Iraq Policy

Not that I expected to be surprised. The press has been bellowing everything in the speech for at least a week now. Just once I'd like to be surprised.

So the break down really comes to the surge to enforce security in Baghdad and increase activity in al-Anbar province. The Dems have essentially flipped out on this, as expected. So nothing new there. A lot of analysis in the MSM says that the increase is nothing new and has failed before. That has some accuracy, but in a very limited scope. First, all clear and hold operations have been the US military clearing and the Iraqi military holding. The change is that the US military will be used for prolongation of the holding as embedded units. That is different and should help the Iraqis get more experience and should also help logistics. Not mentioned anywhere that I can find is that this will also help ensure that areas being held aren't abused by sectarian divisions between the police/military and the populations.

Bush didn't mention the militias in his speech. I think this topic needs to be addressed, and it appears that the Iraqi government is starting to give notice. This looks to me like there will be a clash with the Mahdi Army. I question whether the present PM has the political muscle to bring them under control.

Iraq's prime minister has told Shiite militiamen to surrender their weapons or face an all-out assault, part of a commitment U.S. President George W. Bush outlined to bring violence under control with a more aggressive Iraqi Army and 21,500 additional American troops.

Senior Iraqi officials said Wednesday that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, under pressure from the U.S., has agreed to crack down on the fighters even though they are loyal to his most powerful political ally, the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Previously, al-Maliki had resisted the move.

al-Maliki has spoken similarly before, but has never actually backed that up. He has to decide whether he and the Democratically elected government is going to run the country or these rogue clerics. I'm not optimistic.

Other new tactics relate to jobs and the economy:

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws, and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution.

Again, these all are very dependent on the Iraqi government's will. The Sunni areas must be assured at least a fair shake in these plans. Of course, they want the lion's share, but they also need to come to a realization that if this all fails they may be lucky to remain alive. I don't think this has been setting in strongly. It almost would be instructive to have them feel a little of what they could be up against if they don't come into the government. Not that that will happen, but those thinking that they will get anything like what they have had previous for power need to know their choices are fair to horrific.

Outside support from the middle eastern countries is also discussed.

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors, and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region, to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

He also discussed Iran and Syria in rather scathing terms. Appropriate in my view. At this point if it isn't clear to everyone that those two countries want US failure for their own hegemony, then no one is looking. I'd even state that talking with them at this point would be used against the US by giving them further propaganda fuel showing the US as weak and begging for help. After the past few president's failures to show any real spine when it comes to conflict, the propaganda value of keeping them out will work for the US. Especially within countries that are sitting on the fence or slightly favoring our stand.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

I don't see much hope of stabilizing the region with Syria and especially Iran actively undermining stabilization processes. Iran's nuclear ambitions don't indicate any sign of any desire to get along with the rest of the countries in the area, not to mention the world.

Syria has already stood up and said there can be no peace.

Peace in the Middle East was an impossibility in light of US President George Bush's announcement to send more troops to Iraq, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Shara said on Thursday, according to a report on Israel Radio.

"There is no reason to expect that the peace process will be restarted without the clear commitment of the Americans," al-Shara said.

Again, this appears that they refuse to be part of the solution. I'm certain they would love to be a solution on their own terms, but that would completely fail to bring stabilization. It also brings up a question of how Syria and Saudi Arabia are going to deal with the Sunni weakness in Iraq. If the US fails, the sectarian battlefield could be more than just a localized civil war within Iraq. It could be a regional sectarian war within Iraq. This is part of the issue with those calling for withdrawal. They fail to perceive that the spread of instability will have profound regional effects which will then slowly cause global repercussions.

The political jousting started even before the speech. Pelosi and Reid made their ire well known.

Emerging from their afternoon meeting with Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said they felt they were not able to give input to the Bush plan.

Their meeting "was notification, not consultation," said Pelosi.

My visceral reaction to this was that they believed that they should have been giving permission to the President for his plan. Teddy-the-Tick Kennedy also put forward a similar sounding bite previously with expectations that the president should have to get congress' permission to send in more troops. Funny how they all ignore the constitution when it so suits them. It also is striking that the only alternative that the Dem leadership has come up with continues to be phased-cut-and-run.

It was also informative to see how many news hits one found on that quote. I only got three hits on the google-news search. I did see the quote on the TV media more, but the print press seems not to want to show that to the public.

I'm not optimistic. I think the strategic alterations of value, only I don't see it as probable that the US public will have sufficient patients to allow success. With the political screeching going on, I'm going to bet that the troop surge will be especially poorly received. The President really needs to push this plan to the public and counter the Dems whining with resolve. Sadly, this is something that Bush hasn't had much success with in the past.

Mumbles Menino's New Gun Control Agenda

If you can't enforce one law, write some more. Menino just doesn't get it.

Boston Mayor Tom Menino will ask the Legislature to toughen Massachusetts' gun laws.

Menino wants to suspend the driver's licenses and revoke the vehicle registrations of people convicted of firearms violations. The mayor hopes the stricter laws will not only reduce violent crimes, but also warn police pulling over cars that the driver may be carrying guns.

And at the Federal level:

Mayor Thomas Menino says he plans to travel to Washington later this month to personally lobby new House Speaker and fellow Democrat Nancy Pelosi for tougher gun laws.

Menino said the country has to do more to crack down on gun trafficking and gun-related crime. He said in 2006, Boston police took more than 1,800 guns off city streets, twice as many as the previous year.

"We need to convince Congress to pass common sense gun laws," Menino said to an outburst of applause in his annual State of the City Address on Tuesday night. "Laws that punish immoral gun dealers, and protect our citizens."

Menino pointed to an initiative he began with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to combat illegal guns. He said the Mayors Against Illegal Guns initiative began with 15 mayors and has grown to 123 mayors in 44 states.

I love when he points to the need for common sense gun control, and then points to the Bloomberg initiative. I'm still wondering when the BATFE is going to actually state that it was just fine for Bloomberg to violate the law with a conspiracy to commit a felony. I'd say there is more, but I'm betting on the BATFE only going for a slap on the wrist for something the rest of us would spend long amounts of time in jail for doing.

I'm so very glad I don't live in Boston.

Homeland Stupid Security Bill

Has there been any Blue Ribbon Commissions on security? I'd really like to know that. The reason mostly has to do with the legislation like this reported that essentially requires a large amount of highly ineffective and costly security measures.

The House passed a broad homeland-security bill Tuesday that requires all cargo on U.S.-bound ships and on passenger planes to be scanned for explosives, expands programs to track weapons of mass destruction and bolsters intelligence gathering along the border.

The bill, which implements many of the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission, is the first in the 100-hour legislative drive spearheaded by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

It passed 299-128, with 68 Republicans joining Democrats. All members of the Washington state delegation voted for the bill.

While it could bolster the Democratic Party's national-security credentials, it also could fall short of its aims. Democrats did not designate funding for most of the costly initiatives, and critics also charge that some are impractical.

Funny that they state it could bolter the Dems on National Security, but only for those people that are completely clueless on security. Sadly the Hollywood scenario solutions are just a vast waste of time. I won't reiterate the stupidity of the Safe Ports act or the extensions that this bill will add. That is quite obvious. But what about the check of all cargo for explosives? Is there any way to do this without opening ever single item and doing a swipe test?

I'm thinking that some of the measures could be good, but the ones listed in this report are basically poor. I'll have to find out just what they mean by "intelligence gathering along the border." I'm thinking there aren't many high level threats along our borders. What intelligence are they looking for exactly?

I'm sure that this bill will look worse and worse as analysis of it comes out.

Barney Frank's Big Mouth

MSM gives another pass to racial comments by a liberal. Surprise surprise surprise.

In a Capitol Hill briefing captured on video by liberal blogger Matt Stoller, Mr. Frank suggested the administration was trying to make Louisiana more Republican by failing to alleviate housing problems for poor blacks displaced by Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005.

"In the year-plus since then ... they have done nothing to rebuild affordable housing" in New Orleans, Mr. Frank said on the video. "And, what I believe is, at this point you're not talking about incompetence, but ... what you're talking about is when you simply, in a calculated way, refuse to do anything for well over a year ... the policy I think here is ethnic cleansing by inaction.

"It's not ethnic cleansing in the sense that they're killing people, ... but what we need to recognize here is that, they're in this happy position for them, where if the federal government does nothing, Louisiana will become whiter and richer. ... They let the hurricane do the ethnic cleansing, and their hands are clean."

Mr. Frank, whose Massachusetts 4th Congressional District is 89 percent white, said the administration was "happy" with the destruction of housing in New Orleans because "as a result ... Louisiana would become more widely Republican" by losing "100,000 black voters."

I guess Frank hasn't bothered getting any control of liberal bloggers. Not that I expect they would fall in line with his reasoning, it's just fun to see a liberal blogger outing a bastion of liberalism.

Anyone else think that this would have been given a pass by the MSM if it had been a Repub? I did a google-new search on "Barney Frank" katrina and "ethnic cleansing" and got a total of 8 reports. Eliminate "ethnic cleansing" and you jump up to 145. I'm sure the numbers will change, but it's disturbing that this got so very little time in the "Fair and Balanced" journalism in the US.

Seems that the Massachusetts politicos are doing a bang up job. Now we just need to find out if Kerry is going to run for president again.

Troop Escalation

Troop Escalation? What, they don't like the word surge? And what happened to all these Dems who were demanding the President follow the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Looks to me that he's following this recommendation and now they have changed their minds.

Kennedy, being the major windbag that he is pontificated on the need for congressional approval for the President to take further military action. Still think the Dems aren't trying to take constitutional powers away from the president?

Sen. Edward Kennedy, one of President Bush's fiercest anti-war critics, said Tuesday he hopes to throw up a legislative roadblock against Bush's expected call for up to 20,000 more troops in Iraq.

Kennedy, D-Mass., flexing his political muscle in the new Democratic majority, is pushing a bill to deny Bush the billions of dollars in funding needed for a troop buildup unless Congress first approves. Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., is filing a similar measure in the House.

"We cannot simply speak out against an escalation of troops in Iraq," Kennedy said. "We must act to prevent it."

The legislation is expected to spark broader debate on Capitol Hill over steps lawmakers eager to curb Bush's war strategy should take.

Kennedy warned that Bush's anticipated call for extra troops, to be outlined Wednesday night in a nationally televised address, would "exact a fearsome toll" of American lives.

"Such an escalation would be a policy of desperation built on denial and fantasy," Kennedy said in a speech at the National Press Club. "It is 'stay the course' under another name."

Of course Ed Markey, the other knee jerk from the People's Republic of Massachusetts is on board. I wonder if Kennedy has told Kerry what to think on this subject yet.

Of course, the BoGlobe failed to report the Vietnam quotes. This from The Swamp.

“Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam.” Thus said Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat, in a speech at the National Press Club today.

Of course, if that’s true, then not only would Iraq be President Bush’s Vietnam, it would be the American people’s Vietnam too, yet another quagmire with no end in sight.

I especially love Kennedy braying about history, ignoring that what he is proposing would in fact violate what he is contending.

This Congress cannot escape history or its own duty. If we do not learn from the mistakes of the past, we are condemned to repeat them. We must act, and act now, before the President sends more troops to Iraq, or else it will be too late.

The legislation that we will introduce today is brief but essential. It requires the President to obtain approval from Congress before he sends even more American soldiers to Iraq. And it prohibits the President from spending taxpayer dollars on such an escalation unless Congress approves it.

Seems to me I recall funding to support Vietnam and the US intervention there in was withdrawn by a Democratic majority. Wonder if Teddy has considered that president since he so clearly wants all the blame for any failure to fall on Bush while he and his ilk are viewed as innocent bystanders. Unfortunately, his actions show that he is ignoring history which he so vehemently points at as a lesson for the public.

Kennedy worked hard to tighten any link in the minds of listeners who were predisposed between Iraq and Vietnam. Said Kennedy:

Listen to this comment from a high-ranking American official: “It became clear that if we were prepared to stay the course, we could help to lay the cornerstone for a diverse and independent Asia…If we faltered, the forces of chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the course.”

That is not President Bush speaking. It is President Lyndon Johnson, forty years ago, ordering a hundred thousand more American soldiers to Vietnam.

You'd also think that he'd have a better grasp of the history of Vietnam considering his brother was the one that escalated the US intervention there. You'd think that JFK wasn't involved with how Teddy lays the blame squarely on LBJ. You have to question his intentions as to the reasoning. [Insert your own smarmy comment on his(teddy's) level of sobriety at the time.]

Reid and Pelosi have been following along with this line of reasoning. Fortunately, It would appear unlikely that this legislation would make it through to meet a veto. Even if it did, it would be unlikely to have sufficient votes to bypass that veto.

Stupid Security in Boston

Caught this linked at SayUncle.

First thing that ran through my mind is that this thing is going to be so simple to screw with. False positive rates are going to have the police ign0ring this thing in short order.

Boston city councilors, law enforcement officials, and community leaders are pressing City Hall to come up with $1.5 million to buy a promising acoustic gunshot-detection system.

The sensor system could blanket a 5.6-square-mile swath of the city's most dangerous neighborhoods -- the source of 80 to 85 percent of calls citywide reporting shots fired -- and give officers a jump on arresting suspects, improve police response time to 911 calls, and possibly reduce firearm violence, proponents say.

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said he believes the technology would help prosecutors win more gun cases and would require a "relatively modest investment," given the city's $2 billion annual budget.

"Police would be able to get the scene quickly and perhaps apprehend someone fleeing the scene, or identify someone who actually saw something," Conley said in an interview yesterday. "It would also corroborate witness testimony."

This one is just frightening. Let's start with that 5.6 square mile part. That's a huge amount of property. How many police actively patrol this area? Will they be able to respond efficiently? Criminals don't generally fire a gun and then stand around waiting for the police to arrive. If anything this will give them more incentive to act and then run.

Then there is the ways to screw with the machine. I'm going to bet that the machine has some method of telling the difference between a gun shot and fireworks, but how effective is that? I'm certain they'll find out when there is a rash of fireworks use after the installation. Criminals could also easily drive along and fire a couple of quick shots in one area and drive to where they intend to do the crime. The police run to the first reported incident and try to figure out what happened while the real thing is occurring elsewhere.

SayUncle even points to the use of suppressors which could easily be made and utilized. Depends on the intent and drive of the criminal.

It could help in the case of a legal usage of a gun, but if the criminal has attempted to send the police on a goose chase first, then it won't help at all.

The Kucinich Plan for Abandoning Iraq

Kucinich provides more clueless humor in his proposal to fix Iraq. His plan comes down to walk away and let someone else deal with it. I won't go into his political speech at the start. It's the usual horse-shit we expect from Kucinich.

To the plan: (emphasis original)

1. The US announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw. The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A US declaration of an intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported US policy. Furthermore this will provide an opening where parties within Iraq and in the region can set the stage for negotiations towards peaceful settlement.

This is so much a joke that its really sad. By 'permanent' bases I'm assuming he's referring to the hardened bases that the troops have been using. Seeing that living in tents in areas with lots of terrorists carrying RPGs or mortars is a bad idea, this is just bloody stupid. He's equating permanence with safe. Even if the US chose to live in tents without fences, does this fool actually think that would slow or stop insurgent attacks. Announcements are just wonderful, if you expect those we're fighting to believe them. I'm wondering what rock Kucinich just crawled out from under. The insurgency isn't looking for a negotiated "peaceful" settlement. They are looking to drive the US and the allies out. Period.

2. . US announces that it will use existing funds to bring the troops and necessary equipment home. Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1st for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months, and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, (which has been estimated at between $5 and $7 billion dollars) while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

Irrelevant. The US has no issue with paying for the return of troops and equipment. And again, another Dem assuming that this is solely a political solution. We'll get to that 'international security and peacekeeping force' shortly.

3. Order a simultaneous return of all US contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government. The contracting process has been rife with world-class corruption, with contractors stealing from the US Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving 5% or so to Iraqi subcontractors.

There's a clever plan. No doubt there have been problems with the US contractors, but handing it all over to Iraqi contractors is to ensure failure. The US contractors have been making progress, I would be highly skeptical that the larger infrastructure projects would move at all even if one was able to find local contractors capable of doing the job. Corruption has been quite heavy on the Iraqi part and I don't see it solving that stability problem by handing contracts to the Iraqis.

4. Convene a regional conference for the purpose of developing a security and stabilization force for Iraq. The focus should be on a process which solves the problems of Iraq. The US has told the international community, "This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it." The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed US policy.

...
It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an even-present danger that the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for the cooperation between the US and the UN and the UN and countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

That's precious. Go ahead and tell them our policy. They definitely won't help with implementation. The two largest interested parties in Iran and Syria have no reason to assist us at all and instability is theirs to control. As for the rest of the international community, can Kucinich honestly believe that they would be willing to put any of their people in harms way? Not that they would be in harms way if they come in with the UN, but hiding in UN compounds won't exactly solve any problems.

Which gets us to the UN:

5. Prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing US troops who then return home. The UN has an indispensable role to play here, but cannot do it as long as the US is committed to an occupation. The UN is the only international organization with the ability to mobilize and the legitimacy to authorize troops.

Anyone want a shot as to why this is completely idiotic? Let's look at the success of UNIFIL say for an example. Lebanon is so much more stable due to their presence, right? Imagine doing that in Iraq. Lots of compounds for the UN to hide in while the present low level conflict rolls completely into a full blown civil war. Where will the UN troops come from? The UNIFIL mission took more than three months to get anywhere near a sustainable force. Does anyone believe that they are going to jump up to volunteer to step into a slow burning conflict over a very large region?

Should I wave the corruption flag at this one? The UN being so well known for their ethical use of resources, I'm certain they won't be demanding huge funds from the US to stand around doing nothing while their political arm stays in four star hotels in another country.

6. Develop and fund a process of national reconciliation. The process of reconciliation must begin with a national conference, organized with the assistance of the UN and with the participation of parties who can create, participate in and affect the process of reconciliation, defined as an airing of all grievances and the creation of pathways toward open, transparent talks producing truth and resolution of grievances. The Iraqi government has indicated a desire for the process of reconciliation to take place around it, and that those who were opposed to the government should give up and join the government. Reconciliation must not be confused with capitulation, nor with realignments for the purposes of protecting power relationships.

No one has been trying this already? Fascinating. I'm sure the UN would be great at oversight on this one. They are very effective at having long-winded conferences that come to no resolution, so I imagine they can do the same in Iraq. Let's hope they don't manage to inflame the situation more when they try and dictate to the Shia factions how to use their majority status.

7. Reconstruction and Jobs. Restart the failed reconstruction program in Iraq. Rebuild roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, and other public facilities, houses, and factories with jobs and job training going to local Iraqis.

I'm betting Kucinich is taking credit for this as an original idea, even though it's pulled straight out of the Iraq Study Group report. I'm wondering how he proposes to restart the failed programs when there isn't any US troops to provide security. Recall that most of the failed projects were ended due to the cost of security for the workers being more expensive than the project itself. I'm sure he believes that if the Iraqi contractors are doing the work there won't be any security issue. Not likely. Consider that the insurgents have an interest in being the group that provides the resources and the security for the local people, and stopping any reconstruction locks the public into a dependency on them for resources. Another complete detachment with reality.

8. Reparations. The US and Great Britain have a high moral obligation to enable a peace process by beginning a program of significant reparations to the people of Iraq for the loss of lives, physical and emotional injuries, and damage to property. There should be special programs to rescue the tens of thousands of Iraqi orphans from lives of destitution. This is essential to enable reconciliation.

That one is excellent. The allies must pay for the damages, even if they were caused by the insurgents or terrorists. How do you segregate the damages caused to a house when the owner was aiding the insurgents from collateral damages? Or do we just throw money at everyone and hope that it all comes out nice?

And I really want to know details on this one. How does Kucinich think you're going to be able to determine a valid claim from a false claim? You have to love throwing in the orphans with the reparations. Different issues, different solution.

9. Political Sovereignty. Put an end to suspicions that the US invasion and occupation was influenced by a desire to gain control of Iraq's oil assets by A) setting aside initiatives to privatize Iraqi oil interests or other national assets, and B) by abandoning efforts to change Iraqi national law to facilitate privatization.

I've been reading the oil reasoning again in the papers. Fascinating how a good crackpot conspiracy never goes away. A simple question on abandoning privatization, who's going to actually fix, maintain, and install the oil infrastructure to get the money for the people? Without the international oil companies, this isn't going to happen. No doubt they would buy the oil and even install the equipment with assurances that their investments are safe. Considering the punishment that they have been taking in South America and Russia, I'm certain that they are reticent to the idea of just giving away their resources.

10. Iraq Economy. Set forth a plan to stabilize Iraq's cost for food and energy, on par to what the prices were before the US invasion and occupation. This would block efforts underway to raise the price of food and energy at a time when most Iraqis do not have the means to meet their own needs.

11. Economic Sovereignty. Work with the world community to restore Iraq's fiscal integrity without structural readjustment measures of the IMF or the World Bank.

Yep, nothing being done here. Wonder how much that will cost. Sounds like this is a requirement to prop up their economy rather than get together with the oil resources and actually make money to become self supporting.

12 . International Truth and Reconciliation. Establish a policy of truth and reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of Iraq.

Fluff and rubbish. Policies are wonderful, useless in this case, but wonderful. The overall political establishment in Iraq wants to secure the country. One way or another, they will get that, either by external intervention or having the majority crush the minority. This policy is just talk, and that gets you no where if there isn't any security.

Astounding lack of anything approaching reality.

War on Terror in Somalia

I knew that there was an aircraft carrier group there, I just wasn't expecting much action. Appears they found some.

A U.S. attack plane killed many people with barrages of gunfire in a remote Somali village occupied by Islamists thought to be hiding at least one al Qaeda suspect, a Somali government source said on Tuesday.

In the first known direct U.S. military intervention in Somalia since a failed peacekeeping mission that ended in 1994, an AC-130 plane rained gunfire on the desolate southern village of Hayo near the Kenyan border late on Monday.

"I understand there are so many dead bodies and animals in the village," the senior source told Reuters.

The U.S. Navy also confirmed it had moved the aircraft carrier Eisenhower to the Somali coast -- Africa's longest -- to beef up a naval cordon it had already put there as the Islamists sought refuge in the remote southern tip.

"They are, with other ships, making sure that terrorists are not able to use the sea as a means of transport," said Charlie Brown, a spokesman for the U.S. Fifth Fleet, which is based in the Gulf state of Bahrain.

U.S. intelligence believes Abu Talha al-Sudani, identified in grand jury testimony against Osama bin Laden as an explosives expert from Sudan, is the leader of east Africa's al Qaeda cell and has been in and out of Somalia for over a decade.

"The Americans are saying an al Qaeda member heading operations in east Africa is among the Islamists there," the source said. He did not know the man's name or whether he died.

U.S., Ethiopian and Kenyan intelligence officials say some Islamists have provided shelter to a handful of al Qaeda members, including suspects in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and a 2002 hotel bombing on the Kenyan coast.

Haven't heard much on the war on terror outside of Iraq or Afghanistan. At least this sounds like action with a result. The problem being, if there isn't anyone on the ground, then how do we know we actually did get this guy? I guess we'll have to assume that there was someone on the ground with information. Hopefully if this was a CIA action, they had better results than the plan that used the war lords of Mogadishu to fight the Islamists.

Electric Car Mistake Returns

Here we go again.

Struggling auto giant General Motors Corp. on Sunday revived its once-failed idea of a mass-market electric car, unveiling a new "concept" car called the Volt designed to use little or no gasoline.

Introduced at the North American International Auto Show here, the Chevrolet Volt will draw power exclusively from a next-generation battery pack recharged by a small onboard engine -- if the technology is ready in two or three years.

"We have a thoroughly studied concept, but further battery development will define the critical path to start of production," said Jon Lauckner, a GM vice president for product development.

The Volt is designed to run for 40 miles on pure electric power, making it marketable for everyday family use.

For the average American driver who drives 40 miles a day, or 15,000 miles a year, the Volt will require no fuel and lead to an annual savings of 500 gallons of gasoline, GM said.

The lie about no fuel has returned. If the fuel isn't used directly on the vehicle, the electricity certainly has to come from somewhere. The small on-board engine idea isn't that different from the hybrid, though it misses out on using the drive train to make electricity during breaking. As for the 40 mile commute, I'm betting that isn't very common in many metropolitan settings.

Sounds like a half-assed solution to me.

Information Warfare and We're Still Losing

The AP issue isn't the only problem with the MSM and the fact that they seem to be working for the wrong side. This from StrategyPage:

Several media outlets have been citing FBI documents claiming mistreatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. However, these documents are the basis of what is really a big non-story. Why? Because the allegations of torture based on these documents have already been investigated by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 2005 and found to have no basis in fact.

The documents in question? They are the same FBI memos that formed the basis of Senator Richard Durbin's comparison of Guantanamo Bay to the actions of the Nazis and Khmer Rouge, and have been released in the course of a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Now for what the media and ACLU won't tell you. The DOD investigations in 2004 and 2005 turned up very few incidents of mistreatment, and those incidents that did occur were often dealt with on the spot. Three of the incidents – and the response to them – are worth noting. The first was an incident uncovered, during the investigation, of the allegations from FBI agents. A naval officer threatened the mother of one detainee, a violation of Article 134 the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That matter has been referred to the Naval Investigative Service for investigation. In a second incident, an inmate who was chanting, had duct tape placed over his mouth by MPs, at the direction of an interrogator concerned about a potential riot. The person responsible was verbally reprimanded by a JAG for this one-time incident. In the third incident, an interrogator who was spat on proceeded to smear some red ink on the detainee. She was verbally reprimanded on the spot as well. In the second two cases, the investigations recommended different punishment for the infractions, but it does not detract from the fact that the DOD acted on the spot.

And

The only thing these latest round of reports has done is to give the mainstream media a chance to rehash old allegations and make the Department of Defense look like it is stonewalling and refusing to investigate allegations of torture. The ACLU gets plenty of press, which it can later use for a fundraising drive and to get attention in general. The DOD will get no credit for defending the country, nor will they get any credit for dealing with the real abuses. Given that several detainees, most notably Kudayev, have returned to the fight, the results of the ACLU's lawsuit could have a negative impact on the civil liberties of innocent people.

The ACLU's political agenda aside, the MSM, in general, fails to report the DoD investigation results. This constant method of rehash keeps the allegations in the public mind, even when they have been dismissed by the authorities.

Now with the change in the political masters in the US congress we get to see a rehash of the GITMO military tribunals issue again.

As the new Congress takes form, in a vital bipartisan action, Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and his predecessor, Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, will present a bill to undo the constitutional damage of last year's Military Commissions Act that stripped all prisoners at Guantanamo of their habeas corpus right to go into our federal courts for review of their conditions of confinement.

Getting this bill passed, and then overturning an expected presidential veto, is especially necessary now that the Pentagon plans to hold war-crimes trials for dozens of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in 2007. Moreover, as Tim Golden writes in the Dec. 10 New York Times, the authorities there are now "taking a tougher line" with the detainees. For one example, the brutal force-feeding of prisoners engaged in hunger strikes continues, despite the criticism of international human-rights groups.

Specter and Leahy, no doubt looking only for the good of the country, are looking to overturn the legislation that was enacted. Not that they aren't interested parties, being on the Judiciary committee. Someone took one of their political balls out of the game so no doubt they are irritated. Can't wait to see those committee hearings.

This Op-Ed then goes on to make out that the GITMO detainees are all innocents.

Researched and written by law professor Mark Denbeaux; his son, Joshua (counsel to two Guantanamo detainees); and law students at Seton Hall, the reports demonstrate that:

"Only 8 percent of the detainees were characterized (in the Defense Department data) as Al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40 percent have no definitive connection with Al Qaeda at all." As for those picked up in Afghanistan, "86 percent were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody."

And there is this revealing information: "This 86 percent of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time when the U.S. offered large bounties for capture of suspected terrorists." The captives in these mass roundups were hardly screened carefully for their terrorist connections by the bounty hunters -- nor were they carefully screened, according to international law criteria, by our armed forces.

I don't see any evidence here that indicates that these people are innocent. In fact, I see a huge assumption that the CIA and Military Intelligence branches are completely incompetent. What interest would the intelligence community have in holding innocents? The number of actual Al-Qaeda terrorists may be a low percentage, but just because you can't clearly place the Al-Qaeda label on them doesn't mean they weren't either involved or heading there. Not to mention that mass round ups would give a much larger quantity of prisoners than are actually being held. The assumption is that the government just jailed them for no reason. That assumption assumes incompetence though it has no factual basis for why they are being held. Do you honestly think that the intelligence community has nothing better to do than capture and hold people who they have nothing against?

I don't doubt that there are some mistakes. And yes that sucks. But being perfect isn't a reasonable expectation. And demanding perfection isn't reasonable. Let's also recall that several released detainees were killed in fighting against coalition forces later. I love the explanation that they were made terrorists by their detention. It completely ignores alternative explanations that they were terrorists when captured. Don't expect to see that argument anywhere in the MSM.

Then we have the news about Israel's plans to use nuclear bunker busters against Iran.

Israel is preparing air force squadrons for a precision attack on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities using tactical nuclear weapons, Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper reported yesterday.

Israel denied the report, saying it was committed to a diplomatic solution.

However, Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service, predicts Iran would be able to produce nuclear weapons within two years, the newspaper said, prompting speculation that a precision strike was not far off.

Citing what it said were several Israeli military sources, the paper said two Israeli air force squadrons had been training to blow up an enrichment plant in the concrete-shielded Natanz facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker busters”.

Two other sites, a heavy-water plant at Arak and a uranium- conversion plant at Isfahan, would be targeted with conventional bombs, the Sunday Times said.

Now who would benefit from putting this report out? Iran first off. Start the international tirade against Israel with the expectation that you can stop any attack. Israel could benefit if they actually believed that they could force Iran to stop enrichment in their hardened facilities. I'm going to bet this is completely off though. I don't think Israel would have any expectations of getting Iran to stop.

Should I even mention that nuclear bombs make really poor bunker busters? How about the fact that using the "nuclear" label will make the outrage even stronger against Israel? If this doesn't read like a typical Information Warfare story, I don't know what does.

Worst of all, I'm betting these bits of Information Warfare are effective in a country that always assumes the worst about our government.

New Source of Stem Cells

Good news, looks like there is another alternative source of stem cells, bad news, it may be some years before it's a viable source. That may not be too bad due to most stem cell research is likely not to produce any solutions for some time. The problem though is that the delay of new research will be a delay for any solution.

Scientists say they have discovered a plentiful source of stem cells in amniotic fluid, which would allow researchers to sidestep the controversy over destroying embryos.

Researchers claim amniotic fluid stem cells could be used in the same way as embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to turn into a variety of other tissue types and offer hope to sufferers of some incurable or degenerative diseases.

A team from Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina working in cooperation with Harvard University scientists said they were able to extract stem cells from the fluid that cushions babies in the womb without damage to the mother or the foetus.

And

But the scientists say that even preliminary tests in the use of amniotic stem cells in humans may be years away.

“Our hope is that these cells will provide a valuable resource for tissue repair and for engineered organs as well,” said Dr. Anthony Atala, head of Wake Forest’s regenerative medicine institute and senior researcher on the project.

The team, whose findings are reported in the scientific journal Nature Biotechnology, took seven years to determine that the cells they found were actual stem cells which could be valuable for therapy.

Any treatment developed from the cells would be of particular benefit to the child from whose mother they were taken, for whom they are an exact tissue match.

At least there is another alternative that can go past some of the ethical problems that are being seen in politics. That should at least move some funding forward from the government. Though I'm betting that we'll be seeing the fight over embryonic stem cell research shortly as the Dems have promised to push more funding.

Congressional Reform?

Looks like the Dems are pushing the window dressing on lobbiest reforms. Wonder what happened with the earmark reform that they spoke of at one point.

“It sends a very mixed message to be on one hand saying that they're clamping down on lobbyists, but then raising money from those very same lobbyists that they say are part of the problem,” says David Donnelly, an ethics reform advocate with Public Action Campaign Fund.

Democrats did get the new House to ban members from taking any gifts, meals or trips from lobbyists — which reform groups call an important first step.

But most reformers say those are not the most important tools lobbyist use to influence Congress.

“Lobbyists are most valuable to Congress by raising significant amounts of money for their re-election campaign,” says Donnelly.

And neither party is doing anything to crack down on campaign money lobbyists give and raise. In fact, under the new rules, lobbyists can still wine and dine members of Congress as long as it's a campaign fundraiser.

Some lobbyists say that politicians who trash lobbyists are hypocritical.

“If you want to bash me in the press, bash me in the press, but don't call me the next day and ask for money,” says Paul Miller, president of the American League of Lobbyists.

Tell me how this is better than what the Repubs did? Another complete failure to address the real cause of corruption. Of course the MSM will give them huge credit for making reforms and ignore that the reforms made will be fairly worthless.

Then there is the term limits for the House Committee chairmanships.

During four decades of Democratic rule ending in 1994, committee chairmen amassed almost unchallenged authority, often becoming more feared and influential than the elected leadership. They were nearly impossible to budge from their perches, and the concept of term limits was unimaginable. In a move that caught some new Democratic chairmen by surprise, House rules pushed through by the Democrats this week retained the six-year limit on chairmen imposed by Republicans, but the leadership reassured lawmakers they would revisit the restrictions when there was less attention focused on the dawn of the Democratic era.

Leaving the term limit in place was a good thing, but then giving assurances that they'll revisit that rule is pretty lame. I would like to know the quote that this is taken from, since this doesn't attribute this decision to anyone, so strikes me as a bit thin. Not that I doubt that is exactly how they will go about it.

Looks like the more things change the more they stay the same.

Dems Demand Withdrawal

No doubt, they were headed this direction. I would have expected that they would have waited until the President announced what exactly he plans. Well, this way they can play it to the press and thus the public as many times as they want.

I love the way they point out how everything has failed, completely out of context with reality. Let's start here:

Clearly this address presents you with another opportunity to make a long overdue course correction. Despite the fact that our troops have been pushed to the breaking point and, in many cases, have already served multiple tours in Iraq, news reports suggest that you believe the solution to the civil war in Iraq is to require additional sacrifices from our troops and are therefore prepared to proceed with a substantial U.S. troop increase.

Stretched to the breaking point? Funny that the Generals keep saying this isn't so, well except those that got pushed aside because they didn't want to play or move into the modern military. Of course, the sacrifices of our troops is at a historical low compared to any other war, but hey, lets just keep crying about the losses to ensure that the public calls for a withdrawal thus ensuring that those who made those sacrifices will have sacrificed in vain.

Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. Like many current and former military leaders, we believe that trying again would be a serious mistake. They, like us, believe there is no purely military solution in Iraq. There is only a political solution. Adding more combat troops will only endanger more Americans and stretch our military to the breaking point for no strategic gain. And it would undermine our efforts to get the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. We are well past the point of more troops for Iraq.

Now there is a fascinating statement with no context. The majority of surges did indeed succeed and the few that were not successful were related to political decisions to stop action so as not to insult an enemy that only wanted chaos. If there is to be a surge, the military has already stated that there must be a purpose. The Kagan/Keane proposal stated that clearly. No doubt that adding troops will add risk, but with a clear purpose they will be able to add security in Iraq, and with luck that will translate to political stability that can move Iraq forward.

There stating that this will stretch the military to the breaking point with no political gain is conjecture at its worst. Without knowing the actual activity that is going to be performed and the number of troops involved they are just complaining solely for political purposes.

“I met with every divisional commander, General Casey, the Corps commander, General Dempsey. We all talked together. And I said, in your professional opinion, if we were to bring in more American troops now, does it add considerably to our ability to achieve success in Iraq? And they all said no. And the reason is, because we want the Iraqis to do more. It's easy for the Iraqis to rely upon to us do this work. I believe that more American forces prevent the Iraqis from doing more, from taking more responsibility for their own future.”

Funny, they've been yelping for change, and when they propose a change, it's wrong. Notice the changes in the military commanders in Iraq? No? What a shock. Waiting for the Iraqi's to stand up hasn't been working. Notice that? No? Shock. Maybe the change to bring security, especially to Baghdad, and then get the Iraqis to control the stabilized region would seem to be a good idea. But instead what do they want?

Rather than deploy additional forces to Iraq, we believe the way forward is to begin the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six months, while shifting the principal mission of our forces there from combat to training, logistics, force protection and counter-terror. A renewed diplomatic strategy, both within the region and beyond, is also required to help the Iraqis agree to a sustainable political settlement. In short, it is time to begin to move our forces out of Iraq and make the Iraqi political leadership aware that our commitment is not open ended, that we cannot resolve their sectarian problems, and that only they can find the political resolution required to stabilize Iraq.

Right, stop providing security, that's a clever way to solve the security issue. Another statement completely ignorant of history. All successful counterinsurgencies have required security. You can do a lot of things to press political solutions, but when you don't control the militias and don't give the people security, the militias are the primary security force. The problem with the militias is that they are controlled by people who have other political, sectarian, or ethical interests. Another reason that the militias need to be brought under control. I'm sure that withdrawal of US troops will help get them into control.

Need I say it again? This is a case where the politicians will ensure failure.

Port Worker's Identitiy Cards

More crappy security measures are now being implemented in the largest ports for the US. Not that they'll actually stop anyone from entering the ports.

NEWPORT NEWS -- New identification cards are set to be distributed to more than 750,000 truckers and port and shipyard workers nationally over the next two years, with FBI-based criminal background checks done on each person.

Yet, a key component of the Transportation Worker Identification Credential system - the machines that will scan the ID cards at terminal and shipyard gates - will be delayed to iron out the kinks.

The top 10 "priority ports" need to have the cards in place by July 1, according to a new rule from the Department of Homeland Security. The agency hasn't said whether Hampton Roads is on that list. The next 40 ports will need to have the cards by Jan. 1, 2008, with the remaining ports needing to have them by Jan. 1, 2009.

Without the readers the system is essentially useless. You'd think that if there are still kinks in the system with regards to the readers, that there is probably a problem with the cards as well. I'm still trying to figure out how they plan to physically secure the port areas. Without that in place from the start these ID's will be a waste of time and money.

Speaking of money, the cost of these ID's is quite high.

Truck drivers, longshoremen and mariners will have to pay up to $159 for a high-tech identity card that will grant them access to U.S. ports.

Groups representing truckers and longshoremen said the fee is too high and will force some workers -- especially truck drivers -- to quit their jobs.

Some workers will have to buy the cards as soon as March. But a time has not been specified for port operators and ship owners to buy the equipment that reads the cards, according to a rule announced Wednesday by the Homeland Security Department.

That is a bad thing. Especially as it will give added incentive for the creation of forgeries. Without the readers being present, forgeries will be simple to start with. They also will be effective since there is nothing to stop those who possess the forgeries from dodging random auditing with portable readers.

Other stupid security measures mentioned by Schneier this week:
Licensing Boaters:

There are lots of good reasons to license boats and boaters, just as there are to license cars and drivers. But counterterrorism is not one of them.

I agree, but I wonder if he would continue that logic with respect to guns and crime. I doubt it. Licensing will do nothing to stop those who intend to violate the law to do what they desire. Just as those who use guns in crime are unlikely to care that using firearms in that manner is illegal.

Then there is ID Cards to Stop Bullying:

No, really:

"Introducing photo ID cards will help bring an end to bullying over use of 'cash free' cards for school meals, will assist with access to school bus services and, ultimately, can be used to add security to school examinations," he said.

"SSTA members report frequently that young people are bullied into handing over their cards for school meals to others, thus leaving them without their meal entitlement.

"With non-identified cards this will remain a problem. If photo ID is introduced widely, then the problem will dramatically reduce."

He said that introducing such a system would also help prepare young people for "the realities of identity management in the 21st Century".

Odd world. I'm not saying that bullying didn't exist when I went to school, it just seems to be that it's more prevalent now and appears to be tolerated more. I'm thinking that is probably because schools don't allow the person being bullied to fight back anymore.

Additionally:

I agree with this:

However, Green MSP Patrick Harvie said the suggestion was troubling.

"We should be preparing young people for the reality of defending their privacy and civil liberties against ever-more intrusive government systems," he argued.

"We've heard proposals for airport-style scanners and random drug testing in schools, fingerprinting is already in place in some schools. There's a risk of creating environments which feel more like penal institutions than places of learning.

"These ID cards will do absolutely nothing to address the causes of bullying. Instead they will teach the next generation that an ID card culture is 'normal', and that they should have to prove their entitlement to services."

It's important that schools teach the right lessons, and "we're all living in a surveillance society, and we should just get used to it" is not the right lesson.

The fact that institutions of all types, from schools to the Dept. of Homeland Security seem to want to put restraints on security issues rather than finding and solving the cause or eliminating the threats is troubling. There doesn't appear to be much incentive to take the offensive against threats. The solution, far too often, is to build another wall, or put on more armor. That strategy ends up with you being the knight in full plate armor and the enemy holding a firearm. Remember how quickly full plate left the battle field when the gun appeared in warfare.

AP Source Found, Legitimacy of Reporting - Still Questionable

I heard this on the idiot box last night, and frankly this doesn't help with my distrust of the reporting from the AP. It is one thing to prove that the source of the reports is real, it is a completely different thing to have actually vetted the reports that were received from him. Lorie Byrd at Wizbang went in the same direction as I did.

Jamil Hussein just might exist, after all, but it appears that he is being arrested. I wonder if we will now learn just how many of those stories he fed the AP were real. I think we still have a long way to go before we know the full story on this one. Stay tuned.

You'd think that journalism would have more integrity with the amount of questions being brought up about the veracity of sources, especially in Iraq. The astounding fact that it has taken this long just to have any verification from reliable sources that this guy actually exists is a major mark against them. In an area where there is obvious informational warfare occurring and groups who will benefit greatly from misinformation being spread to the world, you'd think that extra caution would be reasonable. Apparently the AP still doesn't see it that way.

Guns and Driving Don't Mix

Local idiot shoots self while driving.

CONCORD, N.H. -- Police in Concord said a man shot himself in the leg and caused an accident while driving and emptying his loaded weapon at the same time.

Investigators said Robert Drown, 22, of Webster, N.H., was driving on busy Loudon Road when he accidentally shot himself.

His vehicle collided with another car and a convenience store sign and he came out covered in blood. An EMT saw the accident and came to his aid.

Drown was rushed into surgery to repair the gunshot wound.

Investigators said the incident was a case of poor judgment.

Um, yeah, I'd say that it was poor judgment. I can't wait to hear the explanation for how that happened.

Sullivan's Iraq Solution

I've read it, and I don't agree. The thing that stands out strongest for me is the "accept the limited victory we have and let the rest sort itself out" result.

He also suggests a certain type of division of Iraq.

But my view right now is that we should withdraw most combat troops by the middle of this year; and leave a remaining force in the Kurdish region and along the Iraq-Turkey border. Protecting the fledgling democracy in Kurdistan and reassuring Turkey should be our top priorities. This will force Iraqi indigenous forces to come up with their own leader, a man who has real power and a capacity to restore order, however brutally. We may get another dictator. In fact, we may have witnessed his unofficial swearing-in at Saddam's execution: "Moktada! Moktada! Moktada!" So be it. The current chaos ties the U.S. down in a hideously tightening vise. We have to change the dynamic and actually do something we can accomplish. We cannot win this civil war for any side, and we shouldn't. We can, however, withdraw.

I'm still of the opinion that the will of the US citizenry is lacking, and will never be sufficient to win a war based on popular support. Iraq is one of those situations where the US government has to do the right thing with respect to the future. Securing Iraq and leaving something stable behind will help stabilize the region and will aid in the globalization effort. With more rights and freedoms in Iraq, the rest of the theocracies and miscellaneous plutocracies should start feeling the pressures for reform. Added security in the middle-east will make energy sources more secure and will then aid the global economy to spread and stabilize.

Go read it yourself. Then read the commentary at The Belmont Club and Prof Bainbridge. I'm certain there are others, but I think these two gave pretty concise arguments against the idea of helping Kurdistan alone and letting the rest of Iraq go to hell.

Conscientious Reject

I really love when they get all legalistic on why they are now refusing to go to Iraq, especially officers. There is a certain scent of chicken shit in the air when they speak.

First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to
Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.

Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis, Washington, with the Army's 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.

He does, however, face one count of "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.

Watada's court martial is on February 5. A pre-trial hearing is set for January 4, with an added scope of controversy: the Army has ordered two freelance journalists, Sarah Olson and Dahr Jamail, to testify against Lt. Watada at the hearing. Both journalists are fighting the subpoenas.

And

KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?

EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.

Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.

Oh there it is. The administration lying again. Funny thing, I still have yet to see any evidence that the Administration ever said there was anything like an imminent threat. There were definitely lots of politicians saying there was a clear and present danger, but not the President.

This whole interview is just pathetic. I'm amazed that he managed to become an officer before figuring out that he didn't want to play. Not to mention that he was so extremely short sighted as to realize once your in the military you don't get a choice on where you go. Decisions as to the legality of a conflict aren't up to you.

I hope they throw the book at this ass.

Bipartisan? Yeah, Right.

In conformance to my continual loathing of politicians, the Dems now appear to be proceding to their predictable strategy.

As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.

House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.

But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition from offering alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.

Another pledge of bipartisanship that was a lot of sound and very little reality. Not that I'm surprised. The Republicans played identical games while they held the majority, and I'm pretty certain they used that word "bipartisan" as well. Politicians are just so very pathetic.

Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.

Oh give me a break. These are the leaders of the party. How can these WaPo journalists honestly write that drivel. They aren't torn. They likely never intended to allow the Republicans any voice. Recall that these are the same people who said that blocking legislation was a valid strategy. Hope they remember that when the Republicans play that game. No doubt the Republicans are seeing what they themselves perpetuated.

House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are backing away from their promise to work cooperatively. They are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away some conservative Democrats.

Well, maybe they haven't. But then again, I suppose it doesn't hurt them at all politically to start screeching about it. Only problem is I'm really tired of hearing screeching.

For clues about how the Democrats will operate, the spotlight is on the House, where the new 16-seat majority will hold absolute power over the way the chamber operates. Most of the early legislative action is expected to stem from the House.

"Absolute power?" Last I heard, they don't have the super majority required for absolute power. Though they don't have to deal with the filibuster like they do in the Senate. I'd wade through the rules to see how this really is enacted, but the rules are rather long and I'm certain they are in legalese. Maybe when I'm not actually employed. The only thing I see from the "pocket guide" is related to the right to object. That looks pretty easily run over, and obviously must be considering how the Republicans ran the last house.

Those same Democrats, who campaigned on a pledge of more openness in government, will kick off the new Congress with a closed meeting of all senators in the Capitol. Manley said the point of the meeting is to figure out ways both parties can work together.

Now there is humor. This should be open to the public. I see absolutely no logic in having this closed session. Other than maybe they don't want the public to see how poorly they will play together right from the start.

For several reasons, House Democrats are assiduously trying to avoid some of the heavy-handed tactics they resented under GOP rule. They say they want to prove to voters they are setting a new tone on Capitol Hill. But they are also convinced that Republicans lost the midterms in part because they were perceived as arrogant and divisive.

Well, I don't expect that there will be any changes. I'm betting the Dems play the game just as unfairly as the Republicans did, and maybe even a bit nastier.

Personally, I'm really interested in how things will play with the Blue Dog Democrats.

House Republicans say their strategy will be to offer alternative bills that would be attractive to the conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, with an eye toward fracturing the Democratic coalition. They hope to force some tough votes for Democrats from conservative districts who will soon begin campaigning for 2008 reelection and will have to defend their records.

"We'll capitalize on every opportunity we have," said one GOP leadership aide, adding that Republicans were preparing alternatives to the Democrats' plans to raise the minimum wage, reduce the interest on student loans, and reduce the profits of big oil and energy companies.

Several Blue Dog Democrats said they do not think Republicans can pick up much support from their group.

Sadly, neither of the Democrats elected in NH are on the Blue Dog lists that I've found. I didn't really expect them to be. I'm also hoping their stay in the House is very short lived.

I guess I'm going to predict the status quo for most of this congress. Just that the players will be switching parts.

New NH Privacy Laws

A couple new laws in NH that appear to be good changes.

New Hampshire consumers concerned about identity theft have a new tool for preventing damage if personal information falls into the wrong hands. A new state law took effect Monday that allows consumers to put a security freeze on their credit files to prevent anyone from accessing that information.

Even if a thief successfully steals personal information – including a Social Security number – putting a freeze on a consumer’s credit file would likely prevent that thief from opening new accounts in that consumer’s name because potential creditors would be blocked from doing the necessary credit checks. The drawback, consumer advocates warn, is that the freeze can also be a roadblock for legitimate credit checks that are often done when people rent an apartment, apply for a job or open a new line of credit.

“A security freeze requires you to plan ahead for all your credit applications,” said Jennifer Costello, a spokeswoman for Equifax, one of the country’s three credit-reporting agencies. “Consumers should remember if they decide to freeze the file, there are some inconveniences to consider.”

Rather odd how this article goes so far to bellow about the "careful planning" needed to use a security freeze. Personally, I think that these companies that allow access to your credit report should be required to have the freeze on by default and all credit checks would then require specific approvals. But hey, security works best if you don't install the door and tell the owner that it's their responsibility to lock it.

This isn't new since other states use it as well. Funny that the People's Republic of Massachusetts doesn't have it.

A law allowing security freezes was first adopted by California in 2003, McCauley said. Since then, 14 other states have allowed security freezes, and another five states had laws going into effect Monday. Massachusetts is the only state in New England that hasn’t adopted security freezes.

Well, at least it's in NH now. I'm thinking I don't have any particular need to leave my fly open, so I'll probably put up the cash and have my information frozen. It's free for those who are victims of identity theft, but the rest of us have to pay. Another bizarre security flaw intentionally built into the system.

Then there is the car black box notification law.

Anyone who buys or leases a new car in New Hampshire now must be told whether their vehicles are equipped with event data recorders, also known as "black boxes."

The new law goes into effect Monday.

The recorders can help investigators after a crash because they capture information such as speed, location, steering and brake performance and seat belt status.

But the devices have raised concerns from privacy experts, who say many people don't know if the black boxes are in their cars. Some are concerned the information it records can be used against you.

Nationally, automakers have until 2011 to disclose whether a vehicle includes the device, but in New Hampshire, the owner's manual of any new vehicles sold or leased in the state must disclose whether the devices are installed starting January 1, 2007.

I'm pretty much against the use of these black boxes. I don't see that they benefit anyone but the insurance companies. I can understand why they want them, but that doesn't mean I want them having free access to all information in my life. What next, requirements for full video surveillance of my life to ensure that if I have any accident they can determine if it is legitimate to their standards? Seems to me that personal privacy is slowly lost to things like insurance companies, but people have fits over NSA spying which won't likely touch the vast majority of the population. The black boxes in your car will soon effect everyone. But you don't see much MSM outrage over that.

A Man With No Country

Caught this linked at SayUncle. He ranked 24/24. I appear to have less in common with the Main Steam party system.

You Are 20% Republican

If you have anything in common with the Republican party, it's by sheer chance. You're a staunch liberal, and nothing is going to change that!

How Republican Are You?

You Are 12% Democrat

If you have anything in common with the Democrat party, it's by sheer chance. You're a staunch conservative, and nothing is going to change that!

How Democrat Are You?

I guess I don't like either of them much. It's not that I don't like politicians, oh, wait, I don't.

Giuliani's Playbook Fumble

You think the person that "mis-placed" this document is going to get reamed?

It's clearly laid out in 140 pages of printed text, handwriting and spreadsheets: The top-secret plan for Rudy Giuliani's bid for the White House.

The remarkably detailed dossier sets out the budgets, schedules and fund-raising plans that will underpin the former New York mayor's presidential campaign - as well as his aides' worries that personal and political baggage could scuttle his run.

At the center of his efforts: a massive fund-raising push to bring in at least $100 million this year, with a scramble for at least $25 million in the next three months alone.

The loss of the battle plan is a remarkable breach in the high-stakes game of presidential politics and a potentially disastrous blunder for Giuliani in the early stages of his campaign.

The document was obtained by the Daily News from a source sympathetic to one of Giuliani's rivals for the White House. The source said it was left behind in one of the cities Giuliani visited as he campaigned for dozens of Republican candidates in the weeks leading up to the November 2006 elections.

Talk about a screw-up. It's one thing to have someone provide analysis on you, it's another thing to hand it to them on a silver platter.

Personally, I don't like Giuliani on a few specific topics, especially gun control. But I don't honestly see him getting the Republican nomination. I'm sure that I'll like him less as the information on him comes to the surface, but considering what the Dems are offering for '08 I'm not sure he won't get my vote if he gets the nomination.

French UFO Archive

This should be interesting. I wonder what the tin-foilers will be coming up with when this hits the internet. I'm sure we'll have a bunch more History Channel documentaries based on this.

The year 2007 has brought with it plans for a new surfing destination for Space fans. Reportedly, the French space agency has decided to publish its archive of UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) sightings and other phenomena online.

According to Jacques Arnould, an official at France's National Space Studies Centre (CNES), the agency had been collecting statements and documents on UFOs for almost 30 years. This database of around 1,600 incidents would go live in late January or mid-February.

A spokesperson for the French Space Agency said that the statements have been collected from people who claim to have sighted UFOs, or from airline pilots. However, names of people who've reported sightings will not be published so as to protect their privacy.

Arnould added that the tremendous advances in technology over the past three decades had prompted CNES' decision to put UFO sightings online.

Presently, the collection consists of around 6,000 reports, of which many are related to the same incident, filed by public and airline professionals.

These reports are always interesting for the things that can't be explained, but they also completely fail to be of interest for the vast majority of cases where the reports are simple to explain. But then again, I'm certain that my statement would be interpreted as being part of some vast conspiracy with the Venusians. (or some other flavor of little green men.)

Weird Protests in Iraq

Not sure why this one was allowed, but I'm betting that it won't help the sectarian tensions in the area.

On Monday, a crowd of Sunni mourners in Samarra marched to a bomb-damaged Shiite shrine and were allowed by guards and police to enter the holy place carrying a mock coffin and photos of the former dictator.

The protest took place at the Golden Dome, which was shattered in a bombing by Sunni extremists 10 months ago. That attack triggered the current cycle of retaliatory attacks between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, in the form of daily bombings, kidnappings and murders.

Strikes me as asking for trouble. Sunni's protesting the death of their tyrant at a Shia holy site strikes me as begging for major sectarian violence. I'm a bit surprised there wasn't any reported.

Mourners at a mosque in Saddam's hometown of Tikrit slaughtered sheep as a sacrifice. The mosque's walls were lined with condolence cards from tribes in southern Iraq and Jordan who were unable to travel to the memorial.

Sunnis were not only outraged by Saddam's hurried execution, just four days after an appeals court upheld his conviction and sentence. Many were also incensed by the unruly scene in the execution chamber, captured on video, in which Saddam was taunted with chants of "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada."

The chants referred to Muqtada al-Sadr, a firebrand Shiite cleric who runs one of Iraq's most violent religious militias. He is a major power behind the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

I suppose they should be given some venting for the death of their home town tyrant. Probably will allow things to quiet down a little, though the Baathist extremists will probably cause a flair in violence. I wonder how much the death of Saddam will end the participation of those that were closer to being on the fence rather than strong protesters of the regime change.

Of course we also have the usual protests in the MSM here in the US. We had the gloating over the military deaths exceeding the deaths of 9/11 and now the 3000 death milestone. Funny how the press used to vilify the body counts made by the military of the enemy dead, and how the modern journalists seem to revel in announcing every death of a US service person.

Just hour s after Saddam Hussein's burial yesterday, the US military announced two deaths, including that of the unidentified soldier killed when a roadside bomb exploded near his patrol in Baghdad. The death pushed the number of military personnel killed in the conflict to the grim threshold, according to the Associated Press.

And

The White House said President Bush would not comment directly on the 3,000th death. A Pentagon spokesman said there was "no special significance to the overall number of casualties."

And

As the death toll has mounted, debate over the war has intensified, with deep divisions in Washington and across the nation on how to proceed. Public disapproval of the war is high, and polls show that most people expect US deaths in Iraq to continue into the new year.

In thousands of towns and communities in New England and across the nation, the lives lost in Iraq have exacted a more private toll -- a mourning that begins in funerals and memorials, then bleeds into everyday lives.

Funny how the longer a war goes on the more deaths there are. And how with that longer period of time there is more debate over that war. I have seen a report on TV screeching about the fact that the number of injured is higher than previous wars, though they completely fail to attribute this to the fact that there are substantially less deaths due to better military medicine and quicker removal of the injured from the battlefield. But, hey, you can't put out that negative message if you have to qualify it with a positive note.

Boss Study

No real shock here.

For most people, it's back to work Tuesday after a holiday weekend with family and friends. And for many, a new study shows, it will be under a bad boss. Nearly two of five bosses don't keep their word and more than a fourth bad mouth those they supervise to co-workers, the Florida State University study shows.

And those all-too-common poor managers create plenty of problems for companies as well, leading to poor morale, less production and higher turnover.

"They say that employees don't leave their job or company, they leave their boss," said Wayne Hochwarter, an associate professor of management in the College of Business at Florida State University, who joined with two doctoral students at the school to survey more than 700 people working in a variety of jobs about how their bosses treat them.

"No abuse should be taken lightly, especially in situations where it becomes a criminal act," said Hochwarter.

I've lived with bosses like this. Still do for that matter. Though I do find it interesting that most companies seem to see the employee as the problem and not the manager.

The findings include:

• 39 percent of workers said their supervisor failed to keep promises.

• 37 percent said their supervisor failed to give credit when due.

• 31 percent said their supervisor gave them the "silent treatment" in the past year.

• 27 percent said their supervisor made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.

• 24 percent said their supervisor invaded their privacy.

• 23 percent said their supervisor blamed others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.

Workers in bad situations should remain optimistic, Hochwarter said.

"It is important to stay positive, even when you get irritated or discouraged, because few subordinate-supervisor relationships last forever," he said. "You want the next boss to know what you can do for the company."

Right, remain optimistic. The next boss may be better, but most likely won't be. I've had two good bosses and four bad ones, and two that pretty much couldn't be bothered to be involved at all.

Saddam's Military Nurse

Gotta be a slow news day if this is the crap they have to offer.

Ellis said Saddam did not complain much, and, when he did, his complaint was usually legitimate. "He had very good coping skills," Ellis said.

Saddam shared with Ellis memories of happier times when his children were young. The former dictator described telling the youngsters bedtime stories and giving his daughter half a Tums tablet when she had a stomachache.

When he was allowed short visits outside, Saddam would feed the birds crusts of bread saved from his meals. He also watered a dusty plot of weeds.

"He said he was a farmer when he was young and he never forgot where he came from," Ellis said.

When Ellis told Saddam he had to leave for America because his brother was dying, Saddam hugged him and said he would be Ellis' brother.

Ah yes. Those wonderful days of the kinder gentler Saddam. Helping his daughter, using nerve gas on the Kurds, what a lovely story.

Sounds like another Herbert Lee Stivers. Though he didn't get a chance to help Saddam get his "medicine."