CAIRO, Jan 10 (Reuters) - The Arab League said on Wednesday U.S. military action in Somalia had killed "many innocent victims" and demanded that Washington refrain from such attacks.
Let the seething commence!
Somali officials said U.S. and Ethiopian aircraft struck new targets in Somalia on Wednesday as they hunted al Qaeda suspects and defeated Islamist fighters. But U.S. officials said there had been no new U.S. air strikes in Somalia since an operation on Monday, and Ethiopia's Prime Minister Meles Zenawi also said there had been only one U.S. air attack with no civilian casualties.
"We would have liked to have done a few more but we ran out of spatulas for the bomb damage assessments."
U.S. government sources said U.S. ally Ethiopia, which defeated Islamist forces in a lightning war last month, had conducted further air strikes since Monday.
"The infidels are ganging up on us! You guys gotta do something to call them off!"
In Cairo, the Arab League's Assistant Secretary-General Ahmed Ben Hilli said: "We demand that these strikes which now target civilians and led to the killing of many innocent victims be stopped."
"Hey, we're doing our best but that infidel Bush doesn't listen to us!"
"There was no U.N. Security Council authorisation for the U.S. forces to hit Somali areas," he told reporters.
On the other hand, they didn't say we couldn't hit Somali areas.
Ben Hilli also criticised the interim Somali government for backing the air strikes. "We'd hoped they'd care about for the sovereignty of their country ... instead of calling for foreign intervention," he said.
Except for the al-Qaeda furriners. And the Yemeni furriners. And the Arab furriners. And the Paki furriners. I mean, there's furriners and furriners!
Somali President Abdullahi Yusuf has said the air strikes were justified because they targeted al Qaeda militants.
Which is precisely what has the Arab League's knickers in a knot.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/10/2007 12:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Somali government gave permission. Says so right here on the label.
#3
I think I am channeling JM
[rant]
Since when has Somalia been Arab? A look at a map will tell you the true story, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and the Sudan come sharply into focus. Arab islamist expansion has to be stopped just like we stopped the NAZIs. The only thing they understand is Blood and steel, go Sherman on their asses. This "nation building" crap we have been doing since WW2 doesn't work with this religious/political death cult. Break their societies and leave it, don't help them put it back together because it's crap to begin with. [/rant]
The United States has quietly poured weapons and military advisers into Ethiopia, whose recent invasion of Somalia opened a new front in the Bush administration's war on terrorism. A Christian-led nation in sub-Saharan Africa, surrounded almost entirely by Muslim states, Ethiopia has received nearly $20 million in U.S. military aid since late 2002. That's more than any country in the region except Djibouti.
Last month, thousands of Ethiopian troops invaded neighboring Somalia and helped overturn a fundamentalist Islamic government that the Bush administration said was supported by al-Qaeda. The U.S. and Ethiopian militaries have "a close working relationship," Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Joe Carpenter said. The ties include intelligence sharing, arms aid and training that gives the Ethiopians "the capacity to defend their borders and intercept terrorists and weapons of mass destruction," he said.
Advisers from the Guam national guard have been training Ethiopians in basic infantry skills at two camps in Ethiopia, said Maj. Kelley Thibodeau, a spokeswoman for U.S. forces in Djibouti. There are about 100 U.S. military personnel currently working in Ethiopia, Carpenter said.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
According to Debka it's the biggest al Qaeda hunt since Afghanistan 2001.
#3
Ethiopia has received nearly $20 million in U.S. military aid since late 2002. That's more than any country in the region except Djibouti.
What do you mean by "sooner", bigjim-ky? Shieldwolf and others have said we've been training and equipping the Aethiops for quite some time for anti-Al Qaeda work, and in the countries around Sudan as well. The Special Forces guys have been working long and hard behind the scenes, as far as I can see. This is just the first visible payoff... and an impressive one it is, too. Well done, guys!
#5
Well said TW, the teams would rather their involvement never come up. It's part of the Foreign Internal Defense, FID doctrine. The objective is to train, advice, and in some cases assist a nations military in its defense. Other than the obvious of arming and Tactics Techniques, and Procedures, TTPs, they focus of professionalizing their military. By this I mean building an NCO corps and cleaning up the officer corps. Most third world militaries do not have a competent NCO corp. The NCO corps is the hands down reason our military is so great and is the defining factor in any successful army.
This type of program can take a few years to reach payoff. Its interesting the first two programs of this type after the WOT started are both really hitting pay dirt, this one and the PI. This low level, but critical interaction between nations is the best way for America to influence and support countries without the perception of them being a US puppet.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/10/2007 10:11 Comments ||
Top||
The Pentagon confirms one attack on al-Qaida suspects in southern Somalia. One spokesman said that the attack was based on what he called "credible evidence." But there are other accounts from the region itself that describe more than one assault and more casualties.
At a White House briefing, spokesman Tony Snow would only say the operation was part of the global war on terror. "This is a reiteration of the fact," Snow said, "that people who think they're going to try to establish safe haven for al-Qaida any place need to realize that we're going to fight them."
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
(SomaliNet) Tunisias president and the entire Tunisia community should be on the look out after an Islamist group vowed to fight against his order that banned Tunisias women from veiling while in public buildings. The Islamists made this vow on a website belonging to a group, The Youth of Tawhid and Jihad in Tunisia.
The group has said that it was involved in a battle with authorities, a statement that Tunisias Interior Ministry does not refute. However, he says that he battle involved criminals. "The mujahideen youth who engaged in fighting with the elements of the despot are a bunch of the best youth in the country... not criminals. For this, the faithful youth of Tunisia have declared jihad and fighting against the despot to stop his harm to the Muslims in general and the veiled Muslim women in particular," the website statement said.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
best advice: don't let them reach adulthood
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2007 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
SEOUL - The United States is deploying a squadron of stealth fighters to South Korea, a US military spokesman said on Wednesday, amid speculation that North Korea may be ready to test a second nuclear device. The United States is sending about 15 to 20 of its F-117A Nighthawk fighters to South Korea, the spokesman for US Forces Korea said. This is a routine deployment, said Kim Yong-kyu. It is a regular operational matter."
The US military has sent the radar-evading fighters regularly to South Korea for stays of a few months over the past few years. North Korea has criticised previous deployments as preparations for invasion and nuclear war. About 250 to 300 airmen were sent to South Korea for previous deployments.
This precision-strike aircraft penetrates high-threat airspace and uses laser-guided weapons against critical targets, the US Air Force said in a Web posting.
No comment necessary.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Move along. Nothing to see here folks. Just deploying a dozen or so invisible bombers to Korea.
BTW, one thing that has always puzzled me is why the Nighthawk, whose principle role seems to be dropping bombs, is designated as a fighter.
#2
12 F22s are also going to Kadena AFB Okinawa and train with the US F15s and Japanese. Part of a sales effort?
Posted by: ed ||
01/10/2007 1:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
From Wikipedia...so read this with the same skepticism that you read the New York Times with...
The "F-" designation for this aircraft has not been officially explained; however, it seemed to use the pre-1962 USAF fighter sequence like the F-111. Other modern aircraft also have old pre-1962 numbers (such as the B-52, C-130, and a number of lesser known aircraft), but the F-117 seems to be the only later aircraft not to use the new system. Most modern U.S. military aircraft use post-1962 designations which follow (somewhat) predictable pattern whereby "F-" was usually an air-to-air fighter, "B-" was usually a bomber, and "A-" was usually a ground-attack aircraft. Examples of the foregoing include the F-15 Eagle, the B-2 Spirit and the A-6 Intruder. Still, since the Stealth Fighter is actually primarily a ground-attack plane, the fact that it retains an "F-" designation is one of the reasons there are several other theories. The USAF has always been more proud of its fighters than its ground-attack aircraft, which are sometimes denigrated as "mud movers."[8] Officials may have felt that they could more easily generate political and military support for the radical new aircraft if it were called a "fighter" rather than a bomber or attack plane. Or, the "F-" designation may have been part of the attempt to keep the Nighthawk secret (the program was classified until the late 1980s). This misdirection could have also served to keep the Nighthawk from violating treaties or angering other countries. During development the term 'LT', for Logistics Trainer, was often used. The Lockheed U-2 should have had "R" for reconnissance instead of a "U" for utility, but, was purposely given the wrong letter to cover its true mission.
F-117 at the Miramar Air Station
Also, a recent televised documentary quoted a senior member of the F-117A development team as saying that the top-notch fighter pilots required to fly the new aircraft were more easily attracted to an F- plane, as opposed to a B- or A- aircraft.[9] There has been something of a class distinction between fighter and bomber crews, particularly in the days of the Strategic Air Command (1945-1991), and flying one type often limited a pilot's prospects for flying the other.[citation needed]
The USAF maintains that the F-117A can carry air-to-air missiles, giving it air-to-air combat capability in addition to its primary air-to-ground mission. While that may be technically true, the aircraft is of unknown capability in air-combat. It is likely a poor dogfighter, but there is no expert opinion on its other abilities.
#4
The F-117 is actually getting ready to retire from the Air Force after 25 years of service. No one really heard about this aircraft until the first Gulf War.
#6
...Just a couple quick notes re: the -117. The F-series designation was indeed a ploy to keep the bird a secret as long as possible. At least one or two captured/stolen/bought Soviet fighters that were regularly test-flown at Tonopah or Indian Springs (part of the Nellis AFB complex) also got Century Series F-numbers. One of my former wing commanders, who flew the -117, told me that the bird by right should have had a B-series number because it is, by rights, a light bomber. An A-for-Attack number is used to denote an aircraft that works in and around the front lines in direct support of the troops.
Lastly, it can indeed fire AIM-9 Sidewinder heat-seeking missiles - but they are sufficiently short-ranged that it would be putting the -117 into far more danger than it was worth to use them. In addition, to lock onto a target with them the -117 would have to open its weapons bay doors, which would increase the radar return from the plane and in turn increasing the chance it could be spotted. The -117 isn't a bad aircraft to fly (the 'Wobbly Goblin' nickname the MSM gave it early on is a complete fiction) but it's no dogfighter. However, in one of Tom Clancy's novels a Stealth fighter with AIM-9s was used to whack Soviet AWACS planes over the Central Front - and that mission would have been worth the risk.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/10/2007 7:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
No one really heard about this aircraft until the first Gulf War.
I think it got its first workout during "Just Cause" in Panama. Dunno if that was revealed at the time or not.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
01/10/2007 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Rob,
It did get quite a bit of publicity at the time, all of it bad - but not for the reasons you'd think. The -117s weren't really needed in Panama, but the USAF brass was desperate to get the plane into action and prove it was worth the expense. Two birds were on their way to hit one airfield and they were actually lined up on the target and told to hit another airfield instead - at the same time that they had been instructed to hit the first airfield. The -117 drivers had to do a very quick and dirty approach to the second airfield and IIRC neither aircraft actually hit the actual aimpoint.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/10/2007 8:31 Comments ||
Top||
#9
No-one here's any ideas about the F117s real replacement?
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
01/10/2007 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Steve, it is much easier to get proc dollars, black or white, for a fighter. Remember at the time we still had two bombers, one black and one white, in R&D and use. The AF is brilliant at this game. The joint strike fighter is another great example, they say it will do both ground support and act as a fighter. This is just bull. Once the aircraft is modded to be a fighter it costs too much money and down time to demod the aircraft and remod it for ground support.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/10/2007 10:31 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Thanks, guys. Interesting stuff about secrecy, procurement and R&D. I figured the diff between A- and B- designations was that A- stood for Asskicking-.
I googled, but blew off the wikipedia article on the grounds that fas.org had actual information.
#13
49Pan,
Amen to that unfortunately. The -35 is a small fighter that has the ability to haul air-to-ground munitions. Given the cost (original unit cost was estimated to be at LEAST $24M USD for the USAF version in 1994 dollars; last I heard was $45M to $55M USD in '05 and the USN and USMC versions will be at least 15 to 20% more expensive)no commander will be very willing to risk them where some illiterate jihadi can get lucky and bring one down.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/10/2007 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#14
...And just a note: by way of comparison, this is what one F-35 would buy in the past if we split the difference an call it $50M USD per bird:
LONDON (AP) -- A terror suspect who is subject to severe restrictions on his movements launched a furious outburst in court Wednesday in which he threatened to take his own life. Lawyers for Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh argue that the restrictions imposed on their client contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. Government attorneys contend the measures are needed to prevent him from engaging in "potentially harmful activities."
On the third day of hearings at the High Court into the legality of the so-called control orders, Abu Rideh interrupted proceedings and threatened to kill himself. No skin off my fore. Would you like to borrow my pocket knife?
Told by the judge that he would be removed from the court room unless he kept silent, Abu Rideh went into a tirade. Standing at the back of the court, Abu Rideh said, "I have no human rights in this country. Kill me like they killed Saddam (Hussein). See how many people Blair and Bush have killed!" he exclaimed, referring to President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Do you want me to kill myself?" Sigh If only it was that easy Abu if only.
Was that a trick question?
Rideh, who has a history of self-harm, was immediately tended to by his psychiatrist and lawyer, who accompanied him out of court. The hearing was adjourned while security officers were called. Abu Rideh left the court building soon after with members of his legal team.
Abu Rideh was among 10 people released in 2005 under a new anti-terror law that allows terror suspects to be electronically tagged and required to live under 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfews in private homes where they are denied the use of telephones or the Internet and must apply to the government to talk to outsiders. Ohhh...the humanity!
Prosecutors claimed that Abu Rideh, a Palestinian who came to Britain in 1995 and was granted refugee status, was involved with associates of Osama bin Laden in Britain and abroad before being arrested in 2001. Abu Rideh has acknowledged spending time in Afghanistan, but has said he was involved with welfare projects, not terrorism.
Just spreading money around for the Widows Ammunition Fund.
Lawyers for Abu Rideh have sought a judicial review of the judgment against him, arguing that the restrictions on his life and that of his wife and family contravene European human rights laws. Sadly, in Yurrup, they prolly have a good cause for that assertion.
The court was expected to hear testimony including "national security" evidence - to be heard in private - and medical evidence on how the restrictions have affected Abu Rideh.
#3
The guy's name is Abu. OF COURSE he's a terrorist.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
01/10/2007 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
So he doesn't like the "severe restrictions on his movements" and he's suicidal?
Well, I guess we'll just have to lock him back up and keep him under surveilance for 24 hours a day.
For his own good, y'know?
#7
A terror suspect who is subject to severe restrictions on his movements launched a furious outburst in court Wednesday in which he threatened to take his own life.
Sounds good to me, save the taxpayers some time and money.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/10/2007 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"We think you're bluffing asshole, btw, tonight you get a real steaknife with your mutton. Enjoy, and try to bleed out by the floor drain, k?"
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2007 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
The armed Basque separatist organization ETA said Tuesday that the "permanent cease-fire" it announced last March was still in effect, even as it formally claimed responsibility for the deadly bomb attack on Madrid's main airport terminal a week and a half ago. ETA made its dual-pronged declaration in a statement sent to Gara, the pro- independence Basque-language newspaper that is often used as a vehicle for ETA communiqués. "ETA affirms that the permanent cease-fire started on March 24, 2006, still stands," ETA said in a long statement that was summarized by Gara. "It claims responsibility for the attack at Barajas," the name of the Madrid airport. I guess that makes sense. Not a lot of sense. But sense. In a Basque sorta way. If you look at it right...
After the bombing, the Socialist government of Spain said it had called an end to the peace process started with ETA following the cease-fire, maintaining that ETA had miscalculated and that violence was incompatible with negotiation. The view that there could be no truce with violence was reiterated on Tuesday by Judge Baltasar Garzón, the country's most prominent investigative magistrate, who has spent nearly two decades investigating and building criminal cases against terrorist networks in Spain. "ETA gambled that if there were a terrorist attack, it would strike fear in the government and win concessions," Garzón said in an interview. "We would never give into that kind of blackmail. ETA terrorists don't seem to understand that. They do not yet accept that they are criminals."
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The Shin Bet internal security service Tuesday confirmed the arrest of Imam Fawaz Damra after he was deported from the USA last week. Damra is being held at the Kishon prison. Cleveland area Muslims reported as seething over the news.
While some called for help pinpointing Fawaz Damra's whereabouts and condition, others accused the U.S. government of deception and possible crimes in his disappearance.
"I didn't think we could deport people to where they'd be in harm's way," said Bashar Hamdan, a member of the Islamic Center of Cleveland, which Damra led for nearly 15 years. "We sent him to prison in Israel. I thought that was against the rules?" Maybe, maybe not, said David Leopold, a Cleveland immigration attorney and law professor.
The law allows the government to deport people to nearly any nation that agrees to accept them, provided they have some connection to that land, they would not face torture and the deportation doesn't break any prior legal agreements.
"I guess the question becomes, Was the proper procedure followed to the letter here?' " Leopold said.
Channel 5 in Cleveland showed a clip from 1/9/07 Parma news conference when Damra's wife, Nesreen, tearfully appealed for help in finding her husband, her 3 daughters in the background. "Neither I nor anyone I know has heard from him for over six days," Nesreen Damra said, her voice breaking and tears streaming down her face. "I am pleading to everyone and anyone to help me find my husband." At the time of this news conference, Damra had already been 'found'
One of Damra's lawyers, Mo Abdrabboh, said Jordan refused to accept Damra as a deportee, even though Damra holds Jordanian citizenship. Robert Birach, a Detroit immigration lawyer said "My hope is that the Israelis will just hold him for three, four or five days to question him and make sure he's not a threat. But the Knesset [the Israeli parliament] has it codified," "He can be held incommunicado administratively for up to six months with no phone calls or contact with lawyers." Smadar Ben-Natan, an Israeli lawyer retained by Damra's family to represent him said she planned to visit him soon.
Haider Alawan,a friend of Damra, said he is in "a black hole. We labeled him a terrorist against Israel. They're not going to be giving him cookies and candies." Have our fearless leaders eaten their Powdermilk biscuits, are they willing to do what needs to be done? Is the electorate growing a backbone? Stay tuned.
#3
Take your time extracting any info you can. Then dispose properly to assure no return sneaks into US. And, thanks very much for your continued good work.
#5
ROFLMAO, USN! So true, and VERY quick results. Only the Joooos could pull off a stunt like that!
Posted by: BA ||
01/10/2007 14:40 Comments ||
Top||
#6
...Ya know, as a good Clevelander, I ought to send Fawaz a little something to remind him of home while he's assisting the Israelis with their inquiries.
Maybe go on over to the Sportsman Deli at 9th and St. Clair and get him a nice ham sandwich. I KNOW he'd appreciate it...heh,heh,heh...
Mike
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/10/2007 16:41 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Islamic Center of Cleveland = islamist support group. All it's members should be checked for terrorist links.
"I agree with the first part, the secular part, but I don't agree with the second. I don't want to behave like, and live as, a non-practicing Muslim or a secular Muslim when I'm not a Muslim!"
That was by far my most animated and passionate response.
Then, it came time for the two sides to summarize their views. The RPO [refugee protection officer] provided a mixed and lengthy conclusion. It wasn't completely negative nor positive.
My lawyer, however, provided a most concise and brilliant summary. He mentioned the recent history of Pakistan and Daniel Pearl. He said that, "Why can't he ask for protection from the Pakistani government? How can he when the state itself criminalizes his views!? Look at Ordinance 295."
He went on to provide numerous examples from human rights reports... Eventually the RPO became convinced that the applicant was sincere in his fear of repatriation based on his apostasy.
#2
This points out why millions of Muslims are converting to Christianity. They are so revolted by Islam that they aren't even willing to just not practice it or become secular. They want completely out and nothing more to do with it.
Such revulsion is almost physical, the idea of Islam making them sick to their stomachs.
Democratic leaders said Tuesday that they intended to hold symbolic votes in the House and Senate on President Bushs plan to send more troops to Baghdad, forcing Republicans to take a stand on the proposal and seeking to isolate the president politically over his handling of the war.
Senate Democrats decided to schedule a vote on the resolution after a closed-door meeting on a day when Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-runk) introduced legislation to require Mr. Bush to gain Congressional approval before sending more troops to Iraq. The Senate vote is expected as early as next week, after an initial round of committee hearings on the plan Mr. Bush will lay out for the nation Wednesday night in a televised address delivered from the White House library, a setting chosen because it will provide a fresh backdrop for a presidential message.
The office of Nancy Pelosi, speaker of the House, followed with an announcement that the House would also take up a resolution in opposition to a troop increase. House Democrats were scheduled to meet Wednesday morning to consider whether to interrupt their carefully choreographed 100-hour, two-week-long rollout of their domestic agenda this month to address the Iraq war.
In both chambers, Democrats made clear that the resolutions – which would do nothing in practical terms to block Mr. Bushs intention to increase the United States military presence in Iraq – would be the minimum steps they would pursue. They did not rule out eventually considering more muscular responses, like a strongly-worded memo seeking to cap the number of troops being deployed to Iraq or limiting financing for the war – steps that could provoke a Constitutional and political showdown over the presidents power to wage war.
The resolutions would represent the most significant reconsideration of Congressional support for the war since it began, and mark the first big clash between the White House and Congress since the November election, which put the Senate and House under the control of the Democrats. The decision to pursue a confrontation with the White House was a turning point for Democrats, who have struggled with how to take on Mr. Bushs war policy without being perceived as undermining the military or risking criticism as defeatists. If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president hes on his own, said Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. That will spark defeatism real change.
The administration continued Tuesday to press its case with members of Congress from both parties. By the time Mr. Bush delivers his speech, 148 lawmakers will have come to the White House in the past week to discuss the war, White House aides said Tuesday night, adding that most met with the president himself.
While Mr. Kennedy and a relatively small number of other Democrats were pushing for immediate, concrete steps to challenge Mr. Bush through legislation, Democratic leaders said that for now they favored the less-divisive approach of simply asking senators to cast a vote on a nonbinding resolution for or against the plan. They also sought to frame the clash with the White House on their terms, using language reminiscent of the Vietnam War era to suggest that increasing the United States military presence in Iraq would be a mistake.
We believe that there is a number of Republicans who will join with us to say no to escalation, said the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. I really believe that if we can come up with a bipartisan approach to this escalation, we will do more to change the direction of that war in Iraq than any other thing that we can do.
On the eve of the presidents Iraq speech, the White House sent Frederick W. Kagan, a military analyst who helped develop the troop increase plan, to meet with the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
But Republican officials conceded that at least 10 of their own senators were likely to oppose the plan to increase troops levels in Iraq. And Democrats were proposing their resolution with that in mind, hoping to send a forceful message that as many as 60 senators believed strengthening American forces in Baghdad was the wrong approach. Democratic leaders said they expect all but a few of their senators to back the resolution.
In an interview on Tuesday, Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, said he was becoming increasingly skeptical that a troop increase was in the best interest of the United States. Im particularly concerned about the greater injection of our troops into the middle of sectarian violence. Whom do you shoot at, the Sunni or the Shia? Mr. Warner said. Our American G.I.s should not be subjected to that type of risk.
But the Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, said Congress could not supplant the authority of the president. You cant run a war by a committee of 435 in the House and 100 in the Senate, he said.
The White House press secretary, Tony Snow, criticized the Democrats plans. We understand that the resolution is purely symbolic, but the war and the necessity of succeeding in Iraq are very real, he said Tuesday night.
On Thursday, Democrats in the House and Senate will open a series of hearings on the Iraq war. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice are among those who have agreed to testify.
Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said that if he was not satisfied that Mr. Bushs plan has sufficient incentives and penalties for the Iraqis, he might support a resolution or amendment to cap the number of American troops in Iraq. We have got to force the Iraqis to take charge of their own country, Mr. Levin said at a breakfast meeting with reporters. We cant save them from themselves. It is a political solution. It is no longer a military solution. It's never a solution with him. He still opposed missile defense against the Norks.
Lawmakers said Senate Democrats appeared broadly united in opposition to Mr. Bushs approach during their private luncheon on Tuesday. While there were a few senators who favored cutting off money for any troop increase, a handful of others expressed uncertainty about challenging the president on a potential war-powers issue. We have to be very careful about blocking funding for any troops because we dont want to leave our troops short-changed, said Senator Mary L. Landrieu, (D-of the body).
Yet a large share of the House Democratic caucus supports a stronger stance against the plan. It remained unclear whether a resolution would satisfy constituents. Twice in the past 12 months the president has increased troop levels in a last-ditch effort to control the rapidly deteriorating security situation in Iraq, said Representative Martin T. Meehan, Democrat of Massachusetts, who proposed a resolution opposing a troop increase. Rather than cooling tensions in Baghdad, the situation has descended further into chaos.
A day before President Bush is to address the nation on Iraq, congressional Democrats moved Tuesday to pre-empt his plan to send thousands more troops to Baghdad by denying him the money to pay for it.
Sen. Edward Kennedy proposed legislation that would bar funding for new troops.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., took the opening shot in the first head-to-head confrontation between the president and the newly Democratic Congress, proposing legislation that would bar funding for new troops.
NBC News has reported that Bush will announce the deployment of 20,000 more troops and push a new program to speed reconstruction and provide jobs for Iraqis in his nationally televised address Wednesday night. A senior defense official told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that the first of those troops would be in the country before the end of the month.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Why God? Why couldn't he gave been the one to die in that car?
Posted by: Mike N. ||
01/10/2007 0:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Super Ted was screaming so loud his voice failed. Bet his blood pressure was in high 200's.
Teddy is threatening to use War Powers Act to sideline this. A careful read would give him some credibility here. Certainly enough to cause some trouble.
#5
Presidential power to wage war is black letter constitutional law and the last time I looked it took a constitutional admendment not a puny statute to rescind that power..
The only option Congress has is to cut funds to the war, not an option should the left want to be competitive in 2008.
#6
Iff IRAN is truly the WORLD-ACKNOWLEDGED [many nations], and not merely US-acknowledged, Leader/Sponsor of International Islamist Terror, then Congress should be voting to raise $$$ to support "regime change" in Iran. NOT "DEM HOUSE WON'T CUT FUNDING ERGO DEM SENATE WILL" post-elex, New Yarn 2007 politix.
#9
badanov, SpecOp is right. Of the legislature's 17 enumerated powers, 7 of them give Congress the power to regulate and fund the military. The President has plenary power to conduct foreign affairs, but the major Constitutional role is only as CINC.
The War Powers Act is an additional legislative constraint placed on the executive by Congress dating from the Vietnam era. Only Congress has the power to declare war; the WPA shifts even more power from the President to Congress in any situation where there has been no such formal declaration. Meaning, all of them, since Dec. 8, 1941 was the most recent formal declaration of war.
Personally, I think the WPA violates the separation of powers doctrine and gives the legislature an incentive to abuse its power at the expense of national security. But it's been litigated up the yin-yang and found constitutional by the Supreme Court. I'm actually surprised it's taken the moonbats so long to invoke it.
#11
Well, he's finally back in the news. And he beat Kerry to the punch. Maybe he even feelshis life has meaning again.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/10/2007 6:06 Comments ||
Top||
#12
What we've been hearing is the generals don't want more troops. [Please weigh in on this, those of you over there now or recently. Thanks!!] In that case, President Bush is playing a pretty poker bluff on the Democrats by allowing them to publicly refuse to support the war effort, even as the general public are spooked by airplane incidents and reports of major attacks here at home being prevented by amazing intelligence/police work. Even my retired Aunt Ada in Florida has taken to emailing all her friends little articles she finds on Ahmadenijad's nukes and Saudi links to Al Qaeda, so I pointed her to the Apostate site we had some articles from the other day (I don't think her nerves are quite ready for Rantburg's civil, well-reasoned discourse).
#16
Kennedy and the Dems are playing right into Bush's hands. He, bush, WILL deploy more troops. If the Dems vote to cut funding Bush will stand their names as congressional leaders who do not support our troops, read not getting reelected. Bush will cut procurement and other programs to support the war and blame every death on the Dems for lack of funds to buy proper life saving equipment. The Dems are comming out of the closet and showing that their retoric is just that and they hold the military in contempt and could care less about us.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
01/10/2007 9:48 Comments ||
Top||
#17
The Supremes have never ruled on the constitutionality of the (blatantly unconstitutional) WPR; nor would they, as it's the most obvious political question one could think of.
#19
I think Ted misses the (or his commie friend's) good ole days of Vietnam's 'Re-Education Centers' and Cambodian Killing Fields.....
I hope one of the thing Bush announces is the relaxation of the Rules of Engagement (i.e. stop the PC bullshit and kill the badguys). I hear Sadr is already arming everyone he can draft in anticipation of being stomped.
#21
JSU,
You speak wisdom - the WPA has never been challenged, much less had its legality decided. I'd love to see Bush be the one to stare down Congress on that one...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/10/2007 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Bwaahahahaa! For all the pomp and circumstance surrounding your speech, the best the liberal components of the press can say is He has opposed the war from the beginning and At least hes been consistent. Damn Teddy 45 years in public office and your still considered irrelevant. Go get em Tiger!
#24
exJAG, It's my understanding that Congress corrected that. I thought they rewrote another bill that fixes the legislative veto problem by requireing it to go to the President for Veto then come back for the override, just like any other bill. Also, I think it only applied to military engagements without a Declaration of War.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
01/10/2007 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Which invalidates the WPA, regardless of its undecided constitutionality, since there already has been a court decision stating that the authorization for the Iraq War is effectively a declaration of war by Congress.
#26
I don't understand how the funding for troops is calcualted. Perhaps someone here can enlighten me. Reports are saying an increase in 21,500 troops will cost 5.6 Billion. I'm assuming this is the additional funding Kennedy wants to block. Well, where does that number come from. It's not like these are "new" US Army troops. They would be somewhere doing something and we would be paying for it. Does the 5.6 Billion figure calculate only additional "combat pay" and the additional bullets/bombs/supplies etc. I have a feeling it costs several billion just having these guys at home. Whats the real skinny on this?
#27
tough to separate out the specifics of terh Iraq ops for funds cuts. My guess is Bush will stare down the Donks, who have hate, but no real agenda, unity, or political backbone. War Powers Act IMHO is unconstitutional, and any effort by the Donks to usurp CinC powers or cut funding will reinforce their image (rightly earned) of animosity to those in uniform who defend OUR freedom. Bush is playing chicken with chickens, for a good reason. YMMV
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2007 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#28
terh? Jeebus! the... typing too fast and agitated...my bad. PIMF
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2007 19:08 Comments ||
Top||
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a message Tuesday for voters who elected a Democratic Congress last month
We will not cut off funding for the troops. Absolutely not.
hoping it would force President Bush to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq. We will not cut off funding for the troops, Pelosi said. Absolutely not, she said.
A reporter had asked Pelosi if the new Democratic-controlled Congress would vote to end the funding of the war if Democrats were unable to persuade President Bush to change his Iraq strategy.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I will respect her in her position until she bungles. It is a mistake to discount elected officials until they use their weight. I think she is semi-gloss.
#3
More like a "I did not have sexual relations" moment.
You WILL cut off funding, madame, by whatever means you can. Don't even try to deny it.
Any and all tricks possible that can get monies away from the WoT and back to funding the Democrats' main project - converting America into a society not meaningfully different from Euro-style socialism - can and will be used. It's why she was hired.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/10/2007 6:33 Comments ||
Top||
But we might cut off funding for the war, or rather, we'll figure out a covert way to cut off funding for the war and redeploy the troops in any maner that doesn't make us look dumber than we already are.
#6
I stil say Bush should send an AC-130 up to Napa some night to shoot up a couple of her vineyards.
Juat a little chin music to remind the lady who's really still the boss...
Even as President Bush prepares to propose a troop escalation in Iraq, Rep. Keith Ellison says the solution lies in an immediate withdrawal of military forces from the country and focusing instead on political and diplomatic efforts.
"So rather than do something small and ineffective, why not get about the business of what we're going to have to do eventually, which is to begin to end the occupation?"
Ellison, a freshman Minnesota Democrat and the first Muslim elected to Congress, made the comments in a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press on Tuesday. "We could describe it as a redeployment or withdrawal, but I think we have run the course in terms of our ability to resolve this conflict militarily," he said. "I think we need to have a political and economic and diplomatic engagement, and we need to encourage the forces that are in Iraq to begin to resolve the violence in Iraq."
Ellison argued that President Bush's expected plan to send 20,000 more troops to Iraq is "way too late, way too little" to make a difference. "So rather than do something small and ineffective, why not get about the business of what we're going to have to do eventually, which is to begin to end the occupation?" he asked.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Did he really ask why we shouldnt retreat? Fuck him. That's why.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
01/10/2007 0:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This POS is going to be constant trouble. Thanks Minneapolis.
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.
#6
SO if it's too little, and too late, what would it take to not be so? 200,000 troops? WOuld you be happy then?
I am so tired of the search for the painless, perfect solution. SO many seem to think if it's not the perfect solution, we shouldn't bother. Drilling in ANWR leaps to mind.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/10/2007 6:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Ellison made these same points during the campaign and was elected on these points.
It would have been better to get ellison on the record regarding honor killings in Moslem countries, arab death squads in Dafur, execution of women who resist rape in Moslem countries, etc.
(KUNA) -- The Indian army Tuesday expressed skepticism about possible demilitarization of Jammu and Kashmir - as proposed by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf - saying the demand was old and unacceptable. The army's view was highlighed by spokesman of the Indian Defense Ministry Lt Col S D Goswami in an article titled "Demilitarization in Kashmir: The Area of Caution."
The article was released to the mass media Tuesday in Jammu, winter capital of Indian-administered part of Jammu and Kashmir. "Pakistan's proposal for demilitarization of Kashmir means complete withdrawal of troops not only from the borders but also from such urban communities as Kupwara, Baramulla and Srinagar," Lt Col Goswami wrote in the article.
"There is a distinction between troops returning to the barracks on completion of internal security tasks assigned to them and troops being completely moved out of the area including from border defense duties. Kashmir borders Pakistan and China. It has suffered four invasions from the western neighbors and one from the northern. Besides, there is cross-border terrorism in which 30,000 people have lost their lives. In such a situation, withdrawal of defense forces would be fatal," Goswami said.
"Even if normalcy is restored and peace returns to Jammu and Kashmir, troops can go back to the barracks but demilitarization as such cannot be considered as the requirement of defending the country's borders which remains paramount, in fact non-negotiable," Lt Col Goswami said.
The suggestion for the withdrawal of Indian troops was made by Pakistan immediately after the invaders were routed from the Kashmir valley in 1948. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah, the then head of Kashmir's emergency administration, had, in February 1948, turned down the demand at a public reception in Delhi.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
Qazi Hussain Ahmed, president of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the six-party alliances secretary-general, continued sparring over the issue of resignations from parliament following a grand jirga of NWFP parliamentarians here at Frontier House on Tuesday. The MMA Supreme Council is the body to take the final decision on resignations from the National Assembly, said Qazi. Fazl was quick to respond that his Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Fazl) party had already decided that it would not resign from the NA. He added that he would not allow any MMA member to quit parliament in protest at the Womens Protection Act.
Settle this like true sons of Allan, gentlemen. Scimitars at one pace.
However, both later told reporters that there were no differences in the MMA.
I agree. It's the same old tired posturing, pouting, preening, and pomposity day after day after day.
The two held separate meetings with NWFP Chief Minister Akram Duranni and Senator Maulana Gul Naseeb Khan. Sources told Daily Times that the MMAs internal differences and national politics were discussed at the meetings. The sources said that Qazi demanded that the government conduct an inquiry into the bombing of a madrassa in Bajaur Agency before the by-election to a National Assembly seat there, vacated by MMA member Sahibzada Haroonur Rashid, that is due today. Fazl said the present assemblies could not re-elect President General Pervez Musharraf.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There can only be one turban to rule them all. Bomb vest duel at high noon.
Posted by: ed ||
01/10/2007 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
they're too holy. They'll have some unlucky seconds take their place
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/10/2007 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
Maulana Fazlur Rehman will become the president of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) if the current president, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, resigns, Aaj television reported on Tuesday.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Will you kids go ahead and quit already? this shit has been going on for far too long.
and i have not really seen an answer to this question: if somebody resigns / quits, how can the other side not refuse it? what are you gonna do: FIRE him?
whatta bunch of shitheads.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is concerned that U.S. bombing in southern Somalia could escalate hostilities and harm civilians who are reported to have been killed in the airstrikes, a spokeswoman said Tuesday. "Notwithstanding the motives for this reported military action, the secretary-general is concerned about the new dimension this kind of action could introduce to the conflict and the possible escalation of hostilities that may result," spokeswoman Michele Montas said. "He is also concerned about the impact this would have on the civilian population in southern Somalia and regrets the reported loss of civilian lives," she said.
Ban said last week the rout of the Islamic movement by Ethiopian troops and Somali forces supporting the country's U.N.-backed transitional government offered "a new opportunity" for the government to establish full authority throughout the country. He urged the government to seek political reconciliation, called for the speedy deployment of African peacekeepers, and welcomed Ethiopia's statement it intends to withdraw its forces "expeditiously." Asked whether the U.S. bombing violated the arms embargo, Montas said the council would be discussing Somalia on Wednesday. The U.N. is trying to gather more information about the situation, she said. Montas said U.N. humanitarian operations in the area where the bombs were being dropped were suspended and international staff were evacuated before Christmas when the recent fighting started.
#2
I'm way way past being utterly fed up with the arrogant slander to which Washington has no public response. Imagine the reaction if the US immediately and furiously responded to every one of these outrageous slights from non-players (int. organizations), moral cretins (same, plus various private citizens and orgs, media orgs, and governments), impudent dependents (Europe), and criminals (Russia, Arab world, Third World, China, Cuba, NoKo, Venezuela, Zimbabwe). That's right - they'd decline in number and intensity, starting right away. There seems little doubt that there is a meaningful corrosive effect, with actual implications for our interests and freedom of action, from this non-stop, unanswered slander and baseless criticism. The utter failure to address this problem is a disaster.
#4
It is better you watch and hold your tounge awhile Moon. If you follow in the footsteps of Kofi, Turtle bay will become a prime real estate sale, and you will have NO JOB.
#9
I see "concerned" in there, but not "deeply concerned", so I don't think Ban Man's finished orientation yet.
I'm sure he'll get with the program once they set him straight...
LONDON (Reuters) - British operations aimed at preparing for the handover of security in Iraq's southern province of Basra to Iraqi authority could be completed in the next few weeks, Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday.
"There has been an operation that the British have been conducting in Basra over the past few months which will be completed in the next few weeks," Blair said, adding he would then discuss future British policy in Iraq with parliament. "British policy in Iraq... remains as it has been in the weeks leading up to today. Once the operation in Basra is properly concluded...I think it would be appropriate for me to report back to the House and I would be happy to do that."
Blair's comments suggest an earlier handover than had been previously thought. British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in November last year that Britain could hand over control of Basra to the Iraqi government in spring 2007.
Kurdish refugee comes to US, makes good, joins army, goes home.
MOSUL, Iraq, Jan. 9, 2007 Eight years and many small miracles later, U.S. Army Spc. Jotyar Tile retuned to his native land and will be serving both his countries. Tile remembers the day his family fled northern Iraq after years of bombing and terror by Saddam Husseins government. If we had stayed one more day we would not have made it out alive; they were using chemicals against us and destroying our villages," Tile said.
My father was a hard-headed and proud Kurd and did not want to leave our home. We were the last family to leave Qumri, he said. For years his family had endured the anti-Kurdish campaign led by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. I remember every Friday we had to dress up and wear army clothes to school and march around and raise the flag and act like soldiers, Tile said. Saddam demanded we do this from about age 5 and up.
In August 1988, then-18-year-old Tile, his parents, five sisters and seven brothers fled his home in the Kurdish region of northern Iraq to a refugee camp in Turkey. Tile explained the conditions in the refugee camp were appalling with approximately 16,000 refugees in tents in four to five square miles. Refugees were not allowed to work and all had fled with no belongings; not even bringing pots to boil water in. Many became ill and died because of the poor health and hygiene conditions and simple preventive medical issues like frostbite were rampant, he said.
Then, one day, the U.S. and U.N. visited us and asked if we wanted to go to the U.S. or Europe, Tile beamed. I said yes, I want to go to the U.S., he said, but his parents declined and they returned to their home in 1992 along with his siblings. On Sept. 29, 1992 Tile, arrived in New York City as a refugee and was given a green card. Within days he moved in with a sponsor in Fargo, N.D.
I did not know anything about U.S. except California and New York, he said. And I didnt speak a word of English. Tile explained how a very nice and beautiful lady volunteer named Karen Harris changed his life. This lady, with whom he has not had contact with in years, taught him how to speak English, drive a car, and got him his first job for $4.25 an hour.
I would love to contact her and thank her but dont know how, he regretted. When I received my first paycheck, I went back to the social service and thanked them and told them I didnt want anymore of their help, he said with a smile. He said they tried to tell him that he could continue to receive support for months, but he said he wanted it go to someone else who really needed it.
I wanted to join the U.S. Army ever since I came to the U.S., he said, to show my appreciation for everything they did for my people. However, Tile did not have a high school diploma and did not know how to obtain a general equivalency diploma. The next several years meant several moves for Tile. He moved to Sioux Falls and worked in a meat-cutting factory cutting pork even though, as a Muslim, I do not eat pork. He also lived in Nashville, Tenn., and Georgia.
Eventually he learned through a friend of his that there was a special program created for allowing native language speakers to join the Army as interpreters.
I contacted this guy and they flew me out to California and I joined the Army as an E-3 after taking the ASVAB test, physical, language exam and others. Since then I have also recruited two others, Tile said. After completing basic training and advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, S.C., Tile found out he was assigned to a unit scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan.
I went to my commander and told him I would do my duty as a soldier, and I would go anywhere they told me to go. But I asked him not to rely on me as an interpreter for Afghanistan because I do not speak those dialects, Tile explained.
Within a few weeks, and with some help from his first sergeant, Tile was reassigned to a unit deployed to Iraq. Upon arriving in Iraq, he joined his new unit, the 352nd Corps Support Battalion from the Army Reserves out of Macon, Ga. The unit performs a wide variety of logistical support for coalition forces serving in northern Iraq.
Tile said he has spoken with his family, and they now know that he is back in Iraq and are proud of him for serving both his countries. He will spend his deployment in the Kurdish region serving as an interpreter and will be only an hour or so from his original home and family.Cool. I hope he gets to go home.
My first goal is to make enough money to fix my familys roof and to help them. he said. When Tiles family returned to their village in 1992, there was nothing left, and the family was forced to start over and rebuild a house in a different location.
Tile, now 35, said he loves his family and wants to help them and still misses his mothers cooking even though has hasnt seen them in more than 14 years. The U.S. did a lot for my people and this is only a little bit that I can give back, Tile said.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/10/2007 07:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If more immigrants were like this guy, I'd be pro-immigration. Unfortunately, I suspect many "refugees" just want to come dip into the gravy train and give up working all together.
Fatah's leader in Gaza Strip has branded Hamas "a bunch of murderers and thieves."
"They lost the Palestinian street, which sees what they have become. A bunch of murderers and thieves who execute Palestinians only because they are Fatah members," Mohammed Dahlan said in an interview with Israel's Haaretz daily on Wednesday.
Dahlan said that a huge Fatah rally held in Gaza City on Sunday and attended by thousands of supporters was a show of force to Hamas. "We proved to Hamas that Gaza is not theirs. Gaza is not Tora Bora," he said. Fatah intends to hold another rally on Thursday near the seat of the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah.
Dahlan also warned Israel to stay out of the internal Palestinian crisis. "Stay away from us. You don't help, you only do damage. Every time somebody on your side talks about 'helping Abu Mazen' they hurt him," he said.
14 percent of suicide bombers Israeli
Thirty-eight out of 272 suicide bombings in Israel were carried out by Palestinians who had obtained Israeli citizenship through family unification, the Shin Bet security service said. Solution: Anyone Paleo who applies for family unification, should be booted out so they can unify, outside of Israel.
An intelligence official reported the numbers Monday to the Knesset Internal Affairs and Environment Committee, which was discussing whether to extend a temporary law banning automatic family reunification when Palestinians marry Israelis, Haaretz reported.
The law, enacted due to security reasons, expires Jan. 16.
The state has decided to open a criminal investigation against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on his alleged role in the Bank Leumi stock scandal.
Attorney General Menahem Mazuz, who would ordinarily be the official to declare a criminal investigation into a head of state, removed himself from the Olmert investigation due to a conflict of interest, Channel 10 reported, as his sister may have been involved in the scandal. Instead, State Attorney Eran Shendar will announce the criminal investigation after Olmert returns from his visit to China.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Whatever it takes to make him step aside is a good thing. Change horsies before the next round starts, please.
#3
If PM OLmert is removed from power, could that trigger a No Confidence vote followed by an early election, British style? Or does Israel follow the American practice of fixed terms of office?
#6
Even if Olmert is convicted, that will not change the Knesset before the next election. His party (coalition) still have the majority.
Think if Pelosi were kicked out. We'd get someone like Murtha or Conyers. Big improvement. Both the US and Israel have to hang on until the next election and hope the results are better.
WASHINGTON - The United States is expected to announce sanctions against Bank Sepah, a major Iranian commercial bank, under a presidential order aimed at freezing the assets of proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters, several US officials and diplomats said on Monday.
Bank Sepah, established in 1925, is Irans oldest bank. It has a large network of branches in Iran as well as offices in Paris, Frankfurt and Rome, and London. Its Bank Sepah International Plc subsidiary in the United Kingdom specializes in providing finance and services for international trade with a focus on Iran and the Gulf region, according to its Web site.
US officials say the parent bank facilitates acquisitions related to Irans ballistic missile program. The Americans think they have enough proof of this activity to take action, said one European diplomat.
The administration has talked to Britain and other European countries about taking similar action against Bank Sepah, European diplomats said. But the British argue that their legal system is more restrictive and does not allow for quick action. However, the British are examining what they might do, a European diplomat said.
The US sanctions are expected to be invoked under Executive Order 13382, which Bush signed in June 2005 so the United States would have another tool to combat the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles that deliver them. It authorizes the imposition of strong financial sanctions against not only proliferators of weapons of mass destruction but also individuals and companies providing support for them.
In September, Levey announced measures to cut off one of Irans main state-owned banks, Saderat, from dealings with the US financial system, accusing the Iranian government of using the bank to transfer money to terrorist organizations. Using different authority than that expected to be cited in the Bank Sepah case, he charged Saderat, with 3,400 branch offices, was transferring money to Hizbollah and Hamas as well as other groups including Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Just get an insider by hook or crook. (don't look at the methods) Then - CLEAN IT OUT. Steal ever damn cent in it's accounts. Drain them with money transfers to banks all over and do a high-speed shell game with those monies..
Russia ran into opposition from France, the United States and other Security Council members when it sought to ask the chief investigator probing the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister for the names of 10 countries that have failed to cooperate with his commission.
Russia's UN Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said Tuesday it was the Security Council's responsibility to make sure that all countries cooperate with the investigation into Rafik Hariri's assassination. But France, the US, Britain and others defended the position of chief investigator Serge Brammertz, who does not want to disclose the names at this time, council diplomats said. In his fourth report to the council on Dec. 16, Brammertz said Syria's cooperation with his investigators "remains timely and efficient" though he criticized 10 other countries - which he did not name - for failing to respond to 22 requests from his International Independent Investigation Commission.
A report last year by Brammertz's predecessor implicated Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services in the Feb. 14, 2005, bomb blast that killed Hariri and 22 others in central Beirut, and every report to the council has addressed Syria's cooperation. Four pro-Syrian Lebanese generals have been under arrest for 16 months accused of involvement in Hariri's murder.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/10/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 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.
CAIRO, Jan 10 (Reuters) - The Arab League said on Wednesday U.S. military action in Somalia had killed "many innocent victims" and demanded that Washington refrain from such attacks.
The Pentagon confirms one attack on al-Qaida suspects in southern Somalia. One spokesman said that the attack was based on what he called "credible evidence." But there are other accounts from the region itself that describe more than one assault and more casualties. 
(SomaliNet) Tunisias president and the entire Tunisia community should be on the look out after an Islamist group vowed to fight against his order that banned Tunisias women from veiling while in public buildings. The Islamists made this vow on a website belonging to a group, The 
SEOUL - The United States is deploying a squadron of stealth fighters to South Korea, a US military spokesman said on Wednesday, amid speculation that North Korea may be ready to test a second nuclear device. The United States is sending about 15 to 20 of its F-117A Nighthawk fighters to South Korea, the spokesman for US Forces Korea said. This is a routine deployment, said Kim Yong-kyu. It is a regular operational matter."
LONDON (AP) -- A terror suspect who is subject to severe restrictions on his movements launched a furious outburst in court Wednesday in which he threatened to take his own life. Lawyers for 
The armed Basque separatist organization ETA said Tuesday that the "permanent cease-fire" it announced last March was still in effect, even as it formally claimed responsibility for the deadly bomb attack on Madrid's main airport terminal a week and a half ago. ETA made its dual-pronged declaration in a statement sent to Gara, the pro- independence Basque-language newspaper that is often used as a vehicle for ETA communiqués. "ETA affirms that the permanent cease-fire started on March 24, 2006, still stands," ETA said in a long statement that was summarized by Gara. "It claims responsibility for the attack at Barajas," the name of the Madrid airport.
A day before President Bush is to address the nation on Iraq, congressional Democrats moved Tuesday to pre-empt his plan to send thousands more troops to Baghdad by denying him the money to pay for it. 
Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had a message Tuesday for voters who elected a Democratic Congress last month 
Qazi Hussain Ahmed, president of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), and Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the six-party alliances secretary-general, continued sparring over the issue of resignations from parliament following a grand jirga of NWFP parliamentarians here at Frontier House on Tuesday. The MMA Supreme Council is the body to take the final decision on resignations from the National Assembly, said Qazi. Fazl was quick to respond that his Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Fazl) party had already decided that it would not resign from the NA. He added that he would not allow any MMA member to quit parliament in protest at the Womens Protection Act.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is concerned that U.S. bombing in southern Somalia could escalate hostilities and harm civilians who are reported to have been killed in the airstrikes, a spokeswoman said Tuesday. "Notwithstanding the motives for this reported military action, the secretary-general is concerned about the new dimension this kind of action could introduce to the conflict and the possible escalation of hostilities that may result," spokeswoman Michele Montas said. "He is also concerned about the impact this would have on the civilian population in southern Somalia and regrets the reported loss of civilian lives," she said.
LONDON (Reuters) - British operations aimed at preparing for the handover of security in Iraq's southern province of Basra to Iraqi authority could be completed in the next few weeks, Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday.
The state has decided to open a criminal investigation against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on his alleged role in the Bank Leumi stock scandal. 
WASHINGTON - The United States is expected to announce sanctions against 
Russia ran into opposition from France, the United States and other Security Council members when it sought to ask the chief investigator probing the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister for the names of 10 countries that have failed to cooperate with his commission. 
