Palin Blames Saddam And Iraq For 9/11

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

U.S. Allies Angry At Anbar Handover

Yesterday we saw the handover of the Anbar province region of Iraq to Iraqi forces, and there was rejoicing on two sides of this three sided area. I was just reading this story at Time onnline, which indicates that the Sunnis who helped quell the violence are opposed to this turnover, and feel like they have been thrown aside for political expediency.


The story at Time By Rania Abouzeid in Baghdad reads:
Anbar province was once one of the most violent and volatile regions of Iraq, accounting for hundreds of U.S. casualties. On Monday, however, the province — quieted by the U.S. military in alliance with Sunni tribal sheiks, the so-called Sunni Awakening or Sahwa movement — was turned back to Iraqi government rule.

Washington may be glad to hand over the formerly al-Qaeda infested area and the Shi'te dominated government in Baghdad happy to receive it. But not everyone is celebrating. A leader of the Awakening movement narrows his eyes and tightens his jaw at the idea of the U.S. hand-over. "We wanted it to be postponed but the decision had already been made by the government and we cannot change it," says Sheikh Mohammad Mahmood al Natah, the spokesperson for the Awakening Council. The hand-over, originally scheduled for June, took place on Monday, making Anbar the 11th of Iraq's 18 provinces, and the first Sunni region, to return to the central government's control. It's a measure of the growing security gains in the war-scarred country, but simmering intra-Sunni tensions in Anbar are bubbling.

Only a handful of the 40 or so Awakening leaders attended the ceremony in Ramadi, a snub that Sheikh Natah says was intended as a clear message to the government. At heart is a power struggle between the Awakening council and the Iraqi Islamic Party, made up of Sunni exiles who are allied with the Shi'ite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki. The party holds 36 of the Anbar council's 41 seats. Those posts are up for grabs if a slow-moving electoral law is approved by Iraq's bickering parliamentarians and the provincial elections that were slated for October take place later this year.
Unlike the last time around in 2005, the Sunni tribal elders are eager to contest the polls, and say they wanted U.S. troops to remain in Anbar until after the elections to help ensure a free and fair ballot. They also want their key ally, police chief Major General Tareq Youssef al A'sal al Dulaimi, reinstated to the position he was ousted from just a few days ago. (Dulaimi was removed for unspecified "administrative" reasons.) The Awakening members say Dulaimi's sudden removal, which was approved by the Interior Ministry, has cemented their fears that their local Sunni rivals in the Iraqi Islamic Party are maneuvering to gain control of Anbar's 28,000-strong police force and purge it of tribal loyalists.

They say Dulaimi's replacement, Riad al Karboole (who will his assume his duties after the hand-over) is an Islamic Party man, and they fear the police force will be infiltrated by their extremist Sunni enemies. "If the Islamic Party continues to pressure the government to remove the Awakening members from the security forces ... then there is a high likelihood that Anbar will return to violence," Sheikh Natah says.

The Iraqi Islamic Party dismisses the sheikhs' concerns. "Some people make accusations without solid evidence," says Omar Abdul-Sattar, a parliamentarian and the Islamic Party spokesman. Abdul-Sattar says that the decision to remove Dulaimi was a done deal between all of the various factions in Anbar, including the tribes, as well as the central government. "This is old talk, Tareq al A'sal has been replaced by consensus," he says.

But the Awakening members don't see it that way. "The tribes are angry with the government's decision," says Colonel Jubeir Rashid, the security adviser to the Awakening Council and a member of the Anbar police force. Tribal elders see Dulaimi's removal as part of a wider government crackdown against the Awakening Council and the Sons of Iraq, the 100,000-strong, largely Sunni former militiamen who are each paid a monthly stipend of $300 by the U.S. to help keep the peace. In the past few weeks, the Iraqi army has moved against the groups in Diyala province, detaining several leaders, and disarming and dismantling several of their checkpoints. There are reportedly plans to detain hundreds of Sons of Iraq members in the coming weeks.

Anbar's tribal leaders say they feel threatened. "Our reward for defeating Al Qaeda is that we've been sidelined," says Sheikh Hamid al Hayess, a senior member of the movement. "We are sensing a change toward us," says Colonel Rashid. "The government should help us, not try to break us with its decisions."

Is this going to turn into another "Mission Accomplished" moment, that will need to redone in a few months or a year! We really need to listen to the people who are actually responsible for the "success" that we now see in this and other areas of Iraq, or we will never get out of this messy war!

A Rant And A New Book Says White House Ordered Forgery

My back is hurting a lot today, so after I read this upcoming story, I thought a rant would "ease" the pain, so here we go:
I want to preface this story by saying that I am not a Bush supporter, but I do feel like it is "put up or shut up time" for the left wing idealogues, who want him charged, impeached, drawn and quartered, body parts created,said creamated parts mixed with cement, allowed to harden, and then dropped overboard and sunk to the bottom of the Marianas Trench. "I prefer the Hitlerian method of finding them guilty and a quick firing squad." ;)

I must confess that after 9/11, I was a full-tilt "give em hell" American, and wanted the "bad" guys hunted down and killed. I supported the invasion and ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan, as I thought that would get us to bin-Laden, and that was ALL important! Frankly, I thought invading Iraq was stupid, and could have been left for another time, and if we really needed Saddam gone, we should have just let him "die" in his sleep.
(An Iraq Aside)
I thought Reagan was criminal (for many reasons) but one major reason, was allowing Saddam to be our "buddy" as long as he was Iran's enemy, and "this is the good part", even while brutally killing his own people, i.e. the gassing of the Kurds, repressing and killing opponents, etc.,.

I did support our troops in Iraq and thought the job needed to be finished, even though we had mucked it up so bad, and I only began agreeing with withdrawal, after the Iraqi government took a months long vacation in August 2007, while our troops were fighting and dying for these ingrates. I know it looks like things are going well in Iraq, but how long before there is a comeback for the insurgents, like there is in Afghanistan by the Taliban and/or al-Qaeda. Maybe it will be alright in Iraq, I certainly hope so, but sadly we cannot force them to build a country, they must do that themselves, and that is still lagging. I know people in the military, so for them I hope this bloody misadventure does turn into success, but it will not be a Bush victory, it will be a troop victory, which should have never have needed to occur.
(Back To The Rant)
Anyway the whole point of rehashing some of my feelings about Bush, was to get to the point of saying that if everything that is being written about him, by Scotty (the Punk~Snitch) McClellan, Ron Suskind (author of new book that this story is about), and others, is true, then there should be no problem for the Congressional Democratic Leadership to bring and succeed with impeachment against Bush, Cheney, and the removal of other criminals in the administration.
I mean which is more serious; receiving a blow job in the Oval office and lying about it, or starting a "good" war~killing thousands, and a "bad" war~killing thousands, and lying about why we went to war?!? So Pelosi, Reid, et al, (aka Criminal Punks as well), and impeach them, or shut the hell up, and use these last months of the Bush administration to "WORK TOGETHER" to fix/correct/bring back/and~or eliminate the following (I have an extra credit list as well, if they finish all of these items): starting with our energy policy(most important issue today), the two wars, relations around the world that he has left in tatters, our civil rights (also in tatters), the economy(possibly in tatters), the airline industry, the news media whores, nanny government, political correctness, bringing back the sugar-free MDX energy drink by Pepsi Co., and other flights of fancy!!

Whew! That was a fun little rant, as I lead you into this story by Mike Allen at Yahoo News, and the book about a forged letter by the CIA, connecting Saddam and al-Qaeda, and other morsels of "hate" Bush talking points~~Enjoy!!

A new book by the author Ron Suskind claims that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a back-dated, handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein.

Suskind writes in “The Way of the World,” to be published Tuesday, that the alleged forgery – adamantly denied by the White House – was designed to portray a false link between Hussein’s regime and al Qaeda as a justification for the Iraq war.

The author also claims that the Bush administration had information from a top Iraqi intelligence official “that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”

The letter’s existence has been reported before, and it had been written about as if it were genuine. It was passed in Baghdad to a reporter for The (London) Sunday Telegraph who wrote about it on the front page of Dec. 14, 2003, under the headline, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’”

The Telegraph story by Con Coughlin (which, coincidentally, ran the day Hussein was captured in his “spider hole”) was touted in the U.S. media by supporters of the war, and he was interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Over the next few days, the Habbush letter continued to be featured prominently in the United States and across the globe," Suskind writes. "Fox's Bill O'Reilly trumpeted the story Sunday night on 'The O'Reilly Factor,' talking breathlessly about details of the story and exhorting, 'Now, if this is true, that blows the lid off al Qaeda—Saddam.'" ;)

According to Suskind, the administration had been in contact with the director of the Iraqi intelligence service in the last years of Hussein’s regime, Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti. “The White House had concocted a fake letter from Habbush to Saddam, backdated to July 1, 2001,” Suskind writes. “It said that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta had actually trained for his mission in Iraq – thus showing, finally, that there was an operational link between Saddam and al Qaeda, something the Vice President’s Office had been pressing CIA to prove since 9/11 as a justification to invade Iraq. There is no link.”

The White House flatly denied Suskind’s account. Tony Fratto, deputy White House press secretary, told Politico: “The allegation that the White House directed anyone to forge a document from Habbush to Saddam is just absurd.” The White House plans to push back hard. Fratto added: "Ron Suskind makes a living from gutter journalism. He is about selling books and making wild allegations that no one can verify, including the numerous bipartisan commissions that have reported on pre-war intelligence."

Before “The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism,” Suskind wrote two New York Times bestsellers critical of the Bush administration – “The Price of Loyalty” (2004), which featured extensive comments by former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, and “The One Percent Doctrine” (2006).

Suskind writes in his new book that the order to create the letter was written on “creamy White House stationery.” The book suggests that the letter was subsequently created by the CIA and delivered to Iraq, but does not say how. The author claims that such an operation, part of “false pretenses” for war, would apparently constitute illegal White House use of the CIA to influence a domestic audience, an arguably impeachable offense. Suskind writes that the White House had “ignored the Iraq intelligence chief’s accurate disclosure that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion. “They secretly resettled him in Jordan, paid him $5 million – which one could argue was hush money – and then used his captive status to help deceive the world about one of the era’s most crushing truths: that America had gone to war under false pretenses,” the book says.

Suskind writes that the forgery “operation created by the White House and passed to the CIA seems inconsistent with” a statute saying the CIA may not conduct covert operations “intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies or media.” “It is not the sort of offense, such as assault or burglary, that carries specific penalties, for example, a fine or jail time,” Suskind writes. “It is much broader than that. It pertains to the White House’s knowingly misusing an arm of government, the sort of thing generally taken up in impeachment proceedings.”

Habbush is still listed as wanted on a State Department website designed to help combat international terrorism, with the notation: “Up to $1 Million Reward.”
Former CIA Director George J. Tenet says about the supposed forgery, in a statement: “There was no such order from the White House to me nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from CIA ever involved in any such effort.”
NBC’s David Gregory reported on “Today” that Habbush passed his information in “secret meetings with British intelligence.”
Tenet says about Habbush in the statement: “In fact, the source in question failed to persuade his British interlocutors that he had anything new to offer by way of intelligence, concessions, or negotiations with regard to the Iraq crisis and the British – on their own – elected to break off contact with him.
“There were many Iraqi officials who said both publicly and privately that Iraq had no WMD – but our foreign intelligence colleagues and we assessed that these individuals were parroting the Ba’ath party line and trying to delay any coalition attack. The particular source that Suskind cites offered no evidence to back up his assertion and acted in an evasive and unconvincing manner.”

Asked about Tenet's statement by Meredith Vieira on “Today,” Suskind said it’s “part of George’s memory issue.”
“[B]y placing so much on its secret ledger,” Suskind writes in his final chapter, “the administration profoundly altered basic democratic ideals of accountability and informed consent.”
The book (HarperCollins, $27.95) was not supposed to be publicly available until Tuesday, but Politico purchased a copy Monday night at a Washington bookstore.

Suskind, an engaging and confident Washingtonian, writes that the book was “one tough project.” He won the Pulitzer Prize for feature writing as a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, where he worked from 1993 to 2000. The White House said Suskind received no formal cooperation. He writes in the acknowledgments section at the end of the book: “It should be noted that the intelligence sources who are quoted in this book in no way disclosed any classified information. None crossed the line.”

Among the 415-page book’s other highlights:
--John Maguire, one of two men who oversaw the CIA’s Iraq Operations Group, was frustrated by what Suskind describes as the “tendency of the White House to ignore advice it didn’t want to hear – advice that contradicted its willed certainty, political judgments, or rigid message strategies.”
And Suskind writes that the administration “did not want to hear the word insurgency.”
--In the first days of his presidency, Bush rejected advice from the CIA to wiretap Russian President Vladimir Putin in February 2001 in Vienna, where he was staying in a hotel where the CIA had a listening device planted in the wall of the presidential suite, in need only of a battery change. The CIA said that if the surveillance were discovered, Putin’s respect for Bush would be heightened.

But Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, advised that it was “too risky, it might be discovered,” Suskind writes. Bush decided against if as “a gut decision” based on what he thought was a friendship based on several conversations, including during the presidential campaign. The CIA had warned him that Putin “was a trained KGB agent … [who] wants you to think he’s your friend.”

--Suskind reports that Bush initially told Cheney he had to "‘step back’ in large meetings when they were together, like those at the NSC [National Security Council], because people were addressing and deferring to Cheney. Cheney said he understood, that he’d mostly just take notes at the big tables and then he and Bush would meet privately, frequently, to discuss options and action.”

--Suskind contends Cheney established “deniability” for Bush as part of the vice president’s “complex strategies, developed over decades, for how to protect a president.”
“After the searing experience of being in the Nixon White House, Cheney developed a view that the failure of Watergate was not the break-in, or even the cover-up, but the way the president had, in essence, been over-briefed. There were certain things a president shouldn’t know – things that could be illegal, disruptive to key foreign relationships, or humiliating to the executive.

“They key was a signaling system, where the president made his wishes broadly known to a sufficiently powerful deputy who could take it from there. If an investigation ensued, or a foreign leader cried foul, the president could shrug. This was never something he'd authorized. The whole point of Cheney’s model is to make a president less accountable for his action. Cheney’s view is that accountability – a bedrock feature of representative democracy – is not, in every case, a virtue.”
--Suskind is acidly derisive of Bush, saying that he initially lost his “nerve” on 9/11, regaining it when he grabbed the Ground Zero bullhorn. Suskind says Bush’s 9 p.m. Oval Office address on the fifth anniversary was “well along in petulance, seasoned by a touch of self-defensiveness.”

“Moving on its own natural arc, the country is in the process of leaving Bush – his bullying impulse fused, permanently, with satisfying vengeance – in the scattering ashes of 9/11,” Suskind writes. “The high purpose his angry words carried after the attacks, and in two elections since, is dissolving with each passing minute.”

--Suskind writes in the acknowledgments that his research assistant, Greg Jackson, “was sent to New York on a project for the book” in September 2007 and was “detained by federal agents in Manhattan. He was interrogated and his notes were confiscated, violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights.” The author provides no further detail.
Have a Nice Tuesday!!

Iraqi Sunni Bloc Rejoins Government

I was just reading a story at Yahoo News, which indicates, that much of what we have criticized the Iraqi government about over the last year may be changing for the better. There is a slight possibility that those of us who have been clamoring for our Troops withdrawal from Iraq, since the Iraqi government went on "vacation" last August may have been wrong. The surge may have worked, though we will not know for sure until we actually draw down below the pre-surge troop levels, and see if the violence increases to pre-surge levels once more.

We have also been lucky that the cleric al-Sadr decided to continue with his cease fire, so while bringing the Troops home under any circumstances, is still probably the Best Bet, there is a chance that we may "win" this war after all. At least "win" enough to be able to leave without the Vietnam scenario playing out again. We shall have to watch closely, but al-Malicki endorses a Obama "type" plan for withdrawal, and the Sunni bloc rejoining the government, are two indicators that this could end in the forseeable future.

Anyway the story reads:
Iraq's largest Sunni Arab political bloc ended a nearly yearlong boycott of the Shiite-led government Saturday in another step toward healing the sectarian rifts that once brought almost daily bloodshed.

The National Accordance Front agreed to return after parliament approved six Sunni officials to fill vacant seats in the Cabinet. But the gesture had wider implications — seen as a significant step toward political reconciliation and efforts to cement security cooperation between Shiite-led forces and armed Sunni groups that rose up against al-Qaida in Iraq. The United States has pressured Iraq's government to work toward reconciliation, hoping it will add stability and ease the burden on U.S. and other foreign forces.

On a visit Saturday to Baghdad, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said plans are being made to scale back troops in Iraq, but refused to consider an "artificial timetable" for withdrawing Britain's remaining 4,000 soldiers. Brown's comments — following meetings with Iraqi leaders — come in advance of next week's scheduled address to British lawmakers on Iraq, when he is expected to give more details on troop reduction plans as insurgent attacks and militia violence drops sharply around Iraq.

No specific troop withdrawal figures have been made public, but a senior British military officer has predicted substantial troop cuts in Iraq next year."It is certainly our intention that we reduce troop numbers, but I am not going to give an artificial timetable at the moment," Brown said following talks with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Jalal Talabani. A departure of more British forces will have little bearing on the battlefield. The troops, mostly based outside the southern city of Basra, no longer have a combat role and are involved mostly with training Iraqi security units. Britain's moves come about four months after Iraqi opened a major offensive in Basra to root out Shiite militias with suspected links to Iran. The campaign — which began with disarray among Iraqi forces — ultimately gained ground with U.S. help and reclaimed wide control over Iraq's second-largest city and key oil center.

Although Britain maintains the second-largest foreign military force in Iraq, it is dwarfed by the approximately 150,000 U.S. soldiers currently in the country. Brown's meeting in Baghdad also included Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. The break in the Iraqi political impasse came after parliament unanimously backed Sunni candidates to fill the post of deputy prime minister and head five midlevel ministries, including higher education and communications. Four other Cabinet posts were filled by Shiites. The Front pulled its members from the 39-member Cabinet last August, complaining it was sidelined in important decisions. The political rift left al-Maliki's government without partners in bids to find common ground with Sunni leaders.

Sunni Arabs, who represent about 20 percent of the country, were highly favored under Saddam Hussein but the tables turned after his ouster when Iraq's majority Shiites held sway. The rivalries spilled over into a wave of sectarian killings and al-Qaida bombings apparently aimed at triggering civil war. But Sunni sheiks last year began to organize militias — later known as Awakening Councils — against insurgents. Their role has been considered key in undercutting al-Qaida networks and helping reduce violence around Iraq to its lowest levels in four years. "What happened today is a national step forward to boost the government's role and take the national reconciliation ahead," said the bloc's spokesman, Saleem Abdullah. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, hailed the political pact as "a very important step forward."

The new Sunni Arab cabinet members join two others already in the government: Defense Minister Abdul-Qader al-Obeidi and former Front member Ali Baban, who heads the influential planning minister. Baban was kicked out of the Front for refusing to follow the boycott. The Front and its allies also hold 44 of the 275 parliamentary seats. They continued to take part in legislative affairs despite the government boycott. The four new Shiite members of the Cabinet filled posts abandoned last year by followers of the anti-U.S. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. They al-Sadr loyalists walked out after the prime minister refused demands for a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The posts include transportation and tourism and archaeology.

So while this may not be the end of troubles in Iraq, perhaps it is a new start, and anything that gets our Troops home sooner, is a good thing!!

Bush Agrees To Timetable In Iraq?

I was just reading this interesting "turnabout" story at Yahoo News, concerning Bush, and a desire by the Iraqi's for us to set a timetable for withdrawal of all troops! A flip-flop? Or just an acknowledgement of the political "reality" in Iraq?

President Bush and Iraq's prime minister have agreed to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more U.S. troops home from the war, a dramatic shift from the administration's once-ironclad unwillingness to talk about any kind of deadline or timetable.

The announcement Friday put Bush in the position of offering to talk with Iraqi leaders about a politically charged issue that he adamantly has refused to discuss with the Democratic-led Congress at home. It also could complicate the presidential campaign arguments of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama who have staked out starkly opposite stands about the unpopular war.

What's changed? The sharp reduction in violence in Iraq — to the lowest level in four years — has made the country's leaders increasingly confident and more assertive about its sovereignty, giving rise to demands for a specific plan for American forces to leave.


Iraq has leverage because the White House is struggling to salvage negotiations for a long-term agreement covering U.S. military operations there. The White House said its goal is to conclude that deal by the end of this month. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki talked about the stalled negotiations during a secure video conference on Thursday, agreeing "on a common way forward to conclude these negotiations as soon as possible," a White House statement said. The two leaders agreed that improvements in security should allow for the negotiations "to include a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals, such as the resumption of Iraqi security control in their cities and provinces and the further reduction of U.S. combat forces from Iraq," the White House said. Bush repeatedly has vetoed legislation approved by Congress setting deadlines for American troop cutbacks.

Friday's White House statement was intentionally vague and did not specify what kind of timelines were envisioned. That allows Iraqi officials, who are facing elections in the fall, to argue they are not beholden to Washington or willing to tolerate a permanent military presence in Iraq. For Bush, it points the way toward a legal framework for keeping American troops in Iraq after a U.N. mandate expires on Dec. 31. "The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions," said Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for Bush's National Security Council. "The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be." As for the campaign to elect a new commander in chief, McCain firmly opposes any withdrawal timetable while Obama pledges to pull out combat troops within 16 months. By talking about a "time horizon," Bush appeared at odds with McCain and could make his own GOP administration a tougher target for Obama's anti-war barbs.

McCain issued a statement saying, "Progress between the United States and Iraq on a time horizon for American troop presence is further evidence that the surge has succeeded. ... If we had followed Sen. Obama's policy, Iraq would have descended into chaos, American casualties would be far higher, and the region would be destabilized." However, Ben Rose, a senior adviser to Obama, said, "It's another indication that the administration is moving toward ... Sen. Obama's position on negotiating the removal of our forces as part of our ongoing discussions with the Iraqi government."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Bush wasn't going far enough. "After rejecting 18 months of attempts by the Democratic majority in Congress to adopt redeployment timetables, the president now proposes a vague general time horizon that falls far short of a commitment to ending our involvement in Iraq," she said. Democratic Rep. William Delahunt of Massachusetts, who has led House hearings on the planned agreement with Iraq, said the "time horizon" cited by the White House was "very vague and nebulous." He also said the agreement taking shape seemed "far less grandiose than what was initially articulated."

Iraq has proposed requiring U.S. forces to fully withdraw five years after the Iraqis take the lead on security nationwide — though that condition could take years to meet. Iraq's national security adviser, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, said this month that Baghdad would not accept any security deal unless it contained specific dates for U.S. troop withdrawals. So far, the United States has handed control of 10 of 18 provinces to Iraqi officials. "Obviously, if Iraqis are assuming more missions, then you need less American troops," Johndroe said. The White House sought to make a distinction between talking with Iraqis about withdrawals and attempts by Congress to force cutbacks.

"I think it's important to remember that the discussions about timeline issues previously were from Democrats in Congress who wanted to arbitrarily retreat from Iraq without consideration of conditions on the ground," said White House deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel, who was traveling with Bush in Tucson, Ariz. "All of the discussions that we have always had have been based on conditions on the ground and making progress in the country, and we are doing just that," Stanzel said. "We are making progress on the security situation. The number of attacks has dropped dramatically in recent months."

A major troop buildup ordered by Bush in January 2007 has ended. In recent days, the 3rd Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade, the last of the five additional combat brigades sent in last year, left the country. There are still 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq — as many as 15,000 more than before the buildup began. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions this fall because security has improved.

So the end may not be etched in stone yet, but the signs are there, and Now it is only a matter of when it happens, not if it happens!!

McClellan Is STILL A Punk

I think that our President is "criminally" stupid, and has caused very great damage around the world, but for many that is not a strong enough term. There are those who compare Bush to Adolph Hitler~~and Hitler would have gotten better coverage than Bush. So Scottie is Bush's, Joseph Geobbels, except he is a sneaky snake, snitch, instead of a stand by your Furher kind of guy, like Joseph.
Anyway, I despise Scottie boy as much or more than Bush for the simple fact that Scottie was one of Bush's best friends from Texas days, followed him like a little puppy, spewed the lies day after day, and then "after" leaving the White House, chose to make some money, by bashing his former boss, friend, and colleagues~~~and get this~~~All to make bipartisanship, and civility possible once more???
B.S. has not had a better purveyor than this wordsmith, since Bush/Cheney themselves "linked" Saddam/bin-Laden/911 together in the "same" breath, before the war!! We already "know" that Bush/Cheney are lying, evil war criminals, so Scottie's "clearing" his conscience ploy is merely Beltway Theater, and a way to make some Big Money at the same time!

There is right and wrong in this world, and just because Scottie boy is coming out now, does not mitigate the circumstances of his lying to us for his boss/buddy, and now when he knows there "may" someday be indictments or war crimes, he is turning snitch to finger the "bigger" fish above him~~so typical~~and so annoying. So for other snitches, and war criminals, if you have to follow an example of what to do to make things right, don't follow Scottie, Please use Adolph & Joseph as templates for what to do!!
Suicide May NOT Be Painless, but it would save us a butt-load of money, instead of having to prosecute "you" worthless Bastards!!! Bush~Cheney~et al~(special invite for Scottie & fellow warmongerers)~~do us all a favor, have a little "prayer" breakfast in the War Room (Bunker), and make a "Hilterian" sacrifice, and save this nation from more of "you" and "your" minions Evil!!

Now for the story I was reading of the Punk A$$ Bitches testimony at Yahoo News:
If the nation doesn't trust the Bush White House, it's the president's and Dick Cheney's own fault, Bush's former spokesman told Congress Friday.
From life-and-death matters on down, the rationale for war, the leaking of classified information, Cheney's accidental shooting of a friend, the government's top two leaders undermined their credibility by "packaging" their version of the truth, former press secretary Scott McClellan said.
He described the loss of trust as self-inflicted, telling the House Judiciary Committee that Bush and his administration failed to open up about White House mistakes.
The focus of the panel's hearing was the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and McClellan said that was a good example of the administration damaging itself by backtracking on a pledge be upfront.

link to the punks story

Will Bush Bomb Iran?

I was just reading the following story at AlterNet, concerning the possibility of President Bush bombing Iran before he leaves office. This has been something that has been hinted at over the last few years, and would have already occurred if the war in Iraq had been successful when it was supposed to be. TIme has slipped by, and the time to bomb Iran is getting tighter and tighter. If Bush is going to attack, I think as this former CIA analyst that it will come in the late Summer or early Fall, but I also think that it will come after an Iranian "attack" of some sort against us directly, either here at home or at our troops in Iraq (which seems more likely) and will require a direct and immediate response.
This may not come to pass, but if it does, the following article may show how it might happen.

Bomb Iran? What's to Stop Bush?
By Ray McGovern, Consortium News. Posted June 20th, 2008.Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

It's crazy, but it's coming soon. The armed forces are working out details. Impeachment may be the only way to stop it.

Unlike the attack on Iraq five years ago, to deal with Iran there need be no massing of troops. And, with the propaganda buildup already well under way, there need be little, if any, forewarning before shock and awe and pox -- in the form of air and missile attacks -- begin.
This time it will be largely the Air Force's show, punctuated by missile and air strikes by the Navy. Israeli-American agreement has now been reached at the highest level; the armed forces planners, plotters and pilots are working out the details.
Emerging from a 90-minute White House meeting with President George W. Bush on June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said the two leaders were of one mind:
"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House."
Does that sound like a man concerned that Bush is just bluff and bluster?
A member of Olmert's delegation noted that same day that the two countries had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, and that "the meetings focused on 'operational matters' pertaining to the Iranian threat." So bring 'em on!
A show of hands please. How many believe Iran is about to attack the U.S. or Israel?

link to full story

Pentagon Announces Deployment Of Troops To Iraq And Afghanistan

I was just reading this story at Yahoo News, concerning the upcoming troop deployments to Iraq, and Afghanistan:

The Pentagon on Monday announced upcoming deployments of more than 42,000 troops, including 25,000 active duty Army soldiers who would be sent to Iraq beginning in the fall to replace troops scheduled to come home by year's end.

The deployments would maintain a level of 15 brigades in Iraq, or roughly 140,000 troops, the number military leaders expect will remain on the warfront at the end of July, once the currently planned withdrawals are finished.

Under the new Pentagon policy effective in August, those active duty Army units will serve for 12 months, rather than the 15-month tours that units in Iraq now are serving. The bulk of the soldiers deploying later this year returned from Iraq late last year, and will have gotten about a year at home to rest and retrain.

LINK TO FULL STORY

al-Sadr Calls For Dialogue In Iraq

There is a story being reported currently that Muqtada al-Sadr would like a dialogue with the Iraqi government, which could be a positive outcome to the current violence between his militia, and the Iraq & American Troops.

The story indicates that aides to Muqtada al-Sadr have called Monday for dialogue to resolve a violent standoff with the Iraqi government, saying that the radical Shiite cleric would disband his militia if senior religious leaders ordered it.

The overture came as Baghdad's main Shiite district of Sadr City faced continued clashes between al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia fighters and Iraqi troops backed by U.S. forces.

Also Monday, a U.S. soldier was killed by small-arms fire after a roadside bombing in Baghdad, the military said, pushing the two-day American death toll to at least eight. The attack occurred in an eastern section of the capital which has been the site of the fiercest clashes since al-Sadr ordered a cease-fire a week ago Sunday.

There has got to be some top level talks with al-Sadr by "Our" government, because this man is the person who can make or break that nation, and so far all we have done is push him closer and closer to Iran, as his hatred of "Us" has grown since the liberation (invasion) of Iraq. Let's sit down with him, get a deal done, and come home!! I know it is not as "simple" as that, but it can be done, if we choose to do it!!

LINK TO FULL STORY

al-Sadr Offers A Deal

In what appears to be a tiny hopeful sign, the following story is being reported on Yahoo News, this Sunday morning:

Iraqi Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr called on his followers on Sunday to stop battling government forces after a week of fighting in southern Iraq and Baghdad threatened to spiral out of control.

A crackdown on Shi'ite militants in the southern oil port of Basra has sparked an explosion of violence that risked undoing the past year's improvements in Iraq's security.

"Because of the religious responsibility, and to stop Iraqi blood being shed ... we call for an end to armed appearances in Basra and all other provinces," Sadr said in a statement given to journalists by his aides in the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf.

"Anyone carrying a weapon and targeting government institutions will not be one of us."

U.S. forces have been drawn deeper into the fighting, which exposed a rift in Iraq's Shi'ite majority between parties in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's government and Sadr's populist street movement. The government welcomed Sadr's statement but said it would press on with its offensive in Basra. "The operation in Basra will continue and will not stop until it achieves its goals. It is not targeting the Sadrists but criminals," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told Reuters.

Scores of people have been killed in clashes in southern Iraq and in Shi'ite neighborhoods of the capital, where an indefinite curfew is now in place to contain further violence. In his statement, Sadr also called for an end to "random arrests" of his followers and for them to benefit from an amnesty law passed by parliament in February aimed at freeing thousands of prisoners from Iraqi jails. Maliki, in Basra to oversee the six-day-old operation, has ordered Shi'ite fighters there to lay down their arms and has extended a 72-hour deadline until April 8 for them to turn over heavy and medium weapons in return for cash.

Sadr aide Hazem al-Araji said Mehdi Army fighters would not hand over guns: "The weapons of the resistance will not be delivered to the Iraqi government," he told journalists. Araji also said there had been an agreement with the government to stop "random arrests," an underlying grievance of Sadr's followers that has fuelled this week's violence. Sadr's followers have accused Maliki and the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, his most powerful Shi'ite ally in government, of trying to crush them ahead of provincial elections due in October in which they are expected to make a strong showing.

Sadrists have complained that Iraqi and U.S. forces have exploited a truce called by the cleric last August to make indiscriminate arrests. The U.S. military says it only targets those who disobeyed Sadr's ceasefire order. A key test will be whether Sadr's unruly militia, which he has sought to reorganize in recent months to root out rogue elements, will obey his order to stand down.

Shortly after Sadr's statement, a salvo of rockets or mortars was fired at the Green Zone diplomatic and government compound in central Baghdad. The U.S. military has blamed rogue Mehdi Army militiamen for similar barrages in the past week. But in the southern city of Nassiriya a Reuters reporter said clashes with security forces had stopped and Mehdi Army fighters were seen withdrawing from the streets. This week's fighting has placed the United States in a dilemma. While it wants Iraqi forces to take the lead on security, the Basra operation endangered Sadr's truce, a key factor in the drop in violence in Iraq since last June.

The United States also risks being sucked into an intra- Shi'ite conflict at a time when it plans to pull out some 20,000 troops and decide soon on future troop levels. Democrats seeking to succeed President George W. Bush want speedier withdrawals. U.S. forces said they killed at least 14 fighters in two helicopter missile strikes in Baghdad early on Sunday. They also said special forces have been operating alongside Iraqi units in Basra, where air strikes killed 22 fighters on Saturday.

The government offensive has so far had little success reclaiming the streets of Basra. Shortly before Sadr's statement, Reuters Television pictures showed masked Mehdi Army fighters brandishing machine guns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers outside a state television transmission station after setting fire to Iraqi troop carriers.


Bush should be paying attention, as this is obviously the man with the power to make or break Iraq. Let's make a deal, and get the hell out of dodge!!

More Bombings In Baghdad

It has been another deadly day in Baghdad as a bomb has exploded killing many innocent civilians near the Green Zone.

A parked car bomb exploded in a commercial district of central Baghdad Thursday, killing 18 people and wounding dozens more.

The bombing took place off a bridge in Tahrir Square, a district of clothing shops just outside the heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses the U.S. Embassy and much of the Iraqi government, a police official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information. The policeman and a hospital official said 18 people died. The hospital official said 57 others were injured.

The attack is the latest in a string of violence to grip Iraq's capital after several months of relative calm that followed a surge of U.S. forces last year.

There has also been a rise in the deaths of our Troops, and this could get even deadlier, as the terrorists find new avenues of attack, despite the increased troop levels, and security measures already in place!


more bombings in baghdad

39 Killed In Iraq

In a story I was just reading there were at least 39 people killed across Iraq on Tuesday, including 16 in a bomb attack against a bus on Tuesday as US and Iraqi officials began talks on the future US military presence in the country.

The day's biggest attack was against a passenger bus travelling from the southern port city of Basra to Nasiriyah when it was struck by a bomb, some 430 kilometers (265 miles) south of Baghdad, Nasiriyah police Lieutenant Colonel Ali Siwan said.

At least 16 people were killed and 22 wounded, he said. Elsewhere in Iraq, 22 people were killed, including eight when a suicide bomber rammed his explosives-laden car against a checkpoint manned by Iraqi soldiers and members of a local group fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq, police said.

The attack took place in Dhuluiya, 70 kilometres (45 miles) from the capital in Salaheddin province, at around 3:15 pm (1215 GMT), police Lieutenant Colonel Mohammed Khalid said.

Around 80,000 Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, have allied with the US military by forming local Al-Sahwa, or Awakening, groups to fight Al-Qaeda. The US military-funded groups have increasingly faced attacks from extremists. Elsewhere, 19 people were killed in clashes between militants and security forces, including 10 in the central Shiite city of Kut and nine in the northern city of Mosul, security officials said. In Basra a civilian was shot dead by gunmen, police said.

The latest violence came a day after insurgents killed eight US soldiers, making Monday the deadliest day for American forces in seven months. Five were killed and three wounded in a suicide attack in Baghdad's once upscale neighbourhood of Mansur, the military said, while insurgents killed three more US troops and their interpreter in Diyala province, the theatre of a joint US-Iraqi sweep of Al-Qaeda targets. The latest violence bring the US military's death toll since the March 2003 invasion to 3,983, according to an AFP tally based on independent website www.icasualties.org.

The mounting toll comes at a time when the military is reducing troop numbers amid claims that daily violence has fallen since August. The military's losses in Iraq are one of the key issues in the US presidential election and have hit the campaign of President George W. Bush's Republican party. Meanwhile, the foreign ministry announced the start of talks between US and Iraqi officials on the future of the US military presence in Iraq. "The two parties started today, in the ministry of foreign affairs, talks .... on agreements and arrangements for long-term cooperation and friendship, including agreement on temporary US troop presence in Iraq," the ministry said. The talks follow a November agreement between Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki setting a July 31 target date to formalise US-Iraq economic, political, and security relations.

At the time Maliki said the accord sets 2008 as the final year for US-led forces to operate in Iraq under a UN mandate, which the new bilateral arrangement would replace. The agreements will work out the future role and number of US forces in Iraq in the shadow of the November 2008 US presidential election, despite sky-high American public opposition to the war. When finalised, the new agreement would trigger the end of UN sanctions imposed after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and return full sovereignty to the government in Baghdad. "The United Nations is working to help Iraqis make 2008 the year of Iraqi sovereignty," UN Special Representative to Iraq Staffan de Mistura said at a press conference in Najaf. The talks between the two delegations are expected to cover issues such as whether Washington would have permanent bases in Iraq, how many US troops would be stationed here, and for how long. The final deal would require the approval of the Iraqi parliament.

Another bloody day, that indicates the lull in violence created by the surge, may be coming to an end, as the enemy has regrouped, and found areas to target!!

Iraq Casualties Cast Shadow On Election

The following story at Yahoo News shows just how important the Iraqi War may be in tomorrow's primaries and caucus, as two of the big states holding presidential primaries Tuesday have something more tragic in common — high numbers of military casualties in Iraq.

Combined, Ohio and Texas have sustained roughly one-eighth of all U.S. troop deaths in a war that's certain to shape the general election as candidates with two vastly different approaches — stay or go — compete for votes in communities that have been personally touched by the conflict that began with a U.S.-led invasion five years ago this month.

"This strategy is succeeding," insists Republican Sen. John McCain, the likely GOP nominee who plans to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for the near future and who daily derides his Democratic rivals as defeatists. Countering, Democratic presidential contenders Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton want the military out now and argue that the Republican would keep the country's armed forces entangled in Iraq indefinitely. "We cannot wait to bring this war in Iraq to a close," argues Obama at every turn while Clinton frequently promises, "I would begin pulling the troops out in the first 60 days." With such disparate positions, the Iraq war is certain to be a dominant topic, perhaps the defining issue, in the election as U.S. military deaths near 4,000 and the cost approaches $500 billion.

In Ohio and Texas, both party's contenders are courting a constituency that while war-weary also is deeply supportive of U.S. troops embroiled in a conflict that has intimately affected small towns like McConnelsville, Ohio, and military bastions around Fort Hood, Texas, as well as every place in between. Ohio and Texas are among states with the largest numbers of military installations, deployments and war casualties. Ohio has lost 166 while Texas has mourned 366, the second highest death total behind California's 428.

There and elsewhere, people appear confounded by Iraq and struggle to see a way forward. "We need to come home, but we need to get the job done," said Jan Slowter, working at her hair salon in this southeast Ohio town. An undecided voter, she said the war will affect her decision whether to stick with the Republicans as she has most of her life or choose a Democrat. Some 1,200 miles away in Texas, retired Air Force veteran Robert Zahirniak says he has always thought the war was unnecessary and is supporting Clinton. He looks forward to new leadership in the White House. "Get out of there the first chance you get," said Zahirniak over his morning coffee at a bakery in his hometown of West, Texas, near Fort Hood.

In Republican primaries and caucuses so far, only 18 percent of voters rated Iraq their most important issue behind the economy and immigration. The number was higher — 28 percent — among those voting in Democratic primaries and caucuses but Iraq still trailed the economy. Nevertheless, three in four people recently called the war an important issue to them personally. That result, plus the gulf between the GOP and Democratic positions will combine with an expected debate in Washington this spring over an additional $100 billion for the war to give Iraq a high-profile role in the months to come.McCain, a prisoner of war during Vietnam, has signaled Iraq will be a major part of his campaign while Obama and Clinton appeal to public sentiment that long ago soured on the mission.

In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll in December, nearly half of all respondents said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports immediate withdrawal of troops, while just over a third said they would be less likely to do so. Only 15 percent said a candidate's war position would make no difference.

Backing for the war divides sharply along partisan lines.
A staggering 92 percent of Democrats in that poll said they opposed the war while 65 percent of Republicans favored it. Another result could bode ill for McCain: 77 percent of independents also said they oppose the war. That swing voting group is critical in the general election.

The change in public sentiment about the war over the last five years is evident in McConnelsville, Ohio. As the war began in March 2003, this sleepy Appalachian town bid farewell to what was then the largest single deployment of Ohio Army National Guard troops in a single unit, some 433. Several thousand people jammed a send-off ceremony and crowds lined the streets as buses packed with soldiers rolled through town. Crisp new flags and bright yellow ribbons hung from nearly every tree and lamppost.

Iraq dominated chatter at the Blue Bell 50's Diner and people stood proudly behind the troops even as they questioned the need for the invasion. Now, the town has mourned the loss of one of its own, killed when a roadside bomb exploded near his tank 36 hours before he was to come home. Fewer ribbons dot the main drag; those that remain have faded. Anti-war candidate Ron Paul's campaign signs hang from storefronts and in some yards.

In the diner, people are no less supportive of the troops. Only now, they question how to get out without making the past five years for naught. With Ohio's presidential primary looming, the talk among the Saturday midmorning crowd inevitably turned to the election and war politics. "We should stay there for 100 years or more like McCain said and get all the terrorists out," said George Kenney, 67, a registered Democrat who plans to vote for the Republican largely because of the war. As for the Democrats, he said: "I don't think they'll have the guts to pull out."

Over a platter of sausage, gravy and biscuits, David Allen, 64, a registered Republican, said he's undecided on who to support but Iraq will be part of the equation. "Everyone knows we'd like to have everyone back," Allen said. "But we're there and it would be a travesty for everyone who has lost their lives to just pull out." Beth Cole, 49, is a registered Republican who calls herself an independent. She says she will choose a candidate based in part on the war. "I personally don't think we should be over there. When you stop to think about the casualties, is it really worth it?" she said. "I don't know the answer yet."

At the Target store in Killeen, Texas, young men with Army haircuts stand out among the mostly female shoppers, many of whom say they too are soldiers or military wives when stopped to talk. They are personally familiar with the devastation in Iraq and worry that it will fall into chaos after U.S. forces leave. Whether that means the U.S. has a responsibility to stay elicits different answers. "I don't know," says 25-year-old Maria Lopez, ordering a frozen drink for her little girl at Target's cafe. "All I know is that we are committed to serve and will follow whatever plan our commander in chief has for us."

The Iraq War Casulaties do cast a huge shadow, not only on tomorrow's elections, but they should cast a shadow everyday, on our nation, until this War ends!!

Turkish Troops Leave Iraq

This story on Yahoo News indicates that Turkey's military said Friday it has ended a ground offensive against Kurdish rebels in Iraq, but said that foreign influence did not play a role in its decision.

At least 200 trucks carrying Turkish troops were seen leaving the Iraqi border area and heading into Turkey's interior. The move came a day after Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Turkish leaders during a visit in Ankara that they should end the offensive as soon as possible. In Washington, President Bush made a similar point Thursday, saying Turkey needed to move quickly and get out.

"Both the start and end dates of the operation were decided by us solely based on military reasoning and necessities," the military said in a statement. "Any influence, either foreign on domestic, on this decision by the Turkish Armed Forces is out of question."

Turkey launched the incursion into northern Iraq more than a week ago against the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, a group fighting for the autonomy of predominantly Kurdish southeastern Turkey. The rebels have carried out attacks in Turkey from bases in Kurdish Iraq.

It was the first major, confirmed incursion in Iraq by Turkey in almost a decade.
In Washington, National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said Friday that "it was a targeted and relatively short operation."

"But I would certainly expect that in the future, that unless the PKK gives up terrorism, that we're going to have to continue to work with the Turks and the Iraqis to go after them," Johndroe said.
Iraqi authorities have said they do not support the PKK but objected to Turkey's military action. On Friday, Iraq's foreign minister said he welcomed the troops' departure.

"The timing is good. I think the military carried out its promises" to remove Turkish troops after finishing the operations, Hoshyar Zebari told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.
Zebari credited the U.S. with playing an "instrumental" role in pressing Turkey to leave.

"The U.S. played a very important role on all fronts to remind Turkey of the seriousness of the situation," Zebari said.
The Turkish military said in a statement that the operation targeted some 300 rebels in Iraq's Zap region, and 240 of them were killed. Turkish losses stood at 27.
"Without a doubt, it is impossible to render the entire terrorist organization ineffective with an operation in only one region. However, it is shown to the group that Iraq's north is not a safe area for terrorists," the military said.
The military said it would not allow northern Iraq to be used as a springboard for attacks against Turkey.

"Terrorist activities in Iraq's north will be observed in the future and no threat against Turkey from this region will be allowed," the military said.
At least 200 military and civilian trucks ferried Turkish troops from the border with Iraq and through the Turkish town of Cukurca on Friday, bound for barracks in Turkey's interior. Some soldiers in the trucks gave thumbs-up signs as they returned. Some had camouflage paint on their faces and held machine guns.
PKK spokesman Ahmad Danas confirmed Turkey's withdrawal, and speculated that American pressure had forced Turkey to pull out.

The PKK took up arms against Turkey in 1984. The fighting has killed up to 40,000 people.

Turkish Troops Kill 41 More Rebels

The news out of northern Iraq indicates that the Turkish Troops are continuing with their incursion to hunt and kill PKK Rebels.

Turkey's military said Monday it had killed 41 more separatist Kurdish rebels in clashes in northern Iraq, raising the reported guerrilla death toll in a cross-border operation to 153. A statement posted on the military's Web site also said two more soldiers were killed in fighting, but gave no details. The deaths would drive the total Turkish military fatalities since the start of the incursion Thursday to 17. It said the military had hit some 30 targets of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK in the last 24 hours.

Turkey said its troops fired dozens of salvos of artillery shells at suspected rebel hideouts Monday and clashed with the rebels in four parts of northern Iraq. It did not specify the locations. It said troops were destroying rebel shelters, logistic centers and ammunition. Retreating rebels were setting booby traps under the corpses of dead comrades or planting mines on escape routes, the military said.

The Iraqi government began asking the Turkish Troops to leave yesterday, but as of today it would seem that they have no intention of leaving yet!!



kill

Violent Day In Iraq

Sunday has turned into a very bloody day in Iraq, as attacks across the country injured, or killed many civilians, as well as, killing a U.S. soldier, and injuring three of his comrades.

A suicide bomber struck Shiite pilgrims as they were resting Sunday during a days-long walk to a Shiite shrine, killing at least 40 people and wounding 60. The attack in Iskandariyah, south of Baghdad, was the second of the day against pilgrims traveling to the holy city of Karbala. The pilgrimage marks Arbaeen, the 40th day following the anniversary of the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, one of two revered Shiite figures buried there. The suicide bomber detonated at a tent where pilgrims stop to eat and drink, police said.

Earlier, extremists attacked another group of pilgrims with guns and grenades in the predominantly Sunni Baghdad neighborhood of Dora, killing three and wounding 36, police said. The attacks heightened tension around Arbaeen, when millions of pilgrims descend on Karbala, about 50 miles south of the capital.

Elsewhere, extremists targeted U.S. patrols in two separate attacks in northern Baghdad, one of which killed a soldier and wounded three other troops and a civilian, the military said, without naming the victims. The second bombing wounded three soldiers, the military said.

An explosion also struck a minibus carrying electricity department workers in the northwestern city of Mosul on Sunday, killing two and wounding three, police said.

In Hawija, about 30 miles southwest of Kirkuk, a parked car bomb went off Sunday morning next to a patrol of Sunni tribesmen who aligned with U.S. forces to fight al-Qaida in Iraq, police said. One civilian bystander was killed and 10 people were wounded, including seven tribesmen, police Brig. Sarhad Qadir said.

Sadly as noted the other day after the Green Zone was attacked, we mentioned that perhaps we are seeing a resurgence of violence, as we reached the pinnacle of non-activity, and now the terrorist/insurgents have regrouped, and are going to be hitting back with a vengeance!! Today has done nothing to alleviate that concern!!


violence

Turkish Troops Enter Iraq Update

Here is an update of the story concerning the Turkish Invasion of Northern Iraq, to hunt down PKK Rebels in the mountains.

Turkish troops pressed a major ground offensive against Kurdish rebels in neighbouring Iraq for a third day Saturday as Ankara said dozens of rebels and at least five soldiers had been killed.

While the Turkish military claimed the operation had sown panic amongst the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the rebel group raised the stakes by threatening to retaliate with attacks in city centres.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan sought to soothe Iraqi protests and Western misgivings over what was the most significant ground incursion into Iraq by Turkey for a number of years.A successful operation is under way," he told reporters. "The only target... is the PKK terrorist organisation. Turkey is the strongest supporter of Iraq's territorial integrity and political unity."

The incursion is expected to continue into next week!



update

Green Zone Attacked

This story coming out of Baghdad, indicates that even with al-Sadr's extension of the ceasefire, that there are terrorists who can get close enough to launch rockets or mortars into the "famous, safe" Green Zone.

Rockets or mortars hit the U.S.-protected Green Zone early Saturday, just a day after powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army militia to extend its cease-fire by another six months.

Nearly 10 blasts could be heard in the sprawling area along the Tigris River that houses the U.S. and British embassies, the Iraqi government headquarters and thousands of American troops. It was not immediately clear whether there were casualties. Maj. Brad Leighton, a U.S. military spokesman, confirmed the Green Zone was hit by indirect fire, the military's term for a rocket or mortar attack, but could not provide more details.

The flurry of attacks followed a substantial lull in such violence as security has increased in the capital over the last half-year. Earlier in the week, the U.S. military blamed Iranian-backed Shiite militias that have broken away from al-Sadr's block for the rocket attacks. Iran denies that it sponsors extremists in Iraq.

Is this new uptick in violence and indication that the gains made by the Surge, are at their pinnacle, and we are now going to see a descent back into the violence before the Surge! For our Troops, and the Iraqi civilians, I hope this is not the case, but as of today, it does not look good for them!


mortars or rockets

Turkish Troops Enter Iraq

There is a disturbing, but expected story coming out of Iraq, as Turkish troops crossed the border today.

Supported by air power, Turkish troops crossed into northern Iraq on Friday in their first major ground incursion against Kurdish rebel bases in nearly a decade. But Turkey sought to avoid confrontation with U.S.-backed Iraq, saying the guerrillas were its only target.

The offensive, which started late Thursday after aircraft and artillery blasted suspected rebel targets, marked a dramatic escalation in Turkey's fight with the PKK rebel group even though Turkish officials described the operation as limited.

Sky-Turk television said about 2,000 Turkish soldiers were in Iraq, operating against rebel camps about two miles in from the border. NTV television said a total of 10,000 soldiers were inside Iraq in an operation that had extended six miles past the frontier. The activity was reportedly occurring about 60 miles east of Cizre, a major city near the border with Iraq.

There should be a concerted effort to root the PKK from the Iraqi side of the border, so the conflict will not widen, and become an all out war. There is already enough fighting in Iraq, and throwing the PKK and Turks into the mix, will not help anyone stabilize this country!!


PKK

Bombers Did Not Have Down Syndrome

There is a story that has just been posted indicating that the two women used in the homicide bombings in Iraq did not have Down Syndrome, as they had previously indicated.

The U.S. military said Wednesday that two women used as suicide bombers in attacks earlier this month had undergone psychiatric treatment but there is no indication they had Down syndrome as Iraqi and U.S. officials initially had claimed.

Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, a military spokesman, said the women used in the Feb. 1 pet market bombings had been identified as residents from the northeastern outskirts of Baghdad who were in their late 20s or early 30s. The two attacks killed nearly 100 people, and Iraqi and U.S. officials said at the time the women appeared to be unwitting attackers.

So with this news, can we expect that more women will be used as homicide bombers, and this is the beginning of a new wave of violence, after the relative calm, created by the Surge!! In a way, it is too bad, because I know it affected me, and others, that al-Qaeda would be so evil as to use the most innocent among us, and to find that this was not the case is even more troubling, in regard to what is happening in Iraq!! Did their psychiatric problems contribute to their being used as bombers? This should be an area that needs to be investigated, and find out what other factors turned them into "homicide" bombers!!


down syndrome