What twentieth-century novel was the leading indicator of the French riots?
Posted by: Fred ||
11/16/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I disagree. The droogs in A Clockwork Orange were a slightly higher caliber of folk. Also the Milk Bars were much classier than a heroin and a spoon in a dirty high rise slum.
PRESIDENT BUSH'S DECISION to finally push back against the "Bush lied!" fable paid off in strange ways this past week. Democrats seemed caught by surprise that the president would attack them so frontally on Veteran's Day; the shock caught them flatfooted all weekend long. Senators from the minority caucus could not explain their own words from 2002 supporting the same intelligence, and the same conclusions, as the Bush administration.
The strangest episode came from an appearance by Senator Jay Rockefeller on Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: OK. Senator Rockefeller, the president says that Democratic critics, like you, looked at pre-war intelligence and came to the same conclusion that he did. In fact, looking back at the speech that you gave in October of 2002 in which you authorized the use of force, you went further than the president ever did. Let's watch:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROCKEFELLER: I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11th that question is increasingly outdated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Now, the president never said that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat. As you saw, you did say that. If anyone hyped the intelligence, isn't it Jay Rockefeller?
ROCKEFELLER: No. I mean, this question is asked a thousand times and I'll be happy to answer it a thousand times. I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already
made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11. [emphasis added]
What was the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee doing in Syria, a country which perennially finds itself among the top listings of terrorist-sponsoring nations, discussing President Bush's decision-making on the war on terror with Bashar Assad, one of the worst sponsors of terror in the months after 9/11?
So far, no journalist has had an opportunity to ask Rockefeller that question directly, and Rockefeller hasn't elaborated on the point. We do know, however, that Rockefeller didn't lie about the trip itself. Arabic News covered the January 2002 visit in a short report that confirms Rockefeller's meeting with Assad. While the report does not directly quote Rockefeller after the meeting, it describes the senator as "content" and noted his "happiness" in meeting with the terror-enabler (who now faces condemnation even at the United Nations for his involvement in the assassination of a political opponent in Lebanon).
Rockefeller, for his part, neglected to mention the trip at the time, although he did issue press releases about his meeting with Saudi leaders on the same junket (as noted by the blogger Dinocrat).
If Rockefeller discussed war plans with Assad while the United States had begun military operations against global terrorist organizations, which Assad has been known to fund, surely it is a major breach of the senator's duties? The Logan Act, a piece of rarely enforced legislation, may be pertinent:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
By Rockefeller's own admission, he went to Syria (as well as Saudi Arabia) to conduct his own foreign policy initiative. He warned Assad that Bush intended to invade Iraq and could not be deterred--giving Assad plenty of opportunity to communicate with Saddam Hussein, and Hussein plenty of opportunity to prepare for war.
Mind you, it took President Bush nine months from time of Rockefeller's trip to even bring the subject of Iraq to Congress, and even though he got the authorization he wanted, he spent five months after that attempting to negotiate with the United Nations for unanimous backing on military action. That hardly seems like an implacably-resolved president determined to go to war.
None of this is to say that our elected representatives can't speak to foreign heads of state, even those unfriendly to the United States. However, by Rockefeller's own reckoning, this incident involves more than just fact-finding. The man who sits in judgment of American intelligence communities went to a
known supporter of Islamist terror at a time when the nation had explicitly declared itself in conflict with such groups, and discussed our wartime preparations with a tyrant who could have--and may have--used that information to America's disadvantage. The timetable, and Rockefeller's admitted intervention, allowed the Assad and Hussein enough time to create strategic planning for the aftermath of the invasion of Iraq.
Given the facts we know now, it seems to be an excellent example of why Congress passed the Logan Act in the first place.
Edward Morrissey is a contributing writer to The Daily Standard and a contributor to the blog Captain's Quarters. It would appear that the good Senator is guilty of treason and should be booted out the Senate. At the very least he has jeaprodized the lives of 1000s of US soldiers and marines.
#1
The Dhimmidonks like playing rough - or so they think. The scorched-earth policy that they've pursued for the last year deserves an ass-kicking. Kicking this asshole out of the Senate, not to mention the Intel Committee, a sensitive position which should have given him pause precisely where he took it upon himself to play at being President, would be an appropriate response. Do it you gutless Senate Pubs, burn him.
#2
Two possible flaws in this reasoning. First of all, even a US Senator is generally free to "express their opinion" about what they think the president is planning to do -- in the absence of information or knowledge on the subject.
Second, he almost certainly had a State Department briefing before he went on his trip, for any number of reasons. They may have proposed to him that he tell the Saudis, Jordanians, and Syrians this with the express purpose of sending a message to Iraq that the US was not just jerking around, and that they meant it this time.
Traveling congressmen and bureaucrats are often used for message purposes. They both fly under the radar, and can have 2nd tier meetings without the press and formality getting in the way. Just two guys chatting over martinis.
#3
Anonymoose...I hear what you are saying and understand that is a common way to back-channel. But don't you think it odd to use a donkey...and a donkey that is not sympathetic to the administration...as an emmisary?
#4
There are two faces in Washington, the public face and the private face. Senators who, before the cameras, lambaste and snarl at each other, then retire to the cloakroom and are laughing and joking with each other 10 minutes later.
Of course, the politics is always there, but there is a lot more common ground then they let on. For example, both sides rely on bureaucratic mandarin experts to explain reality to them; then they turn to their Hill Rats to get the party line and the political finesses of the situation.
Often times, legislation is submitted almost tongue in cheek, knowing that it has no chance, or is just a stupid waste of time. But when something dead, damn serious comes around, both parties reach agreement quick and there is minimal b.s. As the saying goes, "The bigger the fight, the smaller the stakes".
As far as Rockefeller goes, if he was being used as an emissary, I'm sure the State Department was very careful to follow the political ground rules, so that he would neither be embarrassed or be able to embarrass the White House.
If this is the case, then this story will go nowhere. If he was being a loose cannon, then that is another matter.
#6
Lol. Well, I guess almost anything's possible. That Bush would send Rocky, when he has Condi and a number of other people in State who actually work for the President, is a stretch, lol. In the Rosemary Woods 18 minute gap League. But please, spin away, it's very entertaining.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/16/2005 20:07 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Okay, my first assumption was that he was a loose cannon who knew nothing. The second was that he was under the radar enough to spread a message for the administration. The third alternative is that he was *used* by the administration as a tool to spread that same message.
This third alternative is not impossible, that he was fed information to leak to the bad guys, not knowing that he was being used.
But I look at what the situation was at the time: officially, we were trying any number of means to get Saddam to cut it out. By sending R to the neighboring countries to let them know we weren't kidding, would almost certainly get back to Saddam. And Saddam might not believe us, but his spies in Syria, Jordan and Saudi would get that message back to Bagdad ASAP.
It also lets those countries know that they had better start pulling their people out of a soon to be hot zone, and not to get too friendly with Saddam right now.
So, whether or not R was doing what George wanted him to do, one way or the other, or was just a bumbling fool shooting off his mouth doesn't really matter. It had the same effect.
Same for Baby Assad and everyone else Rocky "visited" on his "trip". They could see for themselves: Bush is dead fucking serious. Somehow I seriously doubt Bush required the services of the ranking opposition party member of the Senate Intel Committee to communicate with anyone in the region.
I will grant one observation: it was not as clear then that Rocky was a card-carrying Kool Aid swilling flaming BDS basket case. The revelation of the depths to which he had sunk came a bit later... in Nov 2004, methinks. The unhinging of the Dhimmidonks on that beautiful Wednesday morning reached epidemic proportions, lol.
I see no reason why Rocky shouldn't be grilled to well-done and lose a few fingernails and toenails over his moronic mission to the Bad Guyz on the eve of war. Far better people have suffered much more for much less in this poisoned mess.
By Sean M. Maloney (Fall 2005 Parameters Magazine, US Army War College)
PDF file. Not sure how I was referred to this article. An Excerpt: New Challenges
The main supporting effort of the âchess gameâ mechanism will be police and judicial reform. In time, the incremental deployments of central government people to the outer reaches of Afghanistan will have to be backed up with a functioning legal system. Italy is in charge of assisting the Afghan government in this area. Though Italy brings to bear substantial experience in combating organized crime, the reform process has been slow and cultural differences are significant. The same can be said of police training. Germany is the lead nation in this regard, and for reasons most likely related to the Afghan budget, progress is slower than anticipated. At some point, it will no longer be desirable for the Afghan government and Coalition entities to continue to use military force to police the country.
This takes us to the narcotics problem. The assumption among some international entities operating in support of the Afghan government in 2004 suggests that the removal of chieftains engaged in narcotics cultivation and trafficking via the âchess gameâ may have two effects. It may result, in the worst case, in better networking under the guise of legitimate government activity. Second, the removal of the prominent leadership will devolve power to second-, third-, and even fourth-tier local personnel engaged in narcotics production, trafficking, and protection. By no means are all of these personnel former militia force personnel, which complicates attempts to identify and deal with them. Though this works to the advantage of the Afghan government in that the traffickersâ ability to organize a ânarco-insurgencyâ is severely reduced, the lack of police and judicial capacity means that Kabul cannot yet target these dispersed, low-level groups. Similarly, an anti-corruption force will have to be formed to police the chieftains and others in the government to ensure that they remain uninvolved in narcotics production and distribution. In effect, Afghanistan will become like every other nation trying to take on organized crime (and not a Colombia-like narco-insurgency), but only if the right tools are forged and brought to bear.
Two other extremely important aspects of extending government influence to the provinces are sometimes overlooked in military assessments. These are the lack of roads and other infrastructure, coupled with the extremely high illiteracy rate. How does one provide anti-narcotics information to a nearly illiterate population? How does one deploy police and a legal system when the roads do not facilitate vehicular traffic? The deployment of PRTs, be they NATO or OEF, will assist in collecting information as much as they will assist in the local and provincial coordination effort, but how will Afghanistan âbalance its booksâ in the reconstruction effort? And what priorities will be assigned? Politically motivated criticism in theWestern media can interfere with the assessment and establishment of priorities. Demands by Western politicians and their mouthpieces for a huge and expensive counternarcotics force could divert the Afghan leadershipâs attention from what they rightly view as their own established reconstruction priorities.
The seemingly constant demand by critics that more and more international troops need to be deployed to Afghanistan was addressed earlier. However, the PRT expansion program, whereby NATOmembers have in principle agreed to accept lead-nation status for several former American OEF-run PRTs, has stalled out because of a lack of contributors.20 The PRTs and their associated Forward Support Bases are supposed to be manned by approximately 5,000 personnel (100 per PRT, and 400 to 500 per FSB), yet NATO member nations canât seem to come up with the additional personnel to meet this requirement. The reason is principally attributable to the stultifying eurobureaucracy, but there also are serious problems in how ISAF is commanded asit expands to the provinces.
In 2004, the Eurocorps took command of ISAF, while the Franco-German Brigade was placed in command of ISAFâs Kabul Multinational Brigade. The relationship between the two French-led or dominated NATO headquarters with Combined Forces Command Afghanistan and certain American, British, and Canadian nations contributing forces to ISAF can be described in polite terms only as dysfunctional. The infighting, kept to a minimum under Canadian command last year but now detrimental to ISAFâs effectiveness, has reached the point where a new command concept should be considered. Steps were taken to conceptualize a NATO âAfghanistan Forceâ that would command both CFC-A and ISAF, but the lasting problem over the international command of American forces will prevent significant and effective movement in this direction for the time being. As usual, the demand by the French to command the planned NATO force grates on the sensitivities of other NATO members. The only entities to benefit from these fractures are France and al Qaeda.
An Afghanistan Force option was rejected by NATO in spring 2005. As it stands, the phased replacement of OEF PRTs with NATO PRTs will result in the transfer of some American-led PRTs to NATO command. Special operations forces engaged in the hunt for high-value targets will continue to operate in the region. The command relationship between those forces and the new, expanded ISAF is currently under discussion. In effect, ISAF will absorb elements of OEF, not replace them. SHAPE planners are, as of summer 2005, developing a campaign plan for the entire country. The problem of who will conduct the ârobustâ portions of that plan and what national restrictions will be placed on those forces will remain the main issues.
Another emerging challenge is the demands by international legal personalities for Balkans-style war crimes trials in Afghanistan. These demands appear to be rooted in simplistic notions that one size fits all when it comes to international law (other motives, like personal ambition and job security, cannot be ruled out). Afghanistan is not Bosnia, nor is it Kosovo. The Balkan wars were comparatively short in duration and had identifiable protagonists who could be singled out as instigators of mass crimes against humanity. Afghanistan, on the other hand, has had 25 years of war. The existing polity includes people who fought on both sides during the Soviet era but against the Taliban in more recent years. Milosevic-style indictments will not work in Afghanistan, where almost everybody may be guilty of violating some Western-based law. Indeed, if we are to have war crimes trials for Afghanistan, one should first call to the dock Soviet military and political leaders for acts of genocide, followed by every Soviet soldier who fought there, before moving on to any current Afghan leader or American soldier. A South African-style Truth and Reconciliation Commission would be the better tool. Afghanistan needs reconciliation, not a reprise of Nuremberg.
A disturbing trend is the belief among some in OEF that the Coalition is barely breaking even in the information war. Recent events in Jalalabad, where 15 people were killed during rioting over the alleged mistreatment of the Koran at Camp Delta in Cuba, coupled with the persistent ongoing hunt for another Abu Ghraib by media outlets, will require deft handling.We can assume the Jalalabad riots were externally stimulated, but if it can happen in Jalalabad, it could happen elsewhere. The best response is an effective and integrated Afghan response, not the imposition of OEF or ISAF troops to put down these information-warfare events. The Coalition, working closely with Afghan authorities, must become better at countering the more salacious allegations by media sources rather than remaining mute in an effort to ride them out.
Similarly, concerns within the intelligence community of the âmigrationâ of tactics used in Iraq to Afghanistan are very real: in May 2005, a mosque in Kandahar was attacked with a significant death toll. In July, captured Afghan police were beheaded by insurgents, while a car bomb was used against the PRT in Kandahar. This new emphasis on mass civilian targets and gruesome terrorism against police indicate that while there has been success in countering the insurgency, there are still those who seek political change through violence. The best response, however, is an Afghan response.
Posted by: ed ||
11/16/2005 08:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
seems to me that perhaps it's time to rethink how we want to wage the narco war. The problem with our narco war is that we treat it the same way that the French treat their riots. We really have no intentions of doing anything effective.
We can't even talk about it honestly. We talk about it as if stopping the supply would eliminate the demand. Um, no. As capitalists, we should easily grasp that's not the way it works. The demand creates the supply.
John Edwards is in trouble now. On Sunday he began an op-ed with these brave words: "I was wrong." He had believed there were WMDS, he had argued there were, he had voted in favor of war on that basis. Now he says, "I take responsibility for that mistake." So what's a sickly trial lawyer to do? Easy. Sue the daylights out of John Edwards. Just as there are two Americas, two Carolinas, there can be two John Edwards. Plaintiff and defendant. Lawyer for the accuser. Lawyer for the accused. Having already extracted a full confession from the recklessly incompetent Senator Edwards, the heroic Attorney Edwards should make it worth everyone's while. Just don't let them settle out of court. Something in the book of dirty deals past makes us suspect they'd end up sharing the spoils.
Edwards speaks for all cut and run Democrats, incidentally. Thanks to the president's ginned-up entry into Iraq, he says, the country that wasn't a threat now turns out to be "a haven for terrorists" -- which is a signal for Democrats to get the hell out ASAP. Their new credo: The more terrorists in a given place, the greater the need to abandon it. Else how in the world are we to continue "fighting the global war against terrorist organizations"? We shall fight them on the beaches, in the hills, in the fields and streets -- wherever they may not be.
Opie Edwards is no Sir Winston
If you're confused, don't be. Edwards has it all figured out. Let him think for us. For example: "We should bring Iraq's neighbors and our key European allies into a diplomatic process to get Iraq on its feet. The president needs to create a unified international front." Last time a Democrat said such things he was being hauled in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Oh, yea, that 'diplomatic process' worked well for the EU3 didn't it, Opie?
Last spring President Bush declined to take former President Carter to Rome with him, causing a breakdown in our unified domestic front. Carter is now paying Bush book in a new book on "Our Endangered Values," in which Carter denounces Bush efforts "to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world." Sounds to us as if Carter has overdosed on Joseph Wilson, who in early 2003 wrote a quaint op-ed for the left-of-left Nation magazine condemning the Bush administration's "imperial ambitions" and desire to impose a "Pax Americana" on the Middle East. To be fair, Carter would welcome a Tax Americana domestically, as part of the shared sacrifice all peanut growers like to shell out when their subsidies are under attack from budget-cutting boll weevils.
Bill Clinton remains an impeached former president, with nightmarish consequences. Over the past weekend he took great offense at the comments of Jimmy Carter biographer Douglas Brinkley's comments on the subject, lashing out at the poor man -- a survivor of a campaign relationship with John Kerry, on top of everything else -- for daring to suggest that impeachment had kept Clinton from achieving greatness. Not one of the gals he dated had ever told him anything close to that, except maybe his wife, but then that didn't count because they weren't dating. Unfortunately, Clinton did let slip that he was behind the smear campaign against his congressional critics, none of whom he had ever tried to impeach. As he put it, "What are you going to do with all those Republican congressmen, you know, that had problems?" What kind of problems, Bill? And no, we didn't know, so how did you? Who did you use to find out? Are you hoping to be impeached anew?
Mr. Clinton flew off to the Middle East to ponder these life-changing questions. In the process, he was the first former president, along with his wife and daughter, who thus became, respectively, the first future president and first former and future first daughter, to visit the grisly scene at the Radisson hotel hit by terrorists last week in Amman, Jordan. Mrs. Clinton also visited with children injured in the bombings. Earlier in Israel someone had asked her, "Why are you so loved by the Israeli public?" We're hoping Jackie Mason can at least answer this last question for us.
The rest we handle ourselves. We know who our EOWs are when we see them. No, not the Clintons. There's no stopping greatness. John Edwards is another matter. Just to be safe, we're pinning an Enemy pin on both incarnations of the man from South and North Carolina.
Let's see, Howard the Duck; Opie Edwards, and Billary. What a crew.
Posted by: Captain America ||
11/16/2005 03:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda."
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.
