March 01, 2003

U.S. blacklists Islamic groups

The United States has placed three Chechen rebel groups on its blacklist of foreign terrorist organizations, linking them to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network and freezing any assets they may have on U.S. territory, the State Department said yesterday.
     Russia has been urging the United States to designate the groups — the Islamic International Brigade, the Special Purpose Islamic Regiment and the Riyadus-Salikhin Battalion — as terrorists for more than a year. It cited various violent acts they have committed, including the hostage-taking at Moscow's Dubrovka Theater in October, in which 129 persons died.

 But Washington dismissed suggestions that the move rewards Moscow at a time when its vote on the U.N. Security Council is badly needed in support of a war in Iraq. U.S. officials insisted that they had blacklisted the groups because they "threatened the safety of U.S. citizens and U.S. national security or foreign policy interests."
     
"We recognize that there are terrorist elements among those fighting Russian forces in Chechnya," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters. "At the same time, we do not consider all Chechen fighters to be terrorists."
[...]

U.S. officials said the three groups did not exactly match the ones Russia wanted to see blacklisted. Riyadus-Salikhin, Arabic for Fields of the Righteous, was not known until the theater attack and drew its members from the two other organizations, they said.
     
The officials identified Shamil Basayev* as a key rebel, whom they described as the leader of Riyadus-Salikhin and former commander of the International Islamic Brigade. 
[...]
The United States, which repeatedly criticized Russia's campaign against Chechnya for abusing human rights, has softened its stance since September 11, viewing the conflict as part of the global fight against terrorism. Mr. Boucher said the matter has also been taken up by the United Nations.
     "Because these three groups are linked to al Qaeda, the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and Spain have requested today that the United Nations 1267 Sanctions Committee include the groups on its consolidated list," he said.
     The spokesman said France has indicated it will join the designation, which would be the first time all five permanent members of the Security Council have joined in submitting names to the sanctions committee.

Hmmm...France, eh?
Gosh, Chechnya's a lot closer to Paris than it is to New York, isn't it?
The time to put the spotlight on these Chechen IslamoFascists is long overdue, but thank God it's done now.
If you can weed the Arabian Mujjahaddin from the native Chechen freedom fighters, this will be helpful as I believe that Al Queda and other radical Islamist groups have moved their "hideouts" and training ops to Chechnya from the no-longer-friendly Afghanistan and perhaps even Pakistan.
I believe that there's another nest of Islamist terrorists training in the "Three Borders" area of Latin America, but that is for another day.
And while this move by the U.S. may not secure Russia's vote in the UNSC, it can't hurt and our gripe about their treatment of the Chechen "rebels" was a big obstacle to get out of the way.
Onwards!
And good work by Powell and his minions at Foggy Bottom.

* Shamil Basayev is the uncle of the guy that led the Moscow theatre siege by "terrorist scum"[Putin] last October.
Needless to say, "payback" is probably his middle name!

U.S. Draws Up List of Crimes for Military Tribunals

Terror suspects prosecuted by U.S. military tribunals could be charged with any of two dozen crimes, including hijacking, poisoning and rape, under a draft list of offenses the Pentagon released Friday.

The Defense Department hopes to have the list finished by mid-March, after getting public comment, Pentagon lawyers said. Completing the list of crimes moves the Pentagon a step closer to possible tribunal prosecutions, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said.

"It does not necessarily mean there's a person who is ready to be put into that process," Rumsfeld said. "If you're asking me, `Do I have someone in mind that I'm going to tee up?' the answer is no."[Only Rummy would put it in terms of Golf. Tee-hee!--J.T.]
[...]

The most important terror suspects are being held in secret locations.

In addition to the detainees in Cuba and elsewhere, the administration may consider sending the case of Zacarias Moussaoui to a military tribunal.

Moussaoui, a French citizen, is the lone U.S. defendant charged with conspiring with the Sept. 11, 2001, attackers. His trial judge in Alexandria, Va., has ruled he should have access to Ramzi Binalshibh, a captured lieutenant of accused terrorist kingpin Usama bin Laden. The government opposed the decision and is appealing.

If the decision is not overturned, the administration could decide to transfer the case, preferring secret testimony before a tribunal to public testimony in a civilian courtroom.

One detainee unaffected by the tribunals is Jose Padilla, 31, a former Chicago gang member held as an enemy combatant associated with bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. Bush's executive order establishing the courts denied them jurisdiction over U.S. citizens like Padilla.

The crimes on the draft list include:

--Terrorism, defined as killing or hurting people or attacking property in an attempt "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion or to affect the conduct of a government."

--Rape during the course of an armed conflict.

--"Employing poison or analogous weapons," which would cover the use of chemical weapons or biological toxins.

--Using civilians or civilian property to shield a military objective from attack.

--Killing or attacking civilians.

--Taking hostages.

--Hijacking.
[...]
"Membership crimes" -- making joining Al Qaeda a crime in itself -- are not on the list. But the list includes another seven "related offenses" that allow prosecution of people not directly involved in a crime. Those related offenses include conspiracy, aiding or abetting, attempting, soliciting or ordering any of the 24 direct crimes on the list.
[...]
The rules also limit many rights. To keep cases out of federal courts, for example, defendants would have a very restricted right of appeal to a special review panel made up of one military officer and two outside experts deputized by Bush. Defendants could not appeal to a lower federal court or directly to the Supreme Court.

Defendants also might not be allowed to hear the evidence against them if it were classified, although their military-appointed defense attorney could. The tribunals also could be closed to the public if the presiding officer should decide that evidence was classified or sensitive, or to prevent threats to the safety of trial participants.

I think this is a good development.
Massoui's trial has been a mess from the start--mainly because he's such a nut case, although the judge isn't far behind him--and the sentences that were received by John Walker Lindh ("Johnny Jihad") and Richard Reid were too light, because the government was caught unawares by 9/11 and its aftermath and how to legally handle these would-be martyrs/killers linked with Al Queda.
(And yes, Johnny Jihad got to make a deal with the government because he was an "American," but he still never answered for the death of Johnny "Mike" Spann, IMO.)
Getting these military tribunals in place will solve a lot of problems, but I'll bet the Left will still howl about it because they think all crimes are "subjective" and that the perps should get a hug and a cookie instead of jail time or the death penalty.
Notice also that using human shields has been added to this war crimes list just for Saddam.

UN, Iraq Begin Talks on Scrapping Banned Missiles

U.N. and Iraqi officials began talks Saturday on the logistics of destroying al-Samoud 2 missiles in line with a deadline set by arms inspectors hunting weapons of mass destruction.

The less said about this the better, although the talking heads on TV have already said plenty.
To say this is another empty, meaningless gesture of Saddam's is to give him more credit than he deserves.
President Bush has made the speech, he's got our support and he's got the power.
Now all he needs to do is make the call to Tommy Franks, "It's go time."

Update: One of Rantburg's commenters reminded me of why Saddam's behavior is strangely familiar:
He's playing the protagonist of that famous Arabian tale Scheherezade!
If you'll remember, she told tales all night to spare her life.
I'm sure that Saddam has loved that story of the consummate story teller all his life,too...

Czechs elect EU critic as president

The Czech Republic's forthcoming membership of the European Union, and the stability of its government, were cast into uncertainty last night when Vaclav Klaus, a Thatcherite and Eurosceptic, snatched the presidency by the narrowest of margins.
[...]
Athough the powers of the Czech presidency are relatively limited, Mr Klaus is a famously abrasive and strong-minded politician.

He is also one of central Europe's most articulate critics of the EU.

The combination of the Spidla government's weakness and the new president's Euroscepticism could cause problems for the Czech referendum on joining the EU this spring.
[...]
Although Mr Klaus is unlikely to run an overtly anti-EU campaign, his outspokenness could strain relations with France and Germany, which are already incensed by the Czechs' support for Washington's plans to go to war in Iraq. [With no mention of how Chirak's outspokenness has affected Czech relations with France.--Jen]

Mr Klaus is an ardent Thatcherite monetarist who led the effort to break up Czechoslovakia in 1992 and then presided over the economic transformation of the Czech Republic through the 1990s.

Just a guess, but I'm thinking that "arden Thatcherite monetarist" is the worst thing that The Guardian can say about a politician.
That, combined with the "Their sky is falling in Prague!" cynicism that permeates this story and their perpetual Loony Left bias leads me to believe that the Czechs have found themselves a good man on the third try.
This report and the one at the BBC both omit to inform the reader that Mr. Klaus was elected to be PM of the Czech Republic twice before: in 1993 and reelected to another term in '96.
I think he sounds like a Czech version of Bush--definitely Conservative--and someone who will continue to lead the Czech Republic in the right direction, which in my book is certainly away from the EU!
I predict that this will be the first of many such steps of the New Europe away from the tyranny threatened by the Old EUrope.

February 28, 2003

PENTAGON URGES PRESS [TO] 'RUN'

The Pentagon yesterday bluntly warned TV networks and newspapers to get reporters out of Baghdad pronto - because it will be "a real, real bad place to be" if there's an Iraq attack.

Chief Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke stressed "how extremely dangerous we think it is," and added that the risks include the chance that Saddam Hussein's henchmen could grab reporters as hostages or human shields.

This could very well be Zero Hour.
Stay tuned.
And to our troops over there, take care, happy hunting and on to Victory!
God Bless America.

February 27, 2003

From the fab Fred at Rantburg:
Military Support Offered for Iraq War

What countries have sent, offered or are considering for potential military action against Iraq:

ALBANIA: Approved U.S. use of airspace, land and territorial waters.

AUSTRALIA: Ordered 2,000 troops to the Persian Gulf and hints it's ready to join a U.S.-led attack even without U.N. backing.

BAHRAIN: Sent a frigate and troops under Gulf Cooperation Council mission to defend Kuwait. Allowing use of bases for U.S. troop buildup.

BELGIUM: Allowed movement of troops and supplies from U.S. bases in Germany through Belgium en route to Gulf.

BRITAIN: 42,000 troops already in the Gulf, including a quarter of the army, a third of the air force and largest naval deployment since 1982 Falklands War.

BULGARIA: Approved U.S. use of military airport and 150-member Bulgarian non-combat unit. Stationing of up to 18 coalition aircraft and 400 U.S. troops, and use of airspace.

CANADA: Sent military planners to join U.S. counterparts at their command post in Qatar. A destroyer and two frigates sent to the region could protect U.S. ships. Help also may include special forces.

CHINA: No promises.

CROATIA: Will allow refueling stops by U.S. transport aircraft.

CZECH REPUBLIC: Sent unit specialized in dealing with aftermath of chemical, nuclear and biological attacks to Kuwait.

DENMARK: Offered 70 elite Jaegerkorps soldiers and the Saelen submarine if military action gets U.N. backing.

EGYPT: Promised to keep Suez Canal open to U.S. and allied warships en route to Gulf.

GERMANY: Ruled out participating in any war but pledges unhindered use of its airspace and U.S. and British bases. About 60 German soldiers are currently in Kuwait as part of the U.N. border monitoring force, operating specialized vehicles for detecting chemical or germ warfare; parliament has barred them from entering Iraq. Also helping to protect Turkey with AWACS and Patriot anti-missile rockets.

GREECE: U.S. naval base in Crete serves U.S. Sixth Fleet and supports Navy and Air Force intelligence-gathering planes. Any other assistance conditional on U.N. backing.

HUNGARY: The United States allowed to use a Hungarian air base to train Iraqi opposition figures for non-combat support roles and postwar administration. NATO (news - web sites) can use the country's roads, railways and airspace to carry military support for Turkey's defense. Willing to consider opening airspace to U.S. military flights. Has ruled out contributing troops.

INDIA: Ruled out joining any military action without U.N. backing. No facilities for U.S. forces.

ITALY: Offered use of bases, ports and airspace. No plans to send troops.

JORDAN: Several hundred U.S. troops are stationed in Jordan near the Iraqi border manning anti-missile batteries in case Iraq fires missiles at Israel.

KUWAIT: More than 70,000 U.S. troops training in the Kuwaiti desert in preparation for a possible invasion of Iraq.

LITHUANIA: Authorized use of airspace.

NETHERLANDS: 360 Dutch troops to operate three Patriot missile defense systems in Turkey; allowing movement of troops and supplies from U.S. bases in Germany through the Netherlands en route to Gulf.

NORWAY: Offered to send 10,000 chemical warfare suits to Turkey.

OMAN: Sent one battalion under Gulf Cooperation Council mission to defend Kuwait.

POLAND: A few dozen Grom elite commando troops and a transport ship in Gulf area, already under U.S. command as part of Afghanistan operation, could be enlisted.

PORTUGAL: Granted U.S. permission to use Lajes Field air base in the Azores Islands, a traditional mid-Atlantic refueling stop.

QATAR: U.S. Central Command mobile headquarters at Camp As Sayliyah. Al Udeid air base opened for in-flight refueling squadron, F15 fighter wing and maintenance hangars.

ROMANIA: 278 non-combat nuclear, biological and chemical decontamination specialists, military police troops and demining units. Will make available Black Sea air and naval bases.

SAUDI ARABIA: Pentagon says it has assurances the United States could launch air support missions from Saudi bases, though Saudi officials say decision not yet made. Won't participate in any direct military action.

SLOVAKIA: Deployed 69-member anti-chemical warfare unit to Kuwait. Has approved U.S. flyovers and offered use of its bases.

SPAIN: U.S. will be able to use the Rota naval base and Moron air base in southern Spain. Co-sponsoring new U.N. resolution with U.S. and Britain, but no military commitment yet.

TURKEY: Cabinet approved plans to allow 62,000 U.S. combat troops, 255 warplanes and 65 helicopters to use Turkish bases for possible northern front against Iraq, in exchange for multibillion-dollar aid package. Needs parliamentary approval.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: 4,000 troops backed by Apache attack helicopters, Leclerc tanks, BMP3 amphibious armored vehicles, a missile boat and a frigate to defend Kuwait in case of war on Iraq.

Now, tell me again about how we are going it alone?

No kidding, Fred.
I guess this is the 21st Century meaning of "unilateral:" it means "without France."
As President Bush said that there were over 90 countries joining our coalition to liberate Iraq, I'll bet that all countries haven't been heard from--literally.

First, here's James Taranto's excellent commentary on the implied meaning of President Bush's speech last night: Bush to Arabs: Put Up or Shut Up

In short, Taranto states that the President's thesis is that the "road to peace in the Middle East leads through Baghdad."
And I quite agree, but there are many potholes on this road both for us and for the Arabs, but mainly for the Islamist Arabs.
The President said:

"Success in Iraq could . . . begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state. The passing of Saddam Hussein's regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated.

Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders. True leaders who strive for peace; true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror.

Taranto cites this as the most crucial passage: "The Arab states will be expected to meet their responsibilities to oppose terrorism, to support the emergence of a peaceful and democratic Palestine, and [to] state clearly they will live in peace with Israel."
He then puts the speech and the Bush Doctrine in complete perspective of current events thusly:

In the course of their unsuccessful diplomatic efforts to save Saddam Hussein, a bunch of Arab leaders went on the record in support of peace with Israel. And what do you know, President Bush is taking them at their word. Instead of being pulled into the "peace process" quagmire, the president is demanding that the Arabs finally begin behaving responsibly--which is the true precondition for peace in the Middle East.

This is of a piece with Bush's decision, in the face of carping about American "unilateralism," to turn Iraq into a test of the United Nations' seriousness and relevance. The man certainly has a knack for calling the bluff of his adversaries.

Heady stuff all the way around...
I'll be honest, as big a Bushie as I am, the speech bothered me a bit.
President Bush seemed distracted, nervous and "off his game" last night.
I think he's as tired and impatient to get this liberation of Baghdad thing over as I am and a lot of the rest of us are.
It's as if he's "connecting the dots" for the American people and the free world as to what we're "about" with this Iraq action to the point where it almost is "going through the motions" for him.
Of course, I think it's our familiarity for those of us in the (war)blogosphere with these themes that enure us to the radical, yet practical sense of the Bush Doctrine.
Thanks to cogent web pampleteers like Steven Den Beste (who has a terrific piece today on the speech also, as always), we don't need President Bush to spell it all out for us.
But most of the American people do.
And some British and Aussies.
Definitely Old Europeans--but they won't like it.
And certainly the Muslim world, but they won't like it much either, most of them.
I won't jolly my readers by pretending that what President Bush wants to happen will be easy to accomplish, quick or in the end even "do-able" as he envisions it.
That will be up to the Arab world.
When President Bush gives them a "heads up" to eschew (Islamist) terrorism forever, it's like asking an alcoholic to give up booze.
The Islamists, especially those Wahhabists in Saudi who are funding most of the jihadi murder, eat, sleep and drink killing Jews and eradicating Israel from the face of the globe.
If they didn't control their peoples with the "Palestinian" conflict, they'd have to face all of their own internal problems and then do something about it.
They'd have to do something about their archaic economies, their unjust justice systems that employ shari'a as a whip hand, their human rights abuses--particularly the oppression of women--excused by Islamic laws and traditions, their woefully inadequate education systems and their oligarchic systems of unelected governments, by "kings" and Islamic clerics.
This they are no more prepared to do than they are to stop preaching the murder of Jews 24/7 as they would need to do to even begin to join the rest of the world in the 21st Century as even quasi-democratic countries.
If you read the subtext of Bush's speech, it is more of a warning as to what Arabic Middle Eastern countries can expect from the U.S. should they choose not to reform themselves, with Saddam Hussein's Iraq being made the example.
President Bush, then, effectively put leaders like the Sauds, Assad and Arafat on notice.
Rather curious was the President's mention of Israel and his "order" for them to remove themselves from the "Palestinian" settlements on the same day that PM Ariel Sharon put together a "far right" [Reuters, BBC, Haaretz] coalition government that has announced its intention to keep Israelis in the settlements.
Yet, I'm almost certain that Bush had informed Sharon that he was going to say what he said.
Of course, U.S. policy on Israel is NOT congruent with Israeli policy, no matter how much the Islamists may think so.
And President Bush doesn't boss Sharon around, although I do think they are working pretty much "in concert."
If you've been reading my blog all along, you will know that I can't make up my mind whether Bush is the most optomistic "dreamer" of a leader who is trying to call the "Palestinians" to a higher ground with his exhortations for them to move to a democratic, terror-free "Palestinian" state or whether he is truly a cynic who knows in his heart that at this stage of their 50-year jihad against the Israelis that they are incapable of ever doing that.
Maybe it's both. That would be smart and complex and more like reality.
As I said before, a lot of what happens next is up to the Islamists and the Arab world.
More importantly, President Bush gave the Arab world a stern warning last night as to what they can expect should they NOT be unable to eschew terrorism and reform their countries to serve their own peoples democratically, rather than use the millions from oil revenues to kill Jews and their friends, like the U.S.: "We'll come after you just like we're coming for Saddam."
This was one of my favorite lines from the speech [Full text to be found at the White House site] and it sums up the whole message:

And by acting, we will signal to outlaw regimes that in this new century, the boundaries of civilized behavior will be respected.

Amen, President Bush.
Pray God that it will be so.
Now, onward to Baghdad.

Turk Parliament Delays US Troop Debate

Turkey's parliament voted on Thursday to delay until Saturday debate on a deal to allow the deployment of thousands of U.S. troops in a fresh blow to U.S. preparations for a possible war on Iraq.

The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) called the parliamentary vote on delaying the debate after discussing the issue at a party meeting earlier on Thursday. It was not clear why they wanted the delay.

AKP leader Tayyip Erdogan had said on Wednesday he expected the debate to be held on Thursday. The United States is pressing for a quick decision with war possibly only a few weeks away.

"Not clear" why the Turks are delaying?
Could this be one of the reasons?:
Germany halts aid to Turkey

German Defence Minister Peter Struck has rejected Nato calls for further military assistance to Turkey, saying that Germany has "done enough" already.

It's my opinion that the Weasel Axis, backed by the Sauds, will now do anything and everything to stand in the way of America and her friends and willing allies in our action to liberate Iraq.
They chose the wrong side. Too bad!
But nothing should surprise us now.
You've been warned.
So make enough popcorn for the next few days and weeks and enjoy the show.

-- "The Nazi signs have got to stop. If you're in a peace march and the guy next to you has a sign saying that 'Bush is Hitler,' forget the peace thing for a second and beat his ass, because he is not Hitler."--Dennis Miller on Tuesday's Jay Leno Tonight Show

Blix Says No Iraqi Decision to Disarm

Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said on Wednesday Iraq still had not made a "fundamental decision" to disarm, and President Bush, making his case for war, said a new government in Iraq would help spread democracy across the Middle East.

UNREAL.
After being defeated decisively by us in the Gulf War and after 12 years of UN monitoring and sanctions, Blix is forced to the conclusion that Saddam hasn't decided if he wants to disarm or not???
How should we react to Blix'es realization of this?
"Duh?"
Or "You don't say?"
or how about "Incoming?! Hit the dirt!"
I'll take #3, thanks!
(I wonder how this will play with the "Inspections are working." appeasement crowd?)

Nigerian petrol supplies 'sabotaged'

The Nigerian Government has blamed recent petrol shortages on political sabotage.
[...]
Oil officials have provided a raft of other reasons for the sudden shortage of petrol:

* Panic-buying;
* Petrol hoarding;
* Striking oil workers;
* Broken-down refineries;
* Fears of war in Iraq;
* World oil markets.
Nigeria is a major oil exporter but most petrol is imported.

How strange. (Whassup with that? Do they need the export income so bad they won't let their own citizens have their own oil?)
First Venezuela, now Nigeria...and they're both non-Arab members of OPEC, too.
Sort of.
Nigeria is "half-Muslim," with most of the people following Islam and some places even instituting shari'a in the northern part of the country, whereas the southern half is Christian.
National elections are due to be held in April, with the Christian Obasanjo running for another term against a Muslim candidate named Muhammadu Buhari.
I really have no idea why there should be an oil shortage in the land of OPEC's 5th largest producer, but then there is this war that the "West" is waging against Iraq...
Coincidence?
Back in SA, the Shieks of Araby promised today that they would increase output from their fields to meet current and future heightened demands due to war "shortages:"
(from Reuters today:Oil Shoots to Post-Gulf War High)

U.S. officials said on Wednesday that Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest exporter, had agreed to increase crude production by 1.5 million bpd if Iraqi exports were interrupted by war. The kingdom is already supplying extra crude to U.S. refiners to make up for the loss of Venezuela's exports.

Those crazy Sauds!
Surely they wouldn't use the problems of others as an opportunity to make more moolah for themselves?
They know, from 1991, that the price of oil will go up anyway with Iraq's supplies temporarily out of the picture, but if they could create an even bigger world shortfall in supply and drive the price of their oil even higher by getting pals like Venezuela and Nigeria to sit out the war, too...
Nah. That would be selfish, greedy and cunning.
So unlike them.

February 26, 2003

U.S.: N. Korea Reactivated Nuclear Reactor

North Korea has reactivated a nuclear reactor, U.S. officials said Wednesday, in what could be a first step toward production of additional nuclear weapons.

U.S. intelligence officials said a telltale plume was spotted at the reactor shortly after Secretary of State Colin Powell said Pyongyang had made "a wise choice if it's a conscious choice" not to restart the reactor.

Powell was airborne over the Pacific at the time, heading home Tuesday after a visit to South Korea.

[...]
Japan, too, was trying to independently confirm the report. "If true, it is extremely regrettable, particularly when we are asking [North Korea] to put things back to where they were," said chief Cabinet spokesman Yasuo Fukuda.

The disclosure of the new activity came a day after the installation of South Korea's new president, Roh Moo-hyun. Goh took office Thursday.

Powell attended Roh's inauguration and announced afterward that the United States was donating 40,000 metric tons of food to North Korea, with an additional 60,000 metric tons later in the year.

The administration has consistently said that food assistance for North Korea would not be affected by political considerations. Powell blamed continued hunger in North Korea on Pyongyang's guns-over-butter policies.
I'm sure that the NorKs are mad because SoS Powell didn't try to stop by Pyongyang for a visit.
How rude!
So this was payback, in their minds, I suppose.
I wouldn't taunt the Japanese too much more.
Their "it is regrettable" reaction indicates that they're thinking seriously about going nuclear themselves to contain the NorKs' threat to them.
Who knows what the Chicoms are thinking?
For their part, the Aussies are showing unfeigned interest in joining America's SDI program:
Australia eyes US Star Wars defence
Most wise, as we're coming to expect policies from Down Under to be these days!

Russian Official: Country Will Back Second U.N. Resolution

While Moscow has said it wants more time for inspections to work in Iraq, a Russian lawmaker visiting Capitol Hill Wednesday said that doesn't mean the country would object to a U.S.-backed resolution authorizing force.

Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Russian Parliament's upper house, defended the need to give weapons inspectors more time, a position France and Germany hold, but he said he doubts the Russian ambassador to the United Nations would cast Russia's veto power in the Security Council.
[...]
News of Russia's moderate stance satisfied committee member Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., who said that he was "convinced there will not be a Russian veto" of the U.S.- and U.K.-sponsored resolution.

Lantos returned from Russia on Tuesday, where he met with Russian officials about Russia's veto power, its relationship with Baghdad and its sale of nuclear materials to Iran.
[...]
Margelov also tried to explain a secretive recent mission to Baghdad by former Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov. Primakov's trip was meant to apply pressure on Saddam to comply with international inspectors, Margelov said.

He denied that Primakov was offering Saddam a chance to go into exile.
[...]
Primakov, a top member of the communist elite in the Soviet Union, went to Baghdad on a similar mission in 1991, before the Persian Gulf War.

Margelov suggested that this time around, Primakov was indicating to both Saddam and Russian communists at home that President Vladimir Putin "has exhausted all peaceful opportunities to resolve this crisis."
[...]
That would be preferable to the United States, whose relationship with Russia is being tested by the Iraq standoff.

Russia's Iran and Iraq policies are "major impediments to good relations between our two countries," committee chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., told Margelov. 

Too true, Henry!
I get the feeling that the relatively new Russian Federation guys are trying very hard to be "good guys," but that old Soviet Kremlin stuff dies hard.
Putin and his boys have been wandering way off the reservation these past few months.
Time for President Bush to have a "come to Jesus" meeting with his pal "Pooty Poot."
If they were to use their veto on our resolution and say "No," it would be Cold War Redux or worse.
And someday soon, when we're not so busy, we're going to have to set them straight about this Iranian situation, too.

Blix Orders Iraq to Destroy Human Shields
No matter how grim the weather or the real war news, bloggers like Scrappleface keep me laughing!

U.S. Increases Estimated Cost Of War in Iraq

"U.S. Increases Estimated Cost Of War in Iraq Military Expenses Alone Projected at Up To $95 Billion"
OK, I think the WaPo and others are broadcasting these reports about the cost of liberating Iraq now because they're getting kind of desperate and looking for any port in an appeasement storm.
This is one of those times that we have said and must say, "Hang the cost!"
Think of what it will cost if we wait until Saddam goes nuclear to conquer he and his sons with military force.
Then, think about what it would cost if Saddam successfully launched a major attack with NBC weapons on one of our cities.
Then, think about any combination of the above hypotheticals as a worst case scenario just to cover all the bases.
If the attacks on 9/11 cost us $1 trillion as has been estimated (and I believe we're not through counting those losses yet), what would be the price tag of "letting the sanctions" work to "contain" Saddam with the inevitable catastrophic outcome?
And who would be left alive to tally it or pay it?
Whatever it ends up costing America to pay for the Liberation of Iraq, it will be the best money we've ever spent, I guarantee you!
You know what else? We *can* afford it, too.
America is RICH and while $95 billion may sound like a lot of money to you and me (and it's a sum that makes the Dimocrats wet their pants because it's not going into their pork programs), there are 280 million of us paying for it.
So, let's roll!
And Saddam, Uday and Qassay, get those wills written.

Check out this BBC headline:

"Blair suffers setback over Iraq"

Tony Blair's position on Iraq suffered a setback on Wednesday as his government's motion sparked the biggest rebellion of his premiership.

Dozens of his own backbenchers lined up to vote against the government.

A total of 199 MPs from all parties backed an amendment to the motion in which they said the case for war had not been proven.

Sounds pretty grim for Tone up to this point, n'est-ce pas?
Then, the next few graphs tell a different tale:

But the government defeated the amendment thanks to the support of the Tories and the size of its own majority.

A further vote on the government's motion - effectively giving Saddam Hussein a final warning - was passed by 434 votes to 124 - another significant rebellion.

Go, Tony Blair and Jack Straw, go!
You're doing the Lord's work over there across the Big Pond and we love you for it!
As for the BBC and all other apologists in the "old"media (a/k/a Saddam's Weasel Preservation Society), you people need to get over yourselves and your pathetic agenda and get other jobs!
[Here's the Reuters take on the news, which is just as awful and hilarious:Britain's Blair Suffers Parliament Revolt Over Iraq.
You'd swear that Tony was drug out of the Parliament chambers by an angry mob and hung without a trial, to the acclaims of a cheering throng, wouldn't you, rather than having a big, popular win?]

February 25, 2003

Saddam to Bush: Let's debate

The White House yesterday brushed off a bizarre debate challenge from Saddam Hussein as the Iraqi dictator warned he would reject U.N. orders to destroy his missiles.[...]
But Saddam used an American network news interview to tweak President Bush on the world stage. In a Baghdad interview with CBS News anchor Dan Rather, he challenged Bush to a radio and TV debate on the looming war with Iraq, a verbal showdown similar to the kinds of forums common in American presidential campaigns.

Next thing you know, Saddam will be on CNN with Larry Live and taking phone calls--something which cannot stand and undeniably is reason to go to war and take him out!
Sure, we know he's a mass murderer and a Stalinist-loving tyrant, but how does he feel about the Dingle-Norwood bill?
Tune in and find out.
It seems that Chief Lefty loon Ramsey Clark set up this interview for Dan Blather on his last trip to Baghdad...and like the ratings whores they are, CBS and Dan couldn't wait to jump at the chance.
And they say there's Liberal bias in the Media!
Gasp.
I am shocked, I tell you.
Shocked.

Franks Arrives at Gulf HQ for Possible Iraq War

United States Army General Tommy Franks arrived in the Gulf state of Qatar Tuesday to take charge of the Central Command forward headquarters from which he would direct an invasion of Iraq, if so ordered by Washington.

Hooah.
God bless you, Gen. Franks!
We here in Texas are very proud.
May the spirits of our great generals like George Washington and George Patton be with you!

U.S. Warns France in Struggle Over Iraq

The United States fired a warning shot Tuesday across the bows of France, the leading critic of its Iraq policy, saying it would view any French veto of a new U.N. resolution authorizing force as "very unfriendly."[YESSSS!--Jen]

The U.S. ambassador in Paris issued the warning after France said it and Germany opposed what it called a shift toward "a logic of war" and circulated a rival proposal that would give U.N. weapons inspectors at least four months to scour Iraq.
[...]
The U.S. ambassador in Paris, Howard Leach, said he hoped France would agree the United Nations had to take action.

"I hope there won't be a veto because a veto would be very unfriendly and we would not look favorably on that," he told LCI television, according to a French translation of his remarks in English.

Whoo-Hoo, Ambassador Leach!
Time to kick some ass, starting with the weasels!

February 24, 2003

ABCNEWS.com : Four U.S. Soldiers Die in Kuwait Helicopter Crash

Four U.S. soldiers were killed in Kuwait on Tuesday when their helicopter crashed during training in the desert, the U.S. military said.

Their UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter went down near Camp New Jersey, a temporary U.S. military base 30 miles north of Kuwait City, while conducting night training, a U.S. military statement said. The four were the only people aboard.

I'd just about bet that this was a Islamofascist-fired SAM that took these guys and their copter out.
So sad.
Thank you, soldiers, for giving the ultimate sacrifice.
God comfort their families and loved ones at this time of loss.

Muslim cleric guilty of soliciting murder

A Muslim cleric, Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal, was today convicted of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred, in the first prosecution of its kind in Britain.

The Old Bailey jury found El-Faisal guilty of three charges relating to inciting racial hatred as well as three charges of soliciting murder. He was remanded in custody for sentencing on March 7.

El-Faisal had denied five charges of soliciting the murder of non-believers, Jews, Americans and Hindus, and four charges relating to inciting racial hatred.

The ground-breaking trial was the first prosecution of a Muslim cleric in Britain. It was also the first time potential jurors were banned from sitting on the jury because of their religion. The judge agreed to a defence plea not to allow Jewish and Hindu jurors - but in the end none came forward.

It was also the first time in more than 100 years that anyone had been charged under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act of soliciting murder without a specific victim.

Jamaican-born El-Faisal, who converted to Islam at the age of 16, was arrested by police investigating British links with al-Qaida. He had been acquainted with James Ujaama*, who is accused of setting up a terrorist training camp in America. Mr Ujaama was heard asking questions at two lectures.

Tapes of El-Faisal's study circle lectures, given around the country, went on sale at specialist bookshops. In them, he was heard calling for the death of nonbelievers, and making references to training schoolboys to shoot Kalashnikovs.

He was heard quoting the words of Osama bin Laden and backed the use of nuclear and chemical weapons. On the cover of one recording was a picture of the burning World Trade Centre.
[...]
El-Faisal told his audiences: "You have to learn to fly planes, drive tanks and you have to learn how to load your guns and to use missiles."
[...]
El-Faisal promised that those who died during a holy war would not feel pain and would go to heaven, where they would be given 72 virgins.

"We believe in the bullet not the ballot," he told them. In another speech, El-Faisal told youngsters: "People with British passports, if you fly into Israel, it is easy ... Fly into Israel and do whatever you can. If you die, you are up in paradise.

"How do you fight a Jew? You kill a Jew. In the case of Hindus, by bombing their businesses."

The verdict was welcomed by Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of the Anti-Terrorist Squad.

He said: "This case was nothing to do with freedom of speech, but everything to do with racial hatred and religious bigotry - and encouraging people to commit acts of terrorism.

"When you look at the words that he was saying, it goes beyond being misguided or over-enthusiastic. It is naked religious and racial hatred."
[...]
The taped material was "deeply offensive" and the claim that it was taken from the Koran was untrue, Mr Clarke said, adding: "The Muslim community are appalled by the things he was saying.

One wonders how much of the Muslim community was "appalled' and if the Koran says these things about murder of non-Muslims with the reward of Paradise or not.
[In my research I've learned that Mohammed himself didn't want the Koran to be in any language but Arabic, so for the most part, we Westerners have to take the Arabs' word for it what's in there and what isn't and you know *their* record for truthfulness, especially to we "infidels."]
I think it depends which sect of Islam you adhere to and which parts of the Koran you choose to follow, but I definitely believe that the slaughter of kafirs (non-believers) and Jews is in there.
The Muslim community (all 1 billion of them) itself is going to have a decision to make very soon:
Does their religion say these things or not?
And if it does sanction murder or enslavement of people of other races and religions, should it continue to be practiced freely and to endure as a major world religion?
I'm quite happy about this conviction and I think it may be the first conviction of a Muslim cleric for preaching hate and murder anywhere in the world and not just a first for Britain.
Needless to say, given the fact that these Muslim clerics are all preaching the same hate in mosques all over the world every Friday, it's a modest start, but it is a start.
Now if Britain could only do something similar (or even more harsh in punishment) to that Islamist cleric dirtbag Abu Hamza!

*"...James Ujaama, the Seattle Muslim convert indicted for allegedly conspiring to set up an al-Qaida training camp in 1999 on a small ranch near Bly, Ore.

Ujaama is an associate of London Islamic radical Abu Hamza al-Masri, who last week applauded the crash of the space shuttle Columbia, sayings its crew of Americans, a Hindu and a Jew were the "trinity of evil" and deserved to die."--Seattle Times: Arrests display homebred side of terror threat

War talk from Kid Rock

Kid Rock won't be joining the music industry's anti-war movement.

"Why is everybody trying to stop the war? George Bush ain't been saying, 'You all, make s----y records.' Politicians and music don't mix. It's like whisky and wine. [Musicians] ought to stay out of it."

But it doesn't take much nudging to hear the Kid's policy analysis. "We got to kill that mother-[bleeper] Saddam," he says. "Slit his throat. Kill him and the guy in North Korea."

Are some women and children going to die? "Yeah. But [it] is doing the right thing. You got money, you sit around talking about peace. People who don't have money need some help."

Like an idiot (!), I endured all 9,000 hours of the Grammys last night because the buzz was that there was going to be some primo Hollyweird idiotarianism live and in prime time.
After finding these pro-war statements by Kid Rock, I understand why little old Sheryl Crow kept her cakehole shut about "war is bad karma" and other Saddam-supporting inanities: she went with a guitar strap that said "No War," I think.
The "No" part was covered up by the hair-do that she stole from Sharon Stone in Casino.
Foreign policy genius Sheryl also had on a rhinestone "peace symbol," but thanks to the whimsy of the fashion world, that has already been made pedestrian and meaningless as a "statement."
Maybe I'm getting old, but I thought most of the music stank, except for that of 8-time Grammy winner last night Norah Jones and Sweet Baby James Taylor with Yo-Yo Ma.

New US-UK Resolution Says Iraq Failed to Disarm

The United States and Britain circulated a new U.N. resolution on Monday that sets the stage for war with Iraq by declaring Baghdad had failed to take advantage of its final opportunity to disarm peacefully.

But no vote on the document by the Security Council was expected for two weeks. The move opened an intensive period of high-level diplomacy, with France and Germany coming out against a new resolution and a shift to a "logic of war."

The 12-paragraph draft resolution, obtained by Reuters, does not have a deadline and says simply that the Council "decides that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in resolution 1441."

Resolution 1441, adopted Nov. 8, 2002, gave Iraq a last chance to disclose any weapons of mass destruction programs or be in "further material breach" of its obligations.

The new resolution, to be introduced formally later on Monday, also has a preamble of 11 paragraphs that quote liberally from Resolution 1441, which threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq did not disclose all its weapons of mass destruction.
[...]
France, which has led the anti-war opposition that has strong support throughout the world, announced it would circulate a rival proposal on Monday, meant to strengthen U.N. weapons inspections with the aim of disarming Iraq peacefully.
[...]
"The only issue the president is concerned with is the total and complete disarmament of Iraq and regime change in Iraq," spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters.

Before the resolution is adopted or rejected Iraqi President Saddam Hussein faces a test on whether or not he will destroy dozens of missiles by March 1 as ordered on Friday by chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix.

Destruction of the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, which have a range that exceeds U.N. limits, would be a blow to Iraq as it prepares for a possible invasion by U.S. forces.

If it does not destroy them, the United States and Britain could use this as proof Iraq is not cooperating with the United Nations, showing that war is justified.

On Monday, Blix knocked down Iraqi hopes for a continuing dialogue with the United Nations on the missiles.

We have set a date for the commencement of the destruction of these missiles and we expect that to be respected," he told reporters. Iraq had asked for another meeting with the inspectors on the issue.
[...]
He [Blix] ordered Iraq to destroy not only the missiles, but their SA-2 engines, auto-pilots, guidance and control systems, launchers, fuel, oxidizer, casting chambers, equipment and components designed for production and testing as well as software and research used to construct the missiles.

There you have it: the latest brouhaha from the UN... Yawn.
Is Saddam disarming? No. Duh.
Will he ever? No. Double Duh.
Will we go after him with our fine troops and help him meet "Allah?" Yes. Triple Duh.
(And I do love that fab Catch 22 that Saddam's in: does he destroy the missiles, thus admitting that he's got WMD and wasn't being honest and disarming--and yes, that's still only the tip of the iceberg--or does he keep those babies, knowing he'll need them when we start our Liberation of Iraq?)

Iranians Eager for Hussein to Be Ousted

Iran would seem to be an unlikely corner of the Middle East to find support for Washington's plans to unseat Saddam Hussein. But despite decades of poor relations with the U.S. and their pique at being labeled part of an "axis of evil," most Iranians are eager to see the Iraqi dictator's demise.

Those who fought in Iran's war with Iraq in the 1980s and those for whom that war is little more than a childhood memory equally want to see Hussein's regime toppled. Few doubt that he is dangerous, armed with terrible weapons and a bane to the region.

"The day Saddam Hussein is arrested, killed or exiled, Iranians will pass out sweets in the streets," said Mehdi Ansari, a newspaper vendor. His clapboard kiosk on Vali Asr, Tehran's main boulevard, does brisker business these days as Iranians follow the latest twists in the U.N. inspection effort that they expect will eventually lead to war.

This enthusiasm for a campaign against Hussein is rare in the Middle East, where the prevailing belief holds that the U.S. is targeting Iraq to control its oil and ensure Israel's security. America's Arab allies, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, fear that war with Baghdad will further radicalize their already deeply anti-American populations. Iraq has historically been Iran's most serious rival for regional influence. Eight years of war drained Iran's economy and left deep wounds that still have not healed. The slaughter of tens of thousands of young Iranian men by Hussein's forces produced a grim culture of martyrdom that the country is still trying to shake.

At least 300,000 Iranians were killed in the war, and more than half a million were wounded.

However, the depth of Iranian antipathy for Hussein predates both the war and the Islamic Revolution of the late 1970s.

Iranians and Arabs are ethnically and culturally distinct, and a prejudice against Arabs has run through Iranian history for centuries. After the Iranian national soccer team lost a game to Iraq in 1977, the shah wept openly before fans at Tehran's Azadi Stadium.

Because Iranians speak Persian instead of Arabic and identify with a culture that predates Islam, most of them do not have the emotional ties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that reinforce the anger Arabs feel toward the United States, which they see as Israel's sponsor. Iranians do not sleep and rise with televised images of Palestinian suffering, as Arabs throughout the region do.

During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Iranians watched with satisfaction as a U.S.-led coalition routed Hussein from Kuwait. Where there is ambivalence about a new U.S.-led war against Iraq among ordinary Iranians, it often stems from a revulsion at the potential human cost rather than animosity toward the United States.
[...]Some Iranians, particularly the young, say they would actually welcome a U.S. presence in Iraq because it would increase pressure on both their country's conservative Islamic regime and the fractured reformers who oppose it. The regime's efforts to portray the U.S. as the "Great Satan" have failed to sway young people, who are a clear majority of Iranians. About 70% of the country's 70 million people are younger than 30.

Young people in particular associate the U.S. with the opportunities and freedoms that Iran, with its sluggish economy and stern moral code, lacks. They believe that better relations with the U.S. would revitalize Iranian life and help the country shed its pariah status.

According to a poll conducted in September, 75% of Iranians support dialogue with the U.S., and some believe that a long-term U.S. military presence next door could accelerate the process of change in Iran. [Oh, yeah!--J.T.]

Others, who despair of the clerical regime's capacity for reform, even hope that after Iraq, the U.S. will take on Iran.

The fantasy that the U.S. could swoop in and remove Iran's hard-line regime, as it did the Taliban in Afghanistan and threatens to do to Hussein, bespeaks the depth of frustration at the pace of internal reforms.

When newspaper headlines suggest that Washington's resolve may be wavering, anxiety sets in.

"Are they changing their mind?" Goli Afshar, a 23-year-old student, asked as she alternately tightened and loosened her grip on a mug at a cafe on Gandhi Street. "Can they hurry up with Iraq already, so they can get on with attacking us?"

Well, bless their hearts!
Don't you just love it, though? (although their oppression is hard to hear about...)
I haven't heard any people so hungry for Freedom since the USSR collapsed.
Hold on, Iran!
Change is coming and hopefully, for a better day for you.
BTW, doesn't passing out sweets in the street on the occasion of a country's liberation beat those murderous Islamists shooting off their guns celebrating the murder of innocents any day of the week?

February 23, 2003

Allies rally behind Bush on Iraq

The United States and three of its staunchest allies are preparing to launch a diplomatic drive to secure the UN Security Council votes needed to pass a new resolution against Iraq.
President George Bush confirmed that a draft resolution would be presented to the Security Council this week following talks at his Texas ranch with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar.

The document, which could be circulated as early as Monday, is expected to declare Baghdad to be in material breach of the first resolution passed in November - and to make explicit reference to military action.

Before their news conference, Mr Bush and Mr Aznar had held a four-way telephone conversation with the UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and Italian leader Silvio Berlusconi, both of whom support America's hawkish stance.

For the resolution to be approved, the four men need to persuade nine of the 15 Security Council members that action against Iraq is justified.

Permanent members France, Russia and China all oppose the US hardline, but it remains unclear whether they will go so far as to wield their veto.

Speaking next to Mr Aznar, Mr Bush reiterated his warning that the UN risked becoming an irrelevance if it refused to back him.

He also said he was not willing to wait two months for the council to approve a new text - the time it took to approve the first resolution, 1441.

While the Bush administration has made clear it would welcome a second resolution, it has nevertheless stressed that it will lead a "coalition of the willing" into war if it fails to win a UN mandate.
[...]
The allies will be closely monitoring Iraq's compliance with Mr Blix's latest demands. He has given Baghdad until 1 March to start destroying its al-Samoud II missiles.
[...]
On Saturday, the man in charge of nuclear inspections, Mohamed ElBaradei, said Iraq was still not doing enough to convince the world it had no banned weapons.

In other developments:

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad warns a US-led attack on Iraq would be seen in the Islamic world as part of a war against Muslims.

[Well, in a lot of ways it is, at least on some Muslims, anyway.
Thanks for paying attention!]

US officials say warplanes patrolling the air exclusion zone in southern Iraq have bombed six military communications sites after Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery opened fire.

[Opening fire on our planes? Another material breach. How many is that? 9,753, 335?]

Washington says a tentative agreement has been struck with Turkey to allow the deployment of US troops on Turkish soil. A vote in Turkey's parliament is not expected before Tuesday.

I'll give you even odds that they'll go for the $...who knows?

Pope John Paul II urges Tony Blair to find a solution other than war to the crisis with Iraq, during a private audience at the Vatican.

And Tone wisely and humbly told His Holiness that only Saddam Hussein can prevent the war by his actions to disarm voluntarily and peacefully, even though rumor has it that Tony wants to become a Catholic after leaving office.

Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov flies to Iraq on a "confidential mission" on behalf of President Vladimir Putin, reports Ekho Moskvy radio.

Uh-oh. I wouldn't trust these two alone. Something nasty is up.

Frankly, I don't care anymore, if I ever did, if we get a "second UN resolution" or not.
I've had more than enough of the U-freaking-N to last me several lifetimes.
I really don't know why President Bush has chosen to go this route.
I think that the more he and we deal with the UN the more legitimacy we give it, not less.
I believe, also, that Bush is a bit of an idealist and a "dreamer" such that he truly wants to see the UN become "relevant" so that it remains as a real force for global peace in the future, but I'm afraid that it's degenerated into a country club and mutual admiration society for thugs.
I do hope that someday that Bush or Powell will explain to all of us exactly why we went to the UN in the first place, but I wish we'd gone to war the "American way:" just hauled off and attacked them! (the way even Bill Crinton did, believe it or not!).
It is good to put together this coalition of the willing and I think it's promoting more force for Good on the planet to unite nations in a common effort to achieve a right and good outcome.
But it's not nice to find out who opposes us--like our old NATO allies France, Germany, Austria and Belgium.
However, when you take sides and make a righteous stand, you will make "enemies" awfully fast, as we have.
The UN is evil, become it stoops to the depths of its worst members like Syria, Iraq, Libya and Zimbabwe and too often sanctions tyranny and murder, while ignoring principled nation-states like the US and Israel.
So I repeat:Get the US out of the UN and vice versa!
I pray actively now that President Bush will NOT get his resolution and that the UN will prove itself to be as irrelevant, powerless, venal and corrupt as it really is and then the less said about it the better.
Now that we've chosen this route, we have to see it through to the bitter end in the UNSC,I guess, but once it has been voted on and become a moot point, let's "move on," as they say.
The US and her "friends and allies" is going to do what it needs to do, which is to drain the (Islamofascist) swamp in Baghdad.
Let's roll already and to hell with the UN which is where it was going anyway... and in a Neiman Marcus handbasket.

[I hope that Spanish PM Aznar and his lovely wife had a nice time at the Crawford Ranch with President and Mrs. Bush. It's nice to seem them have a visitor who isn't Saudi and wearing a male burqa, isn't it?!]

We don't want to shield Iraqi army, say British

The first Western "human shields" will take up their places at strategic sites around Iraq today as dissent among them grows about the nature of the targets they are being asked to protect.

Fifteen volunteers from the first 200 shields are moving into a bunker at the South Baghdad Electricity Plant in an effort to deter attack by America and its allies. However some of the shields yesterday questioned Iraq's selection of the power plant, after discovering that it is situated next to an army base.
[...]
The Iraqi government has drawn up a list of other sites that it wants shields to protect. These include water purification plants, communication centres, food stores, historic monuments and oil refineries.

Yesterday Iraqi officials gave way to pressure from disgruntled volunteers, and agreed to place some at the schools, hospitals and old people's homes where they had hoped to defend the civilian population against possible attack. Divisions between the volunteers and their Baghdad hosts had opened up during a meeting with Iraqi officials last Thursday. Rick Pruttwein, 28, from London, who runs summer camps for underprivileged children, told them he wanted to stay in an orphanage, capitalising on his work in Britain.

The officials, however, said that he could be better used at more strategically important targets. "There are maybe 40 or 50 children in the orphanage, which is in an area of maybe 200,000-300,000 civilians," said Abdul Razak Al Hashimi, president of the Organisation of Friendship, Peace and Solidarity in Iraq.
[...]

At present, Mr Meynell is staying in a hotel in Baghdad as a guest of the Iraqi government. For the foreseeable future, his group will live in the confined space of a dark and depressing dormitory, adorned by nylon drapes, brown velour curtains and a large framed portrait of Saddam Hussein dressed in military uniform. Steel, hospital-style beds line both walls.[Ummm. Sounds delightful!--Jen]

Ube Evans, 50, a stagehand from Dublin, said that those staying in the plant would be relying on their own food and water supplies to survive in very basic living conditions.

"We are taking bottled water and some food with us," he said. "We hope to beg or borrow some cooking rings so that we can be as self-sufficient as possible.
[...]
Yesterday, the volunteers who will move into the plant - who include Algerians, South Africans, Finns, Turks and two Russians from Siberia - painted a large sign bearing the human shield emblem on its roof, to alert fighter pilots to their presence.

I'm in a macabre mood, because I'm sick and tired of Saddam tooling us for 12 years, but I find this kind of funny!
You'd think anyone with half a brain could have figured out that it would be like this.
It's not as if Saddam has pulled this kind of stuff before, like disguising a germ factory as a "clinic" or putting missile installations right next to a residential community.
And those bloody Iraqis are probably hoping that our guys won't bombs these plants because they don't want to kill the "shields."
Guys and gals in the Air Force, I say "Do what you have to do!"
Betcha they told these idiotarian idiots that the reason the accomodations they offered the shields were so pathetic was due to the "sanctions," too.
And the fools all nodded sagely in agreement.
And Donald Rumsfeld, joined by Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, just pointed out that Iraq's use of these human shields is a war crime on their part:

"He deliberately constructs mosques near military facilities, uses schools, hospitals, orphanages and cultural treasures to shield military forces, thereby exposing helpless men, women and children to danger. These are not tactics of war, they are crimes of war," Rumsfeld said.

This time, however, there is a twist: Many of the human shields are anti-war activists from the United States, United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Australia and the Middle East who have volunteered to travel to Baghdad in hopes of averting a conflict. Around two dozen arrived in Iraq on Sunday. Their satellite phones were immediately confiscated by Iraqi officials.

Winnie Mandela, the ex-wife of former South African President Nelson Mandela, suggested Wednesday that she would go to Iraq to be a shield. A Methodist pastor from New Jersey departed for the region this week.
[...]Article 51 of the 1977 amendment the 1949 Geneva Conventions specifically prohibits human shields.

"The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objects from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations," it states.

Thanks again, SecDef Rummy! (We love you!)

BBC viewers vent their anger at 'anti-US' bias of Iraq coverage

The BBC has received an unprecedented number of complaints at the alleged anti-war and anti-American tone of its coverage of the Iraqi crisis.

More than 400 viewers have rung the corporation in the past few weeks to complain that it has shown overwhelming bias. It is one of the largest reactions from viewers ever recorded.

One programme to attract opprobrium was the screening of a debate on Newsnight two weeks ago in which Tony Blair was savaged by an overwhelmingly anti-war audience. A Panorama programme on the crisis three weeks ago, which featured very few speakers in favour of military action, also provoked a hostile reaction.

Viewers have complained that BBC interviews with "ordinary Iraqis" in Baghdad routinely fail to point out that they risk death if they criticise Saddam Hussein. Many others have been incensed by BBC journalists seeming to add personal comment to their reports that is openly opposed to American policy and a possible war.

This almost gives me hope... but I know better.
At least it's good to see that Brits are speaking up about this.
Frankly, I'm pleasantly suprised by it as our press would have us believe that most of EUrope (including Brits, Tony Blair's stance with Bush notwithstanding) is against the U.S.A., against President Bush and against the Liberation of Iraq...
at least this indicates that if some Brits aren't exactly "against us," they at least want to hear *both* sides of the issue and less gratuitous America-bashing.
Cheers, Britain and let's hope that the folks at MSDNC and CNN saw this!

Rallies in Orlando, Pensacola Support Military Action in Iraq

American flags snapped in the wind and vocal praise for President Bush filled the air Saturday as thousands of Floridians rallied in support of U.S. troops preparing for a possible war against Iraq.

About 2,000 people turned out in Orlando to hear songs and speeches, including the Gettysburg Address, while another 1,000 prayed and marched in Pensacola. The day's events began in Miami with the Tribute to the Military 5K Run.

In Pensacola, Navy Warrant Officer David Wolff, a veteran of Desert Storm, arrived in full uniform with his wife. He believed the event would give soldiers readying for war a needed boost, much like the yellow ribbons he received from Americans during the Persian Gulf War.
[...]
"I was so saddened to see so many in our nation not supporting our troops and our country during (last Sunday's) anti-war protests. It was really upsetting," Wolff said. "This is great. This is very uplifting."

"The anti-war protesters last weekend are aiding and abetting Saddam (Hussein, Iraq's president)," said Sherri Tabb, a 37-year-old homemaker from Osteen. "Saddam has gotten emboldened, he is not cooperating. War is the only solution."

But not all participants advocated war.

"I'm here because I love America," said Vince Chandler, a 59-year-old banker and Air Force veteran. "I support the president, the troops. If the world shows determination against (Hussein's regime), they will leave; I prefer not to go in."

Another target was France, which has stood in the way of a U.N. resolution authorizing force against Iraq. "Use your emergency duct tape to gag (French President) Jacques Chirac," said one sign.[I love this!--J.T.]

Standing out in the sea of red, white and blue at the Orlando rally was the Israeli flag carried by Jason Hoffman. The 33-year-old Internet consultant noted that Israel air force planes, one flown by future Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon, bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981. The raid received harsh criticism from the global community.

"What Israel did 22 years ago has made it much safer world now," Hoffman said, "and our troops are not facing a nuclear-armed Saddam."

Mr. Hoffman, I pray that you're right and that they're not (against the eventuality that Chirac or some other creep has sold them some more nukes.)
I think that we'll see more and more of these pro-America, pro-Bush rallies in all our major cities.
Just tonight, I read about not only this one but about similar "pro-war" rallies in San Antonio, TX (at the Alamo no less!), Indianapolis, Birmingham, Seattle and another in Minneapolis-St. Paul.
If I hear of one here in Dallas, you can count on me being there.
God bless these fine folks who organized these pro-America rallies: last weekend's pro-Saddam "peace" protests made me sick to my stomach...literally.

US ready to strike, Rumsfeld declares

The United States is ready to roll, with Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declaring that it now has enough forces in the Gulf to attack Iraq any time the order is given.

All that remains now is for the President to give the order, Mr Rumsfeld said in a television interview.

Nevermind that I was ready for us to go this past summer...
Mr. President, say the word!
(And I hope it's soon.
This waiting business is killing me!)
Hooah!