Sea2Sea.blogspot.com

RIP, friend Alia

2009-05-02T15:05:00.000-07:00

The world lost one of it's brightest stars when God reclaimed one of his greatest creations in Alia Darrow. She left our world, and it's woes, for paradise on April 21st, 2009... way too early for us.

Rest in peace, my friend. You live on in my heart, my writings, and in my head. Like your family, I shall try to do you proud.

Me? MataHarley? I can be found as one of the Flopping Aces authors.

When cultural worlds collide The duel over dual (religious vs civil) courts

2008-07-07T15:36:00.000-07:00

When the Archbishop of Canterbury gave a lecture on civil and religious law… from the religious perspective… at the Royal Courts of Justice on Feb 7th of this year, I was quick (as were the media and other bloggers) to hit the “publish” button with my opinion. I figured this is a “no brainer”, right?

Certainly the Archbishop has taken more than his fair share of criticism in the wake of his published opinion. But first, let’s establish just what the Archibishop said as perspective: You can read his lecture, linked above. But I’ll pull shorter summaries from a report about his interview with BBC on his website.

The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.

Since February, I’ve been watching to see just how the UK was going to respond to what appears to be the advocation of a dual court system (however the Archbishop doth protest...). I certainly got a whiff of the latest news - first on our Independence Day when The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, weighed in on the issue in a speech to a Muslim audience at the London Muslim Centre, saying that residents of Wales and England had to accept the laws as they found them.

“There is no question of such [Sharia] courts sitting in this country or such sanctions being applied here.

“So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts,” he said.

snip

“Those who come to live in this country and benefit from the rights enjoyed by all who live here also necessarily come under the same obligations that the law imposes on all who live here.”

He stressed that Muslims were free to practice their religion without being in conflict with UK laws, but that some Sharia court sanctions (i.e. flogging, chopping off hands, stoning, executions) were clearly not applicable to Muslims in the UK's jurisdiction. All in all, sounds like a strong statement, yes? As the infomercials say... but wait! There's *more*!

Let's get a bit of groundwork leading up to this most current debate. One might say it came to the forefront (again...) just a month before when Dr. Suhaib Hasan, a judge in an east London Sharia court... yes you heard me right, a judge in an existing Sharia court in London... started pushing for integrating Sharia law into the British legal system, saying if Sharia law is implemented, this country will be a haven of peace."

Dr Hasan, who has been presiding over sharia courts in Britain for more than 25 years, argues that British law would benefit from integrating aspects of Islamic personal law into the civil system, so that divorces could be rubber-stamped in the same way, for example, that Jewish couples who go to the Beth Din court have their divorce recognised in secular courts.

He points out that the Islamic Sharia Council, of which he is the general secretary, is flooded with work. It hears about 50 divorce cases every month, and responds to as many as 10 requests every day by email and phone for a fatwa - a religious verdict on a religious matter.

Dr Hasan, who is also a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain on issues of sharia law, says there is great misunderstanding of the issue in the West.

In fact, the first English Muslim court opened for business in 1982. Since then, they've grown to ten courts: three in London, others in Birmingham, Rotherham and Dewsbury. Unlike the hardline courts in Islamic law Muslim nations, they handle more mundane and financial issues according to Muslim beliefs.

Speaking to The Times, Suhaib Hasan, from the Islamic Sharia Council, who also acts as a judge, said his organisation receives 10 to 15 e-mails a day about different aspects of Sharia, from inheritance to marriage.

“From the beginning, people have wanted our services. More and more come back to us,” said Dr Hasan. “Each month we deal with 20 cases.”

snip

Though their rulings have no basis in law, participants abide by them voluntarily and often settle their disputes without referral to British law authorities.

I certainly think the "haven of peace" bit from Dr. Hasan escapes me with his argument, but I sure got the idea that he wanted that "no basis in law" bit to change so that their rulings can be accepted as legitimate in British law. Which seems rather one sided as the Sharia law doesn't appear to accept English law decisions (i.e. divorce) with the same legitimacy.

Naturally we all make leaps to Sharia court decisions that are the height of western injustice. One relatively "tame" example might be the 28 year old Malaysian woman who's husband converted not only himself, but their three children to Islam without telling her. Then he forced her into a Sharia law court for a divorce and custody terms. As a non-Muslim in an Islamic law nation, she did not have the Malaysian constitution on her side.

Then there are the more brutal sentences associated with Islamic law, an example of which is the Afghanistan student, sentenced to death in Feb of this year for downloading and distributing a report on abuse of women in Islam, and asking for a debate.

But this is not the first time the Sharia court debate - or in fact it's Jewish court counterparts - has been raised. Canada also has it's history of addressing the same problem, and a recent Feb 2008 article by James Sturcke on the Guardian blog, gives us a recap.

After Canada's 1991 Arbitration Act, both Catholic and Jewish communities set up faith based tribunals to alleviate the back log of court cases on divorce, inheritance and custody issues. In 2003, the Islamic Institute of Civil Justice announced it's intention to follow suit for the 400K Muslims in Ontario.

Needless to say, da sheeeet hit the fan and the protestors hit the streets in Canada. And that included many Muslims averse to the prospect... such as Iranian Homa Arjomand, who organised International Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, saying that such a creation would set back Canadian law by 1,400 years.

Premiere Dalton McGuinty equalized all with a stroke of a pen, deciding to ban all faith based arbitrations in Canada in 2005.

I admit I had no knowledge of the existence of the Jewish or Catholic courts in other countries. Even Australia's Melbourne has a Jewish court, and in 2005, Australia underwent the same debate Canada did - also rejecting the proposal. Under the circumstances, Canada's Premiere McGuinty did exactly as he should... separate *all* church and state courts.

Back to Britain's current day debate and the pros and cons. As was pointed out, there are already 10 Sharia courts operating in the UK today. Those that have benefited are those caught between two cultures and Muslim lands. i.e the cases of divorce. In Islam, unless the husband says he divorces you, women cannot remarry. Thus Islamic women can obtain UK or Australia civilian divorces, but they are not recognized by the Muslim faith, and are not free to remarry.

In this instance, an Islamic woman's divorce thru western civil courts gives her no relief. In order to claim her rights and status as an unmarried woman, she must go thru the Sharia court. One might almost say that the lack of those courts is actually denying her a right to be divorced according to her religion. ahhhh... the plot thickens.

On the flip side, some of these same Islamic courts have taken overstepped the bounds of sensibility by taking their justice into the criminal realm as well, freeing some London Somali youths accused of stabbing another.

Youth worker Aydarus Yusuf, 29, who was involved in setting up the hearing, said a group of Somali youths were arrested by police on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager.

The victim's family told officers the matter would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail. A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate the victim.

"All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing."

As is usual with most our debates, what appeared to be a "no brainer" issue is actually clouded by legitimate concerns on both sides of the religious court debate. But one overwhelming issue remains at the center. If Sharia courts are granted some legitimacy with British law, where does that legitmacy begin and end? How can one draw a dividing line between the more mundane financial and divorce decrees, and those that may then tread on a UK citizen's human rights?

And more importantly, should we be setting up these "compromise" legal systems anyway?

Which brings us to today's latest from the London Times, "The Sharia debate: we can't all be equal under different laws", where journalist Matthew Parris was less than bowled over the Lord Chief Justice's speech to the Muslim audience.

“Equality” is a dummy concept in the philosophy of law. Here it allowed both speaker and audience to overlook real differences between them, because everyone is in favour of equality. But Lord Phillips was wrong to say that only recently has English law developed a respect for equality. Common Law and Statute have always regarded everyone as “equal before the law”, but depending on who and what you are and what you've done, your rights may differ. A cat burglar and a householder are not equal before the law.... snip

The only interesting question is whether these inequalities are fair and in the public interest. This must depend on moral and cultural standpoints, which change over time. The argument about “equality” for (say) women who wanted the right to vote, gays who want the right to marry, slaves who wanted to be free, or convicted paedophiles who want the right to be considered for employment in children's homes, has only and always been about the suitability of these categories to enjoy the rights urged for them; not whether the law should be “equal”.

No more than English law does even the most brutal Sharia advocate “inequality”. It simply reflects a cultural belief that women are different. Lord Phillips ducked that by taking equality as his theme.

Certainly Parris has valid points here, for women's rights in Islam are far from equal... even in divorce. But it is later on that he brings this down to a subject near and dear to both my own, and Wordsmith's, hearts. And that is this whole collide of cultural worlds highlights nations created of a subset of hyphenated citizens, each adhering to, and demanding, a different perspective of laws.

But the second claim that Lord Phillips endorses is more dangerous. Decoded, Dr Williams is saying that in a multicultural society it is fine for people within a culture to agree not to exercise certain rights, even if English law would allow them to.

This is a charter for male dominance. It's a charter for cultural bullying; for peer-group pressurising; for self-oppression.... snip

Peer-group pressure and cultural bullying. Yes, that can describe America's prevalent affirmative action mentality in a nut shell. We already see the resurgence (and worse yet, acceptance) of hypenated Americanism as this 2008 POTUS election progresses. We, ourselves, have a large constituency of American Muslims who may see both the benefits, and pitfalls, of attempting to force a legally recognized Sharia court in the US.

The burning question is, will we see this same battle come to our shores? And how will that legalized "hypenating" affect our nation's unity?

Blogging at Flopping Aces now!

2008-06-20T19:48:00.000-07:00

As of June 5th, 2008, the illustrious posse at Flopping Aces has invited me to become a regular contribution author there.

As most other authors are either post, or current serving military - plus the lovely activist, Skye - I am humbled by the company I am now keeping.

So if you're looking for me, do check out the FA site, and comment away!

The Supremes: The road to todays SCOTUS opinion

2008-06-12T22:30:00.000-07:00

I've been reading the 134 page SCOTUS opinion Boumediene vs Bush, and archiving previous related decisions. So I thought I’d post this to complement Curt’s post at Flopping Aces, The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done”, Here I’ve filled in some of the blanks that led to today’s close decision, and included some of the arguments from past referenced cases.

First… disclaimer. I am not attorney. But I’ve written a few briefs for per se appearances, and read more than a few briefs in my time. I guess you could say I consider it an S&M hobby… But I’ll stay mostly generic, and use excerpts. Law, as we all know, has varying degrees of interpretations of absolutes… as our Supreme Court exhibits flawlessly. Justice may be “blind”, but it’s also in a constant state of conflict.

This legal battleground has endured incoming since Coalition of Clergy, et al. v. Bush, et al In February 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held:

That court dismissed the petitions for writ of habeas corpus on behalf of the absentee detainees for two reasons. One was that the petitioners themselves did not have standing. The other was that the court ruled it did not have jurisdiction as Cuba retained sovereignty over Gitmo. The opinion recaps history in the first pages, stating the sequence of events as below:

Denying membership in the al Qaeda terrorist network that carried out the September 11 attacks and the Taliban regime that supported al Qaeda, each petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court, which ordered the cases dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Guantanamo is outside sovereign U. S. territory. The D. C. Circuit affirmed, but this Court reversed, holding that 28 U. S. C. §2241 extended statutory habeas jurisdiction to Guantanamo.

The Supreme’s reasoning for reversing has everything to do with Gitmo’s base status and the lease agreement for Gitmo with Cuba, originally struck in 1903.

According to the Agreement Between the United States and Cuba for the Lease of Lands for Coaling and Naval stations, as referenced in this Jan 14, 2004 Supreme opinion in Rasul vs Bush:

5 Article 3 of the Agreement for the Lease to the United States of Lands in Cuba for Coaling and Naval Stations provides: While on the one hand the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas of land and water, on the other hand the Republic of Cuba consents that during the period of the occupation by the United States of said areas under the terms of this agreement the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas. . . .

In the same above linked 2004 opinion, the Supreme's recognized that Gitmo was not sovereign, but was still a “creature of the Constitution” because it was accountable only to itself, and US law was the only law recognized and applied. There is no SOFA, but since Cuba granted the US complete jurisdiction and control over the area, none was needed.

As to detainees in other location facilities, their status would depend entirely upon the circumstances as to the military’s jurisdiction and control in the host country, and any SOFAs that altered that authority. (You'll see this with Johnson v Eisentrager further down in the post.)

Since the agreement with Cuba is unique, with only a pale comparison to the Canal Zone (Panama), even the Supreme’s know they are working sans precedents.

A diligent search of founding-era precedents and legal commentaries reveals no certain conclusions. None of the cases the parties cite reveal whether a common-law court would have granted, or refused to hear for lack of jurisdiction, a habeas petition by a prisoner deemed an enemy combatant, under a standard like the Defense Department’s in these cases, and when held in a territory, like Guantanamo, over which the Government has total military and civil control.

In the Rasul v Bush, June 2004, which overturned the DC Court of Appeals, the Supreme’s ruled the federal courts *do* have jurisdiction for Gitmo. The previous ruling district judge then went thru two proceedings with the petitioners. One to dismiss, the second to hold the detainees had due process rights.

At that time, Congress steps in and passes the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. It was attached to the DOD appropriations bill as Title X, along with Gulf hurricanes and Pandemic Flu Act appropriations. DTA granted validation and review of the CSRT (Combatant Status Review Tribunals) exclusively to the U.S. Court of Appeals, DC. (CSRTs were implemented after Hamdi v Rumsfeld in June 2004)

DTA was far from partisan. It passed the House 398 to 19, (16 not present), and the Senate 97 to 0, (3 not present).

But in an ensuing SCOTUS opinion, Hamdan v Rumsfeld in March 2006, the justices held DTA did not apply to petitioners who were already in the appeal process.

So Congress came up with the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This law amended the habeas corpus issue, denying it to those that were determined (by CSRT, and any reviews by the DC circuit) to be enemy combatants, and extended it to anything else against the US... i.e. as treatment, conditions or trial.

MCA did one more thing… it was enforceable upon enactment, and applied to all cases – including those that were pending appeals.

The Military Commissions Act, while not as sweeping as DTA, was stil bi-partisan in nature. It passed the House 250 to 170, (12 not present), and passed Senate 65 to 34, (1 not present). In total, eleven DNC Senators and 32 House Representatives stood with the GOP majority to push the bill thru for enactment.

Those against it? The usual suspects we see celebrating today.

What was also troubling about the concurring opinion was the casual toss aside of Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 in June 1950 (mentioned above). The circumstances and accusations are about as close a mirror situation as they come to Gitmo today.

Respondents, who are nonresident enemy aliens, were captured in China by the United States Army and tried and convicted in China by an American military commission for violations of the laws of war committed in China prior to their capture. They were transported to the American-occupied part of Germany and imprisoned there in the custody of the Army. At no time were they within the territorial jurisdiction of any American civil court. Claiming that their trial, conviction, and imprisonment violated Articles I and III, the Fifth Amendment, and other provisions of our Constitution, laws of the United States, and provisions of the Geneva Convention, they petitioned the District Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Army, and several officers of the Army having directive power over their custodian.

The history of this case was the District Court dismissed the petitions for the detainees. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision, only to have the Supreme’s come back in, reversing the Appeals and hold with the DC’s original dismissal... stating:

We are unable to find that the petition alleges any fact showing lack of jurisdiction in the military authorities to accuse, try and condemn these prisoners or that they acted in excess of their lawful powers.

So what’s so different here? Considering Gitmo is so completely unique, it boggles the mind that the Supreme's discard Eisentrager so quickly. And the concurring justices do just that.

On pgs 5-6 of the opinion, they state three reasons – including questionable status (detainees denying they are enemy combatants); authority differences between the German prison and the US absolute authority in Gitmo, and the fact that military trials hadn’t been held in Gitmo. (and who’s fault was that??) Instead, they dismiss it with this final sentence...

The situation in Eisentrager was far different, given the historical context and nature of the military’s mission in post-War Germany.

Right...

With the combination of DTA/MCA, Gitmo detainee had rights to contest their “enemy combatant” status as first step and, presumably, if the DC circuit overturned their review, could then enjoy the writ of habeas corpus. It was a compromise alternative as hammered out in Congress. There is nothing in history to set a precedent for these times, and the old rules just do not fit.

As Chief Justice Roberts states in the dissenting opinion:

Today the Court strikes down as inadequate the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants. The political branches crafted these procedures amidst an ongoing military conflict, after much careful investigation and thorough debate. The Court rejects them today out of hand, without bothering to say what due process rights the detainees possess, without explaining how the statute fails to vindicate those rights, and before a single petitioner has even attempted to avail himself of the law’s operation.

So what becomes of both the Detainee Treatment Act and the Military Commissions Act? Are they considered un Constitutional and are rendered null and void? Are the CSRTs no longer a valid process of determination for the detainees, or are we to march them all thru the US judicial system?

Normally it is the task of the Supreme Court to rule when a law is vague, or un Constitutional. But in this case, it seems more likely that the Supremes themselves have made mud out of what once was more a clear path of due process.

Oh to have the Supreme Court of the 1950s back today...

Obama Spending and Lessons from Venezuela

2008-06-10T15:12:00.000-07:00

Faced with shortages of food, building materials and other staples, President Hugo Chávez is intensifying state control of the Venezuelan economy through a new wave of takeovers of private companies and the creation of government-controlled ventures with allies like Cuba and Iran.

The moves come just months after voters rejected a referendum to give the president sweeping constitutional power over the economy and public institutions, leading to new accusations that Chávez is more interested in consolidating power than in fixing Venezuela's problems.

And while he has argued that aggressive action against the private sector is needed to correct social injustices and fight soaring inflation, his critics say his moves are instead compounding those troubles.

Above are excerpts from an Int'l Herald Tribune article - Chávez tightens reins on Venezuelan economy - just a month ago. It has some disturbing rumblings of familiarity... most especially that final sentence.

Obama, the likely DNC candidate, has tax incentive proposals on his possible Oval Office desk for $50 billion into energy venture capitalist funds, $150 billion for more biofuel issues, doubling existing science and research for clean energy products, doubling existing federal funding for research on job creation, more federal workforce training programs, distressed home owners funds, quadrupling Early Head Start funding and increasing existing Head Start funding, $5 billion for transitional jobs for the low income, and creating an Affordable Housing trust fund.

And... oh yeah, all of rural America should have high speed internet. Hasn't he heard of Directway?? And is he proposing we put a net satellite in orbit for those that those who do not have a shot at the southern skies satellite? Boy won't that be a pretty penny.

Then of course, we can't leave out the most overt large scale government creation - universal health care.

The above programs are merely a drop in the bucket for a President Obama spending frenzy, in conjunction with his merry bank of progressives leading the House and Senate. It has to be obvious even to the blissfully oblivious that Obama will be one expensive President to maintain. With cronies in charge of Congressional purse strings, what way is there to stop America from becoming a total welfare state, such as Cuba or Venezuela?

We hear little of the big spending Obama plans in the media. Instead, mesmerized by his appealing baritone, we're to get all a'twitter about a middle class tax cut. So do we get the new x% tax cut on the amount we're at now *with* the Bush tax cuts? Or will Obama increase our taxes by letting the Bush cuts expire, *then* give us our x% cut? Makes a difference, don't you think? We might just come out in the wash with it all. But it sure makes for good campaign fodder amongst the true believers.

Reality is Obama's cuts won't mean much difference in the large scheme. The taxes to be added on for all his desired programs have yet to be tallied for the public. By the time he's done with his socialist program reforms we will have redefined a large portion of America's economic class - combining raised lower classes with the lowered middle class, and creating a newer, larger lower-middle class. Whether that's good comes from where you are sitting now.

Reading thru a President Obama's plans of a socialist USA on his website, I have to wonder just how long will it be before we see excerpts, like above, about the US and Obama instead of Chavez and Venezuela? The propositions of both leaders are eerily parallel in substance and end goals. They share the belief that the fix all for economic problems is by government seizing profits - whether by de-privatization, or by taxes - and redistributing to the masses. And certainly Obama's youthful adulation of Frank William Marshall is just one more troublesome association to add to his other collection of raging pastors, US terrorist bombers, sleazier than usual real estate investors, and a magically, squeaky clean mortgage CEO from the financially troubled Countrywide Mortgage.

Before we step hastily into an Obama socialist quagmire, we would be wise to observe, in real time, some serious lessons from Venezuela. Chavez - despite serious financial woes - is not abandoning his Marxist dream. Instead, he continues to consolidate ultimate state power by going after productive private businesses. Even using his own version of the US's "eminent domain" by offering some, if not low, compensation.

Still, Chávez is pressing ahead with the takeovers of companies big and small. These include Sidor, a large, Argentine-controlled steelmaker; cement companies owned by Mexican, Swiss and French investors; more than 30 sugar plantations; a large dairy products company; and a sprawling cattle estate on the southern plains.

Chávez has avoided outright confiscations of private companies, by offering some compensation, but the terms of these deals are growing increasingly contentious, with the president threatening to withhold payments. In Sidor's case, the company had asked for up to $4 billion in compensation; Chávez is giving it $800 million.

Needless to say, Venezuelan business owners aren't feeling comfortable these days. Even small business are feeling the pinch. From an AP article just two days ago:

Mirina Kakalanos has been forced to double prices at her family's shoe store in the last year. Customers turn away after browsing the pumps and sandals, but Kakalanos says she has no choice.

"There is less money coming in, and more costs to cover," said the 40-year-old mother of three, whose Greek immigrant father opened the shop after moving to Venezuela in search of a better life. Now she barely makes enough to get by.

Gas is cheap in Venezuela. But before you get too envious, that's only a part of the story. Or, as Rory Carroll, reporting from Caracus, put in in his Jan 2008 article in the Guardian:

Venezuela, a major oil producer which introduced the subsidy as a populist measure in the 1940s, is probably the most extreme case of a gas-guzzling dream becoming a policy nightmare.

A lack of rigs and other problems has reduced the output of the state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, just as domestic consumption has soared to 780,000 barrels a day. The subsidy costs the government around £4.5bn annually. It also encourages a brisk trade in contraband petrol across the Colombian border, where prices are higher.

snip

Some economists call the subsidy "Hood Robin", because it steals from the poor and gives to the rich by favouring relatively wealthy car owners above the poor who rely on public transport.

Oil revenues to the state has tripled since 2004 to $63.9 bil, and account for 50% of the nation's budget. Chavez has also taken over the electricity and phone utilities in the name of the state. There is no doubt the palace is awash in govt cash. This should be good for a socialist nation, right?

Wrong. What Chavez didn't pump of govt cash into his neighborly FARC terrorists, political buds, and other similar human scum, he funneled into welfare/social programs. Fresh with "free money", the population went into a spending binge and banks increased lending... all atop the booming new car purchases (500,000 sold last year alone, population of 25.5 mil)

But now life is different and the fruits of socialism are coming home to roose. With massive govt constraints and constantly morphing laws, foreign investments for business have fallen to record lows. There's food shortages, high unemployment, and serious inflation. Six years after Chavez came to power, the nat'l poverty level still was standing at 37%. Historically poor, it's not hard to understand Venezuelan's ran amok with free cash in fist.

In a desperate attempt to fix what is, and was inevitably going to, go wrong, Chavez's govt giveaway of oil money continues. Last month Chavez increased the minimum wage 30% (about $372 US). Still, only half of the Venezuelan's will see that raise in wages. Including a woman selling vegetables in an open market. Yorbelis Suarez says she pays three times what she did just two months ago for her stock.

Now Chavez plays with the currency to gain the upper hand.

As prices now climb again, Chavez's government has tried to tame the trend - issuing US$4 billion in bonds in April to absorb excess cash, enforcing price controls on basic foods and holding the currency to a fixed exchange rate. It introduced a new monetary unit in January to boost confidence in its sagging "bolivar," and changed the way inflation is measured, incorporating data from smaller cities with less cash on hand.

The Central Bank embraced a more traditional anti-inflationary measure in March, raising interest rates on credit cards to 32 percent and on savings deposits to 10 percent to slow consumer spending.

But inflation is galloping, with rates of roughly 30 percent after running at nearly 20 percent a year earlier. And some of Chavez's tactics have backfired.

Price caps have caused sporadic shortages, as some food producers sought other, more profitable work. And foreign exchange controls make it harder for businesses to get dollars to buy imports, driving them to buy the U.S. currency on the black market, where it has sold at times for twice the official rate - further inflating prices.

Investors complain that these restrictions - not to mention the fear that their lands or companies could be taken over by the government - are making it harder to do business in Venezuela.

It's no historic secret that communism/socialism/Marxist regimes are short lived failures that lead to poverty for unpriviliged masses. But still some leaders persist in bucking history.

Stanford Terry Karls says oil booms always results in rapid growth... until they reach what she calls "absorption crunch".

You just can't absorb that huge influx of money properly," Karl said. "You get problems with your prices, you get problems of supply. ... All those bottlenecks slow down growth and eventually create inflation."

And so it comes down to the economic unstability of socialism - internally and externally. It is a concept that only works in smaller, personal units, and where the resources are boundless. But the catch 22 is they have created a state where there is no incentive for foreign investment, and the production of Venezuala's wealth - oil - slows. There is no incentive for private enterprise from within to increase the govt socialist network. Much easier to sit back and "take". So the money supply is dwindling, and the consumption is rising. The gap will only widen until ultimate failure.

If socialist principles can not work in a country with 16% of our population, and one of the 10 largest oil reserves in the world, how can we expect a socialist America to survive with our consumption, our advanced technology, and our out of control immigrant population? Especially when you consider the largest percentage of our exports is commodities like transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment? All of which require importing of oil to manufacture.

And so we come to see what well be America's future under a President Obama, as reflected in Venezuela under Chavez's govt giveaway policies - or perhaps better described as life in Obama's proposed United States Socialist Republic.

The Middle East two-step and the Syria-Israel talks that "aren't"

2008-06-06T14:18:00.001-07:00

There is no doubt that the bulk of the Middle East is in the middle of a two-step dance. The region, as a whole, stands on the brink of reforms and - using that massively popular catch word today - change. Whether those changes are for the good, only time will tell. But there is no doubt there are hotbeds of "talk" going on everywhere.

Lebanon finds itself not only sans President, but slowly being devoured by Hezbollah, demanding and receiving legislative veto powers. Meanwhile Hezbollah and Israel came to terms, via a German broker, for a prisoner swap - Israel is to receive the remains of the two Israeli soldiers captured in 2006, plus information on a missing Israeli AF pilot from 1986. In exchange Israel hands over "the longest-serving Lebanese prisoner in Israel, Samir Qontar, four other Hizbullah prisoners, the bodies of Hizbullah fighters and maps of mines planted by the Israeli Army in South Lebanon."

Pakistan is busy striking deals with the tribal militants, but honoring the terms seems optional for both sides. S. Waziristan militants insist they remain open for business as a "centre for jihad". Meanwhile the Pak leadership assures the US they will not be pulling the army out of the mountainous regions (violating the agreement), and the militants refuse to exile, or turn over, foreign militants in their midst (also violating the agreement).

Instead some tribal areas are now, effectively, under Taliban rule. A side effect, of course, hits Afghanistan - seeing increased terrorist attacks as Pak militants, temporarily playing nice on their soil, cross the border to reek jihad havoc in Karzai's back yard.

On other fronts, Abbas wants to talk to Hamas. And Ahmadinejad is sipping cha in Japan. Not to be left out of all the talking goin' on, Iraq and US officials wrestle with the base foundation of the two security agreements meant to replace the UN Security Council mandate that expires in Dec 2008. This, of course, has commenter Doug over at Flopping Aces in an apocalyptic tizzy in the "lull in Iraq news" thread, anticipating doom with each leak of yet another 2nd hand, hearsay detail on the undrafted agreements. We'll all have to be patient to see what comes just how much control (or restrictions) the US wants Iraq to possess over our bases and military personnel.

Each of these constantly morphing talk-spots has their own indepth stories unfolding, and short of a great Disney/Pixar flick, is probably the best entertainment around... if you can keep up with it all.

But what's caught my eye this week is the continued attempts at talks, negotiations, and/or appeasement using Turkish eyes between Syria and Israel. Or should I say sorta "talks". Or perhaps talks that really aren't talks, because no one's talking. And if they are, they aren't saying the same thing.

Today we find the media still hasn't got a clue, and the stories vary in this May 30th article from the Jerusalem Post, depending upon the source info. But, by all standards, the two States haven't thrown in the towel on their unofficial efforts. Reaching an agreement is a major step forward for transforming ME relations. It not only affords Israel an additional buffer in the region - a Syrian policeman, so to speak - but puts a rift between Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. And there would be one more "sorta" western ally in the ME fold.

To add to the confusion, a May 21sth media account from Haaretz says that effort went down in flames "following Israel's refusal to hold talks on an official level - and a Syrian refusal to restrict the talks to an "academic level". But an Islam Online account the same day seems to indicate the efforts are still underway.

If we read today's June 6th Asian Times, it appears that the talks do seem to have some underground life - despite all the media confusion. More than interesting in this account is that Iran is rather miffed with Syria's steps closer to not only Israel and western allies, but also towards other modern Arab states.

What with chasing our tails on the carousel of conflicting info, it's almost impossible to confirm exacatly what is going on between the two. These vague "secret meetings", but done with full knowledge of Israel and Syrian officials (huh?), were (and still are?) considered indirect. (underline emphasis added for Obama fans...) They were meant to create a principle of agreement as a "non-document" ... or "a document of understandings that is not signed and lacks legal standing", and is political in nature. And all of this has been going on, in some fashion off and on, since 2004. So to avoid misinformation on specifics that no on can agree on as fact, I'll speak in generalities.

The historic bone of contention with Israel and Syria has always been the Golan Heights borders (using territory as of June 4th, 1967), water (Sea of Galilee, Jordan River, and Lake Kinneret), and Syria's promise to end support for Hezbollah and Hamas, plus distance itself from Iran.

Israel's Olmert is ready to give up the Golan Heights, despite the objects of the Israeli's (70% per those pesky polls...). Israeli's firmly believe this is Olmert's way of diverting attention from accusations of accepting bribes from a US businessman. 18,000 supporters of the Jewish Golan settlers have promised to bolt the coalition of Olmert gives away the territory.

Israel's motivation for a tentative peace with Syria... as long as the price is not too high to accept... is self-evident. They remain an island in the Middle East under constant threat and assault. But what is Syria's motivation in bolting the Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran fold?

Certainly, in the wake of Israel's bombing of the suspected Syrian nuke site last year, and their only partial cooperation with the IAEA to inspect other sites, they have first hand experience that Israel doesn't hesitate to exercise preemptive strikes when they feel it's warranted.

But Syria has other reasons. And it comes down to simply economic survival and oil.

Syria is a non-OPEC oil producer. And the oil output of Syria, and other non-OPEC members (including Bahrain, Oman, Yemen) has been steading dwindling in the past years. Add the fact that al Qaeda strikes in Yemen have hindered their oil exploration, effectively scaring off companies who would willingly come in to increase production.

Syrian Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Sufian Alaw worries that the decline, due to technological problems and depletion of reserves, will lead to Syria soon becoming an oil importer instead of supplier. Tho Syria is not an OPEC member, they are dependent upon the organization for defense of their oil prices. With the rising costs of oil, and the effect of int'l sanctions on Syria, they are taking some economic hits that do not envision such a rosy future.

Thus Syria has been playing both sides... on one hand, they show up at the Annapolis Middle East Peace Conference last year, as if to prove they do not take their marching orders from Tehran. On the other hand, they assure Iran that a working alliance with the west will not cause them to abandon their Iran/Hezbollah and Hamas allies.

Yet it is these half-hearted steps that has the US, which has previously opposed Israeli-Syrian chats, now stand neutral and without major opposition. Bush recognized that Syria had the most to gain by peace with Israel, enabling a lifting of the isolation imposed by the beltway since 2003.

As far as Hezbollah, giving up support for them is not so costly for Syria, per Joshua Landis of Syria Comment. In an interview for CFR discussing the possibilities of such a peace between the two states, Landis points out that if Israel willingly cedes Golan Heights back to Syria, they have no need to arm Lebanese Hezbollah for armed resistance against Israel. A very easy concession to make.

The one sticking point, per Landis, is Hamas in Syria. They cannot turn over Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal. Turning away Palestine would be a "bitter pill" for the Syrians.

Syria faces a cross roads of what is their greater need... a tentative peace with Israel, and the financial relief of being a quasi-western ally, open to foreign investments? Or continued alliance with the enemies of the west, and a paralyzed economy. We already know they will concede... now it's to see just how much.

Obama's Chicago style diplomacy? Corners Lieberman after critique

2008-06-05T15:34:00.000-07:00

Jake Tapper sets the imagination a'whirling. His Political Punch entry today, "Obama Confronts Lieberman On McCain Advocacy, Tone, on Senate Floor", conjures visions reminiscent of 1900s Chicago mob bosses and their intimidation "diplomacy".

To set the stage, Lieberman had just finished a critique on the Senate floor of BHO's AIPAC speech on Wednesday - the day following his self-coronation - when Obama ushered him off to the side for some private "words".

Returning to the Senate after his securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Lieberman greeted each on the Senate floor in the Well as they were voting on the budget resolution.

They shook hands. But Obama didn’t let go, leading Lieberman - cordially - by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama's speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign.

Watch video of the encounter on the Senate floor HERE.

The two spoke intensely for approximately five minutes, with no one able to hear their conversation. Reporters watched as Obama leaned closely in to Lieberman, whose back was literally up against the wall.

Neither party is officially talking. But while Lieberman spokesman Marshall Whitman says the conversation was "a cordial and friendly discussion" and Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says it was "private and friendly," Democratic sources tell ABC News that the conversation was a stern rebuke to Lieberman for his criticism of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee on the conference call, as well as a discussion about how far Lieberman is willing to go in his advocacy of McCain, and the tone of the campaign.

The video link provided is a long shot, and captures only the part of Obama's firm clasp on Lieberman amidst the crowd, until they exit out of frame to the right. The rest is presumably constructed from witnesses. Tapper's accounting does rightfully deserve this caveat... the full encounter, nor the video, is not available on tape. So on can only guess what was said, and in what manner. I'll wager "body language" interpretators are going to have a ball with this one....

However this bizarre event, an obviously more virulent and younger Senator physically pulling the older and smaller Lieberman out of the crowd, and instead to a private wall, begs the most simple of observations. You can take the boy out of Chicago. But can you take the Chicago out of the boy?

DNC need for "exit strategy" dooms Hillary run?Not so fast....

2008-06-04T20:38:00.000-07:00

“We pledged to support her to the end. Our problem is not being able to determine when the hell the end is.”

Rep-NY Charles Rangel

Typical of the cowardly party that has neither balls, nor patience and loyalty. Per their own rules, he/she with the most delegates wins.

However, as a result of the last two primaries, neither Hillary nor Obama had the needed pledged delegates to cross the finish line. Obama declares victory, but only with the aid of promises from the super delegates.

One hitch... supers don't cast their official votes until the DNC Convention in August. And while they may promise a vote today, events tomorrow allows them wiggle room to change their minds - all within the wacky and hardly Democratic DNC rules.

This means Obama's strutting is truly premature... unless, of course, he and other party leaders force Hillary out against her better judgment. And evidently, they have.

Her decision came after a day of conversations with supporters on Capitol Hill about her future now that Mr. Obama had clinched the nomination. Mrs. Clinton had, in a speech after Tuesday night’s primaries, suggested that she wanted to wait before deciding about her future, but in conversations throughout the day on Wednesday, her aides said, she was urged to step aside.

snip

Mrs. Clinton’s decision came as some of her most prominent supporters — including former Vice President Walter F. Mondale — announced they were now backing Mr. Obama.

snip

The desire of the party for Mrs. Clinton to leave the race was signaled — if politely as four top Democratic leaders issued a statement on Wednesday morning asking all uncommitted delegates to make their decisions by Friday. The statement from the party officials — Howard Dean, the Democratic chairman; Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker; Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, and Gov. Joe Manchin of West Virginia — stopped short of endorsing Mr. Obama, but aides said they would likely move in that direction if Mrs. Clinton lingered in the race.

“The voters have spoken,” they said in their joint statement released before 7 a.m., purposefully timed to set the tone for the day after the election. “Democrats must now turn our full attention to the general election.”

The voters have spoken? What BS... Obama is a super delegate creation. And not even an official one until Denver at that. But let's not get facts get in the way of railroading.

But the Democrats are not known for their endurance. And the lack of a Hillary exit strategy - or "when the hell the end is", as Charlie puts it - isn't giving the lily-livered, high-profile supporters much to go on. So the big guns come out en masse to bully Hillary out of the running. Just as they've done over and over on Iraq, the powerful DNC elite declare defeat early, and prepare to abandon ship.

Perhaps more admirable is the core Hillary base... loyal and feeling every inch cheated, swindled, and disenfranchised. They know the rules too. And they're having to face the fact that the "every vote must count" of their beloved party is nothing more than an meaningless, feel-good slogan, empty of meaning and implementation.

His Messiahship and the big guns have spoken. Still I wonder how they'll deal with inevitable, and likely severe, "buyers' remorse".

But there is still the glimmer of a chance. Hillary will officially "suspend" her campaign, and throw her endorsement to Obama. However "suspend" is entirely different than "end". This is being done in order for her to continue fund raising to pay off debts.

Or is it just a way to wait quietly in the wings without officially withdrawing in the race? Only time will tell. And if that buyers' remorse does set in prior to Denver, they may be very glad they couldn't shake the lady.

6-06: Thought for the Day

2008-06-03T04:39:00.000-07:00

For 40 years I've read and ad nauseum heard how we must respect the culture of this group or that, this country or that. But why is it the same proponents of "respecting other cultures" exhibit no respect for the unique American culture?

World praises Iraq progress DNC "stays the course" on "failed policy" rhetoric

2008-05-29T15:11:00.000-07:00

Evidently the rest of the world isn't so consumed with Bush hate as they cannot acknowledge from Iraq's fledgling govt has accomplished against all odds.

A declaration adopted by 100 delegations at a Stockholm conference said the participants "recognised the important efforts made by the (Iraqi) government to improve security and public order and combat terrorism and sectarian violence across Iraq."

It also acknowledged political and economic progress made, and said that "given the difficult context, these successes are all the more remarkable."

In a speech earlier to the conference, Ban said Iraq was "stepping back from the abyss that we feared most," adding that with international help the war-torn country could fulfill its "vision of becoming a free, secure, stable and prosperous nation."

He cautioned however that "the situation remains fragile."

In the meantime, the likely DNC candidate for POTUS stubbornly "stays the course". Just two days ago, Obama has the "audacity" to speak thru his spokesman, Bill Burton, responding to McCain's offer for a joint exploratory trip to Iraq:

"John McCain's proposal is nothing more than a political stunt, and we don't need any more 'Mission Accomplished' banners or walks through Baghdad markets to know that Iraq's leaders have not made the political progress that was the stated purpose of the surge. The American people don't want any more false promises of progress, they deserve a real debate about a war that has overstretched our military, and cost us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars without making us safer."

Not confined to the Presidential hopeful, Pelosi herself regurgitated the same ol' line in an interview with the SF Chronicle.

Asked if she saw any evidence of the surge’s positive impact on her May 17 trip to Iraq she responded:

Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, they negotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.

Blind hatred and selfish arrogance in order to secure the nation's top political seat are qualities in a leader that requires the US voter to adopt a "willing suspension of disbelief".

OBAMABOTS "TAKE A DUMP" ON PORTLAND's LAW ENFORCEMENT MEMORIAL

On a side note, symbolic of Obama's refusal to even recognize, let alone honor, our military's success can be found at his Portland, OR rally... where literally the Obamabots "took a dump" on Portland's fallen law enforcement officers.

Brennan, who controlled the crowd near the Portland Police Memorial, noticed several Porta Potties set up in the middle of the memorial. Brennan had been at the site five days earlier for an annual memorial service and a flag was still set at half mast on the day of the rally.

"There was plenty of room elsewhere so space wasn't an issue," Brennan said. "So someone used some really poor decision making, whoever elected to put them there. I mean, it's somewhat hallowed ground, I guess you could call it."

After several days, Brennan attached a photo he took to a letter and e-mailed it to dozens of media outlets and the Obama campaign.

Brennan said officers haven't heard back from the Obama campaign. He said someone owes an apology to the families of the fallen officers.

The officer, of course, doesn't blame Obama personally. However it's ironically insightful that his followers are just as oblivious to the honor and accomplishments of those that serve as the "messiah" they follow.

More "plans to bomb Iran" Feinstein/Lugar briefed?

2008-05-28T23:46:00.000-07:00

Truly a bizarre article in yesterday's Asia Times. Again the usual headline catches my eye - "Bush 'plans Iran air strike by August'.

But this article provides startling details... rather like predicting rain drops to the minute, journalist, Muhammad Cohen says to watch for a NYTs op-ed in the next few days by Senators Feinstein and Lugar, protesting the proposed plan.

Even more startling... if it does happen to be factual... is the amount of detail laid out to the awaiting targets. Like Saddam's warning months in advance, again the target has ample time to move the palace patio furniture, so to speak.

The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC's elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds' stated mission is to spread Iran's revolution of 1979 throughout the region.

Targets could include IRGC garrisons in southern and southwestern Iran, near the border with Iraq. US officials have repeatedly claimed Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents.

Cohen points to the Senate's majority vote resolution to declare the IRGC a terrorist organization as a precursor to the military action - used as part of defense of Iraq and the Quds Forces persistent interference.

One thing is for sure. If this has any fact to it, the NYTs should be running an article quite soon. If they don't, August isn't that far away to see the proof in the pudding.

I've long held this is a DNC pipedream. Short of this being some sort of a power play to force int'l action in the wake of the IAEA's unusually stern report this week, - ala good cop/bad cop - I still would find this highly surprising. With the int'l chess pieces of power on the political ME board morphing daily, it is a risky move indeed.

I guess we'll find out if my crystal ball is not only dusty, but made of cheap plexiglass.

Pakistan Update: Musharraf out?Foreign fighters okay...

2008-05-28T16:50:00.000-07:00

With the DNC bent on taking over all branches of US government, fulling overdue promises of "tough love" by yanking the US troops out of Iraq, ignoring Lebanon, and Pakistan's peace deals further inflaming Afghanistan under NATO's command, it can be said that Middle East allies for the US might be getting to be an endangered species.

Quietly behind the scenes, and out of the western media spotlight, Pakistan is steadily traveling the yellow brick road to rogue and defiant ally-in-name-and-money-only status... content just to silence bombs in their back yard while allowing Taliban/AQ and fellow ilk militants to ping pong back and forth across the Afghanistan border at will.

Two deals were cemented over the past month, involving exchanging of prisoners and, in theory, either exiling or handing over foreign militants. However S. Waziristan Taliban leaders have made it abundantly clear that they have no intentions of halting their jihad battles on Afghan soil.

“First, we will not accept such a ban. But we hope the peace deal will be inked without a clause that puts restrictions on mujahideen to cross the border (into Afghanistan),” Abu Zakwan, Taliban commander in the Kotkai area of South Waziristan, told Daily Times on Saturday. Using the alias of Abu Zakwan, the commander said that government negotiators are asking for a pledge to stop cross-border attacks, but the Taliban were not committing to such an agreement.

Jihad centre: He said Waziristan was serving the region as “centre for jihad” and people from across the country were being trained for holy war “against the United States”.

To date, the peace deals have not resulted in any militants of note being either expelled or turned over to the Pakistan govt. Indeed, all they've done is add to the terrorists in the region, using their get-out-of-jail-free cards as an exchange for Pakistan Army hostages. As predicted, the militants deny knowing of any foreign fighters' whereabouts. Mehsud claims they are not harboring Zawahiri, OBL or ilk. Indeed, he insists Bin Laden is dead. I've seen this story on quite a few blogs, however not one link to the original story works. Take away what you wish from that note.

Meanship Nawaz Sharif continues his pressure on PPP's Zardari to not only oust Musharraf, but calls for trials for sedition. In today's Khaleej Times, he suggests that Zardari's party has agreed to expel Musharraf from the Presidency. Thus far, there has been no comment or confirmation from the PPP representative, nor PM Gilani.

One can safely say that Pakistan's efforts to curb jihad violence may offer temporary benefits for them... however making deals while they continue to foster jihad against the US doesn't benefit us, or the war on Islamic jihad movements, one bit. This would be the same US/Uncle Sam who's shelled out incentive cash, hand over fist, to Pakistan. And now, to add insult to injury, we're about to lose the rare military general ballsy enough to give a silent nod to US operations over Pakistan soil, and incur/endure the wrath of his country.

Pakistan, however, sees Obama with his incentive packages and "talk nice" coming. They have their hands already outstretched, whining that their anti-terror efforts on the behalf of the US costs twice what the US pays in the Coalition Support Fund.

A US Government Accountability Office report issued last week said that of $5.8 billion in US support for anti-terrorism efforts in the Fata between 2002 and 2007, about 96 per cent had gone towards reimbursing the Pakistani military, three per cent on border security and one per cent on development aid projects.

Talking to Dawn, sources said the $5.8 billion Pakistan received from the CSF was reimbursement of what the country had already spent.

“It is not easy to deploy 100,000 troops in a troubled area,” said one diplomatic source. “Look, how the Americans are spending billions of dollars on maintaining troops in Iraq. If the Americans feel that the Iraq war is draining their resources, imagine how it affects Pakistan.”

I have to ask... just how many times has Pakistan has deployed troops, especially in that number? Last year was filled with western media, accusing Musharraf of not doing anything. Yet now we are to believe that they're in the red, deploying troops on our behalf at every turn? Apparently the Pakistanis believe the US should carry the financial load of maintaining peace in their own tribal regions.

There is a smidgen of validity in that argument, of which they will have no problems in convincing a naive POTUS Obama that smidgen is much larger in US dollars. Tho many tribal elders may not seek war against the US or the west, they do harbor and benefit from those who do. However Pakistan's internal battles did not begin with America's more prominent presence in the Middle East. Nor will they end when we withdraw and come home. Jihad was there before we came, and will always be there.

Come the era of a possible President Obama in the WH, there are very different positions on the ME political chess board now. NATO falters in Afghanistan, and NATO alliance countries refuse to pony up the needed troops. Iraqis and US forces in Iraq are making headway, but live under the threat of having their progress reversed the moment a DNC leader takes the oath of office. Lebanon is morphing before our very eyes, with the Hezbollah shadow puppet government becoming more powerful with their legislative veto powers just acquired. Last year, Iran has no nuke program via an NIE - a report Obama buys hook, line and sinker. But today even the IAEA is concerned. Still the int'l community that makes up the corrupt and anti-semite UN, dances around significant action. And Obama will make sure US actions are blessed by the corrupt before implementing.

Pakistan, already proving the appeasement path benefits only their own backyard, and that terrorists will not budge on the bigger battle of training jihad, will be perhaps the next President's biggest problem. A President Obama will make nice, pass over more cash, and terrorists and dictators will continue to smile.

Fasten your seat belts, because we're in for a bumpy ride...

PT I: Hezbollah & Clinton era DTSA... 6 Degrees of Separation?

2008-05-25T12:52:00.000-07:00

May 22nd turned into an odd cascade of bizarrely related events. Greg Grant over at Tribal Wars drew my attentions to a WSJ article with his post ... Communications Networks and Irregular War. Simultaneously on the Hill, Hawaii's Sen. Akaka was giving a speech on Dodd's Export Enforcement Act of 2007. The link between these two events is not only a "six degrees of separation" convergence, but may potentially span events and whistle blowing from over a decade ago.

From Grant's Tribal Wars article:

You think irregular fighters realize the force multiplier effect of a secure communications network? An interesting article in todays Wall Street Journal details Hezbollah's victory in Lebanon. I found the bit about Hezbollah's comms network, and the lengths they went to wire the country with fiber optic, fascinating. After the fighting in 2006, it was obvious command and control was one of Hezbollah's strong points. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah apparently calls the network the group's "No. 1 weapon."

"Fascinating"? I was beyond fascinated... Something started clicking upstairs. More from the referenced WSJ article:

Hezbollah reached a bargain with the weak Lebanese government that essentially gave the Islamic group veto power in a new government to be formed.

The deal comes two weeks after Hezbollah flashed its military might by seizing Beirut neighborhoods to protest efforts to rein it in. The trigger was unusual: Hezbollah was expanding a secret communications network, and the government wanted it dismantled.

Okay... Hezbollah's getting a more powerful foot in the door with veto powers. Got that. But what was that about a "secret communications network"??

The catalyst for Lebanon's recent spasm was the government's discovery several months ago that Hezbollah was secretly expanding a network that could provide secure communications in times of battle. The network, the fight it sparked and Wednesday's resolution provide a dramatic illustration of Hezbollah's surging power in Lebanon.

Prime Minister Siniora ordered the network dismantled in early May. He also ordered the dismissal of an airport official his government labeled an ally of Hezbollah. After Hezbollah's violent response -- it seized neighborhoods, then handed them over to the neutral army -- the government was forced to rescind both orders last week.

To paraphrase the next events, the suspicions were raised last year when the Telecommunications Minister got a tip that there were spools of fiber optics being purchased in a southern Lebanon village. After investigations and reports of mysterious workers doing installations over private lands, they discovered that Hezbollah had expanded the network to over 200 miles... wireless, and safeguards to continue even if damaged in times of war.

State officials always knew Hezbollah had a wireless network communication system direct to Syria. However they thought it "limited" and not a threat. In fact, they had reported it to the UN some years ago.

However they had no idea the scope of the secret expansions - with miles of cable laid under the newly paved roads. A feat accomplished in conjunction with the Iranian Headquarters for the Reconstruction of Lebanon, who's completed about 400 reconstruction projects in the country since 2006. Needless to say, the Lebanese government officials are most unhappy.

The telecom minister said some of the equipment was imported from "the West," declining to be specific. Lebanese officials also believe Iran supplied some.

Since the government's public challenge to the network, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has left little doubt of its importance. In a news conference May 8, he defended it as a vital weapon against Israel, whose occupation of southern Lebanon from 1982 to 2000 helped give rise to Hezbollah.

Calling the system Hezbollah's "No. 1 weapon," the black-turbaned leader declared that "it is forbidden to touch [anything] linked to the networks, whether an engineer, a company or a mayor. Touching them is like touching me."

Meanwhile, back on the Hill... Sen. Akaka says:

...snip... The U.S. export control system is a relic of the Cold War and does not effectively meet our national and economic security needs.

Recent examples demonstrate the challenges of controlling sensitive exports. Dual-use technology has been diverted through Britain and the United Arab Emirates, UAE, to Iran. A recent attempt by two men to smuggle sensitive thermal imaging equipment to China shows that Iran is not alone in its desire for sensitive technology. However, the effort to control the flow of dual-use technology goes beyond our borders. Working with the international community is critical as technologies which were once only produced in the U.S. are now being produced elsewhere.

Let's see. Syria, Iran, China, telecommunications, imports from west, US export controversies. I feel the dust blow off a few brain cells, filled with hazy memories... This is not a new story. YES! Got it! Dr. Peter Leitner. A Clinton era whistle blower who achieved considerably less fame, nor the revered iconic status awarded to la femme Plame. A rather warped reality when you consider Valerie's concern and "damage" was centered on, and confined to, her personal life. That's if you call book deals, movies and lucrative private enterprises... "damage".

But Leitner and his whistle blowing subject - export licensing - is considerably less sexy and appealing to Joe Q. Public. The nation was captivated with the dramatized "outing" of a domestic-based, paper-pusher-and-personnel-recruiting spy with a good set of gams. "Ho hum" about export licensing and a few radios, right?

So I once again dug out some old links under "Syria" I had stored for the Paul Sperry WND article, "US Equipped Terror Sponsors" back on Sept 12, 2001. Leitner was discussing how the Clinton admin "rubber-stamped the shipment of top-end military-related telecommunications equipment to Syria". Much of this article bears repeating today, almost seven years later.

"We're giving them spread-spectrum radios, which are almost impossible to break into. We're giving them fiber optics. We're giving them a high level of encryption. We're giving them computer networks that can't be tapped," Leitner said.

Spread-spectrum radios, originally designed for military use only, change their frequency constantly.

snip

Leitner posits that the NSA wasn't able to detect the Islamic terrorists' plot because of the "high quality of the communications gear that they've been acquiring over the last couple of years, thanks to the Clinton administration's decontrols on advanced telecommunications equipment."

Terrorists' secured telecom gear "makes it infinitely more difficult to get even early warning signs" about their activities, he said.

snip

"I've testified to Congress that it will take serious numbers of body bags before we wake up to the need to tighten dual-use export controls," he said. "Unfortunately, we've got them now."

"This is so tragic and yet so preventable," he said. "Now we're going to have to knock out their [terrorist] camps, just like we had to bomb the Iraqis several times now to try to take out the fiber-optics network that the Chinese are installing in Iraq's air-defense systems."

"Yet, it was the Clinton administration that gave the Chinese the technology to give to Iraq," he noted.

This was 2001. Just three months earlier that year, now under the early Bush admin, the Commerce Dept was still asking Leitner to okay "exports of dual-use telecom equipment to Syria".

He denied the request, and was asked to reconsider. He denied it again, arguing in a letter to Karen Vogel, the Commerce export licensing officer who requested the approval, that:

"Doing so vastly upgrades the C3 and C41 systems of the Syrian military and Intelligence Services. My concerns are also obviously compounded by the fact that Syria is one of the foremost state sponsors of terrorism."

Leitner continued: "Since an 'upgraded telecom infrastructure' will also greatly facilitate Syrian planning, coordination, secrecy and execution of terrorist acts, as well as direct military communications, I see absolutely no basis for any position other than a denial."

Vogel argued in an earlier letter that her request came on the heels of eight previous approvals of licenses for similar exports to Syria.

Which brings me back to the Hezbollah/Syria network. A network "secure in times of battle" suggests to me technology such as spectrum spread with it's random changing frequencies. Fiber optics? Could it be that this network was undetectable by Israel's usually superior intelligence? And, if equipped with masking technology, how likely is it that we, ourselves, managed to provide the very equipment that allows the enemy to... yet again...plot right under our noses? All this 7 years after 911?

Part II is the story, as much as I can piece together, of Leitner - both before this article, after and where he is now. What he had done and tried to do in the 90s, and what the Commerce and admin officials did to him.

But most importantly, what is the status today of these lackadaisical export regulations that allows the enemy to not only hide their plans, but potentially put dual use nuclear weapon technology within their reach?

Stay tuned for Part II... coming soon.

UPDATED:Dangerous liaisons, oil & appeasement policyA vision of our future?

2008-05-22T17:24:00.000-07:00

There is a slow groundswell in the West. There is no longer a proud and defiant movement to battle the jihad movements who carried out, assisted, or cheered on the 911 bombers that hit US soil in 2001.Instead the US finds itself inexplicably drawn to appeasement foreign policy, driven by war weary denizens.

It is the military families who bear the sacrifices for the war. For the majority, Americans are unaffected… except now – in their minds - in their wallets. Not for the actual war spending mind you, but because of the link from Iraq to the rising price of oil worldwide.

And so we come to the odd 6 degrees of separation between dangerous liaisons, appeasement foreign policy and the price of oil. It's ironic that it will ultimately be gas prices that herd Americans thru the gates to appeasement. But years of "the war is lost" or "this war cannot be won militarily" have taken their toll on the dangerously misinformed US voter.

We are taught Iraq and Bush are the cause for oil prices. They listen to Cindy Sheehan, as she continues the lie that Cheney still owns part of, and profits off of, Halliburton. Too many give a derelict Congress a pass. Increased global demands by a fast developing India and China, an ailing dollar, and topped with speculators fueling commodies are never factored into reality.

Facts tend to be inconvenient to political ends, and mean nothing to the disgruntled. They only know they are paying almost twice the amount they did last year for filling up their gas tanks, and seeing the effect domino into the cost of groceries. We are a nation of blame... as long as it's anyone but ourselves.

And any villain at hand will do. Mostly especially big oil - the industry America so loves to hate. Yesterday we had yet another rerun in Senate Hearings… just as in Nov 2005, Mar 2006 and May 2007, the oil industry execs appear for their annual reaming from Senators, diverting the attention from themselves to wealthy oil barons. Just as nothing happened back in 2005, nor in the decades before, nothing will again be done. But it makes for good political theatre in an election year.

As long as the US equates war on jihad elements with oil, they will support any and all attempts to extract ourselves from that battle... and hang the consequences. This same mentality that ties the two will curtain future military endeavors as a way to guarantee lower gas prices. Therefore a withdrawal from Iraq goes hand in hand with a new approach in foreign policy to accomplish that objective. Appeasement replaces military response.

Thus we come to a vision of our future. A world where our military hesitates to enter Middle East battlegrounds, and diplomats cut deals that ply our enemy with enough incentives to stop the bombs going off daily, achieving a false sense of relative peace.

Americans, desperate for a return to what they see as prosperity lost, are set to elect leadership that will lead us down the rosy path of appeasement foreign policy to accomplish just that end. Even more distressing, that trend is global in nature.

Obama, likely nominee (if you ask him), promises he will be an American President who sits down unconditionally with the enemy. Britain, formerly one of the US's strongest allies, has already placed a pacifist - PM Gordon Brown - at the helm who fits nicely with a President Obama's ideas. Brown has been busy making appointments of diplomats that echo his own sentiments.

____________________________________

UPDATE 5/24/08 - Britain's Foreign Sec'y "queries" Obama's Iran policy

Well now, surprises never cease. While on the surface it appears an Obama Presidency would be a match made in heavey with Britain's PM Brown and Foreign Sec'y Miliband, it's even more likely (and frightening...) that Mr. Obama is too extreme even for the very liberal Brits in power. Oh my...

David Miliband (see "appointment of diplomats" link above) has met with all three Presidential candidates during a trip to the US this week, feeling them out individually on their foreign policy. Apparently, in as polite of terms as possible, he's not terribly impressed with BHO.

Exact accounts of the conversation with Mr Obama differ and there is certainly acute anxiety on the part of the British not to be seen as stoking political controversy in America’s presidential elections. In the past week Mr McCain has repeatedly hammered Mr Obama for what he claims is a “naive” commitment to hold direct talks with foreign dictators.

snip

Mr Miliband, in a press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Britain’s support for the united front on Iran adopted by the US and its European allies, which he believes is beginning to pay dividends. “Our position, jointly, has always been that as long as Iran exercises responsibilities, then it will be able to forge a more productive and positive relationship with the international community,” Mr Miliband said.

An aide later told The Times that the Foreign Secretary was being very careful to avoid direct criticism of any presidential candidate’s positions. But the same source added: “We know Obama wants to engage more, but we don’t know what route he will take or what he means by ‘no pre-conditions’. It has not unravelled yet and, when it does, we will be able to see where it converges or conflicts with what we’re doing.”

A Foreign Office spokesman later said: “I just want to stress that David Miliband is not confused about Obama’s policy. It would be quite wrong to say that.”

END UPDATE
__________________________________________

Australia’s Kevin Rudd is certainly more reserved in military use than John Howard, the previous strong US ally. Tho Rudd remains a strong ally in Afghanistan, and rejects Ahmadinejad, he is still a question mark in the march to appeasement foreign policy.

Pakistan, now under the PPP, has already implemented Obama'esque appeasement policy. They have made pacts with Baitullah Meshud in the S. Waziristan area, and finalizing a similar pact with the Maulana Fazlullah in the NWTA.

Mehsud has had Pakistan dancing to his tune over the past few months. At the beginning of the year, militants ravaged Pakistan with numerous suicide attacks and then suddenly proposed a peace agreement. Under immense pressure from its vulnerable domestic political and economic situation, Pakistan accepted the peace deal and then also accepted the militants' demand for the swapping of prisoners.

The world's reaction to Pakistan’s back room deals? Britain's Brown officials predictably applaud Pakistan's appeasement deals. The Taliban themselves are overjoyed. With the agreements, they have again reinforced their numbers, freeing 55 Taliban militants ranging in importance from the lowly fighter to commanders. As if freedom wasn't enough, Islamabad also "paid a sum of 20 million Pakistani rupees (US$287,000) to the militants."

We all must wonder - was the money paid to the freed jihad terrorists provided by the US for their cooperation in the global war on jihad movements? And will future appeasement deals – paying freed terrorists - also be funded by US incentive money? Such is the ugly reality of striking “deals” with the enemy.

A few of these jailed militants are former guests of Club Gitmo, including Muslim Dost. Mufti Yousuf is again running around free, while Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad is expected to be released soon. A fighter who promises to drive Pakistan to a Islamic revolution.
Where is the sanity in the Pakistan government letting loose a fighter, determined to evoke revolution?

Qari Ziaur Rahman, another freed militant they say is destined to become legendary, was also released in exchange for Pak military hostages in the Meshud appeasement agreement. Ziaur is in charge of Taliban finances.

The few not applauding this foreign policy movement is the current WH administration, and those countries who will be most affected by this “illusion of peac” - countries (like Afghanistan) who end up with these beasts proliferating in their own back yard because of another country's "truce". Other traditionally liberal countries, also directly affected with an increasing Muslim immigration that refuses to assimilate, have elected new, more conservative leadership (i.e. Italy, France and the Netherlands). Apparently, for those on the direct receiving end of these kinder/gentler tactics, it’s only a matter of time before the truth hits - one side of the parties only honors compromise.

As the US, as well as other western nations, start caving in to the appeasement trend, what is it we can expect from "peace" with such men, again running free? Do we assume that their hatred of the west dissipated with their release? Will the west be left alone if the US pulls out of Iraq, but stays in Afghanistan?

These beliefs are the delusions of the hopeful and naivel. The Taliban and other jihad movements, fresh off a propaganda victory, are recognized, forgiven, released *and* compensated for their "unjust" confinement. They have reprieve to regroup, re plan. Only this time, they may enjoy new financial and political incentives to bolster their cause. They already head back to their respective battlefields, relishing their second chance to fight the US and the west.

The bombs may go dormant in Pakistan and other places temporarily. But the new wave of global leaders, embodied by a President Obama, leads us to a fool’s paradise. A world of dangerous liaisons where the enemy has been enabled financially, politically and militarily by us - their targets. Time is not on our side.

UPDATED: Pakistan cuts 2nd "appeasement" dealAfghanistan royally PO'd

2008-05-21T14:38:00.000-07:00

Here we go. Round #-who-can-keep-count. AP's Riaz Khan's headline screams "Pakistan, Militants agree to Peace Deal" in the NWFP, including the hotbed of activity in Swat.

A senior minister in the government of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province said the two sides sealed the 15-point plan on Wednesday during talks in the provincial capital, Peshawar.

Militants agreed to recognize the government's authority, halt suicide and bomb attacks and hand over any foreign militants in the area, minister Bashir Bilour told reporters after the talks.

In return, the government will release prisoners and make limited concessions on the demands of the cleric, Maulana Fazlullah, for the imposition of Islamic law in the region, he said.

Bilour also said that the army would "gradually" withdraw from the area - a key demand of the militants.

snip

Ali Bakht Khan, an envoy for Fazlullah, called on the government to release 202 of his associates from custody within the next two weeks.

"We will follow this agreement and shall cooperate to bring peace to Swat," Khan said.

It was unclear whether either Fazlullah or his commanders, whose men allegedly beheaded captured soldiers and pro-government elders, would face any punishment.

Ah yes, there's that we-will-impose-Islamic-law-and-you-will-not-interfere bit. The common denominator among terrorists. Needless to say the Taliban are happier than a pig in a poke about the negotiations. And why shouldn't they be? The aces fall mostly into their hands. However what comes to mind is again, Barry Rubin's article in the Israeli Insider, where he said:

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

But note this deal bears remarkable resemblance to the truce with Baitullah Mehsud's little deal last month. Per an April 24th, 2008 Dawn news blurb:

Pakistan closing in on pact with militant Mehsud tribe PESHAWAR, Pakistan, April 25 (Reuters) - Pakistan is close to clinching a peace pact with the Mehsuds, one of the most recalcitrant tribes in its tribal region bordering Afghanistan.

“It's now a matter of days before we have an agreement. The talks are in a very advanced stage,” a senior government official involved in the negotiations told Reuters.

A draft of the 15-point accord with the Mehsud tribal elders was shown to Reuters. It included a call for an end to militant activity, exchange of prisoners and gradual withdrawal of the army from South Waziristan. The draft did not explicitly say whether militants should stop cross-border attacks into neighbouring Afghanistan. But it did say Mehsud tribesmen should expel al Qaeda and other foreign fighters from their area within a month and stop their lands being used as a base for attacks.

While the authorities and tribal elders made final touches to the pact, Baitullah Mehsud, who was declared as the leader of the Pakistani Taliban late last year, on Wednesday ordered his followers to stop attacks inside Pakistan. A government official described the ceasefire as part of a series of confidence building measures that will be taken before the agreement is signed. He said the government also planned to lift blockade of Mehsud territory by the military. (Posted @ 16:30 PST)

This earlier agreement has been moving forward with little western press. Prisoners have been exchanged, the Pak military pulled back because Baitullah threatened to halt talks when they didn't, and Mehsud met with with the NWFP Governor yesterday to demand reopening of the roads.

Just how does Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta feel about Pakistan's new found friendship with their militants? Needless to say, they are quite unhappy, and sound remarkably like the US Cowboy President.

“Anyone thinking that they are able to reach peace in the region through what we call an appeasement policy — we consider it is a wrong and dangerous policy,” Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta told reporters.

A peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban in 2006 reportedly led to a spike in violence across the border.

Describing the 2006 deal as bad for Afghanistan, Spanta said the government was “extremely and infinitely concerned” about Islamabad’s moves, which officials in Pakistan say have seen troops redeployed in the tribal zone.

He cited media reports as saying the Taliban wanted peace in Pakistan so they would be able to continue jihad in Afghanistan.

“As the victim of terrorism, we have the right to say we’re concerned,” the minister said, adding Kabul had spoken of its fears with Islamabad and Washington.—AFP

While it's highly touted by western media that the US military is on the brink of "breaking", and "spread too thin", it is less reported that the enemy is in the same boat. They are but a shadow of their former selves, reconstituting their organization in Pakistan. If part of these agreements are to again shuffle the fighters back across the borders, Afghani leaders are right to be concerned.

And for what end? Peace talks and truces between the Pak government and their militants do not have a history of success. Afghanistan's concern that this may be merely a bait and switch maneuver is echo'ed by the US and John Negroponte, also citing the last failure with Baitullah Mehsud in 2006. The Afghanis and US/NATO forces will beat the militants back again, and they will - once again - land in the laps of the Pakistanis who seem content merely to get them out of their own back yards.

Fact is, until the Pak govt stops refusing int'l help in controlling these cockroaches (or takes assertive moves to control them theirselves), this ping pong of the enemy will go on, unabated. Yes... Pakistan remains a looming problem for the next POTUS.

Considering the terms of these "truces", one might say it's time to sent our stop watches. To see signs of cooperation at the onset, Mehsud terms dictate he should be expelling foreign fighters within a month. The Fazlullah is supposed to hand them over to the Pak government... but with no stated time frame in the AP article.

From what we've seen of Mehsud's deal in the early weeks, his demands have been fast and furious, and the threats of resuming hostilities remain bubbling ever close to the surface. Yet there is still no line of exiled foreign AQ/Taliban crossing the border to Afghanistan enmasse. Meshud has what he wants. And what of the Pak goverment? They have temporarily quieted the bombs and deaths, and still await bussing of the enemy to anywhere but Pakistan. Yet despite the "peace" deal, the fostering and support of jihad movements - source of Pakistan's bombs - continues. The problem has not been solved. Merely relocated and postponed.

This dependence upon the bad guys to police their own militant buddies contrasts starkly with Iraq military's recent launching of Operation The Lion's Roar - a mission to forcibly expel the foreign elements from their soil. Already in their short history, the Iraqi government has learned that you cannot depend upon those that harbor the foreigners to kick them out into the cold.

But note the word used by Afghanistan's Foreign Minister - "appeasement". This is not a media pundit or candidates for POTUS. This is a word used by a leader who sees the results of "appeasement" in their own back yards. It is a very real result of an oft tried and failed policy.

Which brings us, once again, to our regional ally Afghanistan and their objections to Pakistan's "appeasement" (their words) process. This is a policy that US hopeful, Barack Obama, has every intention of mimicking. The likelihood of a President Obama succeeding in peace with such appeasement deals is just as unlikely as Pakistan will be with theirs.

But obviously, it's extremely likely that he will accomplish royally pissing off our allies...

_________________________________________________

UPDATE MAY 22nd, 2008 - BRITAIN SIDES WITH APPEASEMENT POLICY

According to today Adnkronos article, Britain has decided to back the negotiations with the Pakistani militants.

Britain supports talks between Pakistan’s new rulers and tribal leaders aimed at curbing insurgency along the Afghan border, Foreign Secretary David Miliband told a US audience late on Wednesday.

In a speech to a Washington think-tank, Miliband said there was “no military solution” to the spread of militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Miliband and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a joint press conference in Washington on Wednesday that promoting democracy was the best way to fight terrorism in Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan.

He visited Pakistan last month for talks with the new government and backed the government’s effort to seek a negotiated solution to the insurgency in its tribal region.

But Miliband warned that there should only be reconciliation with those who renounce violence.

Miliband is Britain's youngest foreign sec'y in three decades. Appointed by PM Gordon Brown, he's part of the kinder/gentler British rule that is slowly emerging after the departure of the US ally, Tony Blair. An outspoken "skeptic" of the OIF from the get go, Miliband has been busy shaking up his department, moving diplomats to cover the Asian and Middle East areas more heavily.

He is, evidently, a believer that the days of the US as a superpower are on the decline.

While the world's balance of power is moving from West to East, some have overstated the decline of the United States as the world's superpower, he told the audience.

"In economic terms, and even more so in military terms, the U.S. will have at least another generation as the global superpower," Miliband said. "Nevertheless, this century may come to be known as the Asian century."

Miliband said the United States remains Britain's most important ally, but acknowledged links with a host of other countries are becoming increasingly important.

Our allies... oh joy. Well, he and a President Obama should see eye to eye on the increasing irrelevance of the US in a world dominated by appeasement and politically correct behavior. I guess between the two, they will only piss off our allies who are actually engaging the jihad movement enemies...

On Urban Warfare and Collateral Damage

2008-05-17T16:26:00.000-07:00

There's many talking points and websites that cite statistics of Iraq and Afghanistan's "collateral damage", constantly used as fodder for anti-free Iraq rhetoric. Their problem? They believe the enemy adheres to the same principled warfare as our coalition military. Such a mentality is just western naivety, based on a hopeful idealism. Admirable in theory, but useless in reality.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Urban warfare is hell. I'll be the first to say to any of our US military, shoot first when you believe there is clear and present danger, and ask questions later. I prefer they come home alive, and sort it out via investigations. There can and will be regrettable errors. But we must face facts... this is not the wars of the past, where the enemies wore uniforms and were well defined. The enemies... for the most part.. did not hide behind burkas, children and disabled women.

Today's CBC News out of Canada, "Bomber who struck Canadians was 11 years old, military sources say".

Few details of the attack were immediately available. The soldiers were on foot patrol at about 10 a.m. local time when the bomb exploded.

The Canadian Press quoted a military spokeswoman, Capt. Amber Bineau, as saying the boy is thought to have been wearing an explosive vest when he walked up to the patrol.

She condemned the attack as a "last ditch-attempt" by militants to disrupt the progress of Afghan and NATO forces in establishing security in the country.

"These types of attacks demonstrate a weakness in the insurgency and do not impede the resolve of those who work to make Kandahar province a safe and stable environment," she said in a statement.

There was no official confirmation of the bomber's age or how the bomb was triggered.

snip

In a separate attack not involving NATO forces Wednesday, a suicide bomber dressed in a burka struck a police station in the western province of Farah, killing 12 people and wounding 27 others.

Initial reports said the bomber was a woman, but the Taliban, which claimed responsibility for the attack, said it was carried out by a man named Mullah Khalid wearing the burka as a disguise.

As a reminder to the whiners of the world, allow me to give you a reintroduction to the enemy. The same cowardly enemy that demonstrates no honor in battle. The enemy that hides behind burkas instead of openly wearing a uniform like our coalition guys. The very same enemy that brainwashes "the innocent" into being their walking bombs.... children, disabled men in wheelchairs, or the mentally handicapped. It appears that brave, young jihadists - willing to die - are becoming an endangered species. Bad news for the bad guys.

So the next time you see reports of "women and children" being killed in a raid, and race to the conclusion that we are barbarians equal to those we fight, you might want to ask yourself:

Were they truly innocents? Or were they the next suicide bomber who's fuse hadn't detonated the bombs that kill our warriors?

An President Obama?"If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

2008-05-14T14:05:00.000-07:00

An insightful column in the Israel Insider today by Barry Rubin, "LEBANON TO WEST: WAKE UP FAST!"

Anyone who has read my dissertations and rants knows I have the utmost disdain for our western media, our Congress, and the lazy American voters who insist on rejecting in depth education before forming opinions and casting votes. The media, charged with the education of voters on current events, constantly casts the US as the villain in the ongoing battle between the global Islamic jihad movements and western cultures and freedoms. The voters do not care to learn differently... takes too much time for "homework" and research. Spoiled US citizens are too easily distracted, and demonstrate little pride or aptitude for learning

Yet the path we insist upon traveling is fraught with danger of losing all we hold dear. What happens in the Middle East has an effect here, to the stubborn denial of average Joe and Josephine Blow. Each press headline offers more tinder to the fire that fuels jihad. Even tho their appeal is dwindling amongst Muslims for their brutal methods, it doesn't take many militants to inflict the damage and gain ground. It takes one suicide bomber, well placed in a public venue, to make an impact. It takes only a few well armed brutal leaders to subdue a nation into fear.

Rubin's article is a plea to humanity. Wake up, before it's too late. Much of his content revolves around Lebanon, too weak to stand up to Hezbollah. On the flip side, with 1/3 of the Shia Lebanese willing to fight back, Hezbollah leaders know they can't defeat the government militarily. But, as Rubin says, they don't need to. They merely need to control the government, forcing it to do their bidding.

Why should Lebanese Sunni, Druze, and Christians risk their lives when the West doesn't help them? Every Israeli speaking nonsense about Syria making peace; every American claiming Damascus might split from Tehran; every European preaching appeasement has in fact been engaged in confidence-breaking measures.

Hizballah doesn't need to win a military victory but only to show it can win one, using that position of strength to try to force its demands on the moderate government. . The government has already accepted Michel Suleiman, Syria's candidate for president. But Hizballah and the rest say this is not enough: they want veto power over everything.

This much is obvious to those of us who read. We have our own puppets in government with non-elected officials behind the scenes, controlling the marionette strings.

Rubin, blasting the western leaders and media for their inaction on behalf of Lebanon, and lack of urgency, reserves his strongest criticisms for the leading DNC candidate, Barack Obama.

If you want to know what's wrong, consider Obama's May 10 statement on Lebanon. He starts out playing tough, talking about "Hezbollah's power grab in Beirut. This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately." He calls for supporting the Lebanese government, strengthening the Lebanese army, and to "insist on disarming Hezbollah."

But how to do this? By "working with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet."

In other words, according to the Obama world view, it's a problem of development. If people have more money they won't be terrorists. Of course, that was the policy of Hariri, which was countered by Syria blowing him up. In politics, bombs trump business. And any way you can't have a strong economy with no government and chaos. Part of the mistake here is Obama's assumption that Hizballah (and other radicals) want stability and prosperity. In fact, they want to use instability as blackmail in their pursuit of They don't want conciliation. It's a military-strategic problem, not one of community organizing.

The underlined statements (by me) drive a huge misconception home. It's true that a thriving economic Arab democracy is less a hotbed of terrorist recruitment. But what so many miss is this is the exact reason AQ and ilk cannot afford for Iraq to be in anything but chaos.... to keep instability and violence as such a level that the denizens cave in, relinquish all freedoms to oppression merely to live more easily through another day in hell.

Obama continues in his naivety, suggesting that the UN resolutions must be implemented. Terrific... this is the group that could not, and will not, even disarm Hezbollah. The UN and NATO are nothing but a history of one failure after another. The absolute irrelevance and corruption can be simply noted by the fact that the human rights committee is headed by Libya. Right....

But then Obama, with his Marxist views, speaks the soothing words that sound so good to gullible westerners, and strikes fear in the hearts of Arabs and Lebananese who desire freedom over Hezbollah oppression.

"It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."

Aptly translated by Rubin, Obama is "endorsing the Hizballah program." . Obama's largest failure as a leader is that he finds nothing in this battle worth fighting for. Diplomacy is, in his opinion, the answer.

Rubin then provides some the sarcastic comeback by Lebanon's government supporters to Obama's nonsensical suggestion.

"Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizballah all those years?. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy?sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of developing 'national consensus' with them, we organized media campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who voted for them.

"During that time when we bought into the cause against Israel, treating resistance fighters like our brothers, we really should have been 'building consensus' with them. Because what we did . . . was . . . unnecessary antagonism, a product of a 'corrupt patronage system and unfair distribution of wealth.'"

"We stand today regretting the wasted time that could have been wisely spent talking to them, to the Syrian occupiers who brought them into our system, and the Iranian revolutionary guards who trained them."

The Lebanese see thru Obama's vision of "unity", and the serious damage following his Pied Piper vision can wreak. Why is it American's cannot?

But, as the sage and astute Rubin aptly says...

When Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama says he will negotiate with Syria and Iran over Iraq's future, he signals every Persian Gulf regime to cut its own deal with Iran. When his stances convince Hamas that he's the guy for them; when Iran and Syria conclude they merely need stand defiant and wait until January 21 for any existing pressure vanishes, the U.S. position in the Middle East is being systematically destroyed.

Note that this does not make Obama the candidate favored by Arabs in general but only by the radicals. Egyptians, Jordanians, Gulf Arabs, and the majorities in Lebanon and Iraq are very worried. This is not just an Israel problem; it is one for all non-extremists in the region.

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

Amen to that....

Ex Veep Gore touts Myanmar tragedy to pimp global warming agenda

2008-05-08T12:34:00.000-07:00

Andrew Bolt at Australia's Herald Sun as done a magnificent job examining the tragedy of Myanmar's unthinkable mass murder by Mother Nature. I'm not sure I can add anything of value to his article, Burma Killed by Tyranny". . He has already stated it in direct, non-PC terms.

What I can do is summarize. But I suggest an entire read is in order.

On Gore, morbidly promoting his pet cause.

ThE vultures are circling over Burma's dead. Hey, isn't that fat one Al Gore?

Sure is. And - flap, flap, plop - there he lands, the first to go picking over carcasses for scraps to feed his great global warming scare campaign.

What the world should be learning from this terrible loss of at least 60,000 people in the cyclone that hit Burma last week is that tyrannies kill more surely than any freak of weather.

But Al Gore, who won a Nobel "Peace" Prize for terrifying people with his error-riddled An Inconvenient Truth, wants you to blame instead his pet bogeyman. Tremble, sinners, before the wrath of a hot planet!

In an interview on America's NPR on Tuesday, Gore claimed Cyclone Nargis was actually part of a pattern.

Gore then goes on to cite recent storms in Bangladesh and China. Storms that were actually less intensive than many that hit decades ago when the world's gas emissions were nary a glint in Momma Gore's eye. Bolt does well, pointing out the research that debunks the nonsense the frequency and intensity of storms is not necessarily tied to the world's climate changes. There is no consensus among scientists of such nonsense. Gore, however, doesn't skip a beat for truth.

The *real* culprit:

But what's worse this time is that Gore's blundering attempts to blame global warming for Burma's agony distracts attention from the real causes of this catastrophe - despicable causes we may at least hope to do something about.

If Cyclone Nargis had struck not Rangoon, but Melbourne or Tokyo, it is unlikely more than a few dozen people, if that, would have died. And that's because we are free, and rich - as free people tend to be with capitalism. Even Bangkok would have survived this far, far easier.

But in Burma as many as 100,000 are now feared dead - victims not of global warming, but of a tyranny that has left them poor and defenceless.

snip

Whenever the Burmese people tried to protest against this junta-made poverty, and to demand democracy, they were shot - so often and in such numbers that China is now about the only ally the junta has left. In this way does resource-ravenous China, Olympics host, export its tyranny to the world.

Now consider how this junta - so brutal, unaccountable, incompetent, tyrannical and isolated -- has handled this latest disaster.

Two days before Cyclone Nargis hit, India's Meteorological Department warned the junta's minions it was coming, and where.

But Burma's state-owned media, one of the crudest propaganda outfits I've seen, issued no mass alerts. Indeed, illegal Voice of America broadcasts probably did more to warn Burma's civilians to take shelter than did Burma's own radio station.

The lack of warning to the population, who live in shacks and shanty's that make many of New Orlean's wards appear as mansions by comparison, was unspeakable. Even US Florida citizens, many of whom live in manuf homes, know their protections against the elements are severely limited. But at least they are told of impending doom and given the change to relocate to safer digs.

As if the Burmese/Myanmar authorities hadn't committed enough cardinal sins against their people, they are risking even more lives with their stubborn refusal to allow US aid.

Even now, the junta is killing people with its paranoia. Disaster assessment teams and helicopters from the United States have been blocked from coming in to prepare a huge rescue, and foreign aid teams not already in-country had their applications for visas stalled and aid shipments stopped.

Foreign journalists, whose reports would help raise appeal money, have been banned.

The UN is now "intensely" negotiating with the junta to let in aid workers and ease customs regulations on aid - literally begging the junta to let the world save its people.

So slow has the junta been to let in help, that French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, founder of aid group Medicins Sans Frontieres, suggested the UN Security Council adopt a resolution allowing aid to be flown into the country by force. China, naturally, is against such interference in the affairs of its "friend".

Apparently, the "junta" has allowed some shipments in... as long as they were bribed with sufficient cash. Which makes them not much more despicable than Gore, dutifully marketing his global warming panic to further line his fat ass pockets.

Beam me up, Scotty. I am quite sure I do not belong on this planet anymore.

DNC: Siding with Chavez instead of Columbia?

2008-05-01T15:29:00.000-07:00

The story says it all. The largest steel maker in Venezuela wouldn't sell to the government, so they took it... adding to their collection of communications, electricity and oil. Chavez is making sure all the basic commodies of necessity are under his control

CARACAS, Venezuela -- President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday ordered the expropriation of Venezuela's largest steel maker after attempts by the government to acquire a majority stake in the company failed.

Venezuela's government will turn Siderurgica del Orinoco, which was controlled by Luxembourg-based Ternium SA., into "a socialist company," Chavez told workers gathered at a Caracas theater.

Sidor, as the company is known, "has now recuperated by the revolutionary government," Chavez said.

Since winning re-election in 2006 on promises to steer his country toward socialism, Chavez has made nationalizing major industries a top priority.

His government last year seized majority control of the country's largest telecommunications and electricity companies, and of joint oil ventures run by some of the world's largest oil companies. Earlier this month, he announced plans to nationalize cement companies including Mexico's Cemex SAB, France's Lafarge SA and Switzerland's Holcim Ltd.

snip... continue reading at link above

Now that you've been reminded about the downward spiral of Venezuela under Chavez... I told you that story, to tell you this story from FrontPage Mag by Mark W. Hendrickson. Columbia is in deep shit. Their forces crossed into Ecuador to kill leftist Paul Reyes and other FARC forces hiding out there. This is, of course, the group bent on taking the Columbia government by force. This action sends Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, into a rhetoric frenzy.

A more serious condemnation came from Hugo Chavez. And now he's posturing troops on the Columbia border.

Even more outrageous than Correa’s conduct was the reaction of Venezuela’s mercurial leader, Hugo Chavez. Chavez eulogized the murderous Reyes as “a good revolutionary,” ordered 9,000 Venezuelan soldiers to his country’s border with Colombia, and made it plain that he would give FARC safe refuge from Colombian justice as long as he was in power. Chavez’ actions are clearly those of a man rushing to the defense of an ally. Those actions lend credence to the report that the confiscated computers document hundreds of millions of dollars of aid from Chavez to FARC.

You might think that other Latin American countries—seeing that Chavez is trying to undermine Colombia’s government—would protest Chavez’ meddling, if not actually stand by Colombia’s side. Not so. The less radical Latin American presidents aren’t blind. They know how Chavez helped to organize disturbances in Bolivia and Ecuador that drove presidents from office so they could be replaced by Chavez allies. They know how much oil wealth Chavez is willing to spend to support left-wing allies and topple democrats throughout Latin America. This, I believe, intimidated them, and they joined Chavez in denouncing Colombia’s act of self-defense—an act which in no way hurt any other country.

So what do Chavez's not so subtle attempts to effect regime change from democracy to socialism in Columbia mean to the new breeds of US isolationist/protectionists?

Well, America was just about the last of Columbia's allies. And Pelosi has just forced the US Congress to join in on the "beat up on Columbia" free-for-all when she pulled the stunt of changing the rules about voting on CAFTA. under pressure from the AFL-CIO union honchos.

So here it is. A US ally is taking care of itself, attacking their rebel elements. They're not asking the US to send troops and do it for them, mind you. And yet what do we do? Start playing games with their economics for politics.

Hendrickson has an interesting take in his last paragraph... one that points out a looming contrast between union leaders of the past, and the leaders today.

This episode is highly instructive. It shows how completely Big Labor controls the Democratic Party. It also illustrates just how leftwing some labor leaders are. Earlier generations of American labor leaders would patriotically support our country’s allies. Sweeney, by contrast, is joining his fellow leftists from Latin America in beating up on Colombia. While democracy is under siege in our hemisphere, powerful forces in Washington are making common cause with democracy’s enemies. Shame.

I'd fall short of saying the unions are Chavez supporters. Afterall, socialism is not exactly a compatible critter with unions. But it is certainly ironic that US unions, exercising their power and influence over the Speaker and Congress, somehow find themselves on the same side as the Venezuelan despot and his subordinate neighboring thugs instead of our ally. And ya know, that's getting to be quite common nowadays... Hamas supporting Obama, DNC policies run parallel to al Qaeda's. This is quite the trend of late.

This is the Hillary/Obama party in control. Obama believes Bush as turned his back on Latin American countries. But the truth seems to sully his words as slick, politically motivated lies.

Just how are the DNC candidates to reconcile their party's behavior and policies with various national security issues? i.e... their constant cries the US must improve our image tarnished by the evil Bush. And we do this by abandoning Columbia economically, followed rapidly Iraq?? That should do mounds to increase "da love".

Perhaps what nags at me the most is why... just why... purposely or not... American leftists' vision for the US results in siding with our enemies instead of our allies darn near every time?

Obama vs Wright The politics of "change"?? Hardly

2008-04-29T12:24:00.000-07:00

I've been trying to stay out of the Obama/Wright fray as it's covered non-stop in other blogs. But there's a couple of nagging problems I had with Wright's media blitz on the talking head shows over the weekend.

Theories raised were a false excitement by HRC and GOP supporters alike about how this "dooms" Obama's campaign. Even now, CNN commentators are spinning that Wright appears to be engaging in deliberate sabatoge of his "friend".

Others were saying Wright was deliberating sinking the Obama ship of "hope" in order to resurrect the race card and strengthen his position as a civil rights leader to a newly outraged black community.

And I could not disagree more with both theories.

Wright was poised to be the albatross around Obama's neck thru the ensuing primaries, and the general election. Were it to affect BHO's popular vote, it narrows the gap between HRC and BHO. The DNC rightfully could make a strong case to thru the nomination to HRC via superdelegates based on electoral college strength of the states she won because of a very narrow popular vote.

This "steal" from Obama then becomes less an outrage, and a logical progression for the DNC in order to secure the WH. The majority of DNC voters and the media cannot feed the civil rights movement legitimately since the call was then so close.

I firmly believe that there was a tacit agreement between Wright and Obama to stage a public divorce that would benefit both.

______________________________________

UPDATE: A planned strategy? Not so far fetched afterall. This distancing was predicted by Wright himself in an April 30th NYTs story.

Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.

“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”

END UPDATE
_______________________________________

For Wright, slated to release a book with his new found fame later this year (unknown release date), he gains a notoriety that could fuel sales for the "inside story" of their relationship.

For Obama, it's perfect. A public divorce forever removes the albatross from the DNC issue list... all prior to the upcoming primaries so as not to threated his presumed popular vote win. And it considerably lessens it's impact in the general. In fact, his "change" of heart would probably endear him in the voters' eyes. Much "soul searching" and heartache at severing relationships with one he revered for years. Add to that the public sympathy at being the "victim" of a long time friend and mentor.

____________________________________

UPDATE: Already Jimmah Carter calls BHO "courageous". Margaret Carlson says "Wright was disasterous" for BHO... "until today". Howard Fineman says this makes the pledged BHO supers more secure, and won't scare the unpledged away now that Wright is history. da spin is fast and furious. And all in Obama's favor. Just as planned
END UPDATE

________________________________________

That "public divorce" has now begun with Obama's breaking news press conference today.

"I have been a member of Trinity Church since 1992. I have known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years," he said at a news conference in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "The person I saw yesterday is not the person I met 20 years ago."

Obama said he is outraged by Wright's remarks that seemed to suggest the U.S. government might be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community, and his equation of some American wartime efforts with terrorism.

"What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing," said Obama, who added that Wright had shown "little regard for me" and seemed more concerned with "taking center stage."

Obama said Wright's comments were not only "divisive and destructive," but they also "end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate."

snip

"I cannot prevent him from making these remarks," but "when I say I find these comments appalling I mean it. It contradicts what I'm about and who I am ... It is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country."

In a break with previous comments, Obama focused his criticism on Wright the man, and not simply his remarks.

Obama said he gave Wright "the benefit of the doubt" before his speech on race relations.

"What we saw yesterday from Rev. Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of these old divisions," Obama said.

snip

He said he had not spoken with Wright since the minister's Monday speech, though he would not rule out a conversation with him in the future.

Obama said his relationship with Wright may have suffered irreparable harm. "There's been great damage," he said. "It may have been unintentional on his part, but I do not see that relationship being the same after this."

Obama effectively, and firmly, steps back. He remains a member of the church, however this poses no problem as Wright is no longer the pastor.

This campaign ploy is clever, and deliberate. It is also overlooked as the political move it is by the media. However I also believe that, behind the scenes, there is no relationship change with Wright. It was a cooperative effort in order to best benefit both on their respective paths.

This, of course, shows Obama to be no different than any other politician. The quintessential opportunitst who says and does anything to be elected.

It also puts a serious crack in his pride of "judgment"... playing the public "dupe", victimized by his friend and mentor who, BHO says, effectively hid his true beliefs for a couple of decades.
_________________________________

UPDATE TWO: A poster over at AJ's Strata-sphere turned me on to this March 18th blog post by Amy Holmes on National Review's The Corner. Now this is a woman who was truly prescient, save the launch of operation "The Pastor Plan".
END UPDATE TWO
_____________________________________

This is not the only crack in the Obama armor. His insistence that he is a man not emphasizing race and division is clearly belied by his own campaign site.

While over there, checking in on his "spin control" blog (under the "Learn" menu, titled "Know the Facts"), I noticed a category called "People". Silly me... I thought this was the campaign staff involved and never checked it.

But I wandered in and found a complete list of "people", neatly categorized by class or race. Classes/races includes:

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
African Americans
Americans Abroad
Environmentalists
First Americans (that's the native Americans to the rest of us...)
Generation Obama
Kids
Labor
Latinos
LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender)
People of Faith
Students
Veterans
Women

Whoa... no class for me as "white community".... I feel oppressed. Just "Women". But I think of myself as an American, not a "woman" fighting mythical obstacles. And I have worked most of my life in a male dominated field, sans hitches or glass ceilings.

But that's not the half of it. Each "category" of class/race has it's own blog devoted to them. And entirely different posts from the general Obama blog.

All I can say is, for a guy that touts "unite", he has a nasty habit of categorizing Americans. And this continued penchant for dividing us is directly opposed to his promises of unity.

Political Islam as the Spanish Inquisitor

2008-04-28T15:33:00.000-07:00

Barry Rubin's article, "The Region: Stuck in the Middle Ages, Islam targets moderation" is an excellent analysis of the multifacets of Islam.

There are clerics radical in their oppression and adherence to fundamental Islam... or at least the Koran as interpreted by them. Many of these clerics advocate that Islam be the law of the land (Pakistan's Maulana Fazlur Rahman,of JUI-F in Pakistan's Parliament, just to name one), but do so via attempted legislation.

This has not fared well with the population, as they reject such strict governance and do embrace some western ideals. Such was the result of Pakistan's last election, and previous elections. There are areas (NWTA, i.e.) that do enforce it in their villages and regions. But Islam was not to be the law of Pakistan.

Hamas won elections in Palestine. However the party did not gain favor with Palestinians for totaltarian rule, or even their devotion to the elimination of Israel. Instead Hamas got the vote because of their nanny welfare programs to impoverished and war ransacked Palestinians. In essence, Palestinians are leaning Marxist/socialist in their governing views.

Then we have the militant clerics... those that demand Islamic law, and seek to implement it via violence and fear. This is "the enemy", as cleverly UN'defined by the current administration and talking heads. Their desires are clear, and most lately evoked in Zawahiri's Open Forum Part One Q&A session. They seek to not only turn all (what they consider) Arab lands into a Muslim Caliphate, but to eliminate all influences of the west. This could include everything from Embassies to corner Starbuck coffee stores.

And now we come to Rubin's analysis... likening the global jihad movement to an oppressive Spanish Inquisition. Clerics fear that with democracy and elections come an increasing irrelevance of themselves and the Islam they teach.

Those who think the problem stems from a need to make Western policy more palatable, showing enough empathy or appeasement, have no idea of the historical processes in play. Consider an interview by Munajid on Al-Majd television on March 30.

Focusing on the threat within Islam, Munajid warns (translation by MEMRI) that advocates of change are heretics engaged in "a very dangerous conspiracy." Why? Because rather than depending on clerics, they claim the right to interpret Islam, are reopening the gates of ijtihad - closed among Muslims for almost 1,000 years - and applying reason to religious doctrine. "This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people... fools or heretics."

Of course, Islamists as well as liberal reformers threaten the mainstream (conservative) clerics' monopoly over Islam. Many Islamists are not qualified theologians.

But moderates are more dangerous, in the mainstream view, since they may loosen religion's hold altogether. Thus, mainstream clerics are more sympathetic to radical Islamists - a key factor in the reformers' weakness and the Islamists' strength. To paraphrase an old Cold War slogan, they say: "Better green than dead."

To allow an Islamic state under jihad is to allow the enemy to completely suppress all forms of modernization and technology. For these allow an open window into the western temptation.

...Munajid and others know something past Europeans didn't: how far secularism can go. As a result, Muslims are extraordinarily insecure. Munajid warns that reformers "want to open up everything for debate," so that "anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem...."

Today, new interpretations; tomorrow, rampant alcoholism, short skirts, empty houses of worship, and punk rock. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief.

An excellent example of this thought in action comes from an article just today from AP's writer, Ali Akbar Dareini - "Iranian official warns against importing Barbie dolls".

Now how much harm can come from a little Iranian girl, clutching a Barbie doll, you say? To Muslim clerics, irreparable harm.

"The irregular importation of such toys, which unfortunately arrive through unofficial sources and smuggling, is destructive culturally and a social danger," Najafabadi said in his letter, a copy of which was made available to The Associated Press.

snip

While importing the toys is not necessarily illegal, it is discouraged by a government that made its name on preserving Iran from Western cultural influences.

In Monday's letter, Najafabadi said the increasing visibility of Western dolls was raising the alarm among authorities who were considering intervening.

"The displays of personalities such as Barbie, Batman, Spiderman and Harry Potter ... as well as the irregular importation of unsanctioned computer games and movies are all warning bells to the officials in the cultural arena," the letter said.

snip

"Undoubtedly, the personality and identity of the new generation and our children, as a result of unrestricted importation of toys, has been put at risk and caused irreparable damages," he said.

Iran has gone so far as to create competition for Barbie... twins Dara and Sara, with modest clothing and more befitting the Muslim cultural rules of no make up, head scarves, etc. Needless to say, they have been a flop. And go no... Iran is the 3rd largest importer of toys. Clerics are obviously desperate to shelter their Muslim youth from western culture, and this becomes more and more difficult in this Info Age world with satellite TV, cell phones and the Internet.

But it's not only western toys or clothing under assault. The League of Arab States recently voted in satellite broadcast restrictions to the Cairo Charter. This charter, agreed upon by 22 of the members (including Iraq and Pakistan), allows host countries to annul or suspend the licence of any broadcaster found in violation of the rules. i.e. broadcasting anything considered "un Islamic". It is the US "Fairness Doctrine", Arab style.

What may be the most ironic is that the jihad movement themselves are masters and ardent users of the very technology they seek to ban for the rest of their fellow Muslims. But then, that is what oppressors do.... deprive others while they live in relative comfort.

Rubin's article is a fabulous read, and right on point about the desperation of Muslim clerics - likening it to a desperate Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition. However Christianity has grown, and been forced to reconcile man's progress as part of it's religious teachings. Islam, however, can not.

Though Rubin's presentation is thorough of the past, it does not go far enough, IMHO. Just what does the future with a massive Muslim Caliphate mean to the world?

Part of the difficulty of this war is the western ignorance of the enemy and their goals. Too many live in a bubble and believe that what happens in the ME and Europe has nothing to do with the US. Perhaps in Colonial days, that was true. But in this world of global trade and relationships, isolation of their desired Caliphate - from the Andulusians (Spain) to China - under political and oppressive Islamic law would have catastrophic effects on our shores as well.

A jihad victory and Caliphate affects the world economy. Trade and products from west to Arab lands would no longer be possible. And that would include from Arab lands to the west. Can any of you say "beg for oil"? How about the beautiful artifacts and rugs? Other cultural beauties would become taboo.

Banking institutions would probably separate as well. In short, the entire flow of currency, products and international trade would be slashed severely... affecting jobs and prosperity not only here at home, but world wide.

You can expect third world conditions to increase in Arab lands as they shun technology. These conditions breed poverty, disease and food shortages - all the things the US battles even now by trying to help developing countries.

Like it or not, technology,communications and transportation has linked our world together. And what happens enmasse elsewhere can have great effect on America.

Hillary - on how to win friends and influence people

2008-04-22T13:44:00.000-07:00

I'm just beside myself with laughter today. It was just Mar 26th when I posted on "Just who is beating the drums of war in Iran?", noting that while the Bush admin has been constantly saying dealing with Iran was taking the diplomatic path, every liberal/progressive blog, DNC Congress elitist and left wing media was warning that Bush would be invading Iran before his term was up.

Now we have Hillary promising military attack on Iran if they attack Israel. (H/T to Flopping Aces)

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Well, this is about as smart of posturing as Obama's "cowboy policy" promise to go into Pakistan, sans their blessings, upon "actionable intelligence" about Bin Laden's whereabouts.

Needless to say Hillary has now joined Obama with lessons on how *not* to improve our image in the int'l community. Their ideas on how to win friends and influence people leave much to be desired.

It was, of course, only a matter of time before Tehran spoke up in retort.

“We will cut off the hand of invaders with the slightest attack on the country,” Army Commander Major General Ataollah Salehi told a graduation ceremony of military cadets here on Monday.

snip

“Now, we are in a situation that the enemy has occupied neighboring countries (of Iraq and Afghanistan) and have surrounded us. It planned to wipe out the Islamic country of Iran by targeting mock enemies such as Taliban and Saddam but it could not.

It's interesting that Tehran has noticed a US success that the US electorate, nor the DNC, has not. That with Bush's Iraq maneuver to depose Saddam, he left us a US friendly ally in the region that's parked right in the middle of Iran and Syria. Not such a dumb strategy afterall... providing, of course, we don't abandon Iraq to militants, jihadists, and Islamic law.

But more than ever, it's the height of irony and chutpah to accuse the GOP and Bush WH for warmongering when, in fact, it is the media and DNC candidates themselves who "walk the walk" for the winds of war, and announce that Iran is in their crosshairs.

Future not so rosy for biofuels UNFOA sez unfair to women

2008-04-22T12:49:00.000-07:00

Let me put a disclosure right up front... I never saw ethanol as "the future", didn't think it wise but in small local quantities at best. There were many reasons for it.

First, it costs more power to create the dang thing than it yields. If you're trying to "conserve", where does that get us?

Second, there was no way it wouldn't affect food prices, or alter the supply/demand ratio.

Third, I'm no professional farmer, but even I know that you deplete ground nutrients and natural resources with repetitive crops. That's why smart farmers always do crop rotations... to replace nutrients.

To add to all the latest "piling on" negative press ethanol and biofuels have been getting lately, comes the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. And they've added the "unfair to women" handle with their latest study, "Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuels Production".

It's important to understand that this is not focused on US biofuel production, but also developing nations. This lends more understanding to their cry of foul for women.... that they may have less access to the land ownership.

The study notes that large-scale plantations for the production of liquid biofuels such as bioethanol and biodiesel require an intensive use of resources and inputs to which small farmers, particularly women, traditionally have limited access. These resources include land and water, chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

“Unless policies are adopted in developing countries to strengthen the participation of small farmers, especially women in biofuel production by increasing their access to land, capital and technology - gender inequalities are likely to become more marked and women’s vulnerability to hunger and poverty further exacerbated,” said Yianna Lambrou, co-author of the paper entitled Gender and Equity Issues in Liquid Biofuels Production – Minimizing the Risks to Maximize the Opportunities. “Biofuel production certainly offers opportunities for farmers – but they will only trickle down to the farm level, especially to women, if pro-poor policies are put in place that also empower women.”

The report also goes to the extent that if the biofuel crop is competitive with say firewood and food crops, it can shrink the latter's resources and cause women (who are traditionally responsible for gathering the firewood and food) have to trek further. sigh.... obviously not a US issue. We just hop in our SUV's and "gather" at the local supermart while the cord of firewood is delivered to our doorstep.

The FOA gender'ists also worry about the female managerial work impact as well... as women hold agromanagement positions, and crop rotation can be all but eliminated. So who needs their knowledge when they just plan on repeating the same crop year after year, despite soil repercussions?

What the study did not factor in was a possible creation of jobs and product... i.e. the need for nutrient replenishment and it's production, sale and distribution. But let's not nitpick about their lack of vision here.

Then, of course, they bring up the low-skilled jobs created, and the unequal wages/benefits between men and women working the biofuel crop fields.

Hey.... I'm not making this stuff up, as "out there" as it sounds. But the upshot of the attachment of the gender "foul" label just could sound the death knell of biofuels in a very PC-driven international community.

And, ya know, while I'm LMAO at the study itself, I won't necessarily be unhappy to see the biofuel industry take the hit. In fact this whole ethanol roller-coaster ride that the Bush WH (and it's more than willing accomplice, Congress), has taken us on really just proves once again a simple reality. That no matter what man can think up to slow supposed man-made global warming, it generally causes as many, or more, problems as it solves.

But I sure feel for all those who've already spent big bucks, banking on it's future.

Code Pink hits the trail Avoids face off with biker Marines

2008-04-19T21:58:00.002-07:00

Code Pinko cowards have much in common with other criminals. They only like to assail easy targets. Once they had notice that the Marines Biker Club was paying a visit to Code Pink's headquarters in Albany, the lily livered cowards left only a sign as their welcome wagon.

"Sorry we missed you boys."

Sure they are... Club member, George Newkirk, hit the nail on the head.

"Yeah, I look at that as the enemy always runs when the marines have landed."

You make me proud, boys. And remember, the rubber side goes down.

Collision course with Pakistan still imminent for next POTUS

2008-04-19T20:53:00.007-07:00

I've said this many times... most recently in my March 31st 2008 post, "Pakistan Update: Trouble on the Horizon?". Prior to that, I lambasted the fools who bought, hook-line-and-sinker, the media demonization of Musharraf in "Hating Musharraf. Those chickens comin' home to roost" on Mar 25th.

During the run up to Pakistan's elections, there were few to no western media voices that credited Musharraf for his risky and bold stand, aiding the US against many Pakistan political power houses. The US electorate, dutiful little sheeple they tend to be, bought into the notion that Benazir's PPP party win would magically produce a more cooperative ally - ignoring the history of the party leaders and ministers (as well as Sharif's own sketchy past).

It's almost a month later, and it's becoming even more abundantly clear that the US media and electorate is now getting exactly what they asked for. And for that misplaced faith in the PPP, aided by a relentless piling-on of Musharraf, we're another step closer to the future collision course with the complacent PPP led Pakistani government and a weakened Musharraf. They just do not demonstrate the heart to do much more than talk... An approach that has yielded nothing but a trail of broken truces in the past.

From today's NYTs, "U.S. Commanders Seeking to Widen Pakistan Attacks " by MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT, comes reports of a wisely cautious WH, bent on not riling the new Pakistani govt while simultaneously trying to dance around cleaning out the wasp nests of AQ and neo Taliban that have entrenched themselves in the tribal regions of that country.

American commanders in Afghanistan have in recent months urged a widening of the war that could include American attacks on indigenous Pakistani militants in the tribal areas inside Pakistan, according to United States officials.

The requests have been rebuffed for now, the officials said, after deliberations in Washington among senior Bush administration officials who fear that attacking Pakistani radicals may anger Pakistan’s new government, which is negotiating with the militants, and destabilize an already fragile security situation.

American commanders would prefer that Pakistani forces attack the militants, but Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas have slowed recently to avoid upsetting the negotiations.

Pakistan has given it's tacit nod to remote Predator drone strikes, but have made it abundantly clear they will not tolerate US boots on the ground, nor unsanctioned air strikes. Yet the US lives in a rock/hard place of facts. The areas with the highest threats are the very places the US is most restricted in actions by Pakistan. Instead, Pakistan insists on plodding thru with negotiating with their tribal militant factions... the very same who provide unmitigated aid to AQ and other Islamic jihad movements, as well as murdering the more peaceful tribal elders who do not cooperate.

The WH, however, knows the delicate line it walks. It has no choice but to let Pakistan learn it's lessons... one more time... the hard way.

Administration officials say the risk of angering the new government in Pakistan and stirring increased anti-American sentiment in the tribal areas outweighs the benefits of dismantling militant networks in the region.

“It’s certainly something we want to get to, but not yet,” said one Bush administration official. “If you do it now, you can expect to do it without Pakistani approval, and you can expect to do it only once because the Pakistanis will never help us again.”

This last line is one Cowboy Obama needs to remember, given his previous statements about Pakistan.

Back in August [2007], I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory," the Illinois Democrat, who now threatens to strike at Senator Hillary Rodham Hillary in New Hampshire after a stunning performance in Iowa, said.

"What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike."

Obama's military swagger.. whether for show or for real... did not set with with the Pakistani's then. And it's unlikely it will go over any better with the new PPP led Parliament and PM Gilani in this post election era.

On the flip side, a GOP President McCain is in the same position as GWB. Without cooperation from the Pakistanis, and with Musharraf on the ropes, his hands are equally tied.

Either way, the next POTUS faces an uphill battle with the "kinder and gentler" approach the new Pak government has elected to take. Obama will either lose us an ally in the region with his unilaterial proposition, or McCain will find himself looking for incentives to use on Pakistan to get them more motivated in battling the jihad/militant elements.

One undeniable fact - Musharraf's maverick actions with the Pakistan army will be sorely missed.

Nanny state mentality vs economic realities

2008-04-19T15:01:00.006-07:00

Australia had a meeting of the health minds... and left to their own devices, they concocted a plan for their utopian future for Australians' future generations...

i.e...

1: anyone born after 2008 would be banned from buying cigarettes

2: junk food would be taxed

3: everyone in the nation would be mandated to take a fitness test by 2020

Health Minister Nicola Roxon said one idea put forward in a submission was an annual national fitness test where citizens would receive a financial incentive if they pass.

Health stream participants in the 2020 summit also discussed increasing public education about how death can be a "positive experience" to avoid patients panicking when they reach hospital emergency departments.

Health participant, Meredith Sheil, a former Westmead Children's Hospital pediatrician, said many participants had suggested a ban on cigarette sales by 2020.

"A lot of the health submissions suggested a ban on smoking by 2020," she said.

"You would say, 'OK, from now on everybody born after 2008, you are not allowed to sell cigarettes (to)'."

The brillant minds figured that they can make healthy food cheaper by taxing junk food. Might I point out that increasing one food substance over another with higher taxes is NOT not reducing prices of "healthy" food. It's just makes one yet more expensive. It's all relative by comparison.

But right when you think it can't get worse for intrustive Aussie government legislation, it does. They also talked of "sharing patient medical records nationally, to allow a hospital in a regional area to effectively treat an inner-city patient."

Uh... has anyone noted the increased hackers' abilities of late?? That's what we'd all like... putting a database of health records online to invite hackers. Uh huh...

So why would we care about what some nanny wackos in Australia think? Well, there's few socialists that have a lick of originality in their blood. So if one nation goes that route, another nation - most especially a generation of Obamabots - might also eye the same path. Needless to say, the American smoker has been a national pariah for some time now. And we're in the midst of an election where the leading DNC candidates are jumping all over themselves to promise universal health care. That funding has to come from somewhere.

But what about the economic realities of this utopian world of non-smokers?

In a simple word... disasterous. But only until they can find another group of Americans to transfer the tax loss to.

Let's start with just how much individual states rake in from those they so love to demonize. A quick glance at this Jan 2008 chart with the amount of tax cents PER PACK of cigarettes gives you a sober reality check. Mind you... this doesn't include the local county or city taxes that can also be added.

The 51st lowest (they count DC as an add'l district/state in the stats) is South Carolina at 7 cents per pack. They are followed by the lowest tax rate by Missouri and Mississippi at 17 and 18 cents per pack respectively. Kentucky and Virginia are tied at 30 cents a pack. Followed by Florida at 33.9 cents per pack. Seven states in all with 34 cents per pack or under in state taxes.

By contrast, the big three are New Jersey (257.5 cents per pack), Rhode island at 246 cents per pack, and Washington State with 202.5 cents per pack.

In all 51 state/DC districts, 25 have at least $1 per pack tax rates. Six more range between 80 to 99 cents per pack.

When you combine the highest state/local tax combination, look no further than Obama's home town, Chicago... a whopping $3.66 per pack total.

Facts are, according to Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids: via CNS News:

43 states and the District of Columbia have increased cigarette taxes since January 1, 2002, more than doubling the average state cigarette tax from 43.4 cents to $1.073 a pack

Yes folks... targeting the despicable smoker in the nation is big and easy business. No one cares if they raise taxes on smokers, save those low life smokers themselves. Afterall, they're subhumans that care little for their bodies.

The point? There's unbelievably big bucks in each state's budget that's absconded only from smokers. And if you eliminate them, just what do you think the state legislators are going to do? Cut back on their budgets?

If you do, there's most definitely a bridge to nowhere that's just awaiting your offer to purchase.

Fact is there's a rush by many states to fund socialized health care using tobacco funds. They increase the taxes per packs (even more than now), and put the extra cash against the state funds for the program. There's a similar analogy to high gas prices and taxes. But let's not confuse the issue on just who is actually raking in the cash on high fuel prices...

But back to tobacco. The devil in the details behind SCHIPs legislation had much to do with tobacco tax revenue. And according to the Heritage Foundation, states were facing a budget loss of at least $1 million annually, with 17 states facing over $10 mil in tax revenue. It was worse under the Senate version... $1.4 mil annually, with half the states losing over $10 mil annually. California, Ohio and Pennsylvania would lose over $50 mil.

Increasing the tax to support new and ever more expensive programs, combined with the peer pressure to stop smoking, is a recipe for economic disaster. One increases demands for revenue while the other results in less smokers to provide that newly needed revenue. So much for that socialized health program funding. Now where do they turn? DOH! There's no hiding from the money grubbing elected official.

But it doesn't end there. What about that dreaded "big tobacco" industry itself - almost as much a demon as "big oil" in today's society? Those tobacco companies not only employ 100s of thousands of Americans, but they also are frequently backers for state bonds. What happens to all those newly unemployed for a non-smoking world? Let's not forget the farmers now out of a marketable crop. Thus you will notice most of the low tax per pack states tend to be states that have vast tobacco farms.

Last but not least, what happens to the bonds when the sources backing them are no longer in business?

But let's not just stop there. How about our trade deficit? A real "hot button" in today's 2008 prez campaign.

According to a 1997 report from the Friends of Tobacco... a name I'm sure most will find not so endearing:

The output of cigarettes from U.S. factories was 725.6 billion. Of the total, 11.5 billion cigarettes were shipped to overseas forces, including Puerto Rico and other U.S. possessions and 220 billion to other countries.

From 1993 to the 1997 report, there was a $2.9 billion decline in tobacco purchases. We're already losing cash from the smoking subhuman.... how much more can we do without it affecting all the healthy denizens in their wallets?

Yet the US is only #2 in the tobacco producing world. The first? China, of course... producing 2.3 times more than the US. I doubt they will be prodded into feel good health legislation anytime soon.

Too few think of the repercussions of legislation on economics. And that includes those entrusted with writing and passing that legislation - Congress. They won't be reducing their spending any time soon - regardless of which side of the aisle they occupy. So when the money dries up, they merely look for new and more inventive ways to make up the difference on everyone.

The lesson to be learned is... love your fellow neighbor smoker. And don't forget to say thank you! He/she is keeping the US economic merry-go-round fueled, and keeping the taxes of the non-smoker low. The day you force them to adhere to your health standards is a day your pocketbook will rue forever.

Is the "Dumbing down of America" successful?

2008-04-13T12:10:00.015-07:00

Fascinating article by Bradley Gitz from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette that echoes some of my fears that the dumbing down of America may be successful.

Several political stories congealed in recent weeks with the cumulative effect of saying something troubling about the intelligence of the American electorate, or at least the intelligence of the American electorate as reflected in the eyes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. For one, Clinton erred in making claims about touching down in Bosnia under sniper fire. Because there was no doubt about the discrepancy between what actually happened and what she said had happened, the word “lie” was beneficially reintroduced to our political vocabulary. Second, Obama gave an eloquent speech seeking to explain the views of his pastor and mentor, Jeremiah Wright, and to provide an explanation for his failure to disassociate himself from those views. Third, John McCain came under attack for allegedly having said that America will be fighting in Iraq decades after he, everyone he knows and the rest of us are all pushing up daisies.

snip

Per Gitz, Clinton thought we were all dumb enough to blindly accept she put herself in bodily harm to demonstrate her courage on our behalf. BHO sought to extract himself from the Wright association by claiming "everyone has racial baggage and, in the case of Wright, such baggage is understandable in light of our nation’s sorry history of racial discrimination."

In the case of McCain, Gitz points out that "anyone who read the full transcripts of his remarks would readily grasp that he did not remotely mean what his critics, among whose ranks are included Clinton and Obama, say he meant."

Certainly it takes a "dumbed down America" to buy into Clinton's repeated tale of her dangerous Bosnian visit. An America who lazily prefers to believe media headlines, and ignore facts not so readily provided until push comes to shove.

I can only add that a "dumb America", if you read the media reports, also chose to buy into Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech as perfectly logical, and managed to ignore the not-so-subtle promise of a more socialized American and increased affirmative action'esque policies under his WH admin. Even Americans craving socialism reject preferential treatment under affirmative action. So why they choose to miss this little tidbit boggles the mind.

For McCain, he didn't have much of a fighting chance - being the nominee of the party so many want to hate. Truth of statements would get in the way of that pure emotionalism.

Gitz considers the media slam on McCain as the worst of the three... with both DNC candidates and the media assuming that Americans would be too ignorant to read McCain's actual full statement, and realize that we may very well be in Iraq a century from now... just as we are still in Germany, Japan and Korea a half century plus after those wars were fought. Both the media and DNC assume we - dumbed down America - can not discern the difference between foreign base deploment, and an active fighting force.

Clinton's behavior he passes off very briefly - a sign of her and Bill's desperate ambition to reclaim 1600 Pennsylvania Ave again as their mailing address.

Obama - in the forefront of repeating the McCain's "100 year Iraq war" mischaracterization - proves himself hypocritical... passing himself off as a new and more honest politician while demonstrating just the opposite by perpetuating such insulting mistruths to rally supporters.

Gitz's last sentence?

The cumulative effect of it all was to convey a low regard for the intelligence of the American people. And also to create the nagging hunch that such low regard is perhaps justified.

And herein lies perhaps an ugly truth. The American electorate has been dumbed down enough to be dangerous. We are, in overwhelming numbers, willing to place our political and current events education in the hands of an politically driven media with an agenda. We allow our public schools to utilize textbooks with revisionist history, striking any language considered un-PC in today's hypersensitive world.

Even worse, we are anxious to elect a POTUS and Congress who will put in massive safety nets that provide government care and money from cradle to grave because we are too lazy, lack the ambition, or find it just too hard to take care of ourselves. And to achieve that false sense of security under government control, we're willing to believe anything. It is only when it is too late that the reality of what we lost for that safety net will come home to roost.

Which brings up the tacit notion that Democrats constantly infer by their political policy suggestions. That the majority of American citizens are incapable of making a wise decision for their own welfare, so the government must do that for them. They place government in the position of a doting Mom or Dad, constantly bailing the foolish teenager out of trouble. Tough love is not a position of the liberal progressives.

It's taken decades and generations of public education to indoctrinate our youth into adults who feel their future in the US - with all it's advantages and opportunities - is "hopeless". BHO and HRC both play on this "victimized class" for voters, with BHO actually having the audacity to use the label "hope" prominently in his campaign slogans. It's no surprise, and certainly no scandal that the man states in his speeches that Americans are "bitter". It is wholly in keeping of his view of dumbed down America... again incapable of rising to the changing business climate and world of global trade that costs the US high paying, union industrial jobs.

As for the GOP'ers. There are still a few of us - adamant holdouts for control of our own lives, smaller government and more fiscal responsibility. But judging by Congressional membership voted in (when one of them actually decides to quit or dies....), and the GOP choice for POTUS this year (very liberal in domestic policies) even that segment of America is dying off.

So it may be that the long, hard task of dumbing down of America is, indeed, successful after all.

The latest in DNC hypocrisy Changing the rules to thwart Bush

2008-04-09T13:25:00.005-07:00

House queen, Pelosi, has decided to change the rules of the game to thwart a vote on the Columbia trade agreement. (NOTE SEE UPDATE BELOW....)

WASHINGTON - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the House will change its rules so as to skirt a requirement that it vote on a free trade agreement with Colombia.

Pelosi says the House will vote on the rules change policy Thursday, effectively putting off a vote on a free trade agreement that is a key priority of the Bush administration.

"The president took his action. I will take mine tomorrow," Pelosi said.

This is the same group, whining about the Iraqi Assembly's lack of political resolve and legislation. Can you say "irony"?

I'm not a huge fan of the NAFTA/GATT/CAFTA agreements. Then again, I'm not quite sure of another way to deal with trade in this global world that is equitable to US companies. Afterall, they are slammed financially with OSHA requirements, environmental requirements, union wages and corporate/payroll taxes... all making it nigh on impossible to compete with foreign manufacturers not subject to the same, heavy handed government mandates.

Then again, the DNC changing the rules of the game to suit their whims isn't anything new. Nor is it the last hole they themslves dug - holes in which they are about to trip into. Just keep the eyes peeled on seating (or not seating) Florida and Michigan delegates. A primary election that is bogus to the core either because of candidates' not appearing on the ticket.

For a group that preaches no more "divisions", no "racial or gender" bias, and the unfairness of it all to "disenfranchise voters", they've pretty much succeeded in proving they are *all* about race and gender, they'll change Congressional rules to keep "divides" in legislation alive and well, and they have no problem disenfranchising voters because that's how they set up their rules.... rules they'll change to harrass Bush, but not to rescue their own voter blocks.

_________________________________________

UPDATE APRIL 10TH, 2008: One day later, the WSJ has a top notch op-ed about the DNC's defection from reality.

snip

The Colombia trade pact was signed in 2006 and renegotiated last year to accommodate Democratic demands for tougher labor and environmental standards. Even after more than 250 consultations with Democrats, and further concessions, including promises to spend more on domestic unemployment insurance, the deal remained stalled in Congress. Apparently the problem was that Democrats kept getting their way.

So on Monday, President Bush submitted the bill to Congress over liberal protests, which, under a bargain between Congress and the White House for trade promotion authority, mandated an up-or-down vote within 90 days. Today Ms. Pelosi will make an ex post facto change to House rules to avoid the required vote, withdrawing from the timetable and thus relegating the Colombia deal to a perhaps permanent limbo.

Democrats say it would have failed anyway, but at least a vote during the next three months would have forced them to show the courage of their protectionist convictions. Instead, they chose to shelve the bill in an election year while paying off organized labor and other antitrade yahoos. The gambit is especially humiliating for Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel, a free-trader who has been trying to strike a deal with the Administration but keeps getting rolled by Ms. Pelosi.

For good measure, the double-cross dismantles the only process that allows any Administration to conduct good-faith negotiations with foreign nations. No one is going to take the U.S. at its word if Congress is going to change the rules when it has second thoughts and renege.

snip

With the DNC, it's always something. But there is no doubt this has everything to do with politics. Most especially on the heels of both BHO and HRC slamming NAFTA publicly. It would just not do to have the Dem led Congress to pass something they've planning on doing so, proving they are again lying thru their teeth to their fan base.

However, as the WSJ op-ed points out, for a group whining about the US "image" in the world, they are doing more than their fair share of keeping that image in the toilet.

Even if the free trade agreement is somehow removed from cold storage, Ms. Pelosi's cheating is a first-order strategic blunder. Colombia is one of America's closest friends in a hostile region menaced by Hugo Chávez's Venezuela. For all the talk of repairing the U.S. "image" in the world, the Democrats don't really mind harming that image if it pleases the AFL-CIO.

Amen to that one. It's gonna be a fun four years coming up....

Cautious optimism presented to Sen Foreign Relations Committee

2008-04-07T13:18:00.005-07:00

Before Petraeus and Crocker arrive this week to face the political wrath and wrangling of our Congress, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a media/unheralded slide thru by CFR's Dr. Stephen Biddle on April 2nd. I'm quite sure it was ignored in the media because they found it difficult to find cherry picked phrases in his analysis, "Stablizing Iraq from the Bottom Up", that are absolutes in support of their quest for withdrawal.

The above link to Biddle's paper on Iraq is a H/T to Greg Grant at Tribal Wars. Since someone at Floppping Aces turned me on to Grant's blog, I've been visiting regularly, and taking time to read his past posts. I can tell that Grant and I have some base disagreements. But from his blog presentation, I suspect this is actually a man I could disagree with without it degenerating into venomous personal assaults. And, admirably, he does indeed place a great deal of emphasis on wanting to see our military properly equipped... a place where he and I live harmoniously.

But back to Biddle and his report to the Senate Foreign Relations Commmittee. It's a surprisingly a'political analysis. There's some calling on the carpet for the doubters of Surge success, and those who opposed and preemptively called the Surge a failure. There is also the same for those that supported the Iraq deposition of Saddam, and documented mistakes. All criticism of both sides, however, is done in retrospect, with extremely good taste.

After dancing around not hurting all the politicos' partisan feelings, we are left with an insightful analysis of not only the past years of development/failures in Iraq, but where their future might possibly lie. And what appears to be surprising Biddle the most is the unexpected "bottom up" path for Iraqis to gaining long term stability.

Biddle sees a fragile and workable peace founded on their their provincial localities and local ceasefires. To him, the weakness lies with the national central government which, if it takes too much control, can have the country fall like a house of cards.

But there is a way he sees to ceasefires exising long term... with some sort of a US or UN peacekeeping force in place. Needed at least, perhaps, until younger Iraqi's, not "scarred by the experience of sectarian bloodletting, rises to leadership age in Iraq." Again, our futures like in a youthful generation, not bombarded with ancient history of hate.

This is a 15 page statement, and is worthy of your entire read. But let's see if I can summarize his future projections... leaving his Monday morning quarterback analysis of Iraq's recent past to your own reading.

From the "Conclusions and Implications" section on pg 15 of the PDF:

Iraq’s system of local ceasefires may thus offer an opportunity to stabilize the country and avert the downside risks of failure for the region and for US interests. To realize this opportunity will not be cheap or easy. And it will not produce the kind of Iraq we had hoped for in 2003. A country stabilized via the means described above would hardly be a strong, internally unified, Jeffersonian democracy that could serve as a beacon of democracy in the region. Iraq would be a patchwork quilt of uneasy local ceasefires, with Sunni CLCs, Shiite CLCs, and Shiite militia governance adjoining one another in small, irregularly shaped districts; with most essential services provided locally by trusted co-religionists rather than by a weak central government whose functions could be limited to the distribution of oil revenue; and with a continuing need for outside peacekeepers to police the terms of the ceasefires, ensure against the resumption of mass violence, and deter interference from neighbors in a weak Iraqi state for many years to come.

So far his vision of Iraq doesn't sound much different than Pakistan, or any Muslim government seeking to find a balance and liveable peace between more modern Muslims, a thriving capitalistic economy, and those that desire Sharia law.

But if you will, allow me to interject my own main bone of contention with Biddle's entire paper. He suggests somewhat of an overall failure because Irag will not turn out to be, as he puts it, another "Germany or Japan".

Or, as he says above... "it will not produce the kind of Iraq we had hoped for in 2003."

Bush warned against this notion as far back as a Nov 2003 speech at the Nat'l Endowment for Democracy: Quoted from speech:

As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.

Thus the only ones who could be surprised at the Iraqis' finding a "bottom up" alternative solution more appropriate to their needs are the media... the same who assumed and propagated the popular myth that Bush was trying to "westernize" and not "democratize".

For the rest of us who had a more realistic view of a Muslim democracy, and never believed Iraq would be another Germany or Japan, it was only a matter of time.... wondering when Iraq would find it's own way to relative stability.

Now that we have the only major disagreement out of the way, more from Biddle's conclusions. He suggests that the inevitible peacekeeping force must be "international" or accepted. This is, of course, a fatal flaw in al Qaeda and al Jihad Groups' Zawahiri's eyes. Per his recent interview, his organization affords the UN no higher status than he does any western force on Arab lands. But we'll leave that as an aside for now.

There are no guarantees in Iraq. And given the costs and the risks of pursuing stability, a case can still be made for cutting our losses now and withdrawing all US forces as soon as it is logistically practical.

But none of the options are cost or risk-free in Iraq, including withdrawal. A US departure from an unstable Iraq risks an escalation in violence, the prospect of regional intervention, and a much wider war engulfing the heart of the Mideast’s oil production – any responsible proposal for troop withdrawals in Iraq must contend with their risks, which are substantial. All US options in Iraq thus remain unattractive.2 But we must choose one all the same.

Biddle is quite practical. There's no guarantees... and all choices carry risk. Duh wuh! The the following paragraph.. the last one to wrap up the conclusion, I might add, drives the reality home for a cowardly leadership in a political driven liberal Congress in election year.

And the case for cutting our losses in Iraq is weaker today than it was a year ago. The rapid spread of negotiated ceasefires and the associated decline in violence since then has improved the case for remaining in Iraq and paying the price needed to maximize our odds of stability. It will not be cheap, and it is hardly risk-free. But in exchange for these costs and risks we now have a better chance for stability – not a guarantee, but a better chance – than we have seen for a long time.

Yup... hard to cherry pick this one. And I suspect when Petraeus/Crocker come up and present the same future vision, it will be a fact that is hard to ignore.

Hard to ignore unless, of course, the media deliberately avoids the link between this report, and tomorrow's Petraeus/Crocker report.

Zawahiri... in his own words Visions for the Middle Eat

2008-04-04T14:02:00.011-07:00

HT to Laura Mansfield of The Mansfield Report, via Gateway Pundit.

Read the full text of open interview with Zawahiri.

There is little excuse for liberal denial anymore. I speak of their naive promises that US exit from Iraq (and even Afghanistan) will appease the global Islamic jihad movement. I have oft pointed out that were we to exit both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are merely sitting with the identical presence in the Middle East as we had on September 11th.

The jihad movement demands far more than withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. And those demands are not limited to the withdrawal of US military, but even "Crusader" influence.... which could be interpreted as anything from democratic governments in Arab countries to the McDonalds or Starbucks on the corner of a Dubai or Kuwait City street.

Thus, reprinted below, are some excerpts of Zawahiri... in his own words.. that substantiate the naivety of our DNC candidates and their promised foreign policy gaffes in the works.

First, some cut and paste of questions/responses from the 48 page translation. First INRE the future of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran... plus the jihad movements' visions for their future.

“The first question: what do you expect to happen in Iraq after America’s withdrawal with Allah’s permission? And do the Rejectionist’s armed militias represent a worry to the Mujahideen? And how will the Mujahideen deal with these militias?

First: I expect the Jihadi influence to spread after the Americans’ exit from Iraq, and to move towards Jerusalem (with Allah’s permission). As for the militias mentioned, they have failed to eliminate the Jihad with the help of what is called the strongest power in the history of mankind, so will they succeed by themselves or with the help of Iran?

Zawahiri's promise of the jihadis making a "move towards Jerusalem" does not mean, in my opinion, they will immediately set out to attack Israel. Instead it may mean that with clearing out the infidel, they can concentrate on their long term strategy to eliminate Israel and their occupation of territories the jihad movement claims for their Caliphate. More on this below... keep reading.

Zawahiri also scoffs at the notion that if the jihad movement cannot be defeated in Iraq with America's superpower, then Iraq has no chance of defending itself.. even with help from Iran. But he reserves a special message for the Awakening Council in Iraq, and probably for any future similar movement.

“2 – Is there a word you would like to direct, our Shaykh, to the apostates of the Awakening Councils?”

Second: As for the apostates of the Awakening Councils, I tell them: the Mujahideen will – with Allah’s help and will – deal with you according to the tradition of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (with whom Allah was pleased): a war which ousts or a peace which humiliates.

Simply translated, they will fight to the death to in war, or they can surrender and endure the humiliation of their cowardice.

And speaking of Iran...

“The second question: what is Your Eminence’s opinion about the American threats to Iran? And does America really intend to strike Iran? And if that happens, what do you expect will happen in the region? And will it be in the interest of the Mujahideen or not?

Second: the dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation will be in the interest of the Mujahideen if the war saps both of them. If, however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and the Mujahideen, except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region.

Zawahiri seems content to let Iran and the US duke it out, and take on whoever is left standing. But the hope is that any conflict will weaken both, so as to be beyond any influence.

“The third question: What is your evaluation of America’s situation now? Has it really begun to collapse? And what do you expect if the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq? Will you be satisfied with this state of affairs, or will you attempt to drag American into a new war?

Third: There is no doubt that the American collapse has begun, and the myth of unipolarity has ended. And the raids on New York and Washington were identifying marks of this collapse, but I point out that the collapse of empires doesn’t come in a single moment, but rather, may take decades, and the collapse of the Soviet Union is the nearest example of that. And the withdrawal of America from Afghanistan and Iraq will be in the interest of the Muslims with Allah’s permission, and the Jihadi vanguard has announced that its objective on which it will not compromise – at this stage – is the withdrawal of all unbelieving forces from the lands of the Muslims.

Zawahiri's translation uses an odd and irregular form of the word, unipolar... which means a manic depressive disorder. "...myth of unipolarity has ended". To analyze it in the context of a form of "polarity", meaning attraction and/or opposition of two extremes or poles, then adding the "uni", meaning one, it merely nullifies the push/pull of extremes.

Truthfully, this translation doesn't clearly convey Zawahiri's message for is confusion of term. However what is clear is that Zawahiri marks 911 as a major turning point in America's collapse. And my guess he probably means collapse from within.. perhaps by setting the nation into deep, "manic" divide. But that is merely my speculation.

INRE dragging America into another war. Zawahiri simply states that US forces are not the only intruders on his desired Caliphate. *Any* forces and influences that are unbelievers must go. That will include NATO forces (see UN comments further below). And extending to "influence", any western business influence they consider "unIslamic".

“The fourth question: I request Your Eminence to give us a look at the future of the Jihadi march: i.e. after five or six years, how will the situation be in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, the Land of the Two Sanctuaries, the Islamic Maghrib, Chechnya, Somalia and Darfur? (Mata Note: I believe the Land of Two Sanctuaries is Saudi Arabia)

Fourth: I expect – by the grace of Allah – the spreading of the Jihadi tide and an increase in its influence corresponding to the receding of the influence of the Crusaders, Jews and their agents in the places I mentioned.

Note carefully, the goal is to eliminate the influence of Jews and Crusaders entirely. And Zawahiri sees a rise of Islamic law in ratio to a decline of western influence over the next five years.

He states again the goals more clearly in another question/answer section. This in regard, not to western occupation and influence, but directly against what he considers "apostate" regimes.... or Arab regimes that abandon or renounce Islam in their rule.

“8: What is the usefulness of Jihad combat actions against the apostate Arab regimes, which usually target the regimes’ lackeys without severing the heads? And how do you evaluate the results of these actions, especially in Algeria, Egypt and the country of the two Sanctuaries?”

Eighth: I talked before about the Jihadi actions in Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula, and I referred to our practical discretion at this stage, but I would like to add here three notes:

1) The clash with the corrupt regimes must occur sooner or later if we want to set up the Muslim state and liberate the lands of Islam.

2) The overall position is open to adjustment from one territory to another. So for
example, in Algeria the brothers pair targeting of Jewish and Western interests with waging a guerilla war against the hireling government, because their circumstances make it possible for them to do that.

3) Severing the heads isn’t the objective: rather, the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government. And the means of change differ from one territory to another.

I repeat... "the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government." So in the first stated goal above, it was to see receding influence of Jews and Crusaders. But there is a second stated goal. Once the jihad movement can bring American resolve to her knees, their next target are the Arab governments themselves - those who do not implement and rule by Islamic law.

These governments are also marked for demise by mere cooperation with the west on intelligence.Even perhaps, by trade. And it is this phrasing that makes me believe the "move towards Jerusalem" is actually the quest to surround Israel with the Islamic Caliphate.

Which brings us to the first volume of pages where Zawahiri was pretty beat up by numerous questions (taken in advance and answered in bulk later...) on their disregard towards killing fellow Muslims.

His responses are vast and repetitive over the oft answered subject. But they ever followed the same theme.... Muslims who cooperate with Crusaders are infidels, and thereby fair game in jihad. They do not kill "innocents", however do admit that there are times when they die because they are used as a "human shield", as the infidel situates himself amidst the Muslim community.

I would like to clarify to the brother questioner that we don’t kill innocents: in fact, we fight those who kill innocents. Those who kill innocents are the Americans, the Jews, the Russians and the French and their agents. Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets, but we are confronting the enemies of the Muslim Ummah and targeting them, and it may be the case that during this, an innocent might fall unintentionally or unavoidably, and the Mujahideen have warned repeatedly the Muslims in general that they are in a war with the senior criminals – the Americans and Jews and their allies and agents – and that they must keep away from the places where these enemies gather.

Using the inherent belief that any association and cooperation with those the jihad movement considers infidels and the enemy, Muslims who indulge in democracy, elections, anything with western influence, are targets. But there will be no international presence in the jihadi's Caliphate either... For Zawahiri has specifically targeted the United Nations as an enemy, and taunted them for their fast withdrawal in Iraq upon confrontation.

The operation on the 11th of December was against the headquarters of the United Nations and the Constitutional Assembly and Police Academy, not against children’s schools or women’s hospitals. And the United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims: it is the one which codified and legitimized the setting up of the state of Israel and its taking over of the Muslims’ lands. It is the one which considers Chechnya an inseparable part of Crusader Russia, and consider Ceuta and Melilla inseparable parts of Crusader Spain. And it is the one which codified the Crusader presence in Afghanistan through the Bonn conference, and codified the Crusader presence in Iraq through its various resolutions, and approved the separation of East Timor from Indonesia, while it doesn’t recognize that [right] for Chechnya, nor for all the Muslim Caucasus, nor for Kashmir, nor for Ceuta and Melilla, nor for Bosnia.

Allah granted success to the heroic Amir and – as we consider him – martyr Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi (may Allah have mercy on him), and he blew up the headquarters of the United Nations in Baghdad at the beginning of the Crusader invasion of Iraq, and its remnants turned back in flight. And thus he ruined the Crusaders’ plans to cover the Crusader invasion with international forces which wouldn’t provoke Arab and Islamic sensitivities. This is the same ruse which the Crusaders used in Lebanon, and so the forces of Hizbullah withdrew 30 kilometers to the rear and approved an international Crusader presence to occupy the lands of the Muslims on Lebanese soil, and the leadership of Hizbullah even promised to preserve the safety of those Crusader forces occupying the Muslims’ lands.

There is much much more here - giving us an unedited view into the enemy's mind and goals. The question is, will our media blind the electorate to the truth by ignoring and minimizing Zawahiri's words? And next POTUS even bother to listen?

Pelosi warns Petraeus ... doesn't want any good news

2008-04-03T17:52:00.003-07:00

Ah yes... another Petraeus visit to Congress. And I guess the MoveOn.org funds prohibit another slanderous ad because Pelosi, herself - backed up by Ike Skelton and Howard Berman - called a press conference to lay out the predictable DNC un'welcome mat.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.”

Caught "off guard"??? This woman needs to read something other than Redbook when getting her nails done. Prior to the start of Operation Calvary Charge, the US offered to place Special Forces and air power near the theatre as back up. The Iraqi's politely refused. Tough to offer aid in advance when you're caught off guard, don't you think?

According to even citizen Iraqis, they've known about OCC for months. In fact, word is it was supposed to start a week earlier, but was delayed for Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim's cold feet.

And dictated from Iran? Good god, woman. First you want everyone to "talk" to Iran. And when Maliki does, now you say Iran is "dictating" cease fire terms. Pick a talking point and stay on it, if you can.

Ahmadinejad visited Iran... with barely a welcome wagon. His offers of aid and projects were refused by Iraq. And to quote Nibras Kazimi of Talisman Gate directly...

"The UIA delegation that visited al-Sadr went public in denouncing any media talk of Iranian intervention in calming down the situation and described such talk as “enemy propaganda”.

What we do have is yet another DNC ploy to use a responsive, anti-free-Iraq media to discredit Petraeus in advance. And this is appalling. Congress should be listening to events from commanders on the ground... not the New York Times.

"Media Rants"... in reverse Journalists' get their own "beef" site

2008-04-02T12:28:00.006-07:00

This is a hoot. I have my own category of "Media Rants", so I certainly think it's only fair to allow the accused to rant as well.

And rant they do... on the new site, AngryJournalist.com. (Note, I linked to the "show all comments" version, so wait for the load, and start at the bottom to move up from earliest to most recent at the top)

Most common themes I've see so far? Editors, stupid editors, work overload for low pay, unsavvy internet/web presence editors, less jobs available, etal. But the volume of the over 2920 rants there (at the time of this posting, anyway) are perhaps skewed by high school or college writers, and wannabe writers/journalism grads who can't find a job... yada yada yada. So I'm taking a rough guess that most of the McClatchy, NYTs, WaPo and other big news established media types aren't spending their time venting their frustrations.

But then, that's another of the rants - age related. Young ones rail over the "old, over 45" [Mata gasps here....] journalists who get all the big breaks. The older ones spit on the young ones over deplorable language skills.

Some have great sense of humor, others truly embittered for not being able to change the world to their particulars, rake in the cash, get the beats they want.... Actually sounds like a plethora of other careers, all with interchangable complaints.

So here are some notables that caught my eye for your entertainment. Some funny, some quite serious. And oh, BTW... I've done no "spellcheck" corrections. What you see, is what was posted.

Angry Journalist #76: because my job makes the world worse… Thats not what I was aiming for when I started ten year ago..

Angry Journalist #65: Word. Britney Spears is not news.

Angry Journalist #64: Because entertainment is now news.

Angry Journalist #84: I am angry at America. I am angry that we have become so comfortably numb, that we only care about what Britney’s doing, whatever soundbite made on CNN. I hate that we are so introspective, and that our media has become so self-reflective.

The world exists, goddamnit.

The world exists.

Angry Journalist #95: Incorerct speeling and grammer

Angry Journalist #137: I am very upset that I can no longer work while intoxicated.

Angry Journalist #169: I’m angry because my vent just got lost in the thousands of vents here…

Angry Journalist #300: I’m angry because my colleagues are so self-important, they would rather shape the news then report it.

Then, of course, a few of the beefs was about bloggers and plaguarism. As if to make their point, it wasn't long after AngryJournalists was started that an imitator popped up. HappyJournalist.com was started Mar 2, 3008, by Joe Murphy - a web development guy at the Denver post. Oddly enough, he's one of the breed of bloggers-slash-wannabe-online-journalists that makes the "beef" list on AngryJournalists.

Joe's few 88 "happy" writers/posters out there seemingly lends support to the notion that the "if it bleeds, it leads" adage seems to have permeated the bloodstream of our media. They have become, themselves, a group of drama queens, fixated on personal tragedy and injustice.

According to the Breitbart article that brought this "beef" site to the worlds attention, the unusual enterprise was started by a 23 yr old ex-web journalist, Kiyoshi Martinez. He didn't quit the business out of anger, but out of disappointment in his choice, and in the direction of the industry.

Perhaps young Martinez would also like my personal favorite rant by a self-professed "veteran journalist".

Angry Journalist #268: I’m a veteran journalist. I’ve been reading these comments for 10 minutes now and can see one of the major problems in journalism today. If the written comments are nationally reflective….no wonder we’re in trouble. “Wordsmiths” who can’t think of anything better than the F word to describe how they feel, who can’t write grammatical sentences and who can’t spell.

True, a lot of editors are asses, a lot of newspapers are confusing quantity with quality, and a lot of reporters/editors are being asked to do more with less. Do you think other fields — overall — are drastically different? No. Except, perhaps, for the oil field. — Signed: Sad to see what’s happened in 40 years.

I'm with you, #268. The last four decades have produced alot of narcissistic whiners. Wonder why that is......

Reports of Maliki's demise are premature...

2008-04-01T18:04:00.007-07:00

As Mark Twain said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated". So it is with the western press's rush to declare Maliki's demise.

Media outlets - overjoyed that the Basra battle provided a rare opportunity to declare the Surge "failure" - are now falling all over themselves to pronounce Maliki's Operation Calvary Charge against Sadr'ist area mobsters and cartels a loss. Odd to assume that with one battle, a "war" is won *or* lost. Frankly, I've been looking at it as a great start for Iraqi's policing their own.

But before you get all caught up in the mantra of defeat and parroted phrases of western media, I suggest a perspective from one with more inside knowledge... Nibras Kazimi's "The 'Intifada' that Wasn't" at Talisman Gate.

I won that wager. I had written that “the Iraqi Army’s military operation in Basra will be a spectacular win against disorder and Iranian influence”. And I was right.

Of course, most western media outlets are declaring Muqtada al-Sadr and Iran as the victors of Operation Cavalry Charge. Nothing could be furthest from the truth.

The United Alliance List delegation comprising Ali al-Adib of the Da’awa Party, Hadi al-Ameri of the Badr Organization and (I think…) Qasim al-Sahlani representing a group that had splintered from the Da’awa Party, evidently made al-Sadr an offer he couldn’t refuse when they sat down for a friendly chat in Tehran two days ago: the Iraqi state was willing to go all the way in smashing the Sadrist movement—arresting all the leaders and shutting down all the offices—if he didn’t play along with Operation Cavalry Charge and hand over those operatives whose names appear on the wanted lists.

See Maliki went to Basra with a long-ish list of names comprising all those involved in oil smuggling, drug dealing and the various other crimes that have wracked Basra. It just so happens that many of them claim to be Mahdi Army commanders.

This is what I wrote a couple of days ago:

snip... continue reading at link above - truly a MUST REA

Haditha "massacre" myth quietly dissolves Ignored by media and ACLU

2008-04-01T10:23:00.005-07:00

FrontPage Magazine's Ben Johnson article today, "The Party of Defeat’s Haditha Lie Crumbles", brings two very important points to bear.

1: The media hype, stoked by Murtha's accusations of murder in cold blood, kept Haditha in the forefront of headlines. Now that the electorate has formed an opinion of Murtha, as the defender of the Iraqi innocent, and the US Marine as a cold blooded killer, the media ignores the dismissal of charges of the third of the fourth defendants. The charge? Not murder. But failure to "properly identify every target before opening fire."

In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

There was also the prosecution's star witness, Lance Cpl Humberto Mendoza, a Venezuelan citizen “trying to get his application for U.S. citizenship released by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is holding up his papers.” Mendoza accused Tatum of issuing orders for Mendoza to kill and, upon refusal he says, Tatum pulled the trigger.

Minor detail in the he said-he said battle. Tatum passed a lie detector. Mendoza failed.

2: What about torture? Isn't the ACLU, Congress and the electorate all up in arms about "torture"? Or is "torture" acceptable because it's performed on US soldiers?

If leftists genuinely cared about U.S. troops, they would have protested the conditions of the Haditha soldiers' interrogations. Investigators refused to provide attorneys when requested, questioned the men for 12 hours at a time, and did not allow them to take bathroom breaks, forcing the men to relieve themselves into bottles. This far outstrips most of the accusations made against U.S. soldiers.

Certainly many of the above conditions are what constitutes "torture" to the left. Which begs the question of where is the ACLU in all this?

I suggest their distinct absence on behalf of the Haditha accused shows that the ACLU cares not about torture, but about giving comfort and opportunity for freedom to our enemy. They are, plain and simple, on the wrong side of the battlefield.

Pakistan Update Trouble on the horizon?

2008-03-31T16:29:00.004-07:00

While most eyes and pundits focus on the battles in Basra, arguing over it's status as progress or a setback, we have what may be the loss of an important ally looming on the horizon.

As I pointed out in my Mar 25th post, Hating Musharraf, the media indoctrination, painting Musharraf as the enemy and the PPP as the Pakistani saviours, is bringing some more of those chickens home to roost. And the latest reports show not only no change in that original assessment, but even more firm assertations to go the path of peace thru negotiations with militants.

Musharraf hasn't thrown in the towel yet, promising cooperation with the new majority at his farewell dinner. But he also specifically made the point that he hoped the new government would recognize that one of it's prime responsibilities was the country's internal and external security.

In the meantime the power duo, Zardari (PPP co-chair) and Sharif (PML-N), tossed Musharraf a bone scrap, taking a "we'll see" attitude towards Musharraf's Presidential future. Their continuing relationship depended upon Musharraf's attitude towards Parliament.

The new PPP PM, Gilani, got a unanimous vote of "trust" from the assembly (including an uncontested Musharraf block... apparently a "no surprise" vote, indicating Musharraf may have noodged them into compliance), then laid out his kinder/gentler rules of engagement for the war on terror. Already his visions appear dashed with the improbability of bringing the differing factions to the peace table. His is a vision not untried in the past.

Mr Gilani, who is due to name the first batch of his cabinet on Monday, said his government was not afraid of “innumerable challenges” facing the country and that “the restoration of law and order and total elimination of terrorism will be (its) first priority”.

“The war against terrorism is our own war because countless of our innocent children and jawans have fallen martyrs as a result of it,” he said.

OLIVE BRANCH: But the prime minister, who discussed the future of Pakistan’s key role in the American-led war against terrorism with two senior US diplomats this week, offered an olive branch to what he described as some people who had chosen the path of violence as a means of expressing their views, asking them to give up their approach and “join us in this journey of democracy”.

“We are ready to talk to all those people who will lay down arms and adopt the path of peace,” he said.

However those with whom Gilani wishes to engage have laid down their own demands, as well as issued violent threats to the local tribal elders.

Local Taliban militants have asked the new government to end relations with the US and enforce Sharia in tribal areas and have warned tribal elders against meeting US officials.

The warning was issued at a public meeting held in Enayet Kalli near Khar on Sunday which was attended by thousands of tribesmen chanting anti-US slogans.

snip

“We hail Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s announcement to repeal the FCR,” Maulvi Faqir said, adding that the government should implement Sharia in the tribal region and sever diplomatic relations with United States.

“Taliban are patriotic people and do not want to fight with their own government. We have waged jihad against America. But the country will suffer as long as Pakistan remains an ally of the US in the ongoing war on terror in the region,” Maulvi Faqir said.

The new government, he said, should not repeat mistakes of the previous government and must change its internal and external policies. He said the militants were ready for talks with the government.

The meeting urged the government to remove all new checkpoints from the area and lift a ban on non-customs paid vehicles.

The Taliban leaders warned elders of ‘consequences’, if they met US officials.

A committee comprising local clerics was set up to resolve disputes among tribesmen. The committee was authorised to prepare a mechanism for eliminating un-Islamic practices like interest on loans, robbery and kidnapping for ransom from the region.

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan spokesman Maulvi Umar told Dawn by phone that the government should formally enforce Sharia in the tribal belt.

Somehow, there doesn't appear to be much change in the militants' demands, nor in their coersive methods. Certainly demands of all diplomatic ties with the US doesn't fit into Gilani's desire to maintain "....strong and close relations also with America and Europe”.

The last truce with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan's leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in 2006 proved to be yet another farce. And cooperation by the tribal leaders to root out the militants is inevitably followed by a blood bath of the elders, as has been done in the past.

The US most definitely has a concern with the possible loss of Musharraf, and the new gov't kinder/gentler approach.

The US is concerned that a softened approach might let Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other groups expand their base in Pakistan and step up attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.

The Bush administration also is concerned about the political sidelining of President Pervez Musharraf, its longtime ally in Pakistan.

While the previous Musharraf-led military government signed peace deals with the tribal leaders in 2006 — a strategy the CIA chief called ‘absolutely disastrous’ since it allowed Al Qaeda to regroup — the government also periodically conducted military strikes and permitted US missile strikes on suspected Al Qaeda targets.

Gilani, who clearly faces the same problems the previous govt did, talks a good game, but is likely to face the same obstacles that cannot be hurdled with talk alone. What remains to be seen is how this will affect the US-Pakistan relationships... even with a new POTUS.

Basra: A glimpse into a future Iraq under DNC foreign policy

2008-03-30T11:32:00.011-07:00

Gordon Brown's admin has done the GOP a favor in the pre'election run up... they have, with their premature withdrawal from Basra, demonstrated to the world what will happen in Iraq if coalition troops leave before the Iraqis are fully capable of holding their own.

"Holding their own" includes more than just troops training, or political reconciliation - assuming... when you view the US DNC vs GOP... there is such a thing as political reconciliation. Part of Iraq's battle to be self-sufficient also depends upon competent structure in their finance/budget execution departments. For what good is having a stellar military if they cannot appropriate gear and ammunition? And what good is political reconciliation if they can allocate funds for national projects, but can not implement them due to bureaucratic red tape?

Today's Telegraph finds some US senior advisors giving our UK ally a discreet slap on the hand for governing via poll results.

Although British commanders in Basra still intend to play only a back-seat role, the deteriorating security picture nationwide prompted harsh comments from the principal architect of the surge strategy.

Mr Kagan, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think-tank, told The Sunday Telegraph: "British forces have an obligation to step up when needed and it sure looks here like they're needed.

"It is rather a watershed moment in the Anglo-American alliance. I understand that your Prime Minister has already said that the special relationship is over. There's an issue here of fulfilling your obligations as an ally, freely undertaken."

His fellow surge architect, retired US general Jack Keane, also voiced doubts that the Iraqi security forces would be able to pacify Basra unassisted. "There are about 8,000 armed militiamen with a stranglehold on the people of Basra. The situation in Basra has deteriorated since the British pulled out."

Their comments are likely to embarrass Downing Street and anger British commanders in Basra, who have insisted their policy of scaling down their presence is to encourage Iraqi security forces to take the lead. Senior officers also said that the coalition command in Baghdad approved their plans.

snip

Mindful of US unease over Basra, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, will signal this week that there will be no withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq this spring.

He will tell the Commons that "all options remain under review", but government sources said it was accepted within the military that any troop withdrawal at this time would be "presentationally unacceptable".

This is the same British Sec'y of Defense who - just days ago in the thick of the Basra battle (March 29th) - stated in an interview that Britain should negotiate with the Taliban and Hezbollah. But, in the next breath, also noted that there was *no* negotiating with al Qaeda.

Defense Sec'y Browne is the perfect embodiment of a leader who lacks the education and comprehension of the enemy and their alliances. Ruling power achieved via violence, and the desire for strict adherence to (their version of) Islamic law, are the common threads of the multi pronged global Islamic jihad movement.

In short, you can no more separate al Qaeda from Hezbollah or the Taliban than you can separate the differing membership of medical professionals from the AMA.

The Basra battle was looming - and is necessary in Iraq's long term future - prior to it's recent kickoff. Or, as Iraqi visiting fellow, Nibras Kazimi put it in his 3/25/08 blog post, "Operation Calavary Charge (Updated)", at Talisman Gate:

This is Operation ‘Cavalry Charge’, which is the best translation I could come up with for صولة الفرسان.

Its chief objective is to flush out the organized crime cartels that control the port of Basra and the oil pipelines of the province. One major criminal force in the Basrawi scene are groups that affiliate themselves with the Sadrist movement and its Mahdi Army. Many of these criminal rings are also associated with certain factions of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard that operate in Basra both for intelligence/sabotage purposes as well as enriching themselves. By knocking out these egregious manifestations of lawlessness, Operation Cavalry Charge will have the accrued benefit of mashing up the more subtle patterns of Iran’s malignant influence in Iraqi Shiism’s foremost economic prize, the oil fields and port of Basra.

But is this how this story is being reported by the US and Arab media? Of course not!

The dominant false narrative du jour goes something like this: the Sadrists are angry over a number of things (arrests, political wrangling with the Hakim family and the Da’awa Party, etc.) so they decided to back away from Sadr’s seven-month ‘ceasefire’ (a term invented by the western media as a deliberately wrongful translation of تجميد وإعادة هيكلة جيش المهدي: “freezing and restructuring the Mahdi Army”) by staging ‘civil disobedience’ (…such as shutting down primary schools and shops by threatening teachers, students and the middle class) but things quickly deteriorated into the perpetual cycles violence that these journalists and pundits are mentally wedded to and have staked their thin expertise on predicting as Iraq’s inevitable fate.

If little old me had known about Operation Cavalry Charge a month ago then it stands to reason that the Sadrists and the Iranians had heard about it too. In fact, it was supposed to start a week ago, but got delayed allegedly because Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim got cold feet. However, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forced the issue and flew down to Basra a couple of days ago (media reports said he got in yesterday; I was told something else) to personally oversee his boldest move yet: demonstrating that he’s got the gumption to use Iraqi security resources to battle Shia militias and crime cartels and take back Iraq’s vital economic nerve-center, all without appealing for American help and in a direct challenge to Iranian objectives.

The events in Basra are a lose-lose scenario for the DNC posturing on Iraq. They lose in their calls for withdrawal as a way to further Iraq's progress. The British turned over control of Basra to the Iraqis prematurely. Were they still in control, Operation Calvary Charge would have been delayed, allowing yet more time for Iraq military progress and increased equipment.

Yet the British semi-abandoment is somewhat of a blessing in disquise, as now the world can envision Iraq's future with a US premature withdrawal under Obama or Clinton. The Iraqis demonstrated their intents and desires to clean out the criminal cartels in their country. And, despite their fledgling status (and with a little help from US air strikes and some British side fire) they have won the battle. Sadr has called his street dogs off.

The DNC naysayers also lose when they deem Iraq as ungovernable, and in the midst of a civil war. This is about as much a "civil war" as US police actions against mobsters, cartels and gangs operating in US borders. To call Iraqis killing Iraqis (irrespective of Sunni or Shia) civil war demands the same label apply to American on American gang and criminal violence. It should also be noted we have a higher number of of those "American insurgent" deaths.

There are most definitely "wins" here in Iraq progress. The plan and will to secure Basra by the Maliki gov't is a step forward. The fact they lasted so long on their own before getting coalition aid a few days later shows they not only have the will to police their own country, but they are getting better at doing so.

Another win is for Maliki himself, long portrayed as Sadr's puppet and paid official. While it held some truth in the past, as Sadr's support catapulted Maliki to a position of power, that relationship has been altered.

But the biggest win goes to the Iraqis themselves. For it not only shows the govt plans on policing the entire nation, sans cartels, but shuns Iranian influence simultaneously. It is their way of saying their intrusive neighbor - "our port... our control... hands off".

Now picture our future. A newly elected DNC POTUS pulls US troops, leaving Iraq's so-called "civil war" in the hands of the Iraqis. Basra now goes nationwide wide, and the new Iraq police and military forces are overwhelmed, and under supplied with gear, vehicles and munitions. The jihad radicals are, of course well armed with black market war supplies by Iran, Syria, and every other underground channel they can tap. Thre is no dearth in middle east nations that want to see a free Iraq fail.

Iraq's failure or success will lay squarely on the hands of the next CIC, and how he/she chooses to continue our presence in Iraq. And yet, I will wager that if they do the right thing, and Iraq assumes competent control over their future without US troops, the DNC will bemore than willing and quick to take credit for success.

But they will be just as quick to dig a mass grave for the plethora of 2005-2008 press stories of their past - filled with withdraw/surrender demands.

Just who is "beating the drums" for war in Iran?

2008-03-26T17:52:00.004-07:00

Chutzpah... pfeh. Can't say much else to the absolute deception of a media headline, concocted with the intent to deceive.

Latest case in point... M K Bhadrakumar's article for the March 27th Asia Times article, "US moves towards engaging Iran".

Oh, but wait! Could just be a tricky play on words, right? "Engaging" Iran with military force vs "engaging" Iran with diplomatic talks are two different ball games. But when you read the headline, and consider the past "beating the drums of war" accusations of media, what comes to your mind first?

Slick... very slick. And still deceptive. The damage is done with the headline alone.

The opening paragraph of Bhadrakumar's article supports the "drums of war" theory.

The coming few weeks are going to be critical in the standoff between the United States and Iran as the upheaval in the Middle East reaches a turning point. And all options do remain on the table, as the George W Bush administration likes to say, from military conflict to a de facto acceptance of Iran's standing as the region's dominant power.

But since what Bhadrakumar was about to report mandated a recanting of that impression... here comes paragraph two.

One thing is clear. The time for oratorical exercises is ending. A phase of subtle, reciprocal, conceptual diplomatic actions may be beginning. An indication of this is available in the two radio interviews given by Bush last weekend and beamed into Iran, exclusively aimed at reaching out to the Iranian public on the Persian New Year Nauroz.

Followed by more details in paragraph's four thru six.

Bush's interviews with the government-supported Voice of America and Radio Farda, especially the latter, were a masterly piece in political overture. He held out none of the customary threats against Iran. This time, there was not even the trademark insistence that "all options are on the table". There were no barbs aimed at President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Least of all, there were no calls for a regime change in Tehran. Bush simply said something that he might as well have said about Saudi Arabia or Egypt. As he put it, "So this is a regime and a society that's got a long way to go [in reform]."

Bush spoke of the evolution of the Iranian regime's character rather than its overthrow. The criticism, if any, of Iranian government policies approached nowhere near the diatribes of the past. There was none of the boastful claims that the US would work toward isolating Iran in its region and beyond. In fact, Bush acknowledged, "There's a chance that the US and Iran can reconcile their differences, but the [Iranian] government is going to have to make different choices. And one [such choice] is to verifiably suspend the enrichment of uranium, at which time there is a way forward."

Bush assured that in return the US would be "reasonable in our desire to see to it that you have civilian nuclear power without enabling the government to enrich [uranium]". Here again, he pointed out that the problem is that "they [Iranian governments] have not told the truth in the past, and therefore it's very difficult for the United States and the rest of the world - or much of the rest of the world - to trust the Iranian government when it comes to telling the truth".

Sensationalist headlines, followed by content that has nothing to do with the news "trailer". And we wonder why so many in the world are just plain clueless about current events? i.e. why so many believe that Bush is bent on starting a war with Iran before his 2nd term is up.

Yet a closer examination of that "truth" finds that the Bush admin, while refusing rightfully to take any options off the table, has always advocated for int'l diplomacy, and encouragement to the youth of Iran to strive for changes in their country.

So who is really beating the drum for war in Iran?

How about Seymour Hirsch at the New Yorker, who's story was then redistributed by CNN. Or perhaps Pelosi? Maybe Walter C. Uhler at The Information Clearing House? How about the Libertarian Party?

Then, of course, there's Joe Biden on Hardball. And Tim Shipman, reporting for London's The Telegraph. And let's not forget the progressive site, Common Dreams.

Notice any common threads in ideology and agenda here? Of course, in the same illustrious company of the above is Chavez.

And the liberals say they aren't siding with the wrong side of the argument.... uh huh.

The result of all this BS spewed from the mouths of political opportunists? A poll saying American's don't trust Bush on Iran. Well damn... who would, after all the years of media and liberal lies?

Definitely another one of those things that makes you go "huh???" And more fodder for my "media rant" category.

The Battle for Basra Iraqis show the world, and Iran, their intents

2008-03-26T15:18:00.004-07:00

I've been watching the battle for Basra the past 24 hours. The guys over at Flopping Aces have a PDF story from McClatchy News yesterday. The McClatchy DC bureau has another version of the story today with Maliki 72 hour ultimatum.

I can save you some time, as you can easily detect McClatchy's consistently twisted brand of Iraq war journalism and serious lack of broadcast integrity by their headlines alone....

Iraq fighting is worst in months; Maliki issues ultimatum

Is 'success' of U.S. surge in Iraq about to unravel?

Violence is down, but Iraq still faces a long, hard road

You get the drift... it's always something with that group. "Violence is down, BUT..." "Success about to unravel?" Obviously a bunch of whiners who appeal to a readship of victims.

There is a common error here in western press, drawing lines from this Basra battle to the Surge. They are not, however, connected. Basra security was handed over to the Iraqis by the British, formally, in Dec 2007 after a 6 month run up to the event. It should also be noted that violence has been on the uptick since their withdrawal.

If nothing else, the increase in violence is what the POTUS candidates should notice... a perfect example of what may happen if we leave Iraq prematurely. In the case of Basra, rival Shia factions vying for power over the locals in the wake coalition troops leaving.

The Brits have a presence at an airbase outside of Basra. But they're sitting this one out. So this is it, folks... this is the moment the DNC and anti-free-Iraq types have been waiting for. And all that you naysayers have been demanding of Iraq... they are stepping up to the plate to defend themselves.

And what do they get for it? No atta boys from the western media. No cheerleading for success. Just moaning and more moaning about failure, corruption, violence and predictions for more failure. Apparently the western media and their flock of uneducated sheeple still don't know which side they are supposed to be rooting for.

But I think my favorite take on Basra comes from Lt. Col. Caveman at Rambling from the Rock. Da Lt. always seems to have a particularly sage vision on strategy and the big picture. And this is no exception.

Oil is the wealth of the Iraqi nation. As long as crime cartels and militants control sections of the country's wealth, it can never be truly free and self-sustaining. Maliki is ridding the country of it last main non-government militia (the Mahdi Army) and a entrenched criminal organizations, controlled mostly by Special Groups. He is seeking to limit Iranian influence in his country.

In addition, this operation officially ends his ties with Sadr, who's 30 parliamentary seats, put Maliki into power and has up to this time prevented the government from embracing reconcilitation to a greater extent.

Early in December, a "memorandum of understanding" was signed between the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Dawa Party. Maliki also needed to enlist the support of Hakim's Badr Organization to seal his control of the country. Most military units in Southern Iraq are heavily Badr. Given that these forces are now listening to Maliki and attacking the Mahdi Army and Special Groups, it is obvious that Maliki is telling Iran to get out of Iraq and quit meddling in Iraqi politics by directly attacking those forces Iran supports. In turn, he intends to fully establish his government legitimacy over the country's oil wealth.

I concur with Talisman Gate. Far from this action being a flare up of violence, it is truly a consolidation of nationalistic power across the country and an indirect attack on Iranian influence in the region. The absence of US forces in the mix are a way for Maliki to show other countries his forces are now strong enough to stop defend his country. The presence of US troops in his country will prevent any overt attack. This operation is designed to stop subversive attacks within his country.

Kurdish forces have always been strong in the North and have continued to secure this region. Coalition forces in the center are busy defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq wholesale. The southern fight is Maliki's and he aims to show all Iraqis he can protect his country.

Yup, yup and waaaay yup, Lt. Col. Good overview of Maliki putting both rogue Sadr'ists and Iran on notice. And I hope he succeeds.

It should be noted that the LtCol references and quotes Talisman Gate, blog of Nibras Kazimi. I haven't gotten around to reading this blog more thoroughly. But Ramblin's recommendation is all I need to add it to my bookmarks. But here is updates from Kazimi on today's battlefield status.

UPDATE, Wednesday, March 26, 2008:

Operation Cavalry Charge in Basra is going much better than anticipated; solid leadership coupled with a much-diminished enemy is harvesting very quick results.

Here are the key points on Day 2 of the operation:

-The word from Hayyania, one of Basra’s most populated and poorest neighborhoods, is that the situation is calm and under control. The Iraqi Army has taken up positions in the main thoroughfare while the criminal gangs and the Sadrists seem to be sitting this one out—they’re not engaging the government troops and are instead keeping a low profile.

-Both the Army commander of Operation Cavalry Charge, Lt. Gen. Mohan Hafidh al-Freiji, and the police commander, Maj. Gen. Jalil Khalaf al-Muhammadawi, are very able commanders and brave men, with al-Muhammadawi, an ex-tank officer in the Iraqi Army, tending towards brutality. He’s also helped by the fact that he can draw upon important tribal relations in the all-important Albu-Muhammed tribe of nearby ‘Amara Province.

snip - continue reading at TG's blog, please... it's worth it!

In the meantime, it sure would be nice if the western media had a clue to the import of this event. It not only shows that the Iraqi military, while not necessarily ready to sustain the entire nation, is coming up to speed. And that the new gov't is serious in maintaining their status as a new country with a future.

Alas, a narcissistic western media sees everything sees events in Iraq as all about a Bush failure, and another opportunity to portray the Surge as a failure. Too bad... they are missing history... watching the Iraqis police their own as nation, free from a despot. Iraqis should be proud!

Political humor here... Smile! Something we should do at least once

2008-03-26T15:02:00.005-07:00

Joke received from a veteran friend of mine... thought I'd pass it along. Seems so very pertinent!

__________________________________________

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican." "I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You've risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of hot air.

You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but, somehow, now it's my fault

On Saddam's Order

2008-03-26T14:35:00.004-07:00

Mark Eichenlaub, manager and editor of The Regime of Terror, has an analysis of the latest Iraq Perspectives Project, Vol I (aka, the Pentagone Report IV). Read "On Saddam's Order" at National Review Online.

I blogged on this report back on March 13th, snarling and growling at the misleading headlines and pack of lies that were being passed off as journalism. But since that time, many - most with far more expertise than I - are pouring thru the 94 page document and expounding on the details.

Several media outlets - but not an overwhelming amount by any means - have done some great work. But Mark has taken it a step further - giving a much needed (however gentle) slap across the face by those who indulge in "the meaning of is... is" word games. Ya made me smile, Mark!

Excerpts below are the opening, and closing paragraphs. But I highly recommend everything in the middle as a "must read".

Links. Ties. Operational links. Sponsorship. These terms have vastly different meanings to different members of the media when they discuss relations between Saddam Hussein’s regime and the al-Qaeda network. This became clear yet again last week when news outlets reported on the Department of Defense-sponsored Iraqi Perspectives Project (all five volumes of which are now available here). The vast majority of news reports focused on a single sentence that was incorrectly taken to mean that no ties, links, relations or connections of any sort existed between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the al-Qaeda movement.

What exact word or phrase best describes the relations between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and al-Qaeda, as well as other Islamic terror groups, is certainly debatable. What is not debatable, based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, is that Saddam Hussein’s regime funded, trained, and assisted terrorist groups (including al-Qaeda proxies), and sometimes actually ordered them to attack American citizens, American interests, and American allies. To compound the danger, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was simultaneously using its intelligence and security apparatus to plot and conduct terror attacks of its own.

snip

Instead of squabbling over who is and isn’t a member of al-Qaeda and what the requirements of a “link” or “connection” are, this report details Saddam’s broad support for (and sometimes direction of) a multitude of terrorist groups targeting Americans and American allies. Based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam’s Iraq did not just use terrorism against America and her allies but took advantage of “the rising fundamentalism in the region” as an “opportunity to make terrorism . . . a formal instrument of state power.” Because of Saddam’s removal, which came at considerable cost in American blood and gold, a “formal instrument” of state terrorism is no longer secretly plotting to kill Americans. The American public deserves to know what a threat was removed for that price.

Now if we could just get them to stop playing the same game with what constitutes a WMD, or al Qaeda as the pure definition of the enemy.

Hating Musharraf Those chickens are comin' home to roost

2008-03-25T20:15:00.009-07:00

Upon the return of Benazir Bhutto, the western media was all a'gog. Hailing her as Pakistan's deliverer from the evil Musharraf. Proclaimed A Hero for Democracy, she was given press passes for her less than stellar, and corruption riddled, past PM terms. Then, upon death, unofficially canonized by the same history challenged media (tho saved from such a real perilous fate by her Muslim religion...).

On the opposite end of the stick was the harsh criticism and journalistic sniping at Musharraf. He stood as the fall guy, demonized for all of Pakistan's failures in controlling the al Qaeda and Taliban in their tribal regions.

Western media then rejoiced at Benazir's PPP party victory in elections... sure that such a change would result in a more democratic Pakistan, and a thorough clean up of the militants in their midst.

Musharraf, who previously had threatened to resign if the Parliament so much as whispered the word "impeach" in his direction, now finds himself politically isolated after the inauguration of the new Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Not only does Nawaz Sharif have it in for Musharraf, Gilani also has his past beefs with Pakistan's President. Both have been booted out, and/or jailed and arrested by Musharraf - both charged with corruption. And payback for the Prez is proving to be a real bitch as they apply pressure for his ouster.

So it's no surprise that rumours abound regarding his imminent resignation. Who can blame the guy? The western media treated him slightly better than they treat our own President, totally oblivious to the narrow line a Muslim President must walk, and unappreciative for the help he has provided the US. Fact is, Muslim countries do not like to be seen as cooperating overtly with the evil western US. So most aid needed to remain below the NYT's press radar in order to minimize backlash from the Pakistanis themselves.

Well, congratuations, all you history challenged PPP/Benazir lovers. You are about to be granted that "Pakistan" you have craved since Bhutto's return. A Pakistan that rejects your perceived enemy, Musharraf, and comes up with a new way to deal with the militants in their midst....

There's no more military missions. It's negotiate with the bad guys time.

But Mr Negroponte and Mr Boucher scheduled early calls on Mr Sharif and Mr Zardari, both of whom have indicated that the new democratic coalition intends following a very different policy from Mr Musharraf on the war against terror and dealing with jihadi militants.

Both said this week they believed the Washington-backed military assault against the jihadis had failed and that they were keen to try negotiations in an effort to end the wave of suicide bomb attacks.

It must be pointed out that Sharif's past ties to hardline militants is still of great concern, especially given his position of power today. A position made possible by Musharraf's agreement not to enforce the 10 year exile to Saudi Arabia... thereby signing his own political death warrant.

It must also be noted that the history of negotiations with the militants in the tribal regions has produced more broken truces and failures than the joint military attempts.

Which brings us to today... Pakistan has basically elected an "Obama" impersonator... a prime minister who believes in talk over fighting. Mr. "let's talk" Obama, on the other hand, has just boxed himself into a foreign policy corner. His publicly laid out cowboy policy towards Pakistan, threatening to go in without their permission if he has "actionable intelligence", is not going to sit well with Gilani and the new power in Parliament.

Needless to say, this new and lesser approach by a perceived ally will present problems for either candidate landing in the Oval Office. McCain will face resistance for cooperative joint missions, formerly granted by Musharraf on the sly. And the presumed DNC nominee, Obama, is now on a direct collision course with Pakistan unless he starts furiously backpeddling.

These events will give new meaning to Joni Mitchell's lyrics, "Well, don't it always seem to go - That you don't know what you got till it's gone".... The media drove the US into a frenzy of hate against Musharraf.

Yet he shall be sorely missed when those chickens do indeed come home to roost.

The Audacity of Rhetoric

2008-03-25T15:22:00.004-07:00

Sage words from Thomas Sowell. Last two paragraphs reprinted below, and read in entirety here. I can add nothing of value... Sowell has said it all, and magnificently.

While many whites may be annoyed by Jeremiah Wright's words, a year from now most of them will probably have forgotten about him. But many blacks who absorb his toxic message can still be paying for it, big-time, for decades to come.

Why should young blacks be expected to work to meet educational standards, or even behavioral standards, if they believe the message that all their problems are caused by whites, that the deck is stacked against them? That is ultimately a message of hopelessness, however much audacity it may have.

More quiet success in war on Islamic jihad WaPo article from Saudi journalist

2008-03-24T18:35:00.007-07:00

No sensationalist headline. Not even a modicum of an "atta boy" in success attached to Faiza Saleh Ambah's WaPo story today, "Out of Guantanamo and Bitter Toward Bin Laden".

On the surface, the story seems simple and detached from the political battles of triumphs or failure against the global Islamic jihad movement. Khalid al-Hubayshi, 32yrs old, was one of Bin Laden's fighters captured in Tora Bora, and held at Camp Gitmo until 2006. Today he's back in his native Saudia Arabia, working as a controller at a utilities company. And per this article, quite embittered with a less than glorious call to jihad. Thank goodness.. because were he still a jihad warrior, the last place he needs to work is at a utilities facility.

Woven thruout his story as a naive and impressionable 19 yr old, who idolized Bin Laden, are startling documentations of success in the war of ideology with jihad.

He was released in 2006 into a world radically altered by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Muslim fighters were no longer viewed in Arab countries as larger-than-life heroes, and clerics had stopped urging young Muslims to fulfill their religious duties by fighting on behalf of their brethren.

Hubayshi had also changed. He had grown disillusioned with bin Laden, whose initial idealism had turned into terrorism, he said, adding that his family, "not bin Laden," had suffered when he was at Guantanamo.

Muslim fighters no longer viewed as heroes? What hasn't this remarkable change made major headlines?

al-Hubayshi still feels betrayed by OBL at Tora Bora.

Weeks later [after 911], an associate of bin Laden came seeking experienced fighters, and those without families left for Tora Bora. In the trenches there, the fighters ate and slept and cleaned their weapons, surrounded by the distant sounds of bombardments.

"Bin Laden was convinced the Americans would come down and fight. We spent five weeks like that, manning our positions in case the Americans landed," he said.

As the airstrikes moved closer, and with the United States' Afghan allies advancing, bin Laden decided to retreat and left one morning. His aides told 300 Arab fighters to make their way to Pakistan and surrender to their embassies.

Pakistani authorities stopped the fighters near the border and handed them over to the U.S. military, which sent them to Guantanamo Bay.

Hubayshi then states, "The whole way to Cuba, I prayed the plane would fall," he said. "There was no dignity in what he made us do."

Hubayshi said he is sorry that Muslims carried out the Sept. 11 attacks because they targeted civilians: "That was wrong. Jihad is fighting soldier to soldier."

snip

In all the years he spent trying to help Muslims, Hubayshi said, he regrets he did not do more.

"My dream was that I would fight when there was fighting, and teach children when there was peace," he said. "I'm sorry we left Afghanistan with so much war and death. I wish we had built hospitals or schools."

The Arab world's increasing rejection of the Islamic jihad movement's tactics, combined with increased awareness, as demonstrated by Habayshi, are landmarks in a battle against a stateless enemy. Landmarks that, sadly, would not have been possible but for the resulting war in Iraq. Given the chance to brazenly demonstrate their brutal warfare, the wanton killing of fellow Muslims, innocent women and children included, became the foundation for Iraq's The Awakening bond. Outside of Iraq, it has greatly diminished their respect in the Muslim world who once considered them "heroes".

Quiet success? Absolutely. Had we not liberated Iraq, and the cards fell as they may, it is most likely that the jihad fighters still would be idolized as heroes today, and more young men as Habayshi ensnared in their delusions of glory.

Poll confirms idiocy abounds in American electorate

2008-03-24T11:49:00.016-07:00

Unbelievable... the "American people", as all those elected elite and media talking heads like to term the 1000 or so poll responders, demonstrate an amazing amount of smugness in their current events knowledge.

Case in point... there's a poll that says our elected officials should listen to the polls.... HUH? This from an article by Claude Salhani, UPI.

This is, of course, a poll in response to Dick Cheney's ABC interview March 19th where Martha Raddatz suggested his indifference to 2/3rds of American's being against the war in the latest polls was rather shocking. Cheney clarified: (on pg 3 of interview transcript):

No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn't had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there. And this President has been very courageous, very consistent, very determined to continue down the course we were on and to achieve our objective. And that's victory in Iraq, that's the establishment of a democracy where there's never been a democracy, it's the establishment of a regime that respects the rights and liberties of their people, as an ally for the United States in the war against terror, and as a positive force for change in the Middle East. That's a huge accomplishment.

Cheney's point is quite valid. While our officials are certainly aware of poll results (being as they are in our news face daily...) you cannot expect an electorate, educated by agenda driven media and not privvy to intelligence and military briefings, to form qualified opinions on America's policy.

And to demonstrate that "agenda driven media" point home a bit further, lets look at the quote provided below in the ABC accompanying story to the interview, as compared to the actual interview text provided above.

"You don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked the vice president.

"You can't be blown off course by polls," said Cheney, who is currently on a tour of the Middle East. "This president is very courageous and determined to go the course. There has been a huge fundamental change and transformation for the better. That's a huge accomplishment."

Yo? What happened to all that middle stuff analogy about if Lincoln used polls to determine the fate of the Civil War? Or did that make too much sense to include? Here lies the dangers of allowing media educated poll responders to dictate America's policy. They merely respond indignantly to what the media decides to share of the Cheney interview (casting a negative light), instead of reading the interview to see what Cheney really said.

Polls are nothing more than a reflection of the latest media headlines. And I don't need Americans, too lazy to read the source material, speaking for me. Let's face it. The majority of American's DON'T read the source material. If they did, all these "polls" we hear about would have seriously different results.

That "too much sense" bit (on what Cheney said) is what brings me back to the original point... the absurdity of a poll that says elected officials should listen to polls.

This latest poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org is part of a larger international research project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The study was conducted Jan. 18-27 on a total of 975 Americans by Knowledge Networks. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. Here's what they found:

When it comes to making an important decision, 81 percent say government leaders "should pay attention to public opinion polls because this will help them get a sense of the public's views." But that is assuming government leaders really care what the public thinks, especially when they are not up for re-election.

Only 18 percent of respondents said "they should not pay attention to public opinion polls because this will distract them from deciding what they think is right."

Sounds impressive, eh? 81% say.... Folks, they asked 975 people. And based on what these 975 people say, government policies and direction should be tempered and guided by polls?? Why not go take a poll of the neighborhood and find out what you should make for dinner, even tho they are unaware there is a diabetic in the family... yeeassh.

This is so unbelievably stupid that I hardly know where to begin. If you genuinely believed that the American voice should be heard prior to major decisions, then the only way to get a true measure is to have a national poll, and require every body present in this country to express their opinion.

Yet even that does not negate the same problem - misinformation fed to us daily by media, and the refusal of the majority to research the source material for higher education.

But there is no doubt - 1000 people or so just doesn't cut the mustard as a viable slice of America. In fact, the only purpose of this poll might be for the DNC as proof positive that the average voter doesn't have the intelligence to make wise decisions for his/her own future.

Or at least 780 (the 81%) of them don't.

Unite? Translation: Acquiesce! The rallying cry for a Socialist America

2008-03-23T11:59:00.009-07:00

Gov. Richardson calls for an end to the "bloodletting" in the DNC.

``Maybe after the remaining primaries,'' which conclude June 3, Democrats should ``come together and look at who's ahead when it comes to delegates, when it comes to the popular vote, the number of states,'' Richardson said today on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``I just feel the time has come to come together behind a candidate,'' said Richardson, who endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama this week.

Considering the uphill math for Clinton, there's no mistaking whom Richardson proposes "uniting" behind. Yet one has to wonder, as more and more about the less vetted Obama pops up in the media - quite after the fact - do those who voted in the previous primaries feel as confident about their early votes in the wake of the Pastor Wright bruhaha?

Richardson, himself a minority political leader, said he made up his mind based on Obama's speech on race.

"As a Hispanic, I was particularly touched by his words. I have been troubled by the demonization of immigrants--specifically Hispanics-- by too many in this country... Senator Obama has started a discussion in this country long overdue and rejects the politics of pitting race against race."

"...specifically Hispanics.."?!? What? No concern for immigrants of other nationalities, also subject to the same rules of immigration law? Or is he just confirming his ever so subtle bias of white America, and his agenda tends to favor his own nationality and race, just as Obama's does his?

The odd thing is that for two men who say they want to transcend race, they both have based their decision making and opinions because of race. There were many things about that speech that really nagged at me. Perhaps one of the most eyebrow raising passages:

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations.

It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

There is a similarity in the "victim" mentality of both Richardson and Obama. Indeed, as a ticket, they are certainly the perfected vision of the two largest minorities... leadership that epitomizes the victimized class of citizenry. It would be no surprise that the black and brown agenda will be given weight and advantage in this particular administration combo.

Yet they are examples exactly the antithesis of what Obama preaches... that white America's dreams came at the expense of the dreams of America's minority.

While specific statistics are at best, guesses, the commonly held theory is that Obama has been firing up a new generation of youthful voters. Considering that the Civil Right Act was signed into law July 1964, Johnson signed EO #11246 enforcing affirmative action for the first time 11/24/1965, and Nixon follows up with the Philadelphia Order in 1969, one can safely concur that 18 to 25 year old voter did not suffer the discrimination and lack of opportunity that drives Pastor Wright and ilk's hatred of America. They are, instead, using the past as an excuse for today's personal failings.

Which brings me back to this insistence for "unity" that permeate the "can't we all just get along" crowd. It sure sounds idyllic and benevolent in theory, but few have stopped to examine just what it would take to achieve "unity". And just how such a quest is so ironically hypocritical from a political party that likes to consider it's middle name, "diversity".

For "unity" can be summed up in one word. Acquiescence.

To get behind Obama as the DNC nominee, the Hillary supporters need to acquiesce to Obama's candidacy. Of course, the opposite is true for a Clinton candidacy.

Yet considering the close margins of votes and delegates, and how personally vicious each camp is, just how willing to "acquiesce" will either side be in order to achieve party "unity". Any majority for the winner will be, by all standards, very slim. And of course, the problems can be compounded by superdelegates should they pick against the popular delegate/primary count. Hey their rules... the DNC, in their infinite wishy-washy'ness, orchestrated their own gridlock today.

This "unity" nonsense carries over into Congress as well. For "unity" to happen on the fate of Iraq withdrawal timelines, one side needs to "acquiesce" their position to the other.

Such lockstep mentality is not the stuff this country is made of. It is not the mentality that made it great as an industrial nation and economic/military superpower. It is our differences and debates (more civil in the past than today) that contributed to our progress. It is our lack of unity that allows this nation to be a melting pot of different cultures, and on the path to ever improving conditions for all Americans equally.

This cry for "unity" aka "acquiescence" is, however, the stuff of socialism. So it's not surprising for the inspired youth vote, historically grounded in the "love the one you're with" and "financial equality for all" mentality, to be supporting a socialist candidate such as Obama.

Manifestation of such desires in our government would, however, prove disastrous over the long term. We will become a country of "equals"... or perhaps better described, outstanding or special will become a characteristic of the past. Diversity will be dashed and run out of town by the very party that purports to cherish it.

The Folly of US security in the hands of NATO

2008-03-21T17:34:00.006-07:00

Despite pleas for more NATO troops in Afghanistan from both the US and the UK, that go back to 2006, the DNC's beloved "international community" still refuses to step up to the plate.

As NATO plans for a major summit in early April, the 59-year-old defense alliance is facing a serious test over European governments' commitment to the conflict in Afghanistan, where many members signed up for a peacekeeping mission but found themselves in a war.

With some nations declining to send troops into combat with Taliban-led insurgents, U.S. officials and others have warned that NATO's future is in danger if all member states do not step up. And there are increasing worries in Washington that the U.S. will have to pick up the slack and send more troops, further taxing an already overtaxed military.

The US has already sent 3200 more of our warriors this month to Kandahar Province because the Cannucks have been threatening to pull out unless they get "more help in the Taliban stronghold."

U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, plays the situation down somewhat, stating that more troops would be nice, but more intel, air transport and reconnaissance troops were topping his wish list.

He [McNeill]acknowledged the difficulty of running such a large multinational operation, with 40 countries where every one has different rules about how soldiers operate. McNeill said that it was "not helpful" for countries to set their own tour lengths but that he could do little to change the restrictions that every nation has.

"I try not to bang my head against the wall because that will accomplish nothing," said McNeill, who took over as ISAF commander in February 2007.

McNeill would be discussing some of the more absurd rules of engagement for troops. When NATO assumed full command of the country's security, they assured rules of engagement would be "robust" enough for troops to defend themselves. The US Operation Enduring Freedom had more aggressive standards to "hunt" al Qaeda and Taliban.

NOTE: The ReliefWeb link above has proven to be intermittent. The article from 2006 comes up sometimes, others with a "page cannot be found" error.

More "robust" rules of engagement pretty much translates to they get to shoot back when shot at. Altho later in the game, they did increase the ability to confront the bad guys, and launch preemptive strikes for suspected ambushes. NATO, however, finds itself in the bent over backwards position to appease the sundry human rights groups, ready to pounce over civilian collateral by foreign NATO fighters (while apparently not coming down so hard on the jihadi collateral... double the amount of the military collateral).

I've heard reporters from the region also state NATO restrictions on such conditions as night fighting, and battles in extreme weather. We don't hear much about rules this silly in the press, tho I, myself, find it to be extremely relevant.

But there is more on the caveats NATO allies demanded prior to agreeing to assist in Afghanistan.

In 2006, to get all the countries to sign on to the NATO plan to take over from the U.S. in Afghanistan, certain "caveats" were negotiated. Some nations agreed to send troops that would not fight; others would fight, but only in certain areas. Some sent troops in for four months, others for nine months. Troops under NATO command could fire only when fired on—but they could not start offensive operations.

So in relatively peaceful northern Afghanistan, German troops serve tours of duty that are usually only about four months — the shortest tour length in Afghanistan. After the U.S. pressure in February, the Germans said they would send 500 more troops—but under no circumstances would the troops be sent to dangerous areas.

And everyone wonders why Afghanistan has gone retrograde since the NATO takeover? I ask you... is this any way to conduct a war you wish to win? And even more importantly, how many US citizens want the DNC to effectively place our future national security in the hands of this bunch?

"Withdrawal" promises fuel Iraq violence Harvard study: The Emboldenment Effect

2008-03-19T18:10:00.030-07:00

Researchers at Harvard say that public debates about the rights and wrongs of the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable "emboldenment effect" on insurgents there, and periods when there is a lot of media coverage about the issue are followed by small rises in the number of attacks.

The researchers, a political scientist and a health economist, studied data about insurgent attacks and U.S. media coverage up to November 2007, tracking what they called "anti-resolve statements," either by U.S. politicians or in the form of reports about American public opinion on the issue.

The study, published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, uses quantitative analysis, a statistical tool employed by economists, to empirically test for the first time the widely held nostrum that public criticism of U.S. policy in Iraq encourages insurgents there.

"We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases," the study says. In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent.

Gee, ya think? Should be obvious, but it takes Harvard researchers, Radha Iyengar, Jonathan Monten, to confirm the obvious to the oblivious - noted in Shaun Waterman's UPI article, "Analysis: Debate on Iraq fuels insurgency".

Anti-resolve... meaning the commitment to bear the cost to succeed. Or, to clarify with their own words, I'll quote from the introduction to the report itself, "Is There an "Emboldenment Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq"

A rational terrorist model suggests that insurgent actors should increase attacks on an occupying country when that country is closer to the margin of withdrawal.1 Researchers have identified the general importance of credible commitments in the initiation and termination of conventional and civil wars and parallels have been made to the case of counterinsurgency campaigns.2 In the context of insurgency, this “resolve” refers to the perceived commitment of the counterinsurgent to bearing the costs of defeating insurgency.

An excerpt from the report gives clue to how the insurgents may use US withdrawal rhetoric in their strategy.

How might the perceived level of US resolve influence an insurgent organization’s choice of violence?

First, declining resolve might directly raise the level of anti-government violence initiated by the insurgents as insurgents respond to information that increasing the costs of engagement will force the US to withdraw.8

Second, declining resolve might reduce support among the wider population for the incumbent government increasing the number of individuals willing to participate in the insurgency. These “fence-sitters” are the critical population for victory.9

The key point of contention is security - creating the belief among the population that pro-government forces can offer better protection than anti-government forces.10The perception of declining resolve can reduce support for the government among the population if it places the commitment to population protection in doubt. Fence-sitters no longer feel safe remaining loyal to the government and are less likely to collaborate with the government if the counterinsurgent forces cannot credibly protect them from future reprisals from insurgents.

In short, the global Islamic jihad movements not only use violence to keep the American citizens and media in a chasm over costs of the war** (and the doubt of success), but to force the Iraqis into a state of constant distrust. A distrust in the continued US assistance, plus instilling doubt about their own government's ability to provide security.

**Consider the references to the war's cost vs commitment, on the heels of the Ben Feller AP story today, "Bush defiantly defends war in Iraq", ... an article where Bush states the complaints now turn to economic cost. Since news from Iraq is no longer filled with daily escalating violence, a new excuse is needed to keep the anti-war movement motivated. Whether the argument is the justification for OIF, deaths of US soldiers or Iraqi citizenry, labels of "civil war", slow progress by the Iraq Assembly, or the costs of the war, the end result is the same. A changing goal post of reasons for withdrawal.

And if this report holds true to form, the increasing new "withdrawal" cry for reasons of US dollars should lead to yet another increase in Iraq violence in it's wake.

Since choosing particular coverage and labeling it inflammatory came down to a subjective judgment, the researchers used two kinds of news stories for their foundation.

In addition to "the release of major polls regarding American attitudes towards the war in Iraq," their index includes mentions by senior Bush administration officials of "statements or actions by other U.S. political figures that might encourage violent extremist groups in Iraq."

But hold on... the Harvard researchers aren't so all fired anxious see the aftermath of it's release, fearing the supporters for the Iraq cause will seize on it, and try to silence war critics.

"We are a little bit worried about that," Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government told United Press International in an interview. "Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost" to "anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war."

But he added the cost was outweighed by the benefits of vigorous debate about military undertakings.

"There's a body of research, which we cite … that suggests that public debate about strategy helps the military to fight wars more effectively," he said.

Allow me point out something to those brilliant minds at Harvard. It is *not* the anti-war crowd that is being silenced. It is the voices of those who support success for Iraq. The media, dictating public opinion and hanging on Pelosi and Murtha's every anti-war utterance, are overwhelmingly negative in balance. So who is silencing whom?

Needless to say, this study should be an interesting foray into the headlines... assuming the MSM picks it up at all.

Mind you, I am not advocating a restriction on freedom of speech and dissent. It is the very heart of our country. However I am saying that, considering the effects of the vile and venomous remarks of our Congress and media, the rhetoric should be toned down to civil discourse, and the media coverage far more balanced. After years of accusations that our mere US presence is the cause of the Iraq increased violence, it appears some responsibility for that violence can be laid directly at the feet of the Congress, pollsters and the media, who insist upon fueling the terrorists with promises of withdrawal.

________________________________

UPDATE March 22, 2008. This Jan 2008 article from Arthur Chenkoff, appearing in Pajamas Media, shows a study by Sacred Heart University echos the Harvard study.

Nearly three-quarters of all Americans surveyed, 70.7%, indicated they strongly or somewhat agreed that negative media reporting damages troop morale. Over half of all survey respondents, 59.8%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that negative media coverage damages prospects for success in Iraq because it encourages terrorists, and about half, 49.1%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that things are likely going better for the U.S. than the U.S. media portrays.

What's wrong with this picture??

2008-03-19T16:07:00.004-07:00

Indeed, what is wrong with this picture? Mother Cindy Sheehan (in the background) and her obviously spell-challenged flock display banners proving that they not only think we've been in Iraq "5 years to many", but that they believe 12 years of public education must be 12 years TOO many! Perhaps a few hours less spent protesting, and more hours with a nose down to the books is in order?

Many thanks to GatewayPundit for giving me a big grin today!

Eloquent appeasement for a constituency of victims

2008-03-18T12:55:00.013-07:00

The breathless wait is over. Obama monopolized all news channels as a nation waited with anticipation for the candidate to overcome (or fall to...) the media flap and circus surrounding his association with Pastor Jeremiah and his church community. You can read the text to his much touted address to the nation on race - the title lifted from our own Preamble, in order to form "...A More Perfect Union".

Such media air time, at no charge, in a hotly contested race (of the political kind...) is priceless. And one has to wonder just how annoyed Hillary must have been as Obama grabs the spotlight and attention of the nation with nary a drop of funding from the coffers.

Campaign funds aside, just what was the result of the Obama speech? Certainly the audience was subdued, with restrained applause breaking out only a couple of times. Indeed, it was almost painful as Obama lingered at the podium at the finale with multiple rock star'ish "Thank *yous", hoping the crowd may burst out with the loud frenzy and pandemonium of sound, as has happened at many of his other rallies.

But it did not happen.

My own opinion is that it was, as expected, an eloquently delivered speech from an accomplished orator. It did little more than portray just who Obama is. So for me it revealed little that I already did not know about Obama.

Despite all the flap and pomp, Obama was, and remains, the candidate of victims. And while that can characterize much of the DNC in general, BHO's appeal differs from Hillary's as it falls along both racial and class lines. Per His Messiahship himself, resentment is rampid in America. Blacks are angry - victims of past segregation policies. Whites are disgruntled - victims of evil corporate America. To use Obama's own words, racism is valid, and "grounded in legitimate concerns".

Obama believes he (and government) stand as the solution to all this resentment.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

snip

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

For the black community, Obama promises universal health care, more federal money thrown at an abominable public school system, and federally created or subsidized job creation... with most emphasis on the black agenda. To BHO, only the government, and not the free market, can equalize these injustices.

For the white community, he again promises more attention to the black and minority agenda. To Obama, the way to form a "more perfect union" is for white America to admit that those who failed to achieve the American dream did so because of white America's past policies. He promises added investment in civil rights and ladders of opportunity (i.e. affirmative action'esque policies?) as the cure to "a more perfect Union". And he suggests that white American's dreams came at the expense of the dreams of others.

So much for being the uniter, and transcending racial lines. Nothing can be more divisive than this studious train of thought. He seeks to bind the electorate not only by race, but by financial class.

If you have been listening to Obama in this campaign before, this is not new news. He is pure socialist in all his proposals for domestic policies. The only thing he did today was expound on *why* he is so socialist in his politics. It is because, tho he is not one personally affected, he believes America's downtrodden (of all races) are victims of white America.

For those that believed in Obama's policies, this speech does nothing but put them in more awe of the young candidate and his Messiah-like aura. It certainly won't change any Hillary supporters' minds.

But for the DNC, a party that likes to portray itself as blind to race and gender, this speech and the heightened nomination battle is devastating in impact. As the party membership publicly sling vicious venom and mud, all filled with overtones of race and gender, at each others' camp, a nation of conservatives can only stand back and smile as they enjoy a brief reprieve. The finger pointing and charges of racism, usually reserved for the right, are now bubbling to the top... the usual accusers now aiming at each other.

If nothing else, this nomination process has exposed much about the Democratic party and it's selective - and unadmitted - bias.

For me, the well delivered speech does nothing. Obama is still another socialist striving for the Oval Office. Regardless of his association with his church or pastor, this has always been my aversion to an Obama or Hillary administration.

But it did one more thing. Something that truly separates him from Hillary. Obama confirmed a nagging suspicion I've had that he considers himself first a black man, and an American second. Or, as Brit Hume put it in his immediate post-speech analysis (paraphrased), that Obama is dedicated to pursuing the "black agenda".

And for me, that is unacceptable for my President.

____________ UPDATE 5:19PM, Pacific time ____________

Kenneth Blackwell at HumanEvents.com echos my sentiments..."Eloquent Speech, Troubling Worldview"

Who Says The Elite Aren't Fit To Serve?

2008-03-17T12:05:00.002-07:00

A Sunday opinion piece in WaPo by 1st Lt. John Renehan, currently serving at Camp Ramadi, Iraq. It is a must read in entirety. Truly it is easy to see why this generation of young men and women, serving our country, are "the best of us all".

And of course, I just had to send him an email....

Who Says The Elite Aren't Fit To Serve?
By John RenehanSunday, March 16, 2008; B04

"John!" called my brother from the living room. "Are you coming out or not?"
He and my sister-in-law were eager to start the movie we had rented, but I, lurking in my parents' darkened study, waved them off. While they and the rest of the family were distracted, I had private business to attend to on the home computer.
It was December 2001, and I was a New Yorker.

Of the innumerable moments of surreality accompanying Sept. 11, 2001's fracturing of our daily lives -- fighter jets circling the city, a pillar of ash rising to the stratosphere, New Yorkers engaging in spontaneous conversation -- here was a doozy: finding myself at my parents' in California for Christmas, nosing furtively about the Internet for information on getting into the U.S. Army's Officer Candidate School (OCS) at Fort Benning, Ga.

It seemed on the one hand an entirely reasonable thing to be doing, and on the other an outrageous one. Reasonable because the military would probably need the services of motivated citizens in the near future, and I was a motivated citizen. Outrageous because I, a lawyer with no military experience, knew virtually no one from my own background -- comfortable childhood, good education, white-collar career -- who had ever been in the service.

Nor had my prior life experience reduced my ignorance of things military. After high school, the students who joined up were the ones I would have expected to do so -- rough dudes with pickup trucks who shot guns on the weekends. In college, I was barely aware of ROTC, except that I would occasionally see groups of cadets jogging in formation across campus and think that they must feel so awkward. In law school, I did sign up for "informational interviews" -- they didn't dare hope for actual employment interviews at Berkeley -- with some of the services' JAG Corps representatives and was later informed by a fellow student that I was the only bona fide interviewee. The other students on the roster intended to read statements of protest regarding the Defense Department's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Such experiences over a young lifetime coalesce into prejudice: People like us -- the privileged, frankly -- don't join the military. We wonder about the military world occasionally, and a few of us may actually grow curious enough to investigate serving in a halting sort of way -- lurking in our parents' studies at Christmastime, perhaps -- but that's about as far as it generally goes, or ought to go, we think. The armed forces are for another sort of American. Right?

It took me most of a year to get serious and walk a block from my apartment to the recruiting center at 22nd Street and 6th Avenue in Manhattan, and another year to slog my way through the Army's truly dysfunctional officer recruiting process. During this period I harangued myself continually: How does one train physically for this? Will my 29-year-old body hold up? Am I mentally resilient enough to handle the "suck factor" of an intense program such as OCS? Am I personally forceful enough to be a leader in the military?
In short, can I hack it?

Which is exactly the question that ought to occur to a rational person in my circumstances. But I think that having no one close to me -- no one I considered like me -- against whose military experiences I could gauge my own potential, caused me greater doubt and anxiety than would have been the case otherwise.

Today I am a first lieutenant with a platoon of 50 men. As of October, I have been in the service for three years, and I have spent the past year in Iraq. I believe I've been as successful as any of the other junior officers in my unit.

Which ought to surprise me, given my prior prejudices about what sort of person is fit for the military. I was never the captain of the team. In Little League, as George F. Will once confessed, I prayed to walk. I "played guns" as a child but never owned one as an adult. I enjoyed camping and hiking but was hardly a mountaineer. I never took part in an Ironman competition. My pastimes and recreations, in short, little resembled what I imagined to be the off-time activities of the mud-smeared troopers I'd seen slogging through the woods on the Learning Channel.

Then one day in 2005, I found myself geared out like those Learning Channel guys, face painted, lugging a 60-pound rucksack and a rifle across Fort Benning and rappelling and picking my way through a dark forest with night-vision goggles on my face, and in my head the prospect of swift punishment at the hands of my trainer should I lose my way in the dark or lose track of any member of my squad.
After that, I was on to my first unit to flounder about and find my way as a new officer. Then last year, I found myself amid the maddening impenetrable politics of Anbar province -- sipping chai with sheiks, doling out reconstruction cash, living in an Iraqi police station and wondering just how much good will our hosts really bore toward me and my guys.

Along this road I discovered something about myself, and about the military.
About myself, I discovered that there were within me -- within everyone -- latent abilities, tendencies, temperaments that only an environment such as this will bring out. And yes, I'm speaking to you bookish types now. However well you may think you know your own pacific constitution, be assured that there is someone more physical and forceful within you -- someone you will meet, given the right circumstances.
About the Army, I learned that it can be a hard -- and hardening -- environment, but by and large the people in it are just people. They are not uniquely tough by nature, though they become so through training and preparation and habit. And their toughness is leavened with a deep sense of common humanity -- a basic unquestioning take-them-as-they-are compassion rarely found in the "softer" cosmopolitan world of ambition and sophistication from which I hail.

The privileged of prior generations were more likely to consider military service a natural expression of their own privileged relationship to the state -- the least, you might say, that they could do in return for the opportunities the nation had granted them. Consider a young John F. Kennedy working connections to obtain a commission that his health would have denied him otherwise. How many from Harvard pull such strings today? To chalk this up to the ethos of a "simpler," less questioning time would be easy, but it would also be facile.

All else being equal, staffing the armed services with citizens from the broadest range of backgrounds is still the best course. Further, we are in a time, and a conflict, in which the unique demands placed upon the military make the need for innovative leadership acute. (My artillery battalion, for example, conducts foot patrols in Ramadi, performs base security, trains Iraqi police recruits, mans outposts in the desert, forms neighborhood councils, oversees reconstruction projects and . . . oh yes, shoots artillery.) How better to achieve this than to cast a wide net?

Am I simply recruiting among the elite, then? No. But I would regret knowing that some who might have served did not do so because of the same lazy prejudice that I once held -- the barely conscious assumption that some Americans are at once too good, and not good enough, for the military.

john_renehan@hotmail.com

BEWARE MEDIA HEADLINE LIES! From the Pentagon Report IV

2008-03-13T15:22:00.022-07:00

Again the reading comprehension challenged media rears it's ugly head. Splashed everywhere in headlines of varying forms:

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida.. per Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers.

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

Whoa there, Nelly. Let's back up, shall we? The "exhaustive" review is a sheer Strobel dramatization. Assuming Strobel wasn't describing the analysts' state of mind while preparing the report, the reality given (as stated in the report) is that of the 600,000 or so docs, only 15% had been translated into English. And, presumably, used for this report.

There is no substitute for a complete read of this document. Trust not your local supposed "journalist" with your own education of the facts.

Link to full report available at this ABC article "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda", or order direct from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia in paper or CD versions via US Mail services. Warning, it's a 94-pg, 11.74MB PDF). Oh yes... so much for it being "hidden" from public view, right?

Again, these minimum faux pas aside, I am stunned as to the headlines when you read the report. For those "give me the short version" types, let's leap to the conclusion on page 45 of the report (pg 65 of the PDF version).

One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there
anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam's ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting

(1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats,

(2)the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and

(3) organizational relationships and "outreach programs" for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

Hummm... so far, not such a slam dunk proving we had "no justified reason" to eye Saddam warily. In fact, I'd say most American's may sit back and say "wow! I didn't know that!". It's hardly the "no threat" BS pounded into our sheeple heads for the past five years.

So let's go back to the gloating headline... that "no link" between Saddam and al Qaeda bit, and see what the report really did say. From the Executive Summary:

The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents
uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba'ath movement.

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks.

No "smoking gun" or "direct connection" was found. I have a serious beef with the media interpretation of this as a headline. And perhaps with the authors for not spelling it out so that the history-challenged can fully understand the global Islamic jihad players and their backgrounds. But the key word here is "direct".

SADDAM REGIME TIES VIA MULLA OMAR's TALIBAN
and PAKISTAN's MAULANA FAZLUR RAHMAN

If I purchase a 6 pack of Budweiser from the local mart, am I supporting Anheiser-Busch? If I buy an appliance made in China from Walmart, am I supporting Chinese industry? If I donate to a charity, whom I know full well works with a designated terror group, am I culpable for supporting terrorism?

The answer to all three is an emphatic "YES". I've no "direct" sale link to Anheiser-Busch or China, but I am most certainly engaging in a relationship that benefits the other end of the "triangulation". And if I knowingly provide monetary aid to a charity that is passing it along to a terrorist network, I most certainly am supporting terrorism.

So we have it that, in Nov of 1999, the Taliban's commander Mulla Omar sent his personal Defense Minister, the Maulana Fazlur Rahman (of today's Pakistan's JUI-F) to meet with Saddam to ask for aid. From the IIS agent's confiscated diary, and quote from Ray Robison's "Both in One Trench",

According to the record of the event, the Saddam regime agreed to provide that vital support to a desperate Taliban regime.

snip

An agent of Saddam’s intelligence service was present to transcribe the meetings in Arabic. His spy tradecraft was a little sloppy at times and perhaps he never considered that his records would someday lead to a revealing look at Saddam’s ties to international Islamic jihad. This man, whose name is believed to be Khaled Abd El Majid, acted as a liaison between Saddam’s government and its contacts with influence with organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He moved between Iraq and Pakistan as evidenced by entries in a notebook he kept that was bought in Pakistan. He coordinated meetings between the Saddam regime and Islamic terrorists.

From another section in Both in One Trench:

The IIS Director described the relationship between the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in Afghanistan by stating “We already believe that there are no points of disagreement between us and the Taliban because we are both in one trench facing the world’s oppression.”

OBL's al Qaeda, in the meantime, had moved it's headquarters from the Sudan to Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban in 1996. So as of the Nov 1999 meeting with Omar's Defense Minister, Saddam was agreeing to aid the Taliban... who was already playing host to OBL's al Qaeda network. One of those "indirect" ties to al Qaeda.

PLUS THOSE PESKY DIRECT TIES TO AL QAEDA...

Were it not enough for Saddam to be helping the Taliban, and in triangulation, al Qaeda, another truth emerges from this report. Again for the history challenged: Section II, State Relations with Terror Groups reprtings Extract 10 on pg 13-15 in the report (pg 33-35 of the PDF). It is here we find detailed evidence of Islamic jihad groups Saddam's regime was supporting, in a memo dated March of 1993.

Of these groups, the most notable mentioned was Egyptian Islamic Jihad (aka Islamic Jihad Organization). Ring a bell? Well it should. Zawahiri led the EIJ from 1993,and orchestrated the merger with what we know as today's al Qaeda in 1998... then issuing the World Islamic Front Statement of 1998.

This is, contrary to the media headlines, a very direct link to al Qaeda. Saddam is documented in this report as dealing with Zawahiri since his EIJ leadership. Are we to assume that when Zawahiri changed the name of the movement, Saddam magically ostracized him, finding him to be of no further value?

The report addresses this morphing of the players and their group names over time as well. From pg 17 (PDF pg 37):

One other memorandum (Extract 12) bears consideration. Drafted
in Saddam's office, it refers to an agreement with Islamic terrorists to conduct operations against the Egyptian regime during the first Gulf War (1991) and for continued financial support for the terrorists after hostilities ended.

Mata Musing: A memo addressed to Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad Organization is then reprinted.

The last sentence (in italics referring to the agreement with Islamist terrorists) deserves special attention: it refers to a top-secret order for Saddam's intelligence services to maintain contact with any movement in Arab countries. While it is not surprising that Saddam, one of the last of the Middle East's revolutionary nationalists, would endeavor to support revolutionary groups, it is important to recognize that many of these nationalist groups changed in the late 1990s. Saddam viewed these groups through the eyes of a pan-Arab revolutionary, while the leaders of the growing Islamist movements viewed them as potential affiliates for their Jihad. In other words, two movements, one pan-Arab and the other pan-Islamic, were seeking and developing supporters from the same demographic pool.

Captured documents reveal that later IIS activities went beyond just maintaining contact. For example, at the time this memorandum was written 39, the Iraqi GMID was training Sudanese fighters inside Iraq. The details appear in a separate GMID report40 (21 ovember 2001) about the reorganization or reconstruction of a training camp in the Sudan. This memorandum states that Iraq would send one administrative officer to establish and oversee the camp and that the following equipment would be provided initially: (snip)

Yes folks. Not only does this report document that Iraq was training Arab non-Iraqi jihad fighters in Iraq, but was specifically training some Sudanese fighters. It's also a bit more of a troubling coincidence that Saddam:

In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam's decision to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia."

In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up operations inside Somalia. The overlap between bin Laden's and Saddam's interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.

from pg 18 of the Pentagon report/pg 37 of the PDF

And who, pray tell, in 1993 was headquartered in Sudan? That would be al Qaeda's previous address - from 1991 to 1996. Could it be that Saddam's terrorist training camps were training OBL's Sudanese fighters?

Coincidence in timing? I think not. In fact, it begs to be asked, did Saddam finance and/or have involvement with Clinton's infamous Somalian "Black Hawk Down" operation? It is well known that the local fighters, who attacked US troops, were armed and trained by OBL.

This Pentagon Report, contrary to the BS headlines splashed in your faces, validates even further all that I've already read in Robison's "Both in One Trench". That Saddam did, in fact, have ties to al Qaeda. Ties thru the Taliban, and ties thru Zawahiri as not only the Egyptian Islamic Jihad but also as his new status as an al Qaeda member. As well as ties to any other jihad movement that suited his needs.

Do not be fooled, people. This is an important election year. And the headlines are nothing but BS propaganda by an agenda driven media. Their misinterpretation and false claims are easily debunked with the actual reading of the report.

From the "HUH?" files

2008-03-07T20:36:00.004-08:00

IHT's Bernd Debusmann has one absurd article today, "Hypocrisy never makes for good foreign policy". It's mostly a story of Michael Scheurer, the former head of the "get Bin Laden" unit under Clinton, bemoaning the fact that US leaders - present and past - don't understand the "whys" of the Global Islamic Jihad Movement.

In his recently published book, "Marching Toward Hell: America and Islam after Iraq," Scheuer argues that the United States faces more trouble because its leaders refuse to recognize what drives terrorism.

President George W. Bush argues that terrorists "hate our freedoms, our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote." But polls show that the bedrock of support for militancy among the world's 1.3 billion Muslims is the detestation of U.S. foreign policies.

Scheuer faults U.S. leaders for failing to acknowledge the grievances that bin Laden laid out in precise detail, which were adopted by the followers he inspired. They were: the U.S. presence in the Arabian Peninsula; unqualified support for Israel; U.S. support for states oppressing Muslims, especially China, India and Russia; U.S. exploitation of Muslim oil; U.S. support and financing of authoritarian Arab regimes.

Were one to use Scheuer's route to peace, there would be no US embassies - nay, even a Mickey D's - present in the Middle East, we'd be cut off from Middle East oil supplies, and our trade with China and India would be no more. That's the price, right Scheurer? Just adopt Middle East isolationist policies in order to appease those miffed jihadists, and we're safe?

Well blow it out your ear, Bubba. No wonder we never got Bin Laden under Clinton, with bozos like this at the helm. And to think there was a moment in one article in the past where I thought he might make strategic sense??? Shame on me for that moment of gullibility.

But WAIT.. there's MOOOOOORE! Get this next excerpt.

Polls show that radicals - potential suicide bombers and hostage takers - and moderate Muslims are in favor of moving toward more democracy, a process stifled in many places by authoritarian rulers who enjoy the backing of the United States.

HUH???... try this quote from AP's Cairo division, Jan 12, 2005 on for size:

In a 33-page address last month, bin Laden, the Saudi-born millionaire-turned-terrorist, called for turning Iraq into an Islamic state that would eventually be part of a worldwide Islamic empire.

snip

Bin Laden's message also scoffed at plans for Iraqi elections, saying democracy was un-Islamic.

Just to show that OBL's not the lone wolf on the "democracy is un-Islamic" front:

From The Sidney Morning Herald's Iraqi rebels decree democracy is un-Islamic:

A statement, posted on the website of the Ansar al-Sunna group on Thursday and co-signed by the Islamic Army in Iraq and the Army of the Mujahideen, told Iraqis not to take part in "the farce of democracy and elections". It described democracy as "un-Islamic" and polling booths as "centres of atheism".

Or how about the more recent Dec 28th article in the Daily Times (Pakistan), quoting the Taliban leader (who asked not to be named) when battling JUI-F's Maulana Fazlur Rahman over boycotting the Pakistan elections:

BANNU: A senior Taliban leader warned parties on Thursday against “using religion for electoral gains”, saying they would join parties urging boycott of January 8 polls.

“In Shariah, democracy is un-Islamic. Our movement is completely against what you call democracy in which a small majority can decide irrespective of the fact whether what they have done was good or bad,” the Taliban leader, asking not to be named, told Daily Times in an interview here.

He said the Taliban were “against elements who are using Islam for electoral gains”.

For the definition-of-terrorist-challenged, it can be said that all Muslim jihadists (i.e. "radicals") are seeking implementation of Shariah/Islamic law.

Now let's revisit that inane statement... "the polls show radicals - - potential suicide bombers and hostage takers - and moderate Muslims are in favor of moving toward more democracy..."

Either one must admit the poll results are utterly worthless. Or that this author, or Scheuer... probably both... about dumber than dirt about the global jihad movement. You guys want believe the idiots who conducted that poll? Well, I got some swamp land to sell ya in Baghdad....

"Before you Go" Music Video honoring our WWII veterans

2008-03-04T13:09:00.003-08:00

From a veteran friend of mine in my email... and I can't thank him enough for forwarding. I too add my heartfelt and humble thanks to this extraordinarly generation of not only our military members, but the families and nation back home that gave them their unqualified support during these dark years.

I've added more, apologizing to them for the mindless and ungrateful generations and nation we have become. Even then, they rightly point out that they fought, and oh so many many died, even for the privileged to behave as they do. To the very end, they are a cut above what we have become. I shall miss this generation more than words can say.

Mata

______________________________________________

The Story Behind the Song, BEFORE YOU GO.

The elderly parking lot attendant wasn't in a good mood!Neither was Sam Bierstock.

It was around 1 a.m., and Bierstock, a Delray Beach, Fla. , eye doctor, business consultant, corporate speaker and musician, was bone tired after appearing at an event.He pulled up in his car, and the parking attendant began to speak. 'I took two bullets for this country and look what I'm doing,' he said bitterly.

At first, Bierstock didn't know what to say to the World War II veteran. But he rolled down his window and told the man, 'Really, from the bottom of my heart, I want to thank you.'Then the old soldier began to cry.'

That really got to me,' Bierstock says.

Bierstock, 58, and John Melnick, 54, of Pompano Beach - a member of Bierstock's band, Dr. Sam and the Managed Care Band - have written a song inspired by that old soldier in the airport parking lot. The mournful 'Before You Go' does more than salute those who fought in WWII. It encourages people to go out of their way to thank the aging warriors before they die.

'If we had lost that particular war, our whole way of life would have been shot,' says Bierstock, who plays harmonica. 'The WW II soldiers are now dying at the rate of about 2,000 every day. I thought we needed to thank them.'

The song is striking a chord. Within four days of Bierstock placing it on the Web, the song and accompanying photo essay have bounced around nine countries, producing tears and heartfelt thanks from veterans, their sons and daughters and grandchildren.'It made me cry,' wrote one veteran's son.

Another sent an e-mail saying that only after his father consumed several glasses of wine would he discuss ' the unspeakable horrors' he and other soldiers had witnessed in places such as Anzio, Iwo Jima, Bataan and Omaha Beach. 'I can never thank them enough,' the son wrote. 'Thank you for thinking about them.'

Bierstock and Melnick thought about shipping it off to a professional singer, maybe a Lee Greenwood type, but because time was running out for so many veterans, they decided it was best to release it quickly, for free, on the Web.

They've sent the song to Sen. John McCain and others in Washington. Already they have been invited to perform it in Houston for a Veterans Day tribute - this after just a few days on the Web.

They hope every veteran in America gets a chance to hear it.

GOD BLESS every EVERY veteran...and THANK you to those of you veterans who may receive this!

View the BEFORE YOU GO... Video

Obama's candidacy of "change" Sleight of hand? Or Sleight of mouth?

2008-03-03T13:49:00.016-08:00

From what we *do* know of His Messiahship's mysterious candidacy, Obama is indeed the candidate of "change".... of position change, of stump speech change, and military policies change. Instead of sleight of hand skills, the charismatic (to some) DNC contender is amazingly adept at "sleight of mouth".

And it can be said that - for all the talk of "change" - his ever "changing" promises and positions are more typical of the status quo politician... hungry for power and willing to say anything to the electorate to get it, or maintain it. Obama just happens to say it better than most, artfully dodging direct questions while dazzling the more gullible with flowery, lofty phrases of "hope".

Starting first with my favorite foreign policy strategist and analyst, Ray Robison, and his Feb 28th article at American Thinker, "Interventionism, Obama Style".

Of late, Obama has sung a decidedly non interventionist tune. But it wasn't always so. The senator sounded quite hawkish just a few years ago in 2005,when he urged military intervention in the Darfur conflict. Senator Obama coauthored an op-ed piece for the Washington Post in which he lauded the Bush Administration for trying to end that conflict, a fight that has little to do with US national security. He urged an escalation, a surge if you will, of American diplomatic and military support to end the humanitarian crises created by ethnic-religious conflict. He wrote, "It has become clear that a U.N. - or NATO-led force is required" to end escalating violence in Sudan.

However he did not say US forces should be in direct combat roles. So what exactly did he mean?

The Senator continued to push for stronger outside military involvement in the Sudan civil war in late 2006. He told the Chicago Sun-Times "my overarching sense is the great urgency to get a United Nations protective force on the ground."

snip

Gwen Ifill asked the Senator to clarify his position on what the US should commit to in Sudan:

I'll turn this question to Sen. Obama, if NATO gets involved, does that increase the chances that there will be US troops involved on the ground?

Senator Obama's response is just shocking:

Well, I don't think that the issue right now is US troops. The issue is US leadership.
.....

In the interim, having NATO forces there that could be supplied by some of the middle powers, Canada, Australia, others that have experience in peacekeeping would be absolutely crucial.

Evidently, what Senator Obama wanted was for the US to demonstrate leadership by pressuring our allies to conduct a mission to which he wasn't prepared to commit our own forces. It might be understandable if he were talking about just the African or regional forces already involved. But no, he specifically said we should demand that our NATO allies risk their soldier's lives while we were going to sit it out.

Perhaps BHO forgets he is running for the US Commander in Chief. Not the NATO Supreme Allied Commander. Rather cocky are these promises to allocate other nation's military into action.

A few points about Obama, NATO and Darfur. His is an absurd proposition considering that the majority of NATO forces *are* US troops, subservient to UN/NATO leaders. Add to that, the AU has been refusing UN/NATO military intervention in Darfur since the inception of violence. Meanwhile, the UNSC lives up to it's do-nothing reputation by refusing to label the event as genocide - a word that mandates int'l military action.

Lastly, if you ever want a military mission to fail, implementing rules of engagement that are tandamount to "Hours: 9 to 5 weekdays, weekends off, no night shifts and ample snow days", then by all means... DO call UN/NATO. UN peacekeepers have "bugged out" of countless battlefields.... Rwanda comes prominately to mind. Can't blame 'em... Hang, with their rules of engagement, they might as well embroider a bullseye on the back of NATO uniforms.

But Obama often exhibits memory retention (or complete historical ignorance) on foreign policy. Personally I've been ranting about lack of UN/NATO action in Darfur since the fall/winter of 2004 thru Feb 2005. Obama, however, said nothing. But we can perhaps excuse him. He was newly elected to the Senate, and anxious to arrive in DC so that three months later, he could start his "Hope Fund" and pave his way to the Oval Office in 2008. The boy obviously had other things on his mind, and didn't pay Darfur much mind... until it was made the latest trend in celebrity causes later in the year, that is.
___________________________________

UPDATED CLARIFICATION: BHO concern's INRE Darfur becomes visible about the same time the US Congress started paying more attention.. in the summer of 2005. BHO was one of 38 cosponsors to San Brownback's (R-KS) July 2005's S1462, the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. The House version, introduced by Henry Hyde (R-IL) the month before was the bill that became law... eventually... over a year, and the deaths of thousands, later in Oct 2006. Ahhh... the speed at which our Congress moves when people are dying just boggles the mind, yes?

This US legislation has, of course, done nothing to curb the ongoing genocide and tribal battles. I guess those visa restrictions and trade boycotts just don't mean much to Muslim tribal leaders and corrupt governments. Nor has the US law prodded a reluctant int'l community and the UN into action.

For all Obama's Kenya/African roots, it's interesting that both House and Senate versions of the bill that became law were introduced by GOP elected ins. Nor can he lay any particular moral claim to the legislation. 38 cosponsors in the Senate, and 162 cosponsors in the House. One can safely say that Darfur was not foremost on Obama's mind in his first Senate year.
___________________________________

Adding to Robison's interventionism call is my own label of Obama's "cowboy policy" towards Pakistan. A stated unilateral policy with "actionable intelligence" on Bin Laden's whereabouts against a rare Middle East ally where he rejects (or would that be renounce?) the "bomb" word, and prefers to stand on the vaguaries of the word "act".

I'm pretty darned unclear about what "action" constitutes if not military action... meaning bombs or boots on the ground. Perhaps BHO thinks he can entice Bin Laden out with a Mickey D's Happy Meal. Who knows. Then again, I'm pretty darn unclear about most of Obama's stated goals, save his quest for socialism in the US.

Then, of course, there is his "change" about Iraq. Statements there place him about knee deep in his own excrement with his "reserve the right" to go back in if AQ is forming a base there, on the heels of his promises to beat a hasty retreat after being sworn in. Huh? Geez... even Angelina Jolie sees the idiocy of squandering the progress made by leaving the Iraqis before they are stable enough to care for themselves.

Needless to say, for a guy who says the US is in desperate need of winning the hearts of minds of our enemies, he sure knows how to instead fuel the fire of hatred and distrust of our current allies. After thoroughly PO'ing Pakistan with his "cowboy policy", promising to leave the fledgling Iraqi gov't high and dry, he then states his utter rejection (or would that be renouncement?) of NAFTA at the latest debates.

Needless to say, Canada is not pleased with either of the DNC candidates' rhetoric, but one official states an Obama campaign advisor told the Canadian ambassador not to worry... it's just campaign talk. A story that, just mere hours later was officially contradicted and denied by another in the Canadian foreign ministry.

Obama has been notably mum on clarifying the conflicting reports. On Feb 28th, the campaign did a blurb on his "Know the Facts" page on the website, using the story about the Canadian embassy denial of contact (via Politico) as his response. News stories aside, the mud remains. Did a campaign staffer have this conversation with Canadian officials? Or not?

The contradiction and doubt intensifies as today brings news of a memo that surfaced from that meeting with Goolsbee, written by Joseph DeMora (who works for the Canadian consulate in Chicage).

The memo obtained by the AP was widely distributed within the Canadian government. It is more than 1,300 words and covers many topics that DeMora said were discussed in the Feb. 8 "introductory meeting" between himself, Goolsbee and the consul general in Chicago, Georges Rioux.

Goolsbee "was frank in saying that the primary campaign has been necessarily domestically focused, particularly in the Midwest, and that much of the rhetoric that may be perceived to be protectionist is more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," the memo's introduction said. "On NAFTA, Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favour of strengthening/clarifying language on labour mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more `core' principles of the agreement."

Goolsbee is now accusing the Canadian officials of "misinterpreting" his meeting with them about Obama's NAFTA position. In the meantime, Obama is playing down that controversial meeting:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton was also on the line when Goolsbee spoke to the Associated Press on Sunday, apparently to help Goolsbee explain what happened. Burton told the Associated Press that Goolsbee's visit to the Canadian consulate was not official -- that Goolsbee was there as a private citizen, not as an emissary from the Obama campaign.

Let me see if I have this straight...

Version 1: BHO has a campaign mouthpiece attend a meeting on Feb 8th, 2008 at the Canadian consulate in Chicago, in an unofficial capacity, presenting views that counteract his public NAFTA bashing as "political maneuvering" so that they understand he really isn't protectionist? In which case, Obama is playing the US electorate as fools with deliberate lies.

Version 2: Obama really believes NAFTA is bad for the US, and will do something about it. In which case his unofficial campaign mouthpiece was lying thru his teeth to Canada, and Obama is busy burning bridges to allies worse than the Bush WH could ever have done.

Ahhh, the games pols play.

All I can say is the only "changes" we'll be seeing with an Obama admin is a newer, fresher, and far more naive political face with better diction.