All Your Fakes Are Belong to Us

I am a lazy blogger. That is not to say that I am not reading the news, I am just not writing about it. Check my shared Google reader to see a small fraction of what I would be blogging about if I weren't so lazy.

Despite my failure to commit to blogging, I occasionally see something so good I just have to drop everything and write up a post.

When I was in college, I remember seeing All Your Base Are Belong to Us... which was a great video in every respect. Here it is:



Well the Jawa Report, one of my daily reads, posted a fairly well done video mixing the extremely popular AYBABTU with the fauxtography scandals involving fake pictures used by the press in their propaganda campaign against the United States in the War against Radical Islam.

Here it is:


It is very well done, it just needs to be updated with all the new fakes.

Like I said, I have been a lazy blogger the last few months, but this is one I just had to put up.

A Perfect Example of How the Left Supports the Troops

It wasn't that long ago that the majority of Americans strongly backed our President and America's efforts in the war against radical Islam, more popularly known as the War on Terror. But in short order, the times, as Dylan might say, they were a-changin'.

Dean came way out of left field as an anti-war, anti-Bush candidate, and was but a "ye-haw!" away from winning Democratic nomination for President. Kerry, a former Vietnam protester who both accused his fellow soldiers and admitted himself to having committed war crimes, ended up with the nomination and began an all out assault on the war to liberate Iraq.

The Democrats, aided by the MSM, were able to convince the majority of Americans that Iraq was a personal war of vendetta, and unrelated to the greater war on terror.

I'll never forget watching Elizabeth Edwards host a townhall type meeting in which a large crowd of Kerry-Edwards supporting middle-aged women discussed how we leaned the lessons of Vietnam, and learned that we can support the troops but not their mission. Elizabeth Edwards said that the best way we can support the troops is to bring them home, to a room full of applause.

Since that time I have heard time and again the ridiculous assertion that Democrats support the troops, just not the war. The left repeatedly calls the war in Iraq a dismal failure, a quagmire, a "lost" war. When the right responds by asking, "How can you support the troops when you tell them that they cannot win, that their efforts have been a failure, and that they have already lost when they are still fighting and dying to keep you free?"

How can the left support the troops and simultaneously broadcast to the world that America has already lost? Try explaining that to the soldiers on the ground in Iraq!

The left usually responds by blaming the "failures" on the leadership (who, by the way, are still soldiers) and the President.

The truth of the matter is this: The left does not support the troops. They do not support the war on terror. They are not interested in keeping America safe from Radical Islam. Period.

I'd just like to thank Ted Rall for the inspiration for this post. He provided a stunning illustration of how the left supports the troops. Keep up the good work, Ted. Oh, by the way, I hope you get caught in a dark alley with some of the troops you "support."

What Can We Learn From The UK Terror Attacks

The UK has been doing a phenomenal job thwarting the cowardly attacks brought on by the islamo-fascists, but the attack in Glasgow just goes to show that the determined enemy can occasionally slip through the cracks and cause massive damage.

Attacks like these help me understand why the islamo-fascists do not eat swine... it would be cannibalism.

But I digress, the purpose of this post is to question what we can learn from these recent attacks. I think the answer is pretty clear...

The islamo-fascists seem to target countries that are about to elect, or have recently elected new leaders. It seems as if they are either testing new leaders, attempting to influence future elections, or striking at a time when they believe the government will be most vulnerable. When better to attack than after power changes hands?

This leads me to believe that America will face attacks either directly before the '08 election or shortly after our next president takes office. This is a scary proposition. We must remain ever vigilant.

New Data Shows Devastating Losses in Iraq

If the US media and the Dems were not so invested in defeat, this sort of data would be well known. Kudo's to Chuck at America's North Shore Journal for putting together these figures.

Parsing Words in the Global War on Terror

Democrats in Congress have recently banned the phrase 'global war on terror' from appearing in legislation and have discouraged Democrats from using the phrase when speaking about terrorism.

A new internal memo by a senior Democratic staff member urged aides to drop the term ["global war on terror"] from their legislative dictionaries because it was too broad. The directive quickly led to a linguistic dispute between the parties.

"The attempt by Democrats to erase the words 'global' and 'terror' from our current war is an absurd effort to deny the fact that America is battling terrorism on a global scale," said House Republican leader John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. "How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?"
More.

Por qua? To put is simply, Americans overwhelmingly support the War on terror. When a particular crisis is associated with the war on terror, American support for intervening and resolving the incident is very high.

Ex. Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan is considered by virtually everyone to be part of the global war on Terror. Support for the War in Afghanistan was very, very high.

Iraq is undeniably part of the global war on terror; however, the Democrats, with the help of the press, have successfully convinced the American public otherwise.

As soon as Iraq war was extricated from the global war on terror (never mind that it is universally accepted that Iraq was a state sponsor of international terrorism, Iraq supported Al Qaeda and Hamas, and Iraq's support of Al Qaeda was RECOGNIZED BY CONGRESS as a reason for authorizing war in Iraq the Iraq War Resolution Act)... let me start over. As soon as Iraq was extricated from the global war on terror - labeled a "grand diversion" and a "distraction" from the "real" war on terror - support for the Iraq war began to drop.

Why is this?

American people DO support the war on terror. Furthermore, American people trust the Republicans MORE than the Democrats in carrying out the war on terror.

Americans do not support going to war for no reason. We are a peace loving nation.

As soon as the left wingers were able to extract the Iraq war from the war on terror - instead labeling the Iraq was a "Bush's war" - the war no longer was understood as a matter of national security and instead became a war which could be attacked along partisan lines.

What is going on here is this: The war on terror is bad for Democrats, because the American people do not trust the Democrats to win the war on terror. The solution is to stop associating global terrorism as part of a global war on terror. When each incident is looked at as a single, solitary, unconnected attack - there is no need for the US to intervene and there is no need for Republican leadership to fight the global war on terror.

That's my analysis, anyway.

Cheney: Update in the War on Terror

This is why I love Cheney... I wish the President had the courage to stand up to the Democrats and tell it like it is:

Cheney: The ones doing the fighting never lose their focus on the mission, or on what is at stake in this war. And neither should the rest of us. Five and a half years have passed since the attacks of September 11th, 2001, and the loss that morning of nearly 3,000 innocent people here in the United States. As we get farther away from 9/11, I believe there's a temptation to forget the urgency of the task that came to us that day, and the comprehensive approach that's required to protect this country against an enemy that moves and acts on multiple fronts. In fact, five and a half years into the struggle, we find ourselves having to confront a series of myths about the war on terror -- myths that are often repeated and deserve to be refuted.

The most common myth is that Iraq has nothing to do with the global war on terror. Opponents of our military action there have called Iraq a diversion from the real conflict, a distraction from the business of fighting and defeating bin Laden and al Qaeda. We hear this over and over again -- not as an argument, but as an assertion meant to close off argument. Yet the critics conveniently disregard the words of bin Laden himself: "The most... serious issue today for the whole world," he said, "is this Third World War...[that is] raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He said, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation." And in words directed at the American people, Osama bin Laden declares, quote, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." This leader of al Qaeda has referred to Baghdad as the capital of the Caliphate. He has also said, and I quote, "Success in Baghdad will be success for the United States. Failure in Iraq is the failure of the United States. Their defeat in Iraq will mean defeat in all their wars." End quote.

Obviously, the terrorists have no illusion about the importance of the struggle in Iraq. They have not called it a distraction or a diversion from their war against the United States. They know it is a central front in that war, and it's where they've chosen to make a stand. Our Marines tonight are fighting al Qaeda terrorists in al Anbar Province. U.S. and Iraqi forces recently killed a number of al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad, who were responsible for numerous car bomb attacks. Iraq's relevance to the war on terror simply could not be more plain. Here at home, that makes one thing, above all, very clear: If you support the war on terror, then it only makes sense to support it where the terrorists are fighting us.

The second myth is the most transparent -- and that is the notion that one can support the troops without giving them the tools and reinforcements they need to carry out their mission.

Twisted logic is not exactly a new phenomenon in Washington -- but last month it reached new heights. At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain put the following question to General Dave Petraeus, who was up for confirmation: "Suppose we send you over to your new job... only we tell you... you can't have any additional troops. Can you get your job done?" General Petraeus replied, "No, sir." Yet within days of his confirmation by a unanimous vote in the Senate -- I repeat, a unanimous vote of confidence in General Petraeus, not one single negative vote -- a large group of senators tried to pass a resolution opposing the reinforcements and support that he believed were necessary to carry out his mission. The House of Representatives, of course, did pass such a resolution. As President Bush said, this may be the first time in history that a Congress "voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose the plan he said was necessary to win that battle." It was not a proud episode in the history of the United States Congress.

Yesterday, the House Democrats passed the defense appropriations supplemental to fund our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. This will hamper the war effort and interfere with the operational authority of the President with our military commanders. It's counterproductive, it sends exactly the wrong message because of the limitations that are written into the legislation. When members of Congress pursue an anti-war strategy that's been called "slow bleed," they're not supporting the troops, they're undermining them. And when members of Congress speak not of victory but of time limits, deadlines, or other arbitrary measures, they're telling the enemy simply to run out the clock and wait us out.

Congress does, of course, play a critical role in the defense of the nation and the conduct of this war. That role is defined and limited by the Constitution -- after all, the military answers to one commander-in-chief in the White House, not to 535 commanders-in-chief on Capitol Hill. If they really support the troops, then we should take them at their word and expect them to meet the needs of our military on time, in full, and with no strings attached.

There is a third myth about the war on terror, and this is one that is perhaps the most dangerous. Some apparently believe that getting out of Iraq before the job is done will strengthen America's hand in the fight against the terrorists. This myth is dangerous because it represents a complete validation of the al Qaeda strategy. The terrorists do not expect to be able to beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have, and they're not likely to try. The only way they can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon the mission -- and the terrorists do believe that they can force that outcome. Time after time, they have predicted that the American people do not have the stomach for a long-term fight. They've cited the cases of Beirut in the '80s and Somalia in the '90s. These examples, they believe, show that we are weak and decadent, and that if we're hit hard enough, we'll pack it in and retreat. The result would be even greater danger for the United States, because if the terrorists conclude that attacks will change the behavior of a nation, they will attack that nation again and again. And believing they can break our will, they'll become more audacious in their tactics, ever more determined to strike and kill our citizens, and ever more bold in their ambitions of conquest and empire.

That leads me to the fourth, and the cruelest, myth -- and that is the false hope that we can abandon the effort in Iraq without serious consequences to our interests in the broader Middle East. The reality is that, if our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance in that country. The violence would spread throughout the country, and be very difficult to contain. Having tasted victory in Iraq, jihadists would look for new missions. Many would head for Afghanistan and fight alongside the Taliban. Others would set out for capitals across the Middle East, spreading more sorrow and discord as they eliminate dissenters and work to undermine moderate governments. Still others would find their targets and victims in other countries on other continents.

We must consider, as well, just what a precipitous withdrawal would mean to our other efforts in the war on terror, to our interests in the broader Middle East, and to Israel. What would it tell the world if we left high and dry those millions of people who have counted on the United States to keep its commitments? What would it say to leaders like President Karzai and President Musharraf, who risk their lives every day as fearless allies in the war on terror? Commentators enjoy pointing out mistakes through 20/20 hindsight. But the biggest mistake of all can be seen in advance: A sudden withdrawal of our coalition would dissipate much of the effort that has gone into fighting the global war on terror, and result in chaos and mounting danger. And for the sake of our own security, we will not stand by and let it happen.

Five and a half years ago, the President told the Congress and the country that we had entered a new kind of war -- one that would require patience and resolve, and that would influence the policies of this government far into the future. The fact that we've succeeded in stopping another attack on our homeland does not mean that we won't be hit in the future. But the record is testimony not to good luck, but to urgent, competent action by a lot of very skilled men and women -- and to a series of tough decisions by a President who never forgets that his first job is to protect the people of this country.

We can be confident in the outcome of this struggle. America is a good and an honorable country. We serve a cause that is right, and a cause that gives hope to the oppressed in every corner of the Earth. We're the kind of country that fights for freedom, and the men and women in the fight are some of the bravest citizens this nation has ever produced. The only way for us to lose is to quit. But that is not an option. We will complete the mission, and we will prevail.
Source.

I was thinking earlier today at how angry the US voter should be with the Democrats, who throughout the 2006 election cycle PROMISED a plan to WIN the war in Iraq. Yet today, several months into Democrat control of Congress, where are the plans for victory?

Where are the discussions of victory?

All they have to offer are plans to end the war. Plans to pull out. Plans to cut and run. How will this achieve victory? The simple answer is that the Democrats have no plan for victory. They lied to the American voter, promised a super secret plan to win, and then took their new found power and dedicated all of their efforts to ensuring we lose the war on terror - that we leave Iraq whether we have won the war or not... consequences be damned.

George Bush made Iraq the central front in the war on Terror. He essentially drew a line in the sand and said "Bring it on!" The result has not been the tragic loss of thousands of US soldiers, the unreported result is the killing of tens of thousands of Islamo-fascists, who would just as happily drive a plane into a building, or blow up as school bus on US soil, as fight the US on a battlefield.

George Bush brought the fight to them, and the fight is still ongoing. He said scores of times that he was bringing the fight to them, so that the battle with terrorists did not play out on American soil. When the violence stops in Iraq it will be a sign that one side was victorious. As long as al Qaeda and other terrorists are willing to wage jihad in Iraq the US involvement in Iraq MUST continue.

Cheney gets it. Cheney understands what is at stake. The President knows what is at stake, but has been too silent in the face of criticism. Has been to weak and ineffective in dealing with the American press, which is hell bent on the US losing in Iraq. Bush has been too weak in dealing with the Democrats, who are hell bent on making the War in Iraq a mistake, even if they have to be the ultimate cause of the disaster by bringing our troops home too soon.

Cheney is 100% right about the Iraq War Mythology, so I think I outta get cracking and write a few more posts for that series.

Democrats Make Enormous Mistake / Send Wrong Message

Just as the troop surge was beginning to show real promise that the tides are turning in Iraq and total victory is within reach (see progress in Iraq posts), the Democrats in the House have taken the first steps towards ensuring defeat in the War on Terror.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US House of Representatives Friday voted to impose an August 31, 2008 deadline to pull combat troops out of Iraq, prompting a veto threat and a furious rebuke from President George W. Bush.

In the boldest challenge yet to Bush's war powers, lawmakers voted 218 to 212 to link a 124-billion-dollar war budget to a timeline for withdrawal, significantly raising the stakes in an escalating feud with the president.
More.

In doing so, Congress sends a powerful message to the troops:



The Democrats have claimed a "mandate" since the '06 election when they gained the narrowest of margins against the Republicans. They have taken their new found power and have at every opportunity provided no solutions for victory or for dealing with terrorism. Instead they have put forwards a "slow bleed," cut and run strategy that will only ensure that 9/11 is just a preamble to the what will inevitably come next.

Khalid Sheikh Muhammad Admits Guilt in 9/11 Attacks

Al Qaeda Operative Admits to Masterminding 9/11 Attacks
By Fred W. Baker III
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 14, 2007 – Suspected al Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Muhammad has admitted masterminding the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as well as the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z,” an interpreter read from Muhammad’s statement to the Combatant Status Review Tribunal on March 10 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The tribunal was an administrative trial to determine only whether Muhammad could be designated as an enemy combatant. Muhammad used the opportunity to submit, through an interpreter, a two-part personal statement with 38 terrorism-related admissions.

He led the list by pledging his jihad allegiance to Osama bin Laden and finished with an admission to trying to destroy the American oil company in Indonesia owned by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

Muhammad claimed responsibility for the 2001 attempted shoe bombing of American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris.

He offered a chilling confession to “managing and following up on the Cell for the Production of Biological Weapons, such as anthrax and others, and following up on Dirty Bomb Operations on American soil.”

He also named four other skyscrapers that were supposed to be destroyed in a “second wave” of attacks after 9/11. They were the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York City.

“I shared responsibility for the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II while he was visiting the Philippines,” Muhammad also admitted.

Muhammad’s lengthy closing oral statement began with a pledge to Allah in Arabic followed by a refusal to take an oath as part of the tribunal. He explained that he was not lying, but that his religious beliefs prevented him taking the oath and thereby accepting, at least in part, American law and its constitution.

Muhammad went on to say that he was not trying to make himself out to be a hero, but an enemy of America.

He drew a comparison between bin Laden and George Washington, both fighting for independence, and said that the term terrorist is “deceiving.” He said that during the Revolutionary War, Washington would have been considered a terrorist by the British.

Muhammad said he did not like to kill people, especially children.

“I don’t like to kill people. I feel very sorry they been killed kids in 9/11,” Muhammad said in broken English. But, he said, their deaths are part of the “language” of war.

He closed by stating that war is part of life and that it will never stop.

Unclassified transcripts of the tribunal are online at: www.defenselink.mil/news/Combatant_Tribunals.html.

Muhammad’s tribunal was one of three for the 14 high-value detainees who were transferred Sept. 6 to Guantanamo Bay from CIA custody.

Proceedings were March 9 for Abu Faraj al-Libi, an alleged senior member of al Qaeda, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who is said to have helped Muhammad plan the Sept. 11 attacks.

Shibh also elected to not participate in the tribunal. His personal representative said that Shibh was “uncooperative and unresponsive.”

Evidence submitted by the U.S. government against Shibh included a diary recovered in a 2004 raid detailing his involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks. He was also identified on a videotape of potential suicide operatives, the evidence cited. Shibh attempted to obtain a U.S. visa four times in 2000 for the purpose of attending flight school here, the evidence states. All applications were rejected.

Many other connections to pre-9/11 terrorist activities were cited in the evidence, including wiring money to the actual terrorist hijackers.

Libi elected to not participate in the tribunal, citing through his personal representative that his freedom “far too important to be decided by an administrative process” and that he is awaiting legal proceedings.

Evidence submitted against Libi included sources who stated that Libi was the supervisor of an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan. Computer and other documentation were seized during his capture that contained manuals for explosives, detonators, chemicals, military tactics, missiles and tanks.

CSRTs are a one-time administrative process used to determine whether detainees at Guantanamo Bay can be designated as enemy combatants. No decisions have been made about the detainees’ status.

Not all of the three detainees chose to participate in the CSRT proceedings. It was not released which detainees did or did not participate. The detainees have a right to personal representation and to receive an unclassified summary of evidence in advance of the hearing.

The CSRTs for the detainees were not open to media because of national security concerns.

The U.S. government established the CSRT process at Guantanamo Bay as a result of a June 2004 Supreme Court decision in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for bin Laden who challenged his detention at Guantanamo Bay. Between July 2004 and March 2005, DoD held 558 CSRTs at Guantanamo Bay. At the time, 38 detainees were determined to no longer meet the definition of enemy combatant, and 520 detainees were found to be enemy combatants.

UNCLASSIFIED
Department of Defense
Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy
Combatants at U.S. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba
08 February 2007
TO: Personal Representative
FROM: OIC, CSRT (08 Feb 07)
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FOR COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW
TRIBUNAL - MUHAMMAD, KHALID SHAYKH

1. Under the provisions of the Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, dated 14 July 2006, Implementation of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for Enemy Combatants Detained at US. Naval Base Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a Tribunal has been appointed to determine if the detainee is an enemy combatant.

2. An enemy combatant has been defined as "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or a1 Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."

3. The following facts support the determination that the detainee is an enemy combatant.

a. On the morning of 1 1 September 200 1, four airliners traveling over the United States were hijacked. The flights hijacked were: American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, American Airlines Flight 77, and United Airlines Flight 93. At approximately 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center, resulting in the collapse of the tower at approximately 10:25 a.m. At approximately 9:05 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into he South Tower of the World Trade Center, resulting in the collapse of the tower at approximately 955 a.m. At approximately 9:37 a.m., American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the southwest side of the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. At approximately 10:03 aim., United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Stoney Creek Township, Pennsylvania. These crashes and subsequent damage to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon resulted in the deaths of 2,972 persons in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.

b. The detainee served as the head of the a1 Qaida military committee and was Usama bin Laden's principal a1 Qaida operative who directed the 11 September 2001 attacks in the United States.

c. In an interview with an a1 Jazeera reporter in June 2002, the detainee stated he was the head of the a1 Qaida military committee.
R- 1
Page 1 of 3
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FOR COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW
TRIBUlVAL - MUHAMMAD, KHALID SHAYKH

d. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the detainee contained information about the four airplanes hijacked on 1 1 September 2001 including code names, airline company, flight number, target, pilot name and background information, and names of the hijackers.

e. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the detainee contained
photographs of 19 individuals identified as the 1 1 September 200 1 hijackers.

f. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the detainee contained a document that listed the pilot license fees for Mohammad Atta and biographies for some of the 1 1 September 200 1 hijackers.

g. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the detainee contained images of passports and an image of Mohammad Atta.

h. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the detainee contained transcripts of chat sessions belonging to at least one of the 11 September 2001 hijackers.

i. The detainee directed an individual to travel to the United States to case targets for a second wave of attacks.

j. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the detainee contained three letters from Usama bin Laden.

k. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the detainee contained
spreadsheets that describe money assistance to families of known a1 Qaida members.

1. The detainee's name was on a list in a computer seized in connection with a threat to United States airlines, United States embassies and the Pope.

m. The detainee wrote the bojinkaplot, the airline bomb plot which was later found on
his nephew Ramzi Yousefs computer.

n. The bojinkaplot is also known as the Manila air investigation.

o. The Manila air investigation uncovered the detainee conspired with others to plant
explosive devices aboard American jetliners while those aircraft were scheduled to be airborne and loaded with passengers on their way to the United States.

p. The detainee was in charge of and funded an attack against United States military
vessels heading to the port of Djibouti.

q. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the detainee contained a letter to the United Arab Emirates threatening attack if their government continued to help the United
States.
Page 2 of 3
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE FOR COMBATANT STATUS REVIEW
TRIBUNAL - MUHAMMAD, KHALID SHAYKH

r. During the capture of the detainee, information used exclusively by a1 Qaida
operational managers to communicate with operatives was found.

s. The detainee received funds from Kuwaiti-based Islamic extremist groups and
delivered the funds to a1 Qaida members.

t. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the detainee contained a document that summarized operational procedures and training requirements of an a1 Qaida cell.

u. A computer hard drive seized during the capture of the detainee contained a list of killed and wounded a1 Qaida martyrs.

v. Passport photographs of a1 Qaida operatives were seized during the capture of the
detainee.

4. The detainee has the opportunity to contest his designation as an enemy combatant. The Tribunal will endeavor to arrange for the presence of any reasonably available witnesses or evidence that the detainee desires to call or introduce to prove that he is not an enemy combatant and that is deemed relevant to that issue. The Tribunal President will determine the reasonable availability and relevance of evidence or witnesses.
Page 3 of 3
UNCLASSIFIED

Progress in Iraq: 8 More Terrorists Sent to Hell, Multiple Terrorist Attacks Thwarted

EIGHT TERRORISTS KILLED DURING SALMAN PAK RAID

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Coalition Forces killed eight terrorists during a raid Thursday targeting al-Qaeda in Iraq operating in the Salman Pak region.

Intelligence reports indicate a significant number of individuals involved with the AQIZ terrorist network currently operating in the area. Activities in this area have been linked to a roadside and vehicle-borne explosives network. Terrorists in the area are also believed to be involved in smuggling weapons and facilitating foreign fighters.

During the raid, in which Coalition Forces were repeatedly confronted by small arms and mortar fires, Coalition Forces identified three armed terrorists maneuvering toward them with hostile intent. Ground forces engaged the enemy, killing the three terrorists.

Twenty minutes later, ground forces were again confronted by eight terrorists who began firing upon them. Ground forces returned fire, killing four terrorists. The other four fled the area.

Ground forces also witnessed armed terrorists in a vehicle who were accessing a weapons cache and removing small arms. Coalition Forces engaged, killing one terrorist. Two terrorists were wounded and fled.

Coalition Forces recovered several sniper rifles, AK-47s and rocket-propelled launchers from one of the engagement sites.
“Successful coalition operations continue to disrupt al-Qaeda in Iraq operations, restricting freedom of movement and reducing the organization’s manpower pool,” said Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, MNF-I spokesman.

Don't expect to read this on the front page of the NYT's. Of course, if the mainstream media WOULD report these stories, the terrorists might realize they are LOSING.

The world wide media is quick to carry the water for the terrorists, giving them maximum exposure for their propaganda; but report the truth on the ground - that every day terrorists are being defeated by the best equipped, best trained, most lethal fighting force in the history of mankind - no, the press will have none of that.

In other Iraq News:

Men captured while emplacing explosive device

CAMP STRIKER, Iraq — Two men were arrested while attempting to emplace an improvised explosive device on a major Iraqi highway Tuesday near Camp Striker, Iraq.

Soldiers of Troop A, 1st Squadron, 89th Cavalry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) were patrolling Route Tampa, the main highway running in and out of Baghdad, at approximately 10:30 p.m. when they spotted two men crawling in a canal on the south side of the road.

The troops stopped the men and searched them, discovering that they had a U.S.-made night-vision tool. A further search of the area revealed an IED ready to be emplaced.

IEDs are commonly placed on Route Tampa due to its central location south of Baghdad and the heavy traffic, both civilian and military, that it supports.

The IED consisted of six 57mm rounds in a white bag about 200 meters from the road, as well as a video camera, a washing-machine timer, a pressure plate and a blasting cap.

The men were detained for further questioning.

Could it be that the increased presence brought on by a troop surge is working? - Nah, that would mean Bush is right, and since bush is never right, that simply cannot be.

Is that the only good news from Iraq? Heck no:

Task Force Iron Claw finds booby-trapped vehicle

YUSUFIYAH, Iraq — A burned-out vehicle on a rural Iraqi road proved to be a vehicleborne improvised explosive device when it was investigated by Soldiers Thursday near here.

The vehicle was found along a road outside Yusufiyah, Iraq, near a settlement known to coalition forces as Janabi Village.

Soldiers of the 2nd Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry)’s Task Force Iron Claw noted wires leading out of the trunk of the vehicle at approximately 1 p.m. and called for an explosive ordnance disposal team to investigate further.

The vehicle was destroyed by EOD with a controlled detonation.

The ordnance in the trunk could not be identified.

“This vehicle was rigged to detonate for no other reason than to kill the Iraqi
security forces or U.S. Soldiers,” said Maj. Web Wright, 2nd BCT spokesman.

“Attention to detail by the Soldiers of Task Force Ironclaw saved lives today.”

Why is it only news when the roadside bombs kill our soldiers? Forget about seeing this story as a front page item... not when there is still news about how quickly Anna Nichol Smith's body is decomposing.

But that is it, right, there isn't more good news from Iraq today is there?

Iraqi, U.S. troops unearth large weapons caches

YUSUFIYAH, Iraq — Military operations southwest of Baghdad snared extensive weapons caches March 1 near Yusufiyah, Iraq, hindering terrorist activity.

Soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 15th Field Artillery Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) and the 4th Brigade, 6th Iraqi Army Division conducted search missions into an area known to coalition forces as Janabi Village, uncovering multiple caches and detaining several Iraqis suspected of being involved in or having knowledge of terrorist operations.

The caches included five AK-47s and 19 magazines, 60 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition, four bandoliers for ammunition, a flare, an unknown type of machine gun, an Iraqi Army-issued radio, a radio tuned to the Iraqi national police frequency, four false identification cards, three rolls of copper wire, a garage-door remote control, a log book and paperwork documenting terrorist operations, a collapsible baton, two sniper rifles, an 82mm mortar system with 64 rounds and 400,000 Iraqi Dinar – about $312 in U.S. currency.

Also found were two 155mm rounds, 46 105mm rounds, a directional charge, a roll of detonation cord, eight 120mm rounds, three 60mm rounds, an Iraqi soldier’s load-bearing vest, a bag of unidentified powder, a remote timer, altered identification papers, a camera, two lengths of crush wire, two long-range cell phones and command detonation wires.

The Iraqi and U.S. troops also found a Dragonov sniper rifle with telescopic sights, 800 rounds for a PKC machine gun, a pressure-wire improvised explosive device, a rifle with a telescopic sight, two shoulder-fired rocket launchers, a receiver for a Dishka machine gun, a bipod, a bottle of homemade explosive, 20 shotgun shells, two gas masks, two air-delivered bombs, 70 unidentified fuses, a used rocket shell, two Katyusha rockets, 44 60mm mortar rounds, three small artillery charge bags and one large artillery charge bag, two 70mm rockets, two video cassettes, two hand grenades, five electric switches, a Japanese-made grenade, 46 mortar charges, 19 155mm mortar fuses and a destroyed camera.

“The caches found by the 4/6 and the 2-15th Soldiers will definitely have an impact in the Sayyid-Abdullah corridor,” said 2-15th executive officer Maj. Douglas Mayzel.

The two units are working together as part of Operation Commando Viper, said Maj. Web Wright, a spokesman for the 2nd BCT.

“The mission is being conducted to deny the enemy freedom of movement in southern Baghdad,” he said. “We have found multiple caches throughout the area of operations.”

Iranian Connection: Part V

Top spy: Iran training Iraqis to use explosives

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran is training anti-American Iraqi Shi'ites at sites inside Iran and Lebanon in the use of armor-piercing munitions blamed for the deaths of 170 U.S. troops in Iraq, the top U.S. intelligence official said on Tuesday.

The case against Iran becomes stronger everyday. It is merely a matter of time until this reaches a boiling point. Now the big question, I think, is this: Are we going to wait until Iran is a nuclear power or take them out before that happens?

The Past 2 Weeks In Iraq

In the past 2 weeks, US Forces:
1) Opened a new high school for girls in northern Baghdad
2) Launched a new operation, "Operation Law and Order" and provided evidence of Iranian involvement in the insurgency
3) Made several weapons cache finds
4) Including a weapons cache uncovered in a Mosque
5) Captured at least 21 Suspected Al Qaeda members in one raid
6) Including a high ranking leader within Al Qaeda
7) And detained 140+ insurgents.

Undeniable proof of progress in Iraq. As each day goes by our forces take a step closer to absolute victory in Iraq.

However, was ANY of this information on the front page of any newspaper? How many articles did the AP write this past week on all the progress being made in Iraq? That's right, one big ole goose egg.

What did the AP cover? Here is a pretty typical example:

2 Baghdad car bombs kill 56, injure 127
BRIAN MURPHY, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Two car bombs exploded in an outdoor market in Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 56 people and injuring scores in the deadliest attack since U.S. and Iraqi forces began a major security push around the capital last week.

The twin blasts — which tore through the open-air market in the mostly Shiite district of New Baghdad — marked the first major response by militants to the sweep launched last week and a sobering reminder of the huge challenges facing any efforts against the well-armed factions.

The death toll was reported by police and ambulance service officials on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to media. At least 127 people were injured, they reported.

Ah yes: body counts, death and destruction, chaos. The one side of the story we do hear in America.

Here is a novel idea, terrorism wouldn't be nearly as effective if the press covered it up the same way they do the progress in the War on Terror.

President Bush Addressing American Enterprise Institute: Re Afghanistan

As scholars and thinkers, you are contributing to a nationwide debate about the direction of the war on terror. A vigorous debate is healthy for our country, it really is, and I welcome the debate. It's one of the true hallmarks of a free society, where people can get up and express their beliefs in open forum. Yet five years into this war, there is one principle of which every member of every party should be able to agree on -- in other words, after all the debate, there is one thing we all ought to be able to agree on, and that is: We've got to fight the terrorists overseas, so we don't have to face them here at home again.

We're acting on that principle. Since the attacks of September the 11th, we have been on the offense. I believe the best way to do our duty in securing the homeland is to stay on the offense. And we're not alone. That's what our fellow citizens have got to understand. We're not in this fight against extremists and murders alone.

Recently in the Philippines, that country's special forces conducted raids in which they killed two top leaders of an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization -- a group that we believe was responsible for kidnapping four American citizens and killing two of them. In Tunisia, authorities recently broke up a terrorist cell that was planning to attack the American and British Embassies. In Spain, police captured several fugitives wanted for aiding the escape of terrorists responsible for the Madrid train bombings. And in the past year, nations including Denmark, Italy, France, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Turkey, Canada, and Britain have broken up terrorist cells. The enemy is active, and so are those of us who love freedom. It's in the interests of the United States to encourage other nations not to relent and not to give in, but to keep the pressure on those who try to have their way by murdering the innocent. And that's exactly what we'll continue to do.

...

As we implement a new strategy in Iraq, we are also taking new steps to defeat the terrorists and extremists in Afghanistan. My administration has just completed a top-to-bottom review of our strategy in that country, and today I want to talk to you about the progress we have made in Afghanistan, the challenges we face in Afghanistan, and the strategy we're pursuing to defeat the enemies of freedom in Afghanistan.

It wasn't all that long ago that we learned the lessons of how terrorists operate. It may seem like a long time ago -- five years is a long time in this day and age of instant news cycles -- but it really isn't all that long ago, when you think about the march of history. In Afghanistan, we saw how terrorists and extremists can use those safe havens, safe havens in a failed state, to bring death and destruction to our people here at home.

It was an amazing turning point in the history of our country, really, when you think about it. It was a defining moment for the 21st century. Think about what I just said, that in the remote reaches of the world, because there was a failed state, murderers were able to plot and plan and then execute a deadly attack that killed nearly 3,000 of our citizens. It's a lesson that we've got to remember. And one of the lessons of that September the 11th day is that we cannot allow terrorists to gain sanctuary anywhere, and we must not allow them to reestablish the safe haven they lost in Afghanistan.

Our goal in Afghanistan is to help the people of that country to defeat the terrorists and establish a stable, moderate, and democratic state that respects the rights of its citizens, governs its territory effectively, and is a reliable ally in this war against extremists and terrorists.

Oh, for some that may seem like an impossible task. But it's not impossible if you believe what Jeane Kirkpatrick said, and that freedom is universal; that we believe all human beings to live in freedom and peace.

Over the past five years, we've made real progress toward this goal I just described. In 2001, Afghanistan was a totalitarian nightmare -- a land where girls could not go to school, where religious police roamed the streets, where women were publicly whipped, where there were summary executions in Kabul's soccer stadium, and terrorists operated freely -- they ran camps where they planned and trained for horrific attacks that affected us and other nations.

Today, five short years later, the Taliban have been driven from power, al Qaeda has been driven from its camps, and Afghanistan is free. That's why I say we have made remarkable progress. Afghanistan has a democratically-elected President, named Hamid Karzai. I respect him. I appreciate his courage. Afghanistan has a National Assembly chosen by the Afghan people in free elections.

Under the Taliban, women were barred from public office. Today, Afghanistan's parliament includes 91 women -- and President Karzai has appointed the first woman to serve as a provincial governor.

Under the Taliban, free enterprise was stifled. Today, the Afghan economy has doubled in size since liberation. Afghanistan has attracted $800 million in foreign investment during that time.

Under the Taliban, there were about 900,000 children in school. Today, more than 5 million children are in school -- about 1.8 million of them are girls.

Under the Taliban, an estimated 8 percent of Afghans had access to basic health care. Today, the United States has built or renovated 681 health clinics across the country -- now more than 80 percent of Afghans have access to basic health coverage -- health care.

Under the Taliban, Afghans fled the country in large numbers, seeking safety abroad. Today, more than 4.6 million Afghan refugees have come home -- one of the largest return movements in history.

In today's Afghanistan, people are free to speak their minds, they're free to begin to realize dreams. In today's Afghanistan there's a NATO Alliance is taking the lead to help provide security for the people of Afghanistan. In today's Afghanistan, the terrorists who once oppressed the Afghan people and threatened our country are being captured and killed by NATO forces and soldiers and police of a free Afghanistan. Times have changed. Our work is bringing freedom. A free Afghanistan helps make this country more secure.

We face a thinking enemy. And we face a tough enemy -- they watch our actions, they adjust their tactics. And in 2006, this enemy struck back with vengeance. As freedom began to spread, an enemy that cannot stand the thought of a free society tried to do something about it, tried to stop the advance of this young democracy. It's not the only place in the world where the enemy struck back in 2006. They struck back in Iraq. They struck in Lebanon. This should be a lesson for our fellow citizens to understand, where these group of people find freedom they're willing to resort to brutal tactics.

It's an interesting enemy, isn't it? An enemy that can't stand the thought of somebody being able to live a peaceful life, a life of hope, an optimistic life. And it's an enemy we've got to take seriously.

Across Afghanistan last year, the number of roadside bomb attacks almost doubled, direct fire attacks on international forces almost tripled, and suicide bombings grew nearly five-fold. These escalating attacks were part of a Taliban offensive that made 2006 the most violent year in Afghanistan since the liberation of the country.

And so the fundamental question is, how do you react? Do you say, maybe it's too tough? Let's just kind of let this young democracy wither and fade away. Do we forget the lessons of September the 11th? And the answer is absolutely not.

And so the Taliban offensive that was launched was turned back by incredible courage of the Afghan soldiers, and by NATO forces that stood strong. You see, I believe the Taliban felt that they could exploit weakness. I believe that they said to themselves, if we can -- we'll test NATO and cause NATO leaders to turn their back on this young democracy.

After the fierce battles throughout the year 2006, the Taliban had failed in their objective of taking and holding new territory.

In recent months, the intensity of the fighting has died down -- that's only natural. It does every year when the snow and ice set in there in Afghanistan. But even in these winter months, we stayed on the offensive against the Taliban and al Qaeda. This January, NATO reconnaissance units observed a major Taliban incursion from Pakistan -- with about 150 Taliban fighters crossing the border into the Paktika province. So NATO and Afghan forces launched a coordinated air assault and ground assault, and we destroyed the Taliban force. A large number of enemy fighters were killed; they were forced to retreat, where they were engaged by Pakistani troops.

Just two weeks ago, NATO launched an air strike against Taliban fighters who had seized the town of Musa Qala in Helmand province -- a key Taliban commander was brought to justice.

The snow is going to melt in the Hindu Kush Mountains, and when it does we can expect fierce fighting to continue. The Taliban and al Qaeda are preparing to launch new attacks. Our strategy is not to be on the defense, but to go on the offense. This spring there is going to be a new offensive in Afghanistan, and it's going to be a NATO offensive. And that's part of our strategy -- relentless in our pressure. We will not give in to murderers and extremists.

And we're focused on five key goals that I want to share with you. First, the United States and our allies will help President Karzai increase the size and capabilities of the Afghan security forces. After all, for this young democracy to survive in the long term, they'll have their own security forces that are capable and trained. We don't have to teach them courage. These folks understand courage. They're willing to fight for their country. They're willing to defend this young democracy. And so it's in our interest and the interest of NATO countries to provide training so they have more, more strong fighters -- so we're going to increase the size of the national police from 61,000 to 82,000 by the end of 2008. And we'll help them develop new specialties: new civil order brigades, counter-narcotics, and border surveillance.

We're going to increase the Afghanistan army. Today, it's 32,000 -- that's not enough to do the job in this vast country -- to 70,000 by the end of 2008. It's one thing to get them trained and one thing to get them uniforms, but they're also going to have to have ways to move around their country. So we're going to add commando battalions, a helicopter unit, combat support units. In other words, we're going to help this young democracy have a fully integrated security force that will respond to the commands of the elected officials.

Capable troops need intelligence. This is a war that requires good intelligence on all fronts. So the United States and our allies will also work with Afghanistan's leaders to improve human intelligence networks, particularly in areas that are threatened by the Taliban. Together with the Afghan government and NATO, we created a new Joint Intelligence Operations Center in Kabul -- so all the forces fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan have a common picture of the enemy. That may sound simple to those of us who have gotten used to sophisticated systems to protect ourselves. This is important innovation in Afghanistan.

America and our allies are going to stand with these folks. That's the message I want to deliver to the Afghanistan people today. Free debates are important. But our commitment is strong: we will train you, we will help you, and we will stand with you as you defend your new democracy. (Applause.)

The second part of our strategy is to work with our allies to strengthen the NATO force in Afghanistan. Today, Afghanistan is NATO's most important military operation. Isn't it interesting that NATO is now in Afghanistan? I suspect 20 years ago if a President stood in front of AEI and said, I'll make a prediction to you that NATO would be a force for freedom and peace outside of Europe -- you probably never would have invited the person back. (Laughter.) Today, NATO is in Afghanistan. And I thank the leaders of the NATO countries for recognizing the importance of Afghanistan in our own security and enhancing the security of our own countries.

For NATO to succeed, member nations must provide commanders on the ground with the troops and the equipment they need to do their jobs. Many allies have made commitments of additional forces and support -- and I appreciate those commitments, but nearly as much as the people in Afghanistan appreciate them. Norway, Lithuania and the Czech Republic have all agreed to send special operation forces to Afghanistan. Britain, Poland, Turkey and Bulgaria have agreed to additional troops. Italy has agreed to send aircraft. Romania will contribute to the EU police mission. Denmark, Greece, Norway and Slovakia will provide funding for Afghan security forces. Iceland will provide airlift. The people of Afghanistan need to know that they've got a lot of friends in this world who want them to succeed.

For NATO to succeed, allies must make sure that we fill the security gaps. In other words, when there is a need, when our commanders on the ground say to our respective countries, we need additional help, our NATO countries must provide it in order to be successful in this mission.

As well, allies must lift restrictions on the forces they do provide so NATO commanders have the flexibility they need to defeat the enemy wherever the enemy may make a stand. The alliance was founded on this principle: An attack on one is an attack on all. That principle holds true whether the attack is on the home soil of a NATO nation, or on allied forces deployed on a NATO mission abroad. By standing together in Afghanistan, NATO forces protect our own people, and they must have the flexibility and rules of engagement to be able to do their job.

Third, the United States and our allies will help President Karzai improve provincial governance and develop Afghanistan's -- and to help develop Afghanistan's rural economy. Many Afghans in remote regions fight with the Taliban simply because there are no other jobs available. The best way to dry up Taliban recruits is to help Afghanistan's government create jobs and opportunity. So NATO is operating 25 provincial reconstruction teams across the country. These teams are made up of civilian and military experts. They are helping the Afghan government extend its reach into distant regions, they're improving security, and they're helping to deliver reconstruction assistance. In other words, I just described military operations that are necessary, but in order for these young democracies to survive, there's got to be more than just military. There has to be political development, and tangible evidence that a government can provide opportunity and hope. And these provincial reconstruction teams do just that.

These teams will help build irrigation systems, improve power production, provide access to micro-credit. The idea is to encourage entrepreneurship, job formation, enterprise. These teams will undertake new efforts to train provincial and local leaders. We take democracy for granted. Democracy hasn't exactly been rooted deeply in Afghan history. It takes a while for people to understand how to function as an elected official. It takes help for people to understand the obligations to respond to the people, and these teams will change provincial and local leaders.

Another key element to bringing stability to Afghanistan is building roads. Lieutenant General Eikenberry, who served with distinction in Afghanistan, just finished his tour, he was the senior commander there, said really something very interesting that caught my attention. He said, "Where the roads end in Afghanistan, the Taliban begin." So in order to help the security of this country, the international community has stepped up its road-building campaign across Afghanistan. So far, the United States and other nations have completed construction of more than 4,000 miles of roads -- that sounds like a lot, and it is a lot. We're also talking about a big country.

Much of the ring road -- we call it the ring road -- that links key provincial capitals to Kabul, is pretty well complete. And that's important, because, first of all, road building brings jobs to young men who might be recruited to the Taliban. But roads enable people to get commerce to centers of trade. In other words, roads promote enterprise. Enterprise provides hope. Hope is what defeats this ideology of darkness. And so we're going to build another 1,000 roads [sic] in 2007. It's an important effort, and our allies need to follow through on their commitments to help this young democracy have a road system that will enable it to flourish and survive.

Fourth, the United States and our allies will help President Karzai reverse the increase in poppy cultivation that is aiding the Taliban. After a decline in 2005, Afghanistan saw a marked increase in poppy cultivation last year. This is a direct threat to a free future for Afghanistan. I have made my concerns to President Karzai pretty clear -- not pretty clear, very clear -- and that in order for him to gain the confidence of his people, and the confidence of the world, he's got to do something about it, with our help.

The Taliban uses drug money to buy weapons -- they benefit from this cultivation -- and they pay Afghans to take up arms against the government. And so we're helping the President in a variety of ways to deal with the problem. First, he has established what's called a Central Narcotics Tribunal in Kabul. One way to deal with the drug problem is for there to be a push back to the drug dealers, and a good way to push back on the drug dealers is convict them and send them to prison. He has improved the Afghan Eradication Force this is mobile units that can deploy across the country to help governors in their eradication efforts.

We're supporting him. We're supporting him through direct aid on these mobile units, and we're supporting him to expand alternative livelihood programs. These poppy growers are trying to make a living. And the idea is to provide these farmers with credit, and seeds, and fertilizer, and assistance to bring their products to market. So the strategy to eliminate poppies is to encourage the government to eradicate, and to provide alternative means for a livelihood, and to help have the roads so that when somebody grows something somebody wants to buy in Kabul, there's a road to be able to take the product along to the markets.

It's important, and we're going to stay focused on the poppy issue. And when the President and his government is able to make progress on it, it will really inspire countries who want to help to do more.

Finally, we're going to help President Karzai fight corruption. And one place where he needs help is in the judicial system. There's nothing more discouraging when justice is not fair. And Afghans too often see their courts run by crooked judges. It's important to have the confidence of the people in a free society. Crooked judges makes it hard to earn that confidence.

President Karzai, to his credit, has established a Criminal Justice Task Force that is now after public corruption. This task force has 400 prosecutors [sic] and there are ongoing investigations. The United States, Britain and Norway are providing full time prosecutors, judges, police, and defense attorneys to mentor their Afghan counterparts -- and I appreciate our own citizens going over there. It is must be neat, really -- I guess "neat" isn't a sophisticated word, but it must be heartening to be somebody who's helping this young democracy develop a judicial system that is worthy. And I cannot thank our citizens for taking time out of their lives to go.

The United States has built or renovated 40 judicial facilities; we've distributed more than 11,000 copies of the Afghan constitution; we've trained more than 750 Afghan judges and lawyers and prosecutors. The international community is helping this new government build a justice system so they can replace the rule of the Taliban with the rule of law.

Now, there's another part of our strategy I want to share with you, and that is to help President Musharraf defeat the terrorists and extremists who operate inside of Pakistan. We're going to work Pakistan and Afghanistan to enhance cooperation to defeat what I would call a common enemy. Taliban and al Qaeda fighters do hide in remote regions of Pakistan -- this is wild country; this is wilder than the Wild West. And these folks hide and recruit and launch attacks.

The President understands our desire to work with him to eliminate this kind of action. People say, well, do you think President Musharraf really understands the threat of extremists in his midst? I said, yes, I do. You know how I know? They've tried to kill him. Al Qaeda has launched attacks against the President of this country. He understands. He also understands that extremists can destabilize countries on the border, or destabilize countries from which they launch their attacks. And so he's launched what they call a frontier strategy, and that is to find and eliminate the extremists and deliver a better governance and economic opportunity.

We're helping him in these efforts. It's in our interest to help him. We provided him -- we're helping him equip his security forces that are patrolling the border regions with Afghanistan. We're funding construction of more than 100 border outposts, which will provide their forces with better access to remote regions of this part of the country. We've given him high-tech equipment to help the Pakistani forces locate the terrorists attempting to cross the border. We're funding an air wing, with helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft, to give Pakistan better security, better swift response and better surveillance.

President Musharraf is going to better be able to now deal with this problem. Bob Gates went out and visited with him recently, had a good response. He's an ally in this war on terror and it's in our interest to support him in fighting the extremists.

I also had an interesting meeting at the White House last September -- and that is, I hosted a private dinner with President Musharraf and President Karzai, right there in what's called the Family Dining Room. It was a fascinating discussion. Clearly there are different histories, different anxieties about the way forward. We did reach some agreements, however, that it's in all our interests for people to work together, for example, to improve intelligence sharing. It's in our interest to expand trade between these two countries. In other words, on the one hand it's in our interest to work closely on security for security operations, but it's also in our mutual interest -- all three of our interests -- to provide different alternatives for people to choose from.

Remember I said earlier that oftentimes people support the Taliban, or sometimes they support the Taliban in Afghanistan because it's the only job they can find. If that's the case -- and I believe it's true -- we need to help these folks provide an economy that gives hope. And so one way we can do this is what we call reconstruction opportunity zones that exist on both sides of the Pak and Afghan border. These zones will give residents the chance to export locally made products to the United States, duty free. That's our contribution. Got a vast market, wealthy country with a lot of consumers, and it's not going to take much to provide hope if we can get little manufacturing enterprises set up, local entrepreneurs to be able to manufacture goods and sell them here in our countries. It's a tiny contribution for us and a major contribution for providing the conditions necessary for stability.

I'm going to continue to work with both the leaders. It's a useful role for the President of the United States to be in constant contact with both Presidents, to remind them of the great obligations we have to fight the extremists and to help people realize dreams.

So our strategy in this country is robust and important. A lot of attention here in the United States is on Iraq. One reason I've come to address you is I want to make sure people's attention is also on Afghanistan. I'm asking Congress for $11.8 billion over the next two years to help this young democracy survive. I've ordered an increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan. We've extended the stay of 3,200 troops now in the country, for four months, and we'll deploy a replacement force that will sustain this increase for the foreseeable future.

These forces and funds are going to help President Karzai defeat common enemies. Success in Afghanistan is important for our security. We are engaged in a long ideological struggle between the forces of moderation and liberty versus the forces of destruction and extremism. And a victory for the forces of liberty in Afghanistan will be a resounding defeat in this ideological struggle. It's in our national interest that we succeed, that we help President Karzai and the people of Afghanistan succeed. And I'm confident -- I'm confident that with persistence and patience and determination, we will succeed.

And the biggest source for success is the Afghan people, themselves. They want their freedom. Freedom is universal. Jeane Kirkpatrick was right -- people around the world, regardless of their faith, their background, or their gender, want to be free. (Applause.) There is tangible evidence in Afghanistan: 8 million people went to the polls to choose their President in a free election. We take it for granted. Eight million said we want to be free. Imagine how far that society has come from the days of the Taliban. There's courage in that country. People are showing faith and freedom and courage to defend that freedom.

I want to tell you an interesting story about an Afghan security office at Camp Phoenix near Kabul. This fellow has worked at this base for four years -- nearly four years. His job was to guard the front gate and screen cars before they are allowed to approach a U.S. military checkpoint. He is very popular with our troops -- people who have gotten to know him like him a lot. They appreciate his courage and his personality and they call him "Rambo." (Laughter.) Must have been a lot for the Afghan citizen to be called "Rambo," but that's what they call him.

One day Rambo was on duty, a car loaded with explosives tried to crash through the front gate -- they were attempting to get to our troops. This fellow did not hesitate, he jumped in the car and he prevented the terrorist from exploding the device. He saw somebody who was about to harm our citizens, our troops -- he then jumps into the car and stops the attack. A U.S. Army sergeant then responded, helped him pull the guy out of the car.

One of our U.S. soldiers who was there said this, he said, "He saved our lives. I promised him I'd name my firstborn son after him." The guy is hoping for a boy. (Laughter.)

It's a human story. It's a story that speaks of courage and alliance, respect for life. To me it's a story that says these people in Afghanistan want to do what is necessary to survive and succeed, and it's in our interest to help them.

I am really proud that our nation helped liberate the 25 million people of that country. (Applause.) We should be proud to stand alongside the people of Afghanistan, the newly liberated Afghanistan. And I know we're all proud of the men and women who have helped liberate that country -- the men and women who wear our uniform who helped liberate that country and continue to make the sacrifices necessary. (Applause.)

I thank you for giving me a chance to come and talk about a strategy for success, a strategy that is part of our efforts to make sure that a generation of Americans, beyond our generation, will look back and say they did their duty to protect the homeland and, as a result, we can live in peace.

President Bush Addressing American Enterprise Institute: Re Iraq

As scholars and thinkers, you are contributing to a nationwide debate about the direction of the war on terror. A vigorous debate is healthy for our country, it really is, and I welcome the debate. It's one of the true hallmarks of a free society, where people can get up and express their beliefs in open forum. Yet five years into this war, there is one principle of which every member of every party should be able to agree on -- in other words, after all the debate, there is one thing we all ought to be able to agree on, and that is: We've got to fight the terrorists overseas, so we don't have to face them here at home again.

We're acting on that principle. Since the attacks of September the 11th, we have been on the offense. I believe the best way to do our duty in securing the homeland is to stay on the offense. And we're not alone. That's what our fellow citizens have got to understand. We're not in this fight against extremists and murders alone.

Recently in the Philippines, that country's special forces conducted raids in which they killed two top leaders of an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organization -- a group that we believe was responsible for kidnapping four American citizens and killing two of them. In Tunisia, authorities recently broke up a terrorist cell that was planning to attack the American and British Embassies. In Spain, police captured several fugitives wanted for aiding the escape of terrorists responsible for the Madrid train bombings. And in the past year, nations including Denmark, Italy, France, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Turkey, Canada, and Britain have broken up terrorist cells. The enemy is active, and so are those of us who love freedom. It's in the interests of the United States to encourage other nations not to relent and not to give in, but to keep the pressure on those who try to have their way by murdering the innocent. And that's exactly what we'll continue to do.

This war against the terrorists, this war to protect ourselves, takes place on many fronts. One such front is Iraq. We're on the offense in Iraq, as we should be, against extremists and killers. I recently announced a new strategy for Iraq -- it's a plan that demands more from the Iraqi government. Not only do we demand more from the Iraqi government, but so do the Iraqi people demand more from the Iraqi government. They want to live in peace. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand a mother in downtown Baghdad wants her child to be able to walk the streets peacefully, just like mothers here in America want their children to be able to go to a playground and play peacefully.

I made Baghdad the top security priority. In other words, it's important, in order to achieve our objective, that the capital city of this grand country be secure. And I sent reinforcements to our troops so they can accomplish that mission. I spent a lot of time with members of my administration thinking about the way forward in Iraq. And we listened to a lot of opinions and a lot of different ideas. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance for success.

And the reason why I mention success is, it's important for us to succeed. It's important for us to help this young democracy fight off the extremists so moderation can prevail. It's important for us to stand with this young democracy as they live -- as they try to build a society under the most modern constitution written in the Middle East, a constitution approved by millions of their citizens.

One of the interesting things that I have found here in Washington is there is strong disagreement about what to do to succeed, but there is strong agreement that we should not fail. People understand the consequences of failure. If we were to leave this young democracy before the job is done, there would be chaos, and out of chaos would become vacuums, and into those power vacuums would flow extremists who would be emboldened; extremists who want to find safe haven.

As we think about this important front in the war against extremists and terrorists, it's important for our fellow citizens to recognize this truth: If we were to leave Iraq before the job is done, the enemy would follow us home.

Our new commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is now on the ground in Baghdad. I visited him by secure video yesterday. He reports that coalition troops are arriving on schedule. He says the Iraqi government is following through on its commitment to deploy three additional army brigades in the capital. Prime Minister Maliki has said part of our strategy is to put more Iraqis in the fight in the capital city to achieve our objective, and he's doing that. So far, coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces has been good -- they are beginning joint operations to secure the city by chasing down the terrorists, and insurgents, and the criminals, and the roaming death squads. They're doing what the Iraqi people want in Baghdad -- they want a peaceful life.

President George W. Bush addresses the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., Thursday, Feb. 15, 2007. "Our goal in Afghanistan is to help the people of that country to defeat the terrorists and establish a stable, moderate, and democratic state that respects the rights of its citizens, governs its territory effectively, and is a reliable ally in this war against extremists and terrorists," said President Bush. White House photo by David Bohrer The initial signs of progress are encouraging. Yet it's important for us to recognize that this is the beginning of what will be a difficult operation in the Iraqi capital. Our troops are risking their lives. As they carry out the new strategy, they need our patience, and they need our support. (Applause.) When General Petraeus' nomination was considered three weeks ago in the United States Senate, the senators voted unanimously to confirm him to his new position, and I appreciate that affirmation, that strong statement for this good General.

Now, the House is debating a resolution that disapproves of our new strategy. This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle.

Members of Congress have every right to express their opinion -- and I fully expect them to do so. The resolution they are debating is non-binding. Soon the Congress is going to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding -- a bill to provide emergency funding for our troops. Our men and women in uniform are counting on their elected leaders to provide them with the support they need to accomplish their mission. We have a responsibility, Republicans and Democrats have a responsibility to give our troops the resources they need to do their job and the flexibility they need to prevail. (Applause.)

...

I thank you for giving me a chance to come and talk about a strategy for success, a strategy that is part of our efforts to make sure that a generation of Americans, beyond our generation, will look back and say they did their duty to protect the homeland and, as a result, we can live in peace.

The Iranian Connection

While perusing the blogosphere this morning, I came across Faster, Please! and read a post by Michael LeDeen which included among other things:

"Iran is waging [war] against us"

"we had good information that terrorists were in Baghdad, and had gone to the compound. We did not know exactly who they were. We entered the compound and arrested everybody who looked like a usual suspect. One of them told us he was the #3 official of the al Quds unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, a particularly vicious group. He was carrying documents, one of which was in essence a wiring diagram of Iranian operations in Iraq. That wiring diagram included both Shi’ite and Sunni terrorist groups, and was of such magnitude that American officials were flabbergasted."

"I am told that this information has reached the president,"

"We are in a big war, and we cannot fight it by playing defense in Iraq. That is a sucker’s game."

Not really knowing who LeDeen was, I decided to do a bit of research on him. Typically, you don't say, "I am told that this information has reached the president" without having friends in high places. Wikipedia has a bio on him. He is a conservative, so predictably his bio keeps getting edited by leftys who want to make him look bad. Maybe he deserves it, I don't know him, but his bio on wiki and elsewhere makes it pretty clear that he can pull off a statement like, "I am told that this information has reached the president."

Powerline and others have discussed this article.

LeDeen references a NY Sun article written by Eli Lake.

The article includes the following:

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

This is scary. I had suspected for some time that the "civil war" and "sectarian violence" was being fueled by a third party with an interest in the continued violence and destabilization of Iraq. I thought it was probably Al Qaeda, which would be really bad for us. If it is indeed Iran fueling the flames of sectarian violence, this is actually a good thing. It gives us a nation state to hold responsible. Better than a rogue organization, anyway.

I take issue with LeDeen's statement, "We are in a big war, and we cannot fight it by playing defense in Iraq. That is a sucker’s game." It is only a sucker's game when other nation states are directly interfering. Prior to Iranian involvement, it was the perfect game. In one fell swoop Bush deposed an evil dictator, freed and democratized millions of Iraqi's, created a massive military base for future middle east operations, and painted a bright red target in the sand where Al Qaeda and its ilk could amass and be slaughtered by our highly capable military machine. The big red target that is Iraq has effectively diverted Al Qaeda money and resources into fighting a war they cannot win militarily. It is no accident that there have been no major terrorist attacks on the US homeland since 9/11. Sad, Bush almost never gets credit for this.

Now that we have evidence that Iran IS involved in Iraq, it should and probably will force our hand. I just hope the American people have the stomach for a war with Iran.

I have long held that the American Death Toll in Iraq was something to be praised, not something to make us war-weary. We have had so few casualties, it is astounding. A war with Iran would likely be a very different thing. Certainly, there are many Iranians who yearn for freedom... but unlike what we saw in Iraq, Iran WILL present a strong military response.

If we are going to confront Iran and liberate their people, we will probably have to do this very soon. They have been working feverishly towards completing their nuclear program and amassing an arsenal. If they produce nuclear weapons, they will not hesitate to use them in a military confrontation.

I look forward to Bush's remarks in the coming days regarding changes in US policy towards Iran.