VietNam?

President Bush gave a speech the other day about the war in Iraq. Perhaps you saw the headlines...

"Bush Compares Iraq to Vietnam" declared the Washington Post, ABC News and others. However a more truthful, nuanced headline on the speech can be found at the New York Times (yes I said the NYTimes had a more truthful take on the speech). Even our own Star Tribune was a little closer to the mark.

Military historian Max Boot, writing for the Wall Street Journal, comments that the President's remarks were "incomplete" and fills in the missing gaps.

"The problem with Mr. Bush's Vietnam analogy is not that it is inaccurate, but that it is incomplete. As he noted, "The tragedy of Vietnam is too large to be contained in one speech." If he chooses to return to the subject in future speeches, there are some other parallels he could invoke:
• The danger of prematurely dumping allied leaders. A chorus of voices in Washington, led by Sens. Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton, is calling on Iraqis to replace Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. Even Mr. Bush and his ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, have expressed disappointment with Mr. Maliki. They have been careful, however, to refrain from any calls for his ouster. That's wise, because we know from our experience in Vietnam the dangers of switching allied leaders in wartime...The danger of winning militarily and losing politically. In 1968, after Gen. Creighton Abrams took over as the senior U.S. military commander in South Vietnam, he began to change the emphasis from the kind of big-unit search-and-destroy tactics that Gen. William Westmoreland had favored, to the sort of population-protection strategy more appropriate for a counterinsurgency. Over the next four years, even as the total number of American combat troops declined, the communists lost ground... The danger of allowing enemy sanctuaries across the border. This a parallel that Mr. Bush might not be so eager to cite, because in many ways he is repeating the mistakes of Lyndon Johnson, who allowed communist forces to use safe rear areas in Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam to stage attacks into South Vietnam. No matter how much success American and South Vietnamese forces had, there were always fresh troops and supplies being smuggled over the Ho Chi Minh Trail... The danger of not making plans for refugees. One of the great stains on American honor in Indochina was the horrible fate suffered by so many Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians who put their trust in us. When the end came we left far too many of them in the lurch, consigning them to prison, death or desperate attempts to escape. "

The legacy and lessons of VietNam are too big to contain in one speech or even a dozen speeches. President Bush should have started this series of speeches during the 2004 campaign when the ghosts of VietNam were first raised. Then maybe the American people would have a fuller appreciation of where we were in VietNam and the dangers that lie before us today.

Survey Says...

As many of you long time readers know, I don't put a lot of stock in polls and polling. I've seen how easy it is for less than honorable or honest pollsters to manipulate the data. That being said, the Gallup Organization is usually fairly straight up in their processes, which makes the results of their latest poll so striking (HT Captain Ed)



"A new Gallup Poll finds Congress' approval rating the lowest it has been since Gallup first tracked public opinion of Congress with this measure in 1974. Just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007, Gallup Poll. "



It is Gallup's breakdown of the numbers that I find to be of the most interest.



"Frustration with Congress spans the political spectrum. There are only minor (but not statistically meaningful) differences in the approval ratings Democrats (21%), Republicans (18%), and independents (17%) give to Congress. Typically, partisans view Congress much more positively when their party is in control of the institution, so the fact that Democrats' ratings are not materially better than Republicans' is notable.
The nine-point drop in Congress' job approval rating from last month to this month has come exclusively from Democrats and independents, with Democrats' ratings dropping 11 points (from 32% to 21%) and independents' ratings dropping 13 points (from 30% to 17%). Republicans' 18% approval rating is unchanged from last month."



The Democrats are bleeding support from their own people. That could be as disasterous for them as 2006 was for Republicans.



"The decline in congressional job approval could merely reflect the cessation of any public good will it engendered when the new leadership arrived in January, since the current 18% rating is similar to what it was in December 2006 (21%).
But, it could also reflect disappointment with the new Congress' performance (especially among Democrats) and economic unease.
Americans elected the Democrats as the majority party in Congress in November 2006's midterm election in large part due to frustration with the Iraq war and an ineffective and scandal-plagued Republican-led Congress. But any hopes that the elections would lead to change have not been realized as Democrats' repeated attempts to force a change in Iraq war policy have been largely unsuccessful due to presidential vetoes, disagreements within their own party, and the inability to attract Republican support for their policy proposals. Also, many of the Democratic leadership's domestic agenda items have not become law even though some have passed one or both houses of Congress. "



This Congress has, without a doubt, lived up to the "Do Nothing" label. They have both Houses, they have relatively veto proof majorities, but the have not had the intestinal fortitude to do the one thing that their voters want most...to end the war in Iraq NOW! All Congress needs to do is to with-hold the funding for the war and the troops would have to come home IMMEDIATELY. It's that simple.



What the Congressional leaders know, what they refuse to stand up and tell the voters is that to do what they wish would certainly DOOM the Iraqi people to unspeakable violence and would destablize an already volitile region. That is also very simple. Will ANY Democrat in Congress stand up to the left-roots and say "NO"? I doubt it, but I pray that someday soon I can stand here in this forum and say "I was wrong"!

Report from Iraq

When the Logical Husband and I lived in Germany (way back when we were newlyweds) I would read Das Bild and Der Speigel so that I could practice my German. Back then Das Bild was the "tabloid" (think the UK Sun) and Der Speigel was Germany's "New York Times". Given that reputation, this report out of Der Speigel is one that should be given serious consideration.

"The Iraqis in Ramadi, almost all Sunnis, had been worn down by chronic violence. Many had been victims of kidnappings or blackmail at the hands of mafia-like terrorist groups. They had finally come to the realization that, in the long run, the Americans were less of a threat and offered more hope than the fanatical holy warriors from Iraq and abroad.
Families began sending their sons to join the new Iraqi police force and military and fathers ran for municipal offices. They began cooperating with US military officials, turning in bombers and revealing their weapons caches, all while going about their daily lives, running their businesses, working as contractors, shipping agents and garbage collectors. Teachers returned to their classrooms, doctors began treating patients again and store owners restocked their shelves. Iraqis were now building the barbed wire barriers around the city, constructed to force travelers through checkpoints. Iraqis even manned the checkpoints as the Americans -- the Iraqis' former enemies -- retreated to the background, watching over as the city made a fresh start.
Since June, Ramadi residents have only known the war from televison. Indeed, US military officials at the Baghdad headquarters of Operation Iraqi Freedom often have trouble believing their eyes when they read the reports coming in from their units in Ramadi these days. Exploded car bombs: zero. Detonated roadside bombs: zero. Rocket fire: zero. Grenade fire: zero. Shots from rifles and pistols: zero. Weapons caches discovered: dozens. Terrorists arrested: many."

The caption under the articles lead photograph says it all.

"The US military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe." (emphasis mine)

Oh and as far as us not being greated as "liberators" Der Speigel has this story...

"The square in front of the mosque, a trash-covered wasteland between ruined rows of houses, fills up with people at the end of Friday prayers. Children hang on the American soldiers like grapes on a vine, plucking at their trousers, vying for their attention, for a glance, a piece of candy, a dollar, gazing up at the big foreigners as if they were gods.
The Americans run into acquaintances in the crowd. After being stationed in the city for 10 months, they have become a familiar sight. Bearded men greet the soldiers with hugs and kisses, and passersby hand them cold cans of lemonade. "Thank you, Mister," "Hello, Mister," "How are you, Mister?" they say. They talk about paint for schools and soccer jerseys, and they invite the Americans over for lunch. The Iraqis pose for photos with them, making "V's" for "victory" with their fingers."

Yes the report from Der Speigel has reports of shootings and bombings and the things that make war "war" but they also do the one thing that most American papers are still refusing to do....telling us about the successes. Which is another reason why when it comes to international reporting (especially about the war) I trust European sources of news more than I trust American ones!

(Cross Posted at Anti-Strib)

Start the Spin Cycle

Well, it has begun. Last week I reported on the change in reporting coming out of Iraq - from the media AND from the legislators. Well the first couple of drips have started to turn into a flow.

"WASHINGTON - One senator said U.S. troops are routing out al-Qaida in parts of Iraq. Another insisted President Bush's plan to increase troops has caused tactical momentum.
One even went so far on Wednesday as to say the argument could be made that U.S. troops are winning.
These are not Bush-backing GOP die-hards, but Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin, Bob Casey and Jack Reed. Even Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services committee, said progress was being made by soldiers.
The suggestions by them (sic) and other Democrats in recent days that at least a portion of Bush's strategy in Iraq is working is somewhat surprising, considering the bitter exchanges on Capitol Hill between the Democratic majority and Republicans and Bush. Democrats have long said Bush's policies have been nothing more than a complete failure."

Shrugging aside the horrible English, did you notice WHO is admitting that we are making progress? Some of the most vitriolic partisans in the Senate!

There is no denying that General Petraus' surge is working. The Dems are spinning hard now so that they won't look as bad in September when the report finally comes out.

Invested in Defeat

I was going to post on this story Wednesday evening, but...

It is quite refreshing to find an "honest" politician in DC these days...

"House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war..."I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. (emphasis mine)

If this doesn't convince you that the Democrats in Congress are invested in our losing this war, nothing will.

The meme turns???

As I have said in the past, progress is being made in Iraq, although the Star Tribune is loathe to admit it. It appears that O'Hanlon and Pollack aren't the only ones to see progress. Even our own freshman Congressman Keith Ellison sees progress. (H/T Captain Ed)

"Ellison said that local leaders in Ramadi told him of how they partnered with U.S. and Iraqi military officials to virtually rid al-Qaeda from the city. Although the lawmakers had to travel in flak vests and helmets, "we did see people walking around the streets of Ramadi, going back and forth to the market."There have been fewer anti-U.S. sermons as the violence has been reduced, Ellison said, and religious leaders meet regularly with U.S. military officials."The success in Ramadi is not just because of bombs and bullets, but because the U.S. and Iraqi military and the Iraqi police are partnering with the tribal leadership and the religious leadership," he said. "So they're not trying to just bomb people into submission. What they're doing is respecting the people, giving the people some control over their own lives."

Another Freshman Congressman on the trip, Rep. Jerry McNerney from California, who has been very pro-withdrawal is starting to waiver a bit.

"McNerney, the California congressman, also said he saw signs of progress in Ramadi and was impressed by Petraeus, who argued in favor of giving President Bush's troop surge strategy time to work.
McNerney said he still favors a timeline to get troops out of Iraq — something House leaders may bring to the floor again this week as part of a defense spending bill — but is open to crafting it in a way more favorable to generals' wishes.
"As long as we start at a certain date I'd be willing to be a little more flexible in terms of when it might end," McNerney said."

Our friends at the Star Tribune, hoping to dampen criticizm of their choosen Representative had this to say on his remarks.

"Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, said Ellison's statements appear to be a major repositioning in policy.
"It's one thing to run as a candidate. Now that he's in office and visited Iraq, he now realizes the complexity of everyone who wrestles with the issue of pulling out [which could] create a vacuum that would lead to blood-letting," Jacobs said.
Steven Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College, said Ellison's comments could draw ire in his strongly antiwar district.
"I think part of his appeal as a candidate was his very emphatic opposition to the war," Schier said. "Now that has been altered somewhat, it seems. I'm sure there will be a reaction."

Mr. Schier is correct - Rep. Ellison's remarks are not going to sit well with the "withdrawal now" caucus that worked so hard to get him elected. However, it is good to see that Rep. Ellison is learning that maybe, just maybe, the generals in theatre know what they are doing.

More unreported news from Iraq

Gary at LFR points out yet another story that our esteemed local media outlets can't seem to find.

"On July 23, a local Iraqi man came to Patrol Base Inchon, near the Euphrates River, staffed by Company D, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) out of Fort Drum, N.Y., and elements of the 4th Battalion, 4th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division. He told troops that several other residents had chased a group of anti-Iraqi forces away from a weapons cache. He asked Soldiers to remove the weapons. Several local residents guarded the cache and placed a fluorescent marking cloth to alert helicopters that they were not hostile.Soldiers of Company D moved out to find the cache and were met on the road by some of the local residents, who guided them to the cache, which was next to a canal.The cache contained 210 57mm rockets, 25 82mm rockets, eight 120mm mortars, a large rocket, and a bag of homemade explosives."

To be fair to the Red Star, it did print a Clifford May opinion piece today that dares to give an opinion that will not be popular with Nick Coleman.

"For the sake of argument, imagine that opponents of the war in Iraq are right. Suppose that our military -- designed to confront a different enemy, on a different battlefield, in a different era -- has met its match. Suppose that the war against Al-Qaida in Iraq, as well as against various Iranian-backed Shiite militias, cannot be won, and that staying on in Iraq can do nothing to protect America's vital national security interests. If that's true, we must prepare for defeat in Afghanistan as well. There is no reason to believe that the strategy being used against us in Iraq will be less effective 1,400 miles farther east."

He then goes on to lay down all the dominoes that will fall should we withdraw from Iraq - as our esteemed friends on the left want us to do.

Well, not all of our friends on the left are calling for withdrawal. Two writers from the Brookings Institute (hardly a "conservative" think tank) had an op-ed in the New York Times of all places and they are saying that the surge is working!

"VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. " (emphasis mine)

They then go on to talk about the successes in Ramadi, Baghdad, Tal Afar and Mosul - something you have yet to see here in Minnesota.

Look, I fully understand that good AND bad things are going on in Iraq. I do not want to through a tit for tat series of comments say "well this is what is bad" and "well this is what is good" because we can play that game all day long. What I would like everyone to do is take a good hard look at what our local papers are covering and what they are not covering. What they are not covering is as telling (vis a vis their inherent bias) as anything else. Until they start covering the good AND the bad, all Minnesotans should eschew the local media in favor of sources like the International Herald Tribune or the Times of London. You might get a truer picture of what is really happening in Iraq.

(cross posted at Anti-Strib)

My new hero

Senator John Thune (from our neighbor to the West - South Dakota) had this to say on the floor of the Senate this morning (HT Laura Ingraham who had the audio and Michelle Malkin who live blogged the debate - poor dear).

"Update 7/18 1:38am. Sen. Thune is up, and he’s a terrific injection of energy and clarity. He takes on the Dems’ false “Afghanistan war is good”/”Iraq war is bad” dichotomy. Notes that casualties are fewer in Afghanistan because we have fewer there and because the main fight is in Iraq. If we move soldiers to Afghanistan, they’ll kill more of them there. That’s what the enemy does. The Dems don’t understand that this is a titanic war between good and evil…the problem is it is the same enemy…intent on the same objective…we have to fight al Qaeda every place we can…History has shown that fighting wars by committee does not work…” (emphasis mine)

I think I said something similar recently.....I'm just glad to see I am not the only one thinking along these lines.

Defeatocrats

Well now we know why Senator Reid is in such a hurry to get the surrender vote done and over with. (H/T Gary at LFR)

"CNN's Michael Ware said in a broadcast Jan. 30 that Ramadi is "the true al Qaida national headquarters." If that were true, al Qaida is in bigger trouble in Iraq than most of us realize.
Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt devoted his show last Wednesday to the (overwhelmingly negative) opinions of Iraq war veterans on the demands of Democrats that U.S. troops be pulled out. One call was from "Bruce in Upland," whose son is a soldier currently serving in Iraq.
"I will speak for my son who right now is bored out of his mind in Ramadi, because he hasn't heard a shot fired in combat now in about six or seven weeks," Bruce said."

It seems like word is finally getting out that we ARE winning, the surge IS working and he does not want to wait for General Petraus to appear on the nightly news in two months declaring victory in Iraq. Even the UN Secretary General is on the record saying that the Senator Reid's insistence on immediate withdrawal is a foolish idea.

"(CBS News) NEW YORK United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is to meet President Bush in Washington Tuesday, a day after publicly weighing in for the first time on the debate raging across the United States about when to pull American troops out of Iraq. Ban warned Monday that an abrupt U.S. troop pullout could deepen the crisis in Iraq, and he urged the United States to keep the Iraqi people in mind when making decisions on the increasingly unpopular war. Ban, who said Iraq would be a major point of discussion at Monday's meeting with Mr. Bush, said both the United States and the international community have a responsibility not to abandon the Iraqi people. "

If it isn't obvious, by now, that the Democratic Party is more concerned about scoring cheap political points - as opposed to working for the good of the country, I don't know what it will take for the American people to get that point. How can they, in good conscience, given the news that is coming out of Iraq and given the warnings of General Petraus (among others) and Sec'y General Moon, continue to push for this "immediate withdrawal"?

Their agenda is showing and it is not pretty.

Stay the Course

This is good news.

"Sen. Norm Coleman says he will not support an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq. In a conference call with reporters on Thursday, Coleman said he wants to see a change in policy but believes U.S. troops will be Iraq for a long time. Democrats have been trying to pressure Coleman this week as the Senate debates war strategies.
Washington — Coleman said during his 30-minute conference call that he will not support any plans that call for an immediate troop withdrawal in Iraq. He did say he wanted to see a significant change in military strategy by next year but stressed that he expects U.S. troops to remain a part of that strategy.
"We will have a long-term presence in Iraq, but with a change in mission," he said.
Coleman called it "irresponsible" to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq. He said doing so would cause a civil war, would allow terrorists to establish operations in Iraq, and would give neighbor Iran greater influence in Iraq.
Coleman said he understands the public frustration with the war, but he won't vote for anything that he believes would cause greater harm to the United States. At the same time, Coleman said the Iraqi government and Iraqi troops have to take a greater role in securing the country. "

Hugh Hewitt interviewed Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) in the 7:00 hour of his program today. Senator Lieberman laid out clear, concise and compelling arguments for why we need to stay in Iraq. You need to read the transcript or listen to the interview (once Hugh has them posted) over at HughHewitt.com.

General Knowledge

To all of you who have excoriated President Bush (in the past) for not "listening to the generals", I would like your input on this!

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior U.S. military commander warned on Friday against cutting the number of troops in Iraq, saying the Iraqi security force cannot fight on its own and a U.S. reduction would cede progress to the insurgents.
"It would be a mess," said Army Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of U.S. forces in an area stretching from Baghdad's southern suburbs through a region known as the "Triangle of Death."
He said the additional 30,000 troops sent to Iraq over the past four months had given commanders' the ability to reach areas controlled by insurgents and provide greater security
."If those surge forces go away, that capability goes away. And the Iraqi security forces aren't ready yet to do that," he said, speaking to Washington reporters by video link from Iraq."
So now what you're going to find -- if you did that -- is you'd find the enemy regaining ground, re-establishing a sanctuary, building more IEDs, carrying those IEDs in Baghdad and the violence would escalate," he said, referring to the improvised explosive devices, or roadside bombs, used to deadly effect by insurgents." (emphasis mine)

Discuss at will!

H/T Gary at LFR

Update from Michael Yon

As Maxxdog first told us in the comments to my post "Time Flies", Michael Yon has a follow up post to his dispatch "Bless the Beasts and Children".

"Today, late afternoon on 3 July in Baqubah, Colonel Hiduit from 2nd Brigade 5th Iraqi Army was able to provide some additional details about the murders, as the ongoing investigation begins to yield more facts. The name of the village was not on any maps I examined while preparing the dispatch, but Colonel Hiduit said the name is al Hamira. Coordinates to the area of the gravesites are MC 679 381.
In my dispatch, I reported that six people were killed, but mentioned that Iraqi soldiers were still digging out bodies when I left. A few hours ago, Colonel Hiduit put the number at 10-14, and said the search for bodies had ended. I made video of the graves, bodies and of interviews with Iraqi and American soldiers while we still were at the scene and have been working to make material from this available on this website.
As the investigation unfolds more pertinent details, I’ll continue to update the story. But the biggest question rippling across the internet–“Why hasn’t the mainstream media picked this up?” –is something only representatives of mainstream media can answer.
In fairness, several large outlets did publish it online: National Review Online and Fox News were both quick to place the story prominently on their websites. A few others also published excerpts. It was even briefly up on the Drudge Report. On the blog front, Instapundit, Hugh Hewitt, Blackfive, Andrew Sullivan, Captain’s Quarters and many others picked it up."

I think I will send a link off to the Readers Reps of both the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press to see if they will take up on Yon's Challenge. Somehow I suspect that I already know what their answer will be.

Why al Qaeda must be defeated

The center right blogosphere is starting to buzz about Michael Yon's lastest dispatch from Iraq and rightly so. Yon tells us the story of what happened to a village in Diyala at the hands of al Qaeda "insurgents".

"On 29 June, American and Iraqi soldiers were again fighting side-by-side as soldiers from Charley Company 1-12 CAV—led by Captain Clayton Combs—and Iraqi soldiers from the 5th IA, closed in on a village on the outskirts of Baqubah. The village had the apparent misfortune of being located near a main road—about 3.5 miles from FOB Warhorse—that al Qaeda liked to bomb. Al Qaeda had taken over the village. As Iraqi and American soldiers moved in, they came under light contact; but the bombs planted in the roads (and maybe in the houses) were the real threat.
The firefight progressed. American missiles were fired. The enemy might have been trying to bait Iraqi and American soldiers into ambush, but it did not work. The village was riddled with bombs, some of them large enough to destroy a tank. One by one, experts destroyed the bombs, leaving small and large craters in the unpaved roads.
The village was abandoned. All the people were gone. But where?"

As the combined Iraqi and American troops explored the village looking for traces of the villagers they came upon a sight that would give them a foreboding sense of what was to come.

"Later in the day, some of the soldiers from the unit I share a tent with, the C-52, told me that one of their Kit Carson scouts (comprised of some of our previous enemies who have turned on al Qaeda) had pointed out an al Qaeda who had cut off the heads of children. Soldiers from C-52 say that the Kit Carson scout freaked out and tried to hide when he spotted the man he identified as an al Qaeda operative. Just how (or if) the scout really knew the man had beheaded children was unknown to the soldiers of C-52, but they took the suspected al Qaeda to the police, who knew the man. "

To say that the pictures that accompany this dispatch are disturbing and heartbreaking is an understatment of epic proportions!

On Friday, Kermit commented that he thought I was painting Islam with a bit of broad brush. Maybe so, but that will not be the case in this post. This blame for this barbarity belongs strictly to al Qaeda....the same al Qaeda that the Democrats in Congress want to abandon Iraq to!

Which brings me to this question, for ALL of our liberal readers out there. How can you justify abandoning the innocent people of Iraq to this fate? How can you sleep at night knowing that if our troops pull out (as you so desperately want to do) this fate awaits any and every village in Iraq that does not submit to al Qaeda's "tender mercies"?

Well that didn't take long

This morning (while getter ready for work) the Logical Husband and I were watching a news story on the tornado that hit Greensburg Kansas. The reporter on the story threw out a drop line about how the rescue effort might be hampered because some equipment that the Kansas National Guard would have used in a situation like this was in Iraq. The Logical Husband quipped "It's all Bush's fault! It won't be long now before we hear that!" Well as always, he was more than correct. Around 10am I got a news alert (from the Associated Press) saying that the war was hindering the rescue effort and then I saw this lovely Yahoo story (from Reuters).

"A shortage of trucks, helicopters and other equipment -- all sent to the war in Iraq -- has hampered recovery in a U.S. town obliterated by a tornado, Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said on Monday."

The article blames the administration for the equipment being in Iraq. There you have it. President Bush IS responsible for everything bad that happens in the US.

Who do you suppose the press will use for a scapegoat in 2 years? One has to wonder...

More proof of WMDs

Several months ago, I got an email from a very nice gentleman in response to my post here. He confirmed much of what I wrote and pointed me to his website. He told me a little bit about what he has done in the days since the beginnings of Operation Iraqi Freedom in the search for Saddam's "non-existant" WMD's. Well his work is getting recognition!

"It’s a fair bet that you have never heard of a guy called Dave Gaubatz. It’s also a fair bet that you think the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found absolutely nothing, nada, zilch; and that therefore there never were any WMD programmes in Saddam’s Iraq to justify the war ostensibly waged to protect the world from Saddam’s use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
Dave Gaubatz, however, says that you could not be more wrong. Saddam’s WMD did exist. He should know, because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war."

The articles author, Melanie Phillips, does a good job telling you why Mr. Gaubatz deserves your attention.

"Having served for 12 years as an agent in the US Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations, Mr Gaubatz, a trained Arabic speaker, was hand-picked for postings in 2003, first in Saudi Arabia and then in Nasariyah in Iraq. His mission was to locate suspect WMD sites, discover threats against US forces in the area and find Saddam loyalists, and then send such intelligence to the Iraq Survey Group and other agencies. "

She then goes into great detail describing the sites in question.

"Between March and July 2003, he says, he was taken to four sites in southern Iraq — two within Nasariyah, one 20 miles south and one near Basra — which, he was told by numerous Iraqi sources, contained biological and chemical weapons, material for a nuclear programme and UN-proscribed missiles. He was, he says, in no doubt whatever that this was true.
This was, in the first place, because of the massive size of these sites and the extreme lengths to which the Iraqis had gone to conceal them. Three of them were bunkers buried 20 to 30 feet beneath the Euphrates. They had been constructed through building dams which were removed after the huge subterranean vaults had been excavated so that these were concealed beneath the river bed. The bunker walls were made of reinforced concrete five feet thick.
‘There was no doubt, with so much effort having gone into hiding these constructions, that something very important was buried there’, says Mr Gaubatz. By speaking to a wide range of Iraqis, some of whom risked their lives by talking to him and whose accounts were provided in ignorance of each other, he built up a picture of the nuclear, chemical and biological materials they said were buried underground.
‘They explained in detail why WMDs were in these areas and asked the US to remove them,’ says Mr Gaubatz. ‘Much of this material had been buried in the concrete bunkers and in the sewage pipe system. There were also missile imprints in the area and signs of chemical activity — gas masks, decontamination kits, atropine needles. The Iraqis and my team had no doubt at all that WMDs were hidden there.’
There was yet another significant piece of circumstantial corroboration. The medical records of Mr Gaubatz and his team showed that at these sites they had been exposed to high levels of radiation."

You really need to read the whole article. It continues to debunk a meme that was debunked a long time ago - that there were indeed WMD's in Saddam's Iraq.