Seven years after al-Qaeda terrorists Jamal al-Badawi and Fahd al-Quso confessed to me their crucial involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole, and three years after they were convicted in a Yemeni court -- where a judge imposed a death sentence on Badawi -- they, along with many other al-Qaeda terrorists, are free. On Oct. 12, 2000, when I flew to Yemen to lead the FBI's Cole investigation, I had no idea how uncooperative the Yemeni government would initially be. Nor could I have imagined how disconnected from reality the U.S. ambassador to Yemen then, Barbara K. Bodine, would prove. I have hesitated in the past to share my view of the conflict between Bodine and the FBI's counterterrorism leader, John O'Neill. I feel compelled, however, to respond to Bodine's recent comments, which slander the efforts of many dedicated counterterrorism agents and divert attention from the significant terrorist problem within Yemen, our "ally" in the "war on terror."
The writer makes a pretty good case for hunter-killer teams. We know who the guys are with blood on their hands, and we know Yemen's not going to do anything of substance about our dead.
A recent Post report on Yemen allowing al-Qaeda operatives to go free offered insight into the challenges the FBI faced. Bodine was quoted in the article not urging the Yemeni government to rearrest the terrorists but, instead, denigrating the agents who investigated the attack. She faulted the FBI as being slow to trust Yemeni authorities and said agents were "dealing with a bureaucracy and a culture they didn't understand. . . . We had one group working on a New York minute, and another on a 4,000-year-old history." In fact, our team included several Arab American agents who understood the culture and the region. Even so, such comments were irrelevant. The FBI left Yemen with the terrorists in jail.
HT to Powerline
"That's enough. That – that's a show of disrespect to me."
That was Barack Obama, a couple of weeks back, explaining why he was casting the Rev. Jeremiah Wright into outer darkness. It's "one thing to wallow in "adolescent grandiosity" (as Scott Johnson of the Powerline Web site called it) when it's a family dispute between you and your pastor of 20 years. It's quite another to do so when it's the 60th anniversary celebrations of one of America's closest allies.
President Bush was in Israel the other day and gave a speech to the Knesset. Its perspective was summed up by his closing anecdote – a departing British officer in May 1948 handing the iron bar to the Zion Gate to a trembling rabbi and telling him it was the first time in 18 centuries that a key to the gates of the Jerusalem was in the hands of a Jew. In other words, it was a big-picture speech, referencing the Holocaust, the pogroms, Masada – and the challenges that lie ahead. Sen. Obama was not mentioned in the text. No Democrat was mentioned, save for President Truman, in the context of his recognition of the new state of Israel when it was a mere 11 minutes old. But they heard their names, didn't they?
Nonetheless, Barack Obama decided that the president's speech was really about him, and he didn't care for it. He didn't put it quite as bluntly as he did with the Rev. Wright, but the message was the same: "That's enough. That's a show of disrespect to me." And, taking their cue from the soon-to-be nominee's weirdly petty narcissism, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden and Co. piled on to deplore Bush's outrageous, unacceptable, unpresidential, outrageously unacceptable and unacceptably unpresidential behavior.
Honestly. What a bunch of self-absorbed ninnies. Here's what the president said:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
It says something for Democrat touchiness that the minute a guy makes a generalized observation about folks who appease terrorists and dictators the Dems assume: Hey, they're talking about me. Actually, he wasn't – or, to be more precise, he wasn't talking only about you. LOL, squeal piggies!
Yes, there are plenty of Democrats who are in favor of negotiating with our enemies, and a few Republicans, too – President Bush's pal James Baker, whose Iraq Study Group was full of proposals to barter with Iran and Syria and everybody else. But that general line is also taken by at least three of Tony Blair's former Cabinet ministers and his senior policy adviser, and by the leader of Canada's New Democratic Party and by a whole bunch of bigshot Europeans. It's not a Democrat election policy, it's an entire worldview. Even Barack Obama can't be so vain as to think his fly-me-to-[insert name of enemy here]concept is an original idea.
Increasingly, the Western world has attitudes rather than policies. It's one thing to talk as a means to an end. But these days, for most midlevel powers, talks are the end, talks without end. Because that's what civilized nations like doing – chit-chatting, shooting the breeze, having tea and crumpets, talking talking talking. Uncivilized nations like torturing dissidents, killing civilians, bombing villages, doing doing doing. It's easier to get the doers to pass themselves off as talkers then to get the talkers to rouse themselves to do anything. talking means not having to do anything. B.O. sez he'd have "STRONG DIPLOMACY™", whatever the f*ck that means....
And, as the Iranians understand, talks provide a splendid cover for getting on with anything you want to do. If, say, you want to get on with your nuclear program relatively undisturbed, the easiest way to do it is to enter years of endless talks with the Europeans over said nuclear program. That's why that Hamas honcho endorsed Obama: They know he's their best shot at getting a European foreign minister installed as president of the United States. *smack*
Mo Mowlam was Britain's Northern Ireland secretary and oversaw the process by which the IRA's Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness became ministers of a Crown they decline to recognize. By 2004, she was calling for Osama bin Laden to be invited to "the negotiating table," having concluded he was no different from Adams: Stern fellow, lots of blood on his hands, but no sense getting on your high horse about all that; let's find out what he wants and give him part of it.
In his 2002 letter to the United States, bin Laden has a lot of grievances, from America's refusal to implement Sharia law to Jew-controlled usury to the lack of punishment for "President Clinton's immoral acts." Like Barack Obama's pastor, bin Laden shares the view that AIDS is a "Satanic American invention." Obviously, there are items on the agenda that the free world can never concede on – "President Clinton's immoral acts" – but who's to say most of the rest isn't worth chewing over?
This will be the fault line in the post-Bush war debate over the next few years. Are the political ambitions of the broader jihad totalitarian, genocidal, millenarian – in a word, nuts? Or are they negotiable? President Bush knows where he stands. Just before the words that Barack Obama took umbrage at, he said:
"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously."
Here are some words of Hussein Massawi, the former leader of Hezbollah:
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
Are his actions consistent with those words? Amazingly so. So, too, are those of Hezbollah's patrons in Tehran.
President Reagan talked with the Soviets while pushing ahead with the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe. He spoke softly – after getting himself a bigger stick. Sen. Obama is proposing to reward a man who pledges to wipe Israel off the map with a presidential photo-op to which he will bring not even a twig. No wonder he's so twitchy about it.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/17/2008 11:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
At this juncture, mcZoid, we're rather finicky about collateral damage. But the way things are going, time may come when that would be not much of a consideration.
#3
My part of "we" has already gotten to the point where I'm not in the least bit worried about "collateral damage" - especially in terrorist-ruled areas. They're not worried about "collateral damage" because they don't have any - they intend to kill everyone, even their own people who happen to be in the way while they're killing infidels and Joooooos.
Screw 'em.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/17/2008 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If the shoe fits.... But, I believe that President Bush was referring to Jimmuh Cottuh when he said "Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals...." Carter had just left the area after negotiating with Hamas and the Syrian Baathists and urged Israel and the Bush Administration to do the same.
#6
But, I believe that President Bush was referring to Jimmuh Cottuh...
There are many more besides Carter, some of them in the State Dept., but most in Europe. I don't think he's referring specifically to Palestinian terrorism, either.
Man, the Obama whining on this is just incredible. One of the commenters on that Steyn article says that most Americans would know that Bush was talking about Obama. Jeez, if Obama hadn't come out bawling, I probably never would have heard about Bush's speech, and certainly wouldn't have noticed the appeasement section. The genius aims at his opponents and ends up shooting himself in the foot.
(I think we ought to start calling him Wile E. Obama, because this is definitely a Coyote-level maneuver.)
#4
Uhm, about 90% of nuclear waste is recyclable. We don't need to bury any of that stuff for that long if we don't want to. We already have the technology to reprocess the fuel and the 10% that can't be reprocessed decays in a few hundred years rather than tens of thousands.
Clinton/Gore killed the demonstration project. Look at the December 2005 issue of Scientific American about the fast neutron reactor and smarter ways of dealing with nuclear waste.
The exclusive story of Hillary's fall, as told by the high-level advisors, staffers, fundraisers, and on-the-ground organizers who lived it.
Endings are rarely as joyous as beginnings--and in the case of a long, wearing, and ultimately disappointing campaign, they can be downright brutal. But they also have the potential to be educational, for participants and gawkers alike. So it is that we asked (begged, really) a range of Hillarylanders for their up-close and personal lists of "What Went Wrong?" Not everyone wanted to play. Many stubbornly pointed out that their candidate is not yet dead. But, on the condition of total anonymity, a fairly broad enough cross-section of her staff responded--more than a dozen members all told, from high-level advisors to grunt-level assistants, from money men to on-the-ground organizers.
Many answers fell into a handful of broad themes we've been hearing for months now. (She shouldn't have run as an incumbent. She should have paid more attention to caucus states. She should have kept Bill chained in the basement at Whitehaven with a case of cheese curls and a stack of dirty movies.) Others had a distinct score-settling flavor. One respondent sent in a list of Top 25 screw ups, the first three being:
1. Patti
2. Solis
3. Doyle
While from another corner came another list, reading:
1. Mark Penn
2. Mark Penn
3. Mark Penn
But whether personal or clinical, new or familiar, the critiques are all the more striking for having come directly from those neck-deep in the action. So, here it is, an elegy for Hillary '08, written by some of those who have worked tirelessly to keep it alive.
#4
Emphatically concur with all of the above. Additionally, there was no "spoiler" like Ross Perot there to help them this time. We're in for a real ride however if Robert Mugabe Obama gets into the White House.
#9
"I don't think anybody in America doesn't think she can do the job. What they're dying for is to know a little bit more about her. And we were unable to present that side of her."
I don't think she can do the job. I'm not dying to know a little more about her. I know enough about the Clintons now to last me a lifetime. When it is all said and done, Hillary is just not a very likable person.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/17/2008 08:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just got my signed copy of Yon's book. I'm about halfway through. From what I can see so far, Totten's dead on the money with this review. I had a lot of respect for Yon before; I have more now. From what I understand, he was a very good soldier; IMO, he's a better writer. Ernie Pyle would approve of Yon. Totten too, BTW.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 ||
05/17/2008 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
Mark Leibler
MALCOLM Fraser's opinion piece in last Saturday's Age was marred by contradictions, factual errors and a naivete about world events inconsistent with the hard-nosed, realistic prime minister I knew in the 1970s and '80s.
Mr Fraser implied that the problem in the Middle East is principally Israeli settlement building, and the main solution is direct Israeli talks with Hamas.
#2
They are just tired and waiting for the sweet release of death.
Posted by: ed ||
05/17/2008 6:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
MALCOLM Fraser's opinion piece in last Saturday's Age was marred by contradictions, factual errors and a naivete about world events inconsistent with the hard-nosed, realistic prime minister I knew in the 1970s and '80s.
Worse, Siniora backed down "on the suggestion of the army commander." Lebanon's army cannot and will not fight Hezbollah. When your army tells you bluntly to give the other side what they want, it is no longer your army.
The 2005 "cedar revolution," which ended decades of Syrian military occupation, now stands revealed as merely a change of masters. Iran's Syrian client/partner was replaced by Iran's Hezbollah stooges, who also have the support of Lebanon's Shiites.
The 2006 fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, mostly in southern Lebanon, demonstrated that the government had little sway over Hezbollah's strongholds. And now all of Lebanon, it seems, can be a Hezbollah stronghold, whenever that faction's masters flex their muscles.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
05/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
Compare wid JPOST > THE INSUFFICIENCY OF ISRAEL'S POROUS SOUTHERN BORDER. Mexico in Israel???
#2
TOPIX > JORDANIAN PROFESSOR [Ishmael Alloush] SAYS SUICIDE BOMBERS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR, NON-CONVENTIONAL BOMBS + JORADNIAN PROFESSOR SAYS SUICIDE TERRORISTS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR BOMBS AGZ ISRAEL'S DIMONA REACTOR; + IRAN'S DEFENSE MINISTER:ISRAEL IS TOO WEAK AND VULNERABLE TO ATTACK IRAN, + IRAN WILL STRIKE BACK IF ISRAEL ATTACKS SYRIA, HEZBOLLAH IN LEBANON.
#5
Actually, Hesb'allah doesn't rule Lebanon. It controls it. Insurgencies (foreign-backed or domestic) don't want to rule; that means becoming the government.
Much harder to carry out Iran and Syria's bidding when you're 'official'.
#6
The Hezbies have all the power but none of the responsibility. Nice work, if you can get it.
Hezb, Hamas...they're all heads of the Iranian hydra. Kill the body and the heads will die. Until then, both we and Israel will be fighting proxy wars against Iranian-backed terrorists.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 ||
05/17/2008 18:21 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Hizbollah is a recognized terror group, that has murdered hundreds of Americans. Therefore: make south Lebanon look like the Moon. Obstacle: support for the 2-state solution (cough) requires indulgence of all potential peace (cough) partners (cough). Makes sense to a moron.
Why was it so easy to burn to death 200,000 Tokyo civilians, 60,000 Dresden residents, not to mention another couple of hundred thousand charcoaled citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Editorialists point to "values" when they plead for restraint: we aren't constrained by "values," but rather Jimmy Carter ideology. Shortsightedness is fatal in the GWOT.
#8
Why was it so easy to burn to death 200,000 Tokyo civilians, 60,000 Dresden residents, not to mention another couple of hundred thousand charcoaled citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Because it was toward the end of a brutal eight-year war in which the allies had 11.8 million civilian and 32.6 million military deaths?
It only took Hizbullah a week to bring the government of Lebanon to its knees.
...What is interesting about Hizbullah's successful overthrow of the elected government in Lebanon is that after his forces defeated their foes, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah ordered his men to retreat to their customary shadows. Why didn't Hizbullah just overthrow the government?
...A compelling answer to this question is found in David Galula's classic work, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice. Galula, who died in 1967, was a lieutenant colonel in the French Marines. He served as a company commander in Algeria during the FLN's insurgency there. Counterinsurgency Warfare, which he wrote in 1964, is based largely on the French experience in Algeria and Indochina and on Chinese Communist revolutionary theory. Galula provides a clear and concise description of insurgent or revolutionary movements, their strategies and tactics. Conversely he provides clear guidance for counterinsurgents for defeating them.
As Galula explained, one of the main advantages that insurgents have over the governments they seek to overthrow is their lack of responsibility for governance. Far from seeking to govern the local population, the goal of insurgents is simply to demonstrate through sabotage, terror and guerrilla operations that the government is incapable of keeping order. And it is far easier and cheaper to sow disorder and chaos than to maintain order and secure public safety.
#1
Far from seeking to govern the local population, the goal of insurgents is simply to demonstrate through sabotage, terror and guerrilla operations that the government is incapable of keeping order. And it is far easier and cheaper to sow disorder and chaos than to maintain order and secure public safety.
Which is exactly what we should be doing in islamic controlled areas. Damn muslim nation building and those who came up with it.
Posted by: ed ||
05/17/2008 6:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Damn muslim nation building and those who came up with it.
#3
You guys are giving Hezbollah way too much credit. I don't see why you are insisting on handing them a victory here when they clearly suffered a massive defeat. There really IS no government if Lebanon. And after all is said and done, Hezbollah is basically left right where it started with the exception of a lot of ill will with every other sectarian group.
SO they were able to keep the guy at the airport and keep their communications system ... for now ... in other words, they gained nothing. They were allowed the status quo ... but at great expense in political capital. They THOUGHT they were going to be able to trigger a general coup ... it didn't happen.
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.
Endings are rarely as joyous as beginnings--and in the case of a long, wearing, and ultimately disappointing campaign, they can be downright brutal. But they also have the potential to be educational, for participants and gawkers alike. So it is that we asked (begged, really) a range of Hillarylanders for their up-close and personal lists of "What Went Wrong?" Not everyone wanted to play. Many stubbornly pointed out that their candidate is not yet dead. But, on the condition of total anonymity, a fairly broad enough cross-section of her staff responded--more than a dozen members all told, from high-level advisors to grunt-level assistants, from money men to on-the-ground organizers. 
