http://www.msnbc.msn...

Dr. Emile A. Nakhleh served in the CIA for 15 years and retired in 2006 as the Director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program.  This is the premier group evaluating political Islam. He is heavily "medaled" and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In this interview he said:

We had no evidence that there was a Saddam–bin Laden axis. Saddam was a butcher, but he was a secular butcher, and we knew that. *** Iraq was a secular state; women had more rights than in most places in the region, and Shiites were the backbone of the Baathist and even the Communist Party. It was almost a year after the 2003 invasion before Al Qaeda decided to make Iraq a jihadist cause because [before that] they viewed Iraq as a secular state. People at the CIA didn't believe there were links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The source for much of the information of that sort was Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, and their positions jibed with the positions of those in the administration who wanted to wage war in Iraq—Wolfowitz, Feith, people in the vice president's office.
***
The main reason for our failure in Iraq was not looking at the “morning after.” It was obvious that the military campaign would succeed, but there was also an ideological view among some administration officials that we would be received as liberators. Those people did not understand that just because the Iraqis hated Saddam, that didn't mean they would like our occupation.

Iraq was more complex than just Saddam. We should have learned from the experience of the British in the 1920s, when modern Iraq was created—namely, that bringing in outside leaders would not work. People expressed views about the need to plan for a post-Saddam Iraq, about the potential for sectarian violence and the rise of militias, about the fact that the Shiites would want to rise politically. These were not minority views in the intelligence community, but the administration ended up listening to other voices. The focus was on invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam, and after that everything would be fine and dandy.
***
3. You traveled to Guantanamo in 2002. Were you surprised by what you saw there?

I spent hours talking with prisoners about why they had become jihadists and how they came to Guantanamo. Some of the detainees participated in jihad in Afghanistan, mostly against the Northern Alliance; others did not but were caught in the dragnet—having been at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Even the command down there knew that probably one-third of the prisoners were neither terrorists nor jihadists, and wouldn't have been there if we weren't paying a bounty to Pakistani security forces for every Middle Eastern-looking person they handed over to us. ***
4. What should the United States do in Iraq now?

I have come to believe that our presence is part of the problem and that we should begin to seriously devise an exit strategy. There's a civil war in Iraq and our presence is contributing to the violence. We've become a lightning rod—we're not restricting the violence, we're contributing to it. Iraq has galvanized jihadists; our presence is what is attracting them. We need to get out of there. The idea of Iraq being a model for the region has also been tossed out the window. ***
5. What is the likely political fallout from the Iraqi debacle and from the failures of the “war on terrorism”?

We've lost a generation of goodwill in the Muslim world. The President's democratization and reform program for the Middle East has all but disappeared, except for official rhetoric. That was the centerpiece of the President's policies for the region, and now no one is talking about it. We have lost credibility across the Islamic world regarding “democracy” and “representative government” and “justice.” We are devising new rules and regulations for holding people without charge. The FBI has been at Guantanamo for years, and no charges have been brought against anyone. The Islamic world says “you talk about human rights, but you're holding people without charging them.” The Islamic world has always viewed the war on terror as a war on Islam and we have not been able to disabuse them of that notion. Because of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other abuses we have lost on the concepts of justice, fairness and the rule of law, and that's the heart of the American idea. That's very serious, and that's where I see the danger in the years ahead.

6. Is there an inherent threat to Western democracies from the Islamic world?

No, there's only a threat from those who use Islam for ideological reasons and who are willing to employ violence. There are 1.4 billion people in the Islamic world and only a tiny minority, maybe 2 or 3 percent, are politically active. Just like Jews and Christians, most have kids to raise and bills to pay. Most view Islam as a personal and societal force, not a political one, and only a tiny minority becomes terrorists. There are hundreds of political parties in the Muslim world, in Indonesia, Malaysia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Morocco, Yemen, Pakistan, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Those parties and their supporters have participated in many elections, and some times they have won and some times they have lost, but they have largely recognized the results. Not all are necessarily interested in creating Sharia societies. Even Hamas highlighted its opposition to Israel and service to society, not religious issues. Political Islam is not a threat—the threat is if people become disenchanted with the political process and democracy, and opt for violence. There is a real danger from a few terrorists and we should go after them, but the longer-term threat is that people opt out of the system. We need to not only speak out in favor of democracy and political reform, but also act on that as well.

It's nice to see that Webb is maing a national name for himself.  Marianne Means, writing for the Hearst papers on the torture issue, said this:http://www.projo.com...

James Webb, Democratic Senate nominee in Virginia, as well as another former Navy secretary and Vietnam veteran, vigorously supported Warner's anti-torture position in his Sept. 17 debate with Sen. George Allen, R.-Va., who lusts for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination and remains loyal to Bush on all things Iraq and terrorism. Webb -- who has turned what was expected to be an easy political romp by Allen into a close contest -- contrasted his own military experience in Vietnam, and that of a son now stationed in Iraq, with Allen's failure to serve at any time.

Problem is, we'll get the same result as described above. 

The terrorist's strongest weapon is not a bomb or gun, it's recruitment.  If we kill one another will pop up.  If BinLaden dies (rumored recently) another leader will take his place.  Invading a country or breaking a long standing convention is only going to strengthen our enemie's ability to recruit new members.

And this report provides rock solid proof of that.  How much longer are we, as a country, going to stand for brain dead leadership in this critical war of terror?  Bush, Allen, and the Republican supporters in Congress just don't get it.  They hear the word "war" and think only of killing.  Sorry, but killing alone won't win this one. 

The first step toward a victory in the war on terror is up to all of us: replace the leaders who have clearly demonstrated they don't know how to fight this war.

George W. Bush appeared on "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" this afternoon and made one of those stunning remarks that could — or rather, should — become a political problem for the White House.

Blitzer asked the president to respond to the nightmare that Iraq has become, but Bush wouldn't hear of it. He dismissed the ongoing crisis as "just a comma."

Update: Here's the transcript:

  BLITZER: Let's move on and talk a little bit about Iraq. Because this is a huge, huge issue, as you know, for the American public, a lot of concern that perhaps they are on the verge of a civil war, if not already a civil war…. We see these horrible bodies showing up, tortured, mutilation. The Shia and the Sunni, the Iranians apparently having a negative role. Of course, al Qaeda in Iraq is still operating.

  BUSH: Yes, you see — you see it on TV, and that's the power of an enemy that is willing to kill innocent people. But there's also an unbelievable will and resiliency by the Iraqi people…. Admittedly, it seems like a decade ago. I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, *it will look like just a comma* because there is — my point is, there's a strong will for democracy.

A comma!!! All those deaths, all the debt, the world in turmoil and, to him, it's "just a comma"... I hope that, when he dies and goes to hell, he'll spend an eternity with lots of exclamation points and sharp question marks up his colon...

And it's avilable for either Media Player or Quick Time, too :)

We did NOT have terrorists in Iraq BEFORE we Invaded.
We HAVE terrorists in Iraq BECAUSE we Invaded.  Paraphrase from Jim Webb at the Torpedo Factory event, Alexandria, Virginia Thursday night, the day before this news broke.

Jim is on the money again.
We need him in the Senate!!
HAD ENOUGH?
VOTE JIM WEBB!!