"The U.S. military pulled back Saturday from an earlier prediction that Osama bin Laden would be captured this year, even while preparing its largest force to date for operations along the Pakistani border where the al-Qaida chief is suspected to be hiding.
Catching bin Laden and other top fugitives remains a priority of the expanding American operation in Afghanistan, a spokesman said, but the growing mission is "not about just one or two people," a spokesman said.
"We remain committed to catching these guys. It's pretty much ... just about everything that we do here," Lt. Col. Matthew Beevers said.
But he declined to make any new predictions of when the fugitives might be behind bars.
Beevers insisted the military in Afghanistan was "still confident" of capturing its top targets, but added: "At the end of the day, it's not about just one or two people. It's about ... ensuring that there is stability and security throughout Afghanistan."
Hmmm....This could mean either that they are having much more difficulty tracking down Bin Laden than we expected, or they are deliberately lowering expectations.
Problem is, you can never take this administration at face value on anything they say.
"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.
The sins of commission are those of the British civil authorities in Mesopotamia (especially of three 'colonels') who were given a free hand by London. They are controlled from no Department of State, but from the empty space which divides the Foreign Office from te India Office. They availed themselves of the necessary discretion of war-time to carry over their dangerous independence into times of peace. They contest every suggestion of real self- government sent them from home. A recent proclamation about autonomy circulated with unction from Baghdad was drafted and published out there in a hurry, to forestall a more liberal statement in preparation in London, 'Self-determination papers' favourable to England were extorted in Mesopotamia in 1919 by official pressure, by aeroplane demonstrations, by deportations to India.
The Cabinet cannot disclaim all responsibility. They receive little more news than the public: they should have insisted on more, and better. They have sent draft after draft of reinforcements, without enquiry. When conditions became too bad to endure longer, they decided to send out as High commissioner the original author of the present system, with a conciliatory message to the Arabs that his heart and policy have completely changed.*
Yet our published policy has not changed, and does not need changing. It is that there has been a deplorable contrast between our profession and our practice. We said we went to Mesopotamia to defeat Turkey. We said we stayed to deliver the Arabs from the oppression of the Turkish Government, and to make available for the world its resources of corn and oil. We spent nearly a million men and nearly a thousand million of money to these ends. This year we are spending ninety-two thousand men and fifty millions of money on the same objects.
Our government is worse than the old Turkish system. They kept fourteen thousand local conscripts embodied, and killed a yearly average of two hundred Arabs in maintaining peace. We keep ninety thousand men, with aeroplanes, armoured cars, gunboats, and armoured trains. We have killed about ten thousand Arabs in this rising this summer. We cannot hope to maintain such an average: it is a poor country, sparsely peopled; but Abd el Hamid would applaud his masters, if he saw us working. We are told the object of the rising was political, we are not told what the local people want. It may be what the Cabinet has promised them. A Minister in the House of Lords said that we must have so many troops because the local people will not enlist. On Friday the Government announce the death of some local levies defending their British officers, and say that the services of these men have not yet been sufficiently recognized because they are too few (adding the characteristic Baghdad touch that they are men of bad character). There are seven thousand of them, just half the old Turkish force of occupation. Properly officered and distributed, they would relieve half our army there. Cromer controlled Egypt's six million people with five thousand British troops; Colonel Wilson fails to control Mesopotamia's three million people with ninety thousand troops.
We have not reached the limit of our military commitments. Four weeks ago the staff in Mesopotamia drew up a memorandum asking for four more divisions. I believe it was forwarded to the War Office, which has now sent three brigades from India. If the North-West Frontier cannot be further denuded, where is the balance to come from? Meanwhile, our unfortunate troops, Indian and British, under hard conditions of climate and supply, are policing an immense area, paying dearly every day in lives for the wilfully wrong policy of the civil administration in Baghdad. General Dyer was relieved of his command in India for a much smaller error, but the responsibility in this case is not on the Army, which has acted only at the request of the civil authorities. The War Office has made every effort to reduce our forces, but the decisions of the Cabinet have been against them.
The Government in Baghdad have been hanging Arabs in that town for political offences, which they call rebellion. The Arabs are not at war with us. Are these illegal executions to provoke the Arabs to reprisals on the three hundred British prisoners they hold? And, if so, is it that their punishment may be more severe, or is it to persuade our other troops to fight to the last?
We say we are in Mesopotamia to develop it for the benefit of the world. All experts say that the labour supply is the ruling factor in its development. How far will the killing of ten thousand villagers and townspeople this summer hinder the production of wheat, cotton, and oil? How long will we permit millions of pounds, thousands of Imperial troops, and tens of thousands of Arabs to be sacrificed on behalf of colonial administration which can benefit nobody but its administrators?"
A Report on Mesopotamia By Ex.-Lieut.-Col. T.E. Lawrence ["Lawrence of Arabia"], August 22, 1920, Sunday Times.
The more things change....
UPDATE: It turns out that Saddam Hussein and (of all people) Winston Churchill have at least one thing in common. Both of them had no compunction about using chemical weapons against the Kurds.
"Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _"
Actually, Churchill ordered a chemical weapons, aerial bombardment of the Arabs in revolt as well as for the Kurds.
"Countering the insurgency, [Cpl. Richard] Stayskal [, a 22-year-old Marine from San Jose, Calif.] said, has been difficult for Marines on the ground. In his case, his unit was chronically short of ammunition, and his support unit got pinned down at the same time across town. The two units couldn't help each other.
"They weren't giving us nearly enough ammunition for the situations out there. Everyone was running out. Everyone was grabbing each other's ammunition."
That damn "liberal" media! How dare they directly quote our troops like that, and undermine the war effort!
UPDATE: You know...the classic economic debate was always "Guns vs. Butter." Meaning, we need to find a balance between spendng our resources on preparing for and fighting wars, and providing for the people by investing in roads, bridges, edcation, health care, etc.
But, under Bush II, it's now "Tax cuts for millionaires vs. Guns AND Butter."
"A year to the day after Marines toppled a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad's Firdos Square, a poster of Muqtada al-Sadr _ the radical Shiite cleric whose militia has rebelled across the south--was attached Friday to an unfinished bronze monument at the site. U.S. soldiers climbed up and tore it down."
Obviously, we are winning. Look how desperate our oppnents are getting.
"America's top commander in Iraq has warned Washington that he will not be "the fall guy" if violence in the country worsens, it emerged yesterday, as word leaked out that US generals are "outraged" by their lack of soldiers.
America's generals consider current troop strengths of 130,000 in Iraq inadequate, reported the columnist Robert Novak, a doyen of the old-school Right in Washington.
Iraqi militants fire on US marines during clashes in Fallujah Gen John Abizaid, commander of Central Command, told his political masters earlier this week that he would ask for reinforcements if requested by the generals under him. His words overrode months of public assurances from the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and other civilian chiefs that more troops are not necessary.
As violence flared across the Sunni triangle and the Shia-dominated south of Iraq on Wednesday, Mr Rumsfeld indicated that troop numbers would be bolstered at least temporarily, by leaving in place units that had been earmarked to return home as part of troop rotation, while still sending replacements.
But officers who will not speak out in public let it be known that major reinforcements might be impossible to find. US forces are so overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan that "there are simply no large units available and suitable for assignment", Novak wrote in his column in The Washington Post.
The leaks have revived memories of the bitter debate that raged in Washington in the run-up to the Iraq war, as uniformed chiefs clashed with Mr Rumsfeld and his aides, who predicted that US forces would be welcomed as "liberators", allowing troop numbers to be reduced rapidly.
Relations between the uniformed military and the Pentagon's civilian chiefs are currently worse than at any time in living memory, Novak wrote, citing a former high-ranking national security official who served in previous Republican administrations."
The dam is about to burst. According to Novak:
"While Democrats roar, the generals are silent — in public. Many confide that they will not cast their normal Republican votes on Nov. 2. They cannot bring themselves to vote for John Kerry, who has been a consistent Senate vote against the military [which is not true, of course]. But these generals say they are unable to vote for Don Rumsfeld's boss, and so will not vote at all."
I need not go into the utter disingenuousness of this comparison. It's self-evidently ludicrous on many, many levels.
On the bright side, however, e can spin Insty's attitude toward the sacrifices of our marines in Iraq (despite some weasel words about how "every death is a tragedy," which were thrown in to innoculate his ass) -- as a "Kos-like" callousness as to their fate: "We lost 12 Marines? Eh...a tragedy, but not a real tragedy, if you catch my drift."
Let the handwringing, outrage, and de-linking begin!
That wouldn't be the result of those thousands of Iraqis who ran the blockade, and started bringing relief supplies to those within the city, now would it? CNN reports that Paul Bremer halted the Fallujah offensive in part to " let humanitarian aid arrive."
You'd think they'd mention the blockade running, wouldn't you? You think that might be the slightest bit relevant?
It's pretty obvious that the CPA has a very tight leash on all the U.S. media within Iraq at the moment. They are only reporting what the military is letting them report. The only exception to that, might be reports of casualties, which even the sycophantic whore media in Iraq realizes is too important to sweep under the carpet.
Then again...the attack on a U.S. convoy this morning which reportedly killed nine people (how many were our troops) seems not to getting much play in the U.S. news media.
UPDATE: The New York Times has the fuel convoy attack story from Reuters up now.
"THOUSANDS of Sunni and Shiite Muslims forced their way through US military checkpoints Thursday to ferry food and medical supplies to the besieged Sunni bastion of Fallujah where US marines are trying to crush insurgents.
Troops in armoured vehicles tried to stop the convoy of cars and pedestrians from reaching the town located 50 kilometers west of Baghdad.
But US forces were overwhelmed as residents of villages west of the capital came to the convoy's assistance, hurling insults and stones at the beleaguered troops.
Some 20 kilometers west of Baghdad, a US patrol was attacked just moments before the Iraqi marchers arrived. Armed insurgents could be seen dancing around two blazing military vehicles.
Two US Humvees tried to stop the marchers but were forced to drive off as residents joined the marchers, shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is greater).
US troops again blocked the highway further west, but were forced to let the Iraqis past as they came under a hail of stones.
Sitting on top of supply trucks, young men also hurled empty bottles of water and waved their shoes in sign of disdain at the US troops.
The cross-community demonstration of support for Fallujah had been organized by Baghdad clerics both Sunni and Shiite amid reports that the death toll in the town had reached 105 since late Tuesday.
The rare display of unity came after Shiite radicals launched an uprising in cities across central and southern Iraq, shattering a year of relative tolerance of the US-led occupation from the country's majority community.
[...]
'No Sunnis, no Shiites, yes for Islamic unity,' the marchers chanted. 'We are Sunni and Shiite brothers and will never sell our country.'
Maybe George W. Bush is really a mad genius, after all?
His strategy, it seems, is to so thoroughly outrage and piss off the entire muslim community in Iraq, that they unite against a common enemy: US!
I'm sure the warfloggers will all be making this point within a matter of hours.
UPDATE: With photo. This report claims U.S. forces fired at the convoys.
"Captain Chris Chown, a marine battalion air officer, conceded that the insurgents were proving not only determined but also adept at using guerrilla attacks to counter the US advantage in equipment and numbers.
"One guy can basically hold down a whole squad. He shoots from one window and pops in another. They are fierce and very determined but they can't shoot straight. They are basically spraying and praying."
However, Chown expressed concern the outgunned Iraqis could still end up winning the battle of public opinion if the fighting continued.
"I hope one day we don't get so jaded we just roll down the streets in armoured vehicles shooting at whatever moves," she said.
"If that happens we need to take a step back and look at the humanity of the place or we've just lost our mission."
"We are at a crossroads in Falluja... You get to a critical juncture where one small event is going to tip things for us or against us."
"Forces of a renegade adviser to President Hamid Karzai overran the capital of a northern province on Thursday, creating a fresh security headache for Afghanistan's Western-backed government.
General Abdul Rashid Dostum's largely ethnic Uzbek militia invaded Faryab from neighboring provinces on Wednesday, prompting the central government to send national troops there on Thursday in an attempt to maintain control.
"Dostum loyalists have entered Maimana city," Interior Minister Ali Ahmad Jalai told a news briefing. "This is an unconstitutional act of interference by General Dostum."
He said the commander of the Maimana's military forces General Mohammad Hashim Habibi had left the city with his men, while the governor, Anayatullah Anayat, was at the airport."
Why? Can someone please explain to me why they support Bush? I'm serious. What is it about George W. Bush that you think is so great? What leadership, or policy will you cite to show why he deserves reelection?
Anyone?
Please tell me, because I am mystified as to how this man still hase even a 45% approval rating.
It would seem to me a better idea for the Bush adminsitration to simply admit that they DIDN'T understand how serious a threat Al Qaeda was when they came into office, and made a mistake.
People would, I think, at least UNDERSTAND that.
But to claim you were on your toes, and knew it was a serious threat from day one, and then not DO ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE ABOUT IT, is pretty damning. That's criminal negligence as opposed to a simple misjudgment.
"The European Union (EU), backed by countries including the United States, expressed concern on Thursday at reports of grave and systematic abuses in North Korea, including "infanticide in prison and labor camps."
The EU, in a resolution presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights on behalf of 37 countries, also called for appointing a special U.N. investigator for the first time to go to the reclusive, Stalinist country.
[...]
Concerns have grown since a documentary aired by Britain's BBC in February featuring a document that said North Korea had tested chemical weapons on political prisoners and quoted a man who said he had seen a family die in a gas chamber at a camp.
The EU resolution expresses concern at "imposition of the death penalty for political reasons" as well as torture, public executions, arbitrary detention and extensive forced labour.
It expressed concern that North Korean defectors sent back from abroad are deemed guilty of treason, "leading to punishment of internment, torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or the death penalty, and infanticide in prison and labor camps."
"All-pervasive and severe restrictions" on freedoms of thought, religion, expression and assembly are also cited.
Let's see...
* Massive human rights abuses by the government, including torture and murder: CHECK!
"Clashes in Afghanistan left at least seven people dead, including four Afghan soldiers and police officers in the country's insurgency-torn south, officials said Thursday.
A militant and an Afghan soldier were killed in a gunbattle that also left an American soldier and a second Afghan wounded, the U.S. military said. The soldiers were not identified and no details of their injuries were given.
Shooting broke out Wednesday during a joint Afghan-U.S. operation near Gereshk, some 350 kilometers (220 miles) southwest of the capital Kabul, in Helmand province, U.S. military spokeswoman Michele DeWerth said.
"U.S. troops were conducting a cordon and search when they came under attack,'' DeWerth said. "Four anti-coalition militia (were) detained and one killed.''
DeWerth said the dead Afghan soldier was a member of the new U.S.-trained Afghan National Army. A government official said the troops came under fire as they prepared to search a house in a village early Wednesday.
"Some people opened fire on them from another house nearby with AK-47s and rockets,'' the official said on condition of anonymity. "The fighting went on for three hours.''
Please God. Save this country from the incompetent boob currently putting his boots up on a desk in the oval office.
Warfloggers will berate the Arab press for being propagandists and liars. They may even be correct.
But that's a strawman. They have ample amunition and opportunity to do this, thanks to the ill-conceived, ill-considered, and ill-iplemented policies of the Bush administration.
"The situation in Iraq appears to be going from bad to worse, with a key Iraqi minister resigning his position as coalition forces still battle for control in key cities.
Nuri al-Badran [the Interior Minister], a Shi'ite Muslim, said he wanted to quit from the Iraq Governing Council to maintain a balance of Iraq's religious groups on the Cabinet.
But the news came as a bitter blow to US administrator to Iraq Paul Bremer, who said al-Badran's removal would only cause an imbalance and he would not let him go.
"The only solution is for you to step down from your position," Mr Bremer told the minister, which he duly did.
"I consider myself to have resigned," al-Badran told reporters, adding that Mr Bremer was disatisfied with his work."
Not to mention the several explosions within the "Green Zone." This was after coalition forces found and defused two other "improvised explosive devices" within the zone.
I wonder if the 9/11 Commissioners will take the opportunity of asking Condi Rice about this Clusterfuck, while they have her under oath?
But, the Governing Council is ready to offer a deal to al-Sadr that if he calls off the violence, they'll drop the murder charges against him.
That deal, while distasteful, actually may be the only thing that can halt this spiraling disaster. Assuming, of course, Dubyah can go back on his dumbass cowboy rhetoric.
I'm not posting this link to express my outrage at our troops. They are stuck in a no-win situation. Either they use force that unfortunately kills bystanders in some circumstances, including children, or they get killed themselves. Either way, it's very, very bad.
I am outraged at the Bush administration, however, for putting our young men, and the civilians of Iraq, into this vice grip of pain.
When our troops have no options but to destroy buildings that contain not only insurgents shooting at them, but women and children, we have already LOST.
And, I suppose, more to the point is that while we try to understand things from the perspective of our troops, the entire Arab world is seeing the mangled bodies of babies that WE killed.
Yes...we can blame the insurgents for probably using them as "human shields." yes, we can be outraged that Al Jazeerah (to take one example) would exploit the deaths of those children.
But the fact of the matter is, Bush put us in this situation. He made us vulnerable to these attacks and to these responses to U.S. actions.
He didn't listen to people who said this was a big mistake, or to people who said we needed better planning and a hell of a lot more "boots on the ground" to make this even have a chance of success.
"Inner City’s [WLIB's owner] general manager, Kernie L. Anderson, this week announced that although Air America has leased broadcast time during the day, March 31 will also initiate WLIB’s 12 a.m. to 5 a.m. overnight focus on Black issues programming. Saturday nights will feature “Moment Creole” with Stanley Barbot, and “Caribbean Cross Culture” will be on every Sunday night. David Dinkins and Rev. Al Sharpton have been offered Sunday morning shows; on weeknights Dr. Carlos Russell will revise his Afrocentric issues show “Thinking It Through”; and the journalist-author Herb Boyd will host a two-hour call-in/news segment, “Conversation with the People.”
Boyd said that he specifically wants the opportunity to revitalize wlib.com, the station’s Web site, by giving it a more global reach: making it a streaming site and possibly linking it with his own Internet news site, The Black World Today (tbwt.com), and others.
Dr. Russell said he wants his show to build an African-drum-like momentum: spreading the word so that listeners will make the effort to listen to his overnight broadcasts. Russell said he understands why people are disappointed with the changes at WLIB, but “WLIB is still in control of the station,” he pointed out. “We will have to keep our eyes open – we have to be careful and not allow this New Liberalism to trap us. But I believe that we’re on the right track."
This whole controversy, sounds more like a bunch of unemployed DJ's and Radio people whipping up a phony argument to get themselves rehired.
First and foremost, Air America was not taking over the station. It's LEASING air time from the station. The decision to do so was made by the STATION'S OWNERS.
And, it appears that the STATION has decided to respond to legitimate complaints within the community that their favorite programming was discontinued.
To accuse Air America of being racist, is beyond insulting. It's pathetic.
"Ford Motor Co. chairman and chief executive Bill Ford Jr. reiterated his support Wednesday for government incentives and a larger tax on fuel to spur consumer interest in gas-electric hybrid vehicles, in which his company is investing heavily.
Ford, speaking to automotive journalists at the New York International Auto Show, said he thought incentives like tax breaks or government rebates of, say, $3,000 would be most effective. He also mentioned his past support of an additional 50-cent tax on gas, which he said would make fuel economy "a purchase motivation for the customer."
But Ford acknowledged such a tax "doesn't have legs" in the political arena.
"I'd like to get either federal or state and local help ... and I think it's the responsible thing to do," he said. "If the federal government really wants to encourage this kind of behavior -- and they should -- then that's a way they can clearly help."
If I were the Kerry campaign, I'd ask Ford to appear in a commercial making that exact point. If the Chairman of Ford Motor Company advocates a 50 cent increase in the gas tax, he certainly can't be accused of trying hurt the automotive industry. In fact, he's saying that it would HELP his company in the long run because they are investing in alternative fuel vehicles!
HATE SPEECH: William Safire is a traitor. He's giving aid an comfort to the enemy, who are just hoping and praying for a massive U.S. military crackdown in Iraq.
UPDATE: Shorter Bill Safire:
"Anyone oposed to those of us who want to play right into the Iraqi insurgents' hands and execute a politically stupid massive military crackdown, are helping the insurgents."
"Ath Thawra al Iraqiyya al Kubra, or The Great Iraqi Revolution (as the 1920 rebellion is called), was a watershed event in contemporary Iraqi history. For the first time, Sunnis and Shias, tribes and cities, were brought together in a common effort. In the opinion of Hanna Batatu, author of a seminal work on Iraq, the building of a nation-state in Iraq depended upon two major factors: the integration of Shias and Sunnis into the new body politic and the successful resolution of the age-old conflicts between the tribes and the riverine cities and among the tribes themselves over the food-producing flatlands of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The 1920 rebellion brought these groups together, if only briefly; this constituted an important first step in the long and arduous process of forging a nation-state out of Iraq's conflict-ridden social structure.
The 1920 revolt had been very costly to the British in both manpower and money. Whitehall was under domestic pressure to devise a formula that would provide the maximum control over Iraq at the least cost to the British taxpayer. The British replaced the military regime with a provisional Arab government, assisted by British advisers and answerable to the supreme authority of the high commissioner for Iraq, Cox. The new administration provided a channel of communication between the British and the restive population, and it gave Iraqi leaders an opportunity to prepare for eventual self-government. The provisional government was aided by the large number of trained Iraqi administrators who returned home when the French ejected Faisal from Syria. Like earlier Iraqi governments, however, the provisional government was composed chiefly of Sunni Arabs; once again the Shias were underrepresented."
"It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true."
Now, the wingnuts are up in arms over the "Civil War" reference because Byrd was once (years before he was in the Senate) a member of the KKK. Something he's apologized for on a number of occasions since then.
Still, it's a stain on his record that he has to accept.
I think, however, that basing their complaint on that is rather stupid. Mostly because It's clear that Dodd was praising Byrd's qualities as a U.S. Senator. And he wasn't a member of the Klan while in the Senate.
Never-the-less, it's still a colossally stupid thing for Dodd to say. Because, while it's true that Byrd had disassociated himself from the Klan before entering the Senate, he DID play a part in the 1964 Civil Rights Act filibuster. Byrd, however, claims he voted in favor of Cloture, but doesn't say whether he voted in FAVOR of passage!
I do think there are some differences between this faux pas and the Trent Lott comments about Strom Thurmond, however.
For one thing, Chris Dodd is not well known for hanging out with racists like the "Council of Conservative Citizens" back in his home state of Connecticut. And, he probably is ignorant or simply sloppy in his knowledge of Senate history, and Byrd's actions in the Senate during the Civil Rights era. While, the same can almost certainly be said to be UNTRUE with respect to Trent Lott's knowledge of what Strom Thurmond's 1948 Presidential Platform was.
Lott may not have known the particulars, but he certainly knew that Thurmond ran on a Segregation ticket. Also, Lott was a young man at the University of Mississippi when James Meredith was admitted there. He was right in the middle of the Civil Rights battles of the 50's and 60's. In fact, Lott led national the fight to keep African Americans out of his college fraternity. Lott admits it was a mistake and is remorseful over his actions. But, still, he has a HISTORY that Chris Dodd simply doesn't have.
He also knew that Strom Thurmond was a fierce opponent of Civil Rights in the Senate AT THAT TIME. Which, of course, was consistent with his political pedigree.
Add to that the GOP "wink and nod" toward White racism in the South over the past 30 years, and Lott's statements appeared to fit in with a long line of codewords and gestures designed to let racist white voters that they were on their side, while at the same time giving them plausible deniability if called out on it by their opponents.
Even so, Dodd said something stupid. And, both he and Senator Byrd should work out some way to apologize for this.
"In an interview to be broadcast Monday night on Australian public television SBS, Musharraf said his government was receiving "very minimal" assistance as it tried to pacify tribal areas along the Afghan border where leaders of Al-Qaeda and the former Afghan Taliban regime are believed hiding. Asked if the US-led Iraq war has been a distraction from the battle against Al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants by diverting resources from Afghanistan and Pakistan, Musharraf replied: "Yes indeed".
"Each day brings fresh evidence of more violence in Iraq. U.S. forces now face violence from a Shia militia inspired by cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and from Sunni militants in the centre of Iraq.
All the administration can say is to repeat what it always says: that fresh violence will not deter the United States from its mission of bringing democracy and stability to Iraq.
Except that mission No. 1 is to bring home at least some U.S. soldiers this summer. It doesn't matter if Iraq is ready for a modified form of self-rule. It doesn't matter what chaos envelops part of the country. It doesn't matter how deep the quagmire. There must -- absolutely must, no questions asked -- be televised scenes of U.S. soldiers leaving Iraq and being greeted at home by loved ones."
"Senior U.S. officials told CNN on Tuesday that they now believe fugitive terrorism suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi did not have a leg amputated in Iraq, as the Bush administration had previously said.
Although the administration pointed to Iraq's medical assistance to al-Zarqawi as evidence of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime, it's now believed that al-Zarqawi still has both legs."
I think that basically brings to a grand total of ZERO the number of allegations that turned out to be true from Colin Powell's infamous "presentation" to the UN.
"[BILL] TUCKER: Where do you need oil prices to stabilize? We've sort of seen the best and the worst at times so far this year, down around $10 a barrel back in February, a little under - north of $23, almost $25 here, not that long ago. But in order for Halliburton to maintain a nice, steady business plan in growth, where do you need oil prices to settle out at?
[DICK] CHENEY: Well, stability is probably the most important thing. Obviously we'd prefer the mid-20's. It's preferable to $10 a barrel. What happens when you start to get down to the single-digit levels is that a lot of areas of the world that are fairly complex geologies, difficult areas to develop, are no longer able to attract investment. And you end up seeing the investment primarily in those areas that have low cost in terms of production. So from our standpoint, I think we're better off in the 20 to $25 range, but the main thing is stability."
In fact, the faction he commands is guilty of, among other things, ethnic cleansing.
But, the rise of al-Sadr, or someone just like him, was predictable. The belief that a country as diverse, and psychologically scarred as Iraq could be reconstructed and governed effectively without hundreds of thousands of troops, and a better grasp of the culture and sensitivities of the populace, was just suicidally stupid.
The whole June 30th deadline was an artificial construct from the beginning. Designed, primarily, to give George W. Bush political cover going into the election. So he could show "progress" being made in Iraq.
Even if the hand-over of sovereignty is largely symbolic.
I have made this point before, but I believe it's necessary to state it again.
If you are someone who supported this war, and want to see Iraq brought out of the darkness...you MUST get rid of George W. Bush in November. You have no choice. He's absolutely incapable of fixing the problem. He's not flexible. He's not temperate. He's not PATIENT. He's not humble. He's not willing to admit mistakes, and take responsibility.
It may turn out that John Kerry is no better. But that is a guess at this point. Not a certainty. Bush is a certainty. And we know he's a failure at this. And he will continue to fail. At some point, you must put aside your political goggles, and look at this from a realistic point of view. How best to solve the problem and advance U.S. security and interests.
You may have agreed with Bush's decision to invade Iraq. But it is very clear that he has no idea how to finish the job. Abstract declarations that we will not "cut and run" from Iraq mean NOTHING.
What is the plan? What is the goal? What is the roadmap? Where are we going? How much will this cost in lives and treasure? Has he answered ANY of these essential questions in earnest? Or has he mouthed nothing but soundbites and tough-sounding rhetoric?
I sometimes get the impressions that people are so invested in this war and its aftermath, that they refuse to listen to reason, or accept basic reality and facts.
They are more worried about having to admit a colossal error in judgment...either about the advisability of the war itself, or in their unwavering and sycophantic support of George W. Bush.
But, admitting that you were wrong, and that you want to fix things, is a sign of STRENGTH, not weakness.
And, adhering to the preposterous notion that any criticism of Bush or his incompetent and dishonest handling of this whole policy is somehow lending "aid and comfort" to our enemies is worse than weak. It's evil. It tells us that you are devoid of any moral compass or willingness to argue on the merits. It says that you are conniving, sniveling cowards, unworthy of respect or notice.
It tells us that you would rather doom, this country to a tragedy in Iraq, than admit you are wrong. That is an unpardonable sin. And, in my view, the height of treachery to your nation and your fellow citizens.
So, rather than fighting the enemies of our republic, it is you, not we, who have become their enablers.
Your idiocy, arrogance and obstinacy is the crack cocaine upon which they are addicted.
BLADE RUNNER: The Toledo Blade won this year's invetigative reporting Pulitzer Prize for its series on atrocities committed by a specific unit of U.S. troops in Vietnam.
"President Bush vowed to arrest a radical Shi'ite Muslim cleric leading spiraling anti-U.S. violence that has sparked fears of all-out war in Iraq.
"We just can't let (the violence) stand," Bush said on Monday as U.S. authorities branded Moqtada al-Sadr an outlaw and U.S. helicopters blasted a Baghdad district where the cleric has a stronghold and sent in tanks to quell the violence."
Zeyad says there's a "Coup" going on in Iraq right now. Although, what he describes sounds more like a full blown insurrection/revolution. But, here's the money quote that Instahack leaves out of his excerpt:
"I have to admit that until now I have never longed for the days of Saddam, but now I'm not so sure. If we need a person like Saddam to keep those rabid dogs at bay then be it. Put Saddam back in power and after he fills a couple hundred more mass graves with those criminals they can start wailing and crying again for liberation. What a laugh we will have then. Then they can shove their filthy Hawza and marji'iya up somewhere else. I am so dissapointed in Iraqis and I hate myself for thinking this way. We are not worth your trouble, take back your billions of dollars and give us Saddam again. We truly 'deserve' leaders like Saddam."
The paper he worked for squelched the story, initially. Later, the reporter was reprimanded for some other offense, and finally was forced to quit because the staunch conservative owner of the paper's son became his immediate supervisor, and allegedly harassed him in retaliation of his Bush DWI story.
"Now Gerald, some are whispering out there the stealing of John Kerry‘s FBI files in your possession may have been an inside job from the Kerry camp. Respond to that.
NICOSIA: Oh, I would think it would be the Republicans not John Kerry. I was cooperating with John Kerry. I‘m a Kerry supporter.
BUCHANAN: Right.
NICOSIA: When the senator was making statements that he wasn‘t at the meeting in Kansas City, which initially I believed he wasn‘t either. In my book I had it wrong. I had him resigning in the summer of 1971 in St. Louis. And that was based on oral testimony, people with faulty memories. So I was quite surprised myself, but once I found those documents when I was working with Glione (ph) actually and I saw that you know Mr. Kerry—
Senator Kerry was obviously there I called the Kerry office and said you know I think you folks really should look at these documents before you make any further statements and they sent...
SCARBOROUGH: What did they say?
NICOSIA: They immediately sent a messenger to my house, got copies of the documents and that evening Senator Kerry did issue a retraction and said based on the documents he now believed that he was at that meeting. So you know the Kerry camp had no reason to believe I would not cooperate with them further. "
Interestingly enough, that's exactly the argument I made last week. I'd say it was a coincidence, but at the time, I actually had a short e-mail exchange with Gerald Nicosia about this very subject. In fact, I asked him who he thought was responsible for the theft. He didn't respond to that, but I am reasonably certain that he read the comments I had up on my blog about it.
"After meeting with senior American military officials in Washington, the Deputy Chairman of the Turkish Army faced reporters. The General, Ilker Basburg, told reporters the Bush Administration agreed to take what he called "concrete steps" against the PKK before handing authority over to the Iraqi Governing Council at the end of June.
In response to a question from the Turkish Press, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers offered this statement.
"This is an issue the coalition forces inside Iraq take very seriously," he said. "Let me assure you that there is very close collaboration with Turkey and that they will be dealt with appropriately."
Kurdish leaders say they're doing everything to make peace with the Turkish Army. ... For four years, they've honored a unilateral cease-fire, called by their leader Abdulla Ocalan from his island prison in the Aegean Sea. Ozlem Bolcal editor at the Kurdish-interest newspaper Free Agenda, based in Istanbul, notes the Kurdish fighters in Northern Iraq have repeatedly tried to turn in their arms.
She describes the case of Ali Sapan, a PKK guerilla who came from the mountains as a peace delegate. She compares his case to the Zapatista's Subcomandante Marcos who won after years of struggle won a meeting with the President of Mexico. "Ali Sapan came for a similar meeting," she says. "He was arrested. He's been in prison for more than 8 years. Now he's in solitary confinement."
In addition to filling Turkey's jails with Kurdish leaders, the Turkish Army continues to maintain two bases in Northern Iraq -- one near the border and the other in the middle of one of Northern Iraq's largest cities, Arbil.
At home, Turkish prosecutors moved last week to ban the country's largest Kurdish political party, DEHAP, on the grounds that it supports terrorism. The Kurdish language remains largely banned from Turkish television and Radio. Under new broadcast regulations approved in January, Kurdish can be broadcast just two hours a day -- and even then there are conditions. Meihdi Perincheck is on the Executive Board of Turkey's Human Rights Association, which is suing to over-turn the new regulations.
"With these laws Kurdish programs can only be broadcast on national television with sub-titles in Turkish," he says. "But for the local radios its illegal. No children's programming is allowed. It's a big hard-ship because the children can't learn Kurdish and they forget their own language. The children have a right to learn in their mother tongue. In this law, we don't have that right."
Iraqi Kurds, by contrast, have enjoyed the patronage of the United States for more than a decade and as a consequence have been able to build schools and media institutions where Kurdish is exclusively spoken. Hakim Umar of Iraq's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan's foreign office, says Iraqi Kurds aren't willing to risk losing that in a confrontation with the American and Turkish Armies -- but he thinks the United States should think twice before opening up a new front in the Kurdish mountains.
"Maybe they are going to fight the PKK," muses Umar. "But its very difficult in these mountains to find someone and take them out. Saddam Hussein, during the 30 years (he ruled) he couldn't finish us in the mountains. Even all America can't finish bin Laden in Afghanistan.'
"But they try," he sighs. "And they will support the Turks against the PKK."
Let's see if I have this right. The Sunnis in Iraq are now radicalized against the United States. A violent, vocal, and significant minority of the Shi'ite population is rising up against us.
So, we agree to do the Turks' dirty work for them, and go after the PKK?!? The Kurds are our only solid allies in Iraq at the moment. And we are going to side with their arch-enemies, and start military operations against them in the mountains of Northern Iraq?
Someone at CENTCOM needs to grab Don Rumsfeld by the collar and shake some sense into him. If nee be, they should do that to the President and Vice President.
I am just astonished at the utter incompetence of these people.
UPDATE: Al-Sadr is "proud" to be branded as an outlaw by the Coalition. Cue the Geto Boys:
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta. A real gangsta-ass Sadr plays his cards right. A real gangsta-ass Sadr never runs his f$&%kin mouth. Cuz real gangsta-ass Sadr don't start fights. And Sadr's always gotta high cap. Showin' all his boys how he shot em. But real gangsta-ass Sadr don't flex nuts. Cuz real gangsta-ass Sadr know they got em. And everythings cool in the mind of a gangsta. Cuz gangsta-ass Sadrthink deep. Up three-sixty-five a year 24/7. Cuz real gangsta ass Sadr don't sleep.
And all I gotta say to you. Wannabe, gonnabe, Bushsuckin', P%&#y-eatin' prankstas. Cuz when the fire dies down what the f%#@ you gonna do. Damn it feels good to be a gangsta.
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta. Feedin' the poor and hepin out wit they bills. Although I was born in Iraq. Now I'm screwin' the US makin' deals. Damn it feels good to be a gangsta. I mean one that you don't really know. Ridin' around town in a drop-top Benz. Hittin' switches in my black six-fo'. Now gangsta-ass Sadr's come in all shapes and colors. Some got killed in the past. But this gangtsa here was a smart one. Started living for Allah and not laughs.
Now all I gotta say to you. Wannabe, gonnabe, p&*#y-eatin' Bushsuckin' prankstas. When the sh*t jumps off what the f%&k; you gonna do. Damn it feels good to be a gangsta.
[...]
And now, a word from the President! Damn it feels good to be a gangsta. Gettin voted into the White House. Everything lookin good to the people of the world. But the Mafia family is my boss. So every now and then I owe a favor gettin' down. like lettin' a big drug shipment through. And send 'em to the poor community. So we can bust you know who. So voters of the world keep supportin' me. And I promise to take you very far. Other leaders better not upset me. Or I'll send a million troops to die at war. To all you Republicans, that helped me win. I sincerely like to thank you. Cuz now I got the world swingin' from my nuts. And damn it feels good to be a gangsta."
"The CIA's former weapons hunter in Iraq realized within days of arriving in Baghdad last summer that dictator Saddam Hussein was no longer stockpiling a banned arsenal, according to a new report. David Kay, with whom the Bush administration placed its hopes of finding Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, sent a startling E-mail to CIA Director George Tenet in early July 2003.
"I wrote that it looks as though they did not produce weapons," Kay reveals in an interview with the new Vanity Fair.
It wasn't until late January this year that Kay told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "we were almost all wrong" on Iraq.
Kay told Vanity Fair, in its 22,000-word opus, "The Path to War," that he was actually ready to come home in mid-December. Tenet said no.
"If you resign now, it will appear that we don't know what we're doing and the wheels are coming off," he said Tenet told him. "So I said, 'Fine, I'll wait.'"
Astonishing.
There are plenty of other revelations in the Vanity Fair article. Apparently, the French Government tried to cut a deal with the United States in which it would accept (and keep quiet about) the Bush administration going to war on the basis of resolution 1441, provided that it didn't seek a new resolution.
That deal was crushed when Tony Blair sought a new resolution to save his bacon with Labour MP's, and the British public.
"Kerry cares more about fixing the deficit problem than Bush does for the simple reason that it is hard to imagine anyone caring less about fixing the problem than Bush does, [his] policies -- from tax cuts to Medicare spending -- have been a series of disasters for the deficit.''
-- William Gale, an economist at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, and formerly a senior staff economist for the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and 1992.
"The United States civilian administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, has branded the radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr an outlaw and warned that US-led forces will not tolerate any uprising by his followers.
Speaking to a meeting of Iraq's national security committee, Paul Bremer said Sadr was effectively trying to establish his authority in the place of the legitimate authority.
Mr Bremer said this would not be tolerated and the Coalition would assert law and order as the Iraqi people expected. "
"President Clinton ordered several hundred fresh United States troops to Somalia today, plus heavy tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopters and gunships, in the aftermath of heavy American losses in a United Nations military operation in Mogadishu on Sunday. The latest Pentagon tally indicated that at least 12 American soldiers had been killed and 78 wounded. Several others were reported missing and may be captives of the forces of Gen. Mohammed Farah Aidid, the fugitive Somali faction leader. That made Sunday by far the costliest day for the United States since American forces arrived in Somalia almost 10 months ago.
Chilling pictures of dead and captured Americans were sent out by the few Western journalists in Mogadishu. Television footage on CNN showed a frightened, wounded Blackhawk helicopter pilot, identified by military officials here as Army Chief Warrant Officer Michael Durant, 32, under interrogation by his Somali captors. The officials said he was a member of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), based in Fort Campbell, Ky.
[...]
In a speech to the convention of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. in San Francisco, [President Clinton] sounded a note of determination, telling the labor audience, "You may be sure that we will do whatever is necessary to protect our own forces in Somalia and to complete our mission."
Last week the Administration said it wanted to focus on building a viable political structure in Somalia, not on capturing General Aidid and his lieutenants. But Sunday's operation did just the opposite, creating the impression that the Somalis and not Washington were setting the agenda.
Ranking Administration officials acknowledged that although Aspin, Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Tony Lake, the national security adviser, were working on the problem, no one person had clearly taken charge.
"The result," one policymaker said, "is a great deal of confusion. The fact is that you can shift the emphasis back and forth, but you can never really get a political deal there as long as Aidid is roaming free."
The Ministry of Justice demanded that all non-Orthodox churches provide them with a membership list. [As opposed to libraries and bookstores under the USA PATRIOT Act]
And, the government of Qatar says it has "substantial evidence" that two Russian agents it has in custody were responsible for the recent assassination of former Chechen President Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev.
On the other hand, the Russians have a far more liberal policy toward holding terrorism suspects. They just passed a law providing that somsone can only be held without charges for up to 30 days.
How pathetic is it when the increasingly autocratic Russians have more respect for the rights of those accused of being connected with terrorists than our own government?
BRAZIL NUTS: Is it time to invade? Must the residents of Sao Paulo and Brazillia prepare for bombardment? Or, at the very least, a terse and stern United Nations Security Council resolution warning of "serious" consequences?
"The Brazilian government and U.N. nuclear inspectors are at odds over inspections of an under-construction, uranium-enrichment facility near Rio de Janeiro, sources close to the International Atomic Energy Agency said Sunday.
The sources confirmed a report in The Washington Post that Brazil was refusing to allow IAEA inspectors to see the facility's equipment in order to protect proprietary information.
The Brazilians say their plant's production will be limited to low-enriched uranium for power plants and will not produce the much higher-enriched uranium used for nuclear weapons.
The sources said the agency and Brazil's government are still "working on" the matter.
The Post report said IAEA inspectors arrived at the plant but found large parts of it behind walls and coverings.
Representatives of the agency would not comment on the report."
