the BUSH administration's war in Iraq has and had nothing what so ever to do with the attack on 9/11/01; in that Petraeus did well.

MarthaA,

Your portrayal of this is about as honest and accurate as Truthout is about presenting the truth. I don't believe the President had anything to do with scheduling the hearing, that's up to the particular committee:


For Immediate Release
08/31/2007

Pelosi and Reid Announce Series of House and Senate Hearings on Iraq

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today announced (http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0298) that the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives’ Committees on Armed Services and Foreign Relations and the Senate Intelligence Committee will hold a series of hearings during the first two weeks of September examining the war in Iraq. The hearings will focus on three upcoming reports as well as the recently published National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and feature testimony by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), retired Marine General James Jones, and the Commander of the Armed Forces in Iraq General David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador in Iraq Ryan Crocker.

The hearings will examine the ongoing situation in Iraq and the effectiveness of the President’s war policy. Congress voted in May to require reports from the GAO, General Jones, and the White House to look at the political and military situation in Iraq. The American people expect an honest and open debate and for Congress to be given the facts.

While the President continues to stay the course and ask Americans to pay for his failed strategy in Iraq, Democrats will continue to push for a new direction in Iraq to protect our troops and make America more secure.

What's unconscionable is for the left to condemn the report before it was given, disparage and honorable soldier in time of war, accuse him of being a Bush stooge, portray the timing of the testimony as you have while using that timing as a stage to promote the Democratic agenda, campaign for election and propagandize the effort in Iraq as a failure to keep America safe on the anniversary of 9/11.


On Saturday, September 15, 2007 Washington D.C. will be the site of what promises to be the largest protest ever against the Iraq War.

I think they fell short of that...


Organizers of the antiwar event said tens of thousands turned out (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091600602.html). A law enforcement official, who declined to be identified because authorities no longer provide crowd counts, estimated the gathering at closer to 10,000; the march permit obtained in advance by ANSWER had projected that number.

And in typical fashion they can't keep from being an unruly, moronic mob.

DLC/REPUBLICAN "GREATER GOOD" Does NOT Include the Greater Population

No offense, but this all sounds more than a bit unhinged and has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

What is it with the left mouthing incredibly stupid and insulting things about the people that serve this country with honor?


Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) on Wednesday sharply criticized David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and signaled agreement with an assessment from a Rolling Stone editor who likened the commander's performance to that of Charlie Sheen.

Woolsey said the Congressional Progressive Caucus Peace and Security Task Force held a briefing on Tuesday with Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone and other panelists, and on the House floor, she quoted Hastings as saying:

"General Petraeus is giving us the Charlie Sheen counter-insurgency strategy (http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/149941-gen-petraeus-accused-of-charlie-sheen-strategy-in-afghanistan), which is to give exclusive interviews to every major network, and to keep saying 'we're winning' and hope the public actually agrees with you."

So now Petraeus is mentally ill? How soon before Woolsey eats her words?

What is it with the left mouthing incredibly stupid and insulting things about the people that serve this country with honor?

So now Petraeus is mentally ill? How soon before Woolsey eats her words?Hello again, Steve:

Did you see the way Sean Hannity treated a sitting US Congressman yesterday on his show?? He called him names and told him to shutup. How long before HE eats his words? (The answer is NEVER, because he doesn't know how stupid he is.)

I looked for video of his ganging up on Rep. Anthony Wiener, but couldn't find it.

excon

Did you see the way Sean Hannity treated a sitting US Congressman yesterday on his show??? He called him names and told him to shutup. How long before HE eats his words? (The answer is NEVER, because he doesn't know how stupid he is.)

I looked for video of his ganging up on Rep. Anthony Wiener, but couldn't find it.

What's the problem, the media is supposed to be adversarial. Since you have no comment on what I posted I can only assume you agree that Petraeus is a mentally ill liar just like this pathetic congresswoman.

Hello again, Steve:

Adversarial - fine. Disrespectful - not fine.

Of course I don't agree with every dingbat on the left, just as I assume you don't agree with your dingbats either. Unless, of course, you believe like SOME of your dingbats, that the Japanese deserve what's happening to them.

Nahhh - you don't believe that crap, and you don't have to say it for me to get it..

excon

I'd have to see it before commenting. Some congressman don't deserve any respect. Alan Grayson was certainly a congressman that didn't deserve any respect. Gen. Petraeus deserves respect.

But as for Beck, I don't watch Beck. I've made that clear many times. I don't have the chutzpah it takes to claim God is or may be judging nations with destruction. On the other hand, if God wanted to do that who am I question Him?

So what are you upset about, Hannity calling him a "partisan hack" or telling him to "man up?"

Pretty darn mild compared to equating the Commander International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, former commander of CENTCOM and Multi-National Force - Iraq with an insane, tiger milk drinking drunken drug head.