Hi there, !
Today Wed 08/01/2007 Tue 07/31/2007 Mon 07/30/2007 Sun 07/29/2007 Sat 07/28/2007 Fri 07/27/2007 Thu 07/26/2007 Archives
Rantburg
531686 articles and 1855967 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 67 articles and 304 comments as of 9:30.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Local News       
Perv to retire as Army Chief, stay as President, Bhutto to be PM
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
3 00:00 Sherry [] 
8 00:00 Glenmore [] 
1 00:00 ryuge [] 
1 00:00 Zenster [] 
0 [] 
4 00:00 OldSpook [] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
8 00:00 anymouse []
3 00:00 Icerigger [1]
0 []
6 00:00 twobyfour []
1 00:00 Aayu Salamang []
10 00:00 rhodesiafever []
10 00:00 OldSpook []
37 00:00 Anonymoose []
6 00:00 Anonymoose []
2 00:00 tu3031 []
0 []
1 00:00 twobyfour []
3 00:00 Old Patriot []
5 00:00 Free Radical []
0 []
0 []
2 00:00 Abu Uluque6305 []
0 []
1 00:00 Abu Uluque6305 []
2 00:00 Abu Uluque6305 []
5 00:00 tu3031 []
2 00:00 Super Hose []
Page 2: WoT Background
9 00:00 gorb []
5 00:00 gorb []
2 00:00 Pappy []
4 00:00 mhw []
16 00:00 Old Patriot []
0 []
3 00:00 anonymous5089 []
0 []
5 00:00 Frank G [1]
5 00:00 McZoid []
4 00:00 Free Radical []
8 00:00 Free Radical [1]
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 gromgoru []
3 00:00 Raj []
1 00:00 OyVey1 []
0 []
11 00:00 Boss Craising2882 []
0 []
5 00:00 eLarson []
Page 3: Non-WoT
3 00:00 trailing wife []
5 00:00 Clem Cluper9071 [1]
0 []
2 00:00 JosephMendiola []
0 []
4 00:00 Jonathan []
18 00:00 Boss Craising2882 []
1 00:00 Anonymoose []
9 00:00 eltoroverde [1]
10 00:00 twobyfour []
12 00:00 eltoroverde []
2 00:00 Besoeker []
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
2 00:00 trailing wife []
14 00:00 Carl in N.H. []
5 00:00 Deacon Blues []
5 00:00 Zenster []
6 00:00 Angleton 9 []
3 00:00 Barbara Skolaut []
-Lurid Crime Tales-
Swat somebody's butt, and yours belongs to the the D.A.
Do you know Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison?

If you do, don't approach them. Call 911 and order up a SWAT team. They're believed to be in the vicinity of McMinnville, Ore., where they're a clear and present danger to the community. Mashburn and Cornelison were recently charged with five counts of felony sexual abuse, and District Attorney Bradley Berry has pledged to have them registered for life as sex offenders.

Oh, by the way, the defendants are in the seventh grade.

Messrs Mashburn and Cornelison are pupils at Patton Middle School. They were arrested in February after being observed in the vestibule, swatting girls on the butt. Butt-swatting had apparently become a form of greeting at the school – like "a handshake we do," as one female student put it. On "Slap Butt Fridays," boys and girls would hail each other with a cheery application of manual friction to the posterior, akin to a Masonic greeting.

Don't ask me why. The rear end seems to me to be far more prominent in society than it was back when I was a lad. There is a best-selling children's book, "The Day My Butt Went Psycho," by Andy Griffiths. No, not that Andy Griffiths. There were no psycho butts in Mayberry. This Andy Griffiths is an Australian. The U.S. edition was painstakingly translated from the original Aussie (The Day My Bum Went Psycho). And speaking of psycho butts, former senator and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said the other day: "The biggest problem is my butt hurts. Is that normal?"

Gee, I dunno. Standing next to Hillary at the YouTube debate will do that to you. Oh, wait, my mistake. He was taking part in a charity bicycle ride with Lance Armstrong. The Day My Butt Went Cycling.

Anyway, whether from presidential candidates or bestselling authors or the protagonists of the movie "Jackass," one hears a lot more about bottoms than one used to. Perhaps this is a poignantly freighted and highly literal image of Western Civilization contemplating its own end. Or perhaps I'm over-analyzing things, and the middle-schoolers just decided one day it was totally cool, as is their wont. Kids do the darnedest things, as we said back in Mayberry.

But that was then, and this is now. So, upon being caught butt-swatting, Mashburn and Cornelison were called to the principal's office, where they were questioned for several hours by vice principal Steve Tillery and McMinnville Police officer Marshall Roache. At the end of the afternoon, two boys who'd never been in any kind of trouble before were read their Miranda rights and led off in handcuffs to spend five days in juvenile jail.

Tough, but I guess they learned their lesson, right?

Ha! The state of Oregon was only warming up. After a court appearance in shackles and prison garb, the defendants were charged with multiple counts of felony sexual abuse, banned from school and forbidden any contact with their friends.

I spent the entire spring at the "white collar fraud" trial of Conrad Black, the deposed media baron of the Chicago Sun-Times, the London Telegraph, Canada's National Post and much else. A couple of weeks back, he was convicted on four of 13 counts and now faces 35 years in jail for taking an improper bonus of $2.9 million plus "obstructing justice" by removing boxes from his office in Toronto. Which is not in the United States. But with their usual ingeniousness the government successfully deployed a law which has never hitherto been applied extra-territorially, except for witness-tampering.

Having had no previous prolonged exposure to the American justice system, I was interested to see whether the techniques used by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald were particular to that case or more widely applied. The Oregon butt psychos make an instructive study. As in the Black trial, once the authorities had decided on their view of the case, other parties were leaned on to fall into line and play the role of "victims." Of 14 other students interviewed by officer Roache, seven (boys and girls) told him they had engaged in bottom-swatting themselves. Two of the "victims" said they had done it to others. At the initial hearing, a couple of female students spontaneously testified that they'd felt very much pressured to conform during their interviews with the vice principal and the police officer. "Well, when the principal asked me stuff, I kind of felt pressured to answer stuff that I was uncomfortable, and that it hurt, but it really didn't," said one girl.

What does hurt? Attracting the attention of the district attorney. The prosecutor's office reduced the counts from felony sexual assault (with which he'd successfully charged a couple of other middle-school students a year ago) to five misdemeanor counts of sexual abuse and five counts of sexual harassment.

With the boys' respective parents already in the hole for $10,000 apiece in legal fees, the D.A. used the most powerful weapon in the prosecutor's armory: Cop a plea, and we'll make all the pain go away. In this instance, that would mean pleading guilty in return for probation. The terms of probation would prevent Mashburn and Cornelison from contact with younger children, which would mean they couldn't be left with their younger siblings.

Mashburn and Cornelison do not believe they've committed a crime, so they would like to exercise their right to the presumption of innocence – a bedrock principle of the English legal tradition now in great peril from American prosecutorial excess. Instead of letting the state bully them into a grubby, shaming deal, the boys would like it to do what justice systems in civilized societies are required to do: prove the crime. It's a gamble: Those 10 charges each command a one-year sentence, plus lifelong sex-offender registration.

District Attorney Berry told reporter Susan Goldsmith of the Oregonian that his department "aggressively" pursues sex crimes. "These cases are devastating to children," he said. "They are life-altering cases."

No, sir. The only one devastating children's lives is you. If you "win," and these "criminals" are convicted, 20, 30 years from now – applying for a job, volunteering for a community program, heading north for a weekend in Vancouver and watching the Customs guard swipe the driver's license through the computer – there'll be a blip, something will come up on the screen, and for the umpteenth time two middle-age men will realize they bear a mark that can never be expunged. Because decades ago they patted their pals on the rear in a middle-school corridor.

A world that requires handcuffs and judges and district attorneys for what took place that Friday in February is not just a failed education system but an entire society that's losing any sense of proportion. Without which, civilized life becomes impossible. So we legalize more and more aspects of life and demand that district attorneys prosecute ever more aggressively what were once routine areas of social interaction.

A society that looses the state to criminalize schoolroom horseplay is guilty not only of punishing children as grown-ups but of the infantilization of the entire citizenry.
Posted by: ryuge || 07/29/2007 14:48 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  ...the infantilization of the entire citizenry.

Steyn, as usual, nails it. Six words summarizing modern liberalism's ultimate objective.
Posted by: RIcky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) || 07/29/2007 15:18 Comments || Top||

#2  There is child abuse here but the offenders are in the DA's office...

Posted by: John Frum || 07/29/2007 15:25 Comments || Top||

#3  Surely there must be someone of higher authority who can overrule this insanity. I can't even believe this is a real story, it makes Europe seem like a haven of freedom.
Posted by: Omusose the Full Bosomed5572 || 07/29/2007 19:39 Comments || Top||

#4  In the old wild west, over-reaching assholes like this DA would be wearing tar and feathers.
Posted by: OldSpook || 07/29/2007 21:48 Comments || Top||


Britain
Gordon and George will get along just fine
Posted by: ryuge || 07/29/2007 15:04 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Dammit - this belongs in Opinion. Sorry!
Posted by: ryuge || 07/29/2007 15:06 Comments || Top||


China-Japan-Koreas
China's challenge
U.S., European strategy must adjust to confront
Posted by: ryuge || 07/29/2007 15:06 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Much has changed in the past 12 years. After years of backwardness and inefficiency, China's defense industries are now producing weapons systems that are approaching the capability of those that constitute the bulk of the U.S. military's inventory. These include modern fighter jets, ships, surface-to-air missiles, and tanks roughly comparable to the F-15s and F-16s in the U.S. Air Force, the Aegis destroyers and Los Angeles-class attack submarines in the U.S. Navy, and the Patriot missiles and M1 tanks in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps.

I sincerely doubt such an appraisal. Otherwise, why would China be so aggressive in its pursuit of modern European weapons systems? This smacks of alarmism.

The United States must also prepare to fight a wider range of potential adversaries than China. Many of the new weapons systems and capabilities that the United States is acquiring were selected in the 1990s and initially optimized for operations against the type of adversaries America faced during that decade – countries such as Iraq and Serbia that fielded largely low-tech capabilities leavened with a smattering of imported high-tech weapons. Many of these systems have since been modified to contend with more modern threats.

Which is just one more good reason to give China an economic smackdown. We are pouring billions of dollars into their military funding pipeline, all the while degrading our own industrial base. Need I remind anyone that such an industrial base is vital to America's war fighting ability?

Such possible adversaries had no hope of actually defeating the United States in a war; the primary U.S. concern in a conflict with them was how to minimize U.S. and civilian casualties. As a result, many of the new weapons systems the United States is acquiring are not necessarily the best ones for confronting a country such as China that will present a virtually across-the-board high-tech challenge.

Even the author recognizes that China's completion of any military upgrade will take over a decade. In that time, American hardware will have evolved light years beyond anything China could even aspire to. Unless, that is, we keep handing over the farm to Chinese spies in America.

Currently, the United States has about 200 fighter aircraft, nine surface warships, two attack submarines and one aircraft carrier based in Japan, South Korea or Guam. China, by contrast, has roughly 3,000 fighter aircraft, 70 surface warships and 60 attack submarines in East Asia. Although today perhaps only one in 10 of the Chinese aircraft and ships is a modern one comparable in capability to those operated by the United States, even that fraction conveys a numerical advantage for China.

I'd wager heavily that America would enjoy kill ratios similar to those projected against a USSR invasion of Europe during the Cold War era. Those figures stood at 10:1 and I doubt the Chinese would fare any better, if not a whole lot worse.

One valid observation the author makes is how we need to get our allies on board in terms of bolstering their military defense capabilities. Both Taiwan and Japan must come up to speed and spending upon the hardware needed to confront China's threat. They are the ones with the most to lose and need to act like it. South Korea's hopeless diddling with their Northern relatives have rendered them almost useless in this, save as a military outpost for our own troops.

I look forward to a new generation of hypersonic missiles that can reach Chinese targets in a few hours. The fractionalized DARPA F-6 space platforms would also go a long way towards neutralizing any Chinese anti-satellite threat. Armed UAV systems also show huge promise in leveraging our assets without increasing troop deployment numbers. All of these facts point towards China remaining at a definite disadvantage for some time to come.

Finally, as China modernizes its own infrastructure they become increasingly more vulnerable. In effect, they now have far more to lose than just some scattered rice paddies. Large projects like the Three Gorges Dam loom as massive targets of opportunity that would pose severe consequences should Chinese aggression draw unfavorable attention to themselves. This last development may serve to subdue China's expansionist aspirations more than any other single factor. Ironically, improved infrastructure should also propel China's evolution into a peaceful democracy. All that remains to be seen is if the Politburo's Mandarins can contain their greed and overweening sense of power long enough for that to happen. Since the advent of peaceful democracy would inherently signify the Mandarins' downfall, the prospects aren't necessarily so pleasing.
Posted by: Zenster || 07/29/2007 15:49 Comments || Top||

#2  The US is also being very crafty in not only confronting China directly, but by boosting India, so that China will have somebody in its neighborhood to keep them occupied as well.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 07/29/2007 15:55 Comments || Top||

#3  Anonymoose, pls don't substitute/associate a common sense approach with craftiness. It's just that--a common sense approach. Just sayin'.
Posted by: twobyfour || 07/29/2007 17:38 Comments || Top||

#4  After years of backwardness and inefficiency, China's defense industries are now producing weapons systems that are approaching the capability of those that constitute the bulk of the U.S. military's inventory. These include modern fighter jets, ships, surface-to-air missiles, and tanks roughly comparable to the F-15s and F-16s in the U.S. Air Force, the Aegis destroyers and Los Angeles-class attack submarines in the U.S. Navy, and the Patriot missiles and M1 tanks in the U.S. Army and Marine Corps.

Utter nonsense

Posted by: John Frum || 07/29/2007 18:57 Comments || Top||

#5  China's ballistic missiles could be used to attack runways and aircraft on the ground at U.S. and allied air bases in the Western Pacific, neutralizing U.S. land-based air power before it could get into the air. China is even trying to develop a way to hit a moving ship at sea with a ballistic missile, an unprecedented capability that would threaten the one U.S. advantage that until now China has had no answer for – the U.S. Navy's aircraft carriers.

Even more nonsense
Posted by: John Frum || 07/29/2007 18:58 Comments || Top||

#6  United States needs to begin taking steps now to prepare for China's emergence as a major regional power.

One thing that makes sense ... China emerging as a regional power, not a great power,not a superpower, a regional power... with limited reach because of other powerful states around it
Posted by: John Frum || 07/29/2007 19:01 Comments || Top||

#7  RUSSIA expanding its reach into the Arctic regions will likely induce the Canadians to de-regulate,expand and modernize their armed forces and security, or else rely on the USA. It also likely has future, "ripple effect" geopol/milpol consequences for GREENLAND, ICELAND, + NATO-EUROPE.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 07/29/2007 19:23 Comments || Top||

#8  After multiple generations of 'family planning' China no longer has a surplus of young men to throw into war the way they did in Korea. In that regard they are now facing the same requirements as Western Europe and North America - lack of public willingness to risk high human cost, protracted war. It's genetic - if you only have 1-2 kids per family, you strive mightily to protect them; if you have 10, it's not such a big deal (despite what we may SAY and WANT to believe.) Hence Muzzies can send kids off as human sacrifices and Israelis don't.
So China MUST develop high tech war capabilities now. And even if they ARE doing so, it takes time and iterations to do so. Not to mention battle testing of hardware, software (including tactics and strategy) and training. Big challenge.
Furthermore, because of the massive trade between China and the US (and allies), China is now at least as dependent on the US as we are on them. War between us has become MAED - Mutual Assured Economic Destruction. Chinese leaders are pragmatic enough to recognize that too. War with China, through proxies or otherwise, would be subject to the same restrictions as Vietnam, or more. Neither side can afford to truly escalate to pursue 'victory', though it can be politically very difficult to withdraw and admit defeat, so you get decades of half-speed war. Stupid then, and stupid now - maybe we'll both recognize that and not go there.
Posted by: Glenmore || 07/29/2007 19:51 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
The kow-tow club
The Democratic presidential race has devolved into a no-holds-barred battle between the two front-runners on an utterly bizarre point: Should the next president personally sit down with the world's worst despots? Of course not. That would be absurd.

But Sen. Barack Obama last week displayed an astonishing lack of depth - giving Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a chance to show again that she's capable of taking five positions on just about every issue. Too bad for Clinton that she missed a perfectly good opportunity to show her relative experience and intelligence - given that she was correct in her reaction to Obama's verbal miscue.

It all happened during Monday night's debate, when the candidates were asked whether, as president, they'd be willing to meet personally - and without preconditions - with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and Syria. Obama's response: Absolutely. Indeed, he added, "it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."

Clinton, ever the instinctive pol, recognized a gopher ball when she saw one - and proceeded to lift it out of the park. Obama's response, she maintained, was "irresponsible and, frankly, naive."

"I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes," said Clinton. "We're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be."

She's right, of course: Such impulsive acts can wind up backfiring - emboldening enemies and embarrassing America (as they have in the past). Indeed, Obama's apparent willingness to rush into sitdowns with America-bashing tyrants like Mahmoud Ahmadenijad and Chavez makes us wonder if he knows just what it is a president does for a living.

For his part, Obama quickly backtracked: "I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon," he said. And then he hurled what for Democrats is the ultimate insult: Clinton's position, he said, is just like President Bush's. Which is nonsense, of course. But here's where it gets complicated.

Even while ridiculing Obama's position, Clinton repeatedly has ripped the president for saying "he will not talk with bad people." Indeed, she complained, "you don't make peace with your friends - you have to do the hard work of dealing with people you don't agree with." She's even admonished Bush for refusing to deal directly with the leaders of Iran. Even though, as president, her own husband never spoke directly with the leaders of any of those five countries either - and for good reason.

Clearly, both candidates need to do a little more homework if they have any hope of being taken seriously on the foreign-policy front.
Posted by: ryuge || 07/29/2007 15:00 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  It all happened during Monday night's debate, when the candidates were asked whether, as president, they'd be willing to meet personally - and without preconditions - with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and Syria. Obama's response: Absolutely. Indeed, he added, "it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them."

A clear demonstration of exactly why Obama should never set foot in the Oval Office.
Posted by: Zenster || 07/29/2007 15:54 Comments || Top||


India-Pakistan
Musharraf's big chance
By Ed Royce

During my recent meeting with President Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad, it was apparent Pakistan has been sinking deeper into inner turmoil. The intensity of radicalism in the tribal areas and throughout the country is an ever-growing threat to the Musharraf government. The recent Red Mosque standoff, which was promoting the Talibanization of Pakistan and culminated in a government raid, proved that violence from radical Islamists had now reached Islamabad. In the clashes that have followed, some 170 people died in insurgent attacks.

This recent upsurge in violence may finally force Mr. Musharraf to take a hard-line stance against radicals. His not doing so may precipitate a U.S. tactical intervention over the Afghan border to quell cross border raids on the Taliban. This is an eventuality neither Mr. Musharraf nor the U.S. would like to see.

Since the September 2006 peace agreement, al Qaeda has enjoyed a virtual safe haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the northern border with Afghanistan. By pulling back barracks and removing military checkpoints, Mr. Musharraf hoped for peaceful co-existence with this troubled region, but the deal gave the Taliban and al Qaeda breathing room. The recently released National Intelligence Estimate confirms this, saying al Qaeda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability." Indeed, a CIA official recently testified on Capitol Hill that al Qaeda appears "to be fairly well settled into the safe haven in the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan.... We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications." For the sake of our security, we had better see action.

The FATA should not be overlooked, the way many turned a blind eye to the radicalization of Afghanistan under the Taliban's control. Allowed to operate freely, terrorists were able to train and plot virtually unimpeded. The attacks on America of September 11, 2001, were the result. Past efforts by Mr. Musharraf to bring order to the FATA have failed. His offers of amnesty to militant tribals who "surrender," while fighting those who resist, did little to rid the region of Islamist radicals. Other fighting has done little to uproot tribal ties to the Taliban and al Qaeda, bringing sizable death tolls to both sides while further entrenching distrust between the FATA and Islamabad.

One reason for its failure to root out radicalism in the FATA has been Islamabad's unwillingness to fight the Taliban with the same ferocity it has fought al Qaeda. Radical religious schools or madrassas throughout the country have long spewed anti-American sentiment and continue to radicalize the FATA. The Musharraf government has placated the U.S. while refusing to sever ties with the Taliban. Its timely capture of notable Taliban leaders have routinely corresponded with high-level U.S. visits, as in the apprehension of the Taliban's former defense minister, Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, caught just hours after Vice President Dick Cheney met with Mr. Musharraf. The recent events at the Red Mosque severed these ties, however.

While human-rights pressures can be quelled by granting greater government transparency and increased political rights, the Islamist fundamentalists can not be reasonably addressed. Those holed up in the Red Mosque did not seek free and fair elections. Their goal is a Taliban-type rule based entirely on Islamic law.

Mr. Musharraf's livelihood has been tied to U.S. good will. Nothing would better help secure his place as an ally of the U.S. government than the presentation of Osama bin Laden, who is believed to have found refuge in Pakistan. With a total of nearly $5 billion (or an average of $80 million per month) in aid disbursed to Islamabad since 2002, we had better see some return on our investment. Doubts will rightly exist. If Mr. Musharraf will not take the necessary steps though, then it may force Washington's hand to deal with the FATA on its own. This last weekend the Bush administration suggested this.

Our direct action would run the risk of further destabilizing Pakistan. That would be weighed against the risk of another large-scale attack on the homeland. Given the stakes, let's hope Mr. Musharraf's Red Mosque moment proves to be a milestone in a battle against militancy.

Ed Royce, California Republican, is ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade Subcommittee.
Posted by: ryuge || 07/29/2007 14:52 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under: al-Qaeda


Iraq
Telegraph: SWJ Best Fiction Award Winner of the Week: Petraeus vs Maliki
Damien McElroy, foreign affairs correspondent for the U.K.’s Telegraph, “headlines” today: Iraqi leader tells Bush: Get Gen Petraeus out:

Relations between the top United States general in Iraq and Nouri al-Maliki, the country's prime minister, are so bad that the Iraqi leader made a direct appeal for his removal to President George W Bush.

Although the call was rejected, aides to both men admit that Mr Maliki and Gen David Petraeus engage in frequent stand-up shouting matches, differing particularly over the US general's moves to arm Sunni tribesmen to fight al-Qa'eda.

One Iraqi source said Mr Maliki used a video conference with Mr Bush to call for the general's signature strategy to be scrapped. "He told Bush that if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias," said the official. "Bush told Maliki to calm down."

At another meeting with Gen Petraeus, Mr Maliki said: "I can't deal with you any more. I will ask for someone else to replace you."


One problem - the events as reported in the Telegraph never happened. This from COL Steve Boylan, MNF-I CG Public Affairs Officer, in an e-mail he sent earlier today to McElroy:

Gen Petraeus and the Prime Minister have never had a stand-up shouting match, and only once has Gen Petraeus even raised his voice. This is a totally fabricated story, and you should have sought a comment from me, at the least to validate the information from your so-called aides as sources.

Gen Petraeus has never stated or even hinted at a "stormy relationship." Saying that they do not pull punches is very different from stormy. That means they have very frank, open and perhaps direct conversations based on what is at stake here and what is needed and should be expected from both.

I formally request that the record be corrected! Gen Petraeus and other key staff have sat in on every video teleconference with PM Maliki and President Bush and never has this been even hinted at. In addition, PM Maliki has never said what is quoted here to Gen Petraeus.

This must be corrected immediately and if your sources are not willing to go on the record has I have here, then there must be something wrong with the sources.


Additonal links the site
Posted by: Sherry || 07/29/2007 16:11 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1  Another MSM sucker?

Or a failed attempt to further the 'civil war' in D.C.?
Posted by: Bobby || 07/29/2007 17:14 Comments || Top||

#2  I vote for the failed attempt, Bobby.
Posted by: trailing wife || 07/29/2007 18:07 Comments || Top||

#3  Just read Redstate's Mark Kilmer's recap of the morning talk shows. This was on everybody mind!
Hum -- article placed on Saturday, just in time for the Sunday morn talk shows, and nobody disputing it.. Just makes this even a worser (I meant that word) mistake, disaster, worse admin, etc, etc, etc...

What's that sometime phrase we see up front? "This would be funny if it were so scary."

It's kinda like the other theme of the morning, "we know Gonzales lied so we got have a special prosecutor to find that evidence to prove us right!"
Posted by: Sherry || 07/29/2007 18:42 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
31[untagged]
7Taliban
7Iraqi Insurgency
3al-Qaeda
2Hamas
2Hezbollah
2Thai Insurgency
2Global Jihad
2Govt of Iran
2Govt of Syria
1Islamic Courts
1Mahdi Army
1Muslim Brotherhood
1Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal
1Popular Resistance Committees
1Fatah al-Islam
1al-Aqsa Martyrs

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Sun 2007-07-29
  Perv to retire as Army Chief, stay as President, Bhutto to be PM
Sat 2007-07-28
  New PA platform omits 'armed struggle'
Fri 2007-07-27
  50 Iraq football fans killed in car bombs
Thu 2007-07-26
  Iraq: Khalis tribal leaders sign peace agreement
Wed 2007-07-25
  U.S., Iranian envoys meet in Baghdad
Tue 2007-07-24
  Abdullah Mehsud: Dead again
Mon 2007-07-23
  Summer Offensive: More than 50 Talibs killed in Afghanistan
Sun 2007-07-22
  N. Wazoo Peace Jirga Rocketed
Sat 2007-07-21
  Afghan Talibs kidnap 23 S. Koreans
Fri 2007-07-20
  6 dead in rocket attack on Somali peace conference
Thu 2007-07-19
  Hek declares ceasefire
Wed 2007-07-18
  Qaida in Iraq Big Turban Captured
Tue 2007-07-17
  Bombs kill at least 80 in Kirkuk
Mon 2007-07-16
  Major Joint Offensive South of Baghdad, 8,000 troops
Sun 2007-07-15
  N Korea closes nuclear facilities

Better than the average link...



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.
3.236.57.1
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (22)    WoT Background (21)    Non-WoT (12)    Local News (6)    (0)