Condi's excellent adventure

Scroll down for further thoughts..

Condi Rice continues her visit to Europe, a damage repair trip most likely forced by the CIA via the Dana Priest article. Someone in the CIA leaking about rendition and the prisons during a war--what more proof do we need that elements of the CIA care more about status, pensions, pissing contests and politics than the country?

Despite Rice's efforts to defuse the issue, critics suspect the CIA of running secret prisons in eastern Europe and covertly transporting detainees in its war against terrorism. Rights groups say incommunicado detention often leads to torture.

These countries are well aware of the rendition program, set up by Micheal Schuerer in the mid 90s. Perhaps they were not aware of all the secret detainment facilties, but the countries participating sure as heck are. Therefore, Rice's trip has all the earmarks of political posturing.

The real question should be why the CIA ratted out their own operation to Dana Priest. Perhaps she can find someone over at Langley to explain this.

The fact they gave up these secret facilities, holding people like Khalid Sheihk Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshihb, can only mean there are rogue individuals who consider Bush or losing their pension or pride a greater threat than al Qaida. Is there no limit to the pissing contest, boys and girls?

Let's not forget about Khalid Sheihk Mohammed, since it sometimes appears the MSM and even the government has conveniently done so. He is the mastermind of 9/11. To place it into football terms, Mohammed was the quarterback and Bin Laden the coach. Bringing him to America was very risky, not only for a flight risk or as a magnet for suicide or rescue attacks, but trying him in court might run the risk of a jury letting him go, just like they did with Sami al Arian. We are at war.

Don't forget Ramzi Binalshibh, one of the 9/11 hijackers who didn't get the required paperwork to make his suicide flight. These guys are the worst kind of bad.

It's no wonder people are not as upset with the story as Ms Priest and the CIA leakers might have hoped. Apparently some common folks understand this concept.

Anyway, I sure hope Dr Rice is enjoying the siteseeing. Europe is beautiful.

UPDATE 12/8

This article in the NY Sun suggests that the CIA has been sloppy in protecting the clandestine nature of the rendition program, which led to the discovery of the secret prison network. Captain Ed also has comments here.

Don't know about sloppy, but there's no question the rendition story has been out there awhile. Recently, the Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper ran a story detailing how one of the charter companies was based right here in left Tennessee, in a Memphis suburb. Surely the CIA understands the awesome power of the internets.

But anyone who suggests that open source data alone led to the unearthing of the secret prison network should re-read the Priest article. She quotes several sources "familiar with the program", including intelligence officials. The very last paragraph provides a motive for leaking:

Meanwhile, the debate over the wisdom of the program continues among CIA officers, some of whom also argue that the secrecy surrounding the program is not sustainable.

"It's just a horrible burden," said the intelligence official.

If the Sun's premise is correct, investigative journalists would have eventually broken the prison story without the help of intelligence insiders. Considering the CIA absolutely understands the power of the internets, and that half the story was already out there, one might conclude their reasons for leaking to Priest might have been to extract some value before the journalists hogged it to themselves.

Their leaking was a chance for the agency to salvage some cover--in other words, "we're hopelessly burdened with this program thanks to Bush, and the burden is just too great". That turns them into victims before the press can turn them into villians. Tell me again there is no bureaucratic war.

By the way, in reading the Priest article again I notice mention of such notorious AQ kingpins like Abu Zubaida and Ramzi Binalshibh, both of whom are thought to be held at the secret gulags. But a much more important figure seems to be conspicuous in his absence. A figure who should be front and center in any story involving covert prisons during the GWoT. The man who did this..

We can understand why the government might desire limited publicity about this man, as they were trying to protect the secret prison network. What I question is why the MSM continues to downplay his importance. My impression is because it might give the administration too much credit in the GWoT. After all, Osama "bin Forgotten" is still out there, right?

The previous 9/11

Sixty four years ago today we became involved in World War II, December 7, 1941. Over 2500 people lost their lives in a vicious surprise attack by the Imperial Japanese Navy, representing the brutal totalitarian government of Emporer Hirohito.

For my Mom, who was a young girl at the time, this was her 9/11. A few years back I asked her what she remembered about the day, and her most vivid memory was the shock of hearing the news. Even as a young girl she felt angry.

The enemy was more in focus 64 years ago, and America was more together in the fight. We can't say the same today, but let's hope the results turn out similarly.

To all the families of veterans who were stationed at Pearl Harbor that day, our condolences and thanks for their courage, duty, sacrifice and bravery. May they rest in peace.

Mel Gibson, human lightning rod

Mel Gibson has a new TV mini series coming out and the NY Times wants to tell us about it. Here's how they lead off their coverage:

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 6 - Mel Gibson, whose "The Passion of the Christ" was assailed by critics as an anti-Semitic passion play - and whose father has been on record as a Holocaust denier - has a new project under way: a nonfiction miniseries about the Holocaust.

Observe how the Times writer threw Gibson's reputation in the mud before telling us anymore about the new project.

The series is based on a non-Jewish man who helps a Jewish girl avoid the Nazis during World War II. That's good, so what's the hubbub? Well, apparently since Gibson made the Passion of the Christ and his father reportedly doesn't like Jews he's been labeled a lifetime anti-semetic, meaning any future mention of Jews or the Holocaust triggers public relations incendiary devices. From what I've seen of his work thus far, it's unfounded. If Gibson was accused of making movies that altered historical fact, the criticism might make sense, but he's not. Therefore we're left to believe it's because of his professed faith.

Conversely, this seems to make some sense:

Mr. Sladek, 40, whose own father survived the Holocaust as a child hiding in Slovakia and is a friend of the Van Beeks, said Mr. Gibson's involvement could help attract a larger Christian audience for the project. The Van Beeks were sheltered by three different families of Dutch Christians.

"It is a tremendous nod to the non-Jewish partisans, the citizens of Holland, who helped this couple along the way again and again and again, without any reason other than being human, doing the right thing," he said. "It's a great bow to the compassionate Christians, the non-Jewish community. And there's a definite link to that community, through Con Artists, because of 'Passion.' "

The source of this bickering lies under the Hollywood surface. It's no secret that Jews have long been in positons of power there, so such pre-emptive kerfuffles (before the film has even been shown) seem to represent an undercurrent of political correctness regards such sensitive subjects. Gibson is simply powerful enough to avoid the establishment and still get his projects published, which appears to thoroughly irritate more than a few folks in Tinseltown.

In the final analysis any bickering should be inversely proportional to the amount of harm or bias caused by his projects. Maybe we should wait and view the series before making a decision.

The Wheat from the Chaff

Democrats, 'led' by Howard Scream, appear to be wobbling towards a message regards Iraq. It's, it's, well, ok here it is: leave now with a timetable for victory to support and protect our brave but terroristic soldiers who scare women and children with white phosphorous while providing target practice for the local freedom fighters, themselves vicious terrorists we must stop by sending more troops to Afghanistan. Or something.

Lately I've heard dems say the war is another Vietnam, while others say it's not. We have those who want our troops to leave now, soon, or on a published timetable, but still soon. Let me ask the question--who doesn't want our troops home soon?

Most would agree our options regards Iraq are few--either leave and abandon the ME to the terrorists, or stay and take more causalties while hoping we can get the Iraqis to take over their own security. Backing down has been extrordinarily bad for us in the past, and has only led to subsequent larger and more deadly attacks. So there's really not much more to say, and the dems should know it.

Perhaps our present economy with a DOW approaching 11,000 has left the left with nothing else to squawk about right now. Perhaps they think a backlash against the repubs on the war will catapult their party forward, just like it did after Vietnam. To me it's comparable to betting all your cash on an inside straight 15 minutes after entering the casino. They could just as easily lay low right now.

Speaking of wagering, I would be willing to bet that Bush already has a private timetable regards a troop drawdown. Leaks have already hinted at such a thing. Bush is simply smart enough to let the dems deficate in their hats now, while waiting to see how things go after the national elections and the conclusion of the trial of Saddam. Don't forget, Karl Rove still works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I appreciate the dems' slow meltdown, though, since it has convinced me that Bush, despite his many shortcomings, was the best choice. Well, with the exception of this democrat, perhaps.

MORE 12/6

With all the back and forth on the Iraq war (and WoT in general), we probably need to come together on what exactly defines the war on terror. Various folks have described a world war between free societies and tightly controlled societies. But it's also a war over religious freedom. In the west our religious freedom allows for individual sin, and apart from the set crimes in our legal system, this sin is largely personal. Most understand it will be addressed in the hereafter. Conversely, the Islamofascists do not tolerate personal sin and tend to punish it in the here.

Another largely ignored aspect in the WoT is the battle of the sexes. You'd think the women's rights groups would have protested more, since the Islamofascists would surely love to remove all the gains made and send them backwards a few centuries. "Burka'd and pregnant" would replace "Sex and the City". Yet we hear next to nothing.

Another issue is time. As the years pass our national grief becomes more of a fading memory. That's a natural healing process, since nobody wants to dwell on the past. Yet as it fades, our current reality becomes the daily roadside bomb report from Iraq, a war many now don't consider part of the WoT. Ironically if we withdraw it could quite possibly fulfill Saddam's long ago quote about winning the "mother of all battles" (just a little later than predicted).

In light of some recent events it's fair to wonder if some of us are beginning to blink in the face of pressure. There is a strong desire to return to the blissfully ignorant salad days before 9/11, where wars were waged behind the scenes.

The enemy has not lost their edge, as evidenced by this man's comments. As they like to say, patience is a virtue.

Remember this guy?

He certainly hasn't been in the news much since his confirmation. Didn't the dems claim he was going to start World War III or somesuch?

Now he's speaking out against Kofi Annan for his firing of a UN elections official only days before the big Iraq election. The official had experience in previous elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

There seems to be some irony here. First, it's not Bolton himself being sacked.
Second, the UN had no problem discharging this woman for what appears to be a management style conflict, while higher UN hacks remain in their positions after running the Oil For Food scandal. By the way, has anyone seen Benan Sevan lately?


VERY INTERESTING...12/7



Clicking on the Reuters link above gives a message saying the story is no longer available. Wow, it was just published two days ago. I searched around and found this WaPo version, which makes it clear this woman was discharged for violating the UN's sexual harrasment policy, which they have a zero-tolerance policy regards.

Nevermind there is UN team under her command on the ground in Iraq preparing for the most important elections yet. That fact was what got Bolton's shorts in a bunch and was the thesis of the spiked Reuters story. The WaPo story does not include any mention of Bolton, so it's not clear who had the story spiked or why.

By all appearances we have a woman fired over charges of sexual harrassment, while some UN officials involved in the Oil for food scandal (to help a dangerous dictator) still have their jobs. Sure seems like a problem with priorities to me.

Saddam's Clue

UPDATES BELOW..

We hear today that a plot to launch a rocket attack at the super-secret Saddam trial location was foiled. The attack was reportedly going to be carried out Monday as the courtroom drama resumes. The perps were all Sunnis.

The last time Saddam was in the secret courtroom he said something interesting, at least to me:

Once inside, Saddam had a brief but heated exchange with the chief judge, complaining that he had to walk up four flights of stairs in shackles and carrying a copy of the Muslim holy book Quran because the elevator wasn't working.

Was Saddam providing the planners with an aiming point? Perhaps they knew where the trial facility was, but were unsure as to the correct floor.

Now, presumably the attack would have occurred before Saddam's entrance, otherwise this theory goes down the toilet faster than Charmin.



UPDATE 12/5

Saddam brought his soap opera back to court today, a facility that was lucky to still be intact after the mortar plan was thwarted. Above we see him waving the Qu'ran while looking every bit like a total lunatic. I hope Muslims around the world are horrified by such an image. As a Christian I would certainly be angered if I saw Stalin or Hitler waving a Bible at a trial.

Saddam obviously still believes he has power, as he made this remark when a witness name Mohammed began to speak, "Rest assured I will not touch you.". Is he delusional, or is there any truth behind his veiled threat? Remember, his right hand man Al-Douri was put in charge of the insurgency early on, and remains to be accounted for (even after death).

Mohammed did indeed speak, as did others. Funny--their stories sound vaguely similar to the stories defectors told all along-- the same stuff the left claimed was nothing but false propaganda manufactured by Chalabi and Curveball.

Wonder if our man Ramsey Clark will pick up that ball when the judge next allows him to speak, blaming Chalabi for manufacturing witnesses? After being initally gagged by the judge today he participated in a temper tantrum walk-out, after which the judge reversed and allowed Clark to speak.

He didn't waste any time, heading right for the grandstand and blubbering about healing and dividing. The judge quickly told him in Arabic, and I have this on good authority, to stuff a cork in it, since he was only allowed to address the security of the legal team. "But your honor, I have important sound bites to generate...."

Of course Saddam occupied the highest grandstanding platform--after all, it's his show. During one of the trademark outbursts we've come to expect he yelled, "Long live Iraq, long live the Arab state". I suppose he'll never give up as long as his legacy remains in limbo.

MORE 12/5

Speaking of a legacy....

Another Sunni, Mohammed Omar, a 35-year-old unemployed father of two, accused the government of being more concerned with convicting Saddam than with fixing the problems Iraqis face every day _ violence, shattered infrastructure, unemployment.
"Maybe Saddam did oppress those who opposed him," Omar said. "But for every Iraqi, deep inside, he looks like the strongman we need."

A 49 year old Sunni housewife said something similar,

Watching the Saddam Hussein trial at home on television, Jinan Mushrif said she got chills of pride Monday when she saw the ousted leader and a co-defendant chant, "Long live Iraq, long live the Arab state." "These are the real men of Iraq, not those who hide behind their bodyguards,"

Although this sample is biased and the story came from the AP, if the majority of Sunnis actually feel this way, it ain't good. Appealing to his own people is certainly one strategy, but I can imagine a two-pronged strategy. Have the supporters continue to lay as many IEDs and suicide bombs as possible while the lawyers do everything in their power to delay the trial. Meanwhile Saddam grandstands at every opportunity as a way to project strength and appeal to Iraqi nationalism.

Why delay the trial? Other than obvious reasons, perhaps he feels he can outlast our resolve. Surely Ramsey Clark has briefed the team about what's going on with Murtha and the democrats' caterwauling for an immediate withdrawal. Perhaps Saddam feels if they can drag out the process until mid 2006 and the Congressional campaign season, they might have a chance. It's a sad reality that by mid 2006 several hundred more GIs might have been lost, something we're sure to see in all the dem campaign ads (and probably some republican ads, too). A Murtha-like withdrawal before the Iraqi army and security forces are ready to go, and before Saddam's trial is completed can only help his chances.

SOAP OPERA REPORT 12/7

Nobdoy should have been surprised when the king of the grandstands failed to show for today's 'trial'.

Here's a rather charming quote from Saddam's half brother, former Mukhabarat leader Barzan:

Saddam's half-brother Barzan, a former intelligence chief, complained of his own treatment in jail on Wednesday. He said he had been denied tea and coffee for a year, lost 40 pounds in weight -- and offered only inferior brand cigarettes.

Mr. Barzan displays the callous arrogance of a thug.

Now, anyone who thinks they are going to get a conviction on this initial charge after what we've seen so far, please raise your hand. More than likely we'll see additional charges pressed, which will further delay the trial and allow Ramsey Clark to call Rumsfeld and others to testify. Talk about a media circus. But I wonder, would they appear?

FINAL THOUGHTS 12/8 (before the circus begins again in two weeks)

Saddam comes to court everyday (well almost everyday) wearing a sport coat and shirt with no tie, which I understand is not an Iraqi custom. Saddam is also adorned with a beard, which he frowned upon during his regime. Beards are supposedly fundie-wear.
All the others charged are wearing traditional Arab head garb. Hard to know whether this is the result of fun and games by Saddam's guards (depriving him of what he wants) or some kind of strategy. I'd vote for the latter.

Ok-- now it's getting a little weird

It's been a fascinating 2005 hurricane season, not because we've set a modern storm record, but due to the strength of so many of them. The public and media seems impressed with the frequency record, but that's a non-starter for me. If we had about 1000 years of accurate hurricane data this might mean something, otherwise it's just cocktail party small talk. It's the intensity issue that deserves a close look.

For example, hurricane Epsilon, the fifth storm of 2005 to be named after a Greek (because we ran out of 'regular' names) continues to maintain strength in the open Atlantic despite getting hammered by wind shear and traversing cooler waters. That's not supposed to happen. The National Hurricane Center appears to be groping for an explanation:

EPSILON HAS CONTINUED TO STRENGTHEN AGAINST ALL ODDS. THE CLOUD PATTERN IS REMARKABLY WELL-ORGANIZED FOR A HURRICANE AT HIGH LATITUDE IN DECEMBER...EMBEDDED IN A STRONG UPPER-LEVEL WESTERLY WIND ENVIRONMENT AND MOVING OVER 21-22 DEGREE CELSIUS WATER.

Let me translate: WTF?

Here's a satellite image. This storm looks suspiciously like the rare South Atlantic hurricane "Catarina", which occurred off the coast of Brazil in March 2004. No hurricane had ever been recorded in that area before (the Brazilian government still has trouble admitting it).

Although it's possible these events could fall within the realm of natural variability, storms such as Epsilon and Catarina do test my personal believablity in conventional wisdom.

Does that mean I'll shortly become a tree-hugging, bicycle lovin, Birkenstock wearin eco truth warrior? No. Do I believe in global warming? Certainly. Temperatures are now rising, just as they have thousands of times in the past long before the SUV was invented (or people, for that matter). We don't conclusively know what's forcing this latest heat wave, although suspicion centers around help from carbon.

But it's sometimes high fun to look at the politics of science. The wild guess left claims Bush is responsible, simply because he wouldn't sign a piece of paper stamped with IPCC letterhead at a confernece in Japan a few years ago. This treaty does nothing to diminish the carbon already in the atmosphere, which has a half life equivilent to about one human. So, if our current weird weather can be totally blamed on human=induced warming only a few short years after the conference, no amount of ink on a piece of paper will stop it, even if it's special presidential ink.

If it's not Bush, then what or whom can we blame? This guy has a theory. Heck, as long as we're fighting global warming, Islamofascists, Bird Flu and perhaps even Aliens, we might as well fight rogue Japanese mobsters using stolen Soviet electromagnetic toys. Bring it on!

UPDATE 12/4

Check out this quote from the National Hurricane Center's mid morning discussion about our weird little friend Epsilon:

THERE ARE
NO CLEAR REASONS...AND I AM NOT GOING TO MAKE ONE UP...TO EXPLAIN THE RECENT STRENGTHENING OF EPSILON AND I AM JUST DESCRIBING THE FACTS.

That is bordering on bizarre.

Mr. Avila closes his discussion thusly:

HOWEVER...THE UPPER LEVEL WINDS ARE EXPECTED TO BE HIGHLY UNFAVORABLE AND EPSILON WILL LIKELY BECOME A REMNANT LOW. I HEARD THAT BEFORE ABOUT EPSILON...HAVEN'T YOU?

FORECASTER AVILA

Global warming does not account for such behavior, folks. There is apparently still much we don't know about tropical cyclones. Or something.