Rumsfeld stopped raid on Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan to not aggravate Pakistani leaders (who have been harboring those Al Qaeda leaders)

Earlier this week, the number two in Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, released a p.r. video about which John wrote a post titled, Not Dead Yet.

In Sunday's New York Times, Mark Mazzetti has a fascinating article about a failed effort by the U.S. to nail al-Zawahri. The Al Qaeda leader could have been killed or captured in 2005 but Rumsfeld called off the mission so he wouldn't tick off Pakistan (the country that has harbored Bin Laden and his top allies since 2001):

A secret military operation in early 2005 to capture senior members of Al Qaeda in Pakistan’s tribal areas was aborted at the last minute after top Bush administration officials decided it was too risky and could jeopardize relations with Pakistan, according to intelligence and military officials.

The target was a meeting of Qaeda leaders that intelligence officials thought included Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden’s top deputy and the man believed to run the terrorist group’s operations.

But the mission was called off after Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, rejected an 11th-hour appeal by Porter J. Goss, then the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, officials said. Members of a Navy Seals unit in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan when the mission was canceled, said a former senior intelligence official involved in the planning.

Mr. Rumsfeld decided that the operation, which had ballooned from a small number of military personnel and C.I.A. operatives to several hundred, was cumbersome and put too many American lives at risk, the current and former officials said. He was also concerned that it could cause a rift with Pakistan, an often reluctant ally that has barred the American military from operating in its tribal areas, the officials said.

The decision to halt the planned “snatch and grab” operation frustrated some top intelligence officials and members of the military’s secret Special Operations units, who say the United States missed a significant opportunity to try to capture senior members of Al Qaeda.

Their frustration has only grown over the past two years, they said, as Al Qaeda has improved its abilities to plan global attacks and build new training compounds in Pakistan’s tribal areas, which have become virtual havens for the terrorist network.

Al Qaeda is back. On George Bush's watch, Al Qaeda attacked America. Bush failed to kill or capture Al Qaeda's leaders because he got distracted by the war in Iraq. Now, Al Qaeda is getting stronger because of George Bush's war in Iraq. It's almost unbelievable. Every time George Bush invokes Al Qaeda -- and we know he loves to invoke Al Qaeda for political reasons -- every time he does that it's an admission of his complete and total failure to destroy the terrorists who attacked America.

Now, whether or not this plot to capture al Zawahri was a good idea, I don't know. But, it just shows again that Bush has failed us. al Zawahri and Bin Laden should have been killed or captured in 2001. We shouldn't even be talking about them in 2007. Read More......

Open thread

Saturday night's alright for fighting.

Read More......

Reid to push for more votes to withdraw troops from Iraq

Good. And let's hope we have a veto strategy, or even a veto threat strategy. Read More......

More than 100 dead in suicide bombing in Iraq

It's still Live Death day in George Bush's Iraq. Read More......

Fred Thompson lobbied for pro-abortion group

The Los Angeles Times:

Fred D. Thompson, who is campaigning for president as an antiabortion Republican, accepted an assignment from a family-planning group to lobby the first Bush White House to ease a controversial abortion restriction, according to a 1991 document and several people familiar with the matter.

A spokesman for the former Tennessee senator denied that Thompson did the lobbying work. But the minutes of a 1991 board meeting of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Assn. say that the group hired Thompson that year.

His task was to urge the administration of President George H. W. Bush to withdraw or relax a rule that barred abortion counseling at clinics that received federal money, according to the records and to people who worked on the matter.

The abortion "gag rule" was then a major political flashpoint. Lobbying against the rule would have placed Thompson at odds with the antiabortion movement that he is now trying to rally behind his expected declaration of a presidential bid.

The basic problem is that the Republican politicians don't really stand for anything any more. They've been lying to the public and their own voters for years - claiming to be for a strong defense, lower taxes, and family values. But those are just slogans, slogans that Republican politicians know Republican voters will buy, so they just keep repeating them decade after decade, even though the politicians themselves don't even believe the mantra. Republicans are for family values - sure, just ask Mitt Romney, friend of pornographers and the the guy who once sold himself as better on gay issues than Ted Kennedy himself. Republicans are for the 2nd Amendment - uh huh, and Rudy Giuliani has been the best friend gun control advocates ever had. Republicans are strong on defense - yeah, well, Republicans got us into the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and how are those going? Republicans are for fiscal restraint - and Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have both bankrupted the country and sent us into record deficits.

Republican politicians lie. The thing is, they get away with it because for some reason Republican voters just don't care if they're lied to. So long as you tell them you're for a strong defense, cutting taxes, and family values, they believe you, in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

So it's no surprise that Fred Thompson advocates abortion. He lies like all the rest of the Republican politicians nowadays. But fortunately for Fred, Republican voters are so easily misled that so long as he gives a good speech, they probably won't even care about his pro-abortion record. Read More......

It's Live Earth Day

Watch it, and tick off Senator Inhofe. Read More......

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Good Morning. Really hot today in D.C.

The editorial cartoonists had plenty to work with this past week. Bob Geiger has the compilation. Couple will make you laugh out loud -- or groan out loud.

The poem of the week is an untitled. It's the work of Kabir, an Indian poet born in 1440 who "is unusual in that he is spiritually significant to Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims alike. Kabir openly criticized all sects and gave a new direction to Indian philosophy." What a concept.

Enjoy. Thread. Read More......

L'Oreal found guilty of systematic racial discrimination

French cosmetics giant L'Oreal lost a major case over charges of racism with hiring. From an American perspective I find the punishment laughable and a minor accounting adjustment (30,000 euro or around $40,000 plus a suspended sentence, not to mention seven years in court) but at least L'Oreal has to live with the humiliation of being found guilty.

In July 2000, a fax detailing the profile of hostesses sought by L'Oréal stipulated women should be 18 to 22, size 38-42 (UK size 10-14) and "BBR", the initials for bleu, blanc, rouge, the colours of the French flag. Prosecutors argued that BBR, a shorthand used by the far right, was also a well-known code among employers to mean "white" French people and not those of north African, African and Asian backgrounds.

Christine Cassan, a former employee at Districom, a communications firm acting for Garnier, told the court her clients demanded white hostesses. She said that when she had gone ahead and presented candidates "of colour" a superior in her own company had said she had "had enough of Christine and her Arabs".

In theory, the Sarkozy government has plans to modernize France's attitudes towards race in the workplace but compared to what already exists in the US (which is far from perfect, but at least an acknowledged issue) there is a very long road ahead. As offensive as L'Oreal has been shown to be in this case, it's a story that I have heard much too often here and anyone who has ever stepped into an office in France or looked at the political ruling class would also quickly notice the difference between faces you see on the street versus faces you see in offices and politics. Sarkozy does deserve some credit for starting to make some of these necessary and long overdue changes. Read More......

"China free" products arriving, but what about the other problems?

Considering the extensive problems in recent months (years, really) it should come as no surprise that someone is planning to highlight the fact that their products do not contain no ingredients from China. China, along with plenty of help from the corporate world who wanted more profit as well as under-funded regulators who were cut to the bone by the GOP Congress, has created this mess so they should have to deal with the global black eye. The main issue I have with it is that it does let the other participants off the hook and it also is blind to comparable issues with sources from other countries.

While in Vietnam a few years ago, there was still a lot of talk within certain communities about eating certain foods (root vegetables, for example) because of continuing problems with Agent Orange in the soil. In southern Vietnam is was still common enough to see young victims of that destructive chemical so it did give reason for pause when eating. Vietnam is now a very active exporter of food to the world as are many other traditionally poor countries who have begun exporting in recent years when US regulations have crumbled. Maybe export food from Vietnam or elsewhere is perfectly fine, I have no idea, but I do have a complete lack of faith in the FDA and USDA to police those imports. In truth, I have a lack of faith in those organizations to monitor food from anywhere, the US included.

"China free" is understandable, but it still does not replace a funded and legitimate regulatory system for all Americans. Read More......

From defeat at Yorktown to the Empire

Putting aside the "glory" of the British Empire and what that actually meant to those under its rule (my family lived unenthusiastically under the Empire), a very interesting read by retired British Army General Michael Rose on the defeat at Yorktown and what it meant at the time to the UK and how the country bounced back to its most successful days. Some similarities to our own struggles in Iraq with regards to the failures of war strategy and what withdrawal might mean, but what I find most interesting is what happened after the failed war. It really cuts to the heart of the issue here, that those in favor of the continuing war in Iraq are fundamentally afraid of our future and are riddled with pessimism about our ability to bounce back as a nation.

As an American but also an outsider as both an expat and someone who has had the good fortune to travel across five continents and plenty of countries both rich and poor, one of our greatest strengths as a nation is our ability to bounce back and to accept change. Did the country collapse after Vietnam? Hardly. It took a few years to recover economically but the US did bounce back and was the economic envy of the world back in the 1990s. Just as the US has recovered in the past from failed ventures, I have complete confidence that we will recover again but we have to have the courage to admit the mistake and to move on.

The Republicans and pro-war people can shake in fear for the future but that's their problem and fear is all they've had to offer since 9/11. I have a lot more confidence that America will find it's own Pitt or a new FDR who isn't afraid of the future and we will be just fine. We just need some backbone to make the tough decisions today and our creative spirit along with our best days will be ahead. We just need a bit of faith in ourselves. Read More......