March 15, 2003

Salih Says 70,000 Kurds Will Fight Alongside U.S. Troops

A Kurdish leader predicted Friday the quick collapse of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government if war comes. He said 70,000 Kurds were prepared to fight alongside U.S. troops.

Barhim Salih, prime minister of the Kurdistan regional government, said the Iraqi army and even some of Saddam's Republican Guard would quit in what he predicted would be a short war.

Salih told reporters at the Council on Foreign Relations, a private research group, that Saddam had booby-trapped Iraqi oil fields in Kirkuk and probably elsewhere and would have them blown up as he sought refuge outside the country.

"We have to expect the worst of him," Salih said.

In Washington for talks with Bush administration officials, Salih said he hoped to discourage any U.S. invitation to Turkey to send troops into northern Iraq, which has a heavy Kurdish population.

If Turkey should intervene, so will Iran, Salih said, "opening a Pandora's Box" that would harm prospects for a transition to an independent, democratic government in Baghdad.

I'm liking the Kurds more and more and the Turks less and less...
The Kurds have been pretty much been running their own little independent and democratic state for the last 12 years, since the Allied Coalition set up the Northern No-Fly zone, and doing a good job of it (at least life is much better there than in Saddam's Iraq) and they've endured endless purges by him, including ethnic cleansing by poison gas.
They've also battled the Turks semi-successfully, costing them 35,000 lives, in the past couple of decades.
I think the Kurds are the main reason why Turkey is thwarting our efforts to use their country's resources to help wage our liberation of Iraq.
I think they'll come into the war sooner or later, but on their own side (with some help from Saddam and/or the French?)--they don't want their own Kurdish population to join forces with these Iraqi Kurds, but notice how Salih, the main Kurdish leader, is with us and pledging his men to fight on our side?
Maybe it's the Mafia philosophy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," but at this point, who's being picky, particularly when our enemies list has gotten a bit longer to include not only Saddam, but perhaps Islamist leader Erdogan of Turkey, too?
The Kurd factor, plus the phenomenon of Turkish
seeming coquettishness, if not outright fecklessness, at an inopportune time, is what I think is leading us to this tactical decision:
U.S. Drops Its Bid to Base Troops in Turkey

Washington warns Ankara not to send its soldiers into northern Iraq.
Pentagon moves some vessels from the Mediterranean Sea.

Update:More good news from Kurdish leader Salih
Kurd PM: French, Russians to lose Iraq oil

French and Russian oil and gas contracts signed with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq "will not be honored," Barhim Salih, a leading Iraqi Kurdish official, said in Washington Friday, just before a series of high-level meetings with Bush administration officials.

"A new Iraqi government should not honor any of these contracts, signed against the interests of the Iraqi people. The new Iraqi government should respect those who stood by us, and not those who stood beside the dictator," added Salih, who is prime minister in the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan government that controls Iraq's eastern Kurdish area.

Russian and French oil corporations have each signed draft contracts with Iraq, to come into force only when the United Nations sanctions are lifted, for exploration, development and exploitation of the country's energy resources -- which geologists believe may be the world's second largest after Saudi Arabia. The value of the draft contracts, if fully taken up, is estimated to have a potential of more than $20 billion.

Although there have been dark hints that French and Russian opposition to a second U.N. resolution in the Security Council could have economic consequences, this is the first clear threat from a leading opposition figure from inside Iraq that their oil contracts will not be honored.

Given the fact that many of Iraq's most productive oil fields and these leases are situated in the Kurdish part, Mr. Salih seems to be saying that he and his Kurdish troops and people won't "allow" the French and Russians to "make good" on their old contracts by trying to tap those fields.
I'm delighted to learn that my President and my government invited this wise man to Washington to discuss concrete ways in which Iraqi life will improve after Saddam's "regime changed."

After Rummy basically threw down and asked the Brits this week,"Are you tough enough?"
The answer came back with a resounding,"Hooah!"

United Press International: Portugal: U.S. 'best way' to have security

Portugal is siding with the United States on Iraq because Washington was "Portugal's best way to ensure national security," a Portuguese Cabinet minister said Monday.

Foreign Minister Antonio Martins da Cruz told state radio that if Portugal were attacked, "it would be unlikely France and Germany would come to our rescue."

His comments to RDP Antena 1 radio were monitored by the British Broadcasting Corp.

He said: "Let us suppose Portugal, proper or its archipelagos, faced a threat, who would come to our rescue? The European Commission, France, Germany?

"I think it would be NATO who would come to our rescue, in other words, it would be the U.S., no one else would defend us.
[...]..."Is this how we are supposed to project our forces in Europe? Are they planning to defend us with ferry boats? I cannot envisage the European Commission protecting us from an attack in which highly developed weapons were employed," the foreign minister said.

If you're wondering why (Jose Manuel Durao) Barroso of Portugal is included in the elite inner circle that's meeting with Bush, Blair and Aznar in the Azores, which is also Portuguese territory, on Sunday, I think this statement of the Portuguese position just about says it all.
I firmly believe that every European leader, including Jacques Iraq and Shroeder of Germany, know that it's true, even though you might have to torture the weasels to get them to admit it!

Hat tip to Deb of Insomnomaniac!

Here's *the* Blix quote from the MTV interview yesterday that rocked the world (of intelligent people, that is):
MTV.com: Hans Blix: Caught Between Iraq And A Hard Place

Norris: Speaking of multilateralism, do you notice, as many have suggested, that there's an increasing unilateralist bent in the United States government?

Blix: Yeah. On big issues like war in Iraq, but in many other issues they simply must be multilateral. There's no other way around. You have the instances like the global warming convention, the Kyoto protocol, when the U.S. went its own way. I regret it. To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict.

Jaw-droppingly stupid.
I can't believe we take this asshat's word or opinion for anything!
You'd still think he'd wanna shut down Saddam: look at the pollution Saddam caused by the oil fires from his "Highway of Death!"
And then there was his gigantic oil spill in the Persian Gulf!
The fish, marine life and birds are still trying to come back from that!
Now, Saddam's threatening to do a reprise of that, too, or worse!
Anyone who's got a brain and has done some research, like reading Bjorn Lomborg's excellent The Sceptical Environmentalist knows that the whole "global warming" theory and that blasted Kyoto Protocol is based on nothing but junk science, cooked up by "scientists" hungry for huge research grants!
Blix just lost any respect or credibility he might have had from me.
Typical Liberal: hidden, BS-based agenda.
Let's move on and Let's roll!

March 14, 2003

Palestinians get Saddam funds

Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.
[...]
"Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero," read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony.

With war looming in the Middle East, Palestinian speakers condemned the United States and Israel, which dismissed the ceremony as support for terrorism.
[...]

One by one, at least 21 families came up to receive their cheques from the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), a local pro-Iraq group.

A Hamas suicide bomber's family got $25,000 while the others - relatives of militants killed in fighting or civilians killed during Israeli military operations - all received $10,000 each.
Another banner in the hall described the cheques as the "blessings of Saddam Hussein" and PALF speakers extolled the Iraqi leader in fiery speeches.

"Saddam Hussein considers those who die in martyrdom attacks as people who have won the highest degree of martyrdom," said one.

The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian families since the current uprising began in September 2000.
[...]
Israel condemned the Iraqi handouts as funding for terrorism.

"It shows that Saddam is involved in every activity that is terrorism and murderous and leads to instability in the Middle East," said Amira Oron, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry.
[...]
Sabri Salama, a relative of two Palestinian teenagers killed in an Israeli air strike on Gaza in January, said America was "the chief terrorist state".

I see, Sabri--Has ANSWER found you yet to lead a "peace" march this weekend?
The gargantuan amount of this blood money is almost unreal.
[Check out how far into the piece the BBC sticks the aggregate sum,too.]
$35 million in a little over 2 years with the payout rate at $10,000-25,000/bomber is a lot of homicide bombers. But, of course, they have big families, too...I dunno.
In light of the fact that President Bush talked again today of the new democratic, peaceful "Palestine" of the future that will eschew terrorism, I don't think we'll ever see that kind of state appear.
Of course, "regime changing" their benefactor Saddam should help alot in this area, but I think many of these Islamofascists would blow themselves (and Jews) up for free.
It's all so awful that I can't think about too much at a time.
What kind of a "society" puts a price tag of 5 figures on a human being?
Or any amount of money to actually assess the cash "value" of a person?
A sick, twisted society that needs to be put out of its misery, is the answer.

SoS Powell will be with him and they're going to discuss "Peace in the Middle East."
Should be short and none too sweet (if you're Arafat!).
Bush may be announcing a weekend trip to the Azores to powwow with Blair, Aznar of Spain and the Portuguese PM on the Iraqi war.

Lee Harris at Tech Central Station has penned a BRILLIANT essay explaining exactly why we have no choice but to wage this War on Islamist Terrorism:

Our World-Historical Gamble
Here are some highlights:

The motivations of those who want to murder us are not complicated: To watch an American city go up into a fireball is its own reward.

This is the lesson that 9/11 should teach us in dealing with the fantasists of the Islamic world. A fantasy does not need to make any sense - that is the whole point of having one.

My blood froze when I read that, because I knew in my gut that it was true.
After witnessing the attacks on 9/11, can we doubt it?

Then, as he reaches his conclusion, he gives this statement of American (Western) purpose:

But if this thesis is correct, then at least it provides us with a criterion for measuring the success of any action on our part, whether this be in our war on terrorism or in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The criterion is, Does our action tend to make the Islamic fantasist more or less realistic in their assessment of the world? Success comes when we have created a higher degree of pragmatic realism on their part; failure comes when we have simply encouraged them in their fantasies.

And judged by this criterion, much of American policy toward the Islamic fantasists has been a signal departure from the American tradition of realism. For so much of our policy, from the Iran hostage crisis up until the events of 9/11 have almost been designed to encourage the growth of fantasy thinking among the most dangerous social forces in the Islamic world. Their policy has been to make us fear them through displays of force, whether in taking the staff of our embassy hostage or by flying airplanes into our buildings. And we have given our enemy the ultimate satisfaction - we have shown we are afraid. We have displayed how much their acts have devastated us, and our grief has provided a sickening opportunity for Schadenfreude on the part of far too much of the Islamic world. We must learn not only to exact a price for those who murder our citizens - but for those who, though technically innocent of the crime, dance in the streets to celebrate its consequences. This thirst for the indulgence of bloody fantasies at our expense must be brought to an end by whatever means it takes. Indeed, in the long run the greatest danger we face comes not from the terrorists of today, but those being bred for tomorrow - the children who are being inducted and brainwashed into the terror cult that is at the heart of the fantasy ideology of Islamism.

As The Diffident Spectator states (who also linked it), I stand in awe of someone who can master logic, reason, analysis and writing so powerfully!
It's long and it takes real concentration to read this piece,
but READ IT YOU MUST.

Cabinet rift widens as war looms

Cabinet divisions over Iraq widened last night after Robin Cook indicated that he was prepared to join Clare Short in resigning from the Government if Britain went to war without explicit authority from the United Nations.

At the same time, ministers held back from authorising military action to allow time for last-ditch diplomatic efforts to reach agreement on a new UN resolution.

Mr Cook, the Leader of the Commons, and Miss Short, the International Development Secretary, underlined their concerns about the legality of war without a UN mandate.

Both remain in the Government until an emergency Cabinet meeting, expected on Monday, which could take the decision to commit British troops. It would be followed by a full-scale Commons debate on Tuesday.

Mr Cook stressed the importance of MPs being allowed a vote before conflict began, and said he was prepared to ask the Speaker to recall Parliament over the weekend if necessary. He even joked about the possibility of allowing time for ministerial resignation statements.

As the build-up of US and British troops close to the Kuwaiti border with Iraq continued in earnest yesterday, President George W Bush offered Tony Blair a little more breathing space in his round-the-clock efforts to secure UN backing before launching action against Iraq.

Troops were massing close to the demilitarised zone, roads through northern Kuwait were filled with military vehicles and bases to the south were emptying fast.

The deal between the two leaders was sealed during an afternoon telephone call.

But it appeared that in return, Mr Blair agreed with Mr Bush that the quest for another UN resolution would have to be abandoned by Tuesday at the latest.

Ari Fleischer, Mr Bush's spokesman, said:"What you are seeing is the president going the last mile on behalf of diplomacy. There is an end to that road. The end is coming into sight."

Mr Bush has risked damaging his credibility in agreeing to Mr Blair's request because the White House has set particular store on his never going back on his word.[This is not a man or a leader who wants to argue about "what the meaning of 'is' is!" Thank God!--Jen] He had previously insisted the UN had to reach a decision by today.

Washington hawks had also expressed opposition to any further delay at the UN and criticised Mr Blair for pursuing a "fool's chase" by searching for an agreement that was not possible.

"Blair is hurting himself by dragging this out," a senior Bush administration member told The Telegraph. "It's not for Americans to tell British politicians how to behave. But what is he getting out of this? He should just stand up and say, 'We're ready to go'."

Mr Blair told Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative leader, that he believed a new resolution was "now probably less likely than at any time."

After a private meeting with the Prime Minister in Downing Street, Mr Duncan Smith said military action had become more likely. "The thoughts and prayers of everybody and those of my party are with our forces and with their families."

In a further sign that the Government was preparing for the inevitability of war, Downing Street confirmed that it had advised the Queen to postpone an official visit to Belgium next week.

Officials said that at such a crucial stage it was "sensible" for the Head of State to be in this country.

Downing Street insisted that Mr Blair had not yet given up hope of achieving UN backing for a second resolution - even though he told ministers yesterday that the existing resolution 1441 provided legal backing for the use of force.

"We accept getting a UN resolution is very difficult - but we don't accept it is over," Mr Blair's spokesman said.

Downing Street authorised a stinging attack on France. Officials said President Jacques Chirac had "poisoned" the diplomatic process by declaring that France would veto a second resolution tabled by Britain, the US and Spain whatever the circumstances.

Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, described the French position as "extraordinary", while Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, said French threats to vote down a new resolution were "unreasonable".

Mr Fleischer described France as more intransigent than Iraq.[Go Ari! I love it!--J.T.] The onslaught appeared to bear fruit when France modified its language.

Adopting a more conciliatory tone, Dominique de Villepin, the foreign minister, said Paris wanted to achieve a consensus in the Security Council.

Britain made a new concession by offering to drop a demand for Saddam Hussein to appear on Iraqi television and own up to past illegal weapons programmes.

"If the only issue between us, our partners on the Security Council and Saddam Hussein is whether or not he makes a TV broadcast, then we'd happily drop that," Mr Straw said.

Britain, diplomats said, also was willing to give a substantial extension to the ultimatum giving Saddam until March 17 to show he was ready to disarm. But the US objected to anything more than a "very, very" modest extension.

Tony, time to pee or get off the pot!
Besides, Robyn Cook sounds like the British answer to Tom Daschle and that Clare Short woman is the Anglo Nancy Pelosi!
You can put together a new Cabinet, but you've got 40,000 Brits in theater and they're eager to show their stuff (since SecDef Don Rumsfeld "challenged" their abilities the other day!)
In spite of the all the whining of the Liberal Left in Britain, the U.S. and everywhere else, I think that President Bush and Brit PM Blair are on the same page and it says "War war" now and no more "Jaw jaw."
We've heard from France; their opposition and obstruction are duly noted.
Now, LET'S ROLL.

San Antonio DJ Pulls The Plug On The Dixie Chicks

A popular country music group has some San Antonians turning off their radios. A KJ 97 DJ pulled the plug on the trio's songs after lead singer Natalie Maines made a negative comment about President Bush.
[...]
"Natalie Maines before a concert audience in London England said, and I quote, just so you know we're ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas," said Keith Montgomery with KJ 97.

The comments prompted Montgomery to pull the Chicks music off the air Thursday night.

"I would say the reaction is 99 percent in favor of what I have done," said Montgomery.

Texans aren't the only ones upset about Maine's comments. Reaction from all over the country caused the group on Thursday to post an explanation of their stance.

Yee-Haw, Mr. Montgomery!
And Natalie, I'm sorry, but WHO is it we're embarrassed comes from Texas?
Could it be you and your fellow Chicks with D*cks?!
I hope this boycott of the Loony Left Bush-bashers continues...and let's include music by Streisand and Sheryl Crow and all their little Saddam-loving peacenik pals in Hollyweird!
It's far better to listen to American *ss-kicking country music like Toby Keith's "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" and Darryl Worley's terrific new post 9/11 lament "Have you Forgotten?"
And while you're in a musical, warmongering mood, why not send our troops some tunes via TroopTrax, so that our men and women in the military can have some great CDs to listen to while they're defending freedom (hopefully DixieChicks-less!)?
Update: The Chicks are getting chucked in Kansas City, too!

One radio station is even taking the boycott a step further.

The station has invited its listeners to come to the station's studios Friday morning and dump their Dixie Chicks CDs in a big trash can, Hubbard said.

Take that, you anti-American bee-yaches!

Furious Britain Denounces France for Blocking Iraq Deal

The dispute between Britain and France over disarming Saddam Hussein exploded into open hostility Thursday, as furious British officials accused the French of all but ensuring there will be a war.

In shockingly blunt language for allies, British officials assailed their French counterparts for blocking efforts to set a deadline for Iraq to disarm. Britain accused France of rejecting its proposal without considering it.

"What I find extraordinary (is) that without even proper consideration the French government have decided that they will reject these proposals," said British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

Iain Duncan Smith, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, emerged from a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair to say war appeared likely because of France.

He (Blair) made the reason for this as the fact that the French have become completely intransigent," he told journalists.

The attacks reflected Britain's anger with what it sees as a cynical French ploy aimed at creating a French-led counterweight to the United States in world affairs.

British officials contend privately that French President Jacque Chirac is also intent on preserving traditional lucrative commercial ties with Iraq, which he helped build in the 1970s.
[...]
British officials were angry after de Villepin rejected a British proposal for a U.N. resolution outlining steps Saddam would have to follow to prove he was scrapping his weapons of mass destruction. Paris says Iraq can be disarmed peacefully and claims Britain and the United States just want a new U.N. resolution to launch a war.

Britain, which is deeply divided over war with Iraq, appeared relieved to turn to bashing its traditional European rival. Anglo-French enmity stretches back centuries and belittling the French is a passionate British pastime, fully reciprocated by many French.

British newspapers joined in the attack Thursday, blasting the French as untrustworthy and selfish.

The Sun tabloid attacked France with a front-page headline saying, "Blair Buries Le Worm," its nickname for Chirac.

Some British officials predicted privately that public anger at the French could boost support for Blair, who faces strong opposition inside his Labor Party over his determination to back the United States even if it means attacking Iraq without U.N. approval. Most Britons don't want a war without U.N. approval, polls show.
The British anger with France is reflected in Washington, where U.S. officials have said Paris' threat to use its veto no matter what had sent the wrong message to Saddam.

British frustration and anger with France has been building for weeks.

Straw, normally noted for quiet courtesy, seemed to mock his French counterpart during a recent U.N. Security Council debate, ironically referring to him as "my friend Dominique" as de Villepin scowled.

For my money, this is one of those "lighter" moments of the war....
Did anyone else laugh when they heard that one of the British requirements for the new resolution was that Saddam had to go on TV and tell everyone in Arabic that he had WMD and was disarming?
I thought it was hilarious--just the thought of it!
(I'm sure that Saddam lost his lunch or blew up with rage when he heard that! He would rather die--literally--than do that and I'm sure the Brits knew that well, hence the reason it was made a condition!)
Far better for the French to be yelled at by the Brits, also, who have those cute accents and such beautiful speaking voices!
It always sounds far worse when they "read your beads" than when we do it, doesn't it?
And it sounds more learned and "civilized" coming from those Oxbridge graduates Blair, Straw and Greenstock whereas the French would call our guys "hicks and hot-headed cowboys" if we dressed them down.
This calls Perfidious Paris out and clears the air by getting everything out in the open...and a leader other than Bush is taking the heat, which Jacques Iraq richly deserves for backing evil! Yes!
I don't have to tell you that France's behavior has been nothing short of shameful.
I don't have the foggiest idea why they're protecting Iraq unless they've sold Iraq WMD, have big oil contracts with Saddam, or are even in an actual military concordat with him. Or all three.
Or why they're pretending they don't know that it's only the very real threat of military force that has produced any cooperation from Saddam!
But they have well and truly stabbed the U.S.A. in the back--first in NATO and now in the U.N.
As for the British relationship with the French, the Brits have also been betrayed by the Frogs in the UN and NATO and in the EU by all of their recent "spats" over Common Agricultural Policy, the visit of Mugabe to Paris, etc. etc.
As a direct consequence of this, I hope Britain never adopts the EUro!
Of course, I hoped that before all this happened, too, but...
And I have reason to hope that because of this contretemps with France and Germany they very well may not!
(Blair did put off the referendum about the adoption of the EU in the UK for another year.)
France has just given Britain a terrific lesson in what could happen if the EU were theoretically capable of implementing a "common" foreign policy and it wasn't pretty:
on paper, each EU member is supposed to have a voice in the shaping of such policy, yet we now know that France and Germany intend to share the top spot and boss around the others simply because they're "superior," on some scale of quality known only to them.
Better hold onto your sovereignity, Great Britain, in every way you can!
Not only do I hope that you never change the EUro for the British Pound, but that the day is coming soon when you actually leave the EU altogether!
And that goes for the other Group of the [United We Stand] 8 and the Vilnius Group countries of New Europe who are all holding votes soon about EU membership.
Don't do it!
Stay free!

Franks shifts missile vessels to war positions in Red Sea

The U.S. military is moving a dozen or more missile-firing ships from the Mediterranean into the Red Sea, bordering Saudi Arabia, as Gen. Tommy Franks puts the final pieces in place for a war with Iraq.

As the ships were preparing to move as early as last night, the Air Force announced it had deployed an unspecified number of B-2 stealth bombers from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., to bases closer to Iraq.

The bat-wing bombers, making their first deployment outside the United States, would play a key role in the opening hours of war by knocking out important military targets in Baghdad. The Air Force has established special shelters for the B-2s on the island of Diego Garcia and in Fairfield, England.

The White House has set Monday as a deadline for Iraq to begin disarming. If it does not, a U.S.-led attack could come any day afterward.[Cool. Let's roll!--Jen]

Two battle groups are in the Mediterranean, headed by the carriers USS Harry S. Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt. The Navy has in place around Iraq more than 30 surface ships and submarines capable of firing the terrain-following Tomahawk.

A Pentagon official said it is his understanding that Gen. Franks, chief of U.S. Central Command who will oversee any invasion of Iraq, will keep the two carriers and their 140-plus aircraft in place for now. Only surface ships and submarines armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles will move to the Red Sea, the official said.

The official said the reason could be that, since the missiles fly relatively low and slow to their targets, Gen. Franks would rather have them fly over the Saudi desert than population centers over Israel and Jordan.

Tomahawks are typically one of the first weapons fired in war to take out air-defense systems. If citizens spot missiles overhead, it would give Baghdad warning of an attack and perhaps ruin the tactical surprise Gen. Franks is seeking.
"Shooting over Israel and Jordan politically may not be viable," the official said.

The two carriers' strike aircraft are able to fly high, 30,000 feet or more, before descending over Iraq toward the target.

Turkey has not yet granted overflight rights. But Pentagon officials said they believe Israel and Jordan, which is allowing American special operations troops on its soil, will allow flights over their airspace to Iraq.

Three battle groups are in the Persian Gulf, spearheaded by the carriers USS Constellation, USS Kitty Hawk and USS Abraham Lincoln.

The USS Nimitz battle group has left Pearl Harbor and is three to four weeks away from arriving in the Gulf. It is scheduled to relieve the Lincoln, which had completed its six-month deployment and was heading home when the Pentagon told it to reverse course and prepare for war.

The military has 21 of the radar-evading B-2 bombers. Analysts say as many as 16 could participate in the opening night of strikes against Iraqi fixed targets: air-defense centers, command posts and Republican Guard concentrations.[Heads up, any of you human shields who weren't smart enough to go home!--J.T.]

The B-2 holds 16 1-ton bombs, guided by the global positioning system (GPS), meaning each bat-wing aircraft can hit 16 different targets in a single pass over Baghdad.

The capability marks a major improvement from the Gulf war 12 years ago. Then, only the F-117 stealth fighter, with two laser-guided bombs, penetrated Baghdad airspace in the opening nights.

More than 230,000 American troops are in the Iraqi theater, backed by about 40,000 British personnel.

Gen. Franks said at the Pentagon last week that he is ready to wage war if President Bush gives the order to topple Saddam Hussein and rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

The final piece may be the Army 101st Airborne Division, a helicopter assault force of 20,000 soldiers [Go Screaming Eagles!--Jen]. The last of the 101st's helicopters are scheduled to arrive in Kuwait this week by sea. The division is expected to carry out several missions, including opening a northern front and patrolling western Iraq for Scud missiles and launchers.
Whoa...sounds pretty impressive!
I wouldn't wanna be Saddam right now...
I think the fact that Gen. Franks is moving these Tomahawk-bearing ships from the Mediterranean into the Red Sea (and I think I heard they were going through the Suez...) may indicate that we're giving up on Turkey, which is probably a good thing. [Can you imagine? President Bush is having to *ask* the Turks for even flyover rights! I don't know how you feel about this, but an independent Kurdistan after the liberation of Iraq is sounding awfully good to me!]
As someone else proposed, I wish we could unload those ships now parked off Turkey in Israel and just march into Iraq by going through Jordan, which we very well might!
And no-one in the media is making much of the fact that Jordan's in our Coalition this time, whereas during Operation Desert Storm, they wouldn't help us (for all those tired "War against Islam/Arabs" type reasons).
Needless to say, Gen. Franks is going to work with what we've got and I must say, he seems to be doing a fine job!
Can you imagine the headaches, planning and logistics of deploying 300,000 men and the supplies that go with them in that Arabian sand trap?
To all our ships at sea--on the Truman, the Roosevelt, the Nimitz, the Constellation, the Kitty Hawk and the Abraham Lincoln and their battle groups,too, please know that we're praying for your safe voyage and your return home soon victorious and unharmed, especially those folks on the USS Lincoln who feel as if they've been deployed for ages (which they apparently have been)!
America is proud and grateful for every single one of you!
Now let's kick some WMD-amassing Iraqi butt!
(And somebody please tell me where my fave carrier the USS Carl Vinson is?...I promise not to tell anyone!)

Husband, Wife Join Marines in Their 30s

With war looming in Iraq, 32-year-old Nicole Kyger and her 30-year-old husband quit their motorcycle shop jobs, went through rigorous basic training with recruits years younger, and became Marines.

The Denver couple say they were motivated by the opportunities and challenges of the Marines - and wanted to join the war on terror.

"Terrorism is a horrible thing," said Robert Kyger, an Albuquerque, N.M., native. "Not being able to go out in the morning with a cup of coffee and a newspaper and being comfortable on my front porch - it would be a whole lot different if you weren't able to do that."
[...]
It's unusual for married couples to undergo basic training at the same time, and even more rare for those as old as the Kygers, who needed age waivers to enlist. Recruits between 28 and 34, the maximum age for new Marines, must have such waivers.

Thank you for your service, Nicole and Robert, but as someone in my mid-40's, I'm a bit jealous! I'm wishing more and more these days that could be "in theater" myself ready to "go get 'em!"
From now on, you can not only say Semper Fi, but live it, love it and mean it!

March 13, 2003

Iraqi Troops Moving Toward Kuwait

The Defense Department is seeing movement of Iraqi troops and heavy artillery toward the south, possibly to take up positions in Southern Iraq, where they could be able to shell U.S. troops dug in inside Kuwait, defense officials confirmed to Fox News on Thursday.

If you haven't experienced the eloquence and passion yet of Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, you must and if you know what I'm talking about go, read and feel your blood rise as only she can stir it up with her own remembrances of WWII as a Italian liberated by the Americans and then later of the Gulf War (where 4 Iraqis actually surrendered to her!), her outrage at the Islamization of Europe and at the bloodlust of Islamofascist jihadi killers and how our resolve to crush these killers must be total:"The Rage, the Pride and the Doubt: Thoughts on the eve of battle in Iraq."
Be on the lookout for her admiring mention of the Alamo, a battle which we Texans are still proud of, even though we didn't win that one.
(But we did win the war and the land!)

Saddam Could Launch First Strike

U.S. officials fear that once President Bush signals the U.S. is headed to war, Saddam Hussein will strike pre-emptively, administration sources told ABCNEWS.

But if the United States takes action to stop an Iraqi first strike, especially if they try to seize and protect the oil fields, U.S. officials admit they may end up starting the war itself.

This new level of concern about Iraq is caused by an accumulation of intelligence including troubling new details that focus on three areas:

   Specific new evidence indicates that Iraqi activity in the Western desert shows the strong likelihood Scud missiles are hidden there. These missiles could easily reach Israel carrying chemical or biological warheads which could draw Israel into any war.

   Detailed new intelligence from the southern Iraqi oil fields shows that many of the 700 wells have now been wired with explosives. These explosives appear to be connected to a central command post, so Saddam could easily set the wells ablaze.

   Near the border with Kuwait, where 135,000 U.S. troops are now stationed, recent surveillance indicates Iraqi artillery batteries have been moved dangerously close. The artillery is capable of firing shells filled with poison gas.

The United States is now considering moving against all three of these targets before any war begins in an effort to prevent Saddam from acting first...

Go for it, guys and gals! Do what you gotta do.
For my part, I'm sending up an extra prayer tonight for the safety of our men and women in our military over there, and Britain's and Australia's and any other Allied Coalition member's.
Like the good Boy and Girl Scouts most of you all probably were, you'll be prepared and are aware of Saddam's nasty predelictions to kill people and break things, but watch yourselves--Saddam and his people are nailed, unrepentantly evil and desperate.
At this point, it's academic as to who physically "starts" this battle of the war--Saddam started this one long ago, practically from his first breath, but as far as the U.S.A. is concerned, he certainly began his fight with us when he invaded our ally and friend Kuwait in 1990.
I pray for all the Israelis, too.
While many of us here in America are concerned about attacks on the homeland "because of" our war to liberate Iraq*, we sometimes forget that Israel not only faces suicide bombers and "Palestinian" terrorists every day, but their country is the closest and most preferred target of Saddam, too.

*One of the Dims' favorite whines and "reasons" they give for why we should stay out of the war is that America will be attacked by the Islamists "because" we're attacking Iraq--this is B.S., as I've stated before.
The IslamoFascists will continue to kill us until they either are reformed as Muslims and eschew the practice of murder for jihad or are captured and put in jail or killed, no matter what we do.
It was one of my worst realizations on 9/11--no matter what we do or don't do in response to their jihadi attacks of murder, they'll still keep on trying to kill us because of who we are and what we stand for.
Before 9/11, we hadn't attacked anyone--in fact, we had intervened militarily for the Muslims in our last 3 conflicts: in Desert Storm (for Kuwait), in Kosovo and even in Mogadishu, Somalia, to help the Muslim Somalian people get their food and yet OBL still thought of us as the "Great Satan."
Better to have these peoples' fear and respect than to have them think we're weak and to the Islamists, therefore, more vulnerable to attack.

U.S. Court Rejects Appeal to Block War

A U.S. appeals court on Thursday upheld a lower court's ruling that rejected a legal bid by a group of soldiers and U.S. lawmakers to keep President Bush from invading Iraq without a formal declaration of war by Congress.

"The case before us is a somber and weighty one. We have considered these important concerns carefully, and we have concluded that the circumstances call for judicial restraint," Judge Sandra Lynch wrote in the ruling.

The civil lawsuit, brought by three members of the military, six parents of U.S. troops and members of the U.S. Congress, sought an injunction to stop potential U.S. military action on the grounds that only Congress has the right to declare war.

The suit, which named Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as defendants, said the framers of the U.S. Constitution aimed to deny presidents the imperial war-making powers of European monarchs.

Although Congress passed a resolution in October backing the possible use of U.S. military force against Iraq, the plaintiffs said this was an unconstitutional measure and did not amount to a formal declaration of war.

In his ruling last month, Tauro said a federal court can judge the war policies of political branches of government only when actions taken by Congress and the president are in "resolute" conflict -- a situation that he said did not exist at the time.

The appeals court said it was a question of "ripeness" -- and that it was essentially the wrong time for the judicial branch to intervene.

"The theory of collision between the legislative and executive branches is not suitable for judicial review, because there is not a ripe dispute concerning the President's acts and the requirements of the October Resolution passed by Congress," Lynch said in the appeals court's ruling.

Like the Election 2000 controversy caused by Gore, the Left once again tried to sue their way to get what they want...Shameful.
President Bush got permission from Congress to use his war powers not once, but twice--once in October 2002 and before that in September 2001.
He could order an attack without Congressional approval as he sees fit and would still have 90 days to get it.
Dims, we control the White House (and the Senate and the Congress) and you don't.
Get over it!

March 12, 2003

Hamas criticises PM post

The militant Palestinian group, Hamas, has criticised the decision taken by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to create the post of prime minister.

In a statement, Hamas said Mr Arafat's decision had been a response to what it called "US-Zionist pressures".

It described the creation of the post of prime minister as a US plot to end the Palestinian resistance to the Israeli occupation.

Gee, those Hamas boys are catchin' on, aren't they?
(Anyone surprised by this reaction, BTW? Thought not.)
Yes, if the "Palestinians" got rid of murderers who use violent killings of Israelis and Jews as their only tool of "resistance," then they might be on their way to having a democratic, peaceful and independent state, but it will never, never happen.
They'll never abandon their "jihadi" murder of Jews; after all, it's in the Koran...or at least their preferred version of the Koran.
And let's be clear: the only "occupation" here is by the "Palestinians," who are occupying land that Israel fought and died for (4 times), as well as sovereign Israeli territory that they ceded in good faith to Arafat when he pledged to eschew Islamist terror murder and embrace peace both at Oslo in 1993.
These were pledges that we now know we made in completely bad faith and with utter fecklessness by Yasser Arafat.

AP:Britain Proposes Conditions for Iraq

The Professor reminded us yesterday that it had been 18 months since the 9/11 attacks.
And that reminded me that President Bush made his "Are you irrelevant?" speech to the UN about the Saddam problem the day after we marked the 1-year remembrance of 9/11...
As a poster at Lucianne.com said, "it seems like it's been 6 years, instead of 6 months, that the UN's been arguing this..."
As for myself, I can't remember a time when we haven't been debating the Iraqi problem or at least that's the way it seems.
Of course, this has all been over and beyond the 12 years of war and 16 failed UN resolutions trying to curb Saddam's venal and tyrannical behavior.
No matter how you look at it, all that whining about Bush's "rush to war" is a total crock!

US Congress opts for "freedom fries"

French fries in the House of Representatives' cafeterias will now be known as "freedom fries" as part of a Republican protest at France's opposition to a war on Iraq.

Republican representative Bob Ney, whose committee is in charge of the eateries, said the action was "a small but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France".

French toast from now on will be known as "freedom toast".

The move - echoing following the lead of a North Carolina restaurant - reflects the anti-French sentiment among some lawmakers who feel President Jacques Chirac is betraying the US by opposing its policy on disarming Iraq.

I get the feeling that the BBC thinks this is kind of sophmoric and silly on our part, but their memories are very short:
during WWI (and probably continuing into WWII), Britain "Anglicized" all the German names because they were at war with Germany.
To this day in the UK, dogs that we call German shepherds, they call "Alsatians" and the family name of the Royal Family was changed from Battenburg to Mountbatten for the same reason.
And those are just two examples I can think of off the top of my head!
So, Brits, let's have some Fish and Freedom Fries!

Clashes at Turkey anti-US demo

Turkish police have fired warning shots during a protest by anti-American demonstrators who were trying to enter the Mediterranean port of Iskenderun.

Turkish television showed police firing in the air and wielding truncheons as they fought a crowd of about 300 members of the Turkish Communist Party.

American ships are waiting at Iskenderun to unload equipment - believed to include tanks - for use in a possible war against Iraq.

The United States is still waiting for permission from the Turkish parliament to deploy more than 60,000 troops in the country.

But there is widespread public opposition within Turkey to a war with Iraq. [It is obligatory for the BBC to stick this in.--J.T.]

Demonstrators in Iskenderun chanted "Yankee go home!" and "Down with US imperialism!". They waved banners reading "No to war!"

Reuters news agency says the security forces fired five or six short bursts of gunfire into the air and the crowd later dispersed.

The BBC's Jonny Dymond in Istanbul says that much attention in Turkey has been focused on Iskenderun, the country's closest port to Iraq.

The US embassy has said the US army is helping modernise Turkish ports and airports - a step authorised by the Turkish parliament.

Crazy stuff.
Isn't it strange (or maybe not) how these anti-U.S., anti-Bush, "peace" protesters always end up being Communist- or Marxist-inspired and backed, like ANSWER here in the U.S. (and in Europe) and these Turkish agitators?
If opposition to our U.S.-led liberation of Iraq is so "widespread" in Turkey, why would the Turkish Communist Party need to organize this tiny (300 folks or less) protest?

Charles Krauthammer says this a lot more roughly and cynically than I care for, but he still speaks truth to power in his WaPo column today:Call the Vote. Walk Away.
Check it out then, hide and watch what the President does.
I don't think even Charles will be disappointed.

Historical reminder: Don't forget that the United States of America never joined the League of Nations, probably to avoid fiascos like this one we're suffering through now, inter alia.

" If it weren't for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this."--Congressman James Moran (D-VA)-March 3, 2003

Was Moran channeling Lucky Lindy?
Charles Lindbergh's Noninterventionist Efforts
& America First Committee
Charles Lindbergh speaking at an American First Rally:

"If any one of these groups--the British, the Jewish, or the [Roosevelt] administration--stops agitating for war, I believe there will be little danger of our involvement." --Charles Lindbergh- September 11, 1941

Found thanks to my fab friend Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs.

March 11, 2003

U.N. Aborts U-2 Flights After Iraq Complains

U.N. arms inspectors on Tuesday suspended U-2 reconnaissance flights over Iraq for safety reasons after Baghdad complained two aircraft flying simultaneously was a hostile action.

In Baghdad, a senior Iraqi official said the United Nations had admitted having the second aircraft in the air was a "mistake" and denied Iraq had threatened the planes.

But a U.S. official said Iraq "informed us when the planes were in the air that only one was acceptable and the second would be viewed as 'hostile.'"

Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the U.N. Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission, who announced the United Nations had suspended the flights, said he could not confirm that inspectors conceded any error as the number of U.N. flights were unrestricted.

"I can confirm that two U-2 reconnaissance aircraft operating on behalf of the UNMOVIC operated in Iraqi air space this morning," Buchanan said.

Although Iraq had been notified of a flight time window, they expressed surprise and concern that two flights were operating simultaneously. In the interests of safety, UNMOVIC requested the aircraft to withdraw," he said, adding that further U-2 and Mirage flights were still planned.

The U.S. official said the inspectors asked Washington to temporarily suspend the flights, flown on behalf of the United Nations, until U.S. and U.N. officials could meet on the incident in New York later on Tuesday.

The number of U-2s the United Nations can fly are not restricted under U.N. resolutions but in the past only one U-2 has gone up in the air at one time after notification.
[...]

...In Baghdad, Gen. Hussam Mohammad Amin said a U-2 plane entered Iraqi airspace from Kuwait at 9:40 a.m. and, unexpectedly, was followed by a second U-2 plane at 10 a.m. flying in from Saudi Arabia.

He said an agreement with U.N. weapons inspectors stipulated that all surveillance aircraft would fly in from Kuwait.

"It is very strange to hear from U.S. sources that Iraq had threatened the planes," Amin added. "It shows the degree of frustration and failure in the quest of the American administration to find immoral and illegal pretexts for their aggression."

Reuters, true to form, has "doctored up" this story a bit: an earlier version reported that an Iraqi plane (or planes) had virtually intercepted our U-2s, IIRC.
Naturally, this is another ruse to stop UNMOVIC overflights, which as Res. 1441 says, are to be unrestricted and unconditional.
All I'm hearing from the Iraqis is conditions, restrictions and excuses for bad behavior--same as it's always been with them.
I'd say it was a good reconnaissance by our pilots, though! (And thank God noone got hurt!)
One way or another, we're going to find out where those WMD are and take them out--whether it's as part of a disarmament effort or as war targets is up to Saddam, but with "incidents" like this, where they're just not cooperating with the inspections process (again), it doesn't like too good for the Baathist regime.

Air Force Tests 'Mother of All Bombs'Air Force Tests 'Mother of All Bombs'

The Air Force on Tuesday tested for the first time the biggest conventional bomb in the U.S. military's arsenal, a 21,000-pound munition that could play a dramatic role in an attack on Iraq.

Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said the test was completed at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., but she did not know whether it was considered successful.

The bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB, is guided to its target by satellite signals. It was dropped out the rear of a C-130 transport plane, officials said.

Some people have taken to calling it the "Mother of All Bombs."

The bomb is so powerful that it's detonation was expected to create a mushroom cloud visible for miles.

Separately, the Pentagon's No. 2 official said in a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars that if President Bush decides to invade Iraq, it will be a "war of liberation" as well as an effort to rid Iraq of weapons banned by the United Nations.

"Those very weapons are the source of our concern," said Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz. "The issue is not about Iraqi oil. If the United States had wanted access to Iraqi oil, we could have dropped our whole policy 12 years ago, lifted the sanctions and let Saddam Hussein have his weapons of mass destruction."

"No, if there's going to be a war, it will be a war to disarm Saddam's weapons of mass terror," he said. "But it will also be, like wars that you fought in, a war of liberation, a war to secure peace and freedom."

The U.S. military is putting the final pieces of combat power in place in anticipation of an order by Bush to attack Iraq and depose Saddam. More than 200,000 U.S. forces are now within striking range.

The Air Force bomb scheduled for its initial test Tuesday in Florida is much bigger than another conventional bomb. The next-biggest is the 15,000-pound BLU-82, dubbed the Daisy Cutter.

Ka-BOOM! WOO-HOO!
I think it was a success--if it weren't we'd have heard that by now, too.
And I'd like to send a shout out to my reader friends in the Air Force:
I know from my referral logs that there are *a few* of you out there, stationed at our fine AFbases, and I saw at least one person from Eglin AFB itself today...so, Greetings!
I can't tell you how proud and honored I am to be blogging for the fine men and women of the U.S. Air Force!
Fly high, my friends--I support you 100%!
And it's nice to know that our planes will be going into liberate Iraq with the right firepower like this MOAB bomb.
Let's hope we don't have to use it, but if the father of the "Mother of all Battles"(Yes, we're talking 'bout Saddam) can't and won't see the error of his evil ways, we may have to load the "Mother of all bombs" and it sounds like a nice "arrow" to have in our "quiver."

Palestinians trim Arafat powers

The Palestinian parliament has voted overwhelmingly to create a new post of prime minister, in what is seen as a significant reform move.

They wish!
I doubt this "move" fooled either the Israelis or President Bush--SSDD and Arafat's still in control.
BTW, who knew that "Palestine" had a parliament or that their votes about anything (except who to blow up next) mattered?

The Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, finally agreed last month to loosen his grip on power after persistent international pressure.

Don't you love the BBC?
They must think it's still Christmas and that they're telling Santa what they want.

He has nominated his deputy, Mahmoud Abbas, to be the first prime minister.

Monday's meeting in the West Bank town of Ramallah was called to decide on the appointment and powers of the prime minister.

It is thought that Mr Arafat will remain in control of two key issues - security and peace talks with Israel.

First of all, what the hell is meant by the term "security?"
Secondly, if anyone thinks that anyone but Arafat is in complete control or that Mahmoud would be free to obey whatever conscience he has and do something different than Yasser, they have another think coming!

The new prime minister will deal mainly with internal affairs - including naming and supervising cabinet ministers.

Mr Arafat appears to be able to appoint and dismiss the premier.

No kidding?!
I thought they were "voting" on everything now.
You know, those "democratic" reforms the Quartet talked about?

The Palestinian leader has thrown his weight behind the reform process.

Oh, I'm impressed--what a great guy!

He also said he was prepared to resume security coordination with Israel, called again on all Palestinian factions to observe a ceasefire and re-affirmed his commitment to peace based on a two-state solution.

I'm getting that deja vu feeling again...and not in a good way, either.
Yasser is really getting old...and so is his bull.

Mr Arafat and Mr Abbas - also known as Abu Mazen - are reported to have agreed on the division of power.

"Yep, Yasser gets 100% and if I divide my loyalties between him and anything else, I get 100% dead," Abbas was overheard to say.

The BBC's Barbara Plett in Ramallah says the new plan would probably satisfy most Palestinians who have been demanding better government, not a change in leader.

Now, this I would believe.
Those "Palestinians" live in a horrible state, but it's the way Arafat and his Arabian terror masters (such as Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia) want it.

But she says it is not clear whether such an arrangement would satisfy Israel and the US.

Let's put it this way, Babs: don't bet any money on it.

The Israelis want the Palestinian leader to take a largely ceremonial role.

NO. The Israelis want a "Palestinian" leader who either isn't Arafat or who never espouses the use of Islamist terrorism to grab parts of Israel or who condones the killing of Jews or Christians anywhere.

US President George Bush has for his part said the Palestinians need to choose new leaders as a precondition for statehood.

President Bush would like to see an independent
"Palestinian" state that looks a lot more like southern Florida and whole lot less like Beirut in the 1980's (also brought to you by Arafat), the way it does now.
That means democracy, not more tyrannical IslamoFascism via the Arafat Cult of Personality.

This little gesture to "reforms" on the part of Arafat is pathetic and proves exactly nothing has changed (sort of).
He knows he's finished--he gambled on the Intifada and he lost, largely because of the blowback from the 9/11 attacks on America--but as is par for the course with these Islamist terror masters, he'll try to lie, cheat and fudge the truth to see if he can get away with literal murder just a little bit longer.
[Guys like Arafat and Saddam live their lives by that Scarlett O'Hara-ism: "Tomorrow is another day."]
I don't think he and "his people" will ever get that "Palestinian" state nor should they.
They're never going to stop loving the terrorist murder of Jews as their one and only political tool.
Furthermore, they know what President Bush expects of them and they know even more surely that this "prime minister" farce isn't in that picture, either.
But these b*stards are stubborn and they're going to ride this Pale Horse of Death until the end...which is, hopefully, their own deaths.
They made this grave for themselves bit by bit since 1948 and very soon, they're going to have to lie in it.
Listen to what the JPost said about it in their op ed "Not new, not leadership:"

[...]...Even if Arafat were handing over all his power, which he is not, and even if Abbas were an authentic moderate, which is questionable, the entire model here is flawed. Once again, the US, Europe, and even Israel seem to be seeking a "moderate" they can anoint, rather than demanding true Palestinian democratization.

This model, it should be recalled, is what led to the reliance on Arafat in the first place. Back in 1988, when the US opened a dialogue with the PLO in return for Arafat's promise to renounce terror, and in 1993 when Oslo was signed, the idea was to turn a blind eye to Arafat's penchant for corruption and despotic rule, and to pretend that this was irrelevant or even helpful to the prospects for peace. This was an obviously fatal mistake.
[...]
Similarly, the significance of Abbas' appointment is not that he represents the "new leadership" that US President George W. Bush called for in June as the basis of a democratic Palestinian state capable of making peace with Israel.

The appointment matters only if it is a stepping stone to the complete unraveling of the Arafat-led Palestinian Authority and its replacement through real democratic processes.

I don't think the latter is ever going to happen unless and until the death or exile of Arafat occurs.
And I hold out very little hope that the "Palestinian peoples" themselves are capable of setting up their own democratic, peaceful state, even when Arafat is gone but who knows?
Let's get rid of him and see, but the U.S. and Israel won't get fooled again into signing something like the Oslo Accords and yet again, I need to stress that thanks to President Bush and his Rose Garden speech of June 24, 2002, Yasser and his gangs of Islamist killers are forced to play a whole different ball game, one where the Good Guys (the U.S. & Israel, who are dragging along the EU) make sure that the rules for fair play are enforced!

Cyprus talks break down

Marathon peace talks to pave the way for the reunification of Cyprus have collapsed, heralding the end of the UN's peace mission there.

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan held talks late into Monday night in a final attempt to reach a deal ahead of a UN deadline.

But even an offer to extend the deadline failed, when Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash said there was no immediate prospect of further discussions.

Turkish Cypriots thought they were being asked to cede too much land, and the Greek Cypriot side thought too few refugees were being given the right to return home.

But ultimately it was the Turkish Cypriot side which refused to even talk further, and which was blamed for the failure of the peace process.

Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos confirmed that the talks had produced "no agreement", although he had been willing to continue talks.

"Denktash is not ready to accept the Annan plan," he said.

Mr Denktash said that he would not put the proposals to his people in referendums which would have been held on 30 March.

"The plan was unacceptable for us. This was not a plan we would ask our people to vote for," Mr Denktash said.

The talks, at The Hague, were a last-ditch attempt to reunite the Mediterranean island before it joins the European Union next year.
[...]
It now looks almost certain that, when Cyprus signs the treaty, membership will in effect only be given to the southern, Greek Cypriot part of the island.

"We always stated that we wanted to join (the EU), but not as a minority of a Greek Cyprus," said Mr Denktash, after the talks had failed.
[Even though the Turks on Cyprus are a minority--18%--of the total population!--J.T.]

The UN plan would have created a Swiss-style federation of Greek and Turkish Cypriot constituent states.

Mr Denktash has been under public pressure to agree to the UN plan, with growing numbers of Turkish Cypriots hoping for a boost to their economy through EU membership.

I think the Turks are feeling pretty full of themselves right now...first, they had NATO fighting over their protection, then they got the U.S. to do a dance for them waving a $15+ billion dollar bill for their help which they had the "anti-war conviction" to turn down and now they're telling the UN to go to hell.
Turkey probably would have done this before the current Blix/ElBaradei farce in the UN of recent months, but given the Weasel powers' contrariness in opposing our U.S.-led Iraqi war, the dear UN hasn't done a lot for its own image of late:
why should Turkey respect the peace plan of such an "irrelevant" and impotent organization?
But, of course, they promise that they'll totally respect the EU, if they're allowed to become a member of that...
Thousands may believe them, but I don't.

Inspectors Find Banned Iraqi Bombs

International weapons inspectors have stumbled upon a new kind of bomb in Iraq that could be filled with chemical or biological agents and strewn over populated areas, Fox News has confirmed.

Baghdad also may have in its possession a drone aircraft capable of spraying harmful agents over its enemies.

Armed with this new information, U.S. officials are expected to press chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to admit he has found a "smoking gun" -- the irrefutable evidence many countries have been looking for before they agree to wage war against Baghdad -- in a closed-door session of the U.N. Security Council on Monday.

"It's incredible," a senior diplomat from a swing-vote Security Council nation told the London Times. "The report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. It's a biggie."

The New York Times reported Monday that U.S. officials say Iraq has reconfigured rocket warheads from its stockpiles of imported or home-built weapons. Some of these makeshift weapons have been used by Iraq with both conventional and chemical warheads.

But officials told Fox News that the weapons are not rockets, but large bombs that can be dropped from wings of airplanes. Soccer-ball-sized cluster bombs then are released from the larger bombs. When triggered by a fuse, these smaller submunitions can disperse chemical or biological agents.
[...]
This all could make life much more difficult for Saddam, who, in the past few days, has been trying to prove to the world that he is cooperating with weapons inspectors to prove he has no banned weapons.

Iraq still insists that it has destroyed all of its old chemical warheads, a claim the inspectors have not verified.

Senior U.S. officials confirmed to Fox News on Monday that the inspectors initially found just one of these munitions, then another, and eventually uncovered the manufacturing capability.
[...]
Though Iraq claims the weapon is used for high explosives, the munitions have holes bored into them. These holes are usually used to inject chemical or biological weapons into the warhead, making these types of submunitions an ideal carrier.

U.S. officials say the Iraqis apparently have hundreds of these weapons, which were discovered sometime within the past several months.
[...]
Powell said Sunday that Blix should have made more of the evidence in that report when he appeared before the Security Council last week.

"When you look at page after page of what the Iraqis have done over the years to hide, to deceive, to cheat, to keep information away from the inspectors, to change facts to fit the latest issue, and once they put that set of facts before you, when you find you those facts are false, they come up with a new set of facts -- it's a constant pattern," Powell said on Fox News Sunday.

He hinted that the United States would release more information about prohibited weapons as the council debates a resolution this week.

"That's the kind of thing we're going to be making some news about in the course of the week and point this out," he said. "And there are other things that have been found that I think more can be made of."

Another piece of information that supports the U.S. position is the discovery of a secret drone in Iraq, the London Times reported on Monday.

Fox News has learned that this drone is probably larger than the one mentioned by Powell in his intelligence briefing of the council on Feb. 5.

During that briefing, Powell said the United States had watched an unmanned Iraqi aircraft be test-flown for 310 miles non-stop in a racetrack pattern. He said then that Iraqi drones, fitted with spraying devices, could produce a chemical or biological attack not only on Iraq’s neighbors but also, if transported, on the United States.

U.N. sources told the London Times that the latest drone was found by a team led by a British weapons inspector and wasn't mentioned in Blix's oral presentation Friday because more information was being sought. A reference to the drone was included in the 167-page report Blix submitted.

"I think he could have said a lot more about Iraqi non-compliance," Powell said.

No kidding, Sec. Powell, but he didn't.
Makes you wonder about where old Blixie's loyalties lie, doesn't it?
And I still would bet real money that what the inspectors are "finding" is only the "tip of the iceberg."
Yet, the diplomadness continues in spite of the evidence:
Security Council Vote Delayed as U.S. Scrounges for Votes on Iraq Resolution

UNITED NATIONS  — The United States and Britain were forced to delay a Security Council vote on a hard deadline for Iraq when it became clear their proposed resolution would meet with insufficient support from non-permanent members and at least one veto -- despite a flurry of personal appeals from President Bush on Monday.

The United States had hoped to present the resolution to the council on Tuesday, setting a March 17 deadline for Iraqi disarmament or war. But the vote was put on hold when it became evident that America and its allies had not yet won the nine votes they needed for a majority.

Even if they gain the votes, it's not enough. French President Jacques Chirac declared that his country would veto any resolution that opened the way to war. The Russians also said they would vote against the proposal as it was currently worded.
[...]
Some of the uncommitted countries were talking about delaying the ultimatum by as much as a month, until April 17 -- though it was clear that such a proposal stood no chance with the United States, as hundreds of thousands of American soldiers awaited their orders in the Persian Gulf.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said a vote on the resolution would not come Tuesday. He said consultations were ongoing and a vote could come anytime later in the week.

"The vote will be the day we get nine or 10 votes, and I think we're getting close," said Spanish Ambassador Inocencio Arias, whose country is co-sponsoring the resolution with the United States and Britain.
[...]
The resolution -- which authorizes war anytime after March 17 unless Iraq proves before then that it has disarmed -- requires nine "yes" votes. Approval also requires that France, Russia and China withhold their vetoes -- either by abstaining or voting in favor.

The United States is assured the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico leaning heavily toward the U.S. position.
[...]
If the resolution is defeated, Bush and Blair have said they would be prepared to go to war anyway with a coalition of willing nations. But U.N. support would give the war international legitimacy and guarantee that members of the organization share the costs of rebuilding Iraq.

But the White House argued the opposite Monday, saying a lack of support would hurt U.N. credibility.

If the United Nations fails to act, Fleischer said in Washington, "that means the United Nations will not be the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein. Another international body will disarm Saddam Hussein. So this will remain an international action, it's just the United Nations will have chosen to put itself on the sidelines."

"No matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no,"' Chirac said in a televised interview in France Monday. "There is no cause for war to achieve the objective that we fixed -- the disarmament of Iraq.

His foreign minister was meeting top Angolan officials Monday at the start of a quick trip to lobby the undecided African members of the council.

In Moscow, Russia's foreign minister said: "Russia will vote against this resolution."

Facing the veto threats, Bush made an urgent round of phone calls to eight world leaders trying to salvage the resolution. Among those who received calls was Chinese President Jiang Zemin who told Bush that weapons inspections should continue and the standoff should be settled peacefully, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. Jiang was also was called by Blair.

Bush also spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Chinese President Jiang Zemin, South African President Thabo Mbeki, Sultan Qaboos of Oman, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, Turkish governing party leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal and President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria.

So much for that image of Bush as the "trigger-happy cowboy."
He's making a concerted good faith effort to rally a coalition of the willing, inside or outside of the UN and that's all the "internationalists" can really ask, isn't it?
At some point (in the next few days!), I hope the President will end our efforts to garner the UN's blessing on this effort and just give General Franks the green light!
Those fine men and women in uniform in the Persian Gulf theatre (35,000 of whom are British and several thousand of whom are Aussie) are getting twitchy!
Let's roll....pretty please?!
Notice how the discoveries of the bio/chem bombs and the drones changed the weasel powers' minds not at all, which gives real credence to the theory that opposition to the U.S.-led liberation of Iraq isn't about Iraqi disarmament at all, but all about opposing the hyper hegemony of the U.S. in world affairs.
We are the world's super power and if France, Russia and China don't like it, that's just too bad!
They should have thought of that before they put all their energy into embracing Communism and Tranzi Socialism (in the case of France) for the last 50 years!
Who are they to try and stop us from spreading Truth, Justice, Liberty and Democracy, not to mention Cokes, Barbies and McDonald's, all over the planet?

UN begins probe into Iranian nuclear site

UN inspectors started their first in-depth investigation into Iran's controversial Natanz site on Monday, following accusations by US officials at the weekend that they had failed to keep track of suspected nuclear weapons programmes in both Iran and Iraq.

Analysts in Washington saw the criticism of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) by Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser, and Colin Powell, secretary of state, as helping the US to win support in a crucial week of diplomacy for its proposed ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi president.

Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, made the first visit by an international inspector to Natanz last month and admitted he was struck by its capacity to enrich uranium for use in a civilian reactor or through further processing into weapons-grade material.
[...]
Although Iran insists its programme is for peaceful purposes and is entirely transparent, it has many questions to answer, according to David Albright, head of the independent Institute for Science and International Security.

Iran's statement that it had not already enriched any uranium through single-machine testing, which would be in breach of its international commitments, was not credible, said Mr Albright.

The IAEA would also try to ascertain whether Iran had another enrichment plant that it had not yet declared, he said.

The IAEA has expressed in private its frustration with Iran that it waited until last September until officially notifying the UN team about Natanz, as well as a heavy-water plant at Arak, although Iran may not have broken any commitment.

This was picked up by US officials."We've been, for a long time, one of the lone voices that has said the Iranians are a problem," Ms Rice said at the weekend.

She accused the IAEA of having "missed" the Iraqi nuclear programme repeatedly through the 1990s. Mr Powell also drew a parallel between the secret Iranian and Iraqi nuclear projects.

The Bush administration was clearly angered by Mr ElBaradei's report to the UN on Friday that cast doubt on US assertions of continued Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear weapons technology.

The US thinks that talking about Iran helps get the resolution on Iraq," Mr Albright commented.

The Bush administration, which has no formal relations with Iran and has long imposed unilateral economic sanctions on the Islamic republic, is frustrated by its failure and that of the international community to cut off the sources of Iran's advanced nuclear technology.

Mr Albright said Iran, through opening Natanz to inspection, had sent a message that its programme was well developed and "could not be bombed out of existence."

Tehran yesterday accused the US of sabotaging its co-operation with the IAEA by continuing to raise questions about its nuclear plans, which it insists are aimed at meeting electricity demand under IAEA supervision.

Uh-huh... nuke power is needed to meet "electricity demand" for a country with some of the most plentiful oil reserves in the world?
Obviously, Iran will have to be dealt with in the very near future, along with the NorKs, and for the same reasons.
In fact, I'm more worried about the Iranians going nuclear.
But this is all the more reason for us to effect regime change and liberate Iraq, next door to Iran.
(Actually, it's all the more reason for the UNSC to act resolutely and as one to vote on enforcing Res. 1441 against Iraq, but you can't convince the Chinese, the Russians and the French of that if they think they can still make big bucks selling nuclear materials to the Iranians until the U.S. "lays down the law.")
Of course, Iran got a pass from their "brother" Islamist Mohammed ElBaradei when the IAEA came to inspect...
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until this is changed, but ElBaradei shouldn't be allowed to be IAEA head--nor should any other Muslim--until Islam goes through a major reformation and eschews their faith in things like jihadi murder and the "Arab bomb" dream to make the slaughter of "infidels" happen that much faster.

March 10, 2003

A great time was had by all on Saturday night at the gracious DuToits as the Dallas chapter of Warbloggers met to compare notes on the war, pontificate without HTML and consume mass quantities of yummy food and drink.
Pictured here are yours truly (with the great gun and strange expression), our host Kim du Toit, sassy in a quiet way Rachel Lucas, Pundit-on-the-go Bill Whittle of Eject!Eject!Eject! fame, the Emperor Misha of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler and our lovely hostess the Mrs. Connie du Toit.
Whew! I'm still recovering today from being with these terrific folks, so I hope you'll understand if the free ice cream is rather scarce for a little while longer!

Palestinian legislature okays premier post

The Palestinian parliament today approved the creation of the new post of prime minister, by a vote of 64-3.

There were four abstentions in the vote taken in the West Bank city of Ramallah, after a speech by Palestinian Authority head Yasser Arafat.

Arafat has named Mohammed Abbas, known as Abu Mazen, to the post.

This isn't going to help them get that democratic state.
Arafat's getting his parliament to vote rubber stamp his choice for a "PM" (How can you have a Prime Minister of a state that isn't a state?) and one who's already promised to be for the use of terrorism as a tactic, too, as I noted a few days ago.