Hans Blix didn't find them after all

Is this the October surprise Bob Beckel on Fox was rumormongering about last month?

From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.

In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavily redacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

It's a pretty slick Times report, complete with animated GIFs, all highlighting reporter CJ Chivers' account of thousands of chemical weapons shells found all over Iraq per ground reports and a Pentagon FOIA.

Wait thousands of shells, doesn't that qualify as a stockpile?   Not so fast, says Chivers...

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin.

Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them. In case after case, participants said, analysis of these warheads and shells reaffirmed intelligence failures. First, the American government did not find what it had been looking for at the war’s outset, then it failed to prepare its troops and medical corps for the aged weapons it did find.

Chivers stopped just short of saying the United States was manufacturing chemical weapons for Saddam, but he went right up to the waters' edge, saying that American-designed shells had been sold to Iraq by European nations, wink wink, cue the Rummy shaking hands with Saddam photo.  While the story implicates certain European nations of actually selling the material to Iraq, nobody will cue the Jacques Chirac handshake picture with Saddam.

But we're left with this--there WERE chemical weapons in Iraq, lots of them, and they were never acknowledged.  Now ISIS likely has possession of the remainder.  All of which makes the reports out of Syria last year about rebels having used Sarin gas more credible.  And if true, part of the blame lies with Maliki, since the Iraqis, as members of the Chemical Weapons Convention, were responsible for getting rid of their old rusty chemical stockpile--but they never finished before ISIS rolled into town. 

But the Times didn't splash this report across the front page to vindicate BushCheneyBurton.  They did so presumably to give Obama an out card by saying the Pentagon/Bush covered up the fact that chemicals were found because they weren't the right chemicals, so it's not the Democrats' fault.  And Bush still lied because he said Saddam had active programs.

But Ace of Spades challenges the definition of "active", ie, the Times piece says, "The United States had gone to war declaring it must destroy an active weapons of mass destruction program. Instead, American troops gradually found and ultimately suffered from the remnants of long-abandoned programs, built in close collaboration with the West."

Hmm, looking back at history Bush had been fairly careful to avoid saying Saddam had active chemical weapons programs as a casus belli for war. He did leave the impression there were active programs, but mostly stuck to the idea that Iraq possessed chemical weapons and the facilities to produce them, which the Times has now authenticated.  Let's go back to the Iraq AUMF that Hillary, Biden and Kerry voted for:

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

That's to say Iraq entered a cease-fire agreement to destroy their chem-weapons and program.  While they might have mothballed their active program, they didn't destroy the "means to deliver" such as artillery shells. Instead they buried them all over the place.  And there were likely individuals who had the treasure maps to dig them up later.  One of those was not Hans Blix, whose UN team never found them in 2003 before the invasion.  Ergo, Saddam was in material breach.  Back to the AUMF:

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Doesn't thousands of shells constitute a stockpile?  At what point does a stockpile stop being a stockpile if they are not destroyed or rendered inert?  And notice again it says nothing about an active chem-weapons program.  More..

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

"Continuing to possess"--check. The left will point out "and develop" in reference to the chemical weapons (and biological), perhaps dredging up this brutal report by the WaPo in 2004 describing the Duelfer Report, which noted:

...no chemical weapons existed and that there is no evidence of attempts to make such weapons over the past 12 years. Iraq retained dual-use equipment that could be used for such an effort.

Which was simply wrong--munitions were there, buried underground.  What else did Mr. Duelfer get wrong?  The Kay Report on the Iraqi Survey Group done a year earlier stated:

We have multiple reports that Iraq retained CW munitions made prior to 1991, possibly including mustard - a long-lasting chemical agent -- but we have to date been unable to locate any such munitions.

Which was closer to correct.  The Times has finally located them.  Kay's report also left open the possibility that Saddam had explored reactivation of the chem program as late as 2002-2003, something Duelfer threw cold water on a year later.  Which was correct, considering the current revelations?

Of course this story leaves open the obvious political question:  if chemical weapons were indeed found in large quantities in Iraq why did the Bush administration remain silent about them?  Was it, as the left might say, a reminder of past sins in helping to arm the tyrant in an attempt to stop a worse band of tyrants (Iran), actions which might implicate the Bush family and friends?  Did we get rolled by our realpolitik of the past to the point where Dubya just said "the heck with it, we got Saddam, let's move on"?

Possible.  It would interesting to hear what James Baker has to say about it, assuming he could ever talk candidly. Hell, or George HW Bush.

Or maybe the Bush folks felt they couldn't justify going to war over old shells alone, which, even if passed along to AQ wouldn't do the kind of damage a bio or nuclear (or dirty bomb) would do.  This was borne out by the several attacks on coalition soldiers in Iraq using Sarin shells, which did relatively little damage.  Such munitions are also not easily transportable.  With terrorists swarming the country during the insurgency years it probably made no sense to start trumpeting "but they had chemical stockpiles"!  In the end this story is probably not going to change any minds either way.

But we don't live in history, we live in the present. Presently ISIS controls a lot of the areas where shells were found and were never destroyed, ergo, ISIS has chemical weapons. They may have already used them. A current political question would be "who allowed this"? The simple answer is partially contained in the idea that a certain president 'ended the war' in Iraq a little too soon.  In non-political terms perhaps this could explain why the 60 nation coalition hasn't been able to do very much to stop the advance of ISIS yet.

Flashback..to last year

It's funny to hear the administration trying to hornswaggle people about the lack of attention they paid to ISIS and it's predecessors up until recently.  Reporters were not buying it today, at all.  Looking back at my own blog I came across this post from July 13, 2013, over a year ago. Some key points:

“The Islamic State phoned me saying that they killed Abu Bassir and that they will kill all of the Supreme Military Council,” a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, Qassem Saadeddine, told the Reuters news agency, referring to the FSA executive body. “We are going to wipe the floor with them,” a rebel commander who spoke on the condition of anonymity told Reuters.

They are supposed to be allies.

Seeing this level of internecine warfare within the rebel ranks was for me the first time it became clear their situation had become completely beyond hope.  Remember, chemical weapons had been used, which the administration blamed on Assad (and threatened him with bombing only to later punt to Congress). But not everyone was convinced on the perps, although most dismissed the source:

Early last month, informed sources told FNA that the innocent people killed in the Khan al-Assal area of rural Aleppo in Northwestern Syria were the victims of the chemical weapons supplied to the terrorists by a Saddam-era General working under head of the now outlawed Ba'ath party Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri.

"The chemical weapons used in the attack on Khan al-Assal area had been prepared by former Iraqi Military Industries Brigadier General Adnan al-Dulaimi and supplied to Ba'ath-affiliated terrorists of the Nusra Front in Aleppo through Turkey's cooperation and via the Turkish town of Antakya in Hatay Province," an informed source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of his life, told FNA on April 6.

Leaving out the conspiratorial Iraqi connection, some very credible people thought the rebels were behind the WMD attacks, possibly to include lefty hero Seymour Hersh, who's reportage on the region was almost completely ignored in the mainstream press.  Hersh reported that Erdogan's government worked with al-Nusra to launch the attacks in order to cross Obama's red line and draw him into the fight, which would benefit Turkey. 

The post also had a reference to some of the possible backers of the emerging ISIS, who have been tied to their quick rise to power in recent articles in picayune outfits like the Daily Beast and NY Times.

As to the "Islamic State of Iraq", the Free Syrians basically called them a group who used religion to perpetrate murder and crime. Interesting, since Saddam's old number two Izzat al-Duri (number one on Iraq's most-wanted list) has variously been tied to AQ and insurgent thugs over the years when he wasn't playing dead. He's very much alive and still causing trouble around the country, trying to bring back the Ba'ath.

So, would it surprise anyone if the Sarin gas came from Iraq, even at the hands of former Ba'ath regime members?   ISIS is a criminal organization as much as a terrorist outfit, unlike regular ole AQ.  Has anyone heard from Zawahiri lately?  

Anyway, this stuff has been rising up for over a year regardless of what the politicians say.  Going forward, other than TV views of western hostages being trotted out (another Saddam tactic) we don't know what else ISIS might have under their hats as a deterrent.  Maybe nothing, maybe these guys are bluffing again, or maybe there's something constricting a forceful response aside from politics.  It's clear the US military could severely cripple these thugs over a few months if the order was given. 

Whatever the case, chaos reigns.  It's absolutely clear from the disconnected statements coming this administration that they've tied themselves into pretzels trying to grab a coherent policy out of the air that won't wreck their past snarky blame narratives or leave a mark politically, although hope sometimes dies hard.   Quite fitting that a American named Douglas MacArthur McCain was just killed fighting for ISIS.

Same Guy...

...could have been president.

John McCain, secret Syrian agent.   The guy to McCain's right is allegedly Mohammed Nour, who kidnapped Shiite pilgrims.  McCain's office said, hey he didn't know, but he knows the good guys from the bad guys.  Does anyone get a warm fuzzy as to what his presidential judgment would have looked like?  

Call it Exhibit A of why it was so hard to pull the lever for this guy in 2008.  The necessity of making that choice is the actual Obama administration, Exhibit B, although at least he's kept America out of the Syrian conflict--for now at least (unless a big distraction is needed should one the scandals spin out of control).  

Syria is not Iraq.  They don't have a long history of targeting Americans or attacking their neighbors.  They're allied with Iran, making things complex.  They actually worked with us in the GWoT (just like Libya) in detaining some pretty bad guys. Case in point, after we stabbed Assad in the back by backing the rebels he released the infamous 'red headed terrorist', the guy who long ago formulated the kind of local jihad we are now seeing across the globe such as in Boston.  Gaddafi's weapons ended up in the hands of jihadists, too.  

Therefore most Americans are wary of US involvement in Syria despite any WMD bluster.  After what happened in Iraq they probably wouldn't be persuaded even if some of Hussein's chemical weapons turn up on the streets of Damascus, crossing the red line.   They also notice that some of the major rebel players are aligned with the same barbarians who ran planes into the Trade Center in 2001.  John McCain apparently sees them as brave freedom fighters in the mold of Patrick Henry, dancing in the streets during the Cedar Revolution.  There were flags being raised in that one, but no black flags of jihad were seen.     

The late Christopher Hitchens' brother has a piece today about western blowback, accusing Britain of helping to ignite the region so they can help save it, something the west has been doing a long time by choosing sides between tinpots and terrorists.  But perhaps there's a much higher nuance.

Perhaps, as Saddam Hussein himself suggested, the grand strategy is really to keep the Arabs, Persians and South Asians fighting amongst themselves. It certainly was the US strategy during the Iran-Iraq war.  A weakened and divided Arabia/Persia can't organize into a coalition and truly wipe Israel off the map or put a stranglehold on worldwide oil currency.

Or maybe it's less than that.  Maybe our current fearless leaders think that by helping jihadists in Libya, Egypt, and Syria they will repay them with positive blowback in the future despite what happened after we helped defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan or after our Balkans intervention.

It seems people here in the states understand the reality of a very complex region where the enemies are often undefined.  McCain doesn't appear to be one of them.

SPEAKING OF IDIOCY   6/3/13

Are these guys trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?  You don't go on TV and call Jay Carney a 'paid liar', fer chrissakes.  Yes, pretty much EVERYBODY in DC is a paid liar, going all the way to the top, but it's not something you say when they are on the ropes, giving them a lifeline to change the subject.   Cripes.

Stuck Reset Button

Making some news this week, at least on the Saturday of a three-day weekend:

Two Russian bombers, capable of carrying nuclear cruise missiles, circled the U.S. island of Guam in the Western Pacific this week, U.S. military officials told NBC News. U.S. Air Force F-15 jets scrambled from Andersen Air Force Base on Guam to intercept the bombers.

According to one military official, the Russian Bear bombers remained in international airspace, the encounter between the U.S. and Russian aircraft “stayed professional” and there was no incident. The official said it’s impossible to determine whether the Russian bombers carried any nuclear weapons.

Provocative and reminiscent of the Soviet era. One could easily tie this action to the fact that Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov is refusing to return John Kerry's phone calls--a story trending all week long.  Surely this is all tied to Syria, which sounds reasonable. But nobody in the press is mentioning the reset button anymore.

MORE 2/16/13

In light of the above is it surprising that some Russians would suspect the US of launching some kind of secret fake asteroid weapon, especially since the impact area was Chelyabinsk?   Oddly enough, another fireball meteorite was seen near the San Fransisco Bay Area last evening.   Sometimes one has to wonder about Russia and their connections to certain things in the past, such as Victor Bout or even obscure individuals like Sergei Davidenko (and his connection with the local area, still a cold case).   Add to that Dick Cheney's persona from 9/11 forward...case in point, from his most recent video (heavily edited) appearance:



Go back to the quote from Woodward's book attributed to Cheney.  After all these years, wonder who he was talking about?  



  

Saving Syria

While the president draws red wavy lines in the sand over the presumed WMDs in Syria (instead of calling for UN inspectors) and the prospect of shock and awe 2.0 lingers over the region, it seems Obama should unclench his fist and open the hand of diplomacy.  We've got some top notch diplomats just sitting around while they could be saving the world.

There's Nancy Pelosi:

Dennis Kucinich:

And Diane Sawyer:

Gee, maybe if someone just took some new music to load on Assad's iPod this whole warmongering, WMD thing could be avoided..

Thoughts

On this day of good news the country sure needs some. It's amazing that in 2012, with a black president, the United States stands teetering on a racial divide. In the news, it appears they've captured some white suspects in the indiscriminate Tulsa shootings, a good thing.

But notice the description of the neighborhood found in this CNN story:

"For a white male to come that deep into that area and to start indiscriminately shooting, that lends itself for many to believe that it probably was a hate crime," Blakney told CNN.

This made me think of the brouhaha at National Review Online, where editor Rich Lowry has fired writer John Derbyshire for opining--on a non-affiliated blog--about similar things:

(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.

(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.

First, Derbyshire sounds like a guy who has never lived in the south. Second, his rules are overly harsh and judgmental, but like all such things they are based on vague truthisms. Notice the Tulsa pastor's apparent amazement that whites would be venturing so 'deep' into a certain part of their own city, which seems to confirm the Derbyshire generalization.

Of course the irony is that the poor victims didn't discriminate and were apparently responding to the shooter(s) as any normal human being would respond to a stranger asking for directions. Afterwards, the citizens living in the area were terrorized by the shootings every bit as much as the DC area was when John Allen Mohammed and his sidekick were shooting random people of both races while the FBI was frantically looking for a composite white guy.

But random racial crimes are seemingly becoming more frequent. A rash of stories have dotted the back pages of newspapers for over a year regarding flashmob attacks in cities all around the country, lately in places like Minneapolis, Baltimore and St. Louis. These attacks are not occurring deep in black neighborhood or in areas where blacks are massing for concerts, rather in the downtown entertainment sections common to most cities. Most of the victims seem to be white people. So following Derbyshire's rules 'non-black' people should desist attending downtown entertainment areas under the premise a flashmob might show up. Or just about anywhere. So much for generalizations.

With the Tulsa shooting, the Martin shooting, flashmobs and planned Occupy events we can all guess the likely future--saturation coverage of violence. If it bleeds and is politically correct, it leads.

In times like these we need calm and sober leadership more than ever. What we've seen so far is a leader self-identifying with certain victims and another chastising Americans as cowards for not wanting to discuss the issue. But there's always hope for tomorrow.

______________________


What's going on in Syria? Are innocent people still getting mowed down by a tyrant?

______________________

What's going on in Africa? While the Muslim Brotherhood meets at the White House stories are suggesting that radicals have virtually taken over the heart of the continent and some are worried they may align themselves with al Qaeda. Of course 'some' does not yet include most in the American media.

Also, don't we have troops over there looking for a crackpot Christian-based tyrant? No news on that operation either.

______________________

NBC says they have fired the 'veteran producer' who apparently mis-spliced a 911 call recording to make George Zimmerman appear even more racist than their previous stories and cable commentator had already indicated. That's good, but can't they name names? Maybe they're trying to protect him and family and will release it later but at the same time, maybe they didn't fire anyone at all.

______________________

The Masters final round is today. Golf nirvana. A lot was expected out of Tiger Woods, who hasn't won a major tournament since he was attacked with a nine iron in his front driveway several years ago. He won on tour 2 weeks ago, but this kind of stuff can't help....



The Tour may fine him, although they'd have to fine everyone who ever wacked a club into the ground or tossed it as golfers are prone to do. So they probably won't. But the role model thing is pretty much gone. President Obama weighed in on the Augusta National club not admitting women; will he weigh in now on unsportsmanlike conduct?

Oh well, it's a beautiful day in Augusta and Memphis. Life goes on despite the headlines. Family is coming over for an Easter dinner so this post will mark an end to concerns over current events and the direction of our country and transition to some needed fellowship this afternoon. Peace out and best wishes for a great Easter.

Red-Headed Terrorist Released?

This, folks, is the reason TSA doesn't profile.  The 'red-headed terrorist' was thought to be the operational planner involved in the London Tube attacks and Madrid train bombing.

Now Syria has released him..

The alleged terrorist mastermind behind the July 7 London bombings is reported to have been freed from a Syrian jail by President Bashar Assad's regime.

Allegedly Assad did this as a warning to the west not to mess with him. But why would that be a warning? Wouldn't a release actually give the Obama regime an opportunity to turn him into pieces of desert or perhaps lead them to other big shots? Or maybe this, from a 2006 WaPo article, is the reason the released him:

In an e-mail to bin Laden in 1999, recovered from a computer hard drive in Kabul by the Wall Street Journal, Nasar complained that bin Laden was getting a big head from his frequent media appearances. "I think our brother has caught the disease of screens, flashes, fans, and applause," Nasar wrote.

In public statements and in interviews with Arab media, Nasar said he was happy to work with al-Qaeda but emphasized that he was an independent operator. His theories of decentralization had already taken shape: It would be a mistake, he said, for the global movement to pin its hopes on a single group or set of leaders. "My guess is that he saw bin Laden as a narrow-minded thinker," said Jarret Brachman, research director for the Combating Terrorism Center at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "He clearly says that al-Qaeda was an important step but it's not the end step and it's not sufficient."

Nasar's theories of war also called for the most deadly weapons possible. In Afghanistan, he worked with al-Qaeda leaders to train fighters in the use of "poisons and chemicals" at two camps near Jalalabad and Kabul, according to the State Department. After the Sept. 11 hijackings, Nasar praised the attacks. But he said a better plan would have been to load the hijacked airplanes with weapons of mass destruction.

This guy appears more a strategic thinker than jihadist, and his thinking doesn't sound too good.  Contrary to mainstream media whitewashing, he does have a background that involves Saddam Hussein's Iraq, somewhat interesting considering his comment about not identifying himself as AQ (this explains it better, along with a caveat not to connect him to Saddam and then to AQ.  Of course Bush's rationale was that Iraq wasn't beyond working with any number of terrorists).

So, while it's unclear whether Nasar qualifies as a lieutenant if indeed he's on the loose he's in no way "defeated".  Syria may have done this, or is bluffing, to tweak Obama into backing off.  But releasing him at all should be seen as a hostile act.

UN Attacks Syria

With a strongly worded statement:

“Those responsible for the violence should be held accountable,” the Council said

Yeah, that'll fix 'em. Might be more effective to send over Dennis Kucinich again--he was in Damascus speaking in the presidential palace the day IAF jets flew overhead on their way to blowing up the illegal nuclear facility supported by North Korea. He could be a good luck charm.

Speaking of stopping civilian massacres, anyone know how things are going in Libya? Our reason for joining the fray was to prevent a bloodbath in Benghazi but it seems the rebel leader has just been killed by Islamists Then again, that might make sense:

After six months battling a rebellion that his family portrayed as an Islamist conspiracy, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s son and one-time heir apparent said Wednesday that he was reversing course to forge a behind-the-scenes alliance with radical Islamist elements among the Libyan rebels to drive out their more liberal-minded confederates.

Maybe Obama can bring them all to the White House for a beer summit or a campaign fundraiser. Or better yet, send Gore!

A Blessing from the Arab League?

The administration really pushed the notion that Obama's mind was finally made up when the Arab League got behind the UN push to enact a no-fly zone. Then they changed their mind. But who makes up the Arab League? Aren't they a bunch of tinpots, oil sheikhs, terrorist enablers and pan-Arabists?

Here's some history from 2003 as Bush was preparing his attack on Baghdad to save civilians when it wasn't cool, featuring former Ba'ath insurgency funder/leader and still wanted man Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri debating with the Kuwaiti foreign minister at a meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference [emphasis added]:

Sheikh Mohammed Sabah al-Salem al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti minister of state for foreign affairs, interrupted Douri with comments that were inaudible to viewers at home and to reporters in Doha allowed only to watch via closed-circuit, but which officials in the summit chamber later said referred to the Iraqi’s remarks as lies.

Douri responded: “Shut up you monkey. Curse be upon your moustache, you traitor.” “This is hypocrisy and falsehood,” Sheikh Mohammed shot back.

Nice. Sounds like an old Johnny Carson joke. And, at an Arab League Summit meeting around the same time:

Gadhafi said Saudi King Fahd had acknowledged to him a willingness to “cooperate with the devil” to protect his country from Iraq during the 1990-91 Gulf crisis.

Abdullah called Gadhafi “an agent for colonizers,” and the Arab League session was abruptly halted.

By the way, al-Douri, who still has a bounty on his head as Iraq's most-wanted outlaw, addressed last year's AL summit on tape calling for Arab leaders to "recognize the formations of resistance, armed and unarmed, and cut diplomatic relations with the power imposed by the occupying forces in Iraq."

Good thing the president got permission from these guys instead of Congress.


PS--

With all the talk about possible al Qaeda participation in the Libyan rebellion, here's a blast from the past:

Much of his work seems to be done together with Anas al-Liby, a top al-Qaeda leader with a mysterious link to Western intelligence agencies similar to Mohamed’s. In 1996, British intelligence will pay al-Liby to assassinate Libyan leader Colonel Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi (see 1996), and then will let him live openly in Britain until 2000

He's still at large. And here's a United States public service announcement about another member of AQ with an al-Libi in his name. Talking about exploding heads, imagine these guys running around the desert firing on Gaddafi forces protected by coalition air support.

To a Boil

We've had a day of rage in Egypt so today must have been a day of rumor:

Another phone call from Obama to Abdullah on Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011 (today) was described as the most acerbic the US president has ever had with an Arab ruler and brought their relations into deep crisis and placed in jeopardy the entire edifice of US Iran and Middle East policies, causing the king to fear that in the event of a situation developing in Saudi Arabia like the uprising in Egypt, Washington would dump him just like Mubarak.

Wonder which side is leaking these private Obama-Abdullah conversations? Added to the rumor mill is one that says Abdullah has died (DEBKA, for what it's worth), of course the thought of Saudi collapsing might do it, especially considering the likely heirs and their methods.

One has to wonder how much any of that has to do with the Wiki Leak about SA's oil reserves being overblown by about half, which is drawing only timid press here. Perhaps the cable was passing along a rumor but certainly if factual it might shine some extra light on our presence in Iraq.

Right Truth also points out that 2 supertankers have now been captured by the Somali Popeyes while Mubarak seems to be re-thinking his exile. Sounds like some upcoming fun in the oil futures market. It might be interesting to know what position George Soros has taken.

Well, surely the smart power set is in the Situation Room figuring all of this out right now. Or not. Where is Hillary anyway? Meanwhile the threat of terrorism is as high now as 9/11 but it's mainly domestic. Gee, weren't the 9/11 hijackers operating in America?

Egypt Riots

Not sure there's a sure fire play for the US in this Egyptian mess but it can't be backing Mubarak. He's old and has not groomed a viable successor and he cannot control technology and social media forever without risking more violence--and those things bring news of a better world and allow the peeps to coordinate action. Besides, they love their toys and will only part with them from cold dead hands.

So, the US is left to back the protesters and hope the Muslim Brotherhood (with help from their extensive networks) don't worm their way in and take over (the reason Obama didn't reach out to protesters in Iran was because he knew they wouldn't win).

That seems to be the consensus on the left side of the aisle right now, a sort of Francis Fox Piven solution, which is odd considering that when Bush pushed democracy in the middle east many of the same folks poo-poo'd it as fantasy that would never work. Besides, Saddam was needed as a barrier to the Iranian madmen. Funny how Mubarak isn't needed as a buffer against other Arab countries attacking Israel. But times change, evidently.

MORE 1/29/11

So what's the Iranian connection in this? They seem pretty happy about things but then again, it might be a moment of opportunism and payback. Recall from history that Anwar Sadat was a vocal critic of the Khomeini movement, calling them loons and such:

Sadat had been feuding with the mullahs since he had negotiated peace with Israel at Camp David in 1978. At the time, Khomeini had called Sadat a traitor to the Palestinians and to Muslims everywhere, while Sadat, a Sunni Muslim, branded the Shia Khomeini "a lunatic madman ... who has turned Islam into a mockery."

Death did nothing to lessen the feud: When Pahlavi died of cancer in July 1980, Sadat granted him a state funeral and buried him at Al Rifai, in a room by the tombs of two former Egyptian kings. And, when a young Egyptian soldier named Khalid Islambouli emptied his machine gun into Sadat a year later, Tehran promptly issued a postage stamp in Islambouli's honor, named a street in Tehran after him, and painted a nearby building with a four-story mural of the glorious martyr (he was captured and executed).

So there's a history there. Whether it's coming into play in the events of today in more than just a 'neener-neener' fashion is the question. We know the Iranians have made some peaceful overtures in the last decade, but then again..

Perhaps sensing that Egypt's enmity is an obstacle to its ambitions, Iran has made some efforts to woo Egypt into its sphere of influence. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said he wants to open an Iranian embassy in Cairo, and, a few years ago, the Tehran city council changed the name of Islambouli street. But a sign bearing the shooter's name still stands at an entrance to the street, and the giant mural still towers overhead. And, last summer, Cairo was whipped into a new frenzy when Iranian television broadcast Assassination of a Pharaoh, a documentary that celebrates Sadat's murder, featuring, among other things, a slow-motion count of the bullets that Islambouli fired into the doomed president's body. In response, Egyptian police raided an Iranian TV station in Cairo, and Egypt cancelled a soccer match between the countries. It doesn't seem like Obama needs to worry that his crucial Arab ally is about to align with Tehran. The Shah certainly isn't going anywhere soon.

Incidentally, the above comments are from the New Republic's senior editor Michael Crowley, who goes on to tout Obama's cunning play to eradicate the Iranian dictators by leveraging them with the Egyptian dictator:

And it appears that official Obama administration policy will be to exploit that tension to the fullest. That explains why the president is cozying up to Egypt's authoritarian dictator, Hosni Mubarak--saying nothing at Cairo University about Mubarak's penchant for political repression and torture. Obama clearly appreciates that this Egyptian-Iranian blood feud well serves his struggle to reach peace in the Middle East and stop Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed regional superpower. Democracy and human rights can wait.

Hmmm. Wouldn't that make recent events an epic fail for Obama's middle eastern policy, along with a surviving Iranian nuke program, Hizballah-controlled Lebanon and the ongoing chaos in Afghanistan? Axelod is trying to say that Obama was all over Mubarak about this potential over the past few years. Wonder how the NR will cover it now.

MORE 1/29/11

Politico's Josh Gerstein calls Axelrod out on his prevarication. History is indeed being spun left and right on this, but it's important to remember who was front and center on the freedom bandwagon before it was cool. Rice's speech--in Cairo--was much more provocative than Obama's and left no doubt about where reforms were needed. The Bushies later backed down after freedom began to fail in various locations, taking the more pragmatic view, but if TNR version is correct it suggests Obama was winking at Hosni all along. Until now of course.

The Speech

Not too heavy on the America-bashing while heavy on the idealism. He even expressed some patriotism and defended his nation a bit. Most of the press will probably focus on the impact and reaction from Israel and Iran but by and large he was going after the rational moderates, which is a good plan.

The speech was well-written and well-delivered. Obama weirdly does not come off as an American president but more a world president, sort of like a super UN Secretary General.

No Obama speech, no matter how idealistic, would be complete without a Bush bash and indeed he got it in early by reminding everyone how terrible the 'war of choice' was in Iraq, a line of reason that garnered much applause. Yet few reacted when he briefly mentioned how the demise of Saddam was a net positive for the Iraqi people. We've certainly come a long way since the tough rhetoric of the 90s--Clinton demonized Saddam, Bush took him out, now Obama is denying there was ever a threat. And the world turns.

Many of the themes Obama used were previously tried by Bush but Barack sounds better due to his superior gift of gab combined with modern teleprompter technology. He took a page from the Bush doctrine when he said, "America will stand with those who stand for peace". Hey that's almost like saying "either you're with us or with the terrorists", though the liberals will probably not see it that way.

Some nitpicky things. For instance, Obama likes to connect by using local words or pronunciations, such as 'Pockeeston', 'al Qaa eee dah', the 'Tolly bon' and the 'Korr rhan' and 'Cordoba' (add the rolling r's). At one point while describing the Quranic meeting between Muhammad, Jesus and Abraham he followed it by saying "peace be upon them", almost as if lapsing back into his days in 'In doughnesia' as a 'Moose lum'. Some may recall him lapsing into a black preacher brogue on the campaign trail. This could suggest a psychological issue that I'm not qualified to diagnose but it's somewhere between a need for acceptance to sheer flim-flam.

Don't misunderstand--the speech idea is fine and perhaps essential. He's acting on our behalf by trying to parlay his Arab-African roots into real regional change with the goal of doing what no previous president has been able to do--defusing the region. His shiny international transformative status has given him enormous political capital and what better way to use it than by marginalizing despots and thugs, which theoretically makes it harder for them to bash America to cover their own ineptitude. More importantly, he's trying to grab the hearts and minds of young Arabs away from the fundamentalist murderers, which would be the goal of any American president.

Still, it was only a speech. Some might even say it was a tad pompous since Obama has a habit of detaching himself from things, sort of floating above the fray to point out everyone's faults. No doubt his words will spark anger in some quarters, and sometimes the hornets come out when the nest is disturbed. So it's risky to set himself up as a miracle man if hopenchange fails to have the desired affect towards actual change, such as with a Palestinian state.

But despite the negatives it's worth the risk right now due to our precarious financial position and the stalemated wars. We only have one president. The deficits aren't improving and will never improve without progress and we can't sustain two wars indefinitely. So long as he keeps his word and maintains military pressure to accompany his soft power it may give us an opening to make some things happen quicker, and that's good. We should never bash a man for wanting peace and a better world--only in the way he approaches it.

MORE 6/5/09

Some are going to see the above as an example of selling out or being manipulated. I hope not. Allow me to explain where I'm coming from.

Aside from the Bush bashes I expected a rasher of moral equivalencies in this speech. It's the way many liberals handle conflict management and is rooted in the notion of absolute fairness. Over here we see liberals continually proposing that it's not fair for people to succeed past others in life, leading to a spread the wealth mentality, a kernel of socialism. When conflicts arise they immediately see both sides, often to the point of moral insanity. So it's unsurprising he'd make comparisons between say women in Saudi who can't drive and pay disparity in America.

Therefore my interest was more in anything bad he said about the "Muslim World" and indeed he did make some dents. "We will stand with those who stand for peace" stands out. He didn't say what he'd do with those who don't, perhaps intentionally, but how is it much different than the Bush doctrine aside from rhetoric? What else can we hope for?

That said, my fear of a backlash should things go wrong remains high. Right now some may even consider him an apostate.

MORE 6/5/09

Another view:



An example of the practical impacts of using subterfuge to reach an end. Somebody should ask the president or Gibbs whether they considered this reaction when writing the speech.

The Iraq section was the worst part was the speech in my opinion. Others might disagree, but as I said above, Obama cannot give a national security speech without reminding everyone how superior his judgment was on Iraq--even if it means a sidelong smack on his own Vice President and Secretary of State as well as the 42nd president. It's bizarre and one has to wonder what the practical point of such a line of strategy is or whether he's just puppeting liberal boilerplate from message boards. It's beginning to look like the latter. As we see, 'just words' can have an impact. I'm beginning to seriously re-think the silver lining I initially saw in this speech.

Behind Closed Doors

Not the old Charlie Rich song (people like to talk, oh don't they love to talk), the new Obama song and dance:

A key part of his message, he said, will be: “Stop saying one thing behind closed doors and saying something else publicly.” He then explained: “There are a lot of Arab countries more concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon than the ‘threat’ from Israel, but won’t admit it.”

Weird, because Obama has most likely informed the region's leaders about his public scolding to come when they recently met--behind closed doors.

And since Obama is in the mood for transparency and was likely steeped in his Middle East affairs by scholars like Rashid Khalidi (who seems to favor a one-state solution), isn't it time for him to pressure the LA Times to release the video of him with Khalidi, Ayers and Dohrn they sat on during the final weeks of the campaign? If memory serves that was also a behind closed doors event.

Past is Prologue

It certainly appears Dick Cheney has Obama tied in knots over national security:

President Obama on Thursday defended his decision to shutter the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying the prison has made the United States less safe and set back the country's "moral authority."

Evidently the release of the OLC memos and all the rhetoric haven't done the trick. He keeps having to repeat this campaign theme over and over, only to have Cheney come out and mutter a few things on TV, which prompts a return in front of TOTUS to slam waterboarding again, only to have Cheney's numbers go up. Maybe Dowd was onto something after all.

And how's that for irony--speaking at the National Archives on a national security theme (as to the Gates miscue, looks like he drifted off TOTUS to his notes for a moment, natch).

Meanwhile in the backdrop of this dueling speechifying the US arrested a homespun jihad cell in New York planning to blow up some houses of worship and a military transport. Guess the rhetoric wasn't working on them, either.

Obama still has visions of going back to the salad days where terrorism was a nuisance and terrorists were tried in Federal Court to limited fanfare. He announced the DoJ will bring one of the Africa Embassy bombers from Gitmo to lower Manhattan for trial (where he's been under indictment since the late 90s). According to Holder and Obama if we can do it with Ramzi Yousef and the Blind Santa, we can do it again.

Neither are mentioning the complications present with both those trials that had future ramifications. In the Yousef case they failed to connect any dots to Uncle Khalid, who later blew up the Trade Center. There's also this if you're into conspiracies. As to the Blind Shake case, we had threats for years tied to springing him from jail and of course there was the Lynn Stewart mess. Returning to a law enforcement approach only puts national security back in the hands of the lawyers.

Anywho, the last time our government mentioned Ahmed Ghailani (before his capture) they were gravely concerned about a new attack being planned that might have included the following terrorists:

Abderraouf Jdey
Adam Gadahn
Adnan Shukrijumah
Aafia Siddiqui
Amer El-Maati
Fazul Abdullah Mohammed

Jdey has not been seen since the Canadian CSIS said he left Canada in November 2001. There has been a lot of speculation (just Google him) about him and the anthrax attacks and/or American Flight 587, most of it probably specious, but his disappearance has done nothing to squelch that speculation.

Gadahn, aka, Azzam the American, was a public voice on Jihad TV for awhile, but has now disappeared. Whether he was introduced face to face with Mr Hellfire is unknown.

Shukrijumah is perhaps the most dangerous terrorist in the world who hasn't done anything yet (that we know of). Here's a piece on his importance. And yes, he's a pilot.

Siddiqui was captured in Afghanistan and later was involved in a gun battle while in captivity according to the military. She's particularly important due to her university background. No word on how her prosecution is going, but she's not at Gitmo.

Amer al-Matti is also a pilot, also a Canadian, and also hasn't been seen in Canada for awhile.

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed is still on the lam. He was an accomplice in the African Embassy bombing plot 10+ years ago, when Holder was last at DoJ.

Matter of fact, there are several others still on the loose besides number one and two, like Abdullah Abdullah, Sheikh Swedan, Saif al-Adel, Fahid Msalam, Ahmed Ali, and Anas al-Libi who are all still wanted for the African Embassy bombings; a few Hizballah thugs still wanted for the hijacking of TWA 847 in 1985, several of the perps involved in Khobar Towers and of course Abdul Yasin, one of the bomb mixers in the 1993 WTC attack, last seen in Baghdad.

Moving forward is fine but history doesn't simply go away. Obama promised a transparent government; his attempts to politicize his predecessor's approach to terrorism--something even an uber-liberal from San Francisco wouldn't do when things were hot--is perhaps the biggest transparency of his administration so far. And it appears the public is beginning to take note.

Yes I know, most are tired of hearing all this. Perhaps the Republicans should focus on the government's control of GMAC and 2/3rds of the US auto business; or related dichotomies; or stuff like this:

Dan Brockman, who retired from his job at a General Motors Co. brake plant in Dayton in 2007 after learning the plant would close, applauded the federal assistance and said he might be one of the workers helped by it.

Harder targets, I guess.

MORE 5/22/09

The anonymous commenter was correct. The point here was to illustrate how fruitless Obama's TOTUS-fueled campaign rhetoric of blaming Bush seems to be, while pointing out how fruitless our previous law-enforcement approach to terrorism really was. But don't worry, my day job is still intact. Allow me to defer to a professional writer:

If any president has gone to such lengths to attack his White House predecessor as Obama did today, I don't recall it. True, presidents have blamed the prior administration for problems they inherit, but I can't think of a president who did so as aggressively and with such moral preening as Obama.

There was a reason for this. His speech was a dodge because when it came to the issue at hand--what to do with the 240 remaining terrorists imprisoned at Guantanamo--he had no answer at all. Instead, the best he could do was elaborate on the five categories in which his administration has pigeonholed the detainees.

Meanwhile, SecDef William Gates is out defending Obama's decision to close Gitmo on day one without a plan because the place is a taint on the US, but it seems to me a blue-ribbon panel announced on day one to 'study' the issue would have worked just as well. We need a prison camp somewhere.

As it stands, Obama has poked himself with his own knife by creating a needless ultimatum for himself while Cheney runs around reminding everyone how dangerous are detainees KSM, Binalshibh, and Zubaydah as the world (including Congress) takes a Pandora's Clock approach.

Sy's Got Mail

Is it customary for Middle East leaders to email reporters, or is it just a Bashar Assad thing?

Nonetheless, a few days after the Israeli ceasefire in Gaza, Assad said in an e-mail to me that although Israel was “doing everything possible to undermine the prospects for peace,” he was still very interested in closing the deal. “We have to wait a little while to see how things will evolve and how the situation will change,” Assad said. “We still believe that we need to conclude a serious dialogue to lead us to peace.”

Maybe we've found Hersh's source on the Cheney death squads. But since it's so easy why didn't the UN think of it? They could have just emailed him their questions on Hariri and saved themselves a lot of time and trouble.

Good morning, Bashar

God Bless those liberals. They never give up on utopia, as evidenced by Diane Sawyer's near Oprah-like interview with Syria's Bashar Assad.

We now know what's on his Ipod! What a guy, he likes both Faith Hill and Shania Twain. At least he didn't say the Dixie Chicks, but he deserves props for good taste. That said, I'm pretty sure it makes him an infidel, which is further evidence of how silly the "secularists and Islamists can't work together" meme really was.

Ever since The Decider blew off the ISG certain Democrats and media types have been tripping all over each other, nearly pulling hamstrings to beat each other to Assad's door. "If Bush won't dialogue, we will, dangit". Now we see the results.

We still don't know the answer to many important questions, such as whether Syria is harboring renegade Iraqi Ba'athist insurgent leaders like Izzat al-Duri and if so, why; their need to align with Tehran and their hegemony in Lebanon, or their role in the murders of Hariri and Gemayel.

Or how about this--whether Mr. Assad thinks there are any Iraqi weapons stashed in the Bekaa Valley? Inquiring minds, Ms. Sawyer! He might not answer, but it would be fun to watch the squirm.

Such tough questions don't go well with coffee and croissants, but hopefully a soccer mom or three took note of this:

Sawyer: On the current course, what do you think will going to happen next in Iraq?

Assad: Next? Whether it's a budding civil war or a full-blown civil war, it doesn't matter what the definition. It's like domino effect, it's going to affect the whole Middle East in general, and this means it's going to affect the rest of the world.

My gosh, he sounds like a neocon.

Perhaps the most glaring omission was the lack of questioning on Syria's role in assisting Hizballah in the Israeli war. Surely that's just as important as what's on his Ipod. Yes, yes, we must know our enemies and talking is the only way, but does that have to include going into enemy territory during a war and letting the man throw barbs at the President on worldwide TV?

UPDATE 2/7/07

As one of the thousands (?) who sent Ms. Sawyer some suggested questions for the second part of her interview with Assad I was happy to see today's edition. She was much harder on him, asked him a number of real squirmers, and he answered like a typical wormy politician. No, nothing about our friend Izzat al-Duri, but she grilled him pretty good on Hariri. She deserves praise.

The invisible smoking gun

Conservatives have been searching for the smoking gun in Iraq to no avail since the invasion began. Yet a huge smoking gun was found there a few days ago, perhaps the biggest of all, and has already nearly disappeared off the scopes:

"We found plans for attacks, phone numbers affiliated with Sunni bad guys, a lot of things that filled in the blanks on what these guys are up to," the official said.

Notice the sources. Try googling for this, you won't find the usual litany of stories. Maybe the administration has been leaning on the news media to keep this quiet due to ongoing plans, supported by earlier news like this. Of course, believing the media would keep such a thing quiet qualifies one for the nut hatch. More likely it's being kept hushed so as not to interfere with the Democrats' big entrance and the vague notion their Iran plan appears to be based on retreating from Iraq.

Looking back to 2003, Michael Ledeen certainly seemed to have a good handle on the situation. He's been one of the leading advocates for cleaning house in Iran, not necessarily via the military, but by some means. He's often called some sort of neocon monger or Israeli shill nut, but facts are facts, so perhaps his latest piece deserves serious attention.

In a similar vein, Glenn Reynolds today asked:

It's been obvious that Iran is behind much of the internecine slaughter in Iraq. I don't understand why we haven't been returning the favor by fomenting insurrection in Iran -- or what made the mullahs so confident that we wouldn't. I continue to wonder if they've managed to deter us from significant action, somehow.

Being just a shotgun blogger I can go further than Ledeen or Reynolds without fear of losing advertisers or reputation, which currently stands at none. So here goes--in light of this smoking gun it's not real hard to make a leap from the various attacks during the 90s, to the 9/11 attack, to the laptop plans. Sure, the left will quickly counter that Iran is simply reacting to Bushitler's fascist warmongering by protecting their interests, which might make a flicker of sense if not for the various acts of war they've committed against us, ignored in totality by the preceding four presidents.

Consider this for just a sec--if Bush knew from the outset that Iran was involved in 9/11 such a fact would require him to actually do something about it, even if we weren't "ready to do anything about it" yet (see Bob Woodward, Bush at War, page 248-249).

So, while we quietly build military forces in the region (with a complete lack of howling cacophony from the usual suspects) everyone in the world continues to focus on Saddam's hanging, Pelosi's new gavel and Cindy Sheehan's demands to "redeploy and investigate". Meanwhile, the news that Iranian al Quds forces are caught red handed in Iraq committing acts of war is downplayed. Add the recent disappointing election results and a possible dead Ayatollah and it might signal a thumpin' of sorts is in the wind.

MORE 1/4/07

Discussion is beginning to pop, which probably means nothing will end up happening. For the record, I don't consider my an "Iran hawk". 40,000 extra troops ain't gonna invade Iran and take their capital, so if there's a military strategy it's airborne, with troops in place to hold the Iraqi fort. Or something nobody has even considered. And look who's back in the news, as if on cue.

One more thing. If you feel like pulling out the tin foil hat, put this story about Bush opening people's mail, particularly this comment:

Bush cited as examples the need to "protect human life and safety against hazardous materials and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection."

in context with the Anthrax letter attacks of 2001 and the developing Iranian situation. Are we having fun yet?

MORE 1/5/07

Iran has begun rattling their for-peaceful-purposes-only nuclear sabre while the North Korean gargoyle again threatens to show his butt. All out of the blue, or do the remaining Axis of Evil powers feel some sort of sudden heat?

WHY THEY FIGHT 1/5/07

As told by Captain Jamil Hussein. Does Michelle Malkin know this yet?
(HT A View from the Porch)

What next?

Saddam has now been shown his little corner of Hell but the sectarian hell in Iraq will surely continue unabated for awhile. There's a lot of discussion and commentary about what, if anything, the hanging signifies. Some believe it was meant to cement the fact within the hearts of Iraqis that the alpha monster is gone and will never return to terrorize them again. They can move on now.

Some believe it was sheer revenge by the Shia while others believe Bush pushed it ahead knowing full well it would fan sectarian flames and keep warfare broiling in the region indefinitely. This last option, as grisly as it sounds, should not be completely ruled out. It's common knowledge the US deliberately backed Saddam in the 80s to help drain his forces/treasury while keeping the Ayatollahs out of the rest of Arabia, a plan hatched by figures involved in the current crisis.

With that in mind it's only fair to wonder whether the overt hanging of a Sunni leader at the beginning of Eid, someone they knew would make anti-Persian, anti-Shia remarks before dropping down the hatch, might represent the real Baker/Hamilton "new way forward". Does anyone actually believe the official ISG report, available at your local bookstore in paperback, was the real advice given to Bush? Such things aren't usually discussed in public unless there's a reason.

Iran is every bit as much a threat today as in the 80s and will be worse with nukes. They've committed several more acts of war since the Beirut truck bombing and we've not been able to respond to any of them. Our generals are saying the war machine is not in good shape, but short of the Coalition there's no force available to stop the Persians should they decide to branch out. We certainly can't invade, nor can we maintain 140K combat troops in Iraq very much longer without a politically disastrous draft that neither side wants.

Perhaps the rather sudden demise of Saddam signals the way forward, a partial redeployment or force restructuring to key areas. Here are some possible talking points in support of that: The dictator is gone (ding dong) and the populace will not fear his return. There were/are no WMDs, and his last minute heroics will keep the sectarian flames fanned, making it harder for al-Sadr and company to run amok. Our fallen comrades did not die in vain and will be remembered for the elimination of one of the most vile creatures to ever breath air. We gave peace a chance.

It's distasteful to think of such things, but the American public might forget about a low level civil war in Iraq after awhile as long as it doesn't spread--it could turn into another Gaza. Our repositioned forces would provide less a rationale for terrorist attacks but leaving a rapid strike force would alleviate homeland fears. Blossoming democracies still sound the best and ultimately may hold the only real hope of a permanent draining of the swamp, but you go to nation-building with the resources you've got. Such a plan might also be something the new Democrat Congress could get their arms around.

EPILOGUE 12/31/06

The AP reminds us about our past sins this morning with a piece called "US Tolerated, then Vilified Saddam". Instead of "US" it should have said "Republicans". While not questioning the basic facts of their portrayal (they started with the Rummy handshake in the 80s then moved to the Gulf War and the obligatory cautionary Colin Powell quote, then moved directly to Bush 43). Not one word about President number 42.

But it's not a surprise. Ever since 9/11 when Bush first started talking about Saddam, and certainly since Operation Iraqi Freedom started leaking oil the Democrats and the MSM have tried to airbrush themselves out of Iraq's history.

LET'S GET IT STRAIGHT 1/1/07

Healing Iraq points out the discrepancy between the NY Times (and others) rendering of last minute statements versus "the cell phone guy". Saddam did not utter curses at America and Iran before going down the hatch, he was reciting Islamic verse. Imagine--some dude with a cell phone getting the story straighter than the world's most famous newspaper.

Setting the stage

Christmas traditionally brings the noble calls for peace on earth, good will towards men, a wonderful sentiment that usually gets erased by events within days. This year, if recent stories are to be believed, the events might involve Iran.

Aside from the obvious decision by the UN Security Council to impart sanctions on Tehran, other strange happenings have happened in the past few days hinting at a dustup with the Ayatollahs.

First, there was a decision by a Federal Judge (the same one who presides over the FISA court) to hold Iran responsible in part for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. This amazing story got limited press in light of the obvious implication that Iran perpetrated an act of war on the US that was never addressed.

Next the US military detained two Iranian officials in Baghdad presumably for helping militias kill US troops. The Shiite-dominated Iraqi government didn't care much for this act, probably because the raid took place at the SCIRI headquarters, whose Badr gang leader Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim only recently returned from a visit to meet Bush in Washington.

Late last week there was hope the Shiites might agree to crack down on the death squads. A delegation was sent to Najaf to get the blessing of the big cheese, but shortly thereafter word came back that Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani had returned Bush's Christmas card with a big red no. The result--reconfirmed support for al-Sadr and the militias.

Oddly enough the British raided a police station in Basra today, killing seven and rolling up a death squad. Said the New York Times:

Residents said that people were afraid to challenge them because they were backed by powerful militia groups including the Mahdi army, which is controlled by the rebel cleric Moktada al-Sadr.

Beginning to see a pattern? Harry and Nancy are only a week away from controlling the Congressional gavels.

Perhaps not as obvious but surely connected, Bill Roggio's trip report on his embed in the Sunni triangle suggests the US relationship with Sunni tribal elders is a lot better than we've been led to believe. Those leaders have big fears that Bush will execute the Baker/Hamilton deployment strategy, which would leave them at the mercy of AQ and Badr/Mahdi death squads due to their past cooperation. That is, if we can believe them.

So, as the world eagerly awaits Bush's new plan forward perhaps some of these events might foretell his direction. Debate has raged for months over whether the US would be forced to take sides in the sectarian contest triggered by the Golden Mosque attack but our attempts to force Maliki to unify have largely failed. We've been told that only leaves two options--a Murtha-like retreat to the horizon or a McCain-like escalation. Perhaps Bush has a plan C.

We know the way forward must also include Iran and Syria, but if Bush chooses to ignore the ISG withdrawal/dialogue option that leaves the opposite. He doesn't have much time, since the Democrats are liable to cut his war funding if polls continue in the same direction and with a looming election. Iraq is a boat anchor for both parties in that respect.

In light of the ISG report and Bush's poll numbers Iran must believe themselves to be ten foot tall and bulletproof at the moment. It wouldn't be unthinkable to think they've already threatened us through intermediaries of their destabilization intentions should we attack their nukes. If so, the recent detentions of their operatives in Baghdad might be a tad eyebrow-raising for the Ayatollahs. Sort of a modern version of "nuts" coming from Washington. You gotta believe there are more than a few in the Pentagon that would like a piece of Iran, harking back to the burning helicopters in the Iranian desert in 1980 followed by the smoldering Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. No need to add Khobar Towers, our response is past due.

With all the focus on Iran we can't forget this guy. He's still got a lot of friends in low places who might not take kindly to his impending demise. Question is, which side will they be on?

ADD IT TO THE LIST 12/25/06

A little over one year ago Germany released legacy Hizballah terrorist Mohammed Ali Hamadei on some sort of funky parole from his 'life sentence' for air piracy, kidnapping and murder.

Americans, such as the family members of Navy Diver Robert Stethem (whom Hamadei murdered on TWA847 in 1985) were both puzzled and outraged. Germany will not extradite to countries with capital punishment, so they just let him go. The family pleaded with Bush to intervene but all they've seen so far is Hamadei's picture being added to the FBI's most-wanted terrorist list.

Consider it just another Iranian-backed act of terrorism against the US gone unpunished. They're piling up.