by TChris

Maj. Gen. Richard C. Zilmer: "I think we are winning this war."

Tony Snow: "It is conceivable that other people have differing assessments."

Despite his optimism, Zilmer concurs with the "frank and candid" analysis of "Col. Pete Devlin, the Marine intelligence chief in Iraq, who concluded that prospects for securing Anbar province are dim."

According to several Defense Department officials who have read the report, Devlin also argued that the lack of political progress has created a political vacuum in the province. He wrote that the gap is being filled by the insurgent group al-Qaeda in Iraq, said one Army officer who read the assessment.

Today's news from Iraq provides little cause for optimism:

In the remembrance of those killed on 9/11, Wonkette reminds us:

The number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan has already surpassed the death toll of 9/11.

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Taking IOKIYAR (It's OK If You Are a Republican) to new heights, while simultaneously engaged in a full bore defense of ABC's "dramatized" smear of the Clinton Administration the extreme Republican web site Red State also has time to attack Dana Priest's bombshell article that features the fact that George Bush Let bin Laden Go:

Intelligence officials think that bin Laden is hiding in the northern reaches of the autonomous tribal region along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. This calculation is based largely on a lack of activity elsewhere and on other intelligence, including a videotape, obtained exclusively by the CIA and not previously reported, that shows bin Laden walking on a trail toward Pakistan at the end of the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when U.S. forces came close but failed to capture him.

by TChris

The president recently told Katie Couric that "[o]ne of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." Fabricating a nonexistent connection must indeed be a difficult chore, particularly as evidence disputing the connection continues to grow.

There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. ... It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government ''did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates,'' according to excerpts of the 400-page report provided by Democrats. ...

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida.

The report, available here, "also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war."

I've always wondered why people think America is better off with Saddam Hussein out of power in Iraq. I can appreciate (although I don't accept at face value) the argument of those who think it's better for Iraqis that he is gone, but for Americans? I never have gotten the connection.

I was channel surfing very late last night in Aspen and caught Bill Maher on Larry King Live from Friday night. Even though it was way past time for bed, I listened.

KING: Are we better off with Saddam gone?

MAHER: We are not better off. We were never better off because Saddam was actually a bulwark against terrorism. He would never have allowed al Qaeda in Iraq. And I know people say oh, yes, there was al Qaeda. Yes, there was a few al Qaeda in the northern part of the country, which he did not control.

KING: He didn't like bin Laden, right?

MAHER: He hated bin Laden. So the world certainly is not better off without Saddam. And I don't know if even Iraq is better off without Saddam.

You ask the people in Iraq now. Because you know, we're running out of things that Saddam did that we don't do like torture, rape. About the only one left is mass graves. So in a lot of ways we are Saddam except for one thing, he at least had control of his country.

That sounds about right to me. Your thoughts?

by TChris

The military hasn't executed a soldier since 1960. It isn't likely to, and shouldn't, execute four soldiers accused of murdering three Iraqis, despite a recommendation that the death penalty is warranted.

Lt. Col. James P. Daniel Jr. concluded that the slayings were premeditated and warranted the death sentence based on evidence he heard at an August hearing. The case will now be forwarded to Army officials, who will decide whether Daniel's recommendation should be followed.

More details about the alleged murders can be found here.

If the soldiers are convicted after a fair trial, they should be held accountable, just as they would be if their victims had been American citizens. But whether the victims were American or Iraqi, death is not the appropriate punishment. Iraq has seen enough death in the last four years.

by TChris

The Friday that kicks off a holiday weekend is a good time for the government to release news it hopes will go unnoticed.

In a grim 63-page report, the Pentagon chronicled bad news on a variety of fronts.

Grim indeed:

"Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife, with Sunni and Shia extremists each portraying themselves as the defenders of their respective sectarian groups," the report noted. "The Sunni Arab insurgence remains potent and viable."

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Yesterday I wrote about President Bush's citing General John Abizaid as saying "If we withdraw before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here." And in fact, General Abizaid said something much different. It is indeed a fascinating read about Abizaid from March 2005 on many levels. Specifically on what Bush discussed though, I want to excerpt at some length from two discussions Gen. Abizaid had with soldiers in Iraq:

Capt. John Benoit, an artilleryman from the Louisiana National Guard, looked Gen. John Abizaid squarely in the eye and asked bluntly: How's the war going? . . . The insurgency, Abizaid acknowledged, has grown worse over the past year. [Remember this was March 2005!!] There's no defensiveness on that point, though, as he segues into a discussion of why the insurgents--particularly the radical Islamists--must be confronted. "What we can't allow to happen is guys like Abu Musab Zarqawi to get started," Abizaid told Benoit and the soldiers of the 1-141 Field Artillery. "It's the same way that we turned our back when Hitler was getting going and Lenin was getting going. You just cannot turn your back on these types of people. You have to stand up and fight."

. . . A day after he met with the Louisiana guardsmen, Abizaid flew to Al Anbar province to bid goodbye to Maj. Gen. John Sattler before his force is replaced with a new rotation of marines. Generals across Iraq have been talking about the need to have Iraqi forces take on an increased role in fighting insurgents. On the wall of the marines' conference room hangs a sign quoting Lawrence of Arabia. "Better the Arabs do it tolerably than you do it perfectly," it reads in part. "It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them . . . . " Abizaid drove home the same point. "The hardest thing your successors need to do is take their hand off the wheel. What we have to do is set the Iraqis in front to fight the insurgency," he told the marines. "The insurgency will go on long past the time we are gone."

How would the insurgency go on if the insurgents follow us home? It would not of course. Abizaid did not mean what Bush means. Yet again the President of the United States chooses to lie to the American People. It is now old hat. But Abizaid is an interesting figure and there is more to discuss about his statements. I'll do so in extended copy.

Crooks and Liars has the video of Keith Olbermann's commentary last night on Donald Rumsfeld.

Olbermann delivered this commentary with fire and passion while highlighting how Rumsfeld's comments echoes other times in our world's history when anyone who questioned the administration was coined as a traitor, unpatriotic, communist or any other colorful term. Luckily we pulled out of those times and we will pull out of these times.

From the transcript:

Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat

Choose - 1. To select from a number of possible alternatives; decide on and pick out. 2. . . . To determine or decide: chose to fly rather than drive.

The Decider says he didn't decide to go to war in Iraq.

Around two "Friedmans" (6 month intervals, see generally atrios on "Friedmans") ago, Bush said much of what he repeated today:

We removed Saddam Hussein from power because he was a threat to our security. He had pursued and used weapons of mass destruction. He sponsored terrorists. He ordered his military to shoot at American and British pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. He invaded his neighbors. He fought a war against the United States and a broad coalition. He had declared that the United States of America was his enemy. . . . The United States did not choose war -- the choice was Saddam Hussein's. . . . Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat -- and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power. We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of a brutal dictator; it is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in its place.

Of course Bush has been and continues to lie about Iraq. Bush chose this disastrous war. Bush chose to undermine the fight against terrorism. Bush chose to launch Iraq into chaos.

The Wall St. Journal (free link) reports that Bush is planning a series of speeches intended to increase support for the war in Iraq.

President Bush will launch another major public-relations offensive to strengthen support for the Iraq war -- this time likely emphasizing the high stakes and changing nature of the battle more than the progress being made. The series of speeches begins tomorrow at the annual American Legion convention in Utah and will continue through the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and on into the middle of next month.

The new campaign is aimed at framing the Iraq debate over what the White House considers the vital stakes involved in the war and reinforcing public sentiment that favors sticking it out. The speeches will be aimed at rebutting mounting public calls -- from Democrats and even a few Republicans -- for setting some kind of timetable for at least a limited troop withdrawal.

Part of the strategy is to use the speeches to increase Republican chances of victory in November:

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

From National Lampoon's "Animal House":

OTTER: Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules or took a few liberties . . . We did.

But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behaviour of a few sick, perverted individuals. If you do shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general?

I put it to you, Greg. Isn't this an indictment of our entire American society?

Well you can do what you want to us but we won't sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America!

From Rummy today: