The strange disappearance of the cards

Something strange is going on. The formerly-hyped 'deck of cards' of the 55 most-wanted Saddamists has all but disappeared from public consciousness.

I've sprinkled some mention of the cards in a few posts below, but based on some new developments today I thought the topic was worthy of it's own post. Why? Well, a few more dead-enders were apparently set free today and are off to an undisclosed European location:

Baghdad, March, 8 (BNA) The US Forces in Iraq have recently released Former Iraqi Minister of Military Production Abdultawab Haweesh, and Foreign Undersecretary, Saad Al Faisal. Radio Sawa said Al Huwaish and Al Faisal left Baghdad soon after being released and headed to a European capital.

I admit to being a little confused with this, since we've heard no credible explanations from the adminstration explaining these releases. But the news shouldn't come as a surprise--we've done it before. Shortly before Christmas 2005 we released Dr. Germ and Mrs. Anthrax, the latter of whom was interviewed in this article before Saddam's regime fell. Interestingly, Mrs A attended school at the University of Missouri at Columbia.

But hold it, time for some backspin. The reporter pretends to be shocked, shocked that we could release such a dangerous individual who seemed so nice in the interview. Perhaps she could have researched the fact that Mrs. Ammash was reported to be near death in December 2004, a year before her release:

Lawyer Badee Izzat Aref said that in a meeting with former deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz, his jailed client said Ammash's health was deteriorating. "He (Aziz) strongly urged me to do all I can regarding the case of Mrs Huda Ammash because of her health is worsening due to cancer," Aref told Al-Arabiya satellite network. "It will lead to her death, no doubt."

We need to take a serious look into Iraqi medicine, since Aziz himself was recently given only a month to live, in December 2005. I've not seen his obituary yet, but it should be no surprise, as former regime leaders tend to slip in and out of cancer and death all the time.

But I digressed there a bit. Sorry. Search around the web and you'll find many examples of liberals with their shorts in a bunch over these releases. Others theorize the releases are merely bones thrown to Sunni radicals in an attempt to garner their support for the new government. Possible, but these people weren't Sunnis by definition, they were Ba'athists. They have a long history of being secular to go along with their long history of war crimes.

Besides, we've been told time and again that Saddam was incapable of a relationship with religious fundamentalists, including Sunnis, due to ideological differences. Why then would any respectable Sunni or al Qaida leader desire a released former regime Saddamist?

Frankly I don't pretend to know exactly what's going on here, but I do know that such things tend to reinforce the FUBAR theory on Iraq proposed by the naysayers. Here's my question to them--if Bush made a mistake rounding up these people why let them go? Ever?

After all, their freedom could lead to a risky chat with the press. One of them might even get drunk enough to spill their guts to Keith Olbermann about the whole sordid affair, like explaining the Rummy-Saddam handshake or even the true meaning of Cheney's shotgun accident. No, it would seem much safer for a man endowed with the qualities of Hitler to simply disappear them off to a secret CIA prison and be done with it.

But that hasn't happened.

The head-scratching developments that have occurred suggest the possibility of back room deals not involving politics. The problem is, such deals usually involve bartering chips on both sides. Perhaps Saddam will give us a hint of the possible chips his ex buddies might possess when his trial resumes on the 12th.

MORE 3/8

Regarding my quip about the reporter slacking on her research regarding Mrs. A's reputed medical predicament, she did mention her breast cancer in the article. My suggestion was that she should have dug a little deeper into this claim. We've had several ex-regime members report to such claims. For example, was she released to allow better treatment elsewhere?

But in Mrs A's case she was supposedly working on "the carcinogenic effects of depleted uranium, which had been present in some U.S. bombs and missiles during the 1991 war to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation." Some reporters might have put those job duties together with her cancer claim and smelled a rat, but others apparently take the spent uranium canard as gospel.

Is Portgate a loser for the democrats?

It seems like the reverse should be true, right? After all, the Dubai deal has brought extra focus on the eroding support amongst republicans for president Bush. Many appear ready to 'jump ship' based on his unwavering support of the UAE coupled with previous domestic failures.

Case in point, Jonathan at Crushliberalism has some interesting thoughts on this, pointing out how at a recent conservative forum hardly anyone could find a kind word for the direction Bush is taking the country. Actually that's too politically correct, the word venomous more aptly describes their feelings.

So, is Bush actually a deep cover democrat operative trying to rebalance Congress this fall by giving the voters a rock solid reason to change leadership? Doubtful, since the democrats have had no trouble snatching defeat from the jaws of victory all by themselves. No, it's more likely a Rovian thought process at work-- 'they'll continue to vote for us because the democrats still have no message, besides, people don't instictively trust them with kicking terrorist butt'.

That brings us back to Portgate. Bush surely has many new orifices in his body from the reaming he's taken over this, mainly from his own party, yet he still remains afloat. One reason is because this issue is not nearly as black and white as detractors would like us to believe.

For example, the Wall Street Journal has the details of a container attack on Israel--that is, jihadists stowed away inside a container and blew themselves up. Fact is, this was discussed long before the general public knew anything about DP World. We've been told ad nasueum that only 5-10 percent of containers are checked, so such nefarious things could be occurring right now without DP World even being remotely involved. It's simply impossible to carry on commerce if every container has to be opened and searched, and everyone knows it, including the terrorists.

Yet the rank and file republicans won't let the issue die as was intended by the 45 cooling off period. Keeping the issue aflame certainly hurts Bush, but at this point why would he care, he's a lame duck. Besides, should anyone on the left even remotely consider filing articles of impeachment over portgate they'd have to explain away the support of ex-presidents like Clinton and Carter.

The real fallout is that House and Senate republicans up for reelection get to keep their golden issue on the front burner--homeland security and fighting the war on terra. Discussed above, it's the one issue that keeps getting them elected, simply because people trust them more on it.

ABC NEWS HAS LEARNED.. 3/10/06

That Bush called the UAE Sheikhs and asked them to cancel the deal. Though it would not be surprising, the ABC article does not attribute this scoop to ANYONE, not even the ubiqitous anonymous source. It just says "ABC has learned." Heck, anyone could say that. I could say that.

But let the dems celebrate, they helped scuttle the deal. Hopefully they'll remain consistent on all this terrorism stuff. For instance, most of them supported the 9/11 Commission's finding that Atta and company were "non-state actors", meaning they weren't supported by any states.

And most of them opposed pigeon-holing Saddam Hussein as a terrorist just because he was an Arab.

Therefore, they should now begin their campaign to remove the ex-Taliban spokesman currently attending Yale. I expect Hillary and her northeastern liberal friends to take immediate action to deport this dangerous menace before he kills someone.

Going, going, gone goodbye...

The 2006 baseball season is here and we've already got ourselves a hearty scandal. Barry Bonds, the sulky superstar who broke Mark McGwire's single season home run record in 2001, is the focus of a new book alleging that lots and lots of questionable phramaceuticals went into big Barry's body beginning in 1998, with some interesting side effects:

NEW YORK (SI.com) -- Beginning in 1998 with injections in his buttocks of Winstrol, a powerful steroid, Barry Bonds took a wide array of performance-enhancing drugs over at least five seasons in a massive doping regimen that grew more sophisticated as the years went on, according to Game of Shadows, a book written by two San Francisco Chronicle reporters at the forefront of reporting on the BALCO steroid distribution scandal.

Do we have a "going, going gone goodbye" scenario, or will this devolve to racial namecalling with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton attempting to defend the use of steroids on Hannity and Colmes? Hard to tell, but one thing is certain--Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa best call their lawyers and get their statements prepared, cause its gonna be another spring of hounding for them, too. If they did what Bonds did, they deserve it.

As to Barry, he's still innocent and technically doesn't have to answer the allegations. He could pull a McGwire and refuse to answer, but the difference is he's still playing, still in the public eye and is coming up on two all-time records that many people hold dear.

Speaking for myself, if he refuses to address this I might become physically ill the days he breaks the Ruth and Aaron records. Another vomitous thought--we could have a scenario where several home run record holders don't make the Hall of Fame if action is taken later.

Bombshell stories like this one usually cause someone to remark, "the s--t has hit the fan". Rarely do you find a more literal meaning.

Vermont to impeach Bush?

Vermont is a beautiful place. Lots of snow in the winter for skiing, and the white birch trees in the fall are something everyone needs to see once in their lifetime. Add to that a few scenic covered bridges for good measure.

But note to President Bush--don't schedule a visit to Newfane, cause they want you out.

Vermont Town Meetings will be commencing soon, which is where Newfane comes in. They've drafted a resolution to impeach the president. If the town passes it, the motion will be forwarded to House member Bernie Sanders for further action.

It's not clear why Bush has aggravated this one little town so much, but he is a 'flatlander'. Or, maybe it's just a case of cabin fever.

But speaking of the town meetings, this comment is right on the money:

"It's still about power to the people. The lefties from the 1960s were right about that," he says. "At town meeting, we are actually trusting ourselves to govern ourselves." Where else, Bryan asks, can someone stand up, confront elected leaders face-to-face, cast votes and potentially change the direction of a town?

Indeed, where else can a town vote to secede from their own state due to confiscatory tax policies? If only we could generate as much interest here in Tennessee.

However, regarding the impeachment motion, we know it's about more than just good ole fashioned Vermont skepticism. The state has been a bastion of liberalism for some time, witness messers Leahy, Dean, Jeffords, and Sanders. Apparently Newfane is ground zero. I suggest Bush invite them all down to Crawford for some spare ribs or Texmex.

THE VOTE IS IN

And in a real shocker, the motion was successful! But not everyone was impressed:

Greg Record, a justice of the peace, said in an interview after the meeting that the town is made up of people from the "far-left," and he criticized the amount of time and attention such advisory votes get. "We spend more time on these things than on a million-dollar budget item," he complained.

Asked for comment, Sanders said (paraphrasing here), "Although Bush is an evil fascist dirtbag who also lacks gravitas, and although I feel your pain, I'm not nuts enough to file articles of impeachment based on the silly whim of a bunch of ex-hippies".

A tax on the world

The international do-gooders are starting to whisper the T word again. The concept of a world tax came up again at the most recent Davos get-together. [Side track-- as you can see by the picture, Davos is beautiful, but this group is trying to save the world. So, wouldn't it send a better message to hold the meetings in say Darfur or Bangladesh? They could set up a bunch of tents..]

Anyway, Congressman Ron Paul is not happy:

The "Tobin tax," named after the Yale professor who proposed it, would be imposed on all worldwide currency transactions. Such a tax could prove quite lucrative for the UN, given the vast amount of currency that trades hands at certain times. It also might be a politically acceptable starting point, because most average people do not engage in cross-border currency transactions. A dangerous precedent would be set, however: the idea that the UN possesses legitimate taxing authority to fund its operations.

To be fair, Tobin felt misunderstood, especially after the anti-globalization knuckleheads took over his cause. They thought the Tobin Tax was a Robin-Hood scheme, yet Tobin only suggested it as a means to stop wild currency speculation, the kind that got guys like George Soros rich (read the Der Speigel interview if you would enjoy seeing a democrat economist thoroughly take apart a neo-socialist).

Several world tax ideas have been put forth, such as a carbon tax to offset global warming costs, a Tobin-like currency transaction tax, and even a world lottery (imagine that jackpot). On the surface they don't really seem so bad, but the problem is that nobody can figure out how to administer such a thing.

As Paul says, the scary part would be giving the UN taxing authority. Such a move would have a literal spider web of ramifications, not the least being national sovereignty. Money is power, especially in the hands of taxing authorities. Give this power to the UN and it could easily devolve into another Oil for Food Program, except in reverse.

But Congressman Paul can chill for now, because the idea doesn't stand a chance in the short term. Surely it will come eventually, though. Global warming, poverty, AIDS and the other bugaboos aren't going away soon, and neither are the liberals who think throwing other people's money at problems always makes them better. I just hope I'm not around to see it. There are better ways to fix the world, starting with democratic change.

WaPo -- Golden Shrine attack successful

"Majority of Americans believe Iraq civil war likely" is the screaming top-page headline in this morning's WaPo. The revelation was based on one of their own in-house polls.

Ah, another poll. Oft-ridiculed and easily dismissed, many profess to not putting much stock in them. For example, President Bush recently said he doesn't pay attention to them at all. But fact is, people in power DO pay attention. Gay marriage and gun control might already be the law if polls showed overwhelming support.

The message being relayed by this WaPo poll is that Americans are beginning to give up up on Iraq:

An overwhelming majority of the public believe fighting between Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq will lead to civil war and half say the U.S. should begin withdrawing its forces from that violence-torn country, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

We could easily trash this poll and suggest it's yet another plot by the MSM to undermine Bush, and we'd be partially correct. That would not change the fact this poll proves the attack on the Golden Shrine was successful. Since everything in Iraq hinges on American public opinion, surely the perps are glad-handing one another today or maybe firing their Kalashnikovs skyward.

The responsible party of the attack makes little difference. Whether accomplished by Ba'athists, Iranians or Zarqawi, the goal was similar--to undermine and destablize the new government. Such immediate feedback from the all-important American public is golden to these guys, since it legitimizes their course of action and literally ensures more spectacular attacks, in effect signing the death warrant for more innocent people. That of course will lead to further erosion of American confidence in the mission. So how can this cycle be defeated?

As has been the case from day one, the Iraqi people have the ball. They've got to dribble down court, get some good ball movement, and use teamwork set up a backdoor alley-oop slam dunk. Hey, if Carolina can beat Duke at Cameron Indoor Stadium, anything's possible.

GENERAL AGREEMENT 3/7/06

General Abizaid is worried about more attacks:

THE bombing of the Samarra shrine in Iraq was a new - and successful - tactic by al-Qaeda terrorists trying to spark civil war, according to General John Abizaid, the chief of the US Central Command.

Despite relative calm in Iraq at the weekend, General Abizaid warned of more such bombings. "They got more of a reaction from that than they had hoped for."

The General pins the act on AQ in Iraq (Zarqawi), not Iran. While I agree, I'd go a little further and suggest that the dead-end gang (Saddamists/Ba'athists) were also integrally involved.

Meanwhile, Zarqawi is ticking off people all over the place. Still, despite the recent animosity nobody seems to have the guts to get rich yet.

More ...

The US Envoy to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad echoed General Abizaid's fears, but also said:

"We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?" Khalilzad said. "The way forward, in my view, is an effort to build bridges across these communities.

Since he wants to "build bridges" I'm assuming he doesn't think Iran was involved, either.

But here's a good question now being tossed back and forth around the web. What IF Iraq disintegrates into a civil war? Who's side will we take? The money bet is we'll back the Sunni horse, since to side with al-Sadr amounts to siding with radical Shiites like Ahmadinejad, last seen playing with uranium and schmoozing Hizballah and Hamas. Since they all desire Israel to be relocated about 200 miles west, what choice will we have?

Hamas - Zawahiri is wrong

AQ number two pooped his way back into homes across America again today to discuss blasphemous cartoons, Hamas' failure in Palestine and of course to reinforce that we're still E vil. Offhand thought--why haven't we managed to use our satellites to track the courier delivering these tapes? I thought they could read licence plates. Maybe we just don't know where to point them--more on that below.

Zawahiri makes a rather radical claim:

He called on Muslims in "Palestine, Iraq and everywhere else... [to] be wary of the new American game entitled the 'political process'", alluding to recent elections and democratic change.

Zawahiri urged Hamas to "continue the armed struggle" and reject agreements signed between its predecessors in government and Israel, describing them as "surrender accords".

Funny, that would be the same polical process that allowed Hamas to gain power. But what he appears to be saying is that by participating and winning, Hamas fell into an American trap, since now they can be pressured to disarm and recognize Israel. He may be right!

Hamas fired back (it's funny to watch the infighting)

Hamas leaders have dismissed Zawahri's comments. Political leader Khaled Meshaal, speaking on the last day of a visit to Moscow, said the group did not need al-Qaeda's advice. Hamas had its own vision, he said, and always acted in the interests of the Palestinian people.

Translated, "We did not fall into a stinkin zionist trap. We still have our vision of pushing them into the sea. Shut up."

By the way, AQ really needs to get some better television sets. Zawahiri looks like he was broadcasting from a trailer somewhere in Arkansas. After all, those crafty devils made us believe they had a secret underground lair at Tora Bora, but maybe all along it was just a double wide.