I'm against using the entire state, but we could certainly slip them into Chapel Hill without anyone noticing. *

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:04 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.

We've now had roughly 15 hours since Senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Pete Hoestra announced in a hastily-called news conference that a newly declassified portion of a report from the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) confirmed that approximately 500 chemical weapons have been recovered in Iraq since 2003.

Since that time, the major media outlets have greeted this story with a virtual news blackout, leaving this story to the blogosphere to analyze.

Predictably, reaction to this story seems to fall along party lines. Many conservative bloggers covering the story see this as an absolute vindication of the Bush Administration, and are ecstatic. Quite a few others are more cautious, hoping to see more in the way of details released from the still-classified NGIC report from which the summary was culled.

On the other side of the political spectrum, many liberal blogs seemed almost rudderless in the hours after the story broke, almost as if they were waiting for guidance from either the silent media or equally quiet top-flight liberal blogs. Since then, they have mostly seemed to fallen in line behind Dafna Linzer of the Washington Post, who is taking the position, "nothing to see here/this doesn't count."

So what do we really have, and what do we really know?

We know for a fact that under Saddam Hussein, Iraqi began cultivating the development of chemical weapons in 1971. An article from the United Nations News Centre tells us further (h/t Flopping Aces:

Iraq first started exploring chemical weapons in 1971, and reviews developments through the establishment of a “large-scale chemical weapons programme” in 1981. The capacity expanded from there to the point that “according to Iraq, the use of chemical weapons achieved its major purpose and made a significant impact on the outcome of the Iran-Iraq war.”

According to declarations made by Iraq, in the period from 1981 to 1991 the chemical weapon programme produced approximately 3,850 tons of the chemical warfare agents mustard, tabun, sarin and VX, the report states.

Of the total of some 3,850 tons of chemical warfare agents produced, approximately 3,300 tons of agents were weaponized in different types of aerial bombs, artillery munitions and missile warheads.

In the period from 1981 to 1991, Iraq weaponized some 130,000 chemical munitions in total. Of these, over 101,000 munitions were used in combat, according to Iraq, in the period from 1981 to 1988.

Iraq declared that some 28,500 chemical munitions remained unused as of January 1991; about 5,500 filled munitions were destroyed by coalition forces during the war in 1991, while another 500 filled munitions were declared destroyed unilaterally by Iraq. “These last two figures were partially verified by United Nations inspectors,” the report states.

The bulk of the destruction of some 22,000 filled munitions occurred under the supervision of the UN inspectors in accordance with Security Council resolution 687 (1991) – the "ceasefire resolution" which ended the war – in the period from 1991 to 1994. During the collection of chemical weapons for destruction after the 1991 war, Iraq stated that it was not able to locate some 500 chemical munitions.

Iraq claimed it had 28,500 chemical weapons in 1991, and about 5,500 were destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War bringing the total to 23,000. Iraq then claims to have destroyed 500 munitions on their own and 22,000 weapons were destroyed under the supervision of U.N. weapons inspectors. This leaves us with roughly 500 chemical weapons that Iraq was unable to locate.

Are these same 500 chemical weapons that Iraq was unable to account for the same 500 chemical weapons that Santorum and Hoekstra revealed that U.S. forces have captured, and the same 500 that Dafna Linzer claims were buried in the desert near the Iran-Iraq border during their 1980-88 war?

If it can be verified that these are the missing 500 munitions from Saddam's declaration to the United Nations, then the accounting of Saddam's known weapons of mass destruction should be very close to complete. There should be no more significant caches of chemical weapons found in Iraq. It took 15 years and a war, but his chemical weapons have apparently all been accounted for and no significant quantities of thes munitions seem to have fallen into the hands of the various terrorist groups that Saddam cultivated in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.

This news in and of itself would seem to be a significant victory.

But this is not how this story has been presented by Rick Santorum and Pete Hoekstra. They make the presentation that the 500 weapons found by U.S forces since the invasion of Iraq by Coalition forces justify the WMD rationale, one of several reasons and by far the one most publicized used to justify this conflict.

I wish that this did justify that rationale, but it does not.

Our rationale was based on the thought that Saddam was continuing to develop and experiment with weapons of mass destruction, and that he continued to have the capability to build chemical and biological weapons. Saddam, indeed, led the world to believe that he still had this capability, and it wasn't until after the war that we discovered that he may have been bluffing all along. We have found no more modern (post 1991) chemical weapons in Iraq. We have found no smoking gun showing concrete proof of more recent development, and it is quite possible we never may.

It does, however, seem to close the book on the WMDs known to have existed in Iraq as of January 1991, as declared by the government of Saddam Hussein. The 500 munitions Saddam's Army could not locate seem to have been recovered by the U.S military. While small quantities of these weapons may still turn up, no significant caches should remain to be discovered.

That fact alone, that we recovered these approximately 500 "lost" munitions, is reason enough to celebrate, but it neither proves nor disproves the existence of a post-1991 weapons program.

If any significant future caches are found, however, then the game will indeed be afoot, and both the media and doubters in the blogosphere will be out of valid excuses.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:30 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 1028 words, total size 7 kb.

To put it mildly, this bears discussion:

The United States has found 500 chemical weapons in Iraq since 2003, and more weapons of mass destruction are likely to be uncovered, two Republican lawmakers said Wednesday.

"We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons," Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., said in a quickly called press conference late Wednesday afternoon.

Reading from a declassified portion of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center, a Defense Department intelligence unit, Santorum said: "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."

Or at least, one might think this would bear discussion, whether Santorum and Hoekstra are right or wrong.

If correct, their claims of found chemical weapons—mustard gas or sarin, filled or unfilled, degraded or in perfect condition—would seemingly vindicate the Bush Administration and bury a key canard of leftist opposition to the war, that soldiers and civilians have "died for a lie."

Likewise, it would be worth it for the media/anti-war/Democratic Party camps to begin questioning the story, on the chance that Santorum and Hoekstra have buried themselves with inaccurate information.

Everyone should be talking about thisÂ… so why aren't they?

While Fox News runs a story about the Santorum/Hoestra release, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and the Boston Globe have taken the code of omertà as of midnight, though the Washington Post, to its slim credit, squeaked out a page A10 mention essentially claiming that these WMDs didn't count, even though they provide exactly zero support for their claims.

With the exception of Fox News, the WMD story and the underlying newly declassified six paragraph summary (PDF) seems to be the subject of a major news blackout.

Is this silence the sound of fear?

7:00 AM Update: According to a Google News search for WMDs, all the news organizations cited above still refuse to discuss this news.

Shocking.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:32 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.

Via the News & Observer:

The man accused of driving a rented SUV onto the UNC campus in March and striking nine people told a judge he plans to plead guilty to the charges against him.
Mohammed Taheri-Azar entered the courtroom this morning to ask that he be allowed to represent himself. A judge had ordered the public defender's office to work with him while it was determined whether he was competent.

But after being told he would have to submit to a psychiatric evaluation in order to do that, the 23-year-old said he would rather keep his court-appointed lawyer.

Taheri-Azar told Superior Court Judge Carl Fox he had met a few times with the psychiatrist and psychologist and "they don't appear to be very good psychologists and psychiatrists in my oinion[sic]."

Taheri-Azar has said in letters and in a 911 call that he wanted to kill people to avenge Muslim deaths around the world when he drove a rented SUV through The Pit, the main gathering spot on the UNC-Chapel Hill campus, March 3.

Do you think UNC-Chapel Hill will finally admit this was a homegrown Islamic terrorist attack?

Me neither.

Update: I've been told that it isn't unusual for Carolina graduates to refuse psychological evaluations, so perhaps we shouldn't read too much into that part of the story.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:26 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

When I came across this comment by Markos "Kos" Moulitsas via LGF, I was momentarily speechless:

There's a reason the Geneva Conventions exist. We've lost the moral high ground. What a fucking waste of a war.

Note I said, "momentarily."

You would think that Kos, as an Army veteran and a graduate of the Boston University School of Law, might have the inkling that what he states above is incorrect.

After all, the Geneva Convention was written to protect soldiers, militiamen, and civilians, not terrorists. As a matter of specific fact, groups such as terrorists seem specifically exempted from Geneva's protections [my bold]:

• Articles 1 and 2 cover which parties are bound by GCIII
• Article 2 specifies when the parties are bound by GCIII
  • That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered by GCIII;
  • That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party";
  • That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
• Article 3 covers internal armed conflict (not of an international character) and it provides similar protections for combatants as those described in the rest of this document for a prisoner of war. That Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including POWs; shall in all circumstances be treated humanely. It also lays out some basic rules for the treatment of all people combatants and non-combatants alike. Article 3 also states that parties to the internal conflict should endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of GCIII.
• Article 4 covers all conflicts not covered by Article 3 which are all conflicts of an international character. It defines prisoners of war to include:
  • 4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
  • 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
    • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
    • that of carrying arms openly;
    • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
  • 4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
  • 4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a vaild identity card issued by the military they support.
  • 4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
  • 4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
  • 4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.
    

At no point in the section above are terrorists granted protection by the Geneva Convention. Article 4.1.2 stipulates that groups to be granted Geneva rights as "militias or other volunteer corps" must fulfill "all of the following conditions."

• that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
• that of carrying arms openly;
• that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Islamic terrorists, under the guise of al Qaeda or the insurgent Mujahedeen Shura Council, have never, at any point in the war, fulfilled these required four conditions, and very rarely meet even one. By definition, they are therefore exempted from Geneva's protections, and can be—quite legally—shot on sight.

As Jonah Goldberg notes:

We've all seen countless WWII movies about how soldiers out of uniform can be shot as spies under the Geneva Convention. Well, all of al Qaeda's soldiers are spies. And they most emphatically do not provide their prisoners with ping-pong tables and dormitories. They cut off their heads and put the pictures on the Internet and TV. The same goes for Osama's allies and fellow travelers in Iraq.

The liberal punditocracy seems to think it's an obvious fact that the Geneva Convention should apply to the war on terrorism, even though the plain text of the Geneva Convention applies as much to the war on terror as it does to the battle between the Federation and the Klingon Empire.

By hiding among civilians, torturing and beheading captives, and acting like, well, terrorists, these people have, by their own actions, exempted themselves from Geneva's protections.

Kos states and apparently believes "we have lost the moral high ground" to the kind of barbarians who torture, mutilate, and kill their captives. This is the same Kos that said of American contractors killed, mutilate, burned and then hung from a bridge in Fallujah, "screw them."

It seems to me that Markos Moulitsas is the last person to be lecturing others about ground clearly so far above his reach.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:11 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 957 words, total size 7 kb.

At least one part of Congressman John Murtha's Haditha story has now been conclusively debunked.

Murtha had maintained that the incident that culminated in the deaths of up to 24 Iraqi civilians at the hands of Marines after a fatal convoy ambush had been covered up:

Mr Murtha, himself a former Marine, charged that US military authorities had paid compensation to the families of the victims, indicating they had assumed responsibility for the deaths. "They paid people $1,500 to $2,500. This doesn't happen unless it comes at the highest authority," Mr Murtha told CNN.

Asked if he meant victims' compensation, Mr Murtha said: "Yes. And that doesn't happen ... if it's an explosive device."

Mr Murtha repeated his accusation that the Marines had sought to cover up the killings."This is what worries me. We're fighting a war about America's ideals and democracy's ideas and something like this happens, they try to cover it up," he said. "It is as bad as Abu Ghraib, if not worse."

An independent Army General who investigated the charges of a cover-up has completed his report, and concludes otherwise:

The general charged with investigating whether Marines tried to cover up the killing of 24 civilians in Haditha has completed his report, finding that Marine officers failed to ask the right questions, an official close to the investigation said Friday.

Nothing in the report points to a "knowing cover-up" of the facts by the officers supervising the Marines involved in the November incident, the official said. Rather, he said, officers from the company level through the staff of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force in Baghdad failed to demand "a thorough explanation" of what happened in Haditha.

I imagine many netroots liberals reading this account published in the L.A. Times will immediately dismiss the report as a whitewash, saying that though an Army General investigated a Marine incident, it is still a military cover-up.

But never fear. They still support the troops.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:30 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 341 words, total size 3 kb.

Some have more meaning than others.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:12 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Will all the liberals out there equivalating how Americans treat captured terrorists with how terrorists treat those unlucky souls they capture, please take the time to remind me when that last time was American soldiers did anything like this:

The bodies of two U.S. soldiers found in Iraq Monday night were mutilated and booby-trapped, military sources said Tuesday.

Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker went missing after a Friday attack on a traffic control checkpoint in Yusufiya, 12 miles (20 km) south of Baghdad.

The sources said the two men had suffered severe trauma.

The bodies also had been desecrated, and a visual identification was impossible -- part of the reason DNA testing was being conducted to verify their identities, the sources said.

A tip from Iraqi civilians led officials to the bodies, military sources told CNN. The discovery was made about 7:30 p.m. Monday.

Not only were the bodies booby-trapped, but homemade bombs also lined the road leading to the victims, an apparent effort to complicate recovery efforts and target recovery teams, the sources said.
It took troops 12 hours to clear the area of roadside bombs. One of the bombs exploded, but there were no injuries.

The terrorists captured two of our men, and what steps did they take?

The did not take them to a tropical island where captives are so well fed that almost all gain weight. Nor were they forced to put womens underwear on their heads, and they did not have fake blood thrown at them, or pull other fraternity/reality TV-grade tricks.

But I don't here liberals complaining about the actions of the terrorists, and how uncomfortable it must be for those captured by terrorists to be mauled with a power drill, or scorched with acetylene torches, or castrated, or beheaded, or hung, dangling from meat hooks while still alive, or raped with found objects.

No, the left can bear to shed no real, heart-felt words of sympathy, and they drop crocodile tears as they quickly use this occasion to bash both the Adminstration and the troops.

If we treat terrorists like anything other than privileged dinner guests it is torture by their sophomoric definition, and it's the President's fault. If terrorists, in turn, perform unspeakable acts of barbarity on our soldiers, it's still the President's fault.

Nothing is ever the fault of the terrorists, and the United States is never, ever in the right.

Do I question their patriotism?

No.

Where they stand is abundantly clear.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:11 PM | Comments (25) | Add Comment
Post contains 419 words, total size 3 kb.

Pat Dollard, former Hollywood agent turned Iraq War documentary filmmaker needs your help:

I gave it all up, my life and my income, to serve my country in the War in Terror, with the one weapon a 42 year old civilian like me could use: a camera. I'm bleeding my life savings dry, and we all need your help with finishing funds for the project. I may soon have to go back to Ramadi to cover a potential large operation in the city ala Fallujah. It's a risk, as usual, that I'm willing to take. Any donation you can make towards "Young Americans" will be greatly appreciated, and more importantly, will have a huge impact on America
by helping to balance out the non-stop BS liberal message we are all drowning in. All contributors, if requested, will be named in the end title sequence with a shared Associate Producer credit. Please rally around the project, the Marines, and America.

At my request Pat set up a Paypal account (via the link above), which will allow you to help contribute to the completion of this project. Please consider doing so. Every dollar helps Pat get one step closer to finishing a real reality series that will show America the war in Iraq as fought by the Marines that the mainstream media would never dare show you.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 231 words, total size 1 kb.

Sadly, I think this is what we expected:

A high-ranking official with the Iraqi Defense Ministry told CNN on Tuesday that the bodies of two missing U.S. soldiers were found Saturday south of Baghdad.
No more details were immediately available.

"Two bodies have been found," Maj. William Wilhoite, spokesman for Multi-National Forces-Iraq, told CNN.

"We haven't made any confirmation if they're the two U.S. soldiers we're looking for."
He said he did not know whether the bodies showed signs of torture. "I haven't heard anything through our official channels," he said.

"Obviously, before we made any announcement, if it was our soldiers, we'd have to make notification to the families," Wilhoite said.

Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, Texas, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Oregon, went missing Friday after an attack on a traffic checkpoint near the town of Yusufiya, 12 miles (20 km) south of Baghdad.

The Washington Post reports that the two men had been tortured:

Two U.S. soldiers missing since an attack on a checkpoint last week have been found dead near a power plant in Yusifiyah, south of Baghdad, according to an Iraqi defense official.

Maj. Gen. Abdul Aziz Muhammed-Jassim, head of operations at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, said the soldiers had been "barbarically" killed and that there were traces of torture on their bodies.

As I predicted yesterday, the media quickly found their anti-war, anti-Bush soundbite:

The news is going to be heartbreaking for my family," Menchaca's uncle, Ken MacKenzie, told NBC's "Today" show.

He said the United States should have paid a ransom for the two soldiers from money seized from Saddam Hussein.

"I think the U.S. was too slow to react to this," MacKenzie said. "Because the U.S. did not have a plan in place, my nephew has paid with his life."

MacKenzie is entitled to grieve, but he cannot blame this on anyone other than the terrorists. Today Show host Matt Lauer even called him on it.

Once his nephew surrendered he was a dead man, and there was nothing, no "plan" or bribe that would have changed this outcome.

The terrorists of the Mujahedeen Shura Council probably think they have scored a victory, and indeed, in the short-term, they have. They can claim that after three years of war, they finally captured and killed a grand total of three U.S. soldiers. Accounts of the capture and killing of U.S. soldiers will receive a great amount of press worldwide. Arab media will likely present the deaths as a thinly veiled triumph, and the western media will use it as an opportunity to once again call for disengagement, as will many Democrats.

But these killings will not be received favorably by the U.S. military in Iraq, which will likely step up operations to hunt down and destroy terror and insurgent cells operating in this part of Iraq. Though official orders will not be given, perhaps U.S. forces will not be so inclined to take prisoners after this incident. Insurgents and their al Qaeda allies set the tone of giving U.S. forces no quarter when they took prisoners.

They made a huge mistake.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:16 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 535 words, total size 4 kb.

The Raleigh, NC News & Observer:

Congratulations to the Carolina Hurricanes, winners of the 2006 Stanley Cup!

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Juan Cole, the "scholarship-lite," questionably Arabic-fluent professor passed over for a position by a school that even accepts the Taliban, bitterly attacked White House spokesman Tony Snow for rather innocuous response to question asked by CNN's Wolf Blitzer Sunday:

BLITZER: "Let's talk a little bit about troop withdrawal potentials for the U.S. military, about 130,000 U.S. forces in Iraq right now.

In our most recent CNN poll that came out this week, should the U.S. set a timetable to eventually withdraw troops from Iraq, 53 percent said yes; 41 percent said no.

Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle today. She's going to be on this show, coming up.

She wrote this: "We have now been in Iraq for more than three years. And we believe that the time has come for that phased redeployment to begin. It is also time for the Bush administration to provide a schedule and timetable for the structured downsizing and redeployment of U.S. forces in Iraq."

"Does that make sense?"

SNOW: "The president understands people's impatience — not impatience but how a war can wear on a nation. He understands that. If somebody had taken a poll in the Battle of the Bulge, I dare say people would have said, wow, my goodness, what are we doing here?

But you cannot conduct a war based on polls. And you can't conduct this kind of activity. What you have to do — and the president's been clear about this — is take a look at the conditions on the ground. Let's think for a moment of the alternative.

Snow makes a self-evident point that no reporter thought to question: a major counteroffensive mounted by an enemy that you thought was on the verge of being beaten is—at the very least—a sobering experience, one that requires recalibration and reevaluation before the offensive continues.

Cole, for some reason infuriated with Snow's response, went off on a odd rant that predictably enough, blamed Bush:

The president of the United States is in some ways the nation's leading public historian. More people hear about American history from him than from virtually any other source, with the possible exception of Hollywood.

It has therefore been dispiriting to witness the falsehoods about American history consistently purveyed by the Bush administration. Bush and his officials have repeatedly made allegations that simply are not true, but they sin most grievously against the muse of Clio with their flat-footed and implausible analogies.

On Sunday, the most prominent among Bush's spokesmen from the ranks of Fox Cable News anchors, Tony Snow, did it again. He compared our current situation in Iraq to the Battle of the Bulge. This battle began in mid-December, 1944, a little over 3 years after the US entered the war. Snow also suggested that the American public was ready to throw in the towel at that point in the war!

Is the only way this tawdry administration can make itself feel good to defame the Greatest Generation? My late uncle used to tell us stories of how he fought at the Battle of the Bulge. Is Tony Snow saying he was a coward? That the Americans back at the homefront were?

Let' examine this outburst for a moment.

While I am certainly limited by having just a normal human circle of friends and acquaintances, I think I can honestly state that not one of them confuses the White House with the Smithsonian, nor do they think of the President as being "Curator in Chief."

Or, perhaps I merely was too young to have heard and appreciated FDR's fireside chats about the Punic Wars, where he boldly proclaimed:

"The only think we have to fear is: HUGE. FREAKING. ELEPHANTS."

"Any jackass can stomp on some greenware, but it takes a good Moche to use a press mold."

At no point would it appear to a rational person that Snow's hypothetical question of "what are we doing here?" could be stretched into a charge of defaming an entire generation. Nor does it seem likely one could reasonably conflate this question into calling for surrender, nor could an intelligent person misunderstand that question to be a statement labeling Cole's uncle (or anyone else) as a coward.

I'm sure Juan Cole has a point.

I'm just not sure that it's worth wading through the barren shoals of his mind to determine just what that point may be.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:22 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 780 words, total size 5 kb.

Via Brietbart:

An umbrella group that includes al-Qaida in Iraq claimed in a Web statement Monday that it had kidnapped two U.S. soldiers reported missing south of Baghdad. There was no immediate confirmation that the statement was credible, although it appeared on a Web site often used by al-Qaida-linked groups.

U.S. officials have said they were trying to confirm whether the missing soldiers were kidnapped.

"Your brothers in the military wing of the Mujahedeen Shura Council kidnapped the two American soldiers near Youssifiya," the group said in a statement posted on an Islamic Web site.
The Web site did not name the soldiers.
The soldiers were reported missing Friday after insurgents attacked a checkpoint. The Defense Department identified the missing men as Pfc. Kristian Menchaca, 23, of Houston, and Pfc. Thomas L. Tucker, 25, of Madras, Ore.
The U.S. military said Monday that seven American troops have been wounded, three insurgents have been killed and 34 detained during an intensive search for the soldiers.
Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, a spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, said fighter jets, unmanned aerial vehicles and dive teams had been deployed to find the two men. They went missing Friday during an attack on their checkpoint in the volatile Sunni area south of Baghdad that left one of their comrades dead.

al-Zarqawi's killing and the wildly successful series of raids that followed were crippling both for al Qaeda in Iraq and for the increasingly panicked voices of anti-war Democrats after Bush's surprise visit to Baghdad. A military or political blow against U.S. forces in Iraq was desperately needed. This kidnapping of two American soliders—and I think it only safe to assume that this was planned as such from the beginning—can only be viewed as a much-needed political success for al Qaeda and its allies.

Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed that American commanders in Iraq didn't anticipate such an attempt and didn't better prepare their men for it. On a micro level, I surprised that the soldiers manning this checkpoint feel for a simple diversionary plan that has been used for thousands of years. It is a classic military tactic to use skirmishers to draw a defensive force away from the location it is guarding so that the now undermanned location can be then assaulted by an enemy force hidden nearby. This may not be the oldest trick in the book, but it certainly comes close.

Now we can anticipate a full-on media campaign by al Qaeda and the Democratic Party to be played out in the mainstream media, hopefully (from their perspective) blunting the impressive gains made against the terrorists in Iraq in the past two weeks.

The media, now having the names of these two soldiers, will begin stalking their families, probing for an image of a tearful wife or mother, hoping for an anti-war or anti-Bush soundbite [note: already there].

If we are unable to locate and free these two soldiers, it is quite likely that these terrorists will feature the soldiers in a propaganda video, perhaps decapitating them, which will then be released to al Jazeera, Reuters, and the Associated Press. It is perhaps the worst possible outcome, and one we must prepare to face based upon past treatment of prisoners by these terrorists.

In any event, be assured that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Dishonorable John Murtha will use these events as "evidence" of why we must beat a retreat from Iraq.

al Qaeda is no doubt counting on Democrats toutter those very sentiments, and the three leaders of the Defeat Party cited above are almost certain not to disappoint.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:25 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 612 words, total size 4 kb.

Via Fox News:

Mayor Ray Nagin asked the governor Monday to send National Guard troops to patrol his city after a violent weekend in which five teenagers were shot to death.

City leaders convened a special meeting to voice outrage after the killings Saturday in an area near the central business district.

[snip]

Nagin asked Gov. Kathleen Blanco to send up to 300 National Guard troops and 60 state police officers to patrol the city. The City Council said it also would consider increasing overtime for police to put more officers on the street.

Upon hearing of the request, Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha immediately called for the Louisiana National Guard to redeploy to Bangor, Maine.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:03 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Eight-term Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson may have been tossed off the influential Ways and Means Committee behind closed doors by his fellow Democrats, but he didn't go quietly. Jefferson and the Congressional Black Caucus, noting that a white Democrat, West Virginia Congressman Alan Mollohan, has been allowed to keep his seat while under investigation, implied that race may be an issue.

I would find the spectacle of a falling out between the Congressional Black Caucus and the Democratic Party an interesting turn of events as we go into the '06 elections, especially in light of the fact that black conservatives have a fair chance of picking up governorships in Pennsylvania and Ohio and a high-profile U.S. Senate Seat in Maryland. That said, I don't think the different treatment of Jefferson and Mollohan is as much an issue of race as it is one of visibility, and hence, politics.

When it comes right down to it, Alan Mollohan's alleged transgressions fly well below the radar of most people, even many of those of us who are very interested in politics. William Jefferson's circumstances, however, are anything but under the radar.

The public easily latched onto the mental image of foil-wrapped frozen stacks of bribe money found in Jefferson's freezer, and the furor over the raid on his Washington, D.C. offices surpassed even that. Fair or not, William Jefferson has quickly become the image in many people's mind when they think of corrupt politicians, and almost single-handedly killed the “culture of corruption” storyline Democrats wanted to use this fall.

Being a public relations liability for the Democratic Party in an election year has far more to do with his ouster than does the color of his skin.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:53 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "William Jefferson has quickly become the image in many peopleÂ’s mind when they think of corrupt politicians" You're using selective memory. Of all the congressional corruption that has come to light recently, Jefferson and Mollohan are the only Dems I know of, and both of them have been sanctioned. It's not fair to say that the Dems ousted Jefferson and Mollohan for PR -- it was after all the right thing to do, and I'm glad they did it. Look at the Repubs. Cunninham didn't quit until he pleaded quilty. Jerry Lewis, R-CA is Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. He sure looks guilty, yet he's in good standing. There's a defense contractor CEO named Tom Casey who claims the Lewis told him to give Bill Lowery stock options in exchange for Lewis passing on an earmark, and that's only the beginning. You will be a better citizen of this country if you can let go of the childish notion that one party is god-like and the other is vile and useless. There are good and bad Democrats and Republicans.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 17, 2006 07:32 AM (DixoE)

2 Of all the congressional corruption that has come to light recently, Jefferson and Mollohan are the only Dems I know of... How quickly the left forgets why Alcee Hasting is a congressman rather than still a Federal judge. Of course, now he's more careful about his corruption after having been impeached and removed as a judge.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 17, 2006 10:46 AM (LnS+d)

3 Purple Avenger -- How quickly the left forgets why Alcee Hasting is a congressman rather than still a Federal judge. Of course, now he's more careful about his corruption after having been impeached and removed as a judge. I'm not sure who that is. Okay, there are three crooked Democrats. I don't doubt that there are a lot more. However the Dems are making clear steps to address their corruption, and it's wrong to call it PR. By the way, Denny Hastert is a crook too. I wonder if they'll ask him to step down? By the way, I don't know much about the site this comes from; if what they say is factually wrong, fine, but don't give me any grief about the site being too liberal or whatever (I'm not a reader, I followed a link to it) without saying how the facts are incorrect. It sure looks damning.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 17, 2006 10:25 PM (DixoE)

4 Dangit the link disappeared on me. Here it is again: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/15/hastert-pictures-of-corruption/

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 17, 2006 10:26 PM (DixoE)

5 Mollohan went from about 500,000 to 26 million in four years. What is it that you think the public doesn't understand about this Conbgressman. While I have little use for tyhe BC in this case they may be right.

Posted by: Thomas J. Jackson at June 17, 2006 11:00 PM (A7X8u)

6 If you don't know who Alcee Hasting is, then you've been hiding uder a rock for many years.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 17, 2006 11:35 PM (LnS+d)

7 Purple Avenger -- you see I'm not defending the Democrats, I'm attacking the Republicans. I can't even keep track of them any more: Frist, DeLay, Hastert, Lewis, Pombo, Ney, Safavian, Abramoff, Cunningham,... it just goes on and on and reaches congressional leadership and above. I don't follow Florida's 23rd ditrict, but like I said, I'll assume you're right and that Hastings is a crook. The Dems have made concrete steps to discipline Jefferson. The Republicans did nothing about all the guys above I mentioned. Go on and explain to me how the Dems are behind the corruption in Washington.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 18, 2006 10:50 AM (DixoE)

8 Oh for crying out loud..........they're ALL crooks. If they weren't, they'd have REAL jobs like salesmen, managers, or crack dealers instead of megalomaniacal politicians. Let's get an amendment passed for Congressional term limits NOW and kill this nonsense for good.

Posted by: Thrill at June 18, 2006 05:31 PM (DYb4r)

9 The Republicans did nothing about all the guys above I mentioned Seems to me Cunningham recently checked into the Greybar hotel. The Dems have made concrete steps to discipline Jefferson. The man was caught red handed taking 100 large in cash. Concrete steps would be booting him out on his ass.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 18, 2006 06:12 PM (LnS+d)

10 PA -- Cunningham quit congress the day he was indicted. His example serves my argument, not yours; he was obviously guilty and the Republican leadership should have leaned on him to quit, but they didn't do anything apparently. I hope the Dems do lean on Jefferson to quit before he's indicted. I'm glad they stripped him of his committee. I don't know what the rules are for forcing a congressman out.

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 18, 2006 07:20 PM (DixoE)

11 *snicker* You do realize that the words you attach to the linnk become bold, right CY? I loaded your site and 'tossed off' kinda jumped off the page. I was thinking, "Good Lord, what is Jefferson doing now!"

Posted by: Kevin at June 18, 2006 08:56 PM (+hkUo)

12 My favorite line on this: "we judge Rep. Jefferson not by the color of his skin but by the content of his freezer."

Posted by: Foobarista at June 18, 2006 09:45 PM (0IxK6)

13 Only one crooked democrat? Not according to documented offenses on NoAgenda.org . Extra edition, Read all about it. LMAO at the dim-wit's attempts to cover up their 'culture of corruption', blame it on the other guy rants. Easy money makes criminal out of a lot of people. Look at the leaders of the largest industries/stock markets in the 90's. Thousand of people who didn't need the money stole money from the investors, and a lot of it (World Com) was hyped by Algore as a good investment. If you're one of the hundreds of thousands that lost your retirement accounts and/or life saving to the 'Slick Willie' era criminals you know first hand how honest(sic) the dim-wits are.

Posted by: Scrapiron at June 19, 2006 11:33 AM (Ffvoi)

14 Scrapiron -- I don't understand. I didn't say there was one crooked Dem. How can you believe there's more Dem corruption now than Repub? That's ludicrous. Hastert, DeLay, Cunningham, Lewis, Ney, Pombo, Safavian, Libby, Abramoff... I can't even keep track, that's just off the top of my head. I know Jefferson is a crook, and somebody said there's another one named Hastings. What are you talking about?

Posted by: Cyrus McElderry at June 19, 2006 01:02 PM (DixoE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Despite the shrill cries to the contrary, the Iraqi War is part of the War on Terror, as occasional C.Y. poster Ray Robinson shows with further analysis of newly-translated documents linking Saddam with the Taliban (bold in original):

I am the one who started with this issue, the relation between Taliban and Iraq, and it is our idea. The brothers in Afghanistan are facing the pressure of America, and are struggling against America and aim to have some connections between Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is a good start to establish the relations with Iraq and Libya and our association has taken this responsibility upon her. I already met with Mr. the Vice-President and the previous head of the directorate, may God rest his soul (translator's note: apparently the head of the directorate passed away) and both proposed that Hekmatyar and the Taliban should get to an agreement. I spoke with the Taliban about this issue and they started meeting with delegations from the Islamic Party, and I met Mullah Omar and his reply was positive.

As a party, our stand is that there should be an agreement between the Taliban and the rest of the opposition, Shah Ahmad Massoud and Rabbani. And Mullah Omar said that we are looking towards this and that (not clear) and (not clear) and Ahmad Al Kilani and Jalal Al Din Hakkani do not oppose us. Therefore, Hekmatyar is on the positive way but we are in a war situation and that needs a lot of trust, and there are hurdles to this because he fought us and killed us and he has problems with the opposition in the North and with us. After repeated contacts we will reach an agreement, but in the form of steps. Concerning the relations with Iraq, he said that they are our brothers and Muslims and are facing pressures from America, like us and like Sudan and Libya. And he (Mullah Omar) desires to get closer relations with Iraq and that Iraq may help us in reducing our problems. Now we are facing America and Russia. He requested the possibility of Iraq intervening to build a friendship with Russia since Russia is no more the number one enemy. And we request Iraq's help from a brotherly point of view. They are ready for this matter and they prefer that the relation between Iraq and Taliban be an independent relation from Hekmatyar's relation with the Taliban. We want practical steps concerning this issue and especially the relationship with the Taliban and (not clear, but could be Iraq).

Robinson then supplies analysis of the translation, including this description of the meeting:

So it seems possible the IIS Chief died just prior to this meeting and the Maulana is meeting with the new IIS chief. The new IIS chief would have been Tahir Jalil Habbush al Tikriti, who according to the Multi-National Forces' Iraq Web site as of January, 2006 is still listed as “at large.” Of course, if he has not been captured, it is reasonable to assume he has not been interrogated.

Tahir Jalil Habbush al Tikriti came to public attention in December, 2003 when the Telegraph UK reported Terrorist Behind September 11th Strike was Trained by Saddam.

Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in U.S. history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.

In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".

Atta, of course, led the 9/11 attacks.

Saddam to al Tikriti to Atta. A strong link from Iraq to 9/11. Add this to evidence that Saddam gave money and housing to Abdul Rahman Yasin, the 1993 World Trade Center bomb builder, and I'd say that you're looking at evidence that Saddam was linked to attacks on the World Trade Center not once, but twice.

"Illegal war?"

I think not.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:29 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 744 words, total size 5 kb.

Almost a month ago I ripped into ex-Marine John Murtha for unequivocally stating that a unit of Marines had "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" after an IED blast killed a fellow Marine in Haditha, Iraq.

I stated:

First off, it is unconscionable for any legislator to accuse U.S. military personnel of multiple counts of premeditated murder before an investigation into these charges is complete. Prosecutions must proceed at their own logical pace as evidence in the case dictates. Premature accusations by a public figure in such a case imposes an artificial timeline, endangering the accuracy and thoroughness of an investigation.

At the same time, such heated rhetoric as charges of murder of "innocent civilians in cold blood" is prejudicial against the defendants, poisoning public opinion against them. This would be an explosive charge in a civilian court, but to make such charges against members of the U.S. Military when they are engaged in military operations in that country is absolutely fissionable.

An attorney for one of the Haditha Marines apparently agrees, and states that if his client is charged, he will call Murtha as a witness:

A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.

Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.
Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.

"Unlawful command influence." Let that sink in. According to United States vs. Gore, No. 03-6003, 60 MJ 178 (and summarized here), unlawful command influence:

• is recognized as the mortal enemy of military justice;
• tends to deprive service members of their constitutional rights;
• if directed against prospective defense witnesses, it transgresses the accused's right to have access to favorable evidence.

John Murtha took the extraordinary step of accusing Marines of a war crime before the investigation was complete, and perhaps has compromised justice in this process entirely. Someone should ask Murtha if his political grandstanding was worth becoming the "mortal enemy of military justice" and jeopardizing the constitutional rights of these Marines. Someone should, but they aren't likely to get an answer. According the author of the Times article, Murtha's spokesman did not return a call seeking comment.

Apparently too late, ex-Marine John Murtha has finally learned to shut up.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:32 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 4 kb.

The June 14, 2006 NY Times editorial Detainees in Despair Op-ed by Mourad Benchellali was lapped up unquestioningly by liberal blogs, who used the editorial to decry the evils of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

On June 15, 2006, a NY Times news story states that the Benchellali family was convicted in France of trying to build chemical weapons for attacks on Paris landmarks. Convicted so far are his father, mother, two brothers, and 19 other people.

Does anyone doubt that Mourad would have been in the middle of the French terrorist plot with the rest of his family if he weren't cooling his heels in Gitmo?

I sense a new marketing campaign by the Adminstration:

"Guantanamo Bay: Keeping terrorists out of the prisons they deserve to be in since 2002."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

While Glenn Reynolds seems to have sailed through Tropical Storm Alberto without any problems, we're not having it quite as easy here in central North Carolina. The following pictures are pulled from from NCDOT cameras and viewer-submited photos at WRAL-TV.com.

Crabtree Valley Mall in Raleigh is, for understandable reasons, closed...

A closer look of parking near the mall shows that anchoring is more of an issue than parking.

If you want to cross Trinty Road, you'd better be able to part the waters.

A front yard in Cary (the Containment Area for Relocated Yankees, according to Wikipedia), just south of Raleigh finds itself suddenly overwatered.

With a total of 4-8 inches of rain expected to drop before Albero clears the area, the commute home promises to be entertaining, to say the least.

Aren't we lucky this wasn't a "real storm?"

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:23 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 2 kb.

...sometimes you don't:

The leaders of the state's Democratic and Republican parties have asked voters not to cast ballots for state Supreme Court candidate Rachel Lea Hunter, whose fiery rhetoric in recent weeks has included comparing the actions of a black congressional candidate to that of a slave.

"She's unstable and unqualified, and the thought of her serving on the highest court in North Carolina is scary," state Republican party chairman Ferrell Blount said Tuesday.

Blount's comments came after Hunter, a former Republican running as a Democrat, used the title "Dur Fuhrer" -- commonly associated with Nazi leader Adolf Hitler -- when referring to state Democratic party chief Jerry Meek.

Hunter's sanity—or lack thereof—might also be indicated by links on her site (to which I refuse to link), to liber-nut-arian Lew Rockwell, presumably some of whose Gary North-oriented readers would stone to death another odd duck /paleocon/libertarian she supports, Justin Raimondo. She also links to a "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy site, and perhaps not surprisingly, Cindy Sheehan's organization.

I personally have no problem with "Madame Justice" (as she like to call herself) being part of the court system, I just think she belongs on the other side of the bench—perhaps in a competency hearing.

Captain Ed and Allah have commented on the wannabe Justice as well.

Note: She'll still probably win in Chapel Hill (motto: "Left of center, right out of our minds").

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 247 words, total size 2 kb.