Hi there, !
Today Mon 06/07/2004 Sun 06/06/2004 Sat 06/05/2004 Fri 06/04/2004 Thu 06/03/2004 Wed 06/02/2004 Tue 06/01/2004 Archives
Rantburg
531688 articles and 1855967 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 68 articles and 352 comments as of 10:21.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Background                   
Iraqi Police Nab Associate of al-Zarqawi
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 1: WoT Operations
0 [] 
0 [] 
0 [] 
0 [] 
2 00:00 Edward Yee [1] 
5 00:00 Verlaine [] 
5 00:00 smn [] 
3 00:00 RMcLeod [] 
9 00:00 Super Hose [] 
11 00:00 ed [] 
4 00:00 mmurray821 [] 
10 00:00 Super Hose [1] 
13 00:00 rex [] 
1 00:00 BigEd [] 
2 00:00 Yosemite Sam [] 
4 00:00 Bomb-a-rama [] 
7 00:00 B [] 
5 00:00 JDB [] 
1 00:00 Super Hose [] 
4 00:00 Michael [] 
0 [] 
1 00:00 smn [] 
0 [] 
27 00:00 JERKFACE101 [] 
8 00:00 Anonymous [] 
0 [] 
11 00:00 tu3031 [] 
2 00:00 AF Lady [] 
13 00:00 Jen [] 
11 00:00 Zenster [] 
11 00:00 Damn_Proud_American [] 
2 00:00 Steve White [] 
5 00:00 PBMcL [] 
1 00:00 Bomb-a-rama [] 
2 00:00 jn1 [] 
13 00:00 Frank G [] 
2 00:00 Mike Sylwester [] 
9 00:00 tu3031 [] 
1 00:00 tu3031 [] 
6 00:00 Classical_Liberal [] 
20 00:00 .com [] 
Page 2: WoT Background
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
4 00:00 Tresho []
9 00:00 Mark Espinola []
1 00:00 ed []
1 00:00 Wuzzalib []
10 00:00 tu3031 []
1 00:00 BigEd []
3 00:00 tu3031 []
0 []
6 00:00 Anonymous5089 []
2 00:00 eLarson []
2 00:00 Super Hose []
0 []
13 00:00 Frank G []
2 00:00 Pappy []
0 []
6 00:00 Alaska Paul []
0 []
11 00:00 remote man []
13 00:00 BigEd []
16 00:00 BigEd []
15 00:00 Igster []
4 00:00 Frank G []
0 []
Arabia
Washington will prop up the House of Saud - for now

Saudi Arabia has descended into a cauldron of hatreds and divisions

Mai Yamani

Saturday June 5, 2004

The Guardian

Long before the latest violence erupted, Saudi Arabia’s immaculately suited spokesmen were out on the stump, telling anyone who would listen that the situation in the country was completely under control. They’re now doing it again - only this time nobody believes them. All the signs suggest that in the face of mounting violence and international pressure, the House of Saud has sunk into terminal denial and paralysis. Convinced that their enemies are all around them, they are nevertheless unable to locate them. Even when gunmen are totally surrounded in a building, three of them succeed in escaping. Last year the aged King Fahd threatened militants with his "iron fist", but they have gone on killing regardless. While the princes have insisted reforms are in progress, they continue to fling reformists themselves into jail - and intimidate others into keeping quiet. The government maintains its oil installations are completely safe from attack - and yet high-level oil analysts insist the Saudi security forces which guard them are infiltrated by extremists.

Such contradictions suggest that very little is currently under control in the Saudi kingdom. While expatriates consider whether to depart en masse, reports from the Gulf say that staff members of one of the more entrepreneurial princes have asked officials in Dubai to find them living space. They might well be re-locating in the near future. But it would be wrong to predict any immediate collapse of the state. Despite a marked cooling in relations, Saudi Arabia remains the key ally of the US in the region. With continuing violence in Iraq, Washington’s priority is to prevent Saudi Arabia descending into similar anarchy, even if it means propping up a regime it no longer likes or trusts. American demands for reform have quietened in the past few months, which may explain their muted response to the clampdown on Saudi liberals last March.

While oil prices remain exceptionally high and with a US presidential election in November, Saudi Arabia is the pump that cannot be allowed to run dry. Predictably, the kingdom is determined to remind the Bush administration of its central role in the world economy and politics, aware that if peace breaks out in neighbouring Iraq, it will lose some important leverage. Already its influence in the Gulf has been badly shaken. The smaller states no longer need Saudi Arabia for protection and security, and no longer look to Riyadh for a lead on the international stage. Moreover, some have clearly replaced the Saudi state in Washington’s affections, especially as they move ahead with political and economic reforms, outstripping the kingdom’s own meagre efforts.

It is now known that a number of those Gulf rulers have been lining up to tell the Saudis that reform is their only chance of survival, and that it may already be too late. But even those princes who accept that notion - such as Crown Prince Abdullah - no longer appear to hold sway in the cabinet. In any case, the Saudi state has become such a cauldron of hatreds and divisions - many now highlighted by the war in Iraq - that reforms favouring one group would almost certainly be rejected by another. Regional rivalries have been sharply exacerbated. The Asir region is viewed by many as partly Yemeni. The Hijazis see themselves as a separate cultural and religious entity. After decades of exclusion from key jobs, the Shia in the oil-rich province are deeply ambivalent about their Saudi identity and feel newly empowered by Shia advances in Iraq.

Conceivably, they could begin to demand their own state. Some even talk about Shia political power as a disease that could spread into Saudi Arabia and engulf it. If Iraq were ever to sink into civil war, the Saudis themselves would be hard-pressed to hold their nation together. To the Saudi royal family nothing is more troubling than the Shia questions. All Saudi Shia are followers of the Iraqi Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani - so they already look across the border for guidance. Bearded, turbaned and cloaked Shia clerics, now far more visible in Iraq, terrify the minority Saudi Wahhabis. From being the region’s big losers over the last few decades, many Shia now feel they can redress the balance, settle old scores and control the oil wealth. As they review their options, the Saudis have probably concluded that they can live with a Shia-dominated government in Iraq, but only if it contains prominent Sunni faces. All the same, relations won’t be easy.

Shia ideology is in direct collision with the Sunni Wahhabi doctrine that underpins the Saudi state and frequently labels the Shia as "heretics". For months, the Saudi government has trumpeted its "national dialogue" which brought together Ismaelis, Sufis, Shia and Salafis for unprecedented talks, chaired by Crown Prince Abdullah. But this is little more than window-dressing. The Wahhabi establishment has no appetite for the discussions and has made clear it is not in the reform business. For the first time, leading Saudi figures are talking privately of schism and the possibility of religious war. So there are no comfortable options for the Saudi royal family. Announce a hurried series of reforms and the princes will be seen to have bowed to American pressure and will face the wrath of the clergy. Do nothing, and even the moderates will turn against them and into the arms of the extremists. Offer government posts to the Shia, curb the powers of the ubiquitous religious police - the Mutawa - and another backlash would follow.

Meanwhile, al-Qaida attacks with relative impunity. Some security experts believe that key installations like Ras Tanoura and Abqaiq, the world’s largest oil processing complex, are vulnerable to attack. Questions about the competence and loyalty of elements within the security forces are denied by the authorities. Nevertheless, recent attacks have revealed intricate personal and tribal links between those forces and the violent jihadis. Revolution may not be imminent, but the security situation seems bound to deteriorate, provoking fresh splits in the kingdom’s complex political and religious architecture. Without a clear plan of action, it’s not surprising that the Saudi leadership has always put its head in the sand.
Can you say, "Up sh!t creek without a paddle in a barbed wire canoe?
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 10:23:45 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Saudis Told to Learn New Things, Develop New Habits
In other words, you people need to work for a living!
JEDDAH, 4 June 2004 — Saudi citizens who have grown used to having things easy and taking for granted many privileges have been urged to concentrate on learning new things and developing new habits. The objective is to make the Saudization drive bear fruit and help solve the country’s serious unemployment problem. Describing unemployment as the “most serious problem facing the Kingdom,” Labor Minister Dr. Ghazi Al-Gosaibi said fighting it should be a national policy rather than a government concern. He warned that the solution could be painful. Officials have been urging a shift from total dependence on foreign workers and have been calling on citizens to learn to live with new realities and develop new habits. Hard work requires a person to be fully prepared for a job.
Well, so much for that idea.
"Hey guys, I have an idea! Why don't we have the madrassas teach something useful?"
"Shaddup, Mahmoud, and pick up yer Qu'ran and rifle!"
Crown Prince Abdullah has repeatedly said that the days of the boom are over.
Poor choice of words, Prince
Dr. Al-Gosaibi said the time when people expected to be taken care of from cradle to grave has come to an end. Striking a comparison between a Saudi family and the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, the minister said while a Saudi family may employ a large number of domestics, Bill Gates has only a very limited number. No exact figures for unemployment are available, making it hard to tell how many Saudis are jobless, especially women. There are significant variations in the available estimates. The number of unemployed males has been estimated at around 300,000. The Ministry of Labor has requested a detailed study on unemployment among Saudi women.
That shouldn't take long.
Future statistics on employment will have to be more reliable by covering all sectors of the population; the present system which is used by the Ministry of Finance’s Department of Statistics does not include all sectors and segments but only selected ones. Soon after becoming minister a few months ago, Dr. Al-Gosaibi issued a decision banning small businesses from recruiting foreign workers. (According to official figures the Kingdom last year issued 700,000 work visas.) The minister’s idea was to reduce the number of foreigners entering the Kingdom on work visas after it was discovered that many businesses were being run by bogus offices. A person running a small business would claim to be overseeing several establishments, all carrying the name of the owner which would allow them to apply for hundreds of visas. Regional labor offices say a large number of small businesses are fake and that many of them rent their names complete with everything including the signboard. The minister said such practices were corrupt and promised the effect of the decision banning small businesses from bringing in more foreign workers would bear fruit within a year. The minister said he would seek to meet the businesses halfway on Saudization. He wanted businessmen to treat unemployment as a national issue, saying he would not seek to impose 100 percent Saudization or take away any job from any expatriate as long as their services are needed. Nor would he force on businessmen anything they may not be able to carry out; however, they must make their demands clear, he added.
Posted by: Anonymous4617 || 06/04/2004 7:24:23 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The... um... Saudi blogger described his compatriots as a 'nation of managers, not workers' the other day. Well, that's a kind way of putting it, I suppose.
Posted by: Anonymous5121 || 06/04/2004 10:39 Comments || Top||

#2  Me
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/04/2004 10:40 Comments || Top||

#3  Poor choice of words.... LOL!

The whole damn article may be the funniest thing ever posted at RB.

PeeeDeeeee?
Posted by: Shipman || 06/04/2004 11:30 Comments || Top||

#4  I can understand the Saudis, I'm a big picture, idea man myself.
Posted by: Shipman || 06/04/2004 11:31 Comments || Top||

#5  This article and editors' comments are second to the Nuggets of the Urdu Press, but they are a close second. One that got my fancy:

Crown Prince Abdullah has repeatedly said that the days of the boom are over.
Poor choice of words, Prince
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/04/2004 12:09 Comments || Top||

#6  The Saudis are reaping the whirlwind they have sown over the last several decades. Permitting their nation to stagnate technologically whilst constantly overemphasizing religious indoctrination is stirring up a dust devil that may well sweep them from power.

All of this is one more reason why it may be necessary to appropriate their entire nation and place it under some sort of coalition control. Oil flow would be maintained and their religious shrines could be gated in order to wield a club over the heads of militant jihadis.

I realize this is a gigantic undertaking, but the notion of a Wahabbist controlled Saudi Arabia is even less digestible for much of the global community. Some hard choices loom in the very near future. The royals have outlived any use to the world and even to their own nation.

Some reports have detailed a 90% decline in Saudi per capita income from $60K to $6K. Such a precipitous drop in their standard of living literally guarantees unrest. I don't see the royals melting down their solid good bathroom faucet handles to help assuage this poverty any time soon. The House of Saud has been farting through silk for far too long.
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 13:34 Comments || Top||

#7  solid good bathroom faucet handles

S/B "... solid GOLD bathroom faucet handles ..."
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 14:46 Comments || Top||

#8  Zenster-good points. I would also add:

What if there is a violent overthrow of the Saudi royalty? Let's say an insurgency/militia acts but is defeated and its casualties are large?

Who will take over the everyday burdens of banking, military, health care, etc. when the native male population has been decimated and a female population with borderline literacy skills and no work experience is all that remains?
Posted by: jules 187 || 06/04/2004 16:53 Comments || Top||

#9  Sorry--meant to say violent overthrow attempted...
Posted by: jules 187 || 06/04/2004 17:06 Comments || Top||

#10  Crown Prince Abdullah has repeatedly said that the days of the boom are over.

Yes, AP. Now come the days of "bada bing- bada boom".
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/04/2004 19:34 Comments || Top||

#11  #8 What if there is a violent overthrow of the Saudi royalty? Let's say an insurgency/militia acts but is defeated and its casualties are large?

The Saudis should probably confer with Iran on the subject of ramming the flower of their population's manhood through the meat grinder (known as the Iraq-Iran war). Iranian politics faces a distinct undercurrent of resentment as increasing numbers of women agitate politically. The Iranian mullahs will be obliged to implement ever-increasingly severe and misogynistic measures to combat this, much to the detriment of their continually diminishing popularity.

Who will take over the everyday burdens of banking, military, health care, etc. when the native male population has been decimated and a female population with borderline literacy skills and no work experience is all that remains?

This is something that I addressed in my initial statements. The profound technology gap and general lack of work ethic embodied by the House of Saud in particular and reflected by Saudi society in general are harbingers of rather dreadful possibilities.

Saudi Arabia can either revert to a nomadic herding society or face complete displacement by foreigners who possess sufficient expertise to operate the oil production facilities based in their region. Neither of these are very pretty outcomes, but the Saudis have been constructing this elaborate nightmare for some time now.

One thing is fairly well certain. Allowing Saudi Arabia and its petroleum reserves to fall into Wahabbist control is neither an option nor desirable for American or European interests alike. However blind Europe is to this, America's big-oil cartel and automotive manufacturing combine will take a dim view of such possibilities and you may be certain their displeasure will be well communicated to their puppets in Washington D.C.
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 20:37 Comments || Top||


Britain
Captain Hook makes death threats against key witness
Death threats have been made against an Algerian journalist who may be called as a witness against Abu Hamza, Belmarsh magistrates were told. The cleric has identified Reda Hassaine, who passed information about his activities to the British and French secret services, as a “legitimate target” because he spied on fellow Muslims. James Lewis, QC, said Abu Hamza had been asked by a Canadian interviewer if it was allowed to kill such a person. He replied: “It is OK to kill them by slitting their throats or by shooting them, any way you can deter them or others from doing such a thing.”

District Judge Timothy Workman said that after hearing of the death threats he was satisfied that witnesses could be in danger if the cleric were freed on bail. Mr Hassaine, 42, posed as a follower of Abu Hamza at Finsbury Park mosque, North London, from 1996 to 2000. Speaking outside the court, he told The Times that he had contacted FBI agents investigating Abu Hamza and was prepared to give evidence against him in the US courts. “I saw the trade in false documents, the raising of money for terrorism, how he sent people to Afghanistan and how terrorists who committed atrocities in Algeria came to Finsbury Park and were given a safe haven,” Mr Hassaine said. “He has got away with his crimes for years.” He added that he hoped the US authorities would broaden their inquiry to include Abu Hamza’s involvement with Islamist terrorists who had killed thousands in Algeria.
Posted by: TS(vice girl) || 06/04/2004 1:02:06 PM || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  And the Pom authorities don't want this Hamza guy to face execution?????
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 06/04/2004 13:09 Comments || Top||

#2  Hamza makes death threats against key witness

Tack another 10 years onto his sentence, m'lud.
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 13:40 Comments || Top||

#3  They don't call this guy "Danger Hooks" for nothin' ya know.
Posted by: Rex Mundi || 06/04/2004 15:28 Comments || Top||

#4  When guys like Hook Boy Emeritus make death threats, the only way to counter them is to hit them or their buds hard with extreme prejudice. They need a little fear of God, too.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/04/2004 16:25 Comments || Top||

#5  "Ya stupid bastard, you've got no hands! What're ya gonna do? Bite me?"
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 17:00 Comments || Top||

#6  Come back here. I'll bite your legs off!

[/Black Knight]
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 19:10 Comments || Top||

#7  Be nice if they could find him hung in his cell. But it'd be tough to rule it a suicide since they took the hooks away. Not that that would bother me...
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/04/2004 19:48 Comments || Top||

#8  TU, I don't know what a petard is but if he hasn't got one, issue him one and let him hoist away.
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/04/2004 22:38 Comments || Top||

#9  ask and ye shall google:

A petard was a bell-shaped metal grenade typically filled with five or six pounds of gunpowder and set off by a fuse. Sappers dug a tunnel or covered trench up to a building and fixed the device to a door, barricade, drawbridge or the like to break it open. The bomb was held in place with a heavy beam called a madrier.
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 22:54 Comments || Top||

#10  Thank you Frank. I guess giving that giving Hook a gernade wouldn't be so smart, unless the pin was removed, of course.

You're link also provided the following: The name of the device came from the Latin petar, to break wind, perhaps a sarcastic comment about the thin noise of a muffled explosion at the far end of an excavation.

I think I can make use of that latin root for some nonsense, sometime or other.
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/04/2004 23:02 Comments || Top||


Terror police quizzed guitarist over lyrics
The guitarist in a rock tribute act was quizzed as a terror suspect after sending a text message containing lyrics from a song by punk rock act the Clash to the wrong person. Band member Mike Devine, 35, the bass guitarist in a Clash tribute group called London Calling, intended to text the lyric from the band's song Tommy Gun to singer Reg Shaw - but sent the message to the wrong number. Avon and Somerset Police said a Special Branch officer visited Mr Devine after the person who received the message on April 30 became concerned and contacted police. Mr Devine, an engineer at the mobile phone company Orange, admitted he was worried when an officer from the Special Branch confronted him at his office on May 24. He said: "I had no idea why they could want to talk to me and so initially I thought it was just some sort of misunderstanding. "However as we spent about 10 minutes looking for an available meeting room I began to worry about past events in my life. Had I done something wrong when I was small? Were my parents spies? I was getting worried."
Just like when you see a police car while driving, you check the speedometer
Mr Devine said he was asked if he knew about the Special Branch and was interrogated about his mobile phone account. The father-of-two said the officer then looked for something in his file and produced a print-out of the text message. Mr Devine told the band's website: "He read the message very slowly in a kind-of- copper-giving-evidence-kind-of-way." It read: "How about this for Tommy Gun? OK - SO LET'S AGREE ABOUT THE PRICE AND MAKE IT ONE JET AIRLINER FOR TEN PRISONERS."
Humm, I can see why the police were interested
The bass guitarist, from Birchall Road, Bristol, said he was asked to explain what the message meant. Mr Devine said the detective looked "puzzled" when he was told they were the lyrics from the 1970s song Tommy Gun by The Clash. "We were having trouble working them out but I found them on the internet," Mr Devine explained. "I was just texting Reg our singer to see if he thought that they sounded right." The Special Branch officer seemed "a little embarrassed" when he left, Mr Devine added. The bass player said he was told by the officer that intelligence agencies were "on a higher state of alert" due to the present climate. His partner Becky May, 37, said Mr Devine was "shaken up" by the incident. "He was a little shaken-up and shocked at first," she said. "But I think it is quite reassuring intelligence agencies are on top of these things."
Becky sounds like she has a brain
A spokeswoman from Avon and Somerset Police said they were contacted by officers from Norfolk after Mr Devine's text message was traced to a Bristol address.
Posted by: Steve || 06/04/2004 10:27:35 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Mr. Devine may want to review the lyrics to Clampdown
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/04/2004 23:08 Comments || Top||


Radical preacher is an al-Qaida hero, court told
The radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza is an "al-Qaida hero" comparable to Osama bin Laden, a lawyer acting for the US in its extradition bid claimed yesterday.
"He made the big leagues!"
James Lewis QC told Belmarsh magistrates that Mr Hamza had sent money to a "top-level associate" of the terrorist network while under investigation by British police. The 46-year-old preacher was applying for bail pending a full hearing of the American case for extraditing him on terrorism charges. But Mr Lewis said Mr Hamza had the resources and an "irresistible incentive" to flee. Alternatively, he might try to interfere with witnesses or commit offences while on bail.
Well, he was de-hooked.
Mr Lewis said that while being investigated by police in 1999 Mr Hamza had sent money to Abu Khabab, a "well-known al-Qaida top-level associate" who ran a jihad training camp in Afghanistan which specialised in explosives and poison training. "From an al-Qaida point of view he is a hero in the same way as Bin Laden is portrayed," he said. But Paul Hynes, Mr Hamza's counsel, told the court that his client had battled to retain British citizenship and remain in the UK. "If ever there was a man who could not and would not contemplate the shame and ignominy of fleeing like a thief in the night in the face of the might of the United States, and in the process giving up all he believes to be right, that man is before you today," he said.
"Yer honor, my client is a man who knows when he's got people conned!"
He "could not cross his own living room without bringing himself to the attention of the authorities", not least because he lost an eye and both hands in a landmine explosion in Afghanistan.
And, coincidentally, because he has murder in his heart.
Mr Hynes said several of the alleged offences had been investigated by British police, and that if sufficient evidence existed Mr Hamza could be tried in British courts.
"Please throw my client into the briar patch!"
The so-called preacher is alleged to have aided a hostage-taking incident in Yemen in 1998 in which four captives - including three Britons - died. He also stands accused of conspiring to set up a terrorist training camp in Oregon in the US; and of sending a follower to an al-Qaida camp in Afghanistan. Wearing a red "I Love George Bush" T-shirt and khaki capris trousers, Mr Hamza spoke only to confirm his name and that he understood the US wanted to extradite him. District judge Timothy Workman refused the bail application, saying he was satisfied there was a risk that the cleric would fail to attend court, could interfere with witnesses or might commit further offences. The case is the first to test a new non-reciprocal extradition treaty which allows the US to extradite suspects without providing evidence against them. Mr Hamza will have the opportunity to appeal if the extradition request is successful. But Mr Hamza could face the death penalty in the US and British nationals cannot be extradited to face execution abroad.
I don't want to execute him, I want him to spend 23 hours a day in solitary in a super-max, de-hooked and with only a straw for company.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/04/2004 12:24:02 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I would put him on a diet of pork and kosher pickles.
Posted by: Dog Bites Trolls || 06/04/2004 1:33 Comments || Top||

#2  If they let him out on bail, they should have their heads examined. To lie, to the infidels(us), is THE moral dictate, of a filthy muslim pig.
Posted by: Halfass Pete || 06/04/2004 3:06 Comments || Top||

#3  Leave the hook on, bandage his other hand to make it unusable, and plaster his cell with pictures of naked houri, then sit back and watch what happens.
Posted by: Yank || 06/04/2004 10:07 Comments || Top||

#4  Or is this guy blind?
Posted by: Yank || 06/04/2004 10:08 Comments || Top||

#5  Is it me or is dbt getting funnier?
Posted by: Shipman || 06/04/2004 11:35 Comments || Top||

#6  It's you :-)

Well, you asked!
Posted by: Steve White || 06/04/2004 11:58 Comments || Top||

#7  If (de)Hook Boy goes to trial in the US, it will be a New Yawk Lawyuh circus. I can see it now. He really needs to go to Yemen or to FL280 and save us all headaches.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/04/2004 12:15 Comments || Top||

#8  If he is extradited here and we could house him where he belongs, i.e. an animal shelter. Then he can share a cage with any friendly dog breed that licks alot, so as to have no actual physical threat. (Boxer, Poodle, etc) Or for a real offending situation, he can share a cage with a lost pet potbellied pig. Oink!
Posted by: BigEd || 06/04/2004 12:41 Comments || Top||

#9  Any way he can sucked out a window of the plane on the way over here? Even better, maybe the hooks will catch and it'll land with his dead, frozen, one eyed ass hanging over the side.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/04/2004 19:38 Comments || Top||


Europe
Albanian Authorities Seize Suspected al-Qaeda-linked Bank Account
The finance ministry's office on prevention of money laundering has requested the freezing of a bank account suspected of being linked to al-Qaeda, according to the daily Gazeta Shqiptare. The account is worth 2.4m euros. The newspaper quoted a source Sunday (6 June) as saying that prosecutors are working to determine the origin of the money, the source of the bank account, and the money's final destination. Officials suspect it belongs to a citizen of Jordanian origin, Abdul Latif Saleh. Suspicions arose when a second Jordanian, identified as Hamza Abu Rajan, presented to the bank a special power of attorney for the transfer of 2.4m euros. (Albanian Daily News, Gazeta Shqiptare - 07/06/04)
Posted by: Fred || 06/04/2004 10:12 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


There are no antisemites in France! Never!
A 17year old jewish teen has been stabbed today in a parisisan suburb by a young arab man shouting "Allah Akbar". He seems to be in stable albeit serious condition.
Oh and by the way , he was wearing his yarmukle(and probably the arab guy felt insulted...).

Link is in French
Posted by: frenchfregoli || 06/04/2004 2:42:36 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Doesn't the stabber realize? No death penalty in France if the victim dies. No virgins. 30 days in a Christian Dior decorated jail cell, only because he can't pay for the ruined criossants (they got cold) of the jandarmes called to the scene, then he's back on the street.

If he hadn't interrupted someone's meal. . .
Posted by: BigEd || 06/04/2004 17:40 Comments || Top||

#2  muslims will never be accepted as long as they pull this kinda of shit - could you imagine a christian stabbing a muslim in a muslim country.... these asshats would be frothing at the mouth for revenge..... i have no sympathy for muslims as long as moderate muslims ( i heard they do exist) do not stand up and shut the fanactics down.
Posted by: Dan || 06/04/2004 17:50 Comments || Top||

#3  Is France becoming the first E.U. neo-Islamic state?
Posted by: Mark Espinola || 06/04/2004 18:02 Comments || Top||

#4  Becoming, Mark?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 06/04/2004 18:06 Comments || Top||

#5  muslims will never be accepted as long as they pull this kinda of shit

You have to qualify that geographically. In Europe they will be much loved.
Posted by: Rafael || 06/04/2004 18:13 Comments || Top||

#6  "Allah Akbar"

Well that fits in with their standard M.O.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/04/2004 19:45 Comments || Top||

#7  #5 - well maybe in france (but then again they are taking steps agaisnt muslims) but i just cannot see nationalistic germans - austrians - russians - croats - serbs ect accepting muslims. the muslims in europe are for the most part in ethnic ghettos. eventually the euros' will have to tackle this problem and they are not much for, shall i say the melting pot approach.
Posted by: Dan || 06/04/2004 19:53 Comments || Top||

#8  the muslims in europe are for the most part in ethnic ghettos.

It's precisely this sort of "enclave" mentality that is fostered by endemic European bigotry. Anti-Semitism is just another button on the coat.
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 22:33 Comments || Top||

#9  Are there enough Haitians for the French government to swap all the Ilslamoids for Hatians? Then we just have to buld a big wall to protect the Dominicans - unless they want to learn to speak French.
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/04/2004 22:48 Comments || Top||


US Weighs Pulling Troops Out of Germany
EFL
The United States has yet to complete plans for any troop withdrawals from Germany and is still consulting with its allies over its intention to fundamentally rearrange American forces around the world, U.S. and German officials said Friday. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested changes could begin soon, saying Washington is ready to move forces in Europe and Korea that have formed static defense lines rooted in the Cold War. “It’s time to adjust those locations from static defense to a more agile and a more capable and a more 21st-century posture,” Rumsfeld told reporters Thursday. He would not give specifics on any proposals. “It was clear that there was not yet a final decision, and that this decision-making and discussion process in the United States is still going on,” German Foreign Ministry spokesman Walter Lindner told reporters Friday. It is too early to discuss timetables and numbers, Lindner said. On Friday, the New York Times reported that the troop reduction would mean that the Germany-based 1st Armored Division and 1st Infantry Division would return to the United States.
Posted by: Sludj || 06/04/2004 3:07:32 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "We hate you! We hate you! We--where are you going?"
Posted by: BH || 06/04/2004 17:26 Comments || Top||

#2  US Weighs Pulling Troops Out of Germany

OK, so their time is past. Get the hell off the scale and let the ingrate krauts deal with their own problems.
Posted by: BigEd || 06/04/2004 17:27 Comments || Top||

#3  Like I've said before, go east to Poland, turn the tanks around to face west and dig in.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats || 06/04/2004 18:18 Comments || Top||

#4  Last I heard, there ain't no war in Germany...
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/04/2004 19:46 Comments || Top||

#5  cultural war, maybe
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 20:02 Comments || Top||

#6  US Weighs Pulling Troops Out of Germany

There's no obvious downside to pulling ALL U.S. troops from Germany, so what's there to weigh?
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 06/04/2004 20:10 Comments || Top||

#7  I know that it is easy to get all worked up about Schroeder and Co. but the main thing about bases in Germany is to evaluate them in a calm, rational manner. For instance, we may not need armored divisions hanging around there any more, but we may want to keep the hospital at Wiesbaden as that kind of infrastructure is centrally located and would serve many theaters.

There is a lot of hysteria around and someone has to do the rational thinking. Looking around, at the present, it leaves us.

Same goes for SKor. There is going to be a lot of painful education for locals. At least let us not contribute to the hysteria.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/04/2004 20:12 Comments || Top||

#8  Paul is correct. The troop draw down is inevitable, but keeping the Germans as allies is important. No matter what Kerry wants everyone to believe, Bush's Administration is sensitive to the needs of our allies.
To give a corporate example, a large company, Babcock & Wilcox, is Canton, Ohio closed an incredibly large facility there but did it in such a way as to encourage several other smaller industrial companies to occupy different parts of the facility. This helped out the community and all were happy... for the most part.
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/04/2004 22:56 Comments || Top||

#9  There's good, there's not so good but now that the cold war is over, how does having bases in Germany help. Well some. But couldn't that be accomplished in other places?
Posted by: Lucky || 06/04/2004 22:59 Comments || Top||

#10  I agree with BidEd #2, there's nothing to 'weigh', for every soldier on the ground in Iraq added as an additon to the current levels, will fortify and cement our position!
Posted by: smn || 06/04/2004 22:59 Comments || Top||

#11  One article I read around 1990 that has always stuck with me, stated that Germany would be a sometime ally, but most of the time a competitor of the US. We don't have cultural similarities like with the English or Aussies, and there has been a lot of blood shed between us the first half of the last century. But for 50 years our interests coincided in West Germany not wanting to be overrun by the Soviets and the US not wanting to see the Soviets on the English Channel. Now that the threat of Soviet invasion is past and Europe is now at peace, the convergence of interests is no longer there. Though personally, I am disappointed and angry at the speed which German political and media classes vilify the US. The US can now focus on the Muslim countries, the Caucasus, and East Asia. There should no US troops in Europe (including the Balkans), only Air Force and Navy facilities for transit and repair. Anything else keeps our forces from home or where they are needed.

Also, it seems to me that classifying countries as New Europe or Old Europe is a losing proposition. At this time, Eastern Europe still feels insecure about a resurgent Russia. But in the end, due to economic, political, and media integration, they will align with the big boy next door: Germany. I think the best that the US can hope for is to leave a democratic and peaceful legacy, cooperate when there is common interest, and ignore them when they complain and have no viable alternative.

But one area of Europe I think the US is neglecting is the former SSRs of Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus. The US should be working to develop democratic, uncorrupt institutions and economic development in those countries. Not only because it is the right thing to do to integrate them with the democratic core, but also as a bulwark in case Russia goes the dictator route. In those countries the US should use the Asian development model of using trade to build up the economy and pushing to implement transparent laws and competitive elections. I think to US should redirect its foreign trade from parts of Western Europe to bolster our foreign policy initiatives elsewhere.
Posted by: ed || 06/05/2004 1:04 Comments || Top||


Turkey: Radio-controlled Missiles Discovered In Containers
Turkish State Minister Kursad Tuzmen said on Thursday that weapons were seized by customs officials from a ship that was headed in transit from Ukraine to Egypt. Speaking to reporters, Tuzmen said that radio-controlled missiles were discovered in containers aboard the ship that was docked at the ports of Ambarli, Istanbul for refuel. Tuzmen said that the cargo in the containers had been declared as spare parts.
Oops!
After investigation at the port of Ambarli which is almost 20 kilometers from Istanbul, Tuzmen said that customs officials searched two containers aboard the ship when they saw that the ship's cargo was different from the cargo statement of its captain. Recalling that Turkish officials had earlier discovered Kalashnikov rifles in containers which had been declared as hunting rifles aboard a ship, Tuzmen said, ''we have changed our control system. We have started to get results of it.'' Noting that the captain had stated that the cargo was various spare parts, but they were actually weapons, Tuzmen said investigation was under way. ''According to documents, goods were shipped from Ukraine to Egypt and containers were discharged at Ambarli and another ship is going to take them to Egypt. However, at the moment I say that a transit cargo was seized by our officials as it is a smuggling of weapons. There are weapons inside containers although they were supposed to have been spare parts according to captain's statement,'' he said. Asked whether officials seized anything else like chemical substances, Tuzmen said there was a radio-controlled missile. ''There are rockets, a radio-controlled missile and rocket launcher pads.''
Hummm
Posted by: Steve || 06/04/2004 11:32:29 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Gee - "Spare Parts" for a Lego model, right?

Letter sent to addressee of the "Spare Parts"

June 3, 2004
To : Al Qaeda
Cairo, Egypt

Dear Al:

We regret to inform you that your added modules for your "life-like" missile launchers have been removed. It seems that Lego, who has copyright on all of their products, objects to the adaptor as being a copyright infringment issue with the Ukranian Government. Please make yourself available to the civil court, Istanbul, Turkey, so you can retrieve your "spare parts" without the adaptor module upon conclusion of the trial.

Regards,
Ishmael Zotz
Customs Department - Istanbul District
Republic of Turkey
Posted by: BigEd || 06/04/2004 17:22 Comments || Top||


'Bomb' blast rocks Russia market
At least eight people have died in a blast in a Russian market, in what officials believe was a deliberate attack. The explosion in the central city of Samara was initially blamed on an accident with gas canisters. But prosecutors later said plastic explosive was used, although it was not clear whether a terror attack or a business dispute was suspected. Nearly 40 people were injured in the blast in the crowded Kirov market at noon (0700GMT). Television pictures showed scenes of devastation, with bodies lying among wrecked market stalls. The city is 800km (500 miles) south-east of Moscow.
Posted by: Steve || 06/04/2004 10:25:14 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Ooh Yea...I remember now,didn't the Russians, veto just about every move in the UN during the terror upstart...Hmmm?
Posted by: smn || 06/04/2004 23:04 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
Bush Chooses ex-Senator Danforth as UN Ambassador
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 17:20 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Interesting in that Danforth is also an Episcopal minister. What will the Moslems think? John Danforth is not only Christian, but an ordained clergyman as well.

Somebody will get offended. . .
Posted by: BigEd || 06/04/2004 17:30 Comments || Top||

#2  I like it.
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 17:37 Comments || Top||

#3  Im an atheist, but I also like it.
Posted by: Evert V. in NL || 06/04/2004 17:51 Comments || Top||

#4  Just the shear ballsyness of it for pissing off the rest of the islamic world makes me love it!
Posted by: mmurray821 || 06/04/2004 18:35 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
Sweeping Changes Ahead in Military Doctrine to Meet Current Threat
Military doctrine needs to be less detailed, more adaptable and less rooted in Cold War mindsets to guide U.S. military forces confronting new challenges, particularly global terrorism. That was the synopsis of Army leaders, who gathered this week at U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command headquarters at Fort Monroe, Va., to describe sweeping changes they envision in military doctrine — that shared way of thinking about the way the military approaches a problem and carries out missions.

Lt. Gen. William "Scott" Wallace heads the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., and commanded the Army’s 5th Corps in leading Army forces during major combat action in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He said much of the combat phase of the campaign followed closely along age-old doctrinal principles. But other aspects of the operation diverged significantly from traditional doctrine, he said: the lack of clear-cut distinctions between the phases of operations, the increased blend between conventional and special operations forces, the emphasis on joint operations at increasing lower levels, among them.

Perhaps most significant, the Army leaders agreed, was the nature of the enemy himself and the way he fights. Under Cold War assumptions, which guided military doctrine for decades, the adversary was relatively steady and predictable, explained Brig. Gen. David Fastabend, director of concept development and experimentation at U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command’s Futures Center. Not so with the estimated 30 million to 60 million people in the world who Fastabend said are "violently and irreconcilably opposed" to the concepts the United States and much of the world has embraced: globalization, free markets and the free exchange of ideas. This enemy, Fastabend said, lacks the structure of the U.S. military as well as its traditional adversaries, so it’s able to adapt quickly to suit the circumstances. "Its weakness is actually its strength," he said. In addition, these adversaries simply don’t think the way most other people think, making it difficult to understand what motivates them or predict how they’ll act.
In other words, they're loop-loops...
These uncertainties, the Army leaders agreed, turn many doctrinal principles rooted in the Cold War on their head. "Both the predictions and outcomes have changed," Wallace said. In response, Wallace said doctrine must become more streamlined so it’s more of a playbook than a textbook and gives commanders more flexibility on the battlefield. "If you’re looking for specificity in doctrine, you’re not going to get it," he said.

Similarly, as the enemy constantly adapts, so too must military doctrine, the leaders agreed. Gone are the days when doctrine required little more than periodic tweaking to stay current. More appropriate for today’s military, they agreed, would be a "living" doctrine that regularly incorporates new, proven tactics, techniques, procedures and other lessons learned. Fastabend said doctrine needs to be detailed enough to help military leaders think and reason through an issue, but general enough to prepare them for "more dimensions of uncertainty" than they faced in the past.

As the armed forces face these uncertainties, the military leaders agreed the fundamentals of warfare — being able to shoot, communicate and move on the battlefield — become more important than ever. "When you’ve got that, you can deal better with uncertainty. It makes it easier to do things nonstandard and unusual," Wallace said. "If you have the fundamentals right, you can deal with the broken play."
Posted by: tipper || 06/04/2004 9:27:34 PM || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Why am I suspecting that the US Army, Air Force, and Navy are undergoing a massive restructing and rearmament prior to a war in, er, a BIG country in South Asia.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 06/04/2004 22:33 Comments || Top||

#2  I wonder if this new warfighting doctrine supersedes the classic strategy manuals ...

(For example, does the level of electronization of the battlefield and individual troops render Sun Zi's pronouncement about officer autonomy obsolete? [the understanding that an officer on the ground commands as he sees fit without brass oversight])
Posted by: Edward Yee || 06/04/2004 23:49 Comments || Top||


The New Defeatism
Nothing has been quite as depressing as watching Washington and New York melt down during these past two months. History in D.C. is apparently measured by hours, not decades — and its lessons are gleaned from last night’s reruns. Liberal pundits went ballistic over Abu Ghraib and Fallujah. Worse still, many conservatives bailed or triangulated. Meanwhile, bin Laden’s clique talks endlessly of payback for Jerusalem, Afghanistan, and Iraq — jettisoning the casus belli of his 1998 fatwa about U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia and the U.N. blockade — even as our elites, aping the Spanish, claim that only Iraq stirred up terrorism. In somber tones newscasters assure us of all sorts of bad things to come. But our soldiers have continued to fight in Iraq as the plans for transition have inched forward. So let us review the conventional ignorance and ponder what exactly is our national affliction.

No Plan? For those who think that we are either incompetent or disingenuous in Iraq, look at Kurdistan, where seven million people live under humane government with less than 300 American troops. How did that happen? The people of Kurdistan are Islamic, often quarrelsome folks — in the heart of the Middle East — now residing in relative safety and autonomy, and expressing good will toward the United States. They accept that we don’t want Kurdish oil any more than we want to take over the sands and slums of the Sunni Triangle. So the problem in central Iraq is not us, but rather the fact that unlike Kurdistan — which had a decade of transition toward consensual society thanks to Anglo-American pilots — the country is reeling from 30 years of autocracy, in which Islamic fascism offered an alternative of sorts to an ossified Soviet-style dictatorship. We have always had a "plan" in Iraq — it was to leave the country something like its northern third in Kurdistan. Precisely because it was costly, idealistic, and dangerous, we should expect a lot of killing and bombing in the next few months as an array of opponents tries to derail the upcoming transition and elections. Anyone who thinks thousands of Islamic fascists and out-of-work Baathists won’t want to stop the region’s first consensual government is unhinged. But, again, for all our mistakes of omission there was and is a plan — and it is now slowly coming to messy fruition. Even after the spring nightmare, we do not hear many Iraqis saying, "Leave right now and take your stinking $87 billion with you," much less, "Give us back Saddam" or "Quit stealing our oil for your cheap gas."

Neoconservatives? Let us be frank. This appellation is no longer a descriptive term of so-called "new conservatives," those members of the eastern intelligentsia who were rather liberal on some domestic hot-button issues (tolerant of open borders, quiet about abortion, indifferent to gay marriage, etc.), but promoted a proactive neo-Wilsonian idealism in foreign policy (whether in the Balkans in taking out Milosevic or in trying to replace Saddam Hussein with democracy rather than a Shah-like proconsul). Instead, face the ugly fact: "Neocon" is now a slur for "Jew." General Zinni (who once boasted that 600 to 2,000 Iraqis were eliminated from the air in his Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign) is now ubiquitous on television hawking his new book, criticizing the war (on Memorial Day, no less), and being praised in the Arab news as he talks about "Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith" and all those who purportedly got us into Iraq.

"Cabal" and "Nazi-like" are also used by others and with increasing frequency to promote the old idea of crafty, sneaky people pulling the wool over honest naifs (no doubt aw-shucks, unsophisticated folks such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Rice). A shameful Senator Hollings has no apologies for claiming that our policy was misdirected for Israel’s sake. Even a saucer-eyed Al Gore got into the spirit of things. Recently he screamed out the names of those who must walk his plank, and went into an exorcist-like trance when his vein-bulging, spinning-head got to spitting out the name "Woolfwoootizzzzz." If there was advice from a "bloc" of so-called neoconservatives, it has not "failed," but is in fact already working even as we caricature it: We’ve taken out Saddam; we are on the eve of a transition to an autonomous reform government; and we are shooting the enemy 7,000 miles away, rather than being murdered at Ground Zero. And, by any historical standard, we are fighting in both an economical and humane fashion.

Israel? Most of us are tired of reading daily that Israel is making problems for us. It is a liberal democracy and currently in the throes of a national debate about whether to withdraw from a territory, Gaza, from which it was attacked in three wars. Its uniformed military targets terrorists; its main opponent’s terrorists seek to kill civilians. We should have more confidence in its free press, elected officials, and voting citizenry to craft a humane policy — under threat of suicide murdering, no less — than in all the corrupt and fascistic regimes that surround it. It once took out — at great risk to itself — Iraq’s nuclear reactor; it did not sell the reactor at great profit or take control of that country’s oil. If this caring world is worried about the injustice of a fence or Islamaphobia, then start slurring nuclear India for its $1 billion fence, which shuts off the entire (impoverished Muslim) country of Bangladesh — a far harsher blow to far more millions than Israel’s so-called "Wall" aimed at stopping suicide killing. If we hate the principle of "occupied lands," then let Europe cease trade with China and hector that dictatorial government about the cultural obliteration of occupied Tibet. If we are truly worried about violence, then let the U.N. and the EU turn their attention to Nigeria, where thousands are murdered yearly. If the death of tens of thousands of Muslims and the desecration of mosques bother the Arab League, then let them blast the Arabs of the Sudan, who are systematically and in the most racist fashion butchering black Muslims. But if after all that we have still not gotten our bearings, then let us rail about Sharon and the "occupation," and thus enable the Arab world to forget its self-induced misery and find psychic reassurance, as Europe too often has, by blaming Jews.

No al Qaeda links? Equally bothersome is the old canard, "Saddam was a secularist and hated al Qaeda" — as though simultaneous enemies of America have always shared the same ideology. Just ask the Japanese and Germans, or the Chinese and Russians, who agreed to set aside their mutual hatred to fight us for being emissaries of freedom. Under the Clinton administration it was considered standard intelligence dogma that Osama and Saddam worked together; only the controversy over Iraq has post-facto questioned that former pillar of American and European intelligence doctrine — and for entirely political reasons. There was a reason Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were in Baghdad. And it was the same reason why al Qaeda was working in Kurdistan, why al Zarqawi went to Baghdad to Saddam’s doctors, why there is good reason to believe that before the first World Trade Center bombing the culpable terrorists had ties with Iraqi intelligence, and why seized documents now coming to light in Iraq reveal a long history of cooperation between Islamic terrorists and Saddam’s secret police. To think otherwise would be crazy, given the shared aims of both in attacking Americans and getting them out of the Middle East. The only puzzle is whether Saddam contributed to the 9/11 terrorist fund or simply was apprised of al Qaeda’s general efforts.

Our Real Dilemma. We do have a grave problem in this country, but it is not the plan for Iraq, the neoconservatives, or targeting Saddam. Face it: This present generation of leaders at home would never have made it to Normandy Beach. They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor, cast around blame for the Japanese internment, sued over the light armor and guns of Sherman tanks, apologized for bombing German civilians, and recalled General Eisenhower to Washington to explain the rough treatment of Axis prisoners. We are becoming a crazed culture of cheap criticism and pious moralizing, and in our self-absorption may well lose what we inherited from a better generation. Our groaning and hissing elite indulges itself, while better but forgotten folks risk their lives on our behalf in pretty horrible places. Judging from our newspapers, we seem to care little about the soldiers while they are alive and fighting, but we suddenly put their names on our screens and speak up when a dozen err or die. And, in the latter case, our concern is not out of respect for their sacrifice but more likely a protest against what we don’t like done in our name. So ABC’s Nightline reads the names of the fallen from Iraq, but not those from the less controversial Afghanistan, because ideological purity — not remembering the departed per se — is once again the real aim.

Our very success after September 11 — perhaps because of the Patriot Act, the vigilance of domestic-security agencies, and the global reach of our military — has prevented another catastrophe of mass murder, but also allowed us to become complacent, and thus once more cynical and near suicidal. We can afford to be hypercritical and so groan at a Rudolph Giuliani at the 9/11 hearings only because brave men and women prevented more suicide bombings. We caricature our efforts in Iraq and demonize a good man like Paul Wolfowitz, even as a courageous and competent military took out Saddam in three weeks — and, in far less than the time that the occupations took in Germany and Japan (likewise both written off as failures of the times) allowed an autonomous and soon-to-be-elected government to take over. Partisanship about the war earlier on established the present sad paradox of election-year politicking: Good news from Iraq is seen as bad news for John Kerry, and vice versa. If that seems too harsh a judgment, we should ask whether Terry McAuliffe would prefer, as would the American people, Osama bin Laden captured in June, more sarin-laced artillery shells found in July, al-Zarqawi killed in August, al-Sadr tried and convicted by Iraqi courts in September, an October sense of security and calm in Baghdad, and Syria pulling a Libya in November.

These depressing times really are much like the late 1960s, when only a few dared to plead that Hue and Tet were not abject defeats, but rare examples of American courage and skill. But now as then, the louder voice of defeatism smothers all reason, all perspective, all sense of balance — and so the war is not assessed in terms of five years but rather by the last five hours of ignorant punditry. Shame on us all. Historic forces of the ages are in play. If we can just keep our sanity a while longer, accept our undeniable mistakes, learn from them, and press on, Iraq really will emerge as the constitutional antithesis of Saddam Hussein, and that will be a good and noble thing — impossible without America and its most amazing military.
Posted by: tipper || 06/04/2004 11:25:22 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Standing, cheering, clapping!

Man, I wish I could write like VDH.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/04/2004 12:22 Comments || Top||

#2  generally i like the above. But:

They would instead have called off the advance to hold hearings on Pearl Harbor

While of course no advance was called off, there WERE hearings about Pearl Harbor during WW2, IIUC. Was Kimmel scapegoated for FDRs failure, that sort of thing.
Posted by: Liberalhawk || 06/04/2004 13:58 Comments || Top||

#3  I usually enjoy reading VDH's pieces. This one left me cold. I felt this piece was too much of a pre-election pro-Bush propaganda piece. The fact that VDH criticizes only the media and the Democrats of causing "meltdown" and only they can ruin our success in Iraq is disingenuous.

Also, I take exception to VDH's transparent attempt to muzzle criticism of neocons' political philosophy by suggesting that critics are being anti-semitic by doing so. That's absolute hogwash and VDH should know better.

The fact that Paul Wolfowitz is Jewish is not why he is being criticized. The fact that Paul Wolfowitz has convinced this Admin. that it is America's role and obligation to spread ideology throughout the world is the reason why Wolfowitz is being criticized. That Wolfowitz convinced our President that Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq would flourish["knowledge" based on his 3 short years as a well guarded Ambassador in a Muslim country]and this freedom of Iraqi Muslims would spread throughout the ME and would ensure our security from jihad is why Wolfowitz is being criticized. The fact that Wolfowitz relied on Iraqi exiles like Chalabi for much of his optimism re: how the Iraqis would behave towards our GI's is why Wolfowitz is being criticized. The fact that Wolfowitz is bringing his pie in the sky academic philosophy to the Defense Dept.[second in command no less]without possessing even one nanosecond of personal experience on the front lines of war is why Wolfowitz is being criticised. Shall I go on???

The fact that many neocons are Jewish is a fact of life. But the reason that people criticize neocon philosophy is because the philosophy is imperfect with faulty assumptions not because of the religious background of many of its proponents.

Support for Israel in mainstream America has never been stronger than it is today. Oddly enough, the major standard bearer of anti-Israel sentiment I see in America is in the pages of the NYT, which is owned by a Jewish family. Anti-Israel pro-Palestinian posturing is not coming from the editorial pages of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,it's coming from the NYT. Why this is happening is a mystery to me.

IMO, in this piece, VDH has done exactly what he accuses others of doing:
We are becoming a crazed culture of cheap criticism and pious moralizing, and in our self-absorption may well lose what we inherited from a better generation. Our groaning and hissing elite indulges itself, while better but forgotten folks risk their lives on our behalf in pretty horrible places.

VDH has piously moralized about the reasons for "meltdown" in our attitude to the war in Iraq. As well VDH has taken for granted the sacrifices and risks that our military are facing in Iraq. It's not just the jihadists that put our men in danger, it's the politically correct and yes, I'll say it outright, "muddled" philosophy in DC that hampers their efforts to win a war and creates for them unfair rules of engagement and unrealistic goals for "success."
Posted by: rex || 06/04/2004 15:02 Comments || Top||

#4  That Wolfowitz convinced our President that Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq would flourish

First he didnt say Jeffersonian democracy, any democracy will do. And the basis is not jsut his experience in Indonesia, but the experience with the spread of democracy elsewhere, the experiences of Turkey and Kurdistan, and the views of experts on islam and mid east culture like Bernard Lewis.

BTW have you actually read the history of the early US, the articles of confederation period, the bitter hatreds among the founding fathers? Not only does Iraq not have wise and enlightened leaders, at the time OUR leaders didnt look too wise or enlightened either. Jefferson even spread attacks on George Washington.

And of course VDH is not saying you cant attack neocons - he IS asking why in many such attacks, only Wolfie, feith, Kristol, et al are called neocons, while Rummy and Cheney are not? Is there an ideological gap here we dont know about? Or is neocon being used to mean "jew"?
Posted by: Liberalhawk || 06/04/2004 15:39 Comments || Top||

#5  Re the NYT, its hardly surprising that a highly assimilated family, deeply concerned about its political and social power here, finds Zionism threatening. And of course its connections to the "fellow travelers" on the upper west side is also a factor. And BTW theres much worse antiIsrael posturing than that, coming from Harpers, the Nation, Slate, and elsewhere, not to mention the UK press. No old Jewish families there. Why are you singling out the NYT?
Posted by: Liberalhawk || 06/04/2004 15:43 Comments || Top||

#6  Answering questions in #4 post:
Key points of Jeffersonian democracy are that all men are born with "natural" rights to freedom and liberty [even jihadists who want to convert or kill infidels?]that democracy is the best form of government[Sir Alex Fraser Tytler would disagree] and representative government[ one jihadist, one vote?] is the best form of democracy and furthermore, that there needs to be a wall of separation between church and state[ the trouble with Islam is that it is not a Judeo-Christian religion and is not so accepting of a wall between church and state]

I would suggest to you that the neocons are insistent that only the idealistic Jeffersonoian version of democracy is acceptable in Iraq. That's why I keep saying neocons are too rigid and too elitist/arrogant in they way they view what's a good government for Iraqis. What's successful in Iraq may need to be something other than a democracy, especially an idealistic Jeffersonian democracy. Kurds in Iraq are nominally Muslim. They are not Arabs. For VDH and other leading neocons to claim with confidence that what happened with the Kurds can happen with Sunni and Shiite Iraqis is naive and dangerous. This "one size fits all" elitist view of what's good for all Iraqis for all of the ME will be America's undoing.

As for your pointing to Turkey and to the experience of democracy elsewhere????what in heavens are you talking about? I see no evidence of successful democracies in Muslim dominated countries. Ask the Kurds in Turkey about how great democracy is working in that country. Ask Prince Abdullah about the numbers of synagogues and Catholic churches there are in Jordan.

That you use "expert" Bernard Lewis to support Wolfowitz's sheltered experience with one Muslim country is laughable. Lewis is yet another academic. Why don't you ask a Kurdish soldier or an Israeli soldier about their views on the likelihood of Jeffersonian democracy transforming Sunni and Shiite Iraqis into wonderfully tolerant citizens of the world?

As for the "bitter hatreds" of the Founding Fathers...last I heard, the Founding Fathers did not need an occupying military force from a foreign nation to prevent them from slashing each others throats nor did the Founding Fathers get force fed articles of the constitution from another "suits" in another nation.

As for why Wolfowitz is being criticised more than Cheney or Rumsfeld for the neocon foreign policy...it's obvious...it's because Wolfowitz is the chief architect of the "winning hearts and minds" philosophy. If Rumsfeld had his way, I have no doubt he'd have been in and out of Iraq by January 01, 2003. Rumsfeld is a soldiers' soldier. He uses soldiers to break things, demolish the enemy, not to use them like social workers building trust and self-esteem in Sunnis or to act as carpenters to re-build shelled mosques, the sanctuary of the enemy's philosophy if not the enemy itself. I don't know what Cheney's philosophy is about democracy flourishing in Iraq, but I suspect he's a lot more pragmatic and closer to Rumsfeld than Wolfowitz.

Wolfowitz is the Chief Chef of democracy in ME = security for America, and if he can't stand the heat of criticism, he should not have gone into the kitchen. For VDH to shelter Wolfowitz from criticism using the club of anti-semitism is shameless.

Feith Who is hardly a high profile player in the public eye. Feith has done his best the past 3 years to hide in his office. His name came up recently with regards to the Abu Prison policy but other than that why would a shadow be a target of criticism? As for Kristol -thank you for bringing up his name - he is a neocon who has recently criticized the WH's chaotic policy in Iraq, but it's okay for him to criticize neocons but it's not okay for me? As for criticism of Kristol personally, I've not read much, maybe you have. I must say when I've seen him interviewed on FOX News, his condescending manner is reason enough for critics to love to slam him any chance they get. Kristol has an abrasive manner about him that makes him a great target, not his being Jewish, and I've got news for you, Kristol's know-it-all personality would alienate as many people whether he was Catholic or Hindu or Jewish. It's the person, not the religion.

#5 I chose the NYT as an example of anti-Israel posturing because, at least in my mind, the NYT used to be considered an icon in newspaper journalistim circles. I contrasted this elitist icon to the Pittsburgh Tribune, which to my mind, represents the views of ordinary Joes/Josephines in mainstream America. This buttressed my point that VDH was wrong about attempting to relate the general public's concerns about the occupation of Iraq to anti-Israel sentiments. It is just not so.

I did not look at journals outside America because I was focusing on how mainstream America views Israel, which is in a very supportive positive way.

That you suggest that "it's hardly surprising" [ie. understandable and justified] that the owners of the NYT damn Israel because they are worried about their personal social and political connections is very odd, I must say. How is it that you believe that criticizing Wolfowitz's bad judgment in shaping foreign policy is anti-semitic but when the NYT slams PM Sharon and Israel's fence building effort every chance it gets and features pictures of wailing Palestinian suicide bomber mothers on the front page is understandable?

No old Jewish families there. Why are you singling out the NYT?
Your thin skin about imagined anti-semitism makes it very difficult to debate anything with you.
Posted by: rex || 06/04/2004 17:43 Comments || Top||

#7  I too stand clapping. I wondered as I read if it was VDH. Damn he's good! No one else can both see and express the truth so clearly.

VDH...love you!! You're the man. XXXOX
Posted by: B || 06/04/2004 19:33 Comments || Top||


Why American Muslim Converts Turn to Terrorism
The new face of Islamic terrorism is a pudgy, long-haired American kid who appears to be locked in a desperate, losing struggle to grow a beard: Adam Yahiye Gadahn. Just as they did in the cases of Gadahn’s fellow Muslim converts (John Walker Lindh, Richard Reid, and others), Western analysts have ascribed Gadahn’s involvement with Al Qaeda as a product of his alienation. Gadahn obligingly expresses this alienation in a written account of his conversion, revealing that he "had become obsessed with demonic Heavy Metal music" and even "eschewed personal cleanliness." Around that time he discovered Islam by cruising the Internet. Unfortunately, Gadahn’s conversion story ends before he landed in the Al Qaeda camp. All the talk of disaffected youth that has filled the airwaves over the last few days doesn’t even come close to explaining that. Gadahn could have just as easily become a Jehovah’s Witness, or a Mormon, or a follower of Phish. None of those choices, made daily by other disaffected youth, would have landed him in a terrorist training camp and made him the new face of Al Qaeda. Why did his choice of Islam do so?

Western converts must approach the Qur’an and other Islamic texts without the culturally ingrained ways of understanding them that Muslims pick up in Islamic societies. Thus they come to Islam more or less in a pure, abstract form. The force of any given passage of Qur’an or Hadith, not blunted by culture or familiarity, can be presented by whoever instructs the convert with any spin the teacher might favor. Gadahn and other Western converts were probably recruited by straightforward appeals to numerous passages in the Qur’an and Sunnah. Violent jihad is founded on numerous verses of the Qur’an -- most notably, one known as the "Verse of the Sword": "Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them . . . " (Sura 9:5). Such verses are not taken "out of context" to justify armed jihad by radical imams such as those who may have taught Gadahn; on the contrary, that’s how they have been understood by Muslims from the beginning of Islam.

One manual of Islamic law, which in 1991 gained the approval of Cairo’s influential Al-Azhar University as conforming "to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community," is quite specific about the meaning of jihad. It is, it says, "war against non-Muslims." This manual stipulates that the Muslim community "makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians . . . until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax." The requirement that non-Muslims first be "invited" to enter Islam and then warred against until they either convert or pay the jizya, a special tax on non-Muslims, is founded upon the Qur’an: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29).
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/04/2004 4:43:26 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Why American Muslim Converts Turn to Terrorism

Cos they're a sad bunch of sociopathic losers? That'd be my guess.
Posted by: Bulldog || 06/04/2004 10:44 Comments || Top||

#2  'cuz their moms dress them funny; wear combat boots, etc. Oh, and it's all our fault because we made fun of them.
Posted by: therien || 06/04/2004 10:55 Comments || Top||

#3  a pudgy, long-haired American kid who appears to be locked in a desperate, losing struggle to grow a beard

ZING!
Posted by: eLarson || 06/04/2004 11:08 Comments || Top||

#4  Prolly shunned by the Gothics, to pudgy for the trenchcoat crowed, and dayglow hair with multi body piercings cost to much.

Advise to your kids, "never trust anybody who wears a costume unless they are a paid professional."
Posted by: Lucky || 06/04/2004 11:36 Comments || Top||

#5  If Crusty the Clown converts to Islam, we're doomed.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/04/2004 12:25 Comments || Top||

#6  On http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/shaheedbert.htmfreemecca

they have a story board for a South Park episode where Kenny converts to Islam and becomes a suicide bomber taking out a pork sausage truck and getting an houri
Posted by: mhw || 06/04/2004 13:35 Comments || Top||

#7  Why American Muslim Converts Turn to Terrorism


File this under: The Department of Redundancy Department
Posted by: BH || 06/04/2004 14:06 Comments || Top||

#8  Why American Muslim Converts Turn to Terrorism

It is because they live in a free and open society unlike the theocratic autocracy they seek to install. Given the manifold opportunities American life provides these morally flaccid and ethically bankrupt ingrates, they still manage to find ample comfort among people who have no problem betraying those who originally gave them their freedom to worship.

An inability to appreciate such latitude should serve as a bellwether for the unfettered exclusion of such traitors from within our midst. Be it through imprisonment or deportation, none of these treacherous connivers should walk free upon American soil. Such liberty must be conferred upon those willing to protect the rights of all peaceful and law abiding citizens no matter what belief or creed.

It is extremely ironic that these disaffected cretins do not realize how Sharia rule would never permit even a hint of the same dissension they openly engage in. This is the hallmark of their mental incompetence and proper justification for expelling them from civilized society.
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 14:39 Comments || Top||

#9  Uh, isn't there a term in modern psychology that would answer this question? A terminal condition that combines the need for group approval, gullibility, and morbid fantasy?
Posted by: jules 187 || 06/04/2004 15:48 Comments || Top||

#10  Hey Mom, I changed my name to Mohammed al Kaint Get Laid
Posted by: Anonymous5126 || 06/04/2004 18:23 Comments || Top||

#11  Adam Yahiye Gadahn.

Oh, yeah. Loser boy from the goat farm, right?
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/04/2004 20:57 Comments || Top||


Tenet resignation ahead of harshly critical Senate report
EFL, but there’s a lot of stuff covered here.
The director of central intelligence resigned yesterday as a Senate-authored report indicting his handling of pre-Iraq war intelligence awaits declassification at the CIA. Administration officials and sources familiar with the report’s content tell The New York Sun the assessment of George Tenet’s role as the leader of the American intelligence community would be devastating. These sources say the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reviewed the analysis of intelligence and its collection and concluded that assessments given to President Bush about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were wrong.
More WMD brouhaha? I’d say the main problem is that we didn’t learn where they went (Syria, etc.).
A CIA spokeswoman insisted that Mr. Tenet’s resignation had nothing to do with the pending report, likely to be released this month. Administration officials insisted that Mr. Tenet was not pushed out.
Anyway...
In recent months Mr. Tenet has defended his prewar Iraq assessments while simultaneously distancing himself from some of the more robust claims made by others in the administration. Last summer Mr. Tenet famously issued a statement in which he said members of his staff warned a deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, not to include a reference to Iraqi attempts to procure uranium in Africa in an October 2002 speech the president gave in Cincinnati, Ohio. Oddly, a source familiar with the Senate Intelligence Committee report told the Sun his panel concluded that the claim about Iraqi procurement of uranium in Niger had more merit than Mr. Wilson said last summer in numerous press accounts.
Well no duh. Wilson, lying liar that he is, admitted in his book that the Niger story was true.
The report is far less accommodating to Mr. Tenet. Another source familiar with its content said, “If he is looking at what is in front of him then he will see that the case we made for war is wrong. It was not because we did good work, we did poor work and you are the guy who will have to answer for it.” Specifically, the report takes to task both the CIA’s analysis and its lack of human sources on the ground in Iraq. For those human sources the agency did have in Saddam’s country, the report is critical of their handling, according this source.
Of course, this will be spun as "no WMDs! we shouldn’t have attacked that nice Saddam!"
The Senate panel also concludes that an office inside the Pentagon created after September 11, 2001 had little impact on the intelligence community’s process. The Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, as it is known, was a two-man office created to connect the links between state sponsors of terror and Al Qaeda. The organization has come under scrutiny from both the press and Senate Democrats.
Sorry, can’t pin it on Rummy.
The 9/11 commission plans to release its report on among other things intelligence failures next month. If the final report is anything like some of the preliminary staff reports issued over the spring, Mr. Tenet will likely be singled out for failing to properly coordinate the flow of intelligence to the White House.
This one’s Gorelick’s fault, if anyone’s.
Also expected to be released this summer is the Army’s final report on the abuses of detainees. The report from Major General Antonio Taguba for example said that people attached to “other government agencies,” a euphemism for the CIA, were present during interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison. “If the CIA is involved, which it appears it was, any comprehensive report would have to include an examination of its role in this,” a Pentagon official said.
Oops. Of course there’s the danger that this will spill over to cripple interrogations of AQ baddies... But now that folks can scapegoat the now-departed Tenet for everything, it may damp down overreaction.
Posted by: someone || 06/04/2004 3:55:03 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Or there is this comment from a ABC news pundit I heard on the radio yesterday, "that there was speculation that Tenet was taking the fall, as the President must be protected at all costs."

You know there is news and then there are talking points.

News pundits, is there nothing the don't know.
Posted by: Lucky || 06/04/2004 12:32 Comments || Top||

#2  Hindrocket over at Powerline makes the following comment and I have to agree...To my knowledge, none of the terror-related "investigations" have looked into the role of Congress. What did Congress do about the threat of terrorism between 1979 and 2001? Little or nothing, other than cut the CIA's budget and try to prevent the agency from carrying out any but the most antiseptic operations.
Posted by: AF Lady || 06/04/2004 13:43 Comments || Top||


Handicapping the next CIA Director
Chart with Duane Clarridge’s commentary shows a short list of (in ascending order of likeliness): Wolfowitz, Armitage, Goss, and McLaughlin (current deputy director).

Armitage!?
Posted by: someone || 06/04/2004 4:09:37 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Armitage is Powell's boy. I would hate to see State Dept stripey-pants influence spread to the CIA. The CIA head needs to be smart, ruthless, and above all, put America's interests ahead of anyone else - doesn't sound like anyone at the State Dept fits that bill, even Colin
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 10:10 Comments || Top||

#2  I liked the line about Goss, "he has a certain amount of charisma and leadership tendencies". Now there is a pretty damning endorsement. I think leadership, not a tendency to leadership is what is needed.
Posted by: Jim K || 06/04/2004 10:54 Comments || Top||

#3  My vote: bring Charles McCarry out of retirement (he's the author of a fantastic series of spy novels, and a thoughtful man). He's an old timer but maybe that's what we need.

My serious vote: Wolfowitz. The guy knows how to kick ass and take names, something the CIA desperately needs.
Posted by: Jonathan || 06/04/2004 11:20 Comments || Top||

#4  Too bad Donald Rumsfeld is already busy. With the 1000 Fighting Styles of Rumsfeld he would be invincible.
Posted by: SteveS || 06/04/2004 11:52 Comments || Top||

#5  How about Rudy Guiliani? He has no specific intelligence background, but he does have appropriate ass-kicking and executive leadership credentials. Plus, it will shore up his foreign policy resume should he run in 2008.

I fear that Wolfowitz is damaged goods (at least as far as Congress is concerned), even though I do think he may be a good choice to succeed Rummy if he steps down.

About Rummy, he would be a great choice for State or DCI, but he has the same problem as Wolfowitz in that he may be damaged goods in the eyes of Congress. It's too bad, because he more than almost anyone else I can think of could get State and CIA on the President's side for a change.
Posted by: Tibor || 06/04/2004 11:56 Comments || Top||

#6  No, what you want is somebody described thusly: "Carries a baseball bat and gets good results."
Posted by: mojo || 06/04/2004 11:59 Comments || Top||

#7  Mojo, are you nominating Barry Bonds?
Posted by: Tibor || 06/04/2004 12:16 Comments || Top||

#8  The NY Sun's take was that Wolfowitz's odds were 75 to 1 -- he'd been canoodled by Chalabi, is too much of an academic, and in any case is damaged goods to Congress -- while Tenet's deputy-turned-acting-director has 2 to 1 odds for being a respected technocrat in the intelligence community.
Posted by: Edward Yee || 06/04/2004 13:00 Comments || Top||

#9  Tibor - more like Ward Bond, I think...
Posted by: mojo || 06/04/2004 14:19 Comments || Top||

#10  FoxNews awhile ago did a short bit on this and said that, *gasp*, Bob Kerry was one of the people being considered. Lol! Oh yeah, we want the 2nd-most disingenuous 'tard of the 9/11 circus! Unfreakinbelievable.

2 generic questions for RBers:

1) Does anyone here think that Dubya will nominate anyone prior to the election? I don't. He will let the acting head continue in the post - because that is his style.

2) Does anyone here think Dubya will agree to any sort of public "redesign" of the myriad intelligence services prior to the election? Again, IMO, no way. We don't need a new circus, we already have several on tour. I do not doubt that, internally, there might be a working group put together to make a plan, but almost nothing bi-partisan is possible at them moment, IMO.

This is where the rubber meets the road: whomever is elected President will have a huge task: resovling #2 and, one can hope, actually making us safer with the end result. I doubt that it could be done successfully in the first year (or maybe even longer) after the elections - no matter who wins there will be incredible rancor. The only factor that will override this is if we get hit in the US - then the partisanship just might actually wane long enough to get a productive and useful redesign. I'm not holding my breath, however. I have incredibly low expectations.
Posted by: .com || 06/04/2004 15:02 Comments || Top||

#11  Re your two questions, I concur: no, and no.

Frankly, I don't think this country is going to be capable of getting really serious about anything until after the election and the insane jibberjabber from the Donks-- wherein EVERYTHING Bush does is somehow wrong, for whatever outlandish, contrived reason-- dies down.
Posted by: Dave D. || 06/04/2004 15:17 Comments || Top||

#12  Dave D - Things won't die down if Bush wins, because the Left and the media will go overtime into shouting conspiracy theories on how Bush "stole" the election "again." Be it close like last time or a Reagan-level destruction.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats || 06/04/2004 16:20 Comments || Top||

#13  I have a sleeper candidate for CIA Director: Let's bring back James Woolsey and let him *really* do the job!
Posted by: Jen || 06/04/2004 17:13 Comments || Top||


WaPo: Tenet Really Did Quit for Personal Reasons
From The Washington Post
.... Fueling much of the speculation was the fact that Tenet had sought to leave at several points last year, but President Bush had persuaded him to stay, as administration officials told it. Now, when the White House is under severe political pressure and Bush’s reelection may be imperiled, the president finally accepted Tenet’s resignation. .... Others noted that Tenet is leaving before reports are issued on intelligence failures that led to the Sept. 11 attacks and the gathering of intelligence about weapons in Iraq. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said that it was "no secret" that Tenet was tired and wanted to leave but that Tenet was also well aware that the reports would soon be issued. ....

Those closest to Tenet tended to discount the more conspiratorial explanations. "I’m probably the only person in Washington who takes George at face value," said former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who said he had many phone conversations yesterday speculating on the motives and political impact of Tenet’s departure. Berger, who worked closely with Tenet in the Clinton White House, noted that Tenet has been at the center of intelligence decision making for nearly 12 years, either at the CIA or Clinton’s National Security Council. Mark Mansfield, a CIA spokesman, said the critical reports -- by the Senate intelligence panel and by the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks -- had nothing to do with his departure. "It was a personal decision, nothing more, nothing less," he said. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 06/04/2004 4:12:47 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  If it's a credibility duel between the NYT and the WaPo over why Tenet quit, I'd tend to side with the WaPo.
Posted by: Mike || 06/04/2004 6:25 Comments || Top||

#2  Think this will shut Daschle up? Doubtful.
Posted by: Raj || 06/04/2004 10:22 Comments || Top||

#3  Raj:

I think the only thing that will shut Daschle up is John Thune.
Posted by: Mike || 06/04/2004 10:53 Comments || Top||

#4  Does anyone realize the similarity of voice between "HAL" the computer in the movie "2001", and "Used Car Salesman" Daschle.
Posted by: BigEd || 06/04/2004 13:04 Comments || Top||

#5  BigEd - yeah, he creeps me out. Same with Aaron whatshisname on CNN...
Posted by: PBMcL || 06/04/2004 17:07 Comments || Top||


NYT: Tenet’s Resigned Because of Senate Committee’s Report
From The New York Times
George J. Tenet’s resignation may have been hastened by a critical, 400-page report from the Senate Intelligence Committee that was presented to the Central Intelligence Agency for comment last month. Government officials and people close to Mr. Tenet said the classified report was a detailed account of mistakes and miscalculations by American intelligence agencies on whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons before the United States invaded last year. .... Some close to Mr. Tenet said the report was among the factors that led him to resign from a post he had considered leaving for several years. ...

Officials who have read the report described it as presenting a broad indictment of the C.I.A.’s performance on Iraq. They said its criticisms ranged from inadequate prewar collection of intelligence by spies and satellites to a sloppy analysis, often based on uncorroborated sources, that produced the conclusion that Iraq possessed biological and chemical weapons. ... the findings alone were portrayed by three officials as likely to be particularly embarrassing to the C.I.A., whose analysts were the main proponents among those from various intelligence agencies of the view that Iraq possessed illicit weapons. ....

Among the particular criticisms that government officials said were made in the classified version of the Senate report were the failure of the C.I.A. to develop human sources of intelligence in Saddam Hussein’s government before the war. As late as 2002, intelligence officials have acknowledged, American intelligence agencies could count on no more than four informants in the Iraqi government.

The report also criticizes what is called the C.I.A.’s heavy reliance on foreign governments for intelligence about Iraq, including sources who were never interviewed by American intelligence and whose veracity is in doubt. Among those sources were one known as "Curveball," who was introduced to German intelligence by the Iraqi National Congress, a group led by Ahmad Chalabi, and who was cited in American intelligence reports as the primary basis for what now appears to be the mistaken assertion that Iraq had mobile laboratories for the manufacture of biological weapons.

The report also calls attention to what one official called "slipshod work" and "factual errors" by C.I.A. analysts and operations officials, including cases in which single sources of intelligence were identified as multiple sources, and in which at least one warning that identified a source of intelligence as a fabricator was ignored. .... government officials who have read the Senate report said it described many more mistakes and did so in abundant detail. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 06/04/2004 3:59:48 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Government officials and people close to Mr. Tenet said the classified report was a detailed account of mistakes and miscalculations by American intelligence agencies on whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons before the United States invaded last year. .... Some close to Mr. Tenet said the report was among the factors that led him to resign from a post he had considered leaving for several years. ...

Sounds like a personal reason to me....
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 06/04/2004 12:20 Comments || Top||


J. M. Berger: Did Tenet Resign to Avoid Chalabi Investigation?
From IntelWire
.... Perhaps the most likely explanation [for CIA Director George Tenet’s resignation] has to do with Ahmad Chalabi, an Iraqi nationalist favored by the Pentagon who stands accused of revealing U.S. intel secrets to Iran. Just hours before Tenet’s surprise resignation, National Security Adviser Condi Rice announced that Tenet would personally head an investigation into Chalabi on the basis of unspecified national security concerns. The timing of the two announcements is highly suggestive. It appears likely that Rice had no inkling that Tenet would be resigning just hours later. There are any number of reasons why Tenet might not want to oversee such an investigation, which is likely to embarrass several high-ranking members of the administration. And embarrassment is only the least of the possible outcomes. ....

"I can imagine Tenet is just livid to discover, if this is the case, that someone in or affiliated with the Pentagon had caused this disaster to happen. I can imagine him thinking this was the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak. But this is pure speculation on my part," Washington Post Associate Editor Robert G. Kaiser said in an Internet chat today. (external link) ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 06/04/2004 3:51:12 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I vaguely remember that the previous head of the CIA (a professor in MIT) was forced to resigned because something very bad happened. A CIA spy ring was caught in Iraq and all its members were executed.

I think something very bad just happened (we may never know what) and Tenet was forced out.

My two centavos
Posted by: Lizzel || 06/04/2004 9:45 Comments || Top||

#2  Tenet has the second longest tenure as DCI in the history of the position. He's put in his time and then some. Most likely he's been wanting to leave for a while and finally got the nod from Bush.
Posted by: jn1 || 06/04/2004 13:36 Comments || Top||


Did al-Qaida trainee warn FBI before 9/11?
Hat tip Tim Blair
More than a year before 9/11, a Pakistani-British man told the FBI an incredible tale: that he had been trained by bin Laden’s followers to hijack airplanes and was now in America to carry out an attack. The FBI questioned him for weeks, but then let him go home, and never followed up. Now, the former al-Qaida insider is talking.

In March, 2000, Niaz Khan said he was down and out, waiting tables in a curry house north of London, overwhelmed by gambling debts and increasingly drawn to the message of a radical local imam. The imam extolled Osama bin Laden and the rewards of dying for jihad. Then, one night, outside a casino in Manchester, England, Khan said two mysterious men approached him. “First they say, ‘We can help you,’" recalls Khan. "I say, ‘How can you help me?’ Say, ‘OK, come sit in car.’ Said ‘Do you heard Osama name’?”

Khan, now 30, said the men told him they were working on behalf of Osama bin Laden, knew all about his background and gambling debts — information presumably gleaned from his fellow mosque members — and offered to teach him the ways of jihad. They gave Khan several thousand dollars and flew him to Lahore, Pakistan, where he waited for instructions in a local hotel. He says that bin Laden’s followers then drove him, blindfolded, to a nearby safe house. Khan told NBC News that for the next few weeks he was trained by al-Qaida to hijack passenger planes, and then sent to the United States. But when he told the FBI, headquarters was skeptical and, after several weeks, senior FBI officials ordered him released to the custody of British intelligence. Khan said, “I told them before the 9/11, about more than year, be
 hijacking in America or on America airline.”

Khan said that at the Lahore training compound he and up to 30 other men were taught hijacking basics, including how to smuggle guns and other weapons through airport security, techniques to overpower passengers and crew and how to get into a cockpit. Khan says he did not think about all the other people he might have killed and, at the time, didn’t care. “Not that time," he said. "If I die, it doesn’t matter because this life anyway, it’s no good.”

After about a week of training, Khan said he was given money to fly a circuitous route from Pakistan to Doha, Qatar, to London, to Zurich, Switzerland, back to London, and then off to New York. The purpose, he said, was to allow him to observe flight operations and on-board security measures. Upon landing at JFK airport, Khan says he was supposed to go to a taxi stand, find a man in a white prayer cap and use a code. “He say, ‘Your name Babu Khan?’ " said Khan. "And you will be saying, ‘Yes, my name Babu Khan.’ ‘Your name Babu Khan?’ You say, ‘Yes, my name Babu Khan.’”

But Khan claims he got cold feet. Instead of meeting his contact, he slipped away, retreated to New York, then took a bus to Atlantic City and gambled away almost all his money. Fearful that he had blown al-Qaida’s cash, and aware that his terrorist trainers had copied his passport information and easily knew how to find him, Khan turned himself in and confessed. “I’ve been to Pakistan," he said. "I know about this hijacking, something going on.”

Khan said his trainers never told him exactly what his terrorist mission in the United States would be. He said he was told he would learn more details from a half dozen other trained terrorists who, he was told, already were in the U.S. For three weeks, FBI counter-terrorist agents in Newark, N.J. interrogated Khan, created composite drawings of his terrorist trainer and a fellow student and then wired Khan up and took him back to JFK airport, hoping to smoke out other conspirators. But they had no luck.

Congress’ 9/11 report confirms that in April, 2000, an unnamed “walk-in” told the FBI he “was to meet five or six persons” — some of them pilots — who would take over a plane and fly to Afghanistan, or blow the plane up. The report adds that the “walk-in” passed a lie-detector test. NBC News has learned that Khan passed not one but two FBI polygraphs. A former FBI official says Newark agents believed Khan and tried to aggressively follow every lead in the case, but word came from headquarters saying, “return him to London and forget about it” -- which, critics say, is exactly what the FBI did.

But the FBI insists it investigated Khan’s allegations thoroughly, could not confirm them, and had no legal grounds to hold him. Federal prosecutors agreed. FBI officials say they did the right thing in turning Khan over to British authorities, and assumed they would carefully investigate. But NBC News has learned that New Scotland Yard only interviewed Khan for about two hours, and then released him. Spokesmen for Scotland Yard and MI-5, the British intelligence agency, would not comment.

Khan said he watched the 9/11 attacks on television and was horrified. He said he was sad for the victims and relieved he had not carried out any attacks of his own. To him, the 9/11 plot rang familiar. “Maybe same plan," he said. "Maybe same training.” There’s no evidence Khan was part of the 9/11 plot. But lawyers for 9/11 families urged him to tell his story, arguing it reveals a major missed clue. Khan says the British tabloids offered to pay him to tell his story, but he declined. He wants it known that he has not accepted any money for any interview. He is fearful for his life and, at first, was reluctant to talk to NBC. He changed his mind after a British newspaper published his name and, he says, surreptitiously took his photograph. Once it was published, he agreed to go on camera to talk about what he sees as a missed opportunity.

Khan remains surprised that, to this day, the FBI, CIA and Scotland Yard have never asked for his help in identifying the street address of the Lahore safe house where he and dozens of other men were trained. He says he saw some identifying signs and might be able to locate it today. “I just surprised because [they] never come back to ask some more things," he said. "[The FBI] believed me, but maybe not seriously.” Now that he’s told his story, Khan plans to go back into the shadows—branded by some a terrorist and by others a traitor to the cause.
Posted by: tipper || 06/04/2004 2:17:26 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  A classic case showing how things were pre-9/11 and how they are now.

Pre-9/11 there is simply no way the feds could have held this guy in custody. He gave them pretty good, though non-specific, info, which is no doubt part of the matrix of information we had just before the attacks. But you always come back to the old questions.

What should we have done, based on information like this? Start profiling Arabs at airports? Given the way the left acts NOW, post-9/11, how would that have gone over? We didn't have the PATRIOT act. We were still treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem, remember?

We'd act very differently now than we did then.
Posted by: RMcLeod || 06/04/2004 2:27 Comments || Top||

#2 
Scotland Yard only interviewed Khan for about two hours, and then released him

Scotland Yard probably had received all the FBI reports.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 06/04/2004 3:30 Comments || Top||


Southeast Asia
Islamic ‘dress code police’ criticized in Aceh
A special police force which is enforcing Islamic law in Indonesia’s Aceh province has come in for criticism for rounding up women deemed to be wearing tight jeans or see-through clothing. Alleged violators of the dress code have blasted the sharia (Islamic law) enforcement task force officers, or Wilayatulhisbah, as arrogant and over-zealous, Friday’s Jakarta Post re-ported from the provincial capital Banda Aceh. Suspected violators are taken in police trucks to the sharia enforcement office, where they are lectured on dress codes and released.

“It was as if we were being treated like common criminals,” said Ani, a 23-year old student, who said she was already wearing a headscarf.

The Post said she is one of several women upset by the sweeps. Aceh-nese already face stress from clashes between security forces and separatist rebels in the province on Sumatra island. The sharia task force has also launched raids on liquor distribution, prostitution and gambling. Its chief T. Lembong Misbah was quoted as saying that under sharia, Muslim women must wear headscarves and are banned from wearing tight jeans or transparent clothing. He said violators must sign a pledge not to wear similar clothing in future but no legal action was taken against them. Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim-populated nation but partial Islamic law is only in force in staunchly Muslim Aceh province. The central government authorised a form of sharia in Aceh in 2001 as part of efforts to grant the province greater autonomy and to reduce support for separatism
Posted by: TS(vice girl) || 06/04/2004 10:22:29 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Rumsfeld hopes US forces will go after S.E. Asian terrorists soon
US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that he hoped US military forces will soon be hunting terrorists in Southeast Asia, but stopped short of giving details. In a dialogue with sailors and marines aboard the naval vessel USS Essex at a Singapore base ahead of a major regional security meeting, he was asked "when are we going to start hunting some terrorists in this theater?" "Well, I would hope pretty soon," Rumsfeld replied. "I know that the only way we’re going to deal with this problem is to recognize it is truly global, that we have to bring all the elements of national power to bear on it," he said. "We simply cannot wait for another attack and expect to defend against it. We have to go out and find those terrorist networks and the people financing them and countries providing a safe haven for them. It is a tough thing to do."

Rumsfeld gave no specifics but speaking to reporters on the flight to Singapore the day before, he said that a suggestion to put US Marines on high-speed boats to go after terrorists in Southeast Asian waters was "misreported". In his comments Friday aboard the USS Essex, he emphasized intelligence gathering as crucial in pursuing terrorist threats. "I think the fact that there is not a lot of publicity about what’s happening out here may be kind of misleading because there is pressure being put on terorrists in this part of the world everyday," he said. Rumsfeld singled out the "close cooperation we have for example with our wonderful friends here in Singapore." Rumsfeld also warned that radical Islamists were seeking to destabilize moderate Muslim countries. "They hope and they are making efforts destabilize the moderate Muslim countries everywhere across the globe," he said.

On his flight Thursday to Singapore, Rumsfeld had waved off questions about a new regional maritime security initiative that has sparked controversy in Malaysia and Indonesia because it could reportedly involve stepped-up US patrols of the Strait of Malacca. Admiral Thomas Fargo, head of the US Pacific Command, is reported to have told a congressional committee that he was considering putting marines on high-speed vessels in the strait to catch terrorists. But Rumsfeld said Fargo’s remarks were "misreported". "We’re in the process of trying to unravel all of that. It is in its early stages. They are in a consultation mode. They will be discussing it with various countries in the region," he said. A third of the world trade and half the world’s supply of oil passes through the strait -- straddled by Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia -- to markets in Japan, China and South Korea.
Posted by: TS(vice girl) || 06/04/2004 11:50:08 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Doesn't Rumsfield know that Bill O'Rielley thinks he should be slapped down. He didn't have all the pieces of the puzzle put together regarding post saddam Iraq.

And now he's thinking of going even more global in the WoT. Wat to go I say!
Posted by: Lucky || 06/04/2004 12:11 Comments || Top||

#2  Rumsfield thinks out of the box and looks forward trying to solve and prepare for situations before they happen while Bill O'Rielley only offers criticism in hindsight. I’ve never once heard him give preemptive advice or suggestions. If he did, he wouldn’t have a show because people generally prefer to hear someone else put down instead of built up - and ratings are what it’s all about.

Posted by: Yosemite Sam || 06/04/2004 12:50 Comments || Top||


US success in Iraq crucial to Asia: Lee Kuan Yew
Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew said yesterday that the Americans must not fail in Iraq as it would have far-reaching implications for the stability and security on which East Asia depends for its prosperity. ’I think if we all start withdrawing our troops and the Americans are left alone, that’s going to be very big trouble for them. And if they fail, it’s big trouble for all of us,’ Mr Lee told an annual symposium here whose theme this year was on laying the groundwork for Asia’s regional integration.

He made the remark in the context of Spain’s decision to recall its troops from Iraq after terrorists killed nearly 200 train commuters in Madrid earlier this year. He pointed out that despite the Korean and Vietnam wars and another war between Vietnam and Cambodia, East Asia had known peace and stability since 1945, thanks to the US security umbrella. He therefore urged East Asian nations to support US efforts to bring stability back to Iraq. ’Let’s try and help the Americans in whatever way we can to solve this problem, because if they get into serious trouble and cannot maintain the framework of security and stability in East Asia, we are in trouble,’ said Mr Lee. ’They have brought us, since 1945, through 60 years of peace and stability. Let’s keep it.’

The Senior Minister noted that even US Senator John Kerry, the Democratic Party presidential candidate, had not called for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. ’This is not Vietnam. If you withdraw, the Vietnamese are happy to see you leave and they leave you alone. If you withdraw (from Iraq) with your tail between your legs, they will chase you wherever you go,’ said Mr Lee. ’So the Americans, willy-nilly with their coalition, have got to establish some semblance of order and transfer authority to the Iraqis, then gradually withdraw and leave the Iraqis in charge.’

As to how long the process would take, Mr Lee suggested that it would depend on who wins the US presidential election in November. He cautioned however that no matter who won, if the Americans showed a lack of will in Iraq, they could land themselves and everybody else in trouble. Mr Lee said that although instability in the Middle East would have a direct impact on Europe, East Asia would also be badly affected in terms of the disruption of oil supplies and the effect on Muslim terrorists operating in this region.

But Mr Lee said he did not think the US would be able to bring about democracy in Iraq. ’I do not believe, with the time that the Americans have at their disposal to stay in Iraq, that they can bring about democracy in Iraq. I think that will be very difficult,’ he said. He noted that it took the US more than 10 years to bring democracy to Japan after World War II, and similarly in the case of post-war Germany.
I tend to agree with Lee that we wont see democracy in Iraq for a while, but I would settle for a sensible strong man. Someone like King Hussein of Jordan.
Posted by: Phil B || 06/04/2004 5:16:47 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Given that Lee himself is a strongman semi-dictator, you have to take his pronouncements on democracy with a lot of condiments. That being said, Lee's about as harmless as strongmen semi-dictators get.
Posted by: Mitch H. || 06/04/2004 7:41 Comments || Top||

#2  Mitch H: Given that Lee himself is a strongman semi-dictator, you have to take his pronouncements on democracy with a lot of condiments.

Singapore does have an authoritarian government that muzzles the press (or at least any of its left-wing pronouncements), but it does hold regular free and fair elections. Note also the context in which he said democracy would not be achievable:

’I do not believe, with the time that the Americans have at their disposal to stay in Iraq, that they can bring about democracy in Iraq. I think that will be very difficult,’ he said.

He noted that it took the US more than 10 years to bring democracy to Japan after World War II, and similarly in the case of post-war Germany.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 06/04/2004 8:24 Comments || Top||

#3  Mr Lee gets it. And he lays it out so...simply. Why can't the Phrench understand it?
Posted by: AllahHateMe || 06/04/2004 9:10 Comments || Top||

#4  iraq isnt Germany or Japan. We dont have the luxury of waiting that long.
Posted by: Liberalhawk || 06/04/2004 10:34 Comments || Top||

#5  Liberalhawk: iraq isnt Germany or Japan. We dont have the luxury of waiting that long.

Actually, we do. And perhaps, after more Americans are killed on US soil, we will become inured to the sacrifice that we will have (in many cases personally) to endure in order to destroy those who seek to kill us. It's good to set high standards, but these are artificially high standards, standards that no one has ever lived up to. If America's craving for instant gratification leads to a pullout and in the future, a deferment of sacrifices to defuse threats to America's national security, the results, when war comes to America's shores again, will be catastrophic. Remember Byzantium (the Eastern Roman Empire), whose inhabitants fought amongst themselves even as the Muslim hordes assembled at their gates.
Posted by: Zhang Fei || 06/04/2004 11:21 Comments || Top||

#6  There will be democracy in Iraq in short order. Either that or complete chaos. There will not be an autocrat.

If we have the will to stay then I have no doubt about a democracy flourishing in Iraq. If we pull out early Iraq falls into civil war and the mullahs will probably end up running the place.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 06/04/2004 11:53 Comments || Top||

#7  If we have the will to stay then I have no doubt about a democracy flourishing in Iraq.
Re: #6 Doesn't long term occupation by the USA fly in the face of the freedom of Iraqis to choose what government they want? Since 3/4 of Iraqis are practising Muslims, and Islam is a "totalitarian" mindset, there is a very good chance that mullahs will exert tremendous power in Iraq whether their names are on the ballots or not. American GI's babysitting Sunni and Shiite Iraqis for the next 50 years may prevent a civil war but they will not prevent the power of mullahs taking hold of Iraq. In fact continued occupation by our GI's may cause the Iraqis to cleeve more closely to their mullahs.

Also, who said democracy is the magic cure all for the world's ills? Democracy's track record in Latin America and Asia has been abyssmal. Why do we think democracy is the only option for Iraq?

#5 after more Americans are killed on US soil, we will become inured to the sacrifice that we will have (in many cases personally) to endure in order to destroy those who seek to kill us
I suspect that people who have draft age children would disagree with you, especially since we all see that our politically correct politicians have no desire to demolish the enemy and win a war. The last time we enjoyed a resounding win on the battlefield was WWII, before Geneva Convention IV and the International Court as well as all the other nonsensical legalist rules of war were in place. Puhleaze. At this very minute, the State Dept. is bribing Third World countries to extend for another year an exemption for our soldiers from prosecution for "war crimes." This will be an annual bribe-a-thon, whose outcome will be iffy each year. Pretty soon our GI's will be required to offer water and band-aids to the enemy before they are given permission to shoot at them... along the same lines that our border gaurds offer water and medical assistence to illegal aliens who challenge our sovereignity. If you think people will become "inured" to sacrifing their sons and daughters to fight hand-cuffed for your security, you are a dreamer.

Let's get real. We have greater danger from terrorists as a result of our open borders than whether or not there is a perfect Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq.

Our arrogant rigidity about what kind of government emerges in Iraq combined with our blase attitude about protecting our own nation's sovereignity are very worrisome to me. It's "the will" of our own politicians to be honest about the "enemy" and to do whatever it takes to defeat it is what's in question.
Posted by: rex || 06/04/2004 13:39 Comments || Top||

#8  "Doesn't long term occupation by the USA fly in the face of the freedom of Iraqis to choose what government they want? "

There's a correct amount of time for us to stay. I can't tell you what it is, we'll just have to play it by ear. But we were in Japan for 10 years and that turned out ok, no? I don't expect it will take more than 2 more years for Iraq to be well on we'll be able to substantially reduce our footprint.

"Since 3/4 of Iraqis are practising Muslims, and Islam is a "totalitarian" mindset"

Democracy and captialism are far more powerful... which our enemies are about to find out.

" Also, who said democracy is the magic cure all for the world's ills?"

Democracy combined with captilism is. Btw, you don't see democracies fighting eachother very often now do you?

"Democracy's track record in Latin America and Asia has been abyssmal. "

Really? I think they're doing FAR better than they were before... silly me.

"Why do we think democracy is the only option for Iraq?"

Because every other system has been proven to fail... none excluded.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 06/04/2004 18:51 Comments || Top||

#9  "Let's get real. We have greater danger from terrorists as a result of our open borders than whether or not there is a perfect Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq"

Until the entire world is democracies there will be conflict. Democracies don't start wars with eachother. It's in our long term national interest to change the governments of then entire world into capitalistic democracies.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 06/04/2004 18:53 Comments || Top||

#10  Democracies don't start wars with each other Are you quoting R J Rummel's theory? If so, it's a bit pre-mature to make that judgment. The period Rummel studies is 1946-1986 during the Cold War, when Communism was a common binding thread for democratic nations. I don't see that unity today against Islam. Without Britain and Australia in Iraq, the other nations are mere window dressing to the word" coalition."

Rummel assumes that it's okay for a democractic nation to wage war on other nations to force democracy on them, which seems a major stretch of what is morally/ethically acceptable foreign policy. Also, who named the USA is to be the driving democracy spreading force in the world and who are the American families who will make the sacrifices for this pie in the sky dream of a more peaceful world 100 years from now?

Rummel assumes that all nations have equal natural resources and equal people talents to be able to successfully compete in a capitalist driven international economy. He's wrong. Rummel evolved from being a socialist to a libertarian - he honestly believes the Tutu native in Africa and the Taliban fighter in Afghanistan and the middle class educated suburbanite in Dallas all have the same capabilities and possibilties for responding to the benefits of democracy. He's wrong.

Good luck applying Rummel's philosophy to defeat the hold of Islam in the ME or communism in Communist China. And remember to use your kids not mine to do the heavy lifting in "spreading democracy" around the world.
Posted by: rex || 06/04/2004 19:57 Comments || Top||

#11  Actually I'm not familiar with Rummel, it was more an observation on my part that autocrats seem to fight eachother constantly, democracies fight with autocrats relatively often... but I can't think of an instance of 2 true representative gov'ts going to war. It's pretty compelling to me...

Also, who named the USA is to be the driving democracy spreading force in the world

We did in 1900 when we became the most powerful nation in the world. Twice we neglected our new responsability and twice the world was thrown into chaos and millions died. Under our leadership the world has gone from so few democracies that you could count them on your fingers to half the world practicing at least a limited form of democracy.

and who are the American families who will make the sacrifices for this pie in the sky dream of a more peaceful world 100 years from now?

I don't understand the question. It will be those that choose to.

I believe all people have equal capability, more or less... individuals are obviously smarter etc but over a large population it averages out. The problem in my view is culture. I believe the culture of democracy and capitalism is more powerful and more viral than any other culture.

I'm very confident that we'll win, because of our superior culture will spread and dominate. My fear is the cost in human lives the dying gasps of our enemies will bring on us... especially in the world of nukes, bio and chemical attacks. The quicker we convert them the less likely we are hit with an attack that kills millions.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 06/04/2004 21:51 Comments || Top||


Terror Networks
In love with death

Suicide bombing is advocated by privileged elites

Alan Dershowitz

Friday June 4, 2004

The Guardian

As suicide bombings increase in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia and in Israel, more and more people have come to believe that this tactic is a result of desperation. They see a direct link between oppression, occupation, poverty and humiliation on the one hand, and a willingness to blow oneself up for the cause on the other. It follows from this that the remedy for suicide bombing is to address its root cause - namely, our oppression of the terrorists. But the underlying premise is false: there is no such link. Suicide bombing is a tactic that is selected by privileged, educated people because it has proven successful. Some of the suicide bombers themselves defy the stereotype of the impoverished victims driven to desperate measures. Remember the 9/11 bombers, several of whom were university students and none of whom was oppressed by the US. They were dispatched by a Saudi millionaire named Osama bin Laden, who has now become the hero of many other upper-class Saudis who are volunteering to become shahids (martyrs).

Majid al-Enezi, a Saudi student training to become a computer technician, recently changed career plans; he crossed over into Iraq, where he died. His brother Abdullah celebrated that decision. "People are calling all the time to congratulate us, crying from happiness and envy."

Why do these overprivileged young people support this culture of death, while impoverished and oppressed Tibetans continue to celebrate life despite their occupation by China?

Historically, why have other oppressed people not resorted to suicide bombings and terrorism? The answer lies in differences among the elite leadership of various causes. The leaders of Islamist radical causes, especially the Wahhabis, incite suicide terrorism, while the leaders of other causes advocate different means. Recall Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, who advocated non-violent means of resistance.

The bombers accept death because they have been incited by imams preaching "Kill the infidels". Sheikh Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, the leading Islamic scholar at the elite al-Azhar University in Cairo, has declared that martyrdom operations - ie suicide bombings - are the highest form of jihad.

Occupation makes it more difficult to launch successful terrorist attacks. This is not to argue for occupation; it is to separate the arguments regarding occupation from the claim that it is the fact of occupation that causes suicide bombing. Indeed, were Israel to end its occupation of Gaza and most of the West Bank (as I have long believed it should), it is likely that terrorism would increase. The same might be true in Iraq, if the US were to pick up and run.

The time has come to address the real root cause of suicide bombing: incitement by certain religious and political leaders who are creating a culture of death and exploiting the ambiguous teachings of an important religion. Islamist young people are in love with death, claim some imams; but it is these leaders who are arranging the marriages between the children and the bomb belts.
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 10:28:27 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Iraq-Jordan
UN Elections Official: Iraq Elections Possible Even Amid Serious Violence
Surprise meter at high
Carina Perelli, a senior United Nations elections official, said the organization’s team had decided to hold elections based on a system of proportional representation, whereby voters across the country would choose a list of candidates, ordinarily supported by political parties. The number of votes tallied by a party nationwide would determine how many of its candidates who appeared on the list would take office. Under the system, the percentage of votes received by a particular party would roughly equal the percentage of seats they would be awarded in the national assembly. Ms. Perelli said United Nations officials and the Iraqis with whom they consulted favored a proportional system, in part because that system tends to award seats to smaller parties, which a system of district elections would not.

Ms. Perelli said the job of setting up districts would be difficult to do quickly. The election commission announced today, and made up of eight Iraqis, is empowered to draw up a list of voters and to set up the vast infrastructure, thought to require at least 20,000 polling places, for the elections. They would also have the power to postpone the elections, across the country or in parts, if they decided that the level of violence would not allow the elections to go forward. But Ms. Perelli said she was optimistic that elections could go forward here, even amid guerrilla insurgency and terrorist attacks. To illustrate, she listed several war-ravaged countries where the United Nations had either helped set up elections or was currently trying to do so: Congo, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Sierra Leone and Liberia. "We have conducted elections in areas with rampant levels of violence," she said.
Optimism? From the UN? About achieving America’s goal? I would have expected gloom and despair, excuses, and predictions of failure. Good news indeed. Can’t let the terrorists derail the elections--they can’t be given that power.
Posted by: Sludj || 06/04/2004 3:27:03 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "The list...the list is life." One thing I don't understand is why we keep pushing, putting, the most unstable form of democratic guv'mint, the Parliamentary system. The Brits do well by it, but the further you enter the hinterlands (europe, the middle east) the more unstable it becomes. Opens guv'mints up to the tryanny of the minority. In America, we don't have a "Green" problem because they don't pass the common sense test. When you form these coalition guv'mints you often have to give the kooks a say.
Need to stop being ashamed of being American, and start pushing the strong tripod, seperation of powers and such.
Elect individuals. Not lists.
Posted by: Anonymous5125 || 06/04/2004 17:44 Comments || Top||

#2  Bad news on the voting system. We need decentralized power bases, not a bunch of holdover elites pulling the strings from Baghdad.
Posted by: someone || 06/04/2004 18:18 Comments || Top||

#3  A5125 is right that under a list system you vote for the party and not the person. The advantage is that you get away from personality driven politics and towards issue driven politics, which I would argue is a good thing.

The way you get around the lots of fringe parties problem is to set a threshold for anyone to be elected from a party list, as in Germany, where I beleive the threshold is 5% of votes cast.

I think this a sensible decision, although I dislike the fact the UN gets to make it, but maybe its a bone after the recent snub to the UN by the IGC.
Posted by: Phil B || 06/04/2004 18:34 Comments || Top||

#4  Anonymous5125, here here!
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 06/04/2004 18:55 Comments || Top||

#5  Either system (proportional/party list or constituency) can work -- but in Iraq's situation, I agree that constituency would be best. Proportional tends to shift power towards the well-organized and funded elites from each region or ethnic group -- who probably were the ones "consulted" by the UN on this. In a post-totalitarian system, I think creating the maximum web of restraint and accountability on government is desirable; electing individuals who would be on the hook to produce for their districts is far superior to proportional in this respect. See Michael Rubin of AEI (articles at NRO and I think AEI website) for a much better analysis along these lines.
Posted by: Verlaine || 06/04/2004 22:12 Comments || Top||


Israel-Palestine
Terror alert in Jerusalem after Sharon fires ministers
As has happened repeatedly over the past 11 years, radical efforts by Israel’s leadership to move ahead in the direction of a "land-for-peace" agreement with the Palestinian Arabs have been rapidly followed by a surge in terror alerts. Israeli security forces were placing roadblocks at entrances to Jerusalem Friday, following multiple warnings that Arab terrorists planned to carry out an attack in the capital. The alert spiked just hours after Prime Minister Ariel Sharon took the unprecedented step of firing two of his ministers in order to secure a slim majority in Sunday’s scheduled vote on his Gaza retreat plan.

By dismissing National Union ministers Benny Elon and Avigdor Lieberman, Sharon signaled his growing disregard for the concerns many Israelis have about making concessions that could lead to the establishment of a "Palestinian" state. The way now appears open for Sharon to pass his plan, which aims to uproot thousands of Jews from their homes in the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria. Such an act would amount to a de facto reversal of the restoration of Jews to their biblical homeland that came about as a result of the 1967 Six Day War. Bible-believing Jews and Christians believe that, having brought that land back under Jewish control in accordance with biblical prophesy, the God of Israel is wholly committed to securing His ancient people’s presence there.

Right wing Israelis reacted with disbelief and anger to the news late Thursday that Sharon had decided on the unprecedented step of firing two cabinet ministers in order to railroad his plan to ethnically cleanse the Gaza Strip and parts of Samaria of their Jews. Speaking on Israeli television, Sharon told the country he was relieving Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Tourism Minister Benny Elon of their posts because they were committed to opposing his plan. The prime minister said he had fired the men because "I need a majority on Sunday" when he brings his plan to the cabinet. The move had been made necessary, he said, because three Likud ministers - Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Education Minister Limor Livnat and Minister of Foreign Affairs Silvan Shalom - had indicated they would vote against the plan.

Earlier this week, Sharon declared his conviction that the plan, aimed at paving the way for the establishment of a State of Palestine on Jewish lands in accordance with the demands of the international community, would be fully implemented by the end of 2005. On hearing that he was being given the boot, Lieberman noted that Sharon’s plan had never been approved by the government, and was in fact rejected by the ruling Likud Party, meaning he had absolutely no obligation whatsoever to support it as a member of the cabinet. "I’m being fired for disagreeing with the prime minister," he told Israel Radio. Housing Minister Effie Eitam (National Religious Party) said that Sharon’s firing of Elon and Lieberman was an "immoral and undemocratic act." NRP MK Shaul Yahalom called Sharon’s actions unprecedented and said that, under Sharon, Israel was closer to a dictatorship than a democracy.

On Friday morning, hours after Sharon announced his intention to fire the ministers, and shortly after he sent couriers to serve written dismissal notices on Elon and Lieberman, Israel’s police and military forces went on high alert for a terrorist attack. As the nation prepared for the start of the Sabbath, Israeli media reported roadblocks were being set up around the capital, patrols inside the city had been beefed up, and suspicious looking vehicles and individuals were being searched and questioned. While many terror attacks have been thwarted during the past years, often in apparently miraculous ways, Jerusalem Newswire staff note that concerted efforts by Israel’s leaders to move the land-for-peace process forward have often been followed by successful acts of terrorism, costing Israelis their lives.
Posted by: Mark Espinola || 06/04/2004 5:12:42 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I do not know all of the complexities of Israeli politics, but Sharon's plan of evacuating untenable settlements in Gaza and the West Bank, followed by a wall seems to be the most tenable and achievable plan so far.

The Paleos get their state, such as they are and such as it is, and the Israelis do not have to deal with them any more, except to blow some Paleos away that are dumb enough to lob ordinance over the wall.

Holding onto settlements may have a religious connotation or something, but they do nothing but serve as magnets for Paleos.

I hope that the Israelis get it together and make the realignment and the wall happen. A resulting Paleo civil war is not the Israeli's problem. They are outa there.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/04/2004 20:38 Comments || Top||

#2  Correct, Paul. As negotiation is not a meaningful option in the near term, separation and withdrawal are a strategic coup de main. Note how the "100 unique retaliations" or whatever b.s. Hamas threatened following dispatch of the wheelchair psycho and then the pediatrician of death have, uh, not materialized. The suicide-bomber terror war was Arafat's last gambit. The barrier and separation (supplemented by limited or zero Pal access to Green Line Israel) neutralize that weapon. Israel's economy is on the mend, as is the mood on security matters. The old line was the Pals would have to fight their civil war before the Israelis fought theirs -- the order may actually be reversed in practice, but the comparative intensity (nasty but containable in Israel, titanic and fateful among the Pals) of the two spats will be noticeably different. The only mystery is why this wasn't done two years ago, if not earlier.
Posted by: Verlaine || 06/04/2004 22:20 Comments || Top||

#3  what can I add to AP and Verlaine's comments, other than ballsy move by Sharon to take the initiative?
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 22:42 Comments || Top||

#4  I am impressed with his strategy. I wouldn't have thought of firing my ministers. Does anyone more familiar with the Israeli Constitution see a viable response to shut him down? Can they just replay the no confidence vote to stop him?
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/04/2004 22:44 Comments || Top||

#5  Sharon Can't fire everyone opposed... I'm sure he remembers a one Julius Caesar and "The Ides Of March"!
Posted by: smn || 06/04/2004 23:17 Comments || Top||


Iraq-Jordan
Alawi Recognizes US Sacrifice on Behalf of Iraq
Very nice to hear this
In his first address to the Iraqi people, the country’s new prime minister today defended the presence of American and British forces on Iraqi soil and warned that their departure would amount to a "major disaster" for the country. Ayad Alawi, appearing in a televised address three days after being chosen prime minister, said his countrymen could "never accept" foreign occupation, and he vowed to reclaim the country’s full sovereignty on June 30. But his speech amounted to a vigorous defense of the continued presence of American troops at a time when public opinion polls have reported that most Iraqis want the foreign troops to leave immediately. "Your government sees that only the restoration of security and the safeguarding of citizens’ dignity, honor and wealth will allow us to successfully proceed on the political track and achieve the transfer of full sovereignty," Mr. Alawi said in a speech that was carried by stations like Al-Arabiya and Al Jazeera, which broadcast across the Arab-speaking world. "The targeting of the multinational forces under the leadership of the United States to force them to leave Iraq would inflict a major disaster on Iraq, especially before the completion of the building of security and military institutions," Dr. Alawi said. "And I would like to mention here that the coalition forces, too, have offered the blood of their sons as a result of terror attacks designed to force them to leave Iraq," he said.
And the ears of the Al-Jazeera audience began to sizzle and smoke because of the resulting disconnect and incomprehension
Posted by: Sludj || 06/04/2004 3:22:07 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  OK. So one thing we know about this guy is that he's not French.
Posted by: Matt || 06/04/2004 18:42 Comments || Top||

#2  Al-Jazeera is trying to find out if the CIA had a surgically altered double give the speech.
Posted by: BigEd || 06/04/2004 19:09 Comments || Top||

#3  this is a fine start using language that even Al Jeez can understand: "the blood of their sons."

I like this guy more every day.
Posted by: RMcLeod || 06/04/2004 19:46 Comments || Top||


Africa: Horn
Huge death toll now inevitable in Sudan
Muslims better readjust their numbers on how many followers they have, cause they are about to lose a million in one fell swoop, thanks to racist Muslim on Muslim violence.
A humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions is now inevitable in western Sudan’s Darfur region and up to one million people could die if aid cannot be delivered there swiftly, international officials warned. We estimate right now if we get relief in, we’ll lose a third of a million people, and if we don’t the death rates could be dramatically higher, approaching a million people," US Agency for International Development (USAID) chief Andrew Natsios predicted after a high-level UN aid meeting.

More than one million African civilians have been forced to flee their homes because of an onslaught by government-backed Arab militia and Sudanese troops in Darfur over the past year, and atrocities are continuing, the United Nations said. The United States, European Union, France and the UN warned Khartoum that it must put a stop to atrocities by militia in the strife-torn region, and iron out "severe restrictions" which are still hampering aid deliveries. Nearly half of the victims are in the westernmost part of Darfur, where aid agencies are struggling to provide help before the impending rainy season. "This is also the region where the Janjaweed militia is at its strongest and in spite of the ceasefire agreement... the internally displaced report that they are seeing more atrocities, more rape, more pillage, more murder," said UN Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland. Another 700,000 to 800,000 more people in Darfur are likely to run out of what they need to survive within months, the UN added. Some 150,000 Sudanese refugees have fled across the border to Chad, 50,000 more than previously estimated.

"We admit we are late. Constraints have been so great, some agencies have been so slow, some donors have been so slow, the government restrictions have been so many," Egeland said. "And the Janjaweed militia have been so harsh on the populations that we will have a humanitarian crisis of enormous proportions even in the best of circumstances," he warned. The UN said it faced a funding gap of about 236 million dollars for aid in the region until the end of the year. At the meeting, the United States pledged 188 million dollars over 18 months and the European Union’s Commission said it would come up with 10 million more euros, while France promised another 1.4 million euros for refugees in Chad. Officials were adamant that the pressure was firmly on Sudan’s government, amid the "most violent, mean-spirited kind of human conduct imaginable" in Darfur, said World Food Programme (WFP) chief James Morris.

Representing the European Union, Ireland’s Minister for Development, Tom Kitt, said: "We must also send a strong unequivocal message to the Sudanese government that it live up to its obligations to protect its citizens and, in accordance with the ceasefire agreement, disarm the militia and give access". The meeting in Geneva brought together donors, Sudanese and Chad officials, Darfur rebel groups, the United Nations and aid agencies. "Humanitarian aid is urgent but it is not enough. A political solution is necessary: the Sudanese government’s ethnic cleansing must not stand," Kenneth Roth, head of the advocacy group Human Rights Watch Roth said here. Six human rights monitors were due to be deployed in an area equivalent to the size of France, the UN announced at the meeting. They will join African Union monitors who are due to oversee a frequently broken ceasefire agreed in April. On Tuesday, one of two rebel groups -- the Justice and Equality Movement -- said 24 people had been killed in a two-day assault by government forces in the west Darfur village of Adjidji. A UN human rights report released last month accused the Sudanese government of committing massive human rights violations in Darfur that may amount to crimes against humanity.
Gee, ya think?
Posted by: TS(vice girl) || 06/04/2004 12:47:37 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Maybe the death toll will need to reach Rwanda proportions before the UN will get off their a** and do something about it. Oh but wait--they can't do that. Any military intervention could be construed as a "war", and like Master Chirac told us, was is never justified. Guess the UN will just have to talk about the tragedy. Boy, if you are in the landfill business in Sudan, your future looks bright.
Posted by: jules 187 || 06/04/2004 13:52 Comments || Top||

#2  Gee, that's rough. Love to help, can't. We're all about the multilateralism this year, so that France will love us again(?). I'll see if Sean Penn's available to do a promo junket, though.
Posted by: BH || 06/04/2004 14:05 Comments || Top||

#3  Where oh where is the outrage in the black community? I haven't heard anything from "Minister" Farrakhan. I did see something on O'Reilly the other night with the congresswoman from Texas (Barbara Jackson?) and while she said this was bad, she would not condemm Kofi for sitting on his ass yet again while Africans die by the thousands. Great track record Kofi, you can lecture us anytime on morals.
Posted by: remote man || 06/04/2004 14:38 Comments || Top||

#4  why would farrakhan have anything to say about this--oh--it concerns real black muslims--arabs are tan in the third world sense--so no white blue eyed devils to complain about--also methinks he takes sudanese money for violin lessons
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI || 06/04/2004 14:46 Comments || Top||

#5  There is an outcry among some blacks. The Black Ministerial Alliances of Boston is going to protest when Kofi Assnon gets an honorary degree from Harvard next week. LGF links to this site. Go there and sign the petition. And if you're near Boston next week, get directions and info on the protest.
Posted by: growler || 06/04/2004 14:50 Comments || Top||

#6  I've already signed it ...

[sarc]I'm sure Kofi Annan will take one look and realize his error ...[/sarc]
Posted by: Edward Yee || 06/04/2004 16:44 Comments || Top||

#7  where is that idiot gentle who say's muslims do not kill fellow muslims....

where is the condemnation from the arab league---oh what it is not americans killing muslims so i guess it is ok..

more from the false religion of peace
Posted by: Dan || 06/04/2004 17:22 Comments || Top||

#8  Methinks the natives are restless do to their concerns about the agonizing plight of the "Palestinian" people at the hands of the Zionist entity. They are merely acting out against their nearby brothers...
______________________
borgboy in the subjunctive
Posted by: borgboy2001 || 06/04/2004 17:59 Comments || Top||

#9  How many dead Sudanese does it take to make the cover of the NYT?
_________________borgboy
Posted by: borgboy2001 || 06/04/2004 18:00 Comments || Top||

#10  I would also like to note that the people who are trying to help the most, are, in fact, infidels!!!!
Posted by: TS(vice girl) || 06/04/2004 18:31 Comments || Top||

#11  Where is the outrage in the media? ABC/CBS/NBC/BBC/CNN/etc.... ?

Oh! I get it! This is being done by muslims so its A-OK.

(But if an american farts in the presence of a holy muslim then there is hell to pay in the media...).
Posted by: CrazyFool || 06/04/2004 18:37 Comments || Top||

#12  How can this possibly be a human rights violation if there are no pictures of anyone with underwear on their heads? Muslim killing Muslim is so ante bellum Iraq. Therefore it must be okie dokie with Kofi and Co.
Posted by: Darth VAda || 06/04/2004 19:28 Comments || Top||

#13  Muslims killing Muslims...in Africa, which almost fell off the map last year anyways due to AIDS and assorted Mugabe type homicidal maniacs...err...this latest"tragedy" doesn't exactly keep me up at night, I must admit...is there something I'm missing?
Posted by: rex || 06/05/2004 0:25 Comments || Top||


Iraq-Jordan
Iraqi Police Nab Associate of al-Zarqawi
Iraqi police forces have detained Umar Baziyani, an associate of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, U.S. Central Command announced Friday. Baziyani is known to have ties to several extremist terrorist groups in Iraq and is believed to be responsible for the death and injury of scores of innocent Iraqi citizens, according to Centcom. Authorities say Baziyani is also wanted in connection with anti-coalition activities. Baziyani was detained on May 30 in Baghdad, according to Centcom. He's providing information to coalition forces.
"Sgt, a fresh pair of panties for Umar!"
"His capture removes one of al-Zarqawi’s most valuable officers from his network," according to the Centcom statement. U.S. military and intelligence officials believe al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian wanted for allegedly organizing attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq on behalf of Al Qaeda, personally carried out the murder of American Nicholas Berg, whose decapitation was captured on a videotape that was released by his killers. Berg's body was found May 8 near a highway overpass in Baghdad. He was last seen on April 10 when he left his Baghdad hotel. Last month, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the No. 2 U.S. military leader in Iraq, said of al-Zarqawi's whereabouts: "We believe he's moving around the country."
Posted by: Steve || 06/04/2004 11:25:29 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  double plus good that it was the IP

triple plus if they arrested him last week squeezed him and only told about it today
Posted by: mhw || 06/04/2004 11:33 Comments || Top||

#2  he'll be spilling shit loads of info hopefully, only if interagated 'to military' standard,wonder if the red cross will get the fiend a legal team to try and defend himself.
Posted by: Shep UK || 06/04/2004 13:28 Comments || Top||

#3  i hope they are allowed to put this guy in the iraqi stress position known as the"hot lead enema"--funnel anyone?
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI || 06/04/2004 15:02 Comments || Top||

#4  Are the Iraqis torturing the guy yet? If they did, would it get as much press as the "abuse" suffered by prisoners at Abu Ghraib at the hands of American personnel?

The answer to the second question would surely be a resounding NO.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama || 06/04/2004 16:47 Comments || Top||


Afghanistan/South Asia
17 More Taliban Snuffed
U.S.-led forces backed by warplanes killed 17 militants in the mountains of southern Afghanistan, the American military confirmed Friday, the bloodiest battle with Taliban-led insurgents in almost a year. Afghan officials reported the clash Thursday, saying American and Afghan troops attacked insurgents in the Miana Shien district of Kandahar province, some 150 miles southwest of the capital, Kabul. Three U.S. Marines were slightly wounded in the fighting, which killed 17 combatants, Master Sgt. Cindy Beam, an American military spokeswoman, said in an e-mail statement. Khalid Pashtun, spokesman for the Kandahar provincial government, said Thursday that 13 suspected Taliban were killed and eight were arrested in the fighting, which began late Wednesday and ended Thursday afternoon. Pashtun said some 300 Afghan soldiers and a smaller number of Americans had skirmished repeatedly with gunmen in the mountains of an area called Purlaiz. Beam confirmed the joint operation and that U.S. warplanes joined the fray, but she gave no other details.
"I can say no more."
The clash appeared to be the most deadly since fierce fighting in late August and early September in the mountains of neighboring Zabul province, during which more than 100 Taliban are believed to have died. One American special operations soldier also was killed.
I guess the dreaded Taliban Spring Offensive is winding down.
Posted by: Steve || 06/04/2004 10:40:03 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  hmmmmm Marines again... talk about spread thin. Course then again it's the old 1 war 1 MEU thing. :)
Posted by: Shipman || 06/04/2004 11:20 Comments || Top||

#2  I was working with some Marines yesterday who complained about the same "spread thin" issue. They also said the retention rates are going to go down because of the very high op tempo over the last few years. I sure wish someone in the admin would talk about increasing the overall size of our military.
Posted by: remote man || 06/04/2004 12:16 Comments || Top||

#3  Down side: The "Spread too thin" issue

Up Side : Pashtun said some 300 Afghan soldiers and a smaller number of Americans . . . The Afghans are contributing largely to their own defense against the crazies.
Posted by: BigEd || 06/04/2004 12:23 Comments || Top||

#4  I just got back from the Naval Academy graduation/commissioning held last Friday. 190 out of 970 graduated mids are heading to Quantico, the most since Vietnam. Looks like the officer corps will be fine at least. BTW, Commandant Hagee gave a great speech, best of the day IMO and much better than Gen. Meyer's speech. I'm so proud of all those guys. America has been blessed throughout our history with people who are willing to step up to the plate when called and accept the responsibility for defending our nation. For everyone who worries about reenlistments and overstretch, I think the USMC will do what it has done since the very beginning - adapt and overcome.
Posted by: Blue || 06/04/2004 14:46 Comments || Top||

#5  Sounds to me like the Marines are spreading the Taliban thinner and over a wider area!

Thanks, guys!

I bought a young Marine an iced coffee and two biscottis the other day. He was just home from Okinawa. He looked perplexed and pleased that a civilian would do that just to say "Thanks" but I meant it.
Posted by: JDB || 06/04/2004 19:57 Comments || Top||


Iraq-Jordan
Iraqi Police Nab Aide to Al Qaeda Big Zarqawi
Banner only -- just breaking
Posted by: Sherry || 06/04/2004 10:39:40 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Fox is now reporting that he's supplying information to the coalition.
Posted by: eLarson || 06/04/2004 11:13 Comments || Top||

#2  Musta had what's-her-name standing by with a leash and a banana...
Posted by: mojo || 06/04/2004 11:20 Comments || Top||

#3  Fox is now reporting that he's supplying information to the coalition

eLarson, mojo - Also had a dull saw, and a ham sandwich for a "last meal".
Posted by: BigEd || 06/04/2004 12:31 Comments || Top||

#4  Ya 'spose he's still got his clothes on?
Posted by: Michael || 06/04/2004 16:57 Comments || Top||


More Baathist Fingerprints on 9/11
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 10:30 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Africa: North
US rewards Morocco for terror aid
Morocco has been designated a major non-Nato US ally by President Bush, in recognition of the country's support in the US-led war on terror. The category also includes Israel, Egypt, Kuwait, and pro-western Asian nations. The designation is expected to make it easier for American companies to sell arms to Morocco. The US is also expected to sign a free-trade agreement with Morocco later this month.
Sounds like they got upgraded to official "friend of Rome" status.
"The president took this step in recognition of the close US-Morocco relationship, our appreciation for Morocco's steadfast support in the global war on terror, and for King Mohamed's role as a visionary leader in the Arab world," a senior administration official said. The Moroccan authorities have arrested about 2,000 people in cases linked to terrorism since it was hit by a suicide attack in Casablanca last May. About 45 people, 12 of them bombers, were killed. Morocco has increased its co-operation in fighting terrorism with Spain following the Madrid bomb attacks that killed 191 people. Fourteen of the 18 people provisionally charged in connection with attacks on trains were Moroccans. However, human rights groups have said that the anti-terror measures have eroded human rights and that suspected Islamists have been tortured by security agents.
Now where did I put that nano-violin?
Correspondents say the elevated status does not imply the mutual security guarantees that Washington has with its European allies.
Posted by: Steve || 06/04/2004 10:22:05 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Iraq-Jordan
Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia - Great Analysis!
THE STRATFOR WEEKLY 03 June 2004 By George Friedman
Add salt
The United States has clearly entered a new phase of the Iraq campaign in which its relationship with the Iraqi Shia has been de-emphasized while relationships with Sunnis have been elevated. This has an international effect as well. It obviously affects Iranian ambitions. It also helps strengthen the weakening hand of the Saudi government by reducing the threat of a Shiite rising in strategic parts of the kingdom that could threaten the flow of oil. The United States is creating a much more dynamic and fluid situation, but it is also enormously more complicated and difficult to manage.

Analysis
The United States has fully entered the fourth phase of the Iraq campaign. The first phase consisted of the invasion of Iraq and the fall of Baghdad. The second was the phase in which the United States believed that it had a free hand in Iraq. It ended roughly July 1, 2003. The third phase was the period of commitment to control events in Iraq, intense combat with the Sunni guerrillas and collaboration with the Shia in Iraq and the Iranians. The fourth phase began in April with the negotiated settlement in Al Fallujah, and became official this week with the formation of the interim Iraqi government. The new government represents the culmination of a process that began during the April uprising by Muqtada al-Sadr -- and Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani’s unwillingness to intervene to stop the fighting and the kidnappings. Al-Sistani’s behavior caused the Bush administration to reconsider a strategic principle that had governed U.S. strategy in Iraq since July 2003: the assumption that the United States could not afford to alienate al-Sistani and the Shiite community and remain in Iraq.

The problem was that the understanding the United States thought it had with the Shia was very different from the one the Shia thought they had with the United States. It would take a microscope to figure out how the disconnect occurred and how it widened into an abyss, but the basic outlines are obvious. Al-Sistani believed that by controlling the Shia during the Sunni Ramadan offensive of October-November 2003, the Shia had entered into an agreement with the United States that the sovereign government of Iraq would pass into Shiite hands as rapidly as possible. Whether the United States had a different understanding -- or given its intelligence that the Sunni rebellion had been broken -- the fact was that by January, the United States was backing off the deal. In pressing for an interim government selected by the United States and containing heavy Sunni and Kurdish representation, and by putting off direct elections for at least a year, the United States let al-Sistani know that he was not getting what he wanted. Al-Sistani first transmitted his unhappiness through several channels, including Ahmed Chalabi. He then called for mass demonstrations. When that did not work, he maneuvered al-Sadr into rising against the Americans at the same time as the Sunnis launched an offensive west of Baghdad, particularly in Al Fallujah. Al-Sistani’s goal was to demonstrate that the United States was utterly dependent on the Shia and that it had better change its thinking about the future Iraqi government. Al-Sistani badly miscalculated.

The United States did not conclude that it needed a deal with the Shia. It concluded instead that the Shia -- including Chalabi and al-Sistani -- were completely undependable allies. By striking at a moment of extreme vulnerability, the Shia crippled the U.S. Defense Department faction that had argued not only in favor of Chalabi but also in favor of alignment with the Shia. Instead, the CIA and State Department, which had argued that the Shiite alignment was a mistake, now argued -- convincingly --that al-Sistani was maneuvering the United States into a position of complete dependency, and that the only outcome would be the surrender of power to the Shia, whose interests lay with Iran, not the United States. Following the al-Sadr rising, and al-Sistani’s attempt to maneuver the United States into simultaneously protecting al-Sistani from al-Sadr and being condemned by al-Sistani for doing it, the defenders of the Shiite strategy were routed.

A fourth strategy emerged, in which the United States is trying to maintain balanced relationships with Sunnis and Shia, while currently tilting toward the Sunnis. Al Fallujah is the great symbol of this. The United States negotiated with its mortal enemy,the Sunnis, and conceded control of the city to them. What would have been utterly unthinkable during the third phase from July to March became logical and necessary in April and May. The United States is now speaking to virtually all Iraqi factions, save the foreign jihadists linked to al Qaeda. Al-Sistani has gone from being the pivot of U.S. policy in Iraq, to being a competitor for U.S. favor. It is no accident that Chalabi was publicly destroyed by the CIA overt he past few weeks, or that the new Iraqi government gives no significant posts to al-Sistani supporters --and that Shia are actually underrepresented. The United States has recognized that it will not be able to defeat the Sunni insurgents in war without becoming utterly dependent on the Shia for stabilizing the south. Since the United States does not have sufficient force available in either place to suppress both a Sunni and a Shiite rising -- and since it has lost all confidence in the Shiite leadership -- logic has it that it needs to move toward ending the counterinsurgency. That is a political process requiring the United States to recognize the guerrillas linked to the Saddam Hussein military and intelligence service as a significant political force in Iraq, and to use that relationship as a lever with which to control the Shia. That is what happened in Al Fallujah; that is what is happening -- with much more subtlety -- in the interim government, and that is what will be playing out for the rest of the summer. In essence, in order to gain control of the military situation, the United States has redefined the politics of Iraq. Rather than allowing the Shia to be the swing player in the three-man game, the United States is trying to maneuver itself into being the swingman. Suddenly, as the war becomes gridlocked, the politics have become extraordinarily fluid. Every ball is in the air -- and it is the United States that has become the wild card.

Changes and Consequences
The redefinition of the U.S. role in Iraq has major international consequences. The U.S. relationship with Iran reached its high point during the Bam earthquake in December 2003. The United States offered aid, and the Iranians accepted. The United States offered to send Elizabeth Dole (and a player to be named later), and this was rejected by Iran. Iran -- viewing the situation in Iraq and the U.S. relationship with the Shia, and realizing that the United States needed Iranian help against al Qaeda -- sought to rigorously define its relationship with the Americans on its own terms. It thought it had the whip hand and was using it. The United States struggled with its relationship with Iran from January until March, accepting its importance, but increasingly uneasy with the views being expressed by Tehran.

By April, the United States had another important consideration on its plate: the deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia. The United States was the primary cause of that deterioration. It had forced the Saudi government to crack down on al Qaeda in the kingdom, and the radical Islamists were striking back at the regime. An incipient civil war was under way and intensifying. Contrary to myth, the United States did not intervene in Iraq over oil -- anyone looking at U.S. behavior over the past year can see the desultory efforts on behalf of the Iraqi oil industry -- but the United States had to be concerned about the security of oil shipments from Saudi Arabia. If those were disrupted, the global economy would go reeling. It was one thing to put pressure on the Saudis; it was another thing to accept a civil war as the price of that pressure. And it was yet another thing to think calmly about the fall of the House of Saud. But taking Saudi oil off the market was not acceptable. The Saudis could not stop shipping oil voluntarily. They needed the income too badly. That was never a risk. However, for the first time since World War II, the disruption of Saudi oil supplies because of internal conflict or external force became conceivable. The fact was that Saudi Arabia had a large Shiite population that lived around the oil shipment points. If those shipment points were damaged or became inaccessible, all hell would break loose in the global economy.

The Iranians had a number of mutually supporting interests. First, they wanted a neutral or pro-Iranian Iraq in order to make another Iran-Iraq war impossible. For this, they needed a Shiite-dominated government. Second, they were interested in redressing the balance of power in the Islamic world between Sunnis and Shia, in particular with the Saudi Wahhabis. Finally, they wanted -- in the long run -- to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. Their relationship with the United States in Iraq was the linchpin for all of this. The Saudis, having already felt the full force of American fury -- and now trapped between them and their own radicals -- faced another challenge. If the U.S. policy in Iraq remained on track, the power of Iran and the Shia would surge through the region.

The Saudis had faced a challenge from the Shia right after the Khomeni revolution in Iran. They did not enjoy it, but they did have the full backing of the United States. Now they are in a position where they faced an even more intense challenge, and the United States might well stay neutral or, even worse, back the challenge. If the Shia in Saudi Arabia rose with the backing of Iran and a Shiite-dominated Iraq, the Saudi government would crumble. From the Saudi point of view, they might be able to contain the radical Islamists using traditional tribal politics and payoffs, but facing the Wahhabis and the Shia at the same time would be impossible. The third-phase policy of entente between the United States and the Shiite-Iranian bloc seemed to guarantee a Shiite rising in Saudi Arabia in the not-too-distant future. As U.S.-Iranian relations became increasingly strained during the winter, the Saudis increased their cooperation with the United States. They also made it clear to the Americans that they were in danger of losing their balance as the pressures on them mounted. The United States liked what it saw in the Saudi intensification of the war effort, even in the face of increased resistance. The United States did not like what it saw in Tehran, concerned that the relationship there was getting out of hand. Finally, in April, it became completely disenchanted with the Shiite leadership of Iraq.

There were therefore two layers to the U.S. policy shift. The first was internal to Iraq. The second had to do with increased concerns about the security of oil shipments from the kingdom if the Iranians encouraged a rising in Saudi Arabia. The United States did not lighten up at all on demanding full cooperation on al Qaeda. The Saudis supplied that. But the United States did not want oil shipments disrupted. In the end, the survival or demise of the House of Saud does not matter to the United States -- except to the degree that it affects the availability of oil. The United States has to balance the pressure it puts on Saudi Arabia to fight al Qaeda against the threat of oil disruption. It cannot lighten up on either. From the American point of view,the right balance is a completely committed Saudi Arabia and freely flowing oil. The United States had moved much closer to the former, and it now needed to ensure the latter. Jerking the rug out from under the Iranians and the Shia was the U.S. answer. Oil does not cost more than $40 a barrel because of China. It costs more than $40 a barrel because of fears that Saudi oil really could come off the market, and doubt that the complex U.S. maneuver can work. The obvious danger is an Iranian-underwritten rising in southern Iraq that spills over into Saudi Arabia. The United States has shut off its support for such an event, but the Iranians have an excellent intelligence organization with a strong covert capability. They are capable of answering in their own way.

The future at this moment is in the hands of Tehran and An Najaf. This is the point at which the degree of control the Iranians have over the Iraqi Shiite leadership will become clear. The Iranians obviously are not happy with the trends that have emerged over the past month. Their best lever is in Iraq. The Iraqi Shia are aware that the United States is increasingly limber and unpredictable -- and that it has more options than it had two months ago. The Iraqi Shia are in danger of being trapped between Washington and Tehran. It is extremely important to note that al-Sistani today tentatively endorsed the new government, clearly uneasy at the path events were taking. Therefore there are two questions: First, will the Iranians become more aggressive, abandoning their traditional caution? Second, can they get the Iraqi Shiite leaders to play their game, or will the old rift between Qom and An Najaf (the Iranian and Iraqi Shiite holy cities) emerge once again as the Shia scramble to get back into the American game. The problem the Americans have is this: Wars are very complicated undertakings that require very simple politics. The more complicated the politics, the more difficult it is to prosecute a war. The politics of this war have become extraordinarily complicated. The complexity is almost mind-boggling. Fighting a war in this environment is tough at best --and this is not the best. What the United States must achieve out of all of this maneuvering is a massive simplification of the war goals. This is getting way too complicated.
Link requires registration
(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.
Posted by: Anonymous4617 || 06/04/2004 4:18:51 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  he maneuvered al-Sadr into rising
against the Americans at the same time as the Sunnis launched an offensive west of Baghdad,


I dont beleive this. while theres a kernel of truth in the notion that the Fallujah deal was to put pressure on Sistani, i see no evidence that Sistani wanted Sadr to rise, or that Sistani is as close to the Iranians as Stratfor has consistently maintained.

As for SF's claim that China is not the cause of rising oil prices, does SF have an explanation for rising steel or aluminum prices? Is AQ active in the many countries that export steel and aluminum?
Posted by: Liberalhawk || 06/04/2004 10:30 Comments || Top||

#2  LH,

An excellent observation. The situation in Iraq and Saudi is what is adding volatility to the oil market (vice aluminum or steel), but it is the strong demand pressure from China that has caused the supply shortage in the first place.
Posted by: dreadnought || 06/04/2004 10:48 Comments || Top||

#3  and of course, we are responsible for the Saudis struggling with the monster they birthed and nurtured...
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 10:53 Comments || Top||

#4  I'm gonna say this one last time... ;)

There is no oil supply shortage! The reason oil prices are high is because futures traders have bid them up on the notion that there MIGHT be a supply shortage in the future.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 06/04/2004 11:41 Comments || Top||

#5  I agree that StratFor's analyses have been pretty spotty. They consistently overestimate Iran's influence on al-Sistani and underestimate Iran's direct efforts to foment trouble in Iraq. IMO, Iran's interest is a chaotic Iraq where the US is bogged down, not a stable, Shia-dominated Iraq where the Najaf Shia won't play ball with the Qom Shia. Other than al-Sadr, the Iraqi Shia leaders have shown very little willingness to do Iran's bidding and a lot of willingness to play ball with the US/UN. They realize that the most practical and legitimate way to achieve Shia control (if not dominance) is to let the democratic process come to fruition and allow their majority status to bear its own fruit.
Posted by: Tibor || 06/04/2004 11:48 Comments || Top||

#6  This iranian born french sees eye to eye with Tibor.
Posted by: frenchfregoli || 06/04/2004 12:53 Comments || Top||

#7  Al-Sistani believed that by controlling the Shia during the Sunni Ramadan offensive of October-November 2003, the Shia had entered into an agreement with the United States that the sovereign government of Iraq would pass into Shiite hands as rapidly as possible.

Dream on, sucker!

Al-Sistani badly miscalculated. The United States did not conclude that it needed a deal with the Shia. It concluded instead that the Shia -- including Chalabi and al-Sistani -- were completely undependable allies.

A whopping BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious).

By April, the United States had another important consideration on its plate: the deteriorating situation in Saudi Arabia. The United States was the primary cause of that deterioration. It had forced the Saudi government to crack down on al Qaeda in the kingdom, and the radical Islamists were striking back at the regime.
EMPHASIS ADDED

This is pure banana oil. The House of Saud has spent decades painting themselves and their entire nation into a sociopolitical corner. Content with their vampire's feast upon ever-plentiful petrodollars, the royals never even bothered to industrialize Saudi Arabia or properly educate their citizenry (religious indoctrination does not count for sh!t).

The Saudi government is now confronted with an increasingly assertive terrorist infrastructure of their own making and a nation that has little other income stream than the oil beneath their sands. What oil there is in the pipelines and refineries is almost entirely out of their control because they have never bothered to constructively encourage technological literacy within their borders and remain utterly reliant upon foreign expertise to keep their inbound revenue flowing.

The Iranians had a number of mutually supporting interests. First, they wanted a neutral or pro-Iranian Iraq in order to make another Iran-Iraq war impossible. For this, they needed a Shiite-dominated government. Second, they were interested in redressing the balance of power in the Islamic world between Sunnis and Shia, in particular with the Saudi Wahhabis. Finally, they wanted -- in the long run -- to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf. Their relationship with the United States in Iraq was the linchpin for all of this.

All the more reason to oust the Shia controlled elements in the new Iraqi government. Such meddling as we have seen from Iran is a huge red flag that had better be noticed.

The United States did not lighten up at all on demanding full cooperation on al Qaeda. The Saudis supplied that. But the United States did not want oil shipments disrupted. In the end, the survival or demise of the House of Saud does not matter to the United States -- except to the degree that it affects the availability of oil.

It remains to be seen whether Saudi Arabia even realizes this. Too long have they fed at the trough without looking up from their gorgings.

The obvious danger is an Iranian-underwritten rising in southern Iraq that spills over into Saudi Arabia. The United States has shut off its support for such an event, but the Iranians have an excellent intelligence organization with a strong covert capability. They are capable of answering in their own way.

Just one more reason why America needs to consider a decapitating strike on the Guardian Council when it is in full session. There are few other avenues towards dismantling the mullah based power structure in Iran. The confusion and complications (i.e., nuclear power weapons program) they continue to sow must be laid at Iran's door.

#5 ... They realize that the most practical and legitimate way to achieve Shia control (if not dominance) is to let the democratic process come to fruition and allow their majority status to bear its own fruit.

This is one of the more concise summations of Shia strategy in Iraq. The potential for an Iraqi Shia majority voting into power a theocratic tyranny must be avoided at all costs. While there are few ways to dissuade those used to centuries of religious government, a sufficiently empowered minority (i.e., the Kurds) must be levered into Iraq's legislative body to effectively form a veto block for such a geopolitical nightmare.
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 13:22 Comments || Top||

#8  Ledeen was saying on a local radio station this morning (KSFO) that the rise in oil prices is due to the speculation/intel that the Saudi government is going to fall and fall quickly. DPA was right on target, Ledeen just supplied the underlying reasoning.
Posted by: remote man || 06/04/2004 13:35 Comments || Top||

#9  Zenster, my point is not that the Shia-dominated Iraqi government will become a theocracy. In fact, there is ample evidence that the opposite is true -- the Iraqi Shias are quite secular, and are certainly not enamored of the Iran model, especially since everyone knows how unpopular the Mad Mullahs are. In my view (through rose-colored glasses), the fruit to be borne of the Iraqi democratic process is a secular state whose dominant ethnicity happens to be Shia. That's why it is so important to stop al-Sadr. If he offs al-Sistani and some of the other Grand Ayatollahs, he could create real problems.
Posted by: Tibor || 06/04/2004 14:07 Comments || Top||

#10  i expect something in between Zenster and tibor. It seems to me that while SOME Iraqi Shia are secular - including upper class elements like Chalabi and Allawi, but also an urban working class secular element, traditionally organized by the (now reformed) Iraqi Communist Party, most Iraqi Shia, ARE pretty religious. OTOH it also seems like some the ayatollahs have looked at Iran, and seen what full fledged theocracy does to the popularity of Ayatollahs.
So I see Sistani et al opposing full clerical rule, but probably still pushing for "Sharia-lite" at least muslim family law applied to muslims. The secular shia might cut a deal with them, or might ally with the Kurds and Sunnis instead. And there is a minority that DOES support Sadrs vision of an Islamic state, and theyll be a problem for years, kinda like the Communists in western europe during the cold war.
Posted by: Liberalhawk || 06/04/2004 14:19 Comments || Top||

#11  [Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: JERKFACE101 TROLL || 06/04/2004 14:38 Comments || Top||

#12  Thank you for elucidating, Tibor. I remain concerned that your spectacles are nonetheless overly roseate. After such lengthy and brutal oppression at the hands of Saddam, one can only hope that the Shias have learned secularism's value. Sadly, I still see the common obsession with theocratic rule as a big threat to the emergence of a functional Iraq. This is one case where I definitely hope that I'm wrong.
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 15:07 Comments || Top||

#13  well once the mulla's in iran is taken out it will not matter. i believe there will govt (in iraq and ira) that will fall in the middle.
Posted by: Dan || 06/04/2004 17:42 Comments || Top||

#14  DPA there is most definitely a supply shortage of oil, which is not the same as saying there is not enough oil at particular point of time. I wont go into a long explanation on the role of speculators in markets, but essentially they make them more efficient. High prices will prevent there being not enough oil by curbing demand and more importantly increasing production. If there were no speculators, then you would likely find that there was not enough oil and your local gas station was dry.

The Saudis etc. blame speculators to deflect blame away from the real cause which is OPEC.
Posted by: Phil B || 06/04/2004 18:20 Comments || Top||

#15  Phil, the price of oil at this point in time is not supply and demand driven. It's derivative driven. That's the simple truth.

You're saying that there isn't a supply problem because high prices are lowering demand. My point is that there's not a supply problem at far lower prices than we have now.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 06/04/2004 18:46 Comments || Top||

#16  The House of Saud has spent decades painting themselves and their entire nation into a sociopolitical corner.

I still believe the root of the Saudi problem is the succession fight. AQ vs. the Saudi government is a proxy for factions of the Saudi "royal" family. Yes, it almost certainly has gotten out of hand. That doesn't mean that wasn't the original intent.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 06/04/2004 19:26 Comments || Top||

#17  #13 well once the mulla's in iran is taken out it will not matter. i believe there will govt (in iraq and ira) that will fall in the middle.

Here's hoping. Unfortunately, Iran's interference represents one of the biggest roadblocks to success right now. There is no short term solution for eliminating their negative effect on the situation short of blowing the Iranian mullahs straight to hell.

Internal insurrection is insufficiently well armed or organized enough to accomplish the task and merely bombing Iran's atomic weapons program into rubble will not put an end to their constant interference.

Some way of polarizing the Qom - Najaf Shias and thereby eliminating any potential collaboration between them would seem best. Does anyone have a read on how to go about doing this?

Per the oil issue, I tend to agree with Phil B's analysis, save for the fact that China's artificially pegged currency and intentionally skewed foreign trade deficits allow them an exaggerated degree of demand that a properly regulated (read: legitimately operated) economy would most definitely not.

Just one more reason why China needs to be slapped back into line. Sadly, neither America nor Europe have any political backbone to do so right now and the long term repercussions of this will be truly devastating.
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 19:41 Comments || Top||

#18  Robert Crawford, the Saudi succession fight looks to me a bit like the Iran-Iraq war: no good guys to be found.
Posted by: someone || 06/04/2004 19:51 Comments || Top||

#19  Phil, the price of oil at this point in time is not supply and demand driven. For anything traded in a market the price is supply and demand driven. There is a supply problem and substantially its called OPEC. I didn't understand the comment about derivatives.

And Zenster China's artificially pegged currency actually suppresses its demand for oil because it makes oil more expensive for them.
Posted by: Phil B || 06/04/2004 20:02 Comments || Top||

#20  And Zenster China's artificially pegged currency actually suppresses its demand for oil because it makes oil more expensive for them.

But what they lose in profit they make up for in volume. The insanely disproportionate trade imbalance gives them money enough to afford all the oil they want. Do you disagree?
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 21:17 Comments || Top||

#21  For anything traded in a market the price is supply and demand driven. There is a supply problem and substantially its called OPEC. I didn't understand the comment about derivatives.

That's only true in a world without derivatives (options). Derivatives allow for the equivelant effect of an artificial inflation of or reduction in supply on the price of a commodity (or any equity for that matter).

The problem is that derviatives allow you to leverage vast quantities of supply with little capital. If you want to read a very extreme example of the influence that derivatives can have far beyond the traditional supply and demand aspects of a market read the story of Long Term Capital Managment.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 06/04/2004 21:36 Comments || Top||

#22  But what they lose in profit they make up for in volume. The insanely disproportionate trade imbalance gives them money enough to afford all the oil they want. Do you disagree?

No, the reason they have the distorted trade balance is because the exchange rate artificially depresses all imports including oil. You have the cause and effect the wrong way round.
Posted by: Phil B || 06/04/2004 23:25 Comments || Top||

#23  DPA re derivatives - Essentially options allow you to trade future price movements. They have no effect on actual supply.
Posted by: Phil B || 06/04/2004 23:29 Comments || Top||

#24  Phil B: I'm not sure whether their credit policies are allowing them to buy more oil (and steel and aluminum) in spite of the exchange rate.

The credit policies, i.e. who gets loans and who doesn't, is acting as a de facto controlled economy bureau; by providing more credit for companies buying steel and oil than for other things lets them concentrate their limited foreign exchange purchases in what they consider to be important areas.

Or so I'm guessing. I have to think.
Posted by: Phil Fraering || 06/05/2004 0:48 Comments || Top||

#25  Phil hopefully you'll catch this even though it's the next day but...

Options allow you to leverage your capital, thus reducing supply. For example... If I bought the right to buy 100 barrels of oil at 40 dollars (assuming that oil is trading at 38.50) in a few months it might cost me a few bucks per barrel. Now the person that sold me those options can't afford to sell his barrels in the mean time because if oil goes to 50 he goes bankrupt selling to me at 40. Therefore I've leveraged 200 dollars to reduce the supply of oil by 4000 dollars. This is simplified but effectively this is how leverage screws up traditional supply and demand. The fact that the guy who sold the oil won't sell therefore drives up the price... because he won't sell.

Thus derivative traders can screw with the price of commodities beyond simple supply and demand... at least in the short term. In the long term supply and demand rules.
Posted by: Damn_Proud_American || 06/05/2004 1:23 Comments || Top||

#26  DPA, Your point seems to be that options take oil of the market in order to fulfill future/options contracts. The only reason you would do this is to avoid being forced to pay a higher price on the delivery date. The existence of futures and options solves this problem. I.e. futures and options avoid the need to keep oil in storage in order to avoid the risk of price movements.

The rise in futures/options markets has resulted in a very substantial decline in oil kept in storage for precisely this reason.

In your example the seller solves his problem by buying an offsetting futures/option contract such that any price movement will have no net effect.
Posted by: Phil_B || 06/05/2004 1:40 Comments || Top||

#27  You're being a jerk. Idiot. Shut up.
Posted by: JERKFACE101 || 06/04/2004 14:38 Comments || Top||


Some 800 foreigners imprisoned in Abu Ghraib
excerted from IWPR daily summary of Iraqi News sources.
Informed sources have revealed a document identifying some 790 non-Iraqi detainees in Abu Ghraib prison. There are 17 from Saudi Arabia, 9 from Kuwait, 30 from Lebanon, 21 from Yemen, 6 from Algeria, 13 from Egypt, 35 from Jordan, 7 from Libya, 8 from Palestine, 9 from Sudan, 22 from Syria, 2 from Tunisia and 3 from Morocco.
Let's see, 790 minus the 182 listed leaves 608 without a country. Wonder if they came from that un-named country to the east of Iraq that is absent from the list?
Most of the terrorist operations in the country were executed by non-Iraqi elements working for organised bodies with the aim of spreading insecurity and riots inside Iraq. They made use of the absence of the control of borders with neighbouring countries enabling them to enter Iraq and work against its ambitions and interests. (Al-Adala is issued daily by the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.)
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/04/2004 4:33:26 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Hmmm, let me counsult that Geneova Convention wit regards to 'Unlawful Combatants'..... Yes there it is clear as day, we are supposed to SHOOT THEM. Well since the left wants us to follow that sacred document, lets get with it.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 06/04/2004 10:10 Comments || Top||

#2  800? More please.
Posted by: Scott || 06/04/2004 10:17 Comments || Top||

#3  Wring'em dry,the wring dead.
Posted by: Raptor || 06/04/2004 11:03 Comments || Top||

#4  Surely they're all innocent tourists wrongfully imprisoned by our troops--a bunch of young, single men toting home souvenir AK47's and RPG's from Saddam's Mother of All Amusement Parks™, detained and held without any justification!
Posted by: Dar || 06/04/2004 15:27 Comments || Top||

#5  This only proves how "suicidal" Islam is and the intelligence it engenders in its acolytes. Can you imagine a similar infiltration of catholics from America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, etc. to Ireland to combat the Brits in Ulster? Cannon fodder, nothing less, nothing more!
Posted by: Jack is Back! || 06/04/2004 15:57 Comments || Top||

#6  A Freddie Mercury song comes to mind: "And another one down. And another one down. Another one bites the...."
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/04/2004 16:51 Comments || Top||

#7  just no pictures...
Posted by: Dan || 06/04/2004 17:43 Comments || Top||

#8  i'm sure that a few of those unaccounted for, uncountried folks came from the non-nation of paleostine.
Posted by: Anonymous || 06/04/2004 21:12 Comments || Top||


Al-Taakhi: GC passes into history
(Al-Taakhi) – The transitional Governing Council has dissolved itself, and transferred authority to the new Iraqi Government. This came in the normal session of the GC on Tuesday and was signed by Ghazi al-Yawir, being the last GC chairman. The dissolution of the GC was supposed to have taken place on June 30. But the GC voluntarily dissolved itself in a historic step aimed at enabling the new government to practice its full responsibility on June 30 when it can make international financial agreements on the rebuilding of Iraq.(Al-Taakhi is issued daily by the Kurdistan Democratic Party.)
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/04/2004 4:35:34 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Investigating General Focuses on Colonel at Joint Interrogation Center
From The New York Times
The Army general investigating the role of military intelligence specialists in the abuse of Iraqi inmates at Abu Ghraib prison is focusing on the former head of the site’s interrogation center .... The investigating officer, Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, has a broad mandate to examine intelligence gathering in Iraq and has interviewed dozens of soldiers and officers in Iraq, Europe and the United States. But General Fay is asking several specific questions about Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, the former head of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, the statements he made to interrogators and his instructions about treating Iraqi prisoners, said one military intelligence soldier who has been interviewed ....

General Fay is also believed to be examining an incident at Abu Ghraib last October in which several Iraqi prisoners may have been hidden from representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross during a visit they made to the site. A military interrogator stationed at Abu Ghraib said that, over a six-hour period during the inspectors’ visit, five or six prisoners were put into cells, where they were forced to sit in uncomfortable positions. "They had hoods on them and they had their arms bound," said the interrogator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the continuing inquiry. "They put them over there to hide them from a Red Cross inspection." The interrogator said he overheard Colonel Jordan and other officers say that the Red Cross inspectors did not need to know about those Iraqi prisoners. ....

From sworn testimony and interviews, Colonel Jordan emerges as a hands-on commander from the moment he arrived last September to oversee the newly created interrogation center’s activities. "Wing One was supervised mostly by LTC Steve Jordan," Capt. Donald J. Reese, commander of the 372nd Military Police Company, said in a sworn statement to investigators. "LTC Jordan was very involved with the interrogation process and the day-to-day activity that occurred." ....

In November, Specialist Monath said, military police officers failed to properly screen Iraqi police officers coming into the prison, and one was found to have smuggled in a handgun to give to a detainee. "These were serving Iraqi police officers who were attempting to smuggle in arms for the prisoners," he said. "Colonel Jordan went to the front gate and personally patted down every Iraqi police officer who came in." Two Iraqis were arrested in the next two days for smuggling weapons into the prison, he said. ....
The article includes several remarks by knowledgeable soldiers praising Col Jordan.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 06/04/2004 4:47:10 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Does this mean that Lt. Col. Steven Jordan will not be admitted to the AOS?
Posted by: Tibor || 06/04/2004 12:03 Comments || Top||

#2  Depends. I like the idea that he decided to fix security by patting down people himself. I just bet everyone else in the unit got the message pronto. That said, if he went outside/beyond the rules, he has to pay the price.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/04/2004 12:31 Comments || Top||


Afghanistan/South Asia
Nuggets from the Urdu press
Village court strikes again
According to Khabrain a panchayat in Kabirwala was approached by a bad character alleging that a certain man had illicit relations with his sister. The Panchayat ruled that the sisters of the accused should be raped by him and his brother. The two then took the girls and raped them all night as the girls shrieked for help. No one came to help them as the village court had decided on rape.

Mufti Shamzai against MMA
Writing in daily Pakistan Tanvir Qaiser Shahid stated that a leader of the MMA Maulana Samiul Haq was attacking Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Qazi Hussain Ahmad so severely that it was natural to think that the MMA had developed fissures. He further wrote that Samiul Haq been joined by Karachi’s powerful Deobandi leader Mufti Shamzai who had accused the MMA of not reacting appropriately to Wana Operation as doing so would have deprived them of the fruits of the LFO. From the other side it was being said that Samiul Haq was like a plaything in the hands of PML-Q; and his son Hamidul Haq as a senator was constantly issuing statements against the MMA.

Tariq Aziz and Maulana Badiullah Shah
Columnist Hafiz Sanaullah wrote in Khabrain that once film actor and PPP politician Tariq Aziz had said at a gathering in Peshawar that when Halagu Khan invaded Baghdad the ulema of the city were disputing whether the cuff of the shalwar had to be above or below the ankles at namaz. At this one bearded man approached him and threateningly warned him against maligning the ulema. This was the great Maulana Badiullah Shah.

Lahore councillors do ‘dhinga-mushti’
According to daily Pakistan, elected members attending a session of Lahore Council indulged in dhinga mushti (wrestling and fisticuffs) after hurling accusations of corruption at each other. The house went into a clinch after one member accused Jamaat Islami of corruption. The members exchanged obscene swear words and thrust their fists into each other’s stomach. One member showed to the newspaper cameramen a bottle filled with filthy liquid which was used to sprinkle the councillors with.

Talk of wine in Senate
According to Nawa-e-Waqt the Senate was drowned in angry shouts when PML(Q) senator Rozina Alam objected to opposition member Sadia Abbasi’s statement about Chaudhry Shujaat’s remark about the textbooks. On this Sadia Abbasi started shouting and would not stop. After this men senators too joined in and it became a fish market. PML(Q) senator Kamil Ali Agha protested that the opposition had thrown a pamphlet in the hostel defaming the PML(Q) leader and said if this was done then he would disclose how the opposition members had opened NGOs and drunk wine there all the time
Posted by: Paul Moloney || 06/04/2004 2:56:52 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Gotta love the Urdu press. I'm pretty sure the next time I get into a "discussion" with my brother, I'm gonna have to threaten to go ‘dhinga-mushti’ on his a**.
Posted by: Seafarious || 06/04/2004 9:19 Comments || Top||

#2  ..I swear to God , I thought the 'dhinga-mushti' was a dance...

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski || 06/04/2004 9:27 Comments || Top||

#3  I did some dhinga-mushti this morning, but Kaopectate took care of that.
Posted by: BH || 06/04/2004 9:37 Comments || Top||

#4  LOL. Everybody homes in.
Posted by: Shipman || 06/04/2004 11:23 Comments || Top||

#5  Ted Kennedy, et al, do the verbal dhinga-mushti every ever-lovin' live long day when the media is there to report.

Thanks for posting the Nuggets! They made me start out my day right.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/04/2004 12:04 Comments || Top||

#6  After this men senators too joined in and it became a fish market.

I just love that sort of imagery. Too bad our slanted press here would never use that phrase properly.
Posted by: Phil Fraering || 06/04/2004 17:20 Comments || Top||

#7  Brief, vivid image of beturbanned legislators whacking each other with carp...
Posted by: Fred || 06/04/2004 17:43 Comments || Top||

#8  **slaps fellow lawmaker with a flounder**
Sir, I challenge you to a duel! You have insulted my honor.

Well, this dhinga-mushti stuff is getting us nowhere, so what say you to AK-47s at a thousand paces?

No, RPGs at a thousand paces and you've got a deal.

We need to have someone count to 1000 for us.

Hokay, we will get the brightest student from the local Madrass to do the honors.

You've got a deal. Now what were we arguing about? Refresh my memory.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/04/2004 18:31 Comments || Top||

#9  vivid image of beturbanned legislators whacking each other with carp...
Maybe they were just reenacting Monty Python's Fish-Slap dance.
Posted by: Rex Mundi || 06/04/2004 18:50 Comments || Top||

#10  One member showed to the newspaper cameramen a bottle filled with filthy liquid which was used to sprinkle the councillors with.

Holy water from Mecca?
The dhinga-mushti. Everybody's doing it.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/04/2004 19:30 Comments || Top||

#11  LOL - the Urdu Press: It's Catching
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 19:59 Comments || Top||

#12  Tariq Aziz was a film actor?
Posted by: Pappy || 06/04/2004 21:32 Comments || Top||

#13  an "adult" film with Baghdad Bob - wearing dark socks and sunglasses
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 22:25 Comments || Top||


Iraq-Jordan
Sadr loyalists to leave Najaf Again
ARMED loyalists of Shi'ite leader Moqtada Sadr were to start withdrawing from the holy central Iraqi city of Najaf and its surroundings today, their spokesman said after a meeting with Shi'ite officials. Qais al-Khazaali said Sadr had met with the Shi'ite House, a grouping of Shi'ite parties and religious authorities. "Starting tomorrow we shall start or continue withdrawing any armed presence and freeing all suspects" arrested by Sadr's militiamen, he said at a press conference with Shi'ite representative Haidar al-Sufi. The Shi'ite House would "choose some of its members to supervise" application of a truce with US forces in specific districts, Sufi said. "We ask the governor of Najaf to deploy the police forces made up of citizens of Najaf to bring security to the people," Sufi added. "We ask the occupation forces and the Iraqi police to refrain from making arrests and searches in Najaf province."
That would spoil the fun!
Hundreds of hard boyz militiamen and civilians have been killed across central and southern Iraq since firebrand cleric Sadr began his uprising against US-led coalition troops two months ago. A truce was announced in Najaf and Kerbala provinces on May 27 between the coalition forces and Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, but it has frequently been broken by the hard boyz. Five civilians and an unknown number of Shi'ite Muslim militiamen were killed in Kufa on yesterday in clashes with US troops, said the US military and medics, as fresh fighting rocked neighbouring Najaf. The US military said yesterday's clashes broke out in Kufa as troops searched a school suspected of having been used by Mehdi Army members to launch mortar attacks.
Isn't using a school to launch an attack a violation of some sorta law? I can't remember.
Sadr has offered to pull all militiamen who are not from Najaf out of the shrine city provided US troops leave as well. He has also asked for legal proceedings against him to be suspended until there is an elected Iraqi government, but coalition officials continue to insist that he disband his private army and face justice.
I'm waiting for the full-face and profile mug shots sans turban.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/04/2004 12:17:45 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I'd like to see this clown leave Najaf... feet first.
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/04/2004 21:05 Comments || Top||


Minister: Iraq Demands Security Authority
Iraq's incoming government needs the U.S.-led multinational force to stay to prevent civil war but insists on command of Iraqi forces and authority over "security matters," Iraq's foreign minister said Thursday. Hoshyar Zebari told the U.N. Security Council that a U.S.-British draft resolution on Iraqi sovereignty must spell out the relationship between the government and the multinational force to ensure that Iraq's self-rule isn't compromised and the force is able to defend itself. But he said the new interim government that will take power on June 30 doesn't want "a fixed deadline or timetable" for the departure of the multinational force, because it would be used by the country's "enemies" to foment unrest.
This guy's pretty smart.
But he stressed that the government which will be elected in January 2005 "must have a say in the future presence of these forces and we urge that this be reflected in the new resolution." He said the resolution must underline "the transfer of full sovereignty to the people of Iraq" and authorize the interim government "to control, administer and manage Iraq's resources and assets." "This means investing full authority in the interim government to run Iraq's affairs, make its own decisions and have authority over Iraq's security matters," he said.
So far we're in perfect agreement.
While the U.S. ambassador said the draft needs only "fine-tuning," key Security Council members including Algeria, France, Russia and China have insisted on major changes.
Who cares what they think?
The revised U.S.-British draft introduced Tuesday would authorize the multinational force to remain in Iraq under a unified command and urge more countries to contribute troops. It addresses two security issues raised by council members by giving the interim government control of the Iraqi army and police, and ending the mandate for a multinational force by January 2006. The original draft did not address the issue of control of Iraqi security forces or include an end to the force's mandate. Zebari warned that "any premature departure of international troops would lead to chaos and the real possibility of a civil war in Iraq." "This would cause a humanitarian crisis and provide a foothold for terrorists to launch their evil campaign in our country and beyond our borders," he said.
Which suits certain UNSC members just fine.
Several countries - including Algeria, the council's only Arab member - say they want the new resolution to give the country's new leaders final say over the multinational force. In an interview Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Iraq will not be given a veto over U.S. troops. The 138,000 U.S. troops will remain under U.S. command, Powell said. "There could be a situation where we have to act and there may be a disagreement," Powell told Middle East Broadcasting. Ambassador John Negroponte called Thursday for the "timely passage" of the resolution. Zebari expressed hope that the vote would be unanimous to send a strong signal of international support to the Iraqi people. Other nations on the 15-member council, especially France, are in no rush. They want to see how Iraqis react to the new team. They also want to hear from the new leaders and U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, who announced the new government Tuesday.
Wait long enough, and we and the Iraqis will just do things our own way.
The Iraqi minister also said a resolution must clearly end the U.S. and British occupation of Iraq that followed last year's war that toppled Saddam Hussein. "By removing the label of occupation, we will deprive the terrorists and antidemocratic forces of a rallying point to foment violence in our country," he said.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/04/2004 12:01:59 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I assume the US will indeed just do a bilateral arrangement with the new interim government if the UNSC attempts to put any more than general language on control of forces in the resolution. Also, the end-date idea is supremely stupid in a typically impractical multilateral way, and I assume that is one other absolute no-go for us.

One semantic quibble, and Zebari's hardly the author of this -- everyone's doing it. There IS a civil war in Iraq ... that's kind of the idea. Most of the trouble is being caused by Iraqis, who are killing other Iraqis and trying to shape the future of Iraq. That's a civil war. We are presently the key ally of one side (or several) in the civil war, and there's good reason to believe that the bulk of the populace favors an outcome we would find desirable -- but it's still a civil war, albeit with foreign intervention. I'm just tired of people talking darkly of the "possibility" of a "civil war" as some kind of possible nightmare scenario, when in fact such a conflict is the very essence of what's going on today. It's a very winnable civil war -- even easily so, by historical measures -- but civil war it (principally) is.
Posted by: Verlaine || 06/04/2004 0:36 Comments || Top||

#2  Yeah, there is and there isn't a civil war, given the furriners mucking around in Iraq. A fair number of the fighters are Iraqis, though, and I'd expect that to get worse if we bailed out in the next few months.

One interesting thought I read elsewhere: staying embroiled in Iraq serves Iran and Syria just fine. As long as our troops are in Iraq fighting, rebuilding, etc., they can't be used to clean out the other rat traps. This person advocated pulling our troops into the Kurdish region, using our air power over the rest of Iraq to threaten anyone who tries full-scale civil war, and the daring Sistani, et al., to start running the place responsibility. Then you'd have the forces you need to deal with Syria, the Soodis, etc. I don't buy it but it's an interesting idea.
Posted by: Steve White || 06/04/2004 0:59 Comments || Top||

#3  "Who cares what they think? "
Why Senator John(Nuance)Kerry,of course.
Posted by: Raptor || 06/04/2004 7:24 Comments || Top||

#4  the question is, will the French and Russians have the chutzpah to veto the US - UK resolution on grounds of insufficient authority for the Iraqis, when the Iraqi FM has just said it gives Iraq all the authority it needs? I cant see that happening - there will have to be just enough changes to save face for the weasels. OTOH I thought the weasels would cave on invading Iraq, and I proved monumentally wrong.
Posted by: Liberalhawk || 06/04/2004 10:21 Comments || Top||

#5  the question is, will the French and Russians have the chutzpah to veto the US?

Hmmmm where are those oil-for-palaces documents and oil bribe contracts...we had them right here yesterday...
Posted by: Frank G || 06/04/2004 10:40 Comments || Top||

#6  FG: I think some of the documents you are looking for are in Jim Baker's briefcase.
Posted by: Classical_Liberal || 06/04/2004 11:50 Comments || Top||


"Eyewitness" News?
COALITION SOLDIERS QUESTION NEWS MEDIA FOLLOWING ROADSIDE BOMB
MOSUL, Iraq - Coalition soldiers questioned two news media cameramen and a reporter after a roadside bomb exploded near a Coalition convoy two kilometers north of Mosul June 3. The media, who were at the scene prior to the attack, told soldiers at the scene they had received a tip to be at that location prior to the attack and they had witnessed the explosion. There was minimal damage to a Coalition vehicle, a cracked windshield, and no serious injuries. 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division soldiers requested the media accompany them to a base camp in Mosul to answer questions as witnesses to the incident.
"We respectfully REQUEST that you come back to the base with us. If you do so, these guns pressed against your heads will not fire."
The news media representatives left the base camp in the mid afternoon.
They were seen to be chain-smoking furiously and glancing nervously in all directions. Some rushed to nearby roadside vendors to buy underwear and strong alcoholic beverages.

This brings a whole new meaning to "media relations." This is not the first such incident -- though at least there was no mention of the media actually paying the bad guys to stage an attack, as has been rumored previously.
Posted by: Verlaine || 06/04/2004 12:00:00 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The media ARE planting the bombs! If they know what's going to happen....why don't they call and warn someone? BECAUSE THEY'RE PLANTING THE BOMBS!!!
Posted by: Halfass Pete || 06/04/2004 0:58 Comments || Top||

#2  Agenda in action: Bomb blowing up US troops=good story, US troops nabbing bombers=bad story.
Posted by: mojo || 06/04/2004 1:27 Comments || Top||

#3  US troops nabbing media who planted bombs = egggsclent story!
Posted by: Steve White || 06/04/2004 1:38 Comments || Top||

#4  So who do these"Aidders and Abetters"work for?
The link dosen't say,what ever"news"orginazation they work for should be booted-out on thier ass'.
Posted by: Raptor || 06/04/2004 7:35 Comments || Top||

#5  Is there any information on who the "media" people are, or work for?
Posted by: Jim K || 06/04/2004 7:52 Comments || Top||

#6  My sense from this story is that they may not have exactly planted the bombs...they simply knew about them and wanted to get the story. And they didn't tip off the soldiers. Which is despicable in it's own right.

Posted by: PlanetDan || 06/04/2004 8:38 Comments || Top||

#7  This has been pretty common. Normally, it turns out Al-Jazerra is warned about a number of bombs, firefights, etc. so as to get maximum Arab sympathetic coverage. In fact, I think they have been taken in before and questioned after finding them at the scene. This is deja vu all over again.
Posted by: Jack is Back! || 06/04/2004 9:26 Comments || Top||

#8  This could be just about anyone in the media -- they all value the 'story at any cost' (as long as they dont have to pay it)!

Do you think CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC/BBC/ETC.... would give up a good video of soldiers being blown to bits? The Democrats here in the U.S. would wet themselves to get such a video to promote the 'Bush lied people died' bullshit.

And yes, sad to say, I am serious.....
Posted by: CrazyFool || 06/04/2004 9:30 Comments || Top||

#9  I think it would not be unfair to declaire them participants in the bombing if they knew about it before hand and simply watched it happen so they could spin it later. Al Jazeera should be put on notice that their reporters and cameramen are no longer going to be treated as journalists, but instead as tourists.
Posted by: Yank || 06/04/2004 10:05 Comments || Top||

#10  Charge them immediately with making training videos for terrorists. Put them in AG Prison for a few months until more information is gleaned.
Posted by: Johnnie Bartlette || 06/04/2004 11:35 Comments || Top||

#11  Charge them immediately with making training videos for terrorists. Put them in AG Prison for a few months until more information is gleaned.
Posted by: Johnnie Bartlette || 06/04/2004 11:37 Comments || Top||

#12  Give the Al-Jiz HQ a fright and break all the windows out thier offices with a low flying B1 going near supersonic - should perhaps get them to realise thier batting for the wrong team.
Posted by: Shep UK || 06/04/2004 13:25 Comments || Top||

#13  I has to be Al-Jazzera, or Al-Arabiya, or one of those sorts. If ever American media would be caught up in something like this where American Soldiers were killed. . . .

(Remember there was this story at Gulf War I. Each of the three anchors (Rather-Brokaw-Jennings)was asked if they would warn US soldiers of ambush the saw in advance. If I remember right only Brokaw said he would.)

I think the reporters would dare not come home. Can you imagine a trial of some distraught family stalking and "eliminating" that reporter? Can you say, "Jury Nullification"? Or at least a string of hung juries so that the jurisdiction involved would give up trying the case?

And then if the reporters family would try to sue for wrongful death? "OK, $1.00".

If something like this were ever to happen. And, it may well, I think "reporting" in Iraq would suddenly "improve".
Posted by: BigEd || 06/04/2004 13:31 Comments || Top||

#14  BigEd, I think the story in question took place during Vietnam. I think a large majority of the press said they would keep silent. The issue and the question came up again in the Gulf War and the three in question were now famous and thus highlighted.

Needless to say its a damning admission. They consider themselves Journlists first, Americans second which is a far cry from the journalists that covered World War 2.
Posted by: ruprecht || 06/04/2004 15:41 Comments || Top||

#15  Some cold justice from "Sword of Gideon" on the LGF string about this incident:

"If you're ever in a position to save a journalist's life (car wreck, fire, alcohol overdose, etc.) get out your camera and take pictures instead.
If the jorno-scum's demise is colourful enough, some outlet might pay good money for them."

Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy || 06/04/2004 19:14 Comments || Top||

#16  The solution's easy enough: declare that any journalists on the scene of a terrorist attack before the attack takes place has, by virtue of their foreknowledge, changed status from journalist (and protected) to illegal combatant (and not protected). Journalists, if they want to maintain their protected status, must report any information they have to authorities. They are, after all, reporters; failure to report means they are doing other work.

The term for that work is, I believe, espionage.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 06/04/2004 19:20 Comments || Top||

#17  I am reminded of an incident back in 1986, right after the bombing raid on Libya.
A variety of hysterical rumors were floating around and one of my more credulous co-workers reported one of these: "Ghaddafi has rounded up all the western reporters over there and is threatening to shoot them!"
I responded, "What? Has he come over to our side." Too bad it wasn't true.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy || 06/04/2004 19:24 Comments || Top||

#18  If "protecting sources" or getting a news scoop comes before saving American lives then we are not dealing with reporters but collaborators.
Posted by: Zenster || 06/04/2004 21:35 Comments || Top||

#19  Here's a nifty pic to accompany this article:

President Bush takes down yet another hostile regime.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy || 06/04/2004 23:02 Comments || Top||

#20  AC - Lol! Perfect!
Posted by: .com || 06/04/2004 23:08 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
68[untagged]

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
Fri 2004-06-04
  Iraqi Police Nab Associate of al-Zarqawi
Thu 2004-06-03
  Tenet resigns
Wed 2004-06-02
  Chalabi Told Iran U.S. Broke Its Codes
Tue 2004-06-01
  Padilla wanted to boom apartment buildings
Mon 2004-05-31
  Egypt to Yasser: Reform or be removed
Sun 2004-05-30
  Khobar slaughter; 3 out of 4 terrs get away
Sat 2004-05-29
  16 Dead in Al Khobar Attack
Fri 2004-05-28
  Iran establishes unit to recruit suicide bombers
Thu 2004-05-27
  Captain Hook Jugged!
Wed 2004-05-26
  4 arrested in Japanese al-Qaeda probe
Tue 2004-05-25
  Sarin confirmed!
Mon 2004-05-24
  Toe tag for 32 Mahdi Army members
Sun 2004-05-23
  Qaeda planning hot summer for USA?
Sat 2004-05-22
  Car Bomb Kills 4, Injures Iraqi Minister
Fri 2004-05-21
  Israeli Troops Pulling Out of Rafah Camp

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.
35.171.182.239
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Background (27)    (0)    (0)    (0)    (0)