It was the spooks:

A new U.S. Army report clears top U.S. military brass in Iraq of abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison but implicates 20 or more intelligence troops in the scandal, defense officials said on Wednesday.

The Iraqi soccer team just kicked off against Costa Rica in a qualifying-round match. Can the Iraqis, fresh off their huge upset win over Portugal, stun Costa Rica and clinch a spot in the medal round?

I’m betting Karl Rove is a huge soccer fan right now. If Iraq can make some serious noise in these Olympics, methinks that will be very good news for President Bush, focusing public attention away from the negative aspects of the war and toward the positive.

But I’m rooting for them anyway. :)

Although I am not much of a supporter of Michael Moore’s, I must admit that he has something quite interesting to say in his most recent book, Dude, Where’s My Country?. Let me remind everyone that I bring this forth only as a quote that may place monkeys in Iraq (two things BrendanLoy.com is extremely interested in… I mean, where else can you find so many posts about monkeys and Iraq?).

Let me reiterate: I do not love everything Moore has to say. However, I certainly would like to post this:

And while Morocco also was short on military assistance [in the Iraq War], they did offer to send 2,000 monkeys to help detonate land mines in Iraq. But they didn’t and, if you don’t cough up the monkeys, you don’t get to reap the benefits of being a member of the Coalition of the Willing. Anyways, the Coalition of the Willing doesn’t need monkeys when it’s already got a more advanced simian leading it.

(Note the plug that Bush is a simian!)

For those of you who are convinced that diplomacy and talking alone are sufficient for solving the serious, intractable problems we have with Iran and North Korea (among others), you are seriously mistaken. Right now, the “EU-3″ (France, Germany, and the United Kingdom) have been leading a multilateral effort to convince Iran to admit inspectors and comply with international demands to cease “dual-use” nuclear activity. Iran has formally responded with their own audacious list of demands.

In other words, Iran has called the EU’s bluff. The message is clear: Iran knows the emperor has no clothes, and they refuse to play pretend with the EU. The Europeans’ real power to demand compliance is neutered, as they pose no real military threat to Iran.

Once again, it’s apparent that American muscle is necessary to solve the deepest international problems, and that our allies are mostly useless. Let this be a lesson to John Kerry and any other would-be president who thinks that we can so easily replace our troops in Iraq with European ones (which essentially don’t even exist since the true number of ready-for-action troops in EU countries like France and Germany is so abysmally low) and reduce the visibility of American might around the globe without suffering readily apparent consequences.

Yesterday, Gen. Tommy Franks took responsibility for the “Mission Accomplished” banner that hung from the aircraft carrier control tower:

“That’s my fault, that George W. Bush said what he said on the first of May of last year, just because I asked him to,” said Franks, former commander of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan….

“I wanted to get the phase of military operation over as quickly as I could, because a lot of countries on this planet had said as soon as that major stuff is over, we’ll come in and help with all of the peacekeeping,” Franks said.

“On the first of May when Bush did what he did, I was proud of him because he did what I, as the commander, had asked him to do,” Franks said in an appearance at the National Press Club. “So if there’s a mistake there, it’s mine, not a plot. So I thought I’d share that with you. “

So another petty canard against the Bush administration–something held against him from the likes of Andrew Sullivan all the way to commenters on this blog–has bitten the dust. Instead of crass political motives, the banner was hung to signal to the reluctant world that they were welcome to help us bring stability to and rebuild Iraq.

I’m not that perplexed that Gen. Franks–who recently said Kerry is qualified to be president, as well as admitted he was leaning towards supporting Bush, yet probably wouldn’t speak at the Republican National Convention because he is fiercely proud of his political independence–waited until very recently to make all this clear. No doubt if he took the blame for it while still at the Pentagon, people would have accused him of taking the fall for the president/Karl Rove, but at the same time, he is too honest and decent a man to withhold the truth for too long and allow the president to suffer during the election. Thus, the timing makes sense.

What I am amazed at, though, is that the Bush administration suffered the criticism and stood by the decision to hoist the banner anyway when it easily could have scapegoated Gen. Franks. While some on this blog have accused Bush of being “undemocratic”, “dishonest”, “secretive”, and politically craven, instead I find this to be yet another example of a president who puts loyalty and principles above politics.

Citing security concerns, the Iraqi interim government has ordered the Baghdad bureau of the Arab-language news network Al-Jazeera to shut down for a month.

Officials say the shutdown is “to give them the chance to re-adjust their policy against Iraq.”

Full story here.

This is interesting.

UPDATE: “A threatening note found by a passenger aboard a Washington-to-New York Amtrak train prompted police to detain it at Newark Penn Station for 90 minutes Thursday morning. Officers asked each passenger for identification and searched the cars with bomb-sniffing dogs. … The passenger who found it notified the train crew. They called dispatchers, who had police waiting for the train at its next scheduled stop in Newark.”

This morning’s report of a nuke find in Iraq is sounding more and more unlikely:

U.S. and Iraqi officials are denying a newspaper report claiming nuclear weapons have been found near Saddam Hussein’s hometown of Tikrit. …

“Nothing’s been found,” Master Sgt. Robert Cowens, a spokesman for the 1st Infantry Division, based in Tikrit, told UPI. “The report is not factual.”

The AP says the military is “still checking on the report”:

“We did an initial check on the weapons question … and we don’t have any additional information at this time,” a senior military official said

But it sure sounds like this is going nowhere.

This, if true, would change everything:

BAGHDAD, July 21 (UPI) — Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday.

The official daily al-Sabah quoted the sources as saying the missiles were discovered in trenches near the city of Tikrit, the hometown of ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. …

The report could not be authenticated by the interior ministry or the national security department, but the paper noted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiar Zibari made a surprise request recently to Mohammed el-Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to resume inspections for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The key phrase is “if true.” The Iraqi Interior Ministry has issued a sort of non-denial-denial, calling the report of the nuke find “stupid.” The U.S. military has “no information” one way or the other, and is “checking the report.”

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: My dad is skeptical. For the record, so am I. So is InstaPundit. So is California Yankee, who says, “If the report were accurate, officials wouldn’t have to be checking it.” A Command Post commenter writes, “So, UPI is reporting on a report from an Iraqi newspaper - don’t you love third-hand stories?” More blog reaction here and here.

P.S. If it’s true that UPI’s only source was the Iraqi newspaper al-Sabah — that they did not have independent confirmation from Iraqi officials of the nuke report — then the lede of the UPI article is journalistically incorrect: “Iraqi security reportedly discovered three missiles carrying nuclear heads concealed in a concrete trench northwest of Baghdad, official sources said Wednesday.”

If UPI’s only source was al-Sabah, the lede should have concluded, “official sources said Wednesday, according to Iraqi newspaper al-Sabah.”

Yes, al-Sabah was mentioned in the second paragraph, but the lede made it sound like UPI had independent confirmation from official sources. You never end a sentence with “sources said” unless you yourself spoke to those sources; otherwise you have to say, “sources said, according to [X].”

UPDATE: “Nothing’s been found. The report is not factual.”

I’m still waiting for President Bush to take Andrew’s advice and say, “I made an argument based on false premises, for which I must take some responsibility, and for that, I humbly seek your forgiveness.”

Alas, yesterday’s speech on Iraq — whether one agrees or disagrees with its justifications for war — definitely contains no hint of responsibility or humility:

Three years ago, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America, who provided safe haven for terrorists, used weapons of mass destruction, and turned his nation into a prison. Saddam Hussein was not just a dictator; he was a proven mass murderer who refused to account for weapons of mass murder. Every responsible nation recognized this threat, and knew it could not go on forever.

America must remember the lessons of September the 11th. We must confront serious dangers before they fully materialize. And so my administration looked at the intelligence on Iraq, and we saw a threat. Members of the United States Congress from both political parties looked at the same intelligence, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw a threat. The previous administration and the Congress looked at the intelligence and made regime change in Iraq the policy of our country.

In 2002, the United Nations Security Council yet again demanded a full accounting of Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs. As he had for over a decade, Saddam Hussein refused to comply. In fact, according to former weapons inspector David Kay, Iraq’s weapons programs were elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. So I had a choice to make: Either take the word of a madman, or defend America. Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.)

Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

Today, the dictator who caused decades of death and turmoil, who twice invaded his neighbors, who harbored terrorist leaders, who used chemical weapons on innocent men, women, and children, is finally before the bar of justice. (Applause.) Iraq, which once had the worst government in the Middle East, is now becoming an example of reform to the region. And Iraqi security forces are fighting beside coalition troops to defeat the terrorists and foreign fighters who threaten their nation and the world. Today, because America and our coalition helped to end the violent regime of Saddam Hussein, and because we’re helping to raise a peaceful democracy in its place, the American people are safer. (Applause.)

Here’s what he said on Friday:

The Senate is looking at intelligence failures, and should. We all ought to welcome an investigation about where we went right and wrong with our intelligence-gathering. You know why? Because it’s important for a President and the Congress to get the best intelligence possible in this war against these terrorists. One of the key components of finding out who is going to hurt us is good intelligence. And there are a lot of really good people working in our intelligence-gathering, by the way — dedicated, solid, fine Americans. They, too, want the intelligence services to be as effective as possible. So I welcome their investigation. I really do.

And like members of the Senate and the House, we thought there would be stockpiles of weapons. We haven’t found them yet. We do know, however, and I just want you to remember, that the man had the capacity to make weapons. He had the ability to make weapons. He had the intent and the capability, which is why I say I would have done it again, because he’s a dangerous person.

It’s not that I think Bush is wrong when he says we were still justified in attacking Iraq. I personally agree. But I’m offended and appalled by his continuing attempts to pass off one of the greatest and most consequential intelligence blunders in our nation’s history as a minor speed bump worthy of no more than a passing mention in the course of rehashing his favorite arguments in favor of the war. What we need, and deserve, is accountability; what we’re getting is damage control.

It bears repeating: by refusing to straightforwardly take responsibility for this massive failure that occurred on his watch in the organization that he purportedly leads — the executive branch of the U.S. government — Bush is demonstrating once again that he does not actually possess the qualities of true leadership. Leaders forthrightly own up to their mistakes and the mistakes of their organizations, apologize for them, and then demonstrate by their words and deeds how serious they are about correcting the problems and preventing such mistakes in the future. Bush’s failure to do all of that — his failure to lead — is, as I’ve said before, enough reason by itself to vote against him (though there are many others). As someone once said, “This administration had its moment. They had their chance. They have not led. We will.”

I could drone on and on about the prewar intelligence failures outlined in today’s Senate Intelligence Committee report, but let’s be honest: been there, done that. My opinion on this subject hasn’t changed in months; regular readers know exactly where I stand. More interesting, I think, is Andrew’s opinion, which he e-mailed to me this morning and which I now reprint here with his permission:

I think now the president needs to act, or more specifically, speak. Remember as we argued this over the past year that I said it wasn’t time to make a judgment, that Bush should wait until this has been investigated, that we should wait and see what we find in Iraq, etc. etc.? Well, that time has come, more or less.

What Bush needs to do, IMO, is go before the American people, and say, “Our intelligence is wrong. I made an argument based on false premises, for which I must take some responsibility, and for that, I humbly seek your forgiveness. We are working to overcome our intelligence failures, and I support the committee’s suggestions for what we need to do to build a better intelligence community that can more accurately assess the threats we face in the future. However, I want to make clear that I still believe, now more than ever, that going to war with Iraq was the right thing to do. Saddam did not comply with UN resolutions, Saddam was a murderous dictator, and the possibility of Saddam working with terrorists was not something we could tolerate. We have liberated a great people who are now on the way to democracy and freedom, and we must continue to support the men and women of our armed forces as they make sacrifices and work to help the Iraqis secure a democratic, safe, peace-loving society. And I would add that the intelligence is clear about other threats we face, including Iran, which is presently and actively working to undermine our efforts in Iraq, and is also defying UN and nuclear treaties. Iran becoming a nuclear state is not an outcome we can allow, and we must act–with diplomacy, multilateralism, but war if we must–to prevent that from occurring. Similarly, the North Korean threat is grave, and we will continue pursuing every avenue to eliminate the threat of North Korean WMDs being used in either war or falling into the hands of terrorists…..” Etc. etc.

I basically agree. If Bush were to say all that — including, emphatically and without reservation, the part about “I made an argument based on false premises, for which I must take some responsibility, and for that, I humbly seek your forgiveness” — then I would be a heck of a lot happier with him. It would, in my view, be several months overdue, but better late than never, as they say.

Alas, I seriously doubt Bush will do this; I suspect he will continue his ongoing, mealymouthed technique of changing the subject to the second part of Andrew’s suggested speech without ever straightforwardly addressing the first part. But if Bush did what Andrew suggests, I would commend him, and I would tone down my rhetoric against him with regard to the WMD issue. On the other hand, as long as he does not do it, I will continue to say that his attitude toward this issue is fundamentally dishonest and is, by itself, a good reason (on top of all the other good reasons) to fire him on Nov. 2.

Oh, I almost forgot, Andrew insisted that I add this line to the end of his suggested Bush speech: “And finally, I want to say that, damn straight I have Categories: Iraq, Iran & the Middle East

“This is all theater, the real criminal is Bush,” declares the deposed tyrant. He also called the Kuwaitis “dogs.” Story here.

The Command Post has more on Saddam’s big day.

In other news… no Weapons of Mass Destruction there, either.

Roger Franklin from Australia’s The Age says America is making war “on a butcher’s Baghdad, on terror, and on cultists who worship not Allah but death itself.” I like that. Good description.

Meanwhile, some stupid liberal writing for The Age thinks people who criticize him are censoring him; thinks a targeted bombing campaign that has killed a remarkably small number of civilians is the same thing as “unrestrained slaughter”; and thinks that the U.N.’s disarmament of Iraq was — get this — an unrestrained success! “When the job,” meaning disarmament, “was done, (Bush) was ready to go to war against a defenceless nation.” The job was done??? A defenceless nation??? Wow, you know what I would say if I could meet this guy? I think it would be something along the lines of, “You are an arrogant, uneducated ass.”

He also offers this lovely sentiment: “My guess is that what the average anti-war protester wants is for every Australian gun to jam in the dust; every tank grind to a halt with sand in its gears; every aeroplane to be grounded by a great haboob, so that they can neither kill nor be killed.” Neither kill nor be killed??? Yeah, because surely if the Australians or other Allies were rendered defenseless, they wouldn’t be killed by Iraqis. Of course not.

Ass.

The Iraqi dictator doesn’t stand a chance against the fierce kitten-soldier.

Click here for more photos!