#1
Sounds a very dumb idea - as the article says, any AQ sleeper isn't going to be bothered by becoming 'British'. More PC rubbish, but as HM is not too pleased with this, maybe it can get canned before it goes too far?
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
11/21/2004 7:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wonder if it applies to the Gurkhas? Or how about the Scots, are they considered British or am I confusing British and English?
#7
any AQ sleeper isn't going to be bothered by becoming 'British'
Tony, I seem to recall some Muslim preachers in the UK telling their followers not to accept British citizenship because the ceremony included an oath to the Queen. Do I have that right? If so, how would nationality change differ from this?
British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government is considering toughening already contentious anti-terrorism powers if it wins another term in office, a senior government minister said Sunday. Home Secretary David Blunkett said the government is considering allowing wiretap evidence to be used in court and establishing special terrorism courts overseen by judges without a jury. The changes would not come until after a national election expected next year, Blunkett told ITV television's Jonathan Dimbleby Show, excerpts released in advance by the broadcaster showed. "It's not my intention to try and push a bill through this side of the general election, whenever the prime minister calls it," he said.
Blunkett said new measures could also include the use of "civil orders" barring suspects from committing certain acts, even if the acts themselves were not criminal. They could, for instance, prevent suspects from using a specified banking network or using the Internet. Britain introduced tough new anti-terrorism measures after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. The most controversial authorizes the indefinite detention without trial of foreign terrorist suspects if they cannot be safely removed to another country. That legislation and Blunkett's plans for a national ID card - Britain's first since the Second World War - have angered civil libertarians. Blunkett has countered by stressing the threat of a major terrorist attack in Britain. Last week, he said al-Qaida is "actually on our doorstep and threatening our lives."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 11:33:08 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My goodness! Do you think there will be as much made of this truly draconian decision as about Ashcroft and the Patriot Act?
President Bush stepped into the middle of a confrontation and pulled his lead Secret Service agent away from Chilean security officials who barred his bodyguards from entering an elegant dinner for 21 world leaders Saturday night. Several Chilean and American agents got into a pushing and shoving match outside the cultural center where the dinner was held. The incident happened after Bush and his wife, Laura, had just posed for pictures on a red carpet with the host of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and his wife, Luisa Duran. As Bush stepped inside, Chilean agents closed ranks at the door, blocking the president's agents from following. Stopping for more pictures, Bush noticed the fracas and turned back. He reached through the dispute and pulled his agent from the scrum and into the building.
"Awright, break this up!"
The president, looking irritated, straightened his shirt cuffs as he went into the dinner. The incident was shown on APEC television.
One riot, one Texan.
"Chilean security tried to stop the president's Secret Service from accompanying him," said White House deputy press secretary Claire Buchan. "He told them they were with him and the issue was resolved."
"Next time you boys want to fight, bring yer shootin' irons!"
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/21/2004 12:30:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Damnit, Bush rocks all. I am so proud of this man that I kinda tear up when I think about it. In this day and age, I see God still has his hand in history.
Posted by: Mac Suirtain ||
11/21/2004 1:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The video is now available at The Daily Recycler. Bush is a man who doesn't suffer fools, heh.
#3
damnit , cant seem to get the video to play .
Good for Bush , cant quite beleive the Chilean 'Security' would stop the Secret Service bodyguard from doing his job . Where they trying to flex some muscle in their hometown , or just being utter idiots . I , at a guess , will choose the latter :)
#6
cant quite beleive the Chilean 'Security' would stop the Secret Service bodyguard from doing his job .
The US was involved in the overthrow of Allende and many Chileans remember that. They might well resent any presence of US "force" within their borders and this is just the sort of symbolic act they might show in return. Or, they may feel that the presence of Secret Service there sends the message that they themselves aren't competant and powerful enough to protect Bush. Remember the outrage when we discovered that Anan had armed bodyguards in defiance of our agreements that the US would provide security for the UN headquarters?
We in the US tend to forget the history of the US in south America. Whatever the reasons and justifications, there are incidents that loom large in people's perceptions and they come out at times like this. Remember that Bush tried to get Chile to back us in the UN security council over Iraq and failed. The reasons for that failure undoubtably include the perception that they were on the receiving end of US intervention in the past.
Why should we care? Because it is in our best national interests to have stable relationships and good economic / cultural trade with Latin American governments. That's part of what Bush is in Santiago for -- and no, I'm not promoting totally open borders or the vote for immigrants (legal or illegal) who haven't become citizens. Nor am I denying that there may have been good reasons for past US actions, some of which (as in El Salvador) have had quiet good results.
But I am saying that it would be helpful to us if we can recognize and diffuse old resentments and get help in e.g. stopping terrorists from coming into the US via Latin countries and with Latin passports.
Oh, yeah -- Bush's actions here were perfect. I suspect some in the Chilean TV audience will admire his calm and the fact that he acted directly to enter into a physical fracas.
#7
It's interesting to see how this is being reported, btw. Fox says Bush looked "irritated". CNN, on the other hand, said Bush "cocked his head proudly at his maneuver". Pfeh.
#8
frankly Chile can get over it - we've done well by them, even if you throw in that "overthrowing communists" thing. Dicking with the Prez's security is NOT the way to get goodwill. I believe somebody down there will be looking for work or else...
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Agreed, Frank G.
BTW, I did see a different video sequence and there is some evidence for CNN's description. Bush clearly was satisfied at his own actions. Understandable, but there's a time and a place for being open about power.
I had the privilege a number of years back of meeting one of the top Aikido experts in the world. At 75, he easily dealt with 5 and 6 attackers at one -- blindfolded.
And he never swaggered afterwards. He didn't need to - his opponents and all the observers understood he was top man there. And that saved a little face for the other guys, many of whom had advanced black belts in multiple techniques, and correspondingly big self-images.
To the degree that Bush can do the same, when appropriate, it will serve us well.
#10
There is a link at the Daily Recycler to a video of the event. But the host appears to have edited it so that it stops as Bush goes back to the doorway to haul the agent in.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/21/2004 9:46 Comments ||
Top||
#11
agreed - except for Chiraq - public dissing and gloating is necessary for our Gallic asshole
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 9:47 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Foxnews is showing it
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The best punishment for Chiraq is to a) neutralize him and b) then ignore him. It will make him even more obvious than he already is.
Posted by: too true ||
11/21/2004 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
#14
To the degree that Bush can do the same, when appropriate, it will serve us well.
Agreed but I don't see the issue arising here. The fact that our President's first inclination when confronted with a scuffle is to dive right in speaks volumes about the character of the man.
What I referred to was that he indulged himself in a bit of a self-satisfied swagger afterwards, in front of cameras. Understandable, but it would have been even better if he had given no reaction at all beyond his intervention - i.e., this is beneath notice, I fixed it and now we're going in to dinner.
The dinner planned for Bush and 200 others by Chilean President Ricardo Lagos was reportedly scrapped after Chile was unwilling to accept security measures sought by the U.S. Secret Service, including a demand that all guests pass through metal detectors.
Leading Chilean newspaper El Mercurio reported that the disagreement led Bush and Lagos to instead hold a small "social dinner" with a handful of aides from each side.
Trotta [the Secret Service Agent rescued by W] has been taking good-natured ribbing for having to be rescued by the man he's charged with protecting.
The melee and Bush's intervention, caught on tape by the official television camera of the Asia-Pacific Economic cooperation summit, was replayed incessantly on American stations. "Bush the Brave," said a Fox News Channel crawler promoting the upcoming footage.
Though clearly pleased at the macho image Saturday night's events painted of their boss, the White House kept its comments understated. "The president is someone who tends to delegate, but every now and then he's a hands on kind of guy," Bush press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/21/2004 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Ship, it wasn't the walk so much as a certain wink and self-satisfied smile. But don't get me wrong - I like what he did. I'm grading student presentations right now & I'd give him an A. Just saying he could have got an A+ .... LOL
OTOH I can also see how the Secret Service's demands wouldn't sit well with the host country or the other leaders. However justified and understandable, it sure does come across as heavy handed, as Bush is the only head of state I know of who demands 100% presence of his security detail with him at state events.
BTW, the Washington Times reports that Bush's 2nd agent was treated even rougher, with Chilean security guys trying to headlock him and slam him into a concrete wall. He didn't get in and catch up to Bush until a few minutes later.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/21/2004 12:45 Comments ||
Top||
#20
God Bless this man, George W. Bush. We actually have a real man in office and not the phoney Demonrats of Clinton, Gore or Kerry. President Bush and the Secret Service are having a good laugh/story on Air Force One on the way home...
Imagine if this had been during the election: there woudl ahve been screams from the left of "Setup" "Fake Photo-op".
Secondly, rkb - I know a little Aikido. And there is no higher martial art IMHO. My practice has been mainly nearest to the Iwama-ryu style (lots of weapons traning with jo and bo-ken). I'm still among the mudansha Aikidoka, but I am qualified to test to join the yudansha so I can wear the Hakama (if I would just get back into practice to re-certify my qualification, that is).
Jiyuwaza is especially fun when you can get some randori mixed in with enough high quality uke's so you can really do the techniques (instead of holding back to keep from injuring them).
Chilean guards were also involved in a shoving match with Chinese bodyguards accompanying President Hu Jintao at the Apec summit, successfully preventing the Chinese guards from following their head of state into a meeting with Mr Lagos.
Imagine if this had been during the election: there woudl ahve been screams from the left of "Setup" "Fake Photo-op".
Secondly, rkb - I know a little Aikido. And there is no higher martial art IMHO. My practice has been mainly nearest to the Iwama-ryu style (lots of weapons traning with jo and bo-ken). I'm still among the mudansha Aikidoka, but I am qualified to test to join the yudansha so I can wear the Hakama (if I would just get back into practice to re-certify my qualification, that is).
Jiyuwaza is especially fun when you can get some randori mixed in with enough high quality uke's so you can really do the techniques (instead of holding back to keep from injuring them).
Imagine if this had been during the election: there woudl ahve been screams from the left of "Setup" "Fake Photo-op".
Secondly, rkb - I know a little Aikido. And there is no higher martial art IMHO. My practice has been mainly nearest to the Iwama-ryu style (lots of weapons traning with jo and bo-ken). I'm still among the mudansha Aikidoka, but I am qualified to test to join the yudansha so I can wear the Hakama (if I would just get back into practice to re-certify my qualification, that is).
Jiyuwaza is especially fun when you can get some randori mixed in with enough high quality uke's so you can really do the techniques (instead of holding back to keep from injuring them).
Russian border guards have handed over to Tajik colleagues a 569-km section of the Tajik-Afghan border, said Alexander Kondratyev, the head of the press service of the Russian border group in Tajikistan. Today morning a rally and a ceremony of lowering the Russian Federation's flag and hoisting the Tajik Republic's flag took place in the Ishkashim border detachment. Russian border guards with families left for Khorog to be then further sent to a new place of service. Members of the joint Russian-Tajik commission departed too to hand over to the Tajik colleagues a 212-km section of the Khorog border detachment. After the Khorog section, Tajik border guards will be handed over the Kalaikhumb section of the Tajik-Afghan border the length of 100 km (73 km of this section was guarded by Tajik border guards from 1998).
Overall, in November-December 2004, Russian border guards will hand over to Tajik border guards 881.6 km of the Tajik-Afghan border section in Gorny Badakhshan. In line with the Agreement, Russian border guards will continue to render assistance to Tajik colleagues in protecting the state border of the Republic of Tajikistan, interact for protection of CIS external borders, jointly work out and implement measures to fight the illegal migration, smuggling of weapons, ammo, explosives and poisons, radioactive materials and drugs. These tasks at the Ishkashim section will be carried out by three officers of the Russian border group in Tajikistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 12:03:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Today's Headlines From KOREAN CENTRAL NEWS AGENCY of DPRK...
S. Korean Government Employees' Union Calls General Strike
This sort of thing never happens in the north, proving that the North Korean people are happier with their lot and that North Korean troops are more willing to pot a few strikers to prove it.
Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation Inked between DPRK and Turkey
... The agreement was inked by Kim Ha Dong, DPRK ambassador e.p. to Turkey, and the secretary of State in charge of foreign trade of the government of Turkey...
Routine diplomatic background noise...
U.S. Nuclear War Plot against North Flailed
...If the United States refused to give up its hostile policy toward the DPRK and pushed forward its plan for a nuclear war, Hanchongryon would not pardon it but immediately enter into an all-out death-defying struggle, the statement declared. It urged the U.S. to lend an ear to the warnings of the Korean nation and promptly scrap its plan for a nuclear war against the north and abandon its hard-line policy.
Hanchongryon (south Korean Federation of University Student Councils) echoes the party line from Pyongyang. Routine face-making and threats of Dire Consequences if we step out of line.
Army-People Power Station Commissioned
Army-People Power Station No. 410 was commissioned in Kim Hyong Gwon County, Ryanggang Province. ... Vice Marshal of the KPA Kim Il Chol, minister of the People's Armed Forces, was among those present at the ceremony.
Longer, lower, leaner, wider. Runs on white slag or birch bark. Produces 32,000 gallons of Juche per hour. Kimmie couldn't make it.
S. Korean Ultra-right Conservatives' Acts Assailed
...The south Korean ultra-right conservatives are making desperate efforts to survive and grab "power" come what may. Herein lies the gravity of the situation....
Rodong Sinmun commentary, with moderate levels of "pro-Japanese treachery and pro-U.S. flunkeyism." No mention of Kimmie...
Anniversary of Kim Jong Il's Work Marked
It is 20 years since leader Kim Jong Il's famous work "On Improving and Strengthening Land Administration" was made public... Minister of Land and Environment Preservation Jang Il Son... called upon all the officials and working people to turn out in a gargantuan campaign to convert the country into a socialist land of bliss and fairyland in the Songun era under the great Songun leadership of the Party and translate Kim Jong Il's far-reaching plan into reality.
Finally Kimmie appears, though not as the Dear Leader. No field guidance, no 13-holes-in-one golf games...
Message of Greetings to Omani Sultan Kim Yong Nam, president of the Presidium of the DPRK Supreme People's Assembly, Wednesday sent a message of greetings to Sultan Qaboos Bin Said on the occasion of the national day of Sultanate of Oman...
Kimmie unable to make it to the Western Union to send his own message to another head of state in diplomatic background noise...
U.S. Intention to Keep JSA in Panmunjom under Its Control Assailed
Bitching by the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland over a minor decision re Panmunjom. No Kimmie.
Protocol Signed between DPRK and Russia
Diplomatic background noise, forestry department. No Kimmie. Barely any content.
Land Administration Successful in DPRK
Kimmie reappears in the person of his famous work "On Improving and Strengthening Land Administration". He is merely "the leader," no capitalization, apparently no longer Dear, certainly not Great, like Pop was.
New Species of Animals Sent to Central Zoo
Includes parrots, white tigers, and bears that were presented to leader Kim Jong Il (again, neither Dear nor Great, nor even capitalized). "Parrots and tigers and bears! Oh, my!"
Protocol Signed
Railway protocol, in fact. Understandable that Kimmie might want to stay away from trains.
S. Korean Authorities' Anti-North Burlesque under Fire
Indignation over who has more control over Koreans living in Japan, north or south. No mention of Kimmie, no Songun, no Juche, not even a bit of Flunkeyism. Boring.
Meeting of Asian Countries for Cooperation in Railways Held
Featured a congratulatory speech of Im Chol Ung, which we're sure was rollicking good fun. But no Kimmie.
Shucks. KCNA without Kimmie is like a snarl without teeth. I'm deeply, yea, fraternally worried. Should I send a "get well" card? Or could he be in stable condition already?
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 1:35:02 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has visited a military unit, the country's official news agency KCNA said on Saturday, a day after the communist state denied reports that Kim's portrait had been removed from some public places.
"Tut tut. They've been sent out for cleaning, that's all..."
It was the second time this week that the agency reported Kim's inspection tours, after the flap over the portraits set off speculation that Pyongyang might try to soften its leader's personality cult as it carries out incremental economic reforms. Reports of Kim's inspections, which usually give no specific details, are widely considered in the South to be displays of influence by the secretive leader. The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), monitored in Seoul, did not say when he visited the People's Army Transportation Unit No. 1266. On Tuesday, the KCNA reported Kim's trip to a military unit, just hours after a Pyongyang-based diplomat said portraits of him had been removed from some public meeting halls.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 8:22:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is he the "DEAR Leader" again...or just the "Leader"? I need to know in order to address my Christmas card to him.
btw...in the picture you can't see the top of his hand. Is that where the puppeteers attach the strings?
#3
If you're correct, MHW, that would take care of a good deal of the WoT in the years to come, with no effort except to deny charges of poisoning. The only problem with your suggestion is that if these persons do have AIDs, then so do entirely too many young boys and girls. In North Korea they are probably already dying of starvation, but in the Middle East their situation will become very apparent.... ahhhh.... leading to even greater anger against the mullahs in Iran, imams in Pakistan, etc.
I do hope Allah would consider those particular children to be true martyrs to their faith. Unlike the exploding people, I mean.
The unreported incidence of AIDs in the Moslem world is undoubtedly much higher than the reported incidence and, as usual, the chief victims will be people who are already victims, namely the people in the sex trade biz. In Pakland for example, young boys are passed down and around amongst the most important village chiefs. For these young boys, AIDs is a high risk but only one risk in the miserable existance created for them by the merciful and compassionate Allah.
I didn't know about the sharing thing. Ick. I'm going to have to curl up in a corner and weep for a bit. Taking child brides is not a good thing, but what you describe is so far beyond the pale that I have no words.
EFL
The US Treasury believes that $50 million worth of fake money enters circulation every year. Syria and Iran are believed to be responsible for some of it, but the world's best forgeries emanate from North Korea. Fake currency is considered a vital source of income for the world's last Stalinist regime, with its shattered economy. To date, dollars have been the forger's favourite. Now, however, Pyongyang counterfeiters are eyeing the euro.
Mr Matsumura warned last week that the euro's growing clout and value - on Friday, it rose to a record $1.3075 - makes it an increasingly tempting target. "The first forgeries came out within six months and I already found a lot of forged notes when I travelled around Europe in June," he told The Telegraph. "But within a few years the euro will be the currency of 35 countries. There will be 1.5 times as many in circulation as the dollar. That makes it tempting to counterfeiters and I believe the North Koreans are preparing to make euros." In 1989, Pyongyang agents based in the former East Germany are said to have procured a sophisticated money-printer that is still in use today. A single print run produces notes "worth" in the region of £2.5 million.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
11/21/2004 6:46:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Well, sort of. Looks like they're just moving people around.
A dozen US military units in Germany will be disbanded in the next year, commanders announced on Friday. The units, with about 1,000 soldiers, are based in Bavaria, Baden-Wuerttemberg and Hesse and are being "put on inactive status" as part of troop repositioning efforts, commanders in Heidelberg said. The cutbacks could affect "a small number" of American and German civilian employees, it was said. Other units will be strengthened, keeping the American military presence at its current 62,000 total.
Posted by: Seafarious ||
11/21/2004 2:35:57 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Part of Rumsfeld's plan to change the focus of the Armed Forces from cold-war to WoT footing? With the additional benefit of slowly downsizing the German civilian connection, so as to reduce the impact of a sudden flood of unemployed Germans on their already struggling economy? So this is what Compassionate Unilateralism looks like ;-)
#3
This sounds more like insider baseball gossip. The tenders of the flags care, but it doesn't change anything else.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/21/2004 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm in Germanly right now. Look for some very unhappy Germans in the next few years. You can not fully appreciate how much money is dumped into the local German economy until you see one of these units re-located.
Posted by: Pissed off Army ||
11/21/2004 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
So the Germans won't LET us UN-INVADE them?
Cool headline would be: "Germans threaten WAR if U.S. pulls troops out of Germany!"
#7
Transition from logistics to fighting. More of the support will be contracted out, more of the troops will be combatants. The Army is going the way of the USMC.
#9
Transition from logistics to fighting. More of the support will be contracted out, more of the troops will be combatants. The Army is going the way of the USMC.
#10
Transition from logistics to fighting. More of the support will be contracted out, more of the troops will be combatants. The Army is going the way of the USMC.
Posted by: Mac Suirtain ||
11/21/2004 1:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
What's that giant flushing sound I hear? Is that Goss at the lever?
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/21/2004 1:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
.... they gave me carte blanche to talk to the media," Scheuer said. .... Scheuer's stunning admission--that CIA officials actively promoted a book ....
The author of the article apparently doesn't know what the expression carte blanche means. It does not mean "actively promoted." Doesn't The Weekly Standard have an editor?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 1:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
think, mike, think. CIA analysts are not permitted to push their views in the newsmedia, either via books or interviews. The senior officials who gave Scheuer free rein to do so in violation of CIA policy (and perhaps the law) were of course seeking, along with Scheuer, to promote the views in his book.
That's the entire point of this scandal. The CIA is a dysfunctional organization that cannot even abide its most crucial operating restrictions.
#6
Everyone who works for the intel agencies signs a non-disclosure agreement. Most people take it seriously. It's to prevent crap like this.
Having the intel agencies even remotely involved in politix is horribly dangerous, in the same category as having the military involved in politix. We don't even want a toe in that water.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 6:58 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The theme of this nonsense article is that former CIA Director actively promoted Scheuer's book as long as Scheuer limited his attacks to George W. Bush and did not include attacks on the CIA. The evidence for the theme is non-existent.
This is like Claudia Rosett's non-evidence insinuations that Kofi Annan somehow personally profited from the Food-for-Oil Program through his son Kojo Annan. It's a vicious attack on a prominent person using no evidence whatsoever.
Here's a passage from the article: Scheuer said, "As long as the book was being used to bash the president, they gave me carte blanche to talk to the media," Scheuer said. When Scheuer started attacking the CIA in interviews along with the president, agency brass forbade him from talking to the media.
From this whisp the author concocts a conclustion that the CIA leadership, specifically George Tenet, was actively promoting Scheuer's book as long as it attacked George W. Bush.
Excuse me? What? Whence appears that surprising conclusion? Not from any evidence at all. (It's like: Kojo worked for Cotecna, which had a UN contract, so therefore Kofi Annan made huge profits from the Food-for-Oil Program.)
And why should we accept Scheuer's characterization of the CIA's attitude as carte blanche. I imagine that the CIA's attitude was that it could do little but watch passively as this disgruntled analyst exercised his rights to publish and speak -- and to commit career suicide. Publicly criticizing President Bush was bad enough; publicly criticizing the CIA leadership was Scheuer's final step off the cliff.
I do admit, though, that the nonsensical insinuation that George Tenet "actively promoted" Scheuer's attacks against Bush will get a lot more attention for The Weekly Standard than a sensible analysis.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Mike - you pick between lines to conjure up a lame excuse to defend your beloved int'l institutions. I won't argue with you - better and more logical debate I get with my cat. Nonsense article? Non-evidence insinuations? Pull your head from Kofi's ass
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 11:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The article claimed the Agency was promoting the book by letting journalists know about it and encouraging interviews. They certainly didn't DISCOURAGE them and as I recall a dozen or more articles and TV slots appeared pretty much all at once. That didn't just happen at random.
Moreover, Mike fails to acknowledge the last sentence in the article. Tenet did and said nothing to stop the publication of the books and the news interviews. Bad in general, totally unacceptable during an election season. He could scarcely fail to know about them -- they were A topics for weeks.
His silence on the issue is all anyone needs to know about his intentions.
#10
This is like Claudia Rosett's non-evidence insinuations that Kofi Annan somehow personally profited from the Food-for-Oil Program through his son Kojo Annan. It's a vicious attack on a prominent person using no evidence whatsoever.
When you can't win the argument, change the subject. Nice try, thanks for playing...
#11
Re #10 (Raj): When you can't win the argument ... Nice try
Read this and then remind me why Claudia Rosett's evidence is so compelling.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Re #9 (rkb): The article claimed the Agency was promoting the book by letting journalists know about it and encouraging interviews.
The article doesn't make either claim. The article claims that the normal procedure was that CIA officials who publish their works have to arrange any subsequent interviews through the CIA Public Affairs office. This procedure was changed in this particular case because the book had become extraordinarily publicized. The CIA didn't publicize the book; the publisher and subsequently the media publicized it. So many interview requests flooded the Public Affairs office that the Public Affairs office decided that this loose cannon, who obviously was committing career suicide, could arrange his own interviews, as long as he informed the Public Affairs office promptly.
From this situation, the conclusion is concocted that George Tenet was actively promoting the book, as long as Scheuer criticized only President Bush.
They certainly didn't DISCOURAGE them and as I recall a dozen or more articles and TV slots appeared pretty much all at once. That didn't just happen at random. .... Tenet did and said nothing to stop the publication of the books and the news interviews. ....
President Bush didn't do anything to stop the publications and interviews either. Does that mean that President Bush was actively promoting the book.
Did you, rkb, personally do anything to stop the publications and interviews? Maybe you were actively promoting the book?
Another explanation is that there was nothing George Tenet could do to stop Scheuer.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Stay away from me!
Posted by: A Straw ||
11/21/2004 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Scheuer told reporters on Friday that, traditionally, he would have to arrange interviews through the CIA public affairs office. Each interview would have to be cleared before
Scheuer was allowed to talk. With Imperial Hubris, however, that wasn't the case. The book's advance publicity had hyped the fact that a CIA officer was anonymously breaking with the administration's anti-terror strategy. Interview requests flooded in. But Scheuer said that Harlow told him, "We're giving you carte blanche." Harlow's condition? Scheuer was supposed to let the public affairs office know who he talked to--after the interview(s) had taken place
Oh come on, Mike. I'm not the direct supervisor of Harlow -- and neither is Bush.
Harlow directly reported to Tenet -- who had, among other things, statutory responsibility for secrecy at the Agency. There was PLENTY Tenet could have done.
And yes, I have known over the years a few people who worked at Langley.
#15
Re #14 (rkb): There was PLENTY Tenet could have done.
Scheuer acted above-board. He intended to publish his book with CIA permission, and he knew the rules, so he wrote his book so that it complied with the rules. Then Scheuer submitted his manuscript for a CIA security review according to the rules. And, according to the CIA's own rules, the CIA had to permit the publication.
Tenet had the option to simply fire Scheuer, because the CIA can fire its employees without justification. That option, however, might open other cans of worms, such as making a martyr out of Scheuer and perversely increasing the attention his book would receive.
Scheuer placed the CIA leadership into a complicated situation that was not easy to handle. In the end, though, Scheuer left the CIA.
What damage did Scheuer's book do to US security? None. The evidence for that conclusion is that the CIA completed a security review and approved the book's publication.
As a result of the book's publication, the whole world outside the USA now knows that former CIA analyst Scheuer is critical of US policy related to the War on Terrorism. So what?
Because of that, people here argue, Goss is now supposed to fire all the CIA employees who were involved in the security review of the book for its publication. Yeah, sure.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#16
And, according to the CIA's own rules, the CIA had to permit the publication
Nope, they most certainly did not. And you do keep dancing around the fact that a critical security agency was deeply politicized in a way that is dangerous for us over time.
What's happening at the CIA under new Director Porter Goss is both necessary and deeply troubling. The shake-up at the nation's pre-eminent spy shop had to happen, given its obvious intelligence failures involving weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the threat of al-Qaida before 9/11. But a shake-up is one thing. A political purge is something else. What's happening at the CIA has an unfortunate whiff of the latter.
What was happening at the CIA before Goss' arrival had an unfortunate whiff of the intel agency being involved in politix. The Agency is an instrument of policy. It's not allowed to have an opinion. It's required to support Bush's policies, just as it would have been required to support President Kerry's policies. Anyone that can't bring themselves to do that has to hit the road. If they can't do it voluntarily, they have to be shown the door.
It's too soon to know whether the agency will be better in the long run for Goss' heavy-handed housecleaning. But one thing is clear: The CIA shouldn't play politics. Period. That goes for Goss and CIA professionals.
Getting things a little backwards there are Newsday, aren't we? From my standpoint, it looks like Goss is putting things back on track...
Neither should actively support or oppose any partisan agenda. Clear-eyed, tough-minded realism should be demanded from the nation's intelligence agencies. Let's hope that's what emerges once the dust settles at Langley.
That's basically what I just said. Newsday appears to be assuming it won't.
The agency has been hemorrhaging top-level officials since Goss took the helm a few weeks ago. The No. 2 official, John McLaughlin, retired. The deputy director for operations and his top deputy also walked out the door. And speculation is rampant that officials in the Directorate of Intelligence, the branch responsible for analysis, are in Goss' crosshairs. High-level comings and goings are not bad or unexpected with a new director. That's especially true when an organization hasn't performed well. But the question of partisanship arose the day Goss was named director of central intelligence by President George W. Bush.
It's a question that I think was raised for partisan reasons...
It's unusual for an elected official to be tapped for the post, which is better left outside the political arena.
Bush the Elder did a creditable job when he was DCIA...
Goss was not only a member of Congress; he was chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which produced a report scathingly critical of the CIA. When he took top committee staffers with him to the agency, concern that the place was being politicized mushroomed.
Goss is also an ex-CIA man, who knows where the bodies are buried. He's a lot harder to BS than an ex-governor of Kansas or a professor at Princeton.
Intimations of inappropriate political motives have run both ways. The CIA has taken heat for failures before 9/11 and for former Director George Tenet's infamous assurance that the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was "a slam dunk." In that atmosphere of recrimination, there were CIA leaks to the media during the presidential campaign indicating there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida and that prospects for success in Iraq are slim, at best.
CIA should not leak. When was the last time there was a leak from NSA, DIA, or NRO?
Those leaks, which may have been retaliatory, had to sting. And Bush is notoriously intolerant of dissent and disloyalty.
Since we're at war, I can't fault him on that. Can you?
A Goss e-mail fanned the flames. According to news accounts he laid down "the rules of the road," saying "we support the administration and its policies in our work as agency employees."
... since the Agency is an instrument of policy.
Support is fine if it means giving the president what he needs to make policy decisions. But the memo could, and, in some quarters, has been read as an order to toe the Bush political line. Both sides need to take a deep breath. Agency professionals shouldn't overreact to change. And Goss should communicate his plans more clearly. Above all else, it would be inexcusable if the appearance of a political purge proves, in fact, to be a political purge.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 8:36:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
be interesting to see if Newsday (ethical pt - aren't they one of those papers accused of inflating circulation nos. to get more ad revenue?) was so apoplectic when Clinton fired all US Atty's and replaced them with his own people? Goss needs to weed the staff, and leakers should go first
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They conveniently sidestep the vital question of whether the CIA needs housecleaning in order to accuse a Republican administration of a neo-Stalininst purge. These guys need new story angles.
#4
The unbelievable "leaks" started long before the Woodward book with the "slam dunk" nonsense, so I guess the several years of misbehavior was a clairvoyant pre-emptive retaliatory campaign, or something. Sheesh.
One thing no one ever seems to note about the "leaks" is how idiotic they make CIA analysts look. They mostly have involved forecasts or analysis that are jaw-droppingly dumb, and obviously so. My personal favorite still has me waiting for the Shi'a and Kurds to turn on us in Iraq -- ya know, they were looking at their watches and would do so by a time-certain if we hadn't magically transformed Iraq into Orange County, at least according to the geniuses at CIA and State/INR who "leaked" their assessment to that effect.
So there's a whole 'nother layer to this. The policy-advocacy leaking and sniping have been astounding, but take a look at the substance of the leaks and it's even more troubling. The gist of most of these comments to the press have reflected a cluelessness no less striking than that of your average Dem Hill staffer or "anti-war" incumbent. It's one thing to have a Carl Levin floundering around in the Senate and being outvoted and marginalized -- it's another if the supposed national brain trust is churning out undergraduate drivel for decision-makers ....
Oh, and how about the "Anonymous" book-approval matter? To me that's in a whole separate category. If I were Goss I'd have started (who knows, maybe he did) with a simple process: anyone who was in the chain that signed off on the stupid book and its author blabbing to the public would be shown the door.
Of course the above-noted point applies in spades to the book and the "Anonymous" author: THIS is the analytical level of our best analysts working our most important national security problem? Yikes. I think the low-level analytical shops in the far-flung theater commands of WWII showed 100 times the sophistication and insight that we often seem to get from the best-and-brightest at Langley and Foggy Bottom these days.
#5
anyone who was in the chain that signed off on the stupid book and its author blabbing to the public would be shown the door.
Procedures established long ago allow officials in the Intelligence Community to publish a personal work. There's a review process to determine whether the work contains classified information.
The officials who reviewed this book did their assigned task. On what basis do you propose to fire them? What classified information did they allow to be published?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mike, its called "methods and sources". Just the fact that we *knew* something is often enough to tip off how we got that info - and permanently close off the source. THats why truly professional agencies (like the N* agencies) are NEVER in the spotlight.
The CIA has become a cesspool of self-interested b-crats who only worry about budget, thier ability to command money and people, and buck passing so they can shift the blame. Those kind of folks became the lead in the CIA fromthe early 90's on (starting under Bush Sr). WHen the wall came down they thought they had no mission, so they started turf wars. And under Clinton it only got worse with political ppointees, and no real oversight (Clinton essentially ignored the intel agencies unless he needed them to bolster his policies).
This is a house-cleaning that was long overdue. This is a failed agency and needs to be severely shaken up. The attempts of the agency to inject itself into the political campaign are shameful - and thier two-faced dealings show that. Good analysts and operators at the bottom are being ignored, and only the "politically correct" stuff is allowed up the pipeline. Anything that makes a sub-director's dept look bad, or the section look bad, get silenced, unless its politically useful to the higher ups.
The CIA has become a very political agency, and has cased to funciton properly in many areas. The best remedy is intel reform, but the Congress stupidly passed that up. SO the next b3est thing is to make heads roll, especially political leakers, buck-passers and others who have forgotten their oath of office - loyalty to the Constitution, not the Democratic Party or their boss. And thats the grounds that many should be fired for: insubordination, disloyalty, and incompetence. Thats enough justification to do what Goss needs to do.
#7
Mike, there's no presumption of any CIA employee having the right to publish advocacy material directly related to his scope of work -- and no limitation that classified info is the only thing any publication must avoid.
Or perhaps it's just me. I can't recall the hundreds of titles penned by serving intelligence agency analysts that took contentious issue with contemporary government policy on matters of war and peace. In fact, I can't think of any, prior to "Imperial Hubris." Then again, maybe it's just that no serving analyst ever disagreed with government policy and felt like publishing a book for, say, the last 50 years. Or perhaps there were but they understood that wasn't appropriate for serving staff.
I hope Goss removes or sidelines anyone in the various chains who tolerated both the book and the various (unintentionally self-damning) "leaks". CIA's job is to provide info and analysis to the president, not to provide half-baked policy commentary to the press. If you can't understand why the latter is a firing offense and important to the national interest, then I can't help you.
Recall a few years back the incredibly lame State Dept. guys who ostentatiously quit to voice their vehement belief that the US should plunge itself wastefully and pointlessly into the inconsequential barbarism of the Balkans? At least they followed the familiar path: quit your public post, wherein you're obliged to support (in the functional sense) and execute national policy, in keeping with your oath to the Constitution, and THEN exercise your right to make a buck while pushing idiotic policy ideas. This isn't that hard, Mike.
#8
Re #6 (OldSpook)its called "methods and sources". Just the fact that we *knew* something is often enough to tip off how we got that info
Is there any such info in the book? If so, I haven't read anything about it. I haven't read the book itself, but the reviews I've read give me the impression that the author's main thesis is, explicitly, that our war on terrorism creates more terrorists than it eliminates, and, implicitly, that Scheuer thinks that he himself should be running the CIA.
The CIA has become a cesspool of self-interested b-crats who only worry about budget, thier ability to command money and people, and buck passing so they can shift the blame. ... This is a failed agency and needs to be severely shaken up. ....
That's pretty harsh, OldSpook. Maybe you should be running the CIA, since you know where all the corruption is.
... the next best thing is to make heads roll, especially political leakers ....
Who are they? How do we know that an intelligence report was leaked by a particular CIA official? Practically all these finished intelligence reports are available to officials in other agencies -- to officials in DoD, in the FBI, in Congress, and in the Cabinet.
It's easy to say Goss should fire all the political leakers. It's kind of harder to say exactly who they are.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 13:59 Comments ||
Top||
#9
no sh*t? what insight
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Who are they?
Just watch for the ones headed towards the exits ....
#11
Re #7 (Verlaine)
Thousands of people work in the Intelligence Community, and some of them desire to publish their personal works. On one extreme, there are people who want to publish poetry, gardening advice, and historical research. On the other extreme there are people who want to publish personal opinions about current security issues. For all such publishing proposals there are standard review and approval procedures.
In general, a staff member (usually a low-ranking peon) is assigned to read the drivel and to coordiante an administrative approval or disapproval. If the publication is disapproved, then the author can appeal. Ultimately the disapproval must be based on some concrete security concern, not simply on the bureaucrats' personal opinions about the work's merit or political appropriateness.
If a maverick analyst decides to start publishing his personal opinions attacking the Administration's policies, then he basically is committing career suicide. His superiors would certainly try to counsel some good sense into him, but if he nevertheless insists, then he can exercise his rights.
Why should his colleagues be punished?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Wow, first Aris and now Mikey S writes something I can get behind. Old Spook should run the CIA!
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/21/2004 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Correct me if I'm wrong. No serving CIA employee has the "right" to publish anything he/she desires on any topic related to their work. The latitude of managers in disapproving such publication goes well beyond counseling and well beyond the narrow matter of classified information.
If this is not correct, please document it and also explain why, as noted earlier, there have not been "dissenting" policy books churned out for decades from CIA. Only Scheuer was "career suicidal" since 1947? I don't think this explains the historical pattern.
"Punishment" isn't the issue. Removing managers who exhibit a lack of professionalism is the issue. Allowing subordinates to campaign against government policy while on the exec. branch payroll demonstrates an utter lack of professionalism, especially in a national security agency. We've got a big free country where anything, and I mean anything, can and does get published and hyped, no matter how idiotic (ask your local Barnes & Noble manager to let you browse through their soon-to-be-remaindered mountains of stupid anti-Bush books). The CIA's job is hard enough, so I'd like them to focus on their job, which isn't to offer cheap-seat criticism on policy issues. Therefore I'd be happy if Goss pushes out, on whatever basis he can, the managers who share or encourage or tolerate this sort of thing.
#14
No serving CIA employee has the "right" to publish anything he/she desires on any topic related to their work.
A CIA employee has a right to publish a work that does not reveal classified information.
I'm sure many CIA employees publish works all the time, but they aren't identified as CIA employees in the publications. A famous example is E. Howard Hunt, who published many novels about espionage while he worked in the CIA.
I never served in the CIA, I served 14 years in USAF Intelligence. For a while I served in a Pentagon position, and I myself reviewed articles for publication, and I myself proposed my own articles that were reviewed by others. From the latter experience I know that such efforts are frowned upon by superiors, to say the least.
I don't know where I would find a link to the CIA's employee publication policy. Would a link to the US Constitution's First Amemendment suffice?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#15
We are all proud of your service Mike.
Now. Show me the damn links.
#17
Scheuer said he gave the Clinton Administration 10 opportunities to kill OBL, which they declined in every case. Leaving aside for the moment what this says about the Clinton Admin., I doubt OBL knew we were that close to him that often. That sort of info is valuable to our enemies because it tells them we may be more clever than they think about tracking them down, so in future they will work harder to cover their tracks, and our job will be more difficult.
Posted by: V is for Victory ||
11/21/2004 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Scheuer said he gave the Clinton Administration 10 opportunities to kill OBL ..... That sort of info is valuable to our enemies because it tells them we may be more clever than they think about tracking them down ....
That's pretty vague.
Here's something more concrete: The CIA reviewed the book before publication and determined that the book did not reveal any information that was classified or that endangered national security.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 18:41 Comments ||
Top||
#19
A CIA employee has a right to publish a work that does not reveal classified information
Not quite. Employees agree to a variety of restrictions as part of their employment and that is quite explicit.
As an example, someone I know rather well sought approval to publish an unclassified research paper that referenced a project done for the CIA. 4 levels of security review in 2 different intel agencies agreed no classified data were involved and that the publication of the paper would not allow others to piece together new insights from unclassified data.
It took 2+ years and 2 re-reviews before it got to the journal to begin the academic peer-review process and eventual publication. Along the way, several CIA employees had their names removed as co-authors.
For those not familiar with military career paths, Mike gives us a bit of a yardstick to apply to his opinions.
Assuming he had no service in another specialty, that means 14 years service -- not a common point at which to leave voluntarily. A good but not stellar NCO might hold the rank of Master Sgt by that point; someone who was still a Tech Sgt would be a below-central-mass performer. An officer (assuming he did not have prior enlisted time before commissioning) should be a Major at that point. 14 years is a bit late, but depending on when we're talking about (70s, 80s, 90s) it would be possible to stretch being a Captain out to the 13th year before being passed over for promotion a second time and forced to separate.
None of this should be read to indicate that Mike's service was anything other than valuable -- and I am glad he did serve. However, it does put his experience of the wider issues re: publishing out of the intel community into some perspective. A Master Sgt, Captain or recently promoted Major is responsible for executing existing polices -- but does not create them or work on the larger tradeoff issues at stake in the CIA story we're discussing.
#21
Mikey your ignorance is showing (surprising given that you claim to have served - and in a security clearance positon required positon). Many of us who defend the Constitution give up a lot of the rights enshrined in it. Amongst the heaviest one that is given up is the First Amendment. 14 years in USAF (ESG/AIA?) intel should have taught you that. Pre-publication cleareance is routine - but internal support fo the agency is NOT. Its quite unusual.
ALong those lines - here is a question for you: How many NSA people do you see publishing stuff like this? Bamford is about the only author anyone hears publishing reasonable critical things about the NSA, and he is an outsider. And even then, the things he claims have never been confirmed nor denied.
Secondly, USAF you were involved with is probably SIGINT/IMINT. HUMINT is another world entirely, and not always amenable to technical resources being thrown at it. You should have known that.
Third as a near-career USAF type, you should know the responsibility of the agencies is the *execution* of policy, and when asked, advice to executives when forming policy - but NOT *opposition* to it after the fact, nor political involvement toward those aims. You should have known that once policy is set, you don't leak and malign; you salute and execute.
Finally, the issue was not the document and its contents, it was the SELECTIVE nature of the agency allowing the author to speak - it was the very act of taking sides politically that calls the whole thing into question. And I note you continue to dodge that - and that is the CENTRAL point of the argument here. Mike - the question you are avoiding and dancing around and trying to weasel yourself away from is:
Should the CIA be allowed to attempt to politically influence the electorate by selective leaking of information and support of various books? Should the higher echelons allow political leanings to color their actions?
The answer, as any *professional* intel person would tell you is a resounding NO. The fact that you seem to have difficulty answering this marks you as a partisan, not a pro. Same goes for those within the agency - and yes I do know where some of them sit, I used to work for a few - and avoided a few others. They are relatively well known, especially in operations and analysis, where results are obvious and cannot be hidden from those doing the work.
On a personal level - my opinion brings to mind a question: who in the USAF serves only 14 years? You're one hitch away from 20 and retirement. That sounds supect given the absence of other conditions. Mike were you booted out? Were you RIFFED? Or are you still in (and if so, why are you posting here on subject matter that could comprmise your activities?) I suspect you're being disingenuous about your service - either its tenure or the content or the nature of your service (or perhaps the whole thing), given your attitude. You sound more like a clerk, not an ops person or an analyst.
As said, famously, "on the internet nobody knows you're a dog, but they can tell when you are a sone-of-a-bitch".
And one son-of-a-bitch to another, I think you're being dishonest.
#22
RKB, I agree with part of your evaluation, but the rank structure of the Air Force, and especially those serving in intelligence did not allow most E-6 (TSgt) to be promoted to E-7 (MSgt) until about the fifteen year point, and a lot of Techs retired in that rank. I spent 26 years in the Air Force, including four years in the Reserve. Twenty-two of those years were spent in imagery intelligence - the people that read out all that satellite, U-2, and SR-71 imagery, plus the stuff taken by tactical reconnaissance. I've also had about 20 articles published in the past 30 years that were subjected to evaluation. Most of those dealt with things far removed from my job - stamp collecting, archeology, photography, etc. I, too, worked for a year in Washington, including doing liaison duties with other intelligence organizations in the area (DIA, CIA, NSA, etc.). I know perhaps 30 CIA people, most working photo interpretation. There are HUGE problems in the agency, and they NEED a thorough housecleaning. It's been an agency without strong outside supervision for 20 years at least. The hiring practices need to be overhauled. The agency hires primarily from four colleges, and they're all VERY liberal. People are given responsibility with little or no knowledge about the subject, and aren't forced to become familiar. The material we received from CIA was always double-checked, because the number of mistakes were phenomenal for what is supposed to be the nation's premier foreign intelligence agency. Their imagery reports were good, but the rest of it was best used in the latrines.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/21/2004 19:37 Comments ||
Top||
#23
I only skimmed the article and don't have time to read the posts above - but I feel very reassured by this. If Newsday is having a hissy fit, then Goss must be doing something right!
#24
Folks - don't get me wrong - the problems in CIA started under Bush Sr. And were subject to neglect by Clinton who never really "got" the military and intelligence communtiy, other than the "clean hands" types higher up int he agency. The problem is that to get work done, you have to get your hands dirty. Intelligence is not a clean business on the ground. The satellite and electronics guys can have thier comfy chairs, shift work and air conditioning. But this war will require us to deal with some unsavory types, and get our hands dirty. Satellites and SIGINT have yet to find Bin Laden (since some moron in the military leaked things in the late 90's about interceptions of sat-phones). And the CIA management is too PC and risk averse to stick their necks out and risk thier careeer for the good of the country - they cravenly carp and push for politicians who will give "more of the same" (Kerry) instead of forcing a change of course and change of managment needed to effect that change of course.
And its the latter part that is inexcusable in my view - because they are putting their division, thier section, their career ahead of the nation and the Constitution that we are there to defend. And yet there are some here who continually pick at nits to defend the indefensible.
Its sad - thats bascially the same mindset as those whom Goss is after. And peopel like that brought us 9/11 and will do so again: there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Thats who Goss must go after: the self blinded who want to do things the same-old way we did before 9/11: PC, politics and personal fiefdoms.
I am sure Goss will screw things up at least a little, but in this case the harm done to the IC will far be outweighed by the benefits of having a fully functional and engaged CIA aligned for fighting the war on terror instead of fighting (for or against) the re-election of the President.
#25
OP, re: promotion rates, that's why I caveated with regard to which decade - promotion rates did differ somewhat. I do know good NCOs who retired at 20 as an E-6 in the 70s and early 80s - including an uncle I'm quite fond of. (FWIW, my husband is retired USAF from the space side of the house ....)
I don't speak from personal domain expertise in the intel world - just to be clear - although I do remember one rather memorable Xmas party at which 1/2 of the attendees were ex-U2 and SR-71 pilots and the other 1/2 had multiple PhDs in some arcane disciplines .... LOL
#26
There is a very good and simple reason why the CIA or any other intelligence agency MUST not make policy or try to influence policy making: It will compromise the credibility of its information it gives to the President. The President can not judge as to how this information, that might lead to a war, was obtained. If he believes that the agency has its own agenda, he will not fully trust the info he is given. And that would be a disaster.
It's certainly a frustrating job to be a spook. You will be blamed for things that go wrong and rarely get open credit for things that went right. You may not even tell your spouse what you are doing. That's why a spook must be a real patriot, absolutely committed to serving his country without ever been lauded in public... AND be fiercely loyal to the President, whether you share his policies or not.
If you can't deal with that, your only choice is to quit and shut up. Forget your ego.
As for the info: German intelligence services often complain that the info highway is a one way street. That may be exaggerated but I dare say that the CIA receives better info from "friendly" intelligence agencies than it provides to them. Plus an attitude that often pisses off professionals. When CIA specialists who claim to know it all about a certain Middle Eastern country and then cannot decipher an "Allahu aqbar" written in Arabic, something is wrong.
#27
rkb, I think that you are unfairly inferring that Mike S was riffed. There are many considerations that go into the decision to leave the service that have nothing to do with promotion, most involve family. I know many good men who left mid-career because of the efforts to get rid of the VietNam "hump" during Carter years. Quite frankly, I also knew men who were passed over for Major and Lt Col who finished their 20 in the enlisted ranks.
#28
The Clintons, Commies, and DemLeftProgressives are mainstream/midwest majority "GOOD SOCIALISTS" in BLUE, i.e. the BLUE STATES; Republicans = AMERICA-MINORITY Americanists, Rightists, and Ultra-Rightist SOcialists/Nazis/HITLERISTS, i.e. Non-Leftists and Non-Communist Socialists, the "BAD SOCIALISTS" in RED, THE "REDS', the RED STATERS. The values of the Founding Fathers = LIMITED GOVERNMENT, REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVEERNMENT, FEDERALISM, FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, INDIVIDUALISM,... etc. > values of outcasts, rejects, criminals/mafiosi, terrorists and militant separatists, i.e. ANTI-SOCIALISTS. THE LEFT WILL PLAYING THESE MIND GAMES ALL THE WAY TO POTUS HILLARY AND ANTI-USA OWG.
When I entered the USAF in 1978, there were no officer slots open, so I served my first two years as an airman before I was accepted into Officer Training School.
I was an officer for 12 years and was promoted every time I was considered. I was selected to serve on the staff of the Air Force Chief of Staff for Intelligence when I was a captain.
I voluntarily separated in 1992, the only year when the USAF allowed personnel to voluntarily separate and receive severance pay. Since the Cold War had ended, the USAF preferred that a maximum number of people separate voluntarily, so that the USAF would not have to force them out.
I accepted the offer because I had a very narrow specialty, HUMINT, where there was little possibility I would be promoted to lieutenanct colonel. This was especially so because all the Services' HUMINT organizations were to be transfered into DIA.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 23:43 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Re #21 (OldSpook):
How many NSA people do you see publishing stuff like this?
Few people in the Intelligence Community publish their own works, and when they do they often don't identify themselves by their work. Most people, no matter what their professions, are not motivated to write and publish their own works. Those who do serve in the Intelligence Community are so motivated will experience a lot of hassle. Their motivations will be suspected and criticized, and the review process will annoy everyone who is involved.
HUMINT is another world entirely, and not always amenable to technical resources being thrown at it. You should have known that.
What does this have to do with anything I wrote?
You should have known that once policy is set, you don't leak and malign; you salute and execute.
That's why I say that Scheuer committed career suicide.
By the way, you seem to have the impression that I have defended Scheuer and his book. I haven't. I have defended George Tenet from the insinuation that he actively promoted Scheuer's book.
... it was the SELECTIVE nature of the agency allowing the author to speak - it was the very act of taking sides politically that calls the whole thing into question.
Scheuer complied with the formal rules for publishing his work, and so he was allowed to publish his work. The CIA couldn't do much about it beyond reassign him to shuffle paperwork for the rest of his career, which was to be his fate, which was why he quit.
Should the CIA be allowed to attempt to politically influence the electorate by selective leaking of information and support of various books? Should the higher echelons allow political leanings to color their actions? The answer, as any *professional* intel person would tell you is a resounding NO. The fact that you seem to have difficulty answering this marks you as a partisan, not a pro.
I don't have any difficulty at all answering "no" to those questions.
I have difficulty accepting the accusation that George Tenet actively promoted Scheuer's book. Do you accept that accusation? Do you think that the pros in the CIA accept it?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
11/21/2004 23:58 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Mike, its called "methods and sources". Just the fact that we *knew* something is often enough to tip off how we got that info - and permanently close off the source. THats why truly professional agencies (like the N* agencies) are NEVER in the spotlight.
The CIA has become a cesspool of self-interested b-crats who only worry about budget, thier ability to command money and people, and buck passing so they can shift the blame. Those kind of folks became the lead in the CIA fromthe early 90's on (starting under Bush Sr). WHen the wall came down they thought they had no mission, so they started turf wars. And under Clinton it only got worse with political ppointees, and no real oversight (Clinton essentially ignored the intel agencies unless he needed them to bolster his policies).
This is a house-cleaning that was long overdue. This is a failed agency and needs to be severely shaken up. The attempts of the agency to inject itself into the political campaign are shameful - and thier two-faced dealings show that. Good analysts and operators at the bottom are being ignored, and only the "politically correct" stuff is allowed up the pipeline. Anything that makes a sub-director's dept look bad, or the section look bad, get silenced, unless its politically useful to the higher ups.
The CIA has become a very political agency, and has cased to funciton properly in many areas. The best remedy is intel reform, but the Congress stupidly passed that up. SO the next b3est thing is to make heads roll, especially political leakers, buck-passers and others who have forgotten their oath of office - loyalty to the Constitution, not the Democratic Party or their boss. And thats the grounds that many should be fired for: insubordination, disloyalty, and incompetence. Thats enough justification to do what Goss needs to do.
#33
Mikey your ignorance is showing (surprising given that you claim to have served - and in a security clearance positon required positon). Many of us who defend the Constitution give up a lot of the rights enshrined in it. Amongst the heaviest one that is given up is the First Amendment. 14 years in USAF (ESG/AIA?) intel should have taught you that. Pre-publication cleareance is routine - but internal support fo the agency is NOT. Its quite unusual.
ALong those lines - here is a question for you: How many NSA people do you see publishing stuff like this? Bamford is about the only author anyone hears publishing reasonable critical things about the NSA, and he is an outsider. And even then, the things he claims have never been confirmed nor denied.
Secondly, USAF you were involved with is probably SIGINT/IMINT. HUMINT is another world entirely, and not always amenable to technical resources being thrown at it. You should have known that.
Third as a near-career USAF type, you should know the responsibility of the agencies is the *execution* of policy, and when asked, advice to executives when forming policy - but NOT *opposition* to it after the fact, nor political involvement toward those aims. You should have known that once policy is set, you don't leak and malign; you salute and execute.
Finally, the issue was not the document and its contents, it was the SELECTIVE nature of the agency allowing the author to speak - it was the very act of taking sides politically that calls the whole thing into question. And I note you continue to dodge that - and that is the CENTRAL point of the argument here. Mike - the question you are avoiding and dancing around and trying to weasel yourself away from is:
Should the CIA be allowed to attempt to politically influence the electorate by selective leaking of information and support of various books? Should the higher echelons allow political leanings to color their actions?
The answer, as any *professional* intel person would tell you is a resounding NO. The fact that you seem to have difficulty answering this marks you as a partisan, not a pro. Same goes for those within the agency - and yes I do know where some of them sit, I used to work for a few - and avoided a few others. They are relatively well known, especially in operations and analysis, where results are obvious and cannot be hidden from those doing the work.
On a personal level - my opinion brings to mind a question: who in the USAF serves only 14 years? You're one hitch away from 20 and retirement. That sounds supect given the absence of other conditions. Mike were you booted out? Were you RIFFED? Or are you still in (and if so, why are you posting here on subject matter that could comprmise your activities?) I suspect you're being disingenuous about your service - either its tenure or the content or the nature of your service (or perhaps the whole thing), given your attitude. You sound more like a clerk, not an ops person or an analyst.
As said, famously, "on the internet nobody knows you're a dog, but they can tell when you are a sone-of-a-bitch".
And one son-of-a-bitch to another, I think you're being dishonest.
#34
Folks - don't get me wrong - the problems in CIA started under Bush Sr. And were subject to neglect by Clinton who never really "got" the military and intelligence communtiy, other than the "clean hands" types higher up int he agency. The problem is that to get work done, you have to get your hands dirty. Intelligence is not a clean business on the ground. The satellite and electronics guys can have thier comfy chairs, shift work and air conditioning. But this war will require us to deal with some unsavory types, and get our hands dirty. Satellites and SIGINT have yet to find Bin Laden (since some moron in the military leaked things in the late 90's about interceptions of sat-phones). And the CIA management is too PC and risk averse to stick their necks out and risk thier careeer for the good of the country - they cravenly carp and push for politicians who will give "more of the same" (Kerry) instead of forcing a change of course and change of managment needed to effect that change of course.
And its the latter part that is inexcusable in my view - because they are putting their division, thier section, their career ahead of the nation and the Constitution that we are there to defend. And yet there are some here who continually pick at nits to defend the indefensible.
Its sad - thats bascially the same mindset as those whom Goss is after. And peopel like that brought us 9/11 and will do so again: there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Thats who Goss must go after: the self blinded who want to do things the same-old way we did before 9/11: PC, politics and personal fiefdoms.
I am sure Goss will screw things up at least a little, but in this case the harm done to the IC will far be outweighed by the benefits of having a fully functional and engaged CIA aligned for fighting the war on terror instead of fighting (for or against) the re-election of the President.
#35
Mike, its called "methods and sources". Just the fact that we *knew* something is often enough to tip off how we got that info - and permanently close off the source. THats why truly professional agencies (like the N* agencies) are NEVER in the spotlight.
The CIA has become a cesspool of self-interested b-crats who only worry about budget, thier ability to command money and people, and buck passing so they can shift the blame. Those kind of folks became the lead in the CIA fromthe early 90's on (starting under Bush Sr). WHen the wall came down they thought they had no mission, so they started turf wars. And under Clinton it only got worse with political ppointees, and no real oversight (Clinton essentially ignored the intel agencies unless he needed them to bolster his policies).
This is a house-cleaning that was long overdue. This is a failed agency and needs to be severely shaken up. The attempts of the agency to inject itself into the political campaign are shameful - and thier two-faced dealings show that. Good analysts and operators at the bottom are being ignored, and only the "politically correct" stuff is allowed up the pipeline. Anything that makes a sub-director's dept look bad, or the section look bad, get silenced, unless its politically useful to the higher ups.
The CIA has become a very political agency, and has cased to funciton properly in many areas. The best remedy is intel reform, but the Congress stupidly passed that up. SO the next b3est thing is to make heads roll, especially political leakers, buck-passers and others who have forgotten their oath of office - loyalty to the Constitution, not the Democratic Party or their boss. And thats the grounds that many should be fired for: insubordination, disloyalty, and incompetence. Thats enough justification to do what Goss needs to do.
#36
Mikey your ignorance is showing (surprising given that you claim to have served - and in a security clearance positon required positon). Many of us who defend the Constitution give up a lot of the rights enshrined in it. Amongst the heaviest one that is given up is the First Amendment. 14 years in USAF (ESG/AIA?) intel should have taught you that. Pre-publication cleareance is routine - but internal support fo the agency is NOT. Its quite unusual.
ALong those lines - here is a question for you: How many NSA people do you see publishing stuff like this? Bamford is about the only author anyone hears publishing reasonable critical things about the NSA, and he is an outsider. And even then, the things he claims have never been confirmed nor denied.
Secondly, USAF you were involved with is probably SIGINT/IMINT. HUMINT is another world entirely, and not always amenable to technical resources being thrown at it. You should have known that.
Third as a near-career USAF type, you should know the responsibility of the agencies is the *execution* of policy, and when asked, advice to executives when forming policy - but NOT *opposition* to it after the fact, nor political involvement toward those aims. You should have known that once policy is set, you don't leak and malign; you salute and execute.
Finally, the issue was not the document and its contents, it was the SELECTIVE nature of the agency allowing the author to speak - it was the very act of taking sides politically that calls the whole thing into question. And I note you continue to dodge that - and that is the CENTRAL point of the argument here. Mike - the question you are avoiding and dancing around and trying to weasel yourself away from is:
Should the CIA be allowed to attempt to politically influence the electorate by selective leaking of information and support of various books? Should the higher echelons allow political leanings to color their actions?
The answer, as any *professional* intel person would tell you is a resounding NO. The fact that you seem to have difficulty answering this marks you as a partisan, not a pro. Same goes for those within the agency - and yes I do know where some of them sit, I used to work for a few - and avoided a few others. They are relatively well known, especially in operations and analysis, where results are obvious and cannot be hidden from those doing the work.
On a personal level - my opinion brings to mind a question: who in the USAF serves only 14 years? You're one hitch away from 20 and retirement. That sounds supect given the absence of other conditions. Mike were you booted out? Were you RIFFED? Or are you still in (and if so, why are you posting here on subject matter that could comprmise your activities?) I suspect you're being disingenuous about your service - either its tenure or the content or the nature of your service (or perhaps the whole thing), given your attitude. You sound more like a clerk, not an ops person or an analyst.
As said, famously, "on the internet nobody knows you're a dog, but they can tell when you are a sone-of-a-bitch".
And one son-of-a-bitch to another, I think you're being dishonest.
#37
Folks - don't get me wrong - the problems in CIA started under Bush Sr. And were subject to neglect by Clinton who never really "got" the military and intelligence communtiy, other than the "clean hands" types higher up int he agency. The problem is that to get work done, you have to get your hands dirty. Intelligence is not a clean business on the ground. The satellite and electronics guys can have thier comfy chairs, shift work and air conditioning. But this war will require us to deal with some unsavory types, and get our hands dirty. Satellites and SIGINT have yet to find Bin Laden (since some moron in the military leaked things in the late 90's about interceptions of sat-phones). And the CIA management is too PC and risk averse to stick their necks out and risk thier careeer for the good of the country - they cravenly carp and push for politicians who will give "more of the same" (Kerry) instead of forcing a change of course and change of managment needed to effect that change of course.
And its the latter part that is inexcusable in my view - because they are putting their division, thier section, their career ahead of the nation and the Constitution that we are there to defend. And yet there are some here who continually pick at nits to defend the indefensible.
Its sad - thats bascially the same mindset as those whom Goss is after. And peopel like that brought us 9/11 and will do so again: there are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Thats who Goss must go after: the self blinded who want to do things the same-old way we did before 9/11: PC, politics and personal fiefdoms.
I am sure Goss will screw things up at least a little, but in this case the harm done to the IC will far be outweighed by the benefits of having a fully functional and engaged CIA aligned for fighting the war on terror instead of fighting (for or against) the re-election of the President.
U.S. military review tribunals have ordered five more prisoners to remain held as enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a Navy official said Saturday. The decisions were made after the men appeared before Combatant Status Review Tribunals, which are intended to decide whether the approximately 550 detainees at the U.S. naval outpost in eastern Cuba are properly held as ``enemy combatants'' or should be freed, Navy Lt. Gary Ross said. Of the 398 cases heard so far, 135 prisoners have been ordered held and one Pakistani prisoner has been freed, Ross said. Rulings on the rest are pending, though more than 150 cases have yet to be heard. The military did not release details of the five latest decisions. The government says the hearings are administrative. At least three prisoners accused of links to Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime or the al-Qaida terror network appeared before review tribunals Saturday, while a fourth declined to attend, Ross said. The military has not provided prisoners' individual reasons for refusing to attend their hearings. It also has not provided transcripts of oral statements made by those who attend.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/21/2004 12:36:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Former US sergeant Charles Robert Jenkins, who is serving a 30-day confinement term in Japan for deserting to North Korea four decades ago, may be released early for good behaviour, Kyodo news agency said yesterday. Kyodo said the 64-year-old Jenkins may be let go as early as the end of this month, but it added that he would likely spend the US Thanksgiving Day on Thursday in detention. Jenkins was given the confinement and a dishonourable discharge from the military at a court martial on November 3 after confessing to deserting to North Korea in 1965 while on patrol near the demilitarised zone between the two Koreas. Quoting US Army sources, Kyodo said the military was likely to apply a provision to Jenkins that the jail term for a prisoner could be cut for good behaviour by five days or more. Jenkins is currently serving his term which runs until December 3 at a US military facility just west of Tokyo.
Just don't ever let him set foot in the US ever again.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/21/2004 12:26:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Charles Robert Jenkins, for desertion to the enemy you are sentenced to 40 years in a hellhole.
Your time has been served. You are hereby released."
#2
Living in North Korea for so long was probably punishment enough. Disonhornorable discharge and a smirk everywhere he goes for the rest of his life and call it even.
#3
One thing the US Army does a hell of a job about is trying to insure every grunt has something of an American Thanksgiving meal no matter where he's standing at. I suspect that this will be the first real Thanksgiving meal Mr. Jenkins will have in 40 years. That sensory delight should wash over him and slam him like a 2x4 of what he gave up for over 40 years.
Posted by: Don ||
11/21/2004 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
In a defeat for President George W. Bush, rebellious Republicans in the House of Representatives derailed legislation Saturday to overhaul U.S. intelligence agencies along lines recommended by the Sept. 11 commission. "It's hard to reform. It's hard to make changes," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, who sought unsuccessfully to persuade critics among the Republican rank and file to swing behind the measure.
Hastert's decision to send legislators home without a vote drew attacks from Democrats and capped an unpredictable day in which prospects for enactment of the measure seemed to grow, then diminish, almost by the hour. Hastert left open the possibility of summoning legislators back in session early next month. As approved by key negotiators, the White House and the bipartisan the 9-11 commission, the compromise would create a powerful position to oversee the CIA and several other non-military spy agencies. A new national counter-terrorism centre would co-ordinate the fight against foreign terrorists.
Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney both contacted congressional negotiators by phone in hopes of nailing down an acceptable compromise that could clear Congress in the final hours of a post-election session. But U.S. representatives Duncan Hunter and Jim Sensenbrenner, committee chairmen, raised objections. Officials said Hunter, a California Republican, expressed concern provisions of the bill could interfere with the military chain of command and endanger troops in the field. Sensenbrenner wanted additional provisions dealing with immigration, the officials said.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 11:35:20 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
Hunter's my rep - if he says it's not in America's benefit to ok it as-is, you can believe it
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 8:41 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I haven't seen a lot about the bill so can't comment on details. IIRC the administration wasn't thrilled at creating an overaching intel manager, but agreed to work with Congress. Odum and others don't like the idea either.
Frank, is Hunter against the whole approach or against specific details? If it's the latter, I hope he balances that against the need to have some clarity about who's doing what as Bush shakes up the CIA and we're dealing with the next steps in the GWOT.
#7
The problem with intel wasn't a lack of centralization, any more than the problems with the Iraqi campaign have to do with GWB not assuming dictatorial powers. The electorate needs to reform the political branch by firing those who won't scrap the PC restraints under which our security services have been operating. Centralization is dangerous to our national security for the long term. Our intelligence problems are political, not technocratic, in nature.
#8
specifics -
But Reps. Duncan Hunter and Jim Sensenbrenner, chairmen of the Armed Services and Judiciary committees, raised objections. Hunter, R-Calif., worried that provisions of the bill could interfere with the military chain of command and endanger troops in the field.
"In my judgment, this bill, without strongly reaffirming the chain of command, would render that area confused to the detriment of our Americans in combat so I will not support it," Hunter said.
Hunter said he knew that the president and Hastert wanted this bill, but "what we have to do here is exercise our best judgment."
Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wanted additional provisions dealing with illegal immigration. "Unfortunately, the Senate has refused to consider many of the provisions, tagging them as extraneous or controversial," he said. A group of 9/11 families praised Sensenbrenner for holding out for his illegal immigration provisions.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
We don't need another "super-boss". What we need is an agency that can go in and dig up the dirt these intelligence agencies (especially the CIA) hide. The problem is a lack of accountability for their behavior, for their activities, and for their failures. If they were held accountable, they wouldn't be able to get away with so many spectacular blunders. Unfortunately, because they "operate in secret", they've managed to avoid accountability for the last 50 years. It's time for THAT to change. I don't see a necessity for any other changes.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
11/21/2004 20:11 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The Speaker said it all when he said "It is easy to make recommendations... It is not so easy to make good law."
The lameduck session is over. The next Congress will take it up.
#11
Hunter is the Military's watchdog over laws that will undermine their mission. When I see Jane Harmon (D-CA-ScavengerAvians) bitch about Hunter's opposition, there's something wrong with the law as written
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 8:10:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
dailytimes appears to be down
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So the NYT is offering foreign policy advice and a Paki paper picks up on it?
Wow they're both so credible. Guess they're afraid the Mad Cowboy might actually decide to solve another problem.
#3
I've been having trouble getting my Daily Times fix lately. They seem to be having server problems.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Article: While admitting that a nuclear-armed Iran run by its current brand of extremists, who have twisted religion to support terrorism, would be a cause for real concern, the leading article said cautioned against a âmilitary solution,â pointing out that Iranâs scattered and secretive nuclear programme cannot be bombed out of existence. âAnd even if the United States had not stretched its military to the limit in Iraq, invading Iran, a country of nearly 70 million people, would be a catastrophic mistake.
Liberal shibboleth after liberal shibboleth - this is the kind of crap that the NYT is known for. We may not be able to completely destroy the program, but we can set it back - destroying 70% of it is a good start, and we can always go for a second round of bombings. We don't have to invade Iran to destroy the program - the Air Force is certainly capable of flattening Iran's air force and destroying its conventional military, opening the way to continual bombing raids until Iran stops working on nukes. What the press isn't highlighting is that the reason we are taking casualties in Iraq isn't because of bad planning - it is because we failed to destroy Iraq's army, thinking that forbearance would bring us goodwill. I don't think we'll make the same mistake in Iran.
#5
We cannot afford to make the same mistake in Iran that we made TWICE in Iraq. The Iranian Republican Guards needs to be taken out early...and in their entirety. And the rest of the military so degraded that they cannot offer resistance to us, or to the Iranian people when they (hopefully) rise up and kick their mullahs out.
They're NOT going to like us anyway...I'd rather they did their DISliking while DISarmed.
#6
To the NYT - a gratuitous assertion meets gratutious denial - yes it can be bombed out of existence. It must be, unless Iran takes the Libyan approach and decides to coexist. Iran does not have a roof over its house.
#7
Zhang Fei, the real mistake is allowing Iran's Islamic fanatical tyrants to gain the upper nuclear hand in the Middle-East. You know as well as everyone else Tehran's mullahs have sworn to destroy Israel, attempt to create a greater Shi'ite empire coupled with being behind the majority of attacks on Iraqi oil installations and pipelines. Unless the current dictatorship in Iran is totally removed, one way or the other, the mad men of Tehran are preaching suicidal jihadic warfare to their terrorist faithful and will use those nuclear weapons unless they are stopped cold. Appeasement does not function.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/21/2004 15:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
They're NOT going to like us anyway...I'd rather they did their DISliking while DISarmed.
Excellent summation, Justrand. The Iranians can dis us all they want but it will be done with a dysfunctional military. How it is possible for any other western government to take Iran seriously is testimony to the sort of voluntary blindness that will result in Eurabia.
#9
The Times seems to be saying that the best way to negotiate with Iran is to assure them that we will not resort to using our military power no matter what they do. That is stupid negotiating. Even if we concluded internally that military force would not be an effective option, what do we gain by telling the Iranians that that option is off the table? Telling the Iranians that we won't use force is the surest way to guarantee that we will have to use force, and in a pretty ugly way, too.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/21/2004 17:45 Comments ||
Top||
#10
They NYT versus WASHINGTON POST > post-Implosion, 1990's version of IZVESTIA vs ITAR-TASS or PRAVDA, with DAN RATHER/RATHER-GATE = RUSSIA's POSTNER. Add to the programming on Amerikan Socialist State TV vv the Hollywood Information Bureau -the Clinton-led DemsLeft is making sure America copies the FAILED USSR, now RUSSIA, NOT RUSSIA COPYING OR LEARNING FROM SUCCESFUL AMERICA!
*GORBACHEVISM = WEST BROUGHT DOWN TO THE STANDARDS OF THE EAST >/= "DUMBING DOWN" OF AMERICA, BY AMERICANS FOR AMERICANS AND WITHOUT ASKING AMERICANS.
MEMRI TV Project Clip #368
An excerpt: "Recently, there has been a claim that martyrdom is an act of extremism. Why?! It is art! It is light because in light of the great imbalance in the region and the world, and in light of Israel's military supremacy over the Arab regimes and over the entire nation-- the concept of martyrdom appeared in order to create a strategic balance. An airplane takes off and kills 100 people. Then, someone who believes in his god and the world to come says [to Israel]: 'This operation is dedicated to you!'" www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=368
Oh, I quite agree. And leveling Beirut would also be a work of art, though not as estimable a work of art as leveling Damascus.
Leveling Tehran would get you into the MoMA.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 11:51:41 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And leveling Ramallah would get you into the Whitney--ROFL
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
11/21/2004 0:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Art as in shit-splattered canvas and empty rooms, or art as in a practiced skill?
#3
after his speech minister kishama al-mustachio cut the ribbon and invited the bejeweled and behijabed crowd into the beirut museum of modern art and martyrdom to view the most recent "splatter paintings" of noted lebanese-spanish artist s'al vator al d'ali
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
11/21/2004 2:30 Comments ||
Top||
PARIS (AP) - Major economic powers agreed on Sunday to write off billions of dollars of debt for Iraq in a deal that marked a significant step in U.S. efforts to help put the Iraqi economy back on its feet.
Under the agreement, the Paris Club of 19 creditor nations will write off 80 percent of the $42 billion that Iraq owes them, the group's chairman, Jean-Pierre Jouyet said.
The Paris Club includes, the United States, Japan, Russia and European nations. Iraq owes another $80 billion to various Arab governments.
The United States had been pressing for up to 95 percent of the Paris Club debt to be lifted. Iraq has said that its foreign debt was hindering postwar reconstruction, already struggling amid the country's persistent insurgency.
Iraq's finance minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, hailed what he described as a "historic agreement."
"This money is needed for Iraq not only because Iraq is a ruined country but because Iraq is an important player internationally," he said after the deal was signed in Paris. "What will happen in Iraq will effect politically and economically the Middle East and the world."
The deal represented a considerable concession from France, just as French President Jacques Chirac's government is pushing to rebuild ties with Bush's administration that were damaged by disagreements over the U.S.-led Iraq war. France opposed the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein.
Jouyet, at a news conference in Paris, said the debt reduction plan would work in three phases, with a first tranche of 30 percent to be written off immediately.
Another 30 percent will be canceled when Iraq agrees on a reform program with the International Monetary Fund expected in 2005. The third and final tranche, representing 20 percent of Iraq's debt to the Paris Club, will be canceled in 2008, once Iraq has completed its 3-year IMF program, Jouyet said.
Nuanced multilateralism at its best. US carves Germany away from France and France and Russia collapse 24 hours later. A great job by the negotiators.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/21/2004 5:29:39 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
and of the course the WaPo reports it uncritically even though previous UN claims during the Saddam period were demonstrably bogus
Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos
Malnutrition Nearly Double What It Was Before Invasion
By Karl Vick
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, November 21, 2004; Page A01
BAGHDAD -- Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago [of course they could have said, "since the terrorists began fighting against the US and the UN began helping the terrorists"], according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.
After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study...
Posted by: Glum T Roll ||
11/21/2004 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
SO, let me see if I understand this correctly. The body that brought us the 'Money-for-Saddam' program, money designed to buy food and medicines for Iraqis instead of BMWs and mansions for Saddam & Sons, is telling us that malnutrition has nearly doubled since the Coaltion went around the UN and invaded Iraq and brought down the regime.
That malnutrition is at the UN who is feeding on sour grapes.
Posted by: Capt America ||
11/21/2004 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
of course, MikeyS would deny that anything spewing from Turtle Bay could be anything but pure golden rain - it just smells like urine
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
Got this link from Old Patriot's blog.A Blackhawk pilot's blog,good read.Todays post concerns what you do not hear fro MSM(no suprise there). Here is a snippet:"Here's how it worked. About one week after we (the 101st) arrived in Mosul (approx. May 8th), every major subordinate command in the 101st (including mine, of course) received an order to report to Finance Headquarters, draw $10,000 US cash (seized assets recovered from the old regime) and go out and spend it. There were rules and guidelines- no single purchase over the amount of $2,000. Any expenditure must benefit the Iraqi people only, and may not result in any kind benefit to Coalition Forces whatsoever. No spending on entertainment for the Iraqis. Other than that, it was pretty much go out there and spend. I was selected to be my brigade's project manager because of my experience handling budgets and my history of successfuly dealing with Iraqis.
Posted by: raptor ||
11/21/2004 9:47:38 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bad link.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/21/2004 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Do you really think that the vast PC left which lost the national election at the Executive and Legislative level has the ability to stop what most everyone knows our redlands representatives in Congress will do if the Corps tries to serve this Marine up as a PC sacrifice?
Posted by: Don ||
11/21/2004 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
that works, thx!
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 10:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Let's leave this to the Corps. I have complete confidence that they can determine what happened and what should happen without our advice.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/21/2004 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
It's up to 113047 at the moment, (I'm 113037).
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
11/21/2004 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Now 114472.
Posted by: Matt ||
11/21/2004 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Thanks for the link, GK. No disrespect to Mrs. Davis, but I don't believe this should be left to the Corps because they are facing a lot of political pressure and are just as subsceptible to it as any well-intentioned people. Hopefully this petition will balance out the political pressure and persuade the military to put justice for this individual soldier above the global PR battle. We need to look out for our own. If the rest of the world thinks that our soldiers should put their own lives at risk out of compassion for the terrorists, well, that's their problem.
#11
GBW, are we talking about the same Marine Corps that has boot camp segregated by sex being unable to resist political pressure? When someone indicates somebody outside the Corps is doing something to interfere then we should let them have it.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/21/2004 14:33 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Just signed it.
Posted by: Korora (abu Oh look! A northern cardinal!) ||
11/21/2004 14:34 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Just signed. I liked another signer's comment: If they wanted fair treatment, then they needed to abide by the same considerations they expect to receive. In other words "As ye sow shall ye reap". Its as simple as that.
The left-wingers in the Frontier province are reorganising themselves in an attempt to fight the political hegemony of the religious fundamentalists, a Labour Party leader told Daily Times on Saturday. Farooq Tariq, the Labour Party Pakistan (LLP) secretary general, said LPP was holding its first-ever provincial conference today (Sunday) in Peshawar and 'comrades' from different districts would come together to elect their leader and to form a left-wing political strategy. "This will be a momentous event as the left wing forces in the province were not seen after the collapse of the Soviet Union and after the end of Afghan leader Dr Najibullah's government in 1992," he said. The left wing parties had abandoned their political pursuit and had joined NGOs or had become part of the nationalist forces, he added.
He said a weekly magazine 'Mazdoor Jeddojuhd' had helped clarify the rhetoric that was being spread by religious fundamentalists. Many left wing and trade union activists would attend the conference. "Hopefully, this will lay down the basis for a political reply against the religious fundamentalists and also against those who are close allies of the Musaharaf regime," LPP secretary-general hoped. A 14-member delegation of LPP activists from Punjab will also attend the conference. The LPP national conference will be held on December 4 and 5 in Lahore. "An anti-imperialist rally will be organised on December 6 in Lahore which will be attended by hundreds of activists belonging to trade unions, social organisations and the LPP activists," Mr Tariq revealed.
I guess it's a good thing that they're arguing over which side has all the answers...
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 7:55:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The ghost of Anna Comnena told me these machinations are much too complicated for her to follow...
The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Fazl) (JUI-F) candidate Maulana Hamidullah Roghani on Saturday withdrew his nomination papers in favour of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) nominee and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) leader Bukhtiar Maani for the December 15 by-polls in NA-35. According to a JI press release issued on Saturday, the JUI-F candidate's withdrawal had strengthened the MMA candidate's position and had dampened the rival parties' hopes to win the seat that the religious alliance had won in the 2002 elections. JI provincial head Sirajul Haq welcomed the JUI-F leader's move and said the Pakistan Muslim League nominee Salim Saifullah Khan would be defeated with a huge margin on December 15.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 7:47:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The government has directed intelligence agencies to monitor MMA leaders and workers who are planning to participate in the anti-government public meetings to be held in Karachi, Multan, Lahore and Rawalpindi, Daily Times learnt on Saturday.
Sounds like a prudent step, given Qazi's propensity for having murders plotted at his house...
Sources said that the provincial government had given instructions to the district police officers (DPOs) to stop MMA workers from participating in public rallies. Sources said this decision was taken after the government obtained information that the Jammat e-Islami (JI) had started street corner meetings throughout the province to mobilise public opinion against President Pervaiz Mushrraf and his pro-America policies. The MMA is finalising the protest plan against the government and the JI has already prepared lists of workers to be deputed at the Karachi, Multan, Lahore and Rawalpindi rallies. Sources said that the JI planned to show a documentary film on the unsuccessful results of Musharraf's policies at these public meetings. Sources said that this video would depict President Musharraf as the best man to implement the Washington agenda in Pakistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 7:41:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
nice pic - wish they were all handcuffed
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 13:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They doing the Wave at the stoning festival, or what?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
11/21/2004 17:13 Comments ||
Top||
Interpol Secretary General Ronald Nobal is scheduled to make a three-day visit to Pakistan, starting on November 23, officials said on Saturday. Mr Nobal is due to hold meetings with Interior Minister Aftab Ahmed Sherpao, National Accountability Bureau chief Munir Hafiz and FIA Director General Syed Mohaab Asad. Officials said that matters relating to Interpol, extradition of criminals, money laundering, human smuggling, organised crime and cooperation in combating terrorism would be discussed. They added that the secretary general might meet President Pervez Musharraf. Government sources said that Islamabad was likely to bring up the extradition of individuals on its most wanted list.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 6:42:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Another one where the content doesn't quite match the headline...
The US State Department has said it has no information about the alleged links between Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan and Iran's nuclear programme, but added that Pakistan has done a lot to break the scientist's network.
"Nope. Nope. It's all rumor and innuendo, see?"
"I don't have any information to share with you about the connection between AQ Khan and Iran," the State Department deputy spokesman said when asked to confirm a claim by an Iranian opposition group that Dr Khan supplied enriched uranium to Tehran.
Oh. Wait a minute. It's not that he doesn't have any information, it's that he doesn't have any to share. There's a diffo.
Um, as in, "we can say no more"?
"I would tell you that, obviously, Pakistan has acted, I think, decisively to break up and dismantle the AQ Khan network or working to find out where its tentacles reach; and that, obviously, this AQ Khan network has had connections with other countries and it's certainly a subject of interest, but I don't have anything specific to share with you on it", the spokesman said.
"We'll let you know if anything gets declassified, but for now we'll continue beating Perv over the head with it behind the scenes. Now go peddle your papers."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 6:35:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Pakistan on Saturday rejected Indian objections to a proposed 1.3 billion dollar US arms sale to Islamabad, saying its "modest" defence requirements should not irk New Delhi. "Indian comments were unwarranted,' a Foreign Ministry spokesman said in a statement. India on Friday said New Delhi had conveyed its concern to Washington over US plans to sell a range of sophisticated weapons to Pakistan. "It is incomprehensible that India, which has a massive weaponisation and weapon acquisition programme, should object to Pakistan's modest defence requirements," the Pakistani spokesman said. "Pakistan is ready to engage India purposefully on question of strategic and conventional restraint." "We have made proposals for establishing a stability and strategic restraint regime in South Asia," he said.
I'd say Pakland is already bulging with weaponry, but I guess we're feeding their fetish in return for their operations in South Waziristan.
I think the Indians aren't serious in their protests; this is just for show. The Indians know that when we sell sophisticated weapons to a 3rd country, we retain effective control in how those weapons are used -- guidance, training, spare parts, etc. The more we arm the Paks, the less likely they are to pick a fight with the Indians.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 6:31:04 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Iran: Iraq to the West, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the East and it's not for lack of trying that Turkey is not our friend. Gosh...it's almost like we planned it this way.
#2
I'm kinda hoping the Sunnis screw themselves out of this election by their belligerence and perfidy
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
And that's the day the train is also leaving the station. All aboard if you want to arrive to destination. And there's only one train that day.
Posted by: chicago Mike ||
11/21/2004 20:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Has anybody considered a fixed "set-aside"...say 20%...of annual oil revenues, to be divided among registered voters in the elections? This could provide voting incentive to every individual, and might even reduce the pipeline sabotage problem ("hey, that's my money you're stealing!")
Ambepitiya seems to have done for Sri Lanka what Theo van Gogh is doing for Holland...
Following the murder of the respected High Court judge, Sarath Ambepitiya, here in Colombo on Friday, Sri Lanka has decided to revert to the system of carrying out death sentences with effect from Saturday. Though the death sentence exists in the criminal law of the country, such a sentence has not been carried out since 1976. A release from the Presidential Secretariat said that the death sentence would be handed down for murder, rape and narcotics dealings. An eight-member, high-powered committee, would revamp the criminal laws of the country to make them effective against rising crime. The committee would be required to submit its report within four weeks.
Sarath Ambepitiya, who was killed at his doorstep by two 9 mm pistol wielding assailants, was known to have been a fearless judge. He had sentenced the LTTE supremo, Velupillai Prabhakaran, to 200 years' rigorous imprisonment for masterminding the bombing of the Central Bank in 1996, in which 91 innocent people were killed. Ambepitiya had given a tough judgement in the case of the senseless slaughter of about 40 young Tamil LTTE suspects by a Sinhala mob in Bindunuwewa. He had also sentenced high ranking Sri Lanka Air Force officers who had indulged in a murderous assault on Iqbal Athas, the Defence Correspondent of The Sunday Times in Colombo.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 12:07:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Freed from Yasser Arafat's one-man rule, Palestinians say they are eager and able to build the first real democracy in the Arab world, despite the dangers lurking on the road to Jan. 9 elections.
Ummm... Yeah. Okay. I believe it...
The thrill of new possibilities is felt across the West Bank and Gaza Strip: the field of candidates for Palestinian Authority president gets more crowded by the day and includes a militant sheik turned moderate, a dissident once jailed by Arafat, and a prisoner of Israel campaigning from his cell. "Now it's real competition, the possibility of winning is there," said pro-democracy activist Mustafa Barghouti, a physician considering a presidential bid.
Marwan would make a fine president, very representative of Paleostine...
However, the shift to democracy could be rough.
No! Reallllly?
Armed gangs have been controlling the streets in four years of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, raising the threat of political violence during a heated campaign. Democratic traditions are not deeply rooted. During his 10 years as leader of the Palestinian Authority, Arafat accepted some of the trappings of democracy, including general elections in 1996 and a feisty parliament, but always reserved the final say.
... which was usually "Give me the money."
Islamic militants, who are not fielding a candidate, haven't said whether they'll suspend attacks on Israel; without a truce, it would be virtually impossible to hold the vote. And Israel has not yet agreed to keep its troops at a distance from the voting.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 10:57:01 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They already have kleptocracy & mob rule - and they're so good at it - what more could they want, other than a pony to shoot and hang from a lamppost as a collaborator?
#3
Too true .com. They only mention the 'democracy' word because they know it's the magic word that makes most of the West melt and start to tear up.
Little old ladies will interrupt their democratic tea parties to watch in symathetic awe as the touching spectacle of a people struggling towards 'democracy' unfolds on their tv screens.
The intimidation and beatings and theft of ballot boxes will be ignored and the elections deemed 'free and fair' by the 'international community'. Then the Paleos will happily revert to their stone age behaviour.
#5
actually the first real democracy in the Arab world is ...Israel. That's another reason why they hate it so much
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
You say you want a revolution
Well you know
we all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
we'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
we all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright
For the Israelis, what with the Fence and the withdrawl, anyway.
Posted by: too true ||
11/21/2004 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
hat tip to the Beatles, of course.
Posted by: too true ||
11/21/2004 11:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Democracy?
Nov. 21, 2004
A masked Hamas terrorist burns a US soldier in effigy in Nablus on Friday morning during a demonstration against the US offensive in Iraq.
Hamas is the very same enemy we fight in Iraq.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
11/21/2004 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
The new head of the Palestine Liberation Organization's mainstream Fatah faction arrived here Saturday for talks with Syrian officials on Palestinian efforts to resume peace talks with Israel. Farouk Kaddoumi told reporters after arriving from neighboring Jordan that his visit was aimed at "strengthening our negotiation position in order to establish a lasting and just peace" with Israel. Kaddoumi, who was the PLO's political chief under the late Yasser Arafat, said the Palestinians must discuss with Syria future efforts to achieving peace with Israel. "There must be a new stage through which we have to discuss the peace track, in particular, with our [Syrian] brothers," Kaddoumi said.
It's interesting that he's talking about negotiations and not booming...
Kaddoumi, appointed Fatah's head in the Palestinian leadership reshuffle that followed Yasser Arafat's death, was an outspoken opponent of the 1993 Oslo agreement that gave the Palestinians the right to establish an independent state. The Palestinian official, who is based in Tunisia, is also expected to discuss efforts to bring the various Palestinian factions, including militant, under one umbrella in the post-Arafat era. Kaddoumi said Palestinian efforts to form a national front to group all Palestinian factions are continuing, adding "the dangers we face pressure us clearly and frankly to gather all factions, no matter how small. In the coming period there will be a national front, God willing."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 11:16:19 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Man it's hard to get any more Mainstream than Fatah.
#2
Hmmmmmmmmmmm, the PLA wants a pro-Communism, pro-Iran-Syria, anti-Israel personage to replace Arafat, thereby proving that 9-11, Osama, and Radical Islam was NOT about COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM - well hey, as a dedicated Madonna fan I'm fooled to no end!?
Egypt's foreign minister postponed his visit to Israel on Saturday, two days after Israeli troops killed three Egyptian paramilitary policemen on the Gaza Strip border. In an overnight statement published in Egyptian media Saturday, the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit had discussed with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom "choosing a new date" for the Nov. 24 visit, which will now be "in the first half of December." Egypt condemned Israel's killing of three border police in the dark hours of Thursday morning. Israel promptly apologized for the incident, saying one of its tanks mistakenly fired at the police when it had been ordered to shoot at militants on the Egyptian side of the Gaza border. But many Egyptians did not accept the apology. About 600 people demonstrated against the killing on Friday in Cairo, holding banners with slogans such as "The pigs' apology doesn't quench our rage."
Oh, shuddup. Seethe and be damned.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 11:23:20 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
I see a day coming, probably still far in the future, when Paleostine is a peaceful member of the family of nations, eschewing terrorism. Without that threat, Israel is going to become something like Greece with overtones of Belchium and I'm not going to feel any sympathy for it anymore.
The commander who oversaw the liquidiation of senior Hamas terrorist is the target of a High Court petition claiming he shows a "lack of remorse." The Israeli High Court has accepted a left-wing petition demanding that it decide if a high ranking IDF general violated the IDF's code of ethics by congratulating his soldiers whose successful liquidation of a terrorist two years ago also killed 14 civilians. The court gave former Air Force commander Major General Dan Halutz 14 days to explain comments he made to his crew after it bombed the Gaza home of terrorist Salah Shehada in July, 2002. Asked how he felt after the incident, Halutz was quoted saying, "What did I feel after dropping the bomb? I felt a slight impact on the plane's wing." The petitioners, including artists and former Meretz party leader Shlomit Aloni, argue that Halutz showed a "lack of remorse" at the killing of civilians.
He got Shehada, dumbass. If it was me, I'd have been hopping up and down, squealing with delight...
Shehada was one of the founders of Hamas and the commander of its military wing. He was directly responsible for hundreds of attacks committed against Israeli citizens and its security forces over the past two years. Many left wing politicians and organizations petitioned the High Court to block Halutz's recent appointment as Deputy Chief of Staff because of what they claim as a "brutal violation of the ethical code of war."
Because he was happy he'd bumped off a Bad Guy?
In the past, Halutz sharply criticizing those he termed "bleeding hearts" for turning to the International Court in Hague to complain about IDF actions. "Are these the people for whom the IDF is fighting?" Halutz asked.
Unfortunately, yes. When Paleostine becomes a law-abiding state because all the bloodthirsty homicidal maniacs have been killed by people like you, you'll become irrelevant and even reviled by those much holier than thou. Just ask Kipling.
Israel's increasingly powerful High Court, in accepting the petition, puts itself in a position to make legal judgments on ethics and morals. After receiving Halutz's response, the High Court is to hand down a verdict, unless it reverses its decision to rule on the petition.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 11:03:10 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
sounds like the 9th circuit's got competition for idiot bench jockey of the year awards
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/21/2004 8:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Perhaps an assinine judiciary is the only true indication that a country is free.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
11/21/2004 9:00 Comments ||
Top||
Insurgents battling U.S. and Iraqi forces in the northern city of Mosul have been trying to drag the Kurdish minority into their fight and set off a sectarian war, Kurdish and Arab officials say. Violence against Kurds has escalated in recent days, officials say. The offices — and officials — of Kurdish political parties have been attacked. Insurgents fired on a truck carrying Kurdish peshmerga fighters. And at least one Kurd was said to have been beheaded in Mosul, a largely Sunni Arab city. "They are trying to ignite the flames of sedition between Arabs and Kurds," Khasro Gouran, Mosul's Kurdish deputy provincial governor, said by telephone from Mosul. "They want the Kurds to react and the peshmerga to come in (from outside Mosul) so there would be sectarian strife in the city."
"They won't succeed because the Kurdish leadership is aware of their plans," Gov. Duraid Kashmoula, an Arab, said of the insurgents. The Kurds are not the only ones under attack. During the latest bout of violence, masked men have stormed police stations, looting and burning some. They've also set up their own checkpoints and set cars ablaze, prompting the Americans to launch military operations to oust fighters from their stronghold in the city. Gouran said that in recent days three Kurds were killed, including at least one whose decapitated body was discovered with the head placed on the back.
The two main Iraqi Kurdish parties are mostly secular U.S. allies that have a bloody history of animosity with some militant Islamic groups and Baath Party loyalists, both believed to be active in the Mosul insurgency. The parties have long been targets. The Kurdish minority generally lives in peace with Mosul's Arab majority, although land and property disputes have in the past created some tensions. When the militants overpowered Mosul's police force, which U.S. and Iraqi officials say is infiltrated by insurgents, the local government called in reinforcements, some of which came from the mostly quiet Kurdish region. Gouran said some of the Iraqi National Guard reinforcements rushed to the city came from the Kurdish provinces of Dohuk and Irbil. He said many of their members were former peshmerga, a term that refers to the Kurdish militia that fought former Baghdad governments. In addition, Kurdish political parties called in peshmerga fighters to guard their offices. The Kurdish militia proved harder for insurgents to overpower than the police — in some cases killing or capturing their attackers.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 11:09:03 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wasn't Mosul, like Kirkuk re-settled by Saddam in his "Arabification" phase? I thought Mosul was majority Kurdish back in the day
Posted by: Not Mike Moore ||
11/21/2004 0:24 Comments ||
Top||
#2
With the air assets on hand, why are terrorist checkpoints allowed to remain?
#6
Actually NMM is right - Kirkuk was a Kurd town, and Saddam force in a ton of Arabs to try to dislocate and readicate the Kurds. Took a page out of the Turks book (re: armenians) on that one.
#7
Actually NMM is right - Kirkuk was a Kurd town, and Saddam force in a ton of Arabs to try to dislocate and readicate the Kurds. Took a page out of the Turks book (re: armenians) on that one.
#8
Actually NMM is right - Kirkuk was a Kurd town, and Saddam force in a ton of Arabs to try to dislocate and readicate the Kurds. Took a page out of the Turks book (re: armenians) on that one.
Hundreds of Mauritanians demonstrated yesterday in protest of detaining three Islamic leaders accused of distributing fake pictures of tortured prisoners. The demonstrators gathered before the central prison in the capital Nouakchott where one Islamic politician is held together with two Imams. The police was obliged to use tear gas and sticks to disperse them. The secretary general of the opposition alliance Muhammad Jamil Weld Minsawi and two imams were accused on Tuesday of falsifying and circulating photos, after al-Jazeera TV showed pictures of prisoners being tortured who were detained during earlier failed coupes.
Posted by: Fred ||
11/21/2004 11:49:01 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il has visited a military unit, the country's official news agency KCNA said on Saturday, a day after the communist state denied reports that Kim's portrait had been removed from some public places. 
The government has directed intelligence agencies to monitor MMA leaders and workers who are planning to participate in the anti-government public meetings to be held in Karachi, Multan, Lahore and Rawalpindi, Daily Times learnt on Saturday. 
The US State Department has said it has no information about the alleged links between Dr 
Freed from Yasser Arafat's one-man rule, Palestinians say they are eager and able to build the first real democracy in the Arab world, despite the dangers lurking on the road to Jan. 9 elections.
Nov. 21, 2004
The new head of the Palestine Liberation Organization's mainstream Fatah faction arrived here Saturday for talks with Syrian officials on Palestinian efforts to resume peace talks with Israel. 
![Some additional impact](http://asia.search.news.yahoo.com/search/news_asia_pf?p=ukey%3A2982288&img=http://sg.yimg.com/xp/ap/20041121/1871763984.jpg"){kind=link}