#40 How about instead of just deleting the comment, delete it and leave a link to the same comment that was posted earlier, since most of it is the same anyway. That way, people can also see what was deleted, and unmutual's point could be taken care of as well.
Posted by: Rafael 2004-03-25 5:19:35 PM Comment Top
I was pretty tired at the time, so I grumbled something, then put on my nightshirt and sleepy cap, grabbed my candle, and stumbled up the stairs to my trundle bed. By the time Rosy Fingered Dawn came nipping by, I'd reconsidered, somewhat. Because of the way I do it, deleted SPAM posts are simply overwritten. But it was pretty easy to build a mechanism to hold those that don't get through. I have no idea why anybody'd want to read SPAM, but who am I to account for other people's tastes?
Posted by: Fred ||
03/26/2004 10:01:19 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Probably OT, but has anyone else who's made their email addresses available on Rantburg received delivery failure notices for emails containing virus attachments? I've had a few in the last week or so, including a couple from homelandsecurity@michaelmoore.com. Obviously, I haven't been sending these!
#3
Just checked my email, Bulldog. I'm terribly disappointed...no spam from michaelmoore.com, tomridge.com, or georgegalloway.com. I have won several lotteries however, and poor beleaguered Madame Abacha has an offer I can't refuse...
#4
I use a special Hotmail account here, and any other site that requires a e-mail address, just for that reason. It acts as a spam sump and unless I recognize the sender, I just dump the whole mess without reading any of it.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/26/2004 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I got a tender missive from Mme. Mobutu asking for my financial assitance. Non "Madame" you will not steal my dough.
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
03/26/2004 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The best email address is Mojo's:
nobody@home.com
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/26/2004 11:39 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Bulldog,
I received some with Rantburg in the address last month when that virus first surfaced. The network at my office got hammered for a couple of days.
#9
Heh, Fred I didn't mean for you to have sleepless nights over this. But I like the idea. The sinktrap is like a psychiatric hospital (with no offense to those in psychiatric hospitals intended)... come see what arrived in the insane department today!!! How long before they get out? Prolly never. Some days I feel I belong there too.
Posted by: Rafael ||
03/26/2004 12:17 Comments ||
Top||
#10
y'know, I love you guys, even if you won't give me any Bud Lite. But even with an email account created just to catch & filter spam I'd be AFRAID of what would come in if I posted my email address here (not that I comment all that often.) Hmmmm, I wonder if the folks at Chomsky's site posted their email addresses when commenting....harvesting anyone? ;)
#13
I got several of those, the usual Nigerian/Zimbabwean/South African/etc bullcrap, plus a half-dozen other assorted pieces of filth. Today there was a new one - one supposedly from the Bush/Cheney camp. Pure Dummycrap propaganda, poorly written, and supposedly George Bush's "resume". ANYTHING with an executable gets sent to a special file I save every couple of days and hand-carry over to my provider. They've got two lawsuits pending, one against Earthlink, for failing to filter some pretty harmful crap from being sent from a guy on their site. With the new anti-spam laws, I think I'll start saving all my trash, and send it to the guys supposedly handling this stuff.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/26/2004 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I've been getting alot of those lately,Bulldog.
I knew they were bogus cause I haven't sent an e-mail in awhile now.Also have been getting a lot of pdf/zip,etc attachments with virus.Soon as I see the they are dumped.
#15
Just today I got spam purporting to be from some big shot in Côte d'Ivoire. Same old tricks. I hit the "Spam" button and that was the end of the message.
A Japanese company unveiled a 3.5-metre (11.55-foot) tall robot that can forage its way through a heap of debris as a trailblazer for rescue workers following a disaster such as an earthquake.
Or a fight with Godzilla.
The five-tonne T-52 Enryu (literally "rescue dragon") is hydraulically operated and equipped with two arms ending in pincer "hands" that can grasp and remove obstacles to help rescuers reach people trapped under rubble. Each arm is capable of lifting 500 kilogrammes (1,100 pounds) and when they are fully extended the two pincers are 10 metres (33 feet) apart.
Yes, but where is the plasma cannon?
The prototype robot was developed by Tmsuk, a company based in the southwestern Japan city of Kita-Kyushu, in cooperation with fire-department officials and university researchers.
As a cover for it's secret military project, Mobile Suit Gundam!
The company aims to develop a fighting robot commercial model by the end of the year.
And test it in Iraq!
Posted by: Steve ||
03/26/2004 9:27:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Let's have a battalion of these things, run by satellite, and outsource the operation to teenagers who will pay $19.95 a month to play War on their computers.
Edited for Humor - hopefully
A controversial Danish artist has sprayed an iceberg off the coast of western Greenland in blood red. "We all have a need to decorate Mother Nature because it belongs to us," Chilean-born Marco Evaristti told the Associated Press news agency. "This is my rifle iceberg; it belongs to me," Mr Evaristti added. He used 3,000 litres of paint diluted with sea water, three fire hoses, two icebreakers and a 20-man crew to complete the task in about two hours. "The Hose" would have recommended a 2 1/2 inch cotton jacked marine firehose with a brass all-purpose nozzle for this application (had I been consulted.)
The crew was working on Wednesday in temperatures as cold as -23C, to spray the tip of the iceberg, which was about 900 square metres in size. Hosing an iceberg red in -23C weather, a new cliche on the way every day.
The sea water was coloured with the same dye used to highlight meat, the artist said. I thought that was juice. Here Iâve been sniffing my high lighter all night trying to get a buzz and I could have just gone down the fridge and found a T-bone.
Mr Evaristti said he and his crew sailed from the small town of Illullissat and only managed to find the perfect iceberg after zigzagging among slow-moving ice floes for about 30 minutes. There was no immediate reaction from the local Greenland authorities.
My guess is that they had better things to do, like go to lunch...
Mr Evaristti is well-known for his controversial art shows. In 2000, his art display in a Danish gallery invited the public to put live goldfish through food blenders. Visitors were told they could press the "on" button if they wanted. At least one visitor did, killing two goldfish. Must have been a middle-schooler from the US. He would have had to bring a school of six-hundred fish to show that particular work for two hours at my sonâs Junior High. The janitor would have been mad if he backed up one of the commodes with all the tiny fish skeletons, fins and scales.
The gallery director was fined was fined for cruelty to animals after complaints from campaign group Friends of Animals. But a Danish court ruled that the fish had not been treated cruelly, as they died instantly.
Do you get the impression that the primary purpose of this guy's "art" is to get his name in the papers?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 1:10:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wonder if he was exported or deported from Chile. What a nutter.
#4
he told me it is their way of asking "what is art?" (surprisly hard to define)
Why is it that works that supposedly ask that question invariably provoke the answer "not this"?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/26/2004 9:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
the stock justification for crap like this is "It's supposed to make you think". It makes me think this fool needs to find a real job: "you want fries with that?". As Ship sez - where do they get the money for this kind of production? If it's from the U.S. there oughtta be heads rolling. Can you imagine if Bush (and the EVIL Ashcroft!) decided to paint an iceberg red? The horrors, howls of protests (and giant puppets!), would be amazing - on a par with clubbing baby seals in ANWAR for the oooiiiilll!
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/26/2004 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This is the same sort of silliness that fella Christof used to pawn off as art- he was the one who covered the Reichstag with a very large sheet about 20 years ago. He also put large pink "skirts" around a couple of smaller islands somewhere a while back.
I'd love to know where guys like this get thier money. I'll have an anuerism if anyone says they are Gov. grants.
Paint by numbers is better art than that sort of nonsense.
#9
But what about the environment? The ecology?
Just think of all those poor organisms on the berg covered in paint.
Then again one must ask if it was lead based paints?
All that paint being dispersed into, and polluting, the sea when the ice melts.
Will it get into the fish? I suppose if Zeuros do it, it must be OK.
Ho hum!
Posted by: Barry ||
03/26/2004 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Muck I'm beginning to like you. You have the same respect for animal rights that I do. Agreed, put him in a blender!
Posted by: Rafael ||
03/26/2004 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#11
He should've just pissed on it and stuck a crucifix in it. Saves time, money, and the art lovers would still swoon over him.
EFL, you canât make this stuff up
On the Al-Jazeera weekly program âThe Sharâia and Lifeâ of October 5, 1997, Al-Qaradhawi said: "Beating is permitted [to the man] in the most limited of cases, and only in a case when the wife rebels against her husband... The beating, of course, will not be with a whip, a stick, or a board. The beating will be according to what the Prophet said to a servant girl who annoyed him on a particular matter, âIf it were not for fear of punishment in the Hereafter, I would have beaten you with this miswak.â
"Likewise, the beating must come only after admonishment, and expelling [the wife] from the bed [as is said in the Qurâan 4:34], âAdmonish them, leave them alone in their beds, and beat them.â
He also said: "Beating is not suitable for every wife; it is suitable for certain wives and for other wives it is not. There is a woman who cannot agree to being beaten, and sees this as humiliation, while some women enjoy the beating and for them, only beating to cause them sorrow is suitable...
Posted by: Gromky ||
03/26/2004 2:10:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
I really must brush up on my de Sade / The Koran.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
03/26/2004 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
while some women enjoy the beating and for them, only beating to cause them sorrow is suitable...
Oh now you've done it, now you've fudged the bucket and told me too many words to know."
Posted by: Howard UK ||
03/26/2004 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I guess we'll see how well this goes over with the blondies in Northern Eurostan in another generation or so, if Shar'ia takes that long to be implemented there.
#16
Is there any Muslim proverbial equivalent to "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."? We could then put Gitmo under Sharia Law. Anybody that puts toothpaste up their anus could be forced to get a switch from the switching tree.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#17
that guy useing a purdy big stick in the picture.
#18
You're right muck,that's not a twig it's the whole damn tree. I don't think that is what the Prophet was using to brush his teeth. Then again a good Muslim chooses and interprets his Suras carefully. As matter of fact,according to the cited reference, Mohammed didn't beat his girl servant at all ...for fear of punishment in the Hereafter,....
Beating is not suitable for every wife
What ever happened to the requirement to treat each wife equally? The RoP RoP&C (Religion of Pick and Choose).
EFL
Tony Blair today vowed to push through the controversial EU constitution - and set himself up for a bitter election battle over Europeâs powers. Downing Street said the Prime Minister had always backed the blueprint for future European integration - and flatly ruled out Tory demands for a referendum. Mr Blairâs uncompromising stance emerged after EU leaders in Brussels breathed new life into the constitution plan by setting a 30 June deadline for a decision. It looks set to become a reality after months of bickering. The sudden revival followed the election of the new Spanish government and the moderate line taken by Poland which had previously been demanding major changes to the draft.
The new mood sweeping the EU summit creates a dilemma for Mr Blair, who was said to have been quietly hoping the issue would remain stalled until after the next election. Conservative leader Michael Howard is said to be preparing to turn the reforms - and his demand for a national referendum before they are adopted by the UK - into a major election issue. Downing Street had seemed relieved at a summit in December when the project looked doomed because of a row between other EU leaders over voting rights for small countries. The delay coincided with polls showing public unease and a growing revolt by Labour MPs unhappy at the implications.
But today Mr Blairâs spokesman said Britain would back the deal regardless of the political risks. "We are supportive and want to make progress as fast as possible," he said. "The Government is not afraid to argue its case." Despite polls last year showing eight in 10 people want a referendum, Mr Blair is determined to tough it out. Critics say the draft EU constitution is a federalist blueprint and a giant leap towards the EU adopting the trappings of statehood. It includes plans for a foreign-"minister" and an elected president, plus measures to even out some business taxation and begin to harmonise laws. Mr Blair flew into Brussels last night after his historic talks with Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffy in Tripoli.
Posted by: Bob ||
03/26/2004 9:26:06 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Blair's probably the best pure politician since Lyndon Johnson.... I don't understand his logic here.
#2
He's a "true believer" Lefty (except when it comes to backing the US in the Coalition--Thank God!) and thinks Tranzi Progressivism is the way of the future erroneously, of course.
Blair is a fool to try and push this through--Britons don't want it and the UK doesn't need the EU.
This may cost him the PM spot and then we can have Michael Howard the Tory--Huzzah!
Posted by: Jen ||
03/26/2004 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Blair may have been right about the WOT, but he's been wrong about everything else. He may go down in history as the worst leader Britain has ever had. What Napoleon and Hitler could not achieve by force of arms, Blair is prepared to give away with the stoke of a pen.
Posted by: Bob ||
03/26/2004 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#4
At least you have to credit him for standing by his beliefs - no matter how misguided they may or may not be.
Better than the waffleman in our dem party. At least the voters know what they are voting for and he can sink or swim on his platform. I'd prefer that to the prostitution politics of The Great Belgium Wafflers.
Posted by: B ||
03/26/2004 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Regardless of whether or not you believe in the whole EU agenda, everything I've seen about this constitution suggests that it's a real loser.
#6
good constitution or bad, a case can be made the UK has no choice. Most of their trade is with the EU countries, and theres little prospect for changing that. Stay out and your industry STILL has to listen to EU regulators, since they depend on EU markets(can anyone say Microsoft?). Only you have NO control over said regulators. Go in and you at least have a CHANCE to influence said regulators, esp if you can make common cause with Italy, Poland, et al.
#7
I think it's time for the United States to invest in some nice deepwater mines for the central Atlantic. We may NEED to separate ourselves from the mess in Europe - again.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/26/2004 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, launched a trenchant attack on Islamic culture last night, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving. In a speech that will upset sensitive relations between the faiths, he denounced moderate Muslims for failing unequivocally to condemn the "evil" of suicide bombers. He attacked the "glaring absence" of democracy in Muslim countries, suggested that they had contributed little of major significance to world culture for centuries and criticised the Islamic faith.
Dr Careyâs comments, in a lecture in Rome, are the most forthright by a senior Church leader. He was speaking on the eve of a seminar of Christian and Muslim scholars in New York, led by his successor as archbishop, Dr Rowan "call me Hairy Leftie" Williams. He acknowledged that most Muslims were peaceful people who should not be demonised. But he said that terrorist acts such as the September 11 attacks on America and the Madrid bombings raised difficult questions. Contrasting western democracy with Islamic societies, he said: "Throughout the Middle East and North Africa we find authoritarian regimes with deeply entrenched leadership, some of which rose to power at the point of a gun and are retained in power by massive investment in security forces. "Whether they are military dictatorships or traditional sovereignties, each ruler seems committed to retaining power and privilege." Dr Carey said he was not convinced by arguments that Islam and democracy were incompatible, citing the example of Turkey.
He urged Europeans and Americans to resist claims that Islamic states were morally, spiritually and culturally superior. "Although we owe much to Islam handing on to the West many of the treasures of Greek thought, the beginnings of calculus, Aristotelian thought during the period known in the West as the dark ages, it is sad to relate that no great invention has come for many hundred years from Muslim countries," he said. "This is a puzzle, because Muslim peoples are not bereft of brilliant minds. They have much to contribute to the human family and we look forward to the close co-operation that might make this possible. Yes, the West has still much to be proud of and we should say so strongly. We should also encourage Muslims living in the West to be proud of it and say so to their brothers and sisters living elsewhere."
Dr Carey said that, while Christianity and Judaism had a long history of often painful critical scholarship, Islamic theology was only now being challenged to become more open to examination. "In the case of Islam, Mohammed, acknowledged by all in spite of his religious greatness to be an illiterate man, is said to have received Godâs word direct, word by word from angels, and scribes recorded them later. Thus believers are told, because they have come direct from Allah, they are not to be questioned or revised. In the first few centuries of the Islamic era, Islamic theologians sought to meet the challenge this implied, but during the past 500 years critical scholarship has declined, leading to strong resistance to modernity."
Dr Carey said that moderate Muslims must "resist strongly" the taking over of Islam by radical activists "and to express strongly, on behalf of the many millions of their co-religionists, their abhorrence of violence done in the name of Allah". He said: "We look to them to condemn suicide bombers and terrorists who use Islam as a weapon to destabilise and destroy innocent lives. Sadly, apart from a few courageous examples, very few Muslim leaders condemn clearly and unconditionally the evil of suicide bombers who kill innocent people. We need to hear outright condemnation of theologies that state that suicide bombers are martyrs and enter a martyrâs reward."
Christians, who shared many values with Muslims, such as respect for the family, must speak out against the persecution they often encountered in Muslim countries. "During my time as archbishop, this was my constant refrain: that the welcome we have given to Muslims in the West, with the accompanying freedom to worship freely and build their mosques, should be reciprocated in Muslim lands," he said.
Dr Carey, who initiated several top-level meetings between Christian and Islamic leaders during his time at Lambeth Palace, urged the West to tackle the Palestinian problem and other inequalities in the Muslim world. "It will do us little good if the West simply believes that the answer is to put an end to Osama bin Laden. Rather, we must put an end to conditions, distortions and misinformation that create him and his many emulators."
Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that Dr Careyâs comments "saddened" him. "He should be well aware that mainstream Muslim organisations have consistently quietly condemned terrorist acts but their statements are often ignored by the media," he said. "Dr Carey is trampling on a very sensitive area by referring to the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet."
Posted by: Bulldog ||
03/26/2004 7:29:24 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Moderate muslims (at least in the U.S.) are seen as giving tacit approval or turning a blind eye to terrorist attacks, in some cases like in Dearborn, Michigan where I grew up near it seems to be more then just tacit. Until they fully and completely condemn attacks, and put their adopted country which they are citizens of on par w/their faith - they will never be trusted.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
03/26/2004 8:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Moderate Muslims would be wise to act now, while there is goodwill between us.
I find myself, daily, being forced to remind myself that most Muslims are just ordinary people.
Still - I find also myself daily becoming more and more resentful that they take the liberties that we have offered them and shove them back in our face. If we had restricted them from coming here, we would not have armed guards and security searches everywhere we go. We'd be more concerned with schools and parks and health care than our survival.
Their refusal to stand up and fight for the freedoms we have graciously provided them makes me feel more and more bitter every day. They have RUINED our free society with their backwater beliefs.
I know that people are people. I know that. And many Muslims are good people. But as a whole, they have brought us nothing but armed guards and restrictions on the very freedoms we have provided to them.
#5
They may be a pain i the arse but they've brought us curry don't forget. Mmmmmmm Chicken Kashmiri tonight...
Posted by: Howard UK ||
03/26/2004 9:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Although we owe much to Islam handing on to the West many of the treasures of Greek thought"
This really pisses me off! It was the Byzantine Empire that preserved Greek heritage, not the friggin' muslims.
#8
Clever c*nt. Probably right though - wasn't it supposedly a bastardisation of Indian food by the British Raj? I know my curry house is Halal tho' (and pretty fine). Anyway, thank fuck for The Enlightenment. I wish Carey had said this when he was in position. Brilliant, but will probably be 'fatwad' like Rushdie.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
03/26/2004 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#10
oh come on Texan. What needs to be destroyed is the moderate Muslim's wall of silence. They need to stand up and do what is right. Yet all they do is whine about someone giving them suspicious looks. Oh! Like we care anymore!! We get suspicious looks from security guards everytime we enter a building!!
IMHO, if they can't do their part to protect everyone's freedom, then they aren't welcome here. Democracy REQUIRES citizen involvement and courage and allegience. Go home to the backwater despotic swamps you came from if you aren't willing to do your part as a citizen of the free world.
#11
I just want to make it clear - I don't think Muslim's stink. I just think they need to help out more if they want to participate in the Great Experiment of Freedom and Democracy. While many of them are, many more are not pulliing their weight.
Posted by: B ||
03/26/2004 10:01 Comments ||
Top||
#12
thank fuck for The Enlightenment
ROFLMAO 5 words that best describe our western heritage.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
03/26/2004 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#14
ROFLMAO
Translation please.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
03/26/2004 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#15
This guy put into words a lot of what I've thought in the past. I just hope he doesn't get blasted for telling the truth. We don't only need to break the wall of silence - nothing's going to change unless they also realize that they're not above criticism. Hell, if our civilization can be blasted, so can theirs - and they've got a lot less to be proud of.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
03/26/2004 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Howard
ROFLMAO = Rolling on floor laughing my arse off.
#17
"Dr Carey is trampling on a very sensitive area by referring to the Koran and the traditions of the Prophet."
There's the problem in a nutshell. Carey was trying to explain the merit of critical thinking, rationality, and clear-minded scholarship. Yet this moron, who is himself probably considered an infidel by the bin-Laden types for his "moderation," makes an implied threat against Carey for even daring to "refer" to the Koran and the Prophet.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
03/26/2004 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Thought I might be being called a motherfunker
Posted by: Howard UK ||
03/26/2004 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#20
the beginnings of calculus
Wha???? Yeah right.
Posted by: Rafael ||
03/26/2004 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Lord Carey brings up alot of good points. Even though I believe the truth can come from more than one source and Islam sounds good when described by Muslims, but in reality it's a religion which has been led down the wrong road. There are not inherit checks and balances in Islam and that's its fate, to be our opposite, to reward death and killing. I should not feel anger towards many Muslims in the US, many of them realize this wrong life and are here in the US to escape from the lies of the Middle East.
Time is relative for different cultures, the Islamic world is still a few centuries behind us. You look how brainwashed we all were 100-200 years ago and see that changing them is not going to be easy.
Yes it sounds good but what they don't tell you is that Koran has two parts: the Mecca surates where there is tolerance and wisdom and the Medina surates (when Muhammad tastes power) who call for war, loot and murder. But the Medina surates are supposed to have been written later and thus they supercede the Mecca ones. Guess they didn't tell you that? And perhaps they told you "Islam" means "Peace"? This is a plain lie: "Islam" means submission, the Arabic word for Peace is Salam.
#23
"Although we owe much to Islam handing on to the West many of the treasures of Greek thought, the beginnings of calculus, Aristotelian thought during the period known in the West as the dark ages, it is sad to relate that no great invention has come for many hundred years from Muslim countries,"
Bingo. That says it all right there. Jihad wars using children as instruments of foreign policy are not a sign of a civlilzation. In fact they can claim the honor of the only life force in all of nature which uses its young for self preservation, as seen by the mad Islamzoid mindset.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
03/26/2004 20:47 Comments ||
Top||
CARACAS, Venezuela -- A private television news station gets an exclusive interview with a mayor hiding from an arrest warrant. Somehow, the program airs first on Venezuelaâs state-owned television station. While the interview broke no new ground, the case is fueling allegations that the government of President Hugo Chavez has stepped up efforts to stifle press freedoms and dissent.
"They are trying to break us -- let us know that we are being spied upon," said Maria Fernanda Flores, vice president of Globovision, the 24-hour news network that interviewed Henrique Capriles. Thatâs what they want to do to us, and they are mistaken. Our morale wonât be broken by the stupidities of common criminals,"
Chavez has threatened on several occasions to close Globovision and Venezuelaâs three other private TV networks for allegedly inciting rebellion against his leftist government. Federal prosecutors issued an arrest warrant last week for Capriles, mayor of Caracasâ Baruta district, on charges he led violent demonstrations in front of the Cuban Embassy during a brief 2002 coup. The belated timing of the warrant -- after a series of bloody demonstrations over delays in a possible presidential recall -- strengthened suspicions Chavez is cracking down on his political opponents.
Activists claim the government is holding dozens of "political prisoners" after the recent riots. The government claims it arrested 30 people for violent acts. A judge in the case has refused to formally inform Capriles of the charges against him, so he went into hiding, becoming a hero to those who accuse Chavezâs government of increasing authoritarianism.
In the Globovision interview, Capriles said he went to the Cuban Embassy in 2002 to try to protect it from demonstrators, not to incite them against Cuban diplomatic staff trapped inside. Globovision broadcast the Capriles interview Tuesday night -- hours after pro-Chavez lawmaker Juan Barreto announced during an interview with state-run Venezolana de Television that he had received an unedited copy of the program. The state channel then broadcast the interview.
Vladimir Villegas, Venezolanaâs president, said he didnât know how Barreto obtained the tape. In both the unedited and edited versions, Capriles said nothing he hadnât already said publicly -- and it was not clear what the state station was trying to demonstrate by broadcasting the interview.
It's obvious and it's working.
-snip-
This week, union leaders claimed that thousands of civil servants have been fired or threatened with dismissal for signing the recall petition. Labor Minister Maria Cristina Iglesias denied the allegations, but Health Minister Roger Capella called public employees who signed the petition "terrorists" who deserved to be fired. He later said he was expressing a personal opinion that did not reflect government policy.
"No, no! Certainly not yet!"
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 12:50:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Many people in this world hate perennial winners. Many people in this world hate the United States.
Whether it is hockey, athletics, boxing, volleyball or soccer (above), athletes from the United States are in for a tough time from the fans at the Athens Olympics. --REUTERS
Which means that Team USA, the New York Yankees of Olympic sports, is expecting one ugly road trip this August in Athens - a place not exactly brimming with affection for the red, white and blue.
âThe world,â says US swimmer Lindsay Benko, âis a different place right now.â
And that venom is building as the US military continues its Iraqi occupation. Mexican fans recently chanted âOsama, Osamaâ during a home soccer match against the US team. On March 11, Athens protesters staged an anti-American rally, reciting âSept 11 every day.â
Against that angry backdrop, Olympic officials are bracing athletes for what may be the toughest crowd ever faced by the Americans.
That is where Sean McCann becomes one of Americaâs best medal hopes. Not on the playing field or pool - but on the couch.
TARGET FOR HATE
Spat at..
âWe got in the habit of faking, taking a few steps as though we were going to exit. They would spit. And before they could re-load, we would sprint into the tunnel.â
- Three-time US gold medallist Karch Kiraly sharing his volleyball war stories with some of the current crop of American Olympians.
Stark reminder...
âOsama, Osama.â
- Chanting by Mexican fans recently during a home soccer match against the US team
9/11 every day...
âSept 11 every day.â
- What Athens protesters recited during an anti-American rally on March 11
As head of sports psychology at the US Olympic Committee, he teaches athletes to visualise any competition surprises, including unruly fans. Even more, he is telling them how to use negative chants to their advantage.
âWeâre emphasising staying on the offensive,â he said. âThereâs no better feeling than taking a hostile crowd out of it because they have nothing to cheer for. The key is not getting into a bunker mentality.â
McCann, one of 10 sports psychologists who will accompany the team to Athens, has also equipped hundreds of American athletes with canned crowd noise so they can practise amid a human din. Supplied by the Denver Broncos, the recordings were made at Kansas City Chiefs games.
âThatâs got to pump you up, that many people cheering against you,â said Benko, a gold medallist on the 4x200-metre freestyle relay team at the 2000 Games.
In Sydney, crowds yelled louder for the US swimmersâ opponents, she said. It gave her a gentle taste of what she might face this August.
âYou can use that,â she said. âPeople donât like United States swimming because of our history. Weâre so dominant. They want to beat us any way. So weâre used to it in that manner.â
But harsh words may give way to nasty tactics. As part of the preparation, three-time gold medallist Karch Kiraly also shared his volleyball war stories with some of the current crop of Olympians.
He described being pelted with ice cubes, raw eggs, tomatoes and D-cell batteries while playing in Argentina. In Brazil, assaults on the Americans came from spitting fans perched above the courtâs exit.
âWe got in the habit of faking, taking a few steps as though we were going to exit. They would spit. And before they could reload, we would sprint into the tunnel,â Kiraly said. âOne of the main things I told this batch of athletes is that we have a lot to be thankful for in this country.â
Beyond pep talks, Olympic officials will also try to replicate a home-court feel in Athens.
The USOC has rented the American College of Greece to set up a high-performance training centre complete with gyms, an Olympic-sized pool, a track and lounges - a secure refuge where the US team can work out in solitude, meet coaches or temporarily slip away from the hustle of the Olympic village.
They can play video games, visit an Internet cafe and eat home-style food like pasta, steak and burgers - basically get an inoculation of Americana.
âIt will be controlled by us as far as who comes in,â said Steve Roush, USOC director of sports partnerships.
âYou will see it as it stands today, with nothing necessarily distinguishing it as American.â
That, of course, is for security reasons. And Athens will be soaked in Olympic-sized safety measures to ward off - or respond to - possible terrorist attacks.
The Greek government plans to deploy 10,000 soldiers, 40,000 police officers and 1,400 security cameras near Olympic venues while a no-fly zone will be imposed over the city.
The only things hovering above will be a fleet of surveillance craft: helicopters and a blimp. It is all part of a nearly US$1 billion (S$1.7 billion) plan by Greece to keep the peace.
Armed guards will accompany athletes from âhigh-profileâ countries, riding buses and escorting them in town. At the same time, Nato will supply Awacs reconnaissance planes to monitor Greek airspace and ships to patrol international sea lanes.
Remember the Goodwill Games? These will be remembered as the Guard Well Games.
âYou have to keep alerting the athletes to be more aware of their surroundings because they do become very focused (on sports),â said Larry Buendorf, chief of security for the USOC.
âBut generally, I try to keep the security part away from the athletes and tell them to get on with what they came here to do.â
Still, Benko says her fears rose after the recent train bombings in Madrid. So, despite the many layers of security in Athens, she may head home after the swimming competition ends.
This means her Olympic stay will last just eight days.
Posted by: tipper ||
03/26/2004 10:07:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's sad that kids just pursuing their dreams are made the scapegoat. These athletes have no stake in politics - leave'em alone for God sakes.
#9
Oh, but Pappy, these are Australians. They don't like arrogance, and are very proud of the fact. They also don't like bragging, as they tell you every chance they get.
#10
I wonder why Aris hasn't chimed in here...his country. Greece is going to be very hostile and it will have an effect on people's attitudes in this country. AS Conservitard said, it will make for a lot of angry voters in November...and they won't be angry at Bush.
Hat tip LGF
In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former White House terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday. Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath â either in 2002 or this week â when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bushâs handling of the war on terror. "Until you have him under oath both times you donât know," Frist said.
One Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the request had come from House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairman of the House intelligence committee. The request was the latest evidence of a counterattack against Clarke, who has criticized Bush both in a new book and in his appearance before the bipartisan commission on Wednesday. In his testimony, Clarke said that while the Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists, Bush made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the eight months between the time he took office and the Sept. 11 attacks. Clarke also testified that the invasion of Iraq had undermined the war on terror.
The request for declassification applies to Clarkeâs appearance in July 2002 before a meeting of the intelligence committees of both the House and Senate. No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public. Frist disclosed the effort to declassify Clarkeâs testimony in remarks on the Senate floor, then talked with reporter. He said he personally didnât know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarkeâs two appearances. Without mentioning the congressional Republicansâ effort, White House spokesman Scott McClellan continued the administrationâs criticism of Clarke on Friday. "With every new assertion he makes, every revision of his past comments, he only further undermines his credibility," McClellan told reporters. Asked about Bushâs personal reaction to the criticism from a former White House aide, McClellan said, "Any time someone takes a serious issue like this and revises history itâs disappointing."
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
03/26/2004 1:17:11 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What? But he's the Dems star witness?
Posted by: Daniel King ||
03/26/2004 14:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
He's toast. Frist knows he's a two-faced moron, and his own words will hang him. He'll look like such an idiot no one will EVER believe him, even if he says it's raining outside - in the middle of a hurricane.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/26/2004 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
Jackson, who was recently indicted on child molestation charges, requested the meeting with the 38-member group to discuss his humanitarian efforts including his work to help Africa fight its AIDS epidemic, the Roll Call newspaper reported Thursday.
When Michael says he's doing it "For The Children", he means it.
Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo., whom the paper identifies as "a proponent of the visit," says Jackson should be welcomed by the members of the CBC. "It is good we show our support to Michael Jackson," Clay said. "He gives so much of himself monetarily and through his talent."
Clay must have gotten his check.
Jackson has reportedly backed CBC efforts for many years. He has pleaded innocent to seven counts of committing lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under age 14, and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent to the child.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/26/2004 1:07:34 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
michael just luv a black caucus and all caucus for that matter.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/26/2004 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I have long viewed Michael Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus with equal seriousness; it is REALLY hard to decide which one is making the other look more foolish here.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/26/2004 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The Congressional Black Caucus is very interested in how child molestation and 'pop' music can further advance the concerns of those 'of pigmentation'.
Word is they're gonna pound down the "Jesus Juice" and then "Beat it"...
James Lileks takes the press coverage of Richard Clarke's book and testimony apart and finds it "wanting". Here's a tease:
"So if Al Qaeda had failed on 9/11, do you think OBL and the rest of the merry band would be sitting around a table in Kabul holding hearings about who was to blame? I tend to think they would have moved on.
I tend to think they have moved on."
Go read the whole thing, but you knew that.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/26/2004 10:43:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Hat tip LGF. EFL. John Kerry said the country deserves leadership that "tells the truth" as he took over the mantle of the Democratic Party at a unity dinner Thursday with Presidents Clinton and Carter and most of his former foes. Weâve got one already.
He had the nerve to say that standing on the same podium as Bill Clinton?
"Never has the Democratic Party been more united than it is today," Kerry said. "Never have we been more poised to win a victory in November." Then his lips fell off.
Carter, Clinton, 2000 Democratic nominee Al Gore and most of Kerryâs primary rivals attended the celebratory dinner that raised more than $11 million for the Democratic National Committee. "Our party has a new leader," Clinton said but warned that Republicans would put up a tough fight to keep Kerry from getting to the White House. "Theyâre going to do their darndest to turn a good man into a cartoon." Then his harp broke a string.
Democrats who tried to tear down Kerry during the primary praised him as they united in the common cause of beating President Bush. Theyâre going to get their asses handed to them.
"This is a night where you all are going to get to eat some great barbecue and the nine of us who ran against John Kerry are going to eat a little crow," said Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman. CAW! CAW! EEK!
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
03/26/2004 10:44:03 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Theyâre going to do their darndest to turn a good man into a cartoon."
-Clinton then added, "and we are going to do our darndest to turn a cartoon into a man."
#2
"Our party has a new leader," Clinton said but warned that Republicans would put up a tough fight to keep Kerry from getting to the White House. "Theyâre going to do their darndest to turn a good man into a cartoon."
Just for Billy boy, IBM should exercise its technological prowess and commence a project to manipulate atoms to build the world's tiniest violin.
#6
kerry, himself a lying son-of-a-bitch, being endorsed by klinton, algore, carter, the biggest liars in American history. Other than queers and baby killers, who's going to vote for their coward party?
#9
Kerry's long diatribes are enough to put the public asleep on this guy. Don't worry about the polls for a while. The average American knows the BS coming out from the DNC right now. Bush is untouchable and that really pisses them off since they are all so easily bought into their party 1st country 2nd mantra.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
03/26/2004 20:35 Comments ||
Top||
#10
...the country deserves leadership that "tells the truth"...
But since we don't have anyone, might as well pick me
It is only March, but the 2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for Sept. 11 -- after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.
Dr. Krauthammer applies the Clue Bat⢠liberally and often to Richard Clarke's sorry noggin. Read the whole thing.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/26/2004 12:49:35 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Reg Req'd - unless playing with toys like Proxomitron.
#2
Well, yes, a number of interesting points, troble is, he's more than likely to preaching to the converted. It should be noted however that he's not exactly devoid of bias.
While there's little doubt now that AlQ should have been hit in the 90s and that there has been a failure of the Clinton Administration in this regard. On the other hand, it's easy enough to argue that the rise of the Taliban (and their subsequent offer of hospitality to AlQ) was as a result of the tribal warfare which engulfed Afghanistan following the Soviet defeat and the disengagemnt of the US administration from the region (under Bush senior). Clinton's view was short sighted, so was Bush's.
#4
IGS, Clarke's story doesn't account for why funds earmarked for an effort to exterminate AQ were included in the Bush budget proposal prior to 9-11. That's a pretty tight Timeline if you consider the folowing:
1. The Florida controversy scuttled the normal process of information turnover from one administration to the other.
2. The Senate confirmation hearings to approve the cabinet and assitant secretaries.
3. Staffers would have required background checks and some type of Interim Security clearance before having access to AQ files.
4. The outgoing administration had enacted a record number of last-minute Executive Orders that muddied the domestic waters.
Finally, look at the timeline after the attack until the Taliban regime fell. Did that plan look like it was hacked together by an Administration that had never heard of Herat?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 3:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
IGS, here is a transcript from a background brief that Clarke gave to reporters from August 2002. I will post the article for you to read if you are more interested in primary source material.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 4:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Sorry, my link went wobbly. Here is the transcript.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 4:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I always go on about how there is no such thing as negative publicity. And this is no exception. Clarke is making millions by putting forth a lie that forces Bush to publically defend itself. It guarantees publicity and makes book sales soar.
However, I have to wonder why Hillary is willing to sit back and allow this to occur. Although true believers like IGS will suck this up and willing drink from the lie, the bottom line is that this sheds a very public light on the fact that the Clinton administration failed to act.
Clarke gains financially (at the expense of his soul) Kerry will benefit from the true believers like IGS wanting to believe and not having to face reality before the next election. But... Kerry could fry babies live on TV, and Igs would excuse it....so how much does this really help Kerry? Bush will gain in the long run, as the truth vindicates him, though the biased media coverage will cost him in the short run.....as most people don't pay attention.
But in the long run, Hillary loses all around. There is nothing in here for her, but the exposure of the Clinton failure to capture/kill bin Laden. If I were the Clintons, I'd be trying to put a lid on this as fast as possible.
#11
Igs, Truth and lies have never been relative.
If yours is a proposition of a supposed logic, it fails on its face...
unless you're Bill Clinton or he is your hero.
Posted by: Jen ||
03/26/2004 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Democrats trying to get traction in the election campaign on this who-knew-what-and-
when thing reminds me of this song by Ricky Skaggs:
Honey, won't you open that door.
It's your old sweet daddy.
Doncha love me no more?
It's cold outside.
Let me sleep on the floor.
Honey, won't you open that door.
#13
Does anyone think "our government failed us" ?
There's plenty of blame to go around but you can't plan for something you can't even conceive of.
Posted by: Uncle War ||
03/26/2004 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#14
check out instapundit, Richard Clarke was trhe one who authorized the plane load of saudi's just after 911 including Bin Laden's family.
Posted by: capt joe ||
03/26/2004 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#15
If you don't want to deal with the WaPo's registration requirement, be aware that Charles ("the Hammer") Krauthammer's column is also published at the registration-free Jewish World Review (the 'Net's best general collection of Op-Eds, IMNTBHO).
(No doubt, Boris and friends will see this as yet more evidence of the Vast Zionist Conspiracy whose tentacles reach into the very corridors of power at Rantburg City Hall.)
Igs: all truth is relative? If a French Postmodernist philosopher steps off the rim of the Grand Canyon, it is an undeniable truth that gravity will pull him down and he will come to an untimely and most unasthetic end on the rocks below, no matter how furiously he deconstructs the "Western gravity narrative" during his plunge.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/26/2004 9:31 Comments ||
Top||
#16
While there's little doubt now that AlQ should have been hit in the 90s and that there has been a failure of the Clinton Administration in this regard. On the other hand, it's easy enough to argue that the rise of the Taliban (and their subsequent offer of hospitality to AlQ) was as a result of the tribal warfare which engulfed Afghanistan following the Soviet defeat and the disengagemnt of the US administration from the region (under Bush senior). Clinton's view was short sighted, so was Bush's.
This is bullshit--you know that, don't you?
The US wasn't going to go into Afghanistan "following the Soviet defeat."--Why should we? To fill a vacuum of power somewhere in the world because there's "tribal warfare?" I don't think so.
And what would have been our rationale for going in with troops even as we were rightfully "disengaged..from the region" after 1998? Human rights abuses? OBL's fatwa/declaration of war on America? Even the silver-tongued Clinton would have had a time doing that, especially after selling everyone on Kosovo.
In fact, if Clinton had backed the same side as he did in Kosovo, we would have gone in on the side of the Taliban against the Northern Alliance!
Nope, Billy Jeff had anywhere from 3-12 chances to get OBL before he was kicked out of Sudan.
He didn't take them: Hello Taliban, hello 9/11.
Posted by: Jen ||
03/26/2004 9:46 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Jen...lol, very amusing
why should you? the cold war was an interesting situation basically it came down to two powers expanding their speheres of influence across the globe, in some places it worked for one, in others it didn't. The US has always advocated democracy, freedom etc in response to the Soviet expansion. What you're basically arguing is that while it was fine to fight the Soviets in a covert war, once they were defeated, who gives a shit about the local population.
Human rights abuses isn't this what has been argued about Iraq (after the rather fruitless search for WMDs came to nothing?)
The analogy of backing the Taliban because Clinton backed the Albanians, is rather moronic. I never denied that Clinton fucked up.
Also, truth has always been relative, the logic doesn't fall on it's face, it's just probably too abstract for you to comprehend. At least you could have come up with an argument on this, Mike has done so, and I must admit, his was a good response, yours was banal.
B, never said Bush lied, never said I marched on the streets.
#18
get a mirror Igs. Your just dripping with superiority. Doesn't it constantly amaze you that you, and you alone, were born with all the answers?
So much easier to think everyone else is stupid than it is to reevaluate your own position. It's always that way with the true believers though. Afraid they will get kicked out of their little belief club if they stray from the black and white.
I think you are a belief chicken. bwaakk bwaakk bwaaak.
Posted by: B ||
03/26/2004 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#19
LOL, indeed...!
We didn't fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in a "covert war" or an overt one.
The Russians moved in because Jimmy Carter showed how weak he was when the Iranian mullahs took our embassy people hostage.
And human rights abuses was certainly one of the reasons President Bush gave for liberating Iraq; that's why it was called Operation Iraqi Freedom!
Clinton backed the wrong side in the Kosovo war--the Islamist side (now affiliated with Al Queda).
What's to say he wouldn't have backed the Taliban as the legitimate "power" in a country that had been torn apart by "tribal warfare?"
And lies aren't truth--either believe your fallacy or stop calling Bush a "liar" for telling the truth the consistently and then making up what he supposedly said!
Posted by: Jen ||
03/26/2004 10:34 Comments ||
Top||
#20
If a French Postmodernist philosopher steps off the rim of the Grand Canyon, it is an undeniable truth that gravity will pull him down and he will come to an untimely and most unasthetic end on the rocks below, no matter how furiously he deconstructs the "Western gravity narrative" during his plunge.
Can I help push him???
Posted by: no fan of post-modern mental mush ||
03/26/2004 16:50 Comments ||
Top||
#21
What you're basically arguing is that while it was fine to fight the Soviets in a covert war, once they were defeated, who gives a shit about the local population.
Or you decide the war just ain't worth it and you abandon the local population (Saigon, anyone?)
Did Richard Clarke perjure himself this week before the 9/11 commission? Congressional Republicans hope to prove so by declassifying his testimony before the House and Senate intelligence committees in July 2002. "Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a fiery speech today on the Senate floor. The Tennessee Republican said that Clarke was "the only common denominator" across 10 years of terrorist attacks that began with the first attack on the World Trade Center. He accused Clarke of "an appalling act of profiteering" by cashing in on a book that exploited insider information about the worst terrorist attacks in Americaâs history. And Frist accused him of making a "theatrical apology" to the families of the terrorist victims before his testimony Wednesday, which was not "his right, his privilege or his responsibility" to do so. "Mr. Clarke can and will answer for his own conduct, but that is all," the senator said.
He noted that Clarkeâs testimony in 2002 was "effusive in his praise for the actions of the Bush administration" and that Clarke had praised the administrationâs successes to reporters in 2002. Though Clarke has tried to play down his earlier praise of Bush, Frist said, "Loyalty to any administration will be no defense if it is found that he has lied to Congress." The Associated Press reported today, "No immediate information was available on how the declassification process works, but one GOP aide said the CIA and perhaps the White House would play a role in determining whether to make the testimony public." White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan took a separate jab at Clarke today. "With every new assertion he makes, every revision of his past comments, he only further undermines his credibility." I like Frist. He is right to the point especially about Clarkeâs "apology"
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
03/26/2004 3:05:22 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Accountability for politicians who lie under oath? About flippin' time What a quaint concept!
#2
The admin needs to play hardball here. The media has allowed this guy a free pass. Now we must engage in further politicization of national security thanks to the despicable behaviour of a few opportunists. This is a bad day for the country, but Frist is doing what must be done to bring some integrity back into the process.
WASHINGTON â The following transcript documents a background briefing in early August 2002 by President Bushâs former counterterrorism coordinator Richard A. Clarke to a handful of reporters, including Fox Newsâ Jim Angle. In the conversation, cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution, Clarke describes the handover of intelligence from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration and the latterâs decision to revise the U.S. approach to Al Qaeda. Clarke was named special adviser to the president for cyberspace security in October 2001. He resigned from his post in January 2003.
RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, Iâve got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office â issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.
And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which weâve now made public to some extent.
And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.
The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies â and you had to remember, the deputies didnât get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer â last point â they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.
And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.
QUESTION: When was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: Well, the president was briefed throughout this process.
QUESTION: But when was the final September 4 document? (interrupted) Was that presented to the president?
CLARKE: The document went to the president on September 10, I think.
QUESTION: What is your response to the suggestion in the [Aug. 12, 2002] Time [magazine] article that the Bush administration was unwilling to take on board the suggestions made in the Clinton administration because of animus against the â general animus against the foreign policy?
CLARKE: I think if there was a general animus that clouded their vision, they might not have kept the same guy dealing with terrorism issue. This is the one issue where the National Security Council leadership decided continuity was important and kept the same guy around, the same team in place. That doesnât sound like animus against uh the previous team to me.
JIM ANGLE: Youâre saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?
CLARKE: All of thatâs correct.
ANGLE: OK.
QUESTION: Are you saying now that there was not only a plan per se, presented by the transition team, but that it was nothing proactive that they had suggested?
CLARKE: Well, what Iâm saying is, there are two things presented. One, what the existing strategy had been. And two, a series of issues â like aiding the Northern Alliance, changing Pakistan policy, changing Uzbek policy â that they had been unable to come to um, any new conclusions, um, from â98 on.
QUESTION: Was all of that from â98 on or was some of it ...
CLARKE: All of those issues were on the table from â98 on.
ANGLE: When in â98 were those presented?
CLARKE: In October of â98.
QUESTION: In response to the Embassy bombing?
CLARKE: Right, which was in September.
QUESTION: Were all of those issues part of alleged plan that was late December and the Clinton team decided not to pursue because it was too close to ...
CLARKE: There was never a plan, Andrea. What there was was these two things: One, a description of the existing strategy, which included a description of the threat. And two, those things which had been looked at over the course of two years, and which were still on the table.
QUESTION: So there was nothing that developed, no documents or no new plan of any sort?
CLARKE: There was no new plan.
QUESTION: No new strategy â I mean, I donât want to get into a semantics ...
CLARKE: Plan, strategy â there was no, nothing new.
QUESTION: âTil late December, developing ...
CLARKE: What happened at the end of December was that the Clinton administration NSC principals committee met and once again looked at the strategy, and once again looked at the issues that they had brought, decided in the past to add to the strategy. But they did not at that point make any recommendations.
QUESTIONS: Had those issues evolved at all from October of â98 âtil December of 2000?
CLARKE: Had they evolved? Um, not appreciably.
ANGLE: What was the problem? Why was it so difficult for the Clinton administration to make decisions on those issues?
CLARKE: Because they were tough issues. You know, take, for example, aiding the Northern Alliance. Um, people in the Northern Alliance had a, sort of bad track record. There were questions about the government, there were questions about drug-running, there was questions about whether or not in fact they would use the additional aid to go after Al Qaeda or not. Uh, and how would you stage a major new push in Uzbekistan or somebody else or Pakistan to cooperate?
One of the big problems was that Pakistan at the time was aiding the other side, was aiding the Taliban. And so, this would put, if we started aiding the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, this would have put us directly in opposition to the Pakistani government. These are not easy decisions.
ANGLE: And none of that really changed until we were attacked and then it was ...
CLARKE: No, thatâs not true. In the spring, the Bush administration changed â began to change Pakistani policy, um, by a dialogue that said we would be willing to lift sanctions. So we began to offer carrots, which made it possible for the Pakistanis, I think, to begin to realize that they could go down another path, which was to join us and to break away from the Taliban. So thatâs really how it started.
QUESTION: Had the Clinton administration in any of its work on this issue, in any of the findings or anything else, prepared for a call for the use of ground forces, special operations forces in any way? What did the Bush administration do with that if they had?
CLARKE: There was never a plan in the Clinton administration to use ground forces. The military was asked at a couple of points in the Clinton administration to think about it. Um, and they always came back and said it was not a good idea. There was never a plan to do that.
(Break in briefing details as reporters and Clarke go back and forth on how to source quotes from this backgrounder.)
ANGLE: So, just to finish up if we could then, so what youâre saying is that there was no â one, there was no plan; two, there was no delay; and that actually the first changes since October of â98 were made in the spring months just after the administration came into office?
CLARKE: You got it. Thatâs right.
QUESTION: It was not put into an action plan until September 4, signed off by the principals?
CLARKE: Thatâs right.
QUESTION: I want to add though, that NSPD â the actual work on it began in early April.
CLARKE: There was a lot of in the first three NSPDs that were being worked in parallel.
ANGLE: Now the five-fold increase for the money in covert operations against Al Qaeda â did that actually go into effect when it was decided or was that a decision that happened in the next budget year or something?
CLARKE: Well, it was gonna go into effect in October, which was the next budget year, so it was a month away.
QUESTION: That actually got into the intelligence budget?
CLARKE: Yes it did.
QUESTION: Just to clarify, did that come up in April or later?
CLARKE: No, it came up in April and it was approved in principle and then went through the summer. And you know, the other thing to bear in mind is the shift from the rollback strategy to the elimination strategy. When President Bush told us in March to stop swatting at flies and just solve this problem, then that was the strategic direction that changed the NSPD from one of rollback to one of elimination.
QUESTION: Well can you clarify something? Iâve been told that he gave that direction at the end of May. Is that not correct?
CLARKE: No, it was March.
QUESTION: The elimination of Al Qaeda, get back to ground troops â now we havenât completely done that even with a substantial number of ground troops in Afghanistan. Was there, was the Bush administration contemplating without the provocation of September 11th moving troops into Afghanistan prior to that to go after Al Qaeda?
CLARKE: I can not try to speculate on that point. I donât know what we would have done.
QUESTION: In your judgment, is it possible to eliminate Al Qaeda without putting troops on the ground?
CLARKE: Uh, yeah, I think it was. I think it was. If weâd had Pakistani, Uzbek and Northern Alliance assistance.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 4:12:33 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.
Say no more.
Everyone the Clintons touch get burned. I don't really follow this story, because it's such a circus act. But even though the media will protect Clarke from the pyre, it is rare to see someone, who after a lifelong, respectable career, is willing to discredit and whore themselves so shamelessly as this man has done, and for so little.
#3
After listening to Clarke's testimony to the Committee, reading the transcript of the August '02 press briefing and listening to his present rationalization of that briefing, the chief impression I'm left with is that Clarke is an ambitious, opportunistic, self-promoting professional bureaucrat with a ferocious mean streak- and little else.
I have little interest in casting blame for our failure to thwart the 9/11 attacks; what matters to me is what we're doing now.
I am interested, though, in just why this unprincipled hack was left in charge of our counterterrorism policy for so long. Who the hell's brilliant idea was that???
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/26/2004 8:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I remember seeing him all over the talk show circuit post 9/11. His song was always the same - cyber-terror. They're coming after our computers (power grid, telecom, etc). Looks like he learned a new song that the crowd loves to hear.
Posted by: Uncle War ||
03/26/2004 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Was Clarke's testamony to the comitee under oath? If so it seems to me he lied to the commitee under oath.
Of course he is a Clinton crony so lying under oath is no big deal....
Presidents Mohamed Suharto of Indonesia, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire are the top three members of a particularly unpalatable premier league. Between them the three leaders embezzled somewhere between $25bn and $50bn from their respective countries, as well as various donor nations, the UN, the IMF, World Bank and any number of international aid or development agencies, according to data collected by corruption study group Transparency International.
Apart from an insatiable appetite for impoverishing their own populations, the trio have something else in common. All three were, for much of their careers, supported politically and militarily by the west, particularly by the United States and its allies including Britain and France. Mobutu, helped to power by the CIA and bankrolled in his crazy schemes by the US Export-Import Bank, plundered around $5bn alone from a country where national income per person is still hardly more than $100 a year.
The realpolitik justification for aiding dictators such as Mobutu was of course the existence of the cold war. In the crude - on so many levels - apocryphal terms of a former US secretary of state, a leader such as Suharto "was a son of a bitch, but he was our son of a bitch". What mattered was that the likes of Ferdinand Marcos and other dictators - such as Jean-Claude Duvalier, who raked off at least $300m or so during his 15-year reign as president of Haiti - were tough on communism. Little else was important. Or so they thought at the time.
We were not going to lose the Cold War.
The cold war finished, but history failed to end - despite predictions to the contrary. In place of the old "war on communism", we have a new "war on terror", and a US administration that is once again judging its friends not by the quality of their souls but by geo-political calculation. The so-called "coalition of the willing" almost certainly includes leaders willing to line their own pockets. This is the danger of choosing allies by dint of their muscle alone: it rewards the bully and the tyrant, while penalising the honest democrat who dares to disagree.
Guardian misses the whole story: other than Perv, we've succeeded in the WoT by not investing ourselves too much in any one dictator. If Karsai, the new Iraqi leaders, et al. can't bring about democracy they'll lose our favor real quick. And there are some dictators who are going to get theirs in the near future -- Assad, the black turbans, a few Soodi princes, and mebbe even lil' Kim.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/26/2004 12:40:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let's remember about Casto, Pol Pot, Sadam who were supported by the left.
#2
Another small lie of Al Guardain: Mobutu was not America's bastard but France's bastard, in fact its ousting by a man (Kabila) supported by English-speaking Tutsi of Rwanda has been perceived here in France as a major setback.
#4
apocryphal terms of a former US secretary of state, a leader such as Suharto "was a son of a bitch, but he was our son of a bitch".
This is the worst kind of deceptive journalism. No secretary of state former or otherwise said this. The UK, the USAs closest ally effectively went to war against Suharto's Indonesia to stop their campaign against the Malaysia and Singapore.
And BTW the current president of Indonesia Megawati Sukarnoputri is the daughter of Suharto. I hadn't noticed the left protesting that she gained the presidency becuase of her father or his ill gotten money. In fact I see the opposite.
#8
If you look carefully, you will see which president refused to prop up Marcos (1986) on the advice of Paul Wolfowitz, who said that the people of the Philippines were ready for democracy. Freedom for the Philippines with a left-leaning government was a vital part of the Neocon, Zionist Cabal.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#9
In fact, I think the current administration has been very careful in choosing its allies because of the excesses in the past. I think Roh's problems in Korea weren't because we backed him, but because the people didn't. Bush decided Aristide didn't have the backing of the people, so didn't support him. I'm sure the United States is providing aid and comfort to the people of Venezuela, but stopping short of offering guns and money, because we don't want to be seen as supporting the overthrow of a government, even when it may be needed. Unfortunately, some of the deals made by the former administration are coming home to roost, and this administration is being forced to deal with them. Some of those deals were unsavory, and we have some Hobson's choices to make.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/26/2004 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
Soldiers, religious leaders, businessmen and heirs to political dynasties are among major candidates running in Indonesian elections, but one key democratic element is missing: the left.
As the world's biggest Muslim country gears up for April 5 parliamentary elections--its second free ballot since the fall of ex-dictator Suharto in 1998--the political elite is refusing to abandon the strongman's ban on the communist party and other left-wing groups.
``There is no place for ideological conflict in Indonesia,'' declared Justice Minister Yusril Mahendra, who heads the Islam-based Crescent Star Party. ``Communism is not relevant to our situation here.''
The prohibition was introduced by Gen. Suharto in 1966 when he seized power from independent Indonesia's first president Sukarno after accusing him of involvement in an alleged communist coup attempt. At the time, the military was engaged in a wholesale slaughter of leftists, trade unionists and other political opponents of the dictatorship. At least 500,000 people died and the party was annihilated.
The continuing prohibition, which in practice extends to all left-wing parties and trade unions, highlights the lingering influence of groups that formed the dictatorship's main pillars _ like the Golkar Party and the military.
``It shows how entrenched their power and interests still are,'' said Dede Oetomo, a professor at Airlangga University in Surabaya.
The lack of left-wing parties also has caused many Indonesians frustrated by endemic corruption and dramatic contrasts in living standards to flock to religious extremists--including militant groups like the al-Qaida-linked Jemaah Islamiyah network.
In fact, the main hotspots of religious radicalism on the sprawling archipelago of 210 million people, including the city of Solo in central Java, were Communist Party strongholds before the massacres of the mid-60s.
The killing of up to 40,000 of Indonesia's 90,000 schoolteachers as part of those purges left an education vacuum that was quickly filled by radicalized Islamic schools and preachers.
At the time, anti-communist fervor in the United States was at its height, and Washington supplied Indonesian generals with thousands of names of known leftists and trade unionists. Most were arrested and executed by troops, historians say.
All this changed in the wake of Suharto's overthrow six years ago, when communist books and T-shirts began appearing throughout the former Dutch colony. Indonesia's first freely elected president Abdurrahman Wahid appealed to the legislature to rescind the ban on communism, describing it as antidemocratic.
But a backlash from Muslim radicals immediately followed, supported by Golkar and the military. Frightened by threats of violence from army-backed militia gangs, stores quietly withdrew their books on Marxism-Leninism.
Last year, Wahid's successor President Megawati Sukarnoputri, Sukarno's daughter, again sought to legalize the party, but the country's highest legislative body rejected the proposal because communists were atheists and did not subscribe to Indonesia's state doctrine, which mandates belief in God.
``We must restore political rights to former PKI (communist party) members and their families, but there is no need to legalize the party itself,'' Amien Rais, the legislature's speaker, told The Associated Press.
Political analysts say that communism as an ideology does not enjoy a significant following in today's Indonesia, and it is difficult to gauge the extent of voter support that a secular, left-wing party would garner.
Still, the political choices remain limited to religious, nationalist and conservative parties. No left-wing groups are on the ballot after the national electoral commission barred the tiny, pro-socialist People's Democratic Party from fielding candidates.
``They are preventing people from having their choice, and until this is changed you cannot say Indonesia is a democratic country,'' said Martin Aleida, a retired journalist who spent a year in jail during the dictatorship.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
03/26/2004 1:03:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
(2004-03-25) -- Self-proclaimed atheist Michael Newdow yesterday pleaded with the U.S. Supreme Court to remove the phrase âunder Godâ from the Pledge of Allegiance and acknowledged the courtâs Chief Justice as his "personal higher power."
"In the name of William H. Rehnquist almighty," said Mr. Newdow, "I call upon this court to protect the rights of those who have no recourse to a higher power than this. And, by Rehnquist, I will continue this fight until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream."
At the end of his legal arguments, Mr. Newdow prostrated himself on the floor of the courtroom and said "blessed be the glorious name of Rehnquist, may he reign forever."
Later he told reporters on the steps of the court building, "My personal relationship with Rehnquist brings me unspeakable joy, hope for the future and peace in my heart. Itâs a comfort to know that heâs thinking about me at this very moment."
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
03/26/2004 10:19:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The American project to build a stable democracy in Iraq has encountered many obstacles. But perhaps the most elusive enemy is an old phantom called rumor.
Less than 24 hours after a bombing in central Baghdad that tore the facade off the Mount Lebanon Hotel, the rumors began circulating in the marketplaces and teahouses: that the hotel was demolished not by a bomb, as the Americans maintained, but by an errant American missile.
Or, the whispers had it, the terrorist attack was actually an assassination attempt, because one hotel resident was said to be a relative of the man who had identified the hideout of Uday and Qusay Hussein, two of Mr. Hussein's sons, in Mosul last summer.
More chatter: Mr. Hussein's Baath Party, far from defeated, was even now operating from a secret exile headquarters in London and planning more such attacks ahead of the June 30 transition to a sovereign Iraqi state.
Those are just a few of the rumors collected by the staff of The Baghdad Mosquito, a daily intelligence document that chronicles the latest street talk in the Iraqi capital, however ill founded, bizarre or malevolent.
The Mosquito's staff includes 6 American intelligence analysts, 2 Arab-American translators and 11 Iraqis. One of the Iraqis is a doctor and one a university professor, but several come from some very tough neighborhoods. They are Sunni and Shiite and Kurd and Christian. Some of the women wear traditional head scarves; others work with heads uncovered.
The Mosquito began last fall after American military leaders realized that rumors themselves had become a security problem, and decided to fight back. It is distributed via e-mail to an elite group of military officers and policy planners and is posted on the military's classified Web server.
Under Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi state became an industry of untruth, where rumors often consigned people to the torture chambers, and propaganda was presented as fact.
Believing almost nothing, Iraqis turned by the millions to the base currency of all who live in closed societies: the whispers of unsanctioned truth. Throw in the natural suspicions now raised by the presence of an occupying power, and you have an almost ideal hothouse for rumors and gossip.
Seven days a week, a staff of Iraqis and Americans compile and analyze local press and satellite television reports. And once a week, in what has become required reading for senior American officials in Baghdad and a devoted readership in Washington, The Mosquito produces an exclusive collection of rumor, gossip and chatter called, "What's the Word on the Streets of Baghdad?"
The name may sound vaguely metaphoric for a report concerned with buzz, but in truth, employees said, it was named for the swarm of insects that terrorized the office last summer. "We want all the stuff they're saying," said William H. Putnam, the project director. "The good and the bad. We want to understand what we're dealing with."
Mr. Putnam, a former military intelligence officer, now an Army reservist here on contract as director of the Mosquito project, said his assignment was "to measure the effectiveness of what the coalition does."
"How do you do that? You can read the newspapers and listen to what satellite TV channels are saying." Just as important, Mr. Putnam says he realized, you can listen in on the talk of ordinary Iraqis.
The American civilian occupation bureaucracy is often criticized by Iraqis for hiding behind the 13-foot concrete blast walls surrounding its headquarters. In such isolation, those critics say, the coalition authorities have little grasp of Iraqis who live in what the Americans call the Red Zone â Baghdad beyond the Americans' gates.
In effect, then, the team's role is to fly over that divide and catch the amorphous, shifting sense of public angst and private hope that characterizes an Iraq emerging from dictatorship.
One of the problems they face is that against all odds, some of the street talk proves to be true. For much of last year, for instance, the word on the street was that Mr. Hussein had evaded capture by living low, having jettisoned his security entourage, and was riding in taxis. Sure enough, when American forces captured him in December outside Tikrit, a taxi was parked nearby.
As a result, almost no tale is too outlandish to be believed. Consider the following item, which made the pages of the latest Mosquito: American commanders, supposedly humiliated by a rising death toll, were seen throwing the bodies of American soldiers into lakes and rivers all across Iraq, especially troops who had been identified as having no next of kin. (A similar rumor is making the rounds on the Internet.)
More credibly, almost everybody worries about civil war, and that, too, was reported in the journal, which is published by the intelligence arm of the military's joint task force in Iraq.
With the growing number of killings of Iraqis who work with the Americans, they operate in a climate of fear. Few will tell anyone outside their immediate families about their job, and none agreed to be quoted by name.
At the journal's most recent meeting, an Iraqi staff member said Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, suspected by the occupation authorities of organizing a string of deadly bombings, would already have been captured by Iraqi security forces had he not cut an amnesty deal with Polish troops near Hilla, or so he had heard. No, said another, that is not true. It was Bulgarian soldiers who intervened.
The Mosquito's buzz has already helped refine the information campaigns being run by the military and occupation authorities here, said a senior officer. "These people, after living 35 years under a very brutal regime, allow us to better understand what really are the concerns of the citizens on the streets of Baghdad," said Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, assistant commander of the First Armored Division, which is responsible for the security of Baghdad and central Iraq.
General Hertling said The Mosquito's reports helped the division fine-tune advertisements, posters and billboards that focus on new Iraqi security forces. "The feedback we received from The Mosquito was especially helpful in our design of a campaign countering the belief that all Iraqi police officers are corrupt and work contrary to the service of the citizens," he said.
The Mosquito also gathered wild negative rumors about the interim constitution, which was signed early this month by the 25 members of the Iraqi Governing Council.
One of its main findings was that many of the document's sharpest critics appeared not to have read it â a fact that General Hertling said assisted the division in producing an Iraqi version of the Federalist Papers, an explanatory document to counter misunderstanding and apprehension.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
03/26/2004 1:07:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
most elusive enemy is an old phantom called rumor
We shouldn't allow discussion of our old Phantoms on a public BBS. They're indigo understand? I'm ex CID, sometimes OSS. Mum's the word.
Posted by: Col Flagg ||
03/26/2004 9:51 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Flagg, you need to schedule another appointment with Sydney Freeman.
#7
I've already opend a special file on this Sydney Friedman character. I have every reason to suspect he may be of the Hebrew persuasion. I've also opened a file on his brother and his baby boy.. On my last vist I was demonstrating the self-defense aspects of a toothbrush when he started rolling his eyes. So the answer is no, unless it's in an official capacity, in which case it won't be Flagg that sees him.
Posted by: Col Flagg ||
03/26/2004 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Forget what I said about toothbrushes it's indigo.
Posted by: Col Flagg ||
03/26/2004 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Sorry, Flagg, the wrong Freedman. Your appointment is with the 4077th's psychiatrist. Col. Flagg on parade.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 00:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Here better a sample of three of his comments -
On Libya-IRA solidarity
[Having supplied assault rifles and Semtex explosive to the IRA in the 80s, Gadafy was was asked if he had increased IRA aid because Britain helped the 1986 US air raids on Libya]: Yes, of course ... The Americans are acting with the mentality of cowboys and a civilised country like Britain should not be in the same policy with the Americans. But Thatcher played with the cowboys and therefore it did a lot of harm to Britain. Yes, she is a cowgirl.
· Observer, 1987
On Libya-IRA non-solidarity
This act [the bombing of Manchester] should not be supported. Should it be confirmed that the IRA was behind the bombing, it would mean that the IRA deviated a great deal from liberating Ireland.
· Libyan state news agency Jana, June 1996
On Libyan peacemaking in Ireland
The ultimate objective of supporting an armed struggle is to bring a problem to a conclusion, a peaceful conclusion. So when I saw that the British and the Irish were talking to each other [leading to the Good Friday agreement], that there was a chance to solve the problem by peaceful means, then there was no longer justification for giving support for armed action.
· Interview, Sunday Mirror, January 2003
Posted by: Super Hose ||
03/26/2004 7:35 Comments ||
Top||
I dunno. I think Branson should stick with providing entertainment...
The Libyan government is considering a request from businessman Sir Richard Branson for investment in a mine clearance project. The system, which will cost up to £30 million, can pinpoint landmines by radar from a helium-filled airship. It was developed by the British Ministry of Defence with the Lightship Group, which is part-owned by Sir Richard's Virgin Group. Sir Richard himself recently returned from Tripoli after meeting Libyan Prime Minister Shukri Ghanem. Dr Ghanem told the BBC that his government is impressed by the scheme and is considering a request for a multi-million pound investment in it. Every year about 26,000 people - a third of them children - are maimed or killed by landmines. Landmine clearances have been mainly done by hand - a difficult, dangerous and slow task. However, the radar device developed by Sir Richard's company is able to scan the soil for mines from an overhead airship. The pictures it sends to a computer can quickly pinpoint the exact position and size of the mines.
Q-man have a bunch of minefields without maps in Libya?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/26/2004 12:05:41 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...Along the eastern border with Egypt. There's probably enough buried there to keep the NGOs in high dudgeon for decades.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
03/26/2004 1:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Can they use the same technology to locate Muammar's brain? Or, more importantly, the stash he's been toking on for the past twenty years??
Posted by: Howard UK ||
03/26/2004 6:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hummmmmm...this is interesting if only because landmines are such a problem for civilians after the primary conflict has ended. Sir Richard has always been an fascinating character...and if he has in fact developed such a technology, he may have done some real and positive good in the world.
And the US won't be so pressured to sign the Landmine Convention as an added benifit.
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.
