|
 |
Friday, April 04, 2008
Chinese paramilitary police have killed eight people after opening fire on several hundred Tibetan monks and villagers in bloody violence that will fuel human rights protests as London prepares to host its leg of the Olympic torch relay this weekend.
Witnesses said the clash - in which dozens were wounded - erupted late last night after a government inspection team entered a monastery in the Chinese province of Sichuan trying to confiscate pictures of the Dalai Lama.
Officials searched the room of every monk in the Donggu monastery, a sprawling 15th century edifice in Ganzi, southwestern Sichuan, confiscating all mobile phones as well as the pictures.
When the inspectors tore up the photographs and threw them on the floor, a 74-year-old monk, identified as Cicheng Danzeng, tried to stop an act seen as a desecration by Tibetans who revere the Dalai Lama as their god king.
A young man working in the monastery, identified as Cicheng Pingcuo, 25, also made a stand and both were arrested.
The team then demanded that all the monks denounce the Dalai Lama, who fled China after a failed uprising in 1959. One monk, Yixi Lima, stood up and voiced his opposition, prompting the other monks to add their voices.
At about 6.30 p.m., the entire monastic body marched down to a nearby river where paramilitary police were encamped and demanded the release of the two men.
They were joined by several hundred local villagers, many of them enraged at the detention of the 74-year-old monk Cicheng Danzeng, who locals say is well respected in the area for his learning and piety.
Shouting "Long Live the Dalai Lama," "Let the Dalai Lama come back" and "We want freedom," the crowd demonstrated until about nine in the evening.
Witnesses said that at around that time, as many as 1,000 paramilitary police used force to try to end the protest and opened fire on the crowd. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040408T.shtmlPosted at 05:23 pm by Psychomike
|
AL- QAEDA #2: WE WILL BOMB IRAN!, 1000 IRAQI TROOPS DESERT IN BASRA FIGHT, WAS WORLD WAR 2 THE GOOD WAR?
As police listened in on the men using a hidden bug, they heard Umar Islam and Abdulla Ahmed Ali discuss a train bombing in which one participant wanted to take his child.
 |
Accused: Top, from left: Tanvir Hussain, Assad Sarwar, Umar Islam and Waheed Zaman
Bottom: Mohammed Gulzar, Arafat Waheed Khan, Ibrahim Savant, and Abdulla Ahmed Ali
|
Ali said: "That's why he wanted to take his kid on the train with him - shake them up."
Peter Wright QC, prosecuting, said Islam said his wife may join the plot if it was a "significant operation". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/04/nterror604.xml
More than 1,000 Iraqi soldiers and policemen either refused to fight or simply abandoned their posts during the inconclusive assault against Shiite militias in Basra last week, a senior Iraqi government official said Thursday. Iraqi military officials said the group included dozens of officers, including at least two senior field commanders in the battle.
The desertions in the heat of a major battle cast fresh doubt on the effectiveness of the American-trained Iraqi security forces. The White House has conditioned further withdrawals of American troops on the readiness of the Iraqi military and police.
The crisis created by the desertions and other problems with the Basra operation was serious enough that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki hastily began funneling some 10,000 recruits from local Shiite tribes into his armed forces. That move has already generated anger among Sunni tribesmen whom Mr. Maliki has been much less eager to recruit despite their cooperation with the government in its fight against Sunni insurgents and criminal gangs. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/world/middleeast/04iraq.html?_r=1&ei=5090&en=3412ef4c4ed63d7c&ex=1364961600&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
When Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki launched an offensive in Basra last week, he consulted only his inner circle of advisers. There were no debates in parliament or among his political allies. Senior American officials were notified only a few days before the operation began.
He was determined to show, his advisers said, that Iraq's central government could exert order over a lawless, strategic port city ruled by extremist militias. The advisers said Maliki wanted to demonstrate that he was a strong leader who could shed his reputation as a sectarian figure by going after fellow Shiites, and who could act decisively without U.S. pressure or assistance.
A week later, his ultimately unsuccessful gambit has exposed the shaky foundation upon which U.S. policy in Iraq rests after five years of war, according to politicians and analysts. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker are to report to Congress next week on Iraq's progress.
The offensive, which triggered clashes across southern Iraq and in Baghdad that left about 600 people dead, unveiled the weaknesses of Maliki's U.S.-backed government and his brash style of leadership. On many levels, the offensive strengthened the anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
The United States has spent more than $22 billion to build up Iraq's security forces, but they were unable to quell the militias. Hundreds of Iraqi soldiers and police deserted the fighting, a senior Iraqi military official said. Maliki had to call on U.S. and British commanders for support. In some areas, such as Sadr's Baghdad stronghold of Sadr City, U.S. forces took the lead in fighting the cleric's Mahdi Army militiamen.
And it was Iran that helped broker an end to the clashes, enhancing its image and illustrating its influence over Iraq's political players.
"It was ill-advised and ill-timed," said Kurdish lawmaker Mahmoud Othman. "I think Maliki had a setback and America had a setback because Iran and Moqtada al-Sadr were victorious." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/03/AR2008040300309_pf.html
Recently, Senator John McCain has repeatedly indicated that Iran and al-Qaeda are in cahoots. The terror group's number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, would beg to differ. In a long-promised online Q&A session, Zawahiri says it would be "in the interest" of Al-Qaeda to see Iran "sap[ped]" by a fight with the United States. Moreover, he seems to promise that the extremist collective will "battle" whoever wins that U.S.-Iran struggle.
The dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation will be in the interest of the Mujahideen if the war saps both of them. If, however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and the Mujahideen, except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region. (emphasis mine; translation courtesy of IntelCenter)
This isn't the first time Zawahiri has criticized Iran, either. In a videotape released in December, he said that "Iran has stabbed the Muslim Ummah [nation] in the back" during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
It caused itself and the Shiites following it a historic disgrace. The signs of this stab will remain vivid in the Muslims' memory for a very long time. The strange paradox to which I would like to draw attention is that despite the fact that Iran permitted the Crusader troops to enter Iraq, recognized the agent government there, and pushed its militias to participate in this government's army, security services, and police force.
On other points, however, Zawahiri seems to be reinforcing some of McCain's warnings about al-Qaeda. The Republican Presidential candidate recently said that, "if we withdraw prematurely from Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq will survive, proclaim victory and continue to provoke sectarian tensions... could easily descend into genocide, and destabilize the entire region."
Damn straight, Zawahiri replies. He "expect[s] the Jihadi influence to spread after the Americans' exit from Iraq, and to move towards Jerusalem."
(High five: AR) http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/al-qaeda-2-well.html
Was WWII Really 'The Good War'?
|
| by Patrick J. Buchanan |
"Yes, it was a good war," writes Richard Cohen in his column challenging the thesis of pacifist Nicholson Baker in his new book, Human Smoke, that World War II produced more evil than good.
Baker's compelling work, which uses press clips and quotes of Axis and Allied leaders as they plunged into the great cataclysm, is a virtual diary of the days leading up to World War II.
Riveting to this writer was that Baker uses some of the same episodes, sources and quotes as this author in my own book out in May, Churchill, Hitler and 'The Unnecessary War.
 On some points, Cohen is on sold ground. There are things worth fighting for: God and country, family and freedom. Martyrs have ever inspired men. And to some evils pacifism is no answer. Resistance, even unto death, may be required of a man.
But when one declares a war that produced Hiroshima and the Holocaust a "Good War," it raises a question: good for whom?
Britain declared war on Sept. 3, 1939, to preserve Poland. For six years, Poland was occupied by Nazi and Soviet armies and SS and NKVD killers. At war's end, the Polish dead were estimated at 6 million. A third of Poland had been torn away by Stalin, and Nazis had used the country for the infamous camps of Treblinka and Auschwitz.
Fifteen thousand Polish officers had been massacred at places like Katyn. The Home Army that rose in Warsaw at the urging of the Red Army in 1944 had been annihilated, as the Red Army watched from the other side of the Vistula. When the British celebrated V-E day in May 1945, Poland began 44 years of tyranny under the satraps of Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev.
 Was World War II "a good war" for the Poles?
Was it a good war for Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, overrun by Stalin's army in June 1940, whose people saw their leaders murdered or deported to the Gulag never to return? Was it a good war for the Finns who lost Karelia and thousands of brave men dead in the Winter War?
Was it a good war for Hungarians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Romanians and Albanians who ended up behind the Iron Curtain? In Hungary, it was hard to find a women or girl over 10 who had not been raped by the "liberators" of the Red Army. Was it a good war for the 13 million German civilians ethnically cleansed from Central Europe and the 2 million who died in the exodus?
Was it a good war for the French, who surrendered after six weeks of fighting in 1940 and had to be liberated by the Americans and British after four years of Vichy collaboration?
And how good a war was it for the British?
They went to war for Poland, but Winston Churchill abandoned Poland to Stalin. Defeated in Norway, France, Greece, Crete and the western desert, they endured until America came in and joined in the liberation of Western Europe.
Yet, at war's end in 1945, Britain was bled and bankrupt, and the great cause of Churchill's life, preserving his beloved empire, was lost. Because of the "Good War," Britain would never be great again.
And were the means used by the Allies, the terror bombing of Japanese and German cities, killing hundreds of thousands of women and children, perhaps millions, the marks of a "good war"?
Cohen contends that the evil of the Holocaust makes it a "good war." But the destruction of the Jews of Europe was a consequence of this war, not a cause. As for the Japanese atrocities like the Rape of Nanking, they were indeed horrific.
But America's smashing of Japan led not to freedom for China, but four years of civil war followed by 30 years of Maoist madness in which 30 million Chinese perished.
For America, the war was Pearl Harbor and Midway, Anzio and Iwo Jima, Normandy and Bastogne, days of glory leading to triumph and the American Century.
But for Joseph Stalin, it was also a good war. From his pact with Adolf Hitler he annexed parts of Finland and Romania, and three Baltic republics. His armies stood in Berlin, Prague and Vienna; his agents were vying for power in Rome and Paris; his ally was installed in North Korea; his protege, Mao, was about to bring China into his empire. But it was not so good a war for the inmates of Kolyma or the Russian POWs returned to Stalin in Truman's Operation Keelhaul.
Is a war that replaces Hitler's domination of Europe with Stalin's and Japan's rule in China with Mao's a "good war"? We had to stop the killers, says Cohen. But who were the greater killers: Hitler or Stalin, Tojo or Mao Zedong?
Can a war in which 50 million perished and the Christian continent was destroyed, half of it enslaved, a war that has advanced the death of Western civilization, be truly celebrated as a "good war"? |
Posted at 12:27 pm by Psychomike
Thursday, April 03, 2008
Chicago Terror Plot Stopped
Posted at 06:00 pm by Psychomike
Oh, so he's the radical
JOHN YOUNG
WACO, Texas -- A reader who doesn't think the United States should be in Iraq pointed several months ago to the American press's curiously uniform labeling of Muqtada al-Sadr. Have you noticed, he said all those months ago, that one hardly sees al-Sadr's name in print without "radical" attached to it?
He was right, and continues to be. There it was in Sunday's USA Today -- "radical cleric."
A lot of Americans know nothing about al-Sadr, as he has yet to appear on "Dancing With the Stars." Maybe next season. This season, he is making things difficult for Iraq's government to act like one.
For all the talk about al-Qaida, it's been this Shiite and his home-grown followers who have been the biggest problem for U.S.-backed interests seeking to remake Iraq. For, you see, remaking Iraq is what Muqtada al-Sadr wants as well.
Sing-song references to al-Qaida allow the Bush administration to pair Iraq and "war on terror." Many in the media sing along, particularly Fox News, which is less about news than passing out hymnals.
Al-Sadr, not al-Qaida, is the embodiment of what Iraq is all about: a splintered nation under military occupation with a lot of bold individuals unwilling to submit or get along.
Al-Sadr's Mahdi army is just one of innumerable repudiations of the line that all the Iraqis need is "a little more time" -- and don't forget "training" -- to do what we figure they ought: fight for their country. Maybe Iraqis need to feel it is their country, which al-Sadr and followers appear to do.
He's a radical guy, all right. But he's not just a hydrant of religious creeds we can't decipher. While his Mahdi army has been resisting the world's only remaining superpower, it's been helping villagers in areas of its strength. Indeed, it's been the security in some lawless stretches. What could drive al-Sadr to do this, particularly since fellow Shiites are in power and hated Baathists are on the sidelines?
For one, he believes he's meant to lead, as opposed to someone he perceives to be a U.S. puppet.
After all, he's got a pedigree. Not unlike our own head of state, he's the son of an ayatollah. (Unlike Bush's dad, who was ousted by ballots, al-Sadr's father was felled by bullets -- Baathist variety.) Whatever drives al-Sadr, however marginalized his cause, he represents a problem that's not going away.
John McCain's recent line that he would support 100 years in Iraq has been spun thusly: We aren't talking about 100 more years of war, just a strategic presence like we have in South Korea and Kuwait. Those examples are so sorry as to be insidious. We did not invade South Korea. We did not invade Kuwait.
McCain's supporters say a permanent military presence in Iraq is in our national strategic interest. So said the Soviets when they set up shop in Afghanistan. Ultimately, it was they who folded against insurgents who weren't going anywhere.
Whether or not Iraq's unrest is taking the shape of power-drunk militias resisting the government or Baathists seeking to reclaim the government, or it is age-old ethnic blood feuds, our military is going to deal with causes and contentions it cannot decipher.
A little over five years ago, people like Bush and McCain did not contemplate dimensions like this. They did not imagine that four years after "Mission Accomplished" it would take a surge of 30,000 troops to secure one city, Baghdad, in a nation the size of California.
So, agreed, that al-Sadr guy is radical. But he can't hold a candle to our own -- our radicals who conjured up rolling tanks into a country held together for decades by military dictatorship. Now they believe that our sons and daughters should be the military that holds it together for the foreseeable future.
John Young writes for the Waco Tribune-Herald
Is Iraq Still an Insurgency?
Here's a question for the class: is the Iraq War still a counter-insurgency? Not too long ago, a very smart friend of Abu Muqawama with years of experience in Iraq since 2003 wrote that Iraq was not merely an insurgency but a competition for power and resources.
That's the phrase Abu Muqawama had in his head watching Basra go up in flames last week, and that's also the phrase he had in mind as he read this op-ed in Sunday's New York Times by Anthony Cordesman:
Even if American and Iraqi forces are able to eliminate Al Qaeda in Iraq, there are still three worrisome possibilities of new forms of fighting that could divide Iraq and deny the United States any form of victory.
One is that the Sunni tribes and militias that have been cooperating with the Americans could turn against the central government. The second is that the struggle among Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen and other ethnic groups to control territory in the north could lead to fighting in Kirkuk, Mosul or other areas.
The third risk and one that is now all too real is that the political struggle between the dominant Shiite parties could become an armed conflict...
There are good reasons for the central government to reassert control of Basra. It is not peaceful. It is the key to Iraqs oil exports. Gang rule is no substitute for legitimate government. But given the timing and tactics, it is far from clear that this offensive is meant to serve the nations interest as opposed to those of the [Shi'ite ruling parties] Islamic Supreme Council and Dawa. (emphasis mine, and throughout)
A few thoughts: One, the fighting in Basra and Baghdad is, on one level, about asserting the control of the central government. That is a good thing. But two, on another level, the fighting that took place last week was about ISCI [the Islamic Supreme Council] trying to set the stage for this fall's provincial elections. It wasn't about the central government versus local authorities at all -- it was about cold-blooded intra-Shia politics.
Do we have a dog in such a fight? Alas, we do. That dog's name is ISCI. As the same friend mentioned above has noted, historians studying Iraq decades from now will wonder why the United States allied itself with the Iran-backed ISCI instead of the popularly-supported Sadr movement. (Hint to those historians: it's because they dress well and speak English. This is what happens when you send smart but young Republican loyalists -- who only speak English -- to help run the new government in Baghdad.) Once again, we have backed the loser:
American military and civilian officials were candid in telling me that the governors and other local officials installed by the central government in Basra and elsewhere in southern Iraq had no popular base. If open local and provincial elections were held, they said, Dawa and the Islamic Supreme Council were likely to be routed because they were seen as having failed to bring development and government services.
So where does this leave us? Well, on the ground, we should stick to the new counterinsurgency manual, FM 3-24. And Abu Muqawama isn't just saying that because if there was nothing "COIN" [counterinsurgency] about this war he couldn't write about it anymore. No, the maxim employed by then-Major General James Mattis and his Marines in 2004 and stolen from some Greek guy -- first, do no harm -- is a good one. Keep doing the kind of population-centric COIN outlined in FM 3-24, boys, because if nothing else, it's not going to make the situation worse.
But tactics only get you so far. If the strategy isn't sorted, the tactics can be world-beating stuff and still fail. (Charlie's favorite historical example: Germany in WWII.) So politicians in Washington better get their act together and sort out the big picture. On the one hand, the president and his policy-makers need to decide at what point these intra-Iraqi political disputes become none of our business. Why should U.S. soldiers and Marines die so some fat Iraqi politician can have a greater share of the oil revenues? And folks in the opposition -- including all the presidential campaigns (you too, McCain) and Congress -- need to start prodding the president along by asking the tough, critical questions about the decisions we're making. What is our responsibility to the central government? How can we avoid allowing our soldiers to be the shock troops for the ruling party who is nervous about an election defeat in the fall? And finally, echoing a question then-Major General David Petraeus asked a Washington Post journalist on the eve of the war, tell me how this ends?
-- Abu Muqawama
Black banners announcing the deaths of Mahdi Army fighters plaster the streets. Scores of Shiite militiamen gather at the funeral of a fallen comrade as a U.S. helicopter gunship hovers above.
The Baghdad district of Sadr City bears the scars of recent fighting, but those loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr are showing a renewed confidence after his Madhi Army militiamen rose up against an Iraqi government crackdown last week in the southern city of Basra.
Both sides claimed successes: Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki says that Iraqi forces have broken control of Shiite gangs in Basra, and the supporters of the radical cleric al-Sadr boast that they humbled the government's plans to take full control of the city.
But in Sadr City the main Baghdad stronghold for the Mahdi Army there was little regard for the government assertions. Such bravado could lead al-Sadr and his backers to take even bolder steps to leverage concessions from Iraq's U.S.-backed leadership.
The fighting, which began in Basra but soon spread to Baghdad and elsewhere, ended when al-Sadr issued a statement Sunday calling his militiamen off the streets. He also demanded the freeing of security detainees not formally charged and a halt to the arrests of his supporters two issues that led to the latest violence.
A top Mahdi Army commander, speaking on condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals from the government forces, claimed al-Sadr's forces interpret the outcome in their favor. But Iraqi forces also expanded their presence in Basra on Wednesday by moving into central districts and setting up checkpoints. http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=111442
 Did Iraqi prime minister do Shi'ite firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr a favor by launching attacks against some of his militiamen last week? That's the provocative theory from one long-time Iraq observer.
Retired Major William "Mac" McCallister spent more than four years in Iraq, much of it as an advisor to the Marines on Iraq's tribes and culture. Here's how Mac sees the recent Maliki-Sadr clash:
1. Fighting is a form of negotiation to gain an advantage and not necessarily to gain control of a given situation. Maliki government perceives an opportunity to gain advantage due to weakening of Organization of Martyr Sadr (OMS).
2. On the other hand do not discount the likelihood that IA [Iraqi Army] are targeting rogue JAM [Jaysh al-Mahdi, Sadr's militia] units that failed to rally to Sadr in the last 6 months. A number of reports implied that one to the reasons Muqtada al Sadr initiated the cease fire was to verify loyalty of JAM militias to OMS. Those that did not respond may well be the "target audience". If this is the case then I am inclined to believe that Maliki and Muqtada al Sadr are in communication to "manage the violence".
3. The timing for this punitive expedition is about right. The "awakening" meme [tribal resistance to extremist, which began in Iraq's west] has infected Arab tribes in the south. Arab tribes that happen to Shia. Many southern tribal leaders have openly expressed their "disappointment" with OMS and rogue militias for a while now, due to their inability to "fix" economic and security conditions. The tribes are a powerful lobbying group, especially in the south since most are engaged in agriculture. Agriculture translates into "power" since you have to feed the cities.
Conclusion. This is a punitive expedition only. The short-term objective is to assist Sadr in ridding himself of rogue elements so as to make him a more stable long-term political partner and more reliable participant in governance. The Maliki government, although it seeks to consolidate its hold on power knows it can not do so without the help of Sadr. The intermediate objective is to maintain Sadr as a viable and potential political ally for he is needed against the numerous groups also seeking greater influence such as Fadilah, Hakim family, Sunni tribes and the Kurds. The long-term objective will be determined as this thing plays itself out.
Food for thought. And it dovetails -- well, somewhat -- with what veteran counterterror specialist Malcolm Nance writes in today's Small Wars Journal. Nance notes that, over the last year, American troops have been "on a campaign to isolate the JAM one cell at a time and bring them to heel through a series of targeted raids." http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/did-maliki-do-s.html Posted at 10:41 am by Psychomike
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
China, an opponent of harsh U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran, has nonetheless recently provided the International Atomic Energy Agency with intelligence linked to Tehran's alleged attempts to make nuclear arms, diplomats have told The Associated Press. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,345009,00.htmlPosted at 06:23 pm by Psychomike
IRISH PRIME MINISTER FORCED TO RESIGN, PENTAGON ENDS DOMESTIC SPYING UNIT, DID THE GOVERNMENT ADMIT A PRE-911 PHONE CALL WAS NOT INVESTIGATED?, WILL AFRICA'S HITLER STEP DOWN?, DEMS IN CHAOS ON HOW TO END WAR!
The Iraqi military's offensive in Basra was supposed to demonstrate the power of the central government in Baghdad. Instead it has proven the continuing relevance of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, stood its ground in several days of heavy fighting with Iraqi soldiers backed up by American and British air power. But perhaps more important than the manner in which the militia fought is the manner in which it stopped fighting. On Sunday Sadr issued a call for members of the Mahdi Army to stop appearing in the streets with their weapons and to cease attacks on government installations. Within a day, the fighting had mostly ceased. It was an ominous answer to a question posed for months by U.S. military observes: Is Sadr still the leader of a unified movement and military force? The answer appears to be yes.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1726763,00.html
A Jamaican planning to board a flight at Orlando International Airport was detained and questioned by FBI agents Tuesday after they found components for pipe bombs and explosive and flammable liquids in his checked luggage.
The suspect was identified late Tuesday as Kevin Brown, 32, a Jamaican national who was scheduled to fly on Air Jamaica Flight 80 to Montego Bay at 2:55 p.m. Transportation Security Administration officers spotted him acting suspiciously about noon, TSA and law-enforcement officials said. Several officials said the man was "acting strange" and questioned his mental stability.
Brown was charged with attempting to carry an explosive or incendiary device on an aircraft and booked into theSeminole County Jail late Tuesday. He will appear before a federal judge in Orlando today.
Wearing blue jeans and a white shirt, Brown was searched by a bomb technician on a curb outside the airport terminal. His camouflage-style backpack also was seized and searched by an Orlando Fire Department bomb squad.
Democratic leaders returned from their spring break this week to declare that Iraq is in turmoil and that they will continue to try to force President Bush to end the war. But facing another uphill battle, party members are undecided on whether to try to cut off money or take a softer approach http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=110602
Bertie Ahern was forced to quit as the Irish Republic's Taoiseach today as the deepening scandal over his private finances threatened the future of his coalition government.
He will resign on 6 May after making an historic address to both houses of the US Congress in Washington.
Mr Ahern announced his shock decision to leave office this morning in an emotional address to a hastily-arranged press conference at Government Buildings in central Dublin.
The Taoiseach admitted that controversy over his private finances had overshadowed his premiership, but denied any wrongdoing.
"I have never received a corrupt payment and I've never done anything to dishonour any office that I've ever held," he insisted.
Controversy over Mr Ahern's personal finances deepened in recent days after conflicting evidence at the Mahon Tribunal - investigating payments to politicians and planning corruption - sparked calls from his coalition partners to clarify his own evidence. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/scandalhit-irish-pm-to-resign-803673.html
When Attorney General Mukasey delivered a speech last week demanding that Congress grant the president warrantless eavesdropping powers and telecom immunity, the question and answer session afterwards included one extraordinary but little-noticed claim.
Mukasey argued that officials "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody with a phone in Iraq picks up a phone and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."
Blogger Glenn Greenwald picked up on Mukasey's statement, suggesting, "If what Muskasey said this week is true -- and that's a big 'if' -- his revelation about this Afghan call that the administration knew about but didn't intercept really amounts to one of the most potent indictments yet about the Bush administration's failure to detect the plot in action. Contrary to his false claims, FISA -- for multiple reasons -- did not prevent eavesdropping on that call."
Keith Olbermann has now featured the story on MSNBC's Countdown. "What?" Olbermann asked incredulously after quoting Mukasey. "The government knew about some phone call from a safe house in Afghanistan into the U.S. about 9/11? Before 9/11? ... You didn't do anything about it?" http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Mukasey_US_had_attack_evidence_before_0401.html
Africa's Hitler may finally be losing his nerve.
Tuesday night, Zimbabwe was abuzz with rumours that Robert Mugabe's security henchmen are deep into negotiations with opposition leaders and South African diplomats to push the 84-year-old President into a face-saving and prosecution-free retirement.
As it becomes increasingly evident that opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai may have won last Saturday's presidential election, some of his top advisors are said to have made informal contacts with Mr. Mugabe's security officials to discuss a transition of power.
Not that anyone connected with the deal is willing to be identified until a bargain is signed, sealed and delivered.
In Zimbabwe, its not safe to assume Mr. Mugabe will or will not do anything. http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=415128
China accused Tibetan groups on Tuesday of planning suicide attacks following last month's riots and protests but did not answer key questions about its evidence for such allegations.
A spokesman told a news conference in Beijing that police had seized guns, bullets and explosives in some Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and repeated the accusation that the Dalai Lama was linked to Tibetan groups that had organised the recent unrest.
An aide to the Dalai Lama immediately denied what he called "baseless" allegations, and the U.S. State Department said the Dalai Lama was a man of peace who wanted only to talk to China.
At the same time, China's anti-riot force was issued a mobilisation order to ensure a trouble-free Beijing Olympic Games in the wake of the anti-Chinese unrest across Tibetan areas.
The Dalai Lama's representatives in India, where he has lived in exile since 1959, have denied Beijing's charges of his complicity in deadly riots that swept Tibet's regional capital on March 14 and urged Beijing to allow an international probe.
But China's Ministry of Public Security said it had arrested "key members" of an underground network in Lhasa working in concert with overseas pro-Tibet independence groups to spark a "Tibet People's Uprising Movement". http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/story.html?id=415003
The Pentagon is expected to shut a controversial intelligence office that has drawn fire from lawmakers and civil liberties groups who charge that it was part of an effort by the Defense Department to expand into domestic spying.
The move, government officials say, is part of a broad effort under Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to review, overhaul and, in some cases, dismantle an intelligence architecture built by his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld.
The intelligence unit, called the Counterintelligence Field Activity office, was created by Mr. Rumsfeld after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as part of an effort to counter the operations of foreign intelligence services and terror groups inside the United States and abroad.
Yet the office, whose size and budget is classified, came under fierce criticism in 2005 after it was disclosed that it was managing a database that included information about antiwar protests planned at churches, schools and Quaker meeting halls.
The Pentagon's senior intelligence official, James R. Clapper, has recommended to Mr. Gates that the counterintelligence field office be dismantled and that some of its operations be placed under the authority of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the government officials said.
Pentagon officials said Mr. Gates had yet to approve the recommendation. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/02/washington/02intel.html?ex=1364788800&en=462812f126c33c87&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
The House endorsed a resolution Tuesday that suggests the Russian government might have had a hand in the 2006 radiation poisoning death of a Russian dissident. http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=110531
Somalia's top exiled Islamist leader on Wednesday pledged his camp's commitment to a new peace drive but warned the movement would keep up its struggle against what it calls Ethiopian occupation.
"Members of the international community are trying to help Somalis overcome their differences and we will do all we can to be flexible and achieve a lasting peace," Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed said in an interview.
Sheikh Sharif (44) is the chairperson of the executive council of the Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia (ARS), an opposition umbrella group dominated by Islamists and based in the Eritrean capital, Asmara.
"The ARS met United Nations officials and other members of the international community in Nairobi; our engagement with them is encouraging," he said.
Sheikh Sharif was the head of the Islamic Courts Union, a militia that ousted United States-backed warlords from Mogadishu in 2006 and briefly ruled large parts of the country before being defeated by Ethiopian forces last year.
Ethiopian-backed Somali government troops are still battling the movement's military wing and allied clans, in a year-old guerrilla war that has left thousands dead and displaced hundreds of thousands.
The impoverished Horn of Africa country has seen more than 14 peace initiatives fail since the 1991 ouster of former president Mohamed Siad Barre.
Sheikh Sharif warned that his movement remained committed to its struggle against Ethiopia, which it accuses of conducting a Christian crusade in Muslim Somalia.
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__africa/&articleid=336097&referrer=RSS
This is Ron Paul's statement before the US House of Representatives on House Resolution 997, "expressing the strong support of the House of Representatives for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to enter into a Membership Action Plan with Georgia and Ukraine."
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution calling for the further expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia. NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary. When NATO struggled to define its future after the Cold War, it settled on attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, which had neither invaded nor threatened any NATO member state.
This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US, in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of "exporting democracy" has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted.
NATO expansion only benefits the US military industrial complex, which stands to profit from expanded arms sales to new NATO members. The "modernization" of former Soviet militaries in Ukraine and Georgia will mean tens of millions in sales to US and European military contractors. The US taxpayer will be left holding the bill, as the US government will subsidize most of the transactions. Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts as unrelated to our national interest as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. The idea that American troops might be forced to fight and die to prevent a small section of Georgia from seceding is absurd and disturbing.
Mr. Speaker, NATO should be disbanded, not expanded. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/01/ron-paul-disband-nato/ Posted at 10:28 am by Psychomike
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Dem's Vs GOP: Iraq! DUCK!
As you know I do not like McCain and see nothing but disaster with him getting in. However, I also see nothing but disaster happening if Obama and/or Clinton get in- I just want it to happen to them! Yet on Iraq, there are differences I admit ( but at this point, not necessarily cures). Let's take a look:
Many of you have reacted with anger at my comments that the legislative and Judicial branches should be engaged if for no other reason than to try and attempt to stay true to the Constitution. I have been told this is irrelevant, this will create far more problems than it would solve, the British tried it against the Irish, etc. In other words, a Democratic President will as Bush does, dictate policy. Constitution be damned.
Boy, there's a big difference!
In an earlier post on gangs (and I'll point out how this works in Iraq in a second), I said the present policy of the Blame Game that Dem's play is a waste of time. A crime happens in a poor or illegal immigrant community, the cops ask who saw it, no one comes forward. The cops shrug their shoulders, say their hands are tied and leave. I advocated the cops stopping this stupid charade and infiltrating and setting up sting operations. These are after all, mostly teens. I was quickly put in my place and warned that gangs have rights too. Yep, don't come up with a solution on the legislature or courts, but protect the gangs rights! The blame game, the current mantra of the left, is also at work in Iraq.
Both Hillary and Obama blame the Iraqi's for the Civil War, territorial violence, their frustrated attempts at democracy.
Hey- who imposed one dictator after another on Iraq? What civil war was occurring before we got there? How do you impose democracy on anyone?
How to distance yourself from all the votes and money you gave to do all this as both Obama and Hillary did? Blame the victim.
Anyone who believes Obama or Hillary will just leave Iraq is falling for the biggest Democratic Party lie since LBJ told Goldwater there were no plans to send more troops to Vietnam or have a draft!
The only thing McCain has in common with Goldwater is that he knows we aren't leaving, as Goldwater knew about Vietnam. Just as the Dem's know we aren't leaving Iraq. But he admits it. They play the blame game. And blame everyone but their own votes for war and funding.
This blog was the first news source to call Iraq a Civil War- one year before the press did. Elce Redmond actually met with al- Sadr and this blog published it- a year before Americans had heard of him!
But this blog was also the first to publish that Hillary was going to play the Super delegate card at the Democratic Convention. When the story broke that people had said the Clinton's were "pimping" their daughter to get support, the press missed she was calling Super delegates. I didn't. The last time Super delegates chose a candidate it resulted in that candidate losing and riots breaking out in Chicago. Looks like we're heading for the same thing this convention. If Hillary and Obama don't choose to drop out, there is a major breakdown of that party coming.
From the start this blog has advocated infiltration of Al Qaeda and talks with the group. We have done neither. This blog has advocated breaking up CIA if it can't do the job. Simple steps, but no one takes them. In either party.
We leave Iraq and the Turks invade the Kurds regions, the Shi'ite and Sunni wage war over oil. Al Qaeda soldiers return to Yemen, Saudi Arabia, etc and begin overthrowing the governments there. We stay and we risk the war spreading across the region.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Liars and ego maniacs on one side, a big spending JFK style opportunist on the other.
EVERYBODY DUCK! Posted at 10:33 am by Psychomike
Monday, March 31, 2008
THE 5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ THAT ISN'T BEING REPORTED, WHERE OSAMA RESIDES, al-SADR OFFERS DEAL TO IRAQ WITH IRAN'S BLESSING, NSA EAVESDROPPING CAUSED PROTESTS WITHIN BUSH ADMINISTRATION!
The statement by Moqtada AlSadr that launched the current (Sunday March 30) cease-fire negotiations:
Based upon our responsibilities in law [shariah] and for the sparing of Iraqi blood and for the protection of the reputation of the Iraqi people, and for their unity both in terms of people and in terms of land, and in preparation for its independence and liberation from the armies of oppression; and in order to put out the fires of fitna which the occupier and his followers wish to keep burning between Iraqi brothers, we call upon the beloved Iraqi people to measure up to their responsibility and their consciousness of law in sparing blood and preserving peace in Iraq, and its stability and its independence.
The following is resolved:
(1) Ending armed manifestations in the governate of Basra and all the other governates
(2) Ending of attacks and arbitrary illegal arrests
(3) Demand on the government to apply the law on general amnesty, and release all prisoners who had not had charges confirmed against them, and particularly prisoners belonging to the Sadrist trend
(4) We announce that we will renounce those who carry weapons and target the government and service agencies and institutions, or [political] party offices
(5) Cooperation with government agencies to bring about security and to charge those who commit crimes, according to legal [qanuniya] process
(6) We affirm that the Sadrist movement does not possess heavy weapons
(7) Efforts for the return to their residential areas of those who were forced out on account of security incidents
(8) We demand respect for human rights by the government in all of its security actions
(9) Working for the realization of development and services projects in all governates http://arablinks.blogspot.com/2008/03/text-of-sadr-cease-fire-statement.html
The Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr on Sunday took a step toward ending six days of intense combat between his militia allies and Iraqi and American forces in Basra and Baghdad, saying in a statement that his followers would lay down their arms providing the Iraqi government met a series of demands.
The substance of the nine-point statement, released by Mr. Sadr on Sunday afternoon, was hammered out in elaborate negotiations over the past few days with senior Iraqi officials, some of whom traveled to Iran to meet with Mr. Sadr, according to several officials involved in the negotiations.
Just minutes after the statement was released, however, two mortar shells fired by militia fighters hit the presidential palace in Basra, which is an active government office complex but has been at least partly deserted since the violence started. And in Baghdad, the Green Zone continued to be a target for mortar and rocket attacks throughout the afternoon. Street clashes also persisted in Basra and other cities, according to witnesses. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/world/middleeast/31cnd-iraq.html?ex=1364616000&en=673388a27fd2023c&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
Iranian officials helped broker a cease-fire agreement Sunday between Iraq's government and radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, according to Iraqi lawmakers.
The deal could help defuse a wave of violence that had threatened recent security progress in Iraq. It also may signal the growing regional influence of Iran, a country the Bush administration accuses of providing support to terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere.
Al-Sadr ordered his forces off the streets of Iraq on Sunday. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki hailed al-Sadr's action as "a step in the right direction." It was unclear whether the deal would completely end six days of clashes between U.S.-backed Iraqi forces and Shiite militias, including al-Sadr's.
Osama al-Nujaifi, a Sunni lawmaker who oversaw mediation in Baghdad, said representatives from al-Maliki's Dawa Party and another Shiite party traveled to Iran to finalize talks with al-Sadr.
Iran has close ties with both al-Sadr's movement and al-Maliki, who spent several years in exile there. Al-Nujaifi said the agreement was brokered by the commander of Iran's al-Quds Brigade, which is considered a terrorist organization by Washington. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-30-iraqnews_N.htm
The conflict (in Iraq) is one that the U.S. media appears incapable of describing in a coherent way. The prevailing narrative is that Basra has been ruled by mafialike militias -- which is true -- and that Iraqi government forces are now cracking down on the lawlessness in preparation for regional elections, which is not. As independent analyst Reider Visser noted:
On closer inspection, there are problems in these accounts. Perhaps most importantly, there is a discrepancy between the description of Basra as a city ruled by militias (in the plural) ... [and the] facts of the ongoing operations, which seem to target only one of these militia groups, the Mahdi Army loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr. Surely, if the aim was to make Basra a safer place, it would have been logical to do something to also stem the influence of the other militias loyal to the local competitors of the Sadrists, the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq [SIIC], as well as the armed groups allied to the Fadila party (sic) (which have dominated the oil protection services for a long time). But so far, only Sadrists have complained about attacks by government forces.
The conflict doesn't conform to the analysis of the roots of Iraqi instability as briefed by U.S. officials in the heavily-fortified Green Zone. It also doesn't fit into the simplistic but popular narrative of a country wrought by sectarian violence, and its nature is obscured by the labels that the commercial media uncritically apply to the disparate centers of Iraqi resistance to the occupation.
The "crackdown" comes on the heels of the approval of a new "provincial law," which will ultimately determine whether Iraq remains a unified state with a strong central government or is divided into sectarian-based regional governates. The measure calls for provincial elections in October, and the winners of those elections will determine the future of the Iraqi state. Control of the country's oil wealth, and how its treasure will be developed, will also be significantly influenced by the outcome of the elections.
It's a relatively straightforward story: Iraq is ablaze today as a result of an attempt to impose Colombian-style democracy on the unstable country: Maliki's goal, shared by the like-minded allies among the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities that dominate his administration, and with at least tacit U.S. approval, is to kill off the opposition and then hold a vote.
To better understand the nature of this latest round of conflict, here are five things one needs to know about what's taking place across Iraq. http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/80580/
Darra Adam Khel, a small burg in Pakistan's tribal areas, is the quintessential frontier town. Picture Wyatt Earp sashaying down the streets of Tombstone in a turban, and you begin to get the idea. Because Pakistani laws don't apply here, smugglers, gunsmiths and, most recently, the Taliban find Darra, as it's locally known, an optimal place to do business.
Most stores along the main road sell firearms or drugs. In one, freshly pressed slabs of hashish are cured in goat skins, stacked up like a new line of sweaters at the Gap. Next door, customers can walk in, pull a Kalashnikov from the rack and step outside to test-fire it into the sky. On my first visit to Darra, I opened the car door just as a prospective AK-47 buyer rattled off a few rounds. Thinking that I'd stumbled into a duel, I dove into a ditch for cover.
It's hard to believe that the limits of American power -- and the future of how it's projected -- could reside in the streets of a Wild West-era holdover like this. But, handicapped by the lack of a good plan, reliable allies or decent intelligence, the United States has watched as this strip of mountainous territory wedged between Afghanistan and Pakistan has become the most ungoverned, combustible region in the world. The U.S. intelligence community has described it as a refuge for Osama bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaeda's reconstituted leadership. And recently, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, predicted that the next terrorist attack on the United States would originate from the tribal areas, probably from a town much like Darra.
Seven years after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf ditched the Afghan Taliban to join the United States in the "war on terror," a new generation of Pakistani Taliban has brazenly turned the tribal areas into its bailiwick. In Darra, Taliban-inspired gangs have run out hash dealers, bombed DVD and CD shops, and closed girls' schools. In January, jihadists car-jacked five military supply trucks loaded with weapons and ammunition and kidnapped more than 50 Pakistani paramilitary troops on a stretch of highway near the town.
When the Pakistani army deployed to the region in 2003 for the first time since 1948, a cleric in Islamabad issued a fatwa proclaiming that any Pakistani soldier killed fighting the Taliban in South Waziristan should be denied a Muslim burial. Last August, militants under the command of Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban leader accused of masterminding former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination, kidnapped more than 200 soldiers in South Waziristan.
The Pakistani Taliban hasn't toppled the political order and gained power, but it has overthrown centuries of traditional authority. With al-Qaeda, it has slaughtered hundreds of maliks, or tribal chiefs, branding them as traitors for dealing with Musharraf's government or as spies working for the Americans and NATO. Their corpses (often headless) are routinely dumped in town bazaars as a warning to any who might be plotting against the Taliban. Earlier this month, tribal elders gathered in Darra to draft a strategy for purging their area of militants. As the meeting ended, a suicide bomber ran into the crowd and blew himself up, killing more than 40 people, including many elders. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032802973_pf.html
The National Security Agency's eavesdropping program set off heated legal concerns and silent protests inside the Bush administration within hours of its adoption in October 2001, according to current and former government officials.
In making its case to Congress for broadened spy powers, the White House has emphasized the firm legal foundations of the program conducted after the Sept. 11 attacks. It has even taken the unusual step of giving lawmakers access to classified presidential orders from 2001 and early legal opinions to try to show that the program was on sound legal footing from the start.
But many of the tensions that were roiling the administration at the start of the program have never become public.
In one previously undisclosed episode, then-Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson refused to sign off on any of the secret wiretapping requests that grew out of the program because of the secrecy and legal uncertainties surrounding it, the officials said.
He was not given access to details of the NSA operation, and was so uncomfortable with the idea of approving this new breed of wiretap applications that he had a top adviser write a memorandum assessing the legal ramifications. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/30/MNALVSRM0.DTL&type=politics
North Korea threatened South Korea with destruction Sunday after Seoul's top military officer said his country would consider attacking the communist nation if it tried to carry out a nuclear attack.
The statement from North Korea's official news agency marked the third straight day of bellicose rhetoric from the North, which is angry over the harsher line the South's conservative new president has taken against the country since assuming office last month.
"Our military will not sit idle until warmongers launch a pre-emptive strike," said an unidentified KCNA military commentator. "Everything will be in ashes, not just a sea of fire, if our advanced pre-emptive strike once begins."
On Friday, North Korea test-fired a barrage of missiles into the sea and warned it would "mercilessly wipe out" any South Korean warships that violate its waters near their disputed sea border.
Such rhetoric by North Korea at times of increased tensions is not rare, and it comes just two days before a scheduled visit to South Korea by the chief U.S. negotiator in North Korean nuclear disarmament talks. http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=107524 Posted at 08:26 am by Psychomike
Sunday, March 30, 2008
TENET'S WAR, HILLARY'S WAR, RUSSIANS PREDICT APRIL IRAN STRIKE
Terrible rumors from Russia continue to swirl around the Middle East that the Cheney-Bush junta has decided to bomb Iran on April 4th or 6th, targeting not only nuclear-power research facilities but ships, planes, antiaircraft installations, and the Iranian pentagon. Apparently the nuclear-power reactor being built by Russian companies will be spared, but not much else. Will it happen? Certainly the neocon hate network is working overtime to make it so. Bush fired the anti-neocon Admiral Fallon. One thing we know for sure: it will be the typical Bush administration snafu, with horrific consequences for the region and the world, not to speak of the Iranian people, and reap much trouble for the US empire. Indeed, it could mark the end of the empire if, as Bill Lind worries, the Iranians in retaliation cut off water-food-ammo supply routes to US troops in Iraq, and, with the help of Shiite militians, capture large numbers of them. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020247.html
VICTORY HAS IT'S OWN SET OF PROBLEMS
President Bush claimed on Thursday that U.S. forces and Iraqi tribesman have "systematically dismantled" the terrorist group Al Qaeda in Iraq in the long-troubled Anbar Province. And indeed, while Al Qaeda in Iraq remains dangerous and active, particularly in parts of northern Iraq, the terrorist group is having increasing difficulty pulling off its signature type of attack, deadly car bombings.
But terrorism experts are warning that defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq could bring a whole new set of risks.
For one thing, as U.S. intelligence agencies have told Congress, its operatives could shift their efforts to plotting outside the country if it becomes significantly more dangerous for Al Qaeda in Iraq to stage attacks in Iraq.
"Defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq could actually lead to the spread of violence to other places because those guys could be leaving to find other safe havens to continue their fight," says Mohammed Hafez, the author of Suicide Bombers in Iraq: The Strategy and Ideology of Martyrdom. "They are likely to go to places where there are existing conflicts."
The two most obvious destinations are Afghanistan or Pakistan, where they could potentially link up with other jihadists who have been carrying out a growing number of suicide attacks. Fighters could be drawn to the relative lawlessness of Yemen, the total anarchy of Somalia, or to Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
Writing in the current issue of CTC Sentinel, the monthly journal of the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Hafez analyzes the experiences of Arab jihadists who went to Afghanistan in the 1980s to the fight the Soviet Union and later formed the backbone of al Qaeda, the terrorist network headed by Osama bin Laden. http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20080328/ts_usnews/therisksofdefeatingalqaedainiraq&printer=1;_ylt=AgU9tkmUqDtkx3IXYN7zoiySl7MF
Tenet's War
|
| by Gordon Prather |
Well, now that you've seen the Frontline expose, entitled "Bush's War," based upon documentary videos and more than 400 extended interviews with major participants and media sycophants, you may yet have a few unanswered questions.
Chief among them is the question many of those major participants and media sycophants have asked (or certainly ought to have asked): Namely,
"How could George Tenet, then Director of Central Intelligence, and publisher of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate which judged 'with high confidence' that Iraq was 'continuing,' perhaps even 'expanding' its 'nuclear programs' have sat behind Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was making the case before the UN Security Council for a declaration of war to 'disarm' Iraq, smugly confident that the Iraq Survey Group, which would be in the vanguard of American invasion forces, would quickly find incontrovertible proof that Saddam Hussein had somehow acquired or soon would acquire nuclear weapons?"
After all, Mohamed ElBaradei Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency had already publicly discredited both of the specific nuclear "smoking guns" of Tenet's 2002 NIE, namely "yellowcake from Niger" and "aluminum-tubes" for Uranium-enrichment.
On March 7, ElBaradei formally reported to the Security Council that;
"After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq."
Okay, Tenet's 2002 NIE on Iraq which was the basis for the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of U.S. armed forces against Iraq had been totally discredited by the inspectors sent into Iraq by the Security Council.
So there would be no Security Council resolution authorizing Bush to invade Iraq.
Hence, Bush was going to have to prove to Congress that it was "necessary" to invade Iraq, in order to "defend" America from the "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom-shaped cloud."
So, on March 17, Bush addressed the nation thusly;
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
"The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other."
Then, three days later Bush announced to the world that we and our "allies" had already begun the invasion of Iraq.
"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
The job of finding those "weapons of mass murder" that "Slam-Dunk" Tenet had assured Bush and Cheney, members of the White House Iraq Group, and (presumably) Congressional Leaders was entrusted to a CIA-sponsored Iraq Survey Group, headed for some mysterious reason by David Kay, a political scientist, who had labored as a UN bureaucrat from 1986 until late 2001, when he mysteriously was appointed Deputy Director of the IAEA Action team on Iraq, a position he held very briefly and from which he may have been fired.
Of the 400 plus interviews upon which "Bush's War" is allegedly based, those with David Kay are key.
Kay relates that within days of arriving in Iraq to be Tenet's personal envoy and to direct the activities of the ISG, Kay began sending Tenet emails, expressing his doubts that they were going to discover the stuff, particularly the nuke stuff, that "Slam-dunk" had assured Kay he would find.
So, within a few months Kay found himself back at CIA headquarters, in Virginia, consigned to an "office" containing many boxes "in storage," with a "non-working telephone," assigned a secretary "who rarely ever showed up."
Before long Kay found himself out of a job and on January 28, 2004, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Kay testified he had apparently been selected to direct the ISG because he "came not from within the [Bush-Cheney] administration" and was known for having "a sometimes regrettable streak of independence." Kay said he had "absolutely no pressure" applied, either prior to, during or after his tenure as ISG director.
Senator Kennedy then asked Kay what access he had to "intelligence" reports before going to Iraq to direct the ISG.
David Kay replied "I had full access to everything in the intelligence community with regard to Iraq."
And, of course, David Kay had "full access" to every report made by the IAEA about Iraq's nuclear programs, going back to the discovery in 1991 that Iraq had pursued programs that never amounted to much, but ought to have been declared, and weren't.
Hence, David Kay (and all members of the Senate Armed Services Committee) knew that virtually everything of a nuclear nature contained in even the classified 2002 NIE had been totally discredited.
So, what was it that David Kay expected to find (and that Slam-Dunk Tenet expected him to find) within a few days of arriving in Iraq in the vanguard of our invasion force that Kay didn't find and soon realized he was unlikely to ever find?
Well, harken back to the publication of a book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration by James Risen that President Bush allegedly attempted to prevent.
According to Risen, back in 2000, under President Clinton, the CIA sent a "Russian defector" to IAEA headquarters in Vienna with slightly modified "technical designs for a TBA 480 high-voltage block," a semi-critical component of certain "Russian-designed" nuclear weapons, with instructions to give them to the Iranian delegate to the IAEA.
Why would the CIA do such a thing? Perhaps so "Slam-dunk" Tenet could at some future time sit there smugly behind some future Secretary of State, secure in the knowledge that a future Iran Survey Group would quickly find "evidence" in Iran's files of nuclear-weapon collaboration with Russia?
But what if the Iranians destroyed as they apparently did the "evidence" Tenet thought he planted there?
Okay, next time, plant the actual semi-critical components of Russian nuclear weapons, themselves, not just the designs, somewhere in Iraq where the Iraqis, themselves, would be unlikely to accidentally find them? Then tell David Kay where to look?
Nah; that's too Hollywood. | http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=12600
Hillary Clinton's Iraq Lies
|
| by Stephen Zunes |
On March 17, New York Senator and Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton gave a speech at George Washington University outlining her plans to de-escalate U.S. military involvement in Iraq. Though she called for the gradual withdrawal of U.S. combat brigades over the next several years, she continued to refuse to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the invasion, to acknowledge the illegality of the war, or to fully explain her false claims made at that time regarding Iraq's military capabilities and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. Nor was she able to offer an explanation as to what led to her dramatic shift from a supporter of the ongoing war and occupation as recently as a year and a half ago to her current more critical perspective.
Below are excerpts from her speech, followed by annotated comments:
"It has been five years this week since our president took us to war in Iraq."
President George W. Bush was not solely responsible for taking the United States to war. He had accomplices, such as Hillary Clinton. Bush was only able launch the invasion as a result of being provided with the authorization to do so by a Congressional resolution. Clinton was among a minority of congressional Democrats who combined with a Republican majority provided sufficient votes to give the go-ahead for this illegal and disastrous war.
"Bringing lasting stability to the region will take a president with the strength and determination, the knowledge and confidence...to rebuild our military readiness, to care for our veterans, and to redouble our efforts against al-Qaeda. If you give me the chance, I will be that president."
As predicted prior to the invasion, the over-extension of the U.S. armed forces, the enormous costs, and the high casualty rates resulting from the war has greatly harmed U.S. military readiness, the ability to care for veterans, and the struggle against al-Qaeda. It's hard to imagine how someone who supported the invasion can be trusted to be the kind of president who will be able to address those needs. "Nearly 4,000 of [our troops] have, by now, made that ultimate sacrifice. Tens of thousands more have suffered wounds both visible and invisible to their bodies, their minds, and their hearts. Their families have sacrificed, too, in empty places at the dinner table, in the struggle to raise children alone, in the wrenching reversal of parents burying children... Our armed forces are stretched to near the breaking point with many of our troops on their second, third, or fourth tours of duty. ... Taking into consideration the long-term costs of replacing equipment and providing medical care for troops and survivors' benefits for their families, the war in Iraq could ultimately cost well over $1 trillion."
In scholarly journals, in newspaper columns, in congressional testimony, on this web site, and elsewhere, there were ample warnings of just such disastrous consequences resulting from a U.S. invasion of Iraq. Regardless, Clinton apparently believed at the time that seizing control of that oil-rich country was worth the sacrifice. Only since public opinion polls indicated that she had no hope of winning the Democratic presidential nomination if she continued to support the war, did she start talking about the war's negative consequences. "I have met with our soldiers and military leaders [in Iraq]. I have met with Iraqi local, regional, and national elected and other influential officials."
During her one trip to Iraq, in February 2005, she insisted that the U.S. occupation was "functioning quite well," although the security situation had deteriorated so badly that the four-lane divided highway on flat open terrain connecting the airport with the capital could not be secured at the time of her arrival, requiring a helicopter to transport her to the Green Zone. Though 55 Iraqis and one American soldier were killed during her brief visit, she insisted in a manner remarkably similar to statements by Vice President Dick Cheney that the rise in suicide bombings was evidence that the insurgency was failing. "The American people don't have to guess whether I'm ready to lead or whether I understand the realities on the ground in Iraq or whether I'd be too dependent on advisers to help me determine the right way forward. I've been working day-in and day-out in the Senate to provide leadership to end this war."
In reality, until very recently, Clinton was one of the leading senators supporting the war. Even after the U.S. forces invaded and occupied Iraq and confirmed that contrary to Clinton's initial justification for the U.S. conquest Iraq did not have "weapons of mass destruction," active WMD programs, offensive delivery systems, or ties to al-Qaeda as she and other supporters of the war had claimed, she defended her vote to authorize the invasion anyway. When Representative John Murtha (D-PA) made his first call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in November 2005, she denounced his effort, calling a withdrawal of U.S. forces "a big mistake." In 2006, when Senator John Kerry sponsored an amendment that would have required the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq in order to advance a political solution to the growing sectarian strife, she voted against it. "Now, my Democratic opponent talks a great deal about a speech he gave in 2002. He is asking us to judge him by his words, and words can be powerful, but only if the speaker translates them into action and solutions. Senator Obama holds up his original opposition to the war on the campaign trail, but he didn't start working aggressively to end the war until he started running for president. So when he had a chance to act on his speech, he chose silence instead."
It's ironic that Clinton, in a desperate effort to cover up for her support for the war and her lies to justify it, would belittle Obama's accurate and prescient understanding that invading Iraq was wrong. Back in October 2002, Obama publicly acknowledged that "Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors" and that "even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He also recognized that "an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda." That same month in Washington, however, Clinton was insisting incorrectly that Iraq was such a dire threat to U.S. national security that it required her, "in the best interests of our nation," to vote to authorize the invasion.
Furthermore, Obama did a lot more than give a speech: he gave interviews, lobbied members of Congress, and made a series of other statements in which he warned of the violent sectarian and ethnic divisions which could emerge following a U.S. invasion and occupation, the risks of a long-term U.S. military commitment, and the dangerous precedent of giving a carte blanche for a pre-emptive war.
It was true that, much to the disappointment of many of his supporters, Obama did not initially take leadership in opposition to the war once he was elected to the U.S. Senate, though it is customary for freshman senators to take a back seat on foreign policy issues during the early part of their first term. Yet, by November of his first year in office, while Clinton was still backing Bush administration policy, Obama was calling for a reduction in U.S. forces. Within a year, Obama introduced legislation setting a date for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, well prior to Clinton supporting such legislation. "As we bring our troops and contractors home, we cannot lose sight of our strategic interests in this region. The reality is that this war has made the terrorists stronger. Well, they may not have been in Iraq before the war, they are there now, and we cannot allow Iraq to become a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorists who seek to attack us and our friends and allies. So let me be clear - under my plan, withdrawing from Iraq will not mean retreating from fighting terrorism in Iraq. That's why I will order small, elite strike forces to engage in targeted operations against al-Qaeda in Iraq. This will protect Iraqi citizens, our allies, and our families right here at home."
Clinton did not always acknowledge the absence of terrorist operations in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion and occupation. Indeed, in order to justify her vote to authorize the invasion, she insisted that Saddam had "given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members." This came despite top strategic analysts correctly informing her that there were no apparent links between Saddam Hussein's secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, despite doubts of such claims appearing in the National Intelligence Estimates made available to her, and despite a subsequent definitive report by the Department of Defense which noted that not only did no such link exist, but that no such link could have even been reasonably suggested based upon the evidence available at that time. Now, as a direct consequence of the invasion and occupation she helped make possible, Clinton uses the very real presence of terrorist groups, including at least one major faction which identifies with al-Qaeda, as an excuse to continue prosecuting the war. | http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12601 Posted at 08:30 am by Psychomike
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Both Parties Wrong On Iraq
It is a story that has been heard in Europe- but has gone unreported here. When a leading U.S. General says what follows- we should know. Thanks to blogs, now you do.
Wesley Clark: The military in Iraq are resolving nothing
There are more important issues than troop numbers and withdrawal dates. The US should take a lead in talking to Iran now
Sunday, 9 September 2007
When well-qualified retired officers speak out against their political masters' policies, the public should take heed. General Sir Mike Jackson, the recently retired UK Army chief, is now speaking out, and his concerns warrant full consideration. I've known Mike well over the years and while we haven't agreed on everything, he is on solid ground in his criticisms of US and Coalition policy in Iraq, at least as they are reflected in what I have seen of his book, Soldier: The Autobiography.
As US Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld exerted a heavy hand on American foreign policy. I had first got to know him working around the White House in the Ford administration. He was the brilliant 42-year-old who would certainly be president some day: tough-minded then, even tougher 28 years later. Strike quickly, and then leave. Invading Iraq would serve two agendas: first, to finish off Saddam, the bκte noir of the Republican right; second, to cement his military "transformation" plan. But, ultimately, this is George Bush's war.
Mind you, Mike Jackson isn't the first retired general to criticise Bush, Rumsfeld and their policies. I began, in early 2002, questioning the necessity for war, and the haste with which the Bush administration was pushing the US into the invasion of Iraq. By early autumn of 2002, I was warning against giving the President a blank cheque to take the US to war before all other alternatives were exhausted. Secretary Rumsfeld's aversion to "nation-building", Nato activities in the Balkans, and peacekeeping in general, were well known. He and his team were preventing adequate post-invasion planning. I urged in testimony to the US Senate that full postwar planning be developed before the invasion just as Mike and I had done as part of Nato before the 1999 operation against Serbia. And I warned that US actions in the region would serve to supercharge al-Qa'ida recruiting. The retired US marine, General Joe Hoare, supported me then, and warned of civil war in Iraq following the invasion.
The poor results of the operation have largely substantiated the warnings from myself and others, despite the valiant efforts of our soldiers and military leaders. To be sure, the US and British forces have had longstanding differences in how to conduct peace operations, with the Americans more concerned with force protection and coercion, and the British reflecting the experiences in Northern Ireland, as well as British defence parsimony always willing to take slightly greater risks, to lower the emphasis on force protection, and to work the populace with persuasion and charm. But these differences have been marginal in affecting the outcomes in Iraq.
In Iraq today, civil war is under way. The cities and countryside are being carved up into sectarian, tribal, or militia-dominated fiefdoms, aided and abetted by Iranian support, while in the south, British forces have tried to maintain the veneer of control while training local authorities. Iran obviously has mounted an intense effort spanning the political, economic, and military areas, to gain influence and prepare for dominance following the US and UK departures. In the central and northern regions, the US has expended much of four years finishing Iran's agenda by fighting against Sunni insurgents, including al-Qa'ida in Iraq, and has only lately begun to focus episodically on the Shiite militia supported by Iran.
Rumour in the region says the recent US-Sunni alliances in al-Anbar Province, of which President Bush made a great deal on his recent visit, are more the result of financial emoluments of outside Sunni powers than US activities, and are in preparation not for support of the central government, but rather for blocking Iranian-Shiite consolidation when the Americans depart.
The burden faced by Mike and the rest is to get it right from here on, to work out what needs to be done strategically, and what contribution the troops can make to this end. The Petraeus report, submitted this week, will mark another stab at the effort. It is already clear that the "surge" hasn't brought the impact that its advocates had hoped for. Political reconciliation is as elusive as ever. But at the tactical level, the more intensive application of forces has brought rewards in intelligence collection and operational effectiveness. This, at least, has kept the US in the game, while Iran works its three-pronged strategy of nuclear ambition, gripping Israel through Hizbollah, Lebanon and Syria, and dominating Iraq.
But the surge cannot be the lasting answer it has just bought time for all sides: for President Bush, who doesn't want to confront the imminence of strategic failure; for the Iranians, who aren't ready to go for broke on their nuclear and regional ambitions; and for the Iraqi factions, struggling among themselves for survival and dominance. And time for the UK and other allies to struggle with US policy and political processes trying to be supportive and, at the same time, make the right decisions for their troops and their publics. No one can say for certain that the Iraqis will not resolve their political differences in the midst of all this, but it is certainly unlikely.
In the US, the dialogue has been all about troops and tactics. At the end of his book, Mike Jackson joins this debate, expressing concern about the need to avoid a fixed timeline. Mike isn't wrong, but it's a pity the debate is being fought out on these points, because the solution doesn't lie at this level. While Republicans may claim some victory from the limited and fragile military gains, and the Democrats are unwilling to push for an early and complete pull-out, the real solution likely lies elsewhere. Unless and until the US and its allies deal effectively with Iran and its ambitions, there is likely to be no stability, no end to conflict in Iraq and no solution. Keeping troops in Iraq preserves options that is all.
The isolating of Iran and occasional sabre-rattling is not an adequate response. Nor is the febrile, repeated efforts at diplomatic sanctions. Instead, the US will have to take the lead, with its allies in support. An effective strategic response must begin with an intensified dialogue within the region, and real, sustained and in-depth conversations with the Iranian leadership at multiple levels. Regional allies such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan must be included, not just informed. Principles must be developed, and consequences made plain, both positive and negative. The way ahead will be tortuous. There will be threats and counterthreats, blandishments and promises, crises and imminent conflict. Economic pressures will intensify.
But this is the path to be followed if we want to try to avoid conflict with Iran and at the same time head off its nuclear capability. The time remaining is short. There are alternatives to war, far better alternatives. But if all we can discuss is troop strength in Iraq, we won't find them.
General Wesley Clark is Nato's former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. He is senior Fellow UCLA Burkle Center and author of A Time to Lead for Duty, Honor and Country.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/wesley-clark-the-military-in-iraq-are-resolving-nothing-464063.htmlPosted at 09:22 am by Psychomike
|
|
|
