The book Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents is now available. Read about it at the book website.
Free download Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents_Intro_and_Ch_1.pdf
Continue reading "Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents" »
My latest at American Thinker
Since the "puppy toss" video came out, DOD has been pushing photos of soldiers/puppies.
So anyway, I am glad to be back blogging. I think the break was good for me. Since my domain went down we had a lot of talk about Saddam and terrorism. I put together an essay on that. Better late than never I guess. Here it is:
One of the most interesting inclusions in the new Institute for Defense Analysis report (Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents Volume 1) is a set of documents revealed by Cybercast News Service. It is interesting because these documents were dismissed by the media as fakes several years ago. A few conservative commentators such as Deroy Murdock at NRO picked up the story of these documents and their importance. But the vast majority of the media ignored them.
In our book Both In On Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents my colleagues and I assert that these documents are very real and critical to the case against Saddam. We referred to them back in 2006 in our Fox News.com series to show how they mirrored information in another important document which reveals the Saddam regime relationship with Taliban leaders.
We have tried to obtain validation from the government about these documents for over two years using the FOIA process but this report now does that. The fact that the IDA study included them in the scope means that they are very real.
Those documents alone crush the arguments that Saddam would not work with Islamic terrorists. He most certainly would and did in operations in Somalia. These documents show the regime negotiating with leadership of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (which was already affiliated with Usama bin Laden at some level) and al Qaeda affiliate Gulbideen Hekmatyar from Afghanistan, to attack US forces in Somalia which were there on a UN relief mission. We go into greater detail in the book, but for now let me put a few pieces together to show how important this matter is to understand modern terrorism.
Usama bin Laden and Aymen al Zawahiri later claimed that they were behind the attacks on American soldiers in the Battle of Mogadishu.
We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America -- the United States -- that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.
Others dismiss their claim as false, singling out a Somalia warlord as the culprit. I do not.
For many years, the US government considered General Aideed the man behind the “Black Hawk Down” incident. It wasn't until the carnage wrought by the US embassy bombings in Africa that the US government found reason to suspect that Islamic jihadis were likely involved in the attacks in Somalia. So much so that they included the accusation in a legal case against Usama bin Laden (and al Qaeda). That portion of the indictment was later dropped for lack of evidence.
I have had some disagreement with experts on the subject about the likelihood of al Qaeda's involvement in this incident. So I turned to a neighbor who happens to be quite knowledgeable about the “Black Hawk Down” incident, since he flew one of the helicopters shot down in Mogadishu and was captured by the fighters.
Mike Durant told me that he sees no reason to dismiss the possibility that some of his captures were al Qaeda (Islamic extremists). I don't either. Why?
Because a study of captured al Qaeda documents from the West Point Combating Terrorism Center includes a document in which al Qaeda trainers in Somalia claim that General Aideed was hunting them because of the attacks on the Americans. The document linked here (PDF) includes this passage. Notes:
“unity” is the local Islamic jihad organization which is “hosting” al Qaeda fighters who are training Somalis in jungle terror camps. Sheikh Abdulla Sahal is a local contact for the al Qaeda terror trainers:
“Aideed followers started to call the leadership unity and Sheikh Abdulla Sahal and threaten them. The response of the brothers was positive and they will continue in operations.
Sheikh Abdulla Sahal went to see the brothers and told them that the search is intensified to find their location and they are determined to stop the operations against American Forces. He asked the brothers to discontinue their relationship with disassociated brothers from Sheikh Abdulla and demanded the need to leave Mogadishu within a week.”
From al Qaeda's own document it appears that the attacks against US forces were orchestrated by al Qaeda probably using the local Somalis trained in the jungle terror camps. In fact, this al Qaeda leader, though unidentified is writing directly to core al Qaeda leadership and is likely highly placed. He tells them that Aideed was hunting them to stop it. The English translation says “they are determined” which is a little ambiguous so I asked “Sammi”, a coauthor for the book to have a look at the original Arabic and he confirms the writer seems to be saying Aideed is hunting the al Qaeda trainers.
A logical scenario then becomes apparent. It looks like Aideed had some association with these al Qaeda trainers. He probably sent some fighters to train with these vets of the Afghan jihad. He sent them to gain fighting skills, not to become jihadis. Al Qaeda trainers then used these fighters, and probably fighters from other sources like the “unity” group and rival warlords to attack US forces.
Aideed would know that as the local strongman these attacks would be pinned on him. But according to the rest of the document, he had populous support and had consolidated much of the regional power. Starting a war with UN/US forces that were bringing in relief supplies would have been a fairly idiotic thing for him to do. Really, all he had to do was sit back and take the supplies as they came in. Why start a war?
On the other hand, this tactic is directly from al Qaeda's play book. Al Qaeda gains power through creating internal conflict and stepping in to the power vacuum it creates. They would have wanted to pit Aideed and the Americans against each other so that they could step into leadership. And other parts of this CTC study show their intent to create inter-tribal warfare in Somalia. In this case, the tactic failed miserably because at the time al Qaeda was too week and the local Islamists not dedicated enough to the jihad cause.
This same report also showed, as we cover in the book, that two days after Saddam ordered his intelligence service to hunt the Americans in Somalia using the Afghan jihad vets, Usama bin Laden's number two man Mohammed Atef called his top trainers to Pakistan and ordered them to Somalia to set up these terror training camps in Somalia.
These documents hold great insight into how such things really worked. The big picture here is that al Qaeda, which these documents show was very short on cash for these operations likely went to the Saddam regime looking for financial support. Saddam liked the idea of attacking US forces in Somalia and approved the plan, issued the order and left it to his intelligence service to work out the specifics. The CNS documents now validated by the IDA report show the progress as the plan unfolded and Saddam determined who would carry out his orders. High on his list were groups strongly linked to Usama bin Laden, the man who claimed credit for the attacks, Aideed never did that I could find.
And why would Saddam work with al Qaeda for this plan? Because the fighting was in Somalia. Two of his enemies (if you believe that he opposed Usama bin Laden) would be killing each other off and all he had to do was financially support al Qaeda. It was a win-win for Saddam.
Getting back to how this terrorism works, groups like al Qaeda made plans to attack the US, a mutual enemy of the Saddam regime and Saddam in the very least contributed (although I could go so far as to argue he masterminded). Saddam didn't need to like these terrorists. He didn't need to agree with them. He only needed to support them as long as they stayed out of Iraq. That is what made his regime a particularly important target in the war on terror, a synopsis which is greatly supported by the IDA study.
Hi all, I let me domain registration slip and had to reclaim my domain. I did that a few weeks ago but it still hasnt been working. So last friday I sent an email to yahoo asking them to check it. Of course, I wait for a couple of weeks, it doesnt work, I ask them to check it and now it works. But what the tell me is "it worked for us".....
Rightttttttt
What happened to customer service in this country? Just tell me it was f@#$ed up, no need to lie.
They verified my claims about the implications of the ETHA bill and appearance of impropriety.
I have been saying since the primaries started that the subject of al Qaeda/Saddam ties was going to become very relevant in the general election. Seems the battle started tonight with jabs over the subject between Obama and McCain.
I had hoped Fred was going to be the nominee. However, McCain is actually going to be far more of a bulldog on this.
You see, John McCain sat in a NV prison for what was it 3 or 4 years only to come home and be told it wasn't worth it. He above all other politicians understands the importance of validity for our removal of Saddam. I guarantee you he believes Saddam was working at some level with al Qaeda. I predict he will make a real fight over this and not let the media get by with the "no ties" declaration as President Bush has.
So in case anyone from the campaign happens across this, contact me to advise on this issue. I can show you page and verse from the Iraq phase II intelligence report where the CIA, far from saying "no ties" in fact reaffirmed its' prewar conclusion that they were trying to work together.
Internet Anthropologist is working up a team.
My music promoter friend tipped me off to his client Natural Incense. I checked it out at Sonic bids, a website used by venues looking for talent. They have audio samples. I really enjoy their music and if you are looking for something new, check them out here.
Adding the $26k from Amgen CEO to the Dems and $23k to Pelosi that all came right before the ETHA submission, the Democrats raked in $49k from Amgen employees in the weeks before the ETHA bill which as a side effect would increase the market purchases of Amgen products.
This doesn't even include the totals from all the other Democrats who sponsored this bill. Hopefully someone will take some time and get the complete numbers on this.
The thing to note here is that she did not receive very many Amgen employee donations throughout 2007 except for major donations in the week before she submitted ETHA. She submitted the bill on August 2nd after she received a wopping $23,000 almost all listed as being from Amgen executives on July 27th. I wonder how all these executives just happened to cough up that much change on the same date? Raw data from opensource.org:
Contributor |
Occupation |
Date |
Amount |
Recipient |
BAGLEY, THEODORE |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
BASS, JEFFREY |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
BEIER, DAVID W |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$2,300 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
BONANNI, FABRIZIO |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
BRADWAY, ROBERT A |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$2,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
BROOKS, CRAIG |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$250 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
CANGIALOSE, CHARLES |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/18/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
COMFORT, PETE |
AMGEN/REGIONAL SALES MANAGER |
11/6/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
COSENZA, MARY ELLEN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
DALY, JAMES |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
FELDMAN, PETER |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
FLANAGAN, THOMAS J |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
8/8/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
GIFFIN, SUZANA |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$200 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
GUSTAFSON, KURT |
AMGEN/TREASURER |
7/27/2007 |
$250 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
HELLER, LINDA |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
8/21/2007 |
$300 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
HOHOLICK, JOSEPH |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
HUGHES, MICHAEL |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
KELLY, MICHAEL |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
KILCOURSE, JAMES J |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MANAK, FREDERICK |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MCNAMEE, BRIAN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$2,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MCNAMEE, BRIAN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
8/21/2007 |
$1,700 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MCNAMEE, BRIAN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
8/21/2007 |
$300 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MELTON, FARRYN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$250 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MILLER, ANN C |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MORROW, GEORGE |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$2,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
PEARL, WAYNE R |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
RYAN, MICHAEL L |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
SAVIN, MICHAEL |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
SCHOCH, STEVEN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
SCHWALM, CYNTHIA |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
SCOTT, DAVID J |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$2,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
SKIBO, ANDREW D |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
TROSS, STUART |
AMGEN/EXECUTIBE |
8/22/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
VERNIERO, JOHN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
A version of this is at American Thinker today. I didnt get the final version to the editor in time. This version includes more massive donations from Amgen execs to dem committees at times of key legislature votes:
For The New York Times, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses a Risk as Well
The New York Times takes a swing (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?ei=5065&en=30275248afff65bf&ex=1204174800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print) at Senator McCain's (R-AZ) presidential bid by exposing rumors of a possible love interest in the context of a general coziness with lobbyists. But since the 2006 congressional victory by the Democrats, The New York Times has ignored a similar situation involving Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi among other leading Democrats.
On August 2nd, 2007 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) submitted a bill to the U. S. House of Representatives which raised a potential conflict of interest involving the Speaker’s widely publicized family stock holdings, corporate sponsors, and former staffers turned lobbyists. The Speaker submitted the bill called the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) to the House (http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0272) with bipartisan support. It would allow states to decide whether or not to extend Medicare benefits for HIV treatment to some currently not covered.
Speaker Pelosi submitted ETHA one day after Medicare officials announced new rules to cut back on significant expenditures for the drugs PROCRIT® made by Johnson & Johnson and EPOGEN® made by Amgen. The new Medicare rules were primarily geared to reduce the use of the drugs for cancer patients. Those pharmaceuticals are used to treat anemia often seen as a side effect of HIV medications and for other conditions. Both companies enjoy massive revenues from the sales of those medicines with Johnson & Johnson reporting $3.2 billion in earnings from PROCRIT® and a similar drug and Amgen showing $6.5 billion for EPOGEN® and a similar drug during 2006.
Last year Amgen started losing stock value as word of the cuts spread. A press release from Amgen at its’ corporate website stated “"Recent changes in coverage rules and adjustments to Amgen's FDA approved labels for EPOGEN(R) and Aranesp have and will adversely affect Amgen's revenue.” The company then announced layoffs.
The ETHA bill would increase the number of HIV infected persons able to receive government assistance. A PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis conducted in 2003 estimated that the act would increase eligibility for treatment by 30,000 people. In turn the government purchasing of the anemia medications associated with their treatment will certainly increase making up some of the difference caused by the planned Medicaid purchasing reductions. In effect, this law could turn things around for Amgen and increase Johnson & Johnson stock values.
Considering that the bill was submitted one day after the Medicare announcement some viewed it as a reaction to the new guidelines and an attempt to improve the finances of those two drug makers. Unless Speaker Pelosi has divested herself of certain stocks that she held in 2006 by the time she sponsored ETHA then she stood to profit from the bill. In addition she has strong personal connections to Amgen and those persons may benefit directly or indirectly.
According to the ethics guidelines for the House of Representatives an elected official must declare their investments and holdings. Those declarations are available online and can be viewed at a website called opensecrets.org. The last declaration on record that covers the calendar year 2006 shows the Speaker owned over $500,000 dollars worth of Johnson & Johnson stock. Such a scenario creates the impression of a conflict of interest.
In addition, her close ties to biotech firm Amgen come into question. Two of her key staffers have left to become lobbyists working for Amgen directly or through lobbying firms. They include George Crawford described by the San Francisco Chronicle as the Speaker’s former chief of staff and Howard Moon described in a Washington Post article as a former senior policy adviser who was named the government affairs director for Amgen. Amgen has supported her campaigns through PAC money and by sponsoring fund raising events. While she does not appear to own stock in Amgen the timing of the bill raises questions about just how closely she is tied to the company.
Between 2002 and 2006 Amgen became a superstar stock amid soaring price hikes and massive profits. Nancy Pelosi attempted and failed to pass the Early Treatment of HIV Act during that run-up. In 2006 Amgen sponsored a fund raiser for Pelosi.
The Democrats won congress in 2006 on a pledge to clean up the “culture of corruption” they ascribed to the majority Republicans. In one example, a Republican congressman in 2004 announced that he was considering taking a position with a pharmaceutical lobbying firm after he had negotiated pharmaceutical legislature. Congresswoman Pelosi charged at the time that the move was an “abuse of power”.
The pharmaceutical industry was expected to be hit hard as Democrats strove to lower prescription drug prices through government negotiations. Pharmaceutical stocks were expected to fall. Speaker Pelosi herself was viewed by many as a threat to ‘big pharma’. One common investment technique for drawing profit from the markets is to buy when prices fall and sell when they go high again. According to the Speaker’s 2006 disclosure she was invested in multiple pharmaceutical and biotech firms that make medications.
This new scandal recalls the early 2007 incident in which the Speaker promoted a minimum wage hike that would include all U.S. areas except Samoa. Some large companies with canneries in Samoa are headquartered in the Speaker’s district. Amgen is a powerhouse in California with a significant presence in the Speaker’s district. That fact mirrors the Samoa controversy in which critics accused Pelosi of playing favorites with her district. And in 2007 it was revealed that the Speaker sponsored a massive earmark that would probably affect the value of property in which her husband was invested. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/09/opinion/main2779118.shtml)
Under extreme pressure from congress, led by Pelosi, Medicare dropped its' planned regulation changes. J&J and Amgen stock immediately soared as The New York Times reported:
Medicare has eased up on some of its proposed restrictions on the use of popular anemia drugs made by Amgen and Johnson & Johnson.
The decision, announced late yesterday, could provide some relief for the two companies, which have already experienced steep drops in sales of the drugs
.......
The federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services had proposed in May to sharply limit coverage for the drugs — Aranesp from Amgen and Procrit from Johnson & Johnson. Some analysts had predicted at that time that use of the drugs could be cut by as much as 50 percent.
......
But investors reacted favorably, sending shares of Amgen by more than $2 in early after-hours trading, though it then began to drop back. Shares had closed at $56.19, up 57 cents.
Shares of the larger and more diversified Johnson & Johnson rose about 30 cents after hours, having closed at $60.07, up 30 cents.
While The New York Times invests the efforts of a cadre of writers to investigate the wisp of rumor concerning McCain, Democratic leaders get a free ride with regard to close ties with lobbyists and doners.
Congress pressured Medicare to backdown from the regulations with votes in the House and the Senate in fall of 2007. The Sense of the Senate nonbinding resolution was approved unanimously (with no votes recorded). As a Senator, Hillary Clinton would have also voted on this measure that proved a financial boon for Amgen. Senator Clinton is also tied to Amgen.
Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aPnPwl7XNJik&refer=home) recently reported that President Clinton's former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steve Ricchetti, now a lobbyist was paid $1.7 million to his firm from Amgen. He serves as a bundler for Senator Clinton's campaign. That means she is now receiving financial contributions from a lobbyist at a firm that profited from her vote.
One of those types of contributions was from Howard Moon, former Pelosi advisor who donated $2,300 to the Clinton campaign a few weeks after Clinton voted to stay the hand of Medicare. In addition, in the days just before and after Pelosi submitted the ETHA bill in the House on Aug. 2nd, 2007 a slew of Amgen executives made almost $30,000 dollars in private donations to the Pelosi campaign. (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=UNW3W&txtState=(all%20states)&txtCand=pelosi&txtEmploy=amgen&txt2008=Y&Order=N)
The Senate version of the ETHA bill was cosponsored by Senator Clinton.
Barrak Obama who claims not to take lobbyist money received over $12,000 in private donations from several Amgen corporate executives (listed as executives, directors, and vice presidents) as revealed by opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=amgen&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A). The donations listed occured just before the September 4th, 2007 Senate vote on the Sense of the Senate resolution and the day after.
A search on opensecrets.org shows that in 2007 (for the 2008 election cycle) Amgen executives donated less than $500 dollars to the Republican National Committee and $30,000 to Democratic congressional committees. Two donations totaling $26,000 came from Amgen Chairman, CEO, and President Kevin Sharer to the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees a few weeks before the ETHA bill was sponsored by Pelosi and an overwhelmingly Democratic list of Representatives. (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=CFXKD&txtState=(all%20states)&txtCand=democratic&txtEmploy=amgen&txt2008=Y&Order=N)
This easily discovered appearance of unethical behavior on the part of Democratic leaders weighs far more heavily than the thin evidence provided against Senator McCain. Maybe the The New York Times has an ethics problem of its' own.
I am engrossed in marketing for the book and my real job right now so blogging will be lighter than normal. If you are a regular reader (I think there are about twenty of you - and thanks so much!) check back every few days, probably next week I will get back to it. I haven't abandoned you.
Interesting Washington Post op-ed on why. H/T Real Clear Politics
Code Pink has left the arena of opposing our efforts to win the war and is now cheering for the enemy. Code Pink wants American soldiers to be slaughtered by al Qaeda. They are now allied with the enemy and a viable target in the War on Terror. I wonder if they realize how dangerous this game is they are playing. There are a lot of people who will take this very personally.
Jack M. at Ace and his poem for Suzanne...tear...
Revealed for the first time...the source of Jack's prolific prose and Ace of Spade's writing skilllzzz. In case you can't see it either.
Brett McCrea with some interesting background.
This is the evil that is al Qaeda. Very rough video at Jawa.
My latest at American Thinker
Just buy me one of these
Once again, I can't see the video I just posted on typepad, so here is the link to the 2008 Chicago Auto Show - Bumblebee Camaro if you can't see it either.
This really sucks
ISLAMABAD: Local Taliban on Tuesday claimed responsibility for the abduction of Pakistani Ambassador to Kabul Tariq Azizuddin and said they would release him in return for Taliban commander Mullah Mansoor Dadullah, Online news agency quoted Geo television as saying.
Tariq Azizuddin had gone missing on his way from Peshawar to the Torkham border crossing on Monday when he lost contact with authorities in the Khyber Agency. Mansoor Dadullah was arrested in Quetta on Monday.
For crying out loud, Paksitan appears to be loaded from top to bottom with retards. Why would you send this high level official into the area unprotected after nabbing an HVT?
I mean, it really might come down to nuking the whole moronic bunch of them to end this.
I have been very supportive of the Musharraf government because of the jihadist problem. But these self-inflicted, idiotic, simply retarded officials...I can't take it. My thought at this point is that Bush needs to tell Musharraf that you will not be handing over Dadullah if you want to see another nickel from the US. Sorry ambassador, you are a casualty of war and your own stupidity.
Don't give up Dadullah.
My latest at American Thinker
Warning****Graphic****
This sounds, at first, like the typical liberal media anti-war propaganda, but the sourcing is impressive. Sounds legit: ABC
Troops arriving home from Iraq and Afghanistan have been carrying a mysterious, deadly bacteria, according to a new magazine report.
Doctors have linked the bacterium acinetobacter baumannii to at least seven deaths, as well as to loss of limbs and other severe ailments, according to the report, which found the bacterium has spread quickly since the war in Afghanistan began in the fall of 2001
The soldiers found the diary during a patrol conducted about 15 kilometers south of Balad. Bacon said the 16-page diary contains records about man power, operations, weapons, and finances, and it shows that al Qaeda is hurting badly in the belts of Baghdad.
“There were 600 al-Qaeda members in this sector, now there (are) 20 or less,” said Bacon.
In the diary, Tariq describes each battalion’s number decline and goes on to describe the 4th battalion as “scoundrels, sectarians and nonbelievers.” Tariq attributes his terrorist organization’s decline in large part to groups of concerned local citizens, who are also known as the Sons of Iraq.
The media's "Killer vet" stories are hurting employment rate and pocket books of military veterans: From the AP
A new study finds that war vets returning to the civilian sector are having a hard time finding work.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Strained by war, recently discharged veterans are having a harder time finding civilian jobs and are more likely to earn lower wages for years due partly to employer concerns about their mental health and overall skills, a government study says.
The Veterans Affairs Department report, obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, points to continuing problems with the Bush administration's efforts to help 4.4 million troops who have been discharged from active duty since 1990.
The 2007 study by the consulting firm Abt Associates Inc. found that 18 percent of the veterans were unemployed within one to three years of discharge, while one out of four who did find jobs earned less than $21,840 a year.
So what are the reasons for this? Chiefly:
The study said employers often had misplaced stereotypes about veterans' fitness for employment, such as concerns they did not have adequate technological skills, or were too rigid, lacked education or were at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder.
......
" However, more publicity — especially stories that perpetuate the 'Wacko Vet' myth — has also made some employers more cautious to hire a veteran," said Joe Davis, spokesman for Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Thanks New York Times. Way to screw our heroes.....
My latest is at American Thinker:
Al Qaeda appears to be crumbling in Iraq, a spectacular victory in the War on Terror. A senior leader has bared his soul to Amit R. Paley of the Washington Post, painting a vivid picture of what the surge has done to al Qaeda in Iraq. Here are some notable points from Paley's excellent article.
When reality begins to intrude, they just seal it off. So Norman "What's A Kurd Anyway?" Podhoretz gets a small fortune from Powerline. And crazed nutjob Ace Of Spades gets CPAC's blogger of the year award.
Podhoretz? Really. Because when I followed the link he provided I read this at Powerline.
Thanks to the generosity of an anonymous benefactor, a contribution of $25,000 will be made in honor of the author to Soldiers' Angels,
And later
We will present the Book of the Year award to Norman Podhoretz, and a check for $25,000 to Soldiers' Angels.
So the $25k that will go to vets is actually Podhoretz's back pocket in bizarro Sullivan world?
Ehhhh....close enough for Sullivan work I guess.
Congrats to Ace/Podhoretz anyway.
Thanks to HotAir for linking this and my AT article today.
Don't forget to check out our new website for our book Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents.
My latest is here at America Thinker:
Yet the media has continued to claim the Taliban is growing stronger as the Los Angeles Times just did:
Canada, which has suffered a disproportionate loss of 78 soldiers from fighting in the Kandahar region of the south, has threatened to withdraw its troops unless other countries deploy more forces to help fight the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda.[emphasis added]That LA Times article included comments from Army Gen. Dan K. McNeill, the U.S. commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan. He also expressed himself in a Voice of America article published the day before the LA Times article, creatihg a different impression:
"Those who use the increased levels of violence to try to make a case or an argument are generally going to get it wrong, unless they understand what is causing those increased levels of violence," McNeill said.
The LA Times referred to a "resurgent Taliban" the day after the senior military officer in Afghanistan, who was apparently interviewed for their article, said it was not resurgent. The VOA article explains General McNeill's position:
I missed it but we crossed 100,000 visitors recently. Thanks to all (or should I so both) of our readers. Thanks mom and dad!
Lot's of buzz today about the truce between al Qaeda allied Taliban and Musharraf (almost all negative). Look at it this way. When they made a deal in 2006 the Pakistani jihadis had the upper hand. They do not now. NATO troops are pushing from the west, even killing al Qaeda leaders in their own villages. The Pakistani military was pushing them hard from the east. All around them, other tribes were aligning with Musharraf. The MMA,the chief jihadi political party was mostly silent about their impending doom indicating the loss of the big political supporters. Afghanistan is lost despite what the media is reporting (more about the media cover-up of NATO success to come).
They were getting their asses kicked.
My bet is that we will see a few al Qaeda scalps turn up in exchange for this cease-fire.
You have to ask, what's in it for the al Qaeda allied Taliban? After an initial successful offensive they were losing ground fast. The leaders are getting killed. The assassination of Bhutto actually reduced their political support instead of making them stronger. Big mistake.
So now, because al Qaeda was pushing them into it, they are getting it from all sides.
Best way out?
Agree to stop supporting al Qaeda and turn over Usama bin Laden or Zawahiri, or at least drive them into the open so we can get them (probably the later). Look for a stunning success to come soon.
My best guess.
A senior intelligence official said Tuesday evening that the testimony was based in part on new evidence that Qaeda operatives in Pakistan were training Westerners, most likely including American citizens, to carry out attacks. The official said there was no indication as yet that Al Qaeda had succeeded in getting operatives into the United States.
The testimony, in an annual assessment of the threats facing the United States, was the latest indication that Al Qaeda appears to have significantly rebuilt a network battered by the American invasion of Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks.
While things are getting tight for al Qaeda at home, they appear to have kick-started the greatest threat to us, the ability to infiltrate the west with crazy jihadis who look and act just like us.
Not good.
For the most part, I agree:
Ambassador Ziad shares the belief held by many supporters of the Iraq campaign that, as the counterinsurgency strategy of U.S. General David Petraeus has yielded positive results, the elite news outlets that condemned the American invasion from the beginning have turned a blind eye. According to the Media Research Center, which has been tracking news coverage for over 20 years, the major American networks carried 178 news stories about the Iraq war in September, 2007. By November, by which time the situation had improved, that number had plummeted to 68. In a news culture where The New York Times put Abu Ghraib on its front page 32 days in a row, such a precipitous drop in concern for Iraq speaks volumes.At times, reporters' obsession with finding bad news about Iraq can lead them beyond satire. Presumably with straight faces, the McClatchy news service lamented in October of 2007 that, "As violence falls in Iraq, cemetery workers feel the pinch."
Last year, the Iraqi government warned of the dangers of giving too much power to the mainly Sunni Awakening Councils, armed neighbourhood groups that have successfully driven al-Qaeda out of many districts of Baghdad and elsewhere.
Now, with their numbers having risen to around 80,000 nationwide, the Shia-led administration in Baghdad says it is in the process of recruiting Awakening Council members into the police and army.
"We should not miss this golden opportunity afforded by the Sunni Arab community having turned against al-Qaeda and coming back into the fold," Iraq's Security Advisor, Dr Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, told the BBC.
I am not a fan of McCain. However, there is a rumor spreading around the right side of the blogosphere which I won't dignify by stating, about McCain and his time as a POW.
To those bloggers who ran this nonsense:
STFU
I personally want you to know you are sounding like 9/11 truthers at this point. I got no problem with bashing McCain for his record, but this is f@#$ing retarded. STFU before you piss me off. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry.
Unless you got video tape or a confession, all you are doing is spreading a lie, just like the Democrats always do. You are becoming what you hate.
H/T Ace
But the Canadian government is too busy investigating writers like Mark Steyn. By the way, calling people to jihad is not protected by free speech in any sense. It is only protected by cowardly officials.
Dear readers, a gentle reminder, if you are going to send this to another blogger, please tell them where you saw it. I am getting pretty irked because I find interesting articles that have not been picked up by the big bloggers, I write them up, and then a day or two later they turn up on other blogs. It has always been this way and I am asking for you to do the right thing and let them know where you got it. I try and find original stuff here, because I don't see the value in just being part of the echo chamber, which is part of the reason I blog only a few posts a day (that and laziness). If you send them a link on what you see here and they run it, without a H/T, let me know so I can call them out. I can only build up a following if other blogs link here but they don't need to if people just send them my finds with no mention to this blog. There are some blogs, even ones that I frequent, that have made a habit of running stuff I find in the most obscure places.
And to other bloggers, if you are getting your leads from bloggers who don't tell you where they saw it and just H/T the emailer, your f@#$ing other bloggers.
I just posted last week at the American Thinker that the increase of violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan is not a resurgence but desperation on the part of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Somebody agrees with me.
WASHINGTON: A new study says that despite continued violence, the threat in Afghanistan has not increased to the point where it can challenge NATO forces in open combat, given major US gains in striking at the leadership of hostile Islamist movements and the Taliban in the south of the country.
The assessment by Anthony H Cordesman of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is based on a visit he made to Afghanistan in late January this y
