A truly historic moment.
You can spin it fairly positive. Or negative. Or positive. Or negative.
Or you can be like Chad at In The Bullpen and relish the moment in a realistic manner.
A truly historic moment.
You can spin it fairly positive. Or negative. Or positive. Or negative.
Or you can be like Chad at In The Bullpen and relish the moment in a realistic manner.
Afghanistan:
Security “exceptionally good.” Permanent bases being considered.
Aggies:
Fought back from halftime deficit, surging to a 70-64 lead with just over five minutes to play.
The next Iraqi government is beginning to take shape.
One day before the first meeting of Iraq’s transitional National Assembly, representatives of major parties reached an agreement “in principle” on formation of a new government, officials said Tuesday.
The agreement between Kurdish leaders and members of the United Iraqi Alliance includes the appointment of Jalal Talabani as president — the first time a Kurd would hold such the post — and of Ibrahim al-Jaafari as prime minister, according to Dawa party official Adnan Ali al-Kadhimi.
Negotiations continued into Tuesday night, and most party representatives are expected to sign the document Wednesday as the assembly holds its historic meeting Wednesday at 11 a.m. (3 a.m. ET).
In the January 30 election, the United Iraqi Alliance won 140 seats in the 275-member temporary legislative body, and the Kurds gained 75 seats. Despite its lead in assembly seats, the alliance needs partners because a two-thirds majority is required to form a government.
The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad sent out a warning Tuesday alerting Americans in the capital to take extra care ahead of the meeting.
Iraq is already operating under a state of emergency, which was extended by acting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi on March 3. The order restricts travel across borders and gives Allawi broad powers to detain suspected insurgents.
As I blogged before, a deal between the Shiite alliance and the Kurds would possibly hinge on the Kurds getting the presidency. That looks to be the case.
If this potential agreement comes to bear fruit, there will be two important questions as the assembly meets. First, will there be a role for interim prime minister Ayad Allawi in the government being shaped? Second, will the assembly be able to successfully conduct its business in safety? Damn, it’s got to be a juicy target.
Italy has announced that it will begin drawing down its forces in Iraq, beginning in September. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi claims the decision is unrelated to the recent checkpoint shooting of a car carrying communist reporter and supposed hostage Giuliana Sgrena.
Asked whether Italy’s decision was tied to the shooting incident, Mr McClellan said he had not heard Italian officials saying that.
“I’m not sure I’d make a connection there,” he said.
Dr. Rusty Shackleford at the Jawa Report disagrees.
Giuliana Sgrena has finally gotten her way. Islamist media already attributes Italy’s announced withdrawal as a response to the Sgrena debacle. Expect more hostage taking (real or feigned) immediately.
Time magazine is reporting that terrorist Abu Mousab al-Zarqawi is wanting to strike inside the U.S., according to fresh information garnered from captured members of the bastard’s barbaric network.
According to a restricted bulletin that circulated among U.S. security agencies last week, the interrogated aide said al-Zarqawi has talked about hitting “soft targets” in the U.S., which could include “movie theaters, restaurants and schools.”
The list of possible targets is typical of the kind of monsters we’re facing. Anybody remember Beslan? Or the Israeli pizzarias and nightclubs?
They will hit here. I’ve said before that I’m surprised they haven’t already. However, I’m not sure that Zarqawi has the resources, as he’s currently busy with creating as much mayhem as he can in Iraq while working feverishly to save his own hide. While he remains in active in Iraq, his ability to reach elsewhere with any significance. A small smattering of attacks in the U.S. are not going to affect American will and could increase demands for harsher action.
Oh, and can we do something soon about securing our borders?
Much has been made in the media and the blogosphere of the release of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and her subsequent wounding at a Baghdad checkpoint by U.S. forces. Itailian security agent Nicola Calipari was killed in the incident.
Since the day Sgrena was kidnapped, Dr. Rusty Shackleford at the Jawa Report predicted her release and said he felt something was “fishy” about the whole story. He has repeatedly written about the Sgrena affair and today blogs his mounting suspicions about the story.
Doesn’t this whole incident seem more than a little odd?
Sgena was kidnapped by her admitted friends in Iraq.
She was kidnapped while on the phone with another journalist.
A tape was released of her begging Italy to cave to the terrorists demands of pulling Italian troops out of Iraq the day before the Italian Senate was to vote on that very issue.
On the tape Sgrena appears to tell the ‘terrorist’ holding the camera to stop. He follows her order as if she is directing.
The tape came exactly two-weeks after she was captured.
One month to the day after her abduction she is released.
On the day of her release her car speeds toward a US checkpoint, fails to stop when ordered, fails to heed warning shots, and the car is ultimately fired upon.
In the end, who looks like the bad guys? The terrorists? The jihadis? The ‘insurgents’? No, the US.
Today, CNN carries Sgrena’s tale. Sgrena, who writes for the communist Il Manifesto, disputes the U.S. version of the story.
[…]Giuliana Sgrena wrote, “Our car was driving slowly,” and “the Americans fired without motive.”
She described a “rain of fire and bullets” in the incident.
The U.S. military said Sgrena’s car rapidly approached a checkpoint Friday night, and those inside ignored repeated warnings to stop.
Troops used arm signals and flashing white lights, fired warning shots in front of the car, and shot into the engine block when the driver did not stop, the military said in a statement.
But in an interview with Italy’s La 7 Television, the 56-year-old journalist said “there was no bright light, no signal.”
Apparently, however, Sgrena cannot keep her story straight, as the very next paragraph shows she told an Italian government official a different tale.
And Italian magistrate Franco Ionta said Sgrena reported the incident was not at a checkpoint, but rather that the shots came from “a patrol that shot as soon as they lit us up with a spotlight.”
Well, Ms. Sgrena, was there a light or wasn’t there?
In an interview with Sky TV, Sgrena said “feeling yourself covered with avalanche of gunfire from a tank that is beside you, that did not give you any warning that it was about to attack if we did not stop — this is absolutely inconceivable even in normal situations, even if they hadn’t known that we were there, that we were supposed to come through.”
So now it was a tank away from a checkpoint that lit up the car? Folks, I’m not buying a word this woman says.
Times are tough for recruiters and the goals are getting tougher to meet. Sure, there’s that Iraq thing, but I also blame that silly “Army of One” campaign.
The U.S. Army has fallen behind its recruiting goals, officials said on Thursday, amid the violence of an Iraq war that has now claimed more than 1,500 American lives.
“The war is obviously having an effect,” said Army Recruiting Command spokesman Douglas Smith. “Our recruiters are having to spend more time with hesitation on the part of potential applicants and their families. People are very alert to the fact of the risks that go along with Army service.”
The active-duty U.S. Army missed its recruiting target for February by 27.5 percent, and had slipped about 6 percent behind its year-to-date goal for fiscal 2005, which ends Sept. 30, the Army Recruiting Command said. That marked the first time since May 2000 the Army missed a monthly recruiting goal.
“It is a matter of concern,” said chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, adding the Army had increased enlistment bonuses and boosted by 20 percent its number of recruiters.
The Army Reserve and Army National Guard, whose part-time soldiers have shouldered a heavy load in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, also are reporting recruiting shortfalls. The Army Reserve missed its goals in January and February and is behind its recruiting targets for the year.
The Army National Guard, which missed its 2004 recruiting target, did not provide February numbers, but said it had shortfalls for the first four months of the current fiscal year through January.
Separately, the Marine Corps said on Wednesday it missed its goals for recruits signing up in January and February. The Marines said they met last month’s target for new recruits actually entering boot camps.
The article goes on to detail the recruiting numbers for the Army and its reserve components.
The 500,000-strong Army has not missed an annual recruiting goal since 1999, and aims for 80,000 recruits in 2005. It fell 1,936 short of its February goal of 7,050, and through February was 1,823 short of its year-to-date goal of 29,185 recruits.
The 210,000-strong Army Reserve has set a 2005 goal of 22,175 recruits. Through February, it was 643 behind its target of 6,230 after falling 330 short of its monthly goal of 1,320.
The 345,000-strong Army National Guard fell about 7,000 short of last year’s recruiting goal of 56,000. It aims for 63,000 recruits this year. Through January, it was 4,014 behind its target of 16,835.
Another bad guy caught?
A federal grand jury has indicted an Indiana man on charges he tried to sell names of U.S. intelligence operatives in Iraq to Saddam Hussein’s government before the U.S. invasion.
Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban, 52, was charged with agreeing to act as a foreign agent for Iraq and with immigration violations, federal prosecutors said Thursday following Shaaban’s arrest.
Shaaban traveled in late 2002 from Chicago to Baghdad, where he agreed to sell the names of U.S. intelligence agents to Saddam’s government for $3 million, said Susan Brooks, the U.S. attorney for southern Indiana. The Iraqi government paid for the trip, the indictment alleges.
“The deal was never consummated,” Brooks said.
Shaaban sought the names from foreign sources, but investigators believe he never obtained them, Brooks said. Investigators believe Shaaban acted alone.
[…]
Brooks said she could not discuss what sparked the federal investigation of Shaaban, a resident of Greenfield, which is about 20 miles east of Indianapolis.
The federal indictment unsealed Thursday also alleges Shaaban sought to broadcast pro-Iraqi propaganda in the United States and offered to pay Iraqis who agreed to act as “human shields” to protect infrastructure from coalition forces, Brooks said.
Authorities believe that Shaaban is originally from Jordan and became a U.S. citizen illegally in 2000 when he used the alias Shaaban Hafed on his naturalization application. If convicted of that charge, he most likely will be deported, Brooks said.
If Shaaban Hafiz Ahmad Ali Shaaban illegally became an American citizen under the name Shaaban Hafed and he’s found guilty of these acts, then I suggest we hang “Mr. Hafed” for treason and then deport Mr. Shaaban. In a box.
Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.
—Napoleon Bonaparte
And Napoleon knew that without ever having to deal with the Associated Press, source to thousands of papers.
Here are the words of AP writer Tom Raum as he looks at the situation in Iraq in about as negative light as possible. Granted, he managed to avoid terms like “quagmire” and “baby-killers” but he probably had to work hard at it in his defeatist reporting.
The conflict in Iraq can be told in numbers and milestones, from the more than 1,500 troops who now have died to the number of weapons of mass destruction found — zero.
Two American soldiers died in Baghdad of injuries from a roadside bomb and another was killed in Babil province south of Baghdad, the military said on Thursday. That brought to 1,502 the number of U.S. troops who have died since President Bush launched the invasion in March 2003, according to an AP count.
There are other milestones, other important numbers, some reached, some soon to be, as the conflict in Iraq nears its third year.
- Roughly 60,000 National Guard and Reserve troops are deployed in Iraq. As of Wednesday, 300 had died there since the war began.
- May 1 will be the second anniversary of Bush’s “mission accomplished” aircraft carrier speech in which he announced an end to major combat operations.
- The price tag is over $300 billion and climbing, including $81.9 more just requested from Congress. The money also covers operations in Afghanistan and the broader war on terror, but the bulk is for Iraq.
Conspicuously missing from this list are the successes, such as the January elections (tucked into the piece later), the capture of Saddam and the bulk of his henchmen, the dominant offensive in Fallujah, itself practically unprecedented in urban warfare. I guess successful accomplishments cannot be considered milestones.
When Lawrence Lindsey, then chairman of Bush’s National Economic Council, predicted in September 2002 that the cost of war with Iraq could range from $100 billion to $200 billion, the White House openly contradicted him and said the figure was far too high. He was eased out in a shake-up of Bush’s economic team.
“Americans need to take note of these sorts of milestones because it’s a way to show respect for the sacrifices of troops and reassess strategy,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst with the Brookings Institution.
“But I’m much more interested in trends,” he added, citing indications pointing to the relative strength of the insurgency and whether violence is declining or increasing.
On that, the signs are mixed.
The top U.S. general in the region said that about 3,500 insurgents took part in election day violence in Iraq on Jan. 30, citing estimates from field commanders. Army Gen. John P. Abizaid suggested the failure to prevent millions of Iraqis from voting showed the insurgency was losing potency.
“They threw their whole force at us, we think, and yet they were unable to disrupt the elections because people wanted to vote,” Abizaid told the Senate Armed Services Committee this week.
But his comments came just a day after one of the biggest attacks by insurgents since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government in April 2003. A suicide car bombing in the town of Hillah killed at least 125 people, including dozens of recruits for Iraq’s security forces.
From Jan. 1 until Iraq’s election day, 234 people were killed and 429 people were injured in at least 55 incidents, according to an AP count. Casualties rose in February, with 38 incidents resulting in at least 311 deaths and 433 injuries.
Why point out that civilian casualties rose in February without pointing out that U.S. military casualties fell? Especially after focusing on those casualties? Why not point out that those same civilian casualties, while every one an individual tragedy, happened in the month after the terrorist bastards promised and failed to make the streets run with blood? Oh yeah, it’s all about the negative. My bad.
Meanwhile, the United States is losing some partners in its “coalition of the willing.”
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko announced this week that Ukraine would withdraw its 1,650-strong military contingent by October. Poland is withdrawing about a third of its 2,400 troops. Last year, Spain’s new Socialist government withdrew its 1,300 troops.
At the same time, Bush drew commitments during his visit to Europe last week from all 26 NATO countries for contributions to NATO’s training of Iraqi security forces — either inside or outside Iraq or in cash.
Even harsh war critic France will send one officer to help mission coordination at NATO headquarters in Belgium and has separately offered to train 1,500 Iraqi military police in Qatar.
Wow, thanks, France. You pervs.
More than half of Americans remain convinced of the importance of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, though polls suggest widespread doubts about the handling of the war and Iraq’s prospects. An AP-Ipsos poll in February found that 42 percent approved of the president’s handling of Iraq, while 57 percent disapproved. A slight majority in recent AP-Ipsos polling expressed doubts that a stable Iraq can be established.
How the hell could support not erode with this kind of reporting? Yell that the sky is falling often enough and people look up and question the clouds.
Another milestone will come the day Iraq’s security forces are sufficiently trained and equipped to deal with the insurgency — and to permit the United States to begin leaving.
There have been conflicting reports on this, too.
The administration says there are 140,000 “trained and equipped” Iraqi military, security and police officers.
But Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, puts the number of Iraqi troops able to stand up to serious insurgent attack at fewer than 20,000.
Why are the administration’s words slipped into question-implying quotes (without sourcing) but “military expert” “Anthony Cordesman” can state what is essentially an “opinion” and it is written as a fact?
“Everything we do in Iraq will fail unless we develop a convincing plan to create Iraqi forces” able to defend their country without U.S. help, Cordesman said.
Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said some administration documents suggest that there are no more than about 40,000 trained Iraq forces and that they are lightly equipped.
“We’ve been given wildly different numbers of these security forces,” Levin complained to Abizaid.
“Senator, the big question doesn’t really have to do with numbers; the question has to do with institution building,” Abizaid responded. “I remind you … that institution building takes a long time.”
“I agree,” Levin said. “But we shouldn’t kid ourselves as to how long it does take.”
No balance from a supportive senator? Of course not, as the piece only pretended at a hint of balance all along.
I find it most telling that the AP felt obligated to justify Mr. Raum:
EDITOR’S NOTE — Tom Raum has covered national and international affairs for The Associated Press since 1973.
Tommy, you’re a sorry bastard. I bet you’ve chafed these many years, knowing how close you were to being able to write this defeatist crap after Tet.
Dear ol’ Moammar Gadhafi — a nutjob dictator with the occasional good points, trying to position himself and Libya into a leadership role in the Arab world. Now he wants to buddy up to the U.S. Maybe. And denounce the UN. But work with it. Oh yeah, foreign terrorism is bad.
Moammar Gadhafi said Wednesday he wants Libya and the United States to be friends, but the one-time international pariah slammed the United Nations Security Council for being controlled by a select group of countries.
In a wide-ranging address to the annual meeting of Libya’s parliament-like General’s People Congress, Gadhafi also warned Libyans not to support foreign extremists and to stand strong in the face of terrorism.
Gadhafi’s comments, moderate in the main but typically inflammatory in parts, come as Libya returns to the international fold following years of being regarded as a state sponsor of terror.
“We don’t say love the Americans. We are talking policies, and (on that level) there is no problem or animosity” between both countries, Gadhafi, wearing a white robe, told hundreds of often-cheering Congress members during an address televised live and monitored in Egypt.
Last year, the U.S. government lifted 23-year-old travel restrictions imposed on Libya, invited American companies to return to the oil-rich nation and encouraged Tripoli to open a diplomatic office in Washington. President Bush has also commended Libya’s progress in scrapping its nuclear weapons.
Of the United States, Gadhafi said: “We are not enemies. We are not allies. We are not agents. We hope one day we will be friends.”
Gadhafi, however, criticized the United Nations and the permanent five-member Security Council, repeating complaints he raised in a full-page advertisement that appeared in Wednesday’s Guardian newspaper in England.
“They are suggesting to expand the Security Council. This is another attempt to fool the nations at the expense of international peace and security,” Gadhafi said during his speech in Sirte, a coastal city 260 miles east of Tripoli.
Okay, so I can find common ground with him on the UN being little more than a pit of jackholes these days. I have to begrudgingly give him that point.
Despite his criticism, Gadhafi said Libya has applied for a seat on an expanded Security Council, which he wants to rotate among African states.
The United Nations had imposed sanctions against Libya, but the Security Council removed them last year after Tripoli accepted responsibility for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland, and agreed to compensate families of the 270 victims.
Gadhafi said his country must now take a lead role in combatting terrorism and warned Libyans that if their sons join extremists fighting U.S. forces in Iraq, they will eventually return home to kill their parents for being “infidels.”
“A country that is weak in front of terrorism harms the international community,” he said, while suggesting Libyan security forces might be given extra powers.
“The power that is responsible for security must be strong enough to make people feel safe,” he said without elaborating.
Libya is known for its extensive security apparatus and highly active internal and external intelligence services, a system that neighboring Egypt helped install in the early 1970s. Most Libyan opposition members live abroad because of the country’s heavy handed security.
Mix this buddy-buddy talk with this article where he espouses a desire for greater Libyan freedom and we start to see my case for the nutjob criteria.
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi urged his people on Wednesday to let “freedoms blossom” but made no mention of democratic goals like political parties that the United States wants to promote in the Middle East.
[…]
“You have to let freedoms blossom. People must have the full freedom to chose useful and fruitful work, the full freedom to learn and carry out scientific search and the freedom of faith,” said Gaddafi, who came to power in a 1969 military coup, in a speech broadcast live on Libyan television.
[…]
“Every one has the full economic freedom of what to do and where to invest. Every one has the freedom to establish social and economic enterprises of his liking and interest,” said Gaddafi, shunning mention of Western-style democracy.
[…]
“The people power and the direct democracy in Libya came to give an alternative to the worsening political crisis in the world where everywhere outside Libya dictatorship rules,” he declared.
Gaddafi said the people of the United States, Britain and Italy were living “under the yoke of dictatorships” and invited their politicians, scholars and intellectuals to visit Libya to learn how “the only genuine democracy works.”
“It is an international duty of the Libyans to help resolve the world political crisis. I advise you to set aside the money to pay for accommodation and other expenses for people we invite to come from America, Britain and other countries to learn at Green Book university.”
Ummmm … we need to chat about freedom, democracy, dictatorships and the different meanings those words apparently hold to you an me, Moammar-baby.
Look, it’s obvious he’s decided to emerge from retreat after his spanking by Reagan, sensing a chance to again become a leading figure for the Arab world. Good luck with that, Moe — you’re at least better than some of the other cluelessness running around in that area.
I do want one bold statement from the guy: how do we spell his name in English … consistently and correctly? These two articles had two variations, and here’s several more.