[Ninong]

"We cannot attribute all the violence in Iraq to al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is certainly a component, but there are larger components." -- John Batiste (Maj. Gen., US Army-Ret.), before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, June 27, 2007.

In an attempt to build up support for his failed troop escalation policy in Iraq, President Bush is now trying to tie the civil war in Iraq to 9/11. In his speech Thursday at the Naval War College, Bush said: "Al-Qaida is the main enemy for Shia, Sunni and Kurds alike. Al-Qaida's responsible for the most sensational killings in Iraq. They're responsible for the sensational killings on U.S. soil."

This is contradictory to what our own military and intelligence officials have been telling us. Iraqis with ties to al-Qaida are only a small fraction of the threat to American troops. The group known as al-Qaida in Mesopotamia (called al-Qaida in Iraq in the press) didn't exist before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, didn't even use that name before October 2004 and isn't controlled by Sammy bin Laden or any of his top aides.

"The only way they think they can rally people is by blaming al-Qaida," Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of the CIA's Counter-Terrorism Center, said yesterday.

[Ninong]

Another example in the "Who Do You Believe" category:

U.S. troops conducted a pre-dawn raid in Sadr City this morning (Saturday morning). We were supported by tanks and missile-firing attack helicopters. We say we killed 26 insurgents with ties to Iranian terrorists. We took another 17 Iranian-linked insurgents captive. That's our story.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki doesn't buy it. He's furious. Again. Iraqi government officials and Iraqi police on the scene are saying that many of the dead were innocent civilians killed in their homes.

"The Iraqi government totally rejects U.S. military operations ... conducted without a pre-approval from the Iraqi military command," al-Maliki said in a statement released by his office. "Anyone who breaches the military command orders will face investigation."

The Arab media is reporting the official position of the democratically-elected Iraqi government that we killed innocent civilians in an unauthorized raid.

Two points: (1) It's a shame when you have to question whether our version of events may not be completely accurate but experience has shown that this is a possibility, and (2) if the godforsaken, incompetent, corrupt democratically-elected Iraqi government doesn't want us there, then let's get the hell out and leave them to fight it out among themselves.

There is very little chance that al-Qaida in Mesopotamia will take over after we leave. The chances of that happening are slim to non-existent. It is quite likely that someone like Moqtada al-Sadr will gain political and military control of most of Iraq. The Kurds will almost certainly try to stay out of it and declare Kurdistan a separate country. The main question is whether the conflict between the Shia and the Sunnis will be settled militarily or politically.

A political compromise might be possible but I sort of doubt it. I believe there is too much bad blood on both sides at this point. A lot depends on what the other powers in the region do in response to our leaving. Someone -- probably Saudi Arabia -- is already supplying Sunni insurgents in al-Anbar with brand new weapons and military supplies that came from outside Iraq. Someone else is sending weapons and supplies from Iran to Shia insurgents. All we are doing right now with our "surge" is escalating the level of violence. The insurgents are not going to engage us. They're going to continue to use guerrilla tactics just as they have been and they're going to get out of our way as much as possible, just as they have been. We can't win that game militarily unless we are willing to send over another 300,000 troops, which is impossible.

So what are we doing there? The Bush Administration's argument that we must fight them there or fight them here is absurd. Sammy bin Laden's al-Qaida will attack us whether we're in Iraq or not. In fact, Sammy is thrilled to death that we're in Iraq and he hopes we stay there forever. As long as we're bogged down in Iraq, we can't deal with other emergencies elsewhere. And the longer we're in Iraq, the more hatred we generate in the Arab world against us.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is thrilled to death that we're in Iraq. That's one of the main reasons he managed to get elected. His base is pretty much the same as Bush's base -- religious fundamentalists who think God is on their side and who have no tolerance for any opposing views. The educated urban city dwellers in Iran are not part of Ahmadinejad's base, which is also true of Bush's support over here. Ahmadinejad is more than happy to have us stay in Iraq for another ten years. As long as we're busy there, he's free to do as he pleases. And if we dare to bomb his nuclear research facilities, he can cause a great deal of havoc against our troops in Iraq, to say nothing of what he could do to the price of oil.

Syria doesn't want us to leave Iraq either. They want us to stay there to prevent a radical Shiite Islamic government from taking over. Don't forget that Syria is run by the same secular Sunni Baathists that used to run Iraq before we invaded. If we leave Iraq and the situation there deteriorates even more, then that means more refugees fleeing to Syria. Syria already has 2 million Iraqi refugees. They don't want any more.

The Bush Administration keeps telling us that Iran and Syria and Sammy bin Laden all want us to leave Iraq. That's nonsense. They're more than happy to have us stay in Iraq as long as possible so that we can continue to bleed manpower and resources. Bush says that we have al-Qaida right where we want them, all in one place. First of all, that's a lie, but the irony of this claim is that they have us right where they want us. And they have tens of thousands of helpers attacking us. We're being attacked by everybody over there, not just "al-Qaida terrorists." We're caught smack dab in the middle of a raging sectarian religious war, just like in the second half of the 7th century.

[Ninong]

Turkey is giving us an ultimatum in Iraq!

They can't make it much plainer than this. Turkey is telling us that if U.S. forces do not clear out the 5,000 PKK guerrillas in northern Iraq (Iraqi Kurdistan), they will.

We have no forces to spare in Iraq. We can't bomb the PKK guerrillas because they're integrated into the population.

We are now facing the very real possibility (probability?) that one of our NATO allies will invade Iraq against our wishes. If they do, our only option is to protest loudly and ask them to please leave as soon as possible.

This is a no-win situation for the U.S. If 20,000-30,000 Turkish troops invade Iraqi Kurdistan, there will be substantial collateral damage. The Kurds will turn against us for allowing it to happen.

[Ninong]

One of our embassy employees in Cyprus is missing:

Lt. Col. Thomas Mooney is missing from our embassy in Nicosia and feared kidnapped.

[Ninong]

Joe Lieberman is a sick little man. He went on TV today and repeated his delusional claim that the "surge" is working. No doubt he was briefed by Karl Rove on the Administration's talking points. Little Joe, a former Democrat, told us how disappointed he is in the Democratic presidential candidates because of their positions on national security. January 2009 can't come soon enough. It'll just be my luck that the Democrats will pick up more seats in the Senate than I expect and that Little Joe will represent the 60th vote. What a revolting development that would be. I think it's more likely that they will have a net gain of 3-5 seats.

In contrast to lying Joe Lieberman, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, followed up his major Iraq policy speech of last week with a call for us to begin withdrawing our troops from Iraq now.

Lugar called for "withdrawal of a majority of American troops in a calm, orderly way over the next few months so that we refurbish our ability to meet problems elsewhere in the world. I think we are too much stretched and I would add to that our recruiting problems have become severe."

"I hope something will come of this -- now, not punting the ball down to September," Lugar said.

Prior to his major policy speech in the Senate last week, Lugar had been a strong supporter of the Bush Administration's Iraq policies. After that speech, when a reporter questioned White House Press Secretary Tony Snow about Sen. Lugar's speech, Phony Tony falsely claimed that Lugar had voted against the surge. That's not true. Either the chemo drugs are affecting his brain or he's reverting back to his old Faux News habits.

In any case, it was quite a contrast to see Little Joe Lieberman telling us what wonderful progress we're making in Iraq and the most senior Republican foreign policy expert in the Senate telling us that it's time to leave.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

One of our embassy employees in Cyprus is missing:

Lt. Col. Thomas Mooney is missing from our embassy in Nicosia and feared kidnapped.

His body has been recovered but the details of his death are still being investigated.

[Ninong]

More Astonishing Signs of Normalcy in Baghdad!

From the Washington Post:

Nearly five months into a security strategy that involves thousands of additional U.S. and Iraqi troops patrolling Baghdad, the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets of the capital was 41 percent higher in June than in January, according to unofficial Health Ministry statistics.

During the month of June, 453 unidentified corpses, some bound, blindfolded, and bearing signs of torture, were found in Baghdad, according to morgue data provided by a Health Ministry official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

In January, 321 corpses were discovered in the capital, a total that fell steadily until April but then rose sharply over the last two months, the statistics show.

Overall, the level of violent civilian deaths in Iraq is declining, according to the U.S. military and Health Ministry statistics, and there has been a steady drop in fatalities from mass-casualty bombings that have torn through outdoor markets, university bus stops and crowds assembled to collect food rations.

But the number of unidentified bodies found on the streets is considered a key indicator of the malignancy of sectarian strife. While the declining number of bombing victims suggests that efforts to control violence are showing some success, the daily slayings of individuals, in aggregate, speak to an enduring level of aggression.

"That's the cancer that keeps eating the neighborhoods," Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, said at a meeting with reporters Saturday. "It never stops. It's a tit for tat. It's a cycle of violence that has to be broken."

[Ninong]

Another one of those pinko commie liberal anti-war hippies is calling for us to withdraw our troops from Iraq now!

Look at what this traitor had to say in an op-ed published today:

Supporting the troops means withdrawing them.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress should lay the blame for not supporting the troops where it really belongs -- on the president.

The president will string out this war until he leaves office in order to avoid taking responsibility for the defeat he has caused.

We should explain to the American people that it is the president who is not supporting our troops.

Congress should refuse to appropriate any more money for anything other than withdrawal operations and set a clear deadline.

If the president resists, he should be impeached!

Wow! What sort of pinko commie liberal hippy anti-war left-wing moonbat would say something like that?

This one: Lt. Gen. William E. Odom, who was Director of the NSA under President Ronald Reagan

[Ninong]

Still more of those "astonishing signs of normalcy" in Iraq!

Another truck bombing, this one at a market near Kirkuk has claimed more than 100 150 lives with more than 200 250 injured.

This is a CIVIL WAR! These people are NOT going to kiss and make up anytime soon!

There is no such thing as a "unity government" in Baghdad. That's a myth. Al-Maliki announced a few days ago that they had reached tentative agreement on the long-awaited oil revenue sharing bill but the Kurds immediately announced that they hadn't even seen the new bill yet. And how could he claim that they have reached any sort of consensus when nearly half of parliament refuses to show up and at least 13 of his cabinet ministers have withdrawn?

I believe there are something like 36 or 37 cabinet ministers (because they have to have jobs for all the different factions) and Moqtada al-Sadr has withdrawn his 6 guys and one of the major Sunni groups has withdrawn another 6 guys. Then there is at least one other guy who has pulled out. In the meantime, I think what al-Maliki has done is appoint temporary replacements to act in their place, which is probably not even legal under their new constitution. BTW, they're supposed to amend the constitution to allow for more regional participation and to allow for a certain level of de-Baathification but that's not going to happen either.

And don't forget, they're all going on vacation at the end of July. In truth, nearly half of them are on vacation right now but those guys have been on vacation for months now. You might say they took the money and ran. Maybe they could get better attendance if they convened the Iraqi parliament in London instead of the Green Zone?

P.S. -- One of the Iraqi blogs is reported that the Iraqi parliament is scheduled to debate the draft petroleum bill today. It says that the Sadr Movement, loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, is rumored to be ending its boycott of parliament. The absence of those 32 MPs has helped prevent parliament from reaching a quorum in the past few days. The Sadrist MPs, however, would return die-hard opposed to the petroleum bill, which they consider a give-away to American Big Oil.

The Sunni Arab Iraqi Accord Front is also said to be contemplating an end to its boycott of parliament, though only if deposed speaker of the house, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, is reinstated. He's the guy who really, really doesn't like us. The Iraqi Accord Front has 44 seats in parliament.

The good news is that it looks like many of the absent members of parliament are thinking of showing up for work. The bad news is that the only reason they're doing this is so that they can vote AGAINST the bills we're pushing.

[Ninong]

It's time to begin pulling our troops out of the region of Mesopotamia formerly called Iraq.

Let's face it, Iraq as a country no longer exists. It is about as non-functioning as a country can get and still be allowed to call itself a country. We are not making any progress at all with our troop escalation. It doesn't matter if we pacify a few neighborhoods in Baghdad because the insurgents will just more 100 miles to the north and blow up markets there where we aren't. We can't be everywhere in Iraq and they know it. Why should they engage us? It's not in their best interests.

I came across the figures I was looking for on how many members of the Iraqi parliament are officially boycotting right now: 74. That's 74 out of 275 members who have announced that they are boycotting parliament. Throw in another 50 or 60 who are on permanent vacation and you can see why they rarely have a quorum. And 12 members (6 Shiite and 6 Sunni) of Nouri al-Maliki's 38-member cabinet have officially withdrawn. I read on an Iraqi blog that many of the boycotting parliament members are thinking of returning this week so that they can vote against all the bills we're pushing.

It doesn't make any difference what the cabinet says they're doing because if they don't have the cooperation and support of the full cabinet representing all of the factions, then it won't mean anything. Right now Nouri al-Maliki is trying to pass some sort of oil revenue sharing bill, any sort of oil revenue sharing bill. He announced a few days ago that the cabinet had reached agreement. Almost immediately the Kurds announced that they hadn't even read the bill al-Maliki claimed they agreed upon. And the Sunnis said they weren't even consulted.

CBS News has an interesting piece predicting that the Sunni vice-president of Iraq will call for a no-confidence vote on July 15. CBS claims that Deputy Leader Dick was briefed on this plan in advance. In a parliamentary system, if the prime minister loses a vote of no confidence, his government falls. Assuming CBS knows what they're talking about and assuming al-Maliki loses the no-confidence vote, then what? Is there anyone else in Iraq that the various factions would agree on as the new PM?

I can just see it now: Bushie congratulates the new Iraqi prime minister and tells us that this means the clock starts all over again because we have to give the new government time to succeed.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Turkey is giving us an ultimatum in Iraq!

They can't make it much plainer than this. Turkey is telling us that if U.S. forces do not clear out the 5,000 PKK guerrillas in northern Iraq (Iraqi Kurdistan), they will.

We have no forces to spare in Iraq. We can't bomb the PKK guerrillas because they're integrated into the population.

We are now facing the very real possibility (probability?) that one of our NATO allies will invade Iraq against our wishes. If they do, our only option is to protest loudly and ask them to please leave as soon as possible.

This is a no-win situation for the U.S. If 20,000-30,000 Turkish troops invade Iraqi Kurdistan, there will be substantial collateral damage. The Kurds will turn against us for allowing it to happen.

Will Turkey invade northern Iraq?

The Iraqi foreign minister says that Turkey has amassed 140,000 troops on the border with Iraq. The Bush Administration says that's not true. So one of them is not telling the truth.

On Monday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Turkish television that Turkey would take whatever steps were necessary if the United States fails to fulfill its pledge to help in the fight against Kurdish rebels, but he appeared reluctant to order an invasion before the elections.

"We are seeing with great grief that America remains quiet as Turkey struggles against terrorism. Because there were promises given to us, and they need to be kept. If not, we can take care of our own business," Erdogan said. "We hope there won't be an extraordinary situation before the election. But there'll be a new evaluation after the elections."

Note: The Turkish elections are on July 22.

P.S. -- Where is Condi Rice? Isn't she our Secretary of State? Is she out shopping for knee-high boots again when she should be taking care of business?

We have been "seeing with great grief" ever since George W. Bush took office in January 2001.

[Ninong]

U.S. Navy Sends Third Carrier to Fifth Fleet Region

MANAMA (Reuters) - The U.S. navy has sent a third aircraft carrier to its Fifth Fleet area of operations, which includes Gulf waters close to Iran, the navy said on Tuesday.

"Enterprise (aircraft carrier) provides navy power to counter the assertive, disruptive and coercive behaviour of some countries, as well as support our soldiers and marines in Iraq and Afghanistan," a U.S. Navy statement said.
The move comes weeks after a flotilla of U.S. warships sailed through the narrowest point in the Gulf to hold exercises off Iran's coast in a major show of force.

Tension over Tehran's nuclear ambitions has raised regional fears of a military confrontation. Recent U.S. naval presence in the Gulf has been the largest since the 2003 Iraq war.

The Fifth Fleet area of operations includes the Arabian Gulf, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Indian Ocean.

[Ninong]

July 15th is almost upon us!

That means that President Bush is about to release his report to Congress on the progress the Iraqi government has made in meeting the 18 benchmarks they are required to meet. Last January, Bush set out four benchmarks he wanted to see the Iraqi government achieve, as a sign of genuine progress in that country.

The benchmarks included 1) passing a petroleum investment law, 2) holding provincial elections, 3) revision of de-Baathification laws and 4) the holding of reconciliation talks between the al-Maliki government and the Sunni opposition.

Congress then expanded the benchmarks to 18 and included a provision requiring a report by the president by July 15, 2007 on the progress the Iraqi government has made in meeting those benchmarks. Certain benchmarks were required to be met in each quarter. Very soon now the president will tell us which benchmarks have been met and which have not been met.

The truth is that none have been met. Not a single one -- zero, zilch, nada. Nor are they likely to be any time soon.

The "surge" was intended to provide enough peace in Baghdad for the al-Maliki government to make progress on the benchmarks. The only thing the "surge" has done is reduced the number of bodies found on the streets of Baghdad every morning because the death squads no longer have completely free movement every night. So we're only finding 30 dead bodies every morning now instead of the usual 60 or 70. Unfortunately, the "surge" has done nothing to reduce deaths from car bombings. And violence outside Baghdad has increased dramatically since the "surge" began. Overall, there is now more violence in Iraq than before the "surge." All we managed to do with the "surge" was relocate the violence to other areas.

The oil revenue sharing bill is hopelessly deadlocked. Al-Maliki announced last week that they had arrived at an agreement on a bill to submit for a vote but he lied. It was only his guys who arrived at any agreement. He didn't even show the draft of the bill to the opposition. The Sadr Movement and the Iraqi Accord Front now say they will probably end their boycott just long enough to vote against al-Maliki's proposed oil revenue sharing bill. And the Iraqi Accord Front is threatening to call for a no-confidence vote to bring down the government.

So instead of progress, the only thing Bush will have to report is increased discord in Iraq. They haven't agreed on anything and they are further apart now than ever before.

The Iraqi "unity government" is a myth.

[Ninong]

Somebody robbed a bank in Baghdad today!

How much did they get?

How about $300 million in U.S. dollars plus a couple hundred million nearly worthless Iraqi dinars!

[Ninong]

Our Invincible Brilliant Commander at a press conference today:

"We'll do what the generals want, not what the people want."

We already know what the generals want, they were AGAINST the surge! He fired those generals and got some new generals who agreed with him. In fact, he was having such a hard time finding compliant 4-star generals that he went to the Navy for the new CENTCOM commander.

And when he tried to fill the new position of Iraq War Czar, or whatever the hell they're calling it, he was turned down by the first half dozen generals he approached.

Just keep repeating the same lies over and over again, Bushie. Twenty-six percent of the people believe you.


__________________________________________________ _____________

"If the President does it, that means it is not illegal." -- Richard M. Nixon to David Frost in 1977, three years after he was given a full pardon by Gerald Ford.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

July 15th is almost upon us!

That means that President Bush is about to release his report to Congress on the progress the Iraqi government has made in meeting the 18 benchmarks they are required to meet. Last January, Bush set out four benchmarks he wanted to see the Iraqi government achieve, as a sign of genuine progress in that country.

The benchmarks included 1) passing a petroleum investment law, 2) holding provincial elections, 3) revision of de-Baathification laws and 4) the holding of reconciliation talks between the al-Maliki government and the Sunni opposition.

Congress then expanded the benchmarks to 18 and included a provision requiring a report by the president by July 15, 2007 on the progress the Iraqi government has made in meeting those benchmarks. Certain benchmarks were required to be met in each quarter. Very soon now the president will tell us which benchmarks have been met and which have not been met.

The truth is that none have been met. Not a single one -- zero, zilch, nada. Nor are they likely to be any time soon.

The "surge" was intended to provide enough peace in Baghdad for the al-Maliki government to make progress on the benchmarks. The only thing the "surge" has done is reduced the number of bodies found on the streets of Baghdad every morning because the death squads no longer have completely free movement every night. So we're only finding 30 dead bodies every morning now instead of the usual 60 or 70. Unfortunately, the "surge" has done nothing to reduce deaths from car bombings. And violence outside Baghdad has increased dramatically since the "surge" began. Overall, there is now more violence in Iraq than before the "surge." All we managed to do with the "surge" was relocate the violence to other areas.

The oil revenue sharing bill is hopelessly deadlocked. Al-Maliki announced last week that they had arrived at an agreement on a bill to submit for a vote but he lied. It was only his guys who arrived at any agreement. He didn't even show the draft of the bill to the opposition. The Sadr Movement and the Iraqi Accord Front now say they will probably end their boycott just long enough to vote against al-Maliki's proposed oil revenue sharing bill. And the Iraqi Accord Front is threatening to call for a no-confidence vote to bring down the government.

So instead of progress, the only thing Bush will have to report is increased discord in Iraq. They haven't agreed on anything and they are further apart now than ever before.

The Iraqi "unity government" is a myth.

President Bush delivered his report yesterday. He admitted that the Iraqi government has failed to make any progress at all on any of the important benchmarks. He claimed some progress has been made on about half of the benchmarks but his claims were misleading and exaggerated. John Edwards said his comments bordered on the delusional. I'm afraid he crossed that border a long time ago.

President Bush explains how things are going in Iraq. It's a 30-second YouTube clip.

[Ninong]

Originally Posted by Ninong

Will Turkey invade northern Iraq?

The Iraqi foreign minister says that Turkey has amassed 140,000 troops on the border with Iraq. The Bush Administration says that's not true. So one of them is not telling the truth.

On Monday, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Turkish television that Turkey would take whatever steps were necessary if the United States fails to fulfill its pledge to help in the fight against Kurdish rebels, but he appeared reluctant to order an invasion before the elections.

"We are seeing with great grief that America remains quiet as Turkey struggles against terrorism. Because there were promises given to us, and they need to be kept. If not, we can take care of our own business," Erdogan said. "We hope there won't be an extraordinary situation before the election. But there'll be a new evaluation after the elections."

Note: The Turkish elections are on July 22.

P.S. -- Where is Condi Rice? Isn't she our Secretary of State? Is she out shopping for knee-high boots again when she should be taking care of business?

We have been "seeing with great grief" ever since George W. Bush took office in January 2001.

Turkey now has more than 200,000 troops on the border with Iraq

DIYARBAKIR, Turkey, July 13 (Reuters) - Turkey's army has boosted troop levels in the southeast to more than 200,000, most of them stationed along the border with Iraq, security sources told Reuters on Friday.

The unusually large-scale buildup, which includes tanks, heavy artillery and aircraft, is part of a security crackdown on Kurdish rebels hiding in southeast Turkey and northern Iraq, said the security sources, who declined to be named.

NATO member Turkey has refused to rule out a possible cross-border operation to crush Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) rebels, despite opposition from the United States and Iraq.

You can read the rest here.

P.S. -- The Turkish elections are July 22. They won't move until after the elections. We can't say we haven't been warned. Bushie will probably be clearing brush at the "ranch" in Crawford and Condi will probably be hitting the summer sales at Ferragamo and Gucci.

[Ninong]

Guess which country supplies most of the foreign fighters in Iraq?

Iran, right? Probably followed by Syria? And maybe even Argentina? Hugo Chavez is still pissed because Pat Robertson issued that fatwa against him.

Yeah, I'm sure it's Iran because Bushie keeps telling us about how many Iranians they capture coming across the border with sophisticated IEDs. OK, Bushie never uses the word sophisticated, except for that one time back in Austin when he really meant asphyxiated.

It must be Iran because that's all we hear about. Just like everybody knows that most of the 9/11 hijackers came from Iraq (41% still believe that) and, as Bushie keeps telling us over and over, the same people who attacked us on 9/11 are the ones who are fighting us in Iraq now.

No doubt about it, it must be Iran that supplies most of the foreign fighters in Iraq.

I wonder what Deputy Leader Dick was doing in Saudi Arabia?

Vice President Dick Cheney met with Saudi King Abdullah in May. An Iraqi lawmaker asserted that Cheney pressured the king to CURB THE FLOW OF SAUDI MILITANTS INTO IRAQ.

Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says.

BAGHDAD — Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.

The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.

The problem casts a spotlight on the tangled web of alliances and enmities that underlie the political relations between Muslim nations and the U.S.

You can read the full L.A. Times article here.

P.S. -- Of 19,000 "insurgents" held by the U.S. military in Iraq, only 135 are foreigners and half of those are Saudis. So less than 1% of the fighters in Iraq are foreigners.

That L.A. Times article quotes a senior U.S. military official as saying that "al-Qaida in Iraq and its affiliated groups number between 5,000 to 10,000." It is important to note that according to our own military intelligence, the current number of al-Qaida in Mesopotamia members is believed to be around 600, down from a high three years ago of 1,300. Membership in al-Qaida in Mesopotamia is made up of almost all local Iraqis who have adopted the name of al-Qaida (since October 2004). They are loosely affiliated with eight other Sunni jihadi groups that are fighting the coalition forces and the Shia-led government of Iraq.

Just remember that every time you hear the Bush Administration tell us that "an al-Qaida front group is believed responsible" for (fill in the blank) -- kidnapping our soldiers, ambushing our troops, blowing up the local mosque, etc. Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia gets credit for a lot of stuff that their 'affiliates' do. They're all against us but al-Qaida in Mesopotamia is not nearly as powerful as the Bush Administration wants us to believe and they are not even close to being the number one threat in Iraq. Even our own military leaders admit that. And lately we have been coming under a lot of attacks by the Iraqi army and Iraqi police -- shooting at our troops with the same weapons we provided them. (P.S. -- And let me add this little trivia bit in here: Remember the black brigadeer general who used to be the official military public relations guy in Baghdad? Well, they moved him to a division as deputy division commander. The new public relations guy in Baghdad is a general whose previous post was as a military assistant to President Bush in the White House. He's the dude who is now using "Al-Qaida" in every third sentence.)

Karl Rove's latest propaganda blitz involves the administration using the word "al-Qaida" in every other sentence. That's why Bushie keeps repeating over and over again that it's the same al-Qaida that attacked us on 9/11 that we are fighting in Iraq today. He keeps repeating the lie that al-Qaida is the major threat facing us in Iraq -- they're not. In fact, it's only recently that Bush has started claiming that al-Qaida is the biggest threat in Iraq. He used to say that they were the "smallest" element there.

[Ninong]

From the Washington Post:

President Bush says that he should be trusted on military issues because he listens to his commanders. But he has a tendency to celebrate his generals when they're providing him political cover -- then stick a knife in their backs when they're no longer of any use to him.

Last week, Bush rejected any blame for the chaos that ensued in Iraq after the March 2003 invasion. So whose fault was it? Bush pointed the finger at Gen. Tommy Franks, the Central Command chief at the time. "My primary question to General Franks was, do you have what it takes to succeed? And do you have what it takes to succeed after you succeed in removing Saddam Hussein? And his answer was, yes," Bush said.

That's the same Tommy Franks to whom Bush awarded a Medal of Freedom in 2004.

And when virtually all of Bush military line of command, including the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed his "surge" proposal late last year, Bush responded not by listening, but by removing the top two commanders responsible for Iraq and replacing them with more amenable leaders, including Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus.

First he told us we invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent danger to the security of the United States. For lagniappe, he threw in the false claim that Saddam Hussein was in league with Sammy bin Laden.

Then he told us that he would have invaded Iraq anyway even if he knew all along that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction because Saddam was a bad guy and deserved to be removed from power so that the Iraqis could experience the joys of freedom and democracy and show the rest of the Middle East just how great this democracy stuff really was.

Now he's telling us that the reason we're in Iraq is because Iraq is the front line of the war on terror and we're fighting the same people there who attacked us on 9/11. Al-Qaida in Mesopotamia didn't exist in Iraq until after we invaded and they didn't even take the name al-Qaida in Mesopotamia until October 2004. And they're not at all capable of following us home and blowing us up in our cities here. That's the job of al-Qaida in Waziristan, where Sammy bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are the honored guests of the Pakistani government. Well, maybe they're not so honored this week now that it appears they have called off their truce with Pervez Musharraf because they're pissed that he attacked the Red Mosque and wiped out a bunch of hardline Islamic fanatics. So right now al-Qaida and their buddies in the tribal areas of Waziristan are blowing up Pakistani troops right and left.

So Bushie now says we must stay in Iraq forever because if we leave, the Iraqi government will fall apart and the terrorists will take over. And he's leaving all the decisions up to his commanders, the same commanders who -- according to Bushie -- are to blame for screwing up everything from Day One. Oh, and guess what? Bushie now says that if anyone had polled him back in November 2006 and asked him if he was satisfied with his Iraq war policies, he would have told them, "No." He said he would have been "part of the 67% who disapproved of his Iraq war policies at that time." So I guess that means that the 33% who approved were really, really stupid people, even stupider than Bushie himself because he admits that he didn't believe any of those lies he was pushing back then about how much progress we were making in Iraq. That was all a bunch of lies. He just admitted as much. Not only that, he's calling all those people who supported his policies then a bunch of losers. He wasn't among those losers. No, siree. He knew better in spite of what he was telling us at the time.

So now we know that Bushie himself thought his Iraq war policies sucked at the same time he was telling us how great we were doing. And now that he has removed all of those generals who opposed his ideas for how to proceed, we should give the new commanders time to carry out "their" mission in Iraq. He is now relying on Gen. Petraeus to do the job that Gen. Petraeus has designed and he trusts Gen. Petraeus' ability to carry out Gen. Petraeus' plan. He sure hopes Gen. Petraeus' plan works because he's tired of all these generals screwing up things.

It's too bad Bushie had the misfortune to have all these incompentent generals who were incapable of carrying out the mission as designed by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. It's all Gen. Tommy Franks' fault now for not asking for the right number of troops. Gen. Franks originally requested 400,000 troops but he was beat down to around 150,000 by Donald Rumsfeld. It's now Gen. Franks' fault for allowing himself to be bullied by the Commander in Chief and the Secretary of Defense. And he better continue to keep his big m