"...Because of you [U.S. military] the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free..."

"...the [Iraqi] regime is no more..."

Rumsfeld for Bush (3/23/03)

"...The outcome is clear. The regime of Saddam Hussein is gone. It’s over."..."

Peter Slevin (Washington Post) - 5/14/03: 
"...The U.S. military commander in Iraq declared tonight that remnants of Saddam Hussein's defeated government, who he said are challenging the U.S. occupation, pose a greater threat to rebuilding the country than the persistent street violence that has plagued Baghdad [CG emphasis]. The commander, Army Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, said U.S. intelligence reports show loosely organized groups of Hussein loyalists, which he called "regime elements," have terrorized Iraqis, targeted U.S. troops and destroyed repairs made to Iraq's war-damaged infrastructure. The Baath Party diehards are "committed to a long fight that will complicate the mission of the coalition," he charged. McKiernan's warning, at a news conference in Baghdad, described for the first time a resistance to the five-week-old occupation. Iraqis have not publicly spoken of such groups, complaining instead of looting, robberies, carjackings and gunfire in the night, faulting U.S. forces for failing to stop the chaos..." 

Thomas Ricks (Washington Post) - 6/27/03:
"...The wave of more sophisticated attacks on U.S. troops and civilian occupation forces in Iraq is raising new worries among military experts that the 21-day war that ended in April was an incomplete victory that defeated Saddam Hussein's military but not his Baath political party. Neutralizing Baathist resistance is proving to be a more difficult job than the Pentagon calculated, and the continuing violence is becoming an embarrassment, one U.S. official in Baghdad said...Because the war was so narrowly focused on Hussein's government in Baghdad, a large part of the Iraqi population does not feel as if it was defeated, said retired Army Col. Scott R. Feil. "As I heard one Iraqi say, the Americans defeated Saddam, but not the Iraqi people, so the psychology of the loser is not present," he said. Wolfowitz agreed with that view, saying, "Almost because the regime failed so quickly, the major remnants of the regime were around."..."

"...I think we did get Saddam Hussein. He was seen being dug out of the rubble and wasn't able to breathe ..."

"...We have no information about the whereabouts of Saddam Hussein. We don't know if he is dead or if he is alive, but clearly he is no longer in control . . . Where he is as an individual I don't know, but it really doesn't make any difference any more ..."

The U.S. Government will offer monetary rewards of up to $25 million for information leading to the capture of Saddam Hussein, and $15 million for each of his sons. 
Coalition Provisional Authority
Press Release July 3, 2003

I have certainly not forgotten Saddam Hussein and his sons. They may or may not still be alive. Until we know for sure, their names will continue to cast a shadow of fear over this country. 
L. Paul Bremer Address to the Iraqi People
July 3, 2003..."

"...Q: Well, on the top list, you said must capture or otherwise deal with ...
Rumsfeld: I didn't say "must" to any of these. I said these are on our priority list.
Q: Must capture or otherwise deal with Saddam Hussein and his sons ...
Rumsfeld: No "musts." No "must."..."

"...I'm also pleased by the fact that that level of — those riots, or whatever you want to call them, released some steam, and now life is returning to normal. Things have settled down inside the country..."

Joshua Hammer and Colin Solloway (Newsweek) 5/26/03:
"...In the sweltering streets outside the gates, desperate Iraqis lined up for meager rations of gasoline, armed looters prowled the charred ruins of ministries and banks, and another power outage paralyzed the capital...When looting swept across the city after Saddam’s fall, both ORHA and the military were caught unawares. The Third Infantry Division, which has fewer than 20,000 troops to safeguard a city of 5 million, was overwhelmed...By one count, more than 240 people have been killed in Baghdad during the past three weeks, mostly by gunshots. The Army has still failed to provide security for vital utilities, including 39 electrical substations in Baghdad. (“I need money and security, and I’ve got neither,” an interim minister, Karim Hassan, told NEWSWEEK.) Garner, meanwhile, delayed setting up a civilian police force, and the Army brass often ignored his demands for improved coordination..."

Phil Reeves (The Independent) 5/16/03:
"...Statistics unpublished until today reveal the stark facts: 242 people have died in Baghdad in just over three weeks, almost all from bullet wounds. It is an epidemic, and it is getting worse...Battles between looters and score-settling from the Saddam years have taken hold, fuelled by a security vacuum that owes much to a decision by Donald Rumsfeld, the American Defence Secretary, to invade and occupy Iraq with minimum troop numbers – two divisions short, say well- informed sources within the Allies' reconstruction team. They are the by-product, too, of the failure of the Allies to coax the Baghdad police to return to work in sufficient numbers. Most of the Iraqi officers who have returned have yet to come out of their police stations. And homicide figures are going up. The 124 who died from bullet wounds in the past 10 days is a rise of 60 per cent on the previous 10-day period..."

Arianna Huffington:
"...Really? Just who is preparing his morning briefing papers? Pollyandy Card? Little Condoleezza Sunshine? Did he bother consulting any Iraqis about "normal life" there? Probably not. One of the keys to being a flourishing fanatic is to surround yourself with those of a shared -- and equally deluded -- mindset. And according to that mindset, the definition of "settling down" can be expanded to include rampant looting, sporadic water and electrical service, hospitals in disastrous condition, outbreaks of cholera and dysentery, streets filled with uncollected garbage and raw sewage, half a dozen ransacked nuclear facilities, missing barrels of radioactive material, growing anti-American sentiment, and disparate ethnic and religious groups arming themselves. No wonder Don Rumsfeld called the media's reporting of all this "an overstatement." It's just another "normal" weekend at Camp David..."

"...a wave of crime that Bush blamed on Saddam, who Bush said emptied jail cells of “common criminals” just before the war and left his people hungry and desperate.
       The criminals “haven’t changed their habits or their ways,” Bush said. “They like to rob, loot. ...We’ll find them.” ..."

MaxSpeak citing Rumsfeld from April 2003:
"It's untidy. And freedom's untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things."

"..."It's untidy, and freedom's untidy," he said, jabbing his hand in the air. "Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things." Mr Rumsfeld insisted that words such as anarchy and lawlessness were unrepresentative of the situation in Iraq and "absolutely" ill-chosen..."

(Also see Bush's comments in the previous row of this table about the riots having "released some steam")

Rajiv Chandrasekaran (Washington Post):
"Looters destroyed what war did not...AS EMPLOYEES RETURNED today to survey the damage at one of the world’s greatest repositories of artifacts, they encountered devastation that defied their worst expectations. The floor was covered with shards of broken pottery. An extensive card catalog of every item the museum owns, some of which date back 5,000 years, was destroyed. A cavernous storeroom housing thousands of unclassified pieces was ransacked so badly that an archaeologist predicted it would be impossible to repair many of the items...As throngs of angry and impoverished Iraqis sack government offices and private businesses, making away with everything from porcelain bathtubs and police uniforms to forklifts and ambulances, it has become increasingly clear that the looting that was sparked by the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government — largely unchecked by U.S. forces — has wreaked more damage on Iraq’s civilian infrastructure and economy than three weeks of U.S. bombing..."

"...Several times [Rumsfeld] has spoken of another country in "chaos and confusion" during a period characterized by "looting, crime, mobs storming buildings, breakdown of government structures and institutions that maintained civil order, rampant inflation caused by the lack of a stable currency, supporters of the former regime roaming the streets..."
This picture should seem familiar to Americans, he says, because it is based on "historians' descriptions of the conditions here in America in 1783."..."

"...we still have combat operations going on." Bush added: "It's a different kind of combat mission, but, nevertheless, it's combat, just ask the kids that are over there killing and being shot at."..."

WH website

"..."President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended."
-- Headline on the White House Web site over the same May 1 speech after Bush said in an Aug. 14 interview that "we still have combat operations going on.""

Dana Milbank (Washington Post):
"...Major revision:
"President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended."
-- Headline on the White House Web site over May 1 speech by Bush..."

Also see: Ben Fritz (Spinsanity)

White House website

"..."President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended."
-- Headline on the White House Web site over the... May 1 speech after Bush said in an Aug. 14 interview that "we still have combat operations going on.""

Dana Milbank (Washington Post):
"...Major revision:
"President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended."
-- Headline on the White House Web site over May 1 speech by Bush..."

Also see: Ben Fritz (Spinsanity)

Bush

"...The "Mission Accomplished" sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished. I know it was attributed some how to some ingenious advance man from my staff -- they weren't that ingenious, by the way..."

Jason Sherman and Chris Cavas (Army Times):
"...President George W. Bush’s staff played more of a role in the “Mission Accomplished” sign that hung on the carrier Abraham Lincoln than the president suggested yesterday in a Rose Garden press conference...
“I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff — they weren’t that ingenious, by the way,” [Bush] said. Turns out they may have been that ingenious.
Navy officials and the White House yesterday said that while the crew of the Lincoln came up with the banner’s message, the White House printed it...
The White House communications office, well known for the care it takes with the backdrops at Bush speeches, created the “Mission Accomplished” banner in the same style as banners the president uses in other appearances, including one just a week before the carrier appearance in Canton, Ohio. That banner, with the same soft, brush-stroked American flag in the background and the identical typeface, read: “Jobs and Growth.”..."

Daily Kos:
"...The White House thought it was a grand idea, and worked hard to incorporate it into its photo op. To blame the troops for it now is simply deplorable.
Meanwhile, Atrios emailed me the full Bush Qatar quote: 
I am happy to see you, an so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished.
So he claims he never said those words, and then pins the fault on the troops. What a classy guy..."

Elisabeth Bumiller (New York Times) via Joe Conason:
"...George W. Bush’s ‘‘Top Gun’’ landing on the deck of the carrier Abraham Lincoln will be remembered as one of the most audacious moments of presidential theater in U.S. history. But it was only the latest example of how the Bush administration, going far beyond the foundations of stagecraft set by the Reagan White House, is using the powers of television and technology to promote a presidency like never before...
The most elaborate — and criticized — White House event so far was Bush’s speech aboard the Abraham Lincoln announcing the end of major combat in Iraq. White House officials say that a variety of people, including the president, came up with the idea, and that Sforza embedded himself on the carrier to make preparations days before Bush landed in a flight suit and made his early-evening speech.
Media strategists noted afterward that Sforza and his aides had choreographed every aspect of the event, even down to the members of the Lincoln crew arrayed in coordinated colors over Bush’s right shoulder and the ‘‘Mission Accomplished’’ banner placed to capture the president and the celebratory two words in a single shot. The speech was specifically timed for what image-makers call ‘‘magic-hour light,’’ which cast a golden glow on Bush..."

Washington Post:
"...it's also impossible to agree with the banner that was draped near Mr. Bush on the carrier deck, proclaiming "Mission Accomplished." Aides say the slogan was chosen in part to mark a presidential turn toward domestic affairs as his campaign for reelection approaches..."

Eric Umansky (MSN/Slate):
"...NYT reporter Elisabeth Bumiller tries to get to the bottom of what she dubs "Bannergate." To review: President Bush asserted last week that the big "Mission Accomplished" banner that was behind him during his May 1 speech was "of course put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished." Soon after that, press secretary, Scott McClellan clarified that while the White House actually made the banner it "was suggested by those on the ship." Bumiller says she talked with a spokesman on the Lincoln who said some officers attended a meeting in which White House officials asked the officers if they needed any help. The spokesman—who said that Navy ships do occasionally put up such banners—recounted, "Somebody in that meeting said, `You know, it would sure look good if we could have a banner that said 'Mission Accomplished.' " And who was that person, Bumiller asked. The spokesman replied, "No one really remembers."..."

Also see: John Kerry Blog

Bush - 5/1/03

"...my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed..."

Compassiongate:
Some data from Lunaville Coalition Casualties as of 10/28/03 is even more enlightening.

Total U.S. casualties before "Mission Accomplished speech" = 139

Total U.S. casualties after "Mission Accomplished speech" to-date = 216

Bush 
(before the invasion)

"...Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security and for the people of Iraq..."

Joel Brinkley and Eric Schmitt (New York Times):
"...In the months before the Iraq invasion, Iraqi exile leaders trooped through the White House, the Pentagon and the State Department carrying a message about the future of their homeland: without a strong plan for managing Iraq after toppling Saddam Hussein, widespread looting and violence would erupt. 
"On many occasions, I told the Americans that from the very moment the regime fell, if an alternative government was not ready there would be a power vacuum and there would be chaos and looting," said Massoud Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and a longtime ally of the United States. "Given our history, it is very obvious this would occur."
Similar warnings came from international relief experts and from within the United States government. In 1999 the same military command that was preparing to attack Iraq conducted a detailed war game that found that toppling Mr. Hussein risked creating a major security void, said Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who headed the command...
The exiles were among the most energetic cheerleaders for the war, and critics of the Bush administration have accused some of them of skewing the facts in the process. But more than a dozen of the leaders who have returned to Iraq said in interviews here that they had also warned about the chaos that could follow..."

Eric Schmitt and Joel Brinkley (New York Times):
"...A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq, according to internal State Department documents and interviews with administration and Congressional officials.
Beginning in April 2002, the State Department project assembled more than 200 Iraqi lawyers, engineers, business people and other experts into 17 working groups to study topics ranging from creating a new justice system to reorganizing the military to revamping the economy.
Their findings included a much more dire assessment of Iraq's dilapidated electrical and water systems than many Pentagon officials assumed. They warned of a society so brutalized by Saddam Hussein's rule that many Iraqis might react coolly to Americans' notion of quickly rebuilding civil society...
"The period immediately after regime change might offer these criminals the opportunity to engage in acts of killing, plunder and looting," the report warned, urging American officials to "organize military patrols by coalition forces in all major cities to prevent lawlessness, especially against vital utilities and key government facilities."...
The group studying defense policy and institutions expected problems if the Iraqi Army was disbanded quickly — a step L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American civil administrator in Iraq, took. The working group recommended that jobs be found for demobilized troops to avoid having them turn against allied forces as some are believed to have done..."

Robert F. Worth (New York Times):
"...the latest reported victim in a wave of kidnappings, Iraqi officials say, by members of Saddam Hussein's security and intelligence services. The kidnappers are well armed and organized, and often use torture techniques similar to those used against political prisoners under the old government. The kidnappers seem to have access to information about the capital's wealthiest families and have been paid as much as $100,000 in ransom. 
American officials working with the Iraqi police say the vast majority of the kidnappings are not being reported, though, because the families either are too frightened or simply lack any faith in the new police force, which is still small and ill equipped. 
"This is happening all the time," said Adnan Shukur, as he sat with Martin and other relatives in the family's elegant living room. "They took him on the street, with people watching. We believe nothing will stop them from taking him away again." 
Only four kidnappings since the war have led to full-scale investigations in which the criminals were arrested or identified, said Nouman Shubbar, an Iraqi-born Philadelphia police sergeant who is advising the police. It is unclear whether others might have been reported without an adequate response by the police. 
Based on reports from victims, though, the number of kidnappings over the past three months appears to be at least 40 in Baghdad alone, said Emad Dhia, the director of the Iraq Reconstruction and Development Council, a group of former dissidents who provide intelligence to the United States military and the Iraqi police. In most cases, though not all, the kidnappers seem to have been members of Saddam Hussein's government, Mr. Dhia said..."

Center for American Progress:
"...With American casualties increasing and the Iraqi resistance becoming more organized and lethal, new questions are surfacing about whether the Bush Administration ever developed a post-war security plan or listened to warnings about the dangers of occupying Iraq. While Vice President Dick Cheney promised that American troops would be "greeted as liberators," the NYT reports, "American intelligence agencies have found increasing evidence that the broad outlines of the guerrilla campaign being waged against American forces in Iraq were laid down before the war by the Iraqi Intelligence Service." According to former British Ambassador to U.S. Christopher Meyer, Cheney himself was warned of this. As the UK Guardian reports, "British warnings that America was failing before the war to prepare properly for a crumbling security situation in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was ousted were ignored by Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon."..."

(being extremely compassionate)

"...Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there, and there they must be defeated...This will take time and require sacrifice." ..."

(being very very compassionate here)

Cheney for Bush

"...MR. RUSSERT: We have not been greeted as liberated.
       VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we have by most Iraqis. I think the majority of Iraqis are thankful for the fact that the United States is there, that we came and we took down the Saddam Hussein government. And I think if you go in vast areas of the country, the Shia in the south, which are about 60 percent of the population, 20-plus percent in the north, in the Kurdish areas, and in some of the Sunni areas, you’ll find that, for the most part, a majority of Iraqis support what we did..."

Rumsfeld for Bush

"...Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who once again today listed only "dead-enders, foreign terrorists and criminal gangs" as opponents of the American occupation..."

Joel Brinkley and Eric Schmitt (New York Times):
"...The fact that the administration embraced their encouragement to go to war but apparently discounted their warnings is an insight into the Pentagon's prewar planning.
"I told them, `Let there not be a political vacuum,' " said Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi author and college professor who said he had consulted with several senior administration officials and met twice with President Bush...
In the end, administration officials appeared to have formed their views by picking and choosing from the advice offered. Mr. Makiya cautioned about the political vacuum, but also told Mr. Bush that American troops entering Baghdad would be greeted with "sweets and flowers."
In a speech just days before the war began, Vice President Dick Cheney said American troops would "be greeted as liberators."
The dangers of the political vacuum were real, Mr. Makiya said. As for the sweets and flowers message, he now says, "I admit I was wrong."..."

Eric Schmitt (New York Times):
"...Mr. Bremer acknowledged what American intelligence reports have been warning for weeks: that ordinary Iraqis are growing increasingly resentful of the American-led mission.
"The reality of foreign troops on the streets is starting to chafe," Mr. Bremer told the Senate panel. "Some Iraqis are beginning to regard us as occupiers and not as liberators."..."

Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger (New York Times):
"...New intelligence assessments are warning that the United States' most formidable foe in Iraq in the months ahead may be the resentment of ordinary Iraqis increasingly hostile to the American military occupation, Defense Department officials said today.
That picture, shared with American military commanders in Iraq, is very different from the public view currently being presented by senior Bush administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who once again today listed only "dead-enders, foreign terrorists and criminal gangs" as opponents of the American occupation.
The defense officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were concerned about retribution for straying from the official line. They said it was a mistake for the administration to discount the role of ordinary Iraqis who have little in common with the groups Mr. Rumsfeld cited, but whose anger over the American presence appears to be kindling some sympathy for those attacking American forces.
Other United States government officials said some of the concerns had been prompted by recent polling in Iraq by the State Department's intelligence branch. The findings, which remain classified, include significant levels of hostility to the American presence. The officials said indications of that hostility extended well beyond the Sunni heartland of Iraq, which has been the main setting for attacks on American forces, to include the Shiite-dominated south, whose citizens have been more supportive of the American military presence but have also protested loudly about raids and other American actions.
As reasons for Iraqi hostility, the defense officials cited not just disaffection over a lack of electricity and other essential services in the months since the war, but cultural factors that magnify anger about the foreign military presence.
"To a lot of Iraqis, we're no longer the guys who threw out Saddam, but the ones who are busting down doors and barging in on their wives and daughters," one defense official said..."

Sanchez for Bush

"...I still firmly believe that there is no popular support..." (for the attackers)

"...said that it was "simply naïve" to believe that Iraq today was more of a haven for terrorists than it was before Saddam Hussein was ousted from power.
"There is almost a sense that they were sitting someplace minding their own business — drinking tea, having meetings" and then decided to come to Iraq only after the American military rolled into Baghdad..."

Bradley Graham (Washington Post):
"...The top U.S. military commander for the Persian Gulf region said yesterday that terrorism is becoming the "number one security threat" in Iraq, with foreign fighters entering the country through Syria and a revived group called Ansar al-Islam now firmly established in Baghdad. The remarks by Army Gen. John Abizaid, the head of the U.S. Central Command, added to a growing chorus by senior Bush administration officials who have begun to depict postwar Iraq as a magnet for terrorists bent on attacking the United States

Paul Wolfowitz (Wall Street Journal):
"...When I met recently with their commander, Maj. General Jim Mattis in Hillah, he said that the two groups who fought most aggressively during the major combat operations were the Fedayeen Saddam -- homegrown thugs with a cult-like attachment to Saddam -- and foreign fighters, principally from other Arab countries. The exit card found in the passport of one of these foreigners even stated that the purpose of his "visit" to Iraq was to "volunteer for jihad."
We face that poisonous mixture of former regime loyalists and foreign fighters today..."

William S. Lind (via Counterpunch):
"...Prior to and during the first phase of the war with Iraq, some of us warned that overthrowing Saddam would turn Mesopotamia into a happy hunting ground for non-state, Fourth Generation forces, aka "terrorists." According to America's viceroy in Baghdad, Mr. Paul Bremer, we were right. In the Cleveland Plain Dealer of August 24, Mr. Bremer, referring to the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, said, "We are constantly working to refine and upgrade our intelligence capability, particularly in light of the terrorist threat in Iraq. Iraq has become a new field of battle in this worldwide terrorism fight."
The key word in that quotation is "new." As Mr. Bremer seems to recognize, Iraq was not a place that welcomed terrorists when old Saddam was in power. Dictators seldom offer warm hospitality to elements whose goal is the destruction of states. Bush Administration statements that Saddam was working with al Qaeda turned out to be nonsense. Now, however, thanks to the fact that America destroyed the Iraqi state, Mesopotamia is acting as a magnet to Islamic non-state fighters of every stripe. We opened Iraq's door to all our worst enemies..."

"...Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Rumsfeld dismissed suggestions that 146,000 U.S. troops in Iraq are engaged in a guerrilla war or bogged down in a Vietnam-like "quagmire."
"That doesn't make it anything like a guerrilla war or an organized resistance," Rumsfeld said. "It makes it like five different things going on [in which the groups] are functioning more like terrorists."..."

"...I guess the reason I don't use the phrase "guerrilla war" is because there isn't one, and it would be a misunderstanding and a miscommunication to you and to the people of the country and the world..."

Billmon (Whiskey Bar):
"...Update 7/1: 
"The war has moved into a disturbing new phase, a guerrilla, counter-insurgency phase. We need to adapt," said retired Army Gen. Dan Christman, a former Pentagon planner.
TRANSLATION: The Secretary of Defense is a lying sack of shit. 
[CG note: No, no, no! Compassionate he is!]

Retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, who commanded the 24th Infantry Division during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, called the Iraqi opposition to U.S. forces "an organizing guerrilla war in which right now we still lack a useful tactical intelligence system. We can't begin to deal with this problem until we put huge resources into building Iraqi police forces and infantry battalions."
TRANSLATION: The Secretary of Defense is a lying sack of shit 
[CG note: No, no, no! Compassionate he is!]..."

(responding to series of bombings in Iraq on 10/26/03)

"...The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react...The more progress we make on the ground, the more free the Iraqis become, the more electricity is available, the more jobs are available, the more kids that are going to school, the more desperate these killers become, because they can't stand the thought of a free society." ..."

Compassiongate:
If this is progress, then what is a sign of fantastic progress? A massive attack on a massive scale that kills a lot more Americans and innocent civilians? (But I thought that is why you went to Iraq to fight in the first place...hmmm....compassionate conservatism, compassionate conservatism).
Not to mention the fact that a massive crime wave in the United States would not exactly be considered a sign that people are doing well. 

Phil Carter (via Calpundit):
"...Today's attacks come on the heels of a coordinated rocket attack on the Al Rasheed hotel where Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was staying. An American Army colonel was killed in that attack, though Mr. Wolfowitz escaped unscathed. As the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) reports, this attack represents an evolution from the previous six months of guerilla attacks, both in terms of its sophistication and the level of the risk the attackers took to get so close to a high-value target.
The attack on the U.S.-run Al Rasheed hotel, which sits in a vast "green zone" of Baghdad that is off-limits to ordinary Iraqis, marks a shift in the guerrillas' tactics. Rather than just hit-and-run ambushes, they are using more standoff weapons such as mortars, rockets and remote-controlled explosive devices that allow resistance fighters to strike without being hit in return.
Until recently, these rocket and mortar attacks -- including one on Al Rasheed in September -- usually failed to hit their targets. But, in the past few days, the guerrillas managed to inflict dozens of casualties, several of them fatal, by shelling U.S. bases in the cities of Samarra, Baquba and Balad, and by hitting a power station in Baghdad.
This ability to hit even the most protected U.S. targets raises new questions about how the American-led coalition can pacify Iraq. There are now as many as 35 anticoalition attacks a day, most in Baghdad and Sunni areas to its west and the north. In addition, guerrillas regularly kill Iraqis who help the coalition -- including the chief of police in the southern Amarah province, who was gunned down this past weekend.
...These two attacks are markedly more sophisticated than the hit-and-run guerilla tactics used thus far. Here's how:
- The attacks today were time-coordinated so that they would happen with near simultaneity. That's a significant tactical evolution because a) it's tough to do, and b) it means they're sophisticated enough to know that simultaneous attacks work because your enemy doesn't have time to raise his guard after the first attack...
- The attacks today employed suicide bombers, something not frequently seen in Iraq. Part of this owes to the lack of religious fervor on the part of the Iraqi insurgents -- they simply don't believe in their cause the way that Palestinian insurgents do. But with the exception of some Fedayeen attacks during the war, we have not seen suicide bombings en masse in Iraq. That trend may be changing.
- Today's attacks also were precisely targeted at "soft" symbolic targets of the continuing U.S. occupation. Rather than attack the CPA headquarters itself or other hard targets, they chose to attack the softer Red Cross and Iraqi police stations. These sites have a lot of symbolic value, because of the role that each organization plays in post-war Iraq. I think this is a pretty sophisticated targeting decision.
The trend is clear: We are seeing the outbreak of a truly 4th Generation War in Iraq, which pits American-led forces against a loose-knit network of guerillas with increasingly sophisticated tactics, techniques and procedures..."

Dana Milbank and Thomas E. Ricks (Washington Post):
"...Powell expressed concern that contractors, aid groups and the United Nations will withdraw in significant numbers. "Their work is needed," he said. "And if they are driven out, then the terrorists win." As the Red Cross assessed its future, Doctors Without Borders said it would reduce its presence in Baghdad. .."

"...The administration continues to insist that "in Iraq, we took another essential step in the war on terror" (Vice President Cheney), that "military and rehabilitation efforts now under way in Iraq are an essential part of the war on terror" (Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz), that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a "terror regime" and that the ongoing war there today must be understood as part of the war on terror (President Bush). ..."

"...There is an understandable tendency to look back on America's experience in postwar Germany and see only the successes," she told the Veterans of Foreign Wars in San Antonio, Texas, on Aug. 25. "But as some of you here today surely remember, the road we traveled was very difficult. 1945 through 1947 was an especially challenging period. Germany was not immediately stable or prosperous. SS officers—called 'werewolves'—engaged in sabotage and attacked both coalition forces and those locals cooperating with them—much like today's Baathist and Fedayeen remnants." ..."

Rumsfeld for Bush

"...One group of those dead-enders was known as "werewolves." They and other Nazi regime remnants targeted Allied soldiers, and they targeted Germans who cooperated with the Allied forces. Mayors were assassinated including the American-appointed mayor of Aachen, the first major German city to be liberated. Children as young as 10 were used as snipers, radio broadcasts, and leaflets warned Germans not to collaborate with the Allies. They plotted sabotage of factories, power plants, rail lines. They blew up police stations and government buildings, and they destroyed stocks of art and antiques that were stored by the Berlin Museum. Does this sound familiar?..."

Matt Bivens (The Nation):
"...Rumsfeld is right, the mayor of Aachen was indeed murdered -- two months before the Nazis surrendered and the US occupation began. That murder, according to the US Army's official history of the war, was "probably the [werewolves'] most sensational achievement." Another standard World War II encyclopedia says: "The Werewolves existed more in fiction than in fact, being primarily the fictional creation of ... [Joseph] Goebbels."..."

Rumsfeld for Bush
(Aug 2003)

"...Now was—did we—was it possible to anticipate that the battles would take place south of Baghdad and that then there would be a collapse up north, and there would be very little killing and capturing of those folks, because they blended into the countryside [italics Chatterbox's] and they're still fighting their war?..."

Wolfowitz for Bush

"...it was difficult to imagine before the war that the criminal gang of sadists and gangsters who have run Iraq for 35 years would continue fighting, fighting what has been called a guerrilla war..."

Timothy Noah (MSN/Slate):
"..."The dilemma that the country is facing right now, Afghanistan, is what should they do about their security situation. They have got Taliban and al Qaeda milling around, that have blended into the countryside [italics Chatterbox's], into the villages, across the borders and are ready to come back in in the event they feel they have the opportunity."
—Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a town hall meeting at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, Feb. 20, 2002..."

Kamal Ahmad (The Observer):
"...British warnings that America was failing before the war to prepare properly for a crumbling security situation in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was ousted were ignored by Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon.
In some of the first direct evidence of serious divisions between the key allies in the run-up to the conflict, the former British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer, said the US had failed to focus on what might happen after Saddam had been overthrown...
In an interview with The Observer, Meyer, who was ambassador just before the war began, said there were a series of meetings between British and American officials between the signing of the United Nations Resolution 1441 last November and the start of the war in March.
The British regularly raised their concerns about how much planning was going on to secure the country after Saddam, but the issue was largely ignored..."

Sidney Blumenthal (Salon.com):
"...According to the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, the administration is required to submit to Congress reports of postwar planning every 60 days. One such report -- previously undisclosed but revealed here -- bears Bush's signature and is dated April 14. It declares: "We are especially concerned that the remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime will continue to use Iraqi civilian populations as a shield for its regular and irregular combat forces or may attack the Iraqi population in an effort to undermine Coalition goals." Moreover, the report goes on: "Coalition planners have prepared for these contingencies, and have designed the military campaign to minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure."
Yet on Aug. 25, as the violence in postwar Iraq flared, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that this possibility was not foreseen: "Now was -- did we -- was it possible to anticipate that the battles would take place south of Baghdad and that then there would be a collapse up north, and there would be very little killing and capturing of those folks, because they blended into the countryside and they're still fighting their war?" "We read their reports," a Senate source told me. "Too bad they don't read their own reports."..."

Eric Schmitt and Joel Brinkley (New York Times):
"...A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq, according to internal State Department documents and interviews with administration and Congressional officials.
Beginning in April 2002, the State Department project assembled more than 200 Iraqi lawyers, engineers, business people and other experts into 17 working groups to study topics ranging from creating a new justice system to reorganizing the military to revamping the economy.
Their findings included a much more dire assessment of Iraq's dilapidated electrical and water systems than many Pentagon officials assumed. They warned of a society so brutalized by Saddam Hussein's rule that many Iraqis might react coolly to Americans' notion of quickly rebuilding civil society...
"The period immediately after regime change might offer these criminals the opportunity to engage in acts of killing, plunder and looting," the report warned, urging American officials to "organize military patrols by coalition forces in all major cities to prevent lawlessness, especially against vital utilities and key government facilities."...
The group studying defense policy and institutions expected problems if the Iraqi Army was disbanded quickly — a step L. Paul Bremer III, the chief American civil administrator in Iraq, took. The working group recommended that jobs be found for demobilized troops to avoid having them turn against allied forces as some are believed to have done..."

"...There are some who feel like -- that the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring them on. We've got the force necessary to deal with the security situation..."

Bush

"..."Anybody who wants to help, we'll welcome the help," Bush said. "But we've got plenty tough force there right now to make sure the situation is secure."..."

Seattle Times:
"...Amid growing indications that some of the attacks against U.S. soldiers in Iraq are organized and coordinated, the chief civilian administrator and Army officers on the ground would like an increase of as many as 50,000 troops in the theater, according to knowledgeable sources.
A plea by U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer for the additional troops was discussed at a national-security council meeting several days ago. The White House has indicated it would be reluctant to agree to such a large increase, the equivalent of more than two divisions, the sources said.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was reviewing the request from Bremer, U.S. officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
A source outside the administration but familiar with the deliberations said, "The White House is aware that Bremer wants them," he said. "They're not happy about it. They don't want a formal request because then, politically, there's fallout."
Another source, who was briefed by senior Army officers, said that Bremer and Army generals inside Iraq would like to reinforce the 146,000 U.S. troops inside Iraq with an additional 50,000.
The issue of troop strength to stabilize a postwar Iraq is a sensitive one.
In February, then-Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki was publicly ridiculed by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key architect of the Iraq policy, for telling Congress that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed to guarantee stability.
President Bush, meanwhile, began preparing the American public yesterday for a prolonged U.S. role in Iraq, citing the need for "a massive and long-term" effort to bring democracy and prosperity to the war-torn country..."

Wolfowitz for Bush
(before the invasion)

"...It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army," Wolfowitz told the House Budget Committee on Feb. 27. "Hard to imagine." ..." (this was to rebut Gen. Shinseki's estimate of troops required)

Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek):
"...Had the administration been more willing to learn from the past, it would have noted that the United States was involved in several postwar operations during the 1990s. Lesson No. 1 was: have sufficient forces. In Somalia and Haiti, the United States placed too few forces on the ground. The result: it failed. In Bosnia and Kosovo it deployed a large force, which was able to intimidate all potential opposition. As a result, in those two places Coalition forces have suffered zero combat casualties in many years of operation. The Powell Doctrine may not be necessary for war, but it seems to help in keeping the peace. 
To match the number of soldiers per inhabitant as we have in Kosovo, we would need 526,000 in Iraq. To match Bosnia we would need 258,000. Right now there are about 150,000 troops in Iraq. The United States Army does not have extra troops to spare. In fact it is currently spread dangerously thin. Ninety percent of all U.S. military police, for example, are on active duty: 12,000 are in Iraq; most of the rest are in South Korea or Europe. There are no more MPs to call on. 
The shortage is not simply of military personnel. Iraq’s administrator Paul Bremer is an able man who has made several smart choices since he has taken charge. He is, however, understaffed and underfunded. The Coalition Provisional Authority has about 1,000 people working for it. Douglas MacArthur had five times the number when he was nation-building in Japan. Perhaps as urgently as it needs troops, Iraq needs diplomats, political advisers, engineers, agronomists, economists, educators and lawyers. Without deploying this other army the occupation cannot succeed..."

"...much of what I read on this subject suggests a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of the security problem in Iraq, and in particular, a failure to appreciate that a regime which had tens of thousands of thugs and war criminals on its payroll does not disappear overnight..."

Wolfowitz for Bush

"...don't know what people expected, that suddenly this regime which is responsible for killing a million Muslims, that for 35 years abused and tortured and raped the Iraqi people, would disappear and suddenly everything would be fine overnight? We're what, four or five months into it? People who have been in Kosovo and Bosnia, which was a picnic compared to Iraq, who say that Iraq is already way ahead." [Emphasis added.]..."

Council for a Livable World:
"...Wolfowitz, in a November 17, 2002 interview with the Philadelphia Inquirer, suggested: "If you're looking for a historical analogy, it's probably closer to post-liberation France [after World War II]."..."

&c. The New Republic:
"..."[S]ome of the higher-end predictions that we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark. First, it's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army. Hard to imagine. Second, in making predictions one should at least pay attention to past experience. And in the case of Iraq we have some recent experience to look to. The northern third of Iraq has been liberated from Saddam Hussein's grasp since Operation Provide Comfort, which we undertook just one month after the cease-fire in the Persian Gulf War in 1991...
"After that operation we withdrew our ground forces from northern Iraq completely in the fall of 1991, and in the 12 years since then we have not had any forces--I emphasize any forces--on the ground there. And yet the northern third of Iraq has remained reasonably stable, even though, sadly, it is subjected to the same economic sanctions that have been applied to the rest of the country...
"There are other differences that suggest that peacekeeping requirements in Iraq might be much lower than historical experience in the Balkans suggests."
--Wolfowitz, in testimony to the House Budget Committee, February 27, 2003..."

"...''Things have gotten so bad inside Iraq . . . we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators..."

See Salon.com for more such quotes

Barbara Slavin and Dave Moniz (USA Today):
"...Baghdad fell 21 days after the initial assaults, and military analysts describe the campaign as historic, even brilliant.
But so far, the verdict on the aftermath of that campaign is much harsher. More than three months after Baghdad fell, American soldiers are not being treated like liberators. Instead, they face a guerrilla war, according to Gen. John Abizaid, the commander of U.S. forces in the region. Shadowy forces prey on U.S. troops, sabotage the nation's electric grid and other vital infrastructure, and spread fear among average Iraqis that Saddam Hussein is coming back.
Administration officials say the violence will eventually subside. But as of mid-July, even the top U.S. official in Iraq was offering no clear forecast for when. ''We need to be patient,'' Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator for Iraq, told Meet the Press on Sunday. Though expressing confidence that resistance could be overcome, he conceded that ''we are going to be there for a while. I don't know how many years.''..."

Center for American Progress:
"...With American casualties increasing and the Iraqi resistance becoming more organized and lethal, new questions are surfacing about whether the Bush Administration ever developed a post-war security plan or listened to warnings about the dangers of occupying Iraq. While Vice President Dick Cheney promised that American troops would be "greeted as liberators," the NYT reports, "American intelligence agencies have found increasing evidence that the broad outlines of the guerrilla campaign being waged against American forces in Iraq were laid down before the war by the Iraqi Intelligence Service." According to former British Ambassador to U.S. Christopher Meyer, Cheney himself was warned of this. As the UK Guardian reports, "British warnings that America was failing before the war to prepare properly for a crumbling security situation in Iraq after Saddam Hussein was ousted were ignored by Vice President Dick Cheney and the Pentagon."..."

"...In a speech Oct. 10 at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif., Rumsfeld said that of 1,700 coalition patrols per day, only about one-tenth of 1% encounter violence..."

CNN 10/22/03:
"..."I think clearly the number of wounded, also the number of engagements over the past three weeks, have been a little bit higher than we've seen before," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said.
"We've seen an average number of [daily] engagements between 20 and 25. We've seen a spike up to 35 in [the] last three weeks."
That's up from an average of between 15 and 20, Sanchez said..."

Compassiongate: 35 = roughly 2% (uncompassionate unfuzzy math)

"...I like to remind people that a free Iraq will no longer serve as a haven for terrorists or as a place for terrorists to get money or arms ..."

Iraq is turning out to be a continuing battle in the war on terrorism. 
George W. Bush Press Remarks
August 22, 2003 ..."

John Diamond (USA Today) - 10/26/03:
"...Iraqi guerrillas have an abundant supply of small arms and explosives that could allow them to maintain their pace of attacks indefinitely, Pentagon and U.S. Central Command intelligence analysts have concluded...
Iraq's armed forces disbanded and melted into the countryside in late April during the final stages of the U.S.-led effort to topple Saddam Hussein's regime by force. The Iraqi soldiers took their weapons home with them. Coalition forces took note of an ominous sign at the end of the fighting: hundreds of disabled Iraqi military vehicles along roads and in fields, stripped of any ammunition.
The discovery of thousands of arms caches — not only at military bases, but also in schools, mosques, hospitals and homes — indicates to U.S. commanders that there remain thousands more undiscovered caches accessible to guerrillas.
Coalition commanders have various estimates for how much is stored in those caches. Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez cited an estimate of 650,000 tons, an enormous figure equal to about a third of the U.S. military's vast ammunition stockpile. Brig. Gen. Robert Davis, the officer in charge of a program to collect and destroy Iraqi weapons stocks, said the figure could be closer to 1 million tons...[CG emphasis]
"We don't have any notion at this point where all of these sites are," Sanchez told reporters in Baghdad last week. "We're still finding ammunition in backyards. Every day we're finding it."
Central Command, the military headquarters responsible for U.S. operations in Iraq, has been under pressure from Capitol Hill to explain why it has not secured all of the conventional weapons caches found since major combat was declared over May 1.
"There are so many different places where the forces on the ground have discovered weapons caches, and to dedicate soldiers to guard them before they are confiscated or destroyed is simply impossible," said a Central Command spokesman, Sgt. Danny Martin.
The problem facing U.S. and allied soldiers stems not from weapons snatched by guerrillas from under the noses of coalition guards but rather from weapons the guerrillas already had when the main fighting ended six months ago...
The combination of readily available small arms and explosives with tactics that require relatively little use of ammunition indicates that Iraqi forces will be able to sustain their ambush-style attacks indefinitely, these two intelligence officials said [CG emphasis]..."

"...the coalition forces can deal with the terrorists now in Iraq, instead of having to deal with those terrorists elsewhere, including the United States..."

Bush

"...said that fighting terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere means "our people will not have to confront terrorist violence in New York, or St. Louis, or Los Angeles."..."

Bush

"...We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities..."

Bad Attitudes:
"...Presumably he was using the royal “we.” Certainly he was not speaking for the millions of us who have learned no such thing, for the excellent reason that the evidence of history runs all to the contrary.
Is it the perception of weakness that invites suicide bombers to attack Israel? Has Israel avoided such attacks by engaging the enemy in Palestine and Lebanon? Did England avoid them by engaging the enemy in Ireland? Is Russia avoiding them by engaging the enemy in Chechnya?
What Bush imagines he has learned is preposterous. If his teachers believe it they are fools; if not they are liars of the most dangerous sort..."

James Pinkerton (Newsday):
"...Of all the rationales for the Iraq War, this one might have the most staying power, because it can be used, indefinitely, to justify our continuing casualties. That is, the more Americans fight in Iraq, the more that fighting can be taken as "proof" that such violence pre-empted, in effect, violence in the United States. It's an infinitely looping figure-eight of logic: The more we are attacked in Iraq, the better off we are at home. So bring 'em on.
This argument is dubious, however, for three reasons.
First, terrorism isn't fungible. As a practical matter, it is easier for, say, a Saudi Arabian to cross the border into Iraq than it is for him to get to the United States. Like crime, terrorism is a function of motive plus means; that is, plenty of crime is derailed or deterred by the impregnability or inaccessibility of the target.
Second, the "flypaper" argument was refuted by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz less than four months ago. In an interview for the June issue of Vanity Fair, the Pentagon man said that one benefit of Operation Iraqi Freedom "has gone almost unnoticed." And what was that? "By complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia." And why was that good, to remove the Americans? Because, Wolfowitz continued, "Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al-Qaida."
In other words, according to an interview transcript on May 9, the "flypaper" argument had yet to fly. Wolfowitz's point was that we had done ourselves a favor by taking over Iraq, so that we could withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia where they were, according to Wolfowitz, not only attracting flies, but actually generating flies. As he said, the American presence was causing the number of al-Qaida recruits to swell.
Which brings us to the third flaw in the flypaper argument. As Wolfowitz argued, the number of terrorists isn't eternally fixed and predetermined; terrorism is, in part, a function of circumstance - and thus the argument that it was good to leave Saudi Arabia. That was Wolfowitz's thinking in May, when he argued that it was good to leave Saudi Arabia.
So how about Iraq? Are we not hatching more flies there? By putting American men and women - great fighters, but ill-trained for post-war "nation-building" and illiterate in local language and customs - into a country of 24 million, we have, in effect, spawned an unknown number of new enemies who might otherwise have never done anything more dangerous than shake their fist at a TV screen.
In fact, throughout history, invasions have had a way of rousing otherwise dormant opposition..."

Daniel Drezner:
"...The thing is, I don't buy it. In terms of the broader neocon vision of transforming the Middle East, Iraq needs to be an oasis of stability, not a grand opening for Terrorists 'R Us...
There's also this little nugget of information contained within today's Los Angeles Times story regarding the U.S. decision to seek another U.N. Security Council resolution in Iraq...  
Washington also hopes the resolution will call on Iraq's neighbors, particularly Iran and Syria, to block the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, according to diplomats in Washington. The influx of foreign forces has become a leading U.S. security concern. (emphasis added)
If the flypaper hypothesis is correct, then why would the administration be so concerned about border protection?..."

"...said if Washington's enemies believed Bush might waver or his opponents prevail, that could increase support for their activities.
"They take heart in that and that leads to more money going into these activities or that leads to more recruits or that leads to more encouragement or that leads to more staying power," he told reporters traveling with him on his plane.
"Obviously that does make our task more difficult."..."

MediaWhoresOnline:
"...But wait! Wouldn't that be a good thing?  That is, if it weren't utter nonsense?
Wouldn't that mean that more evildoers would be drawn to the flypaper "magnet," and could be eliminated "in the streets of Baghdad instead of Boston"?  Wouldn't that mean the ultimate act of patriotism is undermining Bush's credibility at home?
The regime doesn't seem able to keep its lies and propaganda straight..."

"...We're rolling back the terrorist threat, not on the fringes of its influence but at the heart of its power..."

Compassiongate: Not to mention that terrorism within Iraq was created because of the invasion.

MWO:
"...
Baghdad Bombings Kill About 40, Hurt 200
...Baghdad Thrown into Shock and Bloody Chaos 
Red Cross Weighs Withdrawal After Baghdad Attack 
U.S. Quits Fortified Hotel in Baghdad..."

"...A new Iraqi police force protects the people, instead of bullying them. Schools are open, with textbooks free of propaganda..."

Nicholas Blanford (Christian Science Monitor):
"...Iraq's lightly armed and ill-equipped police force represent easy pickings for the guerrillas operating in the so-called Sunni Triangle, the volatile sector north and west of Baghdad that is witnessing the bulk of violence against American troops and their Iraqi allies. 
Still reeling from the loss of their colleagues and friends last weekend, many policemen in Baquba say they continue to feel vulnerable and fear further bomb attacks...
Despite indications of progress, the police have yet to win the active support of the local population. That's hardly surprising, perhaps, given the sentiments expressed in the spray-painted graffiti covering walls and road signs throughout Baquba...
The lack of basic policing equipment, especially protective measures, also saps morale..."

Christina Asquith (Christian Science Monitor):
"...with the ouster of former President Saddam Hussein, US officials say teachers will finally be free to teach a more factual account of historical events. But the question is: Whose account will that be?
The first indicator of what a Saddam-free education will look like is arriving this month, as millions of newly revised textbooks roll off the printing presses to be distributed to Iraq's 5.5 million schoolchildren in 16,000 schools. All 563 texts were heavily edited and revised over the summer by a team of US-appointed Iraqi educators. Every image of Saddam and the Baath Party has been removed.
But so has much more - including most of modern history. Pressured for time, and hoping to avoid political controversy, the Ministry of Education under the US-led coalition government removed any content considered "controversial," including the 1991 Gulf War; the Iran-Iraq war; and all references to Israelis, Americans, or Kurds.
"Entire swaths of 20th-century history have been deleted," says Bill Evers, a US Defense Department employee, and one of three American advisers to the Ministry of Education.
The new downsized versions of textbooks underscore the political challenge facing the primarily US-backed government, and the private, and nonprofit groups charged with everything from rebuilding schools to retraining teachers to rewriting text. While US advisers don't want to be seen as heavy-handed in influencing the way Iraqis interpret history, neither do they want to be in the position of endorsing texts that could be anti-American, anti-Israeli, or radically religious.
As a result, some charge, in a matter of months Iraqi education has gone from one-sided to 'no-sided.'
"We considered anything anti-American to be propaganda and we took it out," says Fuad Hussein, the Iraqi in charge of curriculum for the Ministry of Education. "In some cases, we had to remove entire chapters."..."

"...we're staying..."

Rumsfeld for Bush

"...The goal is not to reduce the number of U.S. forces in Iraq . It's not to develop an exit strategy..."

"...Well, I think everyone's concerned about security in Iraq.  One of the terrible things that's happening is that the terrorists are killing innocent men, women and children, and they're overwhelmingly Iraqis...It is a situation that is really quite stable in the north and quite stable in the west and the south. And there's an area in the Baghdad area in the central area and north, in a triangle up towards Tikrit, where, I don't know, maybe 90 percent of all the incidents occur...And if our forces -- I talked this morning with General Abizaid and General Sanchez.  They have been aggressively conducting patrols and raid...And they feel that the problem is in control..."

"...Foreign terrorists are trying to create conditions of fear [in Iraq]..."

"..."There's a sense that people in America aren't getting the truth," Bush said to a reporter for Hearst-Argyle Television, one of five back-to-back White House interviews he granted to regional broadcasters. "I'm mindful of the filter through which some news travels, and sometimes you have to go over the heads of the filter and speak directly to the people."..."

Bush

"...We're making good progress in Iraq," he said. "Sometimes it's hard to tell it when you listen to the filter..."
"...We're making great progress -- I don't care what you read about..."

Bartlett for Bush

"..."We believe local media and regional broadcasters are more interested in letting viewers or readers see or hear what the president has to say," said Dan Bartlett, White House communications director. "It's less analytical and more reporting."..."

Bremer for Bush

"...Bremer said there's lots of good news in Iraq, and "life is basically quite normal here."..."

Calpundit:
"...Presumably the Bush administration does have some idea of how things are going in Iraq, so how have they reacted to events?

• Before the war they expected to draw down troop levels to around 30,000 by now. This hasn't happened, so obviously events on the ground have turned out to be a lot worse than they originally expected. 

• In fact, as I mentioned last month, we've seen the following actions recently: (a) keeping the 3rd ID in country after scheduling them to return, (b) rotating officers and senior NCOs out of their units, (c) extending the tours of regular troops, and (d) extending the tours of reservists. Now apparently leaves are being shortened. These are risky moves, and the Army wouldn't be making them unless the reality on the ground continued to be grim. 

• The White House has shuffled responsibility for Iraqi reconstruction three times, first to Jay Garner, then to Jerry Bremer, and finally giving Condoleezza Rice a bigger role, the last move provoking a furious response from Donald Rumsfeld, who apparently learned about it via memo and media reports.

• Last month Bush shocked everyone by requesting an additional $87 billion for Iraqi reconstruction. He wouldn't have requested a sum this large if he could have gotten by with less.

• Finally, there's the UN. Regardless of what his apologists say now, it's pretty obvious that Bush didn't want to fight for another UN resolution. He wouldn't have done this unless he'd been convinced that he had no other choice.

This is not a knock on the Bush administration. The fact that they're willing to change track when events call for it is fine. Nevertheless, their reaction doesn't strike me as the reaction of an administration that thinks things are going according to plan.
Bottom line: I'm still not sure how things are going in Iraq, but based on the evidence I lean pretty negative. The fact that progress is being made is encouraging, but hardly conclusive. With 130,000 troops in the country and billions of dollars being spent, of course some progress is being made.
But the Sunni triangle still seems to be a war zone, ambushes are taking place at an alarming rate, oil production is not ramping up very quickly, NGOs (and the UN) have pulled out because conditions are so unsafe, unemployment is over 50%, and Saddam is still loose. Compared to this, it's hard to take seriously the evidence of a few miscellaneous visitors who proclaim that everything looks safe to them while refusing to go anywhere without a heavy armed guard..."

David Corn (LA Weekly):
"...A simple question for the president of the United States: If you don’t read the newspapers, how can you criticize the media coverage of Iraq? [CG emphasis]
A few weeks ago, George W. Bush noted during an interview that while he glances at newspaper headlines, he “rarely” reads the actual articles because “A lot of times there’s opinions mixed in with news.” So where does he get his info? Bush said he prefers to be briefed by White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. “The best way to get the news,” he explained, “is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what’s happening in the world.” Lately Bush also has been warning the American public not to pay attention to other sources, such as journalists who report that all is not going well in the land of occupation. “We’re making good progress in Iraq,” Bush said. “Sometimes it’s hard to tell when you listen to the filter.” The filter is Bushspeak for the media..."

Michael Kinsley (Washington Post):
"...To President Bush, the news is like a cigarette. You can get it filtered or unfiltered. And which way does he prefer it? Well, that depends on the circumstances. When he is trying to send a message to the public, Bush prefers to have it go out unfiltered. He feels, for example, that the "good news about Iraq" is getting filtered out by the national media. "Somehow you just got to go over the heads of the filter and speak directly to the people," he said the other day. So, lately, he has been talking to local and regional media, which he trusts to filter less. 
But when he is on the receiving end, Bush prefers his news heavily filtered. "I glance at the headlines, just to get kind of a flavor," he told Brit Hume of Fox News last month. But, "I rarely read the stories" because "a lot of times there's opinions mixed in with news." Instead, "I get briefed by [White House Chief of Staff] Andy Card and Condi [Rice, the national security adviser] in the morning."
The president concluded, "The best way to get the news is from objective sources. And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world."
Bush's beef about news from Iraq is a variation on the famous complaint that the media never report about all the planes that land safely. And it's true: Many American soldiers have not been killed since the war officially ended. You rarely read stories about all the electricity that works, or the many Iraqis who aren't shouting anti-American slogans. For that matter, what about all the countries we haven't invaded and occupied in the past year? And what about the unreported fact that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power? Well, maybe that isn't actually unreported. But an unfilterish media would surely report it again and again in every story every day, in case people forgot...
In this media cacophony the president probably has more ability to deliver his message without a filter than anyone else on Earth. Anything the president says is automatically news. If he wants to commandeer all the TV networks for a speech in prime time, he can usually do it. The president can even hold a news conference, although this president rarely bothers.  
Bush also will have a campaign treasury of $170 million that he can spend in the next year delivering any message he wants, completely unfiltered. Who can top that? Well, until recently there was Saddam Hussein. He could talk as long as he wanted and Iraqi TV never cut away for a commercial, let alone brought on annoying pundits to pick and pick and pick. And the next day's Baghdad Gazette would publish every single word, also without any tedious analysis. A few others, such as Fidel Castro, still have this privilege. I was under the impression that George W. Bush found this distasteful -- the sort of thing one might even tighten a boycott or start a war over.
Bush doesn't really want people to get the news unfiltered. He wants people to get the news filtered by George W. Bush. Or, rather, he wants everyone to get the news filtered by the same people who apparently filter it for him..."

James Pinkerton (Newsday):
"...Others, too, are part of this Orwellian tactic, although they sometimes bobble their assignment. Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) had just returned home from a government-sponsored tour of Iraq when she appeared on Fox News to comment on Sunday's car bombing in Baghdad. Proving she's a good listener, she insisted that the suicide attack was actually good news. How's that? Speaking of the American nation-building effort, she explained, "As it's working, there are more incidents like this, from people who don't want it to work." By that inverted logic, of course, it would be bad news if there were fewer bombings.
But then, undercutting Granger's case, the interviewer noted that Granger and her fellow visitors had not actually stayed overnight in Iraq while they were visiting the country; each night, they were flown back to Kuwait, some 400 miles south of Baghdad. One might think for a moment about the implications of such a long-distance commute. If all the American security in Iraq can't make Iraq secure for VIPs, then maybe Iraq isn't so secure..."

Sarita Chourey (The Hill):
"...On returning from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, a group of Senate Republicans said yesterday that the Bush administration deserves a lot more credit for successful reconstruction efforts in those war-torn nations.
Meanwhile, several Senate Democrats complained that they were denied access to a plane for a inspection tour of their own.
“For whatever reason, Sens. [Chris] Dodd [D-Conn.] and others who requested the opportunity to travel were prohibited from doing so, and I think that requires a better explanation that the one I’ve been given so far,” Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) said.
“We have no understanding. We were told that an [Air Force] airplane was not available,” adding that Britain offered them the use of an airplane. “If Britain can offer United States senators an airplane, you would think the United States government could do so as well.”..."

Richard Wolffe and Rod Norland (Newsweek): 
"...SOMEONE THREW A homemade grenade at the Americans, wounding 13 servicemen. According to the Oct. 8 Daily Threat Assessment—the Coalition’s internal casualty report, which was shown to NEWSWEEK—eight soldiers were wounded seriously enough to be evacuated to military hospitals. Yet at a press conference the next day, there was no mention of the attack. Pushed by reporters, U.S. officials would only say the incident was under investigation. It was as if the ambush, and the casualties, had never happened.
        In Baghdad, official control over the news is getting tighter. Journalists used to walk freely into the city’s hospitals and the morgue to keep count of the day’s dead and wounded. Now the hospitals have been declared off-limits and morgue officials turn away reporters who aren’t accompanied by a Coalition escort. Iraqi police refer reporters’ questions to American forces; the Americans refer them back to the Iraqis...
“All the TV wants to cover is some sensational, isolated terrorist attack,” Evans told NEWSWEEK on his flight back to Washington. “I went over expecting to find an environment where people were frightened. But I found a country that was alive with hope and optimism.” Yet reporters who covered the war say that some of the Coalition’s achievements are less impressive than they sound. Paul (Jerry) Bremer, the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq, proudly announced the reopening of Iraq’s schools this month, while White House officials point to the opening of Iraq’s 240 hospitals. In fact, many schools were already open in May, once major combat ended, and no major hospital closed during the war. But that didn’t stop a group of Republican senators from tearing into American reporters covering Iraq earlier this month. “I was not told by the media... that thousands and thousands of Iraqi schoolchildren went back to school,” said Larry Craig of Idaho, who recently toured Iraq. The senator neglected to mention that he slept both nights of his trip in Kuwait, not Iraq..."

Joe Conason (Salon.com):
"...If the deaths of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians went unreported by the news "filter," would those people still be alive? If the critics of U.S. policy in Iraq kept quiet, would that policy be working rather than failing? If U.S. policy is failing, at the cost of American and Iraqi lives, is the duty of patriots to pretend otherwise or to speak out? 
I only ask because -- until the terrible week that culminated in yesterday's Chinook helicopter downing -- the line from the White House and the Pentagon was that America's worst problems in Iraq were "negative" news coverage and domestic "political" sniping. That propaganda trope is no longer plausible even to those who fervently support the administration and the war..."

Fred Barbash (Washington Post):
"...today, new signs appeared of increasing isolation for the United States in Iraq.
Turkey ruled out sending in troops without "a clear initiative from the Iraqi people," according to Turkey's ambassador in Washington, Faruk Logulu. Such a clear initiative is unlikely, thanks to opposition to a Turkish presence within the Iraqi Governing Council.
Meanwhile, Spain announced today that it was pulling out most of its 29-member diplomatic staff from Iraq because of the dangerous situation, although the embassy will remain open. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar has taken considerable political risks by joining the U.S.-led occupation in Iraq, contributing 1,300 soldiers to the effort in the face of hostile Spanish public opinion.
The cut back announced by a Spanish Foreign Ministry official today follows similar actions by the United Nations and the International Red Cross, which have pulled out or reduced their presence in the country..."

Daniel Williams (Washington Post):
"...American troops patrol less frequently, townspeople openly threaten Iraqi security personnel who cooperate with U.S. forces, and the night belongs to the guerrillas.  
That is the reality in this little town 60 miles north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials say, and it reflects a shifting balance of power in U.S.-occupied central Iraq. Resistance forces move with impunity in Thuluiya and throughout the so-called Sunni Triangle, despite repeated raids on suspected hide-outs and arms caches. 
Since June, when attacks on U.S. forces began in earnest, the average number of ambushes has more than doubled, soaring from about 12 a day to 37 in late October before falling to 29 last week, according to Col. William Darley, an Army spokesman..."

Jonathan S. Landay (Sun Herald):
"...A new, top-secret CIA report from Iraq warns that growing numbers of Iraqis are concluding that the U.S.-led coalition can be defeated and are supporting the resistance. 
The report paints a bleak picture of the political and security situation in Iraq and cautions that the U.S.-led drive to rebuild the country as a democracy could collapse unless corrective actions are taken immediately. 
L. Paul Bremer, head of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, who arrived unexpectedly in Washington for strategy sessions on Tuesday, essentially endorsed the CIA's findings, said a senior administration official. 
The report's bleak tone and Bremer's private endorsement differ sharply with the upbeat public assessments that President Bush, his chief aides and Bremer are giving as part of an aggressive publicity campaign aimed at countering rising anxieties at home over increasing U.S. casualties in Iraq..."

Also see: CNN

"...[life in Iraq is] "a lot better than you probably think. Just ask people who have been there." ..."

Sanchez for Bush

"...Are you going to find soldiers on any given day who are down on morale? Of course. There are days when I wake up and don’t feel very good and I’d probably bite your head off. I walk around and talk to all sorts of soldiers also, and I honestly believe our soldiers are doing very, very well. There is no morale problem..."

Los Angeles Times/Reuters:
"...Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Richard B. Myers expressed concern Thursday over a survey suggesting major morale problems among U.S. troops in Iraq, saying he was worried that he and other top officers were sometimes allowed to talk only to "all the happy folks" when they visited service members.
"I want to see the folks that have complaints. And sometimes they won't let them near me," Myers said when asked about the Stars and Stripes newspaper survey in which half of 1,939 troops responding said morale in their units was low or very low and that they did not plan to reenlist...
Myers and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld addressed troop morale after the Army said at least 13 U.S. soldiers had committed suicide in Iraq, representing more than 10% of American noncombat deaths there. The Army said it had dispatched a suicide-prevention expert to assess the problem..."

Also see: eStripes.com

"...in testimony before Congress, L. Paul Bremer III, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz both cited a recent Gallup Poll that found that almost two-thirds of those polled in Baghdad said it was worth the hardships suffered since the U.S.-led invasion ousted Saddam Hussein. Bremer also told Congress that 67 percent thought that in five years they would be better off, and only 11 percent thought they would be worse off..."

Cheney for Bush

"...on NBC's "Meet the Press" discussed findings from a Zogby International poll of 600 Iraqis done in August in conjunction with American Enterprise magazine. He described the poll as "carefully done" and said it found "very positive news in it in terms of the numbers it shows with respect to the attitudes to what Americans have done."
"The U.S. wins hands down," Cheney said, when Iraqis were asked what model of government they would prefer among five choices...
Cheney also said, "If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government established, by two-to-one margins they say no, including the Shia population." He said that when asked how long they want the Americans to stay, "over 60 percent of the people polled said they want the U.S. to stay for at least another year." ..."

Cheney for Bush

"...I think the majority of Iraqis are thankful for the fact that the United States is there..."

Walter Pincus (Washington Post):
"...That same poll, however, found that, countrywide, only 33 percent thought they were better off than they were before the invasion and 47 percent said they were worse off. And 94 percent said that Baghdad was a more dangerous place for them to live, a finding the administration officials did not discuss.
The poll also found that 29 percent of Baghdad residents had a favorable view of the United States, while 44 percent had a negative view. By comparison, 55 percent had a favorable view of France.
Similarly, half of Baghdad residents had a negative view of President Bush, while 29 percent had a favorable view of him. In contrast, French President Jacques Chirac drew a 42 percent favorable rating.
...
...Cheney's information, according to an aide, came from the American Enterprise essay on the poll that said 37 percent of respondents chose the United States, and 28 percent selected Saudi Arabia.
But a look at the raw data from the poll on the magazine's Web site revealed different figures. According to the data, only 21.5 percent chose the United States, while 20 percent refused to select any model, and 16 percent selected the Saudi government...
the poll also found that half of respondents said Western democracy would not work well in Iraq, while 40 percent said it would. Asked whether the United States would help or hurt Iraq over the next five years, 35 percent said the U.S. would help but half said it would hurt Iraq. Also, on the question of an Islamic government, the alternative offered was "or instead let all people practice their own religion," which implied that could not be done under the former..."

AN ASIDE

Maureen Fan (San Jose Mercury News):
"...Most Iraqis feel unsafe in their neighborhoods, think the local Iraqi police can protect them better than coalition forces and increasingly view Americans as occupiers rather than liberators, according to a poll released Thursday by the independent, privately funded Iraq Center for Research & Strategic Studies in Baghdad. 
Coalition forces have squandered the good will that resulted from removing Saddam Hussein from power, with nearly 43 percent of Iraqis viewing them as liberators six months ago but only 14.8 percent feeling the same way now..."

"..."Before the war in Iraq, you stated the case very eloquently and you said . . . they would welcome us with open arms," Sinclair Broadcasting anchor Morris Jones said to Rumsfeld as the prelude to a question.

The defense chief quickly cut him off.
"Never said that," he said. "Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said."..."

"...The militias ... on the streets of Najaf ... were there with the full authority of the Coalition Provisional Authority, and in full cooperation with the coalition forces. That is to say, they were licensed in accordance with our existing programs..."