It's November 2005 in Iraq

Did anybody ask Cheney about this? He's not gonna be happy.

Many days late and many dollars short, if it has any meaning at all.

Yeah, it seems the only thing they changed is the now overt banning in statute is the use of dogs by Army guys. CIA & private contractors can still do the dog thing, tho.

Also, litestick sodomizing, rapes, beatings, forced almost-drownings, keep at it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051108/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/military_detainees

...The only specific prohibition in the directive says that dogs used by any government agency "shall not be used as part of an interrogations approach or to harass, intimidate threaten or coerce a detainee for interrogations purposes."

Investigations into detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib facility in Iraq found that unmuzzled dogs were used to intimidate inmates.

The new policy governs the treatment of any detainee under Defense Department control. It leaves open the possibility that prisoners in DOD facilities, such as Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, could at times be considered under the control of another agency — such as the Central Intelligence Agency — and therefore would not be subject to the directive's policies.

did anybody see this bit? John McCain has now declared he'll add his anti-torture amendment to every single piece of legislation or vote that the Senate considers until it passes.

"Let no one doubt our determination."

"This means that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment." - McCain on the veto.

It is absolutely unbelievable that in the wake of the Abu Gharib scandal, that the second in command of the US is PUBLICLY arguing for the legal right for the US to torture... I know that world opinion is not so important for the Admin, but jeez... might as well wear armbands and sam brown belts while they're at it.

But, looking on the bright side, 30 months after the invasion, Iraq now generates almost as much electricity as it did before we intentionally destroyed their generating capacity - depending on how you measure it. So, why don't we hear more happy facts like this in the liberal media?

Another declassified memo erodes the cause for war:

For example, President Bush said on September 25, 2002, “You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror.”

The DIA, however, had concluded otherwise. The Administration omitted in its public statements the DIA’s pre-war conclusion about the likelihood of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In February 2002, the DIA stated the following, which has remained classified until now:

“Saddam’s regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control.”

http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=248339

Someone told me that the DIA is full of incompetent morons... so if even THEY knew...

Millar, is that so?

what's all this white phosphorus talk? we actually used chemical weapons on folks?

also, great screencap from wonkette:

http://www.wonkette.com/fair%20and%20balanced.jpg

Fox News, how we love ye.

The biggest difficulty in sustaining these threads about Iraq is the dogged insistence of the Bush administration and the Republican leadership upon never altering their storyline by so much as a mustard seed. The next election will solve everything. We do not torture prisoners. Support our troops. Everything is going according to the master plan. BushCo assures us it can borrow and spend $100,000,000,000.00 every year for the foreseeable future and not bring the economy down like a house of cards.

The storyline on the ground in Iraq never seems to shift much either. Car bombs in crowds of police recruits, suicide bombers, roadside bombs, more soldiers killed and wounded, more civilians killed and wounded, a steady increase in violence that our insufficient army cannot quell, another 'offensive' where we use aerial bombardment to destroy an 'insurgent stronghold'.

As a result, our observations, opinions and insights remain valid from one tedious month to the next. Who can add anything new to this fiasco? The only thing changing is the patience of the US people. Slowly and inexorably the herdlike majority are turning against the war in their inarticulate, half-concious way. Someday it may lead to something.

Until then, we can but observe.

And in observing, nearly sixty more US soldiers have died since two weeks back and the 2000 death figure was announced, and there was a massive car bomb today in Baghdad...

Also, on the Willy Pete thing, this guy is so irate about the WP use that he quotes PINK FLOYD.

Oh yeah, and Happy Veterans Day.

And on the "Stay the Course" bit, "Republicans want change, Democrats defend the status quo"

As Clausewitz might have said, using white phosphorous is just a continuation of shock and awe by other means.

And guess who used his Veteran's Day address to bring out the "WELL, THEM DEM'CRATS SAID IT TOO!" talking points?

and already been debunked...

Story of the day seems to be back in Washington -- setting aside the Senate resolution kerfluffle, over at NRO world Lopez just reported worriedly about an apparently blistering attack on Bush and the war effort by Democratic rep John Murtha in the House. If her take holds water, this could be interesting.

I'm starting to think he may be right. Cue liberal disclaimer:I was never for the war .. but now that it's on, it would be irresponsible to pull out, right? I'm not so sure. After the news earlier this week about the Sunni prisoners who were being tortured by the Shia army .. Is it even possible to have democracy there? They hate each other that much. They don't seem willing to share power. There needs to be either a dictator or a civil war to bring about order.

We've done our part to spark the chaos. What other benefit can we provide at this point?

Meanwhile, 62 killed in mosque suicide bombings today/yesterday.

There's been a lot of reflexive dumping on Murtha, of course, and I agree it's not like it's a total sea change on his part, like some people are making it out to be. That said, the wisest heads on the right, rather than doing the "well we honor his service but HE'S STILL WRONG WHINE WHINE" approach, are slamming back on the reflexive dumping hard in turn and allowing for more unsure, open concerns to surface. Bainbridge is probably right when he says this is less a Walter Cronkite moment than a demonstration of an 'inexorable' shift in public opinion at large, but time will tell.

Really, at this point the argument that the eternal hawks have to face is that, again, they're pinning their hopes on an election once more -- next month's new parliamentary elections under the constitution approved last month -- after which all the bad stuff stops happening. That, or else there's such a wide popular revulsion against attacks like the ones today (or the Jordan attacks last week, etc.) that there's no more basis of support for the insurgency. Are these solutions possible? Of course. Are they probable? Frankly, no -- and more to the point, it all still relies on a necessity for US troop presence at the least equal to the current commitment if not more (it's not like we're giving up the actual permanent bases there anytime soon!). And even consistent troop commitment isn't universally agreed on; I've noticed plenty of talk on the rightblogsphere that troops *have* to start coming back next year -- again, more phrased in the 'ah, we've got them going properly, now we can stand down like Bush said, right? anyone? hello?' sense than the more obvious if implied 'Jesus H we are going to get this in the ear and worse in November 2006 if we don't start doing something' sense.

If 'the war' started on 9/11, as the likes of Hewitt et al insist on, then this particular war has already lasted longer than America's full participation in World War II, say. Those people who are now, under implied pressure from the Senate resolution vote of the other day, flat out saying 'you can't put a timetable on the war! it'll take as long as it takes!' invoke 9/11 constantly and continually as a weird, unsettling morale booster -- an eternal charge of electricity for them. That they're having to deal with the fact that many if not most other people don't prioritize things in that light is clearly frustrating them more and more, but that their own responses and actions don't give anyone much to hold on to frustrates just about everyone else. They act as if Bush and Cheney's recent speeches are the equivalent of the Gettysburg Address, and it's pretty sad to see.

Casey has submitted a plan for troop withdrawl:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/18/iraq.plan/index.html

It occurred to me the other day that what we're creating here is sort of another Israel: a new Middle Eastern ally that will require constant U.S. economic and military support. It will give another regional foothold, but it will also by its very presence (by our very presence) create a possibly permanently unstable situation with an insurgency that will wax and wane but never be "defeated." Of course, unlike Israel, Iraq has boatloads of oil, so there's that. On the other hand, unlike Israel, Iraq will be open to Iranian influence, creating tensions for the U.S. from the allegedly "friendly" part of the population as well as the unfriendly. And all so we can...what, exactly? Flex our muscles at Iran and Syria, hedge against Saudi instability and unreliability, keep a hand in the game of Great Powers. Except we're kind of the only one still playing that game, like it's still 1900 or something. The downsides are just so much bigger than the upsides here.

What really drives me nuts is that even with all of this, the Murtha stuff and "prewar intelligence" debates and so forth, almost nobody in Congress or the media is really putting the screws to the administration about What Exactly Is the Plan? If we can't leave "until the job is done," what's the job? Why aren't people asking that more?

Dont worry. The tide is turning on the evil Republicans. Like Return of the Jedi, the Democrats and the others will soon be back in power. And Barak Obama will be our Luke Skywalker. (Ted Kennedy as Yoda?)
Everyone now realized Cheney and Bush are bastards. Maybe we can impeach the lot.

Hanle y, we need you on more of our political threads

I will provide insight. I spent five years in Washington under the careful tutlage of Casper Weinberger. The guy smelled of Stilton Cheese and whore-panties.

I like how Atrios connects the dots to reach the obvious conclusion: some of the "intel" used to justify the invasion was probably a direct result of torturing a prisoner until he told us what we ("we" being our elected represenatives, god help us) wanted to hear: that Iraq was aiding al-Qaeda.

Gah. I wouldn't mind all this so much except the blood on my hands keeps coming off on the sheets.

As Calls for an Iraq Pullout Rise, 2 Political Calendars Loom Large

By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 - In public, President Bush has firmly dismissed the mounting calls to set a deadline to begin a withdrawal from Iraq, declaring eight days ago that there was only one test for when the time is right. "When our commanders on the ground tell me that Iraqi forces can defend their freedom," he told American forces at Osan Air Base in South Korea, "our troops will come home with the honor they have earned."

But in private conversations, American officials are beginning to acknowledge that a judgment about when withdrawals can begin is driven by two political calendars - one in Iraq and one here - as much as by those military assessments. The final decision, they said, could well hinge on whether the new Iraqi government, scheduled to be elected in less than three weeks, issues its own call for an American withdrawal. Last week, for the first time, Iraq's political factions, represented by about 100 Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders, collectively called for a timetable for withdrawal.

As Mr. Bush ends his Thanksgiving holiday in Texas on Monday, both his own aides and American commanders say, he will begin confronting these sometimes conflicting military and political issues, including the midterm Congressional elections in this country, part of a delicate balancing action about how and when to begin extracting American troops from Iraq.

Mr. Bush is scheduled to give a speech in Annapolis, Md., on Wednesday assessing progress both in Iraq and in what he calls the broader war on terrorism, and several officials said he was expected to contend that the Iraqi forces have made great progress. But as it has been for the past two and a half years, it is unclear exactly what measuring sticks he is using, and whether they present the full picture.

White House aides insist that Mr. Bush is as determined as he sounds not to withdraw troops prematurely. They say he will begin examining the timing of a draw-down after he sees the outcome of the Dec. 15 election in Iraq.

But it is also clear that Mr. Bush is under new pressure to begin showing that troop reductions are under way before the midterm Congressional elections next year.

Suddenly a White House that was seemingly impervious to open questioning of its strategy feels the need to respond to criticisms - and to do so quickly. This weekend, The Washington Post published an op-ed article in which Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, called for a three-step process in Iraq to create a political settlement, deliver basic services and accelerate the training of troops. The White House responded immediately with a long press release, in a series called "Setting the Record Straight," suggesting that Mr. Biden had endorsed Mr. Bush's strategy - which is certainly not how Mr. Biden saw it.

Current and former White House officials acknowledge that they were surprised at how quickly calls for deadlines for the draw-down of troops, which mounted as Mr. Bush was away in Asia, had changed the tenor of the debate. They pointed out that the statement by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice after Mr. Bush's return from Asia that Iraqi forces would be able to defend the country "fairly soon" appeared to presage a new tone.

"We've moved from 'if' to 'how fast,' " said one former aide with close ties to the National Security Council. He said officials in the Bush White House were already actively reviewing possible plans under which 40,000 to 50,000 troops or more could be recalled next year if "a plausible case could be made" that a significant number of Iraqi battalions could hold their own.

That effort may be aided by the fact that troop numbers in Iraq have climbed back to 160,000 in advance of the December vote. Senior Pentagon civilians and military officials are already discussing a move soon after the election to return to 138,000 troops, the status quo over much of the past year. But after that point, the American military expects to face two competing sets of pressures.

On one hand, senior officers are painfully aware that sustaining the current high level of troop deployments in Iraq risks undermining morale of those now in uniform - and already has poisoned the efforts of Army recruiters seeking to woo young Americans into military service.

At the same time, senior officers hear the bruising debate over Iraq policy back in Washington and have taken to counseling "strategic patience," arguing that 2006 will be a critical year in which a new government in Baghdad and local security forces should be able to take more of a lead in stabilizing their nation.

Officers fear that a hasty retreat driven by American domestic politics - and not conditions on the ground in Iraq - could invite greater violence or even civil war and that the American military would carry the blame for losing Iraq.

Senior Pentagon civilians and officers say the military is following standard practice and has drafted a number of plans with a range of options for Iraq.

Anthony H. Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, warned that a hasty withdrawal before Iraqi security forces are given a chance during 2006 to "achieve enough critical mass" and stand more on their own "will end in snatching defeat from the jaws of uncertainty." The top American commander in the Middle East has, since at least July, outlined a plan that would gradually reduce American forces in Iraq toward 100,000 by next spring, Pentagon and military officials said.

The commander, Gen. John P. Abizaid, has not discussed that plan in public - and also has carefully avoided comment on the vitriolic debate that erupted between the White House and Congress. While the focus of the options that the Pentagon is drafting has been on dropping below 100,000 troops by the end of next year, contingency plans also deal with a possible demand by the new Iraqi government for a speedier American withdrawal and, at the other extreme, for requests to sustain troop levels, or even for another temporary increase, should Iraq risk falling into increased violence and anarchy.

Senior commanders see no short-term change in American military capacity on the ground in Iraq with the anticipated return to 138,000 troops after the election. Fresh assessments on altering the troop numbers - and the mix of capacities, from infantry to training units to civil affairs - are anticipated not long after the vote.

"Recommendations will be made here based on conditions on the ground," said Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, commander of day-to-day military operations in Iraq. "Those conditions are the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces, the capability of the government to support those forces in the field, the state of the insurgency, and a whole range of conditions."

General Vines also acknowledged the political realities influencing troop reductions, saying, "The ultimate decision, of course, will be made as a policy level decision in Washington and other capitals."

The senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, on Sunday advocated setting a deadline for withdrawing American forces from Iraq, saying such a firm statement would force political compromise within the emerging leadership in Baghdad.

An open-ended American commitment "takes pressure off them to make the compromises that are necessary to make those changes in the Constitution," he said on "Fox News Sunday." "That's what we need to do. Put some pressure on them to make the political decisions that are so essential to becoming a nation."

On the NBC News program "Meet the Press," Senator John W. Warner, the Virginia Republican who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, argued against setting a timetable, but did urge President Bush to speak more often and directly to the American people about the mission.

"It would bring him closer to the people, dispel some of this concern that understandably our people have about the loss of life and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public, and we've got to stay firm for the next six months," Senator Warner said. "It is a critical period."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

It's been a strange (and sad) month. Also, the key casualty report page has recently put this up:

Today’s casualty report from the DoD states that the total U.S. deaths for Operation Iraqi Freedom is 2245. This is over 130 more than our count and the total number of DoD death confirmations.

The DoD has given no explanation for the sudden increase in fatality totals and there has been no mention in the press as to why the totals have increased dramatically over the past week.