Biden's Speech in Iraq Sept. 1

McCain's Urge to Surge One More Time

John McCain gets another opportunity to say "surge."

We wouldn't have needed a surge if we didn't invade a country that we shouldn't have invaded, 4,000 and some troop deaths later and tens of thousands Iraqi civilians, many of them women and children, dead. McCain likes to say surge, surge, surge, but something else besides the surge could've worked as well. But we'll never know. And did anything really work? We just wreaked more havoc in the region. We need to offer non-military assistance.

Unless we're attacked, we should not be invading countries.

This is what we'll get if we elect a republican president -- more war. War, war, war. Intense war. War on new nations. I don't mind the republican stance on fiscal policy. I get it. But in volatile times like these, a republican president, could have serious consequences. Republicans aren't into diplomacy.

Saluting Service in Iraq

West Wing Week Aug. 27

Last of Our Combat Troops Coming Home From Iraq

Hurrah! The last of U.S. combat troops are coming home. Rachel Maddow is there:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Richard Engel:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Iraq War Killed 85,000 Civilians, Military and Police

Based on death certificates, 85,000 people, including 1,279 children and 2,334 women. 85,000 souls. For what? I have no idea.

Just over 85,000 Iraqis were killed in Iraq between 2004 and 2008, according to the first estimate from the Iraqi government since the war began.
The figure is based on death certificates issued by the ministry of health and included 15,000 unidentified bodies.
It counts violent deaths of military, police and civilians, but does not include foreigners or insurgents.
Previous attempts to calculate the number of dead have been controversial.
Past reports have used a number of different methods to produce estimates ranging from more than 100,000 to well over half a million deaths since 2003.
The Ministry of Human Rights included the figure in a larger report into human rights in the country.
It does not include the first months of the war after the 2003 US-led invasion, as there was no functioning Iraqi government at that time to keep track. BBC

Iraq War Ends August 31 2010

Update: see the video announcement here.

CNN: "Let me say this as plainly as I can: By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end," Obama will say, according to the officials.

Congressional officials Thursday said the president told congressional leaders of his plan.

Under this plan, all combat troops will be withdrawn within 19 months of Obama's January inauguration, three months longer than his promise on the campaign trail.

Sounds like good news right?
But what is everyone complaining about? Obama's leaving behind 35,000 to 50,000 troops to do peaceful missions. They would be out by the end of 2011. And instead of being out in 16 months, we'll be out in 19 months.
Big whoop.
This is huge.
If George Bush were still in office, the war would go on endlessly. If McCain was our president, same thing.

I'll post video of the announcement, which will be live at 11:45 am eastern. Obama is headed to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina now. 

Obama on Bush's "Return on Success"

Obama's remarks today: 

Good morning. I’d like to comment on the President’s speech. First, let me acknowledge the extraordinary and courageous work that our troops have done in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They have performed brilliantly under extremely difficult circumstances.
Today, President Bush announced very modest troop redeployments from Iraq. Meanwhile, we will continue to keep nearly 140,000 troops in Iraq while our military is overstretched, which is still at pre-surge levels. We will continue to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq while the Iraqi government sits on a $79 billion surplus. In the absence of a timetable to remove our combat brigades, we will continue to give Iraq’s leaders a blank check instead of pressing them to reconcile their differences. So the President’s talk of “return on success” is a new name for continuing the same strategic mistake that has dominated our foreign policy for over 5 years.

President Bush also announced additional troops for Afghanistan. I am glad that the President is moving in the direction of the policy that I have advocated for years. But the most substantial increase will come when an additional Army brigade is deployed five months from now – in February, after the President has left office. His plan comes up short – it is not enough troops, and not enough resources, with not enough urgency.

What President Bush and Senator McCain don’t understand is that the central front in the war on terror is not in Iraq, and it never was – the central front is in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the terrorists who hit us on 9/11 are still plotting attacks seven years later. Today, the Taliban is on the offensive, al Qaeda has a new sanctuary, and its leaders are putting out videotapes. Yet under President Bush’s plan, we still have nearly four times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan, and we have no comprehensive plan to deal with the al Qaeda sanctuary in northwest Pakistan.

Now, the choice for the American people could not be clearer. John McCain has been talking a lot about change, but he’s running for four more years of the same foreign policy that we’ve had under George Bush. Senator McCain will continue the overwhelming focus on Iraq that has taken our eye off of the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11. And Senator McCain goes even further than President Bush in opposing the sovereign Iraqi government’s own support for a timetable to redeploy our troops, and he has no plan to press the Iraqis to reconcile.

It’s time to change our foreign policy. I will succeed in Iraq by responsibly removing our combat brigades and pressing Iraqis to stand up for their future. I will rebuild our military. I will finally have a comprehensive strategy to finish the job in Afghanistan – with more troops, more training for Afghan security forces, more development resources, more anti-corruption safeguards, and more of a focus on eliminating the Taliban and al Qaeda sanctuary along the Pakistan border. And I will stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq so that we can invest in our economy here at home.

Last week, we heard a lot of tough talk in St. Paul, but we didn’t hear much about the Bush-McCain record. Because seven years after 9/11, we are still fighting a war without end in Iraq and we still haven’t taken out the terrorists responsible for 9/11. We heard no explanation for why Osama bin Laden is still at large, because that’s where George Bush and John McCain’s judgment has gotten us. President Bush’s speech today underscored that we cannot afford more of the same.

Young Saudis Support Obama

Young Saudis want peace and feel Obama is more peaceful but they're skeptical.

Obama's NYT Op-Ed on Iraq

In case you didn't get it the first, second, third, fourth..... time, Obama wrote an editorial elaborating on Iraq and Afghanistan. 

NYT: ....The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

Obama Reiterates His Stance on Ending the Iraq War

Anyone who has watched Obama from the start, listened to most of his speeches would know that what's happened here is the media caught a whiff of something they hadn't heard before -- because they weren't paying attention and for some, they have a conservative agenda to push.
Obama's repeated time and again: we're going to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were getting in. That same phrase over and over. He said he'll always listen to the commanders on the ground but as president he would set the strategy. That's what presidents do, unlike Bush who has had no strategy to "win" the war in Iraq. There has been no overarching plan.

McCain and his lot are just so desperate to find a way to win against Obama, they're just grasping for straws. The media is just being the media. 

Don't Blame McClellan

i understand scott mcclellan and why he didn't come to any realizations until years after he served with bush and his club. sure, it would've been nice if he spoke up then, instead of selling the war.

the thing i don't get is i understood cheney and his sidekick bush were selling a war and i'm not exactly brilliant or anything but so many took the bait. i don't think americans took the bait because we were stupid or because the bush administration did a particularly good job at selling the war.

i think bush and his lot were able to sell it because that's what the majority of americans wanted at that time. they wanted a war and so they chose to close their eyes to the evidence. that's exactly what scott mcclellan did. he closed his eyes and hoped for the best.

now this man is being held up as a disloyal monster. he didn't know any better. he was part of the bush bubble, the small world with small beliefs. it's like being a member of any tight knit group, you tend to feed off one another, support one another. the tendency is to never be critical of one another. he was on the selling team and we were on the buying team and both parties were ready and willing.

he's said stuff that we all know now (and some of us then) was true and now he's being made into a villain because he didn't speak up then. well, that's how learning happens. we can always look back in hindsight and say, wow, was that stupid. for our part, as americans, i don't think we've looked at why we were culpable for the war in iraq. we should have held our media to a higher standard. we should've looked more carefully at the evidence, or lack of. we need to share in the blame. we need to learn a lesson so it doesn't happen again.

Vets For Freedom Smearing Obama

daily kos:This is a Smear Group using an Injured Vet openly in a slime commercial accusing Barack Obama directly of not meeting with veterans while wanting to meet with people who "Hate" America.

vetsforfreedom.org has set up a pac to smear obama. sen. joe lieberman is an "honorary" member of the pac. apparently, it was formed to help bush in his iraq war endeavors.
this pac has gone around the web posting phony information. on yahoo! answers:

Do you know that Obama refused to see 24 veterans while he was IN his office yet? He does realize how many..?
of us are veterans in this country and how many will become veterans by the end of his term in office if he would win? Did u also know he was on the Veterans Affairs Commity when he did this? And this is a man ppl are voting to be our new president?
This is from a congressional update site of veterans affairs.... u must subscribe to receive link site....so this is what i can share..

Sergeant Anderson was one of the 12 veterans denied a meeting with Senator Obama. And like his fellow veterans, Sergeant Anderson would like to ask Senator Obama a few questions: Why hasn't he met with General Petraeus? And why won't he visit Iraq? And why would Senator Obama rather talk about meeting—unconditionally—with Iran, instead of meeting with veterans and commanders? America deserves to know.

PLEASE DONATE NOW TO HELP US AIR THIS AD AROUND THE COUNTRY

obama has been an advocate for vets, more than any other politician that i've seen. he's called for better treatment of soldiers before, during and after war.

more from the swamp

more at huffington post

Photos From the War

a slideshow i lifted from barackobama.com. the reality without the blood and gore.

No Way, No How Will McCain Win

mccain is running around with the poor people making a media play. but he's not fooling anyone. i don't recall hearing mccain's voice of outrage against the treatment of katrina victims when the event happened, so when he passionately says that the ineptitude and injustice that was katrina will never happen again, that's nice to say, but where were you when it mattered?

mccain is appearing more like a bumble. as soon as he's up against obama, he's going down quickly. voters are getting smart. they're getting smart about politicians and the media.

mccain is weak on the economy. his gas tax holiday is hokey. extending bush's tax cuts for wealthy americans shows he's out of step with america. anything that's related to george bush is not going to fly. bush has simply been the worst president in recent history, and he's completely oblivious to that fact, which makes us more revolted.

mccain's only perceived strength, if you want to call it that, is national security, but i think more americans are becoming aware that we've been snowed on the iraq war. we know that being secure is about more than running around country to country, picking a fight. it's about diplomacy.

the republicans think that war is a given, that we will always be in iraq. the bottom line is that iraq has always been about oil and not a whole lot more.

john mccain can laugh about arugula and whole foods now (since i don't have health insurance, mccain, that's the way i stay healthy), but he's going to be up against a strong candidate, barack obama, a public fed up with bush, and a more politically savvy and engaged public.

frank rich at the nyt says mccain's turn is coming:

Mr. McCain is not only burdened with the most despised president in his own 71-year lifetime, but he’s getting none of the seasoning that he, no less than the Democrats, needs to compete in the fall. Age is as much an issue as race and gender in this campaign. Mr. McCain will have to prove not merely that he can keep to the physical rigors of his schedule and fend off investigations of his ties to lobbyists and developers. He also must show he can think and speak fluently about the domestic issues that are gripping the country. Picture him debating either Democrat about health care, the mortgage crisis, stagnant middle-class wages, rice rationing at Costco. It’s not pretty.

Last week found Mr. McCain visiting economically stricken and “forgotten” communities (forgotten by Republicans, that is) in what his campaign bills as the “It’s Time for Action Tour.” It kicked off in Selma, Ala., a predominantly black town where he confirmed his maverick image by drawing an almost exclusively white audience.

The “action” the candidate outlined in the text of his speeches may strike many voters as running the gamut from inaction to inertia. Mr. McCain vowed that he would not “roll out a long list of policy initiatives.” (He can’t, given his long list of tax cuts.) He said he would not bring back lost jobs, lost wages or lost houses. But, as The Birmingham News reported, this stand against government bailouts for struggling Americans didn’t prevent his campaign from helping itself to free labor underwritten by taxpayers: inmates from a local jail were recruited to set up tables and chairs for a private fund-raiser.

The Democrats’ unending brawl may be supplying prime time with a goodly share of melodrama right now, but there will be laughter aplenty once the Republican campaign that’s not ready for prime time emerges from the wings.

Powell on Obama

from abc:

Returning to presidential politics, Powell condemned controversial remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, as "deplorable" but complimented the Democratic candidate for his speech on race that followed in the aftermath.

"Rev. Wright is also somebody who has made enormous contributions in his community and has turned a lot of lives around," Powell said, "And so, I have to put that in context with these very offensive comments that he made, which I reject out of hand."

Powell added that he does not know Wright, and praised Obama's response.

"I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well . . . he didn't look the other way. He didn't wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn't abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith," Powell told Sawyer.

Powell, who has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate in almost every election since he retired from military service and public life, expressed admiration for Obama.

"It was a good (speech)," Powell said. "I admired him for giving it. And I agreed with much of what he said."

powell also talked about iraq, saying it's straining american troops.

Powell, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the administration of President George H.W. Bush and the first Gulf War, expressed concern over the burden an extended stay in Iraq would put on the troops and the country's military forces.

"It's going to be far more than the 100,000 that Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates was hoping for. It's going to be like 130,000 or 140,000. That is an extremely difficult burden for the United States Army, the United States Marine Corps, to keep up," Powell told "Good Morning America."

Powell also expressed reservations about the two-front combat in which the United States finds itself: surging in Iraq while trying to maintain control in Afghanistan.

"We have responsibilities in Afghanistan. And in some ways, Afghanistan is more difficult than Iraq. You have the tribal problems. You had drug lords running around ... and al Qaeda and the Taliban are making a resurgence," Powell said.

Obama: Iraq War Pullout

obama suggested a "diplomatic surge" today during a meeting with the us commander in iraq, david petraeus.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.
The Illinois Senator battling Hillary Clinton for his party's nomination called for more pressure on the Iraqi government to embrace political reconciliation and a regional "diplomatic surge that includes Iran."

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that" said Obama, adding that a plan for US troop withdrawals was needed to force Iraqi factions to work together.

"I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."

during the questioning, obama asked how do we define success and he suggested that perhaps the definition of success is set too high in iraq. listen to it at npr.

Conservatives for Obama

from the american conservative:

Yet if Obama does become the nation’s 44th president, his election will constitute something approaching a definitive judgment of the Iraq War. As such, his ascent to the presidency will implicitly call into question the habits and expectations that propelled the United States into that war in the first place. Matters hitherto consigned to the political margin will become subject to close examination. Here, rather than in Obama’s age or race, lies the possibility of his being a truly transformative presidency.

Whether conservatives will be able to seize the opportunities created by his ascent remains to be seen. Theirs will not be the only ideas on offer. A repudiation of the Iraq War and all that it signifies will rejuvenate the far Left as well. In the ensuing clash of visions, there is no guaranteeing that the conservative critique will prevail.

But this much we can say for certain: electing John McCain guarantees the perpetuation of war. The nation’s heedless march toward empire will continue. So, too, inevitably, will its embrace of Leviathan. Whether snoozing in front of their TVs or cheering on the troops, the American people will remain oblivious to the fate that awaits them.

For conservatives, Obama represents a sliver of hope. McCain represents none at all. The choice turns out to be an easy one

i didn't realize conservatives were tired of freedom marching.
Obama: Strategy Needed in Iraq
Stupid Patriotism

Obama: Overarching Iraq War Strategy Needed

as of today, at least 4,000 soldiers have been killed and 10s of thousands of iraqis. no one has bothered to keep track of them. and yes, obama did give an iraq war speech. recently. it's one that shows he's got a grasp on the problems and has ideas on how to fix them. but this speech sort of got lost in the muck of the bill and hillary clinton's kitchen sink blowout.

this speech shows first and foremost that obama is a brilliant thinker and not stuck in an ideology such as "freedom's on the march" or "your with us or against us." he doesn't think in terms so simplistic as the u.s. is good and we're battling evil.

bush has talked to us so long with these simpleton terms, it's refreshing to hear broader, wiser thinking. but cheney and his sidekick bush have been serving their purpose with small speak and that is to keep us in the dark while they fumble around. the less we know, the less they can be held accountable.

mccain hasn't come out with any bold strategies either. the only thing he's given us is that we could be there indefinitely.

but you know what, strategic thinking can actually help solve problems. and this is one of obama's key points in the speech. there has been no strategic thinking on iraq. no overarching plan, just tactics such as the "surge." tactics help achieve a strategy but if you're missing a strategy, then the tactics are just blowing in the wind, more kitchen sink kind of stuff. try it and hope it sticks. clinton and bush have a lot in common.

the following point comes at the beginning of the speech but it's perhaps one of the key points of this speech:

In the year since President Bush announced the surge – the bloodiest year of the war for America – the level of violence in Iraq has been reduced. Our troops – including so many from Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base – have done a brilliant job under difficult circumstances. Yet while we have a General who has used improved tactics to reduce violence, we still have the wrong strategy......
If you believe we are fighting the right war, then the problems we face are purely tactical in nature. That is what Senator McCain wants to discuss – tactics. What he and the Administration have failed to present is an overarching strategy: how the war in Iraq enhances our long-term security, or will in the future. That's why this Administration cannot answer the simple question posed by Senator John Warner in hearings last year: Are we safer because of this war? And that is why Senator McCain can argue – as he did last year – that we couldn't leave Iraq because violence was up, and then argue this year that we can't leave Iraq because violence is down.

When you have no overarching strategy, there is no clear definition of success. Success comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely. Here is the truth: fighting a war without end will not force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. And fighting in a war without end will not make the American people safer.

here are some of the highlights:

Five years have gone by since that fateful decision. This war has now lasted longer than World War I, World War II, or the Civil War. Nearly four thousand Americans have given their lives. Thousands more have been wounded. Even under the best case scenarios, this war will cost American taxpayers well over a trillion dollars. And where are we for all of this sacrifice? We are less safe and less able to shape events abroad. We are divided at home, and our alliances around the world have been strained. The threats of a new century have roiled the waters of peace and stability, and yet America remains anchored in Iraq.
.......
In 2002, when the fateful decisions about Iraq were made, there was a President for whom ideology overrode pragmatism, and there were too many politicians in Washington who spent too little time reading the intelligence reports, and too much time reading public opinion.

........
But here is the stark reality: there is a security gap in this country – a gap between the rhetoric of those who claim to be tough on national security, and the reality of growing insecurity caused by their decisions. A gap between Washington experience, and the wisdom of Washington's judgments. A gap between the rhetoric of those who tout their support for our troops, and the overburdened state of our military.
........
In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not – and never has been – a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.
.........
Now we know what we'll hear from those like John McCain who support open-ended war. They will argue that leaving Iraq is surrender. That we are emboldening the enemy. These are the mistaken and misleading arguments we hear from those who have failed to demonstrate how the war in Iraq has made us safer.
...........
The war in Iraq has emboldened Iran, which poses the greatest challenge to American interests in the Middle East in a generation, continuing its nuclear program and threatening our ally, Israel. Instead of the new Middle East we were promised, Hamas runs Gaza, Hizbollah flags fly from the rooftops in Sadr City, and Iran is handing out money left and right in southern Lebanon.

The war in Iraq has emboldened North Korea, which built new nuclear weapons and even tested one before the Administration finally went against its own rhetoric, and pursued diplomacy.

The war in Iraq has emboldened the Taliban, which has rebuilt its strength since we took our eye off of Afghanistan.

Above all, the war in Iraq has emboldened al Qaeda, whose recruitment has jumped and whose leadership enjoys a safe-haven in Pakistan – a thousand miles from Iraq.

...........

It may not dominate the evening news, but in Afghanistan, last year was the most deadly since 2001. Suicide attacks are up. Casualties are up. Corruption and drug trafficking are rampant. Neither the government nor the legal economy can meet the needs of the Afghan people.

It is not too late to prevail in Afghanistan.
.........
A stepped up military commitment must be backed by a long-term investment in the Afghan people. We will start with an additional $1 billion in non military assistance each year – aid that is focused on reaching ordinary Afghans. We need to improve daily life by supporting education, basic infrastructure and human services. We have to counter the opium trade by supporting alternative livelihoods for Afghan farmers. And we must call on more support from friends and allies, and better coordination under a strong international coordinator.
.......
To succeed in Afghanistan, we also need to fundamentally rethink our Pakistan policy. For years, we have supported stability over democracy in Pakistan, and gotten neither.

...........
The choice is not between Musharraf and Islamic extremists. As the recent legislative elections showed, there is a moderate majority of Pakistanis, and they are the people we need on our side to win the war against al Qaeda. That is why we should dramatically increase our support for the Pakistani people – for education, economic development, and democratic institutions. That child in Pakistan must know that we want a better life for him, that America is on his side, and that his interest in opportunity is our interest as well. That's the promise that America must stand for.
..............
But we cannot place the burden of a new national security strategy on our military alone. We must integrate our diplomatic, information, economic and military power.

.............
Instead of shuttering consulates in tough corners of the world, it's time to grow our Foreign Service and to expand USAID. Instead of giving up on the determination of young people to serve, it's time to double the size of our Peace Corps. Instead of letting people learn about America from enemy propaganda, it's time to recruit, train, and send out into the world an America's Voice Corps.
.............
What we've seen these last few years is what happens when the rigid ideology and dysfunctional politics of Washington is projected abroad. An ideology that does not fit the shape of the times cannot shape events in foreign countries. A politics that is based on fear and division does not allow us to call on the world to hope, and keeps us from coming together as one people, as one nation, to write the next great chapter in the American story.


reaquaint yourself with clinton's poor decision to go to war. even i knew that the war was bogus.

Timely Terrorists Threats to U.S. Trains

not that it isn't true, but i knew a terrorist threat was looming.

i have to admit to thinking that any time now the bush administration might conjure up a terrorist threat to change the tone of the national debate from economics to war. more fear. more justification for war spending. more reason to listen in on phone calls. here's to not having george bush sitting by the red phone.

but it could be a real threat. so if you're traveling by train, beware says the bush administration:

In a bulletin released Friday to U.S. law enforcement officials, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is warning of “continued strong terrorist interest” in targeting mass transit systems in the U.S. The 10-page threat assessment, labeled “Unclassified/For Official Use Only” and obtained by NBC News, cautions that the “U.S. mass transit and passenger rail systems are vulnerable to terrorist attacks because they are accessible to large numbers of the public and are notoriously difficult to secure.” Previous rail attacks in Madrid, London and Mumbai “could inspire terrorists to conduct similar attacks in the United States,” the report adds.

However, the authors of the intelligence analysis make clear that there are no known, immediate dangers. “At this time, there is no credible intelligence regarding specific plans by any extremist groups or individuals to perpetrate an act of terrorism against the U.S. mass transit system,” they write.

"Mass Transit System Threat Assessment"
The report is titled the “Mass Transit System Threat Assessment” and was prepared by TSA’s Office of Intelligence. It comes just weeks after Amtrak announced a series of new security measures. Amtrak does not routinely screen passengers or their baggage with metal detectors or other devices, as all U.S. airlines do. Instead, it announced on Feb. 19 that it would use so-called Mobile Security Teams to randomly check passengers and baggage.

The report identifies Al-Qaida as one of the “most likely actors” in potential attacks. “Al-Qa’ida and affiliated extremists pose the greatest threat to the U.S. mass transit and passenger rail system,” it states. “The threat to heavy and commuter rail in the Homeland is greater than the threat to buses and light rail. Attacks on buses overseas tend to be small-scale and are carried out mainly by smaller separatist groups within their own countries.” Other terror groups are a threat, too. “Lebanese Hizballah, which has supporters inside the United States, is less likely to attack U.S. domestic interests unless it perceives the United States has become a direct threat to its leadership, its armed capabilities, or to Iran,” the TSA authors write.

The threat from industry insiders:
TSA worries that rail-industry insiders might become terrorist accomplices: “The insider poses a significant threat to transportation security. Intelligence indicates the desire of terrorist groups such as al-Qa’ida to use individuals with insider knowledge of transportation sectors to help facilitate an attack against the United States,” the report states. read the rest.