" The liberation of Iraq is not far away"

[Jana Lewis]

'The liberation of Baghdad is not far away'
By Alix de la Grange

BAGHDAD - On the eve of the so-called transfer of sovereignty to the new Iraqi caretaker government on June 30, former Saddam Hussein generals turned members of the elite of the Iraqi resistance movement have abandoned their clandestine positions for a while to explain their version of events and talk about their plans. According to these Ba'ath officials, "the big battle" in Iraq is yet to take place.

"The Americans have prepared the war, we have prepared the post-war. And the transfer of power on June 30 will not change anything regarding our objectives. This new provisional government appointed by the Americans has no legitimacy in our eyes. They are nothing but puppets."

Why have these former officers waited so long to come out of their closets? "Because today we are sure we're going to win."

...

"We knew that if the United States decided to attack Iraq, we would have no chance faced with their technological and military power. The war was lost in advance, so we prepared the post-war. In other words: the resistance. Contrary to what has been largely said, we did not desert after American troops entered the center of Baghdad on April 5, 2003. We fought a few days for the honor of Iraq - not Saddam Hussein - then we received orders to disperse." Baghdad fell on April 9: Saddam and his army where nowhere to be seen.

(much more)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FF25Ak07.html

[walt]

Interesting article Jana.

It actually quotes two Iraqi resistance generals brag they've been able to successfully hide mountains of weapons.

"we have more than 50 million conventional weapons." By the initiative of Saddam, a real arsenal was concealed all over Iraq way before the beginning of the war. No heavy artillery, no tanks, no helicopters, but Katyushas, mortars (which the Iraqis call haoun), anti-tank mines, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and other Russian-made rocket launchers, missiles, AK 47s and substantial reserves of all sorts of ammunition. And the list is far from being extensive. "

Hans Blix and the AIEA never found this massive stash, yet listening to a presentation given by him last Monday and aired on C-SPAN today, he still insists that since we haven't found any WMD, they didn't, and don't exist.

[chm2023]

The listed weapons are not WMD, but conventional weapons. And in fact many of these weapons were in plain view when the army rolled into Iraq. (This has been widely reported; how are you not aware of this?) Because of a lack of trained technicians (weapons are very difficult to destroy. Duh..) to eliminate them, and a lack of enough troops to guard them, the weapons were left to fall into the hands of the insurgents.

Have you ever noticed that once incompetence hits a certain level you start to grow numb to it? If Rummy is as Shrub says, a "superb" S of D, I shudder to think what a mediocre one looks like.

[walt]

The listed weapons are not WMD, but conventional weapons.

Right. Didn't say they were. The obvious point was that if Blix & Co. failed to find the "bigger that a breadbox" 50 million conventional weapons, they could as easily have failed to find a much smaller stash of dirty bombs & chemical and biological weapons. But I'm sure you sensed that.

And in fact many of these weapons were in plain view when the army rolled into Iraq. (This has been widely reported; how are you not aware of this?) Because of a lack of trained technicians (weapons are very difficult to destroy. Duh..) to eliminate them, and a lack of enough troops to guard them, the weapons were left to fall into the hands of the insurgents.

Not according to the quoted Generals. It appears you didn't read the article afterall.

Have you ever noticed that once incompetence hits a certain level you start to grow numb to it? If Rummy is as Shrub says, a "superb" S of D, I shudder to think what a mediocre one looks like.

This seems out of context. Is it a brain fart?

But like you, I share doubts of the article.
1. Berg, a reporter, got decapitated. But these two reporters gleefully hop into a vehicle with unidentified drivers in quest of a story.
2. They accuse our soldiers of indiscriminately shooting into crowds of civilians while under attack but don't substantiate their claim.
3. Finally, they quote an Iraqi female as prefering life under torture to occupation.

Well, here's a quote from another reporter, Washington Times Senior White House Correspondent Bill Sammon from his new book "Misunderestimated"...

"Saddam had a sadistic streak a mile wide. He favored firing squads, hangings, poison, bombs and mafia-style assassinations. His victoms were beaten, whipped, burned, frozen, shocked, and sodomized. Fingers, arms and legs were chopped off by specially designed machines. Genitals were zapped with electric wires. Toenails, fingernails, teeth, and facial hair were ripped out with pliers. Prisoners were hung upside down and dipped into vats of acid or boiling water. Women were forced to listen to the wails of their sadistically starved babies. Ordinary Iraqis disappeared in the middle of the night, never to be seen again. Or their bodies simply showed up on the side of some lonely desert road." p.33.

Might she have been one of the torturers?

So I'm left with four choices...
1. Their story's bogus.
2. The unnamed Generals are bogus
3. Blix is bogus.
4. All of the above.

I'm inclined to go with option 1. They probably made it up in a bar somewhere.

Let me know when your "Duh.." heals.