March 08, 2007

Left Behind

As House Democrats trumpet the release of their "son of 'Slow Bleed'" legislation to evict American forces from the Iraq War, Rep. David Obey, D-Wis was credited with an interesting set of pull quotes in one too-telling Associated Press paragraph:

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said the proposal would bring an "orderly and responsible close" to American participation in what he called an Iraqi "civil war."

Like the larger Democrat-led effort to lose the war, this statement avoids mentioning—purposefully, in my estimation—that the proposed election-time retreat would end just American involvement in the war. The Democrats refuse to embrace the consequences of such a retreat.

It is expected that the power vacuum left by a Democrat-forced American military retreat from Iraq would be filled by foreign nations fueling a sectarian war in Iraq that would be both civil and proxy in nature. Saudi Arabia has made clear their intention to provide military and financial resources to Iraq's Sunni minority to hopefully keep their co-religionists from being "ethnically cleansed," while Iran would continue or increase its military and financial support of Shia factions in hopes of gaining a sphere of influence over oil-rich southern Iraq.

The end result of the Democrat plan of defeat would be a war-torn landscape not too dissimilar to the Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian War, writ large.

A repeat of events like the Srebrenica massacre are possible in Iraq's future if Democrats have their way.

Democrats, of course, know this, but simply seem to find political games in America far more important than the regional destabilization and projected increase in civilian deaths their plan for defeat would bring.

Democrats claim to care about our troops, which they do, when it’s politically convenient and they’re fresh out of spit.

Sadly, the millions of Iraqi civilians that would suffer as a result of their plan for defeat don't matter nearly as much to Democrat politicians.

Iraqi children won't send out important action alerts over frappacinos, or fund presidential campaigns in either America. It isn't their grandchildren that will suffer and die if we leave before the job is done.

The Democrats won't mention the cost of pandering to their radical base.

Apparently the one thing too shameful to discuss is the legacy they would leave behind.

Update: Pretty good analysis, Mr Dorkage:

People here will tell you they are mostly afraid of one thing-that we will leave soon, like we have since Vietnam, Somalia, etc., and that they will then be at the mercy of the terrorists who seep in from Iran, Syria, Egypt, and Saudia Arabia. A self-fulfilling circle, helped out vastly by our 'anti-war' citizens back home, who ironically enable wars as this by forcing constant US retreats through our political process. People here - real people, not 'Jamil Husseins' - want us here to give them time to reform their society.

I speculate this is one of the reasons I observed such high morale in our soldiers here. They are wanted here, unlike, say, in San Francisco. But, I digress.

Update: Democrat plan is "failure at any cost." Ouch.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:49 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

U.S. Halts Imaginary Cubans in Security Drill

This goes along with the Bush Adminstration's simulated immigration enforcement of the U.S./Mexican border quite well.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:17 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Congo Uranium Arrests

What would Joe Wilson do?

The Democratic Republic of Congo's top atomic energy official is being held over allegations of uranium smuggling.

Atomic energy centre director Fortunat Lumu and an aide have been questioned since their arrest on Tuesday.

A large quantity of uranium is reported to have gone missing in recent years, although state prosecutor Tshimanga Mukeba did not reveal any figures.

He told the BBC an "important quantity" of uranium was taken from the nuclear centre and they were investigating.

DR Congo's daily newspaper Le Phare reported that more than 100 bars of uranium as well as an unknown quantity of uranium contained in helmet-shaped cases, had disappeared from the nuclear centre in Kinshasa as part of a vast trafficking of the material going back years.

But the BBC's Kinshasa correspondent, Arnaud Zajtman, says that as of yet, no evidence has been made public to support the allegations made by the newspaper.

It would be very intersting to know just how far back "years" entails, and who received the missing uranium. My completely unsubstantiated guess is that it ended up somewhere warm and sandy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:05 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Breaking: Suspicious Package Found on White House Grounds

At least that is the screamer running across the top of this ABC News article at the moment. Curiously, this screamer is absent on the front page.

Nothing yet from CNN or Fox News. Will update as info comes in, but note that in the past, very little has come from similiar scares, and chucking a box over the fence isn't quite a credible threat in most instances.

Update: Bad Info? The screamer (above) was pulled within seconds of this post going up. Apparently nothing to see here, move along...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:39 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 07, 2007

Patriotic American Suggests Spray-Painting Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall during Anti-War Protest

An IndyMedia poster has suggested bringing spraypaint to deface the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial in Washington, D.C. during an anti-war rally on March 17.

It is not known if Ramsey Clark, Maxine Waters, Cynthia McKinney, Medea Benjamin or the leaders of the eight Islamic organizations sponsoring the event have any knowledge of these or similar plans by the activists they've attracted, though they are aware of a counter-demonstration by a conglomeration of veterans' groups and concerned citizens called A Gathering of Eagles, which will be at the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial to protect it from just the kind of attack promoted on IndyMedia.

Cindy Sheehan, who plans on attending the anti-war protest, derided the veterans as "abused and misused in your war of choice" (referring to Vietnam) and stated that these veterans were "poor misguided, brainwashed and propagandized."

(h/t antimedia)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:10 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Frontline Voices

On Monday, Newsbusters brought us a post about a visit to Iraq by NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, revealing the following:

Visiting Iraq, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams learned from Army officers that Iraqis want U.S. forces to remain in their country, from NBC News Baghdad reporter Richard Engel that Al-Sadr's insurgents have stepped down and are counting on pressure from anti-war opponents to provide them with victory, and from retired General and NBC News military analyst Wayne Downey that U.S. troops are proud of their mission. Traveling with Lieutenant General Ray Odierno for stories on his Monday newscast, Williams ran a clip of Army Colonel John Charlton proclaiming that Iraqis “do not want us to leave” and a soundbite from Army Lt. Colonel Charles Ferry who asserted: "The people here are very glad to see us.” Williams marveled: "You just said, 'They don't want us to leave.' That's the tenth time today I've heard that. I've got to go back to the States and do a newscast that every night has another politician or 12 of them saying, 'We have got to get out of that godforsaken place.'

MSNBC.com provides a version of Williams' story as well, closing with LTC Ferry's comments on the discrepancy between what American (mostly Democrat) politicians are saying about retreating in defeat, and the Iraqi civilian claim that they want us to stay and that they are happy we are there.

As for the morale of our soldiers, Micheal Yon noted in his dispatch "Meanwhile" yesterday (my bold):

There’s a lot of talk back at home that morale among American forces is low here. While writing this, I called Rich Oppel from the New York Times, who is in Baghdad, to ask him how morale looked from his vantage. Rich said that a lot of the soldiers are not happy with the extensions of their tours, something I have heard soldiers complain about also. However, I watch morale very closely. More closely than all else. Low morale in a particular unit can be the result of poor leadership in that unit, or just not getting mail, for instance. But gauging morale is not a simple affair of asking a few soldiers. A person has to live with them across Iraq. Having done so, my opinion is that overall troop morale is good to high. (If their morale could be bottled, it would probably would sell like crack, then be outlawed.)

Brian Williams, Richard Engle and GEN(R) Wayne Downing in Iraq experiencing some "technical dificulties" with their communications gear. Exclusive photo courtesy of Michael Yon, who is staying "just a few tents down" from them.

Iraqi civilians are telling our soldiers that they are happy they are there (something I've noticed not just in Ramadi, but in Baghdad and elsewhere). Obviously, not everyone is delighted with our presence—the militias, insurgents, terrorists, and criminal gangs in Iraq, and politicians, anti-war activists and many journalists worldwide come to mind—but the average Iraqi knows that the best chance they have of securing peace in their nation must rely on American forces backing Iraqi forces until the Iraqis alone are capable of providing their own security.

In the meantime, early reports on the Baghdad security operations thus far are carefully optimistic:

...the Bush administration says the president's decision to send more troops into Iraq is showing some "encouraging signs," though "too early" to call a success.

President Bush listed some of those "encouraging signs" in an address to American veterans.

They include the deployment of additional Iraqi army brigades in Baghdad, lifting restrictions on coalition forces to secure the capital, and rounding up more than 700 Shia extremists and large weapons caches.

The locals appear to be noting the changes as well.

Since us and Iraqi troops made their joint push into Baghdad, streets are getting busier. Stores that were closed down are re-opening and murders are down.

There has even been little resistance in Sadr City.

The last time American troops tried to secure this section of Baghdad they were met by Moqtada al Sadr's Mahdi militia.

"If there's one thing that has jumped out at me, this being the edge of Sadr City, it's been how well we've been received by the people, how friendly a reception we've gotten," said U.S. Army Captain Noll.

U.S. soldiers taking part in a search during Baghdad security operations two weeks ago. Photo courtesy of Michael Yon.

Presently, 21,500 U.S. soldiers are slowly building up in a "surge" to help the Iraqi government's security operations, and the Pentagon may request up to 7,000 more troops as operations expand into al Anbar province. As Brian Williams seemed to note in his broadcast (available at Hot Air), we can help the Iraqis secure their country, if only certain politicians would simply stop trying to undermine the effort.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:43 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 06, 2007

New Democrat Plan: Bleed Slower

Thanks be to Allah, for knowing a rat in sheep's clothing when he sees one:

House Democrats are pushing to add billions of dollars to President Bush's $93.4 billion request for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including $900 million for troops suffering from brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder.

An additional $2.5 billion would go to strengthen training and readiness for forces not deployed in war zones, and $1.4 billion would go to address housing allowance shortfalls.

At the same time, the Pentagon said Tuesday it needs about $1 billion more to support Bush's decision to send 21,500 additional combat troops to Iraq. It also said it has decided against using the pending supplemental bill to procure combat and cargo aircraft, few if any of which could have been built in time to affect the war.

The $1 billion would support at least 4,000 additional support troops, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England told the House Budget Committee. Up to a total of 7,000 support troops might needed, England said.

The Democratic add-ons for military health care, readiness and mine-resistant vehicles are aimed in part at making the bill more attractive to lawmakers, including Republicans who might be considering voting against the measure over language that would curb deployments of troops to Iraq who have had insufficient rest or training or who already had served there for more than a year.

Democrats are, as Allah notes, attempting to craft a "poison pill" of a bill:

The proposed compromise is a diluted version of Murtha’s slow bleed except instead of funding being cut off if troops are deployed without having met certain readiness levels, Bush would have the option of waiving the necessary certifications — as long as he does so publicly. They’re willing to continue paying for the war they hate, in other words; they just want to keep Bush’s face on the mission and make sure KIAs going forward can be blamed on inadequate training (a la Murtha blaming Haditha on “fatigue”) instead of enemy action.

Democrats aren't any less willing to lose the war than they were before, they're just more craven in their methods.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:33 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Michael Yon: Meanwhile

Why actually learning about the war from those who are there, matters:

With the odometer running over many embeds, Mellinger has taken me about 4,000 miles (total) up and down Iraqi roads, visiting units from north to south, east to west, showing that the military truly opens their doors to writers who will stick it out. They don’t even have to like you: my fights with the Army are well-known, yet they continue to open their doors. There’s a lesson in there. I wrote that Iraq was in a civil war shortly after covering the first elections. I wrote about commanders who did poorly, and ISF units that couldn’t shoot straight, and I wrote about the veneer of victory in Afghanistan cracking under the weight of a poppy-fueled Taliban resurgence. Yet they still let me in.

It’s a reminder of why I am so proud of my country, despite our many problems. It’s also a caution about why we must stick with our people who have been mostly abandoned at war. I understand the position of the journalists. Especially the ones who get blown up or shot at fairly regularly, but the informed interest of ordinary Americans is critical to the outcome of this war. And the truth is that our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of whom rarely (if ever) see a writer, are abandoned by default.

As always with Yon's dispatches, read the whole thing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:13 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Final Deep Thought on The Libby Conviction, Before I Dismiss It For Eternity For The Relatively Minor Case That It Is

Thank God Scooter Libby was convicted. If he been acquitted, an irate Jane Hamsher would have depleted the global supply of black ink for months.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:43 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Bin Laden Brother-in-Law Killed

Not new, but new to me.

Jamal Khalifa, Osama bin Laden’s brother-in-law and mercenary recruited, was instrumental in recruitirg more than 1,000 young Filipino Muslims, including Abdurajak Abubakar Janjalani, to the Afghanistan jihad against the former Soviet Union was killed in Madagascar recently.

Reports said Khalifa was shot dead by unidentified gunmen in Madagascar. Agence France-Presse quoted Khalifa’s brother as telling the Dubai-based Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya television, that a gang of 25 to 30 people raided Khalifa’s room. Khalifa, who traded in gems, “was killed in cold blood while sleeping in his room" his brother, Malek, said.

There doesn't seem to be any evidence that Khalifa had recent contact with bin Laden, or that the death was necessarily anything other than crime-related.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:26 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Libby Verdict to be Delivered at Noon

Breaking.

Details to follow.

Update: Guilty on four of five counts:

Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been found guilty on four of five counts in his perjury and obstruction of justice trial.

Libby, 56, faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and a fine of $1 million.

Libby was convicted of:

• obstruction of justice when he intentionally deceived a grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame;
• making a false statement by intentionally lying to FBI agents about a conversation with NBC newsman Tim Russert;
• perjury when he lied in court about his conversation with Russert;
• a second count of perjury when he lied in court about conversations with other reporters.

Jurors cleared him of a second count of making a false statement relating to a conversation he had with Matt Cooper of Time magazine.

I fully expect Tom Maguire to have an analysis posted at Just One Minute.

The netroots will assuredly go nuts over this for days.

Hot Air is already all over it.

Update: How long do you think it will be before Bush pardons Libby? Will he wait for the appeals process to exhaust itself, will he sign off as he leaves office in 2009?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:04 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

No Room for Success

At least that is what we find via memeorandum.com, as a poster using the pseudonym "Chris in Paris writes on liberal Americablog:

Nine US troops killed in explosions during combat, just on the heels of 28 Iraqis killed Monday in yet another round of bombings. Yesterday I heard plenty of chatter from the pro-war crowd who talked about the great successes of the latest campaign but I've been unable to see a change and hear of the same old bloody mess day after day. How much blood is enough for the pro-war crowd?

Shaun Mullen at The Moderate Voice writes:

The downtick in stories in the prints, on TV and online about violence in Baghdad is encouraging and would seem to be a result of the onset of Operation Imposing Law, the so-called “surge” security crackdown in the capital.

But the relative calm is illusory. Anti-American cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr has withdrawn to Iran and his Mahdi Army and ethnic cleansing squads have withdrawn into the shadows, and I suspect that it’s only a matter of time before the surge is declared a success, both cleric and army are heard from again and the downtick is history.

Then there are the tireless cheerleaders like Omar, who blogs at Iraq the Model and has been writing for Pajamas Media. Omar’s latest sighting of the light at the end of the tunnel was dutifully picked up by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

“Violent incidents are still decreasing in number and impact in Baghdad. Yesterday for instance the only reported incident was the abduction of an adviser to the minister of defense by gunmen in western Baghdad. It was less than 24 hours until the security forces succeeded in freeing the abducted general and arresting 4 of his captors.”

It is not my intention to deprecate Omar and Glenn. They mean well and I too want the security crackdown to succeed. But I winced when I read Omar’s words because I knew that it was only a matter of time before the calm was shattered.

In fact, it was less than 12 hours after he posted his wishful thinking that a suicide car bomber detonated explosives in a book market along busy Mutanabi Street in central Baghdad, killing 28 people and wounding 56 others. (Details here on the blast and deaths of nine U.S. soldiers north of the capital.)

Yes, Baghdad is a big place and the security sweep is currently focused in the Sadr City slum district. Troops cannot be everywhere. But in a war characterized by abysmally poor planning followed by four years of missteps, it is not merely premature to declare that Operation Imposing Law is going well after so short a time, it is folly.

Perhaps I'm reading too much into these comments, but "Chris in Paris" and Shaun Mullen both seem to be purposefully obtuse.

Yes, nine soldiers from Task Force Lighting died in two separate IED attacks north of Baghdad, and 28 Iraqis died Monday, just as 14 more Iraqis died nationwide today. I have little doubt that more Coalition soldiers and Iraqi civilians will die tomorrow, and the day after that. People die in war.

But what "Chris in Paris" either cannot see in the very account he cited, or perhaps prefers not to see, is that not one of the deaths cited over the past two days in Iraq reported by this CNN article came through the once common practice of sectarian death squads kidnapping Iraqi citizens, torturing them, and dumping their bodies in the streets.

Mullen is right to be cautious, but he too, is far more pessimistic than objective, and apparently almost willing to declare any minor setback during the security plan as evidence of failure.

This past Saturday, Arab news broadcasts from Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, Al-Sharqiya, Al-Hurra, Al-Iraqiya, Al-Fourat, Al-Baghdadiya, and Al-Sumariya --eight television stations in all-- did not issue a single account of sectarian kidnappings, torture and murder in Baghdad. None.

That is not a positive change?

On Sunday, more than a thousand U.S. and Iraqi soldiers swept through Sadr City, home of the Madhi Army, without a single shot being fired in opposition. On that day, just one Baghdadi, an editor of the independent Al Mashriq newspaper, was killed when a kidnapping attempt failed in what was almost assuredly a targeted attempt, not a random death squad act.

That is not a positive change?

29 members of al Qaeda have been captured across Iraq, including the two brothers of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq. In the same article they mention that Fuad Ahmed al-Mufraji, an assassination specialist dubbed "arrested the most dangerous man in northern Iraq," was also captured.

This follows on the heels of a battle last week where Iraqi forces routed an al Qaeda attack on a village in al Anbar, capturing 50 terrorists and killing 80.

These are not a positive changes?

Iraq is not a safe country by any stretch of the imagination, and the high points noted above are perhaps transitory in nature, but they are real, and they do show at least temporary improvements. It is a pity that both critics seem unwilling to weigh these concrete successes equally with setbacks both real and possible.

"Chris in Paris," and Shaun Mullen with him, seem intent on seeing only what they want to see. Are they ideologically immune to any accounts the show the slightest signs of improvement in Iraq?

It seems that like so many opponents of the war, they have far too much emotionally invested in failure.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

She Just Can't Help It

Ann Coulter just labeled John Edwards' campaign manager a terrorist supporter.

IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO DIVERT BONIOR FROM HIS PRINCIPAL PASTIME WHICH IS FRONTING FOR ARAB TERRORISTS.

I've got a screen capture as well, should the comment disappear.

I suppose it is just a matter of time before Coulter takes a sudden fancy to Kevin Federline.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:41 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

The Air Bodies

Let's reorder a couple of key paragraphs from this New York Times article to make it more chronologically consistant, and see if you can tell what's missing:

On Sunday night, American forces at a small base in Tape Ahmed Beg, in Kapisa Province, northeast of the capital, Kabul, came under rocket fire at 9 p.m., the United States military said in a statement. When two men with Kalashnikov rifles were spotted entering a compound, the Americans called an airstrike, which ended the engagement, it said. [paragraph 5]

Nine members of a family, including five women and three children, were killed in an American airstrike in central Afghanistan late Sunday during a battle with militants, Afghan officials said Monday. [paragraph 1]

What is obviously missing from this story is the status of the two men with AK-pattern rifles that were the trigger for the airstrike.

Did they somehow survive the strike? Were the killed along with the five women and three children? Why did they retreat to that particular compound? Were they possibly returning to their own homes? Did they vanish into thin air?

As far as these curiously incurious reporters are concerned, that answer appears to be just as good as any.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:03 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 05, 2007

Collateral Damage

It has been a rough weekend for American forces in Afghanistan. In two separate instances, U.S. forces engaged with Taliban and al Qaeda forces have killed approximately 19 Afghan civilians, according to the U.K. Guardian:

Two incidents involving American forces have left around 19 Afghan civilians dead since yesterday, prompting furious protests against the US and Nato.
In the first incident, up to 10 civilians were killed yesterday as a convoy of US marines fled after being attacked by a suicide bomber in a minivan in eastern Nangarhar province.

Nine Afghan witnesses said US marines had fired indiscriminately on civilian cars and pedestrians as they sped away, the Associated Press reported.

The US military said it was unclear what had happened and militant gunmen may have been to blame for the deaths.

Then today Afghan officials said nine civilians had been killed after a Nato air strike hit a house during a firefight between US forces and militants, killing nine Afghans who lived there.

Civilians die in war. No matter how many precautions we take, no matter how careful we try to be to target only combatants, our enemies purposefully hide among civilians, dress as civilians, and use occupied civilian dwellings as impromptu fortresses.

It is because of this that I have some reservations about the nature of the protests levied again U.S. and NATO forces in the wake of these two incidents. While any civilian life snuffed out by terrorists is worth the same as those killed by NATO forces, few Afghan protests seem to value these deaths equally, or if those protests do exist, they unerringly fail to attract worldwide media attention.

That is odd, considering how this particular media account concluded:

The US-based Human Rights Watch has estimated that more than 100 Afghan civilians died as a result of Nato and coalition assaults in 2006.

A count by the Associated Press, based on reports from Afghan, Nato and coalition officials, puts the overall civilian death toll in 2006 at 834, most from militant attacks.

If the accounts from Human Rights Watch and the Associated Press are close to correct, the Taliban and al Qaeda kill more Afghan civilians than do coalition forces by a ratio of roughly 8-1. Despite this huge disparity, I cannot recall the last time I read a media account where the civilian death toll exacted by these Islamist forces led to widespread protests.

Do Afghan citizens simply not care when their friends and relatives are killed by the Taliban or al Qaeda? I find that rather hard to believe.

Could it be that the same civilians who chant "Death to America! Death to Karzai!" today, do so knowing that they will suffer no retaliatory strikes from Taliban spies in their midst, fearing that if they protested the murders caused by the Islamists, that they would suffer a far worse fate than usually visited by a bullet or bomb? I suspect this is the case to a certain extent, and find it rather uncritical of the professional media not to notice nor report on this discrepancy.

It is a shame that civilians die in war, but equally shameful that the media frames the accounts of what transpired they way they have.

The events around the Nangarhar incident are very much up in the air, but the Guardian is almost libelous in their purposeful neglect of detail in describing the airstrike on the house in Kapisa.

They state:

...today Afghan officials said nine civilians had been killed after a Nato air strike hit a house during a firefight between US forces and militants, killing nine Afghans who lived there.

The air strike came after militants had fired on a Nato base in Kapisa province, just north of Kabul.

Later a house was hit, killing five women, three boys and a man, said Sayad Mohammad Dawood Hashimmi, Kapisa's deputy governor.

The Guardian presents the story of this airstrike in such a way as to make it seem like the airstrike may have accidentally hit a house full of civilians.

This is not the truth.

After the rocket attack on the NATO base, armed militants were observed retreating into the Afghan home. In a defensive measure, U.S forces called in a precision strike that leveled the building where the Taliban terrorists had retreated.

It was the Taliban that brought fire down on the "five women, three boys and a man" by using that home as a fighting position. It would be nice for the "professional" journalists at the Guardian and other news outlets to reveal that fact, but apparently, such facts only get in the way of the story they prefer to tell.

Accuracy, it seems, is also "collateral damage."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:52 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

650,000 Iraqis Have Died, Or...

...the Lancet Study is politically-driven fake news cooked up by a group of anti-war Democrat scientists that should probably be fired for academic fraud.

I called this study complete and utter crap months ago, but neve thought they'd stoop as far as the article indicates they may have.

Heh. Allahpundit notes the "perils of using stringers" to conduct reporting.

On that note, it might be worth mentioning that I'll be on KSFO 560 With Lee Rodgers & Melanie Morgan this morning discussing that other stringer-generated scandal, starring our favorite Iraqi Police Captain that never existed.

You can listen via online streaming at 6:05 PST/9:05 EST at KSFO 560 via the "listen now" link.

Update: For those of you who might have missed it, the KSFO interview will be replayed on the internet at 1:10PM Eastern time today at www.ksfo.com (click on LISTEN NOW).

For those of you just coming to this story, I'd recommend that you read the following:

J-Damn

The Jamil Hussein Name Game -- Iraqi General Weighs In

Iraqi General Disputes AP Claim on Jamil Hussein

AP Re-Enters Hurriyah; Is Unable to Find Lost Credibility

AP: The Art of the Dodge

And last but not least:

Hurriyah: Where We Go From Here

According to the Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman, "Jamil Hussein" never existed, and the Associated Press story of January 4 released by Steven R. Hurst is an apparent fabrication.

The Associated Press is apparently far more interested in burying any story that shows that their Hurriyah reporting was inaccurate, or that they allegedly used a falsified name for a source against their own code of ethics, than they are in transparent or accurate reporting.

Why am I not surprised?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:26 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 I just heard them mention it on KSFO. I am so there.

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at March 05, 2007 09:09 AM (PvqFn)

2 You should also update to mention that the show is rebroadcast on the internet feed four hours later, so it can be heard at about 10:00 PST, 1:00 p.m. EST.

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at March 05, 2007 09:18 AM (PvqFn)

3 Slight correction - the 'net feed lags a little so the segment starts at 20 after.

Posted by: Ken S, Fifth String on the Banjo of Life at March 05, 2007 09:22 AM (PvqFn)

4 That 650K figure was always phony as a $3 bill. Anyone who didn't have their head up their rear knew that. Equally obvious was that it was concocted for political reasons.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 05, 2007 05:18 PM (5OYu4)

5 THE AP WILL NEVER APOLOGIZE RE "JAMIL HUSSEIN"
–They will simply DROP the story, as when they dropped Qana, the Red Cross bus ambulance “bombings”, Israeli “attacks” on UNIFIL, or Paliwood
– Stunningly, after proof appeared that Saddam had 500 tons of yellowcake Uranium Oxide in storage when he was invaded (enough for 148 nuclear bombs), the MSM simply DROPPED the “Iraq Had No WMD” stories, with no corrections, no clarifications, apologies, nothing
– They are now hammering on the “We’re Losing” theme
– When they drop a particular story, that means you WON – it’s all you get
– I have not seen them admit to any significant falsehood, no matter how egregious
– E.G., Waiting for the MSM retract their inverted reporting of the US victory in the Vietnam Tet offensive, which they still describe as a defeat
– (Tet 1968, was key because the US and South Vietnam DESTROYED the Viet Cong, leaving the war to the invading regular North Vietnam army. Thereafter, there were no significant populist socialist Vietnamese “resistance freedom fighters” left – only millions of Communist invaders, dying rapidly as the US and South Vietnamese won every significant battle)
– No one nailed the MSM hard enough, then or now, and they continue simplistically falsifying Vietnam as a defeat, with Tet as a “turning point”

Posted by: DemocracyRules at March 05, 2007 10:07 PM (L/SIz)

6 Stunningly, after proof appeared that Saddam had 500 tons of yellowcake Uranium Oxide in storage when he was invaded (enough for 148 nuclear bombs), the MSM simply DROPPED the “Iraq Had No WMD” stories, with no corrections, no clarifications, apologies, nothing

How long does it take to process yellowcake? With what facilities? Was any amount of the yellowcake a WMD?

You clearly live on the same planet, but in an entirely different world. The yellowcake story was debunked so thoroughly, so long ago, I can't imagine where you get your information. (What's that? Fox News? Oh, now it all makes sense.)

Posted by: Pennypacker at March 06, 2007 12:25 AM (acgYa)

7 ToENNYPACKER
WHAT ABOUT SADDAM’S 500 TONS OF URANIUM?

It’s true, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I provide my sources below. I hope that more people will become aware of these facts. The references are not hot linked, so you will have to cut and paste them onto a URL line.

First, an overview. These 500 tons were known to “insiders” since 1991, before Iraq War 1. The yellowcake was logged and documented by UN weapons inspectors, and even tagged by them. Furthermore, there have been numerous reports since 1991 that Saddam was trying to buy more yellowcake, even up to time of Iraq War 2, and his sons visited Niger to satisfy him, although this may have been a subterfuge on their part, to appease their father, since new shipments do not appear to have come from Niger to Iraq. However, it is probably those negotiations which make British intelligence certain that Iraq was trying to obtain yellowcake from Niger or the Congo up until Iraq War 2.

The story gains importance in light of four other context pieces. First, Saddam maintained a clear desire to have nuclear weapons, as witnessed by his constantly asking sons, aides, advisers, and generals about such weapons, and the preparations to produce them. Second, many parts and plans for nuclear weapons development were maintained, as physical components, hard copies of plans, and detailed information kept in the memories of Iraqi scientists and engineers. Third, given the very large stockpile of yellowcake, it seems impossible for the weapons inspectors to have fully and completely prevented the Iraqi’s from removing substantial amounts of it, either for clandestine use, or for sale to other states or organizations.

Fourth, this huge stockpile, held in plain view of inspectors, must have been very embarrassing for the US government. It meant that if Iraq were to expel the UN inspectors, Iraq could have nuclear weapons in as little as 18 months, as well as sell some to other states or organizations. Because the stockpile was known to the UN weapons inspectors, George Bush Sr. must also have known. Clinton must have known, and he frequently stated with certainty that Iraq had WMD, but why did he do nothing during his tenure? Lastly, Bush Jr. would have known about it, but this would have been difficult to disclose, especially after 9/11. If, after 9/11, Bush were to disclose that the US had known about the yellowcake (and other, more enriched uranium) for at least 13 years, with Iraq’s capability to transition at any time to building nuclear weapons, he could have been accused of the reckless endangerment of the entire western world. Bush Jr. has still has not disclosed his full knowledge of this, even though the main body of information is recorded in UN weapons inspector reports. After 9/11, Bush Jr. would know that Iraq had to be invaded because of the yellowcake, but it would still be awkward to explain publicly why he was so sure about the WMD.

After Iraq War 2 started, the media began talking about “no WMD”, and Bush could not rebut directly. Instead, it leaked out indirectly through several sources, including an awkward NY Times story. After the NYT story, plus several other revelations about Iraqi WMD, the MSM appeared to accept that Iraq, after all did have substantial amounts of WMD materials and capabilities, and these were a clear and present danger to the US. The MSM immediately stopped presenting “no WMD” reports. The public has still not realized the implications of these events. The key information about WMD became public, but in an awkward way, and Bush was off the hook about a possible “yellowcake scandal”. By 2006, the yellowcake had been recovered by the US military. Amazingly (to me), most people still seem to believe that Iraq had no WMD, and no WMD potential, prior to Iraq War 2!


REFERENCES

The 500 tons:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml
NYT May, 2004:
"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium..." as well as, "some 1.8 tons...classified as low-enriched uranium." The latter could be enriched to make a single nuclear weapon.

More info at San Diego Union-Tribune:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:VbqfPPAHYeMJ:www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040522/news_1n22uranium.html+holds+more+than+500+tons+of+uranium&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a
And:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/07/about_that_500_tons_of_yellow.html

IAEA Records:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/event.html

Iraqi weapons planning:
http://tks.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTJjYzYzYmMwNjY3N2YwNWE5NDQ3ZTQzZDczZWU5N2Y=

Quotations from IAEA reports:
October 4, 1991:“Dr. Blix reported that the sixth IAEA inspection team had obtained conclusive documentary evidence that the Government of Iraq had a programme for developing nuclear weapons. The IAEA inspection team obtained this information from classified Iraqi papers, some of which had already been translated and analysed. These documents revealed that Iraq's nuclear weapons programme was supported by a broad-based international procurement effort.”

Nov 11-18, 1991: “Iraqi authorities went to great lengths to prevent the discovery of procurement data. Most procurement related information had been removed and presumably destroyed, the IAEA eighth inspection team reported. Even so, examination of data collected by the inspection teams firmly identified the manufacturers of most equipment used or intended for use in Iraqi efforts to establish a centrifuge production and operation capability.”
Source:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/event.html

This program was never abandoned after 1991.
Stockpiled weapons development parts and plans:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

Other Iraqi WMD:
http://politicscentral.com/audio/2006/09/Iraq_NGIC_Unclassified_WMDs_083106.pdf

Posted by: DemocracyRules at March 08, 2007 10:52 PM (L/SIz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 03, 2007

Vile Coulter Does It Again

Should we bomb Connecticut, kill their pundits, and convert them to Christianity?

Ann Coulter is a verbal suicide bomber, willing to blow away her credibility and that of those around her for a few extra moments of infamy. Sooner or later, CPAC and other conservative and Republican groups are going to learn that Coulter is far more interested in promoting herself than any ideology they share.

Captain Ed said it a bit more tactfully than I might, but he said it well:

At some point, Republicans will need to get over their issues with homosexuality. Regardless of whether one believes it to be a choice or a hardwired response, it has little impact on anyone but the gay or lesbian person. We can argue that homosexuality doesn't require legal protection, but not when we have our front-line activists referring to them as "faggots" or worse. That indicates a disturbing level of animosity rather than a true desire to allow people the same rights and protections regardless of their lifestyles.

Ann Coulter can be an entertaining and incisive wit. Unfortunately, she can also be a loose cannon, and CPAC might want to consider that the next time around.

Ann Coulter stopped being an asset for conservatives a long time ago. I think it is time we move on past her.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:41 AM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

March 02, 2007

So While We're Here, Would You Like a Swatch?

Just when we least expected it, the Swiss accidentally invaded Liechtenstein:

What began as a routine training exercise almost ended in an embarrassing diplomatic incident after a company of Swiss soldiers got lost at night and marched into neighboring Liechtenstein.

According to Swiss daily Blick, the 170 infantry soldiers wandered just over a mile across an unmarked border into the tiny principality early Thursday before realizing their mistake and turning back.

A spokesman for the Swiss army confirmed the story but said that there were unlikely to be any serious repercussions for the mistaken invasion.

Swiss Army knives are apparently far better than Swiss Army compasses.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:51 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Long Ago and Far Away (From Mattering)

Other than the faintly Clintonesque stink surrounding it, Jules Crittenden captures everything I wanted to say about the latest presidential candidate scandal (right down to the Monty Python reference) in Sins of the Great-Great-Great Grandfather.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:32 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Rumors of War

Correspondent: What do you think of the new Security Plan? Answer quickly… before the next explosion! [Al Bayyna Al Jadidah Newspaper] (1 MAR)

As we all know, the Baghdad Security Plan (BSP) has been underway for several weeks, and while it is far to early to judge how effective the program will be, the opinion of how the plan is progressing among Baghdadis is almost as important as any measurable yardsticks gauging success.

This morning, I was provided with a copy of an Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) newsletter, THE BAGHDAD MOSQUITO, 2 March 2007, Volume IV, Edition 1257.

The newsletter tracks accounts in the Iraqi media (newspapers, television, and radio), and perhaps as importantly, public opinion and commonly-shared rumors.

Here is a selection of some of the more interesting rumors and Iraqi opinion as related to OSINT yesterday, March 1, from Iraqi citizens. Please keep in mind these are rumors, and may or may not be true:

• Sharqiya TV channel discovered from a secret source that a few days ago, Muqtada Al Sadr called his high level associates, including those in the government, and told them to leave Iraq within 12 hours.
• Sunnis believe that the new Baghdad Security Plan (BSP) has focused only on Sunni areas. Interestingly, when Iraqi forces conduct solo raids without US forces, they make mass arrests of Sunnis without any concrete charges. When these same forces accompany US forces, only one or two Sunnis are arrested. The one or two that are arrested are usually arrested due to their possession of forbidden medium or heavy weapons.
• Around three or four days ago, residents in the Kadhimiya area of Baghdad captured an Afghan suicide bomber. However, rather than turning the bomber over to coalition forces, the Mahdi Army attempted to interrogate the man but were unable to so they executed hi on the spot. It is believed the bomber was going to detonate himself in Kadhimiya Shrine.
• Iran is sponsoring Al Qaida in Iraq’s activities in concert with pro-Iranian elements inside the Iraqi government. Iran provides funding and weapons to Al Qaida. Al Qaida then purposely operates in Sunni areas, where there may or may not be any actual Sunni resistance. Once Al Qaida begins its activities in a given Sunni area, pro-Iranian elements in the government advise the MNF that operations should be conducted in that area. Once MNF approval is given, then preferably Iraqi forces, under the cover of anti-Al Qaida operations, conduct ethnic cleansing and displacement operations of the targeted Sunni area.
• Recently, since the beginning of the new BSP, a Shiite family that had been displaced returned to the Mansour area of Baghdad. When asked why they returned, the father of the family stated they came back because the Mahdi Army commander that had displaced them has been arrested by US forces.

The next group of rumors should be called, "Everybody hates Al Mahdi."

• Some Iraqis believe that the US was behind the recent attempted assassination of VP Adil Abd Al Mahdi. They point out that the US searched the area in question an hour or two before the bombing occurred.
• Some Iraqis believe that the recent attempted assassination of VP Abd Al Mahdi was a joint effort between the Sadr Movement and Dawa Party who both fear that Abd Al Mahdi will take the PM position from current PM, Nuri Al Maliki.
• Some Iraqis believe that the recent attempted assassination of VP Abd Al Mahdi was carried out by forces related to former PM Ayad Allawi, who wants to take the PM position from current PM, Nuri Al Maliki.

And as promised, here is the OSINT report on how different sects view the new Baghdad Security Plan (BSP):

How Is The New Baghdad Security Plan (BSP) Going?

The group’s views on this question differed by their sects and the areas in which they live. A snapshot of some Baghdad areas follows.

The Dora area is witnessing daily clashes between the residents there and Iraqi forces because the residents do not and will not, accept the presence of Iraqi forces without their being accompanied by the US. This is based on the residence distrust of the Iraqi forces due to militia/Iranian infiltration of these forces and the mass arrests/kidnappings that have occurred there in the past. The residents are very appreciative of recent US efforts to provide them with fuel and heaters, as well as that the US forced the current Iraqi government to provide them with electricity. The people of Dora say they will accept a US/Iraqi Combat Outpost BUT until the residents can trust the Iraqi forces, only Sunni military members should be part of such an outpost. This includes a Sunni commander of these forces.

One area that has not improved with the new BSP is the Saydia/Bayaa area. This area is still witnessing displacements, kidnappings, and assassinations. However, militia and/or terrorist activity is not conducted in the open. Snipers are operating from the roofs of homes and buildings in the area. There have been a few US patrols but not many.

The Kadhimiya area of Baghdad has changed some. Prior to the new BSP this area was fairly calm due to the majority Shiite population and militia provided security. There is now more of a US patrol presence in the area and the militias no longer appear out in the open. However, when an event does occur, Mahdi Army members still appear on very short notice, as witnessed by Rumor # 9 above [note: this related to the rumor of the Afghan suicide bomber executed by the Madhi Army militia -- ed]. Services were and still are fairly good in this area.

The Mansour area has not changed much with the new BSP. The pattern for this area, as before, continues to be quiet days with little or no activity, to days of intense attacks and clashes. There are also still sporadic clashes between Sunni and Shiite militias in this area as well as kidnappings and assassinations between the two sects.

The area that has probably benefited the most under the new BSP is the Shaab/Hay Urr area of NE Baghdad. A Sunni resident reported that when the plan began, US forces conducted raids against suspected militia/terrorist targets which ahs succeeded in forcing the Mahdi Army out of this area. The Mahdi Army had been exercising heavy handed control of this area previously. Prior to the new plan, residents report finding five to ten bodies every morning and the control of the markets there by Mahdi Army though extortion. Now, there is no noticeable presence of militia. Some families that had been displaced have returned and the markets and neighborhoods are becoming lively again. The residents credit this improvement to the US forces efforts to chase the Mahdi Army from the area and the presence of the US Combat Outpost there as well.

Overall this week, Iraqis are more pessimistic about the new BSP than they were last week. This week’s pessimism is related to the continuing lack of confidence in the current Iraqi government which transfers into a lack of confidence in the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police. The group continues, for the most part, to believe that the current Iraqi government is still full of corruption and overwhelming Iranian influence.

In short, the Baghdadis interviewed may or may not be impressed with the BSP as executed thus far, depending on what they've seen in their neighborhoods, and what sect they belong to.

In areas where Coalition forces have been active (especially U.S forces), the residents seem to have a better opinion of how the plan is progressing. In areas where the plan is being implemented primarily by Iraqi forces, which many Sunnis do not trust, the plan is not seen as working, and it has led to conflict... which shouldn't be all that surprising, as government forces are focusing operations on stomping out the Sunni insurgents operating there, and have been accused in the past of operating as cover for Madhi Army death squads.

Areas where U.S. combat outposts have been established seem to be displacing the Madhi Army militiamen, and while it is far too early to know if a long-term change will result, these areas seem for the present to be "becoming lively again," and the residents credit U.S. forces.

Iraqi opinion overall is mixed, but more pessimistic, and this is likely due to expectations (or at least hopes) that the new BSP would reduce violence across all areas of Baghdad as soon as it began, and for those people who are not in the neighborhoods being secured first, there is some obvious disappointment.

The opinions contained in this edition of THE BAGHDAD MOSQUITO seem to reinforce the importance of the plan to "surge" more American forces into Baghdad over the next weeks and months.

It seems that regardless of whether the neighborhood is Shia, Sunni, or mixed, they seem to have more confidence in U.S. forces to be able to help bring security, at least in the short term. Sunni Baghdadis seem more receptive to U.S. forces than they do the Shia-dominated Iraqi police and military, but they do seem willing to accept predominately Sunni military units with Sunni commanders acting in conjunction with U.S. forces.

It is important to note that the BSP/"surge" is only in its opening stages, but that most citizens hope it will succeed. The downside of what they are reporting is that the changes have not been uniform nor widespread, and that Iraqis simply do not yet have faith in their own forces to enforce the plan equally across sectarian lines.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:40 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0963 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.0757 seconds, 117 records returned.
Page size 124 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.