Scattered, sometimes intense sectarian fighting broke out last week in the wake of the destruction of the Askariya shrine (also known as the Golden Mosque) in Samarra at the hands of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. While the fighting appears to have abated, the Washington Post is now reporting that officials at the main Baghdad morgue put the toll at more than 1,300 dead. This is more than three times previous estimates, and should prove sobering to both those who would brush this off as a minor hurdle already overcome.

While the loss of life is tragic, the series of skirmishes and ambushes of the past few days in Iraqi are far from the "civil war" many news outlets and pundits were all too eager to declare.

Civil wars tend to end with catastrophic losses and destroyed cultures after prolonged, drawn-out conflicts. This was decidedly not a civil war, but more than a riot. It was a "not quite" war where the best planning of al Qaeda and the most emotionally charged of targets failed to ignite an escalating conflagration that would spiral out of control.

Instead, al Qaeda is faced with the Golden Mosque strike that was a tactical success, which may yet turn into a strategic defeat. Terrorists succeeded in initiating a short-term sectarian struggle that while intense, lasted mere days.

The conflict ended with Sunni and Kurdish leaders pledging money and support to rebuild a Shia shrine. It drove politicians together for the good of all their peoples and a shared if not completely agreed-upon future.

The surprising number of dead may even force the Iraqi government to address the growing concern of religious militias and rogue interior Ministry forces that seem to have been responsible for the bulk of the reprisal killings in Iraq.

It was not quite war, but close enough to one, hopefully, that it forces sober thought to overcome bluster, and perhaps hard lessons will be learned.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:40 AM | Comments (53) | Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.

So much for the "civil war" in Iraq the media and American anti-war demonstrators have been all but hoping for:

Iraq lifted an extraordinary daylight curfew in three governorates on Sunday as the wave of violence that followed Wednesday's destruction of a Shia shrine appeared to ebb outside the capital.

But the ban on traffic in Baghdad – which last night suffered a mortar attack that killed 15 and wounded at least another 30 people – remained in place. In other sporadic violence on Sunday another seven people died, including two US soldiers.

The apparent absence of organised reprisals at the weekend, however, suggests that while the destruction of the dome of the al-Askariya shrine and the ensuing wave of Shia attacks on Sunnis has brought the country the closest it has come to sectarian civil war, key religious and political leaders on both sides have this time been both willing and able to de-escalate the crisis.

The attack on the al-Askariya shrine was probably al Qaeda's last best hope of triggering a sectarian civil war in Iraq. Instead of ripping the nation apart however, it seems to have had the opposite effect, driving the leaders of Iraq's various ethnic groups closer together in a conflict against a common enemy.

al Qaeda, already growing unpopular with the Sunni tribes that once supported them, can be expected to start falling in greater numbers, as seen in the death of Abu Asma, the Al Qaeda Military Emir of Northern Baghdad three days ago.

al Qaeda had only a slim chance to prevail in this conflict when it started. Continued strategic and tactical blunders such as these exacerbate their problems.

Faster, please.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.

CNN issued this hysteric report late Friday:

The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.

The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.

The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.

Not surprisingly, the lefty blogs were ready with their vast suppository of knowledge about military operations. You can read what they have to excrete via memeorandum.

A representative sample is provided by Daily Kos diarist Susan G:

So much for fearless leader's repeated recounting of how great that training of Iraqi forces is going...

Funny, just last month, Bush said, "Today, 125 combat battalions are fighting the enemy, and 50 of those are in the lead. That's progress."

What he forgot to tell us in January was that only one of those battalions was capable of fighting without U.S. support.

And as of today, there are zero.

Somehow I don't think our troops will be coming home for Christmas ... even Christmas 2008.

Of course you don't sweetheart. You never miss a chance to try to lose, do you?

What Susan G. and the rest of the omni-impotent left either isn't bright enough to know (or honest enough to admit) is that this unit is still afield, still fighting terrorists, and still winning even while undergoing what appears to be a major shift.

CNN provides a hint as to the level of transition:

Though officials would not cite a specific reason for downgrading the unit, its readiness level has dropped in the wake of a new commander and numerous changes in the combat and support units, officials said.

It is not uncommon in our own military for units to be temporarily downgraded when similar changes in force structure, support, and command are made. In many instances, a recalibration of a unit to this level will not even occur in the field, and so the fact that they had enough faith in the ability of the unit to keep it deployed while undergoing such a transition speaks to its strength and professionalism, not to any real or lasting weaknesses.

Buried far down in the CNN article is this bit of information that you won't find liberal blogs discussing:

According to the congressionally mandated Iraq security report released Friday, there are 53 Iraqi battalions at level two status, up from 36 in October. There are 45 battalions at level three, according to the report.

17 Iraqi battalions went up a readiness level, and the media focuses on the top Iraqi unit's ability to affect a battlefield reorganization as if it represents failure instead of a high level of confidence in their abilities.

I wish the news media could display a level of competence on par with the Iraqi military, but of course, that would be hoping for far too much.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:01 AM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 527 words, total size 3 kb.

It must be Bush's poll numbers:

Just 17% of Americans believe Dubai Ports World should be allowed to purchase operating rights to several U.S. ports. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 64% disagree and believe the sale should not be allowed.

Just 39% of Americans know that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm. Fifteen percent (15%) believe the operating rights are U.S. owned while 46% are not sure.

From a political perspective, President Bush's national security credentials have clearly been tarnished due to the outcry over this issue. For the first time ever, Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President.

Bush may very well have had valid questions with his versions of "If not them, who? If not now, when?" when discussing the pending Dubai Ports World deal, but that time is now passed.

At this point, opportunistic Democrats and some reactionary, uneducated congressional Republicans have painted those who would be more reflective into a corner, creating a situation where a serious, logical discussion of the situation is not longer possible.

As Joe Gandelman notes:

Polls reflect perceptions and mood, not necessarily the validity or worth of an issue or policy. If the White House had done better prep with the Congress and public before the news of this deal came out the poll numbers — and controversy — would probably be a bit different.

Dubai is one of our better Arab allies, and if we can't work with them, it seems to send the message we are unwilling to work with any Arab countries, at least when it directly affects us. Instead of having them literally buy into America, we sell them what our enemies have been whispering the entire time, "See? They will not accept you. Come back to us..."

I have no stake in Dubai. I know some there have had their hands in terrorism, and I know that some still may. I know they don't recognize Israel, and that bothers me.

At this point, there aren't a lot of good "outs."

If Bush stands his ground, then most rest of the Republican Party will break with him to chase the polls in what has become a surprise election year turkey. If Bush backs down, we could lose some of the fragile trust we've tried to develop in Arab countries since 9/11.

Thanks, Congress.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:15 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

From the NY Times:

After a day of violence so raw and so personal, Iraqis woke on Thursday morning to a tense new world in which, it seemed, anything was possible.

The violence on Wednesday was the closest Iraq had come to civil war, and Iraqis were stunned. In Al Amin, a neighborhood in southeast Baghdad, a Shiite man said he had watched gunmen set a house on fire. It was identified as the residence of Sunni Arab militants, said the man, Abu Abbas, though no one seemed to know for sure who they were.

"We all were shocked," said Abu Abbas, a vegetable seller, standing near crates of oranges and tomatoes. "We saw it burning. We called the fire department. We didn't know how to behave. Chaos was everywhere."

Pajamas Media's own Iraq the Model:

In our neighborhood the Sadr militias seized the local mosque and broadcast Shia religious mourning songs from the mosques loudspeakers.
In several other cases, worshippers were turned away by "gunmen in black" who surrounded the closed mosques. Other mosques are encircled by razor-wire to stop anyone from approaching them.

The sense in the streets and the statements given by some Shia clerics suggest that retaliation attacks are organized and under control and are focusing on mosques frequented by Salafi and Wahabi groups and not those of ordinary Sunnis.

Looking at the geographic distribution of the attacked mosques, I found they were mostly in areas adjacent to Sadr city forming a line that extends from the New Baghdad district in the southeast to al-Hussayniya in the northeast.

Two different snapshots remind us that in such fluid events, nothing is certain. Whether triggered by al Qaeda or Iranian proxy al-Sadr who was just too conveniently out of the country for my tastes, the bombing of the 1,200-year-old Askariya shrine ignited a firestorm in Iraq.

The question on everyone's mind is if it is possible to bring this situation back under control. I strongly suspect that it can and will be brought back under control, because it is not in the interests of the three major groups--Shiites, Sunnis, or Kurds--for this situation to devolve into a civil war. The only groups that have something visibly to gain are Zarqawi's al Qaeda, which have sought from the beginning to destabilize the Iraqi government, and Iranian puppets like Muqtada al-Sadr.

I think that if authorities can bring Shiite reprisal attacks under control within the next few days without too much further damage, then the violence might serve as a wakeup call to the major groups. This attack, if traced back to al Qaeda, could bring a rapid end to the remaining Sunni support for an insurgency that is already at war with itself.

Blowing up the Askariya shrine might prove to be the equivalent of detonating dynamite to blow out a burning well fire. al Qaeda in Iraq might have just blown out their own flickering flame.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:15 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.

"...not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Martin Luther King, August 28, 1963

"I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port...

"Again, I repeat, if there was any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go forward. But I also want to repeat something again, and that is, this is a company that has played by the rules, that has been cooperative with the United States, a country that's an ally in the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

George W. Bush February 21, 2006

George Bush will never be half as eloquent as the late Dr. King, but the sentiment remains the same: judge people by what they do, and not because of cultural stereotypes or the color of their skin.

The UAE have been an ally to this country, and I think our initial knee-jerk response on this (mine included) was wrong. This may not play well domestically at first, but the rest of the world is watching, and the President is sending the right message.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:05 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

1 UAE has cooperated with the War on Terror to a degree--but only to a degree. The same can be said about SA. But neither country can be counted on when the chips are down...that's not opinion--that is a fact. Sorry, but until they stop blocking off investigations into terrorist's bank accounts (among other things they do to protect radical Islamic beliefs and practices) and come out denouncing radical Islam (which they have never done), I cannot condone giving their stock market and Sukuk global acceptance through this port deal. I know the Port Authority (both management and Unions) in Baltimore too and I deal with them concerning our ships. There would be far more influence by the UAE company over the ports than anyone is willing to admit or discuss. Those bids they will manage have influence and farther reaching tentacles. Furthermore, this isn't about who's going to be running the ports--it never was (or shouldn't have been to those who know about how ports operate). This is about boosting Arab stocks on a world market and strengthening their holdings in the US. It's about SUKUS, and about adding several BILLION dollars worth of influence to an Arab global market exchange that is trying to find its feet. The UAE sukus would be the largest paper written in the Arab would and would further strengthen their newly established stock markets and global corporate peddling. This one fact alone is something that is NOT in our best interests. Nope, can't go with Bush on this and won't...not until he comes clean about what is really behind the deal--and there is a LOT more going on behind the scenes--and a LOT more at stake here than just a "business contract" with some ports. Judging by actions and not by skin color may be a great thing theory, but in reality, things like racial profiling work for a reason. And there is not a country in the Middle East (except Israel) that we can depend upon when things get rough. And that lack of dependence is due to the Arab Middle East's ACTIONS. These Arab countries are NOT OUR ALLIES...never have been and probably never will. Our relationship with the Arab states is one of convenience--on both sides--and that has been shown to time and again be something that simply cannot be depended upon or trusted. Trust is earned, not given...and certainly not given as a "goodwill gesture" in times such as these. It's a different world than it was during MLK and JFK's speeches. Especially since today there is so much more at stake than there was back then. Sorry, I've personally dealt with SA and the Kuwait governments--including the SA embassy in DC. It is unbelievable how they do business and what they support. Their ethics and morals are nearly opposite those of the West. There is not a single Arab country that can be trusted--no matter what Bush or anyone else says. I've seen how the Arab Middle East works firsthand--as have some of my close friends with the FBI and none have ever had anything good to say about they have seen or experienced. I wish I had the time to tell you all the things I've seen and had to deal with just concerning SA--and the UAE is not much different. They are all cut from the same mold, like it or not. I will NEVER turn my back on them. EVER...and the less business we have to do with them, the better we are. I'd rather deal with China anytime than with an Arab state. Sorry, but this UAE thing is way too close to home with me due to the ships we're getting and the ports we are dealing with--I've worked with Middle East businesses and know of what I speak. I just had to vent a little.

Posted by: WB at February 22, 2006 01:16 AM (kkWeo)

2 I think it's funny that people still quote MLK when his name wasn't Martin Luther, but Michael King, and all of his speaches were stolen from someone else. Too bad his police files are sealed for several more years, what a shock it would be to the idiots of today that made him a hero to read what a low life he really was. He wasn't a hero, he was a con man one step ahead of the law, and his crimes would have gotten the average person 25 to life. The nut that shot him saved him from dying in prison. Get off the crook and write about something more important, maybe a pee wee ball game.

Posted by: scrapiron at February 22, 2006 02:28 AM (wZLWV)

3 "I think it sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's okay for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world can't manage the port..." Except that two of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE and none were from Great Britain.

Posted by: Jason at February 22, 2006 07:27 AM (YHqK/)

4 I totally reject the idea of allowing the security of our ports to fall into the hands of the Moslems. Also, please don't compare GW with MLK in any way. The above description of the con man, Michael King is accurate. When will the truth about this man come out and the worship of his name come to an end?

Posted by: Dorothy at February 22, 2006 10:44 AM (5tKV2)

5 Jason, you are right. Two UAE citizens did participate in carrying out the terror attacks of 9/11. But since 9/11, at least 14 British citizens (four suicide bombers on 7/7, the four failed bombers from 7/21 and their supporters) have carried out terror attacks against western targets. Hmmmm... In addition, this is, I think folks are beginning to realize, a paper transfer. The U.S. Coast Guard will continue to provide port security, and U.S. Customs will continue to provide inspections. None of that changes. The same AFL/CIO union members will still do the work. The only thing I can see changing is who the mob is shaking down. Abdul, meet Michael, Anthony, and Vinnie... As for those of you who slam Dr. King, I'm frankly ashamed. He was not a perfect human being. He had his faults, but that proves what, exactly? He did a lot more good than bad, and I doubt most of us, myself included, could come close to meeting that standard. As for perfect heroes, as I recall, the last time we had one, we killed him, too. Of course, we didn't use a rifle. A cross and three nails did it just fine.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 22, 2006 11:06 AM (g5Nba)

6 And while we're at it, why don't we look at the evil arabs running this company, shall we? COO: Mr. Edward Bilkey, US Navy (ret), graduate of Yale and Harvard General Counsel: Mr. George Dalton, a graduate of Fordham Senior VP Operations: Mr. Joost Kruijning, a native of the Netherlands Mr. Matt Leech, graduate of Georgetown Senior VP Commercial: Mr. Michael Moore, a man who started in trucking in the US CFO: Mr. Vijay Sharma, a native of India. Courtesy of Flopping Aces.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 22, 2006 11:11 AM (g5Nba)

7 The only problem I have with this transaction taking place is that it wasnt run by Americans in the first place. If we have already sold this port to the British what does it matter who runs it now. Like Confedrate Yankee said this is a paper transfer it doe not affect who runs the security. The Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and Port Authority will still have control over securing this port. If Bush is trying to help our international image (which so many Dems think he doesnt do) then I applaud him. But this port shoul dhave been under US control the whoel time and this wouldnt be an issue.

Posted by: 81 at February 22, 2006 11:16 AM (Mv/2X)

8 George Tenet, told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States on March 24, 2004. The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan.Had the CIA targeted bin Laden, half the royal family would have been wiped out as well, he said. How is it a good idea to hand over AMERICAN ports to Bin Laden's pals?

Posted by: whocares at February 22, 2006 02:34 PM (BJYNn)

9 The Central Intelligence Agency did not target Al Qaeda chief Osama bin laden once as he had the royal family of the United Arab Emirates with him in Afghanistan. Really? Funny you should say that, because the 9/11 Commission Report says something differently: According to reporting from the tribals, Bin Ladin regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis; the tribals expected him to be at the hunting camp for such a visit at least until midmorning on February 11.155 Clarke wrote to Berger's deputy on February 10 that the military was then doing targeting work to hit the main camp with cruise missiles and should be in position to strike the following morning.156 Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert appears to have been briefed on the situation.157 No strike was launched. By February 12 Bin Ladin had apparently moved on, and the immediate strike plans became moot.158 Some folks - the same Richard Clarke mentioned above - also told Tenet they thought the intelligence was of dubious value, anyway. If you are going to tell the story, tell the whole story.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 22, 2006 03:08 PM (g5Nba)

10 Whoa folks, I am as concerned as the next person but, if this transaction does not go thru we are in serious trouble in the Mid-East. I know we are already seen as the "Great Satin" but this is cannon fodder for the radicals to use in there hate mongering. If you see this as a transferrence of security of our ports, you are wrong they are going to be the adminstrators not the gate keepers. No different that the Brits or Chinese.We are still going to have the say so on what comes into our ports. We control all security ie. Coast Guard and U.S. Customs. 99.9% of the work force are going to be Americans. This will bolster our standing and will give real "meat and potaoes" to our claims of equality and disproving the myth that we hate all muslims. Trust me there will be more oversight on this than you can believe.

Posted by: Fathful Patriot at February 22, 2006 03:21 PM (FzhYM)

11 I guess my concern in the first place was that this operation was run by a foreign company to begin with. I'm not so much profiling UAE as would-be attackers, but I'm not as confident in their ability to keep out infiltrators who would use their management of the ports for terror ops. And yes, CY, I did see that there were some Americans holding high positions in the company... but then again, can a handful of executives prevent the infiltration of middle management or lower? "But since 9/11, at least 14 British citizens (four suicide bombers on 7/7, the four failed bombers from 7/21 and their supporters) have carried out terror attacks against western targets. Hmmmm..." British citizens attacking British targets. Hmmm... that doesn't bode well for your next statement regarding Americans being in charge of the company.

Posted by: Jason at February 22, 2006 03:28 PM (6suck)

12 *sigh* It's not about direct port control...It is about the ability to INFLUENCE the operations of a port and strengthening the SUKUS of UAE...and anyone who says that can't happen in this deal has NO CLUE as to how a port operates and how much money is involved here. Even thought the Unions are in control of the Stevies (and that control according to the agreement is strained), the ports can be shut down or crippled by the UAE company. They don't have to do it (and lose money), they just have to IMPLY that certain decisions could hinder port efficiency. Furthermore, there are a number of things within the port operational structure in which they would have a voice. That is NOT something we want right now. I'm telling you this is a major mistake and we have created a mess by allowing it to get this far. Now, no matter what is decided, we are in for some problems.

Posted by: WB at February 22, 2006 04:07 PM (ch8ZP)

13 CY, For the natural life of me, I cannot see any good thing coming out of this deal. Islam is the problem here. Can anyone tell me why a, whatever you want to call it, system based on lies and deceit should be our friend? I have no experience with ports, but the vision of 911 is with me. What does CAIR say about this deal? If they like it, which they do, then should we be with them? WB, I vote with you. btw, W called the border watchers "vigilantes." Now he calls these guys our friends? Yours truly, Islamophobe for life.

Posted by: Southern(USA)whiteboy at February 22, 2006 06:44 PM (6ldTE)

14 I know all of you points seem to be valid but the only one thats really important is that the security is still being taken care of by our people. Plus one point to add as a member of the military I see things a little differently do you know how much more dangerous it would be to try to port or Naval Ships anywhere in the gulf if this does not go thru?? Its already bad enough but you add the hate this deal not going thru would create and we end up with another USS Cole on our hands. The only thing I dont like about it like I said before is that the port shoul dhave never been turned over to foreigners in the first place, but since it was already sold out but a Dem then why are all their panties in a wad now?

Posted by: 81 at February 23, 2006 09:27 AM (WGcw3)

15 If DPW runs our ports like the run the ones in UAE, watch out. Those ports are used by terrorists, gun runners, and smugglers to move their stuff in and out of the middle east.

Posted by: Dick Tuck at February 24, 2006 02:17 AM (STPIj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Israel takes out the trash:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Israeli forces in the West Bank city of Nablus early Monday shot and killed Islamic Jihad's top commander in the region, the militant group said.

Lt. Col. Benjamin Shick, an Israeli commander, said his forces caught a group of militants, including Ahmed Abu Sharik, 30, off guard on the second day of a raid in Nablus.

"We found a group of people we have been seeking for a while and we went for them," he said. "We know every street and alley, where they are and where they hide."

Military officials said Abu Sharik had been involved in numerous attacks on Israeli soldiers, and he helped plan a recent suicide attack in Tel Aviv. The army also arrested 15 militants overnight throughout the West Bank.

Interesting thing about 5.56mm NATO. It may not work all that well, but when it does, the bad guys are rarely are set free on appeal...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

In a bold show of solidarity with coalition forces, hundreds of pro-al Qaeda students have stated they may assist in joint testing of U.S. and Afghani government weapons systems.

U.S. forces will test their targeting, guidance, and propulsion systems, while the pro-al Qaeda students will test warhead effectiveness.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:28 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The liberals should be so proud; a cooperative agreement has been reached.

Posted by: Old Soldier at February 20, 2006 09:57 PM (owAN1)

2 I strongly encourage repeated follow on testing of the accuracy of these new weapons

Posted by: Faithful Patriot at February 23, 2006 08:46 AM (JSetw)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The selection below is from an email sent yesterday by a former soldier and defense analyst I've had the good fortune to work with on several stories in the past. These were his reflections on a recent television interview about the recently released "Saddam tapes."

Background here, here, and of course, here.

Last night, Bill Tierney was on Hannity and Colmes talking about the Saddam Tapes. I was fascinated as Bill Tierney defended the information he claims to be present on the tapes. How eerily familiar he looked. I realized it was like a mirror for me.

I saw in him the frustration of knowing that the most significant reasons that President Bush led this nation to war against Iraq were legitimate reasons, yet the “conventional wisdom” is that we were at best wrong, and at worst criminal in that endeavor.

It looks to me to be the frustration of the vanquished, believing something to be true which was confirmed by your every sense, yet history being re-written round you as all that you believed and know is erased as flawed intelligence. This was obvious to me when he blew up at Alan Colmes telling him he wouldn't let Alan silence him on this issue, showing that Bill, like me is very tired of having to remain silent as idiots who have no first hand experience to the subject constantly define and redefine the issue.

Yes I recognize his frustration and for that reason I lend his words great credence on this matter. I get you Bill. Bill “knows”.

He made one bad mistake. He brought his evidence to what would seem to be the P.T. Barnum of our age, John Loftus. More and more it appears this intelligence summit is crumbling. It was a mistake for Mr. Tierney to choose the Loftus intelligence summit to be the vehicle of disclosure. It was a mistake for Mr. Tierney to allow John Loftus to take the tapes to ABC news for translation and reporting, a huge mistake.

Today, Mr. Tierney is reporting that the tapes were mistranslated and misreported by ABC news. I find this very believable from my experience working with translators with the Iraqi Survey Group.

How many people did ABC news have translate the material they had? With ISG, it was common practice to have important items reviewed by at least 2 linguists. Usually this was done by a cleared linguist as a reviewer, usually an Arab American with a security clearance. What provisions did ABC take to make sure that what it reported was accurate?

Often time's nuances are lost on a transcript, such as sarcasm. As soon as I heard the tapes I got what Saddam was saying. According to the ABC news transcript, Saddam said “This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq.” For anyone who has studied Saddam, you get the feeling that what he is really saying is “of course this is our objective, but we are getting our story straight here and now because we have told the world that we have no WMDs and this can never be traced back to us.”

Having worked with ISG in the audio and visual department, I was privy to the exact type of information that Tierney has released. The CD he has copied probably came from me or a coworker in my shop. I can not explain the level of frustration that I have had to live with for over a year now.

The Duelfer report was supposed to tell the story. It didn't, not completely. It is a fine start, but missing key evidence to form conclusions. What Mr. Tierney has in the form of those tapes has nothing to do with the credibility of Mr. Loftus. What is on those tapes has nothing to do with one translator for ABC news.

For these reasons I urge Mr. Tierney to immediately make the full tapes available to Fox News and disconnect himself from Mr. Loftus. I urge him to go on Hannity and Colmes tonight and show all his cards before no one is paying attention anymore. Wait and see until the full tapes are released and analyzed. Don't give up ground on the creditability of those tapes based on John Loftus. I watched Bill Tierney last night and he “knows”.

About the Author
Ray Robison is a Sr. Military Operations Research Analyst with a defense
contractor at the Aviation and Missile, Research, Development, Engineering
Command in Huntsville Alabama. His background includes over ten years of
military service as an officer and enlisted soldier including the Gulf War
and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with
the Iraqi Survey Group. He holds a B.S. degree in Biology, Pre-med from the
University of Tampa and is a graduate of the Combined Arms and Services
Staff School.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:28 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 824 words, total size 5 kb.

The Daily Tar Heel student newspaper at the University of North Carolina has stepped foot into the Cartoon Wars.

The UNC Muslim Student Association, of course, is having a fit. Not that the image is inaccurate (in my opinion, this cartoon is editorially superior to most of the other cartoons I've seen on the subject, even if the cartoonist hasn't fully developed as an artist), but that the University allowed the cartoon to run.

It's real simple folks.

You can live in a country that values freedom of expression and learn to develop tolerance as a result, or you can live in a country without the freedom of intellectual diversity, and deal with stagnant minds and derelict cultures.

The choice is yours.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:53 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 128 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Drudge, this bit of unpleasantness:

IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.
"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.

He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Doesn't everyone enjoy a good Holocaust cartoon?

And so I came up with one of my own, though it is just a draft so far. What do you think? more...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:49 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.

Top U.S. intelligence officials confirmed today that national security leaks published by the NY Times (just as reporter James Risen had a book about to be published) dealt a severe blow to the surveillance efforts of several U.S. intelligence agencies to defend America from al Qaeda terrorists.

From Forbes:

CIA Director Porter Goss said Thursday that the disclosure of President Bush's eavesdropping-without-warrants program and other once-secret projects had undermined U.S. intelligence-gathering abilities.

"The damage has been very severe to our capabilities to carry out our mission," Goss told the Senate Intelligence Committee. He said a federal grand jury should be empaneled to determine "who is leaking this information."

His testimony came after National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, who directs all intelligence activities, strongly defended the program, calling it crucial for protecting the nation against its most menacing threat.

"This was not about domestic surveillance," Negroponte said.

[snip]

"I use the words `very severe' intentionally. And I think the evidence will show that," Goss said.

He said not only have these revelations made it harder for the CIA to gather information, but they have made intelligence agencies in other countries mistrustful of their U.S. counterparts.

"I'm stunned to the quick when I get questions from my professional counterparts saying, `Mr. Goss, can't you Americans keep a secret?'" he said.

Goss cited a "disruption to our plans, things that we have under way." Some CIA sources and "assets" had been rendered "no longer viable or usable, or less effective by a large degree," he said.

"I also believe that there has been an erosion of the culture of secrecy and we're trying to reinstall that," Goss said.

"I've called in the FBI, the Department of Justice. It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present, being asked to reveal who is leaking this information," he said.

Somehow, I just don't see the left wing blogs jumping all over the Times for putting the nation in danger, as they seem to share the notion that any damage to national security was merely collateral damage in what they view as a legitimate attempt to destroy their real enemy, President George W. Bush.

"Loyal opposition," my ass.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:35 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

The longer it goes on, the more pathetic terrorist surveillance opponents become:

The Bush administration is rebuffing requests from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for its classified legal opinions on President Bush's domestic spying program, setting up a confrontation in advance of a hearing scheduled for next week, administration and Congressional officials said Wednesday.

The Justice Department is balking at the request so far, administration officials said, arguing that the legal opinions would add little to the public debate because the administration has already laid out its legal defense at length in several public settings.

But the legality of the program is known to have produced serious concerns within the Justice Department in 2004, at a time when one of the legal opinions was drafted. Democrats say they want to review the internal opinions to assess how legal thinking on the program evolved and whether lawyers in the department saw any concrete limits to the president's powers in fighting terrorism.

With the committee scheduled to hold the first public hearing on the eavesdropping program on Monday, the Justice Department's stance could provoke another clash between Congress and the executive branch over access to classified internal documents.

Translation: Now that we're hip deep in this sitation of our own design, we find that we don't really have anything to really justify these hearings, so... a little help, please!

As more than one person has predicted, the NSA surveillance case has come into a phase where Democrats in Congress (along with a few Republicans) are determined to re-establish where they think that the borders of presidential authority should lie. Apparently, the evidence amassed so far does not bode well for the self-important legislators of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

They've been reduced to casting about madly, hoping that by dumb luck they might hook something of significance. At the very least, they hope to muddy the waters enough so that they can limp out out of this investigation not perceived as small men and women jealously guarding their fiefdoms.

Regarding the NSA intercept program, the Justice Department issued a 42-page white paper explaining the Administration's legal position in great detail, establishing that the Presidency has always had "inherent constitutional authority" to conduct warrantless investigations of enemy forces to dissuade attacks upon the United States. The document cites case law, the President's inherent Constitutional authority under Article II, an apparent FISA exemption granted by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and certainly not least, the fact that the FISA Court of Review, in In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717, 742 (FISA Ct. of Review 2002), clearly stated:

([A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information... We take for granted that the President does have that authority...").

It appears that the game was over before it began. The fact that the Senate Judiciary Committee been reduced to such a blatantly weak Hail Mary play reveals just how desperate their hopes for a face-saving gesture have become.

But don't worry, Senators. At least when all this is over you won't face the prospect of Justice Department espionage investigations like your friends at the NY Times.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 545 words, total size 4 kb.

AC-130 "Fry Daddy" (conceptual rendering)

(h/t Austin Bay)

al Qaeda better hope Coppertone comes out with SPF 4,000,000, or they are going to be in for a whole new world of hurt:

The U.S. military has been developing a gunship that could literally obliterate enemy ground targets with a laser beam.

The military plans to test the Advanced Tactical Laser, a laser weapon mounted on a C-130H air transport that could destroy any weapon system without collateral damage.

The laser could have tremendous repercussions on the battlefield, particularly in urban warfare in such countries as Afghanistan and Iraq. "It's the kind of tool that could bring about victory within minutes," an official said.

The applications of ATL could change military dynamics on the battlefield. Officials envision the laser being able to destroy or damage targets in an urban area with virtually no collateral damage.

A very nice weapon indeed, except for those targeted. I would like to know just how effective the radius of the weapon is, however, and how the heat effects of such a system might work.

While it is rather obvious how this weapon would affect, say, a Shahab-3 missile (developed, appropriately enough, from the North Korean No-Dong missile, which, while obviously accurate when considering the source, is a name I did not make up), it is not so clear how well a weapon of this type would affect a concrete bunker or mud brick structure.

Would such a laser provide enough immediate heat damage to cause the entire structure to violently fail, thus incapacitating or killing all enemies within, or would it it simple burn through in a restricted beam, perhaps slicing through Omar but leaving Abdul free to to operate an IED? Is it able to burn through such heat resistant structures at all?

I reserve the right to be absolutely wrong, but it seems to me that a weapons system that promises "virtually no collateral damage" is a weapons system of reduced lethality useful in only specific, limited circumstances.

Update: Created and added image.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:03 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

President George W. Bush, in his January 31, 2006 State of the Union Address:

"In a time of testing, we cannot find security by abandoning our commitments and retreating within our borders. If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone, they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores."

A massively outnumbered border patrol agent somewhere on the U.S. Mexican border (original source unknown).

Mr. President, we cannot retreat within our own borders, because you have done almost nothing in five years in office to protect them. Despite attempts to fight for American security in battles overseas, you are failing the nation's security in a far more fundamental way on the domestic front.

A nation that fails to control its borders fails in "a fundamental act of sovereignty." United States ex rel Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 542 (1950). President Ronald Reagan is credited with later echoing this sentiment when he stated, "A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation."

President Bush, we do NOT control our borders in any way, shape, or form under your present administration. We suffer an invasion of illegals equivalent to 160 12,500-man military divisions every year under your presidency, and this torrent shows no signs of abating.

Only 25% of Americans approve of your handling of immigration, Mr. President. You have failed to secure America itself, and that fact is not lost on the American voter.

As Rep. Tom Tancredo said tonight:

The President must enforce our immigration laws before we consider any guest worker proposal. Until we bring law and order to our border anarchy, importing more workers into the equation is out of the question.

In 1986, Congress passed a blanket amnesty on the promise that border security would come later. We all remember the '86 bait-and-switch, and we won't be fooled again. There is no way to determine if we need guest workers, and there is no way to gain control of this broken system until we seal our borders and control our country's interior.

We expect leadership on this issue, Mr.Bush, both from you and the Republican Congress. If you will not provide this leadership, we will eagerly seek it elsewhere this fall.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:47 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 379 words, total size 3 kb.