9/11 - 6 Years Later

This man - this incompetent, criminal opportunist - is set to speak to Americans again on Thursday. And who would have guessed that, 6 full years after the attacks of 9/11, the topic of his speech would be war with Iraq? Certainly not the neocons who seized on the horrors of 9/11 as an excuse to illegally wage war on that country. They thought it would be a cakewalk. Many of them are now tremendously frustrated that their dreams of pillaging Iraq's oil have not yet been fully realized. "Blood and treasure" was a phrase used throughout the testimony of Petraeus and Crocker the past two days. Why was I reminded of pirates?

And what of the Afghanistan war - the so-called just war waged after the 9/11 attacks? It's been quietly forgotten. When Petraeus was asked how his plans for Iraq might impact the GWOT, he basically said that figuring that out was not his department - that it was his job to focus solely on the Iraq war. He couldn't (or wouldn't) answer how the concentration of American troops might affect the US military's inability to deal with conflicts in the rest of the world and at home. His responses reminded me of the warnings given before and after 9/11 about US intelligence agencies not working together to deal with possible threats. And we all know what the result of that failure was.

Ryan Crocker, acting like a CEO addressing concerned corporate shareholders about their investments in Iraq (and that's really what his testimony was about, wasn't it?) could only parrot Petraeus by admitting he was "frustrated". He spoke with a chilling, distant, business-like indifference about the plight of the actual people - the Iraqis - whose fate is in his hands. No "timelines, dates or guarantees". Nothing.

And neither man could admit that the counter-insurgency strategy that's been implemented has also been practiced (most likely by accident since the official Petraeus manual hadn't been written yet) in Afghanistan - that of working with the locals while not making the much-needed connections to the federal government. The result? War lords back in power. The Taliban continuing its oppression. Karzai crying crocodile tears over all of the civilians NATO and the US military keep killing in air strikes - air power being used because there are not, and never were, enough troops on the ground. Opium once again the number one cash crop driving Afghanistan's economy. But, on this anniversary of 9/11, Iraq was the focus.

Petraeus, claiming he didn't have any sort of political agenda, was basically a two-trick pony: the problems in Iraq are being caused by al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran - convenient targets considering the Bush administration's fearmongering of late. And, as was pointed out to Petraeus, the fact that the Sunnis are rebelling against AQI in al Anbar is not so much about the fact that they've suddenly been won over (in the "hearts and minds" game). The opposition to AQI came about because their people were being raped and slaughtered. The US military seems to have no problem with supporting the Sunnis, especially since they can execute whomever they like without following the rules of war. And while Petraeus heralds this so-called triumph, the political reality of supporting the Sunnis is actually counter-productive to the concept of "national reconciliation" that both Petraeus and Crocker admit has not moved along as expected. Well, what do they expect when neither of them said one thing about the absolutely rampant corruption in al Maliki's government along with his dictatorial actions to shut down any investigations about the wrongdoing?

Shades of Afghanistan once again.

And while Petraeus hopes that touting so-called progress at the micro level is reason enough to convince congress, Americans and the world that the occupation should continue, the Bush administration is placing serious roadblocks to dealing with players in the region, like Iran and Syria, at the macro level - using threats, intimidation and sanctions as a macho form of cowboy diplomacy. How has that worked out so far?

Meanwhile, Karzai is once again trying to negotiate with the Taliban while they refuse to do so with foreign troops in the country and Musharraf pulled out of attending an Afghanistan peace conference in August. As a result of Musharraf's continual inability or reluctance to deal with insurgents in Waziristan, the US government is now placing its hopes in the return of the corrupt Benazir Bhutto. (The NYT has more on Pakistan's current political situation.)

On all of these fronts, there is no coherent and comprehensive policy except the continued push by the White House to assert its executive powers (made up as they go along while shredding the constitution in the process) against the American people.

“Partisanship is our great curse. We too readily assume that everything has two sides and that it is our duty to be on one or the other.”

-James Harvey Robinson, Amercian historian (1863-1936)

The dangerous fawning of the Republicans who place their party and president before their country is still on display this week, despite the mountains of evidence that have proven that the choice to invade Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 and that execution of that and the Afghanistan war are massive failures. And they, along with corporatist Democrats who believe they owe their fealty to members of the military industrial complex - including lobbyists for foreign governments like Israel which is now under an even greater threat as a result of the regional destabilization - have sold out their constituents; doomed them to more funerals and the human and financial costs of dealing with the wounded coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan while still creating a hell overseas that they cannot even bring themselves to honestly imagine. Token visits to safe areas like the green zone or tours outside those boundaries under extremely heavy guard do not provide them with an adequate sense of reality. They'd do well to spend time with some of the 2 million refugees, within and outside of Iraq, to really understand exactly what they have wrought. Maybe then they wouldn't keep fiddling while Baghdad and Helmund province in Afghanistan burn as a result of their rash decisions.

So, on this day while America and the world once again mourns for those killed on 9/11, who is mourning for the hundreds of thousands who have died due to the need for revenge that followed that day 6 years ago?

And the question that once again hangs in the air is simple: Was it all worth it?

And who has been held accountable? Keith Olbermann offers "No truth, no consequences":


Where is the mass rebellion?

Update: The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border

British forces have been sent from Basra to the volatile border with Iran amid warnings from the senior US commander in Iraq that Tehran is fomenting a "proxy war".

In signs of a fast-developing confrontation, the Iranians have threatened military action in response to attacks launched from Iraqi territory while the Pentagon has announced the building of a US base and fortified checkpoints at the frontier.

And so it begins...
 

The Padilla Verdict

Jim Lehrer interviews Curt Anderson of the AP about the Padilla verdict:



Choice quotes from the Washington Post article on the verdict:

Padilla and co-defendants Adham Hassoun, a Lebanese-born Palestinian, and Kifah Jayyousi, a naturalized U.S. citizen from Jordan, were found guilty of one count of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim overseas, an offense with a maximum penalty of life in prison. They also were convicted of one count of conspiracy to provide material support for terrorists and one count of material support for terrorists. Sentencing is set for Dec. 5.
[...]
Padilla's lawyers charged that during his confinement, he was deprived of sleep, kept in a 9-foot-by-7-foot cell, chained in painful positions and injected with mind-altering drugs. Those conditions left him unable to participate in his own defense, the lawyers said. Padilla, like his co-defendants, did not take the stand.
[...]
During the long trial, jurors were presented with dozens of wiretapped calls, and the charges against the three men were complicated. Many observers were thus surprised that the panel took little more than a day to reach a decision.

The jury did seem to be an oddly cohesive group. On the last day of trial before the Fourth of July holiday, jurors arranged to dress in outfits so that each row in the jury box was its own patriotic color -- red, white or blue.
[...]
...in closing arguments prosecutors mentioned al-Qaeda more than 100 times, by one defense count, and urged jurors to in essence think of al-Qaeda and groups affiliated with it as an international murder conspiracy.

And the prosecution played an OBL video for the jury, which will be a point of contention in the upcoming appeal for its use as a fearmongering/ 9/11 sympathy tactic.

Check out Democracy Now!: EXCLUSIVE: An Inside Look at How U.S. Interrogators Destroyed the Mind of Jose Padilla.

The Christian Science Monitor reported: "Padilla's cell measured nine feet by seven feet. The windows were covered over... He had no pillow. No sheet. No clock. No calendar. No radio. No television. No telephone calls. No visitors. Even Padilla's lawyer was prevented from seeing him for nearly two years."

According to his attorneys, Padilla was routinely tortured in ways designed to cause pain, anguish, depression and ultimately the loss of will to live.

His lawyers have claimed that Padilla was forced to take LSD and PCP to act as a sort of truth serum during his interrogations.

Up until last year the Bush administration maintained it had the legal right to hold Padilla without charge forever. But when faced with a Supreme Court challenge, President Bush transferred Padila [sic] out of military custody to face criminal conspiracy charges.

Questions have also been raised about whether Padilla was mentally fit to stand trial. His lawyers and family say he has become clearly mentally ill after being held in isolation.

Listen to or watch the DN! interview for more:

Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Angela Hegarty spent 22 hours interviewing Padilla last year to determine the state of his mental health. She concluded that Padilla lacked the capacity to assist in his own defense. Dr. Angela Hegarty is assistant professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University.

A farce of a case and a farce of a trial. Bush's America - where you can lock someone away for years on end without charge, torture him, and then haul him into court, find him guilty and call that "justice" and "victory".
 

Martial Law in Pakistan?

That's the rumour floating around in the western media and, according to the PakTribune and the Pakistan Daily Times:

ISLAMABAD: A decision whether or not to impose a state of emergency in the country hangs in the balance and is expected any time, high-level sources told Daily Times.

“It is now a matter of days,” said a senior Muslim Leaguer close to the president. “The president’s kitchen cabinet deliberated on the issue last night and his advisers pressed him to impose emergency in view of the current political situation in which certain unexpected decisions on various constitutional petitions including the one related to his uniform are expected,” he added.

The kitchen sink had no comment.

I jest, but this is deadly serious for Pakistanis as they stand to lose their civil rights if Musharraf does declare martial law. His back is up against the wall with his refusal to step down as army chief (an issue that has plagued him since he came into power); increasing pressure to go after al Qaeda in the north with rumblings from the US that it will launch unilateral strikes in the region even as it tries to get the Afghan and Pakistani governments to work it out in a "peace jirga" (which Musharraf has backed out of at the last minute); the political and violent repercussions from the bombing of the Red Mosque; his mishandling of the suspension of the country's chief justice; not to mention the many assassination attempts made against him - among other issues.

Of course, the most dangerous aspect of all of this is that Pakistan is a nuclear state. Perhaps the Bush administration saw this move coming when it recently decided to make a nuclear deal with India (.pdf file of the agreement). (Apparently, the Times of India refers to Musharraf as "Mush", which he may soon be if he makes this move.)

Pakistani hardliners are less than impressed with all of the rhetoric coming out of DC and the '08 election race - a la Obama saying he was willing to bypass Pakistan's sovereignty, if necessary, to go into Pakistan's tribal areas. Obama's comments are apparently being seen by some Democrats on Daily Kos as being a good thing: "If Pakistan Captures Bin Laden Now, Can Obama Take Credit?" is the naive question being asked as Musharraf uses statements like Obama's to justify imposing martial law:

Under Pakistan's constitution, the head of state _ the president _ may declare a state of emergency if it is deemed that the country's security is "threatened by war or external aggression, or by internal disturbance beyond" the government's authority to control.

How any Democrat could claim this is some sort of victory for Obama is beyond me.

Stay tuned.
 

Random News & Views Roundup

- So much for Obama's hawkish foreign policy:

ISLAMABAD (AFP) - Pakistan accused Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama of "sheer ignorance" for threatening to launch US military strikes against Al-Qaeda on Pakistani soil.

- So the White House thumbed its nose at having Karl Rove testifying before the senate committee investigating the US attorneys scandal and his aide, Scott Jennings, showed up and refused to answer "at least a dozen questions". Like getting blood from a stone.

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, asked Jennings, "Where is Karl Rove? Why is he hiding? Why does he throw a young staffer like you into the line of fire while he hides behind the White House curtains?"

Because he's an arrogant asshole, Dick. Next question?

- I'd sure like to know where the Bush administration finds these clueless people who apparently all live on Fantasy Island:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 2 — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday that he was discouraged by the resignation of the Sunnis from Iraq’s cabinet and that the Bush administration might have misjudged the difficulty of achieving reconciliation between Iraq’s sectarian factions.

In one of his bluntest assessments of the progress of the administration’s Iraq strategy, Mr. Gates said, “I think the developments on the political side are somewhat discouraging at the national level.” He said that despite the Sunni withdrawal, “my hope is that it can all be patched back together.”

I guess democracy's a quilt now.

He acknowledged that when the Bush administration decided to send the additional troops, “We probably all underestimated the depth of the mistrust and how difficult it would be for these guys to come together on legislation, which, let’s face it, is not some kind of secondary issue.”

"might have"? "probably"?? Sheesh.

- Proof that Republicans are partisan idiots:

WASHINGTON -- Congress struggled Thursday over giving the government more power to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists, bogged down by concerns about the man who would oversee the plan _ Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
[...]
Gonzales "is clearly one of the concerns that has been expressed by the Democratic leaders," House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio told reporters.

"But at the end of the day, there has to be a way for our intelligence and counterintelligence agencies to collect data from known terrorists," Boehner said. "And we shouldn't let personalities get in the way of protecting the American people."

One of the most corrupt and torture-loving AGs ever and Boehner thinks it's a personality issue? That's exactly why America is so bloody screwed up.
 

Obama: The Audacity of Hope?

That's what Barack Obama said he was running on. He even wrote a book about it.

But this is not what "hope" looks like:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy.

Obama's stance comes amid debate in Washington over what to do about a resurgent al Qaeda and Taliban in areas of northwest Pakistan that President Pervez Musharraf has been unable to control, and concerns that new recruits are being trained there for a September 11-style attack against the United States.

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

I thought (naively, I suppose) that America would be done with infringing on other countries' sovereignty once dubya was gone. Instead, Obama supports the Bush Doctrine:

According to the Bush Doctrine, grave threats require a military response regardless of other countries' views. The Bush doctrine includes making reasonable efforts to include other nations in military or diplomatic actions, however in the absence of coalition partners, unilateral military action is taken against perceived threats. The policy document states that "United States has, and intends to keep, military strength beyond challenge", indicating the US intends to take actions as necessary to continue its status as the world's sole military superpower.

And then there's Hillary the Hawk, who still hasn't apologized for her support of the AUMF against Iraq:

Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country."

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

And how did that work out for him, Hillary?

John Edwards has the right idea, sort of:

Another Democratic candidate, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, said he would not hesitate to use force against extremists but said, "I believe we must first use maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take all necessary actions to stop al Qaeda."

(But they won't, of course, since Pakistan and SA are their allies - no matter what those countries do.)

And that doesn't make up for the fact that he's in there like a dirty shirt warmongering against Iran to show his support for Israel.

Hawks - all of them. Don't expect US foreign policy to change any time soon, no matter who's elected president in '08. The wars must go on.
 

Random News & Views Roundup

Note: It seems I can post to my blog tonite but I can't view it. &%@%$$ Blogger. Update: they seem to have fixed the problem.


- So I was sitting on the step yesterday when I saw a Calgary Police Service car drive by with a "Support the Troops" ribbon and thought I should update last week's post about city council debating the issue of whether to allow those ribbons to be displayed on municipal vehicles. It turns out that the council did the right thing, imho, and refused to allow such a policy. I wonder if those cops got that memo.

- And, speaking of city council, I'd sure like to know what the big hold up is with approving secondary suites. Don't they know we have a housing crisis in this city?

On to international affairs:

- According to The Independent, Pakistan's Foreign Minister says the US military will not be allowed to go after al Qaeda in his country.

This response definitely echoes neocon sentiments about silly little things like sovereignty:

"You cannot stop the stream. You have to shut the camps, which are all in Pakistan," said Barnett Rubin, a senior fellow at New York University's Centre on International Co-operation. "If they were in Afghanistan they would have been bombed by now."

He added: "Up until now, the government of Pakistan has not authorised this except for some very small, deniable covert operations. Either Musharraf changes his policy, or the US carries out operations in Pakistan without the consent of the government."

Just send in the CIA "snatch or kill" teams, a NYT editorial asserts.

And, if you believe this, I have some nice swamp land to sell you:

The agency’s history of ill-conceived covert political operations from the 1950s through the 1970s may cause some to worry. That agency, however, no longer exists. Congressional hearings and legislation, as well as fear of casualties, have given the clandestine service its own case of risk aversion, though it seems less severe than the Pentagon’s.

Right. That's why CIA agents have immunity from prosecution for torture. Risk averse, my ass.

- US ambassador Ryan Crocker met with Iraq's al-Maliki and Iran's ambassador to Baghdad Hassan Kazemi Qomi on Tuesday in a lengthy meeting that was variously described in media reports as "heated" and "difficult".

Qomi maintained that Iran has no connection to insurgent groups, Crocker said, adding that the U.S. government "has no question" about the connection between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Shiite militias. Critics have pressed Crocker and other American officials for conclusive evidence of such ties, a request the ambassador dismissed Tuesday.

"This is not something we're trying to or we need to prove in a court of law," Crocker said, adding that insurgents captured by American troops have told investigators they are backed by Iran.

Get with the program, Qomi. Whatever the Bush administration says is true. They don't need no stinkin' evidence. You should know that by now.

- Meanwhile, the NYT reports what those of us (who aren't in denial) already knew: U.S. Is Seen in Iraq Until at Least ’09

The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq.

So tell me again why the Democrats are waiting for Petraeus' September report as if it's going to say anything other than "we need more time"?

- Bush sucks (and blows), but we already knew that.

The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency.

Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating.

Well, at least freedom is on the march for somebody.

Oh, and in case you didn't know, the intertubes are evul:

"A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh," said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. "That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions."

So there you go, the truth sucks too.
 

Gonzales testifies; Bush cites al Qaeda 95 times in a speech

While Alberto Gonzales was, again, refusing to answer vital questions about the US attorney firings, what really happened at Ashcroft's hospital bedside, (C&L has the video) and insisting on dancing around the issue of torture in front of the senate judiciary committee today, his partner in crime, George Bush, gave a speech in which he referred to al Qaeda 95 times. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq and they're there for a reason," Bush said. Well, yes, they're there because you decided to illegally invade Iraq and invited them with your "bring 'em on" macho posturing.

And, as usual, Bush tried hard (it's hard work) to make the imaginary, debunked connection between 9/11 and al Qaeda in Iraq:

"I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection," said Bush. "The facts are that al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they're plotting to kill Americans here at home again."

Terror, terror, terror - but it's the same old story and certainly didn't stop the press from reporting on Gonzales' shady testimony.

Senators from both sides of the aisle attacked Gonzales:

"The attorney general has lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people," Leahy said. He said the administration "has squandered our trust" and told Gonzales bluntly, "I don't trust you."

Specter said there was "evidence of low morale" at the Justice Department and blasted what he described as Gonzales's lack of "personal credibility." He called the department "dysfunctional."

I imagine that what they're saying when the mics are off is much more scathing than that.

And the wrangling over the US attorney firings continues:

Gonzales again depicted himself as largely detached from controversial personnel practices, including the firings of the nine U.S. attorneys last year. But in a video message to Justice Department employees on Friday, he said, "I am sorry, and I accept full responsibility."

But that's the nature of most, if not all, of his answers - constantly contradicting himself. If he bobbed and weaved physically as much as he did verbally today, he would have collapsed from sheer exhaustion halfway through the hearings.

With his legal advisors in tow, sitting right behind him throughout the hearing, I got the sense I was watching a mob boss testifying. That's not much of a stretch considering the lengths Gonzales has gone to try to stretch and obfuscate national and international laws. And, even though he insists he's determined to stay on and "fix" the problems in the justice department (to which one senator responded that at least he's admitting there are problems), the best thing for all sane and law-abiding people involved would be to impeach the bastard and find someone who actually believes that the law isn't a partisan, political tool. Not an easy job in DC but, at this point, they couldn't do that much worse than the lying attorney general they have now. His arrogance knows no bounds and his disrespect for the law and international treaties out to be enough to disbar him for life.

CSPAN has the video of today's hearing.

Update: Code Pink was on hand at the hearings to protest against Gonzales. You can see a video of that protest here.
 

Quote du Jour: They Killed a Man Who Never Existed

Leader of Al Qaeda group in Iraq was fictional, U.S. military says

"First, they say we have killed him," Riedel [a former CIA official and a Middle East expert,] said, referring to the statements by some Iraqi government officials. "Then we heard him after his death and now they are saying he never existed. That suggests that our intelligence on Al Qaeda in Iraq is not what we want it to be."

Bonus quote from today's non-breaking "breaking" story:

BAGHDAD - The U.S. command announced on Wednesday the arrest of an al-Qaida leader it said served as the link between the organization's command in Iraq and Osama bin Laden's inner circle, enabling it to wield considerable influence over the Iraqi group.

The announcement was made as the White House steps up efforts to link the war in Iraq to the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, with a growing number of Americans opposing the Iraq conflict. Some independent analysts question the extent of al-Qaida's role in Iraq.

Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani was the highest-ranking Iraqi in the al-Qaida in Iraq leadership when he was captured July 4 in Mosul, U.S. military spokesman Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner said.

Today is July 18. 'Nuff said.
 

Quote du Jour: Harassing the terrorists to death

It's not a "war" on terrorism, people. It's a harassment campaign.

Q -- the President was warned before the war that this was actually going to help al Qaeda gain influence. And now you have a report suggesting maybe it has gained influence from the war in Iraq. Isn't that something that the President ignored?

MS. TOWNSEND: But you're assuming it's a zero-sum game, which is what I don't understand. The fact is we were harassing them in Afghanistan, we're harassing them in Iraq, we're harassing them in other ways, non-militarily, around the world. And the answer is, every time you poke the hornet's nest they are bound to come back and push back on you. That doesn't suggest to me that we shouldn't be doing it. It suggests -- you hardly need to be warned that they're going to use this for propaganda purposes. They're going to.

George W Bush: Harraser-in-Chief; Harasser Guy; Chief Executive Harasser
 

Outsourcing Executions of al Qaeda in Iraq

From Thursday's CNN Situation Room:

BLITZER:...Michael, the president made a major point of saying that it wasn't that long ago that the al-Anbar Province sort of was written off as lost because of Al Qaeda's strength, the insurgent Sunni strength there, but now it's made a comeback.

It has made a comeback, but it's been at a cost, is that right?

MICHAEL WARE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Oh, absolutely, Wolf.

Now, what the president is saying is true. Al-Anbar, in terms of Al Qaeda violence, has been checked to a fairly dramatic degree. That can't be begrudged. And it's through initiatives of the U.S. military.

But what they've done is, it means they've had to cut a deal with the Sunni/Baath insurgents. America doesn't know where Al Qaeda hides. America doesn't know where the facilitators are. The insurgents do. So they turn the insurgents against Al Qaeda. These insurgents are not bound by the same rules as the American military.

So these men can literally go out and use excessive force to arrest and interrogate Al Qaeda suspects and they can execute them. Indeed, we've unearthed video evidence of this and we've interviewed some of the militia members, as well, to confirm it. So that's one aspect.

The second aspect is that this success using these Sunni insurgents is driving a wedge between the U.S. and the Iraqi government. The Iraqi government is vehemently opposed to this program. They see it as America putting ammunition in the guns of armed groups who actively oppose this government. They suspect that this is an American insurance policy or a counterbalance against the government.

Why?

Because this government is Shia dominated. It's controlled mostly by militias, most of whom, according to U.S. intelligence, are controlled by Iran. So, it's not without a price -- Wolf.

Bush obviously doesn't care. As far as he's concerned, al Qaeda members in Iraq are part of the same bunch responsible for 9/11, as he said during his press conference on Thursday:

The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.

And how does he know that?

Q But, sir, on that point, what evidence can you present to the American people that the people who attacked the United States on September the 11th are, in fact, the same people who are responsible for the bombings taking place in Iraq? What evidence can you present? And also, are you saying, sir, that al Qaeda in Iraq is the same organization being run by Osama bin Laden, himself?

THE PRESIDENT: Al Qaeda in Iraq has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden*. And the guys who had perpetuated the attacks on America -- obviously, the guys on the airplane are dead, and the commanders, many of those are either dead or in captivity, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But the people in Iraq, al Qaeda in Iraq, has sworn allegiance to Osama bin Laden. And we need to take al Qaeda in Iraq seriously, just like we need to take al Qaeda anywhere in the world seriously.

*They swore allegiance in 2004. They're hardly the same gang involved in the 9/11 attacks and, reportedly, 90% of al Qaeda in Iraq are Iraqis.

And Helen Thomas zinged Bush right at the top of the question & answer session, of course:

Q Mr. President, you started this war, a war of your choosing, and you can end it alone, today, at this point -- bring in peacekeepers, U.N. peacekeepers. Two million Iraqis have fled their country as refugees. Two million more are displaced. Thousands and thousands are dead. Don't you understand, you brought the al Qaeda into Iraq.

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, I was hoping to solve the Iraqi issue diplomatically. That's why I went to the United Nations and worked with the United Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed a resolution that said disclose, disarm or face serious consequences. That was the message, the clear message to Saddam Hussein. He chose the course.

Q Didn't we go into Iraq --

THE PRESIDENT: It was his decision to make. Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make, to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq.

There is no doubt that he believes his lies with every fiber of his corrupt being and Helen Thomas, as usual, is absolutely right. But fear not, you have the Sunnis in Anbar (most likely funded and supplied by Saudi Arabia - Bush's best friends) going after al Qaeda in defiance of the Iraqi government while the neocons wait very impatiently for Iraq's parliament to pass the oil law. And, if al Maliki can't make that happen, he will promptly be replaced. Bush's biggest fear is not losing the war. He's said repeatedly that he doesn't want the oil assets falling into anyone's hands that his administration doesn't approve of - especially al Qaeda - who, as Thomas stated, Bush brought to Iraq.

That's what it's all about and that's why the Pentagon and the Bush administration have no qualms about outsourcing the executions of suspected al Qaeda members in Iraq while nattering on about how the political situation just needs more time to stabilize - a process they are actually hindering.
 

Abbas Accuses al Qaeda of Supporting Hamas

Forget the fact that Abbas didn't provide any actual evidence of such a claim. That didn't stop him from pulling out the west's bogeyman in an attempt to link them to Hamas. I guess it wasn't enough for the Bush administration to blame Iran. Now they've decided to try and up the ante, using Abbas as their spokespuppet, in an attempt to further demonize Hamas and to justify their interference in Palestinian politics.

In an interview on Monday with the RAI television network of Italy, Mr. Abbas said, “Thanks to the support of Hamas, Al Qaeda is entering Gaza.”
[...]
A Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, said today that Hamas has “no links” to Al Qaeda and that Mr. Abbas “is trying to mislead international opinion to win support for his demand to deploy international forces in Gaza.”

Hamas has always tried to distance itself from Al Qaeda and that group’s agenda of global jihad, saying that Hamas’s own struggle is confined to the Israeli-Palestinian arena.

Because that's what it is confined to.

Meanwhile, the humanitarian disaster in Gaza keeps getting worse with the west and Israel funding Abbas in the West Bank while Gazans suffer. And on Monday, the UN suspended all of its construction projects in Gaza "citing a concrete shortage it said was caused by Israeli closures of a border crossing".

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) funds scores of building projects in the largely impoverished Gaza Strip. It buys its materials from Israeli housing companies and hires mostly Palestinian contractors.

"Some 93 million dollars worth of projects are on hold because cement and other building supplies have run out," said John Ging, UNRWA's director in Gaza, citing the crossing closure.

Christopher Gunness, an UNRWA spokesman, said some concrete was transferred from Israel to Gaza in recent weeks but it was not enough. The suspension of the projects would affect thousands of Palestinians, he and Ging said.

That can only further exasperate the situation. Gunness said there was "a risk of a public health disaster" if the facilities UNRWA had been funding were not maintained.

So, while Abbas is busy doing Bush's work - using the threat of al Qaeda to call for an international force in Gaza which Hamas would only view as being "hostile" - the crisis is at a standstill.

Next week, the Do-Nothing Imperialist Duo - Rice and Blair - are scheduled to make an appearance in the ME to...do nothing again. Meanwhile, Olmert cancelled a meeting he was due to have this week with two members of the Arab League citing scheduling conflicts (no doubt deciding to wait until the imperialists give him his marching orders first).

Just how long will this crisis go on while ordinary Palestinians continue to suffer as politicians refuse to budge and up the rhetoric in an attempt to escalate an already very fragile reality?
 

New Brit Security Minister: Terror fight 'may take 15 years'

Quotes from Orwell's 1984:

"Nearly all children nowadays were horrible. What was worst of all was that by means of such organizations as the Spies they were systematically turned into ungovernable little savages, and yet this produced in them no tendency whatever to rebel against the discipline of the Party. On the contrary, they adored the Party and everything connected with it… All their ferocity was turned outwards, against the enemies of the State, against foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals. It was almost normal for people over thirty to be frightened of their own children." —pg 24

"It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could igve [sic] you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself—anything that carried with it the suggestion of abnormality, of having something to hide. In any case, to wear an improper expression on your face… was itself a punishable offense. There was even a word for it in Newspeak: facecrime…" —pg 54

Britain's new security minister hails the excitement of snitching as he predicts that it will only take about 10-15 years to get a grip on the war on terror:

The battle to deal with radicalisation in the fight against terrorism could take at least 15 years to achieve, the UK’s new security minister has said.

Former navy chief Admiral Sir Alan West blamed jihadists outside the country for influencing young Britons, and said the terror fight was a “daunting task”.

He urged people to be un-British by “snitching” to the authorities.
[…]
Sir Alan said: “We’re talking about such a big change in the way people behave that it’s inevitably going to take 10 to 15 years, and that’s if we’re lucky, and that’s what I hope we can achieve.

“I think it would be wrong to pretend otherwise to the British nation.”

Sir Alan said jihadists outside the country were influencing young British men and women and that “we need to think about how we can change that”.

He added: “I used the word ’snitch’ because I thought this would get everyone rather excited and interested, and I think that’s achieved that.

Let's deal with the issue of "snitching" first. The admiral seems to think he's a behavioural psychologist who can predict a massive change in his nation's thinking in a very short 10-15 year timeline by promoting this supposed excitement people will feel by becoming "un-British" (now isn't that quite the framing?). And his proof for this prediction is what, exactly?

Now there is no doubt that "snitching" can be useful in fighting crime, however there is that little complication of the risks and rewards involved. Take, for example, the money doled out to people in Afghanistan who were willing to turn over their innocent friends and neighbours to the Americans - many of whom ended being imprisoned (and who knows what else?) in Gitmo.

The US government has a "Rewards for Justice" program that focuses on handing out money worldwide to anyone willing to snitch and, to encourage tips, they state on their site:

In addition to a cash reward, personal protection is available. You and your family may be relocated to a safe location, and have an opportunity to start a new life, pay for a home, and educate your children.

So, if you knew someone was an actual terrorist, would you turn that person over without a personal guarantee for your family's security? "May"? How encouraging - how "exciting" - is that? And how many of those who were snitched on and have since been released have successfully sought revenge? We don't hear anything about that. The US government knows though that some people will do anything for money.

And just how well run is that program? Take a look at this case in the Philippines.

Abdulla is a well-known civic and religious leader in Sulu. He has many friends in the Philippine Army – officers as well as enlisted men. He is in fact a frequent visitor to Army detachments in his province. “They know me very well,” he told Bulatlat in an interview.

Abdulla was also very much visible in the campaign period for the recently-concluded senatorial and local elections as a candidate for councilor under the Mushawara Party.

Unfortunately, that didn’t protect him from being mistakenly identified as a commander of the bandit Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), which both Philippine and U.S. troops are hunting down in Mindanao.

On June 9, the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) distributed a Rewards for Justice recognition handbook in Brgy. Samak, during a medical civic action program (MEDCAP) mission with U.S. troops.

The handbook contains a list of suspected terrorists with corresponding offers of reward money for any information that could lead to their arrest. Among the alleged terrorists in the list was a certain ASG commander identified as Ali Igasan, a.k.a. Abdulla Tuan Ya Yasir Igasan. Igasan was described in the handbook as a Brgy. Samak resident who goes by the nickname Ustadz.

Problem is, it was the picture of Ustadz Yahiya Sarahadil Abdulla – who also goes by the nickname Ustadz – which appeared with the name of Igasan.

After getting hold of a copy of the handbook, Abdulla immediately met with his friends in the Philippine Army and demanded an explanation. “They told me I had been mistaken for someone else,” he said.

“They may have found difficulty looking for a picture of Igasan so they just put my picture there,” he said when asked what could have prompted his being tagged as an ASG leader.
[...]
“What do I have to be afraid of?” he said. “I know that my friends in the military know very well that I am not an Abu Sayyaf commander… I could not be any kind of bad element because I am an ustadz, a religious leader.”

He said, however, that he worries for the safety of others who may experience the same. “If it could happen to someone like me, it could happen to anyone else,” he said.

Obviously, if Abdulla hadn't been well-known, he most likely would have ended up in American custody somewhere having to continually plead to his innocence to deaf ears who would just point to his picture in that handbook and insist he was lying.

How often has that happened? I doubt the US government makes that information publicly available.

Going back to the British admiral's ridiculous prediction that his country can bring radicalization to an end in his country during the next decade, note that he places all of the blame on foreign "jihadists" while making the obvious and arrogant mistake of refusing to examine why those radicals exist. Even Bush has often said that you have to listen to the extremists words themselves to understand their motivations (not that he actually hears what they say anyway - obviously).

Their huge blind spot (wrapped in the "they hate up for our freedoms" nonsense) is their failure to acknowledge what people like bin Laden have been saying for decades: it's all about the west's foreign policy in the Middle East. It doesn't get any more plain than this (via wiki):

In conjunction with several other Islamic militant leaders, bin Laden issued two fatwas—in 1996 and then again in 1998—that Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic countries.

They have a cause. If western countries really want to get serious about fighting al Qaeda-like terrorism, perhaps they should stop doing things like illegally invading Iraq, supporting Israel unconditionally while thumbing their nose at the democratic process in the occupied Palestinian territories, abandoning any sort of peace process, protecting Saudi Arabia, endlessly killing innocent civilians (and then blaming the dead for being in the wrong place at the wrong time), forcefully trying to pillage the ME's oil resources, allowing Israel to have undeclared nuclear weapons while warmongering against Iran - which doesn't even have any...and on and on.

Root causes.

That's what imperialists choose to ignore while fearmongering about how they need to "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" - all the while creating even more radicals as a result.

So Sir Alan, as excited as you may be about your snitching expedition and as optimistic as you are about eliminating radicalization in such a short time (while you seem to forget that radicals have existed as long as human beings have), your extremely simplistic view is nothing but laughable. If you are the new person in charge of Britain's security, I fear for the safety of the British people because it's more than obvious that you are in as much denial as every other western empire-building supporter.

And one more thing: the so-called war on terror is impossible to win. There will always be terror. You should know. You're a part of a coalition of western powers that uses it regularly try to scare your own people and others into submission. You've all certainly taken the words of Winston Churchill to heart and have actually chosen to fashion them into your official policy to impose on your countrymen:

We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

You dole out the fear and call that "leadership" while decrying the fear created by radicals and terrorists. You're in desperate need of a mirror.

What if what they really want is for us to herd children into stadiums like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street and - and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that, and everything that we have bled and fought and died for is over, and they've won. They've already won!.
-- Denzel Washington. The Siege (1998).

Related: Via wiki - Human rights in the United Kingdom

Since 2001, the "War on Terrorism" has led to new human rights concerns.

The most recent criticism has concerned the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, a response to a perceived increased threat of Islamic terrorism. This act allows the house arrest of terrorist suspects where there is insufficient evidence to bring them to trial, involving the derogation (opting-out) of human rights laws. This aspect of the Prevention of Terrorism Act was introduced because the detention without trial of nine foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part IV of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was held to be unlawful under human rights legislation in A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004).

Chaos in Lebanon: Who's Responsible?

The meme that has been pushed by the Bush administration and much of the mainstream media (including Robert Fisk, surprisingly) is that Syria's government is behind the current chaos in Lebanon based on its opposition to the Hariri investigation:

[Tony Snow said] 'We will not tolerate attempts by Syria, terrorist groups or any others to delay or derail Lebanon's efforts to solidify its sovereignty or to seek justice in the Hariri case -- or for that matter to take on the violence that continues to plague the country,' he told reporters.

That sounds certain, doesn't it? But then Snow immediately contradicts himself:

Snow said the United States did not know whether Syria was involved in stoking the violence, stressing: 'We are still studying precisely what is going on but it is important to send the signal.

'The Syrians have said that they wish to play a constructive role. One constructive role is make sure that you're not part of the violence,' the spokesman said.

Even Bush is backing away from directly accusing Syria:

"I don't know about this particular incident. I'll be guarded on making accusations until I get better information, but I will tell you there's no doubt that Syria was deeply involved in Lebanon. There's no question they're still involved in Lebanon," he said.

Perhaps part of the reason the WH is "studying" the situation is due to what really might be going on, according to Sy Hersh (watch the video):

In an interview on CNN International's Your World Today, veteran journalist Seymour Hersh explains that the current violence in Lebanon is the result of an attempt by the Lebanese government to crack down on a militant Sunni group, Fatah al-Islam, that it formerly supported.

Last March, Hersh reported that American policy in the Middle East had shifted to opposing Iran, Syria, and their Shia allies at any cost, even if it meant backing hardline Sunni jihadists.

A key element of this policy shift was an agreement among Vice President Dick Cheney, Deputy National Security Advisor Elliot Abrams, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national security adviser, whereby the Saudis would covertly fund the Sunni Farah al-Islam in Lebanon as a counterweight to the Shia Hezbollah.
[...]
Hersh implies, the Bush administration is no longer acting rationally in its policy. "We're in the business of supporting the Sunnis anywhere we can against the Shia. ... "We're in the business of creating ... sectarian violence." And he describes the scheme of funding Fatah al-Islam as "a covert program we joined in with the Saudis as part of a bigger, broader program of doing everything we could to stop the spread of the Shia world, and it just simply -- it bit us in the rear."

Just exactly what was Cheney discussing with the Saudis during his last two visits there?

Politics and war do indeed make strange bedfellows:

BEIRUT, Lebanon: The Shiite Muslim Hezbollah militant group has so far backed Lebanon's army in its confrontation with a Sunni militant group inside a refugee camp — despite the fact that Hezbollah has been pushing to topple Lebanon's government.

The Hezbollah stance highlights the complex tensions among Lebanon's various factional and militant groups. Hezbollah — as a Shiite group — is a sworn ideological and religious enemy to groups like Fatah Islam, the Sunni militant group involved in the siege, whose leader had ties to former al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Such emnity is often bitter — Al-Zarqawi pushed for the killings of Shiites in Iraq and elsewhere before his death last year, calling them infidels.

Such tensions are longstanding across the Mideast, even though countries like Syria have been accused of sometimes backing both Sunni and Shiite militants.
[...]
In a statement from the group that shows its complex stance, Hezbollah denounced the attacks against the Lebanese army — stressing the role of the Lebanese army in safeguarding peace, but also tacitly criticized Lebanon's current government.

"We feel that there is someone out there who wants to drag the army to this confrontation and bloody struggle ... to serve well-known projects and aims. We are hearing calls for more escalation and fighting, which will ultimately lead to more chaos and confrontation in Lebanon," the Hezbollah statement said. It called for a political solution to the crisis.

And to add further irony to irony via CNN reports that Lebanon's president has asked the Bush administration to send military help which would result, of course, in the Bush administration supporting Hezbollah.

The complexities they create for themselves.

Meanwhile, the situation in the refugee camp under attack is extremely tense.

A truce declared by Fatah al-Islam in the Palestinian refugee camp ended soon after it was announced Tuesday, when a U.N. relief convoy in the camp came under fire at 11:30 GMT (7:30 a.m. ET)

A U.N. official in Beirut said several of the agency's workers were trapped inside the camp for several hours, but later got out shaken but unhurt. It's not clear who fired on the convoy or whether it was targeted. (Watch an explanation of what's behind the fighting Video)

The Lebanese army had said it would not fire unless fired upon. A spokeswoman for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, Hoda Samara, told CNN from Beirut that the relief convoy had been loaded with water, food and medical supplies.

"The humanitarian situation is very, very bad," she told CNN, "and deteriorating every minute. Inside the camp, there are no hospitals and only one health center," which had been unable to stay open during the fighting. The overcrowded camp was home to some 40,000 people.
[...]
Battles between Lebanese soldiers and militants have killed at least 30 troops and as many as 25 militants, according to Bilal Aslan, who belongs to the Fatah movement of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The fighting has also left 20 civilians dead, he said.

Blogger The Angry Arab is on top of what's happening in the camp. His posts are not to be missed. (h/t Marisacat)

Considering the plight of the refugees in that camp, you'd think the US State Department would show some actual humanity instead of releasing a statement saying more than that the Lebanese army attacks are "justified". Then again, humanitarian concerns have never been at the top of Bushco's priority list.
 

Terrorism Threat in Germany (just kidding)

CNN is busy today covering a supposedly new threat to Americans in Germany by an "al Qaeda franchise" - calling up the usual suspects (their various security experts) to contribute filler and fear.

But wait a minute...

U.S. officials say no new security threat in Germany

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. and German officials said on Friday there was no new security threat in Germany after ABC News reported that officials believed that terrorists were planning an attack on U.S. military personnel or tourists in Germany.

Gonzales embarasses Bush again. Bush is rebuked by 12 GOP members over the Iraq war.

Quick! Someone come up with a handy terrorist threat as a distraction.

Mission accomplished.