NYT: Errors Are Seen in Early Attacks on Iraqi Leaders

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/international/middleeast/13SADD.html?ei=5062&en=d89474e074746d1c&ex=1087704000&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

The United States launched many more failed airstrikes on a far broader array of senior Iraqi leaders during the early days of the war last year than has previously been acknowledged, and some caused significant civilian casualties, according to senior military and intelligence officials.

Only a few of the 50 airstrikes have been described in public. All were unsuccessful, and many, including the two well-known raids on Saddam Hussein and his sons, appear to have been undercut by poor intelligence, current and former government officials said.

The strikes, carried out against so-called high-value targets during a one-month period that began on March 19, 2003, used precision-guided munitions against at least 13 Iraqi leaders, including Gen. Izzat Ibrahim, Iraq's No. 2 official, the officials said.

General Ibrahim is still at large, along with at least one other top official who was a target of the failed raids. That official, Maj. Gen. Rafi Abd al-Latif Tilfah, the former head of the Directorate of General Security, and General Ibrahim are playing a leadership role in the anti-American insurgency, according to a briefing document prepared last month by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The broad scope of the campaign and its failures, along with the civilian casualties, have not been acknowledged by the Bush administration.

[grytpype]

1. Just when you think it can't get any worse...

Zero for fifty!

from the article:

An unclassified Air Force report issued in April 2003 categorized 50 attacks from March 19 to April 18 as having been time-sensitive strikes on Iraqi leaders. An up-to-date accounting posted on the Web site of the United States Central Command shows that 43 of the top 55 Iraqi leaders on the most-wanted list have now been taken into custody or killed, but that none were taken into custody until April 13, 2003, and that none were killed by airstrikes.

<b>An explicit account of the zero for 50 record in strikes on high-value targets was provided by Marc Garlasco, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who headed the joint staff's high-value targeting cell during the war.</b>

[grytpype]

3. there's more! Rummy approved all these attacks!

from the article:

commanders were required to obtain advance approval from Mr. Rumsfeld if any planned airstrike was likely to result in the deaths of 30 more civilians. More than 50 such raids were proposed, and all were approved, General Moseley said.

[daleo]

14. So, 50 raids X 30+ deaths per raid = 1500+ deaths

That's half a WTC right there.

On edit - not that I am saying this had anything to do with the WTC killings, just the scale of the killings of innocents is about the same.

[peacetalksforall]

2. It just hit me that the same arrogance of the people who issued the

enemy deck of cards is the same caliber of arrogance that created the torture environment.

[peekaloo]

4. How much shit can one fan hold?

I remember listening to Robert Fisk and others on 'Democracy Now' during the early stages of this fiasco as they described entire roads littered with burned up/bombed out cars and busses filled with citizens who had attempted to flee the onslaught.

All the while Boo$h was working on his back swing.

[LittleApple81]

5. And where is Miss Judy Miller now? n/t

[senseandsensibility]

6. Still working at the Times

and worse yet, stil writing stories for them about the weapons fiasco.;(

[LittleApple81]

7. So what is she saying now? Did she at least apologize? I know

the paper "apologized" not on page one... what about her?
WHY DON'T THEY FIRE HER? Jason Blair was tiny popatoes (insignificant, as a matter of fact) compared to her.

[senseandsensibility]

9. Definitely no apology

from Miss Miller. I can't remember the details, but she co-authored a piece that appeared about the weapons AFTER the page ten sorta apology by the paper. Of course she wasn't named in the "apology".

[gulliver]

8. What's a few dead "nuances?"

Bush is such a big picture guy. Yes, there were a bunch of civilian casualties, but that is the price we have to pay for taking out high-value targets -- which we didn't do this time, but, but Bush's heart was in the right place. He's not a hard-hearted person. He didn't know about the damn nuances, OK? You can bet he's losing a lot of sleep over this.

[Just Me]

10. The world rejects another "empire",...

,...you power-mongering freaks of nature!!!

The world wants "peace",...REAL "peace",...not the greedy, despotic, arrogant "piece" you impose.

We have had enough. We are more genuine, more intelligent, more honorable, more compassionate, more courageous and a helluva lot more valuable than you!!!

You are the OLD power-brokers. Meet the new world, full of visions that will not fill your greedy pockets!!!!

[darkstar]

11. "The person who was the primary source of the information

about the bunker was killed in the raid."

Good God. The only concern appears to be that they can't query the dead guy about the intel breakdown.

[UpInArms]

12. I can't think of anyone having more experience

in drilling "dry holes" than the idiot-in-chief:

"It was all just guesswork on where they were," said a senior military officer. Another official, a senior Army officer who served in Iraq, described early intelligence on the Iraqi leadership as producing "a lot of dry holes."

[DeaconBlues]

13. When other countries do this sort of thing

it is considered an atrocity that reflects on the evil of the nation's government. When we do it, its just bad intelligence.

[mn9driver]

15. Cruise missiles and smart bombs are terrible assassination

weapons. We proved that with Ghaddafi. We proved that with Saddam in Gulf War I. We proved that with bin Laden in 1998, and again in 2001.

This bunch of sad sacks could have asked just about any military person who has been paying attention over the last 20 years as to the worst method to take Saddam out: cruise missiles and smart bombs would have been the answer.

Stupid, criminal shitheads. What's a couple hundred civilian "collateral damage" deaths, when you've got a one-in-a-hundred chance of taking out the big guy? Bastards.

[Disturbed]

16. I no longer wonder....

when these maggots are compared to the Nazis.

I do wonder when reps in Congress are going to start doing their freakin' jobs that they swore an oath to do.

What jobs? Upholding and defending The Constitution of the USA.

Here's where they can start: War Crimes commited by BushCo!!!!

[Aidoneus]

17. the massacres carried out..

reduced to mere "errors".. such minimizing language is disgraceful.

[dArKeR]

18. Civilians count cost of failed US airstrikes

Washington - At least 50 failed airstrikes were carried out against senior officials in Saddam Hussein's regime during the 2003 Iraq war, the New York Times reported Sunday, quoting senior military and intelligence officials.

Some of the strikes caused numerous civilian casualties, the Times reported, noting that only a few of the attacks were made public.

Aside from two well publicised strikes against Saddam himself, during the one-month period that began on March 19, 2003 at least 13 top Iraqi leaders were targeted with precision-guided munitions.

http://iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1087114506646U262&set_id=1

Who's killed more civilians in Iraq, Saddam or Bush?

[Barrett808]

19. kick

[John_H]

20. I wonder if this is a Rove ordered leak serving two purposes

1. Ol' KKKarl is intoducing the 'mercun people to a pair of soon to be "captured" evildoers. In order to be impressed with the turnaround in Iraq we've got to know just how eeeeeeevil these guys are when they "catch" them.

2. He's also blaming Awful Tenet's CIA for not getting any of the evildoers before the war, hence this sentence: "...many, including the two well-known raids on Saddam Hussein and his sons, appear to have been undercut by poor intelligence, current and former government officials said."