SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Peter Dierks who wrote (15473)12/21/2006 12:37:01 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Maybe He Was Just Lost
"U.S.-led forces captured a senior al-Qaida leader who was responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths and housed foreign fighters who carried out suicide bombings, the U.S. military said Wednesday," the Associated Press reports from Baghdad:

The leader, who was not identified, was arrested in a raid in Mosul on Dec. 14, the military said in a statement.

"The terrorist leader was attempting to flee from the location when Coalition Forces chased him across a street and detained him," the statement said.

It said the suspect served as al-Qaida's military chief in Mosul in 2005, and then took up the same job in western Baghdad.

"During that time, he coordinated car vehicle-borne improvised explosives device attacks and kidnap for ransom operations in Baghdad," the military said. It cited reports that said he organized an attempt to shoot down a U.S. military helicopter in May this year.

"After a few months he fled Baghdad due to Coalition Forces closing in on him," the statement said.


This is most odd. Haven't we been hearing for years that al Qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq? We may have to rethink our whole view of the conflict. And another AP dispatch complicates things further:

The deputy leader of al-Qaida said the United States was negotiating with the wrong people in Iraq, implying in a video broadcast Wednesday on Al-Jazeera that Washington should be talking to his group.

"I want to tell the Republicans and the Democrats together ... you are trying to negotiate with some parties to secure your withdrawal, but these parties won't find you an exit (from Iraq) and your attempts will yield nothing but failure," Ayman al-Zawahri said on the video.

"It seems that you will go through a painful journey of failed negotiations until you will be forced to return to negotiate with the real powers," he said, without elaborating.


Should America negotiate with al Qaeda? Well, heck, why not? After all, you don't negotiate with your friends, you negotiate with your enemies! And Reagan negotiated with the "evil empire"! Reuters, meanwhile, buries the lead in a story about the Zawahiri tape:

Al Qaeda, which carried out the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. cities, has repeatedly vowed more strikes on the United States. Zawahri last threatened attacks in a videotape in June to avenge the killing of the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

So far as we know, this is the first time Reuters has reported as fact that al Qaeda carried out the 9/11 attacks. In the past, the "news" service always used formulations like "which America blames for the attacks." It seems that finally, after more than five years, Reuters has abandoned the theory that Saddam Hussein dunnit.

opinionjournal.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (15473)12/21/2006 10:07:28 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Iranian voters are, but not the U.N. Security Council.

Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Iranians made their feelings plain about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week by voting to reject his allies in municipal elections and in the Assembly of Experts, a clerical body that theoretically has authority over Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. That doesn't mean reformers now run Iran, but it does suggest that international pressure and a policy of democracy promotion may produce the kinds of changes in Iran that three years of Western diplomacy have failed to achieve.

So it's all the more puzzling that, even as Iranians try to apply some pressure on Mr. Ahmadinejad, the international community is about to prove his point that Iran will pay little price for its quest to develop an atomic bomb. Consider what's happening at the U.N., where the Security Council is expected to approve a sanctions resolution this week, nearly four months after its August 31 "deadline" for Tehran to stop enriching uranium.

We've seen the latest draft of the resolution, hashed out among the U.S., the Europeans and Russia. Iran will be forbidden from importing any items or technical assistance "which could contribute to [its] enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water related activities, or to the delivery of nuclear weapon delivery systems." The resolution also imposes travel restrictions, and it freezes the financial assets of certain individuals involved in Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

This almost sounds tough. But then the resolution carves out exceptions that are broader than the actual rules. Consider the financial freeze: It shall apply in all cases, except where the money is necessary for "basic expenses," "extraordinary expenses," or is "the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien." Or take the travel ban, which has exceptions for "humanitarian need," "religious obligation," or when the sanctioned individuals need to travel in connection to some nuclear activities as opposed to others.

More dangerous is the exception for Bushehr, the civilian reactor that Russia has built for Iran at a cost of $1 billion and that is expected to be ready by October 2007. Conventional wisdom says "light-water" reactors such as Bushehr can't easily be used to make nukes, one reason the Clinton Administration arranged to build two of them for North Korea.

In fact, says proliferation expert Henry Sokolski, such reactors produce hundreds of tons of reactor-grade plutonium, which can be reprocessed into nuclear fuel for as many as 60 Nagasaki-type bombs in a matter of weeks. The Russians promise to safeguard the nuclear fuel. But the reactor's uranium pellets can be secretly removed by substituting dummy fuel rods and then quickly enriched to weapons-grade material in Iran's centrifuge cascades, without foreign inspectors ever being the wiser. Iranian scientists will also gain invaluable nuclear know-how simply by operating a civilian reactor.

In other words, the Security Council's resolution may well be worse than nothing at all. It reaffirms Iran's "right" to peaceful nuclear energy--a right it has long since forfeited by violating the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). And by carving a legally binding exception around Bushehr, the Security Council gives Iran the foothold it needs to develop its nuclear program to within a screw's twist of an actual bomb, without ever trespassing against the sanctions.

The resolution's defenders, particularly at the State Department, tell us this is a price worth paying to accommodate the Russians and achieve an international consensus. They also say the resolution is just the latest incremental step. But at some point one has to ask whether consensus is helping to achieve U.S. policy goals, particularly when Iran keeps using international divisions to buy time for its nuclear programs. Perhaps the best the Administration can hope for is that Iran responds to even these minimal sanctions by making good on its threats to withdraw from the NPT, embarrassing even the U.N. Security Council into tougher action.

Which brings us back to the Iranian elections. It is wrong to imagine that the big winner--former president and Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani--is a moderate or a reformer, though he is more certainly presentable than his successor; he too has threatened Israel with nuclear annihilation. But given the limited political choices the regime offers voters, the election indicates that most Iranians dislike the regime and that they take no pleasure in their president's status as a moral pariah.

There's an opening here to promote change, provided the U.S. doesn't reward Mr. Ahmadinejad's bad behavior by failing to punish it, and provided President Bush reminds Iranians that while the U.S. opposes their government, it stands with Iranians who want more freedom.

opinionjournal.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (15473)12/22/2006 12:30:53 AM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
About another leftwing lunatic at the NYTimes:

FRANK RICH DECLARES IRAQ 'BOX OFFICE POISON!'
December 20, 2006

Last year, Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, wrote to the head of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, telling him to "be ready starting now" for America to run from Iraq, reminding him how America cut and ran from Vietnam and the "aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam, and how they ran and left their agents."

Alas, Zarqawi never got to implement his Iraq takeover plan because the same troops that are allegedly losing the war right now killed him in June.

But al-Qaida in America isn't ready to quit, yet!

New York Times theater critic Frank Rich made headlines on the Drudge Report last week by announcing: "We have lost in Iraq." Of course, Rich was saying we had lost in Iraq more than six months before we went into Iraq.

In August 2002, he wrote that Bush did not have the support of the American people for war in Iraq and without that he would "mimic another hubristic Texan president who took a backdoor route into pre-emptive warfare."

In April 2003, one month after we invaded, Rich said the looting of Iraqi museums by Iraqis showed "our worst instincts at the very dawn of our grandiose project to bring democratic values to the Middle East."

About six months into the war he wrote a column about Iraq titled: "Why Are We Back in Vietnam?" You can imagine how writing those words must have brought back memories of Frank Rich's own valiant service in Vietnam.

In January 2004, less than a year after the invasion, he wrote: "The greater debate has been over the degree to which the follies of Vietnam are now being re-enacted in Iraq." Historians noted that this is the first time Rich ever panned something containing the word "follies."

A month later, he was again comparing Iraq to Vietnam, saying Bush had forced the comparison "by wearing the fly boy uniform of his own disputed guard duty" when he landed on the aircraft carrier. Did Frank Rich win three purple hearts in combat, or was it four? I always forget.

In May 2004, Rich accused Bush of throwing "underprepared and underprotected" American troops in harm's way in Iraq. OK, I was kidding before. The closest Frank Rich has come to serving in the military was reviewing a revival of "The Caine Mutiny." Though he does know the words to "In the Navy" by heart.

Even after transitioning from musical reviewer to hard-bitten military analyst, Rich couldn't resist tossing in a quick dance review. He gleefully described "pictures of Marines retreating from Fallujah and of that city's citizens dancing in the streets to celebrate their victory over the American liberators."

This too, reminded Rich of Vietnam. Right now I'm trying to think of something that doesn't remind liberals of Vietnam ... hmmm ... drawing a blank.

In September 2005, Rich wrote that the war in Iraq "resembles its Southeast Asian predecessor in its unpopularity, its fictional provocation and its unknown exit strategy" — interestingly, the exact same words he used years ago in his review of "Miss Saigon." He leeringly anticipated "a Tet offensive, Sunni-style" to tilt the election in Kerry's direction.

In October 2004, Rich said Bush had "bungled the war in Iraq and, in doing so, may be losing the war against radical Islamic terrorism as well." He didn't explain how killing tens of thousands of Islamic terrorists constituted "bungling" a war against them. Then again, what do I know about military analysis? I thought "The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia?" was atrocious.

In May of this year, he said that "the public has turned on the war in Iraq" — the very war that he said the public opposed long before we ever went in.

And in June he said the public knows "defeat when they see it, no matter how many new plans for victory are trotted out to obscure that reality" — though I might be confusing this statement with Rich's comments on the Times' plan to charge readers for his column.

Liberals are like people with stale breath talking into your face at a party. You try backing away from them or offering them gum, but then they just start whimpering. They've been using the exact same talking points about how we're losing in Iraq since before we invaded.

It seems they've finally succeeded in exhausting Americans and, thereby, handing a victory to al-Qaida.

The weakest members of the herd are rapidly capitulating, trying to preserve a modicum of honor by prattling about how if their plans had been implemented, Iraq would be in tip-top shape and our troops would be home for Christmas.

Well, if my plans had been implemented, the anti-war crowd would be weeping about Iraqi civilian deaths so much they wouldn't have time to pretend they gave a damn about the loss of American lives.

But the plans that were implemented have deposed a monster, put him on trial — which resulted in his conviction and death sentence — killed rape hobbyists Uday and Qusay, presided over three democratic elections, killed al-Zarqawi and scores of other al-Qaida leaders fighting Americans in Iraq, and kept the U.S. safe from Islamic terrorist attacks for five years now. The least I can do is not capitulate to the left's endless nagging.

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

anncoulter.com



To: Peter Dierks who wrote (15473)12/29/2006 12:22:44 PM
From: Peter Dierks  Respond to of 71588
 
Cut-and-run is not in their vocabulary.

BY DANIEL HENNINGER
Friday, December 29, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

If someone this weekend says "Happy New Year" in Iraq or Afghanistan, would anyone in the world hear it? For many, the people of Iraq and Afghanistan have become like trees falling in an empty forest. The world doesn't want to hear it. Indeed, the one apparent accomplishment of the Baker-Hamilton report is that it freed people to say that Iraq is a "failure." Afghanistan, with fewer suicide bombings, never became much of a story in our domestic political wars, and so has largely receded into the mists.

It is ironic that despite the years of our daily engagement in these places, the "information age" has brought us so little knowledge about the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Psychologically, much of America has already cut and run from these two countries.

Some Americans, though, simply won't.

In April 2004, this column told the story of Spirit of America, organized by Jim Hake, to provide citizen-supported aid to the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then in May 2005 this space was given over to an account of American businesswomen working to help women in post-Taliban Afghanistan.

Here in the U.S., the political new year will fill up fast enough with politicians and pundits offering ways to unwind and spindle the commitments America made to Iraq and Afghanistan. So this seemed a good moment to revisit the folks running Spirit of America and the Business Council for Peace. They're not going to leave.

Spirit of America's experience in Iraq has followed the same rugged timeline of events as the war. Recall that in April 2004 it raised sufficient monies to rebuild TV stations in Al Anbar province, staffed by Iraqis, to counterbalance propaganda from the likes of al-Jazeera. Those TV stations were built. And they have been destroyed. A sewing center for Iraqi women was similarly destroyed.

This past year, the group got a request from the Army 451st Battalion to help restore the medical facilities at the Najaf Teaching Hospital. The Mahdi militia had occupied it for a time. Spirit of America sent seven cardiac monitors to the hospital's director, Safaa Hamedi. In October, gunmen killed Dr. Hamedi outside his home.

Still, requests from the Marines and Army continue to arrive at Spirit of America. An Army captain in Afghanistan's Parwan province asked for medical textbooks for local doctors. SoA sent bee serum to inoculate honey bees at a business in Iraq's Diyala region. Marine Lt. Jim Wilmott got camping equipment for 200 Iraqi Boy Scouts. At the request of U.S. Embassy personnel, SoA has sent clothing and school supplies for orphans in Baghdad and Basra. They've sent thousands of kids' backpacks and school supplies requested by soldiers around the country. With the SonoSite ultrasound company, SoA delivered handheld ultrasound machines to the primary hospital in Al Qaim, Iraq, near the Syrian border. "Before this," said Mr. Hake, "they were using seashells to listen to the sounds of a pregnant mother and baby; the Marines couldn't believe it."

Jim Hake says Spirit of America's contributions have fallen off since 2004 owing to general fatigue with Iraq, "but under the circumstances people continue to be quite generous." An end-of-the-year funding request raised more than $150,000. "The emails we send to donors are not a good-news operation," says Mr. Hake. "We don't want to put a happy face on it. But the information is more encouraging than what they typically hear. The destroyed projects are hardly good news, but there are lots of guys and gals in the military there who are not just marking time, who want to see this work."

It was about 19 months ago to the day that 13 women from Afghanistan were looking out the windows of the 29th floor of the Empire State Building in midtown Manhattan, brought there by a group of American businesswomen who call themselves the Business Council for Peace (Bpeace). One of the women remarked that New York looked "very new." The idea was to expose the Afghans, most of them college graduates, to basic business know-how. Bpeace had identified the Afghans as "fast runners," women with entrepreneurial instincts. Kate Bruggeln, a Council member and retailing specialist, just returned from Kabul, her fourth trip there. Three other Bpeace women were with her.

"These trips to Afghanistan always stagger you in the best way," she said this week. "Afghanistan is a longer road than our election cycle can endure, but these women are the future of Afghanistan. This isn't a replay of the last decade. Our group's been working with them for almost two years. They are making progress."

The big event on this trip was the preparations to open Rangeen Kaman Artisans, a for-profit cooperative run by 10 of the Bpeace "associates." Another associate, Afifa, has opened a fitness center for women; it shares electrical power with the RKA store. The Americans are also working with the Afghan Women's Business Federation to create a business-formation curriculum across the country.

"The thing Afghans fear most is that we're going to leave," Ms. Brugelln says. "Not only do they fear it, they predict it, because everyone has done it before. This fourth trip by our group was profoundly meaningful to them. In the face of all the instability, we showed up again. Bpeace won't be part of the downward spiral."

Could this determination be a variant of the much-mocked "stay the course"? It is at least an interesting irony that the people who have had their faces deepest in Iraq and Afghanistan the longest, as soldiers or volunteers like these, are the ones inclined to stick it out; while many here whose experience comes off the bloody front page every day are the ones looking for a way to--there is no other phrase--cut and run.

Groups such as the Spirit of America and the Business Council for Peace may yet be driven out. It is to this country's credit that early on, they voted with their feet to go in, and regret nothing.

Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.