Mr. John Hinckley
St. Elizabethâs Hospital
Washington, DC
Dear John:
Laura and I hope that you are continuing your excellent progress in recovery from your mental problems. We were pleased to hear that you are now able to have unsupervised visits with your parents.
The staff at the hospital reports that you are doing fine.
I have decided to seek a second term in office as your president and I would appreciate your support and the support of your fine parents.
I would hope that if there is anything that you need at the hospital, you would let us know.
By the way, are you aware that John Kerry is screwing Jody Foster?
OPEN QUESTION TO READERS AND THE BLOGOSPHERE: Weâve all been following lately the efforts of Juan Cole and other like-minded folk to increase the quantity of western political discourse, both historical and contemporary, thatâs available in Arabic. There have also been a number of websites coming online lately - such as Babel Fish and Ajeeb - that have the capacity to translate automatically online text. These translation engines certainly donât provide perfect translations, but generally give ones that are competent enough to comprehend the meaning of the original text.
So my question is, does anyone out there have any ideas about how we might generate automatic Arabic (or Chinese, Farsi, Russian, or even Spanish and French) translations of English-language blogs from across the political spectrum? A number of writers have noticed a great thirst for political information and commentary in the Middle East, China, Russia, and other areas suffering under illiberal governance, and even in Latin America and francophone Africa it seems to me that making the American political debate readily available would increase understanding both of the United States and of the breadth of opinion within it.
Iâve been experimenting with Altavistaâs Babel Fish translation site (which offers Russian, Chinese, Spanish, and French translation), and while it thought our foreign policy society was a "cerveza inglesa," and couldnât even load OxBlog, InstaPundit, or Robert Tagorda, it did a fairly good job in translating both Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias. My conclusion is that it must only read left-of-center blogs.
If anyone has ideas about whether this idea might be feasible, and how we might go about making it happen, Iâd really love to hear from you. For my part Iâm happy to help out however I can, and if itâs helpful, our foreign policy society would be very happy, for instance, to host mirror sites of blogs from across the political spectrum on our server. Please let me know your ideas!
#1
They could try contacting the people who run Newstran, although they too use the standard machine translators of Systrans/Bablefish - which I think is used in a lot of automatic translation sites. They won't get good automatic translations - that's just not possible yet - but there's no reason why they couldn't get something of a similar standard to NewsTran.
#3
Take a look at www.atamiri.cc/aynisiwi_b@bel
It is a UNESCO sponsored experimental WebForum with automatic translation.
If you would be interested to have access to our multilingual translator machine you may contact me.
First, the Passion of the Christ, now the torment of the Easter Bunny. It may not have been as gruesome as Mel Gibsonâs movie but many parents and children were upset when a Pennsylvania church trying to teach about Jesusâ crucifixion performed an Easter show with actors whipping the Easter bunny and breaking eggs.
People who attended Saturdayâs show at Glassportâs memorial stadium quoted performers saying: "There is no Easter Bunny" and described the show as being a demonstration of how Jesus was crucified. Melissa Salzmann, who took her four-year-old son J.T., said the program was inappropriate for young children. "He was crying and asking me why the bunny was being whipped," Salzmann said.
Patty Bickerton, youth minister at Glassport Assembly of God, said the performance wasnât meant to be offensive. Bickerton portrayed the Easter rabbit and said she tried to act with a tone of irreverence. "The program was for all ages, not just the kids. We wanted to convey that Easter is not just about the Easter Bunny, it is about Jesus Christ," Bickerton said.
Performers broke eggs meant for an Easter egg hunt and also portrayed a drunken man and a self-mutilating woman, said Jennifer Norelli-Burke, another parent who saw the show in Glassport, a community about 15 kilometres southeast of Pittsburgh. "It was very disturbing," Norelli-Burke said. "I could not believe what I saw. It wasnât anything I was expecting."
Supposed adults make the assumption that because they're "hip" little children are, too. What's passe to the jaded 20-year-old is new to the little kiddies — you're only four once. Patty may not have meant to be offensive, but she obviously was, since the kiddies were crying. Maybe she should consider another line of work, like maybe becoming a professional dominatrix.
Posted by: tipper ||
04/10/2004 10:46:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Patty Bickerton is so disconnected with reality that she has no business being a youth minister. Parents should get a court order preventing her from being within 500 yards of any child under 16.
#2
I think the only one who might confuse the Easter Bunny with Jesus would be muck4doo.
No, no . . . I get it . . . this story was posted so I'd go ranting on early childhood issues again, right?
I just want you to know I'm going to control myself this time, but just let me say:
THE ABOVE IDIOCY GOES AGANIST ALL KNOWLEDGE AND RESEARCH REGARDING HOW YOUNG CHILDREN APPROACH AND UNDERSTAND THE WORLD. It also goes against common sense
Hopefully they also showed the Easter Bunny being resurrected, and the "bad guys" falling down dead, or being taken off to jail by Jesus, or having their behinds kicked by some warrior angels or something.
What is the world coming to? This almost reminded me of some jihadi child indoctrination program. I can just see the kids now--pictures of the Easter Bunny clipped to their clothes, marching down the street with their AK47's and suicide vests. Heck, if no one else is going to provide justice for the EB--they'll take care of it! Yep.
#3
not funy!!! im all just going say that when we all die were in accountable! how you are treat others and the entire inocent animals is will be judged. wether in jest or reality cruel is cruel. what harm any rabbit do anyone!!!!
#7
Muck, you can tell a lot about a people by how they treat their animals. (or something like that, Ghandi said it better)
Posted by: Rafael ||
04/10/2004 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Happy Easter and/or Passover, Muckster and everyone else!
Posted by: Jen ||
04/10/2004 20:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Ex-lib: I couldn't agree with you more... This is pure stupidity on the part of some adults that should know better. One of the things Foster Cline taught in the seminars we went to was that it's useless to try to teach things kids aren't ready to learn. You only confuse and frighten them. This is definitely one of those moments. I think the "youth pastor" of this church has absolutely no understanding of children - of any age. I've taught 4-year-olds - it's not easy! I wonder if there's any "understanding" between this pastor's ears at all.
God bless all, and to all a Joyous Easter and blessed Passover!
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/10/2004 21:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
#6 Zenster: ROFLMAO!
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/10/2004 22:24 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"The program was for all ages, not just the kids. We wanted to convey that Easter is not just about the Easter Bunny, it is about Jesus Christ," Bickerton said.
-Yeah, and I'm sure the Lord would've got a real kick out of seeing the shit beat out of some bunny in front of the kiddies you stupid f*cking bitch.
One reason why if the US fails in Iraq, then all hell will break loose.
Chinaâs growing demand for oil continues to surpass expectations, putting additional pressure on world crude prices, which are nearing 13-year highs, the International Energy Agency says. The Paris-based agency revised upward its estimate of Chinese oil demand in the first quarter by 180,000 barrels a day to a record 6.14 million barrels, an 18-per-cent year-over-year increase. Now the worldâs second-biggest oil consumer, Chinaâs breakneck economic growth is fuelling record oil imports. North American oil demand is also rising. The IEA said consumption is expected to rise by 300,000 barrels a day this year to 24.94 million barrels. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countriesâ recent move to implement tighter supply restrictions is forcing consumer countries to become increasingly reliant on non-OPEC exports, particularly from growth areas like West Africa and Russia. But the IEA said it revised downward its projection for non-OPEC production growth this year by 185,000 barrels a day to just under 1.3 million barrels. And hence my comment yesterday about China invading Siberia. Pandoraâs box is well and truly open!
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/10/2004 9:47:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As well as China forging ties with any Mideast oil producers.
#2
as to your worry about china invading siberia. it has already happened....in the form of illegal imigration. with the overall declining populace in russia as well as the huge migration of young russians out of siberia illegal chinese are a majority in most areas and economically they call the shots.
Posted by: Dan ||
04/10/2004 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
And I wouldn't be surprised if they're tied to Chinese intelligence ... makes you think about the situation in the US, doesn't it? *points to how much a lot of migrants in the US send back to Mexico*
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
04/10/2004 13:10 Comments ||
Top||
Should be required reading for all of those 20/20 hindsight Monday morning quarterbacks. But they won't read it...
Washington, April 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.
Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would "firmly resist" international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.
On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.
Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had "brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks." British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of "an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law." White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of "a disgusting exercise in over-kill."
When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bushâs action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. "We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?" former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked.
When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of "criminal acts of aggression."
Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bushâs claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bushâs anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, "We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen."
The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as "totally unjustified."
Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. "I was given bad advice," he insisted. "My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened."
Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that "George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didnât realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it." McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.
Posted by: tipper ||
04/10/2004 1:42:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One could easily substitute the name of Al Gore in this too. People seem to think that the asshats were sending detailed written instruction back and forth. The clearest failure of 9-11 was the FBI reports of poeple in flight schools not being acted upon. And a lot of that is because I think people just could not make the conceptual jump in their heads
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
04/10/2004 9:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Perfect satire, certainly; but also a very realistic description of what actually would have happened if Bush had done, back then, what Democrats are now implying that he should have done.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/10/2004 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
...And in related news, UN sanctions were lifted today, paving the way for Iraq to rejoin the world community. UN chief and multilateralist hero Coffee Anon said, âThis is a great day for the world. The UN Food for Oil program has kept millions of Iraqis from starvation, and ensured that the UN will be involved in all countries where legitimate oversight is required, especially now that the USA is discredited, and unwelcome, in most of the civilized world.
Also, President Hussein has signed the non-aggression treaty. It is with great joy that I proclaim, with the lifting of the sanctions, and the signing of this historic document, that the United Nations has ensured peace in the Middle East in our life timeââ¦
EFL through everything in the previous article to the new info.
President Bush's August 2001 briefing on terrorism threats, described largely as a historical document, included information from three months earlier that al-Qaida was trying to send operatives into the United States for an explosives attack, according to several people who have seen the memo. The so-called presidential daily briefing, or PDB, delivered to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001 - a month before the Sept. 11 attacks - said there were various reports that Osama bin Laden had wanted to strike inside the United States as early as 1997 and continuing into the spring of 2001. The same month as that briefing of Bush, U.S. intelligence officials received two uncorroborated reports suggesting terrorists might use airplanes, including one that suggested al-Qaida operatives were considering flying a plane into a U.S. embassy, current and former government officials said. Those August 2001 reports - among thousands of varied and uncorroborated threats received by the government each month - weren't deemed credible enough to tell the president or his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, the officials said. Neither involved the eventual Sept. 11 plot.
It's called "grass" or "background noise." There's usually some sort of chatter going on somewhere about something that could maybe kinda sort be significant...
The sources who read the presidential memo would only speak on condition of anonymity because the White House has not yet declassified the highly sensitive document, entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States." That declassification process is expected to be completed soon, allowing the Bush administration to make the document public in a historic disclosure of secret presidential intelligence briefing materials.
I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to declassify. Briefings at the presidential level are usually pretty generic, overviewish things. Giving him all the details of everything would overload him in jig time...
The sources said the presidential memo included a series of bullet items that brought Bush through a history of mostly uncorroborated intelligence that cited al-Qaida's interest in hijacking planes to win the release of Islamic extremists who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999 as well as the travelings of suspected al-Qaida operatives, include some U.S. citizens, in and out of the United States. It suggested al-Qaida might have a support system in place on U.S. soil. The document also included FBI analytical judgments that some al-Qaida activities were consistent with preparation for airline hijackings or other types of attacks, some members of the commission looking into the Sept. 11 attacks said earlier this week.
The second-to-last bullet told the president that there were numerous - at least 70 - terror-related investigations under way by the FBI in 2001 involving matters or people on U.S. soil. And the final bullet told the president of a recent intelligence report indicating al-Qaida operatives were trying to get inside the United States to carry out an attack with explosives. There was no specifics about the timing or target.
You don't usually think of airplanes as explosives, no matter how generic the description of "explosives."
The sources said the briefing memo did not provide the exact date of that intelligence but made clear it was in the 2001 time frame, and that FBI and other agencies were investigating it. The information had been provided to intelligence and law enforcement agencies well before Bush's briefing, the sources said. They said final bullet in the presidential memo was based on an intelligence report received in May 2001 that indicated bin Laden operatives were trying to cross from Canada into the United States for an attack. Current and former government officials familiar with terrorism intelligence told the AP that in the same month Bush received his briefing, U.S. intelligence received two uncorroborated reports - among hundreds - suggesting terrorist might use planes but that neither reached the president or Rice. The officials said one report in August 2001 said there was uncorroborated information that two bin Laden operatives had met in October 2000 to discuss a plot to attack the U.S. Embassy in Nairaobi using an airplane. That report stated the operative would either bomb the embassy using the airplane or drive the airplane into it, according to information provided congressional investigators and cited in their report released last year. Separately, the CIA sent a warning to the Federal Aviation Administration in August 2001 asking the agency to advise commercial airliners that six Pakistanis in Latin America, not connected to al-Qaida, were considering a hijacking, bombing or sabotage of an airliner. That warning did not have specifics on a time or location but said it could involve Britain, Canada, Mexico, Malaysia, Cuba, among others, according to information made public by the congressional inquiry.
Pared that one right down to the essentials, didn't they?
Rice stated emphatically on Thursday she did not see any such reports about al-Qaida using a plane as a weapon until after Sept. 11, suggesting the intelligence may have reached someone lower in the White House. "To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us," she said. "I cannot tell you that there might not have been a report here or a report there that reached somebody in our midst."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
04/10/2004 12:21:35 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Witch Hunt!!! 8 years of "Sex and Gore", and impeachment!! Documented assults on our people at home and around the world under Hillbilly's watch and nothing. Except blowjobs that were "justified" by the leftist media. Now this very noble American President is getting this kind of treatment!!
The left is trully the Enemy Within! What a complete disqrace to our nations leader of today!
Posted by: John ||
04/10/2004 1:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Explosives, eh? What, like, 7 World Trade Center?
Posted by: Pete Stanley ||
04/10/2004 2:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What is missed is that while the title of the Aug 6th briefing was "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside the United States." the briefing on the 7th was titled "Bears crap in woods"
Its hard for good people to think like evil people. It is difficult for people who want to live to imagine suicidal motivations. And I think it could be argued that the 9-11 attack was extremely stupid for the jihadis. Which brings me to my last point, it is very tough for smart people to think like stupid ones.
Posted by: Ben ||
04/10/2004 5:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Witch hunt" doesn't even begin to describe this despicable exercise. What the hell is the point of all this, anyway? What the hell is the bottom line?
Oh, I get it: we're supposed to conclude that we should vote for John Kerry.
No thanks. I'm not that stupid.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/10/2004 7:30 Comments ||
Top||
The top-secret briefing memo presented to President Bush on Aug. 6 carried the headline, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and was primarily focused on recounting al Qaeda's past efforts to attack and infiltrate the United States, senior administration officials said. The document, known as the President's Daily Briefing, underscored that Osama bin Laden and his followers hoped to "bring the fight to America," in part as retaliation for U.S. missile strikes on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998, according to knowledgeable sources. Bush had specifically asked for an intelligence analysis of possible al Qaeda attacks within the United States, because most of the information presented to him over the summer about al Qaeda focused on threats against U.S. targets overseas, sources said. But one source said the White House was disappointed because the analysis lacked focus and did not present fresh intelligence.
New accounts yesterday of the controversial Aug. 6 memo provided a shift in portrayals of the document, which has set off a political firestorm because it suggested that bin Laden's followers might be planning to hijack U.S. airliners. In earlier comments this week, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other administration officials stressed that intelligence officials were focused primarily on threats to U.S. interests overseas. But sources made clear yesterday that the briefing presented to Bush focused on attacks within the United States, indicating that he and his aides were concerned about the risks. Intelligence sources said last night that at least two names listed in a July 2001 FBI memo about an Arizona flight school have been identified by the CIA as having links to al Qaeda. The FBI memo was never acted upon or distributed to outside agencies prior to Sept. 11 and was not provided to the CIA until last week, sources said. The memo, sent to FBI headquarters by a Phoenix FBI agent, warned that bin Laden could have been using U.S. flight schools to train terrorists and suggested a nationwide canvass for Middle Eastern aviation students. The CIA's discovery of an al Qaeda link was first reported by ABC News. Sources cautioned that CIA officials are not sure that they could have linked the two names to al Qaeda had they been given the memo last summer.
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said yesterday that criticism of the administration's intelligence actions before Sept. 11 is unfair. "What you have are some folks trying to do -- and unfortunately in a fairly accusatory way -- take the benefit of 20-20 hindsight with pre-9/11 information and trying to impart upon it a post-9/11 wisdom," Ridge said in an interview.
It's called shooting the wounded. They know so much, ask them for the details on the next hit on the U.S...
Ridge said there were no formal mechanisms in place before Sept. 11 to guarantee that the FBI's activities in Arizona and Minnesota were put into the overall intelligence picture, and that he and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III were talking about ways to coordinate key agencies. "The FBI's working on it; the CIA's working on it; we're working on it with them," he said. He added that the solution "is not more spies and satellites" but an analytic team devoted to intelligence about domestic terrorism.
But the sharpest focus remained on the Aug. 6 presidential briefing memo, which Rice described Thursday as historic and analytic in nature. But she did not explicitly note that the memo, according to sources, was focused primarily on a discussion of possible domestic targets. As an example, sources said the memo cited the case of Ahmed Ressam, who was caught attempting to smuggle explosives across the Canadian border for an al Qaeda attack on Los Angeles International Airport during the 2000 millennium celebrations. The briefing also notes that al Qaeda members were known to live in or travel to the United States, and that still more would attempt to enter the country. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday said the headline on the document was, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States." But sources who have read the memo said the headline ended with the phrase "in U.S."
Ohfergawdsake.
Fleischer described the briefing as a summary containing "generalized information about hijacking and any number of other things." Rice and other Bush administration officials have said the memo contains no reference to suicide attacks of the kind carried out on Sept. 11, focusing instead on "hijackings in the traditional sense." Hijackings were a minor part of the analysis, officials said. In one brief mention, the memo noted that unconfirmed information from British intelligence in 1998 showed that al Qaeda members talked about using an airline hijacking to negotiate the release of imprisoned Muslim cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who had been convicted of plotting to blow up New York City landmarks. Some sources familiar with the briefing told The Washington Post on Thursday that the FBI added the notion of hijackings to the document, and that it had not included such references in early drafts. But other senior U.S. officials said yesterday that the report, prepared by the CIA, "was never looked at by the FBI." One source said the document also is incorrect in citing the FBI as providing information related to hijackings.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
04/10/2004 12:16:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
No way to "connect the dots." There werenât even any dots!
The following is a redacted text of the presidential daily briefing from August 6, 2001:
Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997â has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service. An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [deleted text] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operativeâs access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladinâs first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.
Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al-Qaâida members â including some who are US citizens â have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qaâida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" âUmarâ Abd aI-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks
with explosives.
#1
Good one, Sherry.
You know the Dimocrats were soooooooo convinced that President Bush was hiding this "smoking gun" memo when he's been telling us what it said all along.
Looks like W has played rope-a-dope with them again...
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!
Posted by: Jen ||
04/10/2004 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Actually, this is extraordinarily embarrassing. We could save a boat load of money and have a beter informed President by having one of Condi's people sumarize the prior day's posts at Rantburg.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
04/10/2004 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Nope, no dots to connect here, that's for sure. One wonders just exactly what the Democrats would have had Bush do in response to this potpourri of vague tidbits, that would not have either gotten him impeached outright or tied up in lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Nonetheless, it matters little: the entire point of this cynical exercise was simply to create an excuse for exposing the lumpenproletariat to the headline, "Bush Warned About 9/11!"
By the time next November rolls around, the Democratic Party faithful won't remember the rest of the story--that is, if they bothered to read it in the first place.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/10/2004 20:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
From Hugh Hewitt:
Suggested headlines for tomorrow's papers after today's release of the August 6, 2001 memo to President Bush:
"Memo Reveals Ben Veniste a Horse's Ass: Other Commissioners say 'We Already Knew That.'" Washington Post
"Oops. Please Disregard Yesterday's Paper" New York Times
"Memo Reveals That Eight Years of Clinton Tenure Left Intelligence Agencies With Keen Grasp of Obvious and Nothing Else." Boston Globe.
Posted by: AF Lady ||
04/10/2004 20:56 Comments ||
Top||
#5
AF Lady - Lol! Those would accurate, hence we'll never see them except on the 'Net. Good catch, thx!
#6
"Gee, John, does this mean I don't get to be on the Supreme Court?"
"Ah, shuddup, Richard."
Posted by: Matt ||
04/10/2004 22:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
OMIGOD, Ben-Veniste was RIGHT !!
It's there in CODE :
"Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997â has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
[Editorâs note: This article orginally appeared on the cover of the May 27, 2002, issue of HUMAN EVENTS.]
Sen. Bob Graham (D.-Fla.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told HUMAN EVENTS May 21 that his committee had received all the same terrorism intelligence prior to September 11 as the Bush administration.
"Yes, we had seen all the information," said Graham. "But we didnât see it on a single piece of paper, the way the President did."
Graham added that threats of hijacking in an August 6 memo to President Bush were based on very old intelligence that the committee had seen earlier. "The particular report that was in the Presidentâs Daily Briefing that day was about three years old," Graham said. "It was not a contemporary piece of information."
Grahamâs comments contradicted combative statements made recently by the Democratic congressional leadership, and confirmed White House assertions that the only specific threats of al Qaeda hijackings known to the President before September 11 came from a memo dating back to the Clinton Administration. snip
But as early as May 16, it had already emerged that most of the information in Bushâs August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing--an official intelligence document--had in fact been given to the congressional committees in the form of the Senior Executive Intelligence Digest (SEID), a more widely published classified document.
"Mr. Gephardt said that we didnât have information," said Rep. Porter Goss (R.-Fla.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, on May 16. "In fact we do have it. And itâs just apparently that Mr. Gephardt didnât know about it."
At that point, Democrats claimed that Bushâs intelligence report had information warning of possible hijackings by Osama bin Ladenâs al Qaeda network, and that Congress did not receive that particular information.
But the Democratsâ criticism appeared to be further undercut by Grahamâs confirmation to HUMAN EVENTS that the committee did have the same intelligence. Administration officials had earlier said the hijack warnings in Bushâs August 6 briefing were merely an analysis based on old intelligence from 1998.
The committees were indeed aware before September 11 that a major attack could come soon, so much so, that Sen. Graham told CNNâs Kate SnowâŠquot; on the afternoon of September 11âŠquot; that he was not suprised.
"I was not surprised that there was an attack, was surprised at the specificity of this one," Graham said in the interview, hours after the attacks. snip
As Democrats appeared to back away from the attacks on Bush over the weekend, Republicans went on the offensive to capitalize on an expected backlash. The Republican Study Committee, a group of about 75 conservative Republicans, released a memo detailing House Democratsâ overwhelming opposition to intelligence funding since 1996. According to the memo, 154 House Democrats voted to cut the U.S. intelligence budget in 1996, while 158 Democrats did the same in 1997. Although fewer Democrats voted to cut the intelligence budget in 1999 (only 61), almost all opposition to intelligence spending came from Democrats.
The memo also quotes several Democrats opposing intelligence spending, including Rep. Maxine Waters (D.-Calif.), who advocated the abolition of the CIA on the House floor in March 1997.
In addition, a HUMAN EVENTS survey of lawmakers found that few--even among Republicans--would have been willing to act decisively on threats of hijacking by Muslim extremists. Not one Democrat surveyed would countenance the idea that President Bush, upon learning of the al Qaeda hijacking threat, should have suspended the visas of young men visiting from nations that are al Qaeda hotbeds--even though this measure would likely have prevented the attacks of September 11.
Few support that action even now, after September 11, when new warnings of attacks by al Qaeda have been issued by FBI director Robert Mueller and Vice President Cheney.
#1
Gee, I wonder why I'm not surprized at this news.
Can anyone recall ANY congressional Democrat publicly advocating ANY kind of decisive action against Islamic terrorism in the months leading up to 9/11? Anything at all?
I can't.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/10/2004 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The memo also quotes several Democrats opposing intelligence spending, including Rep. Maxine Waters (D.-Calif.), who advocated the abolition of the CIA on the House floor in March 1997."
Yeah. And missle defense isn't important either...
No need for a comment
This war grows stranger here at home and abroad all the time. Despite the horrific barbarism in Fallujah and the gun-toting and killing by the Shiites, the United States is ever so steadily establishing a consensual government of sorts under impossible conditions in Iraq. Meanwhile the Middle East watches the pulse of the conflict, wondering whether the Fallujah savages and the primordial Shiite extremists will succeed in Lebanonizing Iraq. Or will the American pressure for democracy and reform reverberate beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to move Libya, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, and the Saudis to greater transparency, consensual rule, and an end of their support for terrorists? The courage and sacrifice of thousands of American soldiers now determine whether those who dream of freedom step forward boldly into the light, or retreat meekly into the shadows â and whether we will be safe in our own homes.
Out of all the recent chaos emerges one lesson: Appeasement of fundamentalists is not appreciated as magnanimity, but ridiculed as weakness â and, in fact, encourages further killing. A shaken Spain elected a new government that promised to exit Iraq. In return, the terrorists planted more bombs, issued more demands, and then staged a fiery exit for themselves. France, as is its historical wont, triangulated with the Muslim world and then found its fundamentalist plotters all over Paris. The Saudi royals thought that they of all people could continue to blackmail the fundamentalists â until the suicide-murderers turned their explosives on their benefactors and began to blow up Arab Muslims as well. General Musharraf once did all he could to appease Islamists â and got assassination plots as thanks.
Following the Iranian hostage takeover in 1979, the United States had embraced a quarter-century of appeasement that had resulted in far more American deaths than all those lost during the present war against terrorists abroad â flaming ships, embassies, planes, skyscrapers, and people the wages of its mollifying. And every time in Iraq we have tried to offer conciliation before complete military victory â low profiles, tolerance for looters and militias, allowance for vicious mullahs â we have seen more, not fewer, killed.
The sad truth is that civilization itself is engaged in a worldwide struggle against the barbarism of Islamic fundamentalism. Just this past month the killers and their plots have been uncovered in London, Paris, Madrid, Pakistan, and North Africa â the same tired rhetoric of their hatred echoing from Iraq to the West Bank. While Western elites quibble over exact ties between the various terrorist ganglia, the global viewer turns on the television to see the same suicide bombing, the same infantile threats, the same hatred of the West, the same chants, the same Koranic promises of death to the unbeliever, and the same street demonstrations across the world.
Looking for exact professed cooperation between an Islamic fascist and the rogue regime that finds such anti-Western violence useful is like proving that Mussolini, Tojo, and Hitler all coordinated their attacks and worked in some conspiratorial fashion â when in fact Japan had no knowledge of the invasion of Russia, and Hitler had no warning of Pearl Harbor or Mussoliniâs invasion of Greece. In fact, it didnât matter that they were united only by a loose and shared hatred of Western liberalism and emboldened by a decade of democratic appeasement. And our fathers, perhaps better men than we, didnât care too much for beating their breasts about the exact nature of collective Axis strategy or blaming each other for past lapses, but instead went to pretty terrible places like Bastogne, Anzio, and Okinawa to put an end to their enemies all.
Now, in the middle of this terrible conflict, unlike the postbellum inquiry after Pearl Harbor, we are holding acrimonious hearings about culpability for September 11. And here the story gets even more depressing than just political opportunism and election-year timing. After eight years of appeasement that saw repeated attacks on Americans, Pakistani acquisition of nuclear weapons under Dr. Khan, and Osamaâs 1998 declaration of war against every American, we are suddenly grilling, of all people, Condoleezza Rice â one of the few key advisers most to be credited for insisting on using our military, rather than the local DA, to defeat these fanatics. Over the last two years, each time a U.S. senator in panicked and wild-eyed passion screamed that we could not win in Afghanistan, she proved resolute and confident. On every occasion that an ex-general, a dissatisfied bureaucrat, or a wannabe journalist-strategist pontificated about what the United States could not do, she was unwavering in her determination to take the war to rogue regimes in the Middle East with a history of hostility against Americans and a record of providing easy sanctuary for terrorists. This present charade would be like holding public hearings on the eve of the 1944 election about the breakdown of intelligence and missed opportunities before Pearl Harbor â and then blaming Harry Hopkins and Secretary Stimson for laxity even while the country was in the very midst of a two-front war.
Then we have the creepy outbursts from commentators and screams from Democratic senators. We are told by Senator Graham that we smashed al Qaeda only to discover that we had hit a mercury-like substance that now has hopelessly scattered. Well, yes, that is what happens when you strike back in war. The alternative? Allow this elemental terrorism to remain cohesive and united? War is not a decision between good and bad choices, but almost always between something bad and something worse â and so it really is preferable to have toxic mercury scattered than to have it concentrated and pure. Another pundit assures us that terrorists after American action in Iraq are more active now than before. Well, again yes â in the sense that Germany was messier in 1944 than in 1933, or that Japan was more dangerous for Americans in 1943 than in 1935. Danger, chaos, and death are what transpire for a time when you finally decide to strike back at confident and smug enemies.
Senator Kennedy, the past exemplar of sober and judicious behavior in times of personal and national crisis, has gone beyond his once-wild charges of Texas conspiracies to slur Iraq as Bushâs Vietnam â his apparently appropriate moral boosting for the young Marines, who, even as he spoke, were entering Fallujah to hunt down murderers and mutilators. But did he say Vietnam? Apparently the senator thinks that the cause of these medieval fanatics who want to bring the world back to the ninth century will resonate with leftists the same way Uncle Hoâs faux promises of equality and egalitarianism swayed stupid anti-war protesters of the past. Or is the real similarity that, once more, as promoters of anti-Communist realpolitik, we Americans are installing a right-wing government rather than promoting pluralism, elections, and the protection of minorities and women â the "dream" of the 1960s? Or perhaps Kennedyâs comparison revolves around 600 combat dead in Afghanistan and Iraq, the liberation of 50 million from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, and the emergence of proto-consensual governments in less than two years of hostilities? Does all that suggest to Senator Kennedy that we are embarking on a 12-year war, will lose 50,000 men, and are stymied by a bellicose nuclear China and Russia on the borders of Iraq?
Yet Kennedy is right on one count in his evocation of Vietnam. If there is any similarity between Vietnam and the current war, it is not 1963, when his late brother convinced us to commit troops to stop Communist aggression. A better year for comparison is 1974, when Kennedy and other senators began to cut off funding for air support promised to enforce the Paris peace accords, resulting in the collapse of South Vietnam, mass murder in Southeast Asia, and over a million boat people, with more still sent to the Communist reeducation camps. A New York Times columnist (who before the routing of the Taliban warned us of hopeless quagmire in Afghanistan) chimes in about Fallujah with neat metaphors like "block party" and "slam dance," and then ends by quoting the old tired canard from Vietnam that "Weâre going to destroy the village to save it" â apparently unaware that the supposed postmodern aphorism was probably made up, was never traced or attributed to any particular military officer, and was more likely the creation of a like-minded journalist also eager for some cute phraseology.
There are plenty of things to argue about and there will be plenty of time in which to do it. In a crisis and with worries about national security, many of us thought it was the wrong time to embark on deficit spending, allow near amnesty for those who cross our borders illegally, and not compromise about the need for both American conservation and exploration of oil, in an effort to wean us off Middle Eastern petroleum. More specifically, in our postwar paranoia about being too brutal in Iraq, we were too lenient â and thus ultimately will probably be more brutal than we would otherwise have had to be. During the prewar exegeses, there was too much emphasis on WMD and not enough on other legitimate casus belli, ranging from violations of the 1991 armistice agreement and U.N. accords, Saddamâs past invasion and assassination attempts, the unending no-fly zones, Baathist mass murder, environmental catastrophe, and bounties for suicide killers.
More troops were probably needed; the Iraqi army should have been immediately reconstituted; and Iraqi officials might have had a more public role in the reconstruction. All these are legitimate tactical issues that could have been discussed and debated within the general parameters that we are at war against horrific enemies who wish to end our civilization, and who cannot be bought off or talked to, but only defeated, and yes, often killed. Instead, we see more of the same hysteria and invective. It has been almost three years now and many Americans are becoming sickened by this continual procession of collective madness delivered up in doses of twenty-four-hour new cycles. This country has gone from the shouting and screaming about quagmire in Afghanistan, its high peaks, Ramadan taboos, the supposed unreliable Northern Alliance, Guantanamo meals, our failure to get bin Laden â to "millions" of refugees in Iraq, the toppling of moderate governments in the region, an envisioned 5,000 American dead in battle, Saddam and his sons forever uncatchable, worry over legal rights of the Husseins, Bushâs landing on a carrier, looting of museums, WMD acrimony, tell-all books from ex-Bush-administration employees, and the present election-year 9/11 inquiry circus.
And this culminates now in the animus toward Condoleezza Rice, who has weathered it all and never for a moment evidenced the slightest lack of resolve. I suppose we are witnessing a sort of American pop version of the French revolution â journalists and politicians on the barricades and guillotines constantly searching for an ever-expanding array of targets, their only consistency blind and mindless fury at the old regime.
So let us get a grip. Bush yet again must remind the American people that we are at war not merely in the Sunni Triangle or in the Afghan badlands, but rather globally and for the liberal values of Western civilization. There is no mythical pipeline in Afghanistan; Halliburton executives are not lounging around the pool in Baghdad chomping on cigars and quaffing cocktails; and in this age of sky-high gas prices there is no sinister cabal that has hijacked Iraq oil. Sharon is not getting daily intelligence briefings about Iraq. The war is what it always was â a terrible struggle against an evil and determined enemy, a Minotaur of sorts that harvested Americans in increments for decades before mass murdering 3,000 more on September 11. Everything that the world holds dear â the free exchange of ideas, the security of congregating and traveling safely, the long struggle for tolerance of differing ideas and religions, the promise of equality between the sexes and ethnic groups, and the very trust that lies at the heart of all global economic relationships â all this and more Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the adherents of fascism in the Middle East have sought to destroy: some as killers themselves, others providing the money, sanctuary, and spiritual support.
We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent.
Posted by: tipper ||
04/10/2004 10:53:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hear! Hear! Very well said.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/10/2004 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Senator Kennedy, the past exemplar of sober and judicious behavior in times of personal and national crisis"
sometimes the stiletto works better heh heh
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/10/2004 11:45 Comments ||
Top||
The United Nations Secretary General has revealed a series of measures aimed at preventing genocide ever being carried out again. Kofi Annan's announcement was timed to coincide with the commemoration of the mass killing that started in Rwanda 10 years ago this week. About 800,000 people lost their lives as Hutu extremists went on a three-month blood-letting spree against Tutsis and moderate Hutus. In a speech to the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Mr Annan made particular reference to the current conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, where he said outside military intervention might be necessary to stop fighting between Arab militia and black Africans. "It is vital that the international humanitarian workers and human rights experts be given full access without further delay," Mr Annan said. "If that is denied, the international community must be prepared to take swift and appropriate action."
Define "swift." And "appropriate."
Posted by: Fred ||
04/10/2004 11:51:02 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When Anon says international comunity does he mean the part that's not in the Coalition, France and Germany?
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
04/10/2004 0:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
My hands ache from applauding the profound wisdom and foresight of the measures announced by our fearless leader - and my mind reels at his courage! Bravo, Kofi!
Regards Kofi's revelation, I only have one small question - or, actually, two: When will the UNHRC jump bravely into the breach and whose teeth will be bared to enable this noble deed?
Regards France, you'll prolly have to determine if they have financial interests at stake. Within that answer lies the other answer. Such is the nature of sophisticated governance. Something we shall never quite attain -- I hope.
#7
"If that is denied, the international community must be prepared to take swift and appropriate action." Is that anything like "serious consequences"?
#8
If that is denied, the international community must be prepared to take swift and appropriate action."
This means the UN will squat on its heels and, if no other nation steps into the breach, again wait until the slaughter is over. At that time Annan will come forward to once more confess his guilt over not doing enough.
#9
"Swift and appropriate", in Annanese means a 'continuum of steps.' (his words last week) which May, may, may, may, may, may, may include a sort of military action.
#10
#9 Chiner: Of course, the military will be ours. And the UN will publicly condemn our military, and our action, even as they beg us in private to do something.
Remember, the UN thinks our military is supposed to be their police force, when and where they want, and to hell with what we want or need.
FUCK THE UN. And the limos they rode in in.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/11/2004 0:00 Comments ||
Top||
Nepali police arrested hundreds of people on Friday, including political leaders, as thousands chanting anti-monarchy slogans defied a ban on rallies and took to the streets in protest against the king. "Riot police detained nearly 1,000 protesters and took them away... in trucks," Krishna Sitaula, a member of the biggest opposition party, Nepali Congress, told Reuters. "Down with absolute monarchy!" some demonstrators shouted before they were hauled away. Sitaula said former Congress prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala was injured as his supporters clashed with police to stop him being detained. About 30,000 people joined the protest, large by Nepali standards but well short of the 200,000 organisers had hoped for before Thursday night's sudden ban on public gatherings.
The non-elected government, appointed by King Gyanendra, outlawed meetings of five or more people in the capital and surrounding areas, saying it had information Maoist revolutionaries planned to use the protests to incite violence. The move was an attempt to quash some of the largest anti-monarchy rallies in the Himalayan kingdom since mass protests ushered in democracy almost 15 years ago. Friday's rally marked the anniversary of the main 1990 protests that ended decades of absolute monarchy in Nepal. Nepal's five opposition parties, which held 194 of the 205 seats in the parliament Gyanendra dissolved in 2002, want the king to replace his loyalist cabinet with a multi-party administration and restore democracy with fresh elections. "We have defied the ban. The government has completely failed to implement its own order," said Amrit Bohara, a member of the Communist Unified Marxist-Leninist (UML) party. UML chief Madhav Kumar Nepal, who heads the opposition alliance, was one of those arrested.
Gyanendra, due to return to the capital on Friday from a tour of west Nepal to bolster popular support, has so far ignored the parties' demands and vocal international pressure for a new administration. Analysts say the political crisis is heading to a dangerous showdown as the country also battles the Maoist revolt that has killed more than 9,300 people since it erupted in 1996. "The king is fighting two uprisings simultaneously," said Kunda Dixit, editor of the widely read Nepali Times weekly. "How long can he afford to do that?"
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/10/2004 12:54:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Real Video Clip from a speech earlier this month at UC Berkeley.
Repost from late yesterday because it simply rocks and is more than worthy of a huge audience - all RBers need to kick off their shoes, grab a cuppajoe, and give it a look. Itâs hard to say in which category this actually belongs since so many topics are covered.
VDH handles the "morlocks" of Idiotarian Central by simply overwhelming them with his knowledge of history and obviously sincere and comprehensive understanding of events, both ancient and contemporary. But wisdom is actually the applicable word, here, so much rarer than mere knowledge.
The Q&A is priceless as he easily deals with the standard LLL screech topics in vogue, from Palestine to the UN. His final comment regarding the French leadership is not to be missed - at the end of the Q&A... Nor his very stark assessment of Bushâs re-election chances.
Spend an hour and twenty minutes with the man - perfect for the weekend. Pass the link on to everyone you know - especially those irritating relatives and friends who have yet to meet the ClueBat.
Personally, I would eagerly support a VDH/Rice ticket in 2008, in either order, but heâs far too smart for that to be likely, unfortunately for us.
His speech begins about 5:30 into the clip.
Posted by: .com ||
04/10/2004 12:44:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Superb video. How in the world did he get into Berkeley and come out alive? I would have thought that the morlocks and idiots would have protested every step he took.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/10/2004 1:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bah, I can not DL this, I get about 181 bytes and it says complete.
Posted by: Jim ||
04/10/2004 2:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's streaming Real Player Video - you're prolly doing right-click "Save As" - doesn't work that way with Real, bro, sorry. If you have Real Player installed, just click the link and watch. Not a D/L, but worth every minute of your time.
#5
OS - That's actually a tall order, given the tremendous loss of context...
But it's simply based on the US economic situation and how the war is going. Big events, such as capturing OBL, might come into play, but Bush will try to paint things as going good and the Dems will paint things as going badly -- not a big surprise in and of itself. It was the context that made it so stark. You reall do need to hear this in context.
With Real Vid you can position the player to a certain time point and it will buffer up and start playing from that time - it's pretty clean these days and much improved over the old shit they put out.
At approx 1:13:20 a question is posed. The answer regarding my "stark" comment actually comes at 1:17:25 or so.
Sample comments in his answer leading to that point:
"My worry is about the consistency and hysteria... about the failure to find WMD's; that it was cooked up - and we're not angry that we had no idea what Libya was doing, we had no idea what Pakistan was doing - since 1998, and we have no idea how far along Iran is. Those are major intelligence failures - that nobody's talking about. So there is a sense of partisanship. My criticism only of the Democrats, and I'm still a registered Democrat, is simply that Bill Clinton, I think very courageously went in to save Bosnia, but he did not go to the UN; he did not go to the US Congress - he didn't even get a congressional vote. Bush got a congressional vote, and he did go to the UN. Now you can argue that he was cynical, but he did go..." --- and so much more...
Afghan troops restored calm to the northern city of Maymana on Friday, one day after it was overrun by militia loyal to a powerful regional warlord, but the ousted governor remained in hiding and told The Associated Press he feared for his life. Government soldiers retook the city in Faryab province without resistance, according to presidential spokesman Jawed Ludin. President Hamid Karzai has ordered Gov. Enayatullah Enayat to resume his duties. Enayat was in hiding near the Turkmen border, and resting after breaking his leg in an accident, said Ludin.
There's a story there, I know. Kipling could probably have told it in 300 pages, with a laff on every page. Or O. Henry, in his youger days...
Contacted by satellite phone Friday, Enayat said he was afraid for his life after hostile forces burned and looted his home.
Yeah. I worry every time that happens to me, too.
Accounts of the clash varied, but it presents another security problem for Karzai and the U.S.-led military coalition already entangled in hunting Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgents in the south and east of the country. Some 150 U.S.-trained national army troops entered the city late Thursday without incident and 600 more soldiers were on the way, said Ludin, the presidential spokesman. "They secured the airport and then went out into the city," Ludin said. "Our reports are that the people received them quite warmly." There were no reports of casualties, and Dostum's supporters also reported no fresh incidents Friday. It was not immediately clear whether Dostum's men had withdrawn from the city.
My guess would be not in significant numbers...
"The city is quiet and the shops are open," said Haroun Turani, a doctor at Maymana hospital whose telephone number was supplied by a Dostum aide. "Police and young armed people under their command have control." In a telephone call to Karzai on Thursday, Dostum expressed "complete loyalty to the central government and said there had been some misunderstandings about him," Ludin said.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
