Petrelis Files

State v. DoD: Who Bombed the Mosque; Report to Congress Ignored by MSM

> [Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice] said the United States had no clear evidence showing who was behind the bombing of the Shiite mosque, the act that set off the destruction and bloodshed. But she, like others in Washington, seems inclined to blame Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's leader in Iraq.

-- NYT, Feb. 25

> Al Qaeda in Iraq bombed the Askariyah Mosque in Samarra Feb. 22.

-- DoD's American Forces Press Service, Feb. 24

Hmmm. So the State Department puts out the word that there's no clear evidence on the matter, while the Pentagon is saying, without question, they know who bombed the mosque. Condi might want to pick up the phone and chat with Rummy about who was responsible for the bombing and get their facts aligned.

On a very important related matter, release of the latest quarterly Iraqi report to Congress, I've written this up and sent it around to a few news outlets:

Hello, mainstream media!

Many of you, with the notable exceptions of pundit Arianna Huffington on her blog, CNN's web site and the New York Times, haven't reported on the latest mandated assessment on the U.S. war effort in Iraq. From today's NYT:

> The report, "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," said 53 Iraqi battalions were able to take the lead in place of Americans in the battle against terrorists and insurgents, up from 36 three months ago. A battalion in Iraq varies in size, but usually has from several hundred to 750 troops.

> But while at least one battalion was said three months ago to have the ability to operate wholly independently of American forces, that number has fallen to zero.l

However, believe it or not, the quasi-official Navy Times put the other three outlets to shame in covering the new report because the military publication wrote about a possible jump in troops serving in Iraq:

> At the end of the 56-page report, in a section titled “Withdrawing Forces,” the report repeats the Pentagon’s mantra regarding troop withdrawal, namely that as conditions improve on the ground, U.S. forces will be allowed to go home. But even the report hints at the possibility of a troop increase.

> “Coalition force levels will increase, if necessary, to defeat the enemy or provide additional security for key events like the recent referendum and elections,” the report said. [...]

The overwhelmingly gloomy news in the new document includes small glimmers of hopeful signs though, if you really look for them, such as the number of Iraqi civilian casualties, dipped ever-so-slightly, as did casualties for Coalition Forces. (See chart on page 28.)

An earlier report, presented to Congress on Oct. 13, 2005, was a sobering look at the situation over there. You should read it to see how far we haven't come in this battle to bring democracy and security to Iraq.

And before that, the July 2005 report wasn't much better in terms of good news or verifiable progress being made on the ground. Nevertheless, the report is full of the most colorful charts and graphs of assort stats. Check out the illustration on page 3 for eye-pleasing timeline of democracy supposedly taking root in Iraq, according to Bush's grand plans.

My question for the journalists and editors who've so far not covered the new report to Congress is: Did the Pentagon succeed in keeping the depressing news from being widely written about in releasing the report on a Friday?