Weblog
Who's to Blame for 9/11. I have little patience for the current partisan bickering over who's to blame for letting the 9/11 atrocities occur, a debate right now at fever pitch.
My view, which I expressed in a bitter piece on Sept. 11, 2001 itself (and which appeared in the Wall Street Journal the next day as well as in the National Review Online on the very afternoon of 9/11) was that
The tactical blame falls on the U.S. government, which has grievously failed in its topmost duty to protect American citizens from harm. Specialists on terrorism have been aware for years of this dereliction of duty; now the whole world knows it. Despite a steady beat of major, organized terrorist incidents over 18 years (since the car bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut in 1983), Washington has not taken the issue seriously.
I purposefully used these neutral formulations ("U.S. government," "Washington") rather than blame Democrats or Republicans because I felt then and do now that the blame was bipartisan. Further, it had much to do with the permanent bureaucracy. Beyond that, it resulted from a societal negligence. Here is how I put it a few weeks later, noting the many deaths that took place at the hands of the jihad against America:
The sad fact is, 22 years and 600 dead did not get the country's attention. Americans blithely ignored those specialists on militant Islam and terrorism who pleaded for vigilance and warned of horrors to come. This national obliviousness explains how Americans found themselves so embarrassingly unprepared for the events of September 11.
(I now count not 600 but 800 dead.) And here is how I put it in April 2002, reviewing the 22 prior years:
although Americans were repeatedly attacked, they barely responded. One can hardly blame the militant Islamic groups and governments for concluding that the United States was weak, demoralized and ripe for attack. The population was feckless, distracted and complacent, the government incompetent.
The country as a whole was unprepared before 9/11 and it serves no good purpose to score partisan points. Far more constructive than these stale and dishonest debates would be seriously to address the U.S. government and people's overly euphemistic and timid, sometimes myopic and inconsistent responses to the internal threats they face, even now. (For a personal account of one such experience, see my article, "The U.S. Institute of Peace Stumbles.") (March 26, 2004) Permalink
Saudi Hostility to the U.S. Government. As in other quasi-totalitarian dictatorships, the press in Saudi Arabia must express views approved by the government. Additionally, items appearing in English media generally are vetted to make sure they portray the kingdom in a positive light.
All of which makes an article in today's Arab News, "Assassination of Yassin: Who Is to Blame?" by Muhammad Salahuddin a real eyebrow raiser. Select excerpts:
The people who are slaughtering the Palestinians on a daily basis are not Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister and his Zionist aides. The actual killers are the government of President George Bush who still insists that the Zionist terror and the war of genocide waged by Sharon is an act of legitimate self-defense while the Palestinian resistance to the occupation is terrorism. …
The assassination of Sheikh Yassin, for all his status, history, personal qualities and the high place he occupies among the people inside and outside Palestine, is no bigger an outrage than the murder of tens of Palestinians who are being knocked down day and night by American bullets and rockets, …
Salahuddin ends by calling for the complete destruction of Israel, stating that
the Muslim Ummah will never find the burden of steadfastness and jihad unbearable. It is capable of, with the help of the Almighty Allah, facing the challenge and prevailing over the enemy, and it will never give up even one inch of Palestine land, whatever may be the brutality of the occupiers and their supporters.
I wonder how apologists for the U.S.-Saudi "friendship" are going to explain how this particular state-sanctioned bit of opining. (March 25, 2004) Permalink
Two Thoughts on the Execution of Ahmad Yassin. At a time when coalition forces are tracking down Osama bin Laden in Pakistan with the intent of capturing or killing him, the elimination of Yassin strikes me as a very useful Israeli contribution to the global war on terror.
I am struck that anyone can think that Yassin's death could be anything but a boon for Israel in its war with the Palestinians. Has anyone ever heard of a case when killing an enemy leader does not help its war cause? (March 24, 2004) Permalink
The Baghdad Mosquito. That's the name of a intelligence document published daily by the U.S. military in Iraq with the goal of chronicling "the latest street talk in the Iraqi capital, however ill founded, bizarre or malevolent." As described in today's New York Times by Thom Shanker,
The Mosquito began last fall after American military leaders realized that rumors themselves had become a security problem, and decided to fight back. It is distributed via e-mail to an elite group of military officers and policy planners and is posted on the military's classified Web server. …
Seven days a week, a staff of Iraqis and Americans compile and analyze local press and satellite television reports. And once a week, in what has become required reading for senior American officials in Baghdad and a devoted readership in Washington, The Mosquito produces an exclusive collection of rumor, gossip and chatter called, "What's the Word on the Streets of Baghdad?"
The Baghdad Mosquito is an organized and quite brilliant effort to monitor and understand conspiracy theories in order to master and exploit them.
The Mosquito's buzz has already helped refine the information campaigns being run by the military and occupation authorities here, said a senior officer. "These people, after living 35 years under a very brutal regime, allow us to better understand what really are the concerns of the citizens on the streets of Baghdad," said Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, assistant commander of the First Armored Division, which is responsible for the security of Baghdad and central Iraq.
General Hertling said The Mosquito's reports helped the division fine-tune advertisements, posters and billboards that focus on new Iraqi security forces. "The feedback we received from The Mosquito was especially helpful in our design of a campaign countering the belief that all Iraqi police officers are corrupt and work contrary to the service of the citizens," he said.
This fulfills advice I gave in a long 1992 article about dealing with Middle East conspiracy theories, which I summed up this way: "As a rule, do not play games; but be aware of vulnerabilities created by the conspiracy mentality and, on special occasions, exploit these to the maximum." (March 23, 2004) Permalink
Who Is the Enemy in the War on Terror? Here's a snippet from the 9/11 Commission hearing today:
JAMIE S. GORELICK, commission member: And would you agree that our principal adversary right now is Islamic extremists and jihadists?
COLIN L. POWELL, U.S. secretary of state: I would say that they are the source of most of the terrorist threats that we are facing.
This may seem like a bland recognition of reality but it is a major improvement for Powell, who initially responded by denying that reality. For example, on Sept. 12, 2001, he insisting that the previous day's events "should not be seen as something done by Arabs or Islamics; it is something that was done by terrorists."
I see Powell's evolution as symptomatic of a wider coming to terms with facts as they are, as is American officialdom's increasing readiness, noted in this weblog, to recognize that it's a war of ideas as much as it is one of violence. (March 23, 2004) Permalink
Predictions about the U.S. Presidential Election. I expect the U.S. presidential election in 2004 will be a Bush blow-out victory, reminiscent of Reagan's in 1984.
I say that in part because on the key issue of the day – should the U.S. government prosecute a war or a police action against militant Islam – a healthy majority of Americans favor the president's view; and in part because I see John Kerry as a poor candidate, the weakest in my lifetime, someone whose main asset is looking and sounding presidential. As the electorate becomes more familiar with his views, his personality, his wife, his Vietnam record, and his Senate service, it will distance itself from him.
Incidentally, I see Howard Dean as a much stronger candidate than Kerry, a real person with real views who would have had plenty of time to reposition himself in the center. (March 23, 2004) Permalink
Further on the "October Surprise" Conspiracy Theory. (1) I wrote the entry on the "October Surprise" theory for the recently-published, two-volume Conspiracy Theories in American History: An Encyclopedia and in it I asserted that the Lyndon LaRouche-Gary Sick claim about a Reagan-Khomeini deal "endured for over a decade, from 1980-93, but has since disappeared."
Well, not so fast. A sharp-eyed reader, Ronald Wieck, points out in a comment on my encyclopedia entry that the conspiracy theory does in fact live on in one authoritative source.
The sixth revised edition of Rise to Globalism: American Foreign Policy Since 1938 (Penguin Books, 1991), by Stephen E. Ambrose, contains the following description of the closing days of Jimmy Carter's administration:
On November 4, [1980,] Ronald Reagan defeated Carter in the presidential election, thereby putting additional pressure on Khomeini, who could hardly expect the incoming Reagan administration to offer as favorable a deal as the outgoing Carter administration. (Reagan was denouncing the Iranians as "barbarians" and "common criminals" and hinting that he would take strong and direct military action against them.) Therefore, Iran, on December 21, demanded a specific ransom for the captives—$24 billion—deposited in Algeria.
The eighth revised edition (1997) removes the parentheses and adds the phrase, "In public," before "Reagan." Three additional sentences materialize right before the one about the ransom demand:
Actually, Reagan had made a private deal with Khomeini. If the Iranians would hold the hostages until after the election, the new Reagan administration would pay ransom for them in the form of arms for Iran. Khomeini badly needed the weapons for his war with Iraq, so the deal was struck.
Douglas G. Brinkley's name appears on the cover as co-author, suggesting some sort of ransom deal as the amount of new material over the previous seven editions is minimal. Here then is a book written for students and lay readers presenting a discredited conspiracy theory as historical fact.
Have any reviewers noted the ideological tendentiousness supplied to a well-respected textbook by the current chronicler of John Kerry's exploits in Vietnam? Did Brinkley discuss the change with Ambrose? If a conservative co-author, allowed to rampage through a standard text on American history, inserted a passage averring that Bill Clinton sold military secrets to the Chinese in order to swell his campaign coffers, would the reviewers notice? You think?
Mr. Wieck has shown me the pages in question and they are precisely as he describes them.
It is a scandal that a prominent historian like Brinkley would purvey such trash and that a major publisher like Penguin would consent to pollute a leading textbook in such a manner.
Penguin does not make it easy to comment on its publications, but contacting Dan Lundy, its vice president and director for Academic Marketing & Sales at Dan.Lundy@us.penguingroup.com would be a good place to make known what you think of this outrage.
(2) In its March 15, 2004 issue, Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily published an analysis by the pseudonymous "Alan Peters" under the title "Role of US Former Pres. Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran" which – to my amazement – reverses the "October Surprise" thesis and claims that Jimmy Carter was in collusion with Ayatollah Khomeini. In brief: Carter made various demands on Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (kickbacks to a favored contractor, a guaranteed cheap price for Iranian oil over fifty years) which the shah turned down, infuriating Carter and causing him to help Ayatollah Khomeini come to power. These two buddies then jointly planned the November 1979 seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
The mostly rent-a-crowd group of students organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.
When asked by the vigilante for the reason of this irregular movement, the stressed cleric replied that he had instructions to provide the US Embassy staff with enough time to destroy their most sensitive documents and to give the three most senior US diplomats adequate opportunity to then take refuge at the Islamic Republic Foreign Ministry rather than be taken with the other hostages. Someone at the Embassy was informing the Foreign Ministry as to progress over the telephone and the cleric was being told what to do over his radio.
The vigilante then asked why the Islamic Government would bother to be so accommodating to the Great Satan and was told that the whole operation was planned in advance by Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan's revolutionary Government with Pres. Carter in return for Carter having helped depose the Shah and that this was being done to ensure Carter got re-elected. He helped us, now we help him was the matter-of-fact comment from the cleric.
One difference between Democrats and Republicans: too many of the former hyped their Khomeini-collusion conspiracy theory, whereas the latter will not touch the above nonsense with a ten-foot pole. (March 22, 2004) Permalink
Israel out of Gaza? In discussing Ariel Sharon's December 2003 about-face on the question of pulling all Israelis out of the Gaza Strip, I expressed skepticism that he "actually means what he says," and explained: "I don't pretend to know what is on the prime minister's mind — he does not confide in me — but I do suspect that … Mr. Sharon, a shrewd politician who knows when he must bend, has outlined a plan that I believe he has little wish to fulfill."
Today's Washington Post provides evidence to confirm that skepticism. Titled "Clashes in Gaza Feed Doubt About Pullout," an article by John Ward Anderson and Molly Moore tells how Israeli forces demolished three houses belonging to a Palestinian terrorist in Gaza. To which a Palestinian commented about Sharon's plan to withdraw Israelis from Gaza: "It's all lies, all words. He will never withdraw." More interestingly, an Israeli living in Gaza concurred as she noted the extensive IDF efforts in her area: "Why would the Israeli government put so much money into a project if they are going to leave Gaza?" The Post authors go on:
Three months after Sharon announced his intentions to withdraw settlers and soldiers from Gaza, Palestinians and Israelis alike are debating how far he will pursue that goal. Against a backdrop of increasing violence here and rising opposition within Sharon's cabinet, and with a presidential election looming in the United States, many question when—or whether—Israel could leave this impoverished strip of land.
Then there is the fact that
In the 13 weeks since broaching the idea of withdrawal, Sharon has faced 23 no-confidence votes in Israel's parliament. Cabinet ministers from two elements of Sharon's governing coalition, the pro-settlement National Religious Party and the ultra-nationalist National Union, have threatened to resign and bring down the government if Sharon tries to quit Gaza. The prime minister's public approval rating has plummeted to 33 percent, according to a survey last week.
In other words, not only does Sharon seem to have little wish to fulfill his plan but neither do other Israelis want him to. (March 20, 2004) Permalink
Reflections on the Bombing in Madrid. Most American analysts concur that the Spanish electorate's response to the train station bombings on March 11 amounted to a major setback in the global war on terror. It saw the violence resulting from the presence of 1,300 Spanish troops deployed in Iraq and voted to pull them out.
I agree that this is a setback, but I am inclined to see it as relatively minor. Here's why:
Spain's role in Iraq is basically symbolic. Its 1,300 troops are certainly welcome but no one can claim that they have a decisive role, or even a major one, in controlling Iraq.
In contrast, Spain does have a key role in the war on terror. (Unlike the U.S. government, by the way, I see the war on terror – which I prefer to call the war on militant Islam – as distinct from the war to dislodge Saddam Hussein.) The killing of 200 people in Madrid awoke not only Spaniards to the reality of the Islamist threat but also many others in Europe. As such, following my "education by murder" paradigm, the blasts are likely to lead to significantly better European security measures to prevent Islamist violence.
In all, I predict that the minor loss of Spanish troops in Iraq will be more than made up for by the heightened urgency of Spanish and Europe defenses versus militant Islam. Those two hundred lives, I hope and believe, will not have been lost for nothing. (March 18, 2004) Permalink
Teresa Heinz and CAIR. The wife of the Democratic candidate for president of the United States, John Kerry, appears to be giving money to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization I have for two years characterized as standing "on the wrong side in the war on terrorism." Here's the connection:
The Capital Research Center, an agency that tracks non-profits and charities, indicates that the Howard Heinz Endowment (which Teresa F. Heinz chairs) gave some $4 million to the Tides Center during the period 1998-2001, or about $1 million a year. In addition, the Vira I. Heinz Endowment (where Teresa sits on the board) gave $75,000 to the Tides Foundation in 1998.
(Heinz Endowment funds going to Tides have come under intense media scrutiny of late, prompting Tides to post a press release on the topic on March 11, 2004; but CAIR has not been part of the discussion until now.)
The Tides Center and the Tides Foundation both make up part of what are called the "Tides Family of Organizations" (leave it to the far left to use the word family in this way), as is Groundspring.org.
CAIR is among the organizations Tides has announced it is "privileged" to support.
So here is the unfortunate linkage: John Kerry—Teresa Heinz—Heinz Endowments—Tides Family of Organizations—CAIR. (March 17, 2004)
March 18, 2004 update: David Simon points out at LittleGreenFootballs.com that the Tides Foundation's tax Form 990 for 2002 shows a donation of $5,000 to CAIR. A little Internet searching confirms this; Guidestar ("the national database of non-profit organizations") posts the Tides Foundations's IRS form; the contribution to CAIR appears on p. 11 of Statement 3. Permalink
Muslim Scholars Who Acknowledge Muslim Antisemitism. How deep runs Muslim antisemitism today? Listen to the loud voices of militant Islam and you will here it disparaged as a non-issue. But at least two informed insiders are saying otherwise.
Khaleel Mohammed, assistant professor of religion at San Diego State University, addressed a conference on anti-Semitism taking place in Montreal, according to a report in today's Montreal Gazette:
Anti-Semitism has become an entrenched tenet of Muslim theology, taught to 95 per cent of the religion's adherents in the Islamic world, a U.S. scholar said yesterday at an international conference in Montreal. …
In an interview after his talk, Mohammed, a Muslim who is assistant professor of religion at San Diego State University, said anti-Semitic sentiments have become endemic in Muslim religious teachings. "It has become part of Islamic theology, so the average Muslim learns anti-Semitism in probably a subtler form, not overt anti-Semitism, but learns it as part of his theology," he said.
Although the Muslim holy book, the Koran, preaches respect for Judaism, the Hadith, a collection of the prophet Mohammed's oral proclamations, contains anti-Semitic passages widely quoted by Muslim clerics, Mohammed said. "In Hadith literature ... which Muslims have made to be part and parcel of Islamic teaching, you cannot respect the Jew, the Jew is God's enemy until the end of time. And that's ingrained."
Irfan Khawaja, an adjunct professor of philosophy at The College of New Jersey, wrote a remarkable article in Pakistan Today; just over a year ago, on "The Problem of Muslim Anti-Semitism."
Contempt for Jews was a ubiquitous and inescapable phenomenon in the Arab/Muslim community in which I grew up in New Jersey in the 1970s and 1980s; the bigotry there was such that my brother jokingly referred to the community as "The Fourth Reich." And such attitudes remain in place today.
In the interesting discussion that follows, Khawaja considers several sources of antisemitism in Islamic tradition and muses on the his own experiences.
Once again, I hold that "militant Islam is the problem and moderate is the solution." If Muslim antisemitism is to be addressed, it will have to be done by Muslims. At least we can see the first wisps of a solution in this area. (March 16, 2004) Permalink
Did the ACLU Disrupt My Talk at American University? When I spoke at American University in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 20, 2004, a number of those in the audience engaged in a variety of antics, as described by the school newspaper, the Eagle:
As Pipes took the podium at approximately 8:15 p.m., almost a third of the crowd of 150 took out black pieces of cloth and, in unison, wrapped the cloth around their mouths as a sort of "gag." This was apparently meant as a form of symbolic and silent protest of Pipes's ideas.
Ten minutes into the lecture, and again in unison, the protesters stood up, turned and knelt in their chairs to face the crowd behind them. Ten minutes later, the protesters took out signs that denounced "Campus Watch," an initiative begun by Pipes that monitors and acts as a watchdog against Middle Eastern Studies in North America and attempts to improve them.
I mention this because the leader of the disrupters was at the front of the room. When he brought out his gag, the others did too. When he stood up, so did the others. When he pulled out a sign, the others followed. And when he walked out, so did the others.
Here's a description of this person, from someone who wrote me after the event:
I was in the audience for your lecture at AU on January 20th, and was in the third row of seats behind the "leader" of the disruption (aisle seat, on your left). He was fidgety before the lecture began, looking around the room and making hand motions to people further back in the room, so I paid a fair amount of attention to him.
When he gave the high sign his group put on their black gags, and then again on his lead the group stood up and turned their backs on you. As he stood there he was blocking my view, and I commented to him, "You'd make a better door than a window, buddy," at which point he lowered himself to kneel in his seat. I got a good look at his face.
My correspondent later managed to take a picture of this lead disrupter:
Well, it turns out that this disrupter has a name and a profession. He is Matt Bowles, National Field Organizer at the American Civil Liberties Union. Here is his professional picture, posted at the website of the Minnesota affiliate of the ACLU in conjunction with his ACLU work:
(Bowles, not surprisingly, has strong views on the Middle East, and appears obsessively to despise Israel. His magnum opus on the subject is an article titled "US Aid: Lifeblood of the Occupation," which argues for the importance of U.S. aid in funding what the author terms "Israel's colonial apartheid regime.")
Is the American Civil Liberties Union ("our nation's guardian of liberty") now in the business of field organizing disruptions of academic talks at universities? Curious to find out, I sent Bowles the following note on Jan. 26, 2004:
Dear Mr. Bowles:
I am planning to write something on my talk at American University on January 20th and the fact that you, the ACLU's National Field Organizer, led the disruption there.
Would you provide me with a short statement justifying your action there? And could you explain if you were there on staff time or your own time?
If so, I would appreciate your statement by close of business tomorrow, January 27.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Pipes
To which Bowles replied on Jan. 27, 2004:
I was at the protest as an individual concerned citizen
Not quite ready to take this at face value, I wrote that same day, Jan. 27, 2004 to Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU's executive director, asking him to verify Bowles' statement:
Dear Mr. Romero:
Matt Bowles, ACLU's National Field Organizer, led the disruption at a talk I gave at American University on Jan. 20, 2004.
When I asked him if he did this in his ACLU or private capacity, he indicated it was in the latter. Could you please confirm the accuracy of this statement?
I would appreciate hearing from you by close of business, January 31.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Pipes
Not receiving a reply to an e-mail of the above note, I sent the same text via the U.S. Postal Service, but again, one and a half months later, have not heard back.
I wonder what this silence signifies and if Bowles really was free-lancing at the American University event. (March 15, 2004)
March 17, 2004 update: I am amused to note, informed by David Bernstein of the George Mason University School of Law, who commented on this entry, that Matt Bowles has apparently moved on to a new job at the ACLU, being identified at March 2004 events as that organization's "Terrorism and Civil Liberties coordinator." Comment: I had not realized until now that a single person could simultaneously coordinate both those activities.
March 18, 2004 update: Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director, replied to my letter today, as follows:
Dear Mr. Pipes:
Your comments regarding the ACLU on your Weblog, danielpipes.org, were recently brought to my attention. Contrary to the assertion you make there, I am not in receipt of any e-mail of January 27, 2004 from you. …
In response to the question posed on your Weblog, Mr. Bowles was exercising his First Amendment rights in his personal capacity. The ACLU does not attempt to control, nor are we responsible, for actions taken by our employees on their own time. Additionally, as a matter of practice and policy, the ACLU does not express a position on issues outside the jurisdiction of the US.
Sincerely,
Anthony D. Romero
March 19, 2004 update: There's an interesting and informed debate about the propriety of the Bowles-led disruption of my talk, spurred by the Bernstein analysis noted above. Of particular interest is this comment, from "hapan605" (with spelling corrected):
I know a few people at American who went to the Pipes speech. Of the four I know (two on livejournal.com), three of them said that the problem wasn't so much the protesting so much as the fact that is really wasn't silent; during the "transitions" to the two protest positions (mouth gags then kneeling) many of the protesters it seemed made an intentional effort to be as loud as possible, doing everything from stomping feet, to making gagging noises when putting on the "gags". If the event was actually a "silent" protest, then I would have no problem. But with a block of people making noticeable sounds during the course of a speech (that group including a man who works for an organization that "may disagree with what you are saying but would die for your right to say it") is slightly irksome. Permalink
Me as the 3 of ♥. The U.S. military had the clever idea of identifying and prioritizing the Saddamist enemy by assigning each of the leaders a playing-card equivalent: Saddam Hussein himself was the ace of spades, on down to the 2 of clubs. This idea then caught on and all sorts of decks of cards proliferated. For example, newsmax.com offers a "Deck of Weasels."
Enter the well-known French author Thierry Meyssan. He's best known for his creative notion, turned into a bestseller, 11 Septembre 2001 : L'effroyable imposture (translated into English as 911: The Big Lie), arguing that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon; rather, this was a U.S. government conspiracy to justify the war on terror. Well, Meyssan in August 2003 designed cards of "Les 52 plus dangereux dignitaires américains" (also available in pdf format). Better yet, they are available in English and Italian translations.
Not only are many of my friends there, but so am I, starring as the three of hearts.
Do I really need to point out that both of Meyssan's description of me is as distorted as his understanding of what happened at the Pentagon that terrible day?
Asserts that Muslims cannot "melt" into US Society and thus recommends their exclusion from Civil Service and the Army. A chief organizer of the witch hunt on US campuses, he orchestrated the eviction of academics favorable to Palestinian rights.
In brief, I have never called for the exclusion of Muslims, only reluctantly concluded that given the campaign of militant Islamic violence, there must be special attention paid to them. Campus Watch is not about Palestinian rights but about the failure of Middle East studies in North America. And the notion that I have orchestrated any academic's "eviction" is the purest Meyssanian fantasy. (March 14, 2004) Permalink
Destination Baghdad. Enter Baghdad (airport code: SDA, as in "Saddam Hussein International Airport") as your destination in expedia.com and you are told:
Expedia.com is unable to sell tickets to one or more of the destinations you have chosen. Please select a different destination. We apologize for the inconvenience.
At orbitz.com, the explanation is more terse:
Sorry, no flights were found.
At travelocity.com, the explanation and suggestions are more helpful:
Flight Schedule Error. We were unable to find flights to BAGHDAD SADDAM, IRAQ (SDA).
Possible Causes:
- Limited flight schedules
- A smaller airport with limited service
- Limited operating days and hours
What you can do:
- Try a Nearby City with a larger airport.
- Try different departure dates or times in a new flight search
- View Flight Schedules to determine better trip options for you.
- Let us book it for you! Call 1-888-TRAVELOCITY (1-800-452-3373) we will be happy to help!
Iraq has had abnormal aviation since August 1, 1990. It will be interesting to monitor the travel sites and see when normal aviation patterns resume. (March 13, 2004) Permalink
The Chicago Police and Hamas, Side-by-Side. In celebration of its 10 full years of existence, the Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, an umbrella group for Chicagoland Islamic institutions, posted a page in late 2002 on its website with encomia from various individuals (the mayor, the archbishop) and organizations (the Islamic Society of North America, local groups). But what stands out is a juxtaposition mid-way down the page: first comes a letter of support from Rafiq Jabr, president of the Islamic Association for Palestine, the main Hamas affiliate in the United States; then comes a letter of support from Terry G. Hilliard, superintendent of police in Chicago. Isn't it amazing that a high law enforcement official is happy to be cheek-by-jowl with the local rep of an outlawed terrorist group? When will law enforcement get serious about this threat? (March 11, 2004) Permalink
"The Largest Embassy Ever Run by any Country." That's the brief description for plans for the new U.S. embassy in Baghdad in today's Washington Post. Here are some details:
The Bush administration is scrambling behind the scenes to finalize plans for a new Baghdad embassy that will require as many as 4,000 staff but, because of security fears, will remain headquartered in Saddam Hussein's former palace in the U.S.-protected Green Zone after the occupation ends, U.S. officials said.
The sheer magnitude of the embassy—which will house the U.S. military command and administer an aid program more than three times as large as foreign assistance allocated to the rest of the world—has taxed State Department and Pentagon planners who have been commuting between Baghdad and Washington in recent weeks. …
The administration had originally considered opening a token embassy presence in a facility outside the Green Zone, where an ambassador could at least carry out ceremonial functions—and avoid the imagery of remaining in Hussein's Republican Palace. But Washington has abandoned the idea because the facility and U.S. Embassy personnel would be too vulnerable to attacks, U.S. officials said.
I am left uneasy by the monumental size of this embassy, its massive aid program (read this phrase again: "more than three times as large as foreign assistance allocated to the rest of the world"), and the need to huddle in Saddam's old palace. Far better would be to turn decisionmaking over to a strong Iraqi leader and maintain a small U.S. presence. If not done earlier, I fear, this will be done later, and under less auspicious circumstances. (March 9, 2004) Permalink
CAIR Promotes a Neo-Nazi's Talk. The Council on American-Islamic Relations most days of the week provides an e-mail service titled "American Muslim News Briefs." Today's edition includes this item:
MSA TO PROMOTE RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE
Kate Blout, Western Herald, 3/9/04
Members of the Muslim Student Association and the community will have the chance to sample Middle Eastern cuisine and learn how to better bridge the gap between Islam and Christianity during upcoming events at Western Michigan University.
MSA will be sponsoring an event titled "Islam and Christianity: Coalition or Collision?" from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. this Thursday in the North Ballroom of the Bernhard Center.
"The purpose of this event is to promote peace, tolerance and understanding between the two largest religions in the world," said Sarah Husain, sophomore majoring in business and president of the public relations committee of MSA.
William Baker, an internationally known speaker from California and founder of Christians and Muslims for Peace, will be at the event, Husain said.
There will also be a free dinner featuring Middle Eastern cuisine. The event is free and open to the public, but there is limited seating and the deadline for reservations is today. To make reservations, visit www.rso.wmich.edu/msa.
"This event is part of a series of events planned by MSA, which we hope will help build bridges between the many religions of the world," Husain said...
Of course, this "internationally known speaker" named William W. Baker is also internationally known as a neo-Nazi, as I pointed out in an article two months ago, "Canadian Islamists host a neo-Nazi." How interesting that CAIR should circulate a news item that portrays his talk as promoting "peace, tolerance and understanding between the two largest religions in the world." (March 9, 2004) Permalink
The French Government's AZF Problem. In a July 2002 article decrying the consistent pattern of government authorities to pretend that terrorism is not terrorism, I gave this example from France:
Hassan Jandoubi, an Islamist with possible connections to al Qaeda, had started working at the AZF fertilizer factory in suburban Toulouse, France, just days before a massive explosion took place there last Sept. 21. This, the worst catastrophe ever in a French chemical plant, killed Jandoubi and 29 others, injured 2,000, destroyed 600 dwellings, and damaged 10,000 buildings.
The autopsy revealed that Jandoubi was wearing two pairs of trousers and four pairs of underpants, which the coroner compared to what is worn by "Islamic militants going into battle or on suicide missions." Also, the chemical plant was processing ammonium nitrate, a stable chemical that requires a substantial infusion of energy to explode.
Ignoring these signs, the French authorities declared there was "no shred of evidence" of the explosion being a terrorist act and ruled it an accident. They even prosecuted two publications merely for calling Jandoubi a "radical Islamist," making them pay tens of thousands of dollars in fines to Jandoubi's heirs, a mosque and a Muslim organization for their "defamation" of Jandoubi.
Well, someone clearly agrees with me, for the story broke two days ago that a mysterious group known only by the initials "AZF" has threatened to blow up railroad lines across France, leading to considerable disruption. Oh, and Reuters reports today that the French government "has ruled out any involvement by radical Islamic groups." The government knows way more than I do about the specifics of this case, but I just wonder if it is not again fooling itself. (March 5, 2004) Permalink
How Much Will the Iraqi Constitution Matter? In an ace research piece, Patrick Clawson writes for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that the Middle East's "poor track record with regard to actually implementing constitutional guarantees may make the [Iraqi interim constitution] appear less impressive to Arabs than it does to Americans." That's because many Arab countries boast constitutions with similar rights to the Iraqi one, yet they "have a decidedly unsatisfactory record on human rights." Here are some examples to prove Clawson's point:
- Syria: "The state guarantees the freedom of the press, of printing, and publication in accordance with law."
- Egypt: "The state shall guarantee the freedom of belief and the freedom of practice of religious rites."
- Yemen: "Anyone whose freedom is restricted has the right to remain silent and to speak only in the presence of an attorney. . . . Whoever is temporarily arrested for suspicion of committing a crime shall be arraigned within twenty-four hours. The judge shall inform him of the reasons for his arrest, question him, and give him the opportunity to plead his defense. The judge shall immediately issue a reasoned order for his release or continued detention."
- And this gem, from Saddam Hussein's Iraq: "it is inadmissible to arrest a person, to stop him, to imprison him, or to search him, except in accordance with the rules of law. . . . The dignity of man is safeguarded. It is inadmissible to cause any physical or psychological harm."
It hardly needs belaboring the point that all these rights had as little weight as the beautiful words in the Soviet constitution.
Clawson concludes with this insight: "Constitutions are not necessarily accurate predictors of an Arab country's actual track record on human rights. Those regimes with reasonably good records in practice (e.g., Kuwait) sometimes have constitutions that contain the most qualifications and limitations to human rights, while those regimes with poor records (e.g., Syria, Algeria) sometimes have the most liberal constitutional provisions."
The hard part, then, is not getting signatures on an interim constitution but getting this document to mean something in the reality of Iraqi life. (March 4, 2004) Permalink
CAIR Accepted as "Mainstream." I will intermittently post items here to document how, despite its terrorist associations and other legal tribulations, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) is gaining acceptance among the gullible, the ignorant, or the foolish as a legitimate "civil liberties group."
Elderhostel ("a not-for-profit organization dedicated to providing extraordinary learning adventures for people 55 and over") is pleased to announce a new series of programs titled "Building Bridges to Islam" in March and April 2004. So far so good. But the first one, to be held four times in Santa Clara, California, will be held in collaboration with CAIR. Elderhostel's publicity incorrectly describes CAIR as "a mainstream organization that regularly works with national law enforcement authorities, elected officials, media and other civil liberties and minority groups." Responding to a protest about the Elderhostel-CAIR connection, Jay Rittenberg of Elderhostel's Customer Service Group wrote this drivel: "Please note that CAIR is America's largest not profit organization that promotes civil rights for Muslims in America. Its aims are to promote a better understanding of Islam and the American Muslim community. The CAIR chapters that Elderhostel is currently working with to provide programming have worked with the Federal Government to educate and train US troops and federal law enforcement officials on the Islamic community and culture."
KERA ("public TV and radio for North Texas") announces that it and CAIR together are presenting an advance screening of the PBS series "The New Americans" on March 18 in Richardson, a suburb of Dallas. KERA informs readers that the screening will feature two items: an episode from "The New Americans" about a Palestinian immigrant and a segment from "The Islam Project." (March 4, 2004) Permalink
For more entries see the Weblog Archive...
|
