Cathy and Garland point me toward an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution by staff writer Jay Bookman: "Bush's real goal in Iraq." Mr. Bookman at times seems to have ingested something of unknown origin, and the article is eight and a half miles long, not all of it coherent. Sorry for the heft. Some of the highlights:
The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.
The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing.
The imputation here is that because Mr. Bookman can't understand what's going on, no one else can. This is a bad sign. Usually, if most of us don't understand something, we either ask someone who does, work a little harder to get all the elements and see what we've missed, or some combination of the two. Not so Bookman, who finds... a conspiracy.
This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were.
Those dastards! That immediately makes me wonder who the bad guys might be, which will of course be Bush and his motley crÃŒe of nascent imperialists.
Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?
Our lack of concern could stem from the fact that we don't really care what the Iraqis do once they're rid of Saddam. Since Bush and his team, rightly or wrongly, see the problem as Saddam and his gang of goons, rather than the Iraqi people, we're assuming they'll be just as happy to get rid of him as we are to see the end of him. They can have a king, they can have a democracy, they can have an oligarchy, they can have another dictator. What concerns us is that they don't have another Saddam. What's so complicated about that? It's not our country â they should be free to screw it up any way they please. But, no...
Because we won't be leaving. Having conquered Iraq, the United States will create permanent military bases in that country from which to dominate the Middle East, including neighboring Iran.
In an interview Friday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld brushed aside that suggestion, noting that the United States does not covet other nations' territory. That may be true, but 57 years after World War II ended, we still have major bases in Germany and Japan. We will do the same in Iraq.
That's quite true, but we don't use those major bases to rule the two countries. They were there because of the Soviet Union, and troop strengths in both countries have been drawn down considerably since the Soviet Union's collapse. We also conquered Italy, and we have a fairly major naval base or two there. But we didn't conquer Spain, and we have one there, too. Slight confusion in cause and effect here, since the one's not tied to the other.
And why has the administration dismissed the option of containing and deterring Iraq, as we had the Soviet Union for 45 years? Because even if it worked, containment and deterrence would not allow the expansion of American power. Besides, such tactics are beneath us as an empire. Rome did not stoop to containment; it conquered. And so, the thinking goes, should we.
In some cases Rome conquered, and in others peoples willingly joined the empire. Containment doesn't work against Iraq because its leader is unstable. He's a loon. And the "containment" of the Soviets was dicey at times.
Among the architects of this would-be American Empire are a group of brilliant and powerful people who now hold key positions in the Bush administration: They envision the creation and enforcement of what they call a worldwide "Pax Americana," or American peace. But so far, the American people have not appreciated the true extent of that ambition.
Benighted as they are, they just don't realize. It takes a first-class mind, for instance a writer for a major southern newspaper, to see the full implications.
To address the terrorism threat, the president's report lays out a newly aggressive military and foreign policy, embracing pre-emptive attack against perceived enemies. It speaks in blunt terms of what it calls "American internationalism," of ignoring international opinion if that suits U.S. interests. "The best defense is a good offense," the document asserts.
That stems from a surprise attack that killed 3000 Americans. "Surprise attack" means without warning. Eight years of random missile fire and blood-curdling threats from Clinton and Madame Albright didn't deter them. As recently as last June, an al-Qaeda spokesman was warning America to "fasten its seatbelt" for more of the same. Apparently dismantling Afghanistan's terrorist regime did nothing to deter them. It would seem to make sense to take an "internationalist" approach and preemptively destroy major threats to the nation. All the alternatives risk a repetition of the events of 9-11. If there is a repetition, the editorial staff of a major southern newspaper isn't going to beat its breast and say "where did we go wrong?" It's going to demand to know why the nation wasn't protected.
The report's repeated references to terrorism are misleading, however, because the approach of the new National Security Strategy was clearly not inspired by the events of Sept. 11. They can be found in much the same language in a report issued in September 2000 by the Project for the New American Century, a group of conservative interventionists outraged by the thought that the United States might be forfeiting its chance at a global empire.
"At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals," the report said. "The challenge of this coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.' "
This is where the conspiracy theory comes in...
Overall, that 2000 report reads like a blueprint for current Bush defense policy. Most of what it advocates, the Bush administration has tried to accomplish. For example, the project report urged the repudiation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and a commitment to a global missile defense system. The administration has taken that course.
It recommended that to project sufficient power worldwide to enforce Pax Americana, the United States would have to increase defense spending from 3 percent of gross domestic product to as much as 3.8 percent. For next year, the Bush administration has requested a defense budget of $379 billion, almost exactly 3.8 percent of GDP.
It advocates the "transformation" of the U.S. military to meet its expanded obligations, including the cancellation of such outmoded defense programs as the Crusader artillery system. That's exactly the message being preached by Rumsfeld and others.
It urges the development of small nuclear warheads "required in targeting the very deep, underground hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries." This year the GOP-led U.S. House gave the Pentagon the green light to develop such a weapon, called the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, while the Senate has so far balked.
That close tracking of recommendation with current policy is hardly surprising, given the current positions of the people who contributed to the 2000 report.
Nor is it surprising in light of the current situation around us. It would seem the authors of the report sat down and had a hard look at the world around us and their projections actually came true. For this very reason, Bush and his team would be well advised to accept their recommendations.
One is the effect on our allies. Once we assert the unilateral right to act as the world's policeman, our allies will quickly recede into the background. Eventually, we will be forced to spend American wealth and American blood protecting the peace while other nations redirect their wealth to such things as health care for their citizenry.
That is one of the tough breaks of being the biggest kid on the block. I remember how appreciative certain Germans were when I was stationed there in the early 80s. It wasn't so much because we were protecting them from the Russians; if war had come, they'd have had to mobilize, too, else our force would have probably been overrun. But for the nonce, as one told me, "for every American in Germany, that's a German that doesn't have to get drafted." Our alternative is the same one, to let someone else to do it, while we sit around clipping our health care coupons. But when they need something, we'd better be prepared to come through. Not being a trusting soul, I'd rather see us do it ourselves. And the part about our "allies receding" is fatuous; they've already receded, and it's doubtful they'll ever be back. With the possible exception of the British, any further alliances the U.S. enters into should be, will have to be, short-term, directed toward a single objective and then reevaluated. They may remain in force for years â Britain and Portugal have been allied almost continuously for over 200 years â or we may go our separate ways when a mutually beneficial goal has been achieved.
Accepting the [Gary] Cooper role would be a historic change in who we are as a nation, and in how we operate in the international arena. Candidate Bush certainly did not campaign on such a change. It is not something that he or others have dared to discuss honestly with the American people. To the contrary, in his foreign policy debate with Al Gore, Bush pointedly advocated a more humble foreign policy, a position calculated to appeal to voters leery of military intervention.
Bush's intentions during the debate with Gore were perfectly valid. Had the nation not come under attack, had the actual situation not dramatically clarified itself, we probably would have continued under the mistaken assumptions that were in force at the time. But we were attacked. The world is a different place, and we have not only a different set of priorities now, but the citizenry has a different set of expectations.
The cost of such a global commitment would be enormous. In 2000, we spent $281 billion on our military, which was more than the next 11 nations combined. By 2003, our expenditures will have risen to $378 billion. In other words, the increase in our defense budget from 1999-2003 will be more than the total amount spent annually by China, our next largest competitor.
The cost of not spending the money will be higher. "Pay me now, or pay me later."
The lure of empire is ancient and powerful, and over the millennia it has driven men to commit terrible crimes on its behalf. But with the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet Union, a global empire was essentially laid at the feet of the United States. To the chagrin of some, we did not seize it at the time, in large part because the American people have never been comfortable with themselves as a New Rome.
Back in the days when people used to be educated, they saw what happened to the Roman Empire, to Byzantium, and to the Holy Roman Empire. There are perils associated with it. But as the author says, it was laid at our feet and we disdained it; now we're forced to pick it up. Too bad. And we might point out that, for all the perils associated with dominion, the Roman empire lasted almost 700 years â it was an empire while it was still a republic. The Byzantine empire lasted about the same length of time, from Constantine to the Turks. And while the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor really an empire, it hung around even longer, about 1000 years. So there are advantages to be had, too, if we do it right.
Are peace and security best achieved by seeking strong alliances and international consensus, led by the United States? Or is it necessary to take a more unilateral approach, accepting and enhancing the global dominance that, according to some, history has thrust upon us?
That's pretty much the debate right now, but the extent of the debate is limited by the actuality around us. Being nice and multilateral would be pleasant, and it would take a lot of work from our national shoulders. But it might not be possible. If the rest of the world won't shoulder their portion of the load, and the work has to be done, then we'll have to do it, like it or not.
If we do decide to seize empire, we should make that decision knowingly, as a democracy. The price of maintaining an empire is always high. Kagan and others argue that the price of rejecting it would be higher still.
So what's yer beef, Jack?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 09:03 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Two blasts outside an apartment complex in the Afghan capital Kabul on Saturday night showered the area with broken glass but there were no immediate reports of casualties. The explosions were heard just after 9 p.m. A Reuters correspondents saw a crater about 1.5 metres (yards) across outside a five-storey apartment block not far from the heavily fortified U.S. embassy compound. Soldiers with the International Security Assistance Force charged with policing Kabul arrived at the scene to investigate. Earlier, military radio reports said the explosions happened in a military compound. Another pointless explosion. Nobody hurt, apparently, but some poor guy has to pay to have the damage repaired to his property. Sounds like the Secret Army of Doom.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 06:51 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
News from the other side...
Source: Azzam Publications
Around 18 American and 19 Afghan soldiers were killed, in different regions of Afghanistan, due to well planned and executed Mujahideen attacks. More than ten vehicles were also destroyed and one US commando was kidnapped in the various attacks. There've been a lot more Merkins killed in their accounts than there have been in our accounts. Wonder why that is?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 06:51 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ummm... because their story is fiction?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/29/2002 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
An Afghan claiming to be a former Taleban diplomat says unemployed potentate Mullah Omar and the probably late Osama bin Laden are alive and in Afghanistan. Naseer Ahmed Roohi introduced himself as the former first secretary of the Taleban's embassy in the United Arab Emirates at a clandestine news conference in Pakistan. He told reporters he met with Mullah Omar just two weeks ago in Afghanistan. "Almost ran over me with his motorcycle!"
He said that Osama bin Laden is also alive and in Afghanistan and never went to Pakistan. Part of that statement may be true. Probably not both halves, though...
Mr. Roohi spoke to half a dozen reporters who had been summoned by telephone to a private office in Peshawar. Cameras were forbidden, and journalists were asked not to identify the office. Reporters at the private meeting - who were described as having had close relations with the Taleban - identified Mr. Roohi as a senior official of the militia. Mr. Roohi said he now belongs to a pro-Mullah Omar movement called Jamiat-ul-Shabab-ul Muslimeen (party of young mujahedin). Is that what the Talibs are calling themselves these days? The objective seems to be to confuse us by operating under 7,248 different names. Man, those orientals are inscrutible!
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 06:51 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What a great Jihadi, Mullah Omar proved to be. Right there on the front lines, every ounce of his Muslim energy to fight the infidel Northern Alliance. If only he hadn't lost his glass eye, and had to hunt for it in Pakistan, I am sure that it would have been curtains for us.
Posted by: Allah the Dog Faced God ||
09/29/2002 19:48 Comments ||
Top||
Source: Daily Islam, Jihad Unspun
American commandos in Afghanistan have increased their efforts to capture Gulbuddin Hekmatyar when the FBI was told of his meeting with Ex-Commander Jalal-ud-Din Haqqani and after he declared jihad against Americans. Seems like they should be trying to catch Haqqani, too, since he's reputed â by the Bad Guys â to be able to find his butt with both hands, unlike most Talib commanders...
According to a report, Americans are working on a huge operation in Kantar [Kunar] province. They first want to find out his location and then carry a military operation. It has been learnt that Hekmatyar has also acquired some resources for Jihad and an action would be taken against American forces in near future. Hamid Karzaiâs government faces dire circumstances if Hikmatyar starts practicing what he has been preaching lately. Though to date he's been mostly fuss and bluster, and the operations he's tried have been amateurish. Guess he's out of practice...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 06:58 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why can't they all just get along??
Posted by: dorf ||
09/29/2002 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Because they practice a religion which is a form of mental illness.
The United States and a number of Arab countries have drawn up plans for the exile of Saddam Hussein to a neutral country to avoid an invasion that could lead to massive number of civilian deaths. Sounds like a good deal for Sammy...
Planners in the Near East division of the US State Department have looked at various scenarios under which the Iraqi president would cede power to a democratic government and then leave the country. President Saddam has angrily dismissed such suggestions â made to him by third parties. "We have to look at all scenarios," a senior State Department official told The Independent on Sunday. "We are still trying to sort it out." The official said US policy calls for President Saddam to be "brought to justice". But he added that if the exile option could be shown to prevent a massive loss of civilian life as the result of a military operation, and that power was ceded to a truly alternative government, it would be considered. "There would have to be real change. He could not simply hand over to his son." It'll probably never happen, but they can't say we didn't give him a chance. For one thing, Sammy without a Republican Guard to protect him would be vulnerable to a lot of people with painfully dead relatives...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 07:04 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
âIraqi people are ready to defend their country against any US strikeâ, Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz vowed yesterday. âWe are going to defend our country. This is our responsibility and we are prepared for that,â Mr Aziz said in an interview broadcast on Iraqi Satellite Television. "Yeah. Bring on! Bring 'em o-o-o-o-n!"
âWe cannot boast that we can break the US army, but we can defend our country because we will be fighting within our own homeland, and we know the places we are fighting in and our people are fully supporting us in defending their own homeland.â Mr. Aziz said. Yeah, yeah. We know. "Knives and forks, and bare hands."
âIraq had to be very careful because we are still being threatened by the US. If the inspectors declare that Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction, which is the case... and we are sure of that, what is George Bush going to do?â Then there wouldn't be any problem, would there? But since Iraq kicked out the inspectors, and refused to let them back in, we have no way of knowing, do we?
Mr. Aziz expressed hope that Washington would fail in its attempt, with London, to pass a new UN Security Council resolution on Iraq. âThe logic is that there is no need for a new resolution. The new resolution, being pushed by the Americans, echoes the American policy towards Iraq, not the will of the Security Council regarding the implementation of its resolutionsâ. There's not a need for a new resolution. We should be perfectly capable of attacking under the old ones they haven't adhered to...
He said, âI hope that the Security Council will be strong enough, fair enough to resist any American manipulation...But I am not confident about the capability of the UN to resist American pressure and American manipulation.â "We're not sure if the fix is in or not..."
Mr. Aziz said Iraqâs decision to accept the return of UN weapons inspectors after a near four-year break came after Baghdad heeded advice from a great number of friendly, Arab and Islamic countries. They advised that âwe have to do what we can to avoid the American military aggression and the return of the inspectors might help in that. We take the American threats seriously and we are preparing ourselves ... But we have to do what we can on the diplomatic, political arena to avoid the aggression if possible.â The war's already under way. It's being fought with diplomatic forces at the moment.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 07:40 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Assuming the country is free of WMD, like saying that it was a Zionist plot behind 9/11, we'd still have a problem with Hussein. That problem, euphemistically called "regime change" is really: "We want your head stuffed and mounted on a stick outside of Miami or Qatar, wherever CENTCOM is rotating to nowadays...
Posted by: Brian ||
09/29/2002 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
Iraq said on Sunday U.S. jets had raided Basra's civilian airport for the second time in a week, targeting its radar systems and the passenger terminals. "Planes of the American enemy targeted and destroyed for the second time the civilian radar system of Basra airport," an Iraqi Transport Ministry spokesman said in a statement to the official Iraqi News Agency. According to the spokesman, the attack on the airport in Basra took place at 12:45 a.m. (0845 GMT) on Sunday. Not having any military targets in Iraq, we're reduced to attacking civilian airports in the search for more innocents to toast...
The U.S. Central Command confirmed the attack and said it had targeted a military mobile radar. Oh. Never mind...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 08:12 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Bill Quick points to this Ha'aretz article...
The refined uranium caught by Turkish police Saturday weighed far less than originally thought, an official source in southwestern Turkey said Sunday. It was originally believed that the Turkish paramilitary police had seized over 15 kg of weapons-grade uranium in the operation that also resulted in the detention of two men accused of smuggling the substance. The actual weight of the uranium turned out to be hundreds of grams, a fraction of the initial estimate. The uranium is to be sent for tests to the local Atomic Energy Agency. The two suspects were brought before a judge Saturday night charged with the illegal sale of the material. They've still got some 'splainin' to do, but probably their legs won't get pulled off...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 10:42 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Russian armed forces launched new air and artillery strikes on Chechen rebels in the mountains of Ingushetia, and moved to cut off their escape routes into neighbouring Chechnya. Chechen police were put on high alert along the republic's border with Ingushetia and Russian troops blocked roads and paths in the foothills near the administrative frontier. Extra checkpoints have been set up and security has been tightened around administrative buildings and Russian military positions. Okay. So how'd they do?
Presumed rebel positions in the forests around the Ingush border village of Galashki were bombarded overnight Friday and early Saturday. Russian forces maintained their sweep through the rugged mountain area, and four injured rebels were taken prisoner. Two have been flown to Moscow, Ingush interior ministry officials said. Very large men with moustachios and truncheons are busy making those guys real unhappy right this very moment...
At least 110 Chechen rebels had died since the outbreak of fighting on Thursday between Russian forces and a group of rebels said to have crossed from neighbouring Georgia. Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov admitted Friday to the loss of 17 servicemen. A Chechen rebel spokesman on the separatist website kavkaz.org, Amir Sultan, said Friday that up to 100 Russian soldiers had been killed in the battle zone, while only six Chechens had died, with five missing and the remainder already across the border in Chechnya. The tolls cannot be independently verified. Given the records of both sides, there are more dead Russers than admitted, and many more dead Chechens than admitted...
Russian deputy state prosecutor Sergei Fridinsky said that two of the captured rebels testified that their group had entered Ingushetia from the Pankisi gorge region in neighbouring Georgia. The 200-strong group of rebels had crossed the border in early September and lain low in the forests of Ingushetia and North Ossetia for nearly a month. And they've bumped off 110 of the 200. That leaves 90 to go...
He said the rebels were wearing foreign-made uniforms that had been sent to their hideout in the Pankisi Gorge in the guise of humanitarian aid. We can guess where that originated...
They had been intending to "cross into Chechnya, avoiding armed clashes until the winter when they were to engage in military activities and sabotage," he said. Ingush police said meanwhile that six bodies have been recovered since the fighting began on Thursday. Six? That's, ummmm... less than 110. 104 less, to be exact...
One body, initially believed to be that of a British national, freelance cameraman Roddy Scott, has been taken to the Ingush capital Nazran. Fridinsky said genetic tests could be necessary to identify the body. The man's face had been too badly damaged by the explosion that killed him to allow a comparison with the photograph in the British passport that he was found to be carrying. However he said it was "quite possible" the body was that of Scott, "because he had a video camera and London Underground tickets were found in his pocket." Too bad about that. Presumably he knew the risks when he went out with the Islamic killers. Now he's a freelance dead cameraman...
On Friday Fridinsky said the photograph and the man's face did not match, implying that the dead man was probably not Scott. Oh, they found the rest of it, did they?
Georgia meanwhile moved two army units to reinforce its border with Russia, ITAR-TASS reported from Tbilisi. The measure was taken following the increase of tension in the region, it quoted officials as saying. Maybe they should move them into Pankisi...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 07:21 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Any hockey player will tell you it's tough to "face off" against Russians
Three anti-war U.S. congressmen on a rare visit to Iraq on Sunday, September 29, criticized the 12-year U.N. sanctions regime as âbarbaricâ, saying that open weapons inspections must resume to ensure it is lifted. They weren't lifted when weapons inspections were in force because the inspectors were hindered at every turn...
Democrat representative David Bonior of Michigan spoke of âthe horrific and barbaric suffering ... particularly children are undergoing,â after visiting a hospital, a pediatric clinic and two desalination plants in this southern Iraqi port city. He stressed along with colleagues Jim McDermott of Washington state and Mike Thompson of California âthe absolute necessity to end the sanctionsâ through âfair, open, unrestricted [weapons] inspectionsâ by the United Nations. Yep. Any time now.
âIf we go to war again we will simply double or triple the problems we have created in 1991,â from the Gulf War, said McDermott.âThe theory was that if we put pressure on the Iraqi people somehow they would throw out [President] Saddam Hussein, all that has done is punish the Iraqi people. It did not work and I think that it is not right what we are doing and that it must stop.â Well, okay then. And pray tell just what should we do? If we can't attack him and throw him out, and we can't use sanctions because of The Children™, what other options are open, other than "pretty please with honey on top"?
Representative Bonior is a long-time opponent of the sanctions devastating the Iraqi people. He has during his tenure held numerous press conferences criticizing the brutality aimed against Iraqi civilians. He also co-sponsored a letter to former president Bill Clinton asking that the sanctions be lifted. He also lost his bid for governor — heh heh! — and he ran for governor because it looked like he was gonna lose his House seat. Seems he has a lot of support.
McDermott also noted claims that the use of depleted uranium weapons during the Gulf War had increased âmalformations and leukemia in children, and we wanted to see for ourselves what that was about.â How many malformed and leukaemic children did they visit?
They had heard in Baghdad from Health Minister Omid Medhat Mubarak that the embargo had caused the deaths of more than 1.7 million Iraqis since it was imposed in 1990.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 10:06 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That makes it, like, $1000US for Saddam's Palaces for each dead Iraqi child? Bonior, McDermott, and Thompson should stay there....What's their excuse? Treasonous or just plain "bag of rocks" stupid?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/29/2002 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
When they come back, they're gonna wax indignant when anyone "questions their patriotism." You heard it here first, even though you probably guessed it for yourself...
Posted by: Fred ||
09/29/2002 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'd vote for a combination of bag-of-rocks stupid and halfwittedly politically calculating myself. The Democrats seem to have fallen under the mass delusion that this is a primary election, since they're working so hard to appeal to their leftish "base". However, a sharp reaction is already beginning to set in. Bonior and McDermott were on "This Week" today on ABC, and their protestations in favor of Iraq were, according to what I have heard - I didn't see the show myself - not greeted with favor by the panelists. One of the panelists even said "this is why the Democrats are having such a hard time."
Do these people even realize that every time they open their mouths, they're damaging the Democratic chances in November? If they knew what was smart, they'd shut up about Iraq and go back to gnashing their teeth about Enron, whereby they actually _might_ be able to convince a few people.
Posted by: Joe ||
09/29/2002 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Isn't Saddam's indifference to the plight of his own people proof enough for these waterheads that he IS a ruthless barbarian? If he cared for his own people half as much as he cared for himself, wouldn't Saddam welcome inspections or whatever may be required to end the sanctions? Oh, wait, there's that issue of National Sovereignty and Dignity. It would be insulting for inspectors to be able to enter Presidential Palaces and so forth. I wonder if those waterheads from the Democratic Party discussed that issue with Saddam's lieutenants? I wonder what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot: If the UN demanded unrestricted inspection of anyplace in the US, including the Oval Office, looking for WMD, do you think these same Democratic Clowns would say OK, sure, in the interests of World Peace and Food for Children? Yes, they'd probably say OK, which would beg the question of why are they willing to give Saddam the benefit of the doubt when he says No Access to Some of My Territory????
Demonstrators rallying Sunday against a possible war in Iraq set their sights on the vice president's residence, while organizers of weekend protests against global trade policies discussed their movement's next step. "What do you want to do, Strawberry?"
"I dunno. What do you want to do?"
"We could go to the movies."
"Did that last week."
"Let's march up and down Pennsylvania Avenue carrying large puppets and block traffic."
"Hokay."
With District of Columbia police in riot gear looking on, more than 50 protesters gathered to review their peaceful rally Saturday to the headquarters of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and suggest future protests. ``Any kind of protest is effective because it calls attention to you,'' said Stephanie Palumbo of Suffern, N.Y. "I like attention. Usually I don't get none, 'cuz I got buck teeth and my ass is too big..."
Other participants were getting ready for the anti-war march through Washington's Embassy Row and ending up outside Vice President Dick Cheney's residence. "Dick?"
"Yes, Lynn?"
"There's a mob of screaming children out front."
"Do they have puppets?"
"Yes, several of them. More coffee?"
"Yes, thank you."
U.S. Park Police Chief Teresa Chambers said law enforcement officers expected Sunday's events to be small and quiet. Organizers proclaimed Saturday's protest a success despite failing to draw the 20,000 people who descended on Washington for the institutions' meetings in April 2000. "Well, they got braces and lost some weight, and now they're traitors to the Movement™. And they have dates and I don't!"
Protesters, who filled five city blocks, contend the World Bank and IMF force developing nations to take money away from social services and programs for the poor in order to pay debt. ``They go into these countries and they take their resources,'' said one protester, 21-year-old Erin Flowers of Little Rock, Ark. ``None of it goes to the native people of the land.'' It goes to some of the native people of the land. They rake it off. Seems that's a problem for the native people of the land to solve, doesn't it? If they don't have to pay it back, then it represents a free gift of millions and sometimes billions of dollars to the local kleptocrats...
Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, who spoke at the rally, said corporate greed is on the minds of voters this fall. ``People around the country know something is wrong,'' he said. ``The majority of polls are very suspicious of corporate globalization. The impact is being felt in one community after another.'' "So vote for me in '04! I'll do better this time around, really!"
Following the larger march and rally, hundreds of protesters walked an additional two blocks to a park across the street from the World Bank. They chanted and waved signs behind concrete barriers and rows of police in helmets and riot gear. ``It's such a symbol for what's happening in the world today when supposedly democratic institutions have to meet behind barriers and battalions of heavily armed police,'' said David Levy, a spokesman for Mobilization for Global Justice, the group that organized Saturday's demonstration. That's because Mobilization for Global Justice organized a bunch of children to come stand around and wave puppets and break windows. Seems like he's bitching about his own existence, doesn't it?
Few arrests were reported, in sharp contrast to the 649 people taken into custody on Friday. Chambers and Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said protesters understood that after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, police would not tolerate any criminal activity. ``You can protest and be loud in Washington without being hurtful,'' Gainer said. Life is easier when you round up the leaders of the pack and toss them in jug until the festivities are over...
Two men and two women who refused to identify themselves were arrested Saturday evening on illegal weapons charges. They were found with an explosive device that the police described as a coffee can filled with nails and an explosive ordnance. They also had smoke bombs, authorities said. Seems like they should be held for longer than just until the festivities are over.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 10:23 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
A Yemeni policeman at the British Embassy was killed Sunday in a shootout. "As far as I know, at least one policeman was killed in the battle," British Ambassador Frances Jay told The Associated Press. "The fight was triggered when the guards ordered a car to move away from the embassy premise, but the men in the car refused to comply. They threatened the guards and dragged one of them to their car." Jay said there were no injuries among embassy staffers, but said "we can hear the bullets coming in our direction." An intended act of terrorism averted? Or a case of "ain't nobody tells me what to do"?
Reporters said two injured men were taken away by ambulance. A Yemeni security official told AP he had no details on what prompted the shooting. He said that all the roads leading to the embassy were blocked. That'd seem to imply they didn't get the people in the car...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 08:02 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Israel relaxed its siege of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Ramallah headquarters under heavy pressure from Washington but said it would keep troops in the area to ensure wanted men inside do not escape. But the decision stopped short of a complete withdrawal demanded in a UN Security Council resolution passed last week, and was denounced by the Palestinians, who said that it changed almost nothing on the ground. Seemed like it did, when Yasser came out and blew kisses to the crowd of lemmings admirers...
After the Israeli tanks, troops and bulldozers withdrew, men swarmed out of the fetid headquarters building where they had been trapped for 10 days by tanks, embracing each other with joy although Israeli troops remained close by. Many of the armed security guards went to search the severely damaged interior ministry building next to Arafat's offices, looking for their belongings in the rubble. "Aw, man! Lookit my dynamite belt! It's ruined! Those Zionist bastards!"
A security officer trapped with Arafat said the 250 men inside his headquarters building had received orders not to leave the surrounding compound even if the Israelis pulled back. "Did somebody named Tirawi call for a taxi? Heh heh!"
Ambulances arrived to ferry away the sick, while locals turned out to inspect the damage caused by the israeli troops, who destroyed virtually every building in the complex, or Muqataa, except Arafat's own. There're saving what's left for next time...
UN special envoy Terje Roed-Larsen was quick to arrive at the scene and went into immediate talks with Arafat inside the Palestinian leader's battered offices. "Cheeze, Yasser! I'm so glad you're okay! I was so-o-o-o worried!"
"What took you so long to get 'em to pull back? I coulda been killed!"
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government had previously said it would not lift its siege â which was imposed after two suicide bombings in Israel â until a number of wanted men inside the building gave themselves up. However, the Jewish state's open flouting of the UN resolution 1435 angered its major ally Washington, which is piling on pressure on Iraq and using Baghdad's past violation of UN resolutions as a stick to beat President Saddam Hussein. Israeli public radio said Sharon had told his ministers at a weekly cabinet meeting that the move was aimed at easing the situation for the United States as it builds an anti-Iraqi consensus. Pulling back without getting at least some of the Bad Guys was a bad move. It's a move that's going to come back and chew them in the butt â and us, too.
Senior Arafat adviser Nabil Abu Rudeina said the Israeli decision was no more than a trick to sidestep the UN resolution, whose violation has brought widespread criticism. "This announcement is a farce and a fraud, by which Israel hopes to get round the application of Security Council resolution 1435," Nabil Abu Rudeina told AFP. Well, okay then. Everybody back inside, and bring the tanks back up. See if you notice a difference.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 07:56 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Israeli security forces arrested Sunday a Fatah leader in the West Bank village of Dura, south of Hebron. Israel said that the man, Jamal Rajoub, is responsible for several shooting attacks in the Hebron area. Alright, back to rounding them up...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 08:06 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
A Palestinian was killed in an overnight blast at the entrance to a West Bank refugee camp, Palestinian security officials and local residents said Sunday. Khaled Diab, 22, a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was killed just before midnight on Saturday at Tulkarem refugee camp. There was another report with no details earlier on a "work accident" at Tulkarm. Guess Khaled fumbled it...
Followup: This explains it all â it was the Jews, somehow...
Meanwhile, a leader of the armed wing of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) was assassinated late Saturday, September 28, in the northern West Bank town of Tulkarem as he was handling an explosive device, Palestinian security sources said.
Kader Diab, 24, a local chief of the Ali Mustapha Brigades, had been wanted by Israeli forces, Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported.
The armed wing was named after the former head of the PFLP, Ali Abu Mustapha, who was assassinated in an Israeli helicopter strike in August last year.
The way that reads, he was sitting around, innocently handling an explosive device, when the Mossad snuck up behind him and garrotted him. Or something. Damn them Zionists!
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 10:31 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Two Bangladeshi men with suspected links to international terrorist networks were arrested in Medan, North Sumatra, a police official said on Friday. The two foreigners, identified as Huseiri alias Iqbal, 27, and M. Tana Chouduri, 30, were nabbed from a hotel in Medan, according to North Sumatra Police spokesman Adj. Sr. Comr. Amrin Karim. "The two suspects entered Medan without proper immigration documents. Currently, the police are still investigating their possible involvement with international terrorist networks," Amrin told The Jakarta Post Friday night. They sound pretty desperate. What happened?
But the two suspects, according to Amrin, insisted that they were not part of any terror group. They always say that. What'd they do?
Amrin said the police confiscated from the two men, Indonesian identity cards and passports, 11 cellular phone cards, a bank account book with a balance of Rp 52 million (US$5,700) and gold jewelry. Pretty flush. But what'd they do?
He said the police had arrested them after receiving complaints from cell phone operator PT Telkomsel, and from two women, Nurhayati and Yustina, who claimed to have been cheated by the two foreigners. That doesn't make them terrorists, though. It just makes them cheats...
According to Amrin, the two suspects entered Medan together with Nurhayati from Malaysia last month. Nurhayati herself initially worked in Malaysia. Nurhayati said she agreed to leave Malaysia, after working there for seven months, and came back to Medan as Huseiri alias Iqbal promised to marry her. The cad!
Arriving in Medan, the two, with the help of Nuryahati's family, processed Indonesian identity cards so that they could marry quickly. Then, they made family cards, with which they got a local cell phone number under Nuryahati's name. And then they set about bilking the locals. Next step was probably to set up a three-card monte game, and move on from there to selling gold bricks. But they don't sound like terrorists.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 06:51 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Hey Useiri! What shall we do this month?"
"Tana, I got us a scheme that'll make us rich. Rich I tell ya!"
"Hokay, what we do?"
"You know those Indonesian babes with those, those, those THINGS on their chests? Man, they love terrorists. How's about we go to Medan and pretend we're Jihadis, big heat -- we'll bring extra guns to show 'em -- and the babes will fall all over us!"
"Yeah, that's the ticket. Lemme get my explosive belt in case they want more proof!"
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/30/2002 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
Indonesia security minister Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has said that in its search for a viable way to resolve the prolonged conflict in Aceh, the government had found that one of the best ways was conducting dialog based on Islamic tenets and local traditions. Oh, my God! They're gonna cut people's heads off!
"We know the traditions of Aceh that have prohibitions regarding attitude and deeds. Violations of the prohibitions may bring about calamity and other misfortunes," he said during the closing ceremony of the Congress of Aceh Traditions here on Friday evening. Susilo hoped that by applying the Islamic approach and local traditions, all problems or disputes could be settled in a wise manner and nobody would force his will on the others. That's because they'll be dead, and won't have their heads, either...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
09/29/2002 06:51 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
Israel 
