Anubis
Video of American Muslims desecrating flag and disavowing any allegiance to USA.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Babalu Blog: Cubanisms: Only in Miami...
Babalu Blog: Cubanisms: Only in Miami...These are building contractor terms in Miami Spanglish. For your enjoyment and miseducation, a few of those terms follow:
Draibol: Dry Wall
Guedarpru: Weatherproof
Guatartai: Watertight
esto: Stud
grei: Grade
bin: Beam
pos: Post
rufeador: Roofer
tailero: Tiler
plastero: Plaster (I always thinks of the word plasta in Spanish or cowpie, so I imagine that their work is pretty bad!!!!)
estin: Steam (for heating)
chutaras: Shutters
And many others...
Plus the reckless translations from Spanish, literally:
White Carpenter: Carpinteria en Blanco (unfinished carpentry, construction carpenter who puts up wood siding or wood beams and plywood in the roof)
Cabineter: Ebanista, Cabinet maker
Final Carpenter: No, it's not the last carpenter on your list, it's somebody who delivers a finished product!!! Also Fine Carpenter, from Spanish carpinteria fina.
I simply think that this is pathetic. They should be learning English, and if that's too difficult for people of a certain age or level of education, well, they at least should use the correct terms in Spanish so they don't become the laughing stock of the world. I think that one needs to speak properly whichever language one prefers to communicate with others, but that this kind of half tongue lingo is totally unacceptable. Many people would not hire somebody with this kind of business card and that's detrimental for both the person who is trying to earn a contract and the trades of construction in general.
Draibol: Dry Wall
Guedarpru: Weatherproof
Guatartai: Watertight
esto: Stud
grei: Grade
bin: Beam
pos: Post
rufeador: Roofer
tailero: Tiler
plastero: Plaster (I always thinks of the word plasta in Spanish or cowpie, so I imagine that their work is pretty bad!!!!)
estin: Steam (for heating)
chutaras: Shutters
And many others...
Plus the reckless translations from Spanish, literally:
White Carpenter: Carpinteria en Blanco (unfinished carpentry, construction carpenter who puts up wood siding or wood beams and plywood in the roof)
Cabineter: Ebanista, Cabinet maker
Final Carpenter: No, it's not the last carpenter on your list, it's somebody who delivers a finished product!!! Also Fine Carpenter, from Spanish carpinteria fina.
I simply think that this is pathetic. They should be learning English, and if that's too difficult for people of a certain age or level of education, well, they at least should use the correct terms in Spanish so they don't become the laughing stock of the world. I think that one needs to speak properly whichever language one prefers to communicate with others, but that this kind of half tongue lingo is totally unacceptable. Many people would not hire somebody with this kind of business card and that's detrimental for both the person who is trying to earn a contract and the trades of construction in general.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Power Line: Where Will It End?
Power Line: Where Will It End?: "The hate, that is. Victor Davis Hanson recapitulates the liberals' hate campaign against President Bush, ranging from Charlie Rangel ('This is just as bad as the 6 million Jews being killed') to John Glenn ('It's the old Hitler business') to Amnesty International. Like us, Hanson worries about where all this will lead:
As a result, the bar is lowering. In today's climate, Alfred Knopf has already published a novel about killing the president. Charlie Brooker writing in the Guardian in London prayed for another Lee Harvey Oswald to take out George W. Bush. Comedians, New York plays and art exhibits also bandy about assassination.
Each time a public official evokes Hitler to demonize the president, the American effort in Iraq or its conservative supporters, cheap rhetorical fantasy becomes only that much closer to a nightmarish reality where the unstable, here and abroad, act on the belief America really is Hitler's Germany.
We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.
Let's hope that somber prophecy doesn't prove true. Michelle Malkin notes more evidence of the same phenomenon. She links to the Huffington Post, where, in response to a rumor that Vice-President Cheney was hospitalized in Colorado, Democratic commenters openly wish for Chency's death, much as some (to be fair, not all) liberals recently cheered for conservative commentator Laura Ingraham to die of breast cancer.
It's not a pretty picture. Meanwhile, to put all of this in perspective, Gateway Pundit has a good roundup of developments in the trial, in Jordan, of 13 al Qaeda terrorists for plotting to perpetrate the worst chemical weapons attack in history. (We most recently commented on the Jordan trial in 'Pay No Attention to the Terrorists Behind the Curtain'.)
The Jordan trial is significant in part because it shows what an important base for al Qaeda-directed terrorism Saddam's Iraq was. But this is of little interest to the left; as best I can tell from a site search, readers of the New York Times don't even know the Jordan trial is going on. Liberals are convinced they know who their enemies are, and they're not talking about the al Qaeda terrorists who, directed from Iraq, schemed to kill tens of thousands of Jordanians and Americans."
Here!
As a result, the bar is lowering. In today's climate, Alfred Knopf has already published a novel about killing the president. Charlie Brooker writing in the Guardian in London prayed for another Lee Harvey Oswald to take out George W. Bush. Comedians, New York plays and art exhibits also bandy about assassination.
Each time a public official evokes Hitler to demonize the president, the American effort in Iraq or its conservative supporters, cheap rhetorical fantasy becomes only that much closer to a nightmarish reality where the unstable, here and abroad, act on the belief America really is Hitler's Germany.
We will all soon reap what the ignorant are now sowing.
Let's hope that somber prophecy doesn't prove true. Michelle Malkin notes more evidence of the same phenomenon. She links to the Huffington Post, where, in response to a rumor that Vice-President Cheney was hospitalized in Colorado, Democratic commenters openly wish for Chency's death, much as some (to be fair, not all) liberals recently cheered for conservative commentator Laura Ingraham to die of breast cancer.
It's not a pretty picture. Meanwhile, to put all of this in perspective, Gateway Pundit has a good roundup of developments in the trial, in Jordan, of 13 al Qaeda terrorists for plotting to perpetrate the worst chemical weapons attack in history. (We most recently commented on the Jordan trial in 'Pay No Attention to the Terrorists Behind the Curtain'.)
The Jordan trial is significant in part because it shows what an important base for al Qaeda-directed terrorism Saddam's Iraq was. But this is of little interest to the left; as best I can tell from a site search, readers of the New York Times don't even know the Jordan trial is going on. Liberals are convinced they know who their enemies are, and they're not talking about the al Qaeda terrorists who, directed from Iraq, schemed to kill tens of thousands of Jordanians and Americans."
Here!
Friday, June 24, 2005
Los Angeles Times: Why the Rebels Will Lose
Los Angeles Times: Why the Rebels Will Lose: "June 23, 2005
No wonder public support for the war is plummeting and finger-to-the-wind politicians are heading for the exits: All the headlines out of Iraq recently have been about the rebels' reign of terror. But, lest we build up the enemy into 10-foot-tall supermen, it's important to realize how weak they actually are. Most of the conditions that existed in previous wars won by guerrillas, from Algeria in the 1950s to Afghanistan in the 1980s, aren't present in Iraq.
The rebels lack a unifying organization, ideology and leader. There is no Iraqi Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro or Mao Tse-tung. The top militant is Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian who has alienated most of the Iraqi population, even many Sunnis, with his indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Read More
Support for the insurgency is confined to a minority within a minority —"
No wonder public support for the war is plummeting and finger-to-the-wind politicians are heading for the exits: All the headlines out of Iraq recently have been about the rebels' reign of terror. But, lest we build up the enemy into 10-foot-tall supermen, it's important to realize how weak they actually are. Most of the conditions that existed in previous wars won by guerrillas, from Algeria in the 1950s to Afghanistan in the 1980s, aren't present in Iraq.
The rebels lack a unifying organization, ideology and leader. There is no Iraqi Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro or Mao Tse-tung. The top militant is Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian who has alienated most of the Iraqi population, even many Sunnis, with his indiscriminate attacks on civilians. Read More
Support for the insurgency is confined to a minority within a minority —"
Thursday, June 23, 2005
The American Enterprise: The War is Over, and We Won
The American Enterprise: The War is Over, and We Won: "
The War is Over, and We Won
By Karl Zinsmeister
Your editor returned to Iraq in April and May of 2005 for another embedded period of reporting. I could immediately see improvements compared to my earlier extended tours during 2003 and 2004. The Iraqi security forces, for example, are vastly more competent, and in some cases quite inspiring. Baghdad is now choked with traffic. Cell phones have spread like wildfire. And satellite TV dishes sprout from even the most humble mud hovels in the countryside." Fullpage
The War is Over, and We Won
By Karl Zinsmeister
Your editor returned to Iraq in April and May of 2005 for another embedded period of reporting. I could immediately see improvements compared to my earlier extended tours during 2003 and 2004. The Iraqi security forces, for example, are vastly more competent, and in some cases quite inspiring. Baghdad is now choked with traffic. Cell phones have spread like wildfire. And satellite TV dishes sprout from even the most humble mud hovels in the countryside." Fullpage
The American Enterprise: The War is Over, and We Won
The American Enterprise: The War is Over, and We Won: "Your editor returned to Iraq in April and May of 2005 for another embedded period of reporting. I could immediately see improvements compared to my earlier extended tours during 2003 and 2004. The Iraqi security forces, for example, are vastly more competent, and in some cases quite inspiring. Baghdad is now choked with traffic. Cell phones have spread like wildfire. And satellite TV dishes sprout from even the most humble mud hovels in the countryside." See here!
Terrorists or Insurgencists
A Western Heart: "I know the media doesn't use the word 'terrorists', and instead prefers 'insurgency', but here's a NYT piece on the terrorists with some interesting news:
U.S. marines watching the skyline from their second-story perch in an abandoned house here saw a curious thing: In the distance, mortar rounds and gunfire popped, but the volleys did not seem to be aimed at them.
In the dark, one marine spoke in hushed code words on a radio, and after a minute found the answer. 'Red on red,' he said late Sunday night, using a military term for enemy-on-enemy fire."
Read it here
U.S. marines watching the skyline from their second-story perch in an abandoned house here saw a curious thing: In the distance, mortar rounds and gunfire popped, but the volleys did not seem to be aimed at them.
In the dark, one marine spoke in hushed code words on a radio, and after a minute found the answer. 'Red on red,' he said late Sunday night, using a military term for enemy-on-enemy fire."
Read it here
The American Thinker
The American Thinker: "Will the Republicans we elected please stand up
June 21st, 2005
I voted for our current president twice for one fundamental reason: he exhibited the unique, personal leadership characteristics, I believed our country needed the first time he ran and continues to need today. He looked at a situation, sized it up, made a decision, told you what he was going to do and then…he did it.
His propensity to deliver on promises made some inside the beltway very uncomfortable, I am sure.
As I look at where we are as a country today, I see some alarming parallels between the behavior of some elected officials during the Vietnam War and some elected officials now. Perhaps you do as well. " . . .Read here
June 21st, 2005
I voted for our current president twice for one fundamental reason: he exhibited the unique, personal leadership characteristics, I believed our country needed the first time he ran and continues to need today. He looked at a situation, sized it up, made a decision, told you what he was going to do and then…he did it.
His propensity to deliver on promises made some inside the beltway very uncomfortable, I am sure.
As I look at where we are as a country today, I see some alarming parallels between the behavior of some elected officials during the Vietnam War and some elected officials now. Perhaps you do as well. " . . .Read here
Monday, June 20, 2005
Power Line: The Real Thing
Power Line: The Real Thing: "The Real Thing
Marines in western Iraq made a sobering discovery yesterday that highlights the folly of those who decry 'torture' at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay:
Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual - and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.
One way you can distinguish a real torture center from an American detention facility is that in the real thing, people keep dying:
'They kill somebody every day,' said Mr. Fathil, whose hands were so swollen he could not open a can of Coke offered to him by a marine. 'They've killed a lot of people.'
***
His town has always been a good place, he said, but the militants have made it hell.
'These few are destroying it,' he said, his face streaked with tears. 'Everybody they take, they kill. It's on a daily basis pretty much.'
What do you think; do you suppose we need a lot more news stories about how a guard at Gitmo accidentally touched a Koran?
The liberals' public relations campaign against the American military and the Bush administration, based on the overblown Abu Ghraib story and the bogus Guantanamo Bay story, is a disgrace.
UPDATE: A reader pointed out that I forgot to include the link, which I've added."
Marines in western Iraq made a sobering discovery yesterday that highlights the folly of those who decry 'torture' at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay:
Marines on an operation to eliminate insurgents that began Friday broke through the outside wall of a building in this small rural village to find a torture center equipped with electric wires, a noose, handcuffs, a 574-page jihad manual - and four beaten and shackled Iraqis.
One way you can distinguish a real torture center from an American detention facility is that in the real thing, people keep dying:
'They kill somebody every day,' said Mr. Fathil, whose hands were so swollen he could not open a can of Coke offered to him by a marine. 'They've killed a lot of people.'
***
His town has always been a good place, he said, but the militants have made it hell.
'These few are destroying it,' he said, his face streaked with tears. 'Everybody they take, they kill. It's on a daily basis pretty much.'
What do you think; do you suppose we need a lot more news stories about how a guard at Gitmo accidentally touched a Koran?
The liberals' public relations campaign against the American military and the Bush administration, based on the overblown Abu Ghraib story and the bogus Guantanamo Bay story, is a disgrace.
UPDATE: A reader pointed out that I forgot to include the link, which I've added."
Truck drivers find Iraq comfortable, rewarding
Truck drivers find Iraq comfortable, rewardingTruck drivers find Iraq comfortable, rewarding
Associated Press
LYONS - When he signed on for a one-year tour of duty as a truck driver in Iraq, Dean Battershell was looking at the paycheck.
He thought he might be living with heat, scorpions, and sleeping in a tent with a dirt floor. But that hasn't been the case.
Besides the money being "good," Battershell said he's sold on the job, and making plans for extending his time. He has been in Iraq four months. He came home for a visit recently.
"Five years ago, I would have never dreamed of anything like this," he said. "But when it's over we'll have a little money in the bank, and I can say for myself, 'We did our part.' "
Kathy Lines, whose husband, Randy Lines, is working with Battershell in Iraq, agreed.
The two men, good friends and fishing buddies, signed up together. Lines has driven trucks for 19 years and Battershell for 3 ½.
They headed for Iraq in early February. Battershell is returning for a second four-month tour in June. Lines is slated to be home for a visit in early July.
"He'll stay for the full year. He's not afraid," Kathy Lines said. "The food's good. He likes the people, and he's made tons of friends from a lot of nations."
Dressed in blue jeans and a plaid shirt, Battershell sat beside Lines in the back room of his dad's business, Earl's Upholstery, on the north side of the Rice County Courthouse square.
In addition to the "good chow," he's assigned to an air-conditioned 9-by-12 room outfitted with a single bed. Other amenities include a private bathroom and a PX shopping area with a movie theater, a weight room and a library. He doesn't need money, except for gifts or pocket change. His checks are direct-deposited in the United States.
Battershell spends his days behind the wheel of a cab-over truck pulling a flatbed trailer. It's loaded mostly with shipping cartons and headed for different bases. Hauling time depends on the load, from 2 ½ hours up. Lines is driving "reefers," refrigerated semis loaded with perishables.
"We go all the way south to Kuwait and north of Baghdad, east and west, close to the Iranian border," he said.
The trucks travel in convoys of 10 to 13 rigs.
While "things happen," Battershell said, he's not afraid.
"We get hit every once in a while, but it's a rarity anymore, not an everyday occurrence," he said. "I go outside the wire not expecting any problems."
As he rocked back and forth in a well-worn office chair, Battershell talked about what he's seen and the opinions he's formed about the politics of war.
The body count's the big news. Losing even one military life is bad. But what people aren't hearing is of the thousands of people on the street whose lives have been saved and turned around, he said. Life's better.
There are long lines of Iraqis joining the military and police, and kids are back in school, he said. The primary coalition goal is to see the infrastructure up and going, bridges fixed and oil back online, he said.
"Even before the war, the infrastructure was shot," Battershell said.
Holding a photo album of snapshots, Lines joined in describing the life. She and her husband talk daily by telephone.
"It's 113 degrees there right now," she said.
Morale is good, with the coalition forces, truckers and laborers from around the world getting along great with one another. There are times he's lonely, Battershell said. But when he was stateside sometimes he was away from home for as long as two weeks.
While both men have been in the line of fire and day-to-day it's dangerous, they're not afraid, Battershell said, noting he's felt danger in other places, too, like going down the highway in Chicago or southern Los Angeles.
On his return this week, Battershell's ride from the airport to the company base will be in a "hard car" -- an armored SUV with 2 ½-inch glass -- or riding in the back of a truck.
He's become aware of culture differences between Iraqis and Westerners, with worshippers stopping five times daily for prayer and some farmers hauling sheep and goats in the back seat of their pickup truck while their wives ride in the truck bed.
"I was never pro-war, but I am pro what we're doing," he said. "It's not what you see on TV. We've saved a lot of lives by going in and getting that guy, Saddam. When we first took over, the people didn't understand what freedom is."
Associated Press
LYONS - When he signed on for a one-year tour of duty as a truck driver in Iraq, Dean Battershell was looking at the paycheck.
He thought he might be living with heat, scorpions, and sleeping in a tent with a dirt floor. But that hasn't been the case.
Besides the money being "good," Battershell said he's sold on the job, and making plans for extending his time. He has been in Iraq four months. He came home for a visit recently.
"Five years ago, I would have never dreamed of anything like this," he said. "But when it's over we'll have a little money in the bank, and I can say for myself, 'We did our part.' "
Kathy Lines, whose husband, Randy Lines, is working with Battershell in Iraq, agreed.
The two men, good friends and fishing buddies, signed up together. Lines has driven trucks for 19 years and Battershell for 3 ½.
They headed for Iraq in early February. Battershell is returning for a second four-month tour in June. Lines is slated to be home for a visit in early July.
"He'll stay for the full year. He's not afraid," Kathy Lines said. "The food's good. He likes the people, and he's made tons of friends from a lot of nations."
Dressed in blue jeans and a plaid shirt, Battershell sat beside Lines in the back room of his dad's business, Earl's Upholstery, on the north side of the Rice County Courthouse square.
In addition to the "good chow," he's assigned to an air-conditioned 9-by-12 room outfitted with a single bed. Other amenities include a private bathroom and a PX shopping area with a movie theater, a weight room and a library. He doesn't need money, except for gifts or pocket change. His checks are direct-deposited in the United States.
Battershell spends his days behind the wheel of a cab-over truck pulling a flatbed trailer. It's loaded mostly with shipping cartons and headed for different bases. Hauling time depends on the load, from 2 ½ hours up. Lines is driving "reefers," refrigerated semis loaded with perishables.
"We go all the way south to Kuwait and north of Baghdad, east and west, close to the Iranian border," he said.
The trucks travel in convoys of 10 to 13 rigs.
While "things happen," Battershell said, he's not afraid.
"We get hit every once in a while, but it's a rarity anymore, not an everyday occurrence," he said. "I go outside the wire not expecting any problems."
As he rocked back and forth in a well-worn office chair, Battershell talked about what he's seen and the opinions he's formed about the politics of war.
The body count's the big news. Losing even one military life is bad. But what people aren't hearing is of the thousands of people on the street whose lives have been saved and turned around, he said. Life's better.
There are long lines of Iraqis joining the military and police, and kids are back in school, he said. The primary coalition goal is to see the infrastructure up and going, bridges fixed and oil back online, he said.
"Even before the war, the infrastructure was shot," Battershell said.
Holding a photo album of snapshots, Lines joined in describing the life. She and her husband talk daily by telephone.
"It's 113 degrees there right now," she said.
Morale is good, with the coalition forces, truckers and laborers from around the world getting along great with one another. There are times he's lonely, Battershell said. But when he was stateside sometimes he was away from home for as long as two weeks.
While both men have been in the line of fire and day-to-day it's dangerous, they're not afraid, Battershell said, noting he's felt danger in other places, too, like going down the highway in Chicago or southern Los Angeles.
On his return this week, Battershell's ride from the airport to the company base will be in a "hard car" -- an armored SUV with 2 ½-inch glass -- or riding in the back of a truck.
He's become aware of culture differences between Iraqis and Westerners, with worshippers stopping five times daily for prayer and some farmers hauling sheep and goats in the back seat of their pickup truck while their wives ride in the truck bed.
"I was never pro-war, but I am pro what we're doing," he said. "It's not what you see on TV. We've saved a lot of lives by going in and getting that guy, Saddam. When we first took over, the people didn't understand what freedom is."
Saturday, June 18, 2005
New Rules of engagement
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind
Plus, Amnesty's amnesia.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 13, 2005, at 3:30 PM PT
A favorite slice of reality TV in today's Iraq is the melodramatically named program Terrorism in the Grip of Justice. Aired on state-run Al Iraqiya, which doesn't require a satellite dish, it shows the confessions of captured "insurgents," mainly foreign fighters. When possible, it also shows the videos that these people have made, so that, for example, a man can be viewed as he slices a victim's throat and then viewed, looking much less brave, as he explains where he comes from, how he was taught to rehearse beheadings and throat-slittings on animals, and other insights into the trade. On occasion, these characters are confronted with the families of their victims. At other times, they have been able to tell the families of the missing what happened to their loved ones. The aim is to demystify the holy warriors and also to encourage civilians to call in with further tips.
Some of the confessions, such as one from an alleged Syrian intelligence officer who said that the insurgency was run by Syria, are a little too convenient. And the possibility exists that other confessions are either staged or coerced. Nonetheless, the program, which originated in the northern city of Mosul, has been very influential in exposing the origins and character of the forces that are bent on wrecking Iraqi society.
Terrorism in the Grip of Justice could only be shown once the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government had been made. The United States could not have put any of these people on television, because the Geneva Conventions forbid the exhibiting of prisoners. (I don't know what the law would say about showing the program on U.S. television, and in any case the video-beheadings recorded by the captured perpetrators would be too hideous for mass consumption.) In my opinion, at any rate, the elected Iraqi authorities are well within their rights in using this means of propaganda. Indeed, they are entitled to all the presumptions of a war of self-defense.
The position of the United States is different, because not only is it a signatory to the Geneva protocols, it is also the power that has pressed other nations to both sign and observe them. (It was also the United States that pressed all member states of the United Nations to sign Eleanor Roosevelt's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia at first declined to do.) Any wavering on the part of Washington thus has consequences far beyond itself.
The forces of al-Qaida and its surrogate organizations are not signatory to the conventions and naturally express contempt for them. They have no battle order or uniform and are represented by no authority with which terms can be negotiated. Nor can they claim, as actual guerrilla movements like the Algerian FLN have done in the past, to be the future representatives of their countries or peoples. In Afghanistan and Iraq, they sought to destroy the electoral process that alone can confer true legitimacy, and they are in many, if not most, cases not even citizens of the countries concerned. Their announced aim is the destruction of all nonbelievers, and their avowed method is indiscriminate and random murder. They are more like pirates, hijackers, or torturers—three categories of people who have in the past been declared outside the protection of any law.
The administration therefore deserves at least some sympathy in its confrontation with an enemy of a new type. I should very much like to know how a Gore administration would have dealt with the hundreds of foreign sadists taken in arms in Afghanistan. I should also like to know how other Western governments, which are privately relieved that the United States assumed responsibility for the last wave, expect to handle the next wave of fundamentalist violence in their own societies. No word on this as yet.
An axiom of the law states that justice is more offended by one innocent person punished than by any number of guilty persons unapprehended. I say frankly that I am not certain of the applicability of this in the present case. Mullah Omar's convoy in Afghanistan was allowed to escape because there was insufficient certainty to justify bombing it. Several detainees released from Guantanamo have reappeared in the Taliban ranks, once again burning and killing and sabotaging. The man whose story of rough interrogation has just been published in Time had planned to board a United Airlines flight and crash it into a skyscraper. I want to know who his friends and contacts were, and so do you, hypocrite lecteur.
You may desire this while also reserving the right to demand that he has a lawyer present at all times. But please observe where we stand now. Alberto Gonzales was excoriated even for asking, or being asked, about the applicability of Geneva rules. Apparently, Guantanamo won't do as a holding pen until we decide how to handle and classify these people. But meanwhile, neither will it do to "render" any suspects to their countries of origin. How many alternatives does this leave? Is al-Qaida itself to be considered a "ticking bomb" or not? How many of those who express concern about Guantanamo have also been denouncing the administration for being too lenient about ignoring warnings and missing opportunities for a pre-atrocity roundup? I merely ask. I also express the wish that more detainees be brought, like the wretched American John Walker Lindh, before a court.
About Amnesty International's disgraceful performance, however, I can tell as well as ask. I was at one point quite close to its London headquarters, and I used to both carry and return messages for the organization when I went as a reporter to screwed-up countries. The founding statutes were quite clear: An Amnesty local was to adopt three "prisoners of conscience," one from either side of the Cold War and one from a "neutral" state. Letters were to be written to the relevant governments and to newspapers in free countries. Though physical torture and capital punishment were opposed in all cases, no overt political position was to be taken. (I remember there was quite a row when an Amnesty "country report" on Argentina went so far as to describe a guerrilla raid as "daring.") By adhering to these rules, AI became a credible worldwide group to which even the most repressive governments sometimes had to pay attention. All honor to its founder Peter Benenson, who died earlier this year.
And now look. I think it is fairly safe to say that not one detainee in Guantanamo is there because of an expression of opinion. (And those whose "opinion" is that all infidels must die are not exactly prisoners of conscience.) Morally neutral on this point, apparently, Amnesty nonetheless finds its voice by describing the prison itself as "the gulag of our times." No need to waste words here: Not everyone in the gulag was a "prisoner of conscience," either. But if an organization that ostensibly protects the rights of prisoners is unaware of the nature of a colossal system of forced labor and arbitrary detention—replete with physical torture, starvation, and brutal execution—then the moral compass has become disordered beyond repair. This is not even neutrality between the fireman and the fire. It surely expresses a covert sympathy with the aims and objectives of jihad and an overt, if witless and sinister, hatred of the United States. If only this were the only symptom of that tendency.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.
Plus, Amnesty's amnesia.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 13, 2005, at 3:30 PM PT
A favorite slice of reality TV in today's Iraq is the melodramatically named program Terrorism in the Grip of Justice. Aired on state-run Al Iraqiya, which doesn't require a satellite dish, it shows the confessions of captured "insurgents," mainly foreign fighters. When possible, it also shows the videos that these people have made, so that, for example, a man can be viewed as he slices a victim's throat and then viewed, looking much less brave, as he explains where he comes from, how he was taught to rehearse beheadings and throat-slittings on animals, and other insights into the trade. On occasion, these characters are confronted with the families of their victims. At other times, they have been able to tell the families of the missing what happened to their loved ones. The aim is to demystify the holy warriors and also to encourage civilians to call in with further tips.
Some of the confessions, such as one from an alleged Syrian intelligence officer who said that the insurgency was run by Syria, are a little too convenient. And the possibility exists that other confessions are either staged or coerced. Nonetheless, the program, which originated in the northern city of Mosul, has been very influential in exposing the origins and character of the forces that are bent on wrecking Iraqi society.
Terrorism in the Grip of Justice could only be shown once the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government had been made. The United States could not have put any of these people on television, because the Geneva Conventions forbid the exhibiting of prisoners. (I don't know what the law would say about showing the program on U.S. television, and in any case the video-beheadings recorded by the captured perpetrators would be too hideous for mass consumption.) In my opinion, at any rate, the elected Iraqi authorities are well within their rights in using this means of propaganda. Indeed, they are entitled to all the presumptions of a war of self-defense.
The position of the United States is different, because not only is it a signatory to the Geneva protocols, it is also the power that has pressed other nations to both sign and observe them. (It was also the United States that pressed all member states of the United Nations to sign Eleanor Roosevelt's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia at first declined to do.) Any wavering on the part of Washington thus has consequences far beyond itself.
The forces of al-Qaida and its surrogate organizations are not signatory to the conventions and naturally express contempt for them. They have no battle order or uniform and are represented by no authority with which terms can be negotiated. Nor can they claim, as actual guerrilla movements like the Algerian FLN have done in the past, to be the future representatives of their countries or peoples. In Afghanistan and Iraq, they sought to destroy the electoral process that alone can confer true legitimacy, and they are in many, if not most, cases not even citizens of the countries concerned. Their announced aim is the destruction of all nonbelievers, and their avowed method is indiscriminate and random murder. They are more like pirates, hijackers, or torturers—three categories of people who have in the past been declared outside the protection of any law.
The administration therefore deserves at least some sympathy in its confrontation with an enemy of a new type. I should very much like to know how a Gore administration would have dealt with the hundreds of foreign sadists taken in arms in Afghanistan. I should also like to know how other Western governments, which are privately relieved that the United States assumed responsibility for the last wave, expect to handle the next wave of fundamentalist violence in their own societies. No word on this as yet.
An axiom of the law states that justice is more offended by one innocent person punished than by any number of guilty persons unapprehended. I say frankly that I am not certain of the applicability of this in the present case. Mullah Omar's convoy in Afghanistan was allowed to escape because there was insufficient certainty to justify bombing it. Several detainees released from Guantanamo have reappeared in the Taliban ranks, once again burning and killing and sabotaging. The man whose story of rough interrogation has just been published in Time had planned to board a United Airlines flight and crash it into a skyscraper. I want to know who his friends and contacts were, and so do you, hypocrite lecteur.
You may desire this while also reserving the right to demand that he has a lawyer present at all times. But please observe where we stand now. Alberto Gonzales was excoriated even for asking, or being asked, about the applicability of Geneva rules. Apparently, Guantanamo won't do as a holding pen until we decide how to handle and classify these people. But meanwhile, neither will it do to "render" any suspects to their countries of origin. How many alternatives does this leave? Is al-Qaida itself to be considered a "ticking bomb" or not? How many of those who express concern about Guantanamo have also been denouncing the administration for being too lenient about ignoring warnings and missing opportunities for a pre-atrocity roundup? I merely ask. I also express the wish that more detainees be brought, like the wretched American John Walker Lindh, before a court.
About Amnesty International's disgraceful performance, however, I can tell as well as ask. I was at one point quite close to its London headquarters, and I used to both carry and return messages for the organization when I went as a reporter to screwed-up countries. The founding statutes were quite clear: An Amnesty local was to adopt three "prisoners of conscience," one from either side of the Cold War and one from a "neutral" state. Letters were to be written to the relevant governments and to newspapers in free countries. Though physical torture and capital punishment were opposed in all cases, no overt political position was to be taken. (I remember there was quite a row when an Amnesty "country report" on Argentina went so far as to describe a guerrilla raid as "daring.") By adhering to these rules, AI became a credible worldwide group to which even the most repressive governments sometimes had to pay attention. All honor to its founder Peter Benenson, who died earlier this year.
And now look. I think it is fairly safe to say that not one detainee in Guantanamo is there because of an expression of opinion. (And those whose "opinion" is that all infidels must die are not exactly prisoners of conscience.) Morally neutral on this point, apparently, Amnesty nonetheless finds its voice by describing the prison itself as "the gulag of our times." No need to waste words here: Not everyone in the gulag was a "prisoner of conscience," either. But if an organization that ostensibly protects the rights of prisoners is unaware of the nature of a colossal system of forced labor and arbitrary detention—replete with physical torture, starvation, and brutal execution—then the moral compass has become disordered beyond repair. This is not even neutrality between the fireman and the fire. It surely expresses a covert sympathy with the aims and objectives of jihad and an overt, if witless and sinister, hatred of the United States. If only this were the only symptom of that tendency.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America.
Friday, June 17, 2005
VDH's Private Papers::The Sorry Bunch
VDH's Private Papers::The Sorry Bunch Article about Islam/goals/actions with editorial info.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Iraq's leadership says militants seeking talks - Boston.com - Middle East - News
Iraq's leadership says militants seeking talks - Boston.com - Middle East - News: "Iraq's leadership says militants seeking talks
June 12, 2005
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The Iraqi government said on Sunday that some rebels had approached it looking for peace terms and repeated its willingness to negotiate with groups which renounced violence and which had not killed Iraqis.
Government spokesman Laith Kubba, speaking at a regular news conference, gave no details of who had made contact.
While many nationalist guerrillas concentrate their attacks on U.S. occupying forces, high-profile groups like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq would appear to be excluded from any dealings with the government because they have mounted bloody assaults on Iraqi civilians and security forces.
'Many have been trying to open channels to talk in recent weeks,' Kubba said. 'Some were calling directly, saying 'We did not kill any Iraqis but took up arms to resist the occupation and want to participate in the political process.'
'To those who have not carried out any killings of Iraqis and who are willing to give up violence and intend to take part in the political process, the door is open.'
The Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari has often said it is willing to talk to rebels who stop fighting. Most insurgents, who have killed more than 850 people in the couple of months since the government was formed, are drawn from Saddam Hussein's once-dominant Sunni minority.
Some, like Zarqawi himself, come from other Arab countries. "
June 12, 2005
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The Iraqi government said on Sunday that some rebels had approached it looking for peace terms and repeated its willingness to negotiate with groups which renounced violence and which had not killed Iraqis.
Government spokesman Laith Kubba, speaking at a regular news conference, gave no details of who had made contact.
While many nationalist guerrillas concentrate their attacks on U.S. occupying forces, high-profile groups like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al Qaeda in Iraq would appear to be excluded from any dealings with the government because they have mounted bloody assaults on Iraqi civilians and security forces.
'Many have been trying to open channels to talk in recent weeks,' Kubba said. 'Some were calling directly, saying 'We did not kill any Iraqis but took up arms to resist the occupation and want to participate in the political process.'
'To those who have not carried out any killings of Iraqis and who are willing to give up violence and intend to take part in the political process, the door is open.'
The Shi'ite-led government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari has often said it is willing to talk to rebels who stop fighting. Most insurgents, who have killed more than 850 people in the couple of months since the government was formed, are drawn from Saddam Hussein's once-dominant Sunni minority.
Some, like Zarqawi himself, come from other Arab countries. "
Winds of Change.NET: The Arab/Islamic World's Cultural Gaps
Winds of Change.NET: The Arab/Islamic World's Cultural Gaps: "The Arab/Islamic World's Cultural Gaps
by Guest Author at June 10, 2005 08:46 AM
Look here
JK: U.N. Reports capture part of the issue, but not all of it. Winds of Change.NET's Cairo correspondent Tarek Heggy (see his article archive) looks at the cultural deficits that are the root cause of the Arab/Islamic world's current backwardness and status as non-competitive states, with links to past Winds articles. This article was originally featured on To The Point News.
The Arab Mind
by Tarek Heggy in Cairo, Egypt
I have written many books and articles over the last ten years about the defects in the Arab mind-set, all of which are cultural defects stemming from three main sources. The first is the repressive climate that prevails throughout Arab societies, the second a backward educational system that lags far behind modern educational systems and the third a mass-media apparatus operated by those responsible for the climate of political repression to serve their interests.
The following are the most obvious defects from which the contemporary Arab mind-set suffers:
1. A lack of intellectual hospitality;
2. It is steeped in a culture that encourages conformity and discourages diversity;
3. Limited tolerance for the Other;
4. Limited tolerance for criticism and the virtual absence of self-criticism;
5. The adoption of stands not on the basis of their coherence, validity or intrinsic value but on the basis of tribal or religious affiliations;
6. Deep feelings of inequality with others in terms of results and achievements makes for a sense of inadequacy that is sublimated into an exaggerated and unfounded pride;
7. A tendency to indulge in excessive self-praise and to glorify past achievements as a way of escaping our dismal reality;
8. The prevalence of what I call the ‘big-talk culture’, in which overblown rhetoric is used to compensate for the appalling lack of concrete achievements;
9. A lack of objectivity and the growth of individualism;
10. An unhealthy nostalgia for and escape into the past;
11. An aversion to the notion of compromise, which is deemed to be a form of capitulation and defeat;
12. Lack of respect for women;
13. A tendency to unquestioningly accept stereotypes at face value;
14. Setting great store by the conspiracy theory and believing that the Arabs are always the victims of heinous plots hatched against them by their enemies;
15. An ill-defined sense of national identity: is it Arab, Muslim, Asian, African or Mediterranean?
16. The spread of the personality cult phenomenon in Arab societies, where the relationship with the ruler is based not on mutual respect and accountability but on the excessive adulation, not to say deification, of the ruler;
17. The prevalence of an insular culture that knows next to nothing about the outside world and the real balance of power by which it is governed, let alone the science or culture of others;
18. A lack of appreciation for the value of the bond that links the human species together, which is their common humanity. For most people in the region, the only bonds that count are either tribal, sectarian or nationalistic, although humanity is the most exalted common denominator of all;
19. The spread of a mentality of fanaticism due to a number of factors, the most important being the tribalism that dominates the Arab mind-set to varying degrees;
20. Finally, the Arab mind-set is not overly concerned with the notion of freedom for the simple reason that the Arabs have enjoyed only limited doses of political rights and civil liberties.
The twenty defects listed above are by no means exhaustive; I have no doubt that any Middle East expert can come up with many more. However, all these defects are acquired, which means they are amenable to reform. Moreover, they can all be found, albeit to different degrees, in other societies. As I mentioned, they stem from the prevailing climate of political despotism and outdated educational and information systems designed and operated to serve the interests of a power structure intent on maintaining its iron grip.
These defects will continue to grow unless radical changes are introduced to all three areas. The political system must be overhauled with a view to providing a wider margin of freedom and allowing people a greater say in determining the shape of their present and future. The educational systems in force must be reorganized from the ground up, their philosophy, curricula and methods brought into line with the requirements of the age.
Last but not least, the media must be removed from under the thumb of government and allowed to function in complete political and economic freedom as a credible forum for the dissemination of culture, ideas and information.
For more of Tarek Heggy's writtings in English, please visit"
by Guest Author at June 10, 2005 08:46 AM
Look here
JK: U.N. Reports capture part of the issue, but not all of it. Winds of Change.NET's Cairo correspondent Tarek Heggy (see his article archive) looks at the cultural deficits that are the root cause of the Arab/Islamic world's current backwardness and status as non-competitive states, with links to past Winds articles. This article was originally featured on To The Point News.
The Arab Mind
by Tarek Heggy in Cairo, Egypt
I have written many books and articles over the last ten years about the defects in the Arab mind-set, all of which are cultural defects stemming from three main sources. The first is the repressive climate that prevails throughout Arab societies, the second a backward educational system that lags far behind modern educational systems and the third a mass-media apparatus operated by those responsible for the climate of political repression to serve their interests.
The following are the most obvious defects from which the contemporary Arab mind-set suffers:
1. A lack of intellectual hospitality;
2. It is steeped in a culture that encourages conformity and discourages diversity;
3. Limited tolerance for the Other;
4. Limited tolerance for criticism and the virtual absence of self-criticism;
5. The adoption of stands not on the basis of their coherence, validity or intrinsic value but on the basis of tribal or religious affiliations;
6. Deep feelings of inequality with others in terms of results and achievements makes for a sense of inadequacy that is sublimated into an exaggerated and unfounded pride;
7. A tendency to indulge in excessive self-praise and to glorify past achievements as a way of escaping our dismal reality;
8. The prevalence of what I call the ‘big-talk culture’, in which overblown rhetoric is used to compensate for the appalling lack of concrete achievements;
9. A lack of objectivity and the growth of individualism;
10. An unhealthy nostalgia for and escape into the past;
11. An aversion to the notion of compromise, which is deemed to be a form of capitulation and defeat;
12. Lack of respect for women;
13. A tendency to unquestioningly accept stereotypes at face value;
14. Setting great store by the conspiracy theory and believing that the Arabs are always the victims of heinous plots hatched against them by their enemies;
15. An ill-defined sense of national identity: is it Arab, Muslim, Asian, African or Mediterranean?
16. The spread of the personality cult phenomenon in Arab societies, where the relationship with the ruler is based not on mutual respect and accountability but on the excessive adulation, not to say deification, of the ruler;
17. The prevalence of an insular culture that knows next to nothing about the outside world and the real balance of power by which it is governed, let alone the science or culture of others;
18. A lack of appreciation for the value of the bond that links the human species together, which is their common humanity. For most people in the region, the only bonds that count are either tribal, sectarian or nationalistic, although humanity is the most exalted common denominator of all;
19. The spread of a mentality of fanaticism due to a number of factors, the most important being the tribalism that dominates the Arab mind-set to varying degrees;
20. Finally, the Arab mind-set is not overly concerned with the notion of freedom for the simple reason that the Arabs have enjoyed only limited doses of political rights and civil liberties.
The twenty defects listed above are by no means exhaustive; I have no doubt that any Middle East expert can come up with many more. However, all these defects are acquired, which means they are amenable to reform. Moreover, they can all be found, albeit to different degrees, in other societies. As I mentioned, they stem from the prevailing climate of political despotism and outdated educational and information systems designed and operated to serve the interests of a power structure intent on maintaining its iron grip.
These defects will continue to grow unless radical changes are introduced to all three areas. The political system must be overhauled with a view to providing a wider margin of freedom and allowing people a greater say in determining the shape of their present and future. The educational systems in force must be reorganized from the ground up, their philosophy, curricula and methods brought into line with the requirements of the age.
Last but not least, the media must be removed from under the thumb of government and allowed to function in complete political and economic freedom as a credible forum for the dissemination of culture, ideas and information.
For more of Tarek Heggy's writtings in English, please visit"
One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Universal right to bear arms?
One Hand Clapping � Blog Archive � Universal right to bear arms?: "Canadian Joe Katzman writes, here
We have a pretty different attitude to guns up here, and I must say that American gun culture has always kind of puzzled me. To me, one no more had a right to a gun than one did to a car. Well, my mind has changed. Changed to the point where I see gun ownership as being a slightly qualified but universal global human right.
What changed my mind? This simple conclusion:
The Right to Bear Arms is the only reliable way to prevent genocide in the modern world.
His tag line is direct: “The Right to Bear Arms. It’s not just for Americans any more.”
I wrote an essay in 2002 entitled, “Civilization, Violence, Sovereignty and the Second Amendment: Why the right to keep and bear arms is the fundamental right of a sovereign people.” I claimed then, and now, that civilization is founded and maintained on violence or the threat of violence, not an original thought of mine but one well developed by Christian philosopher Jacques Ellul in his book, Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective (go to the bottom of the linked page where there are links to the complete text in PDF and RTF, and an incomplete HTML version.)
Hence, if the ultimate authority of the state is to be found in the people of the state (as a condition of nature, as America’s Founders understood), then the people must also have the ultimate power to protect their sovereignty. That means, bluntly, the power of coercion. And coercion necessarily includes the use of violence.
What does this mean elsewhere in the world? Joe quotes a speech by Tendai Biti, an MDC member of parliament, referring to the mass starvation of Zimbabweans by dictator Robert Mugabe.
“I can’t tell you - and the hundreds of Central Intelligence Organisation officers who I know are listening to me right now - about who is going to provide the leadership, who is going to do what, and so forth - but what I can guarantee you is that the anger is overflowing in the veins of the average Zimbabweans. They will defend themselves. The time for smiling at fascism is over.”
Let’s hope so."
We have a pretty different attitude to guns up here, and I must say that American gun culture has always kind of puzzled me. To me, one no more had a right to a gun than one did to a car. Well, my mind has changed. Changed to the point where I see gun ownership as being a slightly qualified but universal global human right.
What changed my mind? This simple conclusion:
The Right to Bear Arms is the only reliable way to prevent genocide in the modern world.
His tag line is direct: “The Right to Bear Arms. It’s not just for Americans any more.”
I wrote an essay in 2002 entitled, “Civilization, Violence, Sovereignty and the Second Amendment: Why the right to keep and bear arms is the fundamental right of a sovereign people.” I claimed then, and now, that civilization is founded and maintained on violence or the threat of violence, not an original thought of mine but one well developed by Christian philosopher Jacques Ellul in his book, Violence: Reflections from a Christian Perspective (go to the bottom of the linked page where there are links to the complete text in PDF and RTF, and an incomplete HTML version.)
Hence, if the ultimate authority of the state is to be found in the people of the state (as a condition of nature, as America’s Founders understood), then the people must also have the ultimate power to protect their sovereignty. That means, bluntly, the power of coercion. And coercion necessarily includes the use of violence.
What does this mean elsewhere in the world? Joe quotes a speech by Tendai Biti, an MDC member of parliament, referring to the mass starvation of Zimbabweans by dictator Robert Mugabe.
“I can’t tell you - and the hundreds of Central Intelligence Organisation officers who I know are listening to me right now - about who is going to provide the leadership, who is going to do what, and so forth - but what I can guarantee you is that the anger is overflowing in the veins of the average Zimbabweans. They will defend themselves. The time for smiling at fascism is over.”
Let’s hope so."
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Friday, June 10, 2005
VDH's Private Papers::The Global Shift
VDH's Private Papers::The Global Shift: "As nations come to know the Chinese, and as a ripe Europe increasingly cannot or will not defend itself, the old maligned United States will begin to look pretty good again. More important, America will not be the world’s easily caricatured sole power, but more likely the sole democratic superpower that factors in morality in addition to national interest in its treatment of others.
China is strong without morality; Europe is impotent in its ethical smugness. The buffer United States, in contrast, believes morality is not mere good intentions but the willingness and ability to translate easy idealism into hard and messy practice.
Most critics will find such sentiments laughable or na�ve; but just watch China in the years to come. Those who now malign the imperfections of the United States may well in shock whimper back, asking for our friendship. Then the boutique practice of anti-Americanism among the global elite will come to an end."
China is strong without morality; Europe is impotent in its ethical smugness. The buffer United States, in contrast, believes morality is not mere good intentions but the willingness and ability to translate easy idealism into hard and messy practice.
Most critics will find such sentiments laughable or na�ve; but just watch China in the years to come. Those who now malign the imperfections of the United States may well in shock whimper back, asking for our friendship. Then the boutique practice of anti-Americanism among the global elite will come to an end."
Monday, June 06, 2005
Power Line: What's Happening in Afghanistan
Power Line: What's Happening in Afghanistan: "To me, the most exciting thing about the internet is how it empowers individuals. More than ever before, a single person can make a difference because his or her work can so easily be leveraged--viewed within a matter of hours by thousands or even millions of people around the world, with no need for media gatekeepers. If I had to offer one example of a single individual who has used the medium to make a difference, it would be Arthur Chrenkoff. He has devoted himself to collecting the under-reported news of progress in Iraq and Afghanistan and putting it out in the blogosphere; more recently, the Wall Street Journal's online edition has also been publishing Arthur's roundups.
Today's edition is on Afghanistan, and it is absolutely unbelievable. It seems just about book-length, and covers improvements in every phase of Afghan life. Reading it is a revelation. Arthur begins:
Over the last few weeks, Afghanistan has been in the news again--unfortunately, for all the wrong reasons. The media pack has made a brief reappearance in Afghanistan to report on carefully staged 'spontaneous' riots, which briefly erupted around the country, ostensibly in protest over a report in Newsweek (later retracted) about desecration of Koran by the American military personnel at Guantanamo Bay.
Sadly, in the rush of commentary about Afghanistan's slide into anarchy and America's deteriorating position in Kabul, most of the international media again missed or downplayed many other stories, some of them arguably far more consequential than an antigovernment rampage whipped up by opponents of President Hamid Karzai. Take this story:
A crowd of 600 Afghan clerics gathered in front of an historic mosque yesterday to strip the fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar of his claim to religious authority, in a ceremony that provided a significant boost to the presidency of Hamid Karzai.
The declaration, signed by 1,000 clerics from across the country, is an endorsement of the US-backed programme of reconciliation with more moderate elements of the Taliban movement that Karzai has been pursuing ahead of the country's first parliamentary elections, due in September.
You really have to read the whole thing to get an idea of the magnitude of the story that the press is missing in Afghanistan.
Posted by John at 10:39 AM"
Today's edition is on Afghanistan, and it is absolutely unbelievable. It seems just about book-length, and covers improvements in every phase of Afghan life. Reading it is a revelation. Arthur begins:
Over the last few weeks, Afghanistan has been in the news again--unfortunately, for all the wrong reasons. The media pack has made a brief reappearance in Afghanistan to report on carefully staged 'spontaneous' riots, which briefly erupted around the country, ostensibly in protest over a report in Newsweek (later retracted) about desecration of Koran by the American military personnel at Guantanamo Bay.
Sadly, in the rush of commentary about Afghanistan's slide into anarchy and America's deteriorating position in Kabul, most of the international media again missed or downplayed many other stories, some of them arguably far more consequential than an antigovernment rampage whipped up by opponents of President Hamid Karzai. Take this story:
A crowd of 600 Afghan clerics gathered in front of an historic mosque yesterday to strip the fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar of his claim to religious authority, in a ceremony that provided a significant boost to the presidency of Hamid Karzai.
The declaration, signed by 1,000 clerics from across the country, is an endorsement of the US-backed programme of reconciliation with more moderate elements of the Taliban movement that Karzai has been pursuing ahead of the country's first parliamentary elections, due in September.
You really have to read the whole thing to get an idea of the magnitude of the story that the press is missing in Afghanistan.
Posted by John at 10:39 AM"
Sunday, June 05, 2005
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Power Line: Some perspective, please
Power Line: Some perspective, please: "One detainee tried to flush the Koran down the toilet; another ripped out some of its pages; another intentionally urinated on the book. But these cases aren't earth-shaking either. 'Earth-shaking' is when al Qaeda converts mosques into military outposts or kills believers as they attend religious services in mosques or other houses of worship."
Friday, June 03, 2005
Gulag!!!!!!
Babalu Blog: Gulags: A Rant: "Be warned: foul language ahead.)
Somewhere in Cuba, there are prisoners of conscience, political prisoners, sitting in their excrement infested 3 foot by 6 foot completely enclosed cells rotting away for maybe owning a typewriter or for writing a poem or, far worse, for expressing their opinions.
They eat maggot filled slop maybe twice a day. Dont see the light of day and are tortured both physically and mentally in so many different ways that I, so far removed yet so read up on the subject, even have trouble imagining.
Some have their arms wrapped in refrigerator coils which are powered 24/7, rendering such pain that the use of their limbs is forever atrophied. Others have cables clamped to their testicles and the other ends connected to car batteries, destroying not only their bodies, but their manhood, or, if they be lucky enough to ever be released from their hell, their ability to create a family.
Others, yet still, in the darkness of their cells, lying there naked, are doused in powdery chemicals that irritate their skin, so much so that their entire bodies are bloody from their desperate attempts at scratching the incessant itching.
All are tortured mentally. Told daily that thier wives or sons or daughters have been arrested and lay in the same predicament as they. Your son, they say to them, the 12 year old, he is in prison with the general population. Es el buggarron de todos. Youre 12 year old boy is everyone's bitch.
They are prodded and poked. Beaten. Starved. Dehydrated. Bound. Gagged.
Some days they are led outside, completely naked and made to stand in line. One of the guard puts a piece of chewing gum on his bayonet and begins to poke the chest of the first one in line. After a few pokes the blade sneaks through the gum and begins to pierce the mans body, he winces from the pain and begins to step back. More poking, more stepping back. More poking, more stepping back until the men in line are crushed together, naked, dehumanized.
Some are lucky enough to be on the upper floors of their prison cell. Where when they defecate they dont have to worry about the shit falling from the cell above through the little hole in the slab above them. Some are unlucky enough to be on the ground floor, where the feces from the two or three other unfortunate souls above them flows through that little hole above and onto the cell's floor, covering it all, making it difficult to move. Difficult to breathe from the stench of accumulated waste.
That's what happens in the REAL GULAGS in Cuba. Where desperation and real torture and humiliation reign supreme. Where thousands upon thousands of men have endured that torture and humiliation for decades upon decades. Where thousands of men have died and the rest have been marked for life.
So dont come to me and talk to me about the 'Gulag' and Guantanamo Bay. Dont come to me to convince me there's a 'gulag' being run by the evil Americans. Dont come to me and and tell me the use of the word 'gulag' is appropriate in reference to Gitmo.
Because there's no way in HELL that it is. Because the true gulag isnt just over the gottdamn fence of the Naval base, the true gottdamn gulags arent just found on the island of Cuba, scattered about from one tip of the crocodile to the other, filled with men and women who are truly tortured souls. No, the true gulag is the island of Cuba itself. Where it's not so much as how one is allowed to handle a holy book but to OWN one. To READ one. To BELIEVE in one.
Fuck you, Amnesty International. You have just spit upon the many who had hope in you. You have just spit upon those that supported you. You have just spit upon all of those that have died waiting for you.
Waiting for you, Amnesty International, in their very real Cuban fucking gulags."
Somewhere in Cuba, there are prisoners of conscience, political prisoners, sitting in their excrement infested 3 foot by 6 foot completely enclosed cells rotting away for maybe owning a typewriter or for writing a poem or, far worse, for expressing their opinions.
They eat maggot filled slop maybe twice a day. Dont see the light of day and are tortured both physically and mentally in so many different ways that I, so far removed yet so read up on the subject, even have trouble imagining.
Some have their arms wrapped in refrigerator coils which are powered 24/7, rendering such pain that the use of their limbs is forever atrophied. Others have cables clamped to their testicles and the other ends connected to car batteries, destroying not only their bodies, but their manhood, or, if they be lucky enough to ever be released from their hell, their ability to create a family.
Others, yet still, in the darkness of their cells, lying there naked, are doused in powdery chemicals that irritate their skin, so much so that their entire bodies are bloody from their desperate attempts at scratching the incessant itching.
All are tortured mentally. Told daily that thier wives or sons or daughters have been arrested and lay in the same predicament as they. Your son, they say to them, the 12 year old, he is in prison with the general population. Es el buggarron de todos. Youre 12 year old boy is everyone's bitch.
They are prodded and poked. Beaten. Starved. Dehydrated. Bound. Gagged.
Some days they are led outside, completely naked and made to stand in line. One of the guard puts a piece of chewing gum on his bayonet and begins to poke the chest of the first one in line. After a few pokes the blade sneaks through the gum and begins to pierce the mans body, he winces from the pain and begins to step back. More poking, more stepping back. More poking, more stepping back until the men in line are crushed together, naked, dehumanized.
Some are lucky enough to be on the upper floors of their prison cell. Where when they defecate they dont have to worry about the shit falling from the cell above through the little hole in the slab above them. Some are unlucky enough to be on the ground floor, where the feces from the two or three other unfortunate souls above them flows through that little hole above and onto the cell's floor, covering it all, making it difficult to move. Difficult to breathe from the stench of accumulated waste.
That's what happens in the REAL GULAGS in Cuba. Where desperation and real torture and humiliation reign supreme. Where thousands upon thousands of men have endured that torture and humiliation for decades upon decades. Where thousands of men have died and the rest have been marked for life.
So dont come to me and talk to me about the 'Gulag' and Guantanamo Bay. Dont come to me to convince me there's a 'gulag' being run by the evil Americans. Dont come to me and and tell me the use of the word 'gulag' is appropriate in reference to Gitmo.
Because there's no way in HELL that it is. Because the true gulag isnt just over the gottdamn fence of the Naval base, the true gottdamn gulags arent just found on the island of Cuba, scattered about from one tip of the crocodile to the other, filled with men and women who are truly tortured souls. No, the true gulag is the island of Cuba itself. Where it's not so much as how one is allowed to handle a holy book but to OWN one. To READ one. To BELIEVE in one.
Fuck you, Amnesty International. You have just spit upon the many who had hope in you. You have just spit upon those that supported you. You have just spit upon all of those that have died waiting for you.
Waiting for you, Amnesty International, in their very real Cuban fucking gulags."
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Personal Ads
Bad Example: "Actual Personal Ads in the Dublin News:
Heavy drinker, 35, Cork area. Seeks gorgeous sex addict interested in a man who loves his pints, cigarettes, Glasgow Celtic Football Club and has been known to start fights on Patrick Street at three o'clock in the morning.
------------------------------------------------------
Bitter, disillusioned Dublin man, lately rejected by longtime fiancee,
seeks decent, honest, reliable woman, if such a thing still exists in
this cruel world of hatchet-faced bitches.
------------------------------------------------------
Ginger haired Galway man, a troublemaker, gets slit-eyed and shirty after a few scoops, seeks attractive, wealthy lady for bail purposes, maybe more.
------------------------------------------------------
Bad tempered, foul-mouthed old bastard, living in a damp cottage in the arse end of Roscommon, seeks attractive 21 year old blonde lady, with a lovely chest.
------------------------------------------------------
Limerick man, 27, medium build, brown hair, blue eyes, seeks alibi for the night of February 27 between 8 PM and 11:30 PM.
------------------------------------------------------
Optimistic Mayo man, 35, seeks a blonde 20 year old double-jointed supermodel, who owns her own brewery, and has an open-minded twin sister."
Heavy drinker, 35, Cork area. Seeks gorgeous sex addict interested in a man who loves his pints, cigarettes, Glasgow Celtic Football Club and has been known to start fights on Patrick Street at three o'clock in the morning.
------------------------------------------------------
Bitter, disillusioned Dublin man, lately rejected by longtime fiancee,
seeks decent, honest, reliable woman, if such a thing still exists in
this cruel world of hatchet-faced bitches.
------------------------------------------------------
Ginger haired Galway man, a troublemaker, gets slit-eyed and shirty after a few scoops, seeks attractive, wealthy lady for bail purposes, maybe more.
------------------------------------------------------
Bad tempered, foul-mouthed old bastard, living in a damp cottage in the arse end of Roscommon, seeks attractive 21 year old blonde lady, with a lovely chest.
------------------------------------------------------
Limerick man, 27, medium build, brown hair, blue eyes, seeks alibi for the night of February 27 between 8 PM and 11:30 PM.
------------------------------------------------------
Optimistic Mayo man, 35, seeks a blonde 20 year old double-jointed supermodel, who owns her own brewery, and has an open-minded twin sister."
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
"Islam is a Peaceful Religion: Just How Nuts Does It Have to Get?" by J. B.�Williams
"Islam is a Peaceful Religion: Just How Nuts Does It Have to Get?" by J. B.�Williams
Islam is a Peaceful Religion: Just How Nuts Does It Have to Get?
Written by J. B. Williams
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Just when I thought I had seen everything, I stumble across what might be the most grotesque example of intellectual insanity in the history of the universe. It figures I would find such a shining example of imbecilic lunacy in the halls of our own Congress.
This special kind of idiocy takes the form of House Resolution 288, conceived and sponsored by none other than Mr. “can’t we all just get along without religion” John Conyers, Jr. [(D) of course…] our esteemed representative from Michigan.
The pending bill is Mr. Conyers' answer to the bogus Newsweek report which wrongly accused American soldiers of desecrating the Koran at Gitmo, causing the death (by riot) of some 15 in Afghanistan and furthering the world-wide distrust and hatred of our military personnel.
Instead of introducing a bill that would hold such news agencies accountable for such fatally disastrous, intentionally inflammatory mishaps, Mr. Conyers introduced a bill calling for “religious tolerance” towards, specifically, those who have spent the last 20 odd years attempting to kill us infidels.
Just for the record, members of this peaceful religion have on occasion, been somewhat, shall we say, unmerciful. In fact it would be a fair statement to say they are not known for their tolerance of other ideals, particularly American ideals.
Actually, I’m still searching for any evidence that Islam is a peaceful religion. So far, I have not found a single shred of evidence to support the claim. But let me tell you what I have found.
Members of this so-called peaceful religion have been performing terrorist attacks on innocent people all over the world for some time now. Remember Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988? (Libyan Muslims) How about the first WTC bombing in 1993? (Muslims) Try the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995? (Though the U.S. government has buried this file, Muslim extremists are suspected in this one, too.)
What about the Khobar Towers in 1996? (Muslims) TWA Flight 800 in New York, 1996? (Muslims again suspected) The Atlanta Olympics 1998? (Though an innocent American was arrested, eventually, all arrows pointed towards, you guessed it, Muslims.) How about the embassy bombings in Africa 1998? (Muslims again) The U.S.S. Cole, Yemen 2000? (Muslims)
Of course, my personal favorite, September 11, 2001, the downing of the WTC killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children in New York, hundreds more at the Pentagon, and even hundreds more in that Pennsylvania field where a plane headed for the White House was downed by a few brave captive passengers. (Yep…Muslims)
Then, how about the literally hundreds of fatal attacks on innocent civilian targets in Israel? (Muslims) Countless car bombings, blown up pizza parlors, shopping malls, police stations and government offices around the world? (Muslims) I could go on and on with great specifics, event after event around the world, like the successful train bombing in Spain only 24 hours before their election. But do I really need to? Have you not gotten the picture yet?
The point is this: Can anyone show me any evidence at all, that Islam is a peaceful religion deserving of tolerance? Even if it were, the motivation behind Conyers bill, the Newsweek story, was entirely bogus and retracted by Newsweek soon after its release.
Does anyone doubt that Muslim terrorists will strike American citizens again given the chance? Does anyone doubt that there are Muslims in mosques in America right this minute, who are awaiting marching orders from extremists like Osama Bin Laden as we speak?
Have you any reason to doubt that Muslim jihadists will use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons on the streets of the United States if they can?
Do you know that Islam attracts most of its estimated 20 million American followers in U.S. prisons? Exactly which part of this religion sounds peaceful to you?
Yet even as our young men and women are dying on foreign soil in an effort to keep this war off of our own doorsteps, Mr. Conyers feels compelled to spend his valuable time in the U.S. Congress working a bill through the system that would guarantee Islam more respect in the U.S. than the Ten Commandments, or the Christian Bible, or the words “under God” in our pledge?
Exactly how nuts does it have to become before the American people rise up against their own perverted ignorant self-aggrandizing morons in Washington, some of whom seem hell-bent upon complete destruction of everything America has ever been?
This is the most absurd demonstration of blind ignorance I have ever witnessed in my life and it could have deadly consequences.
As Conyers focuses his congressional energy on advancing the agenda of those who wish America dead, he has spent his free time, undermining the work of our soldiers in combat. If this isn’t treason, nothing is… no matter what the meaning of “is” is…
How nuts must it get? How many more 9-11s will it take?
Okay, so you hate Jews too. Maybe you don’t even like Christians. Maybe you hate all who practice any religion. Maybe you believe in the “separation of church and state” not mentioned anywhere in our founding documents, for all of these reasons. Are you stupid, too?
Or are you like John Conyers, so self-involved in your desire to make politically divisive policies that you are blind to the destructive nature of your own nonsense? Are you just like Newsweek, and CBS, who are so concerned with promoting the anti-Bush dogma that you never even once stopped to consider the facts or the consequences of your behavior?
Even George W. Bush and members of his administration have gone out of their way to be politically correct on this issue. How many more Americans will have to die before people throw out this delusional practice called political correctness and begin to call evil by its rightful name?
People this insane deserve to lose their country, their home, and their lives. I just don’t want to be living in your neighborhood when your ignorance comes home to roost!
ENOUGH! When the Ten Commandments are once again welcome on any street corner and every schoolhouse in America, then you can talk to me about why I should tolerate a religion that wants me dead.
Until then, don’t talk to me at all!
About the Writer: J. B. Williams notes that he is a business man, husband, father, and a writer. His website is at http://www.jb-williams.com. J. B. receives e-mail at JBW@JB-Williams.com.
Islam is a Peaceful Religion: Just How Nuts Does It Have to Get?
Written by J. B. Williams
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Just when I thought I had seen everything, I stumble across what might be the most grotesque example of intellectual insanity in the history of the universe. It figures I would find such a shining example of imbecilic lunacy in the halls of our own Congress.
This special kind of idiocy takes the form of House Resolution 288, conceived and sponsored by none other than Mr. “can’t we all just get along without religion” John Conyers, Jr. [(D) of course…] our esteemed representative from Michigan.
The pending bill is Mr. Conyers' answer to the bogus Newsweek report which wrongly accused American soldiers of desecrating the Koran at Gitmo, causing the death (by riot) of some 15 in Afghanistan and furthering the world-wide distrust and hatred of our military personnel.
Instead of introducing a bill that would hold such news agencies accountable for such fatally disastrous, intentionally inflammatory mishaps, Mr. Conyers introduced a bill calling for “religious tolerance” towards, specifically, those who have spent the last 20 odd years attempting to kill us infidels.
Just for the record, members of this peaceful religion have on occasion, been somewhat, shall we say, unmerciful. In fact it would be a fair statement to say they are not known for their tolerance of other ideals, particularly American ideals.
Actually, I’m still searching for any evidence that Islam is a peaceful religion. So far, I have not found a single shred of evidence to support the claim. But let me tell you what I have found.
Members of this so-called peaceful religion have been performing terrorist attacks on innocent people all over the world for some time now. Remember Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988? (Libyan Muslims) How about the first WTC bombing in 1993? (Muslims) Try the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995? (Though the U.S. government has buried this file, Muslim extremists are suspected in this one, too.)
What about the Khobar Towers in 1996? (Muslims) TWA Flight 800 in New York, 1996? (Muslims again suspected) The Atlanta Olympics 1998? (Though an innocent American was arrested, eventually, all arrows pointed towards, you guessed it, Muslims.) How about the embassy bombings in Africa 1998? (Muslims again) The U.S.S. Cole, Yemen 2000? (Muslims)
Of course, my personal favorite, September 11, 2001, the downing of the WTC killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children in New York, hundreds more at the Pentagon, and even hundreds more in that Pennsylvania field where a plane headed for the White House was downed by a few brave captive passengers. (Yep…Muslims)
Then, how about the literally hundreds of fatal attacks on innocent civilian targets in Israel? (Muslims) Countless car bombings, blown up pizza parlors, shopping malls, police stations and government offices around the world? (Muslims) I could go on and on with great specifics, event after event around the world, like the successful train bombing in Spain only 24 hours before their election. But do I really need to? Have you not gotten the picture yet?
The point is this: Can anyone show me any evidence at all, that Islam is a peaceful religion deserving of tolerance? Even if it were, the motivation behind Conyers bill, the Newsweek story, was entirely bogus and retracted by Newsweek soon after its release.
Does anyone doubt that Muslim terrorists will strike American citizens again given the chance? Does anyone doubt that there are Muslims in mosques in America right this minute, who are awaiting marching orders from extremists like Osama Bin Laden as we speak?
Have you any reason to doubt that Muslim jihadists will use chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons on the streets of the United States if they can?
Do you know that Islam attracts most of its estimated 20 million American followers in U.S. prisons? Exactly which part of this religion sounds peaceful to you?
Yet even as our young men and women are dying on foreign soil in an effort to keep this war off of our own doorsteps, Mr. Conyers feels compelled to spend his valuable time in the U.S. Congress working a bill through the system that would guarantee Islam more respect in the U.S. than the Ten Commandments, or the Christian Bible, or the words “under God” in our pledge?
Exactly how nuts does it have to become before the American people rise up against their own perverted ignorant self-aggrandizing morons in Washington, some of whom seem hell-bent upon complete destruction of everything America has ever been?
This is the most absurd demonstration of blind ignorance I have ever witnessed in my life and it could have deadly consequences.
As Conyers focuses his congressional energy on advancing the agenda of those who wish America dead, he has spent his free time, undermining the work of our soldiers in combat. If this isn’t treason, nothing is… no matter what the meaning of “is” is…
How nuts must it get? How many more 9-11s will it take?
Okay, so you hate Jews too. Maybe you don’t even like Christians. Maybe you hate all who practice any religion. Maybe you believe in the “separation of church and state” not mentioned anywhere in our founding documents, for all of these reasons. Are you stupid, too?
Or are you like John Conyers, so self-involved in your desire to make politically divisive policies that you are blind to the destructive nature of your own nonsense? Are you just like Newsweek, and CBS, who are so concerned with promoting the anti-Bush dogma that you never even once stopped to consider the facts or the consequences of your behavior?
Even George W. Bush and members of his administration have gone out of their way to be politically correct on this issue. How many more Americans will have to die before people throw out this delusional practice called political correctness and begin to call evil by its rightful name?
People this insane deserve to lose their country, their home, and their lives. I just don’t want to be living in your neighborhood when your ignorance comes home to roost!
ENOUGH! When the Ten Commandments are once again welcome on any street corner and every schoolhouse in America, then you can talk to me about why I should tolerate a religion that wants me dead.
Until then, don’t talk to me at all!
About the Writer: J. B. Williams notes that he is a business man, husband, father, and a writer. His website is at http://www.jb-williams.com. J. B. receives e-mail at JBW@JB-Williams.com.
Monday, May 30, 2005
The Bad Hair Blog
The Bad Hair Blog: "Monday, May 30, 2005
BREAKING NEWS: Is this a rumor?Is Hugo Chavez dead?
People are gathering in big numbers at Miraflores Palace in Caracas amid rumors Hugo Chavez had a heart attack or something like it. The goons have just shut down Avenida Urdaneta in front of the palace to stop inquiring questions from the adoring masses. Venezuelan government spokesman Andres Izarra says that Chavez cancelled his street rally appearance yesterday and his Alo Presidente weekly Sunday TV show 'to spend more time with his family.' And all's 'normal,' he says. Kim Il Sung's spokesman could not have said it better."
BREAKING NEWS: Is this a rumor?Is Hugo Chavez dead?
People are gathering in big numbers at Miraflores Palace in Caracas amid rumors Hugo Chavez had a heart attack or something like it. The goons have just shut down Avenida Urdaneta in front of the palace to stop inquiring questions from the adoring masses. Venezuelan government spokesman Andres Izarra says that Chavez cancelled his street rally appearance yesterday and his Alo Presidente weekly Sunday TV show 'to spend more time with his family.' And all's 'normal,' he says. Kim Il Sung's spokesman could not have said it better."
Everything I Know Is Wrong: For Your Scorn.
Everything I Know Is Wrong: For Your Scorn.: "For Your Scorn.
The Gang of Seven
Lincoln Chafee, Republican, Rhode Island
Susan Collins, Republican, Maine
Mark DeWine, Republican, Ohio
Lindsey Graham, Republican, South Carolina
John McCain, Republican, Arizona
Olympia Snowe, Republican, Maine
John Warner, Republican, Virginia
Bill Frist, Republican, Tennessee, should be an honorary member of the gang. He is, after all, the architect of the environment that made their formation possible."
The Gang of Seven
Lincoln Chafee, Republican, Rhode Island
Susan Collins, Republican, Maine
Mark DeWine, Republican, Ohio
Lindsey Graham, Republican, South Carolina
John McCain, Republican, Arizona
Olympia Snowe, Republican, Maine
John Warner, Republican, Virginia
Bill Frist, Republican, Tennessee, should be an honorary member of the gang. He is, after all, the architect of the environment that made their formation possible."
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
ChronWatch Writers' Blog: Lying About Middle Eastern Land
ChronWatch Writers' Blog: Lying About Middle Eastern Land: "One of the few things unchallengeable about the Middle East conflict is that it has virtually nothing to do with land. Arab countries already control 6,145,389 square miles of land. That is almost twice the land area of the United States, which is 3,537,438 square miles, and about the same as the land area of Russia. Israel, even when including all of the 'occupied territories' retained from the 1967 SIx Day War, controls less than 10,000 square miles.
The West Bank and the Gaza Strip comprise about 2300 square miles (a bit less when deducting Jerusalem and its suburbs from the account), which is about half the size of the Everglades. The Moonbats-against-Israel lobby wants us to believe that with 6,145,389 square miles, the Arabs want war and genocide, but with 6,145,389 plus 2300 more, then they will want peace. If Israel only trades “land for peace” with the land-deprived Arabs, and never mind that its abandonment of the West Bank would leave an Israel ten miles wide and waiting for the Arab armies to annihilate, then all will be well.
The 'anti-Zionists' want the world to believe that the entire Middle East war is due to the fact that those evil selfish Jews are unwilling to share their 10,000 square miles with the poor land-starved Arabs. But in reality, the obvious true cause of the Middle East war is the fact that the Arab world is unwilling to allow the Jews to control even a sixth of one percent of the territory of the Middle East. The Arabs, controlling more land than any other ethnic group on the planet besides the Russians, are simply unwilling to share even the tiniest sliver of the Middle East with the Jews.
If the 'anti-Zionists', for their part, get what they want, then there will be no Jews left alive in Israel."
The West Bank and the Gaza Strip comprise about 2300 square miles (a bit less when deducting Jerusalem and its suburbs from the account), which is about half the size of the Everglades. The Moonbats-against-Israel lobby wants us to believe that with 6,145,389 square miles, the Arabs want war and genocide, but with 6,145,389 plus 2300 more, then they will want peace. If Israel only trades “land for peace” with the land-deprived Arabs, and never mind that its abandonment of the West Bank would leave an Israel ten miles wide and waiting for the Arab armies to annihilate, then all will be well.
The 'anti-Zionists' want the world to believe that the entire Middle East war is due to the fact that those evil selfish Jews are unwilling to share their 10,000 square miles with the poor land-starved Arabs. But in reality, the obvious true cause of the Middle East war is the fact that the Arab world is unwilling to allow the Jews to control even a sixth of one percent of the territory of the Middle East. The Arabs, controlling more land than any other ethnic group on the planet besides the Russians, are simply unwilling to share even the tiniest sliver of the Middle East with the Jews.
If the 'anti-Zionists', for their part, get what they want, then there will be no Jews left alive in Israel."
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Great narative/comment on the changes that hath been wroght!
To venture into the Arab world, as I did recently over four weeks in Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan and Iraq, is to travel into Bush Country. I was to encounter people from practically all Arab lands, to listen in on a great debate about the possibility of freedom and liberty. I met Lebanese giddy with the Cedar Revolution that liberated their country from the Syrian prison that had seemed an unalterable curse. They were under no illusions about the change that had come their way. They knew that this new history was the gift of an American president who had put the Syrian rulers on notice. The speed with which Syria quit Lebanon was astonishing, a race to the border to forestall an American strike that the regime could not discount. I met Syrians in the know who admitted that the fear of American power, and the example of American forces flushing Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole, now drive Syrian policy. They hang on George Bush's words in Damascus, I was told: the rulers wondering if Iraq was a crystal ball in which they could glimpse their future.
The weight of American power, historically on the side of the dominant order, now drives this new quest among the Arabs. For decades, the intellectual classes in the Arab world bemoaned the indifference of American power to the cause of their liberty. Now a conservative American president had come bearing the gift of Wilsonian redemption. For a quarter century the Pax Americana had sustained the autocracy of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak: He had posed as America's man on the Nile, a bulwark against the Islamists. He was sly and cunning, running afoul of our purposes in Iraq and over Israeli-Palestinian matters. He had nurtured a culture of antimodernism and anti-Americanism, and had gotten away with it. Now the wind from Washington brought tidings: America had wearied of Mr. Mubarak, and was willing to bet on an open political process, with all its attendant risks and possibilities. The brave oppositional movement in Cairo that stepped forth under the banner of Kifaya ("Enough!") wanted the end of his reign: It had had enough of his mediocrity, enough of the despotism of an aging officer who had risen out of the military bureaucracy to entertain dynastic dreams of succession for his son. Egyptians challenging the quiescence of an old land may have had no kind words to say about America in the past. But they were sure that the play between them and the regime was unfolding under Mr. Bush's eyes.
Indeed, this is a spectacular meeting in time. The fact is that people everywhere want some same basic things, summed up by the Virginian Renaissance Man, Thomas Jeffeferson, thus: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As the world has modernized, the list of demands has grown, but the same basic rights underlie all. Thus, given an opportunity, the people will act.
Unfortunately, American power hasn't always been on the right side. For this, America is understanbly excoriated and suspected. But it is curious (though not to true liberals) that anti-Americanism is strongest in relatively peaceful societies that are yet repressed by nominal allies of the United Sates (e.g., Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia), and yet not quite as strong among the people abandoned by America when they sought to answer her bright call (the Shiites of Iraq).
This time, though, America might just be on the right side, and, at the very least, her intentions seem true and sincere. A glaring exception thus far, however, is in Uzbekistan. But that will not stop Lebanese activists from pursuing their own opportunity to try the democratic experiment, especially as America keeps an eye on, and continues to pressure, Syria.
Mr. Ajami even draws the obvious correlation with Europe at the end of the Cold War:
As I made my way on this Arab journey, I picked up a meditation that Massimo d'Azeglio, a Piedmontese aristocrat who embraced that "springtime" in Europe, offered about his time, which speaks so directly to this Arab time: "The gift of liberty is like that of a horse, handsome, strong, and high-spirited. In some it arouses a wish to ride; in many others, on the contrary, it increases the desire to walk." It would be fair to say that there are many Arabs today keen to walk--frightened as they are by the prospect of the Islamists coming to power and curtailing personal liberties, snuffing out freedoms gained at such great effort and pain. But more Arabs, I hazard to guess, now have the wish to ride. It is a powerful temptation that George W. Bush has brought to their doorstep.
Read the whole thing, and thank goodness for writers like Mr. Ajami!ef="http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2005/05/bush-doctrine-creates-more-bush.html">A Western Heart
Monday, May 23, 2005
Contracts - "without prejudice"
Contracts - "without prejudice": "'Without Prejudice'
Contracts
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) recognizes that it is possible for anyone of us to be commercially coerced into signing a contract that we would not sign had we true free agency. The UCC provides that if we sign a contract under such adverse conditions, and if we do so “without prejudice” or “under protest,” then we preserve all our rights.
UCC, Section 1-207, states:
Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights
A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice', 'under protest' or the like are sufficient.
If it is necessary to assert your rights in court, when the point is raised, here is a suggested testimony to offer when explaining what you meant when you claimed “without prejudice”:
“It indicates I have exercised the remedy provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code by which I might reserve the Common Law Right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I have not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, that notifies all administrative agencies of government that I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefits of any unrevealed commercial agreement.”
The Uniform Commercial Code is Admiralty Law, which has come on shore. The “without prejudice” clause is the window which enables one to assert their 7th Amendment guarantee of access to the Common Law.
Some people are putting the words, “without prejudice” on everything they sign, above their signature. E.g. they are putting it on applications for driver's license, tax returns, voter registration, bank checks, gun purchases, marriage licenses, etc.
Anderson's UCC annotated part: can only reserve those rights which you have. Explicit about your domicile/citizenship (capitalize Citizenship), a Citizen of the republic not a citizen of the government (see Fourteenth Amendment). It also states that the UCC is in harmony with the Common Law. This then is the only way in which you can assert ('reserve') your Rights as you are being coerced into these contracts with the various levels of government."
Contracts
The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) recognizes that it is possible for anyone of us to be commercially coerced into signing a contract that we would not sign had we true free agency. The UCC provides that if we sign a contract under such adverse conditions, and if we do so “without prejudice” or “under protest,” then we preserve all our rights.
UCC, Section 1-207, states:
Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights
A party who with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as 'without prejudice', 'under protest' or the like are sufficient.
If it is necessary to assert your rights in court, when the point is raised, here is a suggested testimony to offer when explaining what you meant when you claimed “without prejudice”:
“It indicates I have exercised the remedy provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code by which I might reserve the Common Law Right not to be compelled to perform under any contract that I have not entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally. And furthermore, that notifies all administrative agencies of government that I do not accept the liability associated with the compelled benefits of any unrevealed commercial agreement.”
The Uniform Commercial Code is Admiralty Law, which has come on shore. The “without prejudice” clause is the window which enables one to assert their 7th Amendment guarantee of access to the Common Law.
Some people are putting the words, “without prejudice” on everything they sign, above their signature. E.g. they are putting it on applications for driver's license, tax returns, voter registration, bank checks, gun purchases, marriage licenses, etc.
Anderson's UCC annotated part: can only reserve those rights which you have. Explicit about your domicile/citizenship (capitalize Citizenship), a Citizen of the republic not a citizen of the government (see Fourteenth Amendment). It also states that the UCC is in harmony with the Common Law. This then is the only way in which you can assert ('reserve') your Rights as you are being coerced into these contracts with the various levels of government."
"Have Conservatives Thrown in the Towel?" by Alan�Caruba
"Have Conservatives Thrown in the Towel?" by Alan�Caruba: "As a movement, a unifying force, the conservatism that mobilized people to vote in sufficient numbers to give control of Congress to Republicans in 1994 and, with the exception of eight years with Bill Clinton in office, has put Republicans in the White House, has lost its momentum.
Since then, the Democrat Party has drifted so far to the left that it needs to change its name to something like, oh, the Socialist Party. Worse yet, what passes for the Republican Party today has drifted to the left with them. Not as far, but enough to become the party of Big Government and Big Spending.
And here’s where it gets fuzzy when one defines “conservatives.” Much of Buchanan’s lament was devoted to the erosion of moral standards. “American culture has become toxic and poisonous,” he said, referencing the garbage coming out of Hollywood and seen on television, although he also noted the reduction of the power of the States as enumerated in the Constitution. Today, the States are in the grip of the federal government thanks to sweeping judicial decisions that deny them the right to decide their own policies.
Today, when people think of “conservatives,” the popular perception is that of religious fundamentalists concerned with moral issues. While they are among the most vocal, there are many more conservatives for whom religion is merely a component of their lives. For them, the traditional conservative issues such as Second Amendment and property rights, privacy, fiscal prudence, and national sovereignty arouse their ire because they have very little traction in Washington, DC these days."
Since then, the Democrat Party has drifted so far to the left that it needs to change its name to something like, oh, the Socialist Party. Worse yet, what passes for the Republican Party today has drifted to the left with them. Not as far, but enough to become the party of Big Government and Big Spending.
And here’s where it gets fuzzy when one defines “conservatives.” Much of Buchanan’s lament was devoted to the erosion of moral standards. “American culture has become toxic and poisonous,” he said, referencing the garbage coming out of Hollywood and seen on television, although he also noted the reduction of the power of the States as enumerated in the Constitution. Today, the States are in the grip of the federal government thanks to sweeping judicial decisions that deny them the right to decide their own policies.
Today, when people think of “conservatives,” the popular perception is that of religious fundamentalists concerned with moral issues. While they are among the most vocal, there are many more conservatives for whom religion is merely a component of their lives. For them, the traditional conservative issues such as Second Amendment and property rights, privacy, fiscal prudence, and national sovereignty arouse their ire because they have very little traction in Washington, DC these days."
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Jeff Jacoby: Why Islam is disrespected
Jeff Jacoby: Why Islam is disrespected: "Christians, Jews, and Buddhists don't lash out in homicidal rage when their religion is insulted. They don't call for holy war and riot in the streets. It would be unthinkable for a mainstream priest, rabbi, or lama to demand that a blasphemer be slain. But when Reuters reported what Mohammad Hanif, the imam of a Muslim seminary in Pakistan, said about the alleged Koran-flushers — ''They should be hung. They should be killed in public so that no one can dare to insult Islam and its sacred symbols' — was any reader surprised?
The Muslim riots should have been met by outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17 innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek. "
The Muslim riots should have been met by outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17 innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek. "
Leaving the left / I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity
Leaving the left / I can no longer abide the simpering voices of self-styled progressives -- people who once championed solidarity:
= = = = = =
"I smile when friends tell me I've 'moved right.' I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.
In the name of 'diversity,' the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on 'individual style.' The University of Connecticut has banned 'inappropriately directed laughter.' Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment 'may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment.' (Yes, we're talking 'subconscious harassment' here. We're watching your thoughts ...).
Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like 'Why you ain't' and 'Where you is,' Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to 'level the playing field.' Why not? Because 'drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that.'
When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe 'I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening,' Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who 'would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided.'
I'll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America's political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?"
Raed it all. It will make you think!
= = = = = =
"I smile when friends tell me I've 'moved right.' I laugh out loud at what now passes for progressive on the main lines of the cultural left.
In the name of 'diversity,' the University of Arizona has forbidden discrimination based on 'individual style.' The University of Connecticut has banned 'inappropriately directed laughter.' Brown University, sensing unacceptable gray areas, warns that harassment 'may be intentional or unintentional and still constitute harassment.' (Yes, we're talking 'subconscious harassment' here. We're watching your thoughts ...).
Wait, it gets better. When actor Bill Cosby called on black parents to explain to their kids why they are not likely to get into medical school speaking English like 'Why you ain't' and 'Where you is,' Jesse Jackson countered that the time was not yet right to 'level the playing field.' Why not? Because 'drunk people can't do that ... illiterate people can't do that.'
When self-styled pragmatic feminist Camille Paglia mocked young coeds who believe 'I should be able to get drunk at a fraternity party and go upstairs to a guy's room without anything happening,' Susan Estrich spoke up for gender- focused feminists who 'would argue that so long as women are powerless relative to men, viewing 'yes' as a sign of true consent is misguided.'
I'll admit my politics have shifted in recent years, as have America's political landscape and cultural horizon. Who would have guessed that the U.S. senator with today's best voting record on human rights would be not Ted Kennedy or Barbara Boxer but Kansas Republican Sam Brownback?"
Raed it all. It will make you think!
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Michelle Malkin: SAGGY SADDAM IN BRIEFS
Michelle Malkin: SAGGY SADDAM IN BRIEFS: "The terribly abused tyrant gets hair dye, example, 'to keep his mane youthful-looking.'
He gets three squares a day, a fluffy pillow, and full-air conditioning. Plus, 'He can exercise in a 4,300-square-foot back yard while razor wire keeps out would-be attackers. He tends a small garden in a nearby courtyard.'
Reports the Post's Gersh Kuntzman:
'It may look pretty basic from these [photos], but Saddam is pretty comfortable in there,' a soldier who has seen the photos told the newspaper. 'Hell, the man's got much more living space than most the GIs out here. You should see the tent I have to share with 30 other guys.'"
He gets three squares a day, a fluffy pillow, and full-air conditioning. Plus, 'He can exercise in a 4,300-square-foot back yard while razor wire keeps out would-be attackers. He tends a small garden in a nearby courtyard.'
Reports the Post's Gersh Kuntzman:
'It may look pretty basic from these [photos], but Saddam is pretty comfortable in there,' a soldier who has seen the photos told the newspaper. 'Hell, the man's got much more living space than most the GIs out here. You should see the tent I have to share with 30 other guys.'"
A Western HeartWell, he's probably not, but he might as well be. Readers of this blog would've already seen how the UN are overspending by at least US$700 billion on their rebuilding. Now that buys roughly 6 million kilograms of cocaine. Only after ingesting that much would I come up with such a stupid statement as this:
Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes congressional proposals to withhold U.S. dues to the United Nations unless certain reforms are enacted would be counter-productive and hinder his ability to bring about changes, a U.N. spokesman said on Friday.
Republicans on the House International Relations Committee on Thursday circulated preliminary proposals for a measure that would cut funding for at least 17 programs, demand reductions in staff for others and seek new U.N. positions, such as a chief operating officer and an "ethics office."
If some of the proposals, like reform of the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Commission, are not enacted, 50 percent of U.S. dues would be withheld.
In the real world, money is earnt, not handed on a plate. Unfortunately, the UN wants to continue to be a waste of finances, without being accountable or responsible. While we've come to expect this, generally speaking when money is on the line, people will actually attempt to keep to their word and/or do what it takes to get the money they want/need.
However the United Nations is a special case - and since they really don't answer to anyone, they can get away with virtually anything. As a result, the Human Rights Commission is able to do as it pleases, passing criticisms of countries that go nowhere, and withholding attacks on the worst human rights offenders because its an organisation littered by countries who don't uphold the very charter the UNHRC is based on.
Is there any doubt that given a tenth of its current budget, it would achieve the same amount? It's more likely to achieve more than less, simply because currently the UNHRC does absolutely nothing of any value. They criticise Cuba virtually every year, and still Cuba won't even let UNHRC inspectors into the country. Cuba laughs this off, as does every nation "censured" by the Human Rights Commission. And with good reason. When an unaccountable, corrupt organisation passes biased resolutions for purely political reasons that have no standing, and aren't taken seriously by the countries that are meant to change as a result of the resolution, you don't achieve anything.
The UN has had years to pass reforms on billions and billions of dollars worth of income. They've done virtually nothing other than ask for money. If reform will not start from within, then it must be done externally. The Republicans on the House International Relations Committee who are looking at kick-starting these reforms have already done as much as the UN in an effort to reform this twisted group of dictator-appeasing socialists, and thus the UN criticises them for it. They don't want their easy flow of free money threatened. It's as simple as that.
Same old UN, different day.
(Cross-posted to The House Of Wheels.)
Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes congressional proposals to withhold U.S. dues to the United Nations unless certain reforms are enacted would be counter-productive and hinder his ability to bring about changes, a U.N. spokesman said on Friday.
Republicans on the House International Relations Committee on Thursday circulated preliminary proposals for a measure that would cut funding for at least 17 programs, demand reductions in staff for others and seek new U.N. positions, such as a chief operating officer and an "ethics office."
If some of the proposals, like reform of the Geneva-based U.N. Human Rights Commission, are not enacted, 50 percent of U.S. dues would be withheld.
In the real world, money is earnt, not handed on a plate. Unfortunately, the UN wants to continue to be a waste of finances, without being accountable or responsible. While we've come to expect this, generally speaking when money is on the line, people will actually attempt to keep to their word and/or do what it takes to get the money they want/need.
However the United Nations is a special case - and since they really don't answer to anyone, they can get away with virtually anything. As a result, the Human Rights Commission is able to do as it pleases, passing criticisms of countries that go nowhere, and withholding attacks on the worst human rights offenders because its an organisation littered by countries who don't uphold the very charter the UNHRC is based on.
Is there any doubt that given a tenth of its current budget, it would achieve the same amount? It's more likely to achieve more than less, simply because currently the UNHRC does absolutely nothing of any value. They criticise Cuba virtually every year, and still Cuba won't even let UNHRC inspectors into the country. Cuba laughs this off, as does every nation "censured" by the Human Rights Commission. And with good reason. When an unaccountable, corrupt organisation passes biased resolutions for purely political reasons that have no standing, and aren't taken seriously by the countries that are meant to change as a result of the resolution, you don't achieve anything.
The UN has had years to pass reforms on billions and billions of dollars worth of income. They've done virtually nothing other than ask for money. If reform will not start from within, then it must be done externally. The Republicans on the House International Relations Committee who are looking at kick-starting these reforms have already done as much as the UN in an effort to reform this twisted group of dictator-appeasing socialists, and thus the UN criticises them for it. They don't want their easy flow of free money threatened. It's as simple as that.
Same old UN, different day.
(Cross-posted to The House Of Wheels.)
IF YOU WANTED TO DESTROY AMERICA... HERE'S HOW, IN EIGHT EASY STEPS
IF YOU WANTED TO DESTROY AMERICA... HERE'S HOW, IN EIGHT EASY STEPS: "The magic formula for doing away with this great nation isn't magic at all. In fact, this eight-step process is as easy as apple pie.
Take it from the former Governor of Colorado, Dick Lamm, who revealed the 'steps' at an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington D.C., attended by some of America's deepest thinkers.
Before Lamm, however, the first speaker, a brilliant professor named Victor Hansen Davis, gave his talk. He discussed his new book 'Mexifornia' which told how immigrants, both legal and illegal, were destroying the entire state of California. He said this wave of immigrants would eventually march across the country until it destroyed all aspects of The American Dream.
Then it was Gov. Lamm's turn. He stood up, walked quietly to the lectern and began to speak. What he said stunned the audience. They sat absolutely spellbound as the ex-governor casually said, 'If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy it. It is not hard to do. If you know how to go about it.'
Then, Lamm went on to reveal the procedure that he said was certain to do the trick. He spelled out the eight simple steps.
'First,' Lamm said, 'I would turn America into a multi-lingual and multi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures.
'Second, I would encourage immigrants to maintain their culture and make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal, and that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority.
'Third, I would celebrate diversity rather than unity. I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language. It is important that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America, reinforcing their differences, rather than emphasizing their similarities.
'Fourth, I would make the fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass. They would be unassimilated, uneducated, and antagonistic to our general population.
'Fifth, I would get big foundations and businesses to give these efforts lots of money. I would establish a cult of 'Victimology' by starting a grievance industry blaming all minority failures on the majority population.
'Sixth, to bring down America, I would produce dual citizenships and promote divided loyalties. Celebrate diversity over unity. Stress differences rather than likenesses. Greece had a common language and literature and all worshipped the same God, but Greece fell to the Persians. E. Pluribus Unum - from many, one. If I put emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum' I can balkanize America as surely as I'm standing here.
'Seventh, I would place all subject matter off limits---make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of diversity. I would make it impossible to enforce immigration laws. I would have a mantra, It would be this: because immigration has been good for America in the past, it must therefore always be good.
'Last, I would censor Professor Victor Davis's book, 'Mexifornia,' It exposes the dangerous plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.'
When Gov. Lamm finished speaking he walked quietly back to his seat. There was no applause. There was no whispering or murmuring. The room was still, stunned, shocked. But it was evident that everybody in that room recognized that what Lamm had just said was quietly, darkly and progressively happening across the United States today.
More than 100 languages are tearing apart our education system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures practice strange pagan rituals. American jobs are vanishing. Corporations are creating a Third World America. We have ten million illegal aliens and growing. George Orwell's book '1984' is coming fast to this nation.
Lamm contends that if we don't get this immigration monster stopped soon it will surely destroy The American Dream.
* * * * * *
NOTE: Sincere thanks to Jim Nazzaro for sending me this speech by Gov. Dick Lamm. The full text is too long to use verbatim, but the highlights of his speech are here.
'Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.'"
Take it from the former Governor of Colorado, Dick Lamm, who revealed the 'steps' at an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington D.C., attended by some of America's deepest thinkers.
Before Lamm, however, the first speaker, a brilliant professor named Victor Hansen Davis, gave his talk. He discussed his new book 'Mexifornia' which told how immigrants, both legal and illegal, were destroying the entire state of California. He said this wave of immigrants would eventually march across the country until it destroyed all aspects of The American Dream.
Then it was Gov. Lamm's turn. He stood up, walked quietly to the lectern and began to speak. What he said stunned the audience. They sat absolutely spellbound as the ex-governor casually said, 'If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy it. It is not hard to do. If you know how to go about it.'
Then, Lamm went on to reveal the procedure that he said was certain to do the trick. He spelled out the eight simple steps.
'First,' Lamm said, 'I would turn America into a multi-lingual and multi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures.
'Second, I would encourage immigrants to maintain their culture and make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal, and that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority.
'Third, I would celebrate diversity rather than unity. I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language. It is important that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America, reinforcing their differences, rather than emphasizing their similarities.
'Fourth, I would make the fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass. They would be unassimilated, uneducated, and antagonistic to our general population.
'Fifth, I would get big foundations and businesses to give these efforts lots of money. I would establish a cult of 'Victimology' by starting a grievance industry blaming all minority failures on the majority population.
'Sixth, to bring down America, I would produce dual citizenships and promote divided loyalties. Celebrate diversity over unity. Stress differences rather than likenesses. Greece had a common language and literature and all worshipped the same God, but Greece fell to the Persians. E. Pluribus Unum - from many, one. If I put emphasis on the 'pluribus' instead of the 'unum' I can balkanize America as surely as I'm standing here.
'Seventh, I would place all subject matter off limits---make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of diversity. I would make it impossible to enforce immigration laws. I would have a mantra, It would be this: because immigration has been good for America in the past, it must therefore always be good.
'Last, I would censor Professor Victor Davis's book, 'Mexifornia,' It exposes the dangerous plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.'
When Gov. Lamm finished speaking he walked quietly back to his seat. There was no applause. There was no whispering or murmuring. The room was still, stunned, shocked. But it was evident that everybody in that room recognized that what Lamm had just said was quietly, darkly and progressively happening across the United States today.
More than 100 languages are tearing apart our education system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures practice strange pagan rituals. American jobs are vanishing. Corporations are creating a Third World America. We have ten million illegal aliens and growing. George Orwell's book '1984' is coming fast to this nation.
Lamm contends that if we don't get this immigration monster stopped soon it will surely destroy The American Dream.
* * * * * *
NOTE: Sincere thanks to Jim Nazzaro for sending me this speech by Gov. Dick Lamm. The full text is too long to use verbatim, but the highlights of his speech are here.
'Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.'"
Saddam's Business Partners
Saddam's Business Partners
WHEN UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL Kofi Annan quipped several years ago that he could "do business" with Saddam Hussein, he meant it figuratively. In light of the substantive charges coming out of the ever-expanding Oil-for-Food scandal, the throwaway line seems revealing or at least ironic.
"I think we have to take him literally," says Republican senator Norm Coleman, who is leading one of eight investigations into the corruption and mismanagement of the U.N.'s largest-ever humanitarian relief effort.
The basic outline of the scandal is simple: Saddam Hussein used the Oil-for-Food program to circumvent U.N. sanctions imposed after the Gulf war and to enrich himself and his allies. He did this by bribing leading journalists and diplomats and demanding kickbacks from those who profited from selling Iraqi oil. That he was able to do so indicates at least that the U.N. badly mismanaged the program it set up in December 1996. None of this is particularly astonishing. No one is surprised to learn that Saddam Hussein cheats, that politicians take bribes, and that the competence level of the U.N. bureaucracy is, well, suboptimal.
Nevertheless, the details of the Oil-for-Food scandal--who participated, and what they apparently did--are jaw-dropping. Vladimir Putin's chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin, appears to have accepted millions of dollars in oil-soaked bribes from Saddam Hussein. The same appears to be true of the former interior minister of France, Charles Pasqua, a close friend of President Jacques Chirac. And the same appears to be true of three high-ranking U.N. executives including Benon Sevan, handpicked by Kofi Annan to administer the Oil-for-Food program. Oil-for-Food money even went to terrorist organizations supported by the Iraqi regime and, according to U.S. investigators, might be funding the insurgency today.
Through seven years' worth of deals that should never have been made, compromises that should never have been struck, and concessions that should never have been granted, Oil-for-Food strengthened Saddam Hussein. What we know about all of this now is a fraction of what will eventually be uncovered. But even this limited understanding should mean an end to Kofi Annan's term as secretary general. The sad history of U.N. incompetence on Iraq generally and in the Oil-for-Food program specifically is enough to make you wonder why George W. Bush settled for John Bolton rather than, say, John Rocker to push for reform at the world body.
AMONG THE MANY BIZARRE ASPECTS of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program is its premise: If we, the international community, allow Saddam Hussein to take in more money by selling oil, we can end the suffering of the Iraqi people even while maintaining U.N. sanctions.
Saddam Hussein argued that Iraqis were dying because the sanctions deprived him of the money to save them. And while there is little doubt that the sanctions left Iraqis much poorer than they were before the Gulf war--annual incomes dropped nearly to a third of what they had been in 1990--it was less clear that Saddam Hussein was similarly destitute.
"Saddam's family profits from covert sales of Iraqi oil and dominance of the black market, where many of the donated medicines and food end up," said then-CIA director John Deutch in public testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on September 25, 1996. "Iraqi government funds are used to maintain lavish lifestyles. Baghdad, for example, has begun working on 48 new palaces and VIP residences during the past five years, increasing the total number of estates available to Saddam Hussein to at least 78."
Iraqis were dying because Saddam Hussein was killing them. He was actively killing them, Deutch said, by executing his political opponents and by draining the marshes of central Iraq that provided sustenance to hundreds of thousands of Shiites. And he was passively killing them by refusing to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and stealing food and medicine intended to ease their suffering.
None of this mattered to France and Russia, Hussein's chief backers on the Security Council. From virtually the beginning, they wanted the sanctions to end so that they could resume their robust, pre-Gulf war business with the Iraqi government. But Hussein made their argument difficult. For the first five years after the 1991 cease-fire, he had continually violated its terms. He had failed to account for his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. He had not cooperated fully with U.N. weapons inspectors. He had smuggled oil out of his country for sale on the black market. He had harbored a fugitive from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He had attempted to assassinate President George H.W. Bush. He had amassed troops on the Kuwaiti border, threatening a new attack. And he had dispatched 40,000 Iraqi soldiers to attack the Kurds in northern Iraq.
The United States and Britain, Hussein's chief opponents on the Security Council, wanted to maintain the sanctions. But by the mid-1990s it had become clear that Hussein was winning the public relations battle. Much of the world blamed the Americans and the British for the suffering of the Iraqi people. The Clinton administration wanted a compromise.
In April 1995, as U.N. inspectors traversed Iraq looking for proscribed weapons that Saddam was to have destroyed, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a proposal that would allow Iraq to sell $2 billion worth of oil every six months. The deal would be renewed after rigorous inspections by the Security Council to ensure that Hussein wasn't cheating. The money would go into an escrow account operated under U.N. scrutiny. Some of it would be used to compensate Kuwaiti victims of the Gulf war. Some of it would cover the cost of the U.N. weapons inspections. The bulk of the money, however, would go to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people under the U.N. sanctions. Of the $2 billion Iraq would earn from oil sales, approximately $1.3 billion would be spent on food, medicine, and other humanitarian goods. The money would be distributed from the escrow account to vendors across the globe, again with significant input from Saddam Hussein.
Iraq rejected the proposal as a violation of its sovereignty, as it had once before. The real reason was less high-minded: Hussein needed Iraqis to keep dying. He rightly interpreted as weakness the eagerness of the United States and others on the Security Council to ease the sanctions on his regime. Hussein "understood that if he exercised the option of exporting oil under the condition that only humanitarian aid could be delivered, then it would relieve the pressure on the [Security] Council to lift sanctions in their entirety," Charles Duelfer, a CIA special adviser on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, told a Senate panel last fall. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was the U.N. secretary general at the time, shrugged off Iraq's lack of cooperation with U.N. inspectors and promised Hussein that the new proposal would be a "first step toward the total lifting of the sanctions against Iraq."
When Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, defected to Jordan on August 8, 1995, he effectively ended any hope for the total lifting of sanctions. Kamel, the nephew of Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali," was a senior regime official with responsibility for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. He revealed the elaborate schemes Hussein had put in place to hide his programs from U.N. inspectors. The Iraqi regime, not knowing what Kamel had disclosed to U.N. officials, was forced to admit a far greater level of WMD production and sophistication than had been known. The French and Russians, who had offered praise for the regime's alleged cooperation, were silenced. The drive to end sanctions was finished, or rather stalled.
Five months later, in December 1995, a U.N. agency known as the Food and Agriculture Organization produced a study that estimated 567,000 children had died as a result of the sanctions. The authors noted the seeming contradiction between the determination of U.N. humanitarian agencies to alleviate suffering and the efforts of the U.N. Security Council to enforce sanctions. The embargo, they concluded, threatened to undermine "the moral, financial, and political standing of the international community."
Another study by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) found that some 4,500 Iraqi children were dying each month from disease and starvation, and a third U.N. study, this one by the U.N. World Food Program, determined that approximately 180,000 Iraqi children under five were suffering from malnutrition. The pressure had returned.
The details of a U.N.-supervised program allowing Hussein to sell more oil in order to better provide for his people were debated for another year, with U.N. negotiators, encouraged by France and Russia, acceding to Hussein's many demands. One concession, little noticed at the time, was a provision that would allow Hussein to choose who bought and sold his oil, pending approval by the U.N. On December 10, 1996, the deal was struck.
"This is a victory for the poorest of the poor of Iraq, for the women, the children, the sick, and the disabled," said a very pleased Boutros Boutros-Ghali. The U.N. chief was not the only one who was happy. A triumphant Saddam Hussein traveled to oil-rich Kirkuk for a photo-op, where he smiled broadly as he opened a ceremonial spigot. Iraq held a nationwide celebration to mark the occasion.
Asked by a reporter about the likelihood that Hussein could circumvent or manipulate the restrictions, deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Edward Gnehm was dubious. "We designed our resolution for a cheater," he explained. "We know him. We know him well."
Looking at that formulation now--"we designed our resolution for a cheater"--Gnehm seems positively prophetic.
Whatever the intentions of its planners, the Oil-for-Food program actually worked like this: Iraq designated certain individuals or entities as potential purchasers of Iraqi oil. It gave them oil "allocations" or "vouchers" (not foreseen in the program as designed by the U.N.), which they could either use to purchase oil themselves or sell to third parties. Because the regime severely limited the number of recipients of these allocations, the recipients were able to resell the oil after attaching a surcharge--usually between 3 and 30 cents a barrel. Sales were usually a minimum of 1 million barrels, so the profits from the surcharges were significant.
Beginning in 1998, Hussein began to shift his allocations from oil companies to politicians, journalists, and terrorist groups. Mark Greenblatt, a lead investigator for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, described it this way. "His plan was simple. Rather than giving allocations to traditional oil purchasers, he gave allocations to foreign officials, journalists, even hostile terrorist entities, who then flipped their oil allocations to traditional oil companies in return for a sizable commission. In doing so, Saddam could give a foreign official or a journalist hundreds of thousands of dollars without ever paying a dime."
Officials at the highest levels of the Iraqi regime--including Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, and Oil Minister Amir Muhammad Rashid--chose the recipients.
The U.N. did not see any of this until the traditional oil companies contracted with Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization, known as SOMO. (One notable exception to this U.N. ignorance appears to have been Benon Sevan, the administrator of Oil-for-Food, who knew about the illegal allocations because he personally was receiving some. More on that later.) The Iraqis, however, kept scrupulous records of each step in their bribery scheme.
On September 1, 2000, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, SOMO began demanding a "surcharge" from each purchaser of Iraqi oil. According to the Coleman-Levin investigation, these surcharges ranged from 10 to 30 cents per barrel and were paid directly to the Iraqi regime, often through another party who, of course, took a cut. The scheme worked for two years until the United States and Britain insisted that it end. By that time, however, Hussein had made profits of nearly $230 million outside of the U.N. process, in one of several illegal mechanisms he devised to enrich himself.
Over roughly the same period, according to the Duelfer report, the Iraqi regime increased exponentially its spending on the country's Military Industrial Commission--from $7.8 million in 1998 to $500 million in 2003.
It is true that much of Iraq's illicit funding during the period of the Oil-for-Food program came from ordinary oil smuggling unrelated to the U.N. But the improvements to the oil production processes that allowed Iraq to produce and distribute oil legally also helped the illegal oil trade. The Duelfer Report estimates that Iraq's oil-smuggling profits from 1996-2003 were nearly triple those of the previous five years.
AT A SENATE HEARING LAST TUESDAY, the Coleman-Levin investigators highlighted the bribes the Iraqi regime paid to foreign officials from Britain, Russia, and France. The dramatic testimony of British member of parliament George Galloway, who unconvincingly denied knowledge of any Iraqi oil transactions, garnered most of the headlines. But Galloway is a well-known apologist for Saddam Hussein, and as a propagandist for the regime he was rather ineffective.
Two other men under investigation by the Coleman-Levin committee, however, were close advisers to the two chief opponents of the Iraq war--Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin.
One Coleman-Levin report concerns former French interior minister Charles Pasqua, who is described as a "long-time friend and political ally" of Chirac. The report says Pasqua "was a vocal supporter of restoring economic ties with the Hussein regime" as interior minister and charges him with receiving allocations for 11 million barrels of Iraqi oil. Pasqua has denied any involvement.
A second report focuses on oil allocations to the Russian Presidential Council. "Russia topped the list of nations from whom the Hussein regime wanted support at the Security Council. As a result, the Hussein regime granted allocations to Russian individuals, political parties, and others due to their good relationship with Iraq and their support for the lifting of sanctions. . . . The scale of the oil allocations given to Russian individuals and political parties was substantial, totaling approximately 30 percent of all the oil allocated during the course of the program."
Many of these allocations went to the Unity party, a predecessor of the Unified Russia party, which currently holds 37 percent of the seats in the Russian Duma. The report describes it as "a pro-Kremlin party associated with Russian president Vladimir Putin." In a prison interview last month with Senate investigators, Tariq Aziz said the Unity party was chosen for the allocations "because Russia was taking positions at the Security Council that were favorable to Iraq."
Alexander Voloshin was the head of the Russian Presidential Council and, until his resignation in 2003, the top adviser to Russian president Vladimir Putin. He has been called the Russian Karl Rove for his close relationship to Putin, and, according to the Coleman-Levin report, "there is little debate over the magnitude of Mr. Voloshin's influence in Russian government during the Oil-for-Food Program." In all, the Russian Presidential Council is alleged to have received allocations for 90 million barrels of Iraqi oil. Another well-known but less influential Russian politician, the ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, also received oil allocations under Oil-for-Food, good for more than 70 million barrels.
The Coleman-Levin reports base their conclusions on a wide variety of evidence including documents from the Iraqi Oil Ministry and the State Oil Marketing Organization that record the transactions in detail. Investigators also conducted dozens of interviews with senior Iraqi officials, including Aziz and Ramadan, who supported and in many cases expanded upon the documentation.
In early June, the Coleman-Levin committee will make available a similar report on the Iraqi regime's funding of terrorist entities. They will lay out a case study of the allocations provided to the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK), a terrorist group Hussein funded to conduct operations against Iran. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris, described some of the work the MEK did for Hussein in his 2002 book, Through Our Enemies' Eyes. Osama bin Laden "may have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam's anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK)," Scheuer writes. "The first group of bin Laden's fighters is reported to have been sent to MEK camps in June 1998; MEK cadre were also then providing technical and military training for Taliban forces and running the Taliban's anti-Iran propaganda."
THAT THE U.N. WAS APPARENTLY CLUELESS as this scheme unfolded is bad enough. What's worse, though, is that several high-ranking U.N. officials appear to have been involved in the illegality. Court documents related to the prosecution of Samir Vincent, the first American to be charged in the Oil-for-Food scandal, refer to Vincent's meetings with U.N. officials. Vincent was acting as an unregistered agent of the government of Iraq when he "and other individuals, including United Nations officials, met in Manhattan in an effort to secure terms favorable to the Government of Iraq in connection with the adoption and implementation of Resolution 986"--the resolution that created the Oil-for-Food program. Vincent is now cooperating with prosecutors.
And last month, a criminal complaint against South Korean Tongsun Park, who also acted on Hussein's behalf, mentions "U.N. Official #1" and "U.N. Official #2" as recipients of bribes from the former Iraqi regime. The two officials remain unnamed. Many news articles have pointed out that Park is a longtime friend of former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and a business associate of Maurice Strong, an adviser to Kofi Annan who currently serves as the U.N. envoy to the six-party talks on North Korea. Both men have denied any wrongdoing.
So has Kojo Annan, Kofi Annan's son. The younger Annan was consulting for the Swiss firm Cotecna while the firm was bidding to win a contract to monitor the Oil-for-Food program. Cotecna won the contract on December 31, 1998, the same day Kojo Annan's consultancy ended. Cotecna continued to pay Kojo some $2,500 per month as part of a "non-compete" clause. The payments continued until February 2004. Both Annans and Cotecna contend that Kojo's work had nothing to do with Oil-for-Food.
The same cannot be said for Benon Sevan, since he is the man Kofi Annan handpicked to run the Oil-for-Food program. According to an interim report from the Oil-for-Food investigation commissioned by the U.N. itself, Sevan "repeatedly solicited" oil allocations worth about $1 million for a company called African Middle East Petroleum. Paul Volcker, chairman of the U.N.-backed investigation, said, "The Iraqi government, in providing such allocations, certainly thought they were buying influence."
Volcker added: "Mr. Sevan placed himself in a grave and continuing conflict-of-interest situation that violated explicit U.N. rules and violated the standards of integrity essential to a high-level international civil servant."
I visited Norm Coleman in his Senate office last Wednesday. He spoke in measured terms until I asked him about Benon Sevan. "The first Volcker report concludes with a summary that this is a conflict of interest. It wasn't a conflict of interest. Sevan lied to investigators. Sevan lies. He lied to us about money that he has publicly declared. He lied to investigators. He lied about his relationship with a person who ultimately got the contract for the oil. We then get documentation that in fact Sevan lobbied for this guy to get Iraqi oil for his company. That's probable cause that he has committed a crime. And yet it was characterized as a conflict of interest?"
Coleman races through his list of grievances until that last sentence, at which point he pauses between each word. Conflict . . . of . . . interest? He shakes his head in disbelief, and then he's off again.
"That's not a conflict of interest. Sevan should be available--he shouldn't have immunity. I'm kind of on a rant here, but Sevan--up until we raised the issue, the U.N. was paying his legal fees. With Oil-for-Food money! Here's a guy who has lied to investigators--probable cause to believe he has committed a crime--and Kofi was going to pay his legal fees until we raised the issue!"
In recent weeks, the Volcker committee itself has come under scrutiny after two of its top investigators, former FBI agent Robert Parton and his deputy, Miranda Duncan, quit the probe. The Volcker committee originally explained their departures by claiming simply that the pair had finished their work. Shortly thereafter, the committee cited "personal reasons." Eventually, the truth emerged. Both Parton and Duncan believed that the Volcker committee's report on Kofi and Kojo Annan was too forgiving of the U.N. secretary general. In the days since, Parton has accused the Volcker committee of violating the confidentiality agreement it had with a witness, and that witness himself has accused the Annans of witness tampering.
Is it any wonder that Coleman wants to investigate whether Kofi Annan was--quite literally--doing business with Saddam Hussein?
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
WHEN UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY GENERAL Kofi Annan quipped several years ago that he could "do business" with Saddam Hussein, he meant it figuratively. In light of the substantive charges coming out of the ever-expanding Oil-for-Food scandal, the throwaway line seems revealing or at least ironic.
"I think we have to take him literally," says Republican senator Norm Coleman, who is leading one of eight investigations into the corruption and mismanagement of the U.N.'s largest-ever humanitarian relief effort.
The basic outline of the scandal is simple: Saddam Hussein used the Oil-for-Food program to circumvent U.N. sanctions imposed after the Gulf war and to enrich himself and his allies. He did this by bribing leading journalists and diplomats and demanding kickbacks from those who profited from selling Iraqi oil. That he was able to do so indicates at least that the U.N. badly mismanaged the program it set up in December 1996. None of this is particularly astonishing. No one is surprised to learn that Saddam Hussein cheats, that politicians take bribes, and that the competence level of the U.N. bureaucracy is, well, suboptimal.
Nevertheless, the details of the Oil-for-Food scandal--who participated, and what they apparently did--are jaw-dropping. Vladimir Putin's chief of staff, Alexander Voloshin, appears to have accepted millions of dollars in oil-soaked bribes from Saddam Hussein. The same appears to be true of the former interior minister of France, Charles Pasqua, a close friend of President Jacques Chirac. And the same appears to be true of three high-ranking U.N. executives including Benon Sevan, handpicked by Kofi Annan to administer the Oil-for-Food program. Oil-for-Food money even went to terrorist organizations supported by the Iraqi regime and, according to U.S. investigators, might be funding the insurgency today.
Through seven years' worth of deals that should never have been made, compromises that should never have been struck, and concessions that should never have been granted, Oil-for-Food strengthened Saddam Hussein. What we know about all of this now is a fraction of what will eventually be uncovered. But even this limited understanding should mean an end to Kofi Annan's term as secretary general. The sad history of U.N. incompetence on Iraq generally and in the Oil-for-Food program specifically is enough to make you wonder why George W. Bush settled for John Bolton rather than, say, John Rocker to push for reform at the world body.
AMONG THE MANY BIZARRE ASPECTS of the U.N. Oil-for-Food program is its premise: If we, the international community, allow Saddam Hussein to take in more money by selling oil, we can end the suffering of the Iraqi people even while maintaining U.N. sanctions.
Saddam Hussein argued that Iraqis were dying because the sanctions deprived him of the money to save them. And while there is little doubt that the sanctions left Iraqis much poorer than they were before the Gulf war--annual incomes dropped nearly to a third of what they had been in 1990--it was less clear that Saddam Hussein was similarly destitute.
"Saddam's family profits from covert sales of Iraqi oil and dominance of the black market, where many of the donated medicines and food end up," said then-CIA director John Deutch in public testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on September 25, 1996. "Iraqi government funds are used to maintain lavish lifestyles. Baghdad, for example, has begun working on 48 new palaces and VIP residences during the past five years, increasing the total number of estates available to Saddam Hussein to at least 78."
Iraqis were dying because Saddam Hussein was killing them. He was actively killing them, Deutch said, by executing his political opponents and by draining the marshes of central Iraq that provided sustenance to hundreds of thousands of Shiites. And he was passively killing them by refusing to cooperate with U.N. inspectors and stealing food and medicine intended to ease their suffering.
None of this mattered to France and Russia, Hussein's chief backers on the Security Council. From virtually the beginning, they wanted the sanctions to end so that they could resume their robust, pre-Gulf war business with the Iraqi government. But Hussein made their argument difficult. For the first five years after the 1991 cease-fire, he had continually violated its terms. He had failed to account for his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. He had not cooperated fully with U.N. weapons inspectors. He had smuggled oil out of his country for sale on the black market. He had harbored a fugitive from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. He had attempted to assassinate President George H.W. Bush. He had amassed troops on the Kuwaiti border, threatening a new attack. And he had dispatched 40,000 Iraqi soldiers to attack the Kurds in northern Iraq.
The United States and Britain, Hussein's chief opponents on the Security Council, wanted to maintain the sanctions. But by the mid-1990s it had become clear that Hussein was winning the public relations battle. Much of the world blamed the Americans and the British for the suffering of the Iraqi people. The Clinton administration wanted a compromise.
In April 1995, as U.N. inspectors traversed Iraq looking for proscribed weapons that Saddam was to have destroyed, the U.N. Security Council unanimously passed a proposal that would allow Iraq to sell $2 billion worth of oil every six months. The deal would be renewed after rigorous inspections by the Security Council to ensure that Hussein wasn't cheating. The money would go into an escrow account operated under U.N. scrutiny. Some of it would be used to compensate Kuwaiti victims of the Gulf war. Some of it would cover the cost of the U.N. weapons inspections. The bulk of the money, however, would go to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people under the U.N. sanctions. Of the $2 billion Iraq would earn from oil sales, approximately $1.3 billion would be spent on food, medicine, and other humanitarian goods. The money would be distributed from the escrow account to vendors across the globe, again with significant input from Saddam Hussein.
Iraq rejected the proposal as a violation of its sovereignty, as it had once before. The real reason was less high-minded: Hussein needed Iraqis to keep dying. He rightly interpreted as weakness the eagerness of the United States and others on the Security Council to ease the sanctions on his regime. Hussein "understood that if he exercised the option of exporting oil under the condition that only humanitarian aid could be delivered, then it would relieve the pressure on the [Security] Council to lift sanctions in their entirety," Charles Duelfer, a CIA special adviser on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, told a Senate panel last fall. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was the U.N. secretary general at the time, shrugged off Iraq's lack of cooperation with U.N. inspectors and promised Hussein that the new proposal would be a "first step toward the total lifting of the sanctions against Iraq."
When Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, defected to Jordan on August 8, 1995, he effectively ended any hope for the total lifting of sanctions. Kamel, the nephew of Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali," was a senior regime official with responsibility for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. He revealed the elaborate schemes Hussein had put in place to hide his programs from U.N. inspectors. The Iraqi regime, not knowing what Kamel had disclosed to U.N. officials, was forced to admit a far greater level of WMD production and sophistication than had been known. The French and Russians, who had offered praise for the regime's alleged cooperation, were silenced. The drive to end sanctions was finished, or rather stalled.
Five months later, in December 1995, a U.N. agency known as the Food and Agriculture Organization produced a study that estimated 567,000 children had died as a result of the sanctions. The authors noted the seeming contradiction between the determination of U.N. humanitarian agencies to alleviate suffering and the efforts of the U.N. Security Council to enforce sanctions. The embargo, they concluded, threatened to undermine "the moral, financial, and political standing of the international community."
Another study by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) found that some 4,500 Iraqi children were dying each month from disease and starvation, and a third U.N. study, this one by the U.N. World Food Program, determined that approximately 180,000 Iraqi children under five were suffering from malnutrition. The pressure had returned.
The details of a U.N.-supervised program allowing Hussein to sell more oil in order to better provide for his people were debated for another year, with U.N. negotiators, encouraged by France and Russia, acceding to Hussein's many demands. One concession, little noticed at the time, was a provision that would allow Hussein to choose who bought and sold his oil, pending approval by the U.N. On December 10, 1996, the deal was struck.
"This is a victory for the poorest of the poor of Iraq, for the women, the children, the sick, and the disabled," said a very pleased Boutros Boutros-Ghali. The U.N. chief was not the only one who was happy. A triumphant Saddam Hussein traveled to oil-rich Kirkuk for a photo-op, where he smiled broadly as he opened a ceremonial spigot. Iraq held a nationwide celebration to mark the occasion.
Asked by a reporter about the likelihood that Hussein could circumvent or manipulate the restrictions, deputy U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Edward Gnehm was dubious. "We designed our resolution for a cheater," he explained. "We know him. We know him well."
Looking at that formulation now--"we designed our resolution for a cheater"--Gnehm seems positively prophetic.
Whatever the intentions of its planners, the Oil-for-Food program actually worked like this: Iraq designated certain individuals or entities as potential purchasers of Iraqi oil. It gave them oil "allocations" or "vouchers" (not foreseen in the program as designed by the U.N.), which they could either use to purchase oil themselves or sell to third parties. Because the regime severely limited the number of recipients of these allocations, the recipients were able to resell the oil after attaching a surcharge--usually between 3 and 30 cents a barrel. Sales were usually a minimum of 1 million barrels, so the profits from the surcharges were significant.
Beginning in 1998, Hussein began to shift his allocations from oil companies to politicians, journalists, and terrorist groups. Mark Greenblatt, a lead investigator for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, described it this way. "His plan was simple. Rather than giving allocations to traditional oil purchasers, he gave allocations to foreign officials, journalists, even hostile terrorist entities, who then flipped their oil allocations to traditional oil companies in return for a sizable commission. In doing so, Saddam could give a foreign official or a journalist hundreds of thousands of dollars without ever paying a dime."
Officials at the highest levels of the Iraqi regime--including Vice President Taha Yasin Ramadan, Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, and Oil Minister Amir Muhammad Rashid--chose the recipients.
The U.N. did not see any of this until the traditional oil companies contracted with Iraq's State Oil Marketing Organization, known as SOMO. (One notable exception to this U.N. ignorance appears to have been Benon Sevan, the administrator of Oil-for-Food, who knew about the illegal allocations because he personally was receiving some. More on that later.) The Iraqis, however, kept scrupulous records of each step in their bribery scheme.
On September 1, 2000, at the direction of Saddam Hussein, SOMO began demanding a "surcharge" from each purchaser of Iraqi oil. According to the Coleman-Levin investigation, these surcharges ranged from 10 to 30 cents per barrel and were paid directly to the Iraqi regime, often through another party who, of course, took a cut. The scheme worked for two years until the United States and Britain insisted that it end. By that time, however, Hussein had made profits of nearly $230 million outside of the U.N. process, in one of several illegal mechanisms he devised to enrich himself.
Over roughly the same period, according to the Duelfer report, the Iraqi regime increased exponentially its spending on the country's Military Industrial Commission--from $7.8 million in 1998 to $500 million in 2003.
It is true that much of Iraq's illicit funding during the period of the Oil-for-Food program came from ordinary oil smuggling unrelated to the U.N. But the improvements to the oil production processes that allowed Iraq to produce and distribute oil legally also helped the illegal oil trade. The Duelfer Report estimates that Iraq's oil-smuggling profits from 1996-2003 were nearly triple those of the previous five years.
AT A SENATE HEARING LAST TUESDAY, the Coleman-Levin investigators highlighted the bribes the Iraqi regime paid to foreign officials from Britain, Russia, and France. The dramatic testimony of British member of parliament George Galloway, who unconvincingly denied knowledge of any Iraqi oil transactions, garnered most of the headlines. But Galloway is a well-known apologist for Saddam Hussein, and as a propagandist for the regime he was rather ineffective.
Two other men under investigation by the Coleman-Levin committee, however, were close advisers to the two chief opponents of the Iraq war--Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin.
One Coleman-Levin report concerns former French interior minister Charles Pasqua, who is described as a "long-time friend and political ally" of Chirac. The report says Pasqua "was a vocal supporter of restoring economic ties with the Hussein regime" as interior minister and charges him with receiving allocations for 11 million barrels of Iraqi oil. Pasqua has denied any involvement.
A second report focuses on oil allocations to the Russian Presidential Council. "Russia topped the list of nations from whom the Hussein regime wanted support at the Security Council. As a result, the Hussein regime granted allocations to Russian individuals, political parties, and others due to their good relationship with Iraq and their support for the lifting of sanctions. . . . The scale of the oil allocations given to Russian individuals and political parties was substantial, totaling approximately 30 percent of all the oil allocated during the course of the program."
Many of these allocations went to the Unity party, a predecessor of the Unified Russia party, which currently holds 37 percent of the seats in the Russian Duma. The report describes it as "a pro-Kremlin party associated with Russian president Vladimir Putin." In a prison interview last month with Senate investigators, Tariq Aziz said the Unity party was chosen for the allocations "because Russia was taking positions at the Security Council that were favorable to Iraq."
Alexander Voloshin was the head of the Russian Presidential Council and, until his resignation in 2003, the top adviser to Russian president Vladimir Putin. He has been called the Russian Karl Rove for his close relationship to Putin, and, according to the Coleman-Levin report, "there is little debate over the magnitude of Mr. Voloshin's influence in Russian government during the Oil-for-Food Program." In all, the Russian Presidential Council is alleged to have received allocations for 90 million barrels of Iraqi oil. Another well-known but less influential Russian politician, the ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, also received oil allocations under Oil-for-Food, good for more than 70 million barrels.
The Coleman-Levin reports base their conclusions on a wide variety of evidence including documents from the Iraqi Oil Ministry and the State Oil Marketing Organization that record the transactions in detail. Investigators also conducted dozens of interviews with senior Iraqi officials, including Aziz and Ramadan, who supported and in many cases expanded upon the documentation.
In early June, the Coleman-Levin committee will make available a similar report on the Iraqi regime's funding of terrorist entities. They will lay out a case study of the allocations provided to the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK), a terrorist group Hussein funded to conduct operations against Iran. Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris, described some of the work the MEK did for Hussein in his 2002 book, Through Our Enemies' Eyes. Osama bin Laden "may have trained some fighters in Iraq at camps run by Saddam's anti-Iran force, the Mujahedin e-Khalq (MEK)," Scheuer writes. "The first group of bin Laden's fighters is reported to have been sent to MEK camps in June 1998; MEK cadre were also then providing technical and military training for Taliban forces and running the Taliban's anti-Iran propaganda."
THAT THE U.N. WAS APPARENTLY CLUELESS as this scheme unfolded is bad enough. What's worse, though, is that several high-ranking U.N. officials appear to have been involved in the illegality. Court documents related to the prosecution of Samir Vincent, the first American to be charged in the Oil-for-Food scandal, refer to Vincent's meetings with U.N. officials. Vincent was acting as an unregistered agent of the government of Iraq when he "and other individuals, including United Nations officials, met in Manhattan in an effort to secure terms favorable to the Government of Iraq in connection with the adoption and implementation of Resolution 986"--the resolution that created the Oil-for-Food program. Vincent is now cooperating with prosecutors.
And last month, a criminal complaint against South Korean Tongsun Park, who also acted on Hussein's behalf, mentions "U.N. Official #1" and "U.N. Official #2" as recipients of bribes from the former Iraqi regime. The two officials remain unnamed. Many news articles have pointed out that Park is a longtime friend of former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and a business associate of Maurice Strong, an adviser to Kofi Annan who currently serves as the U.N. envoy to the six-party talks on North Korea. Both men have denied any wrongdoing.
So has Kojo Annan, Kofi Annan's son. The younger Annan was consulting for the Swiss firm Cotecna while the firm was bidding to win a contract to monitor the Oil-for-Food program. Cotecna won the contract on December 31, 1998, the same day Kojo Annan's consultancy ended. Cotecna continued to pay Kojo some $2,500 per month as part of a "non-compete" clause. The payments continued until February 2004. Both Annans and Cotecna contend that Kojo's work had nothing to do with Oil-for-Food.
The same cannot be said for Benon Sevan, since he is the man Kofi Annan handpicked to run the Oil-for-Food program. According to an interim report from the Oil-for-Food investigation commissioned by the U.N. itself, Sevan "repeatedly solicited" oil allocations worth about $1 million for a company called African Middle East Petroleum. Paul Volcker, chairman of the U.N.-backed investigation, said, "The Iraqi government, in providing such allocations, certainly thought they were buying influence."
Volcker added: "Mr. Sevan placed himself in a grave and continuing conflict-of-interest situation that violated explicit U.N. rules and violated the standards of integrity essential to a high-level international civil servant."
I visited Norm Coleman in his Senate office last Wednesday. He spoke in measured terms until I asked him about Benon Sevan. "The first Volcker report concludes with a summary that this is a conflict of interest. It wasn't a conflict of interest. Sevan lied to investigators. Sevan lies. He lied to us about money that he has publicly declared. He lied to investigators. He lied about his relationship with a person who ultimately got the contract for the oil. We then get documentation that in fact Sevan lobbied for this guy to get Iraqi oil for his company. That's probable cause that he has committed a crime. And yet it was characterized as a conflict of interest?"
Coleman races through his list of grievances until that last sentence, at which point he pauses between each word. Conflict . . . of . . . interest? He shakes his head in disbelief, and then he's off again.
"That's not a conflict of interest. Sevan should be available--he shouldn't have immunity. I'm kind of on a rant here, but Sevan--up until we raised the issue, the U.N. was paying his legal fees. With Oil-for-Food money! Here's a guy who has lied to investigators--probable cause to believe he has committed a crime--and Kofi was going to pay his legal fees until we raised the issue!"
In recent weeks, the Volcker committee itself has come under scrutiny after two of its top investigators, former FBI agent Robert Parton and his deputy, Miranda Duncan, quit the probe. The Volcker committee originally explained their departures by claiming simply that the pair had finished their work. Shortly thereafter, the committee cited "personal reasons." Eventually, the truth emerged. Both Parton and Duncan believed that the Volcker committee's report on Kofi and Kojo Annan was too forgiving of the U.N. secretary general. In the days since, Parton has accused the Volcker committee of violating the confidentiality agreement it had with a witness, and that witness himself has accused the Annans of witness tampering.
Is it any wonder that Coleman wants to investigate whether Kofi Annan was--quite literally--doing business with Saddam Hussein?
Stephen F. Hayes is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard.
© Copyright 2005, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
