The United States and Japan have detected signs that North Korea is preparing to launch a ballistic missile capable of reaching almost anywhere in Japan, Japanese government sources said Thursday...The newspaper quoted missile experts as saying it could take up to two weeks to prepare for a launch... There may be intense brinkmanship going on between the US, Norks, Japan and China right now. With the US pressuring China to force the Norks to stop their nuclear prog, under threat that Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan will also go nuclear; and the Norks refusing China, making the Chinese blue and sad, and wanting to blow up railroads in Norkland.
Posted by: Anonymoose ||
09/23/2004 10:42:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Japanese intelligence services indicate North Korea may be preparing to test launch a short-range missile, a Japanese newspaper reported Thursday.
We've seen this before, citizens.
Information from spy satellites and radio waves has shown North Korea beefing up troops and equipment around missile launch bases, the daily Yomiuri Shimbun reported, citing unidentified government sources. In Seoul, Rhee Bong-jo, the deputy unification minister, said South Korea recently detected activity ``connected to North Korean missiles.'' South Korea believes ``there is a high possibility that these were part of the annual, routine activities of North Korean missile units,'' Rhee said Thursday. ``But since we cannot rule out a possibility of a missile launch, we are continuously monitoring and trying to confirm the situation.''
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/23/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Japan and South Korea are both acting like "Chicken Littles" these days! Sqawking like geese and doing absolutely nothing. I'm convinced South Korea would rather "go red than dead". And the Japanese would protest our nuclear presents in their Island.
#4
how bout this idea. With all the troop and equipment buildup around the missile sites it sure would be a good time for a few precision bombs too get shoved down their throats.
NATO allies agreed Wednesday to expand the alliance's training mission for Iraqi armed forces after allaying French concerns which had delayed the plans for a week. NATO is expected to send about 300 officers into Iraq to set up and run a military academy outside Baghdad, broadening the mission that began last month with the deployment of 40 NATO instructors. "Today's decision by NATO to establish a major collective training program marks a major step by the alliance," said Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador to NATO. "The United States is proud to undertake with its allies a significant expansion of the mission."
The agreement represents a compromise between the United States, which wanted NATO to shoulder more of the burden of building up Iraq's armed forces, and France, which initially objected to anything and everything any alliance presence in Iraq, then sought to keep the mission low profile. Allied officials could not say yet when the mission will start or how many Iraqi officers would be trained at the academy. While most allies accepted the plan Friday, France and Belgium insisted on more stalling and delaying tactics guarantees that costs of the operation would be mostly borne by countries that participate in the mission. Belgium dropped its objections Tuesday. France, Belgium, Germany and Spain already have said they will not send instructors to Iraq. In delaying the agreement, France wanted to strictly define the role of the instructors and any NATO soldiers sent to protect them to ensure they would not become embroiled in combat operations beyond self defense. "The aims of this mission ... are training, equipment and technical assistance, not combat," Appathurai said. He added that it would have "robust" protection from the U.S.-led coalition.
Guess the French troops can't defend themselves.
The NATO mission will be headed by U.S. Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who also heads the much bigger U.S. operation to rebuild Iraq's armed forces. "This choice will provide unity of command and will ensure NATO avoids duplication and meets the Iraqi security forces' targeted needs," said U.S. State Department spokesman Adam Ereli. Also Wednesday, NATO member Portugal said it might make a new contribution to building up Iraq's security forces, an exception to a generally muted international response to President Bush's appeal Tuesday to the U.N. General Assembly for help in rebuilding the country. Portuguese Prime Minister Pedro Santana Lopes said his government, which supported the war and has sent about 120 police officers to Iraq, was considering providing instructors to help train Iraq's security forces.
Useful and helpful.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/23/2004 1:02:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is there anyway that we can sign-over the European assets of NATO to the EU, disband NATO and try to assemble a new alliance where we don't have to hassle with France/Belgium and the Turkey/Greece deal on a constant basis?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/23/2004 2:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
France and Belgium insisted on more stalling and delaying tactics guarantees that costs of the operation would be mostly borne by countries that participate in the mission.
Terrorists will strike a busload of students in the Whitehall area on Tuesday, killing more than a half-dozen and sending dozens more to hospitals. It's not a crystal ball that allows such a disaster to be foreseen. It's all in the plans -- disaster preparedness plans, that is. The disaster won't be real, but it will look real, and the participants -- including students, emergency room personnel and firefighters -- will act as if it's real. It looked read in the paper, too. Lots of fake blood.
The exercise, one that is becoming familiar in the post 9/11 era, is part of attempts by emergency responders and Muskegon County school districts to prepare for the worst. The exercise, which will involve the aftermath of a supposed explosion on a school bus at 9:30 a.m. at Durham and Holton-Whitehall roads in Whitehall Township, is being funded by homeland security grants awarded to several area school districts and Muskegon County. Local school district transportation directors instigated the exercise because they wanted to test their abilities to respond to emergencies, said Tom Spoelman, transportation consultant for the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District. They eventually hooked up with Muskegon County Emergency Services, and planning for the event has been under way for about a year, Spoelman said.
The exercise will test not only school transportation directors, but also the Muskegon County Emergency Operations Plan, which involves many agencies throughout the county. About 60 middle and high school students from Reeths-Puffer and Whitehall public schools will be part of the exercise, according to Kristin Tank, public information coordinator for the MAISD. Local law enforcement agencies, fire departments, human service agencies, transportation services and medical services will participate. Students from Muskegon Community College and Reeths-Puffer will assist in applying makeup to add to the reality of the gruesome scene. Between 200 and 300 people will observe the exercise, including school bus drivers, school administrators, emergency personnel and evaluators from agencies across the state who will provide feedback. This all sounds fine, right? We can all see from what has happened in Russia that a little bit of planning is a good thing. BUT WAIT FOR IT.... The exercise will simulate an attack by a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools and Education who believe everyone should be homeschooled. Under the scenario, a bomb is placed on the bus and is detonated while the bus is traveling on Durham, causing the bus to land on its side and fill with smoke. The exercise will begin with the bus -- an out-of-service vehicle donated by Ravenna Public Schools -- on its side, having been placed there by Dale's 24 Hour Towing Service, which is donating its time and resources. Fire departments will respond and test their abilities to get at victims inside a mangled bus. WTF!!!??? Welcome my friends to the wonderful world of our LLL public schools. The Teachers Union has an important message for all you parents out there: it isn't Fundamentalist Muslims who are committing violent atrocities against children around the globe. Nope, its those vicious violent nutjob homeschooling fanatics who we have to look out for because.... uh, they're not properly socialized. Or something.
From the National Education Association's post-Sept. 11 curriculum suggestions for teachers and parents: "Do not suggest that any group is responsible for terrorist attacks." Unless, I suppose, you can work an anti-homeschooling hate angle into the lesson.
#1
The exercise will simulate an attack by a fictitious radical group called Wackos Against Schools and Education who believe everyone should be homeschooled.
Does one laugh or cry at this? Do the public schools still attract people with good brains and a fair grasp of reality? Who the f*** are these idiots?
#2
Lex:
Why not go to the MAISD feedback website and share your thoughts with them care of Kristin Tank, their Public Information coordinator? I just did.
This is the clown who came up with this:
From: Daniel Stout: (231) 724-6341
stoutda@co.muskegon.mi.us
In the world today Homeland security is very a important issue. The training of our nation to respond to the many threats we face is of utmost importance. As part of a full scale homeland security exercise on September 21, 2004 in Muskegon, I wrote about a fictional group and fictional scenario for the exercise. This fictional group and scenario made reference to fictional people who are against schools. This fictional group and scenario was not meant to offend any home school students. It has nothing to do with any home school population. Home school students and former students are a very important part of our nation. This scenario will not be used again.
Daniel Stout
Muskegon County Emergency Services
---
Here is a statement from the school district
Statement from the MAISD Superintendent Michael H. Bozym, Ph.D.
September 21, 2004
Contact: Kristin Tank, Public Information Coordinator, MAISD, (231) 767-7263
The Muskegon Area Intermediate School District (MAISD) shared the disappointment of others when we learned the September 21, 2004, emergency preparedness drill referenced home schoolers as the fictitious group responsible for a mock disaster. We apologize. The MAISD and local districts were not aware of the scenario, and it was not shared with students or parents who took part in the exercise.
According to Dan Stout, Chief Deputy, Emergency Services of Muskegon County, this scenario was constructed in his office. A sample scenario as required in order to receive the necessary funding to stage the event. The Muskegon Area Intermediate School District and our local schools did not construct the scenario, but participated with other county agencies, hospitals, and emergency responders in conducting the drill.
This exercise was meant to sharpen the skills and response time of our emergency services personnel, but was unfortunately clouded by the choice of this fictional group. We believe this exercise had everything to do with testing emergency response time and the protection of our children. It had nothing to do with the home school population.
As educators, we believe that the first and most important teacher is the parent, whether in home schools, public schools, or non-public schools. We all work together to ensure a safe and secure environment for our children to live and grow.
We sincerely regret offending home school educators. We believe that all parents are educators and do important work at home with their children.
# # #
Please forward all additional questions and comments to the Public Information Coordinator at the Muskegon Area Intermediate School District at ktank@remc4.k12.mi.us or (231) 767-7263.
I was alarmed to see that the most recent exercise performed by your organization featured an imaginary group named Wackos Against Schools and Education, an organization of radical home schooling terrorists who, apparently, take time out from their already taxing schedules to murder other people's children. Setting aside for a moment the too blatantly obvious (if politically incorrect) fact that a majority of terrorist child-slaughtering in the world is committed by Fundamentalist Muslims, does your organization really feel comfortable targeting this particular group of parents with hate speech? I believe that if you and your agency take some time out to reflect diligently upon the controversies surrounding the public vs. home schooling question you might, in the future, refrain from using such inflammatory language when creating entirely imaginary terrorist organizations for your exercises.
Thank you for your time. If you wish you may comment upon enclosed email at http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.asp?D=9/23/2004&ID=44046&HC=2, where the matter of your organization's unfortunate choice of words is currently being discussed. To be honest, at the moment it's being discussed all over the web.
It's one reason the military sticks with Blue Force, Orange Force, etc. Yeah, you can read the scenario and figure out that Orange Nation is Iran, but it's so less politically stressful.
BTW without the Internet would we have ever found about this idiocy? No, because in the minds of the Dan Rathers of the MSM, Homeschooler= Christian Nutjob= Taliban= Terrorist.
Mike Sunnucks
The Business Journal
Arizona Democrats raked in more than $1 million Wednesday night at a fund-raiser headlined by Lovey Howell Teresa Heinz Kerry. Heinz Kerry criticized the Bush administration on tax cuts, Iraq and the war on terrorism at the event, which was held at the Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa. And don't forget she uplifted the Dems by saying "We're down in here in Arizona, who cares."
In regard to the hunt for terror leader Osama Bin Laden, Heinz Kerry said she could see the al-Qaida chief being caught before the November election. "I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month," said Heinz Kerry, alluding to a possible capture by United States and allied forces before election day. We got him in cold storage at Area 51!
#3
Now I really hope they catch about a week before the election. Then we will hear the whinycrats cry foul. Then Bus will declare: "What? Do you want me to let him go?" friggin liberals!
The Washington ComPost is soiling their panties in excitement over a speech Kerry gave at New York University.
"The speech was received here as the beginning of Kerry's Incredible Hulk moment, when, angry and provoked, he finally unleashes his inner demon."
(excerpt...)
Posted by: unix23 ||
09/23/2004 10:16:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kerryâs Incredible Hulk moment
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*Snort* *giggle* *must. breathe. again. soon.*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/23/2004 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ah yes, an audience at New York University. A perfect bellwether for behavior of crucial swing voters in southeastern Ohio, central Florida, western Pennsylvania.
#5
BigEd -- Couldn't get the Herman or Lurch links to work, but the music link is priceless! I can use that at work, while I walk around in circles with my arms up in the air like a monkey.
Judith Miller, the embattled foreign correspondent for The New York Times, seems ready to go to jail rather than testify before a grand jury trying to find out who leaked the name of a CIA operative to several Washington, D.C,. reporters. "I can't tell you what I am going to do yet," Miller said in an upbeat voice during the first of two cell phone interviews. But later, when told that Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, seemed sure that she would stonewall prosecutors, Miller elaborated a little.
"What I know of Judith Miller, there is no way in hell that she will be willing to testify," Dalglish had told E&P. When that quote was read to Miller, she laughed and said: "I think that's right, and it's what my lawyer would say, too." The special prosecutor is trying to determine who leaked the name of a CIA agent to Robert Novak. So far, Glenn Kessler and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine, and Tim Russert, host of NBC's Meet The Press, have given sworn depositions in their lawyers' offices. They gave their testimony after their sources waived their confidentiality agreements. But The Times believes that the Bush Administration forced White House officials and others to sign the waivers, making them invalid. A source who did not voluntarily waive his right to keep his name private might sue the newspaper later for violating that agreement.
Sure can't have a reporter cooperating in a matter of law enforcement, now can we? What would all the snitches say?
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/23/2004 4:16:33 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Her Juggs will be in the jug oh well. I hope none of this is lost on most people. They are more loyal to there status as writers then they are the nation they live in. How does writing for the media give you a free pass on your responsibilities as a citizen?
President Bush yesterday said Sen. John Kerry's repeated flip-flops on Iraq are sending "mixed signals," demoralizing U.S. troops trying to secure the war-torn nation and discouraging Iraqis working toward free elections. Stepping up his rhetoric a day after he and his opponent traded sharp words over Iraq, the president targeted Mr. Kerry by declaring that the Democratic presidential candidate lacks the resolve required to stay the course. "You cannot lead the war against terror if you wilt or waver when times get tough," Mr. Bush said at a campaign rally. "My opponent is sending mixed signals," he said. "You cannot expect the Iraqi people to stand up and do the hard work of democracy if you're pessimistic about their ability to govern themselves. You cannot expect our troops to continue to do the hard work if they hear mixed messages from Washington, D.C."
Mr. Kerry fired back, saying the president is "living in a make-believe world, unwilling to tell the truth or understand the situation in Iraq." "Even today, he blundered again, saying there are only a handful of terrorists in Iraq," he said. Â "I have laid out specific steps to win the war unless it becomes difficult, not to change, not to retreat, steps to win. George Bush is trying to fight a phantom here, because he won't tell the American people the truth, so he sets up something that's not a real issue and attacks it," Mr. Kerry said.
And who would know a straw man better than John Kerry?
But Mr. Bush mocked Mr. Kerry for his speech this week in New York, in which the Massachusetts senator said, "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." "He has had many different positions on Iraq," Mr. Bush said. "Incredibly, this week he said he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today." The audience booed loudly.
"I'll continue to speak clearly. I'll continue to lead. And I'm confident we'll achieve our objectives, and the world will be better off and more secure," the president said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/23/2004 4:12:19 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kerry demoralizes U.S. troops
In other news, water is wet.
I have to hand it to Kerry on this, though. It's the only position he's been consistent on for the past 30 years - demoralizing our troops.
Jackass Kerry is so low, he has to look up to see bottom.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/23/2004 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
For the life of me I canât understand why anyone takes this guy seriously. He is delusional if he thinks France and Germany have troops ready to deploy the moment he say âOh pleaseâ and kisses their a$$. First and foremost neither country has the military that they can deploy. Other than the Legionnaires, who could France send? And what Arab country would President Kerry call on to help turn Iraq into a democracy? Also why does he sell short the idea of an Iraqi Army taking over the duty? No there are not a lot of them, but by the end of the year there will be 150,000 trained Iraqi soldiers. No things are not perfect but we donât need John âSurrenderâ Kerry leading us anywhere.
#4
sigh... When will the Dems abandon this fairy-tale about how France is our ally in the middle east? Every Frenchman knows that his nation takes the side of America's enemies in Iraq. France's diplomats announce this to all and sundry. Their political and media elites broadcast it every day. Chirac has told us point blank that he will do all in his power to thwart our success there. A halfwit can see that the French are united in wanting us to fail in Iraq, and will support any fascist thug who they think can achieve this core objective of French foreign policy.
I'm really curious as to what polling data or focus groups support the Kerry nonsense about the "allies". Who outside of the NYT editorial board and academia still believes in the myth of France as an ally?
Edited for brevity. Hat tip: Drudge
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that Iraq's Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the ``best face'' on Bush administration policy. Shortly after Allawi, the interim government's prime minister, gave a rosy portrayal of progress toward peace in Iraq, Kerry said the assessment contradicted reality on the ground. ``The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story,'' Kerry said. Factually correct--the MSM reporters do tell a completely different story from the CIA, ground ops, and troops. I also must ask: the last time you attended a security briefing was how many years ago?
Allawi told a joint meeting of Congress that democratic elections will take place in Iraq in January as scheduled, but Kerry said that was unrealistic. ``The United States and the Iraqis have retreated from whole areas of Iraq,'' Kerry told reporters outside a Columbus firehouse. ``There are no-go zones in Iraq today. You can't hold an election in a no-go zone.'' Kerry's remarks come one day after he told The Associated Press that President Bush's statement that a ``handful'' of people are willing to kill to stop progress in Iraq was a blunder that showed he was avoiding reality. Um, even the cops in most major cities have areas they won't go. The strategy here is to let the disaffected or apathetic Iraqi people experience life under the terrorists and, when they do, watch them BEG for Coalition troops to come in and restore order. If there were more than a handful of terrorists fighting the Coalition in this country of nearly 25 million people, we would have HUNDREDS of casualties EVERY DAY. That's reality.
``George Bush let Osama bin Laden escape at Tora Bora,'' Kerry said in a brief interview Wednesday. ``George Bush retreated from Fallujah and other communities in Iraq which are now overrun with terrorists and threaten our troops. And George Bush said on the record we can't win the war on terror. And even today, he blundered again saying there are only a handful of terrorists in Iraq,'' Kerry said. ``I think he's living in a make believe world.'' This coming from an expert on make-believe worlds where Purple Hearts grow on trees.
Kerry's just upset: this week was supposed to be the week that he got his mojo back and slapped GWB around over Iraq, and here comes Allawi (excellent timing, Mr. Rove) to confirm everything GWB said in his U.N. speech. Not often you get such a nice 1-2 combination, and Kerry's chin (that part of him that he leads with so, so often) is bruised and sore. Kerry's response is just a yelp of pain -- "dang, that hurt!" Question is whether he can pick himself off the floor and fight. I say no.
Posted by: Dar ||
09/23/2004 1:32:42 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe you could go to Iraq and see for yourself, Sen. JoKe. If, that is, you ever come back from Vietnam.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
09/23/2004 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
HEHEHEHE-Oh this day is getting better and better.
John Kerry said Thursday that Iraqâs Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the ``best faceââ on Bush administration policy. Allawi told a joint meeting of Congress that democratic elections will take place in Iraq in January as scheduled, but Kerry said that was unrealistic.
Let's say Kerry is elected, and is right about January elections being unlikely. So Allawi is still in place. KERRY WILL BUILD STRONGER ALLIANCES (Kerry campaign booming voice) sounds like a pretty high bar to jump, especially after he's just talked about the interim leader of Iraq as being something like a PR agent for the Bush administration.
#4
John Kerry said Thursday that Iraqâs Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the ``best faceââ on Bush administration policy.
actually this is damning - to Kerry. If Kerry has a better plan for Iraq, which would get Euro troops, etc - why is Allawi eager to present the best face for Bush? Its not like one can say hes a neocon stooge like Chalabi - is it cause Allawi is afraid Kerry will favor someone else - but who? The natural conclusion is that Allawi if afraid Kerry will cut and run, and is not afraid Bush will do that, pace Novak.
#7
I listened to Allawi's speech. He not so subtly bitchslapped Kerry all over the place with references to the numerous and brave coalition partners, how cutting and running would be disastrous to us and to them, how giving a withdrawal date would lead to accelerated violence, how the US and Iraq are together fighting the GWoT, etc. (Karl Rove did a masterful job writing this speech.) /sarcasm. It leaves Kerry in the lame position of arguing that the Prime Minister of Iraq doesn't know what's going on in his own country but the MSM (who are mostly pulling for a Kerry win) does. What a jackass!
Posted by: Tibor ||
09/23/2004 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I propose that we send Thurston to go run against Allawi in the Iraqi elections. He seems to have a much better grasp of the situation there...
#9
The strategy here is to let the disaffected or apathetic Iraqi people experience life under the terrorists and, when they do, watch them BEG for Coalition troops to come in and restore order.
Really? It seems to me that such a strategy is only significantly different in scale and not in kind from "let's leave the whole of Iraq to let them experience life under Sadr, and in a couple decades when they are BEGGING for us to return, we'll come in and restore order".
You are in essense saying that the withdrawal is already taking place, in a smaller scale. Since withdrawing from the whole country at once would shame you, you are only withdrawings from select neighborhood at first, and then withdrawing from cities, and then withdrawing from whole regions.
How's that different in nature from withdrawing from the whole of Iraq and letting it experience life under Islamofascism as a whole?
How will scared people be any less scared or prone to ask for your help if you show them that you have no power over the thugs that drove your army out of their cities?
If you want to withdraw and abandon Iraq to Islamofascism do so, if you want to stay and try to smash Islamofascism, do so. But it seems to me you are doing the former while just saying you are trying to do the latter. How come Sadr is untouchable for example? (In the case of Saddam there were all those attempted decapitation strikes, if you remember. Him you were actually trying to remove).
Will this tactic change after the elections? Let us hope. But frankly I doubt it.
#10
If you want to know why Sadr is "untouchable" ask the Iraqis. Their country, their call.
Besides that, Sadr will become a trivia question.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/23/2004 15:19 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Aris, you lost the context as you got deeper and deeper into your rant. "The strategy" refers to those areas that we do not now control. They represent a small portion of the 25 million people of Iraq. The large, large majority of the people need to move on with their elections. The rest of the people can join in after their local thugs are subdued.
By Kerry's standard we would delay the U.S. election if anarchy broke out in San Francisco, Berkely, and Beacon Hill.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/23/2004 15:21 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Aris, please come back when you have your wits again. You appear to have lost them.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/23/2004 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Iâm just spit balling here but the strategy is to all the Iraqis handle Fullujah and Sadr. If the Iraqis capture Sadr and the foreign fighters it will boost confidence in the new government. Yes they will need U.S. Air and probably tank support but those should be Iraqi boots kicking in Sadrâs door and hauling him away. The people that have had to live in his SELF MADE squalor will line the streets and cheer after his removal. Of course I am just wagging (Wild Ass Guessing).
#14
Aris--I see no need to defend what I said, because you have twisted and exaggerated it into something completely different. If you can't see the difference between letting a few uncooperative neighborhoods experience life under the thugs for a few weeks and a complete withdrawal from Iraq to let Sadr rule for two decades, then I might as well talk to the wall.
As for Sadr, I would love to see him swinging from a lamp pole and I don't know why he hasn't been introduced to a Hellfire a long time ago. To address your question, I don't know why he's untouchable. I would have liked to seen him "touched" good and hard months ago.
Posted by: Dar ||
09/23/2004 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
#15
"Aris, please come back when you have your wits again. You appear to have lost them."
Robert, not sure why but, for some reason the above invoked an image of unicorn.
#16
KERRY WILL BUILD STRONGER ALLIANCES (Kerry campaign booming voice) sounds like a pretty high bar to jump, especially after he's just talked about the interim leader of Iraq as being something like a PR agent for the Bush administration.
In the context of "building alliances", there's only one possible reason why Allawi seemingly carries little importance in Kerry's eyes: Allawi isn't French.
#17
Since withdrawing from the whole country at once would shame you...
As an American, I wouldn't feel shamed; I would feel saddened. Sad that a once in a lifetime opportunity was squandered. Sad that all those coalition lives lost, all those hostages' lives lost, were sacrificed to those who preferred pride and fear to hopeful courage and a meaningful struggle for self-governance. Sad that the Iraqi people were given a remarkable opportunity-not a painless one, not one without death, but a rare one, where other countries fought to remove a psychopathic dictator and make Iraq a better place-and the Iraqi people, through terror, in some cases, through a misguided notion that outsiders should never be trusted and only had self-interest as motivation in other cases, and through blaming others for the shortcomings of their own nation's people, allowed the chance to slip by. Sad that after this, the US will have less reason and incentive to intervene in countries where mass murderers and tyrants deliver peoples their mass graves. All this doesn't lead to shame-it leads to sadness.
#20
I think we should let Kerry keep talking about everything. He seems to be on a roll as of late -- a roll in the opposite direction of his goal. So let him, his family members, campaign planners, CBS, everyone keep talking. They're doing more harm to the Kerry Presidential run than any vast right-wing conspiracy could ever do.
#21
Bingo. If Kerry's handlers were smart, they'd find a way for Thurston to break a leg windsurfing and pack Maria Teresa off to a remote cabin at Canyon Ranch. The first candidate in my lifetime whose poll numbers rise only when he's hustled out of sight.
#27
Robert, you never believed I had any wits to begin with, so how could I lose them? Be consistent at least.
Cyber Sarge, I've not yet seen any evidence of that. This is just one more claim that tries to make all the bad things that happen "part of our Deep and Cunning Plan(tm)". The problem is that in practice this Deep and Cunning Plan (tm) doesn't seem significantly different to what the enemy would have wanted also. People here have made a dozen guesses about "what we really plan to do (tm)" about Sadr and they've all failed. Nope, he's NOT been evicted to Iran. Nope he's NOT been retained in Najaf. Nope we were NOT just expecting Sistani to pretend to leave for surgery, so that we can whack Sadr at ease and let Sistani maintain deniability.
Again and again the bits of our Deep and Cunning Plan About Sadr (tm) that actually involve *stopping* the bastard are disproven, and the only bits that are fulfilled are the ones about letting him be untouchable on his own person, be the prominent "Face of the Resistance" + regional leader of the Caliphate-Reborn, and we occasionally just whack one or two of his lowly followers in order to save face.
Mrs. Davis, "their country, their call" didn't work for tyrants like Saddam, and shouldn't have worked for tyrants like Sadr either. If Allawi's too scared of Sadr to even *ask* for US assistance to remove him, wouldn't you say that's a problem?
1) "What a small pathetic man" >Bill how about "what a tall pathetic man?"
2) Lex > skerry's handlers are definitely not smart, he hired a couple guys clinton fired IIRC. And clinton got skerry to hire them on his own campaign! HAHAHA. The huxter strikes again from the hospital bed...too f'n funny.
3) Lex > how's this punchline for #24 - "or what happens when michael moore's eating pierogies at his favorite krakow restaurant......."
4) "If Allawi's too scared of Sadr to even *ask* for US assistance to remove him, wouldn't you say that's a problem?"
>*If* that is indeed the case then maybe a problem. The fact is none of us knows what is going on behind the close doors in Baghdad. I would dearly like to know the thinking behind the IGC's policy wrt sadr but fail to see it. However, after we turned over the show to them we in essence have to go w/the flow. I would have personally like to have put a round through sadr's grape but maybe there is some down the road reason for Allawi/Sistani et al to want him alive for now....his being left to live does not sit well w/me either. I think after we lost good guys going after this buffet jockey only to be told to abort his final removal from the earth is a slap in the face to a degree. However, that's just me.
In its rush to air its now discredited story about President George W. Bush's National Guard service, CBS bumped another sensitive piece slated for the same "60 Minutes" broadcast: a half-hour segment about how the U.S. government was snookered by forged documents purporting to show Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium from Niger. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
The journalistic juggling at CBS provides an ironic counterpoint to the furor over apparently bogus documents involving Bush's National Guard service. One unexpected consequence of the network's decision was to wipe out a chance -- at least for the moment -- for greater public scrutiny of a more consequential forgery that played a role in building the Bush administration's case to invade Iraq. A team of "60 Minutes" correspondents and consulting reporters spent more than six months investigating the Niger uranium documents fraud, CBS sources tell NEWSWEEK. The group landed the first ever on-camera interview with Elisabetta Burba, the Italian journalist who first obtained the phony documents, as well as her elusive source, Rocco Martino, a mysterious Roman businessman with longstanding ties to European intelligence agencies... Some CBS reporters, as well as one of the network's key sources, fear that the Niger uranium story may never run, at least not any time soon, on the grounds that the network can now not credibly air a report questioning how the Bush administration could have gotten taken in by phony documents. The network would "be a laughingstock," said one source intimately familiar with the story. Would be a laughingstock? They already are. One good thing, though: This article goes on and on, trying to make the case that ALL the evidence on yellowcake from Niger was faked. We know that's not true. At least now, maybe, this slanted report won't get aired and do damage.
Posted by: growler ||
09/23/2004 11:56:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Those would be the documents forged by that Italian gentleman at the behest of the French secret service. Just as well CBS didn't run that particular story -- the blogosphere would have run it down even more quickly...and there could have been no arguing CBS's bias when the forged-to-order story had already been reported in the newspapers.
EFL
[...] Rumsfeld appeared to be under no legal requirement to sell the shares of any of the companies identified as Pentagon contractors, according to Alex Knott of the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based government watchdog. "It appears as though Secretary Rumsfeld wanted to hold himself to a higher ethical standard when it comes to public perceptions," he said. The form showed Rumsfeld accepted no gifts, reimbursements or travel expenses big enough to meet the government's modest thresholds for reporting. Among these are a requirement to report gifts from one source totaling more than $260.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/23/2004 1:52:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's all some plot. He secretly has shares in Halliburton. How else would he be profiting from this illegal war...
#2
Rumsfeld's been a superb CEO of some huge, successful Fortune 500 corporations (Pfizer and one of Ted Forstman's manaufacturing companies, forgot the name-- General Instrument, I think). He doesn't need the money. He's been vastly more successful than any of the little ex-govt and ex-Congress influence-peddlers running around Washington.
#2
A choice article from Naomi Wolf about how Kerry's losing the women's vote. Exceprt:
Listen to what the Republicans are hitting Kerry with: Indecisive. Effete. French. They are all but calling this tall, accomplished war hero gay.
The charges are sticking because of Teresa Heinz Kerry. Letâs start with âHeinz.â By retaining her dead husbandâs nameâthere is no genteel way to put thisâshe is publicly, subliminally cuckolding Kerry with the power of another manâa dead Republican man, at that. Add to that the fact that her first husband was (as she is herself now) vastly more wealthy than her second husband. Throw into all of this her penchant for black, a color that no woman wears in the heartland, and you have a recipe for just what Kerry is struggling with now: charges of elitism, unstable family relationships, and an unmanned candidate.
#3
Naomi is full of sh*t. I am no fan of Teresa, but using Naomi's logic, a widow who honors her first (dead) husband and her second (alive) husband by holding both names dear is cuckolding. Phooey.
I think this about sums it up regarding the female vote tending towards Bush:
...But Linda DiVall, a GOP pollster and expert on women voters, thinks all that pales in comparison to Bush's core appeal: "More than anything, voters see a moral clarity with Bush, a man of conviction."
#5
all those points are well and good, but he's also living the high life off the "Stepmoney's" money, inherited after the untimely death of a husband (John Heinz - R-PA) who would oppose everything JF'nK stands for. He's an invertebrate leech
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/23/2004 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Agree w Frank. As Ann Coulter put it after listening to Thurston and Lovie's nauseating convention speeches: Two sponges on another man's money should be more careful about using the word "earn" so much....
#8
You should hear my wife - demographically the classic Soccer Mom - she's more bloodthirsty toward these Islamonazis that I am. And that's saying something.
You don't have to have kids to be concerned about security. Both the country's and personal.
So, along with my friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson, I'm paying attention.
I'd suggest others do the same.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/23/2004 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#11
True, BS, but when you have kids the priorities change radically. It's an evolutionary thing. No animal more vicious than a mama bear sensing her cub's in danger.
The Kooky Kerry Kampaign is too clueless to get it, but any parent, no matter how liberal, who heard the reports of terrorist bastards stringing bombs in a school gym, raping the kids and forcing them to drink their urine, and then shooting fleeing children in the back, had one overriding response: pursue these f***ers ruthlessly and destroy them utterly.
#12
They were comparing Gorebot's pull w/the ladies w/skerry's pull at the same time in the election. Gore was 11 points up on W and skerry is only 3 IIRC wrt women voters. However, more men are way ahead for W vs. skerry then on gore-ron.
I tend to scratch my head on why women liked gore so much - I always thought the guy was such a wuss.
In an interview with National Public Radio, Senator John Kerry announced that he did not intend to send more troops to Iraq, even if his generals said more were needed.
But [Kerry] virtually closed the door on sending additional US troops to Iraq if he has no success in his plan to replace some of the 140,000 US personnel with soldiers from other countries and Iraqi security forces.
"I do not intend to increase troops," said the Massachusetts senator, running in the November 2 election to unseat President George W. Bush.[...]
But the Democrat's staunch refusal to consider sending more US troops contrasted with his remarks in a televised interview in April, when he also spoke of resistance among US allies to putting boots on the ground in Iraq.
"If it requires more troops in order to create the stability that eliminates the chaos that can provide the groundwork for other countries, that's what we have to do," he said on NBC's Meet the Press.
So there it is, a flip-flop. Now, Kerry won't send more troops to Iraq, even if his generals say more are needed.
That seems like a fairly plain admission that he's not willing to do everything that might be necessary to win in Iraq.
Posted by: H.D. Miller ||
09/23/2004 12:37:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Looks like Kerry's tacking to the left again. No, wait - he's tacking to the right. Whoops - I was wrong - he's ... left ... right ... left ... right.
Posted by: ed ||
09/23/2004 1:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The fact is that Kerry will cling to the left. He is apparently done with the flip flops and he is going after Bush hard about the conduct of the Iraq War, where Bush is most vulnerable. He may be afraid his base will stay home, so he is trying to keep them in the fold, and keep them angry enough about going to the polls.
News outlets seemed to conclude that Monday Kerry decided to stake his campaign on the Iraq War, be antiwar to retain his base. So things will definately be heating up. Kerry may even get a bounce out of it.
#4
Only 55% or so of Kerry's base are "antiwar" (nb. this includes those who take the other side). At least 30% of Dems are, like myself and Liberalhawk and others here, at least pro-war, if not actively favoring escalation. If Kerry zags to the left, he must write off this 30%.
Stupid, really: it makes much more political sense for Kerry to swing hard right on the war. If he did so, the "antiwar" folks wouldn't stay home, or even vote for Nader, who's not even on the ballot in most of the swing states. They've nowhere to go.
#5
Get a bounce by doing and saying what he did 30 years ago!! God (of life) please say it ain't so.
If this guy get's elected....then Michael Moore is right (Puke). We are the dumb asses of the planet!!
GWB should go out a hero by nuking Mecca on the 3rd of November to send the sheet head world into a complete and total melt down.
#6
The DNC released an advertisement today calling Iraq a "quagmire" and dissing Bush for talking about the domestic agenda. Kerry is talking about a Bush plan to reinstate the draft. The only people talking about a draft are the LLL and the professional race baiter democrat from Harlem that thinks we need one.
#7
ZF, tacking to the left and right is expected from a lifelong sail boat guy. I don't think he's anymore a sailor than he is a hunter. I can picture him yatching but I just can't picture him maintaining a boat.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/23/2004 2:44 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I cannot begin to imagine what our Coaltion allies are thinking with this latest flip-flop. This man has some serious pathological problems.
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/23/2004 2:46 Comments ||
Top||
#9
At least I can pick out a consistent theme in the Kerry campaign this week (aside from "I served in Viet Nam"): he scares his base with talk of a secret guard callup & draft after the election then baits Bush with the statement that if elected he won't send more troops to Iraq no matter what the consequences might be. Clearly he's inviting Bush to say that he'll do whatever it takes to win in Iraq, the response to which will be that it's going to take far more manpower and that will in turn require a massive callup and/or draft.
At best it's a silly direction to push the campaign because the secret callup / secret draft issues smack more than a bit of the unwashed tinfoil hat crowd and it's unlikely to appeal to anyone outside the extreme far left base or a few gullible college students.
Compare and contrast Kerry's new amateurish strategy with Bush's recent statements that Kerry's vacillations on Iraq encourage our enemies. That's a lot closer to a message that'll pull in swing voters than any Viet Nam era tinfoil hat theory.
Once again, Karl Rove is clearly the master of this game.
#12
Nice move Obersturmbahnfuhrer Kerry, that'll rally the troops. What an idiot. I can't believe the polls are as close as they are.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/23/2004 3:19 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Rex - Do you recall the statement made a while back by Evan Thomas (assistant managing editor of Newsweek) that the media are firmly in Kerry's camp and that their support is worth 15 points to the Kerry/Edwards ticket? That's why we're not seeing a complete blowout. Yet.
#14
can someone please explain to me why Bush isn't committing more troops to Iraq to solve the trouble there ? I just don't get it.
Ever play with project management problems? One of the things ya find out is that theres a point where when you have too many people working on the same project you basically take longer and cost more to produce that project than if you had a bit fewer people (called the threshold point usually). Its at that point that intracommunication between the group network gets clogged down because too many people are trying to do too many tasks without as much coordination. Thats sorta what we face in iraq right now. Ya get pretty close to what ya consider is too many troops that at which point they become more potential targets rather than doing useful work. Mind you...more trained MPs would be a lot of use at this point along with certain types of AFVs
Posted by: Mike ||
09/23/2004 6:47 Comments ||
Top||
#16
I listened to the interview and at first Commander Waffle said he couldn't answer the question " would you increase troop strenght if the military asked for them?" because he didn't know what the situation would be when he takes office. He wouldn't give very many details about what he will do because it depends on what the President does between now and Kerry's inauguration. He finally did say he would not increase troop strength after he had said we must win in Iraq and make the democratization work. I still don't know what his position is or what he would do. He seems to me to be reactive, not proactive. He will react to situations and not try to preempt anything.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
09/23/2004 7:15 Comments ||
Top||
#17
September 23rd and he's still trying to firm up the base. The Dems are IN TROUBLE up and down the ticket. Keep pouring it on!
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/23/2004 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
#18
The DNC released an advertisement today calling Iraq a "quagmire" and dissing Bush for talking about the domestic agenda.
Wasn't it just last week they were whining that Bush didn't want to talk about a domestic agenda?
I guess the Bush ads that literally rattle off everything he mentioned during his acceptance speech are doing well, if the Donks are whining about it.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/23/2004 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I can't for the life of me figure out WHY the administration has not released photos of Saddam's victims of torture and murder. It's pretty easy to flap your lips about how this war wasn't justified with those pictures out of sight. I think Kerry's increasingly anti-war position would dissolve quickly in the light of those horrific pieces of persuasive evidence. I suppose there are those that would accuse the administration of sadistic voyeurism for showing the pics, but a strong case could be made that it is worse to hide them in the back of a file cabinet.
#20
jules. That's for closer to the election. Kerry totally bases his campaign on impugning Bush, the WOT, Iraq, WMDs and Halliburton. What if, right before the election, the RNC shows those photos, WMDs from Syria, etc.....? Devastating, and no time to counterpunch
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/23/2004 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#21
A sound strategy, but a big risk to run in the blogging age. There are how many days-40 some-til the election?
#22
A sound strategy, but a big risk to run in the blogging age. There are how many days-40 some-til the election?
Kerry could easily charge that he wasn't right on WMD, how can we trust him on anything he says. Of course the counter to that to put in the ad before the countercharge and to counter subsequent to the ad is: This is what we now KNOW about Iraq.
1) Iraq was routinely firing on American combat aircraft on patrol under a UN mandate, an act of war whether the mandate was in force or not
2) Iraq had failed in its obligation under the truce. It had defied 12 UN Security Councils thingies ( I haven't had my coffee this morning, yet, OKAY??)
3) Saddam killing hundreds of thousands of his own citizens, a million Iranians and an unknown number of his own soldiers.
4) As soon as the UN would have left Saddam would have started up with his WMD programs again.
5) Libya came tumbling down as did an entire infrasturture for selling elements to be used for WMD directly as a result of this invasion. Gadaffi knew Bush was serious about WMD and terrorism and he wanted no part of being on the receiving end..
#23
With respect, the Kerry team is already countering 1, 2, 4 & 5. It's tough to counter 3 with 40 days or 365 days-images stick. How could Kerry come off as anything but as the nationally apologetic, principle-challenged American candidate that he is by countering such horrific pictures? Boost President Bush's momentum; don't wait to put them out during a week when Kerry has the upper hand on some issue.
The American people do not want to hear that their president refuses to send more troops, if generals ask for those troops. Though Bush has held back, mostly, on sending more, he's consistently stated that if requested by the generals, he'd do it.
It's one thing to cut and run. I can imagine some voters not having a problem with that. But to leave the guys in the field twisting in the wind when they need reinforcements? No way.
#25
Kerry is a fucking traitor. If he wants to leave our troops to twist in the wind, we can just leave Kerry to twist in the wind.
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
09/23/2004 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Treebeard makes me chuckle. If you are not going to let your professional experts (i.e. generals) do their job then you've no business being c-in-c.
Badanov> it was actually 17 thingies over 12 years, but I knew what you were getting at.
I don't think sending more troops is a bad thing but it depends on the mission. If our mission is to maintain status quo then we're prolly good right now. If the mission shifts to clearing out Sadr City/Fallujah, then another fresh division would prolly be a good thing. Actually the more mass the better if we end up doing house to house. If we do pre-selected precision raids then maybe not an issue. I'd prefer to quarantine or cordon off sections of city & clear them thoroughly like we did early in fallujah. We suffocated the terrorists & then we moved on to the next piece of real estate.
#27
Only 55% or so of Kerry's base are "antiwar" (nb. this includes those who take the other side). At least 30% of Dems are, like myself and Liberalhawk and others here, at least pro-war, if not actively favoring escalation. If Kerry zags to the left, he must write off this 30%.
Im a tad more pessimistic about our party, looking at the early primary results and polls. Id say the real honest to goodness liberal and moderate hawks make up less than a quarter of the Dems - theres a huge group who were fence sitters much like Kerry himself, who werent comfortable with the Dean stand, out of principle or politics, but who arent ready to stick it out in Iraq even when things look bad. Call them sunshine liberal hawks.
The real liberal hawks are important only cause of the closeness of the race.
#28
Hear ya AzCat Which prolly explains the poll numbers themselves - most of the sources no longer have credibility.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/23/2004 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#29
LH:
I hope it isn't that bad. Generally, far fewer people vote in the primaries than vote in the fall, right? So, the problem seems to be that the far left is more motivated than moderates and patriotic liberals. Only 2 of the candidates (Lieberman and Gephardt) were hawks, and they both crumbled early. Yet, I think either one would do better among registered Democrats (let alone independents and Republicans) in the fall. At least, you wouldn't have the high-profile people like Koch and Miller turning away.
What is different about the two parties? The Republicans went over a cliff in 1964 with Goldwater, and since then have been very cautious in who they pick (Reagan probably being the most "daring."). Someone like Buchanan or Keyes never even came close to getting the nomination. The rules and the primary scheduling seem to select for "establishment" types, generally conservative, some more than others. Sometimes you get a charismaless nobody who has no chance of winning (I won't mention Bob Dole by name), but always someone who can bring the whole party and a good hunk of independents and can be counted on to at least not drag down the downticket races.
The Democrats went over the cliff in 1972, but seemed to learn a different lesson. Clinton was the one exception, but the big guns didn't decide to run in 1992, so he won almost in spite of the system.
Is it the nominating system? Is it because those committed are more ideological? That doen't seem to happen with the GOP. (I'm sure they are also more ideological, but often pick pragmatically.) Is it because the media generally support the left, so they get a free ride?
#30
This is getting to sound like an introspective Winter Democrat Investigation.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/23/2004 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#31
I just read today that Kerry said he WOULD send in more troops and win the war decisively--i.e., that Bush isn't doing enough. He also said he'd have the majority of the troops home in four months and all out in four years. He doesn't know what he's doing. He really doesn't. Guess this all proves that, yes, ANYONE can run for president of the United States. Doesn't mean they know what they're doing, though.
#32
lawyers, lawyers everywhere, and still they let this guy talk. Keep talking Kerry! Keep producing those video clips for future GOP advertisements re: your compulsive flip-flops. Thanks also for the peep show into your wack0-jack0 mindset.
Former President Dhimmi Carter said Wednesday that the apparent open-ended presence of U.S. troops in Iraq has contributed to the wave of hostage-takings and other bloodshed. ``A lot of political analysts have said that one of the main reasons the Bush-Cheney administration went into Iraq was to establish a permanent military base there,'' Carter said in an interview with The Associated Press. ``I think this arouses a great deal of unnecessary opposition.''
You don't recall them saying anything about Saddam and liberating 25 million people, do you Dhimmi?
``As much as any president in history, I was afflicted psychologically and politically by the holding of American hostages,'' Carter said. ``So my heart goes out to all those who are involved in a similar crisis, particularly the Hensley family.''
He was so affected by the holding of American hostages in Iran that he couldn't do one thing right to fix the problem.
Carter, who will turn 80 on Oct. 1, said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry needs to focus his campaign on Iraq and terrorism to defeat President Bush in November. ``The overwhelming issue in this country is the Iraqi war and the war against terrorism and who can address those problems more wisely and more honestly,'' Carter said. ``I think that's the issue that Kerry has to pursue, because, in my opinion, President Bush has not been honest with the American people and has certainly failed in almost everything he professes to be doing in Iraq and in Afghanistan, unfortunately.''
Yeah, Kerry should follow the Carter example [shudder]
Kerry, who trails Bush in most polls, can turn the race's momentum around during three upcoming presidential debates, said Carter, who shocked political analysts in 1976 by going from a relatively unknown Southern governor to winning the White House and then scared the bejeebus out of the rest of us while President.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/23/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I tie Carter's abject failure in Iran to the beginning of the modern age of Islamic terrorism.
Posted by: ed ||
09/23/2004 1:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ya'll be prepared to see a number of leftist losers like Carter complaining about the Iraq War in the coming days. Bush is vulnerable on this count, so we will be seeing the usual crazy leftists tearing into Bush about the war.
#3
Ex president Carter who couldn't even and wouldn't even confornt Iran. When it comes to the middle east and radical islam Carter just has no authority to talk the trash he does.
#4
---This just in......former President Carter has been diagnosed as suffering from incurable penis envy.
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/23/2004 2:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I think puddin-head needs to rethink his permanent base theory. If there still exists a permanent base proponent in Rumsfeld's Pentagon, that person has barricaded himself in his office and is currently under seige. Does Jimmuh think that the sand is a more asthetically pleasing color in Iraq as opposed to Saudi Arabia?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/23/2004 3:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
A complete failure as a President offering muddled and off the wall opinions during wartime about our objectives and methods are as Rummy would say "distinctly unhelpful".
#10
> He was so affected by the holding of American
> hostages in Iran that he couldn't do one thing
> right to fix the problem.
I have to give Carter credit for at least trying an Entebbe-style rescue, even if it failed miserably. I'm not sure if the Carter of today would have the courage to try it again, though.
Posted by: James ||
09/23/2004 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Every time this guy opens his mouth Bush gets an extra point or two in the polls. Maybe there aren't enough of voters around who remember Vietnam but there sure are a hell of a lot more who remember the Iranian hostage crisis and Carter's ineptitude. Reagan got 8 years based on a lot of his ideas and personality but he also had the least effective President since James Tyler to run against.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/23/2004 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#12
#4
This just in......former President Carter has been diagnosed as suffering from incurable penis envy.
And we all know whose he envies, don't we, Capt America? :-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/23/2004 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#13
And we all know whose he envies, don't we, Capt America? :-p
#16
Bzzzzt! Wrong answer, RN, but thanks for playing.
In order for Jimmuh to envy Coffee's, Coffee would have to have one first.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/23/2004 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#17
If anyone is familiar with the taste of failure it sould be Jimmy. I am willing to accept that he is a caring and loving human being. But that caring and loving human being is also partly responsible for the mess the Muddle East is now. Granted the Camp David Accords were a great achievement but in some ways I think they caused the attitudes of the Paleos to become even more entrenched and his attitude towards Iran and the Ayatollah Cocamamie helped set the problems of terrorism today and the destruction of Lebanon
#18
One of my best friends was in special forces and Halo dropped at night behind Teheran during the hostage crisis. After the debacle in Desert One, the rescue was scrubbed. Carter wrote off my friends team (that already had one drop fatality) and hung them out to dry. They escaped and evaded for 4 months, and eventually linked up with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan and got home. Carter met my friend at the white house. My friend chewed Carter's ass. He got red as a beet. Needless to say, my friend's marine career was truncated. He said to me that if he had to do it all over again, he would say the same thing.
Ed is right. Carter's indecision on the Iran hostage crisis was the beginning of the nightmare we live in with the Islamofascists.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Tuntutuliak, AK ||
09/23/2004 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Now, now AP, don't go getting right wing looney on us. Jimmuah was a nukelear engineer who spent seven years in the navy (the US Navy BTW) but I don't think he made officer of the deck.
Say what you will about crazy Lester Maddox, he never dissembled... rarely noted that he called Jimmuah the biggest liar he'd every run across in politics... and that was in 1973.
#21
Amy still giving him foreign policy? What an asshole. Most failures know their place. He keeps repeating his mistakes, hoping for a different outcome - i.e.: the very definition of mental illness
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/23/2004 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
#22
One day Mr. Former President and Nobel Peace Prize Winner James Earl Carter is going to be very surprised when he wakes up to find himself in Hell instead of the Heaven he assures us all is his natural home. And Alaska Paul: I am quite certain that some of his personal devils will have the aspects of your friend and his friends, and others will appear to be Israelis and the current generation of Iranian women and university students. And they will set him nukeyular physics problems that will be incapable of solving (yeah, I'm a real bitch, I know ;-)
From The Council on American-Islamic Relations
We condemn this latest act of murder in Iraq and repudiate those who would commit such atrocities. We also call for the immediate release of all hostages currently held in Iraq, whatever their nation of origin or faith. As American Muslims and people of conscience, we unequivocally reject the claim that any cause could possibly be advanced by the killing of civilians and offer our sincere condolences to Mr. Armstrong's family.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 10:51:51 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
House Republicans plan to revive portions of the Justice Department's ``Patriot Act II'' draft in legislation to address the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations to strengthen America intelligence capabilities, The Associated Press has learned. In a draft of the House GOP legislation obtained by The Associated Press, many of the provisions were similar to the draft copy of the ``Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003'' that a nonprofit group said had leaked out of the Justice Department in January 2003. The Justice Department said then that they had made no final decision on the legislation, and never submitted it to Congress.
But many of the better anti-terrorism provisions of that draft show up in the the House discussion draft section on terrorism prevention and prosecution that part of the proposed House legislation. Among the provisions are measures on the deportation of aliens who become members of or help terrorist groups, required pretrial detention for terrorism suspects, warrants against non-citizens even when a target can't be tied directly to a foreign power, and enhanced penalties for threats or attempts to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the United States, including attacks through the mail system. A spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Wednesday that House members were still working on a final version of the legislation. A Justice Department spokesman said they had not seen the House draft. On Monday, a group of 9/11 widows went door to door trying to get lawmakers to sign a pledge to keep Patriot Act material out of the legislation, saying the politically explosive material could doom the measure.
This is the small sub-group of LLL widows. I think they're affiliated with the Code Pink crazies.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/23/2004 12:04:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
These freaking "bereaved" 9/11 widows have far too much idle time on their hands, No doubt due to the big settlements they received for their loss.
I suggest the bereavement period has ended. Kick their sorry asses out of Congress.
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/23/2004 2:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Among the provisions are measures on the deportation of aliens who become members of or help terrorist groups, required pretrial detention for terrorism suspects, warrants against non-citizens even when a target can't be tied directly to a foreign power, and enhanced penalties for threats or attempts to use chemical or nuclear weapons against the United States, including attacks through the mail system."
I think that right now is an excellent time to force Senators and Congressmen to debate these ideas/
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/23/2004 3:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They're using their loss as cover for their political ops. Disgusting. The Left may actually dig to China at this rate.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/23/2004 3:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
So are we now to understand that the Patriot Act was a good thing?
A chemical-attack treatment that many American allies have had for years will now be available to emergency responders in the United States under an Army decision announced Wednesday by the product's manufacturer. The Food and Drug Administration cleared Avon Skin so Soft Reactive Skin Decontamination Lotion for Army use in April 2003, a move that also gave the Army control over whether other federal agencies and state and local governments could buy it. For over a year, the Army declined to make the lotion available to first responders, saying more testing was needed. On Wednesday, its manufacturer, O'Dell Engineering, said the Army had concluded the product was safe for use by emergency responders at all levels of government. Those now able to acquire it range from local police and fire departments to federal agencies such as the State Department and the U.S. Capitol police.
The Republican-led Senate approved President Bush's choice to head the CIA, Rep. Porter Goss, over protests from some Democrats who said he has too many Republican ties for a job that requires independence. The nomination of the Florida congressman was confirmed Wednesday by a vote of 77-17. A former CIA and Army intelligence officer during the 1960s, Goss would be only the second congressman to take over the helm of the CIA, following former President and House member George H.W. Bush.
President Bush, who nominated Goss to the post, called him ``a leader with strong experience in intelligence and in the fight against terrorists'' and ``the right man'' to take over the agency as the administration implements intelligence reforms. During six hours of debate, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the senior Democrat on the intelligence panel, questioned whether Goss would be politically objective and outlined a series of correct attacks Goss has made on the Democratic Party and its presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry. They included what Rockefeller considered unfair accusations from Goss that Kerry led the way to ``deep and devastating'' intelligence budget cuts in the 1990s.
Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., rejected suggestions that Goss is too political and said he would be an appropriate intelligence chief during a tumultuous time. As Congress considers significant changes to the intelligence community's structure, Goss may be taking a job that soon won't exist, Roberts noted. Congress is considering creating a more expansive job of national intelligence director, and Goss has been named as a possibility for that post should it be created. ``Porter Goss's confirmation ... represents perhaps the most important changing of the guard for our intelligence community since 1947,'' when Congress created the CIA, Roberts said. ``He will be the first director of central intelligence in a new, and hopefully better, intelligence community.'' Should Kerry be elected president, he would be expected to pick a different CIA director. Neither Kerry nor his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., voted on the confirmation.
Of course they didn't.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/23/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They included what Rockefeller considered unfair accusations from Goss that Kerry led the way to ``deep and devastating'' intelligence budget cuts in the 1990s. Yep, whenever Kerry's voting record is brought up, the Donks cry foul. You want to talk about unfair? How about all the well meaning and patriotic Dems out there ( around 17 by my last count) who have had sKerry forced upon them as their candidate? Talk about unfair!
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
09/23/2004 3:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wasn't Rockefeller in the center of some leaked intellegence committee document scandal last year?
Funny how that just sort of went away.
#4
Nice "Politics before National Security" honor roll
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/23/2004 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Harkin (D-IA)
Yeah, we really need to work on that here. You would think that just looking at the guy would cause someone to scream "Cryptkeeper"!
Posted by: Charles ||
09/23/2004 13:56 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Durbin (D-IL)
Too bad I won't be around to vote against that turd next time. Guess I'll have to turn my attention to Sarbanes (D-MD), instead. Probably a tall order. Any insight from Marylanders?
A SECRET government report says Muslim guerrillas in the southern Philippines have hosted terror training camps for militant groups from Indonesia and Malaysia for at least seven years - a period when Southeast Asia was plagued by bombings, including the 2002 Bali nightclub attack that killed 202. The training continued at least until 19 new members of Jemaah Islamiah - the al-Qaeda-linked south-east Asian terror group - finished in January, said a copy of a government security assessment report obtained by The Associated Press. The report provides deeper insight into the training of foreigners from Jemaah Islamiah and other extremist groups at the camps.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/23/2004 6:00:40 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
By Ardeshir Moaveni, Eurasianet 14/9/04
Sep 21st, 2004
As instability and violence continue to plague Iraq, Iran has undertaken an increasingly ambitious campaign to defend its own interests in the oil-rich state.
The operation, one of the most extensive undertaken by the country's ruling clerics, relies primarily on the strong religious ties that bind Tehran's Shi'a government with Iraq's majority Shi'a population. Yet despite the policy's success so far in exercising Iranian influence, it is a strategy that runs the risk of a strong backlash from within Iraq itself.
Iran's effort encompasses not only generous financial assistance to an array of Iraqi Shi'a parties and organizations.
Iran bankrolls the activities of mainstream Shi'a groups like the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Islamic Dawa Party, and has built strong ties to rebel cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and Ahmad Chalabi's secular Iraqi National Congress as well as to the Kurds. At the same time, Tehran is believed to have deployed a sizable contingent of its Revolutionary Guards Corps on the ground for intelligence-gathering purposes, and, borrowing a page from the Iranian-funded Hezbollah organization, has also undertaken provision of such social services as clinics and schools.
While Iraq's government routinely rails against Iran's presence — and the US, concerned by Tehran's nuclear energy program, turns a wary eye — little motivation exists for Tehran to reverse its interventionist strategy. As an August 27 report on post-Saddam Iraq published by the London-based Royal Institute of International Affairs concludes, "Iran arguably gained most from the invasion of Iraq which left it in a position of increased geopolitical strength."
Both religion and national security drive the Iranian campaign. Iraq is home to Shi'a Islam's holiest sites. Iraq and Iran's leading clerical families are bound by marriage as well as religious beliefs. The seminary in the Iraqi town of Najaf has always been the leading center of Shi'a learning, and many experts believe that, in the eyes of Shi'a clerics, it already surpasses the holy Iranian city of Qom in stature and prestige.
The presence of these factors make Iraq a vital country for Iran's religious heritage, but the US presence in the country and the anti-Iran rhetoric of the Bush administration appear to have reinforced Iranian leaders' belief that strong ties to Iraq will protect Iran's national security.
According to one University of Tehran political scientist, Iran's activities should not come as a surprise to policymakers in Washington. "[T]here has been next to zero reconstruction in Iraq by the occupying forces, so a country like Iran can fill in the void," said the political scientist, who requested anonymity. "Under these circumstances who could blame Iran?"
However, this assertive strategy is not without its pitfalls. According to experts, Prime Minster Iyad Alawi is currently engaged in a delicate campaign to win the cooperation of ex-Baathist officials and military officers to bolster Iraq's fledgling government. Vilifying Iran, Iraq's foe in the 1980-1988 war that killed as many as 1 million people, could go a long way in gaining this group's trust, and potentially splitting the armed, Shi'a-led resistance.
In recent weeks, Iraqi government officials have repeatedly denounced the Islamic Republic of Iran for pursuing policies designed to stifle democracy and expand an Iranian network of "spies and saboteurs." According to Iraqi Defense Minister Hazim Shalaan, Iran is "Iraq's enemy number one." Alawi himself has pointedly refused to travel to Iran.
Keenly aware of the need for balance, Iran appears to be making as much use of caution as of infiltration. Faleh Jabar, a visiting scholar at the US Institute for Peace in Washington, said that the intervention of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani — the Iranian-born head of Iraq's Shiites -- in the violence this August around the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf both preserved the peace and persuaded Iran's clerics to give qualified support to the Alawi government and talks with rebel Moqtada al-Sadr.
"Sistani is arguably the highest authorities in Shi'a Islam today. No one can afford to openly defy his injunctions and maintain credibility among the faithful for very long." Iranian leaders are also keenly aware Ayatollah al-Sistani has confounded the Bush administration's plans on several occasions, including its plans for an Interim Constitution and a timetable for national elections.
At the same time, though, many conservative hardliners in Tehran see advantages to gain from a destabilized Iraq, states The Royal Institute of International Affairs' "Iraq in Transition" report. Such a scenario could not only pin down the US in a protracted conflict, but have the advantage of providing additional justification for the clerics' own government. "Arguably, a dynamic exists in which conservative authoritarians have a vested interest in continued instability within Iraq, as a means of both keeping the US preoccupied and justifying further repression at home."
In the end, however, the ruling establishment recognizes the limits to the benefits of such instability, the report goes on to say. One sensitive region in particular: the western province of Khuzestan, which contains large oil deposits. "If fragmentation occurs but state stability is not achieved, Iran will benefit as long as the disputes which arise are contained," the report stated. "Should the state collapse, Iran will seek to influence and contain tensions but the risk that conflicts would spill over across the border would cause serious concern in Iran."
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/23/2004 8:09:39 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can anyone tell me why I find this map appealing?
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- Iran has said it will react "most severely" to any Israeli action against its nuclear facilities, issuing the warning after Israel said the United States was selling it 500 bunker buster bombs. Israeli military officials said Tuesday that the Jewish state will receive nearly 5,000 smart bombs, including the 500 one-ton bombs that can destroy two-yard-thick (two-meter-thick) concrete walls. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor before it could begin operating. On Wednesday Israel said that Iran would never abandon plans to develop nuclear weapons and called for quick action by the U.N. Security Council "to put an end to this nightmare." Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, asked Wednesday about the sale of the monster bombs, told reporters: "Israel has always been a threat, not only against Iran, but all countries." As if Iran's continual sponsorship of international terrorism isn't a threat to "all countries.".
The main conflict in the Middle East, Kharrazi said, is Israel's "freedom to produce as much as they need -- nuclear bombs as well as other weapons of mass destruction." "But be sure, any action by Israel certainly will be reacted by us, most severely," Kharrazi said after he met British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly's ministerial meeting. Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom sidestepped the question Wednesday of whether Israel would take military action against Iran if it continued to pursue its nuclear ambitions. "They are trying to buy time, and the time has come to move the Iranian case to the Security Council in order to put an end to this nightmare," he told reporters after meeting U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Zenster ||
09/23/2004 1:47:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I mean what is anyone going to do to Israel? Hate them worse?
Maybe dispatch suicide bombers to blow them up?
Maybe kill their athletes at international sports competitions?
Maybe hijack their airliners, or detonate bombs in their airports?
Fire unguided missiles into Israel?
I mean - what new threat can descend upon Israel?
All I can think of is roasting Israeli infants on spits, and then eating them.
Maybe the Mullahs need to revisit the '67 and '73 war chronicles.
I'm no great fan of Israel, but if they can be the sword of retribution that strikes out at the immense evil in Iran - they have my heartfelt support.
Ever since the Iranian barbarians seized the US Embassy in November '79, they've had a long overdue ass-kicking coming. I know that there are many good people in Iran - it is time for good people in bad countries to finally learn that they either need to step up and clean their own house, or go down in flames with the neighborhood bullies.
In the timeworn words of Edmund Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Well, timid good men within the Islamic world need to learn that they will regrettably become collateral damage, unless they take action on their own.
There is no way the US would clear the sale of those armaments unless they have already given Israel the green light. Iran will not bak down - so now it is just a question of which morning we wake up to learn that Israel has lanced this ugly boil. Israel must surely be trying to pick the timing of their inevitable attack so as to eliminate the hardest to replace resources that could be used to rebuild the program - probably the human talent component. Iranian nuclear scientists may soon be joining the "retired with extreme prejudice" Hamas crowd in hell.
May Allan welcome his Iranain satanic friends back home - and the sooner, the better.
#2
This news gives official notice to the Iranians that the Israelis can destroy their facilities without having to use any of their own nuclear devices. The ordinance is almost certainly already there. Best case senario: delivery is made by B2 bombers, allowing everybody official deniability.
#3
Iran has said it will react "most severely" to any Israeli action against its nuclear facilities, issuing the warning after Israel said the United States was selling it 500 bunker buster bombs.
Hah, what are the mullahs going to do that hasn't already been tried by the Paleos? They're on the verge of seeing their nuclear efforts go up in smoke and radioactive contamination, and they're obviously nervous about it.
Burke: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." This would be useful as the new slogan of the UN.
As far as the "Iranians can't do anything about it" approach-I'm not ready to get cocky quite yet-no people is beyond having a surprise sprung on them. That doesn't change the need to confront the problem, though.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/23/2004 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Well, if they are irked because Israel bought one, I predict some really strong feeling when they drop it.
Posted by: Michael ||
09/23/2004 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Holy Shmoe! I forgot it's double licious September! Please take your pick of 24 KC-135s (used) or 150 Block3 TLAMs! I know it's crazy! But it's September!
#11
The US sale of all that ordinance to Israel, announced publicly, in the quantities stated, is having the desired psyops effect on Iran. Make them quake in their boots with real facts, no bluffing. I like it.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Tuntutuliak, AK ||
09/23/2004 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Ever since the Iranian barbarians seized the US Embassy in November '79, they've had a long overdue ass-kicking coming. I know that there are many good people in Iran - it is time for good people in bad countries to finally learn that they either need to step up and clean their own house, or go down in flames with the neighborhood bullies.
Well said, Lone Ranger. I've maintained the same thing for some time as well. To meekly accept tyranny is to condone it. Members of my mother's family worked in the Danish resistance during the Nazi occupation. If a tiny country like Denmark can fight one of the world's most well-oiled war machines, others can rise against their tyrants too. That so many Muslims maintain a conspicuous silence under the thumb of their oppressors begins to smack of tacit acquiescence after a while.
While many were puzzling over the government's announcement that former songbird Cat Stevens is on terrorist watch lists, a hint to his possible terrorist connections came up earlier this month in the trial of attorney Lynne Stewart.
Stevens, 56, became a Muslim and changed his name to Yusuf Islam in the late 1970s.
Evidence presented in Stewart's trial in Manhattan federal court shows radical Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who she represented in 1995, wanted the singer to join a defense committee he was forming in 2000.
On a tape of a secretly wiretapped prison conversation from May 2000, a lively comical discussion ensues as Abdel-Rahman and Arabic interpreter Mohamed Yousry attempt to remember Islam's English stage name.
"Add Yusuf Islam," Abdel-Rahman dictates to Yousry in Arabic. "That singer ... he was a famous singer, then God changed his life. That British singer."
"Lynne do you know this guy who was a member of the Beatles or something ... and now he is a Muslim?" Yousry asks.
"Is it Ringo?" Stewart asks puzzled. "Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr ... the drummer, and the third one who was never around, George Harrison?"
"Maybe," Yousry replied. "He is one of those. He was one of the Beatles."
"Oh yeah, he was the most famous," the sheik concurs in Arabic.
"Interesting," Stewart replies, totally confused.
After court yesterday, Stewart said Abdel-Rahman may have met Islam in London while both were trying to raise funds for Chechnya. But Stewart said none of Islam's money was funneled to the sheik or his defense.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/23/2004 7:59:37 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
(FBIS Translated Text)
After the fall of Baghdad into the hands of the Anglo-American occupation on 9 April 2003, as a natural reaction, several sectors of Iraqi society confronted the occupation. Resistance cells were formed, the majority of which were of Islamic Sunni and pan-Arab tendencies. These cells started in the shape of scattered groups, without a unifying bond to bind them together.
These groups and small cells started to grow gradually, until they matured to some extent and acquired a clear personality that had its own political and military weight. Then they stated to pursue combining themselves into larger groups.
The majority of these groups do not know their leadership, the sources of their financing, or who provides them with weapons. However, the huge amounts of weapons, which the Saddam Husayn regime left behind, are undoubtedly one of the main sources for arming these groups. These weapons include mortars, RPGs, hand grenades, Kalashnikovs, and light weapons.
Their intellectual tendencies are usually described as a mixture of Islamic and pan-Arab ideas that agree on the need to put an end to the US presence in Iraq.
These groups have common denominators, the most important of which perhaps are focusing on killing US soldiers, rejecting the abductions and the killing of hostages, rejecting the attacks on Iraqi policemen, and respecting the beliefs of other religions. There is no compulsion to convert to Islam, this stems from their Islamic creed, their reading of the jurisprudence texts and historical events, and their respect for the directives and appeals of the Islamic organizations and religious dignitaries.
These groups believe the Iraqis are divided into two categories. One category -- the majority - is against the occupation, and the other -- the minority -- is on the side of the occupation. The resistance considers those who reject the occupation, whatever their description might be, to be on its side. The resistance considers those who are on the side of the occupation to be as spies and traitors who do not deserve to remain on Iraqi territory, and hence they should be liquidated.
As for their view of the political parties, it depends on the stance of these parties toward the occupation. If these parties are dealing with the United States on the basis that it is an occupation force that should be evicted and that Iraq should be liberated from any military occupation or constrictions, and if these parties choose to deal with the United States and to engage in political action within this context, then these parties are free to continue with their efforts. Moreover, in general, these groups do not target the political powers that deal, but do not cooperate with the United States within the political framework established by the occupation.
The following is a review of the resistance groups and the armed groups in Iraq:
First, the main Sunni resistance groups that primarily target the US occupation:
-- It emerged for the first time on 16 July 2003. Its declared aim is to liberate Iraqi territory from foreign military and political occupation and to establish a liberated and independent Iraqi state on Islamic bases. It launches armed attacks against the US forces. The attacks primarily are concentrated in the area west of Baghdad, in the regions of Abu-Ghurayb, Khan Dari, and Al-Fallujah. It has other activities in the governorates of Ninwi, Diyali, and Al-Anbar. The group usually takes into consideration the opinions of a number of Sunni authorities in Iraq.
-- The group's statements, in which it claims responsibility for its operations against the US occupation, are usually distributed at the gates of the mosques after the Friday prayers.
-- A recent statement issued by the group on 19 August 2004 explained that the group, during the period between 27 July and 7 August 2004, carried out an average of 10 operations every day, which resulted in the deaths of dozens of US soldiers and the destruction of dozens of US armored vehicles.
-- The most prominent operations of the group during that period were the shooting down of a helicopter in the Abu-Ghurayb region by the Al-Zubayr Bin-al-Awwam Brigade on 1 August 2004, and the shooting down of a Chinook helicopter in the Al-Nu'aymiyah region, near Al-Fallujah, by the Martyr Nur-al-Din Brigade on 9 August 2004.
-- The front includes 10 resistance groups. It was formed days after the occupation of Iraq in April 2003. It consists of nationalists and Islamists. Its activities are concentrated in Arbil and Karkuk in northern Iraq; in Al-Fallujah, Samarra, and Tikrit in central Iraq, and in Basra and Babil Governorates in the south, in addition to Diyali Governorate in the east.
-- Generally speaking, its activities are considered smaller than those of the 1920 Revolution Brigades.
The front is the newest Sunni resistance group to fight the US occupation. It includes a number of small resistance factions that formed a coalition. Its political and jihad program stems from a jurisprudence viewpoint that allows it to fight the occupiers. Its activities against the occupation forces are concentrated in the two governorates of Ninwi and Diyali. It announced its existence for the first time on 30 May 2004.
In its statements, JAMI warns against the Jewish conspiracies in Iraq. According to statements issued by the front, JAMI's military wing, the Salah-al-Din and Sayf-Allah al-Maslul Brigades, has carried out dozens of operations against the US occupation forces. The most prominent of these operations were in Ninwi Governorate. These operations included the shelling of the occupation command headquarters and the semi-daily shelling of the Mosul airport. Further more, JAMI targets the members of US intelligence and kills them in the Al-Faysaliyah area in Mosul and also in the governorate of Diyali, where the front's Al-Rantisi Brigade sniped a US soldier and used mortars to shell Al-Faris Airport.
4. Other Small Factions:
There are other factions that claim responsibility for some limited military operations against the US forces. However, some of these factions have joined larger brigades that are more active and more experienced in fighting. These factions include:
Hamzah Faction: A Sunni group that appeared for the first time on 10 October 2003 in Al-Fallujah and called for the release of a local shaykh known as Shaykh Jamal Nidal, who was arrested by the US forces. There is no other information available about this group.
Iraqi Liberation Army: The first appearance of this group was on 15 July 2003. It warned the foreign countries against sending troops to Iraq and pledged to attack those troops if they were sent.
Awakening and Holy War: A group of Arab Sunni mujahidin. It is active in Al-Fallujah. It filmed an operation on videotape and sent the tape to Iranian television on 7 July 2003. On the tape, the group said that Saddam and the United States were two sides of the same coin. The group said that it carried out operations against the US occupation in Al-Fallujah and other cities.
The White Banners: A group of local Arab Sunni mujahidin that is active in the Sunni triangle and probably in other areas. Originally, they were opposed to Saddam Husayn, and in alliance with the Muslim Youths and Muhammad's Army. The group criticized the bombing of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad. So far, there is no information about their operations.
Al-Haqq Army: There is not much information about this group, apart from that it consists of Arab Sunni Muslims, it has some nationalistic tendencies, and it is not loyal to Saddam.
5. Ba'thist Factions:
These factions are loyal to the Ba'th Party and the previous regime of Saddam Husayn. They do not constitute a proportion of the actual resistance in Iraq. Their activities are more or less restricted to financing of resistance operations. The factions that still exist secretly in the Iraqi arena include:
Al-Awdah (The Return): This faction is concentrated in northern Iraq -- Samarra, Tikrit, Al-Dur, and Mosul. It consists of members of the former intelligence apparatus.
Saddam's Fedayeen: The faction was formed by the Saddam regime before the US invasion. Now, it is rumored that many of its members have abandoned their loyalty to Saddam and have joined Islamic and national groups on the side of the 11 September Revolutionary Group and the Serpent's Head Movement.
Second, Shiite resistance against the occupation:
Al-Sadr group: The Al-Mahdi Army is considered the only militia experiment to emerge after the occupation. In July 2003, Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr announced the formation of the Al-Mahdi Army, but not as a force directed against the occupation. Within a short period, Al-Sadr gathered between 10,000 and 15,000 well-trained youths, the majority of whom were from the poor of the Al-Sadr City, Al-Shu'lah, and the southern cities.
Recent events -- starting with the closure of Al-Sadr's Al-Hawzah newspaper in March 2004; the arrest of Al-Sadr assistant Mustafa al-Ya'qubi against a background of suspicions about his involvement in the killing of Imam Abd-al-Majid al-Khu'i, and crowned with the writ to arrest Muqtada al-Sadr in April on charges of assassinating Al-Khu'i inside the Al-Haydari mosque in Al-Najaf on 10 April 2003 -- placed the Al-Mahdi Army in confrontation with the occupation forces in Baghdad and the southern governorates.
The greatest confrontation between this militia and the occupation forces erupted in Al-Najaf in August 2004. The confrontation continued for nearly three weeks, and it ended with the signing of a cease-fire agreement between the two sides. The observers believe that these confrontations bestowed upon the Al-Sadr tendency the mark of an armed resistance to the occupation.
Imam Ali Bin-Abi-Talib Jihadi Brigades: This Shiite group appeared for the first time on 12 October 2003. It vowed to kill the soldiers of any country sending its troops to support the coalition forces, and threatened to transfer the battleground to the territories of such countries if they were to send troops. The group also threatened to assassinate all the members of the Interim Governing Council and any Iraqi cooperating with the coalition forces. The group also announced that Al-Najaf and Karbala were the battlegrounds in which it would target the US forces.
Third: Factions that adopt abductions and killing:
In addition to the groups resisting occupation, other armed groups have emerged and resorted to operations of abducting and killing foreigners as a method, in their opinion, that would terrorize the enemy and as a political pressure card to achieve their specific demands. This was what happened when Philippine President Gloria Macapagol-Arroyo decided to withdraw the Philippine forces acting under US command in Iraq after the abduction of her compatriot Angelo del Cruz on 7 July 2004 and his release at a later time.
The most prominent of these groups are:
Assadullah Brigades: The brigades said in a statement, number 50, "The mujahid is entitled to capture any infidel that enters Iraq, whether he works for a construction company or in any other job, because he could be warrior, and the mujahid has the right to kill him or take him as a prisoner."
The activities of this group are concentrated in Baghdad and its suburbs. The group detained the third most senior diplomat at the Egyptian Embassy to Iraq, Muhammad Mamduh Hilmi Qutb, in July 2004 in response to statements by Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmad Nazif, who announced that Egypt was prepared to offer its security expertise to the interim Iraqi Government. The diplomat was released after nearly a week.
Islamic Retaliation Movement: One of the movements that adopt the course of abductions. It abducted the US Marine of Lebanese origin, Wasif Ali Hassun, on 19 July 2004, and then released him.
Islamic Anger Brigades: The group that abducted 15 Lebanese in June 2004 and then released them, with the exception of Husayn Ulayyan, an employee of a communications company, whom it killed.
The Black Banners Group: A battalion of the Secret Islamic Army. The group abducted three Indians, two Kenyans, and an Egyptian working for a Kuwaiti company operating in Iraq. The aim was to compel the company to stop its activities in Iraq. The hostages were later released.
The Islamic Army in Iraq: A secret organization that adopts the ideology of Al-Qa'ida. The organization abducted Iranian Consul Feredion Jahani and the two French journalists, Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot.
Ansar al-Sunnah Movement: The movement abducted 12 Nepalese on 23 August 2004 and killed them.
The last four groups are clearly intellectually close to the beliefs and thinking of Al-Qa'ida Organization and its leader, Usama Bin Ladin.
The first case of slaughter was that of US national Nicholas Berg in May 2004, and the Abu-Mus'ab al-Zarqawi group claimed responsibility for it.
After that, the Al-Tawhid wa al-Jihad Group killed South Korean Kim Il, who was working for a Korean company providing the US Army with military installations.
Following that, the operations of abducting hostages cascaded in Iraq. Some of the hostages were slaughtered, and others were released. And the phenomenon came to the surface.
The total number of hostages killed so far is: two Italians, two US nationals, two Pakistanis, one Egyptian, one Turk, one Lebanese, one Bulgarian, one South Korean, and 12 Nepalese.
(Description of Source: Baghdad Al-Zawra in Arabic--Weekly published by the Iraqi Journalists Association)
#2
He is Syrian and Syria is ruled by the Alaouite Assads. Alaouites are a branch of shiism but they drink alcohol, their women mingle with men, dont wear veils. In other words, they are arch-heretic by wahabi standards. Al Quaida would like them dead. Perhaps, perhaps Assads/Aalouites feel in danger.
Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas heaped scorn on Iraq's prime minister on Thursday for shaking hands with an Israeli delegate at the United Nations, saying he had disgraced Iraq and offended Arabs and Muslims.
"Ooooo...cooties!"
Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi shook hands with Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom on Tuesday at the UN General Assembly, where alphabetical order put them side by side.
Hmmm...I wonder where Hezbollah's seat is at the UN General Assembly? Oh, right...THEY DON'T HAVE ONE.
"(It) is a sign of one of the most dangerous goals of the American war on Iraq, yanking Iraq from its place in the Arab and Muslim worlds and sticking it in the U.S.-Zionist political cosmos," Hezbollah seethed said in a statement. "This unacceptable handshake is at once a true insult to the Iraqi people, their history, culture and Islamic and national commitment; and flagrant scorn for the suffering of Palestinian people and the sentiments of Arabs and Muslims," it said. Shalom said the incident was the first official contact between Israel and Baghdad since the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Israel attacked to destroy a nuclear reactor in 1981. Iraq fired missiles at Israel during the 1991 Gulf war, when Saddam Hussein answered demands to pull his army out of Kuwait by saying Israel must in turn end its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
#2
Lebanonâs Hezbollah guerrillas heaped scorn on Iraqâs prime minister on Thursday for shaking hands with an Israeli delegate at the United Nations, saying he had disgraced Iraq and offended Arabs and Muslims.
TFB. Apparently, Prime Minster Allawi isn't a slave to the past like you are, Hezbollah.
#4
I'm not sure this is such a smart move on Allawi's part. It's a brave move, though. Iraqis have been conditioned for decades to think of Israel as the Little Satan. Allawi may regret this handshake at the January polls.
#5
Isn't there a bomb or missile someplace looking for the leader of Hezbollah? He is a VERY brave man. But brave men die quickly in the middle east. I pray for his safety.
#6
We would not want any of the Hizballah death cultists upset, they might run off and kill themselves.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/23/2004 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Nazi Islamists is a good word. Actually a lot of literature they pedal is borrowed directly from Mein Kampf. They use the same logic to try to convert people to their side. And being super racists puts them directly in league with the H himslef. I am sure if enough research is done we will come up with amazing similarities in their literature.
But the point is that Nazis dont like it when a person of their superior Arab race shakes hands with a jew.
Well all they gotta remember is where Hitler ended up, in a bunker commiting suicide. Evil looses.
The Goals of Al-Zarqawi's Struggle
According to the source, Al-Zarqawisaid: "We are fighting in Iraq but our eyes are raised not only to Iraq but also to other places, such as Jerusalem." He added, "[Al-Zarqawi] has a strategy and an aspiration to expand the fighting to the entire region." The source reported that Al-Zarqawi "came to this arena only to expel the Americans from the Muslims' country and to establish an Islamic government. This is part of the goal, because if this is not done, how will we be able to bring about coups d'etat in neighboring countries? How can we rescue Jerusalem when we have no base from which to set out? Rescuing Jerusalem and the neighboring countries will come only after the rise of an Islamic state from which the youth will set out to liberate the neighboring areas."
The Murder of Hostages in Iraq
Responding to "condemnation for the abhorrent murder of hostages by Al-Zarqawi's Al-Tawhid Wa'Al Jihad organization, " the source said that Al-Zarqawi is convinced that his operations are permitted by Shari'a [Islamic law], and that the hostages "are not truly hostages. There is a difference between a hostage and a spy or a captive. The sentence for spies is death. But there is some dispute about how it is to be carried out — by the sword or by shooting." According to the source, Al-Zarqawi "accepts comments" from ulema [Muslim religious leaders] regarding whether his killing operations are permitted or forbidden according to Islam — provided that the ulema are not connected to a regime and are offering opinions out of personal conviction, and not to please their rulers. He also said that there is evidence in the Shari'a that Al-Zarqawi's killings are permitted, even if they include the mutilation of corpses: "Allah has permitted us to repay them in kind, with the same means that they use. If they kill our women, we will kill their women."
Al-Zarqawi's Attitude toward Shi'ites
In response to a question about Al-Zarqawi's stance regarding Shi'ites — especially in light of an open letter attributed to him stating that he wants a civil war in Iraq in which Shi'ites will be attacked — the source said: "Isn't it true that it was the Americans who distributed the letter? What do you expect of your enemy? Their lie is obvious." He added, "Al-Zarqawi's position [on Shi'ites] is clear⊠The entire Salafi stream believes that the Shi'a is an infidel ideology. I believe this and Abu Mus'ab [Al-Zarqawi] believes that the Shi'a is heresy. But this does not mean that we declare the Shi'ite masses infidels. We must call upon them to atone to Allah." According to the source, Al-Zarqawi said: "If the Shi'ites were not killing us, we would not be killing them. Our main enemy is the Americans and the Iraqi state. But the truth is that the Shi'ites killed the Sunnis." He stated: "The Shi'ites are the base of the pyramid of the ruling Iraqi government. They also make up a considerable percentage of the armed forces established by the occupation forces to defend this government. Shi'ite forces came to Fallujah and fought the residents, and the same thing happened in Najaf: It was the Shi'ites who attacked [Muqtada] Al-Sadr, not the Americans."
The source went on to say that the groups fighting today in Iraq maintain that "anyone who enters this country together with the Americans in the context of their occupation is an infidel. We are not talking about an apostateregime, regarding which there is disagreement whether it should be declared infidel. [But] there is no dispute regarding anyone who collaborates with the occupation — he is a traitor and he must be killed, regardless of whether he is a Sunni, a Shi'ite, or a Turk."
Al-Zarqawi's Connection to Al-Qa'ida
With regard to the claims that Al-Zarqawi is affiliated with Al-Qa'ida, the source said: "I wish that he was an Al-Qa'ida representative in Iraq. But the truth is that Al-Zarqawi has his own organization. He is not an Al-Qa'ida member and has no connection to Sheikh Osama [bin Laden]. They only employ the same method. "There is no organizational connection between them — on the contrary, many Arab youth have said that they will swear allegiance to Al-Zarqawi provided that he swear allegiance to Sheikh Osama. They say that so far he has not sworn allegiance, and that he used to say: 'to this day I have not sworn allegiance to Sheikh Osama and I am not acting in the framework of his organizationâŠ'"
#1
Yes, and of course, this associate of Zarqawi is entirely credible. Ever hear of disinformation, people?
It is amazing how the terrorists know how to play our lefty loons better than we do.
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/23/2004 2:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Zarqawi has asassinated enough innocent Iraqis and beheaded enough defenseless Western contractors so that I don't think anyone really cares whether Zarqawi subscribes to Bin Laden's ideology.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/23/2004 2:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
wasn't it Debka who brought the same message, some time ago ?
#4
The oath bit is a red herring, since neither Zubaydah nor Hambali had sworn oaths to bin Laden. I think this associate is referring to the "strict" definition of al-Qaeda, i.e. only a small cadre that have actually sworn oaths of unconditional allegiance to bin Laden.
By that standard, Padilla, Basayev, Akhtar, and probably al-Muqrin and al-Oufi aren't al-Qaeda either. A lot of people don't seem to recognize just how much the idea of al-Qaeda is an artificial creation of the US government that was drawn up after the 1998 embassy bombings and only achieved a larger audience after 9/11. The Islamic World Front or International Islamic Front, which is what Binny called his acolytes when they went public, is probably better in terms of defining what this network is.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
09/23/2004 3:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Al-Zarqawi Associate: Al-Zarqawi Unconnected To Al-Qa'ida,
Don't care about affiliations or connections. Only one thing should apply: Kill Americans, and you're dead meat.
#6
The argument waged by the LLL is that there were no "connections/ties/kissing" between Saddam and al Qaeda of 9/11 fame.
Since Zarqawi was camped in Iraq and sponsored by Saddam prior to the war, this article is yet another veiled attempt to say we took our eyes off of UBL.
The unconnected/reconnected/connected aspect should be meaningful to everyone other than the LLL.
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.
