Iraq War In Contrast

Reading around the blog-o-sphere, I found some interesting contrasting views of the war.

For instance, if you haven't heard about Fallujah in the news lately, it's because of these marines and men like them:

Today was a perfect example of how far we have come on the backs of the incredible young Marines, Soldiers and Sailors who have been a part of the Regiment since we arrived in February 2004.

By mid-morning, we were sitting in a meeting with the local imams. The senior imam or "mufti" brings other important imams in a few times a month and we discuss ongoing issues inside the city. The imam meeting is in addition to various reconstruction meetings with contractors and bureaucrats as well as the perpetual development of the Iraqi security forces. What is unique about the imam meeting is that like so many other things happening now, the meeting itself would have been beyond impossible as recently as October. Now the imams request the meeting and sit down with us in order to reduce friction and work toward improving the quality of life of the Fallujahns.

As recently as October, we sat outside the city in day long battles. Over the inevitable din, you could hear cries for jihad and resistance resonating through the loudspeakers of the city's 60+ mosques. Certainly from the Marine point of view, the mosques were thought of as facilitators of the terrorists and a key ingredient in stoking the spiral of violence that consumed the city for much of the past thirteen months and beyond. Today we sat with some of the same men who controlled the speakers and discussed ways to get ambulances into the city faster and enhancing understanding among the variety of cultures that now make up the daily life in the city.

Make sure you read the rest.

Ibn al-Rafidian in Iraq posts about Cultural Contrast:

Try to imagine the disorder & your car is in a complete traffic jam. Suddenly, a soldier appears, starts to kick your car pointing his gun at you, and yelling at you to get your car out of his way as if you could carry the car with your hands or put it in your pocket. Even when you manage to pull the car aside, you can't guarantee not being annoyed. I had referred to many incidents in previous posts & I'm quoting one here:

… my same brother was in a traffic jam when he noticed in the car mirror a bunch of Humvee cars. So he managed to step aside near the sidewalk to avoid annoyance usually caused by the Americans when they pass through streets. What astonished him is that the Humvees' drivers chose to force their cars through a very narrow space beside his car scratching his car and breaking the radio aerial. My
brother says that the soldiers in the Humvee looked at him in the same way of
Saddam's henchmen and bodyguards.

From This Is Your War, a story about being attacked with an IED:

[snip]In a rush things came back into focus for me, like I had been dropped back into my body. Suddenly the world was moving to fast for my mind.
junior was shouting about seeing the IED tossed from a car heading in to opposite direction. It bounced twice on the asphalt and exploded a foot from our left rear bumper.

"I saw it! It was shaped like a tall can of beer! It bounced and rolled toward us before it it exploded! I saw it explode!" Somebody had just tried to kill us. Had targeted us. My vehicle. My crew. My men. Me. [snip]

I finally got the message across, the IED had been thrown at us from a car. We could still, maybe catch it the the fuckers before they got away. I [went] from fear, from being afraid for the lives of my men and myself, cut through the shock of the event and was consumed by white hot rage.[snip]

I jumped out of the truck and stepped onto the highway in front of traffic, daring anyone to confront me. Please, I thought, give me an excuse to start shooting. Let just one of you act stupid right now. My M-4 was on BURST, finger on the trigger as I sighted on cars and trucks facing me. Walking into to face of the traffic, pushing them back. Cars were backing away from me as I advanced on them.
I became dimly aware of Agie beside me. [snip]

A charcoal colored BMW caught my attention on the frontage road to my left.
"Get the FUCK back!" I pointed my rifle at the driver. He slammed on the breaks and jammed the car in reverse. This section of road was mine. I owned it and I wasn't going to let anyone on it.[snip]

I took a deep breath of Iraqi air and looked at the sky, hearing the explosion again. Sam, the terp came up to me.
"Was close, yes"
"Yes. Hey, you got a smoke I can borrow? Borrow..."
I laughed at my choice of words as he dug into his pocket for a pack.
"These fuckers, cowards," he said as he handed my the smoke and a light. " They throw things and run away. No..." He searched for the words and cupped his hand near his [groin].
"No balls..."
"Yes!" His face light up and he gripped my shoulder. "Yes, no balls!"

Then he talks about the next day, going on patrol, passing the same area and having a can fall out of the lead vehicle.

Going back to the original post, he talks about going to a firefight:

We circled the same block twice, coming out near a block of apartment buildings Saddam built for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. One of the areas where we were less than popular. [snip]

The two platoons waited for something to happen. Random shots and bursts of fire echoed off the concrete walls and asphalt. A truck load of IA commandos, drinking beer from 24oz cans, drove by with a prisoner. They cheered and slapped the bound EPW in the back of the head until one IA fell out of the truck bed and landed on his face only after being drug a few feet, his boot caught on the tailgate. The IAs laughed as they picked their buddy up, threw him on top of the EPW and sped off. I wanted to ask them where they got the beer.

Interestingly, Sam at Hammorabi points to a story about four Palestinians arrested in Baghdad, somewhere around the time that "This is your war" talks about going to a fire fight at apartments built for families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Sam says of the four:

The Iraqi Fox Brigade arrested 4 Palestinian terrorists who carried out the explosion of the market in East Baghdad few days ago, which resulted in the death of many Iraqi civilians and damaged the shops and markets there.[snip]

They stated in their confession that they lived for many years in Iraq. Some of them worked as security agents for Saddam regime. They stated that they receive the order from other Palestinians who are linked with Syria.

I don't know if these incidents are connected, but it did seem an interesting coincidence.

Then there is Major K at Strength and Honor, an intelligence officer in Iraq. His posts also show, from one day to the next, the contrast in the daily activities of the war effort.

Here he talks about meeting with the Presidential security detail:

Almost every week, LT C. and I meet with Col K. and his men from the Presidential Security Detail. I look forward to this meeting every time. They are charged with protecting the Iraqi President, Mr. Talabani. We meet to exchange information, see if we can help each other, and discuss the latest threats against our areas of responsibility. They are the nicest people that you could ever meet. Every time we come, they serve us lunch, and it always an impressive spread. Other than security issues, We talk about our families, life back home, plans for the future, our shared values despite religious differences and how beautiful Sulimaniyah is.

An earlier post talks about needing supplies for his Iraqi counterparts and informants:

Body Armor. Not the big bulky stuff that we wear, but the level IIIA, concealable stuff that cops wear, to outfit my informants, so that no one knows that they are wearing it. We have plenty of our own, but none of this type. We could use about 5-6 sets, preferably size medium.[snip]

- MP3 recorders with at least 64MB of memory - for documenting bad guys behaving badly

Obviously, Major K is seeing the inside, grinding work of tracking down the bad guys. His older posts deal with some of the things he has to do to get this going. One thing he mentioned was that he was never an intelligence officer before and that he basically had to start from scratch deciding what he needed to do, how to obtain and coordinate information, cultivate informants, etc.

I wonder if any military folks read his site and think about the kind of training they need to do in the units regarding this aspect of the war?

There is Neurotic Iraqi Wife whose husband has been working as a contractor for the Coalition while she lives outside of Iraq. They have been separated for much of their short marriage (just like many newly weds in the Coalition forces) and is now cleared to return to Iraq and live with her husband in the Green zone.

There are so many things on my mind and I have to admit that Im scared. Yes, scared. Really scared. Not scared for my life cuz that has already been planned out for me, but scared for my marriage. As much as I love my husband I keep begging God, praying that he's worth all this. Im ashamed, real ashamed admitting this but its the truth. This will either break us or make us and Im praying its the latter.

I sound like the most ungrateful wife alive,no??? I dunno, I dunno if what Im feeling is natural, I dunno anymore. I cant believe am going to Baghdad after all this time, I really cant but most importantly I cant believe that I will finally be with HUBBY...And just thinking about that makes me anxious, real anxious.

I wished her luck, but we may not hear from her for awhile as she gets in country and gets situated. I loved reading her blog because it was a personal account about being separated from her husband and worrying about all the things that one must worry about when newly married and having this thing between you and your loved one.

In the meantime, my first and favorite bloggers at Iraq the Model are talking about the new government and the process of writing the constitution:

In what appears like an attempt to override the disputes created by the low number of Sunni law makers included in the "constitution writing committee"; a number of new initiatives to allow more influence for the Sunni in writing the constitution are on the horizon.

What seems to be the most acceptable initiative is one I read about in the morning papers of today; it suggests the establishment of an additional constitutional committee from Sunni Arabs. Abbas Al-Bayati, a member of the Assembly form Jafari's block said that "when we reach an agreement on adopting this plan as a solution, then we will move to the other step of choosing the members of this committee".

While at the same time, Saleem at Iraq Rising reports his issues with Jafaari and al-Sistani:

Ja3fary is becoming a joke in Baghdad, every time there is a crises or an important decision to be made he runs to Najef to consult and get his orders from Sistani and his Iranian puppet masters.

Today, and only one day after C. Rice’s visited us, he keeps to form and heads down to see his boss Sistani. This begs the question about who is really in charge here in Iraq; Ja3fary or Sistani. I certainly don’t remember voting for Sistani on the 30th of January.[snip]

How can they expect the ordinary Iraqi citizen to stand up to the terrorists if he does not believe that the government that represents him is working for his benefit and self-interest. Alienating the population by this weak and shortsighted leadership sends the wrong message and makes the average citizen want to shut his doors or worst run away from the country.

But the brothers at Iraq the Model point to Jaafari and Sistani talks in a positive light:

Meanwhile, Sistani urged PM Jafari to work on including more Sunni members in the "constitution drafting committee". This committee is comprised of 55 members; 28 of who are from the She'at dominated block of the "United Coalition" while there are only 2 Sunni members in it so far.

Sistani may be the moderating voice. I'm torn about whether this is a good sign or not. In the same post and elsewhere in the blog-o-sphere, there are disussions about Jafaari's "deba'athification" of the government:

Jafari also rejected the idea of starting negotiations with the militant

The brothers wrote, but Iraq Rising has a different opinion on the matter:

Firstly - It seems that the issue of De-Ba’athification, that the PM is insisting on, is causing much hardship and consternation amongst the lives of many Iraqis who (rightly) feel that this ‘witch hunt’ is unfair and tinged with a certain hint of revenge about it.

(The majority of civil service employees under Saddam were members of the Ba’ath party. Just as it were in Russia under Communism, you had no choice about it. For Ja3fary to turn around and sack everyone who had anything to do with the Ba’ath is a wrong policy and smacks of a witch hunt to me).

Of course, if you don't read Chrenkoff you wouldn't know that anything else was going on in Iraq except bombs and political wrangling. He always has his round up of Good News From Iraq. This posting talks about a number of important Sunni leaders deciding to play ball with the new government and begin distancing themselves from the Zarqawi folks:

As the report notes, "the significance of the conference was underscored by its attendees. Participants included members of the Muslim Scholars Association, a group of Sunni religious leaders, among them some of the most extreme figures who have influence with the insurgency. Also present were leaders from cities in the 'Sunni Triangle,' including Mosul, Haditha, and Salam Pak, which is bubbling with insurgent activity. Representatives of Waqaf Sunna, the powerful administrating body of Sunni religious affairs, attended as well." It is an important development, if only because it will allow Shias and Kurds to formally negotiate with the Sunni community about the future of Iraq.

Speaking of the Kurds, our friends in the north are still concerned about Kurdistan's autonomy and guarantee of a federal Iraqi state:

Has this story made the news rounds yet:

Iraqi Government removes the word federal from oath

Obviously, when Jafaari talks about "deba'athification" and Talabani, Kurdish Iraqi President goes along with it, it's because a strong part of their constituency feels that this is important to insure their security:

Anyway back to the main point, you'd honestly think this government is more obsessed with screwing us than protecting their own people
In just 2 days, they've discovered shallow graves of executed Iraqis civilians, market explosions ripping apart shoppers, more bombings outside police recruitment stations and this without all the other unmentioned everyday bombings kidnappings and beheadings of Iraqi civilians and what are their ministers doing? Just sitting there playing X and O with their constitution

What have we done against them anyway, on the other hand look how willing they are in appeasing baathists and even giving them ministries in the govt without being elected.[snip]

Isn't about time they start taking away the baby gloves just cos' they happen to be sunni, its about time someone stands up and says "TOUGH u didn't participate, no seats. Next election is in 9 months time, hope u learned your lesson.[snip]

So yes how about seeing some yezidis, chrisitians and on a gender level, women for these roles, and what is it with ex-baathist monopolizing the sunni roles in everything anyway do they not come in other flavors, oh wait they probably do but just happen to get gunned down. They're great in terrorizing and holding hostage their own people aren't they.

So much for a new Iraq, it still looks like a society who are still ruled by people who love their crime and injustice.

Another member of the blog was unhappy with the language used by Rice and the media during her visit:

Ladies and Gentelmen:
after the renaming Kurdistan to Northern Iraq ,"Kudistan Democratic Party" is renamed to "Kurdish(!?) Democratic Party" by United States of America and Ameican offical news agencies, Happy new name to Kak Massod Barzani.[snip]

Our lands name is Kurdistan and it will be kurdistan fo[r]ever and nobody can change it.

In a recent article from theBaltimore City Paper, the reporter talks about the endeavors of an American unit stationed in Kurdistan and their interactions with the locals while exploring the American policies on Iraq and Kurdistan:

Since the Shi’ah-dominated Iraqi government in Baghdad has a monopoly on the state’s oil production and is using oil revenue to fund reconstruction, “nothing comes back into Kirkuk,” 116th Maj. Darren Blagburn, 36, says.

All that would change if Kurds had their way. [snip]

But any Kurd attempt at taking Kirkuk from Iraq could instigate large-scale violence due to what Blagburn calls the city’s “competing social demographics.”

“In order to keep a unified, peaceful Iraq,” Blagburn adds, “Talabani must keep the Kurds back.” [snip]

Col. Kamal, in a moment of candor after the emotional visit to the Halabja shrine, is more direct. “Arabs were troublemakers from the beginning,” he says. “This is our land, but no one will call it our land. It’s the 21st century, and we don’t even have a country.”

And the U.S. government hopes it stays that way. In the meantime, American diplomats tread a fine line between their tacit recognition of and open respect for Kurdish accomplishments and their demand for a unified Iraq. And they wait as Talabani and his landless people plan their next move.

While they do, the National Guard will be here, dancing, eating kebabs, and sharing tables with overweight Kurdish generals. And watching.

Else where in Iraq, the war continues and Michael Yon is there to record it:

Sometime that night, Sergeant Anthony Davis, one of the men who had been trapped in the Stryker, died from his injuries. He was 22.

The news brought a fog of sadness to the men that rolled with them on their missions back into Mosul that night. And the next day, when Kurilla was back with his men, they rolled out again, this time talking with shop owners and others who might have information about attacks, past or pending.

A mission or two later, riding along with B Company on a raid, we picked up a couple of prisoners at the first target location. One of the prisoners started spilling information, so they took him along to ID another target house when, Blam! A Stryker in front of us hit an IED. It was a large explosion, but only one of the eight tires blew out, so we drove on, hitting another house, getting another prisoner, and coming back home to FOB Marez.

Since that day, six days ago, four more Americans and an interpreter have died from suicide strikes in the AO. Yesterday there were multiple large IED attacks here, two SVBIEDs downtown, and the men of Deuce Four keep soldiering on.

For some, the war is over, but will probably never be forgotten. As are most soldiers, Smink at 365 Days in Iraq feels profoundly changed:

But most days, I go through the motions, trying to joke around and saying all the right things. Most people would look at me and think everything is OK. But those who know me see it. They see the difficulties I have remembering things and how I don’t have the same desires to set the world on fire. In counseling, I find myself embarrassed to share my problems and the dreams. And then when I do, I start sobbing like a little girl and I feel worse. My counselor says I’ll never be my old self; that I am forever changed.[snip]

I certainly do not write this for attention or to get it off my chest. Rather, I write it to inform you. To let you know that if you have a soldier or you know a soldier who just returned, that there are days he or she would probably want to lay in bed and do absolutely nothing. I wish it were different, but it’s not. Soldiers are strong, determined people, but also very human.

Returning to Michael Yon, he is the photographer/journalist that took the picture of the little girl dying in the arms of a soldier after a VBIED struck their unit.

Another post is of pictures of many other children and their parents mugging it up for the camera. At the bottom of the post, he wrote:

The teachers make these kids study. The classrooms are always clean and the students well behaved. I have come into classrooms where the kids are studying English. Hard to get out of those rooms; they all want to say "hello!"

Some day this war will end.

Amen.

Summary only...

I Am Being Read in Korean

Looking at referrers late this evening, I noted that the entire website was being translated to Korean.

Score one Chinese translation and one Korean.

Pretty cool for a chic in Missouri.

Summary only...

Sanctuary

I highly suggest that you read Bill Whittle's Sanctuary.

These religious fanatics, who will form a mob and tear a person limb from limb if he (or especially she) so much as looks askance at a copy of the Quran, routinely and methodically have used mosques – even their most sacred mosques – as ammunition dumps, staging areas and firing positions, viewing our decency and restraint as foolishness and weakness.

These acts have been recorded so many times that it has become banal. It’s just a fact. It’s what they do.

If they had genuine respect for their own religions and holy places they would give them the widest berth available, not turn them into command bunkers, ambush sites and staging areas.

Here is a violation of Sanctuary written as plainly as the eye can see. They use safe havens -- hospitals, hotels and places of worship -- as military fortresses because they are counting on our decency and honor to spare them from retaliation.

Actually, it is deeper than that. I suspect what they are really counting on is that sooner or later, such provocations have to be answered. And then there will be armies of useful idiots with television cameras and microphones and Expensive Hair, who will rally the full weight of recrimination and guilt and defeatism and accomplish for a few bearded lunatics what entire armored divisions could not achieve for them on the battlefield: Victory over the Americans.

Read it all please. Best rant about idiocy I've read in some time.

Summary only...

Saudi Arabia Rejects Torture Claims

JEDDAH, 19 May 2005 — Deputy Interior Minister Prince Ahmed yesterday rejected allegations made by three Britons that they had been tortured at a Riyadh jail and said they should have been thankful for receiving pardon for the crimes they had committed.

“They have never been tortured. They had lawyers and the representatives of their embassies used to visit them and their families. If there were anything of that sort, their countries would have protested and it never happened,” the prince said when asked about the torture allegation.

“The Shariah court had issued a strong verdict against them as they deserved it for their crimes,” he pointed out.

Prince Ahmed said the Kingdom was not officially informed about the move by Bindman and Partners, a London-based law firm, which represents Britons Sandy Mitchell, Les Walker and William Sampson, to seize the Kingdom’s assets in Britain to pay for overdue legal costs.

For the record, I've had several email conversations with William Sampson, one of the victims. It was only by sheer dent of diplomatic power that these men were freed. They were tortured and it came out in their trial. I do mean in the sense of being tortured as most normal people understand it: hung by their wrists or ankles, beaten and a number of ther details found here.

Arab News did get one detail wrong, Sampson has dual citizenship with Britain and Canada.

You may wonder what he was charged with:

The men were held in Saudi jails for more than two years and confessed, allegedly after torture, to plotting a series of bomb attacks in Riyadh in 2000 and 2001. Saudi authorities described the bombings, in which one Briton was killed, as part of a turf war between Western gangs supplying illegal liquor to expatriates.

Saudi Arabia has very strict laws about liquor and drugs. The crime of smuggling or making what amounts to "moonshine" Saudi style can get you beheaded if you're a non-citizen and some very serious prison time and physical punishment if you are a citizen.

And what was he doing there:

Sampson had been working as an employee of a Saudi agency that provides loans to industrial ventures.

Now, does this sound like someone who was engaging in "gang turf wars" to you?

If you are vaguely familiar with the time line of these charges, the dates and places of the attacks, you might find them to be oddly familiar as they are the same places that were attacked by terrorists in the intravening years, killing many westerners and prompting the US to withdraw family members of diplomats and encouraged Americans living in western compounds to leave.

In short, this was an early attempt by the Saudi government to cover up to the citizens of KSA and the world that they had just had the whirl wind they had created return to them.

Of course, in a country that barely admits they have some "issues" with extremists, it is not unusual to find they are not owning up to the torture of these men.

The Canadian government continues to be complicit in this situation, insisting that they never saw signs of torture and was not told by Sampson that he was tortured or beaten, even when expressly and pointedly asked.

It reminds me of the stories of Viet Nam veterans being interviewed by French and other press, or, more notoriously, Hanoi Jane and, despite their condition, telling them that they were fine and treated well because they knew if they didn't they would just get more beatings and worse torture.

Heads in the sand and quite possibly willfully complict in the treatment of their own citizen.

For the story of William Sampson in his own words, go here.

Summary only...

Analyzing Zarqawi Statement: Killing Muslims OK In the Name of Jihad

"God ordered us to attack the infidels by all means ... even if armed infidels and unintended victims — women and children — are killed together," the speaker said. "The priority is for jihad so anything that slows down jihad should be overcome."

The defense of the deadly attacks could be a recruiting tactic aimed at Sunni Arabs who initially didn't sympathize with the insurgency because of the deaths of innocents.

I think it's pretty obvious why he had to put this statement out. It certainly wasn't for western consumption. This is totally aimed at the ME Muslim population that is becoming slightly weary of the continued body counts that are by far largely made up of Iraqis; Muslims to be exact.

Via Iraqi Bloggers Central:

Since April 1, 2005, the insurgents/terrorists/resistance have killed:

689 Iraqi Civilians

370 Iraqi Military / Police

Number of US forces killed or wounded in Iraq including men from the Matador offensive near the Syrian Border and non-combat related incidents:

April: 58 Killed 306 wounded
May: 35 killed wounded not tallied yet

Thus, 93 US forces to 1059 Iraqi/Muslim civilians. Obviously, Zarqawi is aware that even his base supporters haven't been so vocally supportive lately and, without a doubt, it is very likely that there is dissension within the ranks about such operations.

Pictures like these from Michael Yon along with stories of suicide bombers crashing their cars into "military" targets while 20-40 children are standing around probably don't sit very well with even your tightest Islamist friends who still have, some where in the deepest darkest corners of their hearts, a modicum of compassion, if not actually have children themselves.

Hard to recruit young men who have children to come and blow up someone else's children you would think. Except, as I've pointed out the problem in the Magical Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are the "scholars" and other such alleged Islamic intellegensia:

The speaker claimed that top religious scholars have repeatedly sanctioned homicide bombings.

"Top religious scholars" refers to a number people. One of which is outlined in this Jerusalem Post article from July 2004:

A lengthy audiotape purportedly by the spiritual adviser to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaida-linked group justifies killing Muslims when their presence protects infidels and threatens revenge on Shiite Muslims.

The 74-minute tape, posted Wednesday on an Internet site that often carries statements from Islamic terrorists, identifies the speaker as Sheik Abu Anas al-Shami, spiritual leader for Tawhid and Jihad.[ed...Al Qaida in Iraq] His name often is cited in Islamic forums as a religious authority, but he was not known to have released such audiotapes.

"If infidels take Muslims as protectors and Muslims do not fight them, it is allowed to kill the Muslims," the speaker said, then gave an example.

"If there is an interest in killing a Turk, and if it is necessary - meaning that if targeting the infidels is impossible as long as the Turk exists - then killing the Turk serves an interest to all Muslims and his killing is allowed," he said.
Turks, Jordanians, Egyptians and other Muslims have been abducted, but thus far no Muslims are known to have been decapitated.

Note that last sentence. This was written last July. We know now that Muslim prisoners have been beheaded, particularly if they are Shi'ite or considered "collaborators" with the US forces. "Collaboration" has been as little as being seen waving to the forces or selling them a soda.

Another story from military intelligence, indicates Zarqawi is shifting tactics and probably losing some of his faithful as the strategies seem more and more desperate:

"He (al-Zarqawi) allegedly was not happy with how the insurgency was going, the government was getting stronger and coalition forces not being defeated," the official said. "Some intelligence reports from captives showed that al-Zarqawi directed people to start using more vehicle-borne devices and (to) use them in everyday operations."

This has certainly led to an upswing in violence since mid April when this meeting was alleged to take place:

In response to al-Zarqawi's call, there had been 21 car bombings, mostly suicide attacks, in Baghdad during May, compared with 25 such attacks in all of 2004, the official said. Nearly 130 car bombs have exploded or been defused since late February, he said.

Important to note the hidden sentence there "been defused". A recent statistic indicates that almost half of all of these would be bombs are being identified and removed before they do damage.

And an indication that Zarqawi's own "all volunteer force" may not be so voluntary:

In one of the latest bombings, all that was found of the attacker was his foot taped to the car's accelerator, the official said, indicating he'd been forced to carry out the suicide mission.

Recently read, but could not relocate the link, several young men returning from Syria back to Saudi Arabia because they thought they were going to "fight" US forces, but discovered that they were being asked to immediately become suicide bombers in cars and this did not fit in with their romantacized vision of "jihad".

One item that shouldn't be missed is Zarqawi's continuing rant about the Shia:

A chilling, rambling Internet audiotape purportedly by al-Zarqawi and posted Wednesday denounced Iraq's Shiites as U.S. collaborators and called this country's leaders traitors to Islam.

"What Sunnis have suffered and are still suffering from the Shiites is far worse than what they saw from the Americans," said the speaker purported to be al-Zarqawi.

If you missed it back in February of 2004, Zarqawi, in a letter to bin Laden, talks extensively about the Shia's:

These [have been] a sect of treachery and betrayal throughout history and throughout the ages. It is a creed that aims to combat the Sunnis.

Iraqi government officials continue to point to apparent sectarian violence as being committed by Zarqawi's group and their ilk while the different sects in Iraq continue to blame each other:

Harith al-Dhari, head of Iraq's influential Sunni Muslim Association of Muslim Scholars, blamed the recent killings of Sunni clerics on the Badr Brigades, the militia of Iraq's leading Shiite group, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Brigade general secretary Hadi al-Amri denied the charge and said the Sunni association wanted to "push Iraq into a sectarian conflict."

As is indicated by this report without coming right out and saying it, it is very likely that the violence was started by Zarqawi, that Sunni groups participating with Zarqawi targeted Shia and now the Shia are responding. What you haven't heard in recent months is Al-Sistani, grand ayatollah of the Shia, attempting to diffuse the situation and calling on his followers not to respond.

This is quickly becoming a situation of "tit for tat".

One thing I have found unendingly interesting is that people in the area define themselves by their tribe first, their religion second (a close second) and their nationality (Iraq) third, if at all. If you read the tribal series from Zeyad, you can get the distinct understanding that Iraq as a state has continued to be destroyed and remade/re-united, over and over again through out history because of this very issue.

Rather chilling, but quite remarkable as it shows the actions of the Coalition and Iraqi forces have been having an effect on the "insurgency":

Despite marked increases in car and roadside bombings, the official said other forms of violence have declined in recent months. "They (the insurgents) are trying to get ready to build up again," he warned.

In short, they are having difficulty recruiting people as the war waxes and wanes, with each stronghold they are driven from, they lose some face, they lose operations ability, they lose caches and they lose recruits who don't see car bombing other muslims as honorable nor a worthwhile strategy. The attack at Qaim showed that they are equally unable to mount successful frontal attacks on the Coalition and Iraqi forces.

Zarqawi is constantly calling on God to guide them and give them victory. In his February 2004 letter he states:

As you know, God favored the [Islamic] nation with jihad on His behalf in the land of Mesopotamia.

After Fallujah, Mosul and Qaim, the killing of so many Muslims by this group for little effect and the exhortation for them to become suicide car bombers instead of "knights under the Prophets banner" bravely facing down an enemy tank with an AK-47, some of these would be recruits must be wondering if they are doing the right thing or if Allah is really on Zarqawi's side.

On another note, Iraq now says it is illegal to aid and abet terrorists.

And, Zarqawi issues a death threat to Dr. Rice:

The old hag wants the participation of the Sunni impostors," it said, referring to Rice. "You ought to know that our doctrine is killing you. Our path is fighting you."

Of course, she flew in and flew out of Iraq without the great Zarqawi knowing or being able to do anything about it.

Must be very frustrating to be him about now.

Also read The Radicals Are Desperate from March 2005.

Summary only...

Kuwaiti Women Get the VoteYou've Come A Long Way, Baby!

While we're distracted with riots and George "the Saddamist" Galloway at the Senate, a barely heard shout for democracy starts in Kuwait and slowly makes its way to the western word:

Kuwaiti Women Get the Vote

I also wanted to point out the picture that went with the story. The women in the parliamentary gallery are largely dressed in western clothes and without the hijab, naqib or any other encompassing clothing. Some are even wearing matching t-shirts with an obvious slogan on the front.

I point this out because I think it is important for people to get over the concept that all women in the Arabic world are walking around with burqas, veils (naqib?), chador or hijab covering them from head to toe.

But, I digress.

Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah told reporters in Parliament that he planned to name a woman minister. “God willing, it will be soon. Now we have the right to appoint women in the government,” he said. “Thank God... that women got their political rights,” the premier said. “I congratulate the women of Kuwait for having achieved their political rights.”

Me, too.

Congratulations, ladies!

I know it's not perfect, but I know you won't back down after this.

Less than perfect:

But they [ed...anti-women MPs] succeeded in passing an addition to the amendment requiring Kuwaiti women who take part in the elections “to comply with regulations dictated by Islamic Shariah law”, without explaining the nature of those guidelines.

What did the women have to say about this?

Dashti said she was not concerned by the reference to Shariah law, saying it probably just meant separate polling stations and not an Islamic dress code. “They can’t impose veils on voters,” she said.

Exactly. What is more interesting is that women voters will out number the men:

The amendment will increase the number of eligible voters in Kuwait from the current 145,000 males to more than 350,000 people, or 37 percent of Kuwait’s native population of 956,000.

These ladies join a growing number of women in the ME given their right to participate in their government:

Kuwaiti women now join their counterparts from Gulf neighbors Qatar, Oman and Bahrain in having the vote.

Not including Iraq? Of course, women had the right to vote there, you just had to make darn certain it was for the guy that already had the big red "x" on the ballot next to his name.

Either way...

You've come a long way, Baby!

Nadz points to some influential Muslim ladies.

Summary only...

Allahu Akbar, the Ghost Dance and Magic Bullets Part V

From my friend, Tonecluster, he points out an excellent read by Andrew C. McCarthy at NRO, A Smug Delusion of Base Expectations:

The outpouring of righteous indignation against Newsweek glides past a far more important point. Yes, we're all sick of media bias.[snip]

What are we saying here? That the problem lies in the falsity of Newsweek's reporting? What if the report had been true? And, if you're being honest with yourself, you cannot say — based on common sense and even ignoring what we know happened at Abu Ghraib — that you didn't think it was conceivably possible the report could have been true.

I'll pause for a moment and say, based on my earlier analysis of the info, I don't think it's true that a US military person flushed a Koran down the toilet to get a rise out of a prisoner. But, he adds an important perspective:

Flushing the Koran down a toilet (assuming for argument's sake that our environmentally correct, 3.6-liters-per-flush toilets are capable of such a feat) is a bad thing. But rioting? Seventeen people killed? That's a rational response?

Aye, there's the rub. Yes, I'm irritated about our media continuing to act like a propaganda machine for the enemy, inadvertantly or otherwise, but his point is the most valid. If I had to list, in order, the people I would blame for this whole fiasco, it would definitely be:

1) Exremist Islamists. This was an over the top response, so yeah, I think that it was waiting to happen and it didn't matter what it was. I mean, they threaten people for not giving Mohammed "due deference", want to kill people who want to leave their religion and stone women for alleged "adultery". They certainly haven't given up on recruiting young men for suicide missions in order to go to paradise and have 72 virgins.

2) The nitwit (for lack of a better word that isn't spelled with four letters) who think they should wage their ideological political wars from within the American government in the middle of a war by "leaking" information that they can't recall all the details of and cannot be substantiated but by wishful thinking. Who are these punks anyway?

3) Newsweek still. I agree with Mr. McCarthy that the rioters are responsible for their own behavior and causing the deaths of fellow citizens. I am a "personal responsibility" person, after all. But that means that I believe each person should take responsibility for their part in the situation. Newsweek failed to meet it's own purported journalistic standards and did not apply critical thinking and analysis to the story, creating propaganda for the enemy. For that, they must take responsibility.

None of these folks get off in my book.

Speaking of people that have been getting off the hook for things that are their responsibility, I think it is time once again to look at our alleged allies in the ME, Saudi Arabia. I must say that I am pretty tired of hearing their platitudes and double speak, trying to present a modern and moderate face to the world while their educational system and state religion continue to exhort young men to go to Iraq or attack westerners via "jihad".

I know I've been one of those folks that says, "we can't just go to war with KSA because they are the lynchpin of oil producers in the ME and would create great problems with WORLD access to resources and possibly instigate the next world war". I still believe it, but I think I'm getting heartily sick the baloney that passes for their internal "vigilance" against this kind of behavior when they CONDONE it in their very institutions.

According to this article in the Washington Post, "Martyrs" in Iraq Mostly Saudi:

[snip]On April 11, he died as a suicide bomber, part of a coordinated insurgent attack on a U.S. Marine base in the western Iraq city of Qaim. Just two days later, "the Martyrdom" of Hadi bin Mubarak Qahtani was announced on the Internet, the latest requiem for a young Saudi man who had clamored to follow "those 19 heroes" of Sept. 11 and had found in Iraq an accessible way to die.

Hundreds of similar accounts of suicide bombers are featured on the rapidly proliferating array of Web sites run by radical Islamists, online celebrations of death that offer a wealth of information about an otherwise shadowy foe at a time when U.S. military officials say that foreign fighters constitute a growing and particularly deadly percentage of the Iraqi insurgency.[snip]

Who are the suicide bombers of Iraq? By the radicals' account, they are an internationalist brigade of Arabs, with the largest share in the online lists from Saudi Arabia and a significant minority from other countries on Iraq's borders, such as Syria and Kuwait. [snip]

Some counterterrorism officials are skeptical about relying on information from publicly available Web sites, which they say may be used for disinformation. But other observers of the jihadist Web sites view the lists of the dead "for internal purposes" more than for propaganda, as British researcher Paul Eedle put it. "These are efforts on the part of jihadis to collate deaths.[snip]

Or, as Col. Thomas X. Hammes, an expert on insurgency with the National Defense University, said, "they are targeted marketing. They are not aimed at the West."[snip]

Frankly, there are some websites that are ludicrous and nearly satirical in their outrageous claims (I mean, purely Baghdad Bob bull) and some that take a more serioius note and are actively, emphatically the jihadists communications to the outside world and would be recruits. Considering they glorify death and destruction, why would they hide what they believe is their crowning glory?

A lot of folks are keeping track of this phenomenon:

In a paper published in March, Reuven Paz, an Israeli expert on terrorism, analyzed the lists of jihadi dead. He found 154 Arabs killed over the previous six months in Iraq, 61 percent of them from Saudi Arabia, with Syrians, Iraqis and Kuwaitis together accounting for another 25 percent. He also found that 70 percent of the suicide bombers named by the Web sites were Saudi. In three cases, Paz found two brothers who carried out suicide attacks. Many of the bombers were married, well educated and in their late twenties, according to postings.

Well educated were the key words for me. As I point out here and several other posts, education in these countries often include large doses of religious classes. Even friendly bloggers like Nadz talks about having to take religious "school" on weekends. This points to an inherent problem in the Saudi system, one they have not fixed by any means.

The apparent predominance of Saudi fighters on the Internet lists has caused an alarmed reaction by Saudi officials, who fear a backlash from the Americans at the same time they are trying to convince the United States that they are working as allies against terrorism.[snip]

The Internet sites try to recruit people -- it's the best recruitment tool," said Saudi security analyst Nawaf Obaid. Obaid, who has worked closely with the government, said he found 47 cases of Saudis who were dead or injured reported in the kingdom's newspapers, far lower than Internet totals, and had concluded the overall number of Saudi jihadis in Iraq was in the hundreds. "But young guys, they read [on the Internet] we have thousands of Saudis there and think, 'I have to go, too.' "

Well, while I've gone on about the "free" press of the US continuing to badger and inflate stories on the US government, I really think that the Saudi press has the opposite concept, considering they could go to jail for impugning Saudi honor, so, I tend to take this little report with a grain or two or three of salt.

The report also quotes someone that I've read recently:

Evan F. Kohlmann, a researcher who monitors Islamic extremist Web sites, has compiled a list of more than 235 names of Iraqi dead gleaned from the Internet since last summer, with more than 50 percent on his tally from Saudi Arabia as well. In some cases, he found photos or videos of dead foreign fighters posted online.

You can see his report and findings from earlier this year in PDF format here. Very interesting reading.

Kohlman discusses confirmation of his numbers via real sources, not just the websites:

Some of the Web postings also include phone numbers so fellow Islamists can call a dead fighter's family and congratulate them. Kohlmann called several of the numbers. "I have lists and lists of foreign fighters, and it's no joke. Their sons went and blew themselves up in Iraq," he said.

A last interesting note about "Qahtani" who blew himself up at the Marine base in Qaim:

It gives no more identifying details than his name -- indicating he was part of a well-known Saudi tribe that also produced the al Qaeda member known as the so-called 20th hijacker, Mohamed Qahtani, who was turned away from entering the country by suspicious U.S. airport officials in August 2001.

This would be the notorious Al-Ghamdi tribe from whence many of the 19 hijackers came and who have been at odds with the Saudi government since probably the advent of Saudi Arabia itself. They never did take too kindly to being subjegated by Al-Saud and have been on the fore-front of smuggling people and weapons between Yemen and Saudi Arabia. Further, it is a poor area of the country with little industry that also sees very little in the way of money or other infrastructural support from oil revenue and other funds of the KSA.

This may be where many of the Saudi "terrorists" come from. However, it is important to note that these folks get a free education from KSA and that includes University at places like King Fahd University, where career paths are limited to technical or religious and every student has to take a certain amount of "Islamic" classes to get their degree. This is true for all students and seems to be able to instill religious fervor in the minds of young men.

Interestingly, an article from Ain-Al-Yaqeen has this ironic information talking about terrorists in Saudi:

Addressing the audience, representatives of the groups denounced the acts perpetrated by the deviating group in the country. On his part, Crown Prince Abdullah thanked them for their noble feelings and support and stressed that this deviant group has harmed Islam and the Muslim faith. [snip]

On behalf of the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Fahd Ibn Abdul Aziz, Prince Abdel Majeed Ibn Abdul Aziz, the Governor of Makkah region, patronized the final ceremony of King Abdul Aziz International Contest for the Holy Quran Memorization, Recitation and Interpretation, organized by the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Call and Guidance

Of course, it's not long before we find out why he is so concerned about "deviants":

the Minister of Islamic Affairs, Endowments, Call and Guidance, reiterated the adherence of the Kingdom to the Holy Quran and to its teachings, and said the Holy Quran is the constitution of the Kingdom.

'Those who attack the Kingdom and launch vicious campaigns against it, engage in such kind of slurs because the Kingdom adheres to the Holy Quran," he said. "However, the Kingdom is determined to go ahead on the path of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah (the Prophet's teachings)," he noted.

It is so ironic because it reminds me of the original Al-Saud having to go stomp out the muwahhidin (or ikhwan) after using them in the 1920's to establish the kingdom because, after everything, they decided that he, Al Saud, was not Islamic enough. Ironic.

Al Al-Sheikh made it clear that the people of the Holy Quran are moderates who keep away from all forms of extremism which have paved the way for terrorism.

"The terrorists are actually violating teachings of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah," he added.

Really? How about the Saudi government looking into what their state funded universities and mosques are preaching? How about disbanding the "vice and morality" squad?

I really do appreciate these comments by these nice Arabic gentleman and understand that, even under a comfortable despotic rule, you can't control all the people all the time, but something tells me the government has the power to insure they themselves are not contributing to the disease.

Summary only...

Al Jazeera = Saddam

Several sites are reporting that 55% of Al Jazeera stock was purchased by...

*drum roll please*

"Sajeeda", Saddam's wife and their daughters.

Check out Ladybird at Baghdad Dweller. The two sites she points to are in Arabic so I cannot confirm the information. Of course, even though I respect Ladybird and other fellow Iraqi bloggers, it's not being reported by any major news sites, so take it with a grain of salt.

Also read Iraqi Expat.

Neither Iraqi is acting amazed. Both are of the opinion that AJ was "Saddam's mouthpiece anyway".

Big Update:

From comments, Twosret points out that it's not purchased yet, just that Sajid Hussein is making inquiries through an off shore company.

Keep your eyes peeled.

Summary only...

Newsweek: Flushing Credibility Down the ToiletPrison Life and the War Effort

Well, it's all over the news and the internet. Another news source has proven to be unreliable and quite possibly complicit in creating propaganda for the enemies of the United States. As the story goes, a Quran (Koran) was allegedly torn up and flushed down the toilet by prison guards or interrogators to "humiliate" or otherwise "unsettle" the detainee they were questioning. Newsweek retracts the story saying they now believe that they cannot confirm the story after many riots, death and threats against America.

I'm late to the party, but thought I'd get in a few other licks that I don't see anyone talking about.

General Richard Myers, of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters last week that there were no reports of this technique being used or any desecration except for a log book which indicated that a prisoner had flushed pages of the Koran down the toilet in his cell to stage a protest.

Now, there are many out there that are still skeptical, particularly the loon birds over at Kos and the DU. Of course, we are not expecting people in countries where the press is not free to believe that Newsweek did this of their own accord because they are wrong. But, for those of us with half a brain and a free press, it is important that we use common sense and be able to confront the skeptics in our own country and other "free" states.

Therefore, I intend to elaborate on the information provided by General Richard Myers regarding the "prisoner protest". Not because I have anonymous sources at the prison feeding me information, but because, as I have alluded to many times, my family is in law enforcement and this story is not unusual by any means, in any prison or jail around the United States or any country that provides sinks, toilets and other amenities to their prisoners.

As a matter of fact, if anyone had used a modicum of common sense or read or watched any other investigative reporting on prison systems (and there have been so many), they would have recognized the realty immediately and questioned it, as I did. I did not even need Gen. Myers' comments on the subject.

Prisoners routinely stop up the toilets in their cells. Not just "in protest" though that is fairly common as well. They are locked up and have little other means of getting back at the guards or the system, particularly in the Guantanamo setting or in other maximum security facilities where a prisoner maybe locked up for long hours in their cell.

These "protests" are staged when a prisoner is angry over loss of privileges, like canteen or commisary, taking away their exercise or "yard" privileges or even being confined to their cell for long periods because of some other inappropriate behavior.

Stopping up of toilets is also used to force the guards to extract or remove the prisoner from his cell for various other reasons which include:

A prisoner may have been threatened by other prisoners with bodily harm for something that occured between them which might include not paying back "debts", informing on other prisoners, seeming to be too close to the prison guards (ie, risk of informing), etc. This may even inlcude the threat of rape or other sexual misconduct. Prisoners will stop up the toilet with bedding or anything available to them and make it over run so that the guards will be forced to remove them from that cell block. Usually, this behavior also results in the prisoner being placed "in the hole" or "solitary confinement" as punishment. For a prisoner that has no other way to escape the situation, being placed in solitary confinement is a form of protective custody.

A prisoner may wish to confront the guards physically and overflowing the toilet and then refusing to come out peacefully, even barricading themselves in with mattresses and anything else they can get their hands on, so that the guards are forced to come into the cell and extract them. As I wrote back in February on the same subject when an AP writer, Paisley Dodd, tried to use a "leaked" report regarding DoD videos of extractions as an indication of something horrible going on at Guantanamo. I pointed out the commonality of the situations to normal prison life then and the problem of extractions:

Now, the other thing that prisoners do, besides generally refusing to leave their cells, they will barricade themselves inside using their mattresses, blankets (prayer rugs) anything that is handy to create an obstacle or shield. They may also take the most innocuous things and create a "shiv". My cousin, who worked at the county jail before becoming a patrolman, indicates that prisoners will take toothbrushes and heat them, using matches or other heating source, until they are maleable and can be made into a point. [snip]

Prisoners can and will barricade themselves in their rooms to lure the officers in and then use such devices to stab them.

Which is sometimes the purpose of overflowing the toilet and flooding the cell.

If there are electrical outlets, lights or other means of electricity entering the cell, prisoners have improvised metal objects or stripped wires from electrical devices (like lights, radios, TVs, etc), get up on an object that is not touching the water (like a bunk or the sink) and wait for the guards to come to the door where the water is leaking out of before dropping the other end of the device into the water and electrocuting the guard(s).

Make no mistake, men in this prison are not some shephard who was caught in the middle of something. They are trained fighters who have spent many months, if not years, improvising methods to kill their enemy. To assume that they are any less likely than any prisoner in a civilian setting to make these attempts would be foolish to say the least.

Prisoners will flood their cell by overflowing the toilet in order to be removed to protective custody because they do want to inform on other prisoners, pass information, etc. By flooding the toilet, they can force their removal to "the hole" or "solitary confinement" where, in privacy, they can divulge information to the guards without appearing to have cooperated. Thus saving them in the population from retaliation and even keeping them as a viable informant for the officers.

In a discussion with Don Imus this morning Jonathan Alter of Newsweek said:

I understand why people are very upset about this, we're upset about it as well, but I think the larger question that people have to ask is, do they want news organizations out there trying to dig or do they want to take all their information from the government?

I find that utterly ironic, considering that is exactly what Newsweek did. They got some information from an anonymous government official/employee and ran with it. Then he has the guts to say:

And, we are still you know, pretty determined, very determined, to be out there digging."

Some advice for Newsweek: If I were you, I'd start digging in my back issues of Newsweek for stories you've done on prison systems and prison life so that you could put your information in context. Something that so many journalists are incapable of doing these days.

As I wrote about the previous journalist propagating this kind of baloney:

[snip] you have become the willing transcriber of a propaganda hit piece that is attempting to "inflame" the "Arab street" once again and recruit wannabe jihadists from all over the world in order to kill American Soldiers and Iraqi [ed...Afghani] citizens in the name of avenging some non-existent abuse and humiliation on their Muslim "brothers".

As Austin Bay points out on Sunday, May 15, 2005:

The sin of greed always seems to creep into every scandal and it’s certainly lurking in this tragic incident. Newsweek wants market share, and a scoop grabs readers. But profit generated by a frantic “me first” quest isn’t the only motive. The “Vietnam-Watergate” motive’s also in play. That’s a tired and dirty game but for three decades it’s been a successful ploy for the New York-Washington-LA media axis. It’s rules are simple. Presume the government is lying– always make that presumption, particularly when the president is a Republican. Presume the worst about the US military– always make that presumption, even when the president is a Democrat. Add multi-cultural icing– the complaints and allegations of “Third World victims” are given revered status, the statements of US and US-allied nations met with cynical doubt and arrogant contempt. (Yes, the myth of the Noble Savage re-cast.)[snip]

To a degree Newsweek is operating on a “paper template” where the editors and reporters believe the story they “print” shows up in mailboxes or on a magazine rack. In this “template” a phony press allegation remains “local” or US-bound. But there is no “over there” in our world, not anymore. We live in a world where everyone is – in terms of information– next door. Technological compression is the term I coined to describe the situation. Some slip-ups merely damage reputations– Dan Rather and Eason Jordan come to mind. World War Two vets know “loose lips sink ships.” Today, loose (computer) disks can sink ships, but loosey-goosey allegations can lead to riot and death. [snip]

What may evolve from this is an awareness on Mr. Isikoff’s part that he, too, is part of a huge global war. That’s a complicated assertion on my part. Of course he’s aware of the war, but this particular story operates as if Newsweek were a “neutral observer” and Al Qaeda and the US are moral equivalents.

I don't need to add anything after that except that I think I am becoming weary and leary of our news organizations looking for something to discredit us in the middle of a war with our men and women fighting everyday to change the world, to conquer the enemy and stay alive.

There is a time and place for everything. Right now we should be concentrating on winning the war. Unless I see a report that actually shows someone being electrocuted, beaten, cut, drowned, hung by their hands, thumbs, toes, ankles, thrown to the dogs, experimented on with drugs, dissected alive, gassed in chambers or lined up and shot in a ditch, I would prefer not to hear or read another word about alleged "abuses", particularly of someone's "religious or cultural" beliefs as if we were running a summer camp or day spa and "multi-culturalism" and "sensitivity" should be our first concerns. The fact that the Pentagon now has to spend hundreds of hours of man hours to investigate these "allegations" of "desecration of the Koran" in the middle of the war, is simply ridiculous.

Apparently, these folks don't get it.

I'll help them out:

We're at war.

We're at war with an enemy who uses Islam and mosques as their motive and modis operendi for attracting recruits. They tell their would be recruits that America wants to destroy Islam and their way of life.

Every time that you write something which supports their idea, however ludicrous and barely applicable, they use it as propaganda to recruit more people, thus, kill more people.

Specificaly, our people.

Journalists like this have blood on their hands and they shouldn't forget it.

But, I don't reserve my ire for them alone.

Who are these "anonymous" sources in our government that leak this information? What is their motive? I think we know, but it is almost beyond comprehension that these people would use the blood of our men and women, the blood of innocents in other countries, to get ahead or to try and win their political battles.

For these "leakers" of confidential information I reserve my utter contempt and deepest anger. They all want to be "deep throat" and none of them even comes close. At the least, they are nobody beaurocrats trying to make a quick buck and gain favors. Or, we've been infiltrated by jihadist sympathizers and somebody should take this very seriously.

Either way, the war effort continues to be compromised.

Summary only...

Sunday: Lite Blogging, Deep Thoughts

Just a quick note that I will be gone until late Sunday night visiting my folks so tomorrow will not see a post until late Sunday night or Monday morning.

I have been looking at multiple situations for blogging.

So many topics, so little time.

So I thought I'd leave some lines to the review of Traditional Values in America or a review of the Real ID Act recently passed or a review of the Judicial Nominees.

Interestingly, except on NRO and the brief biographies on the DOJ website, I couldn't find one newspaper or major media outlet that had anything good to say about them. Not one. Most of the articles had language like "Democrats say" without any other facts or refutions of charges. Words like "extremist", "right-wing", "religious" and a few other "scary" words as I noted in my post of "what's in a word" are flung around like so much monkey feces at the zoo.

Of course, Reid's recent attempt at defamation of Henry Saad, a Chaldean Arab that would be the first on an Appellate court, by intimating there is something "scary" in his "FBI file" without information to back it up, is right up there with the rest of the "charges" brought against the seven nominees pending: scare tactics.

What I don't see, anywhere, is more information about the "acceptable" rulings of these judges nor deep analysis of their activities accept by "committees" that are obviously dead set against these nominees. No effective "selling" of the candidates have been made by the Republicans or the president. At least, none that I could readily find on the internet.

From what I could read on Henry Saad, the real complaints are:

1) He has effectively ruled in favor of businesses, at least in half of his cases, in worker's cases regarding worker's compensation, unemployment, harrassment and unfair dismissal. Some of his rulings have been overturned. However, I could not find any statistics about how many times he was overturned compared to number of cases that he has heard. The Alliance for Justice under the Independent Judiciary Organization sites six examples of cases that they find "detrimental". Of course, this is not a non-partisan group by any means so you have to read it with a grain of salt. I lost the link, but the a list of cases for October 2004 heard by the panel that Saad sits on were approximately 70. I can only imagine how many cases this judge has heard.

2) Saad belongs to the Federalists Society along with several of the other nominees. The Federalist Society is based on:

In its Statement of Principles, the Society states that it is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of powers is central to the United States' constitutional form of government, and that the role of the judicial branch is to say what the law is, not what the law should be.

3) Probably the most important issue is a seriously unconstitutional block of a nominee for clearly partisan reasons. "Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan have said they would not approve new nominations to this appeals court because President Clinton's nominees to the court were never given a confirmation hearing by the Republican-controlled Senate. Levin and Stabenow want Bush to renominate Clinton's nominees to the court." (source)

Anyone that knows anything about how these judges are appointed and the fact that it is the President's sole discretion as to who is nominated knows that this demand for Bush to renominate nominees from the Clinton administration and hold the process hostage in order to attempt to force the President to do so is on the borderline of trying to take away the President's legal and constitutional right to do so. This is why the Republican party is standing firm on this issue and refusing to negotiate. To do so would set a whole new precedent on selecting judicial nominees and effectively cut off this president's and the next president's ability to select judicial nominees as they see fit.

This is obviously why the Republicans see fit to force the issue. While we're destracted with baloney about changing Senate rules being "unconstitutional" (when the constitution clearly states that the senate can make and change procedural rules as it sees fit - Article I), the real question of whether the President keeps his constitutionally affirmed right to independently select judicial nominees (Article III) is in the balance. For far reaching precedents, I'd say that this one is much more important and factual rather than the questionable "unconstitutioinal" changing of the cloture rules (previously noted here as having already been changed seven times since the establishment of the Senate).

I wonder that no Democrats and renegade Republicans have thought about what happens if the Republicans give in to this blackmail and the next Democrat president is elected over a Republican majority congress? Doesn't look good for a future of affirmations.

As for the rest of the nominees, the objections seem to be item #3 above for two of the nominees without any noted issues with their rulings from the senate committee although the Independent Judiciary and a few other groups had something to say about them:

_Richard Griffin for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Opposed by Levin and Stabenow because Clinton's nominees to that court were never given a confirmation hearing by Republicans.

_David McKeague for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Opposed by Levin and Stabenow because Clinton's nominees to that court were never given a confirmation hearing by Republicans

The two women, Owens and Brown, appear to both believe that minors should have to obtain parental consent in order to obtain abortions. Myers apparently has not ruled favorably enough for environmentalists.

More indepth review of the nominees will be forthcoming this week.

The Real ID Act

Honestly, if you read the act, its full intent is to:

1) Stop states from issuing driver's licenses to illegals. Obviously, the federal government cannot tell the states who they can issue licenses to so they have set rules under the idea of fighting terrorism, that requires the state to be able to verify the status of immigrants against the federal database.

2)Coordinating efforts of tracking down people whose visa's etc have expired. These licenses and IDs for people visiting on visa's or worker permits, etc must be temporary, obviously hoping to prompt people to return and give updated information their current address.

3)Information must be transferrable and trackable via magnetic strip on the back of the license and must contain a picture ID. What will happen is that, because this is a federal mandated ruling on information and with the HIPPA regulations on ability to coordinate and secure information, anyone that does businesss with the federal government or has other rules that force them to obtain and validate information (ie, banks, credit card companies, mortgage companies, etc) will begin requiring the same information and will force everyone to have a legal and acceptable form of identification to do business. Thus either flushing out would be terrorists or marginalizing them even more within legal boundaries to keep them from being able to transfer money or other assets to foreign entities or questionable goups without passing through a screening/identification process.

Now, for most of us libertarian/conservatives, the very thought of having our identification go through some federal, centralized beauracracy gives us the shivers. Further, that our information and privacy, which is guaranteed under the fourth amendentment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

The question is if this makes us less secure in our "persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures". It does give the federal government a lot of power to know who we are, where we are, what we own or do.

What I must say, though, is that, since the advent of the social security number and the requirement of companies to report them for "social security" and income tax, we've been on this downward spiral. With every advent of new technology that makes it easier and quicker for beaucratic offices to perform their jobs, our information has become more available and more centralized. This is, of course, the thing that Orwell warned against in his novel "Big Brother" which was written in 1950.

But, with every purchase of property, every credit card, every bank transaction, every car loan, every registration and licensing, etc, we have moved towards this concept. The only way we will leave it or avoid it will be the next dark age, when all technology is made uselss or destroyed by the use of other technology and man, if he survives, will have to start over again.

Leaving off any thoughts of future doom, one must realize that this will not stop so long as we demand things from our government and that demand and growth of population and need to function requires that government offices be able to access and process information within the blink of an eye.

And, for those that wonder how this could go through both houses, through many legal reviews and not be overturned by the Supreme court as not constitutional, you should read the words of the act. In short, it has, at this time, a very narrow focus which is, for all intents and purposes, aimed at reviewing and controlling "non-citizens" of the United States entering and leaving or residing without government knowledge as best as it can see fit to do so.

This will be deemed as constitutional because, when you read the constitution, the words "citizen of the United States" continues to be the reference point, from which all laws abide. It is this argument that many see as pivotal and questionable point in many ACLU and other illegal immgration advocates principles. Non-citizens of the US do not have the same protection under the constitution based on this language.

The point of the ACLU, which may or may not be correct, is that, once you advocate something against non-citizens, it can be turned against citizens very easily. In reality, I can see some merit in this argument with this new act.

Obviously, those that will not attempt to get a driver's license and continue to live on the fringe of society, dealing in cash only, will not be trackable in this system. There are citizens of the US that also practice this in order to maintain their idea of the original "freedom" as they interpreted it.

So, while this act has some merit, it has dangers as well and, from my perspective and based on the completion date of 2008, seems to be "closing the barn door after the horse got out". Couple this with inability (refusal?) to control the borders and we have at least another decade of living in fear of terrorist attacks internally.

I don't consider myself paranoid by any means, but I do believe that we must be extremely careful and watchful as we go forward into the new century and with the new technology, to insure that these new laws, that have been enacted or will be enacted, do not become the states aparatus to control it's citizenry beyond what we are allowing it to do today. With each new advent, we come closer to the day when "Big Brother" knows all and it will be our responsibility to insure that "Big Brother" does not use this ability against us. One must also remember that, with globalization of communications, it may not be just our own government that we must fear using this information, but any government or entity that may seek to control us and can take over this information to use for their own.

In any event, as I watch each click of the the minute hand on the clock, I see that we come closer and closer to that day. Maybe not in my lifetime, or maybe when I am old and gray, yet I am concerned about the place and the freedom that we might leave to our children. It is the reason why I oppose certain legislation and any attempts to stultify the second amendment.

It is not freedom of speech alone, nor voting rights that will protect us in the future.

Freedom requires eternal vigilance.

Never forget.

Summary only...

Real Gun Safety: Respect the Power and Fear the Consequences

If you've read here before, you might know that my father was a police officer for twenty one years. When we were growing up, my father always had at least one gun around the house if not two or more. Usually consisting of his department approved side arm, his concealed extra weapon and a rifle, shotgun or other weapon of choice (at one time, my dad owned a Tec-9).

Every night, when he came home from his shift, he would take off his gun belt and hang it on the back of the wooden chair by the door or sometimes he would hang it on the back of one of the dining room chairs. He didn't always immediately take the gun out of the holster. When he was carrying his concealed extra weapon, he would unstrap it from the ankle holster and place it on the table with his whistle, keys, badge, pens and other assorted things he would take out of his pockets. Next would come his wrist watch and his wallet.

These things would remain there untouched until it was dinner time or until the next day when he got ready for his shift. Except the pistols. At night, when he was going to bed, he would take the pistols into the bedroom with him and put them in the drawer beside the bed. He did not keep his pistols or other weapons in a locked gun cabinet. Except the Tec-9. That had its own special container that was always locked unless dad took it with him in his patrol car.

What I remember is that I can't remember a time when he did not do this nor can I remember a time when my brothers or I ever thought of these objects as something to play with.

Never.

Some folks who chant about gun control or fear purchasing a gun, site the instances of children shooting themselves or others while "playing" with a gun. This is a legitimate fear as it does happen.

The problem that I see is that children were not taught to respect the power of the weapon nor fear the consequences of what could happen if they did "play" with it. From many of the media reports of these incidents, it seems that most of the households that this occured in were homes where the pistol was kept for "home protection", but the owners did not use it on a regular basis and did not spend any time with the children showing them the gun, what it could do and did not re-enforce the consequences of using that power or what would happen if the child touched the weapon. Most of these weapons seemed to have been put away: out of site, out of mind. In many cases, it seemed the owner feared the weapon themselves and did not actually feel comfortable with it, but thought it was something they should "have".

The problem with the theory of "protecting" children from the knowledge of a weapon in the house or hiding it away is that it makes the gun a "mystery". If anyone has ever raised, worked with/around or been close with children of any age, they should know that making things a "mystery" is a sure fire way of making it something that children want to know about. And, they will find out with you or without you.

For many, this is a reason not to have a weapon in the home. It is a free country so this is a personal decision for each person.

For some in the gun control lobby and others who advocate responsibile gun ownership, the idea of trigger locks became the panacea for this problem. Honestly, it only upgrades the mystery to children. It may or may not have saved a child's life. One thing is for sure, if you lock the gun, but the children know where the key is, the lock is negated.

In either case, whether using a trigger lock or gun cabinet or none, the best way to insure that a child does not "play" with the weapon is to teach them to respect the power and fear the consequences.

By the time I was eight, my father had taught us how to pick up the gun by the handle and not touch the trigger. He would set out all of his cleaning things at the table and tell me to get his pistol from the holster. To some, the very thought of this probably strikes fear into the heart, but it had two purposes. One, my dad would re-enforce safety: don't put your finger(s) on the trigger; keep the gun pointed down; don't run; hand him the pistol by the butt. He would remind us every time we went to get the pistol as instructed. By this we learned by wrote proper gun safety. Second, it re-enforced trust. He trusted me to do as he instructed and I did not want to disappoint him. I knew that I was doing something important and did not want to jeapordize that trust.

Of course, when I was five, we weren't allowed to touch the pistol at all. At that point, I vaguely recall being told many times that it was not a toy, I wasn't to touch it and if I did I would get my hand slapped or a spanking. Even then we learned there were consequences.

My dad also took us to the range when we were older and we learned what the pistol could do. He told us that it could hurt or even kill one of us and other people. By this we learned to respect the power. He told us this was his "tool" for work and that we could not touch his "work" things, including the gun, without his permission. He did give us permission to touch the weapons, but only in his presence and under strict control.

In short order, the guns that were around the house began to lose their mystery. We knew what they were, what they could and where they were, but we did not feel compelled to search it out and check for ourselves. We already knew.

When I was ten, my dad taught me how to unload the gun, take it apart and clean it. I remember setting at our dining room table and watching him clean the barrel with the chamber sticking out of the side. This gun was a .357 Magnum Snub Nose that my dad kept as his "concealed" weapon. He would let me help him polish the pistol. I remember being told to be careful and hold the pistol by the butt/grip and not get my finger prints on the newly polished surface.

By this time, the guns had lost all mystery for me. I knew what they were, what they could do and how they worked.

When I was twelve, my dad took us out in the back of my grandparents' farm and let us shoot a ten gage shot gun. Not the most powerful shotgun on the planet, but it still had a kick, made a big noise and showed me the power of the weapon.

Personally, from my experience, if you fear the weapon so much that you cannot even bring yourself to to show and educate your children, then you will never really have effective gun safety in your home and you probably should not keep one.

Gun locks and other devices are simply buying time. Further, if you have these weapons for "home defense", by the time you get the weapon out of the gun safe or unlock the locking trigger device, your ability to confront an attacker or intruder is down to about nil.

For real Gun Safety, one should teach their children to respect the power and fear the consequences.

Summary only...

Letter From Senator McCainCampaign Reform and Blogs

I received a letter in the mail yesterday from Senator McCain (R) Arizona after writing him almost two months ago about questions on the effect of the BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act 2003) on bloggers.

Some of you might remember the hoopla that was raised when it was implied that internet sites that support a particular candidate or link directly to campaign sites or direct traffic there in anyway might come under scrutiny as developing "soft money" donations under the guise of "coordinated efforts" outside of the normal and supposedly "transparent" accounting practices of candidates and parties. Most of the blog world was up in arms considering that many of us post about political topics and supported a candidate in the last elections and in local elections.

There was a real question about whether somebody like me would be considered "coordinating efforts" if I mentioned a campaign or party site or discussed raising money or even gave "free" support to the candidate. The question of "free speech" and "open political debate" was on the rampage through the blog world.

My letter from Senator McCain's office is basically a form letter and did not address my question directly. However, it did include some interesting information, so I thought I'd put it out here for discussion.

Since it is a paper letter and not electronic, I will reproduce it here without changes except to only impart the areas I think were interesting and pertinent:

President Bush signed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) into law on March 27, 2002. On December 10, 2003, the Supreme Court, in McConnell v. FEC, upheld the constitutionality of key provisions of BCRA.

From the Supreme Court:

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), which amended
the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), the Communications Act of 1934, and other portions of the United States Code, is the most recent of nearly a century of federal enactments designed to purge national politics of what [is] conceived to be the pernicious influence of big money campaign contributions. United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567, 572. In enacting BCRA, Congress
sought to address three important developments in the years since this Court’s landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1 (per curiam): the increased importance of soft money, the proliferation of “issue ads” and the disturbing findings of a Senate investigation into campaign practices related to the 1996 federal elections.

On page one of this document is a long list of challenges from every side of the discussion and political structure, including the NRA, DNC, RNC, ACLU, etc. I must say that there is a common sense cliche that says, "if you pissed everyone off, you're probably doing the right thing". This seems to have done the job and then some.

Continuing on with the Supreme Court findings:

With regard to the first development, prior to BCRA, FECA’s dis-
closure requirements and source and amount limitations extended only to so-called “hard money” contributions made for the purpose of influencing an election for federal office. Political parties and candidates were able to circumvent FECA’s limitations by contributing “soft money”—money as yet unregulated under FECA—to be used for activities intended to influence state or local elections; for mixed-purpose activities such as get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drives and generic
party advertising; and for legislative advocacy advertisements, even if they mentioned a federal candidate’s name, so long as the ads did not expressly advocate the candidate’s election or defeat. With regard to the second development, parties and candidates circumvented FECA by using “issue ads” that were specifically intended to affect election results, but did not contain “magic words,” such as “Vote Against Jane Doe,” which would have subjected the ads to FECA’s restrictions. Those developments were detailed in a 1998 Senate Committee Report summarizing an investigation into the 1996 federal elections, which concluded that the soft-money loophole had led to a meltdown of the campaign finance system; and discussed potential reforms, including a soft-money ban and restrictions on sham issue advocacy by nonparty groups.

In other words, if there is a law, someone will figure out how to get around it. I think that we are all aware of what kinds of ads and groups this discussion is talking about. Mainly folks like "Moveon.org" and some "conservative" advocacy groups who claim to be separate entities, but probably share board members and other active members with the political parties. We're talking about unregulated donations like the milllions poured into these "advocacy" groups by George Soros types who don't have to claim they were giving it to support a candidate and the FEC could not touch it because it was not directly given to a candidates campaign or party.

McCain makes this clear in his letter:

BCRA's overriding goal was to reduce the corrupting influence of unlimited soft money contributions to political parties, usually solicited by federal condidates and office holders.

[snip]

While BCRA has proven successful, the recent growth of political committees commonly known as "527" groups, referring to their tax-exempt status under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, have emerged as a new vehicle for raising and spending illegal soft money.

Here is where the "wicket" gets sticky. The letter is already painting all of these groups with a very wide brush and indicating that the donations they receive are "illegal". The letter makes this clear again in this sentence:

527 groups supporting both presidential candidates illegally raised and spent tens of millions of dollars in soft money on ads and partisan voter mobilization efforts to influence the presidential election.
[snip]

Four individuals alone gave a combined total of $78 million to these groups!

So, the question remains, how is it illegal and under what law? McCain explains here:

The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) has shamefully failed to do it's job to require these obviously political groups to register as political committees, which would obligate them to comply with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974.

Here is a simplified explanation of the FECA with contribution tables. Based on this explanation, a group like "Moveon.org" or "Swiftboat Veterans For Truth" would have to be considered "PACs" or Political Action Committees. This would have limited George Soros as an individual from donating more than $5000 per year to Moveon.org. He could have given $5000 to another group and another, but he could not have given $2million as is the purported amounts.

In regards to bloggers, the question then revolves around the amount of money donated to a campaign or candidate in a federal election (because that is the only election that the national congress can make rules about) and whether one would be considered an individual or a PAC since the limits for these donations very depending on the this concept.

Where the sticky comes in for bloggers would be whether you have a donation button on your blog, how much you bring in through donations and how much each individual contributes. The other sticky would be how much a blogger "coordinates" with a candidate or campaign party. These two issues would have to come together in order to even make the question arise.

I'm not sure about all the blogs out there, but it seems to me that someone like me would not be affected and that most of the blogs I've frequented, including (during the campaign): Blogs For Bush, The Kerry Corner, etc would not be affected either. To my knowledge, none of these blogs received these kinds of donations. Although, after a disclosure that KOS received a hefty amount of money from the Kerry campaign to blog for him, this blog could be affected as he would have then been acting as a PAC. Although, KOS denied this saying that he did not coordinate with the campaign, blogged about what he wanted to blog about, etc. In which case, he would have been acting as a media outlet and not as a PAC.

I believe that the real issue here is the limitations of the FEC. Clearly, this organization is unable to police everyone and every group. In the land of political advocacy and fundraising dinosaurs, blogs are way down the list of entities that the FEC would or could possibly try to control. It is more likely that nationally acknowledged groups, like Moveon.org or Swift Boat Veterans for Truth would come under scrutiny, particularly with the amounts of money flowing in to their coffers.

Senator McCain makes this clear in his letter:

Because the FEC has failed to properly enforce federal law and require the 527 grouops to register as political committes, I [ed..McCain] have introduced legislation along with Senator Feingold that would require all 527s to register as political committees unless they rais and spend money solely in connection with non-Federal candidate elections.

It is very likely that this legislation will not only pass, but be held up by the Supreme Court as constitutional based on the rulings in challenges to the recent BRCA:

Such limits are subject only to “closely
drawn” scrutiny, see 424 U. S., at 25, rather than to strict scrutiny,
because, unlike restrictions on campaign expenditures, contribution
limits “entai[l] only a marginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage in free communication,” e.g., id., at 20–21. Morever, contribution limits are grounded in the important governmental interests in preventing “both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and the eroding of public confidence in the electoral process through the appearance of corruption.” E.g., Federal Election Comm’n v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 208. The less rigorous review standard shows proper deference to Congress’ ability to weigh competing constitutional interests in an area in which it enjoys particular expertise, and provides it with sufficient room to anticipate and respond to concerns about circumvention of regulations designed to protect the political process’ integrity. Finally, because Congress, in its lengthy deliberations leading to BCRA’s enactment, properly relied on Buckley and its progeny, stare decisis considerations, buttressed by the respect that the Legislative and Judicial Branches owe one another, provide additional powerful reasons for adhering to the analysis of contribution limits the Court has consistently followed since Buckley. The Court rejects plaintiffs’ argument that the type of speech and associational burdens that §323 imposes are fundamentally different from the burdens that accompanied Buckley’s contribution limits. Pp. 24–32.

The basis of Buckley v. Valeo:

In a lengthy per curiam decision, the court sustained the Act's limits on individual contributions, as well as the disclosure and reporting provisions and the public financing scheme. However, the limitations on campaign expenditures, on independent expenditures by individuals and groups, and on expenditures by a candidate from his personal funds were found to be constitutionally infirm in that they placed severe restrictions on protected expression and association, yet lacked any compelling countervailing government interest necessary to sustain them.

So, I could sit here an blog all day about any federal candidate, for or against, for free, spend as much money as I like making the site "eye catching" or advertising the site, but, if I coordinate with a campaign or candidate AND receive very large donations (instead of doing it for free) from campaigns, candidates, PACs and even individuals AND I come to the attention of the overburdened FEC or register the site as a 527, I might have a problem.

So, the question of whether the blogosphere could come under the scrutiny of the FEC is still open, but many things would have to come together to make it happen.

I'm no legal expert, but it does seem to me that the blog world has very little to worry about here.

The fight maybe whether any other "speech" falls under these rules and whether it portends a "slippery slope". Did I mention that the FEC is overburdened and under staffed?

Summary only...