Papers Show 'Gloomy' State of Insurgency

So you're saying it was their plan to have us invade Iraq? From what I've read, the swiftness and completeness of the attack on al-Qaida in Afghanistan caught them all off guard, and the Iraq war allowed them to do what they had thought would happen in Afghanistan. We gave them the chance, and they took it. It's not like they planned this all out from some time before 9/11.

The article above makes it sound like it's not working out as they would hope in Iraq either. Sure they're having short term successes, but fortunately, there are those in positions of power in the US government that see the benefit of staying the course (Bush, Clinton, etc.).

Hopefully the documents that spell out what they're trying to do will further open the eyes to the people of Iraq (and Iran for that matter), and make them think about what it is that al-Qaida would like to use THEIR citizens for (cannon fodder).

Wasn't it Taliban who was caught off guard in Afghanistan? There has been some trouble catching bin Laden and al-Zawahiri. It may be their tactics are somewhat improvised, and the strategic thinking of Osama somewhat tainted, but generally speaking their scope is to establish a Caliphate, and the temporary goal to achieve at least one nation-state through revolutionary means. Al Qaeda were not formal rulers of Afghanistan, and they did not rival the Taliban, but simply enjoyed the Arab hospitality there.

By their own words, the US is winning in Iraq.

I'll wait until I see these war plans. Zaqawi was always sus. I dont believe anything said about him by the embedded media. This is based on evidnce not some hunch. He has always had a Cashed to the eyeballs persona and not like the traditional "Ancient falling apart held together with tape AK" weilding Terrorist.

I'm surprised it took so long for someone to get here. I thought it would have been the first comment. Everything is a conspiracy. Even the conspiracy to create conspiracies are a conspiracy. Say that five times fast.

That's a pretty thick conspiracy theory. Well, they all are. But this one especially, considering that a war between Iran and the U.S. would benefit terrorists immensely.

> First off, it would create another breeding ground for chaos and confusion and it has been proven by example that such situations in Islamic countries create terrorists. America does not want another Iraq.

> Secondly, the United States is stretched darn thin both financially and in man power. Sure we could take down Iran, but at a ridiculously huge cost to ourselves. It doesn't make any sense. Were we to be forced into that (e.g. Iran blackmails the U.S. with a nuke aimed at Israel), well, it would be almost impossible for us to take on something that huge as well as continue making progress in the War on Terror.

> Thirdly, why the heck do you think the U.S. isn't taking such a hardline stance against Iran? Because they know full well what kind of crap they'd be getting themselves into if they screw things up diplomatically and have to take the military route.

I could keep going. It's funny how paperdragon's comment has received 11 votes and kevin's only 6 (now 7 with mine). Conspiracy theories appeal to base animal instincts and emotions. Cool. But please people, all you need is a few seconds of reasoning before you start going "Hey, maybe that doesn't make that much sense."

Or, it could point to the fact that Bush's administration has provided the perfect breeding ground for conspiracy theorists.

(Though, I would point out that "conspiracy theory" is the new "unpatriotic" when it comes to dismissing any questions regarding Bush or his policies.)

Don't like Bush? Conspiracy Theorist.
Believe that Bush (and Rove) aren't above manipulating facts? Conspiracy Theorist.
Have any questions about -any- official information? Conspiracy Theorist.

Seriously, the unpatriotic "brush" has dried up and can no longer paint wide swaths of people in unflattering colors and it has been replaced with the "conspiracy theory" roller. (Now covers more ground in one swipe!)

I have a better idea: How about -not- coming up with one or two word phrases to dismiss opposing views. I have one of those too: Cop-out.

Sure. And it's Sean Hannity's "You're a great American" stuff which certainly fuels people into two factions questioning each others patriotism. But this really doesn't fall in that category.

Any comment whose crux is two words like:

How convenient.

with no logical reasoning or backing up or sources or even a simple theory doesn't really deserve much more than two words (e.g. conspiracy theorist). Because that's what that is feeding off of, that same attitude. Were the comment injected with some reasoning, some intelligent point raising, or really anything of value, then we'd have a whole different cookie.

Really, it's far too soon too either be purporting falsehood or claiming authenticity. But when somebody decides to jump one way, then I really don't see any problem or lack of value with responding to it with a dose of reason and labeling it accurately as conspiracy theorism.

But that's just it...

A lot of people firmly believe Bush (or his administration) to be capable of doing something like this.

Even -if- it's completely accurate, it doesn't say very much for our president that he's fostered an environment that would make people think these things.

I consider myself to be a pretty rational individual with a pretty clear head. The first thing I thought when I read this: That certainly is convenient for Bush... I hope there's not more to it than that. Similarly, terror threat levels don't make me believe were under a threat -- they make me look to see what Bush is trying to change the subject about.

Bush's policies have lead to this. A few people who believe our government might do something like this is one thing: A ton of people with little faith in our President is another. This isn't just a few people.

Thanks, folks, for reading into my comment. I simply said that the document was convenient, and it is...the Bush administration has been trying to link al-Qaida to Saddam Hussein for a long time.

So, if you believe the administration cooked the document, you're a conspiracy theorist. If you believe it's real, you're a patriot, and have been right all along.

I haven't stated what I believe. Is that required?

I find it funny that when Dan Rather's documents regarding President Bush's National Guard duty were found to be forgeries the Dems and the media stood behind him as if they were real. There were no conspiracy theories on how convenient the timing was on finding those documents because they wanted so badly for them to be true.

Then you take the Zarqawi document and the Dems and the media don't want it to be true because it affirms the Military's and the President's strategy in Iraq. It shows that perseverance is working. So naturally this one is fake and there is a conspiracy taking place.

Kevin, I think you should go back and review some of the hind-sight information on that stuff. The blogger-hype was overblown a little.

There were no conspiracy theories on how convenient the timing was on finding those documents because they wanted so badly for them to be true.

Um, kevinb66, the eventual debunking of those documents started out as a "conspiracy theory" started by members of rightwing blogs. As they developed "evidence," the "conspiracy theory" began to be seen as something else.

Of course, I wouldn't have expected you to see that, because it wasn't Democrats who were involved. If these documents are found not to be authentic, the "conspiracy theory" will be shown to be something different.

Nothing has ever come of the charge made in the story. If I remember correctly, even the secretary that supposedly typed the memo said the document was not authentic. If it the document was real wouldn't it have come out by now? Was there something I missed? I thought my memory was fairly accurate on this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

My point is not that the report was wrongly criticized, but that it is not as cut and dry in retrospect as you make it seem.

Brad is right however, it was a conspiracy theory.

No, kevinb66, that's my point. When the document was made public, a "conspiracy theory" was started on some right wing blogs about it being a fake. The "conspiracy theorists" developed their "evidence," and the "conspiracy theory" became accepted by many people as being true.

Here we have what is potentially a similar situation. There is a document, and there is some question about its authenticity along with questions about the timing of its release. Those questions, like the questions of the right wing bloggers in the case you cited, are being called a "conspiracy theory." If evidence is turned up which proves that the document is authentic, the "conspiracy theory" will be debunked. If evidence is turned up which shows that the document is not authentic, the "conspiracy theory" may gain acceptance.

I'm not taking a position either way here, as I don't believe that all of the evidence is in. I'm just pointing out that for you to say that we have conspiracy theories now but didn't have them then is really inaccurate. There were conspiracy theories in the case of Bush's National Guard service, they were just right wing conspiracy theories which came to be regarded as true.

I don't think I'm wrong on this one, unless my bias towards the right is keeping my head too thick to see it. From the Wiki article:

The authenticity of the documents was challenged within hours on Internet forums and blogs, with questions initially focused on alleged anachronisms in the documents' typography and content soon spreading to the mass media.

There is a difference between challenging the authenticity and claiming conspiracy. Media bias was claimed after it was shown that the documents were not legitimate and CBS could not find any originals. But I don't remember the Republicans crying some type of conspiracy.

Some Republicans (and others, such as conservative bloggers) claimed CBS was attempting to influence the 2004 US Presidential election and made allegations of political bias on the part of CBS staff. Some Democrats claim the document controversy was engineered to misdirect media attention and undermine legitimate criticism of Bush's service record.

Note that even this story that was meant to harm President Bush was also claimed to be a conspiracy to help President Bush. Then lengths that people will go through.

@ Brian:

A lot of people firmly believe Bush (or his administration) to be capable of doing something like this.

Well sure.

I live in Maryland, right outside D.C. Maryland is overpopulated with liberals. I think they broke 70% who voted for Kerry. Anywho, I can count on one hand the amount of honest liberals I know. The vast majority of my acquaintences buy into conspiracy theories and make up trash because they hate Bush. Why do they hate him? Mainly because they're not in power and they're jealous.

Same sort of thing happened when Clinton was in office. Lots of stupid theories and all sorts of fake dirt came up. It happens.

A lot of people firmly believed Clinton was inspired by some sort of evil force. That doesn't mean it was true and it doesn't mean that little jabbing comments just because you "feel" like something are justified or valuable. It goes both ways. If a serious allegation such as "cooked" documents is made, it must be backed up with proper reasoning as behooves anybody in a proper intellectual forum.

@paperdragon:

So, if you believe the administration cooked the document, you're a conspiracy theorist. If you believe it's real, you're a patriot, and have been right all along.

You will be labeled as a conspiracy theorist and rightfully so (since it buys into the same pool of logic) unless some actual facts, reasoning, or logic are cited.

You will be labeled as a conspiracy theorist and rightfully so (since it buys into the same pool of logic) unless some actual facts, reasoning, or logic are cited.

I will be labelled a conspiracy theorist for an observation?

OK, here's some reasoning.

Here on Newsvine, people are very quick to call someone a conspiracy theorist for anything that falls short of total agreement with the generally accepted view of events. I simply stated that the document was convenient. I neither questioned the document's validity, nor claimed that it was valid. You, however, immediately labelled me a conspiracy theorist when I hadn't even stated a viewpoint.

This leads me to believe that those, like you, who are quick to label people as conspiracy theorists are just as biased as those who actually are.

Hrm, I suppose as I look back, my comment was largely influenced by Kevin's, so I then replied to you as already a conspiracy theorist.

But regardless, that's a very charged observation. And really, it implies quite a bit. If it's "just an observation" I'm still going to treat it as a valid opinion, and it is that to which I was replying. Not you so much in particular, but that point of view. And if that simple observation has gotten 11 votes, I imagine that it is a view held by more than one person around here.

Fair enough.

I'm sure that you can see that the timing, and contents of the document may be seen as suspicious by some people.

Me? I'll wait until the documents are reviewed before making a judgment.

Kinda what I was saying earlier:

Really, it's far too soon too either be purporting falsehood or claiming authenticity. But when somebody decides to jump one way, then I really don't see any problem or lack of value with responding to it with a dose of reason and labeling it accurately as conspiracy theorism.

I may have jumped the gun a little. Maybe it's been all this talk of conspiracy theorists and the stuff with Keld Bach. Ah well, I've said my point now and I think I've done an all right job at it.

When the full monty comes through and we can get experts from all walks of life to be reviewing the original document, then we can have a good ole rumble!

There is a difference between challenging the authenticity and claiming conspiracy. Media bias was claimed after it was shown that the documents were not legitimate and CBS could not find any originals. But I don't remember the Republicans crying some type of conspiracy.

kevinb66, I think you definitely are letting your bias affect your view here. If the claim is (as it was) that one guy forged the (Bush) document and then Dan Rather helped him out by putting them on television, that claim is a conspiracy theory. I'm not sure what you think about conspiracies in general, but if you accept that there actually are conspiracies, then you have to realize that the first step in uncovering one is a "conspiracy theory." Now, if you consider a "conspiracy theory" to be "a wacky liberal fantasy," you clearly wouldn't want to believe that about those conservative bloggers. What a "conspiracy theory" is, however, is simply the speculation which causes one to investigate further. Many times, that investigation will lead to the conclusion that a conspiracy didn't exist. In other cases, the conclusion will be that a conspiracy is uncovered. In this case, you actually accused paperdragon of starting a "conspiracy theory" when he hadn't even made a speculation. If you are going to call a single observation a "conspiracy theory," you can't narrow down your definition in the same comment so that the right wing bloggers who uncovered the "conspiracy" around Bush's paperwork. It's really not the important issue here at all, and not worth getting into much of an argument over - I'm just thinking that, in case you are not seeing it, "conspiracy theories" can certainly come from people you trust, just as they can come from people you don't.

Now, if you consider a "conspiracy theory" to be "a wacky liberal fantasy,"

I consider a conspiracy to be when people, through illegal or subversive means, commit some act against another person or group with intent to harm.

I did not consider the CBS document scandal to be a conspiracy as much as a liberally biased media wishing something was true and not thoroughly checking the facts.

paperdragon's comment

How convenient. One document that ties al-Qaida to Saddam Hussein AND promotes a US v Iran war.

The word "convenient" lends a tone as if to say that the document was planted. If I mistook that then I accept fault.

I consider a conspiracy to be when people, through illegal or subversive means, commit some act against another person or group with intent to harm.

That seems about right. According to the commonly accepted theory, Bill Burkett gave the document to Mary Mapes, and Dan Rather put it on the air. If that is true, that's a conspiracy. If you began to suspect that the document was fake, your suspicion about how the document was produced and then publicized is a conspiracy theory. Period. There's no other thing to call it. You may not personally be claiming it was a conspiracy, but I assure you that plenty of other people have, and continue to.

The word "convenient" lends a tone as if to say that the document was planted. If I mistook that then I accept fault.

Honestly, I'm flabbergasted that you would acknowledge that there were (at least) three people involved in getting the Burkett memo onto the air, but deny that it was a conspiracy, and at the same time claim that by using the word "convenient" that paperdragon was theorizing a conspiracy.

If Dan Rather and Mary Mapes told Bill Burkett to produce the document then it would amount to a conspiracy by CBS to discredit the President. Bill Burkett giving them bad documents and CBS not properly authenticating it is just bad reporting because they seemingly wanted it to be true. To me there is a clear difference.

OK, kevinb66. You are much kinder to Rather and CBS than many other conservatives, or at least that's the way it seems to me. I'm pretty sure I've heard Rather accused of attempting to "take down" the President on any number of occasions. Next time I read something like that around here, I'll just refer the writer to you.

;-)

Here's the full text of the document. Looks rather 'constructed' from my point of view:

... here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons.

Looks rather 'constructed' from my point of view:

Of course, someone had to "type" it. Has anyone seen the actual document? Maybe it's a Bush plant orchestrated by Karl Rove.

Of course, someone had to "type" it. Has anyone seen the actual document?

If they found it on a hard drive, wasn't it "pre-typed?" The question in my mind is, who translated it?

Wait, nevermind. It would help if I would pay more attention to the article:

The al-Qaida in Iraq document was translated and released by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie. There was no way to independently confirm the authenticity of the information attributed to al-Qaida.

So, it was translated by the same guy who claimed that it came from Al-Zarqawi's hideout. I see.

Although the office of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said the document was found in al-Zarqawi's hideout following a June 7 airstrike that killed him, U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said the document had in fact been found in a previous raid as part of an ongoing three-week operation to track al-Zarqawi.

"We can verify that this information did come off some kind of computer asset that was at a safe location," he said. "This was prior to the al-Zarqawi safe house."

OK, I think I understand. The situation becomes more clear by the minute.

Agreed, Kevin. They should release the original document, of course.

But there are questions being raised about its authenticity.

Iraq's National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie produced the document this morning in Baghdad, saying it was found on a computer disk in Zarqawi's pants.

Iraqi officials said there was no question of the document's authenticity.

"Well, if I find something in your pockets, then that's authentic, isn't it?" al-Rubaie said.

But U.S. officials said the document was not, in fact, found on or near Zarqawi's body but in a raid three weeks earlier on other targets.

"But as far an analysis, we haven't done it yet," U.S. Major General William Caldwell said.

And the English translation was devoid of the usual elaborate phrasing and religious references typical of previous al Qaeda and Zarqawi communications.

When Brian Ross and ABC News question the authenticity.... I think it rises out of the conspiracy theory category.....

now... if we were talking CBS evening news... FORGET IT!!! ;-)

Maybe we shouldn't really judge why we entered the Iraq war until all the documents are reviewed and the Democrats and Republicans stop trying to do their spin jobs on it. (As if that would ever happen)

There are documents stating that Saddam was trying to setup terror cells just prior to the invasion, that the Iraqi generals thought they had WMD a few months before we attacked, that Saddam was capable of mass producing WMDs when the sanctions were lifted.

Saying all that, I still wish we didn't go into Iraq. Obviously there were other targets we should have gone after before Iraq, but this president hasn't always made smart choices.

a bit offtopic methinks..

If you hit the little reply button in the bottom right hand corners, it makes it easier :-)

The thing to do is to remain consistent. We cannot let others dictate our foreign policy and our decisions over whether or not to use force.

The path we are going down now feels, to me at least, like the correct one. If Iran backs away they are the ones impeding progress and turning away from peaceful relations.

Heavy-water reactors are easier to build and are a much more primitive nuclear technology than light water reactors and other reactor technology that the west has. Heavy-water reactors require highly enriched Uranium in order to operate. You think it is more likely that they are building a bomb rather than building a nuclear infrastructure for their energy needs? Sure they side on an ocean of oil, but why does that mean that they must use it for domestic electricity generation? It is more valuable to them to sell it on the world market rather than consume it themselves.

You think it is more likely that they are building a bomb rather than building a nuclear infrastructure for their energy needs?

This was said just before North Korea revealed that they had a nuclear weapons program.

This was said just before North Korea revealed that they had a nuclear weapons program.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Those who study it, repeat it with a little of their own personal flavor. And those who lived through history and still repeat it within their lifetime do so with uncanny spice, flavor, and ignorance.

All you need to do is read a paragraph of Ajamajadajasomething and it's darn clear a lunatic such as him should not get within 100 miles of a nuclear weapon, let alone have his hands directly on the technology to bust this world in two.

wow.. Bush has done a great job then. Bush has frothed up the Iranians to oust the previously moderate, democratic reform-minded and non-agresive president who was most likely NOT developing weapons of mass destruction and replace him with this nationalistic, xenophobic wak job who can more credibly be believed to have started to use the highly enriched uranium to build a bomb.

A round of applause please for further destabilizing the globe!!!

I certainly seem to be in a silly mood today. That is the 4th comment I think that I have posted where I have had a hint of sarcasm. Sorry about that folks.

Never apologize for something which you are good at. You won't improve further. In other words, don't rest on your laurels.

Rhine,

It is not so much that I want to stop being sarcastic. The issue is me becoming to sarcastic. Sarcasm taken in moderation can make a point. To much and you can become mean and jaded because it poisons the soul.

re sarcasm
My pet theory concerning sarcasm is that the most effortlessly sarcastic are probably dysthymicly depressed. It's the longest term depressive condition and many people suffer from it for a decade or more before seeking treatment. It is often remarked by them that their depression ,which is not debilitating physically, unlike shorter more intense types, and their dispositions, which are self defeating generally, have been part of them so long that they had presumed they were cornerstones of their character. Typically they have inefficient social skills but there are exceptions.
Sorry, a bit tangential but your phrase, Behind my screen, of a poisoned soul, struck me as apt.

Wow... lucky for me I am generally a happy guy.

Yeah, lucky for me also... I have to work hard to keep my sarcasm in check, yet I wouldn't know depression if it bit me on the old arse. I'm the happiest guy I know. Also the best lookin....;-)

I wonder what Sigmund thinks of your pet theory.....

Sigmund depresses me.

wow.. Bush has done a great job then. Bush has frothed up the Iranians to oust the previously moderate, democratic reform-minded and non-agresive president who was most likely NOT developing weapons of mass destruction and replace him with this nationalistic, xenophobic wak job who can more credibly be believed to have started to use the highly enriched uranium to build a bomb.

A round of applause please for further destabilizing the globe!!!

Again, I'm no Bush fan, but you can't lay the blame for our poor relations with Iran at Bush's feet. If you want to blame someone for Iran's hatred of the west, blame President D. Eisenhower. His administration - through the CIA - removed the democratically elected leader of Iran and started off the series of disasters that led us through the Iranian revolution, the Iran Hostage crisis and the current theocracy. (source)

It's also fairly clear to me at least that Ahmadinejad wasn't elected by the people, but was put in the role of President due to the machinations of the Iranian Guardian Council. I followed this election pretty closely, and as I recall, all the polls were pointing to a Rafsanjani victory. Remarkably, Ahmadinejad won with 62% of the vote. (There are a number of other discrepancies I recommend you do your own research)

Finally, Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran. That position is held by the Supreme Leader - Ayatollah Khamenei - and is not an elected position.

From what I have learned about the Iranian political system, The president is an elected position much like our president is. The grand council is akin to the electoral college. They are representatives elected by the people to choose the president. The president does have domestic powers and international powers. I am fuzzy as to the legislative structure and the interview I saw on C-SPAN that went over this political system was over a year ago now.

Oh, and I know all about Kermit Roosevelt (his grandfather must have been both sad and proud in his grave). I also know all about the other exploits the US has perpetrated upon the world. "Confessions of an Economic Hit-Man" is a wonderful book on this.

I am not laying all the problems we have with Iran at Bush's feet. Just the problems that have been created since his "axis of evil" speech. Iran was on their way to a more free system, lead by the youth of that country, and Bush with his rhetoric and actions has chased them all back into the arms of the religious right.

How the Iranian gov't works.

In short, the Supreme Leader appoints the members of the body responsible for electing him.

but the president runs the executive branch and has a lot of power.

Steven Colbert is great. Cool. But why thank God for a man that isn't doing anything? We don't need any more comedians. And we don't really need anybody to bring a bright light on to the government. Colbert doesn't say anything revolutionary.

If there's a problem, fix it. Shine a light on it first, fine. But that doesn't solve anything ultimately.

Because Thomas Pane was useless.... right Edward.

Behind My Screen has a point. Even though Colbert has no position as a legislator he can still hammer away at the issues until someone decides to actually do something. Granted, it's not as fast as, say, proposing a bill, but it gets the job done too.

It just bothers me that there's so much talk. Sooo much talk. But so little gets done. You can use all sorts of things online (like the Thomas search) and read all the legislation past. The more recent stuff has the most documentation and detail. It doesn't much perusement (just 15-20 minutes) before you get a real sense of how utterly useless most of the stuff is that Congress is wasting time on. I'm just sick of inaction and it causes me to respond a bit bitterly to all the talk.

Considering that it is Congress that needs to actually

a) Start working more (republicans have reduced the working days a lot in the last 4 years)
b)Stop looking at legislation that does nothing for people (why do we care about a gay marriage amendment? Marriage is a state issue.

perhaps your ire should be focused at the congress rather than commentators.

After reading it, I agree. It seems to say "all the right things", without really saying anything at all.....

The difference in tone could come from translation by Iraqis rather than US forces.

That said, if it is a psy op, one could say it may be the first major psy op by the new Iraq.

The difference in tone could come from translation by Iraqis rather than US forces.

I thought so too, BMV. Too early to tell, or too early to say. Two words that sound different, but mean the same.