If you happen to be al Qaeda and Iran, the answer may be yes:

Iran is trying to form an unholy alliance with al-Qa'eda by grooming a new generation of leaders to take over from Osama bin Laden, The Daily Telegraph can reveal.

Western intelligence officials say the Iranians are determined to take advantage of bin Laden's declining health to promote senior officials who are known to be friendly to Teheran.

[snip]

The Iranians want Saif al-Adel, a 46-year-old former colonel in Egypt's special forces, to be the organisation's number three.

Al-Adel was formerly bin Laden's head of security, and was named on the FBI's 22 most wanted list after September 11 for his alleged involvement in terror attacks against US targets in Somalia and Africa in the 1990s. He has been living in a Revolutionary Guard guest house in Teheran since fleeing from Afghanistan in late 2001.

Alarm over al-Qa'eda deepened yesterday with a Foreign Office warning that the group was determined to acquire the technology to carry out a nuclear attack on the West.

A senior Foreign Office official said that the terrorists were trawling the world for the materials and know-how to mount an attack using nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

The Baker/SecDef nominee Gates Commission seems primed to tell us that they want to negotiate with Iran and Syria, currently the two leading state sponsors of Islamic terrorism, who in addition to supporting the insurgency in Iraq, are apparently also plotting a coup in Lebanon while rearming Hezbollah and Hamas. This new and as-yet unconfirmed report by the Telegraph now sees Iran trying to further engage al Qaeda to the point of hoping to influence its leadership.

Iran, a nation ruled by the apocalyptic Hojjatieh sect, is pursuing nuclear weapons, having already developed and/or purchased long-ranged missiles and MIRV warheads only used for delivering nuclear warheads.

al Qaeda, a major terrorist group that has already successfully struck inside the U.S once and failed on numerous other attempts, has been trying to acquire nuclear weapons since the 1990s. Is anyone on this smug commission watching where this is headed?

al Qaeda: "Hey, your nuclear weapons development got on my terrorism!"

Iran: "Your terrorism got on my nuclear weapons development!"

Both: "DEATH TO AMERICA!"

It's like a Reese's Peanutbutter Cup from Hell, and the Baker Commission is trying to tell the world that it is safe to swallow.

Sorry boys, but I'm not buying it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 418 words, total size 3 kb.

The blogger that styles himself "Gen. JC Christian, patriot," surrendered intellectually early this morning, collapsing under the unbearable weight of his own ponderous ad hominem argument.

Apparently his disaffected Finchiness is highly disturbed--perhaps even gob-smacked--at this post, where I replicated an email I sent to the President, asking him to commit fully to winning the war in Iraq.

The good General was apparently unable to logically explain why we should engage in the rapid retreat favored by so many on the far left. Trying to explain an anti-humanitarian position that would lead to a far wider civil war or even genocide is obviously too difficult a task for a cynical faux diety. Much better to trot out the "chickenhawk" meme again instead.

We all know that one by now, don't we?

Essentially, the argument is that anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and join the military. But the messenger is not the message, dear General, and this tired dismissal falls apart miserably when poked with even the smallest twig of logic.

Do you really want to make the argument, General, that you cannot comment upon or have an opinion on any subject in which you aren't a paid professional?

That would certainly clear up much of the war-related controversy in the blogosphere and the media. Very few liberals have the professional background General Christian would require for commenting on war-related issues, including the good General himself. Only soldiers would be able to discuss the war, and they overwhelmingly support continuing the mission.

General Christian's post wasn't meant to be fair, just dismissive, and it should hardly be surprising that someone so intellectually lazy would be caught in his own poorly-constructed trap.

Update: As so many of my liberal "guests" can't seem to keep a civil tongue in their heads, comments are now closed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:45 AM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 322 words, total size 2 kb.

The 2006 Weblog Awards is open and looking for you to chose your favorites in 46 categories.

Go forth and nominate.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Bill Arado-something-or-other has decided that he has to see the war for himself, and went and got embedded.

If you could, drop the guy a coin or two, and please tell him that this is not the kind of body armor he needs, no matter what Ace may say.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:06 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Matt Drudge has a typically bombastic headline running, CHINA SUB STALKS USS KITTY HAWK, which links to a Bill Gertz article in today's Washington Times that is only slightly less dramatic:

A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.

The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military.

The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries.

Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.

According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26.

The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group's planes.

The Kitty Hawk battle group includes an attack submarine and anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the warships from submarine attack.

According to the officials, the submarine is equipped with Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles.

The Kitty Hawk and several other warships were deployed in ocean waters near Okinawa at the time, as part of a routine fall deployment program. The officials said Chinese submarines rarely have operated in deep water far from Chinese shores or shadowed U.S. vessels.

A Pacific Command spokesman declined to comment on the incident, saying details were classified. Pentagon spokesmen also declined to comment.

If you're looking for me to debunk this story I'm sorry to disappoint you. I simply can't, other than to quibble over the details.

A submarine that tops out at 22 knots cannot overtake or as Gertz states, "stalk" a carrier battle group that cruises somewhere between 27-32 knots. What the Chinese can do is plot a course for the battle group, and place a submarine in position in advance of it, and wait for the battle group to steam to that location, as did the German U-boat wolfpacks of World War II.

The Song was likely vectored into position by PLAN (the People's Liberation Army Navy... I know, don't ask), and waited under minimal electric power until the American battle group closed in on their position. It was an ambush, not a stalking, and considering the stealth of this breed of diesel/electrics, it is possible that if the battle group was unprepared, it could run into such an ambush, despite my earlier thoughts to the contrary left on Hot Air's post on the subject.

No, the story here is not necessarily the apparent Chinese success in a cat and mouse game that has been playing out between submarines and surface ships for decades, but the fact that this story was leaked to Gertz, and that it was leaked now. Gertz himself provides the reason for the leak:

The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries.

Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend.

Move over New York Times. The Old Gray Lady may lead in publishing information that hurts U.S. interests, but the Department of Defense has been known to selectively leak on occasion, and this leak seems to have the military exchange program with the Chinese clearly in the crosshairs.

The exchange program, which dates to 2002 is said to be extremely one-sided. Chinese military officers and technicians have been invited to see U.S. military exercises and "sensitive" facilities, and China has refused to reciprocate. In addition, Admiral Fallon has restricted U.S efforts to conduct intelligence-gathering operations against China, leading us to be even more in the dark than we should be.

The Song-class submarine may have targeted Admiral Fallon's carrier group, but by leaking the story to Bill Gertz when they did, it is clearly the intention of the Department of Defense to sink Fallon and a program that they consider to be a risk to national security.

Damn the torpedoes. There's a dangerous admiral to be sunk.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:19 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 822 words, total size 5 kb.

The following letter was emailed to President George W. Bush at the White House this morning, asking him to rededicate America to winning the War on Terror.

Send your own comments to the President via email comments@whitehouse.gov, over the telephone at 202-456-1111, or via fax at 202-456-2461.

Dear President Bush,

"These are the times that try menÂ’s souls."

So Thomas Paine began a series of pamphlets in late 1776 called The American Crisis, and in which he continued, "The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot may, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

All around you lies a nation demoralized, yet not yet defeated, waiting upon your steadying hand to find a solution to the problems of modern-day Mesopotamia.

Shia, Sunni, and Kurd slaughter each other along with our soldiers in what seems to be an unending campaign of bloodshed. This war is meant to sap the spirit and soul of not just one country, but legions of the faithful of many languages and creeds, across national and international borders.

Indeed, many in this land have lost hope in the noble ideas that founded this nation, and now clamor for a retreat to our own shores from those who would strike at us here as they have in the past. These well-meaning but misguided souls seek for no more blood to be spilled, for no more lives to be lost in a brutal, grinding war that sees our national will and our thirst for peace and justice challenged.

But we are made of sterner stuff, and what they do not understand is what you must know in your heart to be true, and that is simply this; there can be no peace in this war or this world without victory.

We live in a time where cynicism lords over self-sacrifice, where absent a call to rise above the mundane, the backbenchers and the critics are given voice by the simple absence of dedicated call to duty.

Early on in this great campaign you spoke to and for all of us when you said, "Great tragedy has come to us, and we are meeting it with the best that is in our country, with courage and concern for others because this is America. This is who we are."

Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines have heard your call, and answered to it magnificently.

Yet it seems in this dark hour that many Americans have forgotten who we are and what God set us upon this Earth to do. I firmly believe that you, a man of great Christian faith and conviction, were elected not to serve just the United States, but GodÂ’s will in spreading to the dark corners of the world both hope and freedom. It is for these two things that American and Iraqi soldiers rise every morning in a struggle that sometimes seems insurmountable, against a foe both wicked and depraved.

We must succeed, Mr. President.

It is my heartfelt conviction that God put us upon this Earth to strike out against those who would subjugate, oppress and terrorize those who should be free into an uneasy silence. This silence that will only be broken by further explosions and cries from the wounded and dying if we chose this time and this date to retreat. A retreat from Iraq, however it is phrased, is a victory for the forces of Islamic terrorism.

We must draw that "line in the sand, " here, and now, from which will not retreat.

I ask you to do what only you can, and that is to commit American totally to victory in Iraq. History has shown us that wars are not won with half measures, but with an overwhelming commitment of both manpower and conviction.

I beseech you to commit our reserves to the fight in Iraq, as many tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of soldiers that the mission requires, in order to break the will and the bodies of those who fight for chaos and tyranny.

There have been many who have called Iraq "another Vietnam," but what they do not realize is that Iraq can be a Vietnam for the forces of terrorism for which they cannot withdraw without a resounding defeat. They have committed their all—their ideology, their material, and their manpower—to driving our alliance with the common man and woman in Iraq asunder. We must not fail them, or else, we will fail ourselves.

Should those who fight for freedom yield to those who fight for chaos, oppression, and tyranny? I say, emphatically, that the answer to all terrorists of every stripe must be "No."

Mr. President, I ask that you rededicate yourself and our nation to winning the war against terrorism currently being waged in Iraq. We fight not just for their freedoms, but our own.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

Bob Owens

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:20 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 830 words, total size 5 kb.

Says the American Thinker (via Instapundit):

The Baker commission seems to be doing a lot more than just re-thinking Iraq. It appears to be copiously leaking a Vietnam-type cut-and-run plan that will leave the Gulf far more dangerous than it is now. The Vietnam model looks like a “face-saving” retreat by the United States—just like that one that left Vietnam a Stalinist prison state with tens of thousands of boat people fleeing and dying, and next door in Cambodia, two or three million dead at the hands of Pol Pot.

BakerÂ’s press leaks seem designed to test public reaction to the cut-and-run plan.

President Bush's nominee to replace Don Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates, a survivor of the Iran-Contra scandal who helped draft the Baker cut-and-run strategy.

Let's be very clear on who Robert Gates is; he is part of the problem, a leftover of the failed policies of realpolitik that helped create modern terrorism. His return to public service is a recipe for losing no just in Iraq, but in the larger War on Terror. He has as much business being Secretary of Defense as Harriet Miers had being on the Supreme Court.

Norman Podhoretz captured the failures of the Baker/Gates generation quite clearly as they led the run from terrorism in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations:

In April 1983, Hizbullah—an Islamic terrorist organization nourished by Iran and Syria—sent a suicide bomber to explode his truck in front of the American embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three employees, among them the Middle East CIA director, were killed and another 120 wounded. But Reagan sat still.

Six months later, in October 1983, another Hizbullah suicide bomber blew up an American barracks in the Beirut airport, killing 241 U.S. Marines in their sleep and wounding another 81. This time Reagan signed off on plans for a retaliatory blow, but he then allowed his Secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, to cancel it (because it might damage our relations with the Arab world, of which Weinberger was always tenderly solicitous). Shortly thereafter, the President pulled the Marines out of Lebanon.

Having cut and run in Lebanon in October, Reagan again remained passive in December, when the American embassy in Kuwait was bombed. Nor did he hit back when, hard upon the withdrawal of the American Marines from Beirut, the CIA station chief there, William Buckley, was kidnapped by Hizbullah and then murdered. Buckley was the fourth American to be kidnapped in Beirut, and many more suffered the same fate between 1982 and 1992 (though not all died or were killed in captivity).

These kidnappings were apparently what led Reagan, who had sworn that he would never negotiate with terrorists, to make an unacknowledged deal with Iran, involving the trading of arms for hostages. But whereas the Iranians were paid off handsomely in the coin of nearly 1,500 antitank missiles (some of them sent at our request through Israel), all we got in exchange were three American hostages—not to mention the disruptive and damaging Iran-contra scandal.

In September 1984, six months after the murder of Buckley, the U.S. embassy annex near Beirut was hit by yet another truck bomb (also traced to Hizbullah). Again Reagan sat still.

What realpolitik accomplished under Reagan was to build the confidence of terrorists. This same "do nothing" approach was continued under the first Bush Administration, thanks once again to political strategies favored both then and now by men like James Baker and Secretary-designate Robert Gates.

Robert Gates had a hand--never firmly proven, but never really in doubt--in the disasterous plan to attempt to negotiate with terrorism in Iran-Contra.

He also was part of the brainrust, err, braintrust, that urged Iraqi Shia to rebel again Saddam Hussein, only to stand by and watch when as many as 100,000 Shia were killed when they failed to support the rebellion they instigated in 1991.

Robert Gates has no business being the Secretary of Defense during a war on terrorism. He did far too much to help create the current problem to be relied upon to fix it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:44 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 692 words, total size 5 kb.

The Jawa Report is breaking news:

The Jawa Report has obtained evidence that Yusuf Islam, the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens, was once connected to radical clerics Omar Bakri Mohammed & Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. According to at least one credible source, he was also involved in terrorist financing.

If the Jawas are correct, the hippie that sang "Peace Train" was doing fundraisers for organizations linked to al Qaeda.

Yusuf Islam is supposed to release another albm this month called "An Other Cup," including a cover of a tune called "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood."

There's a joke in there somewhere.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

I just saw a short clip on Fox News where the Iranian government showed grainy, near-overhead footage of a U.S. aircraft carrier, and claimed this was evidence that an Iranian drone was able penetrate U.S. fleet radar and air cover, a story also covered by Breitbart.com.

Um... no.

Iran actually made this claim once before back in August (in the video clip above), going as far as say that their drone repeatedly circled the USS Ronald Reagan before it was even noticed, and that the U.S. attempted to shoot down the drone, but failed. Iran, or course, had zero evidence to support that claim.

But the apparent proof that Iran's latest "drone" video is fake may be contained in the footage itself.

The grainy footage shows what is undoubtably the angled deck of a U.S. aircraft carrier, but on that carrier deck are aircraft, including what appears to be a different fighter on the port waist of the deck than the F/A-18s, EA-6s, and E-2Cs one would currently expect on modern U.S. carriers. Could those planes be F-14 Tomcats?

The Iranian's imply their video was taken during military exercises in the past week. The F-14 Tomcat was retired in February. If Iran means to imply that this video was taken during their war games of the past week and the video released does indeed show retired aircraft, it would suggest that Iran was lying.

But Iran wouldn't lie, would they?

Update: Russian news sites are disputing the authenticy of the video.

They should. Expecting that a drone could penetrate the nine ship-mounted radars of a Nimitz-class supercarrier, plus the AWACS radar on the E-2C Hawkeyes it has aloft at all times, plus AEGIS-equipped ships in the carrier group, plus the radar of aircraft flying close air support, and be able to then circle directly above the carrier at an altitude of at least several thousand feet and return in one piece is something that, quite frankly, only an idiot would believe.

Mmmmm... Crow: Not F-14s on the port waist, but almost as large F/A-18Cs, ans clearly shown in this much better video. The angled rudders are a dead giveaway. In other words, the video is not necessarily old footage, though whether or not the U.S. knew of the drone is still up in the air.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:58 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 401 words, total size 3 kb.

Michelle Malkin interviews some the surviving Doolittle Raiders and Hornet crewmen over at Hot Air.

Background on the Raiders here, and here.

A special thanks to these brave veterans, the other 25 million surviving veterans of past wars, and the millions of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines that served before them to to ensure our freedoms.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:39 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 66 words, total size 1 kb.

The British people may not have any interest in fighting Islamic terrorism, but Islamists certainly have an interest in fighting them:

British authorities are tracking almost 30 terrorist plots involving 1,600 individuals, the head of Britain's MI5 spy agency said, adding that many of the suspects are homegrown British terrorists plotting homicide attacks.

In a speech released by her agency Friday, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller said MI5 had foiled five major plots since the July 2005 transit bomb attacks in London.

Speaking to a small audience of academics in London on Thursday, Manningham-Buller said officials were "aware of numerous plots to kill people and to damage our economy."

"What do I mean by numerous? Five? Ten?" she said. "No, nearer 30 that we currently know of."

She said MI5 and the police were tackling 200 cells involving more than 1,600 individuals who were "actively engaged in plotting or facilitating terrorist acts here and overseas."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 165 words, total size 1 kb.

It seems that liberal comedian pundit Bill Maher (if you've never heard of him don't feel bad; the comedian label is something of a misnomer) intends to play "the outing game" according to an interview he did with Larry King on CNN. His targets, as you may well expect, will be prominent Republicans he feels might be gay.

The liberals at the Huffington Post and always acrid John Aravosis of AmericaBlog are absolutely livid that Maher's naming of RNC Chair Ken Mehlman was edited out of later rebroadcasts of the King interview.

For those on the "tolerant" left, it seems that being gay and Republican--or for that matter, almost any minority and a Republican-- is a sin of the first order. Punishment for this "sin" is the practice of being "outed," whereby liberals that hate prominent Republicans for their policy differences also pronounce them gay in a public forum, whereby other liberals can join in and share in hating them for the compounded sin of being gay and Republican.

In this worldview practiced by too many liberals, one's views on social security reform, healthcare, taxes, defense matters, foreign policy, trade, the death penalty, abortion, religion, etc, are all superceded by which gender you are attracted to.

What this means for homosexuals according to liberals, is that even though you might favor small government, low taxes, a strong military, an aggressive foreign policy, closing the borders to illegal aliens, free trade and 90% of the planks on the Republican platform, you are a traitor if you aren't liberal. If you are gay, goes their logic, you must, by their decree, be liberal.

If not, you'll face such lovely, constructive, adult perspectives such as these culled from the HuffPo comment thread:

Out the gay bastards who undermine their own lives by working for the GOP....

Gay Republicans are guilty of self-loathing and by serving a party that's harmful them they feel relieved of their guilt. Maschochists.

The great sin, in their warped perspective, is that of hypocrisy.

But what people that hold to a slate of political ideas that are conservative across the board, and happen to be gay? Should they suborn the larger part of their belief system to their libido just to appease someone else's radical politics?

I'd say making someone a social and political slave to their sexual attractions is the greater hypocrisy, but what do I know.

I'm one of those intolerant conservatives.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:41 PM | Comments (24) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Interesting.

Iraq's Health Minister Ali al-Shemari said about 150,000 Iraqis have been killed by insurgents since the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

For every person killed about three have been wounded in violence since the war started in March 2003, al-Shemari told reporters during a visit to Vienna. He did not explain how he arrived at the figure, which is three times most other estimates.

The health minister, a senior Shiite official linked to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, also said the United States should hand Iraqis full control of its army and police force. Doing so, he said, would allow the Iraqi government to bring the violence under control within six months.

The "most other estimates" comment likely refers to estimates compiled by iraqbodycount.org, the Los Angeles Times, and the Brookings Institute, which give figures between 48,000-62,000.

You know what this means, don't you?

Obviously, this means the evil neocon war machine must have slaughtered the other half million people reported killed since the 2003 election... probably by strangulation.

Hell of a job, Rummy.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:52 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 2 kb.

A powerful sermon on the Iraq War as told through the analogy of a World War II soldier's sacrifice, via Josh Manchester's enlightening post on the sudden multitude of plans for Iraq.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 38 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Fox News:

Among those expected to hand in resignation letters is the Pentagon's top intelligence official, Under Secretary of Defense Steve Cambone, a close Rumsfeld associate and a key architect in planning for the Iraq war and the War on Terror.

Cambone is the first person to hold the post, and in doing so helped the Pentagon step up its own intelligence gathering assets, a role traditionally overseen by the CIA. The new system led to turf battles between the two agencies in recent years.

This resignation is hardly unexpected, and as the article mentions, more are certainly on the way.

The article also mentions this, which makes me uneasy:

In announcing the secretary's resignation, President Bush said he was nominating Robert Gates, a veteran of the CIA under President George H.W. Bush, to lead the Pentagon. Though closely tied to the Bush family, Gates is considered by many to be an agent of change.

Rep. Jane Harman, the expected next chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee, said Gates would be a good fit to run the Department of Defense because of his intelligence background.

"He will respect the role of civilian intelligence agencies, including the CIA," Harman, D-Calif., said.

Harmon is one of many Democrats that backs John Murtha's "over the horizon" movement of soldiers out of Iraq.

The more I hear about Bob Gates and who is supporting him, the more I come to think he's the "Harriet Miers" nominee for Secretary of Defense.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Robert Gates, the nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of State was the Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Adviser during the failed 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein at the end of the Gulf War that may have led to the mass murder of 100,000 Shiite Iraqis:

On Feb. 15, 1991, President George H.W. Bush called on the Iraqi military and people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. On March 3, an Iraqi tank commander returning from Kuwait fired a shell through one of the portraits of Hussein in Basra's main square, igniting the southern uprising. A week later, Kurdish rebels ended Hussein's control over much of the north.

But although Bush had called for the rebellion, his administration was caught unprepared when it happened. The administration knew little about those in the Iraqi opposition because, as a matter of policy, it refused to talk to them. Policymakers tended to see Iraq's main ethnic groups in caricature: The Shiites were feared as pro-Iranian and the Kurds as anti-Turkish. Indeed, the U.S. administration seemed to prefer the continuation of the Baath regime (albeit without Hussein) to the success of the rebellion. As one National Security Council official told me at the time: "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam, not his regime."

The practical expression of this policy came in the decisions made by the military on the ground. U.S. commanders spurned the rebels' plea for help. The United States allowed Iraq to send Republican Guard units into southern cities and to fly helicopter gunships. (This in spite of a ban on flights, articulated by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf with considerable swagger: "You fly, you die.") The consequences were devastating. Hussein's forces leveled the historical centers of the Shiite towns, bombarded sacred Shiite shrines and executed thousands on the spot. By some estimates, 100,000 people died in reprisal killings between March and September. Many of these atrocities were committed in proximity to American troops, who were under orders not to intervene.

In recent years Baghdad has shortchanged the south in the distribution of food and medicine, contributing to severe malnutrition among vulnerable populations. Some 100 Shiite clerics have been murdered, including four senior ayatollahs. Draining the marshes displaced 400,000 Marsh Arabs, destroying a culture that is one of the world's oldest, as well as causing immeasurable ecological damage.

The first Bush administration's decision to abandon the March uprising was a mistake of historic proportions. With U.S. help, or even neutrality, the March uprising could have succeeded, thus avoiding the need for a second costly war.

The obvious question is, "Did Bob Gates have a hand in shaping Bush's call for rebellion?"

If so, would he also partially responsible for failing to support the rebellion, leading to one of Saddam's greatest genocides? I do not know the answers to these questions, but they must be asked before he is confirmed as the next U.S. Secretary of Defense.

While I sincerely hope that the sentiment expressed on Austin Bay's blog that the Gates nomination may political prep for "prosecuting the war even more vociferously," I think that Mr. Gates and the present Bush Administration owe to it to us and the Iraqi people to explain in detail what role, if any, he played in an Administration that instigated, and then failed to support, the 1991 uprisings.

The administration of Bush '41 failed Iraq once when we cried for them to stand up for their freedom. The same personnel who failed Iraqis in 1991 should not be given the opportunity to do so again.

Update: It's up behind an annoying subscriber wall, But Allah says that the Wall Street Journal is on the same page.

One reason the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki has had such a hard time dismantling Shiite militias is because Shiites fear that itÂ’s only a matter of time before the U.S. abandons them again and they will have to confront the Sunni Baathist insurgency on their own. If President Bush wants to reassure Shiites on this score and about Mr. Gates, he should announce that the recent efforts to appease the Sunni terrorist political fronts in Iraq have failed.

We presume Mr. Gates will be grilled about these and other issues during his confirmation hearings. He should be.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 718 words, total size 5 kb.

Stick a fork in George Allen. He's done, are are the GOP's slim hopes of holding on to the Senate:

A Democratic takeover of the Senate is appearing likely after an ongoing canvass of votes in Virginia produced no significant changes in the outcome of the hard-fought race led by Democratic challenger Jim Webb, sources told CNN Wednesday.

Wednesday night, with Webb leading Republican Sen. George Allen by about 7,200 votes and the canvass about half complete, The Associated Press declared Webb the winner.

CNN does not declare a winner when race results are less than 1 percent and the potential loser may request a recount vote.

A source close to Allen also told CNN that the senator "has no intention of dragging this out."

Meanwhile, a Webb aide told CNN that he plans a formal news conference Thursday morning to declare victory.

A victory by Webb would put the new Senate lineup at 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents -- Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut -- who have said they would caucus with the Democrats.

This outcome in Virginia is hardly unexpected at this point, but perhaps the most interesting aspect of this is that Joe Lieberman, the Senator that the liberal netroots derided as "Rape Gurney Joe", has potentially become a powerful swing vote in the Senate should he decide to act as such. All the bile and hatred directed at him may not easily be forgotten.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Catching it on Drudge and Rush, and will expect to hear confirmation in Bush's press conference momentarily.

Will update...

Confirmed. Rumfeld was on his way out prior to the election, and our new nominee for Secretary of Defense is Bob Gates, currenty the President of Texas A&M. Bush said that Gates had met with him in Crawford this past Sunday, where I understand he was offered the position. He is the only career officer in the CIA's history to rise from an entry-level employee to the directorship. Gates had previously declined the Director of National Intelligence position now filled by John Negroponte. I'm sure we'll hear more about him in the days ahead, but I simply don't know enoughabout him to know what kind of Secretary he may be at this point.

Mary Katharine has more.

Update: Austin Bay reports that an officer he knows thinks that Rumsfeld's resignation sets the stage for more aggressive action against the terrorists.

That is an interesting hypothesis. If the key issue of the mid-terms for voters was dissatisfaction with the prosecution of the war in Iraq, then a "new direction" could well come in the form of more aggressive, targeted, and tangible offensive operations.

It will be interesting to see if this is indeed the path taken.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:55 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

The following is a short list of things I will not be doing in the wake of the 2006 mid-terms:

• Blaming Diebold.
• Staying in bed with massive depression.


• Creating a new election-based psychological malady.
• Lamenting that America has down descended into a (fill in the blank) state.
• Checking out immigration laws to other countries.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:50 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Well I just suck at election prognosticating, don't I?

In a national mid-term election billed as a battle against the way the War in Iraq is being waged and against Republican scandals, Democrats waltzed to an easy reversal of power in the House of Representatives and what many expect to be a slim majority in the Senate.

The Democratic Party is to be commended for their victories, and their candidates are to be congratulated.

What remains to be seen, however, is what Democratic electoral success will mean to our domestic and foreign policy.

Domestically, the farthest reaching effect may be upon those that are not elected to office but appointed, as the Democratic majority will be able to shape who is appointed to federal judgeships, including any Supreme Court vacancies that may occur at least until the 2008 election cycle. There are of course some responsible moderate judges to choose from, but I feel that a strict, historically-grounded interpretation of the Constitution is needed on the federal level, and that is most often found in the kind of judges that Democrats are likely to filibuster.

Free trade is also going to be dead, and we can expect taxes to go up through a combination of new taxes and a refusal to renew the tax cuts made by the previous Congress.

We can also expect a "quagmire" as Democrats follow through on their promised "investigations" of the Bush Administration. Some of these are indeed warranted--I know for a concrete fact that the U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) is as corrupt as it can be and engaged in illegal activity, as I have personally seen the evidence--and I feel that if the Administration did indeed break any laws they should of course be held accountable.

I fear, however, that honest investigations of deep-seated agency-level bureaucratic corruption I suspect exists will be ignored in favor of investigations of "brand name" targets. I fully expect Democrats to follow through on multiple investigations targeting the President and Vice President based not upon any actual criminality, but on the appearance of impropriety, with the goal of further weakening the Executive Branch and laying the groundwork for the 2008 campaigns.

But what concerns me far more than these domestic issues (at least for now) is what the election means internationally, specifically in the War on Terror.

I can respect the fact that a majority of American voters do not like the way the War on Terror is being conducted. I don't particularly like the way the War on Terror is being fought, particularly in the battleground of Iraq where al Qaeda and allied terrorist groups have joined with state sponsors of terrorism Syria and Iran in an effort to not only destroy any hopes of democracy taking root in the Arab world, but to rally the support of Islamists worldwide.

Fair or not, terrorist leaders around the world openly cheerleaded for Democratic victory. Leaders of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, Islamic Jihad and Hamas were among those that publicly stated that they thought much talked about Democratic plans for withdrawal from Iraq would embolden and spread fundamentalist resistance against the United States. al Qaeda's curiously silent Osama bin Laden had pulled for a Democratic victory for the same reasons in the 2004 elections.

Will the new Democratic leadership take stock of these comments and attempt to understand why the terrorists cheered them on to victory? Recent history and breaking news alike suggests that they will not. Nancy Pelosi has already this to say about the War on Terror in Iraq:

"Nowhere did Americans make it more clear that a change is needed in Iraq ... we can't continue down that catastrophic path," she said. "Mr President, we need a new direction in Iraq."

Pelosi and other Democratic leaders such as Charles Rangel and John Murtha have made clear that their "new direction" is a vision of withdrawal, without apparently registering that such a plan would embolden and spread terrorism, as the terrorists themselves have clearly stated:

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

My greatest fear in Iraq is not for the American military, which overwhelmingly wants to stay engaged and finish the mission, but for the 26 million people of Iraq who face a dire future in the hands of a "cut and run" Congress.

If Democrats are able to force a retreat from Iraq, the existing sectarian violence will likely devolve into a full-fledged civil war that the still-weak Iraqi security forces will be unable to stop or perhaps even slow. The possibility exists for Iraq to fall into full-fledged tribalism, with widespread genocide a distinct possibility. If this comes to pass, the United States will have abandoned the Iraqi people twice in two wars after asking for their support, at the cost of tens of thousands of their lives. Neither they, nor any other nation on earth, will have any reason to trust commitments America for a long time to come.

Terrorism, instead of being defeated, will have proven to be an effective tactic.

That may be the ultimate legacy of Nancy Pelosi and Democratic control of the House of Representatives if the liberal leadership has its way. We can only hope that the Democratic moderates who won most of last night elections can steer their leaders from the rear.

If they cannot, our foreign policy will, quite simply, encourage further acts of terrorism, as the terrorists themselves have made abundantly clear.

Update: Well, that didn't take long.

Update: And it gets worse, quickly:

"America is offering political, financial and logistic cover for the Zionist occupation crimes, and it is responsible for the Beit Hanoun massacre. Therefore, the people and the nation all over the globe are required to teach the American enemy tough lessons," Hamas' military wing said in a statement faxed to news organizations in Gaza.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:04 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 1141 words, total size 8 kb.