Shi’ites mobilizing in Baghdad as ISIS approaches — with tacit Sunni support from Saudis, Kuwaitis?

posted at 11:31 am on June 14, 2014 by Ed Morrissey

The long-feared regional war between Shi’ites and Sunnis may be closer than ever. The Washington Post analyzes the rise of ISIS (sometimes called ISIL) in Syria and Iraq, which didn’t only grow organically in the vacuum left by the American withdrawal from Iraq. While the governments of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait oppose ISIS, their subjects have helped build it and may end up threatening to rewrite the political map of Southwest Asia:

As Sunni jihadists have pushed from Syria deep into Iraq, making startling gains that are now threatening Baghdad, they are highlighting the increasingly uncomfortable position of Persian Gulf states that have backed Syria’s predominantly Sunni rebels.

Officially, Iraq’s southern neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, oppose groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which captured advanced weaponry caches and forced a dramatic retreat of government security forces across northern Iraq this week.

But citizens in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have quietly funneled vast sums of money to and joined the ranks of ISIS and other jihadist groups fighting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria over the past two years, analysts and U.S. officials have said.

Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has ignored the conflict, just as he has ignored the Nouri al-Maliki government for the last several years. So too has Kuwait, the emirate rescued by the US after Saddam Hussein’s attempt to forcibly annex it to Iraq, and the reason why the US was involved in Iraq in the first place. That leaves Iran to come to Maliki’s rescue, and further exacerbates the millenia-old conflict between the Sunni and Shi’a branches of Islam in the region.

Now Iran is suggesting that their nation should partner with the so-called “Great Satan” — the US — to defend Baghdad and what’s left of Iraq:

Shi’te Muslim Iran is so alarmed by Sunni insurgent gains in Iraq that it may be willing to cooperate with Washington in helping Baghdad fight back, a senior Iranian official told Reuters.

The idea is being discussed internally among the Islamic Republic’s leadership, the senior Iranian official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official had no word on whether the idea had been raised with any other party.

Officials say Iran will send its neighbor advisers and weaponry, although probably not troops, to help its ally Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki check what Tehran sees as a profound threat to regional stability, officials and analysts say. …

Tehran is open to the possibility of working with the United States to support Baghdad, the senior official said.

That move would not only make the Saudis and Kuwaitis more hostile to Maliki, but also more hostile to the US. The outreach to Iran over the last year by the Obama administration has already perplexed and angered them, and they worry that the US might be thinking of shifting alliances to the Shi’ites in order to disentangle itself from the responsibilities of containing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. A military alliance on behalf of the Shi’ites to salvage the debacle in Iraq might not have that intention, but that’s how it will be perceived.

In Baghdad, meanwhile, the city’s defense will rely on Shi’ite mobilization, further highlighting the sectarian divide:

Hundreds of Iraqis converged on volunteer centers across Baghdad on Saturday in response to a call by Iraq’s highest Shiite cleric to fight back against a Sunni jihadist group making rapid gains across the north.

Iraqi Shiite volunteers were responding to Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who on Friday issued a rare call to arms to the nation’s Shiites, setting the stage for sectarian war, local media reported.

Satellite channel Sky News Arabia broadcast footage showing dozens of Iraqis gathering at centers in Baghdad to volunteer in the fight against ISIS.

Shiite religious volunteers would partially plug the ranks of Iraq’s decimated security forces, after jihadists from the al-Qaeda-inspired Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) rapidly seized ground from the northern city of Mosul to a town just 60 miles north of Baghdad this week in a stunning military advance that threatens to divide this fragile nation.

Only “hundreds”? [See update below.] If all Sistani can summon to face down ISIS while it’s 50 miles out and closing in on Baghdad is a few hundred fighters, then both Sistani and Maliki may well be doomed, at least in the capital. Iran may well have to commit troops to just provide a retreat corridor to Basra and allow the Shi’ites in Iraq to organize better for a counter-offensive, if and when American help ever arrives.

Even if they do manage to hold Baghdad, it’s going to be a very different place if Sistani succeeds:

Baghdad residents said those signing up are largely members of Shiite militias notorious for bloodletting during the darkest days of Iraq’s civil war, raising fears of a return to levels of sectarian violence that could tear the country apart.

That sectarian violence has already arrived. After the Sunni-extremist ISIS sweep and brutal occupation, it’s going to be almost impossible to put Iraq back together as a multi-cultural democratic republic.

The Kurds are well aware of these consequences. They’re fighting ISIS in the north, as this AP video shows, and perhaps staking out their own turf for independent statehood after decades of being bottled up by successive Iraqi monarchs, dictators, and republics:

AP Television News footage showed Kurdish fighters, known as peshmerga, driving out militants who had taken over an army outpost some 15 miles west of the oil city of Kirkuk. The position had earlier been abandoned by Iraqi army troops. Long coveted by the Kurds who have a self-rule region in northern Iraq, Kirkuk fell under the control of the peshmerga this week after Iraqi army forces left. …

The latest bout of fighting, stoked by the civil war in neighboring Syria, has pushed the nation even closer to a precipice that could partition it into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish zones.

The Turks won’t be happy about that — they have been fighting Kurdish separatists for decades on both sides of the border. On the other hand, if the alternative is ISIS reaching their borders, the Turks might have to reconsider their previous opposition to Kurdish statehood.

Update: I got my ayatollah scorecards mixed up in the first version of this post. Ali al-Sistani was the Shi’ite cleric that attempted to work with the US; it was Moqtada al-Sadr who went to war intermittently with the US, who later semi-retired from politics. Since we’re on that subject, though, Sadr hasn’t been silent either:

Powerful Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who led the once-feared Mahdi Army militia, on Wednesday called for the formation of units to defend religious sites in Iraq.

Sadr said in a written statement that he was ready “to form peace units to defend the holy places” of both Muslims and Christians, in cooperation with the government.

His call came after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki said the government would arm citizens who volunteer to fight militants, following the fall of Iraq’s second city Mosul and a swathe of other territory to jihadist Sunnis on Tuesday.

But Sadr’s involvement in the formation of such units would almost certainly be unacceptable to Iraq’s Sunni Arab minority, members of which are also deeply mistrustful of Iraq’s Shiite-led government.

He’s also making that call from Beirut, not Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Washington Post profiles Sistani for a reminder of his influence:

Sistani emerged from relative passivity after Saddam Hussein’s ouster by U.S. forces in 2003 to become a vocal religious and political guide for Iraq’s suddenly empowered Shiite masses.

His words Friday marked a radical departure for a man who has played a powerful hand in shaping Iraqi politics, but has typically urged Iraqi Shiites to resist provocation to sectarian bloodshed.

And as the most powerful religious authority in Iraq, Sistani’s words were likely to find support among the country’s Shiites and political leaders, who are desperate to hold on to power and have a fleet of well-trained Shiite militias ready to act.

My apologies for confusing the two in my original post, and thanks to Calbear for correcting me by e-mail.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

@Del Dolemonte

Regarding the 1993 wtc attack the CIA and FBI had concluded in 1995 and 1996 that “the Iraqi government was in no way involved in the attack.” Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke called the allegations “absolutely without foundation.”

Why is Iraq the only country where al Qaeda would not operate?

PS, I have been asking this question for a dozen years now without response.

If you answer correctly (and you cannot) I will give you a A+

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 12:36 AM

The 9/11 commission said that “Al Qaeda had been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraq”! But this was already well known and reported by the CIA and was why Saddam had a bounty for the heads of any Al Qaeda members.

Saddam even had his agents go into foreign countries to kill Islamic Suni leaders, (clerics), that supported Al Qaeda. Yes he also sent Iraqi agents to kill Shiite clerics in other countries as well and the world criticized his actions calling the killings criminal and in violation of international law.

JustTheLies on June 15, 2014 at 1:53 AM

Links would be nice, preferably credible and multi-sourced.

Your problem? You posted a link from the Washington Post to make a point. After 2003, the WaPo was widely accused by the Looney Left of Lying about Iraq. Cherry-Picking won’t help you here.

F-

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 2:14 AM

hamiltmc on June 15, 2014 at 12:49 AM

Try this reality on for size. If we had let Sadaam take Saudi Arabia, instead of sending in the 82nd Airborne, the jihadis in Arabia would have been busy fighting a secular Iraq rather than worrying about attacking NYC.

cimbri on June 15, 2014 at 2:04 AM

You’re funny.

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 2:17 AM

The 9/11 commission

JustTheLies on June 15, 2014 at 1:53 AM

Next?

One more time-what personal grief would come to you if Iraq was found to have been involved in 9/11? As previously noted, it won’t bring those who died back.

All it would mean is that you got incomplete information at the time. Or it could mean that you were manipulated by the same Democrat Media that managed to keep the 1992 economic recovery a secret for 18 months solely to get a Democrat in the White House.

If it turned out that any country other than Iraq was involved in 9/11 would you admit it? Based on your utter vapidity my guess is “positive”.

Tell Soros to pay you more, OK?

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 2:32 AM

A Federal Judge in the same Lower Manhattan US District Court where Holder wanted to try KSM ruled Iraq was involved in 9/11. He was appointed by Bill Clinton.

Go for it, and proceed!

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 1:30 AM

Ha hahahah!

First Laurie Mylroie testified as an expert witness despite that the intelligence consensus completely disagreed with her.

She was called an expert witness because she wrote a book titled, “Saddam Hussein and the Crisis in the Gulf” and a book titled, “A Study in Revenge: Saddam Hussein’s Unfinished War Against America”.

In her books she describes how Saddam blew up the the federal building in Oklahoma City and other crazy conspiracy theories about Saddam.

For example she accused Saddam of the 1993 wtc bombing even though the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force in New York, the US Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York, the CIA, the National Security Council, and the State Department, all determined that there was no evidence of the Iraq’s involvement in the attack back in the mid-1990s.
(Note: I already commented about how the FBI had concluded in 1995 and 1996 that “the Iraqi government was in no way involved in the attack.” Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke called the allegations “absolutely without foundation.”)

She also claimed in her book that TWA flight 800 was destroyed under orders from Saddam despite that a lengthily investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board determined that it was an accident.

Yet despite her absurdly crazy theories, of which there are to many to list, Richard Perle, described the book as “splendid and wholly convincing,”

In her book Mylroie thanked John Bolton and the staff of AEI, (Dick Cheney sat on AEI’s board), for their assistance. She also wrote thanks to Scooter Libby for his “generous and timely assistance.”

Mylroie also wrote in her book about how Paul Wolfowitz had “At critical times, he provided crucial support for a project that is inherently difficult.” She said that Wolfowitz’s wife, (at the time), had “fundamentally shaped the book.”

The book has an endorsement from Paul Wolfowitz saying: “Provocative and disturbing … argues powerfully that the shadowy mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing … was in fact an agent of Iraqi intelligence.”

In a February 2003 news interview Laurie Mylroie said;

“Listen, we’re going to war because President Bush believes Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Al Qaeda is a front for Iraqi intelligence…[the U.S.] bureaucracy made a tremendous blunder that refused to acknowledge these links … the people responsible for gathering this information, say in the C.I.A., are also the same people who contributed to the blunder on 9/11 and the deaths of 3,000 Americans, and so whenever this information emerges they move to discredit it.”

On March 12, 2003, Mylroie wrote an article in the New York Sun titled, “Blind to Saddam’s 9-11 Role,” in which she wrote:

“Iraq, along with Al Qaeda, was most probably involved in the September 11 attacks, and President Bush understands that. Already on September 17, six days later, Mr. Bush affirmed, “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now,” as Bob Woodward’s “Bush at War” discloses.”

“Indeed, at Thursday’s press conference, Mr. Bush said that Iraq has financed and trained Al Qaeda and similar terrorist groups, that is why Mr. Bush is willing to take the risk entailed in war against Iraq”.

On March 21, 2006, Bush said:

“First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.”

On 21 August 2006 Bush reaffirmed the White House position. When asked what the connection was between Iraq and the September 11th attacks, Bush replied,

“Nothing…. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.”

But the Judge did not know that no one believed her crazy ramblings and thus he delivered a verdict in favor of the families based on specific claims by Mylroie and top administration officials, that a definite link between Saddam and 9/11 did in fact exist.

In his findings, Judge Baer referred to the testimony of Laurie Mylroie, on which he based his conclusion that Saddam was involved in 9/11 and he made clear in his findings that he believed Mylroie’s claims that Saddam was involved in all the other terrorist attacks of which he specifically listed in his findings.

JustTheFacts on June 15, 2014 at 2:44 AM

JustTheLies on June 15, 2014 at 12:42 AM

PS, all of your “responses’ here have been pretty much cut and paste. Also known as “Boilerplate”

Why no original thought? I know O’bama lost the college graduate vote in 2012, but I expect better here.

Now, please address the 12 Violations cited in the 2002 US Resolution. Were those all Lies too?

Oh, and we would all like to know your thoughts on whether or not one of the 9/11 “Commission” members should have in fact been available for questioning under oath. The fact your Democrat Party put her there proves they had something to hide.

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 2:46 AM

JustTheLies on June 15, 2014 at 2:44 AM

Thanks for your rabid Cut and Paste response.

But let’s get back to the substance of my argument. You’ve been shrieking here all night about Iraq and 9/11, while totally ignoring that the only claim made (among 12) in the 2002 Resolution was that al Qaeda was known to be operating in Iraq in 2002. That’s a year after 9/11.

Look, Kid, even if the Supreme Court of 27 different countries ruled that Iraq played a part in 9/11, who cares? The only reason I brought it up was to send you into a fit, because you would rather be waterboarded than admit that 1 cherry-picked country was part of 9/11.

No one here has to my knowledge tried to deny that Saudi Arabia had a role in 9/11. The fact that you are totally unwilling to even consider the possibility that another country did play a role shows you’re a Useful Idiot, and nothing more.

Z-

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 3:02 AM

JustTheLies on June 15, 2014 at 2:44 AM

PS, and after-the fact Armchair Quarterbacking of the Federal Judge’s ruling will also only make us laugh at you more. When you dismiss a Federal Judge ruling that O’bamacare is legal, let us know.

One more time, a simple question.

Why are you afraid of even considering the possibility that a certain country played a part in 9/11?

Take your time.

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 3:15 AM

Serial spammer it is at that. Ban it.

Bmore on June 15, 2014 at 9:56 AM

Serial spammer it is at that. Ban it.

Bmore on June 15, 2014 at 9:56 AM

Try “Serial Idiot.”

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 11:09 AM

JustTheLies on June 15, 2014 at 2:44 AM

PS, and after-the fact Armchair Quarterbacking of the Federal Judge’s ruling will also only make us laugh at you more. When you dismiss a Federal Judge ruling that O’bamacare is legal, let us know.

One more time, a simple question.

Why are you afraid of even considering the possibility that a certain country played a part in 9/11?

Take your time.

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 3:15 AM

Still waiting…

Del Dolemonte on June 15, 2014 at 11:39 AM

@blink

@Del Dolemonte

So neither of you believe the 9/11 commission or its report and neither of you believe the consensus of the intelligence community that there were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda and neither of you believe Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld and etc. who have insisted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and that they never claimed there was a connection. WOW!

You guys are just a very small group of conspiracy theorists who still believe the overwhelmingly debunked claims that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and tied to Al Qaeda.

Even Cheney admitted that his bogus Atta in Prague claim “has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place.”

We now know that Cheney always new his claim was bogus after a recently declassified document from Dec. 1, 2001 that was delivered to the White House on the 8th, claims that Atta “did not travel to the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000,” and adds that “the individual who attempted to enter the Czech Republic on 31 May 2000… was not the Atta who attacked the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.”

Yet despite this briefing, just days later on Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney told the late Tim Russert, host of Meet the Press, that the meeting in Prague had been “pretty well confirmed.”

You still have nearly 30% of US citizens, (mostly FOX viewers according to the studies), that agree with you but thankfully the % is less year after year.

JustTheFacts on June 15, 2014 at 1:14 PM

neither of you believe the consensus of the intelligence community that there were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda

JustTheFacts on June 15, 2014 at 1:14 PM

I get it now.

In 2008 my father went in for a biopsy of a mass in his abdomen. The report said, “No malignancy found, but further tests are recommended.”

He read “No malignancy found” to mean that he was perfectly healthy.

On February 23, 2013, he died of Stage IV metastasized osteosarcoma.

You’re insisting that “No operational ties found” means “Saddam had no connection whatsoever to al Qaeda.”

Dad was desperate to believe he didn’t have cancer, and you’re desperate to believe that Saddam had no connection to al Qaeda.

My lawyer told me the hardest lesson he had to learn was to not seek rationality where there is none.

Good luck with your cancer.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 15, 2014 at 2:01 PM

You still have nearly 30% of US citizens, (mostly FOX viewers according to the studies), that agree with you but thankfully the % is less year after year.

JustTheFacts on June 15, 2014 at 1:14 PM

See, this is a perfect example of how off your rocker you are.

Thirty percent of the US population is 94 million.

Fox has a total viewership of 2.3 million. Either you’re reading garbage “studies,” you’re hallucinating, or you’re making up stuff like a kindergartener.

Like I said, good luck with your mental cancer.

A Chair of Some Kind on June 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM

This is why, if a nation is going to war, it goes to war to win it, period. THEN it stays behind and enforces their system on the defeated.

The USA has been in Germany and Japan for over 65 years – no problems. In Korea, over 60 years.

But the Dems in Congress just had to pull out of Iraq. Same thing in 1974 – left multiple nations in chaos.

The entire Middle East along with Afghanistan will be brutalized for this just as Pol Pot brutalized Cambodia.

Back to the top: Go in to win; stabilize; stay.

MN J on June 15, 2014 at 2:17 PM

This is why, if a nation is going to war, it goes to war to win it, period. THEN it stays behind and enforces their system on the defeated.

The USA has been in Germany and Japan for over 65 years – no problems. In Korea, over 60 years.

But the Dems in Congress just had to pull out of Iraq. Same thing in 1974 – left multiple nations in chaos.

The entire Middle East along with Afghanistan will be brutalized for this just as Pol Pot brutalized Cambodia.

Back to the top: Go in to win; stabilize; stay.

MN J on June 15, 2014 at 2:17 PM

You keep ignoring the Islamic element. The Muslims don’t like westerners.
They don’t like you and what you stand for.
The Sunni’s and Shiites don’t like each other and have fighting for centuries.
Installating democracy in a Muslim hellhole makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Furthermore we don’t have the financial resources to keep an artificial peace going.
Time to let it burn

weedisgood on June 15, 2014 at 2:55 PM

How many fronts can ISIS wage a war on at the same time? Kurds in the north, Shia in the south, Iran in the east, Assad Syrian forces in the west … they don’t have the means to do all they want to do. I suspect they may have peaked.

Moron Labe on June 15, 2014 at 6:16 PM

The 9/11 commission report did NOT NOT NOT NOT deny the connection that you refuse to acknowledge. Do you know why? Because only idiots like you try to deny it.

blink on June 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM

The 9/11 Commission concluded that;

“We have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.”

The consensus of intelligence experts has been that there was never an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

The 9/11 commission’s conclusion is consistent with the findings of those conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and National Security Council. The Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq also reviewed the intelligence community’s conclusions and found that they were justifiable.

Major Mistake #1: You continuously conclude that there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11. Only idiots claim this. 9/11 was executed by Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda was motivated by the US military that was keeping Saddam in check.

blink on June 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM

On March 21, 2006, Bush said:

“First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.”

On 21 August 2006 Bush reaffirmed the White House position. When asked what the connection was between Iraq and the September 11th attacks, Bush replied,

“Nothing…. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.”

Dick Cheney said on March 29, 2006;

“We’ve never made the case or argued the case that somehow bin laden was directly involved in 9/11. that evidence has never been forthcoming”

Condoleezza Rice said on March 19, 2009 in a Charlie Rose interview that no one in the White House pushed a link between Iraq and 9/11:

“No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11.”

“I was certainly not. The President was certainly not. … That’s right. We were not arguing that.”

Donald Rumsfeld said;

“No one in the administration thought or said that.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/02/exclusive-watch-donald-rumsfeld-lie-about-saddam-hussein-s-9-11-involvement-in-the-unknown-known.html

Major Mistake #2: You claim that intelligence agencies throughout the world didn’t believe that Saddam had WMD. This is dead wrong. You can cherry-pick all the documents you want, but the reality was that intel agencies believed that he had them. That doesn’t mean that they could prove it, but that’s what they concluded.

blink on June 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM

A bi-partisan majority report released on Thursday June 5, 2008 about whether statements by US Government officials were substantiated by intelligence reports concluded that:

“details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department.” It concludes that the US Administration “repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”

On the second paragraph of page two of the 2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report it says that Feith’s Office of Special Plans, an office in the Pentagon run by Douglas Feith that was the source of most of the misleading intelligence on al-Qaeda and Iraq, had;

“developed, produced, and then disseminated alternative intelligence assessments on the Iraq and al Qaida relationship, which included some conclusions that were inconsistent with the consensus of the Intelligence Community, to senior decision-makers.”

And on the third paragraph of page two of the 2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report it says The report found that these actions were “inappropriate” though not “illegal.”

Feith stated that he “felt vindicated” by the report’s conclusion that what he did was only “inappropriate” though not “illegal.”

Douglas Feith even admitted that he disagreed with the consensus of the intelligence community because they continually claimed that there were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda! So according to Douglas Fieth, his office put out reports that were;

“a criticism of the consensus of the intelligence community”.

The problem is that he and his office did not mention that their reports were only a criticism/alternative and NOT based on the consensus of the intelligence community as had been assumed by everyone that read the reports from his office. Thus a lot of people where mislead.

Major Mistake #3: Your writings about the intel picture circa 2002 make it clear that you don’t understand how intel collection and analysis work. You seem to think that analysts and leaders have 100% confidence in their collection resources and draw 100% conclusions. This is a stupid mistake on your part.

blink on June 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM

If your going to sacrifice American blood and treasure you had better be 100% confident that Iraq or any other country is about to invade the US.

The following statement made by Donal Rumsfeld to justify invading Iraq is seriously lacking evidence to justify the sacrifice of so much American blood and treasure.

“Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns—there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

Based on the above we better invade every county in the world!!!

Major Mistake $4: You think that 9/11 was an inside job, or, at the very minimum, you just want to ask questions about it.

blink on June 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM

I have repeatedly stated that 9/11 was a state sponsored attack carried out by the Saudi Arabian government. I have repeatedly posted proof of this with links to intelligence reports and statements by the 9/11 commission and etc.

But rather than assigning blame to those most responsible, Saudi Arabia, 9/11 was instead use to justify the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with it.

I have repeatedly made this clear yet you continue to lie and falsely accuse me of making statements that I NEVER said.

JustTheFacts on June 16, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6