U.S. forces detained one person with suspected ties to the former Taliban regime during an operation in southern Afghanistan, the U.S. military said Thursday. The person was captured in the last 24 hours in the Sami Ghar mountains of southern Kandahar province. The statement did not give a name or say why the U.S. military believed the person was linked to the Taliban. "Turban? - Check!"
"AK-47? - Check!"
"Not shaved in 10 years? - Check!"
"OK, bag him."
In a separate incident, an Afghan security official said a bomb blew up a tanker carrying fuel to a U.S. military base in southern Afghanistan, but there were no casualties. The explosion late Wednesday took place just over a mile from the Kandahar airport, where thousands of U.S. soldiers are stationed. The tanker, carrying 11,885 gallons of fuel, had arrived from neighboring Pakistan and was en route to the U.S. base. Another seven oil tankers were nearby, but escaped damage. The Afghan authorities blamed suspected terrorists, likely Taliban or loyalists of rebel commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. There have been dozens of small attacks in recent months in southern and eastern Afghanistan against U.S.-led coalition forces and the Afghan authorities. Sounds like Hek's boys got lucky this time.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 11:16 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Apologies for my mirth, but any time I see those mountains mentioned, instead of Sami Gahr My mind fills in "Sammy Hagar".
Excerpt from long article on MSNBC/Time. Go read it.
A surprise Perry Mason-type maneuver in an Idaho courtroom has put the spotlight on an increasingly sensitive problem facing federal prosecutors in the war on terror: a battalion of defense lawyers working hand in glove with the Saudi Arabian government. Ever since the 9-11 attacks, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Saudi Embassy in Washington has been providing top-flight defense lawyers free of charge for any Saudi citizen detained as part of the Justice Departmentâs crackdown on suspected terrorists. âThat has been the policy since day one,â said Muddassir H. Siddiqui, the former chief counsel for the Saudi Embassy. He said he personally arranged for defense lawyers for âhundredsâ of Saudi suspects detained by federal agents after the 9-11 attacks. Siddiqui, who left the embassy last year, said the unusual Saudi legal-defense program was ordered by Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the veteran Saudi ambassador to the United States, based on instructions sent from Riyadh immediately after the attacks. Siddiqui insists that Bandar also directed Saudi officials and the defense lawyers they hired to âcooperateâ with the Justice Department on terror-related investigations. But that contention is now being questioned at high levels of the Justice Department. In a growing number of recent cases, FBI agents are intensely investigating suspected links between Saudi nationals in the U.S. and Al Qaeda as well as other international terrorist groups. The growing awareness that the Saudi Embassy is providing targets of the Justice Department probes with free lawyers has infuriated some officials. âI find it amazing,â said one senior federal law-enforcement official. âItâs outrageous, really. If they were a corporation and doing the same thing, I think we would have to think about whether to charge them. It certainly doesnât sound like cooperation.â If you are paying for the lawyers, you can keep the defendents from making a deal and telling federal prosecutors what they know. Also, I believe that before you go to trial, the prosecutors have to tell the defense what the evidence against them is. Bet that gets passed back to Saudi as well.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 11:19 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Unfortunately, the Saudis are playing by the rules. It would be playing by the rules as well, to publish the names of these law firms that have been retained and to make them public-relations pariahs, for putting their almighty bucks ahead of national interests. I know, they would 'yadda yadda' about doing their constitutional duties to provide the best defense, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be held up for public scorn....if they start to lose a lot of their other lucrative clients due to embarrassment over being tied to Al-Qaeda-defending aholes, they might rethink their client-acceptance criteria. All it would take is for another Saudi-led attack for us to have a complete melt-down with these f*&kers
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2003 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Why we're granting due process to Saudi nationals (i.e., non citizens) is beyond me. It would be nice to get information from them, but otherwise I'm inclined to kick all the jihadi wannabees the hell out of here.
#3
The Saudis will go to any lengths to support jihadis. It is of the utmost urgency that the Salafist' "al-Huda" school system, which is targeting the DC area, be padlocked. They are paid for by King Fahd's al-Qaeda funding, "Holyland Foundation" (al-Haramain), and are poisoning student minds with genocidal khutbah. (www.khutbah.com) Bill of Rights protections of exercise of freedom of religion, cannot be legitimately invoked to defend this brazen incitement to murder.
Ask yourself: what kind of country do I want, and what should be done to preserve it? You can make a difference.
#4
Since when do Non-Citizens receive citizens rights? Are these people United States Citizens? I don't think so. They shouldn't be allowed to have trial lawyers, this is OUR country, not THEIRS. Ridiculous. Saudi Arabia is a DANGEROUS Country.
The representatives of the Kuwaiti Islamic groups expressed their misgivings about the U.S.-led war on Iraq with some of them rejecting this war while others remaining impartial. However, both camps expressed their sympathy with the Iraqi people for the havoc and destruction that would be wrecked on them by this war, holding, at the same time, the Iraqi regime responsible for helping the U.S. troops get a foothold in the region after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
"I am against this war, because it will only bring destruction for the down-trodden Iraqi people, who suffered a lot from their unfair leadership, Dr. Wael al-Hesawi, a member of the Salafi Islamic Union (SIU)," told IOL. Kuwait had nothing to do with this war, which had taken place at the choice of the superpowers, he argued. Hesawi, however, made it crystal clear that he welcomed the unseating of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein by war, asserting that it is the one and only alternative to get rid of him (Iraqi President) after attacking his neighbors and causing his people great suffering due to his oppressive policies, which violated their human rights.
Abdullah al-Motawah, head of the Muslim Brotherhoods social reform society, said he is against war and its grave consequences, noting that no sane person on earth would support a war leveled at the Muslim Iraqi people. "We are looking forward for resolving the matter peacefully with Saddam going into exile once and for all, bearing in mind the great pains caused by his arbitrariness and dictatorship to his people and the peoples of the region," he said. Motawah hopped that a national government would replace Saddams by fair and free elections that would preserve the Islamic identity.
In the meantime, the opposition Salafi Scientific Movement (SSM) branded as a Crusade invasion the U.S.-led aggression on Iraq. In a controversial statement, the SSM called on all Muslim peoples and governments to stand up to the new Crusaders and colonial schemes aimed at imposing their hegemony on the Muslim world. The movement further warned all political opposition groups in the Arab world of being deceived by the western pledges of establishing democracy and freedom after war. In a recent statement, the movement also voiced its support for the Kuwait leadership to protect the security and stability of the Kuwaiti people.
Spokesman for the SIU Salem al-Nashi, however, dismissed the SSMs statement, arguing that the SIUs action and statements were adopted by ulamma (Muslim scholars) and in accordance with what served the countrys interest. For his part, the SSM information assistant secretary general Sagid al-Abdali said the movements statement is in line with the countrys official stance, noting that the SSM opposition to war was consistent with the stances of other anti-war bodies, including the league of the Palestinian scholars, Al-Azhar Islamic Researches Academy and the European council for researches and religious edicts. It is also consistent with the statement signed by more than 1,000 Islamic figures along with a myriad of Muslim scholars, such as Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Dr. Ugeel al-Nashmi, Sheikh Faisal Malawi, Sheikh Mohammed Ahmad al-Rashid, Sheikh Soliman al-Oada and Sheikh Abul Kareem Zidan, who flatly rejected war on Iraq and issued anti-war fatwas, he said.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 08:22 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Funny thing. If get rid of Saddam, then you'll get rid of the war. But if you just get rid of the war... well, then you've still got Saddam.
Looks like there's only one way to get what they want.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/27/2003 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
News Flash! It's the Crusades all over again!!!!!!
The Arab satellite television network Al-Jazeera suffered a second day of sustained distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks against its English- and Arabic-language Web sites on Wednesday. The attacks have pushed the network, which is based in Doha, Qatar, off the Web for the time being and forced Al-Jazeera to increase bandwidth for the sites and step up security in a desperate effort to get back online. "All of our Web sites are down. The U.S. [Web site] is out of order and the Europe [Web site] is under attack. We come up for five or ten minutes and then the attacks bring us down again," said Salah AlSeddiqi, IT manager at Al-Jazeera. Whether it was hackers from the government or just good old patriotic Americans, this is right on. Now how's about the feds causing some mischief with their damn TV signal?
Posted by: HitEmHard ||
03/27/2003 08:23 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
"... Users who tried to log onto the site before noon EST found a message that read "Hacked by Patriot, Freedom Cyber Force Militia" beneath a logo containing the U.S. flag. Visitors later found a message saying "This page has been taken over by Saimoon Bhuiyan" and advising that the page was under construction.
Al-Jazeera information technology manager Salah Al Seddiqui said someone had hijacked the domain name and redirected it to another server computer. "Our Web site is working but nobody can see it," Al Seddiqui said.
The al-Jazeera Web site has faced near-constant cyber attacks since an English-language version devoted exclusively to the war in Iraq was launched on Monday. Hackers have blitzed the site with meaningless data in an effort to squeeze out legitimate traffic and render the site inaccessible, a technique known as a "denial of service" attack.
That attack eased at around 3 a.m. London time on Thursday, Al Seddiqui said, but the domain name was hijacked shortly after and pointed to a free hosting service run by a Washington State domain-name seller.
Managers at Vancouver, Washington-based Dotster Inc. took down the page after they noticed an abnormal spike in traffic, Dotster Vice President George Decarlo said.
The domain name was pointed back to the original site, Decarlo said, but it might take several days for the Internet traffic system to register the change.
Al-Jazeera had registered its domain name with Network Solutions Inc. NSOL.O Network Solutions did not return repeated calls for comment.
Al-Jazeera also has had to search for a new home for the site after U.S.-based DataPipe said it would not be able to host it after the end of the month. Al Seddiqui said the company had moved its servers to a data center in France. ..."
Saudi Arabia backed away Wednesday from an announcement that it had made a peace proposal to the United States and Iraq, saying only that it had offered ``general half-baked ideas'' about ending the liberation war and not a formal initiative. "It was Prince Tweezel's idea; the rest of us knew nothing about it."
``We have thoughts and ideas that will not come to fruition unless both agree in principle it is time to stop the fighting,'' Foreign Minister Prince Saud told reporters. ``Saudi Arabia has always thought the war should not have happened in the first place. Perhaps it's a good time to ... think about diplomatic solutions.'' Perhaps it's a good time to think about your survival in exile.
On Tuesday, Saud told reporters that the kingdom had made a peace proposal to Iraq and the United States and pledged to ``knock on all doors'' to get it heard. He did not give further details. You have to knock loudly to get Sammy's attention right now, what with all the diasies in the way.
News of a peace plan had baffled both Washington and Baghdad. Saudi Arabia has been quietly aiding the U.S. war effort. Washington said it was not aware of a peace proposal from Saudi Arabia, and Iraq's chief liar information minister described Prince Saud's comments as ``baseless.'' Wednesday, the official Saudi Press Agency issued a clarification from the minister stating ``what the kleptocracy kingdom put forward were general ideas it has stressed on more than one occasion, not an initiative.'' Weeks ago, Saudi officials discreetly floated the idea of exile for Saddam Hussein and suggested offering amnesty to all but his inner circle in the hope that senior generals would overthrow him. That worked well.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 12:05 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
The European Parliament failed Thursday to reach agreement on a resolution on the Iraq crisis. The joint resolution by the Socialists, Liberals and Greens that condemned the war was rejected with 218 votes in favor, 255 against and 46 abstentions. Another resolution by the European People's Party and European Democrats was rejected with 207 votes in favor, 286 against and 28 abstentions in the 625-member EP. "Honorable members, I propose we demonstrate that we're ineffectual. All in favor... The "ayes" have it..."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 02:12 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Are these guys like the UN's AAA team? When you prove you're a totally useless loser diplocrat, Kofi makes the big call, and you get called up to New York?
The Rev. Jesse Jackson called Thursday for a truce to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered to Iraq and asked for permission from both U.S. and Iraq officials to allow religious leaders to visit with prisoners of war. Jackson made his appeal after meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan at U.N. headquarters in New York. "Perhaps there could be the Olympic Truce, where at least both sides agree to stop the shooting to allow food and medicine to get in and water can be turned back on," Jackson said.
U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Negroponte rejected the notion of a truce. "The most effective way to ensure the delivery of humanitarian supplies will be as the allied forces move forward, secure their objectives, secure the cities, restore calm, security and peace to the various parts of the Iraqi nation," Negroponte said. "I think then the conditions will be created for the most expeditious and effective delivery of humanitarian supplies."
On the issue of visits with prisoners of war held by Iraq and the United States, Jackson said he wants "to be convinced that they are alive and well... There are a group of religious leaders willing to take such a mission, but there are tremendous difficulties now."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 07:36 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Would it be too harsh to suggest dumping Jesse and Saddam in the same burlap bag and dropping it into the Tigris?
I know you want to be in the slimelight, but STFO of Iraq. We are in a war and giving aid and comfort to the enemy will not make you very popular with alot of people, especially, soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen, and the American public. Better think this one through very carefully, bro.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2003 19:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Rev. Jesse needs to call for some credibility. At this point he's been relegated to third rate race pimp.
Posted by: g wiz ||
03/27/2003 19:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You know, I was sitting here last night thinking,
"I wonder when Jesse's gonna show up." And then...there he was.
What a piece of maggot shit.
#8
The only thing on jesse jackass's miniscule mind is stealing money. I would never, EVER dump him into the Tigris. You want to be hauled before the International Criminal Court for polluting???
The best thing for 'rev' jackass to do is to dig into the same bunker with sadsack, and hope and pray those JDAMS don't find them.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 22:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I would encourage all members of parliament, federal and provincial, to follow Mr. LaPierre's lead and vehemently express their anti-American views, as often as possible, if they feel that way. For one, it's good to have things on record, and secondly, it makes it easier to pick who to vote for at election time. I can confidently say the Conservatives will come back as a viable party next elections. Thanks Lapierre.
#4
and thank you, RW. I'll be leaving my native Texas to attend the Calgary Stampede in July. If you're in Alberta, or anywhere close, I'll hope to see you there.
We know that some of you north of the border are feeling guilty that Canada's not involved with us in Iraq. But just to show you that we still love you and that there are no hard feelings, we'll give you Vermont free of charge.
A group of Vermont teen-agers threw rocks at a uniformed female Vermont National Guard sergeant last week, in the latest example of a service member facing hostility in the United States. National Guard spokesman Capt. Jeff Roosevelt said the woman was not injured in Friday's incident, which took place in Plainfield, but said the woman had decided she would no longer wear her uniform outside of work. "We are a very tolerant state and people in the military also expect to be treated with the same courtesy and respect that we show to others," Lt. Col. Scott Stirewalt, director of security at the Vermont National Guard, told WCAX news. "There were various profanities directed in her direction, along the line of '[expletive] murderer, [expletive] baby killer.' It culminated with some of the individuals throwing rocks at her, and as testament to her disciplined professionalism, she got in her car and left the area." Pat Leahy was embarrassed.
U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chastised the stone throwers, calling the incident "disturbing." "The process leading to the war in Iraq has generated strong feelings across the nation," said Leahy, co-chairman of the Senate National Guard Caucus. "I know that the great majority of Vermonters would never participate in this type of disrespectful behavior because it is not the Vermont way. It is important, especially now, for Vermonters of good will on both sides to show that the Vermont way is to respect one another, regardless of our views about the war." Thus a "liberal" state. I guess a 49-star flag won't be too hard to make.
Posted by: Christopher Johnson ||
03/27/2003 07:59 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I can't even begin to say how angry this makes me. Many of my friend's are in the Vermont National Guard. Vermont has always, and still does have a high percentage of it's population serving in the armed forces. Unfortunately, the majority of the population were born outside of the state, many are from New York (ever heard Bernie Sanders speak?). The state is now dominated by ex-flower children and trustifarians who sneer at the hardworking native Vermonter's and call them woodchucks (woodchuck=redneck). Please don't give Vermont up to Canada. A better solution would be for Vermonter's to rise up and kick the flatlanders out. Remember, Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys had been hard at work doing this for years before the Revolution distracted them.
Posted by: Jason ||
03/27/2003 20:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
wow, first you pissed of most of your allies, now you piss off your own states..lol
Who's next? Massachusetts? California?
Guess Crawford, Tx will remain faithful!
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2003 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You know, for the life of me, I simply cannot figure out why the anti-war movement seems to be losing ground in this country. How could such a brave, noble, rational bunch be ignored by the vast majority of our society?
It must be... THE CIA! Yes! That's it! It's their MIND CONTROL LASER BEAMS!!!!!! That's what it must be! Quick! Quick! Get some aluminum foil and make a hat! Throw some rocks! Puke and excrete in the streets! Block traffic! Organize bands of young men to attack lone women! THAT WILL FIGHT OFF THE POWER OF THE EVIL CIA MIND CONTROL LASERS!!!
All together now!
All's we are saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaying is give Saddam a chaaaaaaaaaaaaaance...
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/27/2003 21:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
They were probably on their way home from a peace rally. But, they really DO support the troops, even though they think they're murdering baby killers.
And Anonymous. Stick your head back up your ass and go to sleep, dewd.
#6
Anonymous/Murat; it is so like an authoritarian ass-clown like you to generalize a gang of teenaged thugs into representing an entire state. Doing so is the entire essence of your ideology.
#7
FYI, per vermont law, assaulting a person simply due to the fact they are wearing their military uniform is a Hate Crime and carries a sentence of up to 5 years in prison.
Time for those little rock throwers to learn what freedom is by losing theirs.
#8
Hey the protesters here in San Francisco made it a whole week of disruption.Guess they had to go back waiting in line to recive thier EDD check and goverment aid.
#9
Now wait just a cotton pickin minute here anonymous is peckerneck Tom daschle isn't he, or are he and looney Leahy sharing a laptop, well no matter it would be nice to back a truck over both of their heads at the same time.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/27/2003 21:55 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Jason I think that Vermont is suffering from the same desease that Washington and Oregon are. Namely brainless buttheads moving there from Caliofornia or New York. And just one question as it is near spawning time on Lake Champlain( I think we should rename it to somethimg other than a French name )is the favorite tackle for northern pike still a 30-30 or a 30.06?
Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire ||
03/27/2003 22:11 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I read this on Sgt. Stryker's blog first. Here's my comment there: These brats need a lesson in manners. They should be rounded up and sent to Marine boot camp for the summer. I'm sure they'll have a totally different attitude when they finish. The longer the adults in this country tolerate this kind of bs, the worse it's going to get.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 22:18 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I'm not Murat (second comment). I was just amused of the fact that you are willing to toss out states because some silly teenagers there behaved in an irresponsable way. Better go and read your highlighting again. And your own comments. And then use your brains for a change.
#15
Sorry, anonymous authoritarian, my comments stand. They are also a subtle rebuke to the original poster since they are not in fact consistent with his ideology, as they are with yours. Whether you literally are Murat is irrelevant, jackboot left-tards are interchangeable by their own strenuous effort.
#17
Ahh,Anonamous
Are you so slow-witted that you can't see sarcasiam?
One other thing,are you such a coward that you are afraid to post a name an e-mail address?
Stepping back from comments he made last week that President Bush failed "miserably" in diplomatic efforts to avoid war with Iraq, Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D. said Thursday, "My timing wasn't the best."
"Come to think of it, my timing was the worst..."
On March 17, just two days before the U.S.-led coalition's first bombing strike in Baghdad, Daschle said, "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war." The remarks drew fire as many charged it was wrong for Daschle to publicly challenge the president on the eve of armed conflict. Daschle's comments were labeled "divisive and brazen political posturing" by Republican National Chairman Marc Racicot. "It is disheartening and shameful for Senator Daschle, who has previously advocated and authorized the use of force in Iraq, to now blame America first," he said. Blame America First — sounds like a Naderite group!
Daschle supported a congressional resolution last year authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq, but he has criticized the president for failing to win the support of the U.N. Security Council. In an interview from his Washington office this morning, Daschle indicated that he did not know the timing of the start of military action when he made the critical remarks. He added, "It's time to move past this." Politicans always want to move past stupid remarks they've made. I predict we'll start hearing about how "unfair" this is real soon now.
Daschle's junior colleague, Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has acknowledged that though many may share some of Daschle's sentiments, he believes now is not the time for Americans to criticize the nation's Commander-in-Chief. Johnson's oldest son, Brooks, is the only child of a U.S. Congress member serving in the Iraq war. Give 'em hell, Brooks, and then come home. Mr. Daschle may be giving up his seat early, and you'll need a job.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 07:19 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We cannot let Daschle off the hook for this. He needs to get the same treatment as the Blixie Chicks. I do not know how much time he has in the Senate, but he needs a mountain of different emails expressing the same idea: We are offended by your grandstanding remarks about the Commander-in-Chief and we will work to have you defeated soundly in the next election.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2003 19:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If Trent Lott can be crucified for his remarks at Strom's retirement, then Daschle needs to pay big time for this. Does any one remember Gephart threatening to cut off funding to the troops during Desert Storm?
#3
Little Tommy D says he made his remarks because "he didn't know the timing of the start of military action". Gawd, that's so lame...ten days before March 17 the Prez put the world on notice that March 17 was a rather important date. Tommy D is not fit to hold office.
Posted by: Mark ||
03/27/2003 21:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Or Dubya cutting pensions for sick Gulf War 1 veterans to fund his tax cuts for the rich?
Richard Perle, a former Reagan administration Pentagon official, resigned Thursday as chairman of the Defense Policy Board that is a key advisory arm for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
In a brief written statement, Rumsfeld thanked Perle for his service and made no mention of why Perle resigned. He said he had asked Perle to remain as a member of the board.
"He has been an excellent chairman and has led the Defense Policy Board during an important time in our history," Rumsfeld said. "I should add that I have known Richard Perle for many years and know him to be a man of integrity and honor."
Perle was an assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration. He took the advisory board chairman's post early in Rumsfeld's tenure.
Perle became embroiled in a recent controversy stemming from a New Yorker magazine article that said he had lunch in January with controversial Saudi-born businessman Adnan Khashoggi and a Saudi industrialist.
The industrialist, Harb Saleh Zuhair, was interested in investing in a venture capital firm, Trireme Partners, of which Perle is a managing partner. Nothing ever came of the lunch in Marseilles; no investment was made. But the New Yorker story, written by Seymour M. Hersh, suggested that Perle, a longtime critic of the Saudi regime, was inappropriately mixing business and politics.
Perle called the report preposterous and "monstrous." Perle and Hersh have been enemies for a long time. I'd expect Hersh to have a gloat coming out in the NY Times real soon. This is too bad, Perle has been a deep thinker in the war on terrorism.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 05:53 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
An AP update buries the Saudi story, instead focusing on his Global Crossing involvement. I suppose Perle's resignation takes away some ammo from the "evil Bush admin billionaires" crowd, and hands it right to the "Jews prefer to control our government from the shadows anyway" crowd.
How long before someone renews the call for Cheney to step down? Already happened, I bet.
Posted by: (lowercase) matt ||
03/27/2003 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
Apparently, Islam OnLine — and the rest of the turban world — expect American Muslims to "take to the streets" as readily as their brethren in the Third World. Since Islam is a religion of Bliss, they don't appear to grasp that Detroit and Toledo aren't Peshawar or Cairo, no matter how much they'd like it to be. And this would be entirely the wrong time for the professional agitators to try and make it so.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 11:24 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think a lot of them are worried they'll be sent back home if they complain too much. Most of them are in the country illegally, anyway.
When are people going to learn that the United States doesn't rely on "International organizations and world opinion" to govern itself and fight its own fights?
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yes, and the father of the Muslim 101ST fragger says "Islam is misunderstood..." instead of "I am sorry for what my step son did..."
Yes, Islam is misunderstood.
#3
Since Islam has no central governing body as do other religions, any pronouncement from any self-proclaimed Muslim cleric is as valid as any other. I hereby declare that I am now Muslim (for the duration of the war anyway) and that this message may be considered my fatwa officially legalizing the war in the eyes of Allah.
Posted by: B. ||
03/27/2003 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
They're operating under the mistaken assumption that we give a short, fragrant whiff of methane what Islamic scholars think about our national policies and interests. Islamists need a "mother may I?" from a fatwa jockey for everything they do, to include what positions are permissible when making whoopee.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/27/2003 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Geeze, Guys! I'm working on the wording of the Fatwa (TM) right now, so hold onto your knickers. I am backlogged up to here just keeping up with the posts on Rantburg. I should have one by the end of the day.
#6
To tell you the truth, I honestly think it wasn't on our prewar checklist. We'll have to rectify that before the next stop on our tour of the Middle East.
#8
Since i don't know what the hell a fatwah is, I think I will triple the cost of the goods and services that my company provides to any remotely islamic sounding customer, i already have for any frogs..
#9
Better late than never, here is the Fatwa (thanks, Frank G for jogging me into action):
Having the required credentials of a Grand Most Illustrious and Luminous Mullah in Mufti through witnessing a Shriners Convention Parade as a youth, been a grandson of a Bechtel Corporation management employee involved in TAPLINE, a descendent of ancestors who left the Holy Land when the getting was good, worked with Palestinian fellow workers who got out when the getting was good, survived by avoiding numerous riots supporting many looney causes at the University of California at Berkeley during the 1960s, and a licensed engineer for the state of Alaska, I hereby issue the following Fatwa:
WHEREAS
The United Nations has not met its responsibilities in disarming the regime of Saddam Hussain of Iraq (a.k.a. âSammyâ) for over twelve (count âem 12) years, the so-called Axis of Weasels having most recently obstructed the UN in every attempt at its basic duties, and the general chaotic, despotic, and bozonic behavior tacitly condoned by Iraqâs neighbors,
THEREFORE BE IT DECLARED
That the United States of America (a.k.a âThe Great Satanâ (TM)) and other allies (a.k.a. âThe Coalition of the Willingâ (TM) ) is/are ordered to proceed to Iraq, post haste, and to remove said regime of said Sammy by any and all means appropriate, in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and install some kind of sanity to said country that has been suffering from said dictator and ineffectual organization known as the United Nations.
I set my Hand and Seal this Date of _______________, 2003
My Commission Expires on _____________
[Seal of the Grand Most Illustrious and Luminous Mullah in Mufti]
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2003 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Allah be praised, most glorious Mullah al-Aska Paul!
#11
Fatwa is a legal statement in Islam, issued by a mufti or a religious lawyer, on a specific issue.
Fatwas are asked for by judges or individuals, and are needed in cases where a issue of fiqh is undecided or uncertain. Lawsuits can be settled on the basis of a fatwa.
It is vital that a fatwa is not based upon the muftis or lawyers own will and ideas, he must render it in accordance with fixed precedent.
Today, fatwas have limited importance in most Muslim societies, and are normally used only in cases of marriage, inheritance and divorce. The importance of a fatwa depends on its acceptance among most people, and if people don't care about it, it is in reality powerless.
Since publicly questioning whether the Pentagon committed enough force to Iraq on NBC News, retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey said he's received waves of supportive e-mails from active and retired military people. Is it just me, or does he sound like Jimmy Stewart?
He also knows he's infuriated some top brass, and ignited a debate over the roles of the dozens of former officers now earning paychecks from media organizations to explain war to the uninitiated. They've become fixtures on television during the past week, standing over maps of Iraq with pointers, explaining military terminology and speculating about battle strategy. McCaffrey and former Desert Storm commander Norman Schwarzkopf have given NBC and MSNBC star power, with a deep bench including former nuclear weapons inspector David Kay. ABC News has recently retired experts like Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold and Gen. Charles Horner. CBS has former NATO commander Gen. William "Buck" Kernan and Gen. Joseph Ralston. Gravel-voiced counterterrorist expert Lt. Col. Bill Cowan appears on Fox News Channel. CNN's prime-time star is former Gen. Wesley Clark, who directed NATO forces in Kosovo. And want to be Prez.
"Every general who ever worked for me is now on some network commenting on the daily battle," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Wednesday.
Guess it's more rewarding than shuffleboard to canasta. And I'll admit, if somebody offered me lotsa money, I'd rattle on for as long as they wanted, giving my opinion, whether I knew the details or not...
The combative McCaffrey, on the "Today" show on Tuesday, bristled when host Katie Couric referred to "armchair generals."
[Insert blonde joke here]
"Remember, Katie, I'm not an armchair general," he said. "I've had three combat tours and been wounded three times."
A similar cookie-cutter blonde â I think it was Cokie Roberts â was stoopid enough to try and take on Schwartzkopf the same way, while GWI was under way.
"Our primary loyalty is to the armed forces, there's no question â not to the channels we're with or the administration," McCaffrey said.
What was that about "Duty, Honor, Country"?
Yet some of the criticism has gotten under the skin of war supporters. Retired Rear Adm. Stephen Baker, who works at the Center for Defense Information, a Washington-based think tank, said the commentators shouldn't question the war plans. Ralston said he believes his role as a CBS analyst is to explain the issues but not give his opinions. The active-duty officials formulating the war plan are privy to more information than retired officers, he said. "I think it's being a little bit presumptuous to think we can sit here in an air-conditioned office with the limited amount of information we've got and make some pronouncements that General (Tommy) Franks is all screwed up on this and not doing it right," Ralston said. "I just think it's wrong."
And I agree with him, despite the fact that I occasionally thing Franks is doing something wrong...
Col. Jay DeFrank, director of press operations at the Department of Defense said he expects retired officials to have different points of view. "An informed debate is a foundation of democracy," he said.
Can't we put the platitudes on hold, just for a little while? They're all worn out by now...
In general, the retired officials perform a great service, he said. The Pentagon plainly doesn't object to having its friends explain things on TV. CBS' Kernan, who retired only last year, said he didn't consider becoming a television analyst until his friend, Iraq war commander Franks, suggested it. Suggested it to Kernan, or CBS?
Clark said he doesn't measure his performance on whether he supports or opposes a particular Pentagon line. But how it plays in Iowa and New Hampshire. "It's possible to be objective and still be loyal to the people and organizations that you love," he said.
Yechhhh. Another platitude...
McCaffrey said his distance from the military â he's been retired for seven years â may give him an independence that more recent retirees lack. He didn't work on the current war plans and wasn't appointed to jobs by people who put them in place. Former U.S. Army Gen. John N. Abrams, an analyst for The Associated Press, said he considered McCaffrey a credible source. Abrams also believes that more personnel should have been committed to the war effort. "We've all been very supportive," Abrams said. "But I think there's a concern that's growing about how optimistic (the military's) assumptions were."
Franks isn't God, and I don't believe he's Schwartzkopf, either. But he's also the one with the access to the data on which to make the real decisions. The rest of us, whether it's the retired generals, the airheads like Katie, or Rantburg participants, have to make do with whatever other information's available. A body can be knowledgeable in a particular subject area, but it's still overall knowledge, not detailed, unless you're sitting in the TOC with all the feeds on.
Posted by: Penguin ||
03/27/2003 11:50 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
As a rule, more people is always better. These guys aren't demonstrating any tactical brilliance by stating the obvious.
McCaffrey is working under the burden of having to defend his legacy from Gulf I. I am among several bloggers who have pointed out that a successful Gulf II eclipses Gulf I pretty well.
As for commentators with retired ranks below one star. All these guys were passed over by the selection board. They lacked what it took for promotion to a higher rank. Some was political, but most was an inability to think strategicly, to plan effectively, to be a more well-rounded warrior and a good manager.
I laugh at the captains that are being used as commentators. They might as well be doing man-in-the-street interviews.
#2
Of course none of them have access to the actual OPLAN and know nothing of its flow or phaselines. Even I can detect that there are units which are in country and not accounted for, so stuff is going on we can not see. This is the classical 'fog of war' of which CENTCOM has far more resources to see through than any of the talking heads regardless of their employment background. It would have been far more effective, IMHO, to have retired historians from the Center for Military History or the history dept. of West Point to do the color commentary and fill the air time than many of these technicians. They can set the parameters to the media wanks 'setbacks' with the "as compared to what" reply.
BTW, the lower ranking officers are being misused to discuss operational issues when they should be employed to address the human element at the grunt level. That's where they can add something to the flow of information to a public which is generally ignorant of what it means to soldier.
Posted by: Don ||
03/27/2003 8:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It still comes down to second-guessing, and there's no penalty for being wrong. These guys should know better. Bet there may be some "reductions in rank" once this whole war is over. Wesley Clark has proven that he's a real toad, and has absolutely no chance to become president of anything, not even "Main Street, Disneyland".
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mac Thomas has a very helpful take on this second-guessing here. This is the first paragraph: Patience
The main thing remains the main thing. The war is only a week old, and already the second guessing has begun. The press, having for all intents and purposes claimed victory after the first two days of the conflict, seemed ready to surrender to the Iraqis after the setbacks of Sunday. You'd think it was 1861 or early 1942, dark periods indeed in American military history.
He goes on to comment on the perspectives of some his favorite generals.
Posted by: kgb ||
03/27/2003 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
kgb:
Surely you concede that the prohibition against attacking snipers who have taken up in civilian housing, has increased Iraqi morale. The restraint at Umm Qasr is being treated in the Muslim media (and apologists), as a "heroic" stand that caused Coalition forces to become "bogged down."
Listen to Captain David Waldron (US 3rd Division): "We don't want to hurt people if we can avoid it, but now it has got to be that if you have got a weapon, you have become an Iraqi soldier and we can kill you. This rules of engagement crap is making me lose men." (Oliver Poole, London Telegraph)
The Saddamites' dirty-war tactics have been effective. "Hearts and minds" strategies failed in Vietnam and should be second-guessed here.
#6
Yeah, this hearts & minds stuff is BS. They hate us, they'll always hate us. 99% of the media will take all actions by the US in the worst possible light, and ignore any wrong doing by Iraq (or anyone besides the US). So this is really doing no one any favors.
Posted by: Jeremy ||
03/27/2003 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Read this somewhere else, but it makes a lot of sense: There's only so much room in Kuwait, and we were only 'allowed' to use a small bit of it. The number of troops we had filled the place up and overflowed a bit. Once the war started, we began pushing in additional units as fast as the situation allowed us. So maybe Franks was acting on the knowledge that he didn't have room for any more troops, and had to phase in additional forces. We now see units parachuting in where the 4ID was supposed to go, and some kind of military buildup opposite Jordan in the western desert. Once again, the 'talking heads' missed a major clue, and started talking before they engaged their thinking process.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
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.
