U.S.-allied Gulf Arab leaders, alarmed at neighbouring Iran''s nuclear ambitions, examined proposals for a nuclear-free zone in the world''s top oil-producing region when they met for a summit on Sunday.
Syria''s standoff with the United Nations over the killing of former Lebanese premier Rafik al-Hariri also topped the agenda of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), which groups Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar.
All kings and emirs of the GCC arrived in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi amid tight security for the two-day annual meeting which started at 6 p.m. (1400 GMT).
They hoped to defuse mounting tension in a region already affected by instability in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led war to oust Saddam Hussein and militant attacks by supporters of Osama bin Laden''s al Qaeda network.
"We trust Iran but we don''t want to see an Iranian nuclear plant which is closer in distance to our Gulf shores than to Tehran causing us danger and damage," GCC Secretary-General Abdul Rahman al-Attiya said ahead of the opening on Sunday.
"This issue is very worrying, not just for the GCC but for whole world," he told reporters.
He said one of the proposals on the agenda was for a deal to be brokered between Iran and neighbouring GCC states, which overlook the Gulf shores, to make the region nuclear-free.
"As Iranian officials say the programme is for peaceful purposes, why can''t an agreement come into effect between all countries concerned and which could include Iraq and Yemen in the future."
"This will pave the way for a Middle East agreement in which Israel could eventually become part of ... this will prompt the international community to press Israel to open its (nuclear sites) for inspection...," Attiya added.
Israel, which has never admitted it has a nuclear weapons programme, is widely believed to have some 200 nuclear warheads.
Tehran insists its nuclear programme is for energy, but many fear it is seeking to develop atomic weapons. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad''s verbal salvoes at Israel, including his call for the Jewish state to be wiped off the map, have also alarmed.
The GCC also discussed a violent campaign by al Qaeda against Gulf states and Saudi King Abdullah''s proposal earlier this year to set up an international centre to combat terrorism.
The UAE has been spared militant attacks which have hit neighbouring Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar but organisers took no risks, increasing police patrols and cordoning off streets around the summit''s venue.
The GCC was expected to issue a strongly worded statement urging Damascus to fully cooperate with the UN investigation into Hariri''s death.
"They (leaders) all agree that they don''t want nuclear weapons in Iran and they don''t want Syrian intervention in Lebanon but they need to agree on what to do about it," one GCC delegate told Reuters.
GCC delegates said the Sunni-led GCC would also discuss ways to curb what they see as Shi''ite Iran''s growing influence in Iraq, where Shi''ites gained power after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Saudi Arabia has bluntly accused Iran of meddling.
"We hope that our brothers in Iraq put the nation''s interest ahead of sectarian affiliations which would only serve Iraq''s enemies," Attiya told Abu Dhabi television.
"What concerns us now at this stage is that the elections succeed and a government that includes all parties is formed, one that will support the rebuilding of Iraq."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/19/2005 10:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"This issue is very worrying, not just for the GCC but for whole world," he told reporters.
An absolutely blinding flash of the obvious I'd say, but not one they'll have to fret over much longer.
#4
"We trust Iran but we don''t want to see an Iranian nuclear plant which is closer in distance to our Gulf shores than to Tehran causing us danger and damage," GCC Secretary-General Abdul Rahman al-Attiya said ahead of the opening on Sunday.
#5
And/or: they don't want to be nearby when that thing goes up in a mushroom cloud after a strike or when the reactor splits open and pollutes the Gulf waters.
Action? We don't "do" action - that's what we let the Americans in for. You know, Filipinas for maids, Americans for troops .....
Posted by: too true ||
12/19/2005 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Sorta reminiscent of relatives intervening with an alcoholic live-in uncle who likes to smoke in bed. Sooner or later (my money's on sooner), either Iran is reined in by its Arab neighbors or else all of them are going to be up to their collective ass in alligators.
Awami League president Sheikh Hasina has said that in its bid to hoodwink the people on its unbridled corruption by way of plundering of public money, terrorism, killings, persecution of its political opponents, various misdeeds, misrule and its miserable failure to run the state, the BNP-Jamaat alliance government has been staging the âtheatre of terror-bombings and militancyâ.
"As the peopleâs wrath has been escalating over the countrywide terror-bombings patronised by the alliance government and its ally Jamaat-e-Islami and heightening of peopleâs miseries owing to skyrocketing of the prices of essential commodities, the Khaleda-Nizami administration has been hatching all sorts of conspiracies," she said while inaugurating a national conference yesterday.
She alleged that instead of carrying out investigations by the police after the arrest of the fanatic militants, the elite force Rapid Action Battalion (RAB) had been used now to repair the govtâs image damaged following their extra-judicial killings. "Those criminals who were nabbed with a pistol and a few rounds of ammunition are killed in the so-called crossfires by the RAB while those militants who were nabbed for their involvement in the biggest ever arms and ammunition haul in Chittagong were made to evade the same fate," the Opposition Leader said adding that the recently apprehended militants were giving confessional statements fearlessly as they knew well that they would be released soon.
Sheikh Hasina alleged that the government was refraining from proper investigation into the ten truckloads of arms and ammunition cache in Chittagong as the names of some influential ministers would come into light. The Opposition Leader called upon the newsmen to prepare lists of those MPs, ministers, godfathers and perpetrators of fanatic militancy and repressors of journalists in every locality round the country so that they could be hooked and tried in the future when the newsmen got ample scopes to cover events and incidents fearlessly as the days of the terror-bomber government are numbered.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Mexican President Vicente Fox has described a US proposal to build a fence along their 3,200km (2,000 miles) border as "shameful". He said the proposal - which Mexican officials have compared to the Berlin Wall - was a "very bad signal" from a nation of immigrants.
We have no problem with legal immigrants, Vicente. Just with the illegal ones
The US House of Representatives passed an immigration bill last week, backing the building of a 1,130-km fence. About 10m Mexicans are believed to live in the US, some 4m of them illegally. More than a million are arrested every year as they try to enter the US to seek work.
It's Mexico's biggest export crop
The controversial bill - which the US Senate is due to debate in February - also includes the use of troops and police to halt migrants, and tighter employment controls.
Mexico has condemned the proposal saying it is too focused on securing the border and does not acknowledge the "enormous contribution" that Mexican workers make to the US economy.
Not to mention the billions of dollars they send back home to prop up the Mexican economy
Speaking at an event for migrants in his home state of Guanajuato, President Fox said: "This wall is shameful." "It's not possible that in the 21st Century we're building walls between two nations that are neighbours, between two nations that are brothers." "When we look at their roots, the immense majority of [Americans] are migrants, migrants that have arrived from all over the world," he added.
The US has already built a wall between San Diego and Tijuana, and now plans to fence off other parts of the border in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. President George W Bush has said that "border security must adapt to the nation's changing needs". But critics of the US bill say some of the measures would be impossible to enforce and would push illegal immigrants further underground.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/19/2005 09:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yep, "shameful".... but highly effective. Sure is a shame Fox can't keep his folks at home.
#2
The US must be doing something right when building a wall to keep people OUT is viewed as a catastrophe as great as the Berlin Wall. Of course, the comparison is utterly ludicrous...but it certainly gives the US a nice bargaining position.
#3
A fence is a good psychological tool, but I think the only way to win the war against illegals(from any country) is to make it impossible for them to get work. Thats what they are coming for, work.
The bill that passed the congress was a good way to get the ball rolling, now they just need to tighten up the loopholes. I'm telling you guys, if the word gets out in mexico that you can't get work in the U.S. without legitimate papers, they will quite coming.
#4
Just shameful - of course, the production by the Mexican government of manuals explaining how to evade U.S. by sneaking in is just the epitome of good neighborliness
#5
Its equally shameful that in the 21st Century the Mexican Constitution is still xenophobic and allows the executive to expel foreigners without appeal or reason. And that it does so regularly to other latins from Central or South America. It is shameful that the absolutely corrupt political system of Mexico is unwilling to build an economy upon great and vast resource to have employment for its own people. It is shameful that the President of Mexico doesn't believe the US has a right to its own sovereign borders but will scream like a little girl* if the American government treated his borders with the same disdain. President Clinton got so upset with the Haitian government dumping on Flordia there were American troops in Port-du-Prince. Maybe....
*My apologies to any little girl who may be offended by a comparison to Presidente Fox.
#9
It doesn't make the president of the mexicans sound so much like a little girl as abu Abbas. He might want to reconsider souning less like the paleostinian authority and more like tjue leader of a real country, or people might start to draw conclusions about what style of regime is down there. Given the results of recent elections in Latin America, we are in for a difficult decade down there.
#10
"When we look at their roots, the immense majority of [Americans] are migrants, migrants that have arrived from all over the world," he added.
That's right, Vincente. And they came in legally. And assimilated. And learned the language. And didn't look for special preferences. And studied. And took all the tests and filled out all the paperwork. And came to regard themselves more as Americans then as citizens of whatever country they came from.
I notice you left that part out...
#12
another lost opportunity for Mr. Fox to look in the mirror and STFU. Mexico could be a booming country if the kleptocrats and xenophobes allowed it to be. Until that time, we are no longer willing to be their dumping ground. Build the fence, long and tall and in double configuration. The squeals of the selfish in Mexico, who meddle in our internal afairs, tells me it hits the right spot.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/19/2005 13:03 Comments ||
Top||
#13
"It's not possible that in the 21st Century we're building walls between two nations that are neighbours, between two nations that are brothers."
Go and ask the Israelis just how ashamed they are of their wall.
"When we look at their roots, the immense majority of [Americans] are migrants, migrants that have arrived from all over the world," he added.
Yup, my own mother came from another country. She worked in the Heinz cannery, attended University, learned fluent English and became a full fledged American citizen.
When Mexicans come here with the same intent, instead of scurrying across the border to have their kid in an American hospital on our dime so it will be an automatic American citizen, then we can talk.
Most importantly, as mentioned here many times already, when the hyper-corrupt Mexican oligarchy stops drinking the blood of its nation's people and creates genuine career opportunity instead of a black hole for wealth, then they can begin to talk about whatever measures America is taking to defend its economy against economic refugees.
#14
We need to fix Mexico, the root of the problem. Bush should meet with Vicente and ask him what we can do to help. Blast a few drug barons? Freeze a few bank accounts? Anything to help him get a grip on his kleptocracy so he can make the reforms required to bring them out of the poverty Mexico has been mired in for a century despite having hard workers and plentiful mineral wealth.
#17
Shameful that it's taking so long, shameful that it isn't along the entire border, and shameful that Fox thinks it's a "very bad signal" that we want to stop ILLEGAL immigration. If I were the Mexicans, I wouldn't be comparing it to the Berlin Wall -- look which side people are fleeing from.
#18
Well, gee, Vincente, instead of building the fence we could just treat Mexicans coming into the US illegally the SAME way Mexico treats illegals trying to sneak across its southern border. Would that work for you?
To quote Jackie ChIraq (never thought I'd write those words!), Fox missed a good chance to SHUT UP.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/19/2005 21:25 Comments ||
Top||
Russian Foreign Intelligence Service director Sergei Lebedev said the anti-terrorist coalition had captured or killed most of the al-Qaeda international terrorist network's leaders. "Nearly 70% of al-Qaeda's highest-ranking members have been captured or killed in the international anti-terrorist campaign that has been in progress since 2001. They include the closest allies of 'Terrorist No. 1:' Abu-Zubaida, Abu-Leits, Sheikh Khalid Mohamed, and Abu Faraj al-Libi," Lebedev said in an interview with Interfax ahead of the 85th anniversary of the country's Foreign Intelligence Service to be marked on December 20.
"As for Al-Qaeda representatives who took part in terrorist activities in the North Caucasus, odious figures such as Hattab, Abu al-Walid, Abu Zait and Abu Omar have been eliminated," he said. "The special services of a number of European countries carried out a joint operation in November 2005 to arrest leaders and members of Al-Qaeda's cells in Belgium, France, Italy and other states," he said. Terrorism can be defeated only through "joint efforts of all countries, their special services, other state bodies, and international organizations. The Foreign Intelligence Service's cooperation with its foreign colleagues helps achieve greater results in the anti-terrorist fight. That is why we are committed to further strengthening international cooperation in this area," Lebedev said.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/19/2005 10:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Terrorism can be defeated only through "joint efforts of all countries, their special services, other state bodies, the National Security Agency and international organizations. The Foreign Intelligence Service's cooperation with its foreign colleagues helps achieve greater results in the anti-terrorist fight. That is why we are committed to further strengthening international cooperation in this area," Lebedev said.
Authorities had accused al-Seif of helping plot the Beslan school seizure, apartment house bombings in Moscow and Volgodonsk in 1999, and other terror attacks.
Analysts said al-Seif, a radical Islamic theologian, had acted as a top spiritual counselor for rebels in Chechnya, issuing fatwas, or religious edicts, to approve specific attacks. According to some accounts, Arab counselors were appointed co-leaders of small rebel units, forming a separate chain of command controlled by al-Seif.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/19/2005 00:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
al-Seif = Abdallah bin Seif al-Jaber?
same guy Dan?
Posted by: Red Dog ||
12/19/2005 5:59 Comments ||
Top||
The heavy police presence at several Sydney beachside suburbs at the weekend averted a potential disaster, Assistant Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione has said. More than 2,000 police were on duty as beachgoers heeded police warnings to stay away from the flashpoint areas of Cronulla, Coogee, Bondi and Maroubra, where police had established partial lockdowns. Police wanted to avoid a repeat of the December 11 North Cronulla race riots and the apparent retaliatory attacks that followed.
Mr Scipione said the massive police numbers at the weekend were justified with "evidence of white supremacist-type activities". Officers attached to Operation Seta arrested 18 people overnight, including five men caught in Brighton-le-Sands with a 25-litre drum of petrol and equipment used to allegedly make fire bombs. It is understood the men, who were found with commando-style utility belts, dust helmets, police scanners and portable radios, are attached to a white supremacist group. Their arrest during a routine car check led police to close off the southern bayside suburb to all but residents of the area.
A 17-year-old male from Keiraville, near Wollongong, was later charged with being armed with intent to commit an indictable offence and is due to face Sutherland Local Court on January 17. Three other people are due to appear in Waverley Local Court including a 19-year-old from Carlingford and an 18-year-old from Dandenong, in Victoria. The pair were allegedly caught with petrol bombs on a public bus bound for Bondi following a tip-off from the driver. The third person to face court is a 21-year-old Narwee man charged over his alleged role in the North Cronulla riots on December 11. He was charged with two counts of riot and affray. A 19-year-old Long Jetty man will also appear in Wyong Local Court, north of Sydney, after being charged with affray overnight. affray, a noisy fight. Can Mohammedanism be considered a white supremicist group?
#1
as beachgoers heeded police warnings to stay away from the flashpoint areas of Cronulla, Coogee, Bondi and Maroubra, where police had established partial lockdowns.
The French interior minister says that he has fought hard for the rights of the country's estimated five million Muslims and that recent riots had nothing to do with Islam. In an interview with Aljazeera on Sunday, Nicolas Sarkozy discussed the three weeks of rioting by disaffected youths in French cities in October. During the violence thousands of cars and public buildings were set ablaze and thousands of people were arrested.
He also defended France's newly approved anti-terror measures. Referring to Muslims in France who have long complained about discrimination and marginalisation in the country, Sarkozy said: "I am without doubt the one who has fought the most to recognise the rights that are owed to them. I insisted that Muslims pray in mosques instead of clandestine places, basements and garages, and that they have imams that speak French and are trained in France."
Asked about his use of the word "scum" to describe the rebellious youth in French ghettos, Sarkozy said that he did not normally use such language but that the grave situation at the time demanded firmness. "I do not normally use street language. I speak so that everyone would understand me. In the republic where I live, it is the thugs who must explain their actions and not the minister of interior."
Sarkozy spoke to Aljazeera while on a visit to Doha, Qatar. Before the riots in October, Sarkozy had been riding high in opinion polls and was seen as a strong contender to become the next French president in 2007. However, his controversial remarks sparked anger among Arab and Muslim immigrant communities in France with many civic leaders calling for his resignation.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2005 13:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
his controversial remarks sparked anger among Arab and Muslim immigrant communities in France with many civic leaders calling for his resignation.
Which means he will probably be the next French President.
#3
The French interior minister says that he has fought hard for the rights of the country's estimated five million Muslims and that recent riots had nothing to do with Islam.
Is Kool-Aid the new French national drink? No way can wine make you this stupid.
There are important developments and movements in the region, so Turkeyâs exchange of information with the CIA comes from this and is normal, said government spokesman Cemil Cicek on Monday about CIA Director Porter Gossâ recent visit to Turkey, adding that Turkey has expectations from US about the terrorist PKK. Speaking after a Cabinet meeting, Cicek said that Gossâ visit had not been discussed by the government ministers. Cicek indicated that intelligence organizations from other countries meet from time to time, adding, âThis wasnât the first time a CIA director has visited Turkey.â Cicek stated, âAt many meetings that I took part in, especially on the fight against terrorism, the issue that many countries emphasize is that sharing intelligence on terrorist groups is the first step. This issue has priority. Therefore, Turkey shares information on intelligence with the US as well as other countries. This is natural.â
During his recent visit to Ankara, CIA Director Porter Goss reportedly brought three dossiers on Iran to Ankara. Goss is said to have asked for Turkeyâs support for Washingtonâs policy against Iranâs nuclear activities, charging that Tehran had supported terrorism and taken part in activities against Turkey. Goss also asked Ankara to be ready for a possible US air operation against Iran and Syria. Goss, who came to Ankara just after FBI Director Robert Muellerâs visit, brought up Iranâs alleged attempts to develop nuclear weapons. It was said that Goss first told Ankara that Iran has nuclear weapons and this situation was creating a huge threat for both Turkey and other states in the region. Diplomatic sources say that Washington wants Turkey to coordinate with its Iran policies. The second dossier is about Iranâs stance on terrorism. The CIA argued that Iran was supporting terrorism, the PKK and al-Qaeda. The third had to do with Iranâs alleged stance against Ankara. Goss said that Tehran sees Turkey as an enemy and would try to âexport its regime.â
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/19/2005 10:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
During the 1990s, President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use its super-secret Echelon surveillance program to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade, NewsMax.com has learned.
Ah, yes, Echelon. I remember it well. The press, however, seems to have forgotten.
In 2000, former Clinton CIA director James Woolsey set off a firestorm of protest in Europe when he told the French newspaper Le Figaro that he was ordered by Clinton in 1993 to transform Echelon into a tool for gathering economic intelligence. "We have a triple and limited objective," the former intelligence chief told the French paper. "To look out for companies which are breaking US or UN sanctions; to trace 'dual' technologies, i.e., for civil and military use, and to track corruption in international business."
As NewsMax reported exclusively on Sunday, Echelon had been used by the Clinton administration to monitor millions of personal phone calls, private emails and even ATM transactions inside the U.S. - all without a court order. The massive invasion of privacy was justified by Echelon's defenders as an indispensable national security tool in the war on terror. But Clinton officials also utilized the program in ways that had nothing to do with national security - such as conducting economic espionage against foreign businesses.
In his comments to Le Figaro, Woolsey defended the program, declaring flatly: "Spying on Europe is justified." "I can tell you that five years ago, several European countries were giving substantial bribes to export business more easily. I hope that's no longer the case."
During hearings in 2000 on the surveillance flap, Woolsey told Congress that in 1993 alone, U.S. firms obtained contracts worth $6.5 billion with the help of timely intelligence information. "We collect intelligence on those efforts to bribe foreign companies and foreign governments into awarding an airport contract to a European firm rather than an American firm," Woolsey said in a 1994 speech, in quotes picked up by the New York Post.
Predictably, European officials were outraged by what they regarded as a massive abuse of the NSA's spying capacity. "[This is] an intolerable attack against individual liberties, competition, and the security of states," complained Martin Bangemann, then-European commissioner for industry. But the complaints went unheeded in Washington.
In 1996, President Clinton signed the Economic Espionage Act, which, according to the Christian Science Monitor, authorized intelligence gathering on foreign businesses. "The Clinton administration has attached especial importance to economic intelligence, setting up the National Economic Council [NEC] in parallel to the National Security Council," the Monitor reported in 1999. "The NEC routinely seeks information from the NSA and the CIA," the paper continued, citing anonymous officials. "And the NSA, as the biggest and wealthiest communications interception agency in the world, is best placed to trawl electronic communications and use what comes up for US commercial advantage."
Posted by: Steve ||
12/19/2005 12:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why is it that everytime President Bush gets into
controversial situations that bring him bad publicity with possible negative future ramifications, Repubs/Conservatives ALWAYS bring up President Clinton?
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 12:18 Comments ||
Top||
And somehow -- mysteriously -- got hold of hundreds of FBI background check files for Republicans.
Yet we're supposed to ignore all that -- and ignore the continuing campaign to bury the Barret report -- and instead get outraged that the Bush administration ordered the tapping of phone numbers found in terrorist leaders' cell phones.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/19/2005 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Bill Clinton isnt president anymore, If you were to show outrage over anything he did, why didnt you do it when he was in office.
It's disengenous that everytime Bush gets his ass in a sling instead of addressing the issue repubs/cons bring up what Clinton did in the past.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Bill Clinton isnt president anymore, If you were to show outrage over anything he did, why didnt you do it when he was in office.
Well, it looks like someone obviously wasn't paying attention from from 1992 to 2000.
That's about the dumbest thing anyone's ever said here...
#8
Guess you were sleeping during the whole Whitewater, Travelgate, FBI Files, Paula Jones, Brodderick, "did not have sexual relations", Impeachment Process, "what the definition of is is", and Presidential Pardons.
#9
The point is that EVERYTIME Bush gets his ass in a sling, Repubs/Cons ALWAYS bring up Clinton.EVERYTIME
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Why is it that everytime President Bush gets into controversial situations that bring him bad publicity with possible negative future ramifications, Repubs/Conservatives ALWAYS bring up President Clinton?
Because Clinton truly abused his power. He was a criminal, running a crooked administration. If you got too loud in calling attention to that, he'd sic his goons on you, and either try to destroy your reputation or have the IRS go through your life with a microscope.
In contrast, Bush is accused of all that, but it's simply not true. I constantly hear whines about Bush "trashing the Constitution", yet when I ask for examples, nothing is given. For four years we've heard about the "stifling of dissent", but when you press people on it, they wave vaguely at people being criticized. Bush has been called a "criminal" for the practice of "rendition", yet it was Clinton that started the policy, and no one batted an eye when he did it.
Unfortunately, we have a press that worships the naked use of power, if the power is used under the cover of being a Democrat, "progressive", or outright anti-American. So Clinton's abuses were ignored long enough to dismiss them as "old news"; on the rare occasions when a story was given notice, the facts were twisted to make him look like a victim. For example, he was impeached for lying to a jury, not for having sex. But what did the press want us to believe?
Bush is the wrong party, the wrong ethic, he speaks and believes in a way that grates on the nerves of the self-declared elite. So the press takes every chance it has to describe his policies as crimes. He's slandered at every chance -- often by anonymous accusers. When he says something it's declared a lie, when it's shown to be true the proof is denied. His motives are always impugned. Whenever he addresses his critics -- no matter how mild the words -- he's "attacking" them.
We're supposed to long for the days of the Clinton administration, because he'd bite his lip to show he cared, and could read from a teleprompter well, and because reporters openly declared their desire to fellate him. But he accomplished meaningful things only because he was forced to, or by accident, but somehow that's considered better, because he always had the approval of the elites.
Feh.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/19/2005 12:51 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Left Angle, it would help if the Democrats did not strike massively hypocritical poses and attack Bush onthe most disingenuous grounds.
There's lots about the Bush administration I dislike or disagree with. But I have the honesty to admit the things I do agree with him on and I don't try to hide my knowledge of decisions -- unlike, for instance, Reid and Pelosi on the intercepts issue post 9/11.
The point is that there was a huge, and publicly disclosed, surveillance effort authorized by Clinton with the full knowledge and support of the Democratic leadership in Congress - NOT in a time of war, mind you, NOT to prevent massive attacks on civilians here, but for econonomic competition - and yet for the last 4 days we've heard nothing from the Democratic leadership except that they are SHOCKED at the transparently ILLEGAL surveillance of people after 9/11.
Surveillance which, if they are forced to admit, they knew all about.
The comparisons with Clinton will stop when the rampant, destructive partisan-attack-at-any-cost hypocrisy of the Democrats and the left stop.
And I say that as someone who was, I strongly suspect, an active Democrat for longer than you probably have been alive.
what i really was refering to was the Echelon program specifically. It didnt come out that way when I typed it..lol
for sure I know repubs thought Clinton was the devil incarnate..lol
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Of course there's an even more damaging possibility, Left Angle:
namely that the NSA surveillance under Clinton WAS tied in part to monitoring terror networks and the corrupt export by European firms and governments of dual-use technology to regimes like Saddams.
That was, at the time, given as one reason for the warrantless surveillance under Clinton. And I say "damaging" because it is truly unforgiveable that they collected information and then did not act on it. Except to keep the Clinton economy going.
My point is that there is a pattern to repub/con responses to Bush controversies.
Instead of discussing the specifics of what Bush is being accused of or how or why it happened.
Repubicans ALWAYS invariably start talking about what Clinton did in the past. So if Bush is impeached for doing something illegal in this matter, his defense will be:
"Well Clinton did the same thing"?
I dont think that will go over to well..lol
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#20
testing 1,2,3
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Let's try this again.
President Bill Clinton ordered the National Security Agency to use Echelon to monitor the personal telephone calls and private email of employees who worked for foreign companies in a bid to boost U.S. trade.
Echelon has been around for awhile. It existed during the Clinton administration. The then-President was not accused of "domestic spying" or violating the Constitution by the media and members of Congress.
Applying Echelon to engage in industrial espinonage and boost U.S. trade is a questionable act. The Europeans were upset, but not much was made of it by either the U.S. media or Congress.
There were no warrants.
No probable cause requirements.
No FISA court.
Members of Congress were not informed.
The Justice Department was likely not consulted.
Information intercepted was communicated solely between U.S. citizens within the U.S.. That may not have been the purpose of the program but that is a consequence of the application.
If it was wrong then and nothing was said or done, why is it 'discovered' to be wrong now when it is applied for a narrow and specific purpose?
That's exactly my point. Whenever Bush gets into trouble, instead of responding to the specifics of
that accusation the repub response is always:
"Well look at what Clinton did."
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#23
dumber than usual LA - not even a chew toy. I'll pass, TYVM
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/19/2005 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#24
The point is that EVERYTIME Bush gets his ass in a sling, Repubs/Cons ALWAYS bring up Clinton.EVERYTIME
What escapes your thick skull is that more often than not, he'd get a free pass. As the saying would go, it would be time to "move on". Move on, move on, move on. Nothing to see here.
On the other hand, everything, EVERYTHING, GWB does is subject to the most glaring scrutiny and the most outlandish assertions, all does in the most shrillest of tones. Bush "lied" about the pre-war intel, holding illegal enemy combatants is some sort of violation of the Constitution, and NSA monitoring of communications between the U.S. and foreign countries is the beginning of some sort of police state.
In the end though, it doesn't matter; anyone that sits in the Oval Office will always be compared to his/her predecessors at some point in time.
#25
"Repubicans ALWAYS invariably start talking about what Clinton did in the past." Left Angle, how about providing links to ALL examples of your assertion. I don't believe this to be a true statement.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/19/2005 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Mebbe the word LA is looking for is "precedent", namely, if all other presidents did it, there is (a lot of)precedent. If W. J. Clinton did it, there is (some)precedent. Doesn't make it right - or wrong - it just puts it in context.
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/19/2005 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#27
BS, Left Angle. The specifics *ARE* discussed. Just because you don't like the discussion or the conclusions reached doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
12/19/2005 13:54 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Left Angle, I'm not sure how long you've been hanging around Rantburg. You may not be aware that there are regulars here - including people who have commented on this thread - who have real-world experience in and with the intel community, over the course of several administrations.
I suggest you consider the possibility that the responses you read here are informed in some cases by that experience and expertise. To put it more bluntly, there are people here who know whether and to what degree abuses happened under one or the other president.
Clinton does not come out well in their eyes. He does not come out well in MY eyes - and I voted for the man twice.
Consider for a moment the argument you make: that Clinton's actions - which were done with no oversight, no warrants, censure - should not be invoked when discussing what you call the "possible illegal" actions of Bush, which by any measure had more oversight, more accountability and were moreover aimed at a direct national threat.
You can't have it both ways. You cannot gleefully hope that Bush will be nailed for alleged illegalities without opening the door to a discussion of the precedent set in the Clinton administration, in which far greater abuses were committed with no sanctions applied.
#29
That's exactly my point. Whenever Bush gets into trouble, instead of responding to the specifics of
that accusation the repub response is always: "Well look at what Clinton did."
And my point is:
If it was wrong then, especially with with such dubious usage as industrial espionage, no warrants, no FISA, no informing Congress, no DoJ oversight, why didn't Congress, the New York Times, and the rest of the media get spun up about it then?
This instance, there were warrants, DoJ oversight, briefings with Congress and the purpose was specific to national security, reviewed and adjusted.
Sorry I misintepreted your response. I'm doing several things at once.
If what Clinton did was illegal I'm a little bit puzzled that repubs/conservatives that demonized him and impeached him never brought it up when it happened.
My point is that if charges are brough up against
Bush that he did something illegal, is this the defense that he will use?
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 14:10 Comments ||
Top||
#32
If what Clinton did was illegal I'm a little bit puzzled that repubs/conservatives that demonized him and impeached him never brought it up when it happened.
The reality as I see it is that the legal issues around surveillance of communication that is either entirely executed overseas or at least terminates in another country are fairly fuzzy.
Clinton was quite highhanded in his abuse of the presidential powers. Republicans - and civil libertarians like myself - did indeed protest this use of Echelon quite loudly. But by the time it came to light Clinton had already faced impeachment, his presidency was almost over and the issue was allowed to drop by the side of the road.
But not to be forgotten.
I doubt that Bush will point to Clinton as a precedent. He is arguing that his actions were a) well within the purview of the presidency, especially after the attack of 9/11 and credible reason to believe more attacks were being planned/attempted and b) occurred with proper oversight, notification and accountability.
Well, the repubs/cons in this site are arguing it as "precedent" and if I'm intepreting what they are saying correctly, they believe that Bush is subject to a double standard in which Clinton is accessed by a more lenient standard particularly
in the so-called MSM. I think each should be judged on their own merits.
It's almost as if the repubs/cons have this rule,
that whenever Bush is accused of something or criticized negatively, they automatically go back and check if there is something in Clintons' record that is similar or sets a "precedent".
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Well, LA. Since we're getting into semantics here, I think that would depend on what your meaning of the word "is" is...
Hey! Clinton already said that!
Silly me!
ok, I mean we can parse words if we want to but
it just that i think:
"Clinton did it too"!!!
isnt a good defense.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Well, the repubs/cons in this site are arguing it as "precedent" and if I'm intepreting what they are saying correctly, they believe that Bush is subject to a double standard in which Clinton is accessed by a more lenient standard particularly in the so-called MSM. I think each should be judged on their own merits
If you argue on individual merits, it's hard for me to see how Clinton comes out better than Bush on this one, for the reasons I mentioned above. Bush's use of warrantless taps occurred with oversight, in the context of deadly attacks and the likelihood of additional attacks, was limited to situations in which one party was overseas and was adjusted in response to feedback from the FISA court.
Clinton's had no oversight, did not appear to actually address terror threats, included extensive data collection within the US itself and did not seem to occur with any accountability at all.
Judging them ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL MERITS which situation would YOU think is a better balance of civil liberties and national security? The massive surveillance of Clinton which was not effectively aimed at national defense and which had no oversight? Or the targetted surveillance of Bush, aimed at specific threats in the context of several thousand dead in the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (and a plane that was intended for the White House or Congress but came down in PA instead) - a limited surveillance that did have oversight and accountability?
#39
I don't see anyone here making the claim, and I haven't heard any Republicans who have been interviewed, saying, Clinton did it so it's OK for Bush". What I am hearing is the hypocracy of the Democrats and media attacking Bush but they gave Clinton a free pass. That's what the Republican response is, not that it's right but there is a double standard in the Media and in the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/19/2005 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#40
Maybe if we told Left Angle that Bush only wiretapped Branch Davidians he'd suddenly approve.
#41
You know where I think Bush is running into a problem with this?
From what I have been reading its the fact that his administration is using the directive he signed to secretly spy on people in the Anti-Iraq
Peace Movement. THAT is what is rankling not only democrats but republicans also.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
#42
which ones, la? the ones like galloway and his crowd who were on the take from Saddam?
I'm not sure which ones, they havent disclosed that information yet. But from what I have read
THAT is the primary reason for the controversy and for the filibuster on renewing the Patriot Act.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 16:24 Comments ||
Top||
#44
According to Fox news on yesterday only 36 people had been wiretapped and those were of people with known ties to terrorist organizations, which probably would include members of the "Peace Movement".
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/19/2005 16:31 Comments ||
Top||
#45
Deacon Blues: (thats a great Steely Dan Song)
that's the controversy I think. Suppose they AREN'T tied to terrorist groups?...Man that is going to open up a big can of worms....
I'm gonna be watching this very closely.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
#47
LA, when you write about members of the "Peace Movement" being targeted, you aren't referring to Lynne Stewart?
Personally, my background is in damage control and I like to keep an eye on what can go wrong with a system. When planning a hostage rescue, I think it is entirely pertinent and valid to look back at what went wrong during the Mayaguez Incident (Ford), Grenada (Reagan), and Desert One (Carter). Out of the three rescues and attempted rescues, I would argue that Desert One was planned the best.
When evaluating the Patriot Act, Echelon is certainly valid to discuss. While I am a great believer in civil liberties, I am not so worried about protecting the privacy of anyone who chooses to place a phone call to a member of the Muslim Brotherhood or Islamic Jihad.
I am a cautious supporter of what Bush allowed the NSA to do in this case especially since it appears that he kept Congress informed. I am cautious only because of what you would call my fascination with the Clinton Administration (or I would call my fascination with what could go wrong.) If a second Clinton Administration comes to pass, I could certainly see NSA being tasked to monitor the Minutemen or Brothers to The Rescue.
If mine isn't a valid point of view than why have I continuously been bludgeoned with Watergate for the last 30 years?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/19/2005 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#48
"From what I have been reading its the fact that his administration is using the directive he signed to secretly spy on people in the Anti-Iraq
Peace Movement." You already claim this is a fact. I don't see that supported anywhere but it is being touted on extreme lefty blogs. The FACT is no-one in the media knows who was wiretapped. Anything at all right now is speculation, not FACT.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
12/19/2005 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#49
tu:
I know youre being facetious, so you think this is going NOWHERE?
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#50
We bring out the crap about what Bill Clinton and the dummycritters did during his tenure in Washington, LA, to show the absolute hypocracy of the dummycritter party in their behavior toward anything that George Bush does, especially if it proves successful. The dummycritters attack the sitting president at every opportunity, often showing their own insencerity and absolute stupidity in doing so. Most of us aren't children - we have long memories, and access to data to prove our point. That only makes the hypocrites and idiots in Washington look worse by comparison. Even someone with your limited understanding of politics should grasp THAT!
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
12/19/2005 16:47 Comments ||
Top||
#51
From what I have been reading its the fact that his administration is using the directive he signed to secretly spy on people in the Anti-Iraq
Peace Movement.
Ah. SO now we've reached the "Have you stopped beating your wife" moment.
#52
well, lets just say its being reported as factual and it must be true because I cant see why Bush would be responding to it in such a defensive manner.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 16:52 Comments ||
Top||
#53
Old Patriot:
With all due respect sir, Bill Clinton isnt president anymore. In this case, even republicans are calling for investigations and if Bush is charged with doing something illegal:
"CLINTON DID IT TOO!!!
isnt goingto be a very good defense....
with all due respect sir. lmao
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#54
well, lets just say its being reported as factual and it must be true because I cant see why Bush would be responding to it in such a defensive manner.
That should win an award for the most parochial thing I've read on this web site since it started.
#56
well, lets just say its being reported as factual and it must be true because I cant see why Bush would be responding to it in such a defensive manner.
This is the stupidest goddam argument I've ever heard. "It bothers you, so it must be true." Are you twelve? If I were accused of a murder I didn't commit, you bet your ass I would be defensive about it. Pull your head out and use real logic and real facts instead of reading into someone's actions what you want to see and then declaring it as fact.
#57
"...it must be true because I cant see why Bush..."
There may be other explanations for why you "can't see why" Bush is responding as he is, the most plausible of which is that you yourself aren't too fucking bright.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/19/2005 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
#58
The evidence does seem to be stacking up that way Dave.
#59
well, lets just say its being reported as factual and it must be true because I cant see why Bush would be responding to it in such a defensive manner.
This is the stupidest goddam argument I've ever heard. "It bothers you, so it must be true." Are you twelve? If I were accused of a murder I didn't commit, you bet your ass I would be defensive about it. Pull your head out and use real logic and real facts instead of reading into someone's actions what you want to see and then declaring it as fact.
the Patriot act is being fillibustered with 5
Republicans joining the democrats because of
this controversy.
Republicans as well as democrats are calling for
investigations....
DEAL WITH IT.
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#61
I think each should be judged on their own merits.
Not a problem. If the Left is willing to back off and let the current President's term finish out, then make an appraisal, that's fine. But realistically, that ain't gonna happen. Not by a long shot.
#64
G-E-N-I-U-S, LA. Not "genious".
If you're going to use the word to rip somebody, make sure it's spelled right. It'll cut down on the snickering by your intended targets.
Okay...genius?
Posted by: Matt ||
12/19/2005 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#72
This is all very amusing. Billy J can't be used as an object of comparison or measurement because he's no longer in office. Never mind the fact that both he and the current president occupied/occupy the same office, served/serve the same term lengths, and had/gave the same presidential powers and authority. Nope, can't compare the two.....at all.....nosirree...
I dont take this shit that serious..I'm just entertaining myself...
I have been in Polipundit, Slates ballot box and in here and there is a consistent pattern in each one..
there is this group of about five guys who think they are the smartest mf's in the world..they follow each other around and make snide remarks
about democrats/liberals..and they all act like a bunch of women...really I'm impressed..lmao
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
#74
Bombarama:
So when and if Bush gets impeached for illegalities associated with this controversy..
When he testifies before Congress he can say:
"WHY YOU PICKIN ON ME? CLINTON DID IT TO"
ROTFLMAO ...OH MY GOD...LOL
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 17:44 Comments ||
Top||
#75
Of COURSE you don't take it seriously, dear -- you're losing the argument here.
But it's a clever child nonetheless. Can't spell worth a damn, resorts to tantrums and namecalling to be sure ... but no doubt clever all the same. Must be, because it leans leftward - prima facie evidence, no?
If you read all the latest major polls,
I'm squarely with the majority
of Americans on President Bush about:
his handling of the Iraqi War and job performance..and questions on his honesty
and integrity.
The man is hovering between 35-40% approval on all
these categories..he is on the defensive on Iraq and losing credibility with the american people.
these are poor rating and you know it anD all you on the right can do is bitch about the MSM..
why not blame the souce?:
President George W. Bush
HAVE A GREAT EVENING!!!
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 17:55 Comments ||
Top||
#77
there is this group of about five guys who think they are the smartest mf's in the world..
Believe me, LA. The smart mf's aren't even here yet.
I look forward to when they show up...
#78
You know, maybe I'm dense, but "You're all _____" or "Everyone agrees with me!" stopped being valid rational arguments for most people sometime in the 7th grade.
THEY ALL AGREE WITH ME:
(Republican version)
all together now:
The Mainstream Media is responsible for all of
President Bush's problems. They only report the bad news and have a agreement to slant the news in a negative way against the republicans and president bush. This is called unbalanced reporting and liberal media bias".
Posted by: Left Angle ||
12/19/2005 18:05 Comments ||
Top||
#82
"And if only we didn't have such a biased press, we would still have Bush as President instead of Kerry..."
#83
Lefty, the Republicans bring up Clinton whenever Bush steps into something to demonstrate the hipocracy of the left who act as if only Bush has ever done this sort of thing.
Posted by: Phil ||
12/19/2005 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
#85
NO! The mainstream media pulled the strings on the puppet Pres Clinton and they are pissed GWB will not bow to polls. This started the media hate thats going on. Those that choose to follow the media blindly, as some of the Dems have, are following a pide piper to the clifs.
Posted by: 49 pan ||
12/19/2005 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#86
So when and if Bush gets impeached for illegalities associated with this controversy..
#89
Think we got ourselves a classic here folks. Truly a work of art...and noone even broke a sweat.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
12/19/2005 19:06 Comments ||
Top||
#90
Latest WAPO-ABC News poll (not exactly President Bush friendly, but then again, isn't Ipsos) shows:
47 percent approval
47 percent Bush ecomonic approval
56 percent Bush WOT approval
Posted by: ed ||
12/19/2005 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#91
Yup. And every time he goes before the public and deals with the issues (instead of following the previous tactic of letting the Democrats dig themselves into their own hole) his approvals go up even more.
I hope the WH has learned its lesson: the bullshit coming from the Left has to be dealt with-- forcefully.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/19/2005 19:35 Comments ||
Top||
#92
W speaking to teh people and teh Donks sink as his polls rise.... Rove is a genius (check the spelling, dickhead)
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/19/2005 20:35 Comments ||
Top||
#93
Let's go for 100 comments, like The Good Olde Days⢠with AR-15. *Wipes tear from eye*
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/19/2005 21:40 Comments ||
Top||
#94
I was there.
Dual Use technology was a problem. Still is. Prudent to monitor those Non US Persons engaged intrade in such articles. To do otherwise be derelection of duty. Need to know who they sell to, how they are selling and getting around intended trade curbs. Not so much economic espionage as it is gathering intelligence vital to the security of the nation. Economics is the lifeblood of a capitalistic nation like the USA, and cannot be excluded or ignored. And it is tied qutie tightly to logistical capacity and capability for making war.
Constitutional authority for the President to act is quite broad - FISA is probably not cnostiutional, in that it usurps executive power under Article II of the constitution intended for the executive branch.
This will prove true, FISA or no, for Bush as it did for Clinton.
The only reason a fuss is being made now is the NYTimes is trying to flack a book off this and attempting yet another smear of the Bush administration for political reasons, and the Dims, in their lemming-like fervor to return to power by any means neccessary, have found yet another cliff off of which they can charge.
#95
This was an amusing thread. My two cents worth: I think LA is a kid who is trying to figure things out. Maybe he'll learn something, and won't resort to name-calling and gay references before he retires from the field. Maybe he won't. But everyone was pretty nice to him, all told.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
12/19/2005 21:53 Comments ||
Top||
#96
Another thing people forget about those years when we were doing economic espionage is that it was a reaction to the dirty tricks the French were playing. The French and other Euros started that war.
Posted by: long memory ||
12/19/2005 21:55 Comments ||
Top||
#97
Agreed on the dual-use issue. I also agree on the way in which France and Germany, among others, were intentionally and pretty openly pursuing economic war against us at the time.
What bugs me - sorry about the inadvertent pun - was that Clinton and Woolsey emphasized economic advantages but de-emphasized the national security concerns.
Those with wadded panties on the Bush taps should remember that Clinton was the president who very much wanted a back door into EVERY CPU chip and who fought hard to prevent the use of encryption by individuals. There are good arguments to be made on those issues, but it's hypocritical to ignore those proposals.
Try reading USC 18 ,506, the Patriot Act modifications to FISA directly, and the Authorization to Use Military Force (i.e. the President's authorization to wage the war on terror). The laws are quite specific in exceptions and exemptions given the President to conduct military and intelligence operations in the defense of the nation.
And also check USC 18 768 - regarding the NYT Leaks, there's a 10 year sentence awaiting the CIA and congressional leakers, as well as the reporters. Republican or Democrat.
Problem for you LA is that you refuse to address the topic at hand, instead dropping to name calling and refusing to answer legitimate questions put to you with facts and reason. Instead you simply drop to name calling and idiocy.
Simpleminded behavior such as yours may cut it at Daily Koz or Alterman or Ted Rall, but they don't hold much water to anyone capable of maturity or rational thought.
In short - start arguing facts and using reason or be forever doomed to the semi-human substrata of Trolldom - ignored, deleted and ultimately tossed aside after being thoroughly demolished. Big blow to your ego - one that you are apparently incapable of sustaining except when you hide behind the anonymity of the Internet.
Here's 2 clues kid:
1) You are not anonymous. Go read up on the IP protocol and RADIUS. And realize that people on this board have been intercepting and tracing this sort of things for more than a decade. There is little, if any, true anonymity on the Internet.
2) If you cannot put together sufficient facts and connect them with reasons in a way that withstands scrutiny, perhaps you should realize that you are wrong, and should admit as much; try learning from your mistakes instead of repeating them endlessly.
I rather expect you are unaware of clue#1, and probably incapable of clue#2. Especially the latter; hard-core Liberals like Howard Dean and Moveon can not admit they were wrong, even when the evidence is as plain as killing fields of Cambodia, or the smoking holes in the ground where the Twin Towers once were.
#99
In light of the above exercise in freedom of expression, Bush's expressed wishes for "Iraq's inclusive democracy," makes me puke. We outlawed Nazism in 1945. Why protect the more sinister ideology of Islamofascism in 2005? I don't want Islamofascists to vote; I want them to die by the millions.
#100
Okay, 100. Looks like LA implemented his exit strategy some time ago from his own personal La Brea Tar Pit.
Ah, I knew he was running out of gas when he started spouting about the Log Cabin Club.The refs should've stepped in and stopped it right there.
WASHINGTON - Responding to a Democratic congressional uproar, the Bush administration said Monday that a secret domestic surveillance program had yielded intelligence results that would not have been available otherwise in the war on terror. With Democrats and Republicans alike questioning whether President Bush had the legal authority to approve the program, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argued that Congress had essentially given Bush broad powers to order the domestic surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
"Our position is that the authorization to use military force which was passed by the Congress shortly after Sept. 11 constitutes that authority," said Gonzales. He called the monitoring "probably the most classified program that exists in the United States government."
At a White House briefing and in a round of television appearances, Gonzales provided a more detailed legal rationale for Bush's decision authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of people within the United States without seeking warrants from courts. He said Bush's authorization requires that at least one of the parties be outside the country and linked to al-Qaida or an affiliated organization.
And the FISA law says that's okay.
But he refused to say how many Americans had been targeted and insisted the eavesdropping was "very limited, targeted" electronic surveillance. "This is not a situation of domestic spying," he said.
Gonzales defended Bush's decision not to seek warrants from the secretive Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court, saying that "we don't have the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of enemy."
Gen. Michael Hayden, deputy national intelligence director who was head of the NSA when the program began in October 2001, said, "I can say unequivocally we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available." In offering only a glimpse into the program, Hayden said the monitoring would take place for a shorter period of time and be less intrusive than what is normally authorized by the secret surveillance court. Yet he acknowledged that the program is more aggressive than other government monitoring.
Gonzales would not say who in Congress was briefed or when, but said that more lawmakers have been told of the program in recent days, including Specter. "We're engaged now in a process of educating the American people ... and educating the American Congress," Gonzales said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/19/2005 11:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"we don't have the speed and the agility that we need in all circumstances to deal with this new kind of enemy."
McCain stands up on this one. It helps GWB and (of course) it helps him for 2008.
Sen. John McCain disappointed Democrats on Capitol Hill on Sunday by defending the Bush administration's decision to use the National Security Agency to monitor a limited number of domestic phone calls in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
Saying that Sept. 11 "changed everything," McCain told ABC's "This Week": "The president, I think, has the right to do this."
"We all know that since Sept. 11 we have new challenges with enemies that exist within the United States of America - so the equation has changed."
McCain said that while the administration needs to explain why it didn't first seek approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, he suggested that the Patriot Act might have superseded the 1978 FISA Act, allowing "additional powers for the president."
McCain said the fact that congressional leaders - including top Democrats - were consulted on the NSA authorization "is a very important part of this equation." He suggested that any congressional hearings into the Bush decision focus on that aspect. "I'd like to hear from the leaders of Congress, both Republican and Democrat, who, according to reports, we're briefed on this and agreed to it," he told "This Week." "They didn't raise any objection, apparently, to [whether] there was a, quote, violation of law."
Asked about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's claim that she "raised concerns" about granting the NSA new powers during one meeting with White House officials, McCain said: "I don't know about any meetings, but I certainly never heard complaints from anyone on either side of the aisle.
"When this process was being carried out I would imagine that the leaders of Congress would be very concerned about any violation of law as well," he said. "Apparently [those concerns have] not been raised until it was published in the New York Times."
McCain also warned that any congressional investigation should take care not to force additional disclosures from the White House that could help the enemy, saying: "I don't see anything wrong with congressional hearings but what kind of information are you going to put into the public arena that might help the al Qaida people in going undetected."
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/19/2005 00:54 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is foul stuff. It's very likely that this was illegal, no matter what freakin' Nancy Pelosi says. Why not just use FISA? Why give impeachment ammo to the D's?
#2
yeah, right CTD. Personally - I think the dems really screwed themselves on this one. They could have used the opportunity to say, "see look, we really are tough on terror behind the scenes, we helped to keep you safe". Instead they get little hacks like CTD to come out with the argument about it being "illegal" for our government to evesdrop on terrorists. As if any sane, non-suicidal person would care if they do it. Instead Pelosi and Reid sit quietly and allow the deranged camp to speak, as if informed, and gather momentum about how skeery and terrible it all is. And then when it comes to light that Pelosi and Reid not only knew, participated and kept quiet about it, for years, Pelosi and Reid find themselves on the defense as being a part of this evil conspiracy. I say give them the shovel to dig their own graves before the next election. And while you are at it, give CTD the microphone to present their euelogy.
#4
There's nothing foul at all about intercepting calls to terrorist suspects living in this country. As long as they weren't monitoring domestic calls I don't see the problem. The problem with this whole thing deals with the fact that we have so many people working for the CIA and NSA willing to sacrifice the security of their country for political gain. That actually scares me a lot more then tapping phones of suspected terrorists and that's what really needs to be investigated starting with that NY Times reporter that considered selling more important than the security of the country. He should be thrown in jail and the key thrown away.
The NYT, a de facto arm of the DNC, "sat" on this for a year.
And released it in conjunction with a book publication and a major political victory in Iraq.
Going to the link in your post, I was amazed, even impressed, by the way that there were posts which contained "facts" and faux "legal opinions", that could not have possibly been the work of two or three days. Clearly this whole thing was planned weeks if not months ago, and operatives put in place to simultaneously storm the MSM and crappy leftist blogs like the one at your link. No different from the Murtha and so many others.
I must say I am impressed. The Clinton era fax-machine-talking point agitprop program has definietly been upgraded. Maybe you leftists are having a go at learning how to subvert the Internet to your infotainment control program.
Funny, though, how it isn't working......real Americans seem to be supporting W more and more as he talks about it, even as leftists push their masturbatory dream of impeachment and "frog marching" etc.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
12/19/2005 6:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If you think 2004 was a nasty election process, hold on to your hat. 2008 is going to be UGLY. I predict the GOP is going to recycle all this defeatist, alarmist, nihilistic propaganda and serve it up to the American public as a refresher course on what it means to be a liberal.
#7
Can someone explain why this was necessary? FISA approved just about every request ever brought to it, and the existing law allowed the taps to be up and running for 72 hours before the request was submitted. What problem with the procedure set out in the legislation was this policy supposed to solve?
Every defense I've seen seems to focus on the need for these kinds of taps, which no one with any sense is questioning - I'd like to hear the rationale on why they felt they needed to sidestep a pretty permissive system that seemed to be working. I've never heard that problems with the FISA set up prevented the USG from getting something done.
#8
Anybody wants to listen to my phone calls, be my guest.
They're going to be bored shitless.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
12/19/2005 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
#9
CTD is about as wrong as any one can be. I think the Bush folks are holding their guns fairly silent. When it gets ugly all they will have to do is release one Instance where the wiretaps helped stopped a terrorist attack. Then they could go after the Dems for sedition and the NYT for aiding the enemy. This has the potential for getting really ugly for the Dems. Imagine in 2008 the add showing the Dems supporting the terrorists and a shot of the city that would have been destroyed under their rule.
Posted by: 49 pan ||
12/19/2005 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#10
What people also seem to be missing is what Bush brought up in his speech last night. Maybe it was "illegal", as CTD states (I, for one, don't think it's illegal, if run as explained, and in fact, you'd have to be a 9/10/2001 mindframe idiot to NOT wanna spy on domestic jihadis talking to overseas counterparts), but the far bigger issue was that it could also be very "illegal" to disclose the program (for Nat'l Security reasons). Thus, the very disclosure of it to the NYT should send someone to Levenworth.
Posted by: BA ||
12/19/2005 10:54 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Trust me on this one gang, Bush holds all the cards and there was NOTHING illegal about what he did. I sincerely hope that someone goes to jail over this leak. It would be a bonus if it was one of the Dhimmis on the Intelligence Committee. I hate to spill the beans but don't look for Clinton to say anything against this.
#12
Not being a lawyer (nor playing on on the net), I don't know the legality of this. But if a certain, very libertarian law school professor doesn't believe it's illegal, that's good enough for me.
If there's a loop hole that lets the gov spy on US citizens with no accountability, it's Congress's job to deal with it legislatively. Unfortunately, whenever Congress "addresses" intel agency matters the results are usually disastrous.
#14
Getting a warrant from the FISA court can take months. Info like cell phone numbers has to be acted on within hours or days, lest their owners catch wind and disappear again.
I have a question too. The NSA has been listening to international comms for ages. That's their primary mission, is it not. Why is this news?
Posted by: ST ||
12/19/2005 18:40 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I agree: 2008 is going to be extremely ugly, and then there will be a unbelievably large number of unemployed Democrat politicians.
FISA does not cover all situations. And it requires court orders to operate. And its targeted more at conventional "cold-war" scenarios, with long baselines of observation, and little motility of the targets.
The parts of the patriots act talking about keys, pen registers, etc - those are vital. Go look them up. Basically, they allow an intercept to continue across borders and media. Something the old laws never knew was possible.
Example: Under FISA you need a warrant for each connected device, each person, and each place.
Now apply that to tracking an Al Qaeda perative talking to his fundraisers. He is on a sat phone, and using email from a kiosk in Pakistan. He is also texting as well as talking. Talking to a cloned Cell Phone in LA California, a SKype client on a PC in FLorida via VoIP, and flips to text to a Blackberry in Buffla NO, and pop a SMS to a "pay as you go" cell phone in Atlanta.
Now you figure out how get proper warrants for all this under FISA - which never accounted for Blackberrys, pay as you go cell phones, kisos email, VoIP via Skype, or the internet.
Bush had the attorney general and the directors and other people that knew the law draw up guidelines for him to act legally under the law, including the Patriot Act and AUMF, to secure the safety of the US against terrorists. He even updated Congress when these means were used.
Nothing to see here except the Dems and their press allies trying to smear the President regardless of truth or cost, and the NYT trying to sell a book from the whole mess. All of them ignoring the damage done the nation by the leaks and exposure of means and sources fo intelligence that can result in grave damage to the nation's ability to ddefend its citizens agains the enemy.
Democrats and Republicans called separately Sunday for congressional investigations into President Bush's decision after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to allow domestic eavesdropping without court approval. "The president has, I think, made up a law that we never passed," said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Penn., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he intends to hold hearings. "They talk about constitutional authority," Specter said. "There are limits as to what the president can do." Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also called for an investigation, and House Democratic leaders asked Speaker Dennis Hastert to create a bipartisan panel to do the same.
Bush acknowledged Saturday that since October 2001 he has authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on international phone calls and e-mails of people within the United States without seeking warrants from courts. The New York Times disclosed the existence of the program last week. Bush and other administration officials initially refused to discuss the surveillance or their legal authority, citing security concerns. "It's been briefed to the Congress over a dozen times, and, in fact, it is a program that is, by every effort we've been able to make, consistent with the statutes and with the law," Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday in an interview with ABC News "Nightline" to be broadcast Monday evening: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let's start
indicting
the dimmirats for treason!
Posted by: Red Dog ||
12/19/2005 6:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The old saw about 'be careful what you ask for you'l probably get it'.
Posted by: dorf ||
12/19/2005 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
A solid majority of Americans oppose immediately pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, citing as a main reason the desire to finish the job of stabilizing the country, an Associated Press-Ipsos poll found. About 57 percent of those surveyed said the U.S. military should stay until Iraq is stabilized, while 36 percent favor an immediate troop withdrawal. A year ago, 71 percent of respondents favored keeping troops in Iraq until it was stabilized.
In the poll, when people were asked in an open-ended question the main reason the United States should keep troops in Iraq, 32 percent said to stabilize the country and 26 percent said to finish the rebuilding job under way. Only one in 10 said they wanted to stay in Iraq to fight terrorism; just 3 percent said to protect U.S. national security.
The AP-Ipsos poll, conducted Tuesday through Thursday, was based on telephone interviews with 1,006 adults from all states except Alaska and Hawaii and areas heavily damaged by Hurricane Katrina. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
#1
32 percent said to stabilize the country 26 percent said to finish the rebuilding job
one in 10 [10 percent]said to fight terrorism 3 percent said to protect U.S. national security
*drumroll* So the internals reveal that actually 71% of those questioned see important reasons to remain engaged in Iraq, ie no change since a year ago. Good!
#2
Be careful believing any AP-Ipsos poll. In the 2004 election, they were the only outfit to consistently show Kerry beating Bush. Recently, they got a lot of publicity showing Bush's approval several points lower than any other poll.
Ipsos is French owned and is known to get skewed results preferred by their French patrons. When the US had President Clinton who governed by polls, having a polling outfit that delivers numbers that a foreign government wants is a powerful, yet subtle, method to influence US policy. When France Polls America
Posted by: ed ||
12/19/2005 7:01 Comments ||
Top||
Wait, no I didn't! What I heard is that the 'majority of the American public want a timetable for withdrawal.' NPR must be behind in their polling. It'll be out any day now, just you wait....
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., believes President Bush is acting more like a sovereign monarch than an elected leader by authorizing the National Security Agency to listen in on Americans' phone calls. "We have a system of law," Feingold said. "He just can't make up the law ⊠It would turn George Bush not into President George Bush, but King George Bush."
If Bush hadn't been monitoring enemy communications, both into and out of the country â and within it â he'd be an idiot. And when we got attacked again, it would be people like Feingold who'd be screaming for his head for incompetence.
The issue lies in the interpretation of the Afghanistan resolution passed by Congress following the World Trade Center attacks on 9/11. The eavesdropping issue came to the forefront when The New York Times reported Friday that the NSA has been listening to domestic phone calls to foreign countries since 2002. In a televised radio address Saturday, Bush said he has reauthorized the NSA's new powers over 30 times since 9/11, and "intend(s) to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups." The president, and members of his staff including Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and White House counsel Harriet Miers, reevaluate the spying every 45 days. Bush said the surveillance helps catch terrorists and is within the scope of his Constitutional powers.
If you don't believe, or don't want to believe that there are terrs working in the country, then you can make lots of political hay out of that. If you've been paying any attention for the past four years you know the terrs are there. Only if you can't conceive of the terrs winning or â and this is what I think is probably the case â you think the fight can be put off until your party's the one in power in the Sweet By and By can you feel comfortable playing fast and loose with national security. I don't think goofs like Feingold take the War on Terror seriously because it's far, far away. The WTC bodies are cold and the attention span has long since run out. Pfeh.
Indeed, the only way the Dems reaction to this non-affair make any sense is if you assume they don't believe there is really a War on Terror. Their response, particularly people like Pelosi and Feingold, displays the usual liberal attitude: the WoT should be a law-enforcement affair only, with lawyers, prosecutors, and judges, all carefully circumscribed and careful. We wouldn't want to violate someone's civil rights, after all. The WoT is much more than simple law enforcement, of course, and that's one reason why you listen in on what the bad guys are doing. It's about stopping them BEFORE they strike, figuring out their chain of command and organizational chart, learning the players, and finding weaknesses you can exploit with new operations. Once you get that, you understand why the NSA wants to listen in. They don't get it.
Since the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration, the executive branch's power has been significantly restrained, Bush administration officials say. It has been the mission of White House officials such as Vice President Dick Cheney to reassert executive power. Bush claims the eavesdropping was done with Congress's blessing. "Leaders in Congress have been briefed more than a dozen times on this authorization and the activities conducted under it," he said in Saturday's address.
Which is what makes me consider this entire hoorah nothing but politix as usual, and politix at its smelliest.
According to the Risen article in the NYT on Friday, Sen. Rockefeller expressed 'concerns' at some point in one of these briefings early on. The response of the Bush administration? They temporarily suspended the program and adjusted some of the procedures. Ditto when the Foreign Intelligence Service Court Judge expressed concerns: procedures were re-worked. When DoJ career attorneys expressed concerns about linking NSA intel to criminal prosecution, the AG stepped in and ensured that proper procedures were followed. That doesn't sound like a runaway operation, now does it?
Nonetheless, ABC News chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos sees the controversy shaping up as a "full-scale political war."
Which is, of course, much more important than the war on the turbans.
"War on the Turbans" has a nice ring to it, dontcha think? Gets right to the point.
Democratic leaders like Representative Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., have sent letters to the president to protest the eavesdropping revelation, Stephanopoulos said.
Rockefeller is a full-fledged hypocrite: he is on the Senate Intel Committee. He knew about this from day one. The Risen article notes his previous concerns. If he thought this was illegal, why didn't he say so?
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The NSA and the CIA arent local cops outside your house with their ear to a drinking glass on you livingroom window. They arent listening in on people who are trying to sell a $50 bag of pot. They are trying to catch or derail terrorist plots. We're talking missiles and bombs here people, not the petty bullshit the ACLU's members are worried about getting caught for. The day those assholes flew into the twin towers our lives changed forever. We may never have the liberties we once did, but that is preferable, I think, to having a suitcase nuke go off in Los Angeles.
#2
Senator Russ was sort of liberal in high school (he was a year behind me) and an excellant debater. He really didn't turn socialist until he went to school at UW Madison (20 square miles surrounded by reality)in the early 70's, although his dad was a "Bob LaFollette Progressive". Nice kid, too bad he went down the "other path".
#4
Feingold Says Bush Is Acting Like 'King George'
Well, I say Feingold is acting like Stalin! With his (joined by McCain) campaign-finance bill on political speech, they seriously hampered free speech, in my mind (although, there was the standard loophole for moveon.org, etc.).
Posted by: BA ||
12/19/2005 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Besoeker wrote: Why is it so many "Americans," lawyers, politicians, et al, with last names that end in "gold" or "stein" hate America and our leadership so much?
We try not to delete trolling remarks, preferring to ridicule them instead. Remarks that edge towards hatred and incitement are a bit different and, as Pappy noted, that one is edging pretty close to the line.
But it's also important to note that the Burg is a place where strong opinions are generally welcomed, with the few exceptions mentioned above.
#11
The answer to Besoeker's question is: because so many people changed their name from Feuchtschwanz when they came over from Germany in the years following 1848. You'll find feuchtschwanz in the big German dictionary. You know, the one you used to use as a booster seat when Susie was little, 'cause it was too big to be a doorstop. Because it isn't a very nice word, that's why.
#12
Geez, appears old the old Besoeker opened up a can of worms. I have the greatesty admiration for the State of Israel and the struggle they have gone through from 1947 until now. I definately believe Hitler was responsible for the death of 6m Jews and others during WWII. But I also believe there is an American Jewish segment of our population in America that hates our form of democracy and believes liberal socialism of the Soviet order is the road we should travel. If you study the Russian revolution closely, before the entrance of Stalin, you may see the link.
Admit you were tactless and apologise like an honourable man, because clearly you think there are two kinds of Jewish people: those that agree with you, and the other kind. This does not strike me as antisemitism. Especially if you agree that there are lots of the other kind of people who are not Jewish. And lots of those who agree with you who also aren't Jewish. Then let's move on, because you've been posting a great many interesting and informative things lately, and I'd really hate for you to annoy our good moderators out of sheer clumsiness.
#14
There are "two kinds of people" with whom we all associate, those with whom we agree, and those with whom we may not agree. I do not agree with socialists of any flavour or nationality. It would appear to me that a great lot of the leftest media and liberal polititions in this country are inspired or championed by Hollywood movie moguls, ACLU lawyers, or socialists of a similiar nature. I suppose it could be mere coincidence that many of them they share the same faith, but I doubt it. I'll apologize to no one. You are welcome to disagree.
MIAMI BEACH, Fla. (AP) -- A seaplane carrying at least 16 people crashed Monday off Miami Beach within sight of the city's high-rises, and at least six people were killed, authorities said. Scuba divers and rescuers in speedboats struggled to reach the victims. The propeller-driven Chalk's Ocean Airways plane went down around 2:30 p.m. "We're still trying to get people out of the water," said Javier Otero, Miami Beach Fire Department support services chief.
Law enforcement officers searched for victims via boats and helicopters and were joined by others in private boats, on Jet Skis and on surfboards. Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Chris O'Neil said at least six bodies were recovered.
A witness, Frank Amadeo, told WSVN-TV that he saw a huge explosion in the sky and the plane fall behind a condominium tower on Biscayne Bay in Miami Beach. The Coast Guard said the cause of the crash was not immediately known, and it could not confirm whether there had been an explosion. The National Transportation Safety Board said it will investigate. Otero said the plane was one that regularly flies to and from the Bahamas, but he did not immediately know whether the aircraft was incoming or outgoing. TV helicopter footage showed debris in Government Cut, the channel that ships take past South Beach into the Port of Miami.
Chalk's Ocean Airways was founded in 1919. Its floating planes take off on the water. Chalk's aircraft have been featured in TV shows such as "Miami Vice."
Yup, it's that seaplane
Founded by Arthur "Pappy" Chalk, the airline thrived during Prohibition, taking bootleggers, their customers and customs agents to Bimini. One of its planes was hijacked to Cuba in 1974 and the company has since had a policy of not carrying enough fuel to get to Havana.
According to FlightSafe Consultants' Airline Safety Web site, Chalk's has had no known fatal accidents. Similarly, the NTSB database shows no fatal accidents for Chalk's since 1982, when the database started. The airline had no comment after the crash.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/19/2005 16:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A propeller seaplane carrying 18 passengers and two crew members crashed off Miami Beach, killing at least 14 people, authorities said. No survivors have been found. Fourteen bodies were recovered after the Chalk's Ocean Airways plane crashed around 2:30 p.m., Coast Guard spokesman Dana Warr said. The passengers included three infants. The plane was headed to Bimini and was operating under visual flight rules, said Kathleen Bergen, a spokeswoman for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/19/2005 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
IIRC, these birds are old Grumman Goose amphibians, still running on avgas and radial engines. Given the overwhelming danger of corrosion in a seaplane, the possibility of a fuel leak and fire seems fairly strong.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
12/19/2005 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Latest I read is 19 bodies recovered (including 3 babies, god rest their poor souls), and the 20th presumed dead.
A lot of people lost family and friends today. It's a terrible shame.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/19/2005 21:11 Comments ||
Top||
Scrappleface, of course!
Just days after the New York Times released classified information about eavesdropping by the NSA on Americans linked to international terrorists, President George Bush at a news conference today announced creation of a new website which allows people to voluntarily exclude their phone numbers and email addresses from NSA wiretap lists.
The new National Do Not Wiretap Registry (DoNotWiretap.gov) follows the successful DoNotCall.gov model of allowing citizens to opt-out of harassment by electronic means.
âIf youâre concerned that your civil rights might be violated simply because some al Qaeda member has your information in his cellphone or computer,â the president said, âthen go to DoNotWiretap.gov, enter your contact phone number, email address, and names of terrorists who might have you on speed dial and weâll let the National Security Administration know that you donât want them eavesdropping on you.â
Crowds, overpasses and cars parked on the side of the road all made Capt. Tamara Montgomery nervous in the months after she came home.
She also struggled to come down from the adrenaline high that kept her going in Iraq, and had nightmares of the day insurgents ambushed her convoy. âRight now, Iâm pretty much back to normal. But the first six months were tough,â says Montgomery, 44, of Lansdale, Pa.
An Army reservist for 22 years, Montgomery was sent to Iraq in April 2003 as part of a civil affairs unit. She oversaw more than 20 reconstruction and medical resupply projects, created a program at the University of Hillah to translate Western classics into Arabic, and won the prestigious General Douglas McArthur Award for her leadership.
She also survived three firefights.
One nearly killed her.
Insurgents peppered Montgomeryâs convoy with automatic rifle fire on April 11, 2004, killing a Romanian security guard in her SUV. Montgomery, the rear gunner, was shot in the leg, and shrapnel severed the brachial artery in her arm. She managed to kill two insurgents, according to the military. âAfter a while the training just becomes automatic, and when youâre in the firefight, your brain doesnât even think, your body automatically does what itâs supposed to do,â Montgomery says.
Twenty months later, she is recovered from her wounds and back at her job as a biologist at Merck & Co. She could retire from the military.
But she says she likes it too much. âThere is good being done, a lot of good being done. We want to see it finished. We want to see the Iraqi government (and the Iraqi military) be able to take over their country before we come home. Otherwise, all weâve done is for naught.â
Thank you ma'am.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/19/2005 00:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Capt. Tamara Montgomery
An inspirational story and soldier.
Indeed you are Captian
Posted by: Red Dog ||
12/19/2005 6:09 Comments ||
Top||
A U.S. Army officer was arrested on Thursday for stealing between $80,000 and $100,000 in funds from the U.S. governing administration in Iraq and using the money to install a deck and hot hub in her New Jersey home. The U.S. Justice Department said Army Reserve Lt. Col. Debra Harrison, 47, who served with the Coalition Provisional Authority, was arrested on charges involving bribery, money laundering and fraud. Harrison is the second army officer and the fourth person charged in the past few weeks in connection with the scheme.
New Jersey - why am I not surprised.
The Justice Department said Harrison was on active duty for the U.S. Army in 2003 and 2004, and was responsible for developing contract solicitations and ordering contracts for reconstruction efforts for the Coalition Provisional Authority -- South Central Region. According to court papers, Harrison and her co-conspirators accepted money and gifts in return for using their official positions to rig contract bids.
An affidavit filed in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey said she used the money to add a deck and put in a hot tub at her home in Trenton, New Jersey, accepted a Cadillac Escalade worth about $50,000 and a $6,000 airline ticket from a contractor in return for rigging the bids. Harrison was also accused of laundering funds from the CPA.
In the affidavit, Harrison was also charged with numerous firearms charges, including conspiring to embezzle and possess pistols, automatic machine guns and grenade launchers bought with CPA funds. She is charged along with her co-conspirators of using the CPA funds to buy dozens of firearms and related military-grade hardware in North Carolina for their own use.
May be time for a little 'intensive' questioning...
If convicted, Harrison faces up to 30 years in prison.
It better be the full 30; none of this white-collar-crime plea-bargain stuff. She and the others are a disgrace to the uniform.
#5
Hope the boys back in the hood liked all the guns.
Thank you US Army leadership for your lovely affirmative action programs. You deserve exactly what you get with kak such as this!
#6
Interesting. Because of some rewrite of the law back in the 90's, they have the choice to return her to active duty to face court martial charges for the acts committed during her uniform time in Iraq or they can let the DoJ just process her under federal laws or a combination of both as there are some charges which one status will not be covered by the other and therefore not double jeopardy. I'll take Roadkill for 100, Alex.
Jamhoori Watan Party leader Shahid Bugti claimed on Saturday that Frontier Corps personnel had taken up positions in trenches in Dera Bugti they had vacated after Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Senator Mushahid Hussain reached a peace agreement with local tribes. Locals confirmed that the FC men were mobilised and both sides had taken up positions. Tribesmen and Frontier Corps had vacated the positions after armed clashes on March 17 which left more than 70 people dead. Shahid Bugti said that the FC had set up new posts. He said he did not know why the FC was mobilised, but it could be preparing for an "aggression". He said the Baloch Liberation Army had accepted responsibility for the firing of rockets in Kohlu recently but this was no reason for the government to target Dera Bugti.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So in front of them they pissed of the Iranians by trying to kill their president.
In the back they have the Frontier Corps preparing an offensive.
Why have they picked a fight with everybody at once?
#3
While I'd be the first to denounce this attitude in mooselimbs, I'd also argue that this is the attitude of every two-bit dictator ruled country. We need to SERIOUSLY look at our foreign aid programs, and not just to the muslims (think ZimBOBwe, Central America, and heck, even Canada).
Posted by: BA ||
12/19/2005 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hell, I'm just about sick to death of having to give my money to our own ignorant trash. Why should we have to support people who spit in our face as they hold their hands out for more?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/19/2005 19:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't know of a good way to get around the thug problem in Iraq or in Middle Eastern culture as a whole.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
12/19/2005 19:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The irony of women voting that frustrates those who advocate the vote for women, is that women invariably tend to vote for whoever their husbands and family vote for.
That is, the suffragists expect the women to vote the radical ticket, but when given the chance, they tend to vote conservative.
I guess I'm really a man, then, Anonymoose, and Mr. Wife needs to add an S to his first name.
Try instead, people who marry one another tend to have certain key goals in common, and this often enough leads them to the same point politically. In many of that subset, the husband chose a political party/leader to do his thinking for him in the same way he became a fan of a certain football team (World or American, the team-choosing behaviour is the same) when he was 10, and has cheered for them ever after. And the wife lets her husband's party think for her as well, because she chose her husband a long time ago, and that was quite enough thinking, thankyouverymuch.
Or are you suggesting that all men seriously research all the possibilities before each election in order to choose the one best suited to handle the current situation? And the women close their eyes and vote for the one their hatpin landed on?
December 19, 2005: One of the major claims made by those who oppose continued assistance to Iraq is the fact that the intelligence was faulty. The charges often focus on the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) that have not been found, as well as assertions that the Administration has accused Saddam Husseinâs regime of having something to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The weapons of mass destruction issue got much of the focus prior to the war. The reason for this concern was quite obvious: Saddam Hussein could provide those materials to terrorists who would use them in an attack against the United States. When American forces went into Iraq in 2003, no stockpiles were found. In the summer of 2003, the first claims of an intelligence failure (or worse) were made.
It needs to be noted that intelligence is not exactly a science. The idea that intelligence agencies providing a very clear picture is more Hollywood than fact. Often, they deal in probabilities. They also miss things, even in the course of shining moments (such as the American codebreakers missing the presence of the Yamato and the Main Body at Midway in 1942).
These charges, however, were themselves a case of overstatement. Reports by David Kay and Charles Duelfer showed that Iraq was maintaining the ability to produce chemical weapons and long-range missiles. General Tommy Franks described the Iraqi programs as being the equivalent of a disassembled pistol. This is hardly a severe intelligence failure- it is more a case of intelligence agencies taking the worst-case scenario (a prudent measure in the wake of a terrorist attack that had killed nearly 3,000 people and the underestimation of Iraqâs progress towards nuclear weapons after Desert Storm in 1991), and discovering that their assessments had been a little too pessimistic. In May of 2004, a sarin shell was used in a roadside bomb. American forces have also found at least one shell carrying mustard gas.
The other charge centers on the claims that the Administration has linked Saddam Husseinâs regime to the September 11 attacks. This is an outright misrepresentation of what the Administration has said about the rationale for liberating Iraq. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein was reassessed within the context of the attacks. This is not to say that there are no signs of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. One document recovered by a Toronto Star reporter in April, 2003, discussed bringing an envoy from bin Laden to Baghdad to âdiscuss the future of our relationshipâ with Osama bin Laden. There were reports of contacts as well. Two of the most intriguing are Mohammed Attaâs reported meeting with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April, 2001 and the actions of Ahmed Hikmat Shakir in Malaysia in January, 2000 (Shakir got a job as a greeter at Kuala Lampurâs international airport via the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia (which controlled his work schedule, attended an al Qaeda summit, then left Malaysia). An evidence summary for one al Qaeda detainee indicated that he traveled to Pakistan with an Iraqi intelligence officer for the purposes of carrying out an attack on the American and British embassies in August, 1998. Another document recovered by the Department of Defense during Operation Iraqi Freedom is an al Qaeda training manual for chemical warfare that contained papers concerning Iraqi officials, training, equipment prices, and manuals for setting up a chemical weapons plant. These documents were dated February, 2002.
The claims that American intelligence suffered failures in Iraq are largely hype. Much of the evidence of such failures has been âcherry-pickedâ to cast the Administration in a bad light. In this case, the âfailureâ exists largely in the minds of the media and critics.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/19/2005 11:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Intelligence failures.
Pearl Harbor, December 1941
German Winter Offensive Belgium, December 1944
Chinese Intervention Korea, November 1950
Tet Offensive Vietnam, January 1968
The Soviet Invasion of Czechoslovakia, August 1968
Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait, August 1990
With a record like that, why would anyone gamble that Saddam was playing a shell game in his non-compliance with UN inspections?
And look at things in context: Could any US President take the risk that we were mistaken with respect to WMD and Saddamn? Given the history, and the 9/11 attacks, no.
But dont say we were completely wrong until Syria is searched completely.
Thousands of angry Iraqis took to the streets to protest government-imposed gasoline price increases as the oil minister threatened to resign if the measure was not reversed.
As insurgent attacks left at least five dead and 11 wounded in Baghdad on Monday, the US military announced that eight former high-level detainees from the regime of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein have been released.
Police fired in the air to disperse some 3,000 stone-throwing demonstrators in the southern city of Nasiriyah who took to the streets in the wake of Sunday's government announcement of a 300 percent increase in gasoline prices.
Local officials, in a bid to restore calm, ordered petrol stations to cancel the price hikes.
In the southern towns of Amarah, several dozen demonstrators threw stones at a British army patrol while chanting slogans hostile to Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari.
Security forces dispersed demonstrators who surrounded petrol stations in Baquba, northeast of Baghdad, while further demonstrations took place in the northern city of Tikrit.
Oil Minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum threatened to resign unless the government cancelled a decision to raise gasoline (prices) from 50 to 150 dinars (0.03 usd to 0.10 usd).
"I call on the government to hold off on implementing this decision. One shouldn't punish Iraqis who risked their lives going to vote (in general elections on Thursday) by increasing prices," the minister said.
Nearly half the government's budget currently goes to subsidizing goods and services, mostly in the energy sector.
In the latest round of violence, a few hours after US President George Bush stressed that his country was winning the war in Iraq, gunmen wounded Baghdad's deputy governor, Ziyad Tarek al-Zubai, and killed three of his bodyguards in an ambush on his convoy in southern Baghdad.
A civilian and another bodyguard were also hurt, an interior ministry official said.
And in a second attack, a car bomb killed two civilians and wounded eight people, including three policemen, in an attack on a police colonel.
Colonel Salam Aalag Zahal, police chief in the capital's southern district of Dura, was driving to work when the bomb exploded. Both he and two bodyguards were hurt.
Meanwhile, the US military said it had released eight former top officials linked to the Saddam Hussein regime.
US military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, who declined to reveal their names, said the detainees were originally held as suspects on charges of war crimes and as material witnesses, but were no longer deemed to have information.
Al-Arabiya satellite channel said those released included Humam Abdel Khaleq, a former minister of higher education, Ahmed Murtada, a former transport minister, and Asil Tabrah, a former official of the country's Olympic committee.
Meanwhile, scores of electoral officials were working around the clock to tabulate results following Thursday's general elections, the first to a full-term parliament since the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.
Some 70 percent of the electorate turned out to vote.
On Sunday, vice-president Adel Abdel Mahdi said his United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite-backed coalition, was "close" to winning an absolute majority of the 138 parliamentary seats.
But the electoral commission has warned that preliminary indications released by political parties should be "taken with the upmost caution". It said it would start giving initial election results as of Tuesday, while warning that final results may not be out before the end of the year.
A Sunni Arab extremist group close to Al-Qaeda issued a videotape on the Internet which showed the execution of a man described as an American contractor held hostage in Iraq.
The Islamic Army in Iraq had earlier said statement on December 8 that it had killed Ronald Schultz, a security contractor. The US State Department said it could not confirm his death.
However German archaeologist and aid worker Susanne Osthoff has been released, Germany's foreign minister said.
He said Osthoff, 43, was at the German embassy in Baghdad. Her Iraqi driver Shalid al-Shimani has also been released.
Susanne Osthoff, a convert to Islam who has lived in Iraq for 10 years, was seized with her driver on November 25 in the Nineveh region of northwest Iraq.
Several other western hostages, including at a Briton, a US and two Canadian aid workers, are still being held in Iraq.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/19/2005 10:34 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah, they're right, 10cents is too much for a gallon of gas.
#3
Gas for less than a .20 cents per gal has been the norm for years as I recall. What always amazed me was the way they knew when the tank was full. Automatic shut off's were not common, so they'd calmly (muzzies don't like to hurry) get out and walk to the back of the car or bakkie when they heard it splashing on the ground. No OSHA over there evidently.
Wanted
Izzat Ibrahim Al-Doori (Al-Duri)Up to $10 Million Reward
Al-Doori is wanted in connection with the spree of violence directed against United States personnel and facilities in Iraq.
Al-Doori was the former Vice Chairman of the Iraqi Republican Command Council and has provided substantial support and coordination to international terrorist groups.
If you have any information about Al-Doori please contact the nearest Iraqi or Coalition Security Force, or use the following e-mail address: tips@orha.centcom.mil or call Baghdad; 778-7096 -- from outside of baghdad: 01-778-4096.
The newspaper of Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari published a political cartoon attacking the pan-Arab Al-Jazeera satellite channel and accusing it of defaming Shiite religious leaders. The channel's intricate Arabic calligraphy logo was rendered as a nest of intertwined vipers by cartoonist Ali al-Saadi, following the airing on Jazeera of an interview with an Iraqi writer criticizing the Shiite leaders. "In response to the tongues of vipers, Iraqis shout with a single voice: 'You are our crown, Sayyed Ali Sistani,'" said the paper's headline, referring to the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
In a debate on Al-Jazeera last week, Fadel al-Rubaye, a London-based writer, said Shiite religious leaders, particularly Sistani, had "favored the entry of American troops in Iraq" and had urged Iraqis not to resist the occupation. On Saturday, Jaafari accused the satellite chain of wronging the Iraqi people and called on it to mend its ways. Jazeera has said that the views of its guests, which in this case caused major demonstrations in Iraq, did not necessarily reflect its own.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Al-Jazeera is based in Qatar, I think. Could it be that this is a Sectarian squabble? Are Qataris Sunni by any chance? I'm asking not saying.
I really hope that the Shiites are not going to go running back to Iran after we leave Iraq.
The European Union, the biggest donor to the Palestinian Authority, could curb aid if Hamas Islamic militants win a parliamentary election next month, Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana said on Sunday. Hamas, which is sworn to destroying Israel and has spearheaded a suicide bombing campaign, is putting up candidates for parliament for the first time on Jan. 25. It is expected to do well against President Mahmoud Abbas's fractured Fatah.
"It is very difficult that parties that do not condemn violence ... without changing those positions can be partners for the future," Solana told reporters in Tel Aviv. If Hamas won, he said, it would be "very difficult that help and the money that goes to ... the Palestinian Authority will continue to flow".
Palestinian Cabinet Minister Saeb Erekat called Solana's comments "unacceptable", saying: "This is a direct intervention in our internal affairs ... Mr Solana and others should respect the choice of the Palestinian people."
They keep using that word "unacceptable." I do not think it means what they think it means.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What'sa matter? EU beginning to feel the (budgetary) pinch?
#3
The European Union, the biggest donor to the Palestinian Authority, could curb aid if Hamas Islamic militants win a parliamentary election next month, Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana said on Sunday.
#4
I agree, BAR, but on the other hand, where is our president on this? He should be out front. Is the Republican party going to go along with economic assistance to a Hamas-led Palestine? Fine, the House raised a stink; but Bush has the bully pulpit and is silent about it. Why?
Rival groups in the Palestinian ruling party Fatah said on Sunday they had struck a deal to present two separate lists of candidates for January parliamentary elections as a way to end discord. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been trying to heal a rift between veterans of the late Yasser Arafat's era and younger members demanding a bigger share of power. The rift has boosted the poll prospects of the Islamic militant group Hamas. Under the agreement reached after days of debate, each group will present its own list of candidates for the Jan. 25 elections, but they will not put forward lists that contain the same names, Fatah officials said.
"It was decided that Fatah will go to elections with two separate lists," party official Qaddoura Fares told Reuters. "This will not weaken the group. On the contrary we will be breathing from two lungs and will unify our efforts to beat Hamas in a democratic way."
Fatah's younger members have voiced fears that continued domination by the old guard, widely viewed as tainted by corruption, will deny them a say in the party and prompt many Fatah supporters to defect to Hamas. Hamas has grown in popularity over a corruption-free reputation, extensive charity network and its role in suicide bombings and rocket attacks against Israel. The rift came into the open last week when younger Fatah members refused to accept Abbas's choice of candidates for parliament and filed their own list, led by jailed Fatah firebrand Marwan Barghouthi.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"It was decided that Fatah will go to elections with two separate lists," party official Qaddoura Fares told Reuters. "This will not weaken the group. On the contrary we will be breathing from two lungs and will unify our efforts to beat Hamas in a democratic way."
Every Palestinian should have a country of his own (women don't count).
December 19, 2005: Fear of Western technological espionage capabilities appears to have caused al Qaeda serious communications problems. Apparently some personnel and operations have been compromised because of hi-tech monitoring of telephone (both wire and cell), radio, and internet communications, even when relatively complex encryption techniques have been used. As a result, al Qaeda appears to have fallen on less sophisticated means of keeping in touch, such as couriers. This has slowed al Qaeda activities considerably, since couriers may take months to move from place to place, particularly if they are traveling from some wild remote area, such as from the Northwest Frontier region of Pakistan, where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding, or trying to enter or leave a war zone.
Although al Qaeda is a âflatâ organization, with its tentacles largely autonomous, the central leadership plays an important role in providing guidance, funding, and coordination. Osama bin Ladenâs apparent inability to curb some of the anti-Moslem violence perpetrated by Abu Musab al Zarqawi, leader of Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq, is perhaps partially attributable to the organizationâs increasing communications difficulties. Even the couriers are not safe, and there has been a considerable effort to track down and capture them. Some have apparently been caught, which results in a valuable trove of intel information.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/19/2005 11:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ditch the cellulars. Try the signal flags, or a rug over a burning truck tire. They'll never see you from the air.
Thailand should end its policy of blacklisting suspected militants in the restive south because it could lead to arbitrary detention and torture, a U.S.-based human rights group said.
What's a Thailand-based human rights group have to say about it?
A report released Saturday by Human Rights Watch said Thai authorities are using "flawed blacklists" to pressure innocent Muslims to surrender to authorities.
HRW, of course, has a much better handle on which Moose limbs are innocent and which aren't, if any.
The policy has heightened fear and mistrust in the region where fighting between Muslim insurgents and the military has left more than 1,100 dead over the past 23 months, the New York-based group said.
See, that just goes to show what a dumbass I am. I thought it was the Moose limbs chopping people's heads off that heightened fear and mistrust. Just goes to show what I know.
"The use of blacklists is eroding trust between Muslim villagers and the government because they are being used arbitrarily and without due process of law," said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch. "Muslim villagers are living in fear that they will be told by district officials and security forces to surrender to authorities or face arrest or worse." Government spokesman Suraphong Suebwonglee said he had not seen the report and could not comment specifically on the allegations. But he said the government has "performed its duty in accordance (with the) constitution and national security acts."
"So piss off."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The policy has heightened fear and mistrust in the region where fighting between Muslim insurgents and the military has left more than 1,100 dead over the past 23 months, the New York-based group said.
Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned all Western music from Iran's state radio and TV stations â an eerie reminder of the 1979 Islamic revolution when popular music was outlawed as "un-Islamic" under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. It's OK to play Rock and Rap...just not Western music. I hear a fatwah was issued against Garth Brooks and Trisha Yearwood.
Today, though, the sounds of hip-hop can be heard blaring from car radios in Tehran's streets, and Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles' "Hotel California" regularly accompany Iranian broadcasts. At least they weren't listening to the BeeGee's
No more â the official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of the Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban all Western music, including classical music, on state broadcast outlets. That damned Bach was such so subversive.
"Blocking indecent and Western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is required," according to a statement on the council's official Web site. Actually...banning Babs or the BeeGee's would not be so bad.
Iranian guitarist Babak Riahipour lamented what he called a "terrible" decision. "The decision shows a lack of knowledge and experience," he said. The mullahs are not exactly running the show as a popularity contest. I don't think they think, or care.
Music was outlawed by Khomeini soon after the 1979 revolution. Many musicians went abroad and built an Iranian music industry in Los Angeles.
But as revolutionary fervor started to fade, some light classical music was allowed on Iranian radio and television; some public concerts reappeared in the late 1980s.
In the 1990s, particularly during the presidency of reformist
Mohammad Khatami starting in 1997, authorities began relaxing restrictions further. These days in Iran, Western music, films and clothing are widely available in Iran. Bootleg videos and DVDs of films banned by the state are widely available on the black market.
Ahmadinejad's order means the state broadcasting authority must execute the decree and prepare a report on its implementation within six months, according to the IRAN Persian daily. Thank goodness for beauracracy.
Earlier this month, Ali Rahbari, conductor of Tehran's symphony orchestra, resigned and left Iran to protest the treatment of the music industry in Iran.
Before leaving, he played Beethoven's Ninth Symphony to packed Tehran theater houses over several nights last month â its first performance in Tehran since the 1979 revolution. The performances angered many conservatives and prompted newspaper columns accusing Rahbari of promoting Western values. That truly took a set...given what the blackhats did to a canadian female journalist.
The ban applies to state-run radio and TV. But Iranians with satellite dishes can get broadcasts originating outside the country.
Ahmadinejad won office in August on a platform of reverting to ultraconservative principles, following the eight years of reformist-led rule under Khatami.
During his presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad also promised to confront what he called the Western cultural invasion of Iran and promote Islamic values. Keep it up, frog-face. There are millions of Iranians under the age of 21...the power base that swept Khomeini into power. They can sweep you and your friends right out.
Since then, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.
He also has issued stinging criticisms of Israel, calling for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map" and describing the Nazi Holocaust as a "myth." Looks like David Duke has another stop on his tour.
International concerns are high over Iran's nuclear program, with the United States accusing Tehran of pursuing an atomic weapons program. Iran denies the claims.
The latest media ban also includes censorship of content of films.
"Supervision of content from films, TV series and their voice-overs is emphasized in order to support spiritual cinema and to eliminate triteness and violence," the council said in a statement on its Web site.
The council has also issued a ban on foreign movies that promote "arrogant powers," an apparent reference to the United States. What about "Austin powers"? Are they banning "Austin powers", too?
The probibitions mirror those imposed in neighboring
Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, which imposed a strict version of Islamic law, including a ban on music and film. The Taliban was ousted by a U.S.-led coalition in late 2001.
At this rate, the US will not have to fire a shot. These douche bags are going to do themselves in.
December 19, 2005: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has garnered some unwelcome publicity by calling publicly for the destruction of Israel and, most recently, for Israel to be moved out of the Middle East, to Europe or North America. Thereâs an irony in this, as about 60 percent of native born Israelis are of Middle Eastern heritage. After Israel was formed in 1948, most Middle Eastern countries expelled their Jewish population. These Jews had been living in the region, well, forever, and looked just like their neighbors. Perhaps Ahmadinejad, an Indo-European (Iranians are ethnically related to Europeans by DNA and language), canât tell one Semite from another. Maybe the Iranians should go back to where they came from (Central Asia), something their Arab neighbors would appreciate. Since the Iranians showed up in the neighborhood 3,000 years ago, the Semites, and other groups, have had nothing but trouble with these warlike Indo-European invaders.
Posted by: Steve ||
12/19/2005 12:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
A video recording showing some people, implicated in last week's murder of Lebanese MP Gibran Tueni is now available with local authorities, a judiciary source said Monday.
Let's see if the Leb Master Detectives can do anything with it...
The source, who preferred to remain anonymous, told KUNA that Chief Investigating Magistrate into the murder Rashid Mezher now possesses a video recording of some of the perpetrators. "The recording was made by an outside camera in one of the factories across the road from the site of the car bomb explosion, which caused the accident and killed the MP and journalist," the source said.
I don't think I'd call it an accident, though. Accidents don't happen on purpose.
The booby-trapped car had preceded by five minutes the convoy and was met by a BMW car. Two men left the booby-trapped car and sped away from the scene in the waiting BMW car, the source said. It added that the film showing all this would now be sent to a European country, where the film would be better developed in order to reach a clear picture of the persons involved in the murder, the source said. It added that such a film constituted an important evidence in the hands of the authorities to lead them to the mastermind of this crime and probably others like it.
It's probably a blurry, grainy, ultra-slow-play surveillance tape shot through a grimy lens, but at least they know they're looking for a BMW, light or dark in color. I'd guess one was abandoned shortly after the boom, though it might yield fingerprints. Two men, so it wasn't a single lone psycho. It's not a Perry Mason moment, but they can do something with it if they want.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/19/2005 11:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Iran on Dec. 19 denied reports that an assassination attempt had occurred against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad five days earlier. A government spokesman said the Dec. 14 incident involved an attack upon a security services vehicle on the road to the port town of Chaharbahar while Ahmadinejad was making a speech in Zahedan, the provincial capital of Sistan-Baluchistan. A local driver and a member of the Revolutionary Guards were killed in the attack.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/19/2005 10:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah, wasn't him. Much like the failed strike on Kimmy's train a year or so ago. He's majik. Can be in 2 places at once, eh?
Posted by: BA ||
12/19/2005 11:08 Comments ||
Top||
A special Iranian plane flew Palestinian Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal to Revolutionary Guards HQ at Bandar Abbas Monday, December 12, after he spent 10 days in Tehran as favored guest of Iranâs clerical rulers - DEBKAfileâs counter-terror report exclusively.
There, he conferred with the RG commanders, heads of its intelligence branch and officers of the al Quds Battalions, which host the men fighting in Iraq under al Qaeda chief Abu Musab al Zarqawi for training, medical aid and rest. Meshall conferred with the RG commanders on operational collaboration between the two Palestinian groups Hamas and Jihad Islami in Gaza and the West Bank and their hook-up with Iranian networks and Hizballah in Lebanon. Tehran is footing the bill for the boost in their terror operations.
DEBKAfile terror experts add: The Bandar Abbas conference also discussed ways and means of bolstering al Qaedaâs presence in the Gaza Strip and helping Osama bin Ladenâs organization spread its wings to the West Bank alongside Meshaalâs own Hamas.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
12/19/2005 10:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Rafi sez - "It is a victory because it is the opposite of what the US and its collaborators sought. The Americans were seeking to occupy the land and intimidate the people from their military bases and embassies by putting a puppet government in power."
Talk about spin!
So a free and fair election was not the 'victory', 'cuz then the somma their folks might want to have one in Iran.
On the other hand, I suppose that's an acknowledgement the new Iraq government is not a puppet of the Great Satan? Doe that mean the Iranians succeeded in stuffing the ballot boxes?
Posted by: Bobby ||
12/19/2005 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
from Best of the Web (yes you have to register, but it's really, really worth it!), who tip their hat to the Instawife. I'm not even going to excerpt this, because it's a really short article, and I know you'll want to read the whole thing. Enjoy!
#1
This could be summarized by saying that "There are two opposing groups in the world. One is those who puts people into two opposing groups, the other group does not."
Actually, this is true, though I would call it the difference between those who see the world in terms of black and white, and those who see it in shades of grey.
From Stalin, religious fundamentalists, to even the Star Wars movies, they are drawn to the clarity of dichotomy. The former reject moral compromise. The window dressing of "beliefs" they use is just that, words to cloak their perceptions of the world. Their only distinction is how extreme their extremism is, how insistent they are that the world conform to their worldview.
Other traits often found in such people include:
1) An absence of real humor. They cannot really laugh at anything, because everything to them is deadly serious.
2) An "Us vs. Them" attitude that depersonalizes both groups.
3) Applying other dichotomies to things. That is, seeing polar opposition in all things. Male, female. Body, spirit. Earth, heaven. Dog, cat. etc.
4) Reliance on "herd" behavior and consensus solutions, yet having an abhorrance to a method of consensus. That is, they want the group to act as a mob, without thinking--thinking leads to doubt and indecision.
5) Hiding behind reason, yet rejecting reasonableness. That is, if it follows the precepts of basic reason on paper, that is good enough. Failure in actual practice can never be blamed on a bad plan. If it fails twelve times in a row, it is the fault of its execution, because the plan is perfect.
6) Finally, their psychology is such that they must have some way of recovering from failure. That is, the day in which the world was supposed to end has come and gone. Now what? They cannot dispose of their worldview, so they go seeking yet another religion or philosophy that will appease their need for dichotomy.
#2
The paper attempts to position the Democratic party as a party of "moderates". On one side, you have Chomsky and on the other, you have Republicans. Democrats, as "moderates", are the owls. The stuff about weakened self-esteem is Fraudian BS - leftists think the world of themselves. Criminals and leftists have one thing in common - big time superiority complexes.
#3
"If they offered their own policy ideas they would be vulnerable to criticism." Just about says everythjing you need to know about the America left today. Case in point: The Dems hate the war and it's management (Bush), but never ever offer a counter policy or direction.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The heavy police presence at several Sydney beachside suburbs at the weekend averted a potential disaster, Assistant Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione has said. More than 2,000 police were on duty as beachgoers heeded police warnings to stay away from the flashpoint areas of Cronulla, Coogee, Bondi and Maroubra, where police had established partial lockdowns. Police wanted to avoid a repeat of the December 11 North Cronulla race riots and the apparent retaliatory attacks that followed.
The French interior minister says that he has fought hard for the rights of the country's estimated five million Muslims and that recent riots had nothing to do with Islam. In an interview with Aljazeera on Sunday, Nicolas Sarkozy discussed the three weeks of rioting by disaffected youths in French cities in October. During the violence thousands of cars and public buildings were set ablaze and thousands of people were arrested.
Sen. 
Jamhoori Watan Party leader Shahid Bugti claimed on Saturday that Frontier Corps personnel had taken up positions in trenches in Dera Bugti they had vacated after Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Senator Mushahid Hussain reached a peace agreement with local tribes. Locals confirmed that the FC men were mobilised and both sides had taken up positions. Tribesmen and Frontier Corps had vacated the positions after armed clashes on March 17 which left more than 70 people dead. Shahid Bugti said that the FC had set up new posts. He said he did not know why the FC was mobilised, but it could be preparing for an "aggression". He said the Baloch Liberation Army had accepted responsibility for the firing of rockets in Kohlu recently but this was no reason for the government to target Dera Bugti.
The newspaper of Iraqi Prime Minister 
The European Union, the biggest donor to the Palestinian Authority, could curb aid if 
Rival groups in the Palestinian ruling party Fatah said on Sunday they had struck a deal to present two separate lists of candidates for January parliamentary elections as a way to end discord. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has been trying to heal a rift between veterans of the late Yasser Arafat's era and younger members demanding a bigger share of power. The rift has boosted the poll prospects of the Islamic militant group Hamas. Under the agreement reached after days of debate, each group will present its own list of candidates for the Jan. 25 elections, but they will not put forward lists that contain the same names, Fatah officials said.
A video recording showing some people, implicated in last week's murder of Lebanese MP 
