Bumped to the top
12/30/06 00:55 EST: I have it on good authority that Saddam was executed at 4:22 AM... and every media source on the planet is wrong about the 6:00 AM execution.

Previously:

1:54 EST: Just got a reconfirmation from my source minutes ago. Saddam Hussein has about two hours to live, with a midnight execution still scheduled.

2:20: EST: Corroboration.

3:04 EST: Source: "they're gearing up, but logistics could put it in the wee hours after midnight. Absolutely no later than dawn, which is close to midnight our time. The Iraqis are not always as punctual as the U.S. military."

3:08 EST: Source: "It's still entirely possible he'll be dead within the hour. The curtain of secrecy draws tighter as the hour draws nearer. "

Note: this will be my final update until the deed is done-- CY.

According to an anonymous source, the former President of Iraq will be executed by hanging at 12:00 AM midnight Baghdad-time on Saturday/4:00 PM EST Friday afternoon at an undisclosed location.

If my source is correct, Saddam Hussein is facing his final sunrise.

Update:

Sooner, Rather than Later?

Update: Fox News confirms that Hussein's death sentence has been signed, and that Saddam will be executed by Saturday.

Update: What Saddam's impending death means to Jules Crittenden.

Update: Fox News confirms that Hussein's death sentence has been signed, and that Saddam will be executed by Saturday.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:55 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 243 words, total size 2 kb.

It isn't likely that you needed a litmus test to gauge the widely divergent viewpoints on the Iraq War, but on the off chance that you did, Senator Joe Lieberman provided it in spades in an op-ed published in today's Washington Post calling for more American troops to be sent to Iraq.

Reaction on both sides is as you might expect it, both from conservative bloggers, and from liberals.

Blogging from the right with a soldier-son in Iraq, Gaius at Blue Crab Boulevard:

My son and I were talking the other day about troop levels. Frankly, there should have been more on the ground sooner. That is looking back with 20/20 hindsight, of course. It is vital right now not to simply abandon the Middle East to Iran's ambitions. Yet that is what some want to do.

From Dan Collins at the libertarian-rightish Protein Wisdom:

In his opinion piece in the WaPo today, Independent Senator from Connecticut Joe Lieberman says the *gasp!* V-Word! HeÂ’s so over the line he's, he's . . . why, he's trans-neoconic! If you've no better source of entertainment today, you can watch the sinistrosphere go ballistic over the temerity of the man...

...If he runs for president, I think he's got my vote.

From Paul Silver at the moderate—what else?—Moderate Voice:

I agree with Senator Lieberman's commentary today in the Washington Post...

...Yes this war has been mismanaged, it is inconvenient, and it is expensive. And yes we may lose it still. But I can't support abandoning so many millions of people that WE put in harms way by surrendering them to ethnic cleansing. I feel shame when the most powerful society in history abandoned so many freedom loving southeast Asians after the Vietnam War, when we ignore those in Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia and other killing fields.

I would be willing to pay higher taxes and volunteer once a week in a military base to allow trained soldiers to go over there, because I believe this is necessary and worth the sacrifice.

From Steve Clemons at the reliably left-wing Huffington Post:

Senator Lieberman just spent 10 days in the Middle East and still does not get it. He's penned an op-ed calling for more deployed American troops in Iraq.

It's a remarkable essay for just how anti-empirical it is and how he can so easily waft platitudes about America's engagement in the region after actually seeing the miserable results of more than three and half years of military occupation of Iraq by us...

...Many critics of this war -- including this blogger -- always worried that our engagement would trigger a regional conflagration and that removing Iran's "balancer" would have huge effects throughout the Middle East and fuel Iran's pretensions as a hegemonic force. Where is Lieberman's confession that he and others were warned of this and didn't see it coming?

And what really irritates is his depiction of the extremists, who he inappropriately ties to Iran. The extremists in many cases are angry Sunnis who want their place back in society, who despise Iran and now the Shiites as well as us.

Lieberman should have seen in Iraq that America is now supporting the guy Iran wants -- al-Maliki. Lieberman's entire depiction of the good and the bad in Iraq are ridiculous and remind one of Soviet era depictions of the enemy in Afghanistan...

...Senator Lieberman, let their be no doubt that the outcome you fear was totally predictable -- and was triggered by you and the other enablers of this war. Where is your humility and your own ownership of the consequences of what you have unleashed? Where is your realistic answer to what must be done to establish a NEW equilibrium of interests in the region?

Glenn Greenwald sees this as a declaration of war on Iran:

In his Washington Post Op-Ed today, the Great Warrior Joe Lieberman predictably endorsed sending more troops to Iraq, in the process dutifully spouting (as always) every Bush/neoconservative talking point. But Lieberman had a much larger fish to fry with this Op-Ed, as he all but declared war on Iran, identifying them as the equivalent of Al Qaeda, as the Real Enemy we are fighting...

...One might question why someone who is one of the most vocal advocates of the Iraq Disaster would seek to expand the war to include Iran, a country much larger and more formidable on every level than Iraq. After all, things aren't going that well in Iraq, and it might seem to a simplistic and Chamberlain-like appeasing coward that the absolutely most insane idea ever is to try to expand "our war" to include Iran. So what would motivate Lieberman to do this?

He then goes on to make the snide, roundabout case—and no, I'm not be facetious—that Liebermann is doing this because the Israelis told him too:

Initially, it must be emphasized that whatever his reason is, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the sentiments expressed by Israel's newest cabinet minister, Avigdor Lieberman (whose duties include strategic affairs and Iran) when he visited the U.S. earlier this month and gave an interview to The New York Times:

"Our first task is to convince Western countries to adopt a tough approach to the Iranian problem," which he called "the biggest threat facing the Jewish people since the Second World War." [Minister] Lieberman insisted that negotiations with Iran were worthless: "The dialogue with Iran will be a 100-percent failure, just like it was with North Korea."

Joe Lieberman's desire for the U.S. to view itself as being at war with Iran also has nothing whatsoever to do with this:

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Friday compared Iran's nuclear ambitions and threats against Israel with the policies of Nazi Germany and criticized world leaders who maintain relations with Iran's president...

Israel has identified Iran as the greatest threat to the Jewish state. Israel's concerns have heightened since the election of Iran's hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who frequently calls for the destruction of Israel and has questioned whether the Nazi genocide of 6 million Jews took place.

"We hear echoes of those very voices that started to spread across the world in the 1930s," Olmert said in his speech at the Yad Vashem memorial.

And yes, he's serious as Glenn Ryan Wilson Ellers Ellison Ellensburg Greenwald can be.

And for a final left-wing viewpoint, Matthew Yglesias:

And what about al-Qaeda? Lieberman appears to be arguing later in the article that Iran and al-Qaeda are collaborating in Iraq since otherwise it's hard to make sense of the claim that "If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism." Needless to say, he's backing the Bush/McCain escalation plan.

One problem here is that to the extent you see the dark hand of Iran behind all events in Iraq, the situation should logically be viewed as more rather than less hopeless. The reason, of course, is that Iran can escalate every bit as much as we can. Whoever's equipping, say, the Mahdi Army clearly isn't equipping them very well -- Hezbollah is much better-armed. Suppose we escalate and the Iranians counter-escalate by giving our foes wire-guided anti-tank missiles, katyusha rockets, Iglas and so forth -- then you're talking about a really bad scene. Obviously, though, that's logic and hawks aren't into logic.

And though I am a hawk—and therefore by definition "not into logic" according to Yglesias—I'll do my best to muddle through these divergent viewpoints and attempt to get to whatever apparent meat remains upon this proverbial bone.

From the center-right, the perspective seems to be that we did not go into Iraq with enough forces initially. We went in with enough military force to destroy Saddam HusseinÂ’s military dictatorship, but not enough military and non-military forces to occupy the country and create stability in which a fledgling democracy could be established. I think few will argue with this perspective, as current events indicate that is precisely what appears to have occurred, as we currently have an Iraqi dictatorship that was quickly toppled in just weeks in 2003, only to fall into a worsening chaos afterward.

From this perspective, many conservatives—but certainly not all, by any means—hope that a influx of American troops can be used in some way to stop the near-constant escalation of sectarian violence in several key Iraqi provinces, and also dismantle various elements of the Sunni insurgency, terrorist groups, the Shia militias, and various criminal gangs. I, for one, agree with something Senator Liebermann said in his op-ed, that, "More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite." If it is possible to win in Iraq—and no honest person can claim to have God's knowledge and unequivocally say this war can’t be won, or is already lost—then providing stability is indeed a prerequisite, and sending in more soldiers is the only option to help achieve that goal.

The "reality-based community" maintains that it has a crystal ball and that the war is already lost. This, of course is a ludicrous position, speaking of the future as if it is known, but a popular and perhaps prevailing one on the left nonetheless. The fact is, though they are loathe to admit it, that the American left wants to lose the War in Iraq. If the situation is turned around in Iraq, stability is restored and Iraq becomes some sort of non-belligerent representative and economically viable Middle Eastern democracy, then the far Left's rhetoric of the past six years will have been proven false. To maintain the viability of their ideology, the Bush Doctrine, and therefore the U.S. military forces and Iraqi government, must fail. It is a sad position that the Left has backed themselves into, but they are campaigning against victory in Iraq, putting their own psychological and philosophical needs above the lives of 26 million Iraqis.

This most certainly is the case, as that is the only way that Greenwald go to such extremes as to “blame the Jews” in almost Sheehanesque shrillness, while purposefully ignoring the fact that Iran has escalated the disagreements between our two nations to the level of conflict, and on multiple occasions.

In Bob WoodwardÂ’s State of Denial, he states (via NRO):

Pages 414-415: "Some evidence indicated that the Iranian-backed terrorist group Hezbollah was training insurgents to build and use the shaped IED's, at the urging of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. That kind of action was arguably an act of war by Iran against the United States. If we start putting out everything we know about these things, Zelikow felt, the administration might well start a fire it couldn't put out..."

Page 449: "The components and the training for (the IEDs) had more and more clearly been traced to Iran, one of the most troubling turns in the war."

Page 474ß: "The radical Revolutionary Guards Corps had asked Hizbollah, the terrorist organization, to conduct some of the training of Iraqis to use the EFPs, according to U.S. Intelligence. If all this were put out publicly, it might start a fire that no one could put out...Second, if it were true, it meant that Iranians were killing American soldiers — an act of war..."

From the same column, former FBI director Louis Freeh:

It's not the first time we have had information about Iran's murder of Americans. Louis Freeh tells us that the same thing happened following the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. On page 18 of Freeh's My FBI he reports that Saudi Ambassador Bandar told Freeh "we have the goods," pointing "ineluctably towad Iran." The culprits were the same as in Iraq: Hezbollah, under direction from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence. And then there was a confession from outgoing Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani to Crown Prince Abdullah (at the time, effectively the Saudi king): page 19: "the Khobar attack had been planned and carried out with the knowledge of the Iranian supreme ruler, Ayatollah Khamenei."

As Freeh puts it, "this had been an act of war against the United States of America."

According to ABC News, Iranian-made explosives of recent manufacture have been captured at the Iran-Iraq border. Iranian fighters have recently been captured northeast of Baghdad after a skirmish with U.S. and Iraqi soldiers.

Greenwald is welcome to his own opinion, but he seems intent on creating his own reality as well, where Iran is not acting against us. Clemons takes the exact same approach, stating, Liebermann "inappropriately ties" Iran to some of the violence in Iraq. This takes a strong adherence to ideology over facts, and yet, this seems to be precisely their shared position. It is just one example of many they ignore or bend to bring "reality" to their "reality-based" community.

I offer only this.

I do not claim to have a crystal ball. I do not pretend to know where the war will lead. I do not pretend to know the outcome. What I do know, however, is that we further broke an already failing nation-state, and did much to create the situation in which the citizens of Iraq find themselves in. When someone creates a problem as we have done with the botched occupation we have witnessed so far, we have an obligation, a responsibility, to do everything within reason to help rectify that mistake.

If sending additional forces to Iraq in a so-called "surge" to attempt to break the militias, insurgents, terrorists and thugs is what the situation calls for, then we owe it—yes we owe it—to the overwhelming majority of the 26 million Iraqi people that simply want to live peaceful lives.

To do otherwise is to dishonor our nation, and the lives of those who fought and who are fighting in Iraq.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:51 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 2322 words, total size 15 kb.

...Shouldn't throw stones:

[Ahmadinejad] toured cities in western Iran, telling the crowds that Iran will not be intimidated by Western demands to dismantle its nuclear program, and scolding Bush.

"Oh, the respectful gentleman, get out of the glassy palace and know that you are the most hated person in the eyes of the world's nations and you can't harm the Iranian nation," Ahmadinejad said, according to the official Iranian Republic News Agency.

Glassy. Iranian nation. Ahmadinejad.

Barring a major change in Iranian politics and rhetoric, I think we'll see all three of those in a sentence again in the near future.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

Via the Blotter:

British intelligence and law enforcement officials have passed on a grim assessment to their U.S. counterparts, "It will be a miracle if there isn't a terror attack over the holidays in London," a senior American law enforcement official tells ABCNews.com.

British police have been quietly carrying out a series of key arrests as they continue to track at least six active "plots" tied to what they call "al Qaeda of England."

Officials said they could not cite any specific date or target but said al Qaeda had planned previous operations during the Christmas holidays that had been disrupted.

"It is not a matter of if there will be an attack, but how bad the attack will be," an intelligence official told ABCNews.com.

Authorities say they are seeking at least 18 suspected suicide bombers.

Well, isn't that just peachy.

Terrorism isn't rocket science, folks, and al Qaeda has a track record of loving the classics. If al Qaeda is plotting to hit London over the holidays with suicide bombers, figure on trains, planes, and TATP.

TATP, shorthand from triacetone triperoxide, is a powerful and unstable "homebrew" explosive used in the successful subway and bus bombings in London on July 7, 2005, and four failed bombings exactly two weeks later where the TATP used, thought to come from the same batch of explosives, failed to detonate.

I question the timing, and I mean that quite seriously. If these rumored terrorists are indeed plotting a Christmastime attack, it would seem that at least part of the goal would be to drive a deeper wedge between British Muslim "other" and the overwhelming majority of a too-politically correct and predominately Anglo-Christian nation.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:50 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

So the cheesesteak-eating surrender monkey declares that "Militarily we have lost" in Vietnam Iraq. A bold declaration, considering we've never lost more than a skirmish. For anyone familiar with Murtha, these pronouncements are the typical, defeatist, and dishonest rhetoric we've come to expect from him. He has no desire to win any conflict against terrorism, and has staked his political future on a U.S defeat. Ideologically, he surrendered long ago.

That said, Col. Abscam does illustrate a point; we do tend to be quite myopic, and focus on military success as the be-all, end-all measurement of success or failure in Iraq. In particular, our media and leaders seem focused lately almost exclusively on the rise and fall sectarian violence in Baghdad. While Baghdad, as Iraq's largest city and capital is undoubtedly the single most recognizable city in Iraq, does it necessarily follow that images of conflict in Baghdad accurately reflect the state of the nation?

The simple fact is that there are other factors affecting the success or failure of the Iraqi State, and many of these events are happening outside of the Iraqi capital.

One of those "other factors" is the state of the overall Iraqi economy, which as the media will not readily tell you, is booming:

In my December 10th entry, I observed that the Iraqi economy is doing quite well. I wrote, "This economic news also shows is that Iraqi nation may be slowly evolving into three federal sections since most of the economic progress is happening outside the Baghdad." Newsweek is now reporting what others such as Strategypage.com have been showing for the past couple of years, the Iraqi's economy is booming. And just as I wrote, much of this is occurring is outside Baghdad. Newsweek reports, "With security improving in one key spot—the southern oilfields—that figure could go up." But this is not all. Newsweek added, "Even so, there's a vibrancy at the grass roots that is invisible in most international coverage of Iraq. Partly it's the trickle-down effect. However it's spent, whether on security or something else, money circulates. Nor are ordinary Iraqis themselves short on cash. That's boosted economic activity, particularly in retail. Imported goods have grown increasingly affordable, thanks to the elimination of tariffs and trade barriers. Salaries have gone up more than 100 percent since the fall of Saddam, and income-tax cuts (from 45 percent to just 15 percent) have put more cash in Iraqi pockets." What Newsweek is describing supply side economy and guess what, it works in the United States, and it works in Iraq!

The Futurist was even more bold, building upon work done by the Brookings Institute's Iraq Index and a summary of their report, making the case that Coalition forces and the Iraqi government will defeat the insurgency in 2008 in two posts:

We Will Decisively Win in Iraq...in 2008 - Part I

All three of these blog posts hit upon the fact that the burgeoning economic successes felt by Iraqis will push them to desire more stability. Is this a logical thought process?

I'd argue that these theories make sense in a westernized mind. If I have little or nothing, I'll be willing to fight to get something, if just to provide the basics for my family. If I'm doing well, however, and see the potential of doing even better (Iraq has the fastest growing economy in the Middle East), then I'm going to want to be able to enjoy that prosperity. That thought process works for me, but what we don't yet know is if that thought process applies to Iraqis, probably because we simply don't understand the Iraqis more than we understand any other Middle Eastern culture.

Hopefully, that gap in cultural understanding will eventually begin to close and the War on Terror will transition away from physical to information battlefields if our leaders are smart enough to follow the advice in this lengthy but informative George Packer article. Eric Martin builds on the Packer article with points certainly worth considering, though I'm not certain if either man is 100% correct.

Taken all together, and combined with reading the extended works of embedded journalists Yon, Fumento, Totten, Roggio, and others, and we're forced towards a disturbing series of conclusions.

First, the Iraq War was a decisive military victory in 2003, but since that time, American civilian and military leadership has utterly failed to understand the nature of the insurgent and terrorist conflicts, or how to address it on a strategic level.

The Iraq War and larger War on Terror are information wars that our leaders have expressed little interest in, or aptitude for. We (and I include myself here) have for far too long fundamentally considered the War on Terror to be a military endeavor, and certainly there is an important military role to be played in defeating Islamic extremists. The truism remains that the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

The problem remains, that for far too long we've simply relied upon killing people once they've metastasized into terrorists; if we follow the advice of those mentioned in Packer's article and others to learn the culture and social networks of the societies that generate our enemies, we can possibly take steps to prevent them from becoming militants by defeating jihadist organizations ideologically. We don't necessarily have to make them like us as so many dhimmis in the United States and especially Europe seem inclined, we simply need to make the effort to understand what triggers those who dislike us to make the jump to acting against us, and eliminate that trigger mechanism.

Despite the lamentations of the defeat-minded media, Democratic politicians and a liberal pundit class under the delusion that a U.S. defeat in Iraq is (a.) inevitable, and (b.) something they can turn to their political advantage; we seem to have a very strong chance of winning in Iraq if we can change our perceptions of how best to fight both this war, and the larger War on Terror.

Despite the increasingly apparent strategic incompetence displayed thus far by our civilian and senior military leadership, our soldiers and marines in the field have performed brilliantly on the tactical level, enabling us to achieve unqualified tactical victories in any direct conflict with terrorist or insurgent forces in Iraq. As MTTs (Military Transition Teams) work with Iraqi Army units impart discipline, professionalism and tactics, the Iraqis are increasing responsible for finding, engaging and killing "Ali Babba"—their term for insurgents—on their own. As a result, we've been able to maintain a stalemate in Iraq, even as we've thus far refused to act against the Syrian and Iranian governments supplying the various insurgency, terrorist, criminal and sectarian forces focused on Balkanizing the country.

Without a doubt, we can win in Iraq. The problem is that we don't seem to be directing our military where they would be the most effective, nor are we doing the other necessary things discussed in Parker's article to personalize and localize success through non-military means.

There are still some major combat operations yet to be waged—al-Sadr's Madhi Army being an almost certain target, and belligerents Iran and Syria are on the horizon and angling towards a direct conflict —but as our MTTs become more skilled at imparting knowledge, the need for U.S. soldiers in direct combat roles should decline, even if the overall number of troops remains close to current levels.

We do do the right things in fits and starts. Today, we handed over Najaf to the Iraqis. In Ramadi, where despite the comparative absence of media attention when compared to Baghdad, the real war against the worst elements of the Sunni insurgency is being fought and won, block by block, over time.

Unfortunately, as time goes on, it seems that our leaders and institutions are unwilling to change, and our population too fickle, to commit to the adaptation of the kind of paradigm shift needed to fight an information-based war that as a media nation, we are quite well-suited to win. As we did in World War II, we seem committed to winning though our overwhelming industrial might and inertia. That is an important element of an eventual victuroy,but we are not in a shooting World War. We could potentially accomplish far more with subtle and not so subtle cultural methods than we could with riflemen and tanks.

Draft Hollywood. Have David Zucker and his equivalents releasing Arab-language satire mocking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Muqtada al-Sadr, and Osama bin Laden. Have conspiracy theory-minded director Oliver Stone deliver a JFK focusing on the Machiavellian schemes of Hassan Nasrallah and Bashar Assad, release it in Lebanon, and see how popular Hezbollah remains.

Lend Hollywood behind-the-scenes talents to Middle Eastern casts in pro-Arab democracy, anti-insurgency, anti-terrorist, and anti-Sharia films and television shows. We are well equipped to succeed in a propaganda war in venues large and small, and yet we do not fight this battle, acting if propaganda is a dishonorable way to wage a conflict between cultures, even as the enemy uses those same methods to combat us through our own complacent and perhaps willing media.

At this point, if we win in Iraq, it will be despite our Administration, which does not seem to understand key elements of the non-military conflict. It will be despite a Democratic Party that still does not seem to be able to see beyond the short-term political scraps it can lap up placating a disgruntled populace. If we win, it will be despite a media that either does not know, or does not care, how they are being used to fight against the very democracies that allow them to thrive.

No, if we win in Iraq, the victory will go to the Iraqi people, and the ability of the American soldier, sailor, airman and marines to outlast the incompetence of old generals fighting past wars and politicians more concerned about fighting each other for fickle public opinion.

We can win in Iraq, and indeed we may yet, but it will come in spite of our leadership, not because of it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:19 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 1693 words, total size 11 kb.

Several days ago, Allahpundit caught a potentially important L.A. Times article which purports to outline "the way forward" in Iraq (my bold):

As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to "double down" in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.

Allah keyed in on the same phrase I did in the lede, and notes:

They want as many as 40,000 more troops and, to make sure no one’s going to call off the dogs once they’re unleashed, a shuffle within the Iraqi government, which is almost certainly what Bush’s meeting with Iraq’s Sunni vice president was about yesterday. Some experts are knocking the plan on grounds that you can’t kill your way to victory here. You can’t not kill your way to victory either, though — we tried that by turning al-Sadr onto politics and look where it got us. Gen. Chiarelli wants to split the difference by introducing an aggressive jobs program alongside the military maneuvers to give would-be jihadists an alternative to fighting.

Greg Tini hits similar point at the new TomDelay.com blog, and Charles Krauthammer concludes in a column at Townhall.com:

Â…the president has one last chance to come forward with a new strategy.

He must do two things. First, as I've been agitating, establish a new governing coalition in Baghdad that excludes Moqtada al-Sadr, a cancer that undermines the Maliki government's ability to work with us. It is encouraging that the president has already begun such a maneuver by meeting with rival Shiite and Sunni parliamentary leaders. If we help produce a cross-sectarian government that would be an ally rather than a paralyzed semi-adversary of coalition forces, we should then undertake part two: "double down" our military effort. This means a surge in American troops with a specific mission: to secure Baghdad and (together with the support of the Baghdad government -- a sine qua non) suppress Sadr's Mahdi Army.

It is our last chance for success. Bush can thank the ISG and its instant irrelevance for making it possible.

For the very few of you needing a refresher, Muqtada al-Sadr is the 33-year-old fourth son of a famous Iraqi Shiite Grand Ayatollah, and the grandson of another (Wiki yourself silly if you want his life story). He lacks the education to claim any sort of formal religious authority, and has built a following based on his family's name. In that regard, he's like a sober Ted Kennedy, and roughly as loyal.

While al-Sadr's family has traditionally drawn support in Najaf and Basra, Muqtada draws must of his support from the Baghdad slum of Sadr City (formally Saddam City), and this is likely where al-Sadr's forces, the Mahdi Army, will make their stand.

This is Sadr City.

click to enlarge

Sadr City is a dense slum of some 2 million mostly Shiite souls crammed into 8 square miles of dilapidated public housing, where electricity is sporadic, sewage runs in the streets, and death squads routinely dump the bodies of their victims.

A description of Sadr City from GlobalSecurity.Org:

Sadr City is subdivided into six sections. The district is one of the poorest in Baghdad. Unemployment is rampant. Homes are in disrepair. The population consists mostly of Shiite Moslems. It is also a haven for criminals released from Iraqi prisons by Saddam shortly before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Sadr City, built by Saddam Hussein, was the scene of numerous confrontations between coalition forces and residents in 2003. Infrastructure problems still plague portions of the district. Electrical services are intermittent. Parts of some streets in some neighborhoods are flooded with sewage from long-neglected pipes. Trash pickup stopped during the war, and residents started dumping their trash on the medians in the potholed streets.

To get an idea of the "lay of the land" in Sadr City, look at the series of 17 photos provided by the Christian Peacemaker Teams from 2005.

This is a map view of Sadr City.

A larger view (source) of the map from which this was drawn shows Baghdad's Green Zone in the bottom left corner of the picture, on the east bank of the Tigris River. Sadr City is bordered to the northeast by a substantial canal, the Ishbiliyah neighborhood and the Army Canal to the southwest, and mostly undeveloped areas in the northwest and southeast.

* * *

Any attempt by U.S. and Iraqi Army forces to enter Sadr City and hunt down the Madhi Army militia is going to draw immediate comparisons to the 2004 Battle of Fallujah. Having just read an excellent detailed account of a Marine perspective of that battle in We Were One, I think I can honestly say, without any sense of humor or irony, that any battle in Sadr City will be exactly like Fallujah's Operation Phantam Fury, but completely different. That statement is not as Berra-ish as it may sound.

Sadr City is far more compact than Fallujah. Thanks to geography, it is theoretically easier to cordon off (and the last time they did, sectarian violence dropped sharply), and once segregated into quadrants, set up for combat or search operations.

Whether Sadr City becomes another urban moonscape, or is instead something far less intense, is very much up to al Sadr and the loose affiliates of the Madhi Army.

If they opt for a showdown, we could see extremely intense urban fighting. It would not be out of the realm of possibility to see significant U.S. casualties in this kind of close-quarters fighting, but the toll on the Madhi Army would likely be catastrophic. The Army and Marines have had two years to study the lessons learned from the assault on Fallujah, and adapt tactics, techniques, and rules of engagement. Estimates vary wildly on the number of terrorist casualties in Phantom Fury, but 1,200-1,600 killed and roughly half that number captured are the numbers from a force in the mid-thousands is most often cited.

The Madhi Army is estimated to be between 10,000-40,000 strong. Extrapolating out similar casualty rates for a similar urban combat, and the Madhi Army could suffer between 2,500-10,000 killed, with thousands wounded and captured.

If the bulk of the Madhi Army instead decides that martyrdom is best left for another time and decides to melt away, casualties could be considerably lower, and the operation could morph into a deadly Easter egg hunt. Coalition forces dodging booby-traps, IEDs, and the occasional sniper or small unit ambush could capture and destroy some or most of the Madhi armyÂ’s military capability.

In any even, this is likely the next large-scale battleground in Iraq, and a battle that increasing appears must be fought if Iraq hopes to suceed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:25 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 1155 words, total size 9 kb.

What. A. Moron.

The Smoking Gun has the affidavit. Ace got it right when he described Shareef's plan as "more aspirational than operational."

Even if the no-so-bright Shareef had managed to obtain a quartet of fragmentation grenades as he intended, he seems to forget that the average mall trash can (at least many I've seen) are made of pretty stern stuff. I'm sure they vary, but many I've seen are made of concrete or steel outer can bodies, with strong, lightweight plastic or aluminum can liners that hold the actual trash.

As your typical frag only weighs about a pound and the kind of cans described would tend to both constrain fragments and force the explosive blast towards the path of least resistance (straight up, away from people), it seems only one guy would be in severe mortal danger in such an attack.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:58 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

The Iraq Study Group Report is posted here (PDF).

I've only had time to skim through the executive summary up through the assessment thus far, but don't see anything inconsistent with the findings of the report that were leaked previously. Baker & Co. are not offering any radically new ideas. I think an argument can be made that much of what is said in this report is merely the dusting off of the same failed realist diplomacy that helped create a Middle East where extremism was allowed to rise unchallenged.

In many ways, the Baker Commission ignores the lessons of the last five years (or 35, depending on your viewpoint) and advocates plastering over modern problems with outdated applications of policies that have systematically failed over three decades.

Baker and his contemporaries obviously exhuasted their best ideas Presidents ago.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:07 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 147 words, total size 1 kb.

In an interview with Rick and Donna Martinez on North Carolina's Morning News with Jack Boston on News-Talk 680 WPTF, former senator and noted surrenderist George McGovern was interviewed about his new book, Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now.

During the course of the interview, and after McGovern described his desire to see the United States pull completely out of Iraq within six months, Rick Martinez brought up the genocides of Shia and Kurds with weapons of mass destruction after the 1991 Gulf War, and then asked McGovern what we should do if the complete pullout led to a similar wave of genocidal killings.

I'm paraphrasing here, but McGovern's response was something along the lines of "it's not our problem," unless we get some sort of an international mandate to go back in to correct it.

As we are all well aware, the Rwandan Genocide saw between 800,000-1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus slaughtered over about 100 days in 1994. We are still waiting for McGovern's "international" action in Darfur, a slow-motion genocide that has been on-going since 2003, and which has cost 400,000 lives thus far, with no end in sight. McGovern knows any international action to an Iraqi genocide would be slow or more likely, non-existent.

What McGovern is saying is that he does not care if hundreds of thousands of Iraqis—most likely Sunnis—are slaughtered in Iraq as the result of the immediate U.S. pullout he calls for.

So much for multi-culturalism.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:39 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

I hope that you are sitting down as you read this, because the surprise of what I am about to tell you will make you weak in the knees:

The NY Times has published an article with the apparent goal of trying to generate sympathy for a terrorist.

Shocking, I know.

And before you ask, yes, the Times is quite willing to help his defense team work on a new angle.

Now lawyers for Mr. Padilla, 36, suggest that he is unfit to stand trial. They argue that he has been so damaged by his interrogations and prolonged isolation that he suffers post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to assist in his own defense. His interrogations, they say, included hooding, stress positions, assaults, threats of imminent execution and the administration of “truth serums.”

Just one problem with that angle:

A Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Todd Vician, said Sunday that the military disputes Mr. Padilla’s accusations of mistreatment. And, in court papers, prosecutors deny “in the strongest terms” the accusations of torture and say that “Padilla’s conditions of confinement were humane and designed to ensure his safety and security.”

“His basic needs were met in a conscientious manner, including Halal (Muslim acceptable) food, clothing, sleep and daily medical assessment and treatment when necessary,” the government stated. “While in the brig, Padilla never reported any abusive treatment to the staff or medical personnel.”

Jose Padilla, the violent gang-banging ex-con Muslim convert from Chicago who attempted to murder and maim his fellow Americans in a dirty bomb attack, is once again painted as the victim by the New York Times.

Color me unimpressed.

Update: For the record, for my "netroots" visitors...

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Executive Branch does have the legal right to hold Padilla. I'm sorry that your "reality-based" worldview won't accept it, but the courts have already decided that the President does have the authority to militarily detain:

...a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al Qaeda, an entity with which the United States is at war; who took up arms on behalf of that enemy and against our country in a foreign combat zone of that war; and who thereafter traveled to the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war on American soil, against American citizens and targets.

That narrowly defines that the Executive does have the legal, quite Constitutional right to make specific detentions.

That narrow definition should also belay the squawkings of the hyper-emotive, Chicken Little leftists that still insist, against all factual evidence to the contrary, that Bush can through anyone in jail at any time, for any reason, without hope of a trial.

It won't, of course.

Little things like facts and court decisions just get in the way of their essential "truthiness" that President Bush is a big old evil fascist, and that what really matters, facts be damned.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:57 AM | Comments (64) | Add Comment
Post contains 493 words, total size 3 kb.

Lots of things are flying around today, and trying to contextualize, compartmentalize, and sort through them in a logical manner is proving to be difficult.

I've just read MSM bias: "Everybody knows ... from the Alabama Liberation Front (via Instapundit, which touches on the ficticious story of six men "burned alive" in Baghdad and the AP's refusal to back down from the story, and the dangers of "groupthink" and so-called conventional wisdom. I then read Dr. Sanity's Systematic Subversion and the Ultimate Triumph of Freedom, which I think was supposed to optomistic about the ultimate triumph of freedom over tyranny, but it's stopping points along the way, highlighting how terrorists support Democratic politics becuase they indeed share some of the same goals (if not for the same reasons), the impression of anomie upon the American people by a mindlessly self-destructive media and the majority of our political leadership, and questions about whether Islam was compatible with freedom, and what the answer to that question meant for the future, left me rather emotionally exhausted.

Toss in my own continuing, pre-existing disgust with a media machine more focused on profit and spreading (and dictating) conventional wisdom than doing it's job, the apparent resurrection of foreign policy realism (the same incompetent, political-party spanning philosophy that did much to create the conditions favorable for the rise of terrorism), the overly war-like actions of Iran and Syria that every nation on the planet seems to see, but chooses to ignore, and you might understand why I'm getting a headache trying to make sense of it all.

But is there any sense to be made?

Kathleen Carroll, Executive Editor of the Associated Press, is going to bat and supporting a story that actually has less credible evidence that the Dan Rather/Mary Mapes fiasco, with anonymous reporters, anonymous witnesses, no physical evidence and one named witness, who it turns out, is not who he claims to be. Carroll even goes to the absurd extreme of saying that since they've used the fictional Captain for numerous stories, that he must be real.

We've been feeding you stories from someone who doesn't exist for months, and now is too late to complain about it seems to be her defense, and curiously, (or perhaps not), no other news organization wants to tackle this, and for a very telling reason: the methodologically flawed stringer-run, faith-based, virtual reporting exposing the glaring weaknesses of Associated Press news-gathering efforts here are the norm among news organizations in Iraq. They news gathering techniques used in Iraq are fatally corrupt, easy for enemy propagandists to exploit, and worst of all, it is all but certain that media organizations such as the Associates Press are well aware of these flaws, but have chosen not modify them becuase these reporting methods were yeilding the "common sense" reporting that they desired. Top media management supports inaccurate stories, devoid of facts, because these stories fit their preconceived ideas of what they expect should be happening, even if the events themselves are false.

It's psychic newscasting, where they forecast what the events should be, and tailor a story to match it. It's a lot of things... but it isn't honest, it isn't credible, and it isn't news, and those who "stand for nothing and fall for anything" aren't confined to an incurious and lazy media.

As Pat Santy's post notes, those Islamic terrorists who seek our deaths, refer to one of poltical parties in brotherly terms. Leaders of top terrorists groups openly rooted that same poltical party in the 2006 midterms, just as Osama bin Laden's push for an American withdrawal from the War on Terror in 2004 was so similar to that party's own views, that their candidate attributes his loss to Osama's tape, a tape which exposed their too similar views.

Vasko Kohlmayer outlines the similarity between the chosen party of terrorists and the Islamofascists themselves quite specifically in World Defense Review:

Given all that the democrats have done, the affection in which they are held by our foes is neither unjustified nor surprising. They have more than earned it by systematically subverting this country's war effort while simultaneously proffering assistance to those who have pledged to destroy us.

Democrats' devious deeds are too numerous to be fully recounted, but here at least are some of the highlights:

• They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls
• They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists
• They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions
• They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs
• They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act
• They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists
• They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst
• They have impugned and demeaned our military
• They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal
• They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary
• They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort
• They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war.

While some may quibble over Kolhmayer's choice of wording, these factual acuracy of the postions he represents are all quite true, and heavily documented by the media, the pronoucements of liberal blogs, and the words of Democratic politicians, who to this very day support policies that seek to weaken America while strenghtening the hand of our enemies, supporting terrorism, even if accidentally.

To add to the Democrats on-going cohesion with our terrorist enemies, we have among us leaders on both sides of the political that ignore the increasingly obvious fact, that for their to be any hope of a stable Middle East, Iran and Syria must be forced out of their state sponshopship of terrorism.

These two terror-supporting states, who right now attempting to force the Lebanese government to step down peacefull now because they failed in their attempt to murder enough of Fouad Siniora's Cabinet ministers to enforce their coup d'etat at the barrel of a gun. Iran and Syria used Hezbollah earlier this year to instigate a nearly month-long war, that some defense analysts think was ordered by Iran to test Israeli military capabilities.

Iran has also been supplying both training and munitions to Sadrists to target American soldiers and destabilize Iraq, as Syria has supplied Sunni insurgents and allowed foreign fighters to inflitrate into al-Anbar province for these same reasons.
And yet, we have politicians and media elites purposefully ignoring the obviously correct course of action of killing those who target our soldiers for death. Instead, they propose establishing dialogue, as if talking with our moral enemies while they attempt to kill us is somehow an intelligent course of action.

Dr. Sanity seems convinced that in the end, that freedom with prevail. I hope for that outcome as well, but fear that our current moral cowardice in confronting those who boldly and mortally stand against us, will mean that millions more will die in that march for freedom than otherwise would have to perish with direct and decisive actions to end their threat today.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:47 PM | Comments (63) | Add Comment
Post contains 1170 words, total size 8 kb.

1 I received an email listing (garbage) that you have to believe to be a republican. I saved the email and all of the email addresses it was sent to. Currently making a list of what you have to believe to vote for a dimmie. Post your list in comments and i'll check them every day and add to my list.

Posted by: Scrapiron at December 01, 2006 02:06 PM (Eodj2)

2 They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls 'Without a warrant' is the key part you are leaving out here. We see this as part of the Bill of Rights. They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists We are categorically against torture, yes. They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs We feel that if a secret program is contrary to the Bill of Rights it should be reveled. They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act Again we see parts of this to contravene the Bill of Rights. They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary Bush fired Rumsfeld on his own volition, while the Dems were still in the minority. They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort But we do believe it's illegitimate, as it was sold to us under the auspices of WMD. Now we're supposed to buy into the notion that we should be behind any sacrifice to build a democracy. We don't feel that this is what was asked of us. They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war. We don't understand the exit strategy, so how will we know when it is time to quit?

Posted by: Sam S at December 01, 2006 02:56 PM (iBgGu)

3 While some may quibble over Kolhmayer's choice of wording, these factual acuracy of the postions he represents are all quite true, No. It's more than quibbling, CY - much of those items are flat-out lies. Let's see what I can debunk just off the top of my head: - They have tried to prevent us from listening on terrorists' phone calls Flat-out lie. The effort was to force the gov't to obey the law in the process of tapping phone calls. Further, it was never about tapping specifically terrorist phone calls; it was about tapping vast swaths of citizen communications in the vague hopes of stumbling on terrorists. - They have sought to stop us from properly interrogating captured terrorists Again, a flat-out lie. The various treaties signed by the US have the full force and equivalence of federal law. The Executive does not get to unilaterally decide who those laws do and do not apply to - it's a topic the populace, or at least their representatives in Congress, MUST be involved in deciding. Attempting to force the Executive to obey the law is NOT disloyalty. Quite the opposite. - They have tried to stop us from monitoring terrorists' financial transactions How exactly? Again, by requiring that the US Gov't actually obey US law? His argument is still crap. - They have revealed the existence of secret national security programs You mean the ones that were publically discussed by the Bush administration years before the NYT printed the info? How traitorious is it when info is leaked that makes Bush look good? - They have opposed vital components of the Patriot Act Which has exactly what to do with the price of RPGs in Baghdad? Kohlmayer's definition of "vital" means exactly squat. - They have sought to confer unmerited legal rights on terrorists See above discussion on torture. - They have opposed profiling to identify the terrorists in our midst Again, if it's illegal, work to change the law. Nobody gets to simply ignore the law when it's inconvenient. - They have impugned and demeaned our military How, exactly? By blaming our failures on the commanders and troops in the field? No, that was a GOP Congressman. - They have insinuated that the president is a war criminal I'm no lawyer, but if the shoe fits... - They have forced the resignation of a committed defense secretary Flat-out lie. Rummy wrote his own pink slip by running the war effort incompetently. And then Bush flat-out lied about the firing. Not for national security reasons, but just because he was tired of answering the questions. - They have repeatedly tried to de-legitimize our war effort Again, if the shoe fits... - They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war. No, they want to fight the war that actually affect US security. Remember Afghanistan? the Taliban? Bin Laden? _Those_ were the people who actually attacked us. Let's try fighting _that_ war.

Posted by: legion at December 01, 2006 03:00 PM (3eWKF)

4 - They want to quit the battlefield in the midst of war. No, they want to fight the war that actually affect US security. Remember Afghanistan? the Taliban? Bin Laden? _Those_ were the people who actually attacked us. Let's try fighting _that_ war. Exactly. Add that to what I said above.

Posted by: Sam S at December 01, 2006 03:17 PM (iBgGu)

5 I was quoting 'legion' above. I screwed up the formatting somehow.

Posted by: Sam S at December 01, 2006 03:19 PM (iBgGu)

6 legion - pretty good for off the top of the head. Coupla corrections if I may: Monitoring financial transactions - This was a US/European operation and is illegal in Europe, both by ECU and various member government laws. Libruls had nothing to say about it because it did not occur on US soil. Profiling terrorists in our midst - Actually, this would simply take the form regulatory relief by either TSA or DHS and acceptance by a increasingly conservative judiciary. Problem with profiling is that there blond blue-eyed folks up to no good - ever take a look at McVeigh? Israel's got it going with behavioural profiling but would make the current security mess at airports a walk in the park - so hand over the massage oil.

Posted by: sami at December 01, 2006 03:27 PM (3qVpU)

7 Scrapiron -- do you mean one of these? http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/nyc/62974620.html http://www.stallman.org/republicanBeliefs.html they've been floating around in one form or another for quite awhile.

Posted by: Sam S at December 01, 2006 03:31 PM (iBgGu)

8 Funny Sam, I don't remember anywhere in the Bill of Rights where is says that foreign terrorists are covered. Hell, they aren't even covered under the rights of the Geneva Convention as they fail to abide its regulations as well.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 01, 2006 03:33 PM (oC8nQ)

9 Bohica -- not sure if you're talking about interrogation or wiretaps. If one party of a conversation is a citizen in the US, and the government taps into that conversation without a warrant, then the citizen's rights have been violated. Why not just require the government to get a warrant? They can get one 72 hours after the fact if necessary. The only reason they don't want to be limited by warrants is because they're eavesdropping without adequate evidence in some cases. Recall that Nixon used eavesdropping to try to influence an election. In that light don't you think it's bad to allow politician to eavesdrop without warrants? You might say, well they were only international calls, but we don't know that. Anyway, judicial oversight is a fundamental part of the checks and balances that our forefathers conceived.

Posted by: Sam S at December 01, 2006 03:42 PM (iBgGu)

10 We don't understand the exit strategy What part of victory is confusing you. Perhaps we can help.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 01, 2006 03:49 PM (p9O/F)

11 In all of the distortions, misrepresentations, and blind speculations used above to "justify" the shared liberal/terrorist positions defined by Kohlmayer, not once do any of those defending these liberal Democratic positions even make the attempt to deny that they share many of the same goals as those who would see America's sons and daughters slaughtered. Fascinating, but worrisome and quite sad.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 01, 2006 03:52 PM (g5Nba)

12 CY I like roasted goat but that doesn't mean I share a world view with every goat eater. I'm not defending librul positions - I'm speaking for a) Constitutionalism; b) the rule of law; c) honest open and temperate discussion of same. Wait...Wait - this fax just in from OBL d) Hot sauce with the goat

Posted by: sami at December 01, 2006 04:02 PM (3qVpU)

13 sami, you need to be a bit more informed before you start claiming that you ae speaking for "a) Constitutionalism; b) the rule of law; c) honest open and temperate discussion of same" if you are endorsing those positions held forth above. There is zero evidence that the NSA program violates, or even comes close to violating, any laws. All the screeching done over it has been from critics who have no direct knowledge of it at all, and who have wasted their time on idle speculation. Those that have seen the details of how the program operates have not questioned its legality in the slightest, and noted liberal Lanny Davis, just fully briefed on the program, even stated he wished more people could understand how it worked so that they could understand just how safe their privacy was. As for interrogation, the law Bush signed defining acceptable techniques should have been passed over 70 years ago; until he signed it, when had a dangerous gray area uncovered by law. As for the techniques themselves, they are not torture. They cause stress and discomfort, but leave no damage, and to equate these techniques to torture is to belittle those who have been scarred by the real thing. Most of the other arguments, as I stated before, are distortions, misrepresentations, and blind speculations, just like these two I chose to single out as examples. And your "fax" claim above is also bogus. Everyone knows that Osama uses a Mac.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 01, 2006 04:22 PM (g5Nba)

14 Sam, why does an electronic intercept of a foreign enemy of our country require judicial review just because the number he calls happens to be in the US? As for torture, I believe interrogations should be a little bit tougher than the average police drama, without the lawyer. It shouldn't be a Mel Gibson movie, but it also shouldn't be a trip to the principals office.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 01, 2006 04:28 PM (oC8nQ)

15 CY - And your "fax" claim above is also bogus. Everyone knows that Osama uses a Mac. BUSTED. Beg to differ - FISA was established for just this sort of thing. This adminstration has admitted to domestic eefsdropping (such a secret). If NSA listens to domestic calls without a warrant, it's a felony. IMO, the NSA wiretap was placed outside of FISA particularly to push the precedent of a unitary president. I think it is deliberately illegal. And Lanny Davis is as librul as a tree-stump. He's a neo-con, the same path taken by numerous old-line dims. Do I have to use the Lieberword? We can argue over the effectiveness of torture (or where stress/discomfort leave off and torture begins but I would have to get my wife involved in that) but it really pulls us off the moral high ground. Doncha feel the least bit uncomfortable with the USofA is one of those who disappears people and engages in physical abuse. I always kinda thought that behaviour belong to banana republics and commie pinko fags. My concerns with the consitutionality and rule of law really revolve around a concern that we sacrifice the little things in a never ending GWOT because we can pretty much beat the crap out of a terrorist and who cares. Until the terrorist is a lawyer in Oregon or a German citizen in the wrong place at the wrong time or a Canadian citizen itwpatwt or a US citizen who was where he shouldn't been and talked to the wrong people. The next thing you know President Hillary will be hunting both ex-bushie and librul bloggers with apache helicopters. And don't you think OBL looks like a hot-sauce guy -- with really bad garlic breath?

Posted by: sami at December 01, 2006 04:49 PM (3qVpU)

16 The Constitution is not a suicide pact

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 01, 2006 04:51 PM (p9O/F)

17 It all comes down to whether you trust you government or not. If given power, do you think our government will abuse it or not. You see, I think there are evil people in this world, and I think our government should have the power to make them disappear and go away, forever. I ALSO trust our government not to abuse this power to go after political opponents, bloggers, or the kid at school who picked on the President when he was little.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 01, 2006 05:01 PM (oC8nQ)

18 "not once do any of those defending these liberal Democratic positions even make the attempt to deny that they share many of the same goals as those who would see America's sons and daughters slaughtered." I've never heard anyone say they share goals with the terrorists. I see defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights as my highest duties to my country. The terrorists want to convert everyone to Islam or kill them.

Posted by: Sam S at December 01, 2006 05:04 PM (iBgGu)

19 CY said: There is zero evidence that the NSA program violates, or even comes close to violating, any laws. That's how the administration has represented it, but it's not true. One FISA judge stepped down as a protest to the administration's behavior. Anytime you listen in on citizens without a warrant, that is against the Bill of Rights. The administration has various defenses, but it's just that simple. They are breaking the law.

Posted by: Sam S at December 01, 2006 05:09 PM (iBgGu)

20 Bohica, You're aiming the right direction, but I'd offer a little target correction. It all comes down to whether you trust you government or not. If given power, do you think our government will abuse it or not. Our gov't is made up of people, and people, in the larger sense, _will_ abuse power. No matter how great a given President is, there's no guarrantee what the _next_ President will be like. We must never fall into the trap of giving him more power than a President ought to have, just because we think he can use it well; that power never goes away. The Romans felt that way about Caesar. They made him Emperor. then they got guys like Nero and Caligula. Power _will_ be abused. We must never forget that the people in power work for _us_, not the other way around. Mistrust of the gov't - _any_ gov't, not just ours, and not just the current one - is the safest path.

Posted by: legion at December 01, 2006 05:13 PM (3eWKF)

21 Purple Avenger said: The Constitution is not a suicide pact Implicit in what you are saying is that we should bend the Constitution when we feel threatened. I side with what Lincoln famously said in his 1838 Lyceum Address: At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide. In other words, our strength emanates from the Constitution, not the other way around.

Posted by: Sam S at December 01, 2006 05:14 PM (iBgGu)

22 The Constitution is not a suicide pact Actually, PA, I'd disagree. The Constitution defines more than just our general system of gov't - it defines our values and our way of life. While there is some allowance for change as our society evolves over time, there are limits. If one destroys the Constitution, does not "America", both as an ideal and as a nation, cease to exist? To put it another, admittedly hyperbolic, way: if Wall Street got nuked tomorrow, the United States would still stand. If the President dissolved Congress and the courts for restricting Executive authority, the same could not be said.

Posted by: legion at December 01, 2006 05:19 PM (3eWKF)

23 Bohica said I ALSO trust our government not to abuse this power to go after political opponents, But I gave you an example of just that up above -- Nixon tried to use his power to defeat his political rivals. Also: "Distrust of government is a tenant of our nation: It is the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government." --Thomas Paine Does that not squarely contradict you?

Posted by: Sam S at December 01, 2006 05:19 PM (iBgGu)

24 Geez, Sam - get out of my head!

Posted by: legion at December 01, 2006 05:20 PM (3eWKF)

25 legion: I am your long lost Mini-Me.

Posted by: Sam S at December 01, 2006 05:30 PM (iBgGu)

26 Bohica22- >>It all comes down to whether you trust you government or not.<< Ok - not. Neither the left nor right. It is ironic that an idealogy that grew out of distrust of the vision of less government has wrapped itself so thoroughly into big govt. And there's more - you take the old discredited liberal internationlism that gave vietnam, mix in a bit of the acheson arrogance and a speck of nixonian manipulativeness and you have (all together) NeoConservativism. hurrah

Posted by: sami at December 01, 2006 06:24 PM (BpQGf)

27 Sorry - distrust of AND the vision of less government the little things matter

Posted by: sami at December 01, 2006 06:28 PM (BpQGf)

28 So are you all saying that if Nixon had the Patriot Act, he would have gotten away with it? Your arguments all seem so slippery slope. No one seems to have a problem with going after terrorists, but what if someday "I" become the terrorist. Granted, its a problem of definition. Foreign terrorists aren't soldiers covered under the Geneva Convention and they aren't US citizens either. But I still think there will be a common sense rule applied that our government will be able to tell the difference between myself and Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 01, 2006 07:38 PM (XoLor)

29 In all of the distortions, misrepresentations, and blind speculations used above to "justify" the shared liberal/terrorist positions defined by Kohlmayer, not once do any of those defending these liberal Democratic positions even make the attempt to deny that they share many of the same goals as those who would see America's sons and daughters slaughtered. Later... There is zero evidence that the NSA program violates, or even comes close to violating, any laws. 1. Didn't you already outlaw intellectual dishonesty and laziness back whilst decrying the Jesus' Generals Chicken-Hawk post? 2. Judge Rules Against Wiretaps NSA Program Called Unconstitutional By Dan Eggen and Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A01 A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

Posted by: Frederick at December 01, 2006 10:38 PM (jSBbA)

30 If given power, do you think our government will abuse it or not. This is where the left engages in projection. They assume others would do as they would do...and abuse the power ;->

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 01, 2006 10:43 PM (p9O/F)

31 Purple Avenger: you seem not to understand US history. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are all about tyranny, mostly tyranny from our own government. "The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." --John Adams

Posted by: Sam S at December 02, 2006 02:23 AM (iBgGu)

32 you seem not to understand US history. I understand that a liberal democrat president imprisoned a bunch of people in concentration camps during WWII. I understand that same liberal president engaged in press censorship/coercion the likes of which is unheard of today. I understand that a certain president named Clinton used the IRS to attack his political enemies.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 02, 2006 02:33 AM (p9O/F)

33 You can get away with a lot when you're a winner, PA...

Posted by: monkyboy at December 02, 2006 05:35 AM (unUeA)

34 Watching leftist non-lawyers debate national security and the law...is like watching Janet Reno trying to give Jimmy Carter a shave and a haircut. In the same moment I want to look away in fear and revulsion AND I can't stop watching. The low level federal "judge" who "ruled" on the issue out of Detroit is a low grade imbecile, whose ruling was labeled a joke by nearly EVERY legal analyst...left, right and center...so reliance on that ruling is either wholly uninformed or intentionally disingenuous. Secondly, selective listening in on INTERNATIONAL calls for the safety and security of the country in a time of CLEARLY THREATENED ATTACK...is the seminal issue. How can you accomplish it legally? What boundaries and limitations are there under the law? Let's try to restrict ourselves to these issues...despite the wild-eyed pronouncements that the Consitution will erupt in a miracle/tragedy of self-combustion and be forever relegated to the ash heap of history...and further pronouncements that the action takent IS "illegal"...virtually NOBODY who has reviewed the procedure fully is quite that shattered by its implementation. The President of the United States did not "break any laws", a new set of facts (terrorist sleeper cells from a group of enemy combatants set up camp and are communicating with each other to try to kill, maim, destroy, subvert, overthrow our country)and while we gracefully try to adhere to the beautiful and saintly principles painstakingly scribed with quill pens, these enemies are pouring in money, killers and plans across our borders by way of space satellite aided technology. There's a bit of a disconnect here and it's not the fault of the framers...it's simply that they could not have anticipated the need for protection of the Union...from sleeper cells with laptops, cell phones, ATM cards and suitcase nuclear bombs. If you are a leftist and you want to discuss whether the intelligence review of ANY OR ALL international calls exceeds the boundaries and limitations necessary to protect the country and my countrymen from the existing threat...by all means...go for it. But at least stop BRIEFLY along the way to recognize that there is a legitimate state interest in protecting the country...and its people. I realize that many leftists think that Al Qaeda and other murderers are romantic, "minutemen" who are simply giving our innocent citizens exactly what they deserve, ...but unfortunately the people charged with providing a national defense for our country simply don't have the luxury of cooing at and passing love notes to...an enemy who hijacks our commercial jets and slams them into our buildings. Or who announce plans via the internet and communicate via cell phone how to poison our water supply, build nuclear weapons to destroy our cities or blow up ships in our ports. Sorry, they simply can't. As usual, the leftists put our interests last...and look for ways to crap on the country. Why not? They're Americans in name only. Timeshare Americans really don't care about national security or communal responsibility. It's all about the "freedom of the individual"...to do anything they want, however they want, whenever they want. And if a few thousand terrorists set up a horrific death spectacle here on the home turf...well, too bad. For those who wish to discuss the issue seriously, the ONLY issue (the Fourth Amendment discussion is frail and not worthy of serious debate) is whether there is a limitation or boundary that can be exercised that would accomplish the goals of national security without compromising them...AND more narrowly pinpoint the likely targets. NOBODY here is capable of answering that question. You don't have the security clearance to speak intelligently about it. But you can guess. You can come up with some ideas. Warrants for phone calls or intercepts...on SLEEPER cells is rather oxymoronic, I would think. If the leftists want to seriously debate this and go through the mental gymnastics trying to find a BETTER way to ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING...by all means...have at it. If they simply want to blow more asshat steam about the President, our intelligence community, the military, Republicans, the Supreme Court, corporations and capitalism, ...or whatever their echo chamber playbook page is open to today...then, I would just as soon go back to the Reno shaves Carter scene, at least that might have a useful ending.

Posted by: cfbleachers at December 02, 2006 08:32 AM (5RM9g)

35 For those who wish to discuss the issue seriously, How can you be taken seriously when you say? As usual, the leftists put our interests last

Posted by: AkaDad at December 02, 2006 09:54 AM (1RcP8)

36 "The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are all about tyranny, mostly tyranny from our own government." The Declaration of Independance and the Constitution were created to protect us from the tyranny of King of England. Now we are trying to protect ourselves from the tyranny of those who want the world to be an Islamic Caliphate under Sharia Law. Different enemys require different tactics.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at December 02, 2006 12:02 PM (XoLor)

37 Being someone who deals with this subject intimately on a daily basis, I have continued to marvel at the ignorance and stupidity being passed off in these "leftist" arguments. CY, you know what I do for a living and you know what I have access to because of my work...the ignorance the liberals here are demonstrating is awe-inspiring. I've always found unabashed pride in one's own delusional ignorance to be something to behold. Time and again you have people posting here who know nothing about Constitutional Law, nothing about what we are really doing to protect this country, but are just parroting the ill-conceived arguments they have heard repeated by others (and the MSM in many cases). I'm sure more than one of them will claim to be a lawyer (Constitutional Law, perhaps? yeah, right.) and will also claim they are an expert in the legalities of what can and can't be done in the name of national security. Bring it on...that's my personal playground, nancy boys. I do this for a living and am around it every day--DC politics, the whole smack...including several liberal judges who get their "opinioned" rulings overturned on a regular basis (some of which were used here to justify lefty arguments). And those who were talking about "getting a search warrent in only 72 hours" and "that's what FISA is there for" are stupid beyond their years. I could write a book (I have already written a report) and the shortcomings of FISA and how a "warrant wait" of even 3 hours would have cost us a HUGE terrorist attack two years ago. I marvel at the stupidity of these people--people who think their opinion really is worth something...I marvel and shake my head in disgust. Stupid people have always irritated me and people who think they are experts on Homeland Security and the Constitution are not only an irritant, but are dangerous to our security. I think I'll have to stop reading your comments section CY--I'm tired of being subjected to uninformed, self important leftists who can't think for themselves and certainly have no idea what they are talking about. If I want to know what the leftist zombie squad is thinking, all I have to do is turn on the MSM. No thanks.......I have enough problems trying to protect these people in spite of how hard they make my job each day.

Posted by: WB at December 02, 2006 01:18 PM (JefDc)

38 Bohica said: The Declaration of Independance and the Constitution were created to protect us from the tyranny of King of England. That's just not true! The Declaration talks about the inalienable rights of man. The Constitution is not at all about England, it is about ensuring that our own government not become tyrnannical. I sincerely encourage you to learn more about this. Read the Bill of Rights, for instance. Purple said: I understand that a liberal democrat president imprisoned a bunch of people in concentration camps during WWII. I understand that same liberal president engaged in press censorship/coercion the likes of which is unheard of today. I understand that a certain president named Clinton used the IRS to attack his political enemies. Do you believe that only Democrats are liable to abuse their powers? That's a childish view of the world.

Posted by: Sam S at December 02, 2006 02:04 PM (iBgGu)

39 There are a couple of recent studies that point to the hardwiring of our brains from infancy to be left or right. Very new, but interesting. The studies showed each side the opposite of their stated opinions and both sides reacted negatively if their point of view was not what was shown. I found it interesting because, these "scientists" seems to be saying that "we" don't have control over what we think. I disagree totally. I started out as a liberal, bleeding heart, in my 20's. Living life and experiences taught me that what I had been fighting for became a sad joke...in my early 40's. The day I read that we, American women, had aborted 30 MILLION babies in about 25 years, left me aghast! What I know from decades of living is that if humans cannot learn from daily life and personal experience we are doomed. We need to be responsible for our actions without question. All of the Liberal agenda items that have been imposed on us in the past forty years have brought us to low educational levels, horrible drug usage, high AIDS infections, old and new diseases, making others millionairs by reason of race, creed or someone's idea of "hurt" infliction, a blind hating academia, biased media, and, of course, the "new" ugly: Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. I fear for my grandchildren, greatly.

Posted by: Sue at December 02, 2006 02:07 PM (aZe1d)

40 My apologies WB,for saying "nobody"...obviously, there are a few exceptions to the rule. I have a Constitutional law background (with dozens of federal court jury trials under my belt), but zero security clearance. But please don't walk away in frustration...you are EXACTLY what we need. More and better FACTS. Better information. Truth is like kryptonite to leftists...but the rest of us truly appreciate it. And by the way, it doesn't get said often enough, but...thanks for being there. Sue Fearing for the next generation is a healthy response and quite normal. Standing up and speaking for them is the answer. When you are 20 (or act like it, like those suffering from arrested development)...you are subject to peer pressure and want the world to be simple and organized. The world unfortunately has people in it who don't play by the same set of rules. The predatory mind will always seek to find the weakest member of the herd. If you are impressionable and easily swayed...if you refuse to think things out for yourself...you become prey. Prime targets. This is why I advocate being an "issue-ist". Decide each issue on its own merits. Not because it resounds with or emanates from the left or right...but because after examining it thoroughly what's left IS right.

Posted by: cfbleachers at December 02, 2006 02:52 PM (5RM9g)

41 cfbleachers said: Truth is like kryptonite to leftists ... I advocate being an "issue-ist". Decide each issue on its own merits. Not because it resounds with or emanates from the left or right...but because after examining it thoroughly what's left IS right. What a hypocrite!

Posted by: Sam S at December 02, 2006 04:00 PM (iBgGu)

42 I fear for your grandchildren, too, Sue. I fear they will be working in Chinese-owned sweatshops to pay back all the money Bush has borrowed off them to fight his phony wars...

Posted by: monkyboy at December 02, 2006 04:31 PM (unUeA)

43 The leftists put us last...because to them...WE stand in the way of their childlike pursuit of nirvana. They want to party like it's 1999. And they don't want to live in the real world post 2001. cfbleachers, Apparently you still want to party like it's November the 6th. The people have spoken, and they've told your kind to STFU. Besides, Cy said there was, "zero evidence that the NSA program violates, or even comes close to violating, any laws." The court ruling while not 100% proving that the program does violate the law--because it is being appealed--does prove there is more than zero evidence. And those who were talking about "getting a search warrent in only 72 hours" and "that's what FISA is there for" are stupid beyond their years. I could write a book (I have already written a report) and the shortcomings of FISA and how a "warrant wait" of even 3 hours would have cost us a HUGE terrorist attack two years ago. Wb, I don't see how someone as ignorant as you would have any standing to write a book, FISA says the Government has up to 72 hours after the fact to get a warrant, thereby making you assertion that there is any "warrant wait" involved baldfaced idiocy. What you are all saying can be boiled down to the same logical fallacy that Bill O'Reilly used when he asked Dave Letterman the loaded question, "Do you want the U.S. to win in Iraq?" No one on the left has ever said that we shouldn't prevent terrorism. In fact we mostly want all the same things you do, except we want to do it within the law. BTW: Sorry I couldn't have responded sooner, we had our units Christmas Party at Drill today.

Posted by: Frederick at December 02, 2006 06:53 PM (jSBbA)

44 You a junior cadet Freddy? LOL Sounds like it - as if your credentials hold up against WB and cf. Have at it.

Posted by: Specter at December 02, 2006 08:58 PM (ybfXM)

45 FRED: I want to thank you for your post--nothing I could have said or done could have proved what I was saying more than your post did. You're an idiot and I surely hope that was not a CP for a military unit you are a part of--if it is, then John Kerry was certainly talking about you... I have seen two terrorism cases go south and have read all the reports on them (it was what I was asked to write a white paper about--to demonstrate the problems that were encountered so it didn't happen again). Both of these cases were lost, one due to a FISA judge not getting the HUGE VOLUME OF PAPERWORK on time (it had to go through channels, just like anything else)...the other, the suspects broke observation and were lost because no one could put everything together for the FISA warrant in this situation because they WERE NOT WHERE THE INFORMATION COULD BE COMPILED IN TIME...That is all that can be said about that. I know about FISA warrants, FRED. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. But like a typical liberal--you spout off your mouth because you've hear a sound-byte on TV. Good for you, that makes you such an expert that you can call others names and attack their credibility. Well, I can certainly repay the favor in name-calling...but I'll back mine up with fact...You are a complete idiot and a FISA challenged moron. Here's why... Your complete lack of understanding of FISA and how a FISA warrant must obtained--what those guidelines are for obtaining one--and what the 72 hours after action warrant requires is glaring and reeks of your complete stupidity on the subject. First, Not EVERY NECESSARY WARRANT PERTAINING TO TERRORISM FALLS UNDER THE EMERGENCY FISA 72 HOUR ALOWANCE you refer to...get your facts straight before you try to sound like an expert, ok? Again, your arrogance proved my point. You have no idea what you are talking about and still you have the gaul to criticize others who are far more knowledgeable than you on the subject. This is typical of your leftwing, Nancy-boy species. The FISA fact is, unless you are POSITIVE you can declare the situational need as an "emergency" under the FISA rules, you're screwed if you try to collect the information from a "source". You will not only lose the rights to the information you collected, but you will lose the ability to USE that information or pass it on to anyone who could use it. In fact, if a possible terrorist action is recorded and the judge didn't sign the FISA warrant in time, you still can't do a thing with what you know...and despite what you lefties like to shout, these guys follow the rules. Too many of our people are fearful of being sued or thrown in jail--which isn't necessarily a bad thing. So Fred, since you are an expert on FISA--expert enough to sum it up with one sentence and call into question my "qualifications", let me spell some of this out for the other "unenlightened leftwing nuts" who might be out there reading this. FISA warrant guidelines are a lot more stringent than a regular court is. In fact, those seeking the warrant must be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (yes--beyond a reasonable doubt, not just suspect something, like we can sometimes have in normal warrants for police officers from regular judges). You must have a "...factual basis for issuance of an order under this subchapter to approve such surveillance exists." Hey Fred, that was real legal language I was using. I was quoting from the actual U.S.C. on that--but I'm sure you already knew this--since you're are so incredibly intelligent...not! So, what are the guidelines for this factual basis? Maybe Fred can tell everyone. He's an expert on FISA--he knows so much he can criticize those of us who do this for a living...but, since Fred isn't here right now, I'll tell you what those guidelines are. I happen to have a personal copy, but you can also find these guidelines on the Internet(at least the unclassified proceedures)...but first, we have to make sure that no US citzens are going to be mistakenly gathered up in our warrant. Which is reasonable--and it should therefore be easy to demonstrate...or is it...? 50 U.S.C. Section 1805(a)(3)(A): "...on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant there is probable cause to believe that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power... See Fred, more legal stuff. Have you ever READ these FISA codes, Fred? Have you ever been involved with a FISA-based case? Do you even know what a FISA warrant "application" looks like. Have you ever in your life read one? Do you work with DHS and have you ever dealt with matters involving FISA and terrorism warrants? Have you Mr. Expert Fred? I doubt it. People like you would have their head explode if they ever bothered to read all the facts and reason out an intelligent argument about something. So, in the hopes that your head will explode, let me give you a little lesson on your so-called FISA 72 hour "application" and what it really means. And Mr. Expert Fred, we HAVE lost warrants due to a SINGLE 3 HOUR WAIT because the paperwork did not move through the system fast enough after the application was submitted. You see Fred, unlike you, I don't just run off at the mouth without having the facts on hand--like you do. What you are referring to (the 72 hours clause) is found in the United States Code on FISA. For those who are familiar with legal documents, it is known as: 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1805(f) Under (a), you will find what has to be filled out and submitted within your 72 hours...the list is long and difficult to compile under the best of circumstance. I have seen FISA warrant requests that took 18 days to complete...18 DAYS. And those are NOT that rare, Fred... Here's what has to be submitted...and it's not a single file folder--I've seen it thick enough to measure with a ruler. QUOTED: It shall include— (1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application; (2) the authority conferred on the Attorney General by the President of the United States and the approval of the Attorney General to make the application; (3) the identity, if known, or a description of the target of the electronic surveillance; (4) a statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that— (A) the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; and (B) each of the facilities or places at which the electronic surveillance is directed is being used, or is about to be used, by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (5) a statement of the proposed minimization procedures; (6) a detailed description of the nature of the information sought and the type of communications or activities to be subjected to the surveillance; (7) a certification or certifications by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or an executive branch official or officials designated by the President from among those executive officers employed in the area of national security or defense and appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate— (A) that the certifying official deems the information sought to be foreign intelligence information; (B) that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information; (C) that such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques; (D) that designates the type of foreign intelligence information being sought according to the categories described in section 1801 (e) of this title; and (E) including a statement of the basis for the certification that— (i) the information sought is the type of foreign intelligence information designated; and (ii) such information cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques; ( a statement of the means by which the surveillance will be effected and a statement whether physical entry is required to effect the surveillance; (9) a statement of the facts concerning all previous applications that have been made to any judge under this subchapter involving any of the persons, facilities, or places specified in the application, and the action taken on each previous application; (10) a statement of the period of time for which the electronic surveillance is required to be maintained, and if the nature of the intelligence gathering is such that the approval of the use of electronic surveillance under this subchapter should not automatically terminate when the described type of information has first been obtained, a description of facts supporting the belief that additional information of the same type will be obtained thereafter; and (11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device. So Fred, go somewhere else to try and impress people and pretend you're a real man who knows the score. Your efforts here have only served to prove to everyone you're stupid. Sorry CY, but like I said on the phone...I like intelligent liberals who discuss matters and have open debate with conservatives--they're good, and we balance each other out in the end...but people like Fred and some of the others here are just butt-stupid, and the sad part is they don't even realize it.

Posted by: WB at December 02, 2006 09:28 PM (83VP/)

46 You can get away with a lot when you're a winner Indeed. Give up on integrity and all things become possible.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 02, 2006 09:44 PM (p9O/F)

47 WB: I read your two posts with interest. I think all mature citizens see a tradeoff between security and privacy, and as such it's interesting to hear the point of view of those on the enforcement side. The trouble is, you didn't convince me that FISA is a bad thing. You gave an example of where a three hour delay in obtaining a warrant would have resulted in a huge attack. Then you state that the "72 hours after" rule applies only in special cases, like an emergency. What's the problem exactly? The three-hour situation certainly qualified as an emergency, so why not use the 72 hour rule. You say that you all risk losing access to your information if you invoke the 72 hour rule and the situation turns out not to be an emergency. That seems like a fair tradeoff to me. What am I missing? Second, you say the filing requirements are onerous: It shall include— (1) the identity of the Federal officer making the application; ... (11) whenever more than one electronic, mechanical or other surveillance device is to be used with respect to a particular proposed electronic surveillance, the coverage of the devices involved and what minimization procedures apply to information acquired by each device. I believe that law enforcement absolutely should answer those questions before eavesdropping on a citizen. Do you not think so? Third, the background here is the NSA wiretapping program. That judge in Detroit and the FISA judge who quit in protest of it obviously don't think it's constitutional. Are you saying it's constitutional, or not constitutional but necessary, or what? You'll probably think I'm being snarky here but it's not so. You are not doubt angry about people like me, but I hope you can understand that I see my job as a citizen as protecting the Constitution. We survived WWII without cowering, and I believe we can survive terrorist attacks without cowering too. Thanks for your consideration.

Posted by: Sam S at December 02, 2006 10:22 PM (iBgGu)

48 Sam, I know for a fact that the FISA judge who quit did so without ever being briefed on the NSA program, and that not a single one of the other FISA judges has uttered so much as a word of protest, nor resigned, after they were briefed. The Detriot judge, Anna Diggs Taylor, issued an opinion that legal experts on both sides feel will be overturned, due in no small part to her opinion was very poorly written and ill-reasoned. The judge shold not have even allowed the case to have been brought; even partisan lefties (including sockpuppet, I think) agree that the plantiffs don't have the standing to bring the case. A typical reaction to her ruling, from the WaPo: ...the decision yesterday by a federal district court in Detroit, striking down the NSA's program, is neither careful nor scholarly, and it is hard-hitting only in the sense that a bludgeon is hard-hitting. The angry rhetoric of U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor will no doubt grab headlines. But as a piece of judicial work -- that is, as a guide to what the law requires and how it either restrains or permits the NSA's program -- her opinion will not be helpful... ...her opinion, which as the first court venture into this territory will garner much attention, is unhelpful either in evaluating or in ensuring the program's legality. And Sam, if you want to invoke WWII, remember that the President, FDR, sent tens of thousands of U.S. citizens to internment (concentration) camps without a trial or the possibility of an appeal for the duration of the war without any evidence whatsoever, executed terrorists after military tribunals without appeal or the false application of Geneva Rights, interpreted his constitutional powers as being far more extensive, and curtailed the freedoms of American citizens far more, than President Bush has ever considered. Quite frankly, I think FDR would feel President Bush isn't using his Presidential powers enough, and based upon his actions, I'm certain he'd be disgusted by the abject moral cowardness and inability to do what is in the best interests of America by those who now claim to lead his party.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 02, 2006 11:23 PM (HcgFD)

49 Sam S: Actually, I’m not against FISA. I think FISA is a good thing—the problem is most people and the media act like FISA is a “cure-all” for all our terrorism surveillance needs. It’s a good safeguard in most cases, but it has some glaring shortcomings that have needed to be addressed for a long time. FISA can’t be used as a solution for every important situation that involves terrorism eavesdropping. That was why the NSA program was started…and it’s not the only one out there. It’s just the only one the public knows about right now. The problem with the emergency warrant situation we’ve been discussing is that you have to determine that it is an emergency situation BEFORE you start your eavesdropping and enter into the FISA arena for your warrant. That’s not as easy to do as you may think—you can put 2 and 2 together in the field to make four, but for those numbers to add up to get a warrant under FISA? That isn’t always so easy or straightforward. If you declare your situation needs an emergency warrant, start your surveillance, and the court says it wasn’t an emergency—you just got your surveillance killed and all of your evidence is lost--forever. I would be willing to go on record in saying that in about 60% to 70% of the cases that need to go to FISA for a warrant (emergency or not), losing the evidence that they obtained would cause the investigators to lose an important contact or some kind of critical piece of information. If it turns out that your situation is not an emergency, but you thought it was—then you are in deep, deep trouble. A wrong call can be a career killer--Both from a supervisory standpoint, and an evidentiary one. Not only have you lost the warrant, but you also lost any leads or clues you gained from the investigation--so you are just plain screwed. And, if that lead results in a terrorist action, people then get upset that you didn’t act on what you found—even though those same people were the ones who tied your hands in the first place. It’s a no-win situation--and as I said before, it’s not cut-and-dry trying to determine if something justifies an emergency warrant or not. Hindsight is how the public will judge officials and law enforcement when it comes to those actions, but when you’re on that side of the situation, public opinion and the MSM are uninformed and merciless in their reactions against you. You have to be right 100% of the time. The terrorists only have to be right one time... Those FISA judges who sit on the bench are not necessarily the best judges or the most qualified. Some are good, some are bad. They are much like any other judge you go to for a warrant—they have pet peeves and things they like or dislike seeing in a warrant request—and unlike the officers going to them for the warrant—those judges are immune to public opinion and outcry. See, that “three hour situation” I was talking about was (with hindsight) very important, but at the time it appeared to be only a possible candidate in its qualifications as an emergency--possible, but not a “shoe-in” for a warrant being awarded. So, do you risk your case or even your job (and yes, it could be your job if a terrorist strike or transfer of arms succeeds because you lost the warrant to a judge's opinion or didn’t ask for the emergency warrant in the first place)? Evidence was good, but could be considered less credible depending on how a judge looked at it. So, you’re the breadwinner in your family and it’s your call--what do you do? Not as cut and dry anymore, is it? This is what I mean when I'm talking about the issues. There are many other things to be considered when you are talking surveillance and monitoring terrorism activities. You can’t argue FISA modifications and NSA programs with soundbytes from TV, radio, and a comments section in a Blog. It is highly complex and if you don’t take the time to study it, you really can’t correctly assess what is truly at stake and what really should be done. On something as important as a suspect surveillance warrant, the variables in each circumstance as to whether or not to call for an emergency warrant vs. not calling for one--those variables defy a pat answer. Yet knowing that either decision you make can cause you to lose your important lead and allow a terrorist to slip past you--that can and does cause a lot of wasteful and unnecessary “rethinking” and bureaucratic second-guessing during an operation. Do you really want to risk it and lose everything—can you afford not to? Do you want to lose your job because you called it wrong one way or the other? Not every circumstance it this extreme, but many are. As you maybe can see now, these situations are often not so “cut and dry”. The MSM and the public are quick to forget such facts when it comes to the War on Terrorism. Remember how much the MSM and people have criticized the FBI and other agencies about the pre-911 refusal to seek a warrant for the computer information that field agents wanted to get off of the terrorist’s computer? That’s not quite the same as the FISA/NSA issues we are discussing here, but what I’m getting at is how the public takes way too much for granted and oversimplifies the situation with their 20/20 hindsight. We look back on that situation knowing that these people flew jets into buildings and killed thousands of people, but that was an absolutely unthinkable scenario to those making the warrant decision at that time. I’m not defending what was done, but I am saying that we tend to gloss over those kind of facts when we “rush to judgment” on such important matters. The AG saw the warrant as a huge mess that he might lose before a judge and he didn’t want the problems that would be associated with such a loss. In the end, we all know that this was a terribly bad decision. However, at that time, it was also a bureaucratic decision. Sadly, within the agencies, it is not much different now—its just that the bar has been lowered a little this time around. And through it all, the ill-informed public and media outcries have made indecisive quagmires out of things that should have been easy decisions to begin with. As for the eavesdropping requirements, I do agree with you on the need for this kind of accountability in the warrant “application”. But, due to how the terrorists are operating today, there also needs to be a more streamlined way to get those questioned answered—FISA is not there yet and though it is a good system--it’s not near perfect and it needs to be changed to meet the changing tactics of our enemies. NSA was trying to do this, but to no avail--thus the "by-pass". Which is what started the “tiff” between the FISA judges and the NSA. Terrorists work hard to operate behind the same rights as US Citizens have--so if we are to be successful, something has to give. We have to come up with realistic solutions if we are going to be expected to get the "bad guys" before they get us. It’s not a comfortable thought (nor should it be), but it is a reality we have to face. Either we accept that fact that we are going to get hit once in a while and suffer massive casualties and economically crippling attacks, or we get much more aggressive with our surveillance. The real world is not a pretty place to live and you can’t have it both ways. It is going to be one or the other--no matter how many times you click your heels together and tell yourself "There's no place like home". Yes, we need to seriously question these issues that affect our freedoms--but at the same time, we need to do it with a full willingness to face the consequences of our questions and decisions. Over the last 20 years, the public has never been willing to do that. That justice who quit the FISA was no big deal as those involved with FISA know it was more about ego and a judicial power grab, not the Constitution. There are quite a few "inside" comments and stories about that event and why it really happened. It's interesting to see people use that judge's resignation as proof the NSA program was illegal...they have no idea all the factors that went into that resignation...and the Constitution was not top of the list. Put simply, the NSA project is constitutional if you read it one way, maybe constitutional in a "gray way" if you read it another. However, the cold hard fact about the program is/was what the President said (whether you like him or not): …If you are an American Citizen and you are talking to known terrorists, we want to know what you are saying… Add to that statement all the things Abraham Lincoln wrote about personal freedom during times that threatened the country. Read what he said should be done. Read about some of the things he did. It’s a real eye-opener for some people. And yet he fought harder to protect the Constitution than any other President before or since. Constitutional extremists may find things to nitpick concerning the NSA program, but if you read the papers of our forefathers who wrote the Constitution, the past Supreme Court rulings concerning actions by Presidents from the Civil War through WWII, you will find that seeking out and going after US Citizens who act in a manner that poses a threat to the United States—specifically those communicating with foreign interests which are in open conflict with our country (which is what the NSA wiretaps were going after)...you will find that over the years, the “powers that be” were given sweeping authority to protect the common good and go after those people. The NSA program targets foreigners who are considered and known to be dangerous to the United States. If a US Citizen is talking to them, well, I’m sorry, we really do need to know what is going on there. The NSA program has not weakened us—and in fact has given us a HUGE shield of protection—right up to the point that it was announced to the public. I am certainly not angry with you, Sam S. or people like you. Your comments to me and questions were quite legitimate and I am happy to discuss them with you...and am happy to hear and consider your thoughts on the matter. It’s the people like Frederic, who have no idea what they are talking and yet have to resort to name calling and accusations to attempt to prove they are right--those are the people who anger me. About not cowering in the past, if you mean not giving up our personal freedoms and rights in order to fight WWII...Please research World War II a bit more. Look at a number of the less talked about monitoring programs the government implemented and what our government did on the home front to find spies and citizens working against the war effort (some of the programs during WWII were so far-reaching and invasive on our personal freedoms that they are still classified). Those powers and invasions of privacy (in many, many cases) were far more sweeping in power than the NSA and other agencies have asked for today. Were there abuses? Certainly there were. But here’s what is most important to remember about that. Every time those sweeping powers were granted, we recovered our freedoms and moved on after it was over. It didn’t topple us or cause a Constitutional Crisis as so many have feared would happen. Pertaining to the protection of the Constitution, technically, it is the government’s job (including all three branches) to protect the Constitution. It is our job to oversee the government that does this protecting. However, it is also our job to give our government the ability to carry out that protective task--even if it means temporarily limiting some freedoms we have for the common good of our country. If we can’t trust those who are in the government with that protective power, then we must vote them out and vote in those who we can trust to carry out this vitally important task… That’s why in the past the US has always been such a successfully dynamic and powerful country: We have always been able to strike that delicate balance with our government…. Thanks for the discussion—I hope this has answered some of the questions you were asking me.

Posted by: WB at December 03, 2006 01:27 AM (yR9hl)

50 Frederic, Yes, I'm aware of the Resonable Doubt/Probable Cause statements...but I was typing "freestyle" and not proofing for that. Most people unfamiliar with this would not notice or care about the nuances of the wording. And all of this can be pretty boring anyway, so I didn't really give it a second thought. Things are different when I have to do these blasted reports, though. Apologies for playing a little "fast and loose" with the terminolgy. Because of what you posted this last time, (DeWine, etc), it certainly makes the terminology being used by me very important. Curiously enough, your last post shows that the FISA process can be very slow...in fact for the "72 hours warrant" that was mentioned...it is many times not fast enough. Again, I have seen it lost for want of three hours. Overall, the FISA system is not broken (per se) but it does need to be given a good hard look and that look should be done with recent terrorist practices in mind. I'm very sorry to have landed on you so hard in my last posts. CY will tell you that I have just heard so much in this line of work and received so many accusations from "professionals and experts" who don't know the drill...you just get tired of it and end up some nights with a very short fuse. Tonight was one of those nights... Your last post was well done and had some great points...and please accept my apologies for jumping back at you so hard. Also, thanks for your Task Force work under DHS. It's appreciated.

Posted by: WB at December 03, 2006 01:58 AM (0dT+n)

51 WB: thanks so much for taking the time to write that. You probably don't realize how rare that perspective is for many of us, and it gives me an appreciation for the job. I have a couple of remarks. I have two things to say about "if you are an American Citizen and you are talking to known terrorists, we want to know what you are saying." First, well sure that's as it should be. It's a sore point because the GOP has made a false issue into a bludgeon. I've never met anyone who objected to eavesdropping on 'known terrorists', and if FISA makes that difficult it's broken. The GOP keeps calling us sympathizers, and it's tiresome. Second, at one point someone stated that the surveillance program was constitutional because there were no names associated with the data. That's fatuous, because anyone can reverse lookup phone numbers. The president of Qwest refused to participate because he felt it was unconstitutional. The program smells funny to me, and as I said above I feel it's my highest duty as a citizen to be vigilant for exactly that kind of abuse. My other point is that most of the anti-terrorism measures I see demonstrate incompetence, and I have to wonder how much is really getting done. I hope it's clear that I mean no disrespect by this. A lot of the safeguards are theater. A good example is when New York introduced a policy where every so many people who enter a subway station are asked to submit their bags for inspection, but it's optional. A child terrorist could figure out that he should refuse to have his bag searched and then walk to the next subway station instead. Showing ID to get on an airplane is silly; ask any teenager about fake ID's. Those Muslim/Christian/martial arts guys in Florida were bozos. The more recent case where a guy supposedly tried to mix a bomb from liquids is dubious according to all the chemists I've heard from, yet you can't bring a bottle of water onto an airplane. Pretend you're a terrorist for half an hour and you can come up with better ways to kill people that are no better safeguarded now than they were ten years ago. On the other hand, pull out a box cutter on an airplane now and you're going to get your ass beat quick, yet look where all our efforts seem to be going. A lot of what I see seems to be along the lines of "show the citizenry that we're on the job," and have the unfortunate side-effect of making us more tractable. You say a huge plot was foiled at one time, but I never heard about that. The two trumpeted cases that I mentioned above don't seem very impressive. Thank you for the discussion. I really am grateful for your time.

Posted by: Sam S at December 03, 2006 02:32 AM (iBgGu)

52 Sam, nobody cares if someone is banging their neighbors wife, cheating on their taxes, or conspiring to buy a bag of weed from the mailroom boy, or organizing a demonstration to save the freaking whales. DIA, NSA, CIA, FBI, NRO, ASA, etc THEY DON'T CARE about that stuff and neither does anyone else. If someone can't trust the people charged with protecting this nation at least that much, then just getting out of bed in the morning and going to work must be a damn terrifying experience for them.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 03, 2006 04:55 AM (p9O/F)

53 cfbleachers said: Truth is like kryptonite to leftists ... I advocate being an "issue-ist". Decide each issue on its own merits. Not because it resounds with or emanates from the left or right...but because after examining it thoroughly what's left IS right. "What a hypocrite!" LOL...usually people have to know at least where I stand on more than one issue...before labeling me a hypocrite. Apparently, Sam S doesn't like where I stand on THIS issue...since I agree with WB... "A lot of the safeguards are theater..." Not a bad point...just not thought completely through... A lot of TERRORISM...is theater. Terrorism is designed not to defeat a military, but to impose fear in the populace and weaken their will. While most of the hard work that goes on, does so behind the scenes, you still need to combat the effects of terrorism by making a show of force of the GOOD guys. In addition, terrorists are human (at least partially) and they make mistakes. People trained in law enforcement, who have been doing it for some time...are capable of "reading the street". They can see things that are outside the norm often enough...(not always, of course)...to make it helpful to set up a few "gauntlets" that terrorists would have to walk. Lastly, I don't know who the "friends" are that are chemists...who don't believe that certain mixed chemicals can cause a sizeable explosion, noxious and deadly fumes, or be combustible with the use of a small lighter or match...apparently they never had a kid's chemistry set or knew my cousin Vincent as a ten year old! LOL

Posted by: cfbleachers at December 03, 2006 10:42 AM (5RM9g)

54 PA, There are a whole list of arguments that could be made, but this should never be one of them; "trust us" is not a valid point. There's a reason the Constitution has checks and balances, and it's not because the drafters had the attitude that they trusted the people in charge. Please, never call yourself a conservative if this is your argument: "If someone can't trust the people charged with protecting this nation at least that much, then just getting out of bed in the morning and going to work must be a damn terrifying experience for them."

Posted by: runner at December 03, 2006 12:58 PM (cPZB0)

55 Purple Avenger said: Sam, nobody cares if someone is banging their neighbors wife, cheating on their taxes, or conspiring to buy a bag of weed from the mailroom boy, or organizing a demonstration to save the freaking whales. DIA, NSA, CIA, FBI, NRO, ASA, etc THEY DON'T CARE about that stuff and neither does anyone else. If someone can't trust the people charged with protecting this nation at least that much, then just getting out of bed in the morning and going to work must be a damn terrifying experience for them. That is naive, sure they care. I already gave you the example of Nixon. Politician have a huge incentive to get dirt on their enemies. You can extrapolate from there. There are moral and immoral people in every branch of government. Suppose an immoral person at the NSA has a grudge against some guy for bilking the agent's dad out of $10,000 in a shady real estate deal, or the guy that got his daughter pregnant, or so on and so on. Haven't you heard "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"? When Benjamin Franklin famously said, "A republic if you can keep it," he meant if you, the citizenry, can keep the government in check. The foundation of the US is the unending struggle against tyranny.

Posted by: Sam S at December 03, 2006 01:20 PM (iBgGu)

56 cfbleachers: I just can't see how you can fairly entertain ideas from the left since you believe that truth is alien to the left. Here is the first link that turned up from my Google search for "airplane bomb mixing liquids chemistry": http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/ maybe it's wrong, but that's exactly what I read from two other sources back at the time.

Posted by: Sam S at December 03, 2006 01:32 PM (iBgGu)

57 Suppose an immoral person at the NSA has a grudge against some guy for bilking the agent's dad out of $10,000 in a shady real estate deal Then there's no "law" written on paper that can stop them. Cops aren't supposed to do contract killings, yet some have done so in the past. I knew an oldschool ex-NYPD wireman (now dead) who routinely wiretapped and performed break ins without a warrant for years. If you don't care if the information gathered is admissible or not in court, lack of a warrant isn't much deterrent. If you think you can somehow legislate moral behavior, you're living in a fantasy world.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 03, 2006 05:44 PM (p9O/F)

58 Purple Avenger: Then there's no "law" written on paper that can stop them. Most citizens are law abiding. The rest should be punished. Why the quotation marks around 'law'? I'm confused. Cops aren't supposed to do contract killings, yet some have done so in the past What does that prove? If you think you can somehow legislate moral behavior, you're living in a fantasy world. I'm just baffled by this post. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Posted by: Sam S at December 04, 2006 02:10 AM (iBgGu)

59 I don't understand what you are trying to say. I'm not surprised. I doubt you ever could.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 04, 2006 03:43 AM (p9O/F)

60 "I just can't see how you can fairly entertain ideas from the left since you believe that truth is alien to the left." Couple of points SS...I can entertain viewpoints from anywhere. LeftISTS...have a nasty habit these days of not being terribly fond of the facts. LeftIST dogma is no more appetizing to me than rightIST dogma. That doesn't mean that a viewpoint that emanates left or right of center has ZERO merit...it means that people attached to dogma and who manipulate and distort the facts are not particularly credible. I believe the greatest danger in modern America stems from leftIST dogma. I think the Ministry of Media and all their branches intentionally distort facts and have bastardized our information stream in order to advance a leftIST dogma. This doesn't mean that anyone who falls left of center can't have a good idea, or that all their viewpoints are wrong or bad. If you read anything I have written, I have made comments about Joe Lieberman, Bill Clinton, Hillary, Jim Baker, Scowcroft...it would be tough to pigeonhole me on a particular issue, to know where I would stand...BEFORE the facts are in. Not true of people attached to a dogma. Or those who reside in the echo chamber. I just see (in terms of national defense, homeland security, Saddam Hussein and Iraq) that most of the lies, distortions, manipulation of facts, against America (and Israel)...consistently stem from leftISTS...and their dogma, their Ministry of Media and then parroted by the lemmings in their echo chamber choir. I find that...harmful, seditious, despicable and in need of constant highlighting.

Posted by: cfbleachers at December 04, 2006 10:01 AM (5RM9g)

61 I agree with cfbleachers! All of the lies about Saddam having WMDs, about being greeted as liberators, as having flower petals strewn before us were made by Leftists (whatever that term happens to mean, as I guess most of America is Leftist now). And, really, why shouldn't we let the Government listen to our conversations. They're so good at finding bad guys (let's not mention Osama). And they're just doing everything they can to protect us. Why, with the amount of government brainpower on this site, it's a wonder we still have a Constitution!

Posted by: O'brien at December 04, 2006 06:51 PM (P0dq1)

62 Purple Avenger: "I don't understand what you are trying to say." I'm not surprised. I doubt you ever could. I ask for clarification and you take that as proof of your superiority? You're not worth my time. Your penultimate post was obtuse.

Posted by: Sam S at December 04, 2006 06:54 PM (iBgGu)

63 "All of the lies about Saddam having WMDs" I don't happen to think that Clinton, Albright, Cohen, Berger, et al...were lying. This is an inane issue. He had them. He used them. He was preparing to make more. Try to keep up. "...were made by Leftists (whatever that term happens to mean, as I guess most of America is Leftist now)" Now? Why? The CENTER voted to teach the Republicans a lesson. It didn't MOVE leftward, it voted in a way that moved the country just over 50% for Republicans previously, and just over 50% for Democrats recently. The country is a center....maybe slightly right of center country. Nothing changed that dynamic. You are going to be sorely disappointed if you view it any other way. "Most" Americans aren't any different than they have been...they still don't like the seditious left. "And, really, why shouldn't we let the Government listen to our conversations." The issue is whether there is a legitimate state interest in a limited surveillance of international communications. Again, try to keep up. "They're so good at finding bad guys (let's not mention Osama)." If we aren't as good as we should be...shouldn't we be doing things to make it easier to find the enemy, rather than harder???? I would think that would be a logical progression to this argument...but, maybe your view of who the enemy is...like most leftists...is America...instead of those who want to destroy her. I can't speak for you... "And they're just doing everything they can to protect us." And you think they should do less? We should make it as hard as possible to protect us? Maybe do nothing at all? What do you think would be reasonable to do, to attack our enemies, to stop their evil acts? I've not yet heard ONE CONCRETE IDEA from leftists on this. I think I know why... "Why, with the amount of government brainpower on this site, it's a wonder we still have a Constitution!" Again...leftists have this exalted view of how brilliant they are. When examined more closely...they really fall far behind the center in terms of college and post-graduate degrees statistically. In fact, they place third...behind conservatives in terms of numbers of Americans with college or graduate degrees. Centrists place first...by a wide margin. The Constitution is not in trouble, but the Republic is...if we allow leftists to dominate the information stream with lies and distortions. So, here are a couple of simple questions: 1)Do you believe there is a legitimate state interest in protecting America and Americans from sleeper cells of Islamic fanatics who want to harm us? 2)Do you believe that surveillance of their communications is a legitimate tool in protecting America and Americans, IF you agree with 1) above? 3)What is/are your concrete suggestion(s) for accomplishing the task of interrupting their cash flow, communications and planning?

Posted by: cfbleachers at December 04, 2006 08:57 PM (5RM9g)

Hide Comments | Add Comment