Shocking News: Paul Wolfowitz Misleads On Current Iraq Situation

Andrew Sullivan accused Paul Wolfowitz of lying about ISIS.

We should say al Qaeda. ISIS sounds like some obscure thing; it’s even more obscure when you say Shia and Sunni … It means nothing to Americans whereas al Qaeda means everything to Americans … My point is that these are the same people, they are affiliated with the same people, who attacked the United States on 9/11 and still have an intention of attacking the United States and attacking Europe …

The problem with Wolfowitz's remarks is the al-Qaeda’s General Command released a statement disavowing ties with the ISIS.

ISIS “is not a branch of the al-Qaeda group . . . does not have an organizational relationship with it and [al-Qaeda] is not the group responsible for their actions,” al-Qaeda’s General Command said in a statement, marking the first time the leadership has formally repudiated an affiliate.

The bombing attacks by ISIS angered the Syrian civilian population. The ISIS has tortured women, killed journalist and killed government employees. The ISIS is so brutal that both the United States and Iran view the organization as a security threat. ISIS was generating bad PR al-Qaeda on the Arab Street. The deal-breaking was ISIS defying al-Qaeda orders.

The notion of the U.S. seeking help from Iran came from Secretary of State Kerry, who said he “would not rule out anything” to end the “existential threat” ISIS poses to Iraq. “We’re open to discussions if there is something constructive that can be contributed by Iran, if Iran is prepared to do something that is going to respect the integrity and sovereignty of Iraq,” Kerry told Yahoo News.

ISIS is extremely dangerous. What ISIS isn't is part of al-Qaeda. The goal of ISIS is to take control of Syria and Iraq by force. ISIS is currently more a regional threat. Wolfowitz's statement has no basis in fact.

Quote of the Day: Dick Cheney Edition

"When we were there, on our watch, we were always ready on 9/11, on the anniversary."

Dick Cheney, former Vice-President

Someone needs to remind Dick Cheney on who was Vice-President on the day of September 11, 2001. Perhaps the President's Daily Brief "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US" that was given to President Bush on August 6, 2001. From the PDB.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The PDB also stated that al-Qaeda operatives have been living in the United States. Condoleezza Rice flat-out lied to the 9/11 Commission about the contents of the PDB.

And I said, at one point, that this was a historical memo, that it was -- it was not based on new threat information. And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."

Dick Cheney is delusional if he thinks the Bush administration was ready on September 11, 2001.

The Second Term Obama

We may finally be seeing the tougher President Obama that progressives have demanded. Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. John McCain made it clear that they intend to go after U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice over the Benghazi attacks. Obama had these words directed at Graham and McCain.

But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me. And should I choose — if I think that she would be the best person to serve America in the capacity — the State Department, then I will nominate her. That’s not a determination that I’ve made yet.

Damn. Where has this Obama been the past four years.

Why anyone takes McCain and Graham seriously on national security is beyond me. The truth is they are clueless on national security issues. Think Progress is very friendly with the Obama administration and is going after McCain and Graham for defending Condoleezza Rice's intelligence failures on the 9-11 attacks and Iraq WMD intelligence.

Rice was pressed after stonewalling to releal the title of the August 6, 2001 CIA PDB. The title of the PDB is "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." The PDB warned of future al-Qaida was planning future attacks and hijackings. Rice's testimony to the 9-11 Commission was untruthful and embarrassing.

Rice went on CNN with the unfounded claim that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program in development. Rice made this famous comment to Wolf Blitzer.

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

As we now know, there were no nuclear weapons in Iraq. Rice commits two of the biggest intelligence failures in U.S. history and is rewarded with a featured speaking role at the RNC.

Just for fun: watch the Youtube video of Sen. McCain telling Wolf Blitzer that Americans can walk freely in Baghdad during the height of the surge. CNN's Michael Ware's informs Blitzer that an American "would barely last twenty minutes out there." No one should take the man that advocated staying in Iraq 100 years seriously.

GOP Foreign Policy Attacks Won't Work On Obama

President Barack Obama was questioned during a press conference about Republicans attacking his foreign policy as "appeasement." Obama's answer was too the point.

Obama: Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22 other out of 30 top al-Qaeda leaders who have been taken off the field whether I engage in appeasement.

If this was basket ball this would be Obama slam-dunking on the Republican presidential candidates. Michele Bachmann thinks we have an embassy in Iran. Herman Cain had no idea about Obama's Libya military policy. Rick Perry has the unqualified Liz Cheney as a foreign policy adviser. It will be hysterical for the Republican nominee to attack Obama on appeasement.

Update: Rick Santorum is attacking Obama on not keeping the death of Osama bin Laden classified. I would love for nothing more than for the Republicans to use that attack in the general election.

Obama Has No Afghanistan Strategy

Another example of why President Obama is not a policy wonk or takes policy seriously: special adviser Richard Holbrooke announced that the United States has no exit strategy for Afghanistan.

"We do not have an exit strategy but a transition strategy," Holbrooke said, adding that "2014 is not the end of international presence in Afghanistan (but) to be sure there will be some drawdown (of troops) in July next year. The size and pace will be decided by the president."

Translation: the Obama administration is winging this. Last year, Robert Gibbs told Chip Reid of CBS News that the 2011 withdrawal date was "locked" in. Gibbs' statement contradicted those of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and Sec. of Defense Robert Gates. Both said that their offices had made no plans for withdawal in 2011. Bob Woodward reported that General David Petraeus has refused to provide President Obama with an exit strategy for Afghanistan. Obama could have fired Petraeus for insubordination. Obama chose political safety over firing a General who undermined his own policy.

We now know the the 2011 date is not "locked" in. Obama's promise of Afghan police and military ready to fend for themselves by 2011 was pure fantasy. Obama has never adequately addressed what is the mission in Afghanistan. Reports indicate al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden have moved to Pakistan.

During the election, Obama hinted at sending in troops into Pakistan. With the expection of special forces and predator drones; Obama has not given any indication of using full military manpower to invade al-Qaeda strongholds in Pakistan.

In 2009, military contractors outnumbered troops in Afghanistan. Phillip Carter and Paul Glastris wrote a highly controversial article in The Washington Monthly making the case to reinstitute the draft.

But there's a deeper problem, one that any president who chose to invade a country the size of Iraq would have faced. In short, America's all-volunteer military simply cannot deploy and sustain enough troops to succeed in places like Iraq while still deterring threats elsewhere in the world. Simply adding more soldiers to the active duty force, as some are now suggesting, may sound like a good solution. But it's not, for sound operational and pragmatic reasons. America doesn't need a bigger standing army; it needs a deep bench of trained soldiers held in reserve who can be mobilized to handle the unpredictable but unevitable wars and humanitarian interventions of the future. And while there are several ways for an all-volunteer force can create some extra surge capacity, all of them are limited.

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have made it more difficult to retain and recruit soldiers. This is why the United States has relied heavily on contractors. These military contractors do not report to the military chain of command have endangered U.S. troops and civilians. Obama will keep using contractors because he knows the draft would be highly unpopular with the American public.

Obama's Afghanistan policy has nothing to do with defeating al-Qaeda or killing Osama bin Laden. Obama isn't willing to institute a policy that would remove troops from Afghanistan or defeat the al-Qaeda network in Pakistan. Obama is looking for a solution that will cause him the least amount of political pain. Unfortunately, brave men and women will die because Obama is more concerned with being elected for a second term.

No Deadline For Afghanistan Withdrawal

Sec. of Defense Robert Gates and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton told Bob Schieffer there is no absolute deadline to pull troops out of Afghanistan. Gates and Clinton do their best to spin. The fact is President Barack Obama said troops will start pulling out in July of 2011.

But taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We'll continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's security forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government -- and, more importantly, to the Afghan people -- that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.

White House Press Sec. Robert Gibbs told CBS News Chip Reid the july 2001 deadline was locked in. Troops would be coming home at the deadline. Clinton and Gates are publicly stating there is no guarantee of U.S. military personal coming back at that time.

SCHIEFFER: But Mr. Secretary, is there a deadline or is there not?

GATES: There isn’t a deadline. What we have is a specific date on which we will begin transferring responsibility for security district by district, province by province in Afghanistan to the Afghans. The process of that and the subsequent thinning of our forces will take place over a period of time and will happen and will be done based on conditions on the ground. And the decision on that will be made by our commanders in the field.

Clinton told Schieffer troops will come home based "on conditions on the ground."

SCHIEFFER: But does that mean, Madame Secretary, that American forces will still be there as we start… That they’re not going to start bringing the troops home? That we’ll just begin handing over responsibility?

CLINTON: No, it means that as we assess the conditions on the ground we will be transferring responsibility to the Afghans. And depending on the assessment at the time, that means some of our troops can begin coming home. I think that…

SCHIEFFER: Can begin coming home?

CLINTON: Absolutely, can begin coming home.

SCHIEFFER: But not will begin coming home?

The Obama administration is starting to sound like the Bush administration. I have been hawkish on Afghanistan and was hoping for an increase in Special Forces missions into Pakistan to hunt down al-Qaeda. There is no talk about capturing or killing Osama bin Laden or destroying al-Qaeda in their Pakistan hiding places. (Or wherever the hell they are.) Obama is esculating a war with a fantasy of President Karzai's corrupt government being able to create military and police forces. Karzai wants America in Afghanistan forever. The moment America leaves his corrupt regime will leave.

Obama is playing centrist politics with Afghanistan. He doesn't want to be accused of being weak by Republicans. Obama also wants to keep the anti-war Democratic base happy with a deadline. The only thing Obama has successfully done is piss off both sides. This is cynical politics at it's worse.

Arianna Huffington Asks Joe Biden to Resign

Arianna Huffington tells Ron Reagan of Air America that Vice-President Joe Biden should resign in protest of U.S. troop increases to Afghanistan. Biden's opposition to Gen. Stanley McChrystal's 40,000 troop request earned him a Newsweek cover story. There was a fascinating exchange in the White House.

Joe Biden had a question. During a long Sunday meeting with President Obama and top national-security advisers on Sept. 13, the VP interjected, "Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?" Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. "And how much will we spend on Pakistan?" Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. "Well, by my calculations that's a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we're spending in Pakistan, we're spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?" The White House Situation Room fell silent. But the questions had their desired effect: those gathered began putting more thought into Pakistan as the key theater in the region.

U.S. forces have pushed al-Qaeda into Pakistan. CBS News cheir foreign correspondant Lara Logan said Afghanistan is the spiritual home of al-Qaeda. The Taliban is intent on taking back Afghanistan. The Taliban will allow al-Qaeda to set up safe havens in Afghanistan. Logan states the Afghanistan government is too unstable to fight al-Qaeda. The questions about President Hamid Karzai's future also cloud matters. Members of the White House, leaked to the media, that they have lost confidence in Karzai. So far, the White House has not called for Karzai to publicly step down.

Biden is right about Pakistan. The Swat Valley has become an international human rights crisis. The Pakistani people were divided over the Taliban. The cruelity displayed by the Taliban turned the Pakistani people. President Barack Obama just signed a $7.5 billion aid bill for Pakistan. What the longterm policy for Pakistan is uncertain. The United States is launching predator drone attacks on terrorist targets.

The issues in Afghanistan and Pakistan demand someone that is willing to challenge the President. Vice-President Biden will do a greater service to his country in office than out. Resigning out of protest would draw headlines. The move would be a one time ploy and Biden would have no voice on policy once he leaves.

The Afghanistan Question

MSNBC reports Sec. of Defense Robert Gates gave President Barack Obama General Stanley McChrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan, before it was vetted NATO, General Petraeus and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Gates wanted Obama to read the request before the story was dominating the news cycle. My question is who leaked the request?

We know the White House was unhappy with Gen. McChrystal publicly stating the need for more troops at International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. There is no question McChrystal broke protocol. There may have been good reason. Obama met McChrystal was he was appointed the top military leader in Afghanistan. Obama did not meet McChrystal again until after the speech and leak. Did McChrystal or one of his officers leak the troop request because they felt Obama was ignoring Afghanistan?

Relations between Gen. McChrystal and the White House are in shambles. If Gen. McChrystal fails to deliver results the White House will make him own the Afghanistan policy.

I understand why Obama is being deliberate with Afghanistan. There is no margin for error. Is Obama intent on policy of solely hunting al-Qaeda or nation building? The White House has been silent on the rigged elections. The White President has recognized Hamid Karzai as the victor. Obama would be in denial if he believed Afghanistan could one day be a vibrant democracy.

The Left doesn't want an addition of 40,000 troops. Training Afghans to fight under the Karzai government would be a disaster. Karzai does not have the support of the people and has never shown the ability to govern. Karzai would flee the country and al-Qaeda would once again have Afghanistan as a safe haven. The Right has focused on Iraq. The Right hasn't bothered to learn Afghanistan's history or what is going on in the country. How many times have you heard Bill Kristol press the Afghanistan issue during the Bush years. The solutions to Afghanistan (if there is a solution) are outside the spectrum of political ideology.

Saad bin Laden May Be Dead

The Associated Press is reporting Osama bin Laden's son Saad may be dead.

Saad bin Laden, a son of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, may have been killed in a U.S. airstrike, U.S. officials said Thursday. The son was likely killed in Pakistan in the last several months, approximately in late spring, said a counterterrorism official, one of three Obama administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.

Though many in the intelligence community believe he is dead, they can't be 100 percent certain because no body or DNA evidence was recovered to prove it, one official said.

The Washington Post confirmed the story of Saad's possible death through their own source.

"There are some indications that he may be dead, but it's not 100 percent certain," said a Washington-based counterterrorism official who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitive nature of CIA operations along the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier. He declined to say precisely when and where the strike occurred.

Saad served as a messanger between his father and the Quds Force of Iran. al-Qaeda used verbal messangers to avoid communication through cell phones and the internet. The Quds Force helps train and equip Islamic terrorists. Saad lived in Iran and Pakistan after the United States invasion of Afghanistan.

Intelligence official will never be completely certain if Saad is dead. The ability to find a body in Taliban-controlled Pakistan makes the task all but impossible.

Dick Cheney: Not In the Torture Chain of Command

Vice-President Dick Cheney told Wolf Blitzer that he was not in the torture policymaking chain of command. Cheney adds that he supports waterboarding. This is the lack of moral courage Cheney is known for. Cheney attempted to cover up shooting Harry Whittington in a hunting accident. Cheney disavowal being involved in torture policy.

Cheney's own legal council David Addington crafted a memo with Alberto Gonzales and William Haynes granting the administration the right to waterboard Abu Zubaydah. Addington is now Cheney's Chief of Staff. Cheney expects the public to believe his former legal council crafted a torture memo without the Vice-President's approval. Not likely.

Cheney sinks lower by taking a shot at former terrorism czar Richard Clarke. The same petty side Cheney shown against Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame rears it's head at Clarke. The White House made Clarke crisis manager during the 9/11 attacks. Clarke was put in that position because no administration official knew anything about al-Qaeda.

Transcript

BLITZER: We're out of time, but a quick couple of questions and then I'll let you go. Waterboarding, it was used how many times?

CHENEY: It was on three different individuals.

BLITZER: And the information you believe that was received was valid?

CHENEY: I do.

BLITZER: It stopped -- you stopped using it after, what, 2003?

CHENEY: There has not been an occasion since.

BLITZER: Why?

CHENEY: There has not been an occasion.

BLITZER: Is it -- there no need?

CHENEY: I'm just going to leave it that way. You know, when we get into talking about the application of specific techniques to prisoners, then we get into the business of signaling to our adversaries what we might or might not do and they can train for it. It has been publicly acknowledged that we did use waterboarding. That we did use it on three different individuals. And I believe it was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, and one other, I think al-Nashiri. Those three individual were subjected to waterboarding during the course of their interrogation. But that's it.

BLITZER: Because I've always been perplexed, if it is so good and so useful, there are bad guys out there right now, why not continue to use it?

CHENEY: Well, you don't use it on somebody because he's a bad guy. What we were attempting to do, and what we did was to persuade these individuals who had a lot of intelligence and information about al Qaeda -- remember, we captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in, I think it was, spring, March of '03, in Karachi. At the time we didn't know a lot about al Qaeda. On 9/11 we didn't know a lot about al Qaeda. If Dick Clarke was such an expert, how come he didn't have all of this information about al Qaeda when he was running the counterterrorism program? The fact of the matter is that we were able to persuade them to cooperate, to give us the intelligence we needed, and to give us the base of understanding about al Qaeda, about personnel and operations and financing and geography and so forth that was essential in terms of defending our country against further attacks. Now you don't go in and pull out somebody's toenails in order to get them to talk. This is not torture. We don't do torture.

BLITZER: John McCain says it's torture.

CHENEY: Well, John is wrong. He and I have a fundamental disagreement on this point. But what the agency did was they sought formal guidance from the senior leadership of the administration, as well as the Justice Department in terms of what was appropriate and what wasn't. And they got that guidance. And they followed that guidance, as far as I know. I have no reason to believe anybody out at the agency violated any tenet of the obligations and responsibilities we have in terms of statutes or our treaty obligations. I think it was done very professionally. I think it was done very few times, when it was necessary. I think it produced good results. I think there are Americans alive today because we used that technique on those three individuals.

BLITZER: And if necessary, would you authorize it again?

CHENEY: Well, I'm not in the chain of command, but if necessary, I would certainly recommend it again.

BLITZER: Waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

Naked Brunch: Palin Hockey Hurrah

I'll be at my local Barack Obama Headquarters making phone calls to voters in battleground states all afternoon, so this is going to be the shortest, and sweetest, Naked Brunch EVER!  You can volunteer too.  All you need is a cell phone.

Gotcha Pakistan Policy

Sarah Palin was questioned, by voter Michael Rovito, if U.S. troops should cross into Pakistan's border.

When asked by Rovito whether the U.S. should conduct cross-border raids into Pakistan fom Afghanistan, Palin responded, "If that’s what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should."

The answer is pretty cut and dried. John McCain and Sarah Palin sat down together in a joint interview with Katie Couric. Both candidates denied that Palin said what she said. Hilarity ensues.



Is this an SNL skit or actual interview? McCain is sitting with Palin to do a damage control interview. McCain uses the attack-the-journalist tactic George H.W. Bush used on Dan Rather.

John McCain: Of course not. But, look, I understand this day and age of "gotcha" journalism. Is that a pizza place? In a conversation with someone who you didn't hear … the question very well, you don't know the context of the conversation, grab a phrase. Gov. Palin and I agree that you don't announce that you're going to attack another country …

Couric: Are you sorry you said it?

McCain: … and the fact …

Couric: Governor?

McCain: Wait a minute. Before you say, "is she sorry she said it," this was a "gotcha" sound bite that, look …

Couric: It wasn't a "gotcha." She was talking to a voter.

McCain: No, she was in a conversation with a group of people and talking back and forth. And … I'll let Gov. Palin speak for herself.

Palin: Well, it … in fact, you're absolutely right on. In the context, this was a voter, a constituent, hollering out a question from across an area asking, "What are you gonna do about Pakistan? You better have an answer to Pakistan." I said we're gonna do what we have to do to protect the United States of America.

What McCain calls "gotcha journalism" is actually holding politicians accountable for their words. The Pakistan issue is serious and voters have a right to know if McCain and Palin agree. The quote above clearly shows Palin saying that it may be necessary to send troops over the Pakistan border. McCain and Palin are clearly lying about what was said. McCain's "gotcha journalism" comment will win applauds from partisan Republicans that care nothing about holding politicians accountable. Except when it serves their party's purpose.

McCain's policy on Pakistan makes no sense. Pakistan is moving away from the United States and has never shown the desire to go into the mountain regions (which the Pakistan government has no authority) and hunt Taliban and al-Qaeda forces. The Pakistani government would rather ignore extremists than angers citizens xenophobic of Western presence. The Pakistan government will take U.S. money. But will not lift a finger to fight terrorism.

The Maverick Sees al-Qaeda Everywhere

John McCain is so unserious about foreign policy that he thinks all Ababic people support al-Qaeda. His latest political blunder reveals is utter cluelessness.

The misstep in question occurred during a news conference in Jordan earlier Tuesday, when the presumptive Republican presidential nominee repeatedly said Iran was supplying al Qaeda. Iran is predominately a Shiite country and is not aiding the Sunni dominated Al-Qaeda.

McCain ultimately corrected himself after Sen. Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear.

"I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda. I am sorry," the Arizona senator said.

Iran gave the United States intelligence on al-Qaeda. That changed when Bush speechwriters David Frum and Michael Gerson decided to label Iran part of the Axis of Evil. There was no vetting with the State Department. The speechwriting department made foreign policy.

McCain has shown an equal lack of insight about Iraq.

Well, all I can say is that [Hillary Clinton] obviously does not understand nor appreciate the progress that has been made on the ground. She told General Petraeus last year when he testified that she would have to suspend disbelief in order to believe that the surge is working. Well, the surge is working.

So I just think what that means is al Qaeda wins. They tell the world that. And we fight here again and around the Middle East. And their dedication is to follow us home. All I can say is that this will be a big issue in the election as we approach November because at least a growing number of Americans, though still frustrated and understandably so, believe that this strategy has succeeded.

Iraq was not a stronghold for al Qaeda before 9/11. The Iraqi population is a Shiite majority and was purging al-Qaeda in Iraq before the surge.

At least I hope it's dishonest," wrote blogger Matt Yglesias. "Because if McCain is really that clueless about what's happening, then we're in more trouble than I thought." The Straight-talker really is that dense.

Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point on Al-Qaeda in Iraq

By 2007, the Bush administrations assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction was debunked to death. Dick Cheney made the illogical and false statement that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was because Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had links to Al-Qaeda.

“He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the al-Qaida operations inside Iraq before we even arrived on the scene and then, of course, led the charge for Iraq until we killed him last June,” Cheney told radio host Rush Limbaugh during an interview. “As I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq.”

Taken at face value: the U.S. military must spend more blood and tressure to hunt al-Zarqawi than hunt Osama bin Laden/Al-Qaeda on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. The Combatting Terrorism Center at West Point has studied Al-Qaeda documents U.S. military personal obtained in the field. It turns out Al-Qaeda does very good record keeping. The findings show al-Zarqawi did not join Al-Qaeda until 2004.

Al-Qa’ida’s allies began moving into Iraq even before U.S. forces entered the country in early 2003. After fleeing Afghanistan and traversing Iran, Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi slipped into Northern Iraq some time in 2002. At that time, Zarqawi’s organization was called Tawhid wa’l Jihad (Monotheism and Struggle) and was built around a backbone of Jordanians, Syrians, and Kurds that either rushed to join him in Iraq or had been working with the Kurdistan-based jihadi group, Ansar al-Islam.

Zarqawi did not join al-Qa’ida until October 2004, when he swore allegiance to Usama bin Ladin. The new organization was called Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn which was commonly known in the West as al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI). The agreement between Zarqawi and his new masters belied important disagreements that remained even after Zarqawi formally joined al-Qa’ida. Zarqawi was sometimes critical of al-Qa’ida’s willingness to cooperate with “apostates” against other enemies and, unlike Bin Ladin, fervently argued that al-Qa’ida’s “Near Enemy”—apostates and the Shi’a—were more dangerous than its “Far Enemy”—the United States and the West.

Al-Qaeda attempted to form ties with the Ba’athist insurgents. Al-Qaeda's ideology, kill all tactics and pure craziness made this impossible. The Ba’athist are members of Saddam Hussein's army. These are professional soldiers fighting for nationalism. Al-Qaeda in Iraq is made up of foreign-born Muslims that fanatical andpoorly-educated. This is why the different ethnic factions are more than happy to help Gen. David Petraeus destroy Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Cheney's claim that Iraq had ties to Al-Qaeda continues to get shot down. The Vice-President is solely intent on fear-mongering and propaganda. Straight talk is will never be Cheney's forte.

The pro-Al-Qaeda supporting groups are doing a good job of failing on their own. The Islamic State of Iraq attempts to maintain the image of an actual government. Their Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is a cabinet department with no actual office. The ISI may not even have a leader.

The U.S. spokesman in Baghdad, General Kevin Bergner, even claimed to have intelligence that Abu Umar al-Baghdadi is a fictitious character created to front the ISI while non-Iraqis pulled the strings.

The Combatting Terrorism Center finds the insurgency is largely made of Iraqis. Al-Qaeda is not the main group fighting and killing American soldiers.

Most of Iraq’s militants do not suffer that strategic problem. The vast majority of militants in Iraq have nothing to do with al-Qa’ida, and they are focused on Iraqi problems: security, distribution of power and money, and sectarianism. Those insurgents are a mix of Sunni nationalists, Ba’thists, Shi’a militias, and Islamist organizations. Mistaking any of these groups for al-Qa’ida is not simply wrong, it is dangerous.

The Bush administration continues to blur the line between the Iraqi-born insurgents and Al-Qaeda. The White House always puts message and politics over sound policy decisions.

The report finds the Iraq occupation is inspiring young Muslim men to take up arms against the United States. The idea the occupying Iraq is making America safer is bogus. I have tried figuring out why President Bush has stayed in Iraq. THe only logical reason is he doesn't want to be known as the man that lost Iraq. Bush can blame the next President for Iraq.

More On Benzir Bhutto

Pakistani authorities can determine that Benzir Bhutto died from hitting her head without performing an autopsy. Nevermind the gunshot wounds inflicted upon Bhutto. It gives pause when the government quickly blames Al Qaeda.

Ayman al-Zawahiri of Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. But the Pakistani government is hardly running a CSI-style investigation. The other problem is their credibility has been shot a long time ago. The Pakistani people believe that the military was behind the assassination.

Developing

John Kerry Coming to University of Florida

John Kerry will speak at the University of Florida this Monday.. The Senator will dicuss Iraq and national security. He will take questions from the audince.

For those wondering: this is not a paid speaking engagement for Kerry.

In related news: Kerry made a point on Meet the Press that I realized a long time ago. Iraqis will never allow al-Qaeda to gain a foothold in Iraq. They will slaughter them first. The Iraqis view al-Qaeda as foreign occupiers. The Sunnis were fighting al-Qaeda before U.S. Troops came into the Anbar province.

Kerry on Meet the Press:

Tim, al-Qaeda views Shia as apostates. They are not legitimate Muslims. The fact is you’re better off as a Christian or as a Jew than as a Shia in the eyes of al-Qaeda. And Iran, linked as it is already to Maliki, who was in Iran a month ago, holding hands with the leader of Iraq, they’re already linked. The Shia will never allow al-Qaeda to take over Iraq. The Kurds will never allow al-Qaeda to take over Iraq. That’s 80 to 85 percent of the country. And the Sunni in Anbar have now decided they don’t want al-Qaeda. We are the attraction for al-Qaeda. And if we begin to reduce our footprint, as the Iraq Study Group has said we should do, as General Jones said we should do, as those seven soldiers of the 82nd Airborne, two of whom were just recently killed, wrote in The New York Times the other day, as we should do, then al-Qaeda, believe me, will be driven out by the Iraqis themselves.

The entire Meet the Press transcript is worth reading. John McCain comes off as completely delussional. He should quit the Senate and become a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The Century Long McCain War

Josh Marshall strikes on a comment made by John McCain at yesterday's Iowa debate. The Maverick looked into his magic 8 ball and predicted:

"I also firmly believe that the challenge of the 21st century is the struggle against radical Islamic extremism. It is a transcendent issue. It is hydra-headed. It will be with us for the rest of the century."

Think long and hard about that statement John McCain firmly states that America will be fighting Al-Qaeda and like-minded Islamic terrorist groups for another 93 years. Marshall makes a valid point how it is difficult for people to predict a year into the future. Let alone decades. McCain has no expertise in Middle Eastern culture or as a futurist. That doesn't stop him from stating that America will be in be in a state of perpetual war. The longest war in history was fought between Britain and France 1337 to 1453. No war has been near that length.

Marshall writes about about the length of political movements hostile to America.

Consider too that fascism, which was no walk in the park, was around for roughly a quarter century (I'm a 'small fascism' man: the copycats in South America in the latter 20th century don't count and I don't think even Franco's regime in Spain does out past the 1950s). And communism, which also had a pretty good run, was around for about three-quarters of a century.

Will Al-Qaeda have an endless supply of suicide attackers for another 93 years? It's doubtful. There are other unanswered questions about how the Middle East will change socially or economically over the course of the century. It is imperative that Muslims have free speech, human right rights are not educated in ideologically-driven mosques and have the opportunity to make a decent wage. Making the quality of like better for Muslims is a good starting point to halt to next generation of terrorists.

I'm curious as how McCain can think the streets of Baghdad are safe, but we will never see the end of warfare in the Middle East in our lifetime. McCain actual believes the silliness he utters. The Middle East is a physics problem that goes over McCain's head. He still hasn't figured out that that Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the war he voted to give President Bush the authorization to wage.

Shocking News: Surge Not Working

A Pentagon report states what everyone already knows about the results of the surge and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s (lack of) leadership. This is coming from an Army Times article.

A Pentagon report released last week concluded that violence in Iraq edged higher during a four-month period between February and May — despite a U.S.-led security push in Baghdad. The report also raised questions about Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s ability to fulfill a pledge made in January to prohibit political interference in security operations and to allow no safe havens for sectarian militias.

Al-Maliki told USA Today that "terrorism and militias — especially terrorism — cannot be dealt with only by using tanks, guns and aircraft." This isn't the guy that will play hardball with insurgents and al-Qaeda. This is a different tune than what he was singing when he came into office.

As Prime Minister, al-Maliki has vowed to crack down on militias which he calls "organized armed groups who are acting outside the state and outside the law."

Much has been made of how General Petraeus's September report. In Washington, it has served as an unofficial deadline for continued U.S. involvement in Iraq. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has admitted as much on Face the Nation.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said most senators in his party think September is the critical point.

"The proper time to really make a serious evaluation of the direction we ought to head is in September," McConnell said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

It's June and McConnell is very displeased. One can only imagine his mood come September.

``The Iraqi government has been a pretty big disappointment,'' Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican and minority leader, said on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' show. ``We've given them an enormous opportunity here, over the last four years, to have a normal country. And our commitment will not be there forever.''

McConnell is openly discussing pulling troops out of Iraq. This man isn't Chuck Hagel. McConnell is a fierce partisan Republican. If he is jumping off the Iraq bandwagon than the White House is in trouble. Bogart and Bergman will always have Paris. Bush will always have Lieberman.

Dishonorable

Via Bryan: Du'a Khalil Aswad was a a lovely 17-years-old Iraq woman of the Yazidi sect faith. She was beaten and stoned to death because she was romanticly involved with a man who was a Sunni Muslim. Three police officers watched as Aswad was murdered. Her male attackers believed this was an honor killing. She was beaten for 30 minutes. There is nothing honorable about murdering a defenseness woman. The level of sickness is these men filming Aswad's murder on phone cameras.

Al Jazeera reports three men have been arrested. The police may have delivered Aswad to her killers.

They ran away together to an address in Bashika. The girl's family alerted the police and Du'a and her boyfriend were found just a few days later.

According to Ms Nammi, who is calling for the girl's killers to be brought to justice, Du'a was arrested and put into prison.

A few days later, the police apparently received assurances from the leader of her tribe - who Ms Nammi believes is Du'a's uncle - that the girl would not be harmed.

But the police were present during Aswad's murder. The stories become conflicted. No one is going to take responsibility for an international human rights scandal.

On the video, Du'a's screams can be heard as she is dragged to the ground. In a further humiliation, her lower body has been stripped.

Instinctively, Du'a tries to cover herself; only later was a piece of clothing thrown over her.

She is surrounded by an enormous crowd jockeying for a good view of the ritualistic killing. About nine men take part in the attack, including, it is thought, members of the girl's family.

To any father of a daughter, that a helpless girl should be set upon with such cowardly savagery is beyond comprehension. One can barely imagine her terror.

It is a profoundly disturbing spectacle. One man kicks her hard between the legs as she screams in agony. Du'a tries to lift herself up, but someone hurls a concrete block into her face.

Another man stamps on her face. Someone kicks her in the stomach. Police officers stand idly by, some of them apparently enjoying the spectacle as much as anyone else.

Muslim feminist Yanar Mohammed and Dr. Sima Samar speak to Democracy Now about the murder.

YANAR MOHAMMED: Well, you just said it. Honor killing is becoming something to celebrate in Iraq now, and this did not happen before the last years that we experienced in the post-war Iraq. When a young woman is killed -- actually, it was more than eight to nine males around her. It was hundreds of males standing around. None of them helped, but they were very keen on photographing the scene, on videotaping it on their cell phones, on their mobile phones. And on top of that, the part, the information that’s missing in the report is that some of our codes, the penal codes, which is part of our laws, they support the killing of women if they are “dishonorable.”

So what happened in this new Iraq, the so-called liberation of Iraq has turned women into refugees inside their country. Millions of us are vulnerable to be killed, and all our lives are threatened, and there is nobody to secure our lives for us. The policemen were standing and watching, and actually they helped to get the young girl back to the place where she was killed. So by constitution, we have lost our rights. Honor killings are on the rise. Kidnappings of women are getting more now. Our organization’s work proves that human trafficking is still rising, and not much is being done about it.

And when you look at the situation, it’s as if the country was occupied and later on handed down to the extremists who were responsible of the 9/11. Why are all the TV outlets given to Islamists? Where are the democrats? Why aren’t they being supported? Where are the seculars? Why are the women's groups not being supported? And we are one example of those. It is as if it was a plan to make us weaker -- the women, the freedom-loving people of Iraq -- and to support the extremists, to give them, to hand the government over to them.

Iraq is not getting better. The country is a lawless land. The Los Angeles Times reports Iraq is helping fund al-Qaeda.

In one of the most troubling trends, U.S. officials said that Al Qaeda's command base in Pakistan is increasingly being funded by cash coming out of Iraq, where the terrorist network's operatives are raising substantial sums from donations to the anti-American insurgency as well as kidnappings of wealthy Iraqis and other criminal activity.

The influx of money has bolstered Al Qaeda's leadership ranks at a time when the core command is regrouping and reasserting influence over its far-flung network. The trend also signals a reversal in the traditional flow of Al Qaeda funds, with the network's leadership surviving to a large extent on money coming in from its most profitable franchise, rather than distributing funds from headquarters to distant cells.

Al Qaeda was financially broke. The chaos in Iraq changed that.

"Iraq is a big moneymaker for them," said a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official.

The Bush administration's policy has turned Iraq into an Islamic extremist paradise.

Update: Iraqi woman protested the murder in Arbil.

Here is a much more graphic video. The site also has porn ads. Viewer discretion advised.