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.

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.