Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Snuffysmith's Blog - June 26th - September 17th, 2007
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
Snuffysmith

Arabs: What About Us?
Daoud Kuttab | Petreaus, Congress forgot vital component of Iraq's future in the Middle East: the people of the Middle East.

Talk: Slamming the General

Snuffysmith

Compromise on Oil Law in Iraq Seems to Be Collapsing
By JAMES GLANZ The apparent breakdown comes just as the White House is struggling to find evidence that there is progress toward a functioning government.


Bush to Sell Limited Iraq Pullout as Middle Way
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and STEVEN LEE MYERS With lawmakers openly skeptical of his troop buildup, President Bush will cast his plan for a gradual, limited withdrawal as a way to bring a divided America together.

Snuffysmith

America's Media Darling: Osama bin Laden

Jalal Ghazi, New America Media

MediaCulture: The video released last week by Osama bin Laden got very different receptions in the American and Arab media.
Snuffysmith

Are You on the Government's 'No Fly' List?

Naomi Wolf, Chelsea Green Publishing

Rights and Liberties: A new book reveals how thousands of Americans who do not fit a terrorist profile are routinely harassed and detained at the airport.
Snuffysmith
A Great Adventure in Gratitude
Hannity’s Freedom Concerts.

By Kathryn Jean Lopez

Are the Hannity Freedom Concerts:

a) just another country-music event;

cool.gif a Fox News commercial;

c) Sean Hannity living out his David Hasselhoffian dream (albeit, unlike Baywatch, with his shirt on)?


Although Hannity did sing “The Devil Went Down to Georgia” in the Atlanta Freedom Concert, the answer is not c.

The answer is: d) a miracle.

That’s how sisters Shannon and Corrine Snell explained it to me in an interview last month. The two recent college graduates are the daughters of Desert Shield/Desert Storm vet Marine MSgt. Joe Snell. He died after 21 years in the Marines when his helicopter crashed during a training mission.

The young women went to college courtesy of the Freedom Alliance Scholarship Fund, which was set up during the first Gulf War.

I’ll admit I’m writing this piece in part because I’m jealous. To hear participants talk about the Hannity Freedom Concerts in vague terms, it sounds a bit like a religious experience. “Phenomenal,” Tom Kilgannon, president of Freedom Alliance (founded by Oliver North), tells me. The Freedom Concerts are “the best nights of my life,” Sean Hannity raves to his radio audience. An “extraordinarily happy and uplifting event,” Newt Gingrich said on Hannity’s radio show, en route to the fifth and last concert of the summer, at the Great Adventure theme park in Jackson, N.J. On the same show, Oscar-winner Jon Voight cried while thanking Hannity for the service he has done our nation, via these events.

You start to wonder whether they’re not passing out some Hannitization Kool-Aid at the concerts.

But dismissing the Hannity Freedom Concerts, now in their fifth year, as a right-wing event would be a mistake. And it would be to miss out on an opportunity to be a part of something great.

The concerts raise money for the Freedom Alliance Scholarships, which, according to the Freedom Alliance, “honor[ ] the bravery and dedication exhibited by Americans in our Armed Forces who have sacrificed life or limb defending our country by providing educational scholarships to their children. In the last 20 years, over 15,000 service members have given their lives defending our country. More than 3,400 soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Guardsmen have been killed in the war in Iraq, leaving behind approximately 2,000 children.”

Voight’s emotional tribute was one Hannity very quickly, emphatically, and humbly dismissed. How — he must have been thinking — can someone accept thanks for serving America, while in the presence of such heroes and patriots? The concerts tend to be full of veterans, families of the fallen, and families of currently active servicemen. But in truth, Hannity is making a huge difference by lending his name, time, energy, and talents to the concert series. As Kilgannon tells National Review Online: “Sean is a tireless advocate for our men and women in uniform. He is an extraordinary person who is using his God-given gifts to really help the families of those who serve.”

The Snell gals never really knew their dad, who died when they were both still young, but through the Freedom Alliance they not only have the sense that someone is “taking care of us,” but that they are part of something big and important and admirable. The four years of tuition paid were accompanied by letters, calls, follow-ups. “They made us feel like they love us,” Corrine tells me. “The Freedom Alliance has been a blessing.” The sisters say they will never forget their Freedom Alliance appearances: In San Diego, for example, Oliver North brought them on stage and the audience paid their dad back with a standing ovation for his daughters. Nor do the girls feel like a commercial; they tell me they want other children of the fallen to know there is this great resource out there for them in these Freedom Alliance scholarships, and — even more fundamentally — that they are not alone.

If there is one thing that bothers me about the Freedom Concerts, it’s that they weren’t the concert event of the summer. With 10-15,000 attending, according to Freedom Alliance’s count, they are no small thing — but next summer, I’d like them to get something like the same p.r. that Al Gore’s overhyped, underwatched Live Earth did.

So — since fairness is the buzzword when it comes to talk radio, and Sean Hannity is a radio talk-show host — I have a plea: Equal Time. If we had to endure Live Earth EVERYWHERE at the beginning of July, I want to see the Hannity Freedom Concerts EVERYWHERE next summer.

Although the concerts are not on every continent, they did make their way around the country this summer—first in Atlanta, then in San Diego, then in Cincinnati and Dallas, with the final concert in New Jersey on September 11.

A country-music concert on September 11? Yes, and appropriately so— considering that it’s purpose is to raise money for the Freedom Alliance Scholarships. Kilgannon describes the program as “a way for Americans to say, ‘we will not forget what so many of our fellow Americans are doing for our country.’”

Keep an eye out for next summer and, in the meantime, take a look at some of the young Americans who went to school courtesy of the Freedom Alliance and their generous donors. Here’s an overview:

$25,000 to the USS Cole Memorial Fund for the children of the 17 sailors who were killed in the terrorist attack against the USS Cole in October 2000.

$40,000 to the dependent children of the 21 soldiers and 33 sailors killed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

55 individual student scholarships for the 2002-03 academic year.

73 individual student scholarships for the 2003-04 academic year.

80 individual student scholarships for the 2004-05 academic year.

95 individual student scholarships for the 2005-06 academic year.

105 individual student scholarships for the 2006-07 academic year.


According to Kilgannon, Freedom Alliance plans to extend its work well into the future. The young children of the fallen come to the concerts, and Freedom’s angels are determined to make sure the program is there for them. In addition to generosity coming in this summer via the concerts and associated donations, Freedom Alliance has established a trust fund with a little over $10 million and plan to extend the scholarship program to cover not just the families of the fallen, but children whose parent has been wounded in action.

You could do worse things with your money.
Snuffysmith
PETER WEHNER: Petraeus and Crocker have done what many thought was impossible. “Post-Publicity Surge” 09/12 6:30 AM

JAMES S. ROBBINS: Who is this hate filled old man? “Osama, Take II” 09/12 7:00 AM

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: Sean Hannity — joined by 13,000 or so of his closest friends — says “thank you.” “A Great Adventure in Gratitude” 09/12 6:30 AM

MICHELLE MALKIN: “Never forget” is not just a once-a-year slogan. “John Doe in Post-9/11 America” 09/12 12:00 AM

JONAH GOLDBERG: What is “FUBAR” in Arabic? “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern in the Desert” 09/12 12:00 AM

THOMAS JOSCELYN: Michael Ledeen is right. “Know Thy Enemy” 09/12 7:20 AM

Snuffysmith
Witches sink, insurgents float. Michael Yon, michaelyon-online.com

Iran News Roundup Michael Rubin, The Corner

Iraq News Roundup W. Thomas Smith Jr., The Tank

Political progress--in Iraq and the U.S--follows military success. Editors, Wall Street Journal

We live in much greater jeopardy than we need to because we remain divided and confused. Tony Blankley, Washington Times

The pols are losing Iraq. Terry Jeffrey, townhall.com

Even if this military progress continues, how does it lead to the endgame of American withdrawal instead of Iraqi dependence? Michael Gerson, Washington Post

Clinton vs. Petraeus. Eli Lake, New York Sun

Snuffysmith
From the Halls of Malibu to the Shores of Kennedyby Ann CoulterDemocrats claim Gen. David Petraeus' report to Congress on the surge was a put-up job with a pre-ordained conclusion. As if their response wasn't.

Hagel Retirement Creates More GOP Headaches for 2008by Robert Novak and Timothy P. CarneyThe good news for the GOP is that Nebraska is strong Republican territory, with all three congressmen, the governor and the unicameral legislature all Republican. The bad news...

Petraeus and Crocker's Honest Reportby Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney and Fred GedrichTwo of America's finest career public servants, General David Petraeus and Ambassador …
Snuffysmith
How do Iraqis assess the surge? The full report of the ABC/NEWS/BBC/NHK poll on this will be found at: http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1043a1Iraq...ThingsStand.pdf
Snuffysmith
On Thursday, September 20, at 6:00, the Straus Military Reform Project will host an event to release a new "Military Almanac." This volume is 250 pages of data about national security issues, including - but not limited to - budget data and analysis of how to measure the defense budget (and how not to), weapon system unit costs, unclassified on all nuclear weapons states, demographic information on US military personnel and casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, major defense corporations, state by state defense spending, and much more. The list goes on and on. [/size] Light food and drinks will be served. Hard copies of the Almanac will be for sale; a free electronic copy will be sent to all who come and ask for it. More details follow: [size="2"]Where: Carnegie Building, 1779 Massachusetts Ave., Choate Room, Washington, D.C., 20036, First Floor. When: Thurs., Sept. 20, 2007, 6-8 p.m.

RSVP: Whitney Parker, wparker@cdi.org, or 202-797-5287; or Ashley Hoffman, ahoffman@cdi.org, or 202-797-5280.

Snuffysmith
Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner: Fatal attack launched two days ago against the headquarters garrison of the American military in Iraq (Camp Victory) was carried out using a 240 mm rocket -- a type of weapon provided to Shiite extremists by Iran - 1 person killed, 11 wounded

Bush warns Iran against meddling in Iraq

Iran rejects US allegations of interference in Iraq

Bomb kills Yonkers G.I. in Baghdad: Reenlisted rather than leave his platoon when it was called back to Iraq

Bush set to endorse limited troop cuts in Iraq: But will offer little else to skeptical Americans looking for a change of course in the unpopular war

Bush hopes to buy time for Iraq strategy

Senator Obama calls for pulling combat troops from Iraq

Petraeus' report on Iraq puts Democrats in a bind

Iran says Petraeus report will not save U.S. from "Iraq's swamp"

US to offer Ramadan amnesty for Iraqi detainees

Why failure is the new face of success

The Iraq debate: Straight, honest talk needed

House Minority Leader John Boehner in Iraq to assess progress report: Congressional trip was a surprise

Saudi seeks to build Iraq security border fence - At cost of $1.07 billion)

Giuliani, McCain slam Hillary's 'venom' in Iraq hearings

Snuffysmith
Running On Empty: Dangers of America's Faustian bargain with Pakistan's military dictator are growing more obvious by the day - violent street protests in Pakistan, however, are raising new fears of cataclysmic political upheaval in a country that is both armed with nuclear weapons and the fault line in the fight against terrorism
Snuffysmith
Petraeus out of step with US top brass

As the highly public face of President George W Bush's policy in Iraq, especially the "surge", General David Petraeus has done his boss proud in following the White House script. This spokesman's role, however, has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Most notably, he is on a collision course with Admiral William Fallon, chief of Central Command, who has reportedly dismissed him as an "asskissing little chickenshit". - Gareth Porter (Sep 13, '07)
Snuffysmith
Behind the Anbar myth
One of the key arguments in General David Petraeus' presentation to the US Congress this week was the close collaboration between the occupation and Sunni tribal leaders in al-Anbar province. Nothing could be further from the truth: what success there is in Anbar is not due to the general's wily ways, but to an Iraqi sheikh. And even then, US occupation forces remain the main enemy. - Pepe Escobar (Sep 13, '07)
Snuffysmith
US and Europe drain Iran's half-full glass
The United States and some of its European allies have indicated they will push for a new round of United Nations sanctions on Iran, irrespective of the positive developments in Tehran's relations with the UN atomic agency. At the same time, talk of a "military option" against Iran continues. It does not bode well for US-Iran dialogue on Iraq. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi (Sep 13, '07)
Snuffysmith
Taliban talk offer bodes well
Nothing is certain in the shifting sands of Afghan politics, where yesterday's enemies can as easily become today's allies. But President Hamid Karzai's appeal to the Taliban to talk about becoming part of the country's political process has drawn an initially positive response that could eventually bear wider political fruit and dramatically alter the outcome of the 2009 elections. - Haroun Mir (Sep 13, '07)

Indian-Americans stake their political claim
The 2-million-strong Indian-American community, the wealthiest ethnic group in the US, is set to flex its political muscles in 2008. Former president Bill Clinton made inroads into the community, which could rebound to Hillary's advantage. But George W Bush is popular with Indians too because of his administration's pro-India policies. - Siddharth Srivastava (Sep 13, '07)
Snuffysmith
Trade bridges the
Shi'ite-Sunni divide

Tehran has proposed forming a free-trade area with the Sunni Arab countries of the Persian Gulf region, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Washington, of course, takes a dim view of this for fear of boosting Shi'ite Iran's faltering economy. But the Arab Gulf states already do a brisk trade with Iran.
Snuffysmith
I think K Darbandani's contribution US public shrinks from war's reality [Sep 13] is an excellent description of the American way of thinking that many of us have difficulties to understand ... Since things have not worked out that well in Iraq, they might embark on another adventure against Iran ...
Manuel de la Torre, PhD
Snuffysmith

The Petraeus moment blots out the world
General David Petraeus' appearance before the US Congress on Monday was trumpeted as "the most anticipated congressional testimony by a general since the Vietnam War". It's just words, words and more words ... these hearings were neither "pivotal" nor "a moment of truth", simply a way for the White House and official Washington, for a brief time, to blot out the world. - Tom Engelhardt (Sep 12, '07)


US public shrinks from war's reality
War is hell, a fact that the US public, now clamoring for withdrawal from Iraq, is facing up to. So why is there no outcry against a possible war with Iran? Because they prefer the sanitized version scripted by the Pentagon and Hollywood. They'll pay admission for a new war any time, but only if the price is right and Superman saves the day. - K Darbandi (Sep 12, '07)
Snuffysmith
MoveOn.org Isn't the Problem, Bush's War Policy Is Republicans are mad about MoveOn.org's ad questioning the Bush administration's politicization of General Petraeus' congressional testimony. Fine. But that diversion doesn't help us understand what was in Petraeus' testimony.

Snuffysmith
Has Obama Offered Most Extensive Plan Yet for Winding Down War? IOWA - Senator Barack Obama yesterday presented his most extensive plan yet for winding down the war in Iraq. He proposed a withdraw of all combat brigades by the end of next year. "The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops," Mr. Obama said. "Not in six months or one year - now."

Snuffysmith
Ban Ki-moon and ElBaradei on Collision Course "The stage is now set for two diametrically opposed developments, one at the IAEA, which has hailed Iran's cooperation as a 'significant step in the right direction', and the other at the UN, where secretary general Ban Ki-moon has reiterated the Security Council's demand for a complete suspension of Iran's uranium-enrichment and reprocessing activities." -- Kaveh Afrasaiabi on Asia Times Online

Snuffysmith

Loaded Words: “Surge”, “Reconstruction” and “Withdrawal”
by Media Lens / September 13th, 2007

News media this week are devoting huge swathes of coverage to the report by General David Petraeus, the top US military commander in Iraq, on the impact of the so-called ‘surge’ of US troops. The surge boosted the number of US troops in Iraq earlier this year by 30,000 to 168,000. (Full article …)


Are the Banks in Trouble?
by Mike Whitney / September 13th, 2007

The new capitalist gods must love the poor — they are making so many more of them.

– Bill Bonner, “The Daily Reckoning” (Full article …)


Jose Padillas’s Fate — And Ours
by Ernest Partridge / September 13th, 2007

The opening sentence of an August 17, New York Times editorial reads: “It is hard to disagree with the jury’s guilty verdict against Jose Padilla.” There follows not a single word in support of this dogmatic editorial pronouncement — not a word presenting the charges against Padilla or the evidence in support thereof. (Full article …)


George W. Bush, President for Life?
Only if you don't read this...

by William Blum / September 13th, 2007

Okay, Bush ain’t gonna get out of Iraq no matter what anyone says or does short of a)impeachment, cool.gifa lobotomy, or c)one of his daughters setting herself afire in the Oval Office as a war protest. A few days ago, upon arriving in Australia, “in a chipper mood”, he was asked by the Deputy Prime Minister about his stopover in Iraq. “We’re kicking ass,” replied the idiot king.[1] Another epigram for his tombstone. (Full article …)


US Withdraws Completely from Middle East
by E.B. Patton / September 13th, 2007

WASHINGTON (AEP) — A new group calling itself WAR (Workers for a Revolution) issued a report today with their suggestions for how the U.S. labor movement might revitalize itself. Their report quotes the 1978 book Poor People’s Movements, where authors Richard Cloward and Frances Piven say: (Full article …)

Snuffysmith

General Confided White House Ambitions to Iraqi Official
By PATRICK COCKBURN

The US commander in Iraq Gen David Petraeus expressed long-term interest in running for the US presidency when he was stationed in Baghdad three years ago according to a senior Iraqi official who knew him at that time.

Sabah Khadim, then a senior adviser and spokesman at the Iraqi Interior Ministry, says that Gen Petraeus discussed with him his long term ambition to be president when the general was head of training and recruitment of the Iraqi army in 2004-5.

“I asked him if he was planning to run in 2008 and he said ‘no, that would be too soon,” said Mr Khadim who now lives in London.

Gen Petraeus has a reputation in the US army for being a man of great ambition. If he succeeds in reversing America’s apparent failure in Iraq he would be a natural candidate for the White House in the presidential election in 2012 or beyond.

His able defence of the ‘surge’ in US troop numbers in Iraq as a success before Congress this week has made Gen Petraeus the best known active soldier in America, An articulate, intelligent and energetic man he has always shown skill in managing the media and impressing politicians.

But Gen Petraeus’ open interest in the presidency expressed during his previous job in Iraq may lead critics to suggest that his own political ambitions have influenced him in putting an optimistic gloss on the US military position in Iraq.

Mr Khadim, a long term opponent of Saddam Hussein, was a senior adviser in the Iraqi Interior Ministry in 2004-5 when Iyad Allawi was prime minister of Iraq.

“My office was in the Adnan Palace in the Green Zone which was close to Gen Petraeus’ office,” recalls Mr Khadim which meant that they met frequently. In addition he had meetings with Gen Petraeus because the Interior Ministry was involved in vetting the loyalty of Iraqis recruited as officers into the new Iraqi army. Mr Khadim was critical of the general’s choice of Iraqis to work with him.

For a soldier whose military abilities and experience are so lauded by the White House Gen Petraeus has had a surprisingly controversial career during the war in Iraq. His critics hold him at least partly responsible for three important debacles: The capture of Mosul by the insurgents in 2004, the failure to train an effective Iraqi army and the theft of the entire Iraqi arms procurement budget in 2004-5.

Gen Petraeus came to Iraq during the invasion of 2003 as commander of the 20,000-strong 101st Airborne Division and had not previously seen combat. He first became prominent when the 101st was based in Mosul, a largely Sunni Arab city in northern Iraq, where he pursued a more conciliatory policy toward former Baathists and Iraqi army officers than was US policy in Baghdad.

His efforts were deemed successful and were highly publicized in US newspapers and on television at the time. When the 101st departed in February 2004 it had lost only 60 dead in combat and accidents. Gen Petraeus had build up the local police force by recruiting, to the anger of the Kurds in Mosul, officers who had previously worked for Saddam Hussein’s security apparatus.

Although Mosul remained quiet for some months after Gen Petraeus left the US suffered one of its worse setbacks of the war in November 2004 when insurgents captured most of the city. The 7,000 police trained and recruited by Gen Petraeus changed sides or went home, 30 police stations were captured by the anti-US resistance, 11,000 assault rifles were lost and $41 million worth of military equipment disappeared. Iraqi army units also abandoned their bases.

The debacle in Mosul was little noticed because the American media was absorbed by the storming of Fallujah west of Baghdad by the US Marines which happened at the same time.

Gen Petraeus’ next job was to oversee the training and equipment of a new Iraqi army to replace the one dissolved by the occupation authorities a year earlier. As head of the Multinational Security Transition Command, commonly called ‘Minsticky’, Gen Petraeus claimed that his efforts were proving highly successful. In an op-ed in the Washington Post in September, 2004 he wrote: “Training is on track and increasing in capacity. Infrastructure is being repaired. Command and control structures and institutions are being re-established.” This optimism turned out be highly misleading; three years later the Iraqi army is notoriously ineffective and corrupt.

It was while Gen Petraeus was in charge of the Security Transition Command that it failed to notice that the entire Iraqi procurement budget of $1.2 billion had been stolen. “It is possibly one of the largest thefts in history,” said the Iraqi Finance Minister Ali Allawi. “Huge amounts of money have disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal.”

In Gen Petraeus’ defense it could be said that he had tried to keep his distance from the Iraqi authorities and allow them to make their own decisions. It is surprising, however, that he and his officers did not notice that the Iraqi soldiers he was training often had inferior weapons to the insurgents because of the disappearance of the procurement budget.

Mr Khadim is sceptical that the ‘surge’ is working, arguing that what Gen Petraeus is trying to do now is very similar to what he sought to do in 2004. Commenting on the US military alliance with the Sunni tribes in Anbar he says: “they will take your money, but when the money runs out they will change sides again.” Overall he says that Gen Petraeus and other US commanders do not take on board that most Iraqis feel they have been occupied and will never be loyal to the occupying power.

Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006.
Snuffysmith

Two Soldiers Critical of War Die in Iraq
By DAVID STOUT, The New York Times Posted: 2007-09-13 12:44:49 Filed Under: Iraq News, Nation News WASHINGTON (Sept. 12) — "Engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act," the seven soldiers wrote of the war they had seen in Iraq .

They were referring to the ordeals of Iraqi citizens, trying to go about their lives with death and suffering all around them. But sadly, although they did not know it at the time, they might almost have been referring to themselves.





Two of the soldiers who wrote of their pessimism about the war in an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times on Aug. 19 were killed in Baghdad on Monday. They were not killed in combat, nor on a daring mission. They died when the five-ton cargo truck in which they were riding overturned.

The victims, Staff Sgt. Yance T. Gray, 26, and Sgt. Omar Mora, 28, were among the authors of "The War as We Saw It," in which they expressed doubts about reports of progress.

"As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day," the soldiers wrote.

Sergeant Gray's mother, Karen Gray, said by telephone on Wednesday from Ismay, Mont., where Yance grew up, "My son was a soldier in his heart from the age of 5," and she added, "He loved what he was doing."

The sergeant's father, Richard, said of his son, "But he wasn't any mindless robot."

Sergeant Gray leaves a wife, Jessica, and a daughter, Ava, born in April. He is also survived by a brother and a sister.

<a name="mod.249070">
Sergeant Mora's mother, Olga Capetillo of Texas City, Tex., told The Daily News in Galveston that her son had grown increasingly gloomy about Iraq. "I told him God is going to take care of him and take him home," she said.

A native of Ecuador, Sergeant Mora had recently become an American citizen. "He was proud of this country, and he wanted to go over and help," his stepfather, Robert Capetillo, told The Houston Chronicle. Sergeant Mora leaves a wife, Christa, and a daughter, Jordan, who is 5. Survivors also include a brother and a sister.

While the seven soldiers were composing their article, one of them, Staff Sgt. Jeremy A. Murphy, was shot in the head. He was flown to a military hospital in the United States and is expected to survive. The other authors were Buddhika Jayamaha, an Army specialist, and Sgts. Wesley D. Smith, Jeremy Roebuck and Edward Sandmeier.

"We need not talk about our morale," they wrote in closing. "As committed soldiers, we will see this mission through."

Copyright © 2007 The New York Times Company
Snuffysmith
• "Efforts to Fight N-proliferation," By Samir Salama, Gulf News
• "N. Korea, Syria May Be at Work on Nuclear Facility," By Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post
• "Bang Galore," By the Editors, The New Republic
• "Developing States Rap 'Interference' in Iran Deal," By Mark Heinrich, Reuters
"Iran Says That U.N. Sanctions Could Scuttle Investigation into its Nuclear Activities," International Herald Tribune
• "Russia Tests Giant Fuel-Air Bomb," By Jonathan Watts and Justin McCurry, The Guardian
• "N-powering India," Op-Ed by Jyotiraditya Scindia, Hindustan Times
Snuffysmith
Saudis May Skip Mideast Peace Conference by DONNA JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia -

Saudi Arabia will probably skip a Mideast peace conference called by President Bush if it doesn't tackle substantive issues such as the status of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees, the kingdom's foreign minister said Wednesday.

Saud al-Faisal's remarks echoed the skepticism of other Arab leaders over a meeting Washington has billed as a major step forward but whose agenda and participants remain unknown.

"The kingdom sees no benefit in any peace meeting or conference if it is not comprehensive and if it doesn't tackle major issues," al-Faisal said. "If the conference doesn't provide these things, then the kingdom's participation is doubtful."

Diplomats and analysts say the conference, which Bush called for in July, presents the region with the first serious opportunity for peace in years. They warn that if the conference collapses, new violence may erupt and faith in negotiations as an efficient tool to resolve conflicts would dissipate.

Washington wants Saudi Arabia to attend to help push the peace process forward and increase public contacts between the Saudis and Israel despite the lack of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

But al-Faisal said the Bush administration has failed to provide either an agenda for the meeting, a list of participants, or a timeline for both sides to meet their commitments, raising fears that, "we will enter into never-ending negotiations, something Arab countries don't want."

Jordan's King Abdullah said after meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Wednesday that "issues pertaining to final status must top the agenda of the conference , foremost among them is the establishment of an independent Palestinian state."

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told reporters in the southern Egyptian town of Sohag on Sunday that: "The thing that I most fear is that the lack of acceptable preparations will lead to no results."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the U.S. shares the Arab leaders' hope that the negotiations will address substantive issues, but that an agenda had not yet been set for the meeting.

"The phrase has been thrown around, 'Nobody wants this to be just a photo op,'" he said. "We couldn't agree more."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans to travel to the region next week to meet with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to begin preparations for the international conference, which is tentatively scheduled for November.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Abbas, who is supported by almost every Arab state, hope to reach a general outline of a final peace deal in time for the conference, and agreed Monday to set up negotiating teams made up of senior officials.

Palestinian officials said Tuesday that Abbas has hinted of progress on two of the most contentious issues: which territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war will become part of a future Palestinian state and how the disputed holy city of Jerusalem will be shared, the officials said.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity since they were not authorized to discuss diplomacy with the media. Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, a confidant of Abbas, said talk that the leaders have agreed on principles or documents are baseless. Israeli officials said Olmert and Abbas have worked out "overriding principles" toward a final agreement, but have not ironed out details. The Gaza Strip-based Hamas government is not participating.

A Western diplomat said the conference can only succeed if the top fundamental issues between Israel and the Palestinians are pre-negotiated so a concrete agreement can be reached.

"The conference's only chance of success is for it to be an endorsement of a deal accepted by both parties," said the diplomat, who spoke on condition that his name and nationality be withheld.

Anything short of that would lead to the collapse of the conference before it even starts, the diplomat warned.

Jamil Nimri, a prominent Jordanian analyst, said the lack of specifics regarding the objective of the conference may reflect a U.S. desire to avoid a confrontation with Israel.

"The Americans worry that if they present a clear and precise agenda the Israelis may not like it and that may put them in confrontation with the Israelis," he said.

Nimri said as things stand, "I don't expect the conference to come up with any results."
Snuffysmith
Do These 12 Republicans Want At Least 10 More Years In Iraq?
by Bill Scher
Do Senate GOPers want to tell their constituents they support the real Bush-Petraeus plan?

Failure of Energy Policy. Failure of Foreign Policy.
by Bill Scher
Bush said in 2000 his foreign policy would get oil prices down. Now, oil prices are at a record high.

Snuffysmith
Life On The No-Fly List
by Naomi Wolf, Chelsea Green Publishing
Activists are not being beaten. But they are sometimes intimidatingly detained and released.

Weakness Dooms Dems
by Art Levine, The Huffington Post
The party faces long-term disaster without the will to effectively oppose the war.

Truth-Telling Soldiers
by John Nichols, AlterNet
Two soldiers who challenged administration spin on Iraq died as true heroes.
Snuffysmith
Stocks Rise on Countrywide, GM News- APStocks advanced solidly Thursday, led by strong gains among the blue chips and mortgage lender Countrywide Financial Corp., which signaled a possible thawing in the credit markets with the announcement it had lined up additional financing.

Snuffysmith
War Against Iran and the Logic of Dominance By Gareth Porter If the Bush administration launches an attack on Iran, the reason won't be that Iran was about to obtain a nuclear weapon. The real reason will be that United States, as the world's only superpower, wants to establish clearly that it -- not Iran -- is the dominant power in the Middle East. That would make us all less secure, but the insistence on asserting dominance in the Middle East is the essence of the Bush administration's policy.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18371.htm

Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak? By Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D. There will be a need for continued public awareness of the true events behind the B-52 incident in order to expose the actual role of Mr. Cheney. Only in that way can Cheney be held accountable for his actions, and other government figures that supported his neo-conservative agenda be exposed.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18374.htm

Chanell 4 News Interviews President Ahmadinejad Video and Transcript We accuse the English and the US of occupying and violating Iraq. I think the US and Britain should amend their own views and behaviour; if they want to blame others for their defeat then they can be sure that their defeats will be repeated.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18376.htm

The World's Ingredients: Injustice, Hypocrisy, and Hope By James Rothenberg We fail to recognize that the ubiquitous American flags we surround ourselves with are of the same order as those we mocked bearing images of Stalin, Mao, and Saddam. Never having been encouraged to think critically about our institutions, we remain in childlike awe of them.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18372.htm

Keith Olbermann's Top 9/11 Story 4 Minute Video The Promotion Of Failure In Bush Administration. Click to view
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18378.htm

What the Warfare State Really Costs By Thomas E. Woods, Jr Estimates of the cost of the Iraq war continue to escalate to levels well beyond what its optimistic architects once promised. Most notable, perhaps, has been the estimate of Columbia University's Joseph Stiglitz, who, in a January 2006 paper with Harvard's Linda Bilmes, put the full cost at around $2 trillion. By the end of the year, the two had grown even more pessimistic.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18375.htm
Snuffysmith
Thursday, September 13, 2007

Jacob Hornberger’s Blog [Blog Archives]


Musharraf and Democracy-Spreading in Iraq
by Jacob G. Hornberger


As most everyone knows, the current excuse for remaining in Iraq is social experimentation — establishing democracy in order to provide a stable Iraq that can lead the Middle East to peace, freedom, prosperity, and harmony. Of course, never mind that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and almost four thousand Americans have had to pay the ultimate price with their lives for this social experimentation. As U.S. officials will say if their social experiment succeeds, all those deaths will be considered “worth it,” the words that UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright used to justify the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from the brutal sanctions that the U.S. imposed against Iraq for the purpose of “regime change,” i.e., the political experiment whose aim was the ouster of Saddam Hussein from power and his replacement by a U.S.-installed puppet.

Speaking of the U.S. government’s ardent commitment to democracy and U.S. puppets, Pakistan’s ruler Pervez Musharraf is back in the news. He’s the military general and ex-close friend and ally of the Taliban who took power in a coup in 1999 and has refused to permit democratic elections in Pakistan. Just this week, he sent back into exile Nawaz Sharif, the premier he ousted in the 1999 coup, to make sure that he won’t be around to contest for the presidency. Never mind that in doing so, Musharraf violated a ruling of Pakistan’s Supreme Court.

Musharraf’s anti-democratic actions certainly didn’t stop U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte from praising Musharraf’s government: “There is no doubt whatsoever of Pakistan's commitment to restoring and establishing security in that part of the country and more than doing its share in the war against terror.”

In other words, in the war on terror anything goes, even supporting anti-democratic military brutes who reign with brutal military power, as long as they are U.S. puppets and loyally serve in the U.S. Empire’s “war on terror,” after receiving large amounts of U.S. taxpayer money, of course.

Well, then why all the fake and false hype about invading and occupying Iraq for the sake of spreading democracy? How can that be reconciled with the U.S. government’s ardent support of non-democratic military dictator Pervez Musharraf? Good question! Of course, the same question could be asked about the ardent support that the U.S. government gave to Saddam Hussein, who later became known as the “new Hitler.” And the shah of Iran. And all the anti-democratic authoritarian regimes in the Middle East to whom the U.S. government is funneling hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money and military equipment. And let’s not forget all those Latin American dictators, especially the military ones, whose forces have been trained by the U.S. military’s School of the Americas.

The fact is that the “spreading democracy” rationale for the continued occupation of Iraq is as fake and false as the supposed attack at the Gulf of Tonkin, which was used as the rationale for expanding the war in Vietnam.

Given President Bush’s steadfast insistence on continuing the occupation of Iraq until he leaves office, in order to protect his legacy, Americans will be able to think about and reflect upon the pro-democracy killing and dying in Iraq for at least another two years, not to mention the monetary crisis that is slowly but surely building as a result of the out-of-control federal spending that is financing Bush’s imperial adventure.

Mr. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

Snuffysmith
Preventing a Rogue President from Committing a War Crime: Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran, you are duty-bound to refuse that order- by Lt. Col. Robert M. Bowman - 2007-09-13
Snuffysmith

Bipartisan consensus pushes for Iran attack- by Larry Chin - 2007-09-12
Snuffysmith
Iran War "Rollout" Roils Blogosphere

Since my original post passing on an unverified but troubling report that Vice-President Cheney's office had asked neo-conservative institutions for help creating political support for an attack on Iran, this nugget has been batting around the internet like any good conspiracy theory.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories. Anyone who works on Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan has to reject a dozen a day just to keep in shape. But if you don't want to be constantly surprised, you also have to learn from the Red Queen and "believe six impossible things before breakfast." With experience you get better at keeping the balance right.

Conspiracy theories are easy targets for deflation, since, almost by definition, they lack evidence to support them. Sure enough, right-wing writers (I won't say "conservative," since I have a hard time imagining Edmund Burke or Michael Oakeshott going down this road) have rolled out an attack on this report. I may illustrate the common pattern of these attacks by reference to Eli Lake's September 10 column in the New York Sun. The argument (omitting a few flagrant misrepresentations of what I wrote, which are just distractions) is pretty simple:

1. It's typical left-wing conspiracy theory to imagine that Cheney's office would instruct neo-conservatives to campaign for war with Iran.
2. Neo-conservatives are campaigning for war with Iran because they sincerely support such a war, not because anyone told them to do it.
3. They're right to support such a war, because the Iranian mad-mullah regime is already at war with the U.S. and is making nuclear bombs right now in order to destroy Israel, the U.S., and the entire global order.

Somehow I don't find this line of argument reassuring.

Another warning I have received is not to rely on Alex Debat, whom I have never met or spoken to. (Update: the Weekly Standard just asked me if Debat was my source.) Reports are now circulating that he is a fabulist. I have no idea if he is or not. I cited an article in the Sunday Times of London in which he is quoted by the reporter as providing a detailed description of U.S. preparations for war with Iran.

A tall tale? Maybe. Or maybe Debat got an advance look at this 80-page study by Dr. Dan Plesch and Martin Butcher of the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies. They summarize their principal findings:

The study concludes that the US has made military preparations to destroy Iran’s WMD, nuclear energy, regime, armed forces, state apparatus and economic infrastructure within days if not hours of President George W. Bush giving the order. The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely. The US retains the option of avoiding war, but using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.

• Any attack is likely to be on a massive multi-front scale but avoiding a ground invasion. Attacks focused on WMD facilities would leave Iran too many retaliatory options, leave President Bush open to the charge of using too little force and leave the regime intact.

• US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours.

• US ground, air and marine forces already in the Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan can devastate Iranian forces, the regime and the state at short notice.

• Some form of low level US and possibly UK military action as well as armed popular resistance appear underway inside the Iranian provinces or ethnic areas of the Azeri, Balujistan, Kurdistan and Khuzestan. Iran was unable to prevent sabotage of its offshore-to-shore crude oil pipelines in 2005.

In case this turns out to be accurate, Iran has prepared to respond. Tehran Times reports:

Commander of the IRGC, Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari here on Tuesday said that any attack against Iran would spark a crushing response from the country.

Iran has boosted its defense capabilities based on the weak points of the enemies, which occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, General Jafari said on Tuesday.

The newly appointed commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned that the IRGC is more than ready to defend Iran's against all security, political, cultural, and social threats.

Such preparations make a "provocation," which Reuel Marc Gerecht of AEI thinks is the most likely cause of war, more likely. In any case, General David Petraeus has told Congress that Iran has already launched such provocations. The National Review helpfully summarized them in order to savage Ambassador Ryan Crocker for supporting an “Iraq at peace with its neighbors.” Appeasement! Here is Petraeus' bill of particulars:

We have also disrupted Shia militia extremists, capturing the head and numerous other leaders of the Iranian-supported Special Groups, along with a senior Lebanese Hezbollah operative supporting Iran’s activities in Iraq.

Foreign and home-grown terrorists, insurgents, militia extremists, and criminals all push the ethno-sectarian competition toward violence. Malign actions by Syria and, especially, by Iran fuel that violence.

In the ensuing months, our forces and our Iraqi counterparts have focused on improving security, especially in Baghdad and the areas around it, wresting sanctuaries from al Qaeda control, and disrupting the efforts of the Iranian-supported militia extremists.

In the past six months we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding, and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps’ Qods Force. These elements have assassinated and kidnapped Iraqi governmental leaders, killed and wounded our soldiers with advanced explosive devices provided by Iran, and indiscriminately rocketed civilians in the International Zone and elsewhere. It is increasingly apparent to both Coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Qods Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.

The recommendations I provided were informed by operational and strategic considerations. The operational considerations include recognition that … success against Al Qaeda-Iraq and Iranian-supported militia extremists requires conventional forces as well as special operations forces[.]

[O]n a less encouraging note, none of us earlier this year appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq’s leaders all now have greater concern.

[Our] assessment is supported by the findings of a 16 August Defense Intelligence Agency report on the implications of a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Summarizing it in an unclassified fashion, it concludes that a rapid withdrawal would result in the further release of the strong centrifugal forces in Iraq and produce a number of dangerous results, including … exacerbation of already challenging regional dynamics, especially with respect to Iran.

The weblog of Foreign Policy magazine originally adhered to the prescribed role of "moderates" in the rollout script by explaining "Why you should discount all the bomb Iran talk." Of course the administration was just engaging in coercive diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program in order to stiffen the backs of the Europeans. Clever negotiating tactic!

But this item from Fox News gave them second thoughts:

Political and military officers, as well as weapons of mass destruction specialists at the State Department, are now advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach favored by Burns has failed and the administration must actively prepare for military intervention of some kind. Among those advising Rice along these lines are John Rood, the assistant secretary for the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation; and a number of Mideast experts, including Ambassador James Jeffrey, deputy White House national security adviser under Stephen Hadley and formerly the principal deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern affairs.

Consequently, according to a well-placed Bush administration source, "everyone in town" is now participating in a broad discussion about the costs and benefits of military action against Iran, with the likely timeframe for any such course of action being over the next eight to 10 months, after the presidential primaries have probably been decided, but well before the November 2008 elections.

The discussions are now focused on two basic options: less invasive scenarios under which the U.S. might blockade Iranian imports of gasoline or exports of oil, actions generally thought to exact too high a cost on the Iranian people but not enough on the regime in Tehran; and full-scale aerial bombardment.

This could not be discounted as the ravings of the liberal blogosphere (even if Rupert Murdoch did give a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton). So today Foreign Policy warns:

Next thing you know, you'll start hearing folks at AEI saying that Iran was responsible for 9/11. Wait a minute, that's already happening, as Peter Beinart pointed out in Sunday's New York Times. "It's the 2007 equivalent of the claims made in 2002 and 2003 about Iraq," Beinart noted. "The years between 9/11 and the Iraq war gave rise to a cottage industry ... charging that Saddam Hussein was the hidden mastermind behind a decade of jihadist terror. While refuted by the 9/11 Commission and mainstream terror experts, these claims had a political effect."

Looks like it's time to stop the epidemic of denial that has the foreign-policy community convinced that an attack on Iran is out of the question. Before it's too late.

I once wrote a book about early warning and conflict prevention. There are two kinds of errors in early warning (as in statistical inference): believing something that ain't so and disbelieving something that is. You have to weigh the likelihood and the cost of each kind of error. That's the calculus behind Vice-President Cheney's One Percent Doctrine: the risk of not acting on a warning of nuclear terrorism is so great, that you have to treat a one percent possibility as a certainty.

I set the bar a bit higher than one percent. But in view of the record of this administration, including what its leaders and supporters have said themselves, the cost of not acting on these warnings is too great. The cost of acting (for me anyway) is being attacked by the New York Sun and the National Review and being supported by a few conspiracy theorists. I can live with it.

Update: In his speech yesterday in Clinton, Iowa, Senator Barack Obama said:

We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear - loud and clear - from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war.

Let's hear from other candidates and members of Congress.

Posted by Barnett R. Rubin
Snuffysmith
<h3 class="post-title entry-title"> The IAEA Board of Governors Meet to Talk about Ir