History is not inevitable

My thanks to Stanley Kurtz at The Corner at NRO for a link to an article by Azar Gat at RealClearPolitics, The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers.

There is a crucial and critical flaw in the view of Left and Right about the 'inevitability' of history and a shift towards democracy. Azar Gat points out this flaw by pointing out that the wars of the 20th century were neither foreordained to turn out the way they did nor can the maxims of democracies promoting stability be put forth as a viable conception of governmental attitudes. A glaring fault of 20th century economic theory to respond to Marxist theories, was to put forth that capitalism, due to efficiencies of marketplace, would serve as a basis for democracy. This is AFTER two world wars had pointed out just the opposite:

But the reasons for the triumph of democracy, especially over its nondemocratic capitalist rivals of the two world wars, Germany and Japan, were more contingent than is usually assumed. Authoritarian capitalist states, today exemplified by China and Russia, may represent a viable alternative path to modernity, which in turn suggests that there is nothing inevitable about liberal democracy's ultimate victory -- or future dominance.

Germany, in 1914 had capitalism as its economic basis, and yet that basis *supported*, and fully, the authoritarian regime of the Kaiser. The spread of socialism did temper that, somewhat, but that did not change the attitude of the Nation nor did it give rise to a people who saw anything wrong with a Germany as driving force controlling European affairs. Mr. Gat then goes into some depth on World War II and points to some telling issues on authoritarian capitalism and the dedication within Germany during that conflict:

Nor did the totalitarian capitalist regimes lose World War II because their democratic opponents held a moral high ground that inspired greater exertion from their people, as the historian Richard Overy and others have claimed. During the 1930s and early 1940s, fascism and Nazism were exciting new ideologies that generated massive popular enthusiasm, whereas democracy stood on the ideological defensive, appearing old and dispirited. If anything, the fascist regimes proved more inspiring in wartime than their democratic adversaries, and the battlefield performance of their militaries is widely judged to have been superior.

One of the most telling parts of why World War II turned out as it did is that the German State control over capitalism was inefficient and a bit short sighted. An example of this is that the German regime saw no need to invest in new aircraft designs after 1939, as they were certain that they did not NEED better aircraft. When re-investment into design did re-start, it happened at many different design bureaus, each competing for scarce resources and limited factory production time. Germany, itself, did not move to a three-shift industrial basis until 1943, and then only under the duress of need to keep equipment supplies up for its military as it had used the two-shift basis to ensure that there was domestic accord during wartime. What one gets from looking at that situation and the pre-war research status of Germany, even without its Jewish scientists, is very frightening due to the lax attitude of the Western powers during that same era. Even more basic, however, is that these were capitalist societies at war and capitalism did not lead to democracy and fully supported in WWII an authoritarian Nation as it did in WWI.

The outcome of warfare and State power is contingent upon many aspects, and getting logistics, supplies and ensuring that there is enough advancement of production to meet that of opposition advances is critical. Actual reasons for Germany being unable to sustain production are due more to lack of industrial capacity and vulnerability to having critical supply components cut off for wartime production. In that realm, trade and transport capacity as the basis for logistical supplies are key, and the reliance of Germany upon oceanic supply lines allowed superior naval forces to stalemate its supply lines in WWI and to interdict them in WWII. That is *also* a contingent basis phenomena as before WWI Germany had sought out a strategic ally to remedy the oceanic supply lines and give it a thoroughly land-line basis with minimal exposure to seaborne attack. That ally was the Ottoman Empire.

In one of the forgotten portions of history, there is one element that has been almost absolutely forgotten for strategic supply of Germany during WWI. It is forgotten because it was forestalled by the war and played no part in it because it had not been completed, but it was being built. This was a movement to get an insured overland capacity from Baghdad to Berlin: The Baghdad Railroad. That had been blocked in 1911 by Great Britain, and the movement to complete it stagnated and then halted, so that by the time war arrived in 1914 it would play little to no part in the actual supply of German industrial capacity. Nothing foreordained an assassination of an Arch Duke by factional separatist in 1914, although the building to war had been a common thread of thought for many years leading up to that point in time. Nor was it foreordained that Germany would not complete the portions already in work and expand its war plans on contingent basis so that a swift delivery of arms and material down it to seize Mesopotamian oil resources from British and Persian interests. That is *not* something that capitalism would drive against and, indeed, with the support of the German government, would be seen as a necessity to sooner, or later, actually secure those resources.

The fighting stalemate and loss of industrial capacity in Germany, with those resources, would not have happened as quickly with that railroad built, and the entry of the US would not be an assured thing either: US oil needs, if minimally met by German controlled fields, would preclude the US from wanting to actually join the war. By having British control of those fields, and having resource needs met by Arab and Persian output, the US saw no need to side with Germany. Additionally the isolationist President Wilson, in our world, put forth a very limited war plan so that ALL of the enemies of the Anglo-French alliance did not need to be targeted.

With any consequential petroleum resources held by Germany and threat to take more of same, plus a stalemate in the Euoropean theater, President Wilson would be forced to put the economic needs of the US aside and join the Allies or to fully fight *all* of the Allies of Germany. There would even be the case made that supporting Germany so as to *influence* it and its allies was in the US interest for the long-term spread of democracy and liberalization of those regimes. That was a case hard to put forth with Germany relatively isolated, but a Germany with more resources and active in the Middle East then puts Germany combat expertise in support of the Ottoman Empire.

World War I was not foreordained to be the US coming in to save the Alliance bacon and then fouling up its handling of the Middle East for 90 years thereafter. With one relatively simple shift in outlook, one that the Kaiser could easily have taken umbrage to, the entire geo-strategic basis for World War I would have changed and harshly. If the Aussies had problems at Gallipoli with Ottoman Turks there, imagine the problems they would have with Germany supported Ottoman troops with more modern weapons and tactics. And securing victory against the Ottomans by the British from the south would have to be concentrated on attempting to regain natural resources and be faced with German troops attempting to isolate Persia and threaten Arabian oil supplies and other Middle Eastern natural resources. Not to speak of the Suez Canal.

That is because Germany was a *capitalist* Nation that could use the productive capabilities of capitalism to reinforce itself for Imperial means. A world of one relatively modest and simple shift, with the Schlieffen Plan then expanded by later strategists and *reworked* by them would then have yielded a truly horrific war with NO assured outcome to it in any way, shape or form. And a heavily isolationist America would see problems supporting *either* side in that conflict and German intimidation would have been much more telling against a weak President Wilson who had seen no need to actively respond to earlier intimidation against Germany until after the Lusitania had been sunk. A true German-Ottoman Middle Eastern Campaign would have been lethal to decisiveness to Woodrow Wilson who would attempt to appease the tyrants, oppose intervention and even try to use his good offices to ameliorate the conflict... which the British and French would then see as stalling while their production resource *base* was being threatened with OVERLAND interdiction that could not be addressed due to Ottoman and German reinforced fortifications along the Dardanelles that would be necessary to secure that limited waterway. As it was the cost was high in ships and men to attempt to do that with the minimal Ottoman fortifications of that era.

That 'inevitability of history' and ability of 'liberal democracy' to win, is based more on production capacity and strength and commitment to utilizing it, than is the actual forms of liberal democracy to win adherents. Here Mr. Gat has a very salient view on what the outcome of world without the US as a coherent Nation would have been:

Throughout the twentieth century, the United States' power consistently surpassed that of the next two strongest states combined, and this decisively tilted the global balance of power in favor of whichever side Washington was on. If any factor gave the liberal democracies their edge, it was above all the existence of the United States rather than any inherent advantage. In fact, had it not been for the United States, liberal democracy may well have lost the great struggles of the twentieth century. This is a sobering thought that is often overlooked in studies of the spread of democracy in the twentieth century, and it makes the world today appear much more contingent and tenuous than linear theories of development suggest. If it were not for the U.S. factor, the judgment of later generations on liberal democracy would probably have echoed the negative verdict on democracy's performance, issued by the fourth-century-BC Greeks, in the wake of Athens' defeat in the Peloponnesian War.

This was a prime worry amongst the Founding Generation and democracy, to this day, has not won through because of superiority of system, but due to superiority of resources and ability to utilize them. It was a highly and hotly argued point during the period of 1783-87, that the track record for liberal democracy was not only not good, but had inherent flaws and weaknesses in it that made it more liable to deterioration and final movement to tyranny as the unchecked sway of public opinion would come to dominate any forum of government. The ability of government to bestow gifts and favoritism, influence debate and pander to the public makes democracy a highly unstable system of government.

The success of liberal democracy may be in the absence of other viable forms of government, not due to inherent stability and structural superiority. That is brought up by Mr. Gat and is highly worth thinking about:

Because the totalitarian capitalist great powers, Germany and Japan, were crushed in war, and these countries were subsequently threatened by Soviet power, they lent themselves to a sweeping restructuring and democratization. Consequently, smaller countries that chose capitalism over communism had no rival political and economic model to emulate and no powerful international players to turn to other than the liberal democratic camp. These small and medium-sized countries' eventual democratization probably had as much to do with the overwhelming influence of the Western liberal hegemony as with internal processes. Presently, Singapore is the only example of a country with a truly developed economy that still maintains a semiauthoritarian regime, and even it is likely to change under the influence of the liberal order within which it operates. But are Singapore-like great powers that prove resistant to the influence of this order possible?

By the polarizing influence of the Cold War, two systems were pushed hard as viable alternatives, not due to their inherent superiority as government types, but due to their economic capacity imbued in the two superpowers. From this the victory in the Cold War is not one of moral superiority of one government type over another, but the actual economic power of the two Nations involved and their ability to retain economic coherence. Moderate and small size Nations that embrace liberal democracy that succeed, as Nations, may have more to do with that underlying success in the social order of their cultures rather than the liberating influence of democracy. For every Taiwan, South Korea and India, there are Columbia, Trinidad & Tobago, Argentina, and Sudan that have shown that democracy, as a process, is not all that is necessary to succeed, nor that capitalism mixed in does much to help democracy out.

If capitalism is the great 'securer of liberty' then why are so many Nations with it having problems keeping to democratic and liberal ways? That simplistic view of Marx and many on the Right today, that economics guides society, has problems demonstrating that as an underlying fact without having to add in factors of culture, society and underlying legal structure. Similarly if democracy is the great 'cure all' for societal ills, then why are so many democratic governments so unstable and prone to overthrow and upheaval? For larger Nations inertia and size of population does play a role, also, and that must be taken into consideration when approaching this as a concept. Mr. Gat does bring this up within the modern context of Russia and China, and to any who have looked at where either of these Nations are, today, the underlying premise of the last 60 years that Nations will 'evolve' towards democracy because it is a 'superior system' are having problems in showing that. I have looked at China and the actual underpinnings of its growth are on bad debt, poor to no repayment, crony capitalism and working and environmental conditions that look more 19th century than 21st century.

Thus, on the actual ability of Nations to 'evolve' towards democracy, Mr. Gat puts forth the following:

It is widely contended that economic and social development create pressures for democratization that an authoritarian state structure cannot contain. There is also the view that "closed societies" may be able to excel in mass manufacturing but not in the advanced stages of the information economy. The jury on these issues is still out, because the data set is incomplete. Imperial and Nazi Germany stood at the forefront of the advanced scientific and manufacturing economies of their times, but some would argue that their success no longer applies because the information economy is much more diversified. Nondemocratic Singapore has a highly successful information economy, but Singapore is a city-state, not a big country. It will take a long time before China reaches the stage when the possibility of an authoritarian state with an advanced capitalist economy can be tested. All that can be said at the moment is that there is nothing in the historical record to suggest that a transition to democracy by today's authoritarian capitalist powers is inevitable, whereas there is a great deal to suggest that such powers have far greater economic and military potential than their communist predecessors did.

This is an ideological blind spot of Western thought in the post-20th century era, and one that is now hitting the entire foundation of the modern Nation State very hard. In the era of hard-hearted diplomacy, the underlying foundation of international affairs was:

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”
- Lord Palmerston

With that being the case, the older views of societies being represented by their government and having that government reflect much in the way of that society is one that becomes an issue. The Cold War stasis may have imposed an artificial choice upon Nations that pushed them into roles based on superpower alignment and *not* upon government as representative of societal outlook. To those who grew up in the latter half of the 20th century, that sounds like an archaic, parochial and even heavily discriminatory statement. That is exactly what it is and with good reason. It is biased and discriminatory because Nation States ARE that way by design. The entire Nation State system is one of differentiating populations by self-adherence and having common government, even if it is authoritarian, dictatorial, repressive and genocidal.

From this viewpoint, the United States is the safeguard of liberal democracy by its ability to hold its own democracy together. Mr. Gat does close out on the hopeful note that the US will most likely remain the foremost economic power globally, even if China realizes its potential as current forecasters are wont to forecast. What is not addressed directly, and only peripherally by Mr. Gat, is the actual essence that for the US to have such capability it must remain in its current state of affairs and not decline nor change overmuch in its outlook and internal coherence. History is, however, a contingent basis phenomena that plays upon things done and undone, both great and small, playing out from the level of individuals to that of Nation States. Small changes in perspective within a known and given scope, while seemingly trivial at the time, say the Kaiser taking a disliking to the British concept of oversight in the area of Mesopotamia, and continuing to extend rail coverage so as to exploit other resources and build a means to get troops and supplies to that region quickly. That is not a major change and, in actuality, rather trivial for the era involved, and yet the ramifications of *not* doing that led to the world we are in today.

That said the actual basis of democracy is citizen exercise of the franchise right in voting and the disturbing long term trends in the US have been evident for over 3 decades. The years of Presidential Elections typically see higher participation than in the mid-term elections for Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate.




The above taken from US Census datasets.

America is no longer a majoritarian ruled Nation. On the Presidential year a bit over 58% of the population came out to vote, which means the actual selective group that voted the current Administration back into office was 53% of 58%, or about 31%. Even worse is the more representative seats in the House and 1/3 of the Senate that see a selective body size for the United States of less than 25% of the population as a whole. This is not the signs of a healthy democracy nor, indeed, OF a democracy at all. The much vaunted two-party system has significantly degraded the turn out of the population so that those interested enough to vote on a Presidential year is about the same as those willing to show up for the less interesting mid-terms.... of 1966. In 40 years 14% of the US population has moved from utilizing their franchise right to not doing so during Presidential elections, and a very similar 12% have declined to do so over that same period for the Mid-Terms. The United States has moved from bare majoritarian rule to minoritarian rule over that same time span, so that even a 'landslide' is unlikely to represent half of the voting eligible population.

During the Founding Generation there were views on what good government was and was not. In from Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 26 on 22 DEC 1787 we see the following when speaking about the improbability of the government to continue on with standing armies when not needed, but the general point is well taken:

Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable that every man the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

Is a minoritarian selected government good government by this standard? The backstops to prevent this, which Hamilton mentions earlier, are that the State Governments would serve as check and balance against the Federal Government. Thus, legislatures in the States would act as bodies to ensure good Federal Government is achieved and no State denied of its rights and protections under the Constitution. Unfortunately those have been undermined and the actual basis for the Congress changed since the founding, as I discussed in the introduction to another article looking at this, with this lengthy excerpt:

In 1909 the US had called for an International Opium Conference to start to limit the opium trade This had been spurred on by American missionaries in the Far East that had seen the social havoc of opium in China and the social decay of it there along with disrupting the counter-insurgency work of the Philippines by the US. The Hague Convention of 1912 would lead to international agreements on limiting or eliminating the opium trade. This Conference would lead to the very first legislation in the US to curb drugs: Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. This law was the very first in US history in which Congress tried to decide what an individual could or could not ingest in the way of drugs. This was done due to that missionary zeal and the feeling that such drugs were ruining the Nation as a whole. And it is hard to see where opium in cough syrup was a great help to much of anyone, since it hid tuberculosis. The use of it by mothers on children was a problem and should have been restricted by the States. This feeling by the prohibitionists to outlaw such was one that ran strongly religious communities, which saw the overseas use of such drugs and worked to marginalize or eliminate them for use in the US. Still, it was under Treaty obligations that the Harrison Act was promulgated, to uphold the US signing on to the 1912 Hague Convention. The far reaching effects of this are felt to this day with organized crime and Narco-terrorism rife in those areas that grow plants that lead to making narcotics and makes it such a profitable business in the criminal realm to this day. For the first time a social movement to limit the rights of Citizens had gained a foothold in America after the Civil War.

Also started in 1909 was Amendment XVI to the US Constitution that would allow Congress to collect income tax. Prior to that the US used a system of property taxes and tariffs to generate income, but the first was seen as being unwieldy and the movement to income tax was pushed by a view that the wealthy were not paying their share of the burden in the Nation. While it has done that, it has also been broadened to include such things as tips, wagers on bets, and even finding something of value and selling it. All of that now falls within the power first given to Congress once this Amendment was ratified in 1913. Until that point in time taxes were levied via apportionment to the States via the census so that it would fall equally upon all in the Union. Also in this era was the Clayton Antitrust Act that would further limit monopoly power and cover problems with business sales and mergers that would unduly concentrate market power as an extension of the Sherman Antitrust Act. These were aimed at reducing the power of wealthy individuals, but also put power in the hands of Congress to apportion taxation as it saw fit upon income. While this may have made collecting taxes 'easier' the question of if such would actually lead to a 'fairer' assessment of taxes is still debated. With the ability of wealthy individuals to get loopholes and tax havens and other means to gain income outside of the income routes, the burden of this has fallen to the working class, by and large, although the wealthiest still do pay the largest amount in taxes. In the modern era the movement back to a more 'flat tax' which removes all loopholes is one that continues to be seen as more fair, even if graduated by income, as it removes the power of lobbyists to unduly influence legislation on behalf of the wealthy.

In 1911 the movement for the direct election of Senators by the public was put into what would become Amendment XVII which would also be ratified in 1913. Here the ill was seen as bribery and corruption at the State level to gain Senate seats, and these problems continued on for decades. Some States ran referenda to elect Senators and the election date was also regularized to that of the General Election. Still, the ability to 'wheel and deal' at the State level to gain Senate seats was seen as a major problem by the majority, and this Amendment was made to allow for direct selection by popular vote. This also changed the balance of power so that both Houses of Congress were now in hands of direct election instead of by dispersing power to the States and the People for the Senate and House respectively. The concentration of power in Washington via those that could win and continue to win these elections changed the turnover rate in the Senate and removed a major role for the States to play in the Federal system of governance. Previously that had been a check on Federal power via the States and a limit to the People so that more moderate voices could be heard in the Senate.

Also in 1911 came Public Law 62-5 which would permanently set the size of the House at 435 members and allow voting portion to float while keeping a set House size. With the enactment of this law in 1913, the modern Congress type would be set and the difficulties of it would take time to manifest. The first and most important of these is that as the population increased, the amount of diversity in the House remained the same. Seats would shift from State to State, instead of having States grow in their number of seats over time. Although gerrymandering or 'non-compact districts' had always been a problem, they were seen as amenable to the fact that more would be created over time. Re-draw the districts every decade and you get a different mix of communities. In a set system, the redraws come at a much lower rate and only happen due to internal shifts in proportion of population, not absolute size. With that comes House seats that become 'safe' election after election and often for decades at a time with a single member for that seat.

Finally, in 1919 would come Amendment XVIII for the Prohibition of Alcohol, and while that would be repealed, it pointed to how far social ills were seen as needing a National remedy instead of via local control. Taken as a whole, these Amendments and Public Law would greatly change the nature of representative democracy within the Republic of the United States and start a major power shift towards Washington. With that would also come the money of wealthy individuals to start influencing this new form of Government and change the outlook of the Federal system itself in that doing. Lobbying this more constant government set-up would entrench power and money over time and give affluence access to the National Government.

In that short span of time the US Federal Government went from one with State check and balances against over-reach to one in which the States became secondary players to direct elective capability of the general population. By further diluting representation via the shifting to a fixed House size, as the population increased the voice of each individual would become less important over time. By the time the late 1930's rolled around the power and influence of the Federal Government would be waxing, and hard, to try and keep up with those self-same authoritarian capitalist societies that were seen as having worked their way out of the Depression, while liberal democracies were still trying to cope with those problems.

The solution given by the election of FDR was to increase Federal Government power by putting forth various programs to change the labor outlook of the Nation. First was to remove older workers from the workforce, via the Social Security System, so as to allow younger workers greater access to it. That temporary fix for a limited time has continued on indefinitely, until the changes in lifespan due to increasing technological capability have put the very basis for it at risk: Federal Government will be devoted entirely to this 'entitlement' and have no funds left for anything else by 2050. Before that, there will come a time when there will not be sufficient funds to actually run the government and either the government itself will have to be cut back more and more until it ceases to exist, or taxation will need to be increased, over time, until more and more of the money earned is taken and given to the older, retired generations.

Generations. Plural. Increasing lifespan has put this worker-based payoff to the retired as a lethal pill to the Republic as the number of retirees decrease the number of workers to support them over time. This has been known as a problem since the early 1980's, but this form of government that has been created has proven absolutely incapable of dealing with a structural threat that was created in the 1930's. Which was a temporary way to increase those working so as to get out of the Depression. And as the older generation votes out of proportion with the younger cohorts, the political power has shifted with it. Those feeling disenfranchised are increasingly the young and middle aged, working generations who are needing to continue on supporting older Americans who utilize Social Security as a means to retire with two or more DECADES of active retirement ahead of them. In the 1930's the life expectancy was only a few years beyond the retirement age, not decades.

In theory, 'older and wiser heads' should have self-limited this so as to ensure that a healthy means of sustaining the Republic was achieved. Yet it is those older Representatives and Senators, who have held seats for decades, that have utilized that Government transfer payment system to ensure that older individuals now get disproportionate benefit from that transfer system and vote to continue it onwards. While decreasing taxation helps to build the economy, the demographic shift is far harder and faster than economic expansion, even in the best of years. When there are times of limited growth, or 'recession', then the demographics move faster than the economic expansion can handle them. The global economy has not seen a 'depression' or actual shrinking in economies on a global scale since the 1930's.

It is exactly this marginalization of the franchise right that was worrying to one of those that stood as an Anti-Federalist, as those who saw problems with the Constitution were named. He was John Lansing, from New York, who had this to say at the New York ratifying convention for the Constitution on 24 JUN 1788:

It is further objected to this amendment, that it will restrain the people from choosing those who are most deserving of their suffrages, and will thus be an abridgment of their rights. I cannot suppose this last inference naturally follows. The rights of the people will be best supported by checking, at a certain point, the current of popular favor, and preventing the establishment of an influence which may leave to elections little more than the form of freedom. The Constitution of this state says, that no man shall hold the office of sheriff or coroner beyond a certain period. Does any one imagine that the rights of the people are infringed by this provision? The gentlemen, in their reasoning on the subject of corruption, seem to set aside experience, and to consider the Americans as exempt from the common vices and frailties of human nature. It is unnecessary to particularize the numerous ways in which public bodies are accessible to corruption. The poison always finds a channel, and never wants an object. Scruples would be impertinent, arguments would be in vain, checks would be useless, if we were certain our rulers would be good men; but for the virtuous government is not instituted: its object is to restrain and punish vice; and all free constitutions are formed with two views——to deter the governed from crime, and the governors from tyranny.

Uninhibited government duration of individuals in office was seen as a major problem at the State level when the Constitution was created. With 'the establishment of an influence which may leave to elections little more than the form of freedom' has come the movement of those elected to be done by minorities within the population and moved by minoritarian agenda that purports to be good for the whole of the people but that cannot GET the whole of the people to turn out for them. Those that put forth that this disenfranchisement is a reflection of the voting whole need to demonstrate that by having an agenda that can, in actuality, get a majority of the voting population to vote for it... or even, in Congressional Mid-Terms, to even SHOW UP at the ballot box.

If agendas by the two party system are so good for the Republic, then why do they not strike more fervor in the population and get folks off their butts to come out and vote for them? That can, apparently, only be done in Presidential election years and, even with that, the slide has been ever downwards since the early 1960's and that steepest decline then points to a marginalization of a large and important segment of the US population that has been so turned off by the type of politics seen that they are and remain unconvinced, over time, that the franchise actually has meaning in America.

Democracy, at its basis for representative government, requires majoritarian participation and approval to have meaning. That 70% figure of the 1964 election was worrying *then* for it put forth that even after a Presidential ASSASSINATION there was 30% of the American people that did not see any reason to vote for a President. And that was from a President that was greatly mourned, there was a part of the population that could not be moved enough to recognize the simple act of voting would or could make a difference. In 1964. The disaffection with Americans for their political parties and those put forth to represent them has only increased since then.

Those are extremely worrying and trendlines for the Nation that is supposed to be the great supporter and, if this historical analysis is correct on the actual reasons for democracy and liberal views of liberty and freedom being correct, an overall concern of actually retaining a concept of such simple things as democracy actually being a force for empowerment of the individual over the long haul. If we now cannot convince more than 61% of the people to come and vote for a PRESIDENT, as seen in all of the elections starting in 1976, then what is the basis for any optimism on this concept of 'majority rule' by 'consent of the governed'? When 40% of the people do not show up, that IS the majority rule: to NOT vote for ANY party or individual for ANY position in government.

That is not sheer laziness or inertia.

It is a vote of 'no confidence' by staying home and withholding the franchise support of the government in all particulars. The 'inertia' part comes in on the Mid-Terms when an additional 13% just don't care enough about representative democracy to vote for a representative to do this thing known as REPRESENT THEM. That is what representative democracy means. Voting for an individual to represent YOU. There is an absolute majority in the Mid-Terms that have voted for NO representative government for the United States and that is, exactly, what we have gotten: Government that no longer represents the Will of the People.

What it does represent is the will of the ideologues and partisans in politics. And even *they* cannot get a significant plurality to claim representative government, so that 'majority rule' now is down to less than 25%. Compare that to the NSDAP in 1932 during a National election that saw 80% of the voters turn out and won 33% of the vote for just over 26% of National representation. That was enough to swing the tide of power and the 1933 election with 88% of the people showing up at the polls would see it garner nearly 44% of the vote or nearly 39% of the entire voting age population. Yes, the NAZI Party did better in a multiparty system, getting votes in their off-year, 1932, by a couple of percent BETTER than either party in the US does today and they did far better in 1933 for actual percent of the population than the US did in the last Presidential election.

And the US has a two-party system, which, in theory, should make it far *easier* to get substantive plurality of the population to get out and vote for it.

What is that about the superiority of the two party representative democracy to that of the multiparty system that voted the NAZI party to power?

How about that Senate trying to pass laws that don't go through conference and that they want to restrict debate on? Such a lovely democracy we have! Almost as good as that of Weimar Germany in 1932.

Almost as good.

Thank you to the Right and the Left for getting us this system. Apparently you can't do as well as the Nazis did, but I know you sure are trying to, aren't you?

Sphere: Related Content

Dumb Looks Still Free: Question Authority?

Yes, yet another cheap post where I get to copy and paste a comment given elsewhere and make it into a post here! Its a two-fer and saves typing time... still, there is always some fun to be had with such and I can easily comment on any knowing thing in an inane way and almost make some sense, now and again. Or feed an encyclopedia through a Cuisinart and then take the resulting scraps and paste them together to get the same effect.

This time I was at Rusted Sky a bit closer to the present time, and the good site owner had a post on 'Questioning Authority' as the epitath of the Nation. Yet again some value was found in my meanderings and thought put forth and the site owner added yet more into the concept! Still, the idea of that lovely and charming 'Question Authority' did, get a response to do that and so my response is given here. As with all such, you get it just as I put it down, with dictionary thrown out the window, syntax twirled through the air and logic left to the fair winds of time, with just a bit of reformatting to make it almost readable:

I do love the one button I picked up way back when on this topic, quite the way to put things in perspective:

"Question Authority -
Ask me anything."

Then there is the 'speak the truth to power' concept, which always assumes that one is unbiased and the wall outlet is biased... which it had better be for most appliances.

Still, the nub of it is that in some way by doing the questioning and speaking one will play upon the conscience of the authority/power. I mean if you already *think* that you are being lied to... then you are doing an exercise in self-fulfillment, but really not much beyond that and definitely not working towards 'making a more perfect Union'.

Questioning competence or even the ability of those with some power and/or authority to do something *right* is something else again, and We the People clearly demarcate not only what the power *is* but what the limits and responsibilities *are*. Thus when I hear a Congresscritter decrying the lack of supplies to the Armed Forces, the Constitution tells me which part of government gets to set out, scope and ensure funding for these things: Congress. Funds may be ill spent, but that is *also* done with full Congressional oversight and mandate by the laws it passes and the resultant bureaucracy it creates. A Congresscritter decrying those things had best look in the mirror to apportion blame and responsibility or realize that they have just indicted themselves as *incompetent* and without a clue as to their actual power and responsibilities.

The extra, special fun these days is the generation that first promulgated these memes is NOW the one in power and authority and they do *not* like being questioned or having 'truth' spoken to them. So lovely, that.

And if one is actually doing the questioning and truth-speaking it is best to know what you are actually talking about... or the actual question and truth one is speaking may suddenly show up one's *own* inability. That would be far more entertaining if those doing that weren't screaming so much about how they want the world to run to *their* liking and biases.... then it is mere juvenile ranting, which wears on the nerves very quickly.

Of course there is a button for every situation, and the best for this is:

"All power corrupts...
But we need the electricity."

Ah, buttons!

One could live their life with just buttons to give solace and guidance to a weary noggin.

The world obviously needs more buttons!

Sphere: Related Content

Dumb Looks Still Free: Its all a Conspiracy, isn't it?

Why, yes, I do give feedback at a site, now and again, and this time I finally realized that I had intended to post this bit in response to a post at Rusted Sky on da troofers! And the good site owner so liked the response he used it to bonus off of it for another post, which means that someone not only read what I put down but *thought* about it!

Amazing this communication business in the 21st century...

In any event the original post was on those seeking conspiracies to get to some sort of 'truth', and I did, indeed, respond to it as I felt that those wanting a conspiracy really... yes, really.... forgot to do just a bit of thinking on *why* such grandiloquent things just don't work too well. As with all my commentary I give it to you as written, no spelling checked, all twisted logic and syntax left in, with only a little smidgen of reformatting when needed:

Needless to say The Great Global Warming Swindle says it best when it points out that money is driving things... again, the planet has been here for a long, long time and methane has been far higher in atmospheric concentrations than it is *now* and we have *not* had runaway global warming. Ditto carbon dioxide. The chances of man-made global warming is about the same chances of me winning a lottery that I did not buy a ticket for... I could *find* the winning ticket on the street, but I wouldn't plan my future on that.

Both methane and carbon dioxide are driven by this thing known as *life*. Carbon dioxide is a lagging indicator of temperature, not a *leading* one. Methane from decomposition is an indicator of life: more life, more things dying and more methane as a result. Lower the temps and you lower carbon dioxide and methane. Raise the temps and both raise. The linkage is inverse as they follow temperatures, not *lead* temperatures.

That is how Mr. Gore can get away with putting up two graphs at a distance that seemingly correlate... superimpose them and the white space between them shows up with temperatures leading carbon dioxide. The level of fraud and deceit going on in the global warming activist community is disgraceful as they want to find data to fit their hypothesis. That is *not* science, which requires that hypothesis be *driven* by the data. And when the data changes, so does one need to revise the hypothesis.

Having grown up with my father being an electrical engineer, but he still had to work out the stresses in things like the Sears Tower for the elevator motors he helped design there, and from my own knowledge as a geologist on the forces involved in civil engineering projects, the lack of scientific and engineering background by any 'truther' movement, be it 9/11 or Global Warming or even something like the Kennedy Assassination, is astonishing. People say the damnedest things about engineering with little or no background in it. The structural engineers who *built* the twin towers were amazed that they were still standing after each strike and then realized what was going on and watched in horror as they knew what was coming. Similarly on global warming, politics pushes money... that pushes science and now thousands are employed in global warming who only have a job if they can convince you it is happening. Sort of like the Dept. of Education that *still* has not gotten reading levels up past 1958 where poor Johnny couldn't read.

Even things like the Kennedy Assassination you get a sniper pointing out that it wasn't an expert sniper that did it because he needed more than one shot to get the kill. Doing the physics analysis and looking at firing lines and firing times all points to one firing position, one weapon, one man. You can ask Oswald's *brother* about Lee and he will tell you why he did it... but, no, there must be a 'conspiracy'. Mere skill at being a Marine marksman with high grades and practicing with a known assassin's weapon mean *nothing* to those looking for the truth *out there*. Mere skill and a failed life shouldn't bring down a President, but that is America where *anybody* can do such things.

Basically, when you have to go 'another level deeper' to explain why the data isn't so, you know something is fishy. When nefarious conspiracies get added in, you can feel the hot air. So when you hear about conspiracies in an area like NOLA, you find that everyone wants politics to be the cause... not just a contributing factor with the main cause of subsidence remaining, to this day, unaddressed. For 9/11 you find that the hijackers spent hours in trainers learning how to fly their target aircraft, but spending little on learning take-off and landings. The instructors actually raised flags about that locally, and that got to one FBI office... and was ignored. But that is just bureaucracy, not malice aforethought.

Heading towards conspiracies is a dis-empowering concept: you absolve yourself of having to do anything and, instead, look for those trying to control the world via conspiracies. Thus you do not have to take part in the normal, humdrum and everyday world in which effects can have complex causes and not have easy remedies. My main gripe about such 'truthers' is that if there are groups "running the world" they are doing a damn poor job of it. Pure and outright incompetence, in fact, as any conspiracy or set of same that had so much capability and so much power wouldn't be so idiotic in the things they are purported to do.

But that is just me, and I do think strange thoughts.

And there you have it! Really, if any conspiracy *could* do so well as to keep itself unknown while being 'the real power', then they are DAMNED incompetent at running the rest of the planet.

Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead.
-Benjamin Franklin

Sphere: Related Content

Vietnam, then and now

Do you remember the Vietnam war protests? I do...

Vietnam War protest, Hawaii AUG 1967
...well maybe not that one...a bit too young...


San Francisco end war protest, 1967 (API)
...nor that... but somewhere in there things did start to get through...


Jane Fonda, John Kerry at rally
...certainly by this next one, yes.


VVAW Rally, 1971, Cambodian and Vietnamese flags
Yes there were folks waving the flags of those we were fighting, right here in America. Strange that... took awhile to take in... then I understood! We were NOT capturing enemy territory!

Very simple! Every single war film I had ever seen at that time really did get to something like that or ending the enemy's ability to get YOURS.

And their threat to your troops.

And their threat to innocents.

That was pretty obvious, then! These people wanted the war ended because we weren't fighting to win it!

Right?

No.


Photo: Univ. of Michigan
Well, these folks wanted the US to stop fighting, and the President did that.

And South Viet Nam collapsed.


Then we started to find out what it means when US troops leave innocents to the enemy.


Photo: Suffering of Vietnamese Boat People
Do you remember the Boat People?


Photo: UNHCR via Guardian
Folks fleeing from South Vietnam and, soon, neighbors who had also been overthrown by Communism. The ones that we gave 'peace' to, by leaving? Do you remember them?


Photo: Boatpeople.org
Surely you remember these innocents left to the tender mercies of a totalitarian society?


Photo Courtesy Iowa State
We left there because many decried those that were dying due to fighting when we were there. Remember that? The US was the cause of those deaths, right?


Photo: Boatpeople.org
Apparently when we left the fighting didn't stop. Something was wrong in this 'peace' ideal.


From Davids Mediencritic,
villager remains after North Vietnamese offensive
But we left with the very BEST of intentions! To SAVE LIVES... or so they said... remember how earnest people were about it?


Photo Louisiana State University Archives
But then those were American lives. An easy point to sell, that. While those lives that would be "saved" overseas? How was *that* going to happen without those wanting 'peace' going there to 'make peace'?


End of the Hmong, Newsweek, 27 AUG 1979
If the US was the *cause* of the war and the *cause* of the conflict and the *cause* of the killing it should have STOPPED once we left. Or those who wanted 'peace' should have put their lives on the line to go and make what they sought for. No one forced these people to protest for 'peace'. And their consciences would not force them to back up their fine ideals, either.


Photo Elmhurst College Archives
Right? Say, this 'Peace' thing that all these folks marched about... how many actually went out of their way to WORK for it? Not in America... apparently ending war is not the same as creating peace.

How many of these vaunted thousands actually did 'something' that was not protesting, not dropping acid, not tuning out, not yelling, not screaming and not flipping the bird at authority?


Pa Ndau story cloth hill tribes flee Laos for Thailand, Courtesy UC Irvine
Where did all those folks for 'Peace' go?


Photo: Killing Fields, Cambodia, courtesy CNN
Didn't they care about Cambodia becoming Kampuchea? Or was this 'making peace' business that they espoused and took up just grand sloganeering? Just a cheap way to say: "Its not my war and to HELL with the those that depend upon me. I am more important than keeping faith with my Nation's commitments."


Pathet Lao revenge on the Hmong, Painting Cy Thao, Photo David Kern
Who would step up to 'make peace'? Or stop the revenge being inflicted upon the Hmong who helped the US?


Pathet Lao revenge on the Hmong, Painting Cy Thao, Photo David Kern
Apparently, actually WORKING for 'peace' was too much to expect. How easy to mouth the words against war. How hard it was to put your life on the line to go and take up the responsibility you wanted when the Nation left those that needed us. So easy to forget that when it is not your war, and you want it ended, then you are the holder of that self-same 'peace'.

Photo: Courtesy Lehigh University, Pol Pot's Killing Fields
And so the 'brave' anti-war protesters delivered up a different sort of 'peace' to those that relied upon the US to support an ally in a far off land.


Photo: History Place, Pol Pot's Genocide
Well they were, after all, foreigners. Useful as a pawn to talk about, but nothing compared to American lives as a selling point. These 'peace' protesters did give them 'peace', these people who depended upon us in a far-off land.

The 'peace' of the grave.

And today? How do those that survived in the aftermath feel?


Photo Drew Anderson, University of Texas

Electrical engineering senior Phuoc Tran hangs a former Democratic South Vietnamese flag decoration at the Socialist Republic of Vietnam flag protest on the University Center mall. President Spaniolo decided to hang the current Vietnamese flag in Nedderman Hall, and the Vietnamese Student Association wants it taken down.

Apparently a few still hold fast to what was left behind.

Demonstrators protest in Lafayette Park across from the White House, Friday, June 22, 2007, as Nguyen Minh Triet, the president of Vietnam was to meet with President Bush. The first visit of a Vietnamese president to the White House since the Vietnam War comes amid harsh criticism by U.S. lawmakers of the communist-led nation's human rights record. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
h/t: Gateway Pundit

Yes, all those lovely protesters back in the war days... used their freedom... so others could lose theirs. And their sons and daughters get to protest that loss.

Demonstrators protest in Lafayette Park across from the White House, Friday, June 22, 2007, as Nguyen Minh Triet, the president of Vietnam was to meet with President Bush. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
h/t: Gateway Pundit

That is so 'empowering', I am sure that this is *exactly* what those fine anti-war protesters of yesteryear wanted... No?


Photo Courtesy: Mark Rightmire, The Orange County Register
So where are all the 'peace' protesters today?

Hoi Pham, 73, of Westminster, says he wants freedom and democracy for Vietnam. He waves the American and former South Vietnamese flags.
(Photo: Allen J. Schaben / LAT)

For there are some that do remember what that 'peace' gave them.

So before decrying the wages of a war you see as wrong... remember the wages of an unjust 'peace' that the absence of war can bring.

Peace, above all things, is to be desired, but blood must sometimes be spilled to obtain it on equable and lasting terms.

Andrew Jackson

Sphere: Related Content

Robots for the future of farming

Major h/t to Instapundit linking to this Wired article on automated harvesting done by robots. This was also seen in an earlier Modern Marvels on the History Channel, which caused me to ask, at the time: If robotic 'beta versions' are being tested *now* then how long until production versions come around?

That centered on the multi-spectral sensors on gripping hands to judge fruit quality and send tactile feedback for picking of same. Since such sensors, which would include chemical sensors, do not rely on sunlight (looking more to IR and other non-visible spectra) and using chemical sensors to determine fruit quality and ripeness, one is soon in the position of picking delicate fruit (peaches, pears, apples, etc.) without the need for hand harvesting while keeping quality high. So to get an idea of jobs that humans will not need to do, by and large, lets start hitting that sector of the economy and find out just how much longer there will be jobs that *people* will need to do in the agricultural sector of the US.

To get started lets head over to the UK for a look at a back-breaking job if ever there was one: picking cauliflower. The Pera company points to its first pre-production model of an automated cauliflower harvester, that should be coming to market in the next few years.

Well, no one said these things would be a joy to look at! Still, this is a finicky vegetable that does require good handling and picking, and getting *that* into the automated realm is a huge plus to eliminating back breaking work in the world.

Not to be outdone, Giulio Reina's work at the University of Salento's Department of Innovative Engineering (on leave this year to Tokyo's Space Robotics Laboratory) points to a paper for robotic harvesting of raddicchio. While a pretty sturdy plant, it does need some specialized handling and the paper goes through the parameters of vision, examination and picking of it via an automated process. Who knows, the price of the stuff might come down a bit!

The University of Western Australia has been developing a sheep shearing robot, of all things!



And after seeing the Dirty Jobs episode of shaving alpaca, I can understand *why* someone would want to automate this for sheep... and if you can do this in a production line environment then the Shear Magic is the robot for your sheeply needs.



Yes, many jobs to go by the wayside in the sheep business with this, plus a reduced risk of getting things like anthrax. Apparently that is something that Australians would prefer that NO ONE gets from doing that job.

The TimesOnline (UK) reported in 2005 on the automated cow milking machine, so that one can have no fuss nor muss when having to get that task done day in and day out. There appear to be lots of jobs that folks in the UK and Australia just don't want to do!

Well, far be it from the US to lag behind, and Carnegie Mellon University has been at the forefront of automated harvesting of crops in an unattended fashion. Yes, set the harvester to go, day or night, and off it goes into the field to harvest the crops. To step just a second to another dirty job, how would you like something to help automate the fun job of paint removal?


M3500 Ultra Strip

Brought to you by the researchers at CMU! For those of you who don't think paint stripping is the best of all possible jobs on the planet.

CMU is famous for having been awarded a contract for the Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle after the last DARPA Grand Challenge.



Apparently getting ammunition, supplies and such to soldiers on roads that are in or near hostile territory or frequented by IEDs is something that soldiers do, but would prefer to have robots do for them. And with this add-on package, called the UPI, the vehicle will perform even better against unknown parts of terrain or sudden problems.

But back to those *other* jobs Americans don't want to do!

How about lawn mowing for large areas? Yes the little home robot mowers are fine for the family yards, but, for things like golf courses... well... you need something a bit better. And that is what CMU is partnering with Toro on!



Ah, why should someone need to do *that* job, if a robot can do it for you? On the larger scale, for fields and orchards and such, there is the automated water sprayer system, also from CMU and partnering with John Deere.



Why should anyone have to just drive around and around hauling a spray system? Sounds very robotic so let a robot do it! One can get a full run-down of the CMU program here in their Projects vs Capabilities page.

The University of Kentucky with BAE systems has been working very hard at automating the tobacco harvest, as seen at their page on same. Their paper on mechanizing the harvest is here. Who would have guessed that Americans would prefer to have machines pick tobacco? The UK/BAE work is also looking into precision agriculture for forecasting, watering and soil analysis. Getting good and solid info on soil type, moisture content, plant nutrient needs and such is critical to doing robotics and better farm management, so that higher yields and lower utilization of pesticides and fertilizer allow for precision application *just* in the amounts needed and only where it is needed.

In 2001 Loyola College spun of its World Technology Evaluation Center into a corporation, WTEC, and it held a robotics conference in 2006 (full page here), looking across a broad array of uses of robotics across industries and environments. That conference looked at the wide array of types of robotics currently in use, in design and proposed, from such things as the Sony Aibo and Roomba to proposed environmental research vehicles to find the precursors to off-shore algal plumes that endanger fisheries. Yes, getting that data is, apparently, a job that is better suited to a robot than a scientist.

What all of this is leading to, of course, is RoboFarm. The first test of the automated farm is being done in Monterey County, to work with things like lettuce, strawberries and other farm produce that currently needs a lot of hard work to get picked. This is the first real integration of all the technology from soup to nuts, from GPS analyzed fields via automated systems to automated planting, watering, fertilizing, harvesting and packaging. The elimination of humans in the farm to make it more efficient. There will *always* be a place for human experience and the ability to integrate non-linear systems, of which farming is a prime one, but the removal of drudgery and labor intensive tasks that are limited to the fallible human for judgement and time on the job, means that better crops, more crops and cheaper crops will result due to lowered overhead and consumable expenditures via better crop management.

Within 10 years the first real hard changes will be towards eliminating humans completely from the mundane tasks of farming. And that will shift the areas of expertise to those areas that machines just don't do such a good job.

I am sure that we will become so lazy as to no longer wish to procreate.

Don't worry, there will be robots to help there, too.

Sphere: Related Content

The 1920 Brigades and what they are or aren't doing

A small update to Operation Phantom Thunder, and that is the 1920 Brigades feel that they shouldn't be included as actually helping! This via a few folks, but notably is Evan Kohlmann at Counterterrorism Blog, which cites this earlier AP via MSNBC account of 1920's working with the MNF. Mr. Kohlmann puts it like this:

In their flurry of responses, the 1920 Revolution Brigades scoffed at these reports as the product of an ongoing crusader media conspiracy designed to "cause trouble amongst the jihad factions." The group denied having any active "presence" in the Diyala province at this time and furthermore threatened to hunt down and punish anyone who maliciously attempts to "exploit" their name and reputation. Coming from a group whose former leader was assassinated only two months ago apparently at the hands of Al-Qaida, it is difficult to know for certain the degree to which these statements reflect the truth, or instead are mere lipservice aimed at avoiding further public controversy within the jihadist community.

Ah, 'factions'! Welcome to the wonderful world of factions and terrorism, brought to you by the letters AQI and, previously seen in the land of the letters IRA. Perhaps we heard from an 'Official 1920 Brigades' or 'Real 1920 Brigades' or 'Provisional 1920 Brigades' instead of the 1920 Brigades themselves!

Now the Terror Knowledge Base yields up a little on the 1920 Brigades, but it did take part in this incident, which is its major claim to fame:

The 1920 Revolution Brigades gained international media attention on 27 June 2004 when the Arab television network al-Jazeera broadcast a hostage video of captured U.S. marine Wassef Ali Hassoun. A group called Islamic Response, identifying themselves as the security wing of the 1920 Revolution Brigades, claimed responsibility for the kidnapping. The incident later appeared to be a hoax when Hassoun surfaced in his native Lebanon three weeks after he was supposedly captured. Hassoun then reported to the U.S. embassy in Beirut and returned to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina, but he disappeared again in January 2005 just before his military hearing.

We do all remember that episode, don't we? In any event we now have the ubiquitous phenomenon in the terrorist world of a 'security wing' sometimes even a 'military wing' for an already terroristic outlook. From Bill Roggio just a bit ago we get this on them:

The 1920 Revolution Brigades is considered the "nationalist element" of the Sunni, largely made up of members of Saddam's disbanded army and tribesmen. The Buhriz group turned on al Qaeda in April, after the group terrorized the local population. "[Al Qaeda] ruled Buhirz with tyranny, they really harmed our town," a member of the Sunni insurgent group told CNN. "We had to stop them, and they left, no return."

"Before, when al Qaeda was here, it was all killing and stealing," another insurgent said. "We would hide in our house this time of day [during daylight]. It was all kidnapping, killing and stealing."

Al Qaeda followed the same pattern of behavior in Anbar province, which led to the formation of the Anbar Salvation Council, the grouping of tribes and insurgents which battle al Qaeda. The 1920 Revolution Brigades makes up a significant portion of the leadership of the Anbar Salvation Council. Recently, the Anbar Salvation Council has sent expeditionary units into Salahadin, Diyala, Babil and Baghdad provinces to organize local Awakening movements and fight al Qaeda.

Part of the problem in believing that they are going back on their word in Diyala, is that then makes them look damned incapable to the folks in Anbar. So while the 1920 Brigades may be made up of ex-Ba'athists and a few other thugs and murder for fun folks, it doesn't really help much to go back on your word when it is given as that makes you look... well... untrustworthy. And if the Buhriz wish to have a longer life expectancy, it might be wise to figure out just what part of the 1920 Brigades is working for whom.

Now that just might be the case for Hamas in Iraq, as seen by IraqSlogger... ummm... 'Hamas in Iraq'? Ok, lets take it from the Slogger, on 29 MAR 2007:

A new group by the name of “Hamas of Iraq” has announced its formation, al-Melaf reports in Arabic.

This armed group has apparently been formed by seceding from the 1920 Revolution Brigades, which has carried out operations in many areas of the country.

This development points to the existence of divisions among the leadership of the various armed groups, which are becoming manifest as some groups follow the inclination to abandon armed operations and enter into negotiations with the government.

Sharp divisions have opened between the leaders who support these divisions, especially after the assassination attempt on the Deputy Prime Minister Salam al-Zubaei, and those who oppose them.

At the same time, al-Sabah carries a brief report pointing to splits emerging within groups affiliated with al-Qa'ida, which it says will isolate al-Qa'ida in Diyala and Anbar provinces. Al-Sabah says that the groups “would receive direct orders from Arab states” to give up armed operations and enter negotiations. The brief report does not name the groups or states it refers to.

This alleged splintering in Sunni organizations comes in tandem with reports of a similar splintering in the Mahdi Army, reported earlier.

Yes it is factionitis and splinter diversification going on! Quick, get a score card for 1920 Brigades as we can now add in - Islamic Response and Hamas in Iraq!

Buy one, get two free!

Now IraqSlogger (13 APR 2007) has a good rundown of those organizations that joined together to get rid of al Qaeda:

On Wednesday Iraqi President Jalal Talabani announced that he met with representatives of armed groups calling themselves the “national resistance,” Aswat al-Iraq reported earlier. The government is in the final stages of the negotiations, Talabani claimed.

The nine factions that signed that statement agreeing to coordinate their efforts against the Islamic State of Iraq via the new office are as follows:

Jaysh Ansar al-Sunna (Army of the Protectors of the Sunna)

Jaysh Ansar al-Muslimeen (Army of the Protectors of Muslims),

Jaysh al-Muslimeen (The Army of Muslims)

The 1920 Revolution Brigades

The Army of the Men of Tariqa Naqshabandiyya,

Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance

Al-Farouq Brigades

The Mustafa Brigades

The Ansar Allah Brigades

Yes, the 1920 Brigades are there! So 'nationalists' seeking an 'Islamic State of Iraq' but NOT controlled by any outside groups. Clear? Didn't think so... But al Qaeda has been going after the 1920 Brigades as seen by a chlorine truck bombing reported on by Mr. Roggio on 27 MAR 2007.


In any event apparently *someone* thought they were working with the MNF, from the ever doubtful when not reporting quotes AFP via ABC Australia on 01 JUN 2007:

Lieutenant General Raymond Odierno, the number two US officer in Iraq, has told reporters that about four-fifths of the militants currently fighting American forces are thought to be ready to join Iraq's political process.

"We want to reach back to them, and we're talking about cease-fires and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the Government of Iraq or against coalition forces," he said.

As Lt Odierno was speaking to reporters by a video link to the Pentagon in Washington, residents in west Baghdad reported that insurgents from the nationalist 1920 brigades were fighting their former Al Qaeda allies.

Somehow I do smell factionalism at work with a smidgen of splinter added in. Why is that? Well, Evan Kohlmann reported on a 27 MAR 2007 cybercast for globalterroralert.com on just that thing:

[Evan Kohlmann]: “It is also, as of yet, unclear whether the ISI’s provocative behavior was the cause of a new, mysterious split in one of the organizations that it claimed was recently working underneath its umbrella: the 1920 Revolution Brigades. On March 9, the official website of the 1920 Brigades announced that the group was formally dissolving and splitting into two separate factions: the ‘Islamic Jihad’ movement and the ‘Islamic Conquest’ movement. The statement did not offer great detail as to why the split had occurred, only suggesting that the decision was made in order ‘to overcome differences and to preserve our brotherhood in Islam.’”

Yes! Two entirely, brand new factions to add in to the mix... any one of which, as seen in the lovely IRA days, can claim responsibility under the 1920 Brigades banner! Time to update the scorecard on 1920 Brigades:

1920 Revolutionary Brigades

Islamic Response

Hamas in Iraq

Islamic Jihad

Islamic Conquest

We are now up to....1..2...3...4....5... yes FIVE groups that can all claim to be 1920 Brigades or some part thereof and cause untold turmoil. Isn't this grand?

No? Well, I do wish that they would just settle down and become nice, home grown guerrilla movements with uniforms and such, too. But that, apparently, is far too honorable for these folks. Far better to form a 'faction' when you disagree on which are the best pizza toppings or proper way to build an IED. Only one of which can lead to the sudden end of a group, mind you...
These 'umbrella groups' made up of 'factions' and 'splinter groups' make keeping a scorecard on these folks a bit of a dubious occupation. Still, it does help keep track of who is in and out with whom. Quite necessary when dealing with dishonorable terrorists, really.

So who is working for whom?

Pretty simple: if the guy shows up to help, make sure you keep an eye on him and measure results. If he leads you into an ambush or trap, or gives misleading information knowingly, then you got a ringer.

If he is in your gunsights and acting like an 'insurgent', pull the trigger.

That *is* how to deal with these sorts of things in a very diplomatic fashion.

Warfare is the highest form of diplomacy, isn't it?

Sphere: Related Content

Operation Phantom Thunder

In the last two days the MNF-I forces and Iraqi Army, Iraqi Security, Provincial Militias and recently turned insurgent groups have started a major offensive against remaining insurgent and terrorist groups: al Qaeda, Mahdi Army and remaining Ba'athists.

This is a large, Nationwide offensive, that will consist of two main areas of engagement, plus a host of Iraqi Police and smaller operations going on simultaneously against the insurgents. Those insurgents who have been turning have been doing so for multiple reasons. In Anbar province, it is to establish the traditional tribal order and finally end the killings being done by al Qaeda which has been endangering the tribal structure there. This is known as the Anbar Awakening movement, which is pan-tribal in characteristic and seeking to establish political capability inside the Province and move towards secular government there. As Anbar Awakening is tribal in nature, the tribes themselves have moved to take the lead in neighboring provinces as al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has fled from there.

This has made Diyala Province the new hotbed in Iraq, and AQI has been working to establish itself there, principly in the city of Baqubah. They have been joined by the pre-surge work done in Baghdad that has started to move the Mahdi Army (JAM) out of safe districts there and have further started to hit traditional escape routes of JAM thus forcing them north and east of Baghdad. This comes as a good portion of Iraq is now under full Iraqi control with other areas seeing Iraqis in the lead, and only a few areas not fully integrated and still under MNF-I responsibility. The following graphic shows that:

Image Courtesy: Defenselink
The longitudinal security section of Iraq from last year has now been laterally extended, with the southern and northern provinces becoming relatively quiet areas under full Iraqi control. This now cuts off eash East-West and North-South supply lines for the insurgents, and allows for their exterior supply lines to be better examined. Part of the build-up to The Surge was to get that done and start to drive insurgents, AQI, JAM and Ba'athists, back along their lines of supply.

We have a few very reliable sources in the field reporting now, and foremost of those is Michael Yon, who has kept quiet as he shuttled from Anbar to UK units and has now been waiting for The Surge to properly begin. That reporting began with Be Not Afraid, and the salient features of the operation in Baqubah were the first to get started:

This campaign is actually a series of carefully orchestrated battalion- and brigade-sized battles. Collectively, it is probably the largest battle since “major hostilities” ended more than four years ago. Even the media here on the ground do not seem to have sensed its scale.

From this, would build later reporting, but the setting of the scene in Baqubah is key. He later goes on to move through the history of the fighting and how it has gone well and not so well, until he arrives at the present time:

In the short time since Petraeus took charge here, Anbar Province—“Anbar the Impossible”—seems to have made a remarkable turnaround. I just spent about a month out there and saw no combat. I have never gone that long in Iraq without seeing combat. Clearly, some areas of Anbar remain dangerous—there is fighting in Fallujah today—but there is also something in Anbar today that hasn’t been seen in recent memory: possibilities. There are also larger realities lurking up on the Turkish borders, but the reality today is that the patient called Iraq will die and become a home for Al Qaeda if we leave now.

But now the AQ cancer is spreading into Diyala Province, straight along the Diyala River into Baghdad and other places. “Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia” (AQM) apparently now a subgroup of ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq), has staked Baquba as the capital of their Caliphate. Whatever the nom de jour of their nom de guerre, Baquba has been claimed for their capital. I was in Diyala again this year, where there is a serious state of Civil War, making Baquba an unpopular destination for writers or reporters. (A writer was killed in the area about a month ago, in fact.) News coming from the city and surrounds most often would say things like, “near Baghdad,” or “Northeast of Baghdad,” and so many people have never even heard of Baquba.

Baquba has been an important city in this fight for several years, and for various reasons. It’s critical to keep in mind that AQM and others had the specific goal of starting a civil war, and this was plainly clear by early 2005. When the Golden Dome was obliterated in Samarra in 2006, and blood gushed into the streets, the politically inconvenient truth about the malignant potency of Al Qaeda was undeniable. In a perverse anniversary commemorated earlier this month, the two lone minarets left standing in Samarra after the 2006 bombing, were unceremoniously flattened in attacks that resulted in reprisals nearby in Babil Province and as far removed as Basra.

Yes, al Qaeda strikes again to try, once more, and ignite civil war, but it finds tough going of it. I do demur on Mr. Yon's view of this having been a civil war as it fits no definition of it in a military sense - there has been no substantive attempt to set up rival government, stand up new authority to govern, and no one has donned opposition uniforms to stand up and be counted as part of a Nation. Without those you do not get civil war, but 'ethnic cleansing' and, sometimes, genocide. The innocents are slaughtered to try and bring greater war and strife, but with terrorism the slaughter becomes an end in and of itself until chaos is all that is left. Would that any that the MNF and Iraqis have been fighting, and now the Provinces and tribes, had any honor at ALL to declare themselves a foe and show themselves to be capable of protecting innocents and standing up for their new form of government.

We have not gotten that, just brutal terrorism.

Mr. Yon's second dispatch is Operation Arrowhead Ripper Day One, and, like all his work, a compelling and moving account of the day's activity:

Michael Gordon is a NYT reporter who is in the battle. Gordon will be an important resource. The commanders take a break from fighting each day to have meetings with each other, and Iraqi officers, and he comes off the battlefield with one of the commanders to the briefings. I saw Gordon today, his shirt stained white from sweat. Gordon and I were at a commander briefing when one of the battalion commanders, LTC Smiley, talked about how his soldiers shot some terrorists today (June 20); on different occasions today, women and children came out and “gave aid” to the wounded terrorists. My guess is that the number of civilian casualties is not high. Gordon has been running with other soldiers, so it will be important to hear his accounts. From what I’ve read so far, Gordon has been very accurate and on target.

By the end of the first day (June 19), about 30 enemy had been killed, 1 U.S. killed and 5 WIA. At least two soldiers were heat casualties, including one who was with my group.

With that Mr. Yon now vouches for Mr. Gordon's reporting for the NYT, and thusly have a second reliable source for the happenings there. Just priior to this Bill Roggio has been coordinating reports from the field and giving added depth to them, so that a proper scope can start to be shed upon the entire set of operations. He starts with a piece on the OPSTEMPO increase on 18 JUN 2007, and the flavor of that is this operation going against *all* insurgent groups no matter who they are or who supplies them. Later that day he reports on UK units taking the field to go after Iranian Qods force 'Secret Cells', which are their re-inforced Badr units now operating under direct control of Iran. As these would be working in concert with JAM and serving as INTEL and re-supply coordination groups, they are critical to take down as the JAM gets engaged. Further on 18 JUN 2007 Mr. Roggio would report on the Battle of the Belts in and around Baghdad.

From that reporting comes 2,000 Kurdish Provincial Peshmerga joining with the 10,000 or so MNF-I troops in Diyala. Mr. Roggio continues on with this, backstopping Mr. Yon's reporting from Baqubah with a 19 JUN 2007 post on Operation Arrowhead Ripper. In that IA, IP, MNF-I and the recently turned 1920 Brigades are acting together to start going after Baqubah, but also to go after lines of supply and communication for AQI. On 20 JUN 2007 Mr. Roggio continues with the review of forces, citing at least 7,500 IA forces and up to four times as much in Diyala, but with that first bulk moving on Baqubah. This is a combined arms assault modeled on the Tal Afar assault, that was highly successful in clearing out neighborhoods and keeping things generally quiet thereafter. At a rough guess, approximately 50,000 IA/IP/ISF/Peshmerga and MNF-I forces are taking part in this, along with an unknown number of 1920 Brigade members acting as scouts and neighborhood liaisons.

Finally on 21 JUN 2007 comes word of Operation Phantom Thunder which is a highly coordinated operation incorporating Arrowhead Ripper and Marne into a multi-force operation within Iraq. From that we get a link to US Cavalry ON Point and their description of the operation:

The plan involves three major operations, but only two are, in military parlance, “kinetic.” The largest, Operation Arrowhead Ripper, is an assault on the city of Baqouba, which is located north of Baghdad in Diyala Province. According to Associated Press reporters, American and Iraqi troops have sealed access to the city and are not letting anyone come or go.

Simultaneously, the 3rd Infantry Division—dubbed “Task Force Marne” in recognition of their historic role in the pivotal 1918 battle at the end of World War I—is blocking the routes south from Baquoba into Baghdad. “We want to keep the bad guys from getting into the city,” LtCol Garver said.

The smallest, or least kinetic, is the continued operation in Anbar. A battalion of Marines, the 13th MEU, was recently “surged” north of Fallujah and Karmah. There is little activity in Anbar, however, beyond the normal routine of patrolling with Iraqi soldiers and policemen.

According to 1stLt Shawn Mercer, a public affairs officer with Marines in Anbar, extra forces are “positioned along the belts between Baghdad, Fallujah, Ramadi and the cities along the Euphrates to kill or capture terrorists trying to move into those population centers.” Mercer also said that he did not expect to see major spikes in combat in western Iraq. “We’re past that,” he said.

Located 50 miles northeast of Baghdad along the Diyala River, Baqouba has, in recent months, become a refuge for Al-Qaeda terrorists. Over the fall and winter of 2006 and into the spring of ’07, Al-Qaeda militants were forced out of safe havens in Anbar by Iraqi tribal leaders who rebelled against their tyranny and pledged their support to American forces.

From the Syrian border to Fallujah, Al-Qaeda has sustained one defeat after another in western Iraq. Since their goal is to continue attacking Baghdad, relocating to Baqouba as an operational base appears to have been their only option.

It’s this option that Coalition forces are hoping to deny Al-Qaeda, and that’s what Operation Phantom Thunder is all about. According to LtCol Garver, the extra manpower from the surge is making a big difference.

“No time was wasted from getting all the promised troops until we pushed off," LtCol Garver said. “The Coalition now has the ability to conduct simultaneous joint missions anyplace we want. We are hitting them, and we are killing and capturing them.”

This operation, thus, extends far out into Anbar to interdict supplies and serve as a No-Go area for AQI and JAM. The ability to get trustworthy local forces in Anbar has proven key to finally shifting the fight from a defensive mode and back to an offensive one. With the initial investment of troops and growing IA/ISF/IP capability and size, added flexibility to operations make The Surge possible. The 21 JUN 2007 report backfills smaller operations that have been going on against JAM and AQI elsewhere.




It must be pointed out that in Baqubah there is no *surrender* expected from AQI and that the area where it has been active has been surrounded. With forces watching to the West, South and North, only Eastward exits are left and those head straight to Iran. Any flight by AQI along those routes will be indications that it expects some survival there. And with Peshmerga activity on the periphery, as well as IA/IP and IA/SF work to the southeast, those supply lines to Iran are also being cut. This will leave smaller towns in Diyala as the next set of operations once Baqubah has gone well, and the work to the south of Baghdad is now aimed at finally cutting off and ending the 'triangle of death'.

That has been the Arrowhead lodged in Iraq.

Now it gets ripped out by the shaft in Baqubah.

Sphere: Related Content

The Elite Servants of Incumbistan and their views

Now today we get some lovely reading from the staffers on Capitol Hill in the lovely Nation's Captitol from Capitolist, with thanks for Brian over at snapped shot for bringing this to my attention!. It is a cozy forum for folks to put their messages on, and it is a live interaction affair that brings back the days of the message rooms on early Bulletin Board Systems. Yes, the so-called 'CB Chat Rooms'!

Put a web form on it and this would fit *exactly* from the early 1980's. Same sordid chat, same language, and the usual of trying to find a decent place to eat. Now, as this offers the rare glimpse into the culture of the Congressional Staff just *before* they knew they were being observed, it serves as an interesting place to look at just how these folks really feel about a few things in their on-line gripe sessions. So as to not present the headache of the reverse-time message thread, and the usual interwoven conversations, I will do my best to apply my old skills on that and disentangle a few threads from this skein. Because we have the rarest of all opportunities: to see the servant class of the Political Elites at work.

First off are some of their feelings about the people they work for, the elected Representatives and Senators of the People. So as to get the true flavor of things, I will leave it unexpurgated and as close to its original form as can be done, just removing the timestamp link. I will also be leaving out the threads devoted to such things as finding a good place to eat, seersucker suits (although that topic is, apparently, unavoidable, but it does get rid of the entire set of sartorial splendor conversations), who is or is not putting out in the offices, and the pictures that have been posted on the thread. In these threads anything in italics is quoting from a previous message, so you have been warned :

God bless Dennis Kucinich. I'm glad someone has the balls to go down to the House floor and defend the much maligned and misunderstood President of Iran, whatever his name is. Good peeps defending the honor of other good peeps. That's what it's all about.

6/18/2007 - 4:42 pm


When is Pelosi going to start that 5-day work week she was promising? It's June now Nancy... I thought we were still in the first 100 hours?

6/19/2007 - 12:25 pm


Is there another Member (House or Senate) that you wouldn’t
mind working for? Someone that you really respect…based on how they work with
other Members, how they deal with the issues, …etc.

6/20/2007 - 10:49 am


Bernie Sanders. He seems pretty awesome. Crazy old dude with sound positions.

6/20/2007 - 10:52 am


Dick Lugar…he’s not partisan, seems to look at issues from
all angles, doesn’t waste time attacking other members, beyond intelligent.

6/20/2007 - 10:56 am


Tim Ryan. He knows how to deliver a floor speech.

6/20/2007 - 11:08 am


Tancredo - Hey, at least you only have to worry about issue. He'll deport all Mexicans and then you're done for the day.

6/20/2007 - 11:12 am


Coburn would be fun. You'd sit around all day thinking of ways to hold everyones shit up.

6/20/2007 - 11:19 am


Screw MOCs -- work for a Committee

6/20/2007 - 11:19 am


Maria Cantwell--hot and crazy as hell

6/20/2007 - 11:21 am


Sen. Stevens in Rules Committee hearing: "Bloggers are really nothing more than paid political advertisements"Best keep away from the topic of the internet, Teddy.

6/20/2007 - 11:24 am


Best keep away from the topic of the internet, Teddy. Yeah, no kidding.

6/20/2007 - 11:32 am


Does anyone know why Marsha Blackburn refers to herself as "Congressman Marsha Blackburn?"
http://blackburn.house.gov/

6/20/2007 - 2:44 pm


the mystery deepens every time it is asked

6/20/2007 - 2:45 pm


Perhaps the "Congressman" answer is here.

6/20/2007 - 2:58 pm


I have a theory that Michele Bachmann is Katherine Harris in disguise. They look alike. Both are bat-shit crazy and seriously gaffe-prone. Bachmann came to the House the year Harris left. I think it's pretty clear what's going on here.

6/20/2007 - 3:35 pm


Poll: By how many seats do you think Congressional ranks would be reduced if an intelligence test were required for membership? My boss is grievously mentally challenged, yet is re-elected time and again.

6/20/2007 - 3:58 pm


A member's test reulsts would correspond with the intelegence levels of voters in his district. In other words, red state districts would be screwed.

6/20/2007 - 4:08 pm


A member's test reulsts would correspond with the intelegence levels of
voters in his district. In other words, red state districts would be
screwed. Yes we all know that the Democratic base is more intelligent. How else can one explain how they've figured out a way to freeload off of those in the country who actually work.

6/20/2007 - 4:23 pm


You will note that blue states contribute to the nation, while red states take money from the nation...

6/20/2007 - 4:24 pm


YOU will note that I said "Democratic base"

6/20/2007 - 4:30 pm


If Grassley tells me that corn producers get a nickel for every box of cornflakes one more time... well, I'll be peeved I guess. But seriously, I get the message. I also understand that Dorgan found it hard to date in his Model T. Byrd and Domenici get a pass for being senile... these guys have no excuse.

6/20/2007 - 5:04 pm


My boss is grievously mentally challenged, yet is re-elected time and again. Join the club.

6/20/2007 - 5:13 pm


Well, Domenici staff claimed they were hunting pants... but they were plaid and flannel, so no need to split hairs.

6/20/2007 - 5:29 pm


Instead of "The amendment co-authored by my friend" on the house floor I want someone, just once, to say something like "The amendment co-authored by that douche from *insert state*"

6/21/2007 - 10:20 am


Why is Reid giving Lautenberg a eulogy?

6/21/2007 - 12:21 pm


Byrd just voted for the 18,000th time. And Reid is launching into another eulogy.

6/21/2007 - 12:40 pm


When was the last time Byrd gave a floor speech that was actually on topic?

6/21/2007 - 1:11 pm


Byrd rambles in a creepy child molester fashion

6/21/2007 - 1:14 pm

My that does seem to be a rather pointed view on things! From what we can gather there are some few of the Congressional Staff that do think that a number of members are not up to snuff, mentally speaking, beyond just the partisanship that one normally gets in such an affair as this. Really, this does bring back memories of the old days of chat rooms!

The next up is you, the poor Electistanian who get to vote for the single party rulers of Incumbistan, and the viewpoints that the Emirate Staff have on you, the poor schlub citizen of the Nation of Electistan. Some points will cross out from multiple conversations, thus spoiling some of the surprises in them, but one really does need to see how the Elite Servant Class feels towards the citizens of the vassal State of Electistan:

your mom never read the constitution

6/15/2007 - 12:45 pm


A reader writes in: "Give me a break! Where are the pix of Maggie Thatcher, Phyliss Schlafly
and Jeane Kirkpatrick? And Pat Nixon! Grrrr! Call me a bleeding
heart, but I'd rather do Angelina Jolie or Geena Davis anyday than Laura
Bush or especially that anorexic whack job Ann Coulter."

6/19/2007 - 9:32 am


letters, letters, letters--lets raise stamp prices to 5 bucks a pop--that'll stop people from writing to their reps!

6/19/2007 - 9:50 am


lets raise stamp prices to 5 bucks a pop--that'll stop people from writing to their reps! Good idea. Now how do we deal with emails?

6/19/2007 - 10:01 am


lets raise stamp prices to 5 bucks a pop--that'll stop people from writing to their reps!Hear, Hear. Now if only we could stop people from voting, we might have something!

6/19/2007 - 10:08 am


Now if only we could stop people from voting, we might have something! Literacy tests worked well before...

6/19/2007 - 10:10 am


Now if only we could stop people from voting, we might have something! Umm, we don't have to figure that one out. Most people don't vote already.

6/19/2007 - 10:13 am

Now if only we could stop people from voting, we might have something! Literacy tests worked well before...I actually like that idea

6/19/2007 - 10:17 am


How is your office handling the immigration phone calls/comments from residents of states other than the one your member represents?

6/19/2007 - 1:53 pm


How is your office handling the immigration phone calls/comments from
residents of states other than the one your member represents? With the 'delete' button

6/19/2007 - 1:57 pm


How is your office handling the immigration phone calls/comments from
residents of states other than the one your member represents? We tell them, politely, to fuck off.

6/19/2007 - 2:00 pm


How is your office handling the immigration phone calls/comments from
residents of states other than the one your member represents?I love suggesting that they also call those members from their state who were elected to represent them...that really pisses them off! Ha ha...

6/19/2007 - 2:01 pm


Every call is the exact same. 1. We don't need this new amnesty bill. 2. Enforce the laws that are already there. 3. Build the wall.

6/20/2007 - 9:56 am


So many call, so uninformed, and so racist (at least a lot of them).

6/20/2007 - 10:01 am


I’ve had a few calls from people saying, “Make them speak
American!” What?!? Hey fuckstick…what did you just say?

6/20/2007 - 10:20 am


What do people think about making English the official language? I put it right in line with the marriage amendment or the flag burning amendment....WE all know that they never have a chance of passing or won't have any real effect on anything. They only serve one real purpose...they rally the base...constiuents get active and motivated to contribute when these things come up. Why do they keep falling for it?

6/20/2007 - 10:42 am


...because Voters are stupid

6/20/2007 - 10:47 am


Is anyone else alarmed by the amount of email comming in on the CAFE standard??? There seems to be a large number of fucktards who actually want the standard kept where it is. What the cock is this shit. How quickly we forget 9/11, Afghanistan, and oh... IRAQ!
35 mpg by 2020!!!! TWENTY FUCKING TWENTY. Half of those jackasses sending emails won't even be alive. And really, how much oil is going to be left by then? Someone plow down Senator Bond with Hummer.

6/21/2007 - 9:27 am


my gues is that but 2020 self imposed standards would bring them up to somewhere near 50

6/21/2007 - 9:34 am


Senate staffers: Please tell your members to vote in favor
of the immigration bill….so these ignorant fuckers will stop calling us!!!!

6/21/2007 - 9:35 am


1.) The real problem is our foreign policy fucking shit up for farmers in central Mexico; Do the anti-immigrant folks really all think immigrants want to leave their hometowns? their whole family? all of their culture and their history and make a dangerous, expensive trip up here just for the dubious luxury of scrubbing your toilet and picking your vegetables? costing you money, my ass. The ugly little secret is that by and large Americans want things convenient and cheap and they don't want to work too hard for them. You don't want people to come to the US for jobs? fine. Put in place some decent trade agreements that don't fuck people over.2.) Why do all the fattest tourists pick the hottest month of the year to come to DC? Put the cheeseburger down! YES, you will have to walk everywhere. YES, you should have started training for this before you left Ohio, or Missouri, or whatever small midwestern town you came from. And lest I for get WALK LEFT, STAND RIGHT. wow, i feel better.

6/21/2007 - 10:03 am


Yes, the Metro in July. Honestly, is there some kind of charter that says that you must be 50 lbs overweight, dress in clothes that don't fit, and reek to high hell from all the sweat generated by walking five feet before you are allowed to tour this city. Also, don't flock like lemmings to the one escalator that is working, walk up the stairs, to the left at all times, and don't crowed around the doors, the rest of us would kike to get on as well.

6/21/2007 - 10:21 am


I’m so sick of these loons
calling about conspiracy theories….The New World Order, The North American
Union, etc…Get a life you paranoid fucks!

6/21/2007 - 10:45 am


anti-CAFErs and anti-immigration reform... examples of people who lack any vision past next week's Meet the Press.

6/21/2007 - 11:14 am

So there you have it, my fellow citizens of the Zero Party State of Electistan, how the Elite Servants view their vassals. Now, to be admitted, there are some problems with Electistanian education, but that is only after 27 years of a Dept. of Education and billions upon billions of Electistanian dollars sent into it for little value returned. And as I have worked in the District environs, during summer, I can and do say that it is hard to differentiate between the hot, smelly and overweight natives and those coming in from outside Incumbistan.

Needless to say, the poor Emirate Staff of the Congress can and does gripe about doing work that they, in actuality, applied for in the way of Elite Servant Position with the Emirate Staff. So, while they chose to do such duties, let us remember *that* as we take a look into this immigration issue a bit more deeply, as it appears to be affecting some few there, in Incumbistan:

Am I the only one who previously had an opinon on the immigration bill...and now just doesn't give damn?I used to care, but not now. Now I just want it to go way. Pass it...don't pass...just do something. At least they aren't mailing us as many bricks (to build the wall) as before.

6/19/2007 - 11:36 am


I wonder how much it cost to mail a brick from CA, AZ, NM, or TX

6/19/2007 - 11:40 am


Re: Immigration bill, your apathy is not surprising. It's difficult to maintain a high degree of excitement about legislation that is so patently absurd. Even the sponsors know it is a ridiculous canard. They are only pushing it because they are septuagenarians who will be long dead when twenty years from now - just like the 1986 bill - citizens wake up and realize that our country is in fact worse off because of their government's shortsighted immigration "reform."

6/19/2007 - 11:46 am


The whole immigration debate is ridiculous on
both sides. Constituents call and scream “Build the wall! Build the wall!”
Sure, we’ll get right on that folks. Let’s spend billions on building a wall
along the entire southern border. Then, when people still come over, under, or around
that wall….you can call and bitch us out for wasting all that money. Give me a
break…

6/19/2007 - 11:53 am


The thing with immigration is that it's completely lopsided. Those who are passionately opposed to comprehensive reform are part of a small minority. The majority of the public supports it, but doesn't really care. So there's no good way around this mess. But yes, let's move on.

6/19/2007 - 12:03 pm


The thing with immigration is that it's completely lopsided. Those who
are passionately opposed to comprehensive reform are part of a small
minority. The majority of the public supports it, but doesn't really
care. So there's no good way around this mess. But yes, let's move on.I read somewhere that, "They have the
passion, but not the votes." Those who are against the immigration bill are
not being helped by the radical racist hiding among them. It's unfortunate that
some people are using this topic to spread hatred.

6/19/2007 - 12:07 pm


The thing with immigration is that it's completely lopsided. Those who
are passionately opposed to comprehensive reform are part of a small
minority. The majority of the public supports it, but doesn't really
care. So there's no good way around this mess. But yes, let's move on.I don't know, I think a LOT of people are starting to get annoyed by illegals and really want them out.

6/19/2007 - 12:09 pm


The immigration issue kills me. It's hard to fault immigrants who flee unfortunate circumstances to come here and work, especially when we make it so inviting and easy for them. On the other hand, there are also a lot of people illegally here from non-third world countries on expired visas who just "prefer" to live in the U.S. Well, I "prefer" not to pay my taxes, but failing to do so will certainly land me in jail. When's the last time someone proposed an amnesty for tax violators? Oh yeah, that's right it's in the Senate bill, but it only pertains to folks here illegally. The public may not all be gung ho about erecting miles of wall and deporting everyone, but they are not so stupid that the Senate bill even passes their smell test.

6/19/2007 - 12:21 pm


I'm in Maria Cantwells office....I've gotten so many calls about the immigration bill everyone wants it voted against...

6/19/2007 - 2:53 pm


No kidding. The pro:con ratio of calls is probably 1:19 here.

6/19/2007 - 2:56 pm


No kidding. The pro:con ratio of calls is probably 1:19 here.That's because the people who are "for" it are busy working and not calling Senate offices.

6/19/2007 - 3:06 pm


If I hear the words "amnesty bill" one more time, I'm going to have a fit.

6/20/2007 - 9:46 am


Every call is the exact same. 1. We don't need this new amnesty bill. 2. Enforce the laws that are already there. 3. Build the wall.

6/20/2007 - 9:56 am


So many call, so uninformed, and so racist (at least a lot of them).

6/20/2007 - 10:01 am


If Congress authorized the building of a fence along the entire southern border (which they never will...because it's an incredibly stupid idea)...they would call us complaining that we spend so much money on a wall that people still go over, under, and around.I don't think people have thought this wall concept through....

6/20/2007 - 10:10 am


really. i just don't understand it. these people come. most of them work hard, don't cause trouble, and just try to get by. let's cut them a break, make them legal, create a system that discourages more illegal immigrants from coming (e.g., employment varification), increase the number of high-skilled visas, and let's move on. it seems pretty simple.

6/20/2007 - 10:16 am


I’ve had a few calls from people saying, “Make them speak
American!” What?!? Hey fuckstick…what did you just say?

6/20/2007 - 10:20 am


What do people think about making English the official language? It's one of those issues, I think, that Democrats ought to be willing to negotiate on. It doesn't have an impact on many people's lives. It's a good symbolic gesture that doesn't really have much of a consequence. Same with prayer in the classrooms.

6/20/2007 - 10:28 am


What do people think about making English the official language? I put it right in line with the marriage amendment or the flag burning amendment....WE all know that they never have a chance of passing or won't have any real effect on anything. They only serve one real purpose...they rally the base...constiuents get active and motivated to contribute when these things come up. Why do they keep falling for it?

6/20/2007 - 10:42 am


...because Voters are stupid

6/20/2007 - 10:47 am


What do people think about making English the official language? Cualquier persona que gastado en cualquier momento fuera de los estados -- o los estados rojos para esa materia -- sepa el mundo es un lugar grande, pero americanos hablará siempre inglés.

6/20/2007 - 10:47 am


Senate staffers: Please tell your members to vote in favor
of the immigration bill….so these ignorant fuckers will stop calling us!!!!

6/21/2007 - 9:35 am


Senate staffers: Please tell your members to vote in favor
of the immigration bill….so these ignorant fuckers will stop calling us!!!! Or, vote against and wait until something decent comes along.

6/21/2007 - 9:44 am


Or, vote against and wait until something decent comes along. Which will be another 5 years, by which point there will be 20-30 million illegal immigrants. Amnesty, at that point, will be the only choice. For the hardline, anti-immigrant crowd, it's either accept what's on the table right now, or be forced to accept something they really dislike a few years down the road.

6/21/2007 - 9:47 am


No it isn't, what we do is rolloing deportation. NOthing seeping or immediate, but hard enforcement against employers and actually deport the criminals, allow police to ask for status and deport anyone arrested, even without charged for another crime..

6/21/2007 - 9:49 am


1.) The real problem is our foreign policy fucking shit up for farmers in central Mexico; Do the anti-immigrant folks really all think immigrants want to leave their hometowns? their whole family? all of their culture and their history and make a dangerous, expensive trip up here just for the dubious luxury of scrubbing your toilet and picking your vegetables? costing you money, my ass. The ugly little secret is that by and large Americans want things convenient and cheap and they don't want to work too hard for them. You don't want people to come to the US for jobs? fine. Put in place some decent trade agreements that don't fuck people over.2.) Why do all the fattest tourists pick the hottest month of the year to come to DC? Put the cheeseburger down! YES, you will have to walk everywhere. YES, you should have started training for this before you left Ohio, or Missouri, or whatever small midwestern town you came from. And lest I for get WALK LEFT, STAND RIGHT. wow, i feel better.

6/21/2007 - 10:03 am


I’m so sick of these loons
calling about conspiracy theories….The New World Order, The North American
Union, etc…Get a life you paranoid fucks!

6/21/2007 - 10:45 am


anti-CAFErs and anti-immigration reform... examples of people who lack any vision past next week's Meet the Press.

6/21/2007 - 11:14 am

In the fine quotation about sausage making, do realize that these are the ones stuffing the ground meat into the casing. It is these individuals who get to write out sections of the bills that become law, that also field questions and flack for their Emirs, and it is these fine Elite Servants that look upon the common Electistanian as no better than a foreigner. Yes, when the Emirs say that money shall not be put up so that the laws are enforced, and that businesses should not be penalized harshly or shut down for enticing them to Electistan, then the Elite Servants begin to view the Electistanians as no better than the foreigners we are, for all that they have also come from the vassal State of Electistan to work for the Emirs of Incumbistan.

Yes, one would almost begin to suspect that to continue on with their Elite Servant status, that they help make laws and regulations as complex as possible so that only those with 'inside knowledge' can figure out how the actual Laws of the Land work. What better way to sinecure positions close to the Emirs than to make them dependent upon those that draft the laws and then have positions as lawyers to work with the laws. Something made extremely complex so that mere Electistanians without advanced training can no longer decypher outside of training for the Elite Servant positions. It is this set of Emirate Staff that helps to do that distancing and they view normal Electistanians as: ignorant, stupid, overweight, ill-dressed, uncouth, smelly, unwilling to do dirty jobs, intemperate, short-sighted, lunatic and ill-informed. With a few racists thrown in for good measure. While those breaking the laws of their Nation, the laws of our Nation and international law via Treaty are seen as fine and upstanding individuals who just happen to get stuck being scofflaws to do the work that Electistanians can't do... and which writes laws so as to encourage an entire set of businesses to so advertise jobs that Electistanians CANNOT FIND THEM:

And our goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker. And you know in a sense that sounds funny, but it's what we're trying to do here. We are complying with the law fully, but ah, our objective is to get this person a green card, and get through the labor certification process. So certainly we are not going to try to find a place [at which to advertise the job] where the applicants are the most numerous. We're going to try to find a place where we can comply with the law, and hoping, and likely, not to find qualified and interested worker applicants.

Yes, such very find Elite Servants to help with making laws on that sort of thing, which then allows businesses to *not* find Electistanians who are willing to do such jobs and which then encourages foreigners to come and take those jobs. Yes, lovely are the Elite Staff to have ensured that businesses get such placement as they do not have to advertise widely to claim that Electistanians are unable to work at such jobs. Such a very efficient Elite Staff to ensure that the business friends of the Emirs can find good and solid reasons to *ignore* the people of Electistan and get cheap labor to undercut Electistanian wages in that doing.

We are quite lucky that this Elite Staff have chosen the work they have, as they are obviously unfit to defend the Nation as they can barely take having to do their PRESENT JOBS and interfacing with the Electistanian public. They do not like having to actually pass along the feelings of Electistanians and would, rather, that Electistanians: 'shut up', pay $5 to post a letter to a Emir's Office (far be it from mere Electistanians to actually contact an Emir!), and that a literacy test should be put upon Electistanians for VOTING but no test put upon FOREIGNERS wishing to break the law and come here and get a lovely Emirate Amnesty in that doing. No, we can see that foreigners actually have better standing amongst the Elite Servants than mere Electistanians.

It is a very good and wise thing that they are not out facing mere bullets, bombs and intemperate climate, but, instead, in cushy offices able to complain about having to listen to the mere complaints of Electistanians. Instead of the sounds of war in a distant land. Very wise of them, indeed, to look to be Elite Servants of the Emirs of Incumbistan.

But that is their ingrained sense of Elite Servant understanding as represented by this following exchange on their message board:

How many staffers have NOT yet read the constitution completely?

6/15/2007 - 12:18 pm


I, for one, haven't read it.

6/15/2007 - 12:21 pm


Wait, we have a constitution?

6/15/2007 - 12:21 pm


How the hell did you graduate HS or college w/ out reading the constitution!

6/15/2007 - 12:22 pm


I think so.

6/15/2007 - 12:24 pm


my High School never required it. We read some of it but never all of it, nor did we have to read the Declaration

6/15/2007 - 12:34 pm


sweet conversation

6/15/2007 - 12:34 pm


never read it, and i graduated from an ivy league school. just shows you what sort of education you get at those places.

6/15/2007 - 12:37 pm


if my intern asks me one more question, i think i'll strangle him.

6/15/2007 - 12:37 pm


How can there be people in the capitol who have yet to read it!?

6/15/2007 - 12:38 pm


your intern probably never read the constitution either...

6/15/2007 - 12:42 pm


your mom never read the constitution

6/15/2007 - 12:45 pm


Actually it was an intern who brought it up

6/15/2007 - 12:49 pm

Yes, my dear Electistanians, these High and Elite Servant Class to the Emirs of Incumbistan, who help to make the Laws of the Land are not well acquainted with the basis of those Laws, that being the Constitution. We can also see that the Great and Grand 'Ivy League Schools' are no better than Elite stamps upon the necessary documents to get into Elite Servant positions and that they convey no especial knowledge about the Constitution by being schooled at them. Indeed there is an entire Elite class that sees no reason to actually understand the Constitution and, instead, prefers to make up Laws and enforce government upon people as they are so much more learned that they are BEYOND the need to learn laws.

Or, perhaps, that is something the Incumbistanians are doing... so that there will soon be another area fit only for foreigners: drafting the Laws of the Land. And then the Electistanians will be as foreigners in our own land. Worse in actuality, as the foreigners will have more rights, privileges and means to advance than mere Electistanians.

Sphere: Related Content

Who to cheer for? Decisions, decisions...

This little piece of Palestine and the big piece of Palestine have decided to be separate entities: Hamastan and Fatahland. Jules Crittenden, looking at the fighting, can't figure out for the life of him *who* to cheer for. Why it was just a short 18 months or so ago that Hamas had *won* the prize... the booby-trapped prize... of Leading Palestine!

Why I even sent them a congratulatory note, in their grand and absolutely unexpected victory in Palestine!

Here is just a bit from that little note to them:

Do note that the new shirts handed you as the leaders of Palestine feature large bulls-eye targets painted front and back in day-glo colors. Wear them proudly as Fatah did so that you could more accurately aim at them.

Also note the keys of state come with strings attached. As most Western aid is predicated on peaceful negotiations with your neighbors, including Israel, you will need to amend your party documents to account for that. Otherwise you will get zero aid from the US, Japan, UK, Australia and even possibly such stalwarts as France, Germany and Russia. Or you can keep your prized concept of a one-state Palestine and forego foreign aid. And govern without it.

I am sure the vaunted industrial sector of Palestine will soon...... you may want to look into this as I don't believe that Palestine *has* an industrial sector, beyond terrorism and bomb-making, and there is not much Return on Investment in those areas, save as targets for Israeli bombs and munitions.

As you start to assess the situation you may have patted yourselves on the back, collectively, for thinking that you had pulled the wool over *everyone's* eyes in Palestine. I mean you must think the electorate there is as dumb as doorknobs to elect Hamas to try and Govern them!

Unfortunately they may be a bit brighter than that as you have been handed the booby-trapped prize of actually leading Palestine. It is a ticking bomb that you cannot, however much you may want to, explode inside Israel. Notice the few seconds that are left on the clock.

You have very little time.

Do you see? Much praise and even warning them of some problems with their economy! Even better with THIS decision they have now made they have found a way to END their need for Western aid! Why, that is so highly inventive of them, to stage a coup in the Gaza Strip, so as to seal themselves off from outside aid *and* demonstrate their independence. Plus add the distance of Israel between themselves and Fatah, of course.

Of course Fatah has done the absolutley correct thing in distancing themselves from Hamas, proclaiming themselves to be Moderate Terrorists, and then putting out the hat for Western aid. And, of course, I warned Hamas of this very same problem in my note:

Also note that decades of Arafat and Fatah rule have left the State of Palestine and the elements of what government there is riddled with cronyism, nepotism and petty thieves and crooks masquerading as public servants. Please do try and clean house as many of those same officials are looking eagerly at the aforementioned shirts you have been given. But not covetously. They have a glint in their eyes that you may remember from your time in the opposition. And they do want to protect what little graft they can now get, and siphon yet more money away from the State... The State you are now in charge of. So give it a go... clean house... try and *discharge* as many of these individuals as you can finger... ummmm... find... and ask them to peacefully evacuate their posts. Many of them have, doubtlessly, done so already, and cleaned out their desks, filing cabinets, lockers, arms caches, training manuals, and numbers to their Swiss bank accounts.

Now that Hamas has isolated itself *outside* the seat of power in the Gaza Strip, Fatah can now walk right back in, plop down their rolodexs, and pick up the phone... and find out the lines are dead. Then they flip out the cellphones they bought in Israel and get back to business. Because Hamas has, indeed, discharged its duties as well as many, many, many rounds of ammunition, grenades, rockets and such like, to show just what sort of entity it is.

Now some folks on the Left like to say how Hamas and Hezbollah are 'legitimate armed political parties' or even 'popular armed political parties', which is a very nice way of saying that they are organized thugs able to coerce their way into power. This, too, I had warned them about in my note:

Your charitable works you have always vaunted as actually *doing* something for the Palestinian people, and might have been enough to convince people you might be worth having around. You may find it is easier to run a few hospitals and many terrorist cells than it is to Govern a State, even a wretched excuse of one as Palestine is at present.

Also note that all of those wonderful handbooks on AK-47's and Kyatusha Rockets contain very little information on Public Diplomacy. Somehow most states fall out of the range of those weapons, and yet those very same states can reach out and touch *you* most vigorously.

The primary worry of Hamas at this point in time is that of its brand-spanking new neighbor: Egypt. In point of fact the Gaza Strip has exactly TWO Nations it borders: Israel and Egypt. And as Hamas is an outgrowth of the Muslim Brotherhood and that is banned in Egypt, that latter may not like suddenly having the armed wing of it as a neighbor. While Egypt is no great shakes on the military front, it is far more organized than Hamas and could easily flatten the Gaza Strip in a week or so. They will not do so because it is full of Palestinians, so the folks inside Gaza may just find it a bit hard to get re-supplied. But Hamas has, at least, finally ended the debate about a One or Two Nation objective!

Yes they have decided on TWO Nations!

TWO PALESTINES!

Because they actually HAVE found a way to get what I pointed out they needed in my note to them! Really! This part did give some admonishment to them on this score:

And, finally, once you figure out which is more important to you... One State in the Lands that may or may not have been Palestine, but were certainly run by the British and held by the Ottomans (wherefore are thou Palestine?) or trying go govern an unruly set of people that have been lied to, threaten, beat up, tortured, killed, abused and generally maltreated by your predecessors for decades. If you try to address the first one first, your life expectancy will be counted in days, if not hours. If you vigorously decide that trying to bring some order to Palestine just *might* be important, then you will have to figure out how to do so without triggering a civil war. One that you had been preparing for, oh these many years, and expected to start... as the opposition. But you are in charge now. And if it starts while you are in charge... well... it is usually the ruling group that gets it the hardest in these things. Check your history books for details. (You folks do *have* history books beyond recounting the injustices inflicted on the Palestinian people, right?)

So in closing, let me wish you Good Luck with your new found majority status. And Good Luck in dealing with your newfound Loyal Opposition. And Extreme Good Luck in cleaning the House of State of all of the Corruption that has infested it over the years. And Plentiful and Bountiful luck in figuring out if you really stand *for* anything in Palestine. And Especial Good Luck in trying to do all of this while trying to square the circle of your political beliefs, your neighbors and foreign donations to your little plot of land on the Planet Earth.

Good Luck.

You will need it!

Hamas has, indeed, chosen its plot of Earth!

At the rate they are going it may be the largest graveyard on the planet before they are done... but no one ever said anything about a *good* solution....

Innovative? Yes!

Good? Not so much, no.

Seeing as how this is the rightful decision of Hamas, choosing guns over butter, so to speak, there really and for true is only one thing to do with the place:

Anyone who wants to leave can be processed outwards, sign documents to renounce ALL RIGHTS ON ISRAEL, that they will never take up terrorism nor encourage anyone else to upon immediate pain of death if caught doing so *anywhere* on the planet, and then be allowed to go either to Fatahland or to any other Nation that will take them.

Because I have had it with the decades of whining from Palestinians on this score and they have now amply demonstrated that they have no legitimate claim to *anything* as they cannot even govern THEMSELVES. Time to put an end to these squabbles, once and for all.

And *why* will these people be leaving Hamastan?

Because the one thing that the West can and should do is to stop all delivery of food and just supply lots and lots of bullets. No grenades, no mines, no C4, no TNT, no fruit juice, no baby formula, no meat, no bread, no potatoes, no water.

Just bullets for the lovely AK-47s that are all around the place. Once the heavier munitions run out then all that will be left are folks with AK-47s and a dwindling supply of food.

Hamas has chosen the graveyard.

Let us help them make it for themselves as death is all they ever wanted, so they can now inflict it upon themselves.

The wise will flee.

The terrorists have made their bed and it is time to tuck them in.

And let them turn out the lights as they leave.

Sphere: Related Content

Incumbistan and its vassal state Electistan

From 05 JUN 2006 Examiner:

Washington - Recalling his favorite Reagan observation that America is a nation that has a government, not a government that has a nation, columnist Mark Steyn applies a marvelously descriptive term for the current state of the U.S. government as reflected in the outrage of House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other GOP congressional leaders over the FBI search of Democratic Rep. William Jefferson’s official office. Steyn’s term is “Incumbistan.” We suggest the Incumbistan Complex applies throughout the federal government.

Ah, the true Nature of what America is becoming is foreshadowed! For a little over a year later on 15 JUN 2007 at The Corner at NRO we get this:

Vacant Lott [Mark Steyn]

Andrew, I have no serious expectations of Senators these days, but I would like them at the very least to try and sound a little less like the plump complacent emirs of the one-party-state of Incumbistan. Trent Lott fails even that test.

And indeed it is!

Welcome to the one-party-state of Incumbistan and its zero-party-vassal of Electistan.

We hear a lot, out here in Electistan, the place where American voters are, from the political and ideological Elites from Incumbistan. That latter is centered in Washington, DC and doesn't stretch much out beyond the lobbying firms and monied interests that suckle up to the Emirs of Incumbistan, named Senators and Representatives. This lovely Imperial Government has pontificated much and often about how lazy and worthless Electistanians are and that they are just not going to do some jobs because they are just too demeaning.

That we heard from one of the Elder Emirs of Incumbistan, John McCain from the Emirate of Arizonia:

[...]But he took more questions, including a pointed one on his immigration plan.

McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.

Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain’s job offer.

“I’ll take it!” one man shouted.

McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. “You can’t do it, my friends.”

Some in the crowd said they didn’t appreciate McCain questioning their work ethic.

Yes, the people of Electistan in the Emirate of Arizonia were TOLD that they wouldn't take jobs at a wage rate that was HIGH, even when individuals of Arizonia said they WOULD take them! Yes the high Elder Emir of Arizonia does know his own population far, far better than THEY DO in regards to work ethic and what is seen as a good job!

And last year we heard from Ken Mehlman, head of the Republicarian Faction of Incumbistan on just what was so good about helping illegal aliens:

Part of securing those borders, though, is recognizing that we have a reason for a lot of this illegal immigration today and that is a disconnect between supply and demand. There is a big demand for workers and the supply, available in this country, doesn't meet that demand.

So we need to have a system, in the future, that says: We're going to figure out how to meet our economic [needs] without encouraging illegal immigration.

It seems to me the same tools we're using to keep out drug dealers and terrorists and criminals ought to welcome in tech workers and carpenters and workers willing to do the jobs that Americans are unwilling to do.

Yes, the National Inumbistanian Police are so effective at actually stopping the trafficking of illegal drugs and narcotics TODAY that they will be JUST AS EFFECTIVE tomorrow at stopping the trafficking of human beings, plus international gangs like MS-13, which is already under their purview for Electistan. Plus we now hear that the poor underclass of Electistan is unable to be trained to do tech worker jobs, carpentry jobs and unwilling to do other jobs! The Republicarians sure do know the Electistanians so well!

Such is the efficiency of the National Incumbistanian Police that they have ENDED the DRUG WAR SUCCESSFULLY with regards to shipping of illegal drugs to Electistan! They have also secured the Electistanians from all sorts of foreign criminal elements in the form of gangs, black market goods dealers and even in such things as trafficking of humans from Nations on terrorist watch lists that there is absolutely, positively no worries that this absolutely secure system in place today can handle a work load 10 times its current size. Plus they have shut down all forms of money laundering that utilizes untraceable contacts, remote exchange/purchase agreements and are all person-to-person networks based on ethnic communities. The ability of the NIPs to disguise themselves perfectly and be accepted into even the most vile of criminal operations is manifest by how safe Electistan is TODAY. Yes, the NIPs are the most efficient police force on the planet that they can do this for Electistanians! We are PERFECTLY SAFE from those things today!

With respect to the illegal immigrants that are here now what do I think we should do?

What I think we should do are several things. First of all we need to uphold the rule of law. It would be very wrong and inappropriate if we were to say there were no consequences if there were just a blanket amnesty,

Second of all we've got to figure out who among this population is a threat, and who among them is not a threat. I think the fact that there may be criminals among the illegal immigrants we've got to figure out who they are.

Yes, even when they don't know who the criminals are or where they are, we know that they have tracked them down and found them even when they can't do that! I think this may be a case of needing to augment the NIPs with illegal aliens so that they can do the jobs that the Incumbistanian Police cannot do. Those are such high assurances from Mr. Mehlman!

And Mr. Mehlman is so correct that poor, underclass Electistanians cannot be taught how to use a hammer, a hand saw, and drive nails with the correct tool! All forms of carpentry are UNKNOWN in Electistan and we are unable to TEACH anyone to do those jobs, including the unemployed Citizens of Electistan and the children of Electistanians. No one can be taught how to use a soldering iron nor how to trace out an electrical circuit as that knowledge has been lost, forever, in Electistan. In truth Electistanians are unwilling to do any form of manual labor AT ALL and prefer a servant underclass to work for us just like is done in Saudi Arabia. It is so good that they have taught us HOW to be as indolent as THEY ARE that we need a foreign servant class to do such things for us.

Of course we do take time to disabuse ourselves that doing such jobs has social value and that such work is needed in Electistan. So, to help us out, we have an entire business class to help ensure that Electistanians cannot even FIND such work:

And our goal is clearly not to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker. And you know in a sense that sounds funny, but it's what we're trying to do here. We are complying with the law fully, but ah, our objective is to get this person a green card, and get through the labor certification process. So certainly we are not going to try to find a place [at which to advertise the job] where the applicants are the most numerous. We're going to try to find a place where we can comply with the law, and hoping, and likely, not to find qualified and interested worker applicants.

Ah, praises be showered upon such businesses that ascertain what Electistanians will not do and ensure that no Electistanians can be found to do those jobs! They have even so figured out that looking for where Electistanians may be trained for such work is the best place not to look for those that would be QUALIFIED to do these jobs Electistanians will not do. The most progressive of Republicarian Emirates, that of Californicalia, has found that even running their own political party is beyond them and they now bring in foreigners to lead their party:

The California Republican Party has decided no American is qualified to take one of its most crucial positions -- state deputy political director -- and has hired a Canadian for the job through a coveted H-1B visa, a program favored by Silicon Valley tech firms that is under fire for displacing skilled American workers.

[..]

But the party nationally has fought efforts to increase immigration, calling during the recent debate in Congress for much tighter border security and resisting efforts to providing a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country.

The hiring of two immigrants at top Republican Party posts has handed ammunition to critics who note that many Republicans have spoken critically about the impacts of waves of Mexican immigrants.

Extreme and high praises for how WELL the Republicarians have LEARNED from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and going one step farther so as to farm out important decision making to foreigners as that is BEYOND the Republicarians of Californicalia. It is good that they are learning from their Elder Emirs, like Emir McCain of Arizonia, that there are, indeed, jobs that Electistanians will not do at ANY PRICE.

And one of the supporters of such illegal aliens is from the Democratolite party of Incumbistan, who is the Great Elder Emir from Taxechussets, Edward Kennedy. He has, indeed, pointed out that it would cost far too much to send illegal aliens home:

"There are 12 million undocumented workers here now," Kennedy said. "What are we going to do with them?"

Kennedy said most illegal immigrants are law-abiding and hard-working and are drawn to America by employers eager to hire them. "But I hold no brief for those who violate the law," said Kennedy, who noted that deporting illegal immigrants would cost $240 million.

This is an assured bank breaking proposition for the Emirate of Incumbistan which knows now little it can afford for such luxuries as enforcing the laws of the Nation. Of course the Great Elder Emir Kennedy has priorities for spending and that can be seen by his grand wisdom in the swinola he was able to get into the budget just a few weeks after pronouncing it would be too costly to deport illegal aliens:

An amendment by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), approved 53 to 46 yesterday, would add $289 million to compensate recipients of an experimental flu vaccine, in the event of an adverse reaction.

Yes, this was necessary pork stuffing to the budget because those that volunteer for an experimental flu vaccine are far more important than actually enforcing the laws of the Nation. Perhaps we can now get some illegal aliens to do *that* for us so that no more money need be spent on reimbursing citizens for volunteering to help their Nation. Other pork is, of course, stuffed into the expansionary budget of the Dept. of Agriculture where billions are handed out annually to farmers to support farming, subsidize crops, and even pay farmers to not farm, which is, of course, paying Americans not to do the job they want to do. Luckily in the top 20 we can see this in action from 2003-2005 and find some of the best supported agricultural businesses in the realm of Electistan. Yes, those farmers that own farms in far off parts of Electistan are not to be thought of as 'itinerant farmers' or 'absentee landlords' but good Electistanians just no longer willing to live where the work is actually done so that they do not have to do the work involved.

And it is far and well away known that mere citizens of Electistan have problems actually carrying around any sort of identification, and so the Grand Vizier Harry Reid ensured that all 'undocumented Americans' really should be citizens, because they are just as lazy as those already living here to carry any form of identification with them. Indeed, that is a growing problem where only terrorists can actually bother to carry documents with them so a to get proper truck rental for performing their explosive ordinance delivery service. That would be a tell tale way to find them to be sure, but the NIPs don't bother on that as checking documents is a job they cannot do, either.

Yes, it is such a grand thing that Incumbistan is becoming more and more like Saudi Arabia.

I am sure that the great oil of rejoicing will follow that trend, so we can have the oil that no one can be bothered to get here in Electistan.




Ah, we already do that, too! So way ahead of the curve are these Emirs of Incumbistan!

Sphere: Related Content

Learning English... so simple...

Learning English: So simple, a Barbarian can do it

Photo Courtesy: Grudge-Match

No one ever said anything about speaking it well, mind you....



Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling
by Mark Twain

For example, in Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later. Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.

Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants. Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.

Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spikingwerld.

Sphere: Related Content

Why do we refuse to call terrorism for what it is?

[Edit of 22 AUG 2007] Note that this article on the Admiralty Court firmly places all Piracy law in the Civil Courts. Admiralty Court is a jurisdiction within the Federal court system, not a separate court and I do stand amended on that. The reasoning is that Piracy is a crime against society and Nation, thus a civil crime that involves having a Nation. That said it is also a crime against ALL Nations. I stand corrected!

I have looked at the Federal Piracy Laws in two posts: When Terrorists are Pirates, and A deeper look at Terrorism and Piracy, and why it matters.

This piece now works off of the more finalized views of the second piece, but do understand the background given in the first as necessary to this.

Piracy is an activity, which has bounds and definitions placed upon it of which the 'swashbuckling' form of it from previous centuries is only a sub-part of the larger and broader definitions of Piracy. Consider the very broad part of the US Code Title 18, Chapter 81 on this:

Sec. 1651. Piracy under law of nations

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

This is the very broad view of keeping the traffic lanes on the seaways open from illegitimate and unlawful attacks, seizures and other activities that put the commerce of the seas and navigation of the seaways at peril. Those that endanger such, even if they endanger NO US owned or operated vessels, are Pirates. That is more simple brigandage upon the high seas, but also delineates that Nations at War are respected in their ability to hamper shipping against their enemies that directly supports those enemies, as that is a lawfully declared purpose of Sovereign Nations. Putting war material on a passenger liner, however, is a violation of that as it comingles civilian and military affairs in wartime and is, thusly, considered to be shipping in support of the war effort of one Nation.

Beyond that, however, this is a very broad purposeful law that does NOT put forth that non-State organizations cannot be considered Pirates. In point of fact that is why the law is addressed in such a broad way: to include anyone who commits laws against Nations on the High Seas to put shipping at peril. And as Civil Law may not hold here, it is the Admiralty part of the US Armed Forces that are to apply these Laws.

Sounds ancient, doesn't it?

Consider this news report from 15 JUL 2006 by ABC News, confirmed by multiple sources:

JERUSALEM Jul 15, 2006 (AP): A missile fired by Hezbollah, not an unmanned drone laden with explosives, damaged an Israeli warship off Lebanon, the army said Saturday.

The attack late Friday alarmed Israel because initial information indicated the guerrillas had used a drone for the first time to attack Israeli forces.

But the army's investigation showed that Hezbollah had fired an Iranian-made missile at the vessel from the shores of Lebanon, said Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan.

"We can confirm that it was hit by an Iranian-made missile launched by Hezbollah. We see this as very profound fingerprint of Iranian involvement in Hezbollah," Nehushtan said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Another Hezbollah missile also hit and sank a nearby merchant ship at around the same time, Nehushtan said. He said that ship apparently was Egyptian, but had no other information.

Do notice the last section there.

That, the unwarranted attack upon an unarmed merchant on the High Seas, is Piracy.

It does not matter if that was or was not a US vessel, that was an indiscriminant attack upon civilian merchant shipping. Therefore, all members of Hezbollah are Pirates and can be put away for life imprisonment under the Admiralty adjudication of the Laws.

Amazing, isn't it? One simple Law and all of one entire Terrorist Organization can now be gone after by the US. And if they resist arrest... well, not the thing to do if you are a Pirate now, is it?

How about the next law in line:

Sec. 1653. Aliens as pirates

Whoever, being a citizen or subject of any foreign state, is found and taken on the sea making war upon the United States, or cruising against the vessels and property thereof, or of the citizens of the same, contrary to the provisions of any treaty existing between the United States and the state of which the offender is a citizen or subject, when by such treaty such acts are declared to be piracy, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life.

Yet another way to look at Piracy, this time from the perspective of going after the US, vessels, property or citizens of the Nation. Again, an Admiralty Law, not a Civil Law.

Now lets think upon the 1985 hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship. That was an act of Piracy against a ship with the attacking and killing an American aboard, who was using civilian maritime transport which he had paid for passage on: Leon Klinghoffer.

Who was behind it? The Palestine Liberation Front and was led by Abbu Abbas ( Muhammad Zaidan ). This organization would later be funded and backed by Saddam Hussein. Over at the Terror Knowledge Base we get this from their entry on the PLF:

Current Goals: The PLF continued to carry out attacks against Israelis through the 80’s and 90’s, often employing unique techniques such as hand gliders, and even claimed a naval unit. Abbas and the PLF did, however, support the signing of the 1993 Oslo accords, and officially renounced terrorism against Israel. Abbas was permitted to move back to Gaza in 1996 under an Oslo-related Amnesty program. PLF involvement in terrorism was still suspected after 1993 due to the group’s distribution of Iraqi funds to Palestinian suicide bombers.

By claiming a 'naval unit' and having previously performed Piracy, this organization continues its ways under that purview. Thus the whole of the PLF can considered to be a Piracy operation and can be brought in with life imprisonment for any involved with it.

Consider next the al Qaeda attack upon the USS Cole. As al Qaeda sponsored this operation and takes full credit for it and it is an attack upon a US Navy vessel and it being an act of war to attack same, all of al Qaeda is a Piratical operation. They can be brought in and sentenced for life imprisonment under the Admiralty Laws.

Dear me! In three actions we now have three organizations that claim to be merely terrorist organizations, but are, in fact, Piratical operations:

1) Hezbollah
2) Palestine Liberation Front
3) al Qaeda

This is becoming a 'who's who' of Transnational Terrorism! Lets see what other lovely organizations there are out there that have performed acts of Piracy!

On 11 JUL 1988 the Abu Nidal Organization boarded and attacked a Greek Cruise ship killing one American. As with the Leon Klinghoffer case, this is Piracy, and even though Abu Nidal is now deceased, anyone who was a part of that organization is liable to be picked up for Piracy and put away for life.

On 06 OCT 2002 a Yemeni group attacked a French oil tanker and was claimed by the Aden Abyan Islamic Army. As with the Hezbollah attack upon civilian merchant shipping, this, too, is Piracy and while it may have been a small organization, anyone from it can be put away for life.

In 1984 the Suez Canal was mined damaging 19 vessels as of 20 SEPT 1984 and this was claimed from Islamic Jihad in Egypt, which may or may not have been supplied with mined from Libya and/or Hezbollah. All members of Islamic Jihad, for going after neutral civilian shipping in the transit waters of the Suez Canal are Pirates for doing so. Needless to say once they merged with al Qaeda, such members retain their previous standing and now have another mark against them.

Now, to understand how Congress gets to make these laws, we need to go to the Constitution and, in particular, Article I, Section 8, from which I shall excerpt the necessary passages:

[..]

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[..]

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

[..]

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

[..]

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

These are the Commerce regulation powers, High Seas powers, and the ability to make rules to govern those things for the US, as well as putting together rules for the Armed Forces so as to defend the US outside of the civil laws of the Union. Much of this is guided by Treaty for territorial waters, but the High Seas by ancient custom, has freedom of navigation upon it. There is no Empire over the High Seas and, thusly, Congress can make laws with respect to the High Seas in regards to its view of how the US seeks to safeguard that ancient custom.

Now as navigation of airspace was not a possibility at the time of the writing of the Constitution, or not considered as something that could be addressed, the US Code has regularized the High Seas powers to cover non-territorial airspace and general navigation safety of airspace:

The application of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (72 Stat. 731; 49 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1301 et seq. [see 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.]), to the extent necessary to permit the Secretary of Transportation to accomplish the purposes and objectives of Titles III [former 49 U.S.C. 1341 et seq., see Disposition Table at beginning of this title] and XII [see 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3), 46307] thereof, is hereby extended to those areas of land or water outside the United States and the overlying airspace thereof over or in which the Federal Government of the United States, under international treaty, agreement or other lawful arrangement, has appropriate jurisdiction or control: Provided, That the Secretary of Transportation, prior to taking any action under the authority hereby conferred, shall first consult with the Secretary of State on matters affecting foreign relations, and with the Secretary of Defense on matters affecting national-defense interests, and shall not take any action which the Secretary of State determines to be in conflict with any international treaty or agreement to which the United States is a party, or to be inconsistent with the successful conduct of the foreign relations of the United States, or which the Secretary of Defense determines to be inconsistent with the requirements of national defense.

The emphasis is mine, of course. From this all air transport outside of the territory of the US and areas that have Treaty agreement jurisdiction do fall under the High Seas general power. Congress has attempted to skirt this by making 'terrorist' offenses and a separate category for 'air piracy' but it must be noted that those offenses are only valid inside the US and cannot be extended outside of it via the Commerce power for civil jurisdiction. It is possible to have a separate concept of 'air piracy' outside of US civil jurisdiction, but it is strictly limited by activity type.

As Piracy outside the US is delimited to commerce and the combined High Seas, Air Space and other Treaty coverage with Foreign Nations as part of that commerce power, the act of Piracy is given to the Admiralty for jurisdiction. Thus in 1653, above, it is time to take a look at the point of the activities as that is what defines Piracy. And as this applies to foreigners, it can be seen in the following view for each section:

"and taken on the sea making war upon the United States," - Any group or organization, including Nation States and actually attacks the United States while on the High Seas is a Pirate. That means these foreign organizations, by creating capability and utilizing it, in that utilization against the United States, are Pirates. The activity of war making is the key, not the source involved, and it is that activity that defines the punishment. Thus, while al Qaeda is *not* a Nation State its attack upon a vessel of the United States then make it a target of Piracy laws.

"or cruising against the vessels and property thereof," - Now here is an expansion of the definition as making war is also that of going against the properties of the United States. This is, as I have looked at in previous views, that property covered under the commerce provisions of the High Seas and its extension into the air. Such property would include: port or airport facilities, storage facilities such as warehouses, the actual points of business including offices and terminal placements for transacting commerce, and any and all equipment to move, transfer and otherwise conduct commerce in foreign lands that is owned, in whole or in part, by the United States. Any company founded or operating from the United States is protected by this provision not only on the High Seas, in open air space, but has these provisions so that the United States may protect these operations when they are attacked overseas.

"or of the citizens of the same, contrary to the provisions of any treaty existing between the United States and the state of which the offender is a citizen or subject, when by such treaty such acts are declared to be piracy, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life." - Here the Treaty provisions are added into this, when attack citizens of the United States. Again, citizens overseas while conducting wholly legitimate commerce in foreign nations with the agreement of Treaties to provide for that, gain the protect of US laws in that commerce activity via the High Seas and extensions thereof. Any war like upon any individual in a foreign nation who is conducting legitimate commerce there under the Treaties between the US and that Nation is NOT TERRORISM. It is PIRACY. And this is, by custom, extended to the full time that an American citizen is in that Nation for that reason. Which includes, it should be reasoned, this thing known as 'tourism' where American citizens go overseas to give custom to foreign businesses to enjoy time in that Nation. Tourism *is* a commerce activity and anyone touring a foreign nation that is an American citizen and the US has normal Treaty relations to cover such trips is *protected* from attacks there that are warlike.

From that: any individual or group that sponsors or conducts attacks upon US citizens, US companies and any commerce capability of same overseas, including the property owned in whole or in part by same, are covered under Piracy provisions when attacked by those conducting what, under other circumstances, would be considered war-like acts. These are not simple muggings, rape and such. These things that are covered by Piracy laws are acts targeted upon US companies, its holdings or US citizens because they ARE from the US and the attack is directed to send a message TO the US by using war-like means.

And this also covers all US Federal Government property overseas.

Their penalty upon conviction by an Admiralty court: Life Imprisonment.

Now for the fun part of pulling down the support organizations to Pirates. The very next section starts on that:

Sec. 1654. Arming or serving on privateers

Whoever, being a citizen of the United States, without the limits thereof, fits out and arms, or attempts to fit out and arm or is concerned in furnishing, fitting out, or arming any private vessel of war or privateer, with intent that such vessel shall be employed to cruise or commit hostilities upon the citizens of the United States or their property; or

Whoever takes the command of or enters on board of any such vessel with such intent; or

Whoever purchases any interest in any such vessel with a view to share in the profits thereof--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

These are more traditional works of Pirates at sea. This deals with the era of Privateers, which were used as auxiliaries during wartime and to help go after Pirates. Some Privateers turned to Piracy, and this statute covers them. Do notice, however, that the concept of vessel to "commit hostilities upon the citizens of the United States or their property" also includes helping organizations get normal transport for their individuals to do that. And as this also extends to air transport, helping terrorists move around via sea or air to commit acts of war against the United States is aiding in Piracy. If you help others in boarding vessels with intent to harm or attack US citizens or their property, you are aiding in Piracy. This, as one may notice, also includes arming a vessel to do these things for plunder so as to profit by these acts.

Notice that it is very unwise of American citizens to knowingly help organizations that target American citizens or their property. It is a felony.

Next up is a quick one:

Sec. 1655. Assault on commander as piracy

Whoever, being a seaman, lays violent hands upon his commander, to hinder and prevent his fighting in defense of his vessel or the goods intrusted to him, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life.

This does extend to aircraft not in US airspace as the High Seas extension to airspace puts the freedom of travel of vessels as paramount when engaged in commerce. If someone who is employed on a vessel attempts to stop a commander from resisting a take-over of a vessel, then that is an act that is Piracy. One gets life imprisonment for that.

This is also a quick one, but has salient aspects to the modern era:

Sec. 1656. Conversion or surrender of vessel

Whoever, being a captain or other officer or mariner of a vessel upon the high seas or on any other waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, piratically or feloniously runs away with such vessel, or with any goods or merchandise thereof, to the value of $50 or over; or

Whoever yields up such vessel voluntarily to any pirate--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

Captains shall not steal thy vessels to sell them. Nor give such vessel to a Pirate. It is a felony. And it is damned hard to find a vessel under $50 of value in this day and age.

Now comes a meaty one:

Sec. 1657. Corruption of seamen and confederating with pirates

Whoever attempts to corrupt any commander, master, officer, or mariner to yield up or to run away with any vessel, or any goods, wares, or merchandise, or to turn pirate or to go over to or confederate with pirates, or in any wise to trade with any pirate, knowing him to be such; or

Whoever furnishes such pirate with any ammunition, stores, or provisions of any kind; or

Whoever fits out any vessel knowingly and, with a design to trade with, supply, or correspond with any pirate or robber upon the seas; or

Whoever consults, combines, confederates, or corresponds with any pirate or robber upon the seas, knowing him to be guilty of any piracy or robbery; or

Whoever, being a seaman, confines the master of any vessel--

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This is the more general aiding and abetting of Pirates and do notice that it has a lengthy laundry list of things that will run one afoul of it. And, as Piracy has already been put down as war-like actions against the US and its citizens, both vessels and property engaged in commerce, that is the applicable standard to use for this.

First is not to try and convince those that command vessels or who have access to the to commit Piracy or join up with same or even sell goods illegally to same.

Second is to not help Pirates with stores, ammunition or provisions of any kind. Do not aid them in their activities in attacking the US.

Third is not to create or convert vessels to provide help to Pirates, including delivery or transport of goods or even simple communications.

Fourth is a key to ending help with Pirates and I restate it, again:

"Whoever consults, combines, confederates, or corresponds with any pirate or robber upon the seas, knowing him to be guilty of any piracy or robbery, or"

Anyone who gives any help, advice, consultation, correspondence or actively confederates with Pirates can be charged under this statute when such aid is given to those known to be Pirates or even simple thieves and robbers upon the seas. This includes their organizations on land that have waged war upon the commerce of the US or its citizens. Those *are* Pirates.

The last is anyone who confines the master of a vessel, any vessel, is also covered under this statute.

One can be fined or put into jail for up to 3 years for doing these things.

As terrorists rarely plunder vessels these days, I will skip over the next two statutes which deal with attacks to plunder and plundering of those in distress. Likewise is receipt of stolen goods via Piracy skipped over.

There is a final one of interest and the last of the laws on Piracy:

Sec. 1661. Robbery ashore

Whoever, being engaged in any piratical cruise or enterprise, or being of the crew of any piratical vessel, lands from such vessel and commits robbery on shore, is a pirate, and shall be imprisoned for life.

Yes, if a member of an organization that has been deemed to be Piratical actually DOES try to rob you, they are liable to be imprisoned for life. They need only be engaged in a Piratical enterprise to be liable for this.

Now here is the question: Just how many terrorist organizations have used war-like capacity to attack US citizens engaged in commerce overseas, including tourists and businessmen, or otherwise attacked any US facility or property, owned in whole or in part by US companies?

Because those activities against the commerce of the US, as defined by the US Code, are Pirates. Even if they don't have a single sloop to their name.

The harder question is to name one terrorist organization that has NOT attacked the US or its citizens intent on sending a message while utilizing war-like capability to do so.


We certainly *can* imprison all such individuals who take part in such organizations for LIFE.

So, what is the problem at Guantanamo?

Seems like we have a lot of Pirates there.

Call them by their actions and charge them. We might not be able to figure out how to deal with them as 'illegal enemy combatants' but we sure, as hell, know how to put them away as Pirates.

Sphere: Related Content

Not your everyday idea!

Just a quick break to give a rest to the way too much seriousness going on which, I am sure, I will get back to in a bit.

This is one of those things that gets churned through my poor excuse for a mental set-up and there are many, many people to blame for this. First up is the creators of 'Reality Shows', which are way too unreal to be of interest to me. I really don't care if people will do stupid and dangerous things for money. I mean, one of the available sub-professions in geology is Vulcanology: studying volcanoes. And in that field there is a plethora of work to be done and one of the dangerous is the study of Pyroclastic Flows. Think of seeing just how fast, how hot and how much material can be spewed over an area and rip everything up in its path in a bevy of superheated air, steam, particulates, rocks, and other noxious fumes and such. That is a job where individuals do something that is highly anti-survival... they head *towards* active volcanoes, many that are erupting or about to do so. Think of the blast zone of Mt. St. Helens. Think of Pompeii. Think of Krakatoa.

Now if you made a 'Survivor Show' out of that, you would, slowly, get a body count. Not much good for television viewing, though, as it would run for decades with very little happening and then a whole lot all at once. Plus you would hate to have all the contestants go out at one shot. There being the one to be 'left behind' might just save your life. Nope that won't fly as a 'Reality Show'.

Now you know how my mind works on some days, when I can get it to work at all.

With that, add in this link from Instapundit to Popular Science on the 10 worse jobs in science in 2007. I do believe that even Mike Rowe could do a couple of these! But one, in particular, is suited to be a 'Reality Show' and *still* yield good science! See it?

No?

Think of 'Big Brother'.

Think of 'Survivor'.

Think of the Discovery Channel.

Think of your average couch potato.

Got it?

Yes, take 21 people who have all signed on to their being willing to last through 21 days of experimentation. Of social interaction in their group. Of lasting out to the bitter end. It is a job custom made for television being in confined settings, easy to film locations and, even better, has a fully capable and competent medical staff ready to assist.

It is, of course, Number 7: Gravity Research Subject.

Imagine the promo, where each subject is put through physical exams, tests and other things to make sure they can survive 21 days of being on an inclined bed. Yes, the field is open to every lethargic individual who has ever formed a sofa to their behind for years on end! Or those folks in Laz-E-Boy chairs that now swivel back way too much.

The interviews, and tests all done on camera, recorded and edited together for the Intro Program. Across different ages, lifestyles and viewpoints on life they come and the lucky 21 get to actually enter the program. Each has acknowledged that this can be dangerous to them, but is worth whatever the Prize Du Jour is these days for such things. That gleam of 'easy cash' just for being flat on your back. So simple *anyone* could do it!

A good pre-screening would be to play 'Jedi Knight' on the Vomit Comet, so that folks could get to know some of what it is that it really takes to be an astronaut, and to find out just who can keep their lunch down.

Photo: NASA
One can imagine the assemblage of 50 or so when the selection is made... the smiles, clapping and then, final downcast looks of those unable to go on. Little do they know they are *the lucky ones*.



Photo: NASA
Then the entry day to the hospital, and each of these fine worthies go to the bed and it is inclined 6 degrees to allow blood to flow to the head. Get them to describe their feelings, how their internal organs have moved and the sheer uncomfortable feeling of being on a bed like that. And eat in that position. And the lovely bedpan parts we can edit a little, but the embarrassment of it and the cleanup, in bed, afterwards. Time to become an expert in that!

Because it does all flow down hill in the end.

The joy of having the beds wheeled about and having to perform mental function tests, interact in a 'pleasant social atmosphere' and then, one by one, they each get 'the centrifuge'.



Photo: NASA
Alone, isolated, as one's body is spun faster and faster until 1G is achieved at the heart, but 2.5G is at the feet and all that blood goes rushing out of the head.



Photo: NASA
Day after day of that, trying to read, stay alert and always feeling that no matter how much you swallow your food really doesn't want to stay in the stomach. And after the first day the vote each morning, to get rid of one of their number. That can be done via electronic device so that they will not know how any voted, but the viewer at home WILL.

Perhaps throw in a video poker game on day two or three, with a few thousand dollars at stake. Watch them try to concentrate as they play just after lunch. Or do the old 'concentrate on the equipment' ordeal, trying to ensure that reaction time and motor skills do not deteriorate as time goes on. Drag out the old equipment and get a real feel for history!




Photo: NASA
Even moderately technical tasks would be a problem, no doubt, but those which requires interaction with others... ahhh... by day 5 or 6 of enforced inactivity, medical tests, centrifuging, you may find quirks in personality playing on you, irritating you. Then there are the *others*! Imagine the interviews, the discussions of just how each of them feels. And, perhaps, playing back some of their earlier recordings to them to get them to compare between then and now.

Of course some disorientation tests may need to be done, and even such things as testing out of reflexes in the linear vestibulo-ocular reflex in the human linear accelerator sled. I am sure the folks at MIT would *love* to have some 'volunteer' test subjects!




Photo: MIT
Wouldn't *that* be a grand break from the centrifuge?

The possibilities are endless!

Because it is always better to be *that* sort of test subject...


...than this sort of test subject!


Some day we may get a *real* 'Reality Show'.

Sphere: Related Content

The Defeatocrats in charge

Today we now get the joyous profusion of concern about the happenings in Iraq from the leaders of the Defeatocrats in Congress. Mind you this is a bi-partisan coalition of the clueless, spineless, woolly covered bleating masses Upon the Hill, and there is no difference between the 'two parties' when it comes to the Defeatocrat infection. This minor infection may start with bland, rhetoric that uses patriotic terms to couch defeatism at the start of it, but left untreated the results not only combine the worst parts of addictions but also of early onset dementia aimed squarely at the reasoning and cognitive abilities of those that suffer from it. Thus, those that are afflicted with this malady will have limited scope for reasoning and have a functional past memory limited to less than 6 months at onset and working down to weeks or days and hours when the case becomes terminal.

Further, like any addictive disorder, those suffering from it will refuse to come to terms with their lives, their actions and the results of their actions. Individuals involved will refuse to admit to any responsibility in their actions, that they have no culpability in the results of their actions, and continue to insist that if they got absolutely everything they ever wanted in life, that the world would be a perfect Utopia. These poor individuals refuse to recognize these symptoms and, due to that, they are left open to many other opportunistic diseases and conditions that will further deteriorate their mental capabilities to the point of becoming seriously disassociated with reality and withdrawing to a nebulous fantasy construct which they will then label 'the real world'. By not addressing how physical reality actually relates to this construct and, in point of fact, going into lengthy explanations as to why 'the real world' does not accord to physical reality, these individuals will put forth no sensible plans for themselves, their loved ones or even for such things as how to balance a check book.

So based on the clinical diagnostic outlay for how to identify Defeatocrat Disease, the following is stipulated as touch points for Primary diagnostic condtions and diagnosis:

Major Symptoms

• An individual constantly criticizes the current Administration for conduct in conflicts in Afghanistan and/or Iraq.


• An individual constantly criticizes the Secretary of Defense for having *shaken things up* or *gotten rid of future systems* or *pissing off long-term careerists in the Pentagon*.


• Takes *any* opportunity that may look even a smidgen bad upon soldiers to indict the entire effort to fight to victory.


• An individual states that Vietnam has proven that all wars are unwinnable and wrong, contrary to centuries of won wars that have established the basis for Nations, liberty and freedom.


• An individual states that NOTHING is worth fighting for, ever, using force of arms.

These are the diagnostic major touchpoints for Defeatocrat Disease and any single one of these is a prime concern that the individual is heavily infected with the disease, with the necessary addressing that 'Pacifist Syndrome' also has co-indicators with the last two points. Those with 'Pacifist Syndrome' are, save for rare instances of lack of supporting or compounding conditions, coincident with Defeatocrat Disease. These are addressed in the Secondary diagnostic conditions:

Secondary Conditions

• An individual offers NOTHING BETTER to achieve victory in any conflict or war that the Nation is involved in.


• An individual states that leaving Iraq before it is stable is 'the only thing we can do' to save the troops or that it is 'unwinnable' or a 'quagmire'.


• An individual states that the United States is *the problem* in anything that happens anywhere.


• An individual states that 'free trade' will bring liberty to the world and NOT give cheap arms and armaments to the enemies of the Nation.


• An individual states that Nations cannot achieve 'peace through strength' and that is just another guise of militarism.


• An individual states that there are no individuals trying to establish an Empire that would endanger Free People.


• An individual states that money spent on the military is a *waste* of money.


• An individual states that 'mounting death tolls' indicate defeat and will not use that for *anything* else in any other circumstance to indicate same.


• An individual constantly asks - 'Why do they hate us?'

Each of these is cause for concern in and of themselves, but any two of these seen together then requires a look for a Primary diagnostic condition of some sort. Many of these Secondary diagnostic conditions are worrying as they have their own disorders associated with them, but they are opportunistic to those that are no longer in touch with the physical world and living in 'a real world' construct of their own design. It is further noted that due to the addictive disorder symptoms that attend Defeatocrat Disease, those suffering from it will do anything they can in an attempt to hide these symptoms, offer far-fetched and unlikely explanations for their actions, or offer a set of statements that is barely in accord with their constructed 'real world' and have no basis in physical reality.

As reported previously, these Secondary diagnostic conditions can also be a result of Main Stream Media Addiction and inability to actually move from one's seat when staring into any television news report, also known as Blazing Couch Potato Malady. Due to the restricted nature of Main Stream Media utilization of words longer than three syllables, these individuals have undergone Dumbing Down Dysfunction in which higher cognitive association capability has broken down within the mentality of that person and they are no longer able to reason and form cause and effect bonding of action to results. This is further plagued by Commercial Break Mellitus, which is the total shut off of all mental functions, save those necessary to eat from a bag of potato chips, during times when more active and interesting material is being presented.

Because of the combining and worsening conditions that MSM Addiction causes, they are contributing factors in diagnosis of Defeatocrat Disease, but Primary in understanding the cognitive disassociation that many put forth in creating their own 'real world' that attempts to conform to that of the Main Stream Media but has no other basis in physical reality. From that Suspect contributing sources can be diagnosed:

Suspect Contributing Sources:

• Reuters


• Agence France Press


• Associated Press


• New York Times and all affiliated newspapers including the Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune


• Washington Post


• ABC


• CBS


• NBC


• Fox News when looking at any story *not* including photogenic young women in trouble.
  
• Los Angeles Times


• Any Newspaper in Seattle


• Any Newspaper in San Francisco

Any individual putting forth that these media outlets somehow purport to offer any objective facts that have any tie-back to reality must have their newspapers stopped and news input restricted by a Licensed Professional Caregiver. Or the subject's Mother unless she is the *source* of the conditions, in which case she will *also* need Fluff Restriction Information Intake so as to remove any source of wanting to hear about starlets, missing pretty girls, anything associated with 'American Idol', anything to do with the subject 'sharks', or any program that purports to have information while held in an entertainment conduct. This specifically INCLUDES: '60 Minutes', 'Frontline', 'The O'Reilly Factor', and anything coming from any source of pulp-based, dead tree media outlet, although the articles in 'Playboy' may still be considered safe for reading with appropriate screening as to author.

To indicate the high level of mental disassociation with the physical world and reliance on a mental construct 'real world' the following are often seen in individuals suffering from this condition and that they go unremarked upon by those suspected of having Defeatocrat Disease: 'Maureen Dowd ellipses syndrome', 'un-named sources', 'senior officials' that are not on the record, any 'off the record briefing', any images originating from a conflict taken by any of these organizations, undated 'facts' in any piece, and the use of any 'retired military officer' that has been retired for more than 3 years or a recently retired officer that is using any conflict as an excuse to retire instead of fixing the system from the inside. Utilizing any of these is also seen in 'Truther Trance' in which undirected monomania will direct all of an individual's attention to one subject and be unable to actually deal with such things as physics, chemistry, or even time-based ordering of events. Many suffering from 'Truther Trance' suffer from such things 'Illuminatus Conspiratorialatis', 'Rosicrucian Ruminations', 'Templar Tribulation', 'Lone Gunman Condition' and 'Bilderberger Bargainensis'. Individuals who utilize conspiratorial 'real world' mental constructs cannot associate the problem that any conspiracy that is so capable and deep cannot do a better job of running the planet.

Tertiary diagnostic conditions are highly indicative if two or more are held along with any two of the Primary or Secondary diagnostic conditions and are heavily associated with MSM Addiction. These are listed so that a Licensed Professional may understand the basis for other disassociative conditions to be watchful for if these show up:

Tertiary Conditions

• The individual states that the draft is the 'only way to involve the Country as a whole' in armed conflict, contrary to the specific warfighting Powers listed in the Constitution.


• An individual states that 'open borders' are a right to all people.


• An individual states that unchecked free flow of individuals into the Nation will *not* include terrorists.


• An individual states that illegal immigrants should be given recognition for good work *after* doing something illegal.


• An individual states that the US should fight *wars of conscience* that are of no benefit to the Republic and puts soldiers in harms way to help far-off downtrodden people who have gotten themselves into their own mess and *will not* clean it up.


• An individual purports that the UN and bringing tyrants in to *help* negotiations actually achieves something.


• An individual states that *patriotism* is used unjustly as an argument point against them.


• An individual in an argument calls the other person a 'bigot', 'racist', 'fascist', or 'McCarthyist'.


• An individual states that the United States needs to be 'loved' in the world and that we must find ways to get our enemies to stop being 'enemies' and do NOTHING to help our friends.


• An individual states that the United States must follow 'International Law' but then cannot cite the specific law involved, its enforcement body or when Citizens actually had a chance to debate it and vote on it.

These combinations of mental disassociative conditions in the modern perspective now lead to numerous other maladies that may or may not afflict individuals with Defeatocrat Disease. This list does continue to grow in the modern world, as the opportunity offered by 'constant online presence' and 'IM Mania' and even 'Email Observation' have distanced individuals from the actual world and that is now supplemented by 'i-device distortion' in which one's own personal field of interest encompasses the individual to the point where the ability to even recognize the real world is diminishing.

While harmful to the civilian population, the first firm diagnosis of this happened with the Political Elite classes in the 1980's and 1990's. During that span the movement of that class of individuals away from actual contact with the public to media-moderated public contact that was one-way in nature, caused a primary disassociation from the American Public and fed back into the public at large to start the break-up of real interaction and replace it with 'sound bites' and 'authentic conversation' which was one-way in directivity or, when actual people were involved, so heavily screened as to nature of the individuals that no disturbing thought patterns were allowed to intrude.

As the worst sufferers of Defeatocrat Disease, Main Stream Media Addiction and even such monomanias as 'Truther Trance', the actual political leadership of the Nation can now serve as prime examples of Defeatocrat Disease. A recent letter put out by the two Political Leaders of Congress is used as a case in point:

Last November, the American people overwhelmingly made clear their desire to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end. Yet, at the start of this year, you announced a substantial escalation of our military presence in Iraq. This so-called “surge” was clearly at odds with past experiences in Iraq, the wishes of the American people, and the advice of many senior military leaders, including General Douglas Lute, your “war czar” nominee. Nevertheless, you proceeded to call up thousands of additional National Guardsmen and Reservists, extend the tours of tens of thousands of brave troops already in Iraq, and plunge our forces even deeper into Iraq’s civil war.

This paragraph, after the opening salutations, demonstrates the monomania and tunnel vision of those involved. It demonstrates the Major Symptom of criticizing the President over Iraq, cites a military leader who is displeased with events, and criticizes a plan which is not fully in place nor in action to put forth that it is not working. This is a major cognitive dysfunction on another scale, however, as the purporting that the 'American people overwhelmingly made clear' any such desire is not supported by the Democratic Party's 2006 platform [some cropping of the screen capture involved to remove the surrounding gray areas]:




Here we have a decided inability to tie back to the physical world in which the Political Leaders involved no longer even recognize what it is that they ran on to win the last election. It is duly noted that not a single one of the major points involved actually makes the conflicts in Iraq or Afghanistan as its basis and, in fact, does not even attempt to address terrorism at all. By putting forth no concrete terms for election based on Iraq or Afghanistan nor featuring it as a primary point for their Party, these two political leaders are now refusing to tie their 'real world' mental construct back to the outlook given during the election.

Notice that this also involves the Secondary diagnostic condition of being unable to offer anything better in the conflicts and the problems of the Nation keeping illegitimate military organizations at bay. These individuals further demonstrate this disassociation by being unable to utilize the actual, military terminology for 'civil war' so that their references can have martial meaning and outlook and demonstrate any knowledge of the historical precedents of 'civil war' and what their conditions are. By being unable to do that and utilize long lasting and historically meaningful definition of the term 'civil war', these two leaders are now attempting to re-define the physical world in accord to their 'real world' outlook.

It is noted that the term associated with this has been in used since the first author outlined the mindset and utilization of language debasement to enforce mental control over populations. That term and its concaminant long-term end state are both highly useful in also diagnosing Totalitarian Memory Hole Lapse: Newspeak is the term and Duckspeak is the final end state of individuals enforce new meanings upon old words that are in no way in accordance to the original words at all. From that Desktop Reference Guide to Orwellian States we can now clearly see that Defeatocrat Disease is a prime precursor to Big Brother Brutality, in which the actual, physical events are distorted so as to give a 'real world' construct any basis in fact.

This is supported by the Secondary diagnostic condition of purporting that 'past experience' in Iraq guides the speakers when, in point of fact, there is NO equivalent experience that the US Armed Forces have in living memory of a situation like this and that the last time the US was involved in an operation on anything like this scale for counter-insurgency was in 1899-1913 in the Philippines. Nor, indeed, have either put forth any clear or cognizant understanding of what the actual concept of the Strategy in Iraq *is* nor the problems faced in Nation Building exercises and the meddling of the Political Elites in the last failure of the US in Haiti in 1915-34. Either these two Political Leaders have NO formalized education in US history of any sort or they have moved into a mental construct in which the 'past' is limited to years starting with a 196_ and higher pre-fix. Without the ability to do any past analysis of post-war situations, both of the US and other Nations, and put any perspective into the current conflicts that are ongoing, they are offering no coherent basis of outlook and ideas that conforms to the physical world.

In the very first paragraph of a letter sent to the President of the United States, these two Political Leaders have clearly demonstrated the prime diagnostic conditions for Defeatocrat Disease. This then indicates that they are operating in a world of mental constructs that is highly limited into input, puts no value on analysis of past events or history, and reduces timescales for anything so that criticism can be had at the least possible timescale without acknowledging the long-term basis of events and how they unfold. From this very basis, one can expect much more in the way of disassociated context of events, mischaracterizations of activities and total abdication of the Role of the Legislature in Warfare.

The second paragraph is as follows:

As many had foreseen, the escalation has failed to produce the intended results. The increase in U.S. forces has had little impact in curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation. It has not enhanced America’s national security. The unsettling reality is that instances of violence against Iraqis remain high and attacks on U.S. forces have increased. In fact, the last two months of the war were the deadliest to date for U.S. troops.

Here the 'As many had foreseen' again does not address timescale of the conflict involved nor of counter-insurgency operations that are, of necessity, long-term affairs. Notice that it is a highly passive use of addressing a problem, in which others had foreseen problems and that those putting forth this current document had no hand in any affairs for years or decades prior to this time. Even worse is the lack of recognition that the entire operational plan is not even fully staffed nor in-place and cannot expect to see meaningful results until months after it has a chance to be established. Such simple things as post-WWII occupation of Germany and removing of the worst of the Nazi sympathizers and the 'Werewolves' that staged many low-level attacks upon military and political figures, does not demonstrate the understanding that to some 'political reconciliation' will not be had as those that are irreconcilable have no want of actually being reconciled to their loss.

Worse than that, however, is the lack of recognition that in the once violent province of al-Anbar, the long term US Strategy has not only won results, but resoundingly so, and is creating a new political movement and atmosphere in Iraq that sees broad-spectrum buy-in by the Sunni minority to END terrorist violence. One of the main reporters on this has been Bill Roggio and Michael Yon, both of which have reported not only great success in getting a new basis for political and military stability in Iraq, but that it *works* and is *spreading* to other provinces as the terrorists find themselves unwelcome in al-Anbar. Even more important is the recognition that corruption of military and political figures has little place in a democratic Nation and the need of Iraqis to want that ended. As Michael Yon reported to Glenn Reynolds on 20 MAY 2007 from Anbar Province:

Boring day today, Sunday. Very quiet. But I see the news and it looks pretty bad. Did long meeting with USMC and Iraqi Police Chiefs today. Was about the most tedious meeting I've been to in Iraq -- and that means it was glacial. I hope we can make the rest of Iraq like this.

And understanding that Mr. Yon is a retired member of the US Special Forces and has spent considerable time in Iraq and Afghanistan as an embedded reporter and he has no compunctions about calling idiocy and loss when he sees it. Apparently al-Anbar province got boring. No fighting going on worth talking about and he moved on to areas where the insurgency is still active. When Michael Yon, who is now an active War Reporter of the old school of getting out there with the combat units involved, reports that there is no war going on where he is you know that there is NO WAR GOING ON there. That is why he wanted to change units: to report on a WAR GOING ON.

Mr. Roggio has done hard and necessary work both as an embed and in coordinating news from Iraq so that a perspective can be gained on the actual activities going on there. With Anbar becoming a lethal place for terrorists to remain in, they moved to lesser defended provinces, like Diyala. The basis of Anbar Awakening, however, is not Provincial, but Tribal, and as the Tribes cross Provinces the shift of al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army means that they are now meeting up with expanding Tribal resistance that is in *support* of the Government. Diyala is now getting the hang of this 'local authority with support of government' concept that allows those who are local to have support and back-up while more formal troops may be lacking. Additionally is seen the influence of Iranian 'Secret Cells', which are part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). That has *also* been reported to Congress as the IRGC extends influence over more of Iran and looks to export Islamic Revolution globally as that is their mandate.

The statement by the Leaders of Congress that put forth that US Forces have had no impact on "curbing the violence or fostering political reconciliation" is one that is highly at odds with the actual reconciliation with Sunni Tribes with each other and the Iraqi Government, the formation of new, Provincial and Tribal based coalition political parties and the actual lessening of violence across Iraq and Baghdad so that al Qaeda and the Mahdi Army are finding it difficult to stage daily operations and now must go for bigger 'event' but singular irregular attacks. And this is before the surge operations are fully in-place, fully manned and fully operational.

A final bit of non-recognition of the physical reality and the mentally constructed 'real world' is the citation of casualties rising. In the month before D-Day in 1944 casualties were actually quite low, with only a few hundred lost in a training exercise. Going on the offensive and taking the fight to the enemy means that friendly forces will have more casualties. This has been true in every ground combat situation since the beginning of armed conflict. The US Armed Forces are not sitting ducks, but targeting the enemies from multiple sources, establishing localized control over towns and cities, helping to raise up police and army units, get some form of democratic government up and running *and* fighting. Fighting and casualties do not take place on separate realms of reality and counter-insurgency requires an 'across the board' effort in all realms simultaneously and NONE of them can be done without basic military security. One of these Political Leaders has so mis-characterized that in the past and besmirched the honor of the General leading the counter-insurgency effort that this can only be seen as an absolute divorcing from the physical reality of life on the planet so that he may live in a fantasyland 'real world'.

Apparently neither of these leaders knows what it means to build trust-based relationships with individuals on the ground.

That may lead to a rude awakening in up and coming elections in the US.

The third paragraph attempts to critique the Iraqi Government:

Meanwhile, Iraq’s political leaders have done little to unite their nation and diffuse sectarian tensions. Recent reports indicate that the Iraqi government is unlikely to enact any of the legislative benchmarks which you endorsed in your January 10 speech. While our troops and their families are required to make greater sacrifices on behalf of the Iraqi people, Iraq’s political and military leaders are unlikely to meet any of the standards for measuring progress which only a few months ago were thought not only possible, but essential, to achieve. On June 12, the former head of the US training operation in Iraq, General Dempsey, gave an assessment of the capability of Iraqi security forces that concluded that after years of effort and massive expenditure of resources, Iraqi units remain uneven in their quality and reliability.

This coming from two individuals who promised that their first 100 hours in power would be the most active seen in the Republic for decades. Instead, the glacially locked Congress of the previous session returned, but with the added bonus of becoming so locked in problems that it took them 108 days to even *vote* on a piece of legislation that was promised to be passed the VERY FIRST THING. Charging others for being as slow as a turtle when you are in charge of an organization that makes slugs look blazingly fast is a bit of chutzpah that hasn't been seen in decades, either. In point of fact the six things that these two Leaders ran on as a Party platform not only remain UNDONE but they have backslid in each of them to the point where things are worse *now* than when they got into power in JAN 2007. And they dare to criticize another legislature that hasn't even run for re-election yet and that have never actually run a government before in their entire lives that they aren't doing it far faster than the United States can?

This is sheer and utter divorce from reality as even the United States spent five long years in failing government with the Articles of Confederation and the entire Nation nearly collapsed before a Constitution and Federal Government could even get voted on and passed into being. They are, perhaps, projecting their own levels of incompetence upon others and decrying it while refusing to recognize that they are doing even worse by their very own standards.

These two leaders, likewise, fail to meet their self-same standards and can, by their light, be so highly crticized that the People could vote in their States to withdraw support for this Congress and were even advised by one Senator to do so. It is very strange becuase Sen. Lott is also highly dysfunctional towards many topics, but he did get the proper response based on the duties assumed by Congress. This from Sen. Trent Lott on the recent Immigration Amnesty proposal, which he was FOR:

This is one of the biggest issues facing this country and the question is do we have the courage, tenacity and the ability to get anything done anymore. If we can't do this, we ought to vote to dissolve the Congress and go home and wait for the next election...

If these two fine Leaders of Congress feel that this letter is the absolutely most pressing thing in Congress and that they cannot get anything done to their satisfaction, then they should, indeed, do their Constitutional Duty and dissolve Congress. When the President needs you for a bill to be passed he will call an emergency session and the States can pony up folks until regular elections in them can get a proper quorum. This is a highly descriptive characteristic of how those living in a fantasy-based ideological 'real world' no longer recognize their duties nor responsibilities and wish to make others culpable for their inability to deal with that divide.

Worse still is the utilization of yet anther individual from the Armed Forces and yet not putting that statement into any coherent context to know what it actually means. The United States has a long military tradition that it has been building up and establishing in a truly formal means, via War Colleges, for a short period of time, historically speaking. These two political leaders have not the slightest clue on what it takes to Create an Army, especially in the Middle East where there are high levels of social dysfunction and factionalization that is used to spread divisions not only in the Army but in society as a whole. The excellent work of Norvelle B. De Atkine in that description and analysis is key to understanding that what is being created in the Middle East, an Army that is secular in outlook and enforces the Nation State and all of the People as a whole, is, outside of Israel, unknown in the Middle East.

Further, and this should be known by these two individuals, is that when trying to get a worn down military component up to snuff and establish or re-establish capability and esprit de corps, there will be unevenness in that. When bringing up an entire Army that is diverse in capability, that is to be expected. They should know this as that has happened to two Army Divisions in the US Army during their time in Congress. The Iraqis have never HAD an accountable Army and building one up takes time, especially a modern force. As an example, the New Iraqi Army has stood up its first Armored Division with tanks refitted by Romania, which were finally delivered last year. Until those are delivered one cannot train as an Armored Division, and they have gone through equivalent training in the US but with US equipment, not Iraqi. Now with that delivery comes the long and difficult adjustment time to stand up the Division, train it with Iraqi equipment and capability and finally work to integrate it with Infantry and Mechanized Infantry, plus air cover. The Iraqi Air Force is reborn and only now, after years of training its pilots and finally getting its cargo aircraft, to learn the Logistics Supply end of the business. Similarly the 'brown water Navy' has also had to stand up for patrol and in-shore combat support and it, also, has been lacking equipment until recently. I cannot see how the Iraqi Army could be brought up 'evenly' in this event.

Even worse is that these two individuals do not even recognize the problem in procurement cycles, establishing funding base and ensuring accountability to funds. Last year the Iraqi Government ran a $10 billion SURPLUS and its economy is growing at over 4% per year and has been for years. They do not know how to spend their money wisely and, rather than spread corruption through unwise spending, they are taking their time to have their bureaucrats EDUCATED in how to work business and government accounts, establish means to track and monitor money flows and make sure that Internal Affairs organizations are funded and working so as to start curbing corruption from the start. Amazing what they have accomplished in 1.5 years in Iraq, given that they had ZERO to start with. That, too, is divorcing oneself from the physical reality and going beyond that to deny that one actually knows how a government works and why it works that way. If these two leaders wanted a corrupt, tin-pot dictatorship in Iraq they should have spoken up Four Years Ago about that.

These two Political Leaders also do not appear to understand their duties outlayed to them in the Constitution and the separation of powers it contains. This next paragraph shows that and the inability to deal with that as a concept in representative democracy:

Congress on a bipartisan basis sent you legislation in April that set forth a new strategy for Iraq that responded to the wishes of the American people and better served America’s national security interests. This legislation, which you unfortunately chose to veto, was consistent with the approach advocated by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group late last year. That strategy called for transitioning the role of U.S. forces away from policing a civil war to missions that are consistent with our strategic interests, namely fighting terrorism, training Iraqis, and protecting U.S. forces. The strategy also would have begun the phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq so that Iraqis could take responsibility for their own security.

Congress is not given the power to set forth new strategy for the Armed Forces: that is wholly given over to the President of the United States with the Commander in Chief Power. The President is also Head of State and Head of Government, both giving the individual involved those powers that can only be removed by removal of the individual from Office. Legislation may not address strategy nor tactics, the only realm for doing anything is in the accountability of laws via the UCMJ. The Iraq Study Group is not a government organization and has no standing with the US Government, and so citation of it is useless for anything dealing with the physical reality of strategy with regards to Congress. Congress does not get to set Foreign Policy nor how to run Armed Conflicts beyond the upholding of military justice laws.

And as seen earlier, the inability to actually understand counter-insurgency operations means that one cannot separate the fighting and security part of it from the training, building, establishing a basis for indigenous control and accountability. Iraq, even as it stands, has a couple of provinces where the Iraqis, no matter HOW MUCH MONEY is thrown at them will not be able to take control of them for months as they are still figuring out how to build supportable capacity, figure out how much they need and spend money effectively. Doing that and trying to establish this concept of 'federalism' and 'local control of affairs' is a hard thing to do in a land that has never experienced that in history. Apparently these two political leaders believe that this can be done in a few months or a year or two. At no time in history has this been done in that short a period of time unless one takes into account the Nations under the defunct USSR which had, at some point for most of them, some history of democratic workings and had cultural affinity for same. That can go quickly, when societies are whole and working together towards a common goal.

That does not describe Iraq which has always been divided by Tyrants and Empires along ethnic/sectarian/tribal lines and the splits within each of those used against them. Figuring this out does not take long, just a bit of reading of reports to understand that Iraqi civil society has been so abused that it did not even *exist* in many areas of the Nation when it was liberated. The rebuilding of those bonds of trust will take far longer than building roads, bridges, power plants, water systems, and getting a basis for security in place. Apparently that does not fit into the 'real world' that these two political leaders see.

It is fully understandable from the Defeatocrat Disease standpoint that from these fantasy based views of the world will come wrong-headed and destructive goals that will limit freedom and make people less secure over time. That is highly unfortunate, but utilizing the insights of Lee Harris on *another* organization's fantasy ideology will help one come to understand just what the Defeatocrats are about. I find it highly unfortunate that the Defeatocrat Disease has now inculcated a fantasy that will now empower that other organization if it is allowed to spread unchecked.

That other organization is al Qaeda.

And they have based their outlook on their fantasy, and destruction of civilization is the result of it.

It has apparently one two converts, both at the head of houses of Federal Government in the US.

Fantasy trumps the physical world, right up to the point of the knife that slits one's throat. Then the physical world takes over once more.

Sphere: Related Content

The ONE campaign, gets a Minus One

Lately Bill Frist and many others have come up with a lovely way to be Bi-Partisan and find unique ways to get yet more money from the Federal Government and your wallets so that the bounty of America can be spent by bureaucrats. They wish to do this via the ONE Vote '08 concept to improve world health. Anyone who is familiar with my attitudes on Darfur will know exactly what is coming: and it will not be pleasant.

There is one sovereign rules about organizations from the Revolutionary to the corporate: as they are constructed, so shall they work once they have the means to do so. Thus when an a group works to head up many independent groups it is of actual good intent to SEE who is leading them. Thus, comes their roster from a Press Release on 06 JUN 2007:

Bill Frist, former Senate Republican Majority Leader

Tom Daschle, former Senate Democratic Majority Leader

General James L. Jones, (ret.) USMC, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe; Current President & CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy, US Chamber of Commerce [invited]

Susan McCue, President & CEO of The ONE Campaign

Jack Oliver, GOP Strategist and co-chair of The ONE Campaign

Ashley Judd, actress and humanitarian

Brian McLaren, Pastor, named by TIME magazine one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America

Karen Sichinga, nurse, Churches Health Association of Zambia (CHAZ), Global Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria

All very nice people I must say!

Bill Frist, as everyone will recall, was Senate Majority Leader up to 2006 where he bowed out as he had promised when he first assumed the position. While he did have qualms with the 2006 Immigration Reform Bill, he did vote for its passage, as seen in the Senate Roll Call for that vote. As a doctor, however, he still kept up with his work in that field and has been tireless in it to the point of drafting a bill to direct the President to use Dept. of Agriculture funds to help folks overseas clean up their water supplies, put down educational capability and to make local markets more robust to sustain such things.... that WAS in the proposed bill S. 492 Safe Water: Currency for Peace Act of 2005 that he proposed in 02 MAR 2005. From SEC 104d to amend the Foreign Assisstance Act of 1961 (my thanks to the Thomas Multi Congress Search in preparing this article!):

`(c) AUTHORIZATION-

`(1) IN GENERAL- To carry out the policy set out in subsection (b), the President is authorized to furnish assistance, including health information and education, to advance good health and promote economic development by improving the safety of water supplies, expanding access to safe water and sanitation, promoting sound water management, and promoting better hygiene.

`(2) LOCAL CURRENCY- The President may use payments made in local currencies under an agreement made under title I of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) to provide assistance under this section, including assistance for activities related to drilling or maintaining wells.'.

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 104(c) of the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954 (7 U.S.C. 1704(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(9) SAFE WATER- To provide assistance under section 104D of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to advance good health and promote economic development by improving the safety of water supplies, including programs related to drilling or maintaining wells.'.

So handy of Sen. Frist to care so much about the health of those folks who will get USDA funds to clean up their water supplies. Any word on when the SUPERFUND Sites will be all cleaned up?

Just asking.

Then there is S.2210 the Debt Relief Enhancement Act of 2002 which Sen. Frist co-sponsored. It is one of those lovely things that was decided on by the G-8 and Paris Club and was all in the spirit of that Papal debt forgiveness concept for poor Nations. And it has a lovely section about those Nations not eligible for aid of this sort:

`(c) CONDITIONS- A country shall not be eligible for cancellation of debt under modifications to the Enhanced HIPC Initiative described in subsection (a) if the government of the country--

`(1) has an excessive level of military expenditures;

`(2) has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism, as determined by the Secretary of State under section 6(j)(1) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)(1)) or section 620A(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2371(a));

`(3) is failing to cooperate on international narcotics control matters; or

`(4) engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights (including its military or other security forces).

Notice the lack of the words 'Liberty' and 'Freedom' involved? Also just what is "excessive level of military expenditures"? Compared to which Nations? The US scrimps by around 4% or so of GDP and most European Nations skirt in the 1-2% area, while the old USSR, when you could figure out if they had an economy at *all*, was estimated at the low end at 10-15% with the high end running to 25%. So just what, exactly, is 'excessive'? Good thing the G-8 and Paris Club are involved to decide *that* isn't it?

Then there is the entire 'cooperate on international narcotics control matters'.... no word about *effectiveness* is involved, just willing to cooperate. Such lovely pablum, so that just about any Nation with a counter-narcotics unit that is barely funded can fit into that!

Finally there is the 'gross violation of human rights' concept. Are we going to hand that over the UN or HRW to decide? If so then the US would not be eligible to GIVE THE AID as we really don't qualify as having any sort of real human rights according to them...

I do not mind Sen. Frist's involvement with National Health Concerns and enjoy that he is concerned about global health problems. What is missing is that the Federal Government is not set up to DEAL with those things. When Congress tries to legislate Foreign Policy initiatives they try to hook it in with all sorts of lovely and, ultimately, meaningless agreements that get *nowhere*. The last successful International Program was that of smallpox eradication. It took decades and there was continual backsliding in that and that had a team of dedicated professionals trying to get the work *done*.

So do excuse me if I get a bit jaded on what Sen. Frist has as a conception of what the US Government can *do*. If it could have been done, then he would have achieved it while he was in the Senate. There are a few other bills and such that do point to the problems of this, but if the US cannot figure out how to deal with its OWN medical problems then we have a real problem giving money from the Federal coffers to other folks that can put that money into corrupt political schemes at home for enrichment of the few and deprivation of the many. The reason that smallpox eradication *worked* is that it was simple vaccination given by a skilled health care professional that was cheap and could be distributed with no fear of it being embezzled, although I am sure that some of that went on, too.

Now, Sen. Daschle spent lots of time concentrating more on US concerns but he did get his name on a bill or three that concerned overseas health issues. One of those was S.2525 United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2002. And from the start in its Definitions section we get to see who will run this thing:

In this Act:

(1) AIDS- The term `AIDS' means the acquired immune deficiency syndrome.

(2) APPROPRIATE CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `appropriate congressional committees' means the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives.

(3) DESIGNATED CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES- The term `designated congressional committees' means the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Health , Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate and the Committee on International Relations and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives.

(4) GLOBAL FUND- The term `Global Fund' means the public-private partnership known as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria that was established upon the call of the United Nations Secretary General in April 2001.

(5) HIV- The term `HIV' means the human immunodeficiency virus, the pathogen that causes AIDS.

(6) HIV/AIDS- The term `HIV/AIDS' means, with respect to an individual, an individual who is infected with HIV or living with AIDS.

(7) RELEVANT EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES- The term `relevant Executive branch agencies' means the Department of State, the United States Agency for International Development, the Department of Health and Human Services (including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the National Institutes of Health , the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, and the Food and Drug Administration), the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Defense.

Quite the polyglot of bureaucratic overhead ripe for political pontification, isn't it? And I am sure that Department of Homeland Security would get added today. Ok, with all of those actors involved, can you imagine actually getting such little things as *meetings* together? Not only would multiple parts of different Departments show up, but also different departments in Agencies and then you add in the overseas folks from the UN, WHO and who knows *what* else. This is NOT a recipe for swift action nor assured action nor much of anything.

Luckily this document begins to map THAT out also:

SEC. 101. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE, FIVE-YEAR, GLOBAL STRATEGY.

(a) STRATEGY- The President shall establish a comprehensive, integrated, five-year strategy to combat global HIV/AIDS that promotes the goals and objectives of the Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its Special Session on HIV/AIDS in June 2001, and strengthens the capacity of the United States to be an effective leader of the international campaign against HIV/AIDS. Such strategy shall--

(1) include specific objectives, multisectoral approaches, and specific strategies to treat individuals infected with HIV/AIDS and to prevent the further spread of HIV infections, with a particular focus on the needs of women, young people, and children;

(2) assign priorities for relevant Executive branch agencies;

(3) improve coordination among relevant Executive branch agencies and foreign governments and international organizations;

(4) project general levels of resources needed to achieve the stated objectives;

(5) expand public-private partnerships and the leveraging of resources; and

(6) maximize United States capabilities in the areas of technical assistance and training and research, including vaccine research.

(b) REPORT-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall submit to designated congressional committees a report setting forth the strategy described in subsection (a).

(2) REPORT ELEMENTS- The report required by paragraph (1) shall include a discussion of the following:

(A) The objectives, general and specific, of the strategy.

(B) A description of the criteria for determining success of the strategy.

(C) A description of the manner in which the strategy will address the fundamental elements of prevention and education; care and treatment, including increasing access to pharmaceuticals and to vaccines and microbicides when available; research, including incentives for vaccine development and new protocols; and training of health care workers, and the development of health care infrastructure and delivery systems.

(D) A description of the manner in which the strategy will promote the development and implementation of national and community-based multisectoral strategies and programs, including those designed to enhance leadership capacity particularly at the community level.

(E) A description of the specific strategies developed to meet the unique needs of women, including the empowerment of women in interpersonal situations, young people and children, including those orphaned by HIV/AIDS.

(F) A description of the programs to be undertaken to maximize United States contributions in the areas of technical assistance, training particularly of health care workers and community-based leaders in affected sectors, and research including the promotion of research on vaccines.

(G) An identification of the relevant Executive branch agencies that will be involved and the assignment of priorities to those agencies.

(H) A description of the role of each relevant Executive branch agency and the types of programs that the agency will be undertaking.

(I) A description of the mechanisms that will be utilized to coordinate the efforts of the relevant Executive branch agencies, to avoid duplication of efforts, to enhance on-site coordination efforts, and to ensure that each agency undertakes programs primarily in those areas where the agency has the greatest expertise, technical capabilities, and potential for success.

(J) A description of the mechanisms that will be utilized to ensure greater coordination between the United States and foreign governments and international organizations including the Global Fund, UNAIDS, international financial institutions, and private sector organizations.

(K) The level of resources that will be needed on an annual basis and the manner in which those resources would generally be allocated among relevant Executive agencies.

(L) A description of the mechanisms to be established for monitoring and evaluating programs and for terminating unsuccessful programs.

(M) A description of the manner in which private, nongovernmental entities will factor into the United States Government-led effort and a description of the type of partnerships that will be created to maximize the capabilities of these private sector entities and to leverage resources.

(N) A description of the manner in which the United States strategy for combating HIV/AIDS relates to and promotes the goals and objectives of the United Nations General Assembly's Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS.

(O) A description of the ways in which United States leadership will be used to enhance the overall international response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic and particularly to heighten the engagement of the member states of the G-8 and to strengthen key financial and coordination mechanisms such as the Global Fund and UNAIDS.

(P) A description of the manner in which the United States strategy for combating HIV/AIDS relates to and enhances other United States assistance strategies in developing countries.

Oh, my! This is the spaghetti infestation of bureaucracy everywhere. The US will adhere to the UN say-so on what needs to be done when and where! And we are to be good 'yes-men' in that aren't we? I mean it is all internationally done and such, by the ever trustworthy folks who ran the Oil For Food Program for Saddam Hussein. Also notice the '180 days' to formulate a strategy. Can we get a 180 day policy to address Federal Pork Spending, first? That will take far fewer organizations, and only be limited to 535 individuals who will just have to agree to stop spending on Pork programs.

By the way, what if a program is deemed not to be 'effective' and is then continually funded by a Congresscritter via Pork to reward an overseas advisor, assistant or lackey? Can we get some criminal penalties written up for that sort of thing?

And how about those annual outlays? Isn't that a lovely thing to see: Congress telling the President that more money needs to be spent and figure out how much for something that resides in the Foreign Policy area. One of the things NOT cited in the Bill is which Treaty this is being promulgated under. Because Congress cannot promulgate law for regularization of anything with Foreign Nations without a Treaty being involved. I just can't seem to find it.

I am *sure* there *must* be a Treaty involved... otherwise Congress is telling the President that the US needs to submit to the will of a non-elected International Body without having any legal backing at all to do so. And such directions from such bodies would violate the US Constitution as those foreign bodies are not allowed to tell the US what we are to do so as to enact Treaties. I notice that the Global Coordinator in the State Dept. for this has no mention of any Treaty involved and that the PEPFAR Office is totally under US outlook.

Now I thank Gen. Jones, USMC, ret. for his work heading up the Supreme Allied Command in Europe! And for the adoption of the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program, so as to instill the respect for the Martial Arts that are as still as necessary today, where close quarters fighting can get far too close, as it was in ancient times.

Unfortunately he has stepped into an organization that puts him at the equivalent of being bound up in a straitjacket, blindfolded, surrounded by a group of Ninjas right before they turn the lights out. A Dorsai ... I expect a Dorsai to get out of that unscathed and carrying the leader off in the same straightjacket, alive. What is this group? Well, for that I will let John Fonte describe the activities they are involved in The Transnational Left and Transnational Right, when dealing with current views of the Right to Capitalist Transnationalism:

REGIONALIZATION: NORTH AMERICAN INTEGRATION

For several years, government leaders and business elites in US, Canada and Mexico have been promoting North American integration. An executive agreement established the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America (the SPP). In June 2005 and March 2006 Cabinet members from the US (including Condoleezza Rice, Carlos Gutierrez, Michael Chertoff) and their counter parts in Canada and Mexico outlined priorities.

These priorities include:

(1) The immediate number one priority was to “facilitate the movement of people” across the borders of North America.

(2) The “harmonization of security and customs regulations in all three countries.” This priority is vaguely written and ambiguous, although implicit is the suggestion that there should be one border for all of North America.

(3) The “formalization” of a “transnational professional labor force” that could work in any North American country.

(4) The creation of institutions to promote North American integration

On March 31, 2006 the three governments established the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) to implement these measures. The US Chamber of Commerce is the Secretariat for the council.

The Bush Administration has not involved or even fully informed Congress on North American integration; even budget figures are almost impossible to come by. Unlike some, I don’t believe a conspiracy is at work. Nevertheless, the North American integration project is deeply flawed both conceptually and administratively.

Obviously there are areas of cooperation with our neighbors that are being pursued by the SPP that make perfect sense in health regulations, trade, and intelligence cooperation. However, issues of border security and immigration are issues that should be decided by the Congress of the United States. They should not be delegated to Canadian, Mexican, and American executive branch officials, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and transnational corporate executives.

The US Chamber of Commerce is getting set up as a delegated group to oversee the 'harmonization' of 'North America'. The US Chamber of Commerce, plus other corporations and foreign Nationals are being set up via the North American Competitiveness Council to 'harmonize' the laws and cultures of Mexico, Canada and the United States so as to make them into one, borderless, North America with one homogeneous culture. It is obvious that Gen. Jones will have to make a reasoned decision on exactly *what* he will do when he comes to know of this. I, however, place no trust in the US Chamber of Commerce and their inclusion at such a high level by both Senators Frist and Daschle speaks ill of their outlook and intentions on this matter.

Susan McCue, on the other hand, has worked as the Chief of Staff for Sen. Reid and has a trail behind her as a political partisan and hack. That is evidence by the email exchange she had during the Nomination of John Bolton to the UN Ambassador position posted at Move America Forward:

-----Original Message-----
From: Cory XXXXX@columbus.rr.com
To: Anderson, Kai (Reid) Kai_Anderson@reid.senate.gov; Hafen, Tessa (Reid) Tessa_Hafen@reid.senate.gov; McCue, Susan (Reid) - Susan_McCue@reid.senate.gov; McCallum, David (Reid) David_McCallum@reid.senate.gov
Sent: Thu Mar 17 09:05:17 2005
Subject: Bolton Nomination

Bolton is the best possible person for the job of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Senator Reid needs to get off of his extreme partisan horse, quit playing political games, and get back to representing his state in the Senate.

Cory S. Estes
Bucyrus, Ohio

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

That email from Mr. Estes, elicited this response from Democrat Leader Reid’s Chief of Staff, Susan McCue:

----- Original Message -----
From: McCue, Susan (Reid) - Susan_McCue@reid.senate.gov
To: XXXXX@columbus.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Bolton Nomination

And you, cory, need to get off your extreme partisan puppetry and think this through. Blame the UN for the world’s ills if it makes you feel better. But maybe you should stop and think about what you as an individual can proactively do to protect this great nation. Name-calling at the behest of the rich republican propaganda machinery isn’t it. Supporting our two-party constitional democracy is.
--------------------------
The Office of Senator Harry Reid

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Mr. Estes replied to the berating he received from Reid’s Chief of Staff with the following email. However, note that the Read Receipt Mr. Estes received indicates that McCue deleted the email without even opening it up to read:

----- Original Message -----
From: McCue, Susan (Reid) - Susan_McCue@reid.senate.gov
To: Cory
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 1:54 PM
Subject: Not read: Re: Bolton Nomination

Your message

To: McCue, Susan (Reid) - Susan_McCue@reid.senate.gov
Subject: Re: Bolton Nomination
Sent: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:13:00 -0500

was deleted without being read on Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:54:23 -0500

Ms. McCue,

Young lady, where was I name-calling? And, what makes you think that I am involved in “extreme partisan puppetry”? You do not know me personally and have no right to make such accusations. Are you an extremist yourself? After all, it is normal for those with extreme beliefs to accuse others of being extreme.

I absolutely support our constitutional democracy (as you put it), and support the need for two or more parties to represent the differing political points of view in our country. I am a student of US history, constitutional law, and US politics. I read and study both sides of issues and base my decisions on personal values and historical perspective, not on what some media personality or blogger says. I am nobody’s puppet and never will be!

And finally, you said, “But maybe you should stop and think about what you as an individual can proactively do to protect this great nation.” Again, you should be more careful about what you say. I proudly and honorably served in the US Air Force for more than 20 years. I think I can very safely say that I have not just stopped and thought, I have proactively given a large part of my life to the protection of this great nation,

Sincerely and proudly,

Cory S. Estes, USAF (Retired)

Yes, a staunch DEFENDER of the UN! Also note the knee-jerk reaction to two-partyism, as if the Constitution *mandated* only two parties. Plus, she can dish it out but not take it. She is also on the Board of Trustees for Third Way, which is a self-proclaimed Progressivist organization. This organization has a very skewed way of looking at the world we are currently in and has put out a security agenda that is transnationalist in outlook and agenda, plus it misapprehends what the threat is in this era of Transnational Terrorism. One of their views is that 'Realism' in Foreign Affairs should be applied to Rogue Nation States as seen in this misunderstanding of dealings with the USSR and comparing them to the modern era (p. 10):

The war has exposed this Administration’s misunderstanding of diplomacy. Negotiation is not a reward to other nations for good behavior; it is a tool for advancing our country’s interests. For five long years, in some of the world’s most dangerous places, the Bush team has sacrificed the reality of negotiated progress to the illusion of regime change. Until very recently, the Bush Administration opposed negotiations with nations such as North Korea, Syria and Iran on the grounds that this course was incompatible with eventual regime change. This is a misreading of history. From the beginning of the Cold War to its end, every US president conducted serious talks with the Soviet Union. Communism collapsed, not because we refused to negotiate, but rather because our economic performance, military technology and political ideals ultimately eroded the competitive standing and the will of our enemy. As Robert Litwak puts it, “The unresolved tension over the objective of US policy toward rogue states—behavior change versus regime change—frustrates the effective integration of force and diplomacy.”

I have some bad news for these folks: this concept of Foreign Policy depends upon Rational Nation State Actors that have a view towards self-survival. I went over that in this article on Why not containment for Iran? and looked at the drives of the State of Iran:

A look at the Cold War style of containment saw the West, in general, supporting the containing and isolation of the Communist system. Today there is no generalized sympathy in the West against Islamization and Islamic based Transnational Terrorism. Transnational Progressivism has eaten away at the heart of Western liberal (old school liberal) belief structures and has generally eroded the Nation State concept globally and, most particularly, in Old Europe. Islamic based violence and intimidation, from weeks long riots in France to the Cartoon Concerns to the killing of those who speak out against Islamism is NOT being responded to by the West.

Indeed, the West is capitulating and taking on self-censorship, denying the freedom of ideas to spread and, generally, caving into Islamism and its violence. One dare not speak against them via even the gentlest of cartoons in most publications, bookstores and universities across Europe and the US. For containment to *work* there must be a solid wall against violent Islamism and Islamic based Transnational Terrorism.

That is not in place nor can be set in place with the current atmosphere of Transnational Progressivism pervading the West. The world cannot be 'One Big Happy Family, Ruled by Those With Insight', unless those doing the ruling are Islamic. Transnational Terrorists would be MORE than happy to supply *that* ruling class. Moderate Muslims see no need to protest this as they are *winners* no matter who loses in a conflict between the traditional West and radical Islam.

So containment by the West cannot happen given the current state of culture and politics.

That is a non-starter. If we can't come together to ensure freedom of speech, something difficult like actually opposing violent Islamism will get zero traction.

[..]

Containment *can* work if a majority of the West could get on the self-saving bandwagon of such. This has not happened, nor can it easily happen in Old Europe without some sort of 'ethnic cleansing'. Remember that the French did invent the cordon sanitaire and I am sure would re-discover it *given time*. And so the West might, also, given time. I do not place my bets on *might* and *possible* unless one is actually engineering these things to happen. On the diplomatic side this is NOT the case. And, indeed, the Transnational Progressivist nature of Old Europe will not allow such to take place without a violent overthrow of regimes and a replay of the late 1920's to early 1930's.

Containment practiced solely by the United States and one or two cooperating allies has a possibility of working but would require the most vigorous use of aggressive military denial seen in centuries. Iran would need to be blockaded, cut off, its supplies and flow of oil interdicted and, generally, the entire nation brought to a halt via commercial means. Anything *less* than that will see such broken by France, Germany, Russia and China as happened with Saddam in Iraq. Iran would be seen as a regional counter-weight to US influence and if it gains nuclear devices, they would not be anywhere near the top of the target list. As Iraq has proven: containment with a 'dimmer switch' does not WORK.

That is dealing with the individuals and Nations involved in a manner that utilizes their actions and their stated outlook and sees if they conform to each other. They do. The United States could not perform 'regime change' upon the Soviet Union because it, in all of its nastiness, adhered to Western conceptions of Nation State, Reciprocity between Nations and the idea that Treaties need to be adhered to and Nations accountable to each other. Those wishing to form Islamic Empire have NO NEED OF THAT. The mentality that these Progressives display is that 'all diplomacy is good' and that 'negotiating with tyrants is necessary'. Tyrants, instead, use the fact that we negotiate with them to extract anything they can from such because they can 'hold up progress' otherwise and be attacked BY PROGRESSIVES due to that intransigence of tyrannies. These tyrants do not believe that the US has the will to back up diplomacy by warfare: that is what the negotiations with North Korea have demonstrated, time and again.

And the reason that Soviet Communism fell is due NOT to Progressives and only partially due to the US trying to remain steadfast while the rest of Europe was looking to import as much socialism as possible. I have some bad news for the Progressives on that count, also: Soviet Communism was brought down by a Nation that kept to Roman Catholicism while being under the yoke of tyranny and stuck the mighty hammer blows by WORKERS against the 'Worker's Paradise'. That could not be done by the outside in any way, shape or form. Best we remember that and thank the Polish People for rising once again from the belly of the Beast that had swallowed her THIS TIME. It was not the economic nor military prowess of the United States, although that helped. It was the People who remembered Freedom seeking it when things got horrible in their Nation and they would not put up with it any longer.

Just so you can get a further feel for how Progressivists think and what the Third Way stands for, on p. 13:

We will also need new governance institutions. On September 10, 2001, Harry Truman would have seen the same Cold War security architecture he built—with the exception of the US military’s ability to fight as a single, “joint” fighting force. While it is perhaps understandable that there were no widespread government reforms between 1989 and 2001, it is astonishing that there have been so few since. Indeed, the Administration has not been interested in, and even has seemed hostile to, such a process.

Shortly after Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt launched an investigation into how the United States could have suffered such a catastrophe. In contrast, the Bush Administration not only failed to do so, it dragged its heels when Congress demanded the creation of the 9/11 Commission. It impeded the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and failed to engage in significant reform of the intelligence community, eventually creating an entirely new bureaucracy in the Director of National Intelligence. The Administration then failed to make either institution effective; quite the reverse, as Hurricane Katrina made clear. More recently, the report of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction tells a tale of bureaucratic layering and duplication, red tape, turf protection and repeated failures to cooperate that would almost be funny if the consequences were not so grim.14 The Bush Administration’s inattention and even hostility to governance reflects—and magnifies—its failed strategic vision and incompetent execution.

Yes, call for the creation of brand spanking NEW forms of government and then criticize others when they do the exact same thing and they do not WORK. Apparently Progressives don't get the point by now: Government is not made to work efficiently, effectively or even with more than a bare minimum of competence. I cannot point you to anything outside of the active warfighters that *demonstrates* effectiveness, efficiency and pro-active behavior meant for survival. That is because they are looking to SURVIVE. This little bit just a bit further down describes their outlook perfectly:

While 9/11 and the war in Iraq have dimmed bright post-Cold War hopes, they should not produce pessimism and must not lead to an American withdrawal from the world. With a new strategy, we can get back on track and move toward a safer America and a better world.

Translation: Please make 9/10 come back!

That is the outlook that has Susan McClure on its Board of Trustees: Transnationalist, bureaucratic, ineffective and backwards looking and pining for the 'good old days' right after the Cold War when everything looked so sweet and peachy, don't mind the blood outside the CIA, the bombing of the WTC, the African Embassy Bombings, the Khobar Towers bombing, and many, many attacks upon US Citizens, Federal Employees, Diplomats, Armed Forces and even an attempt to assassinate a sitting US President. If we just make lots more government to regulate our lives more and appease dictators we will be so much safer....

Apparently I was living in a pre-9/11 world that was only bad in a matter of degree, not kind from 9/11. Too bad the Progressives do not live in this world as those that are after us have no compunction about killing to their taste whenever and wherever possible. That might even be a long-term health threat! I wonder if ONE Vote '08 will look into that....?

Next up is Jack Oliver, and for him I will look at his resume at Bryan Cave Strategies LLC:

Jack Oliver serves as Chairman of Bryan Cave Strategies LLC, a subsidiary of Bryan Cave LLP with headquarters in Missouri and Washington, DC. Oliver also serves as a senior advisor for Lehman Brothers with a focus on the firm’s global client relationship management and private investment management businesses.

A native Missourian, Oliver has worked at the highest levels of national and Missouri politics as an advisor and strategist for Bush-Cheney ’04, Bush for President and Sens. Ashcroft, Bond, Danforth and Talent. Described by Time magazine as “the man largely responsible for what is being heralded as the most formidable money machine in modern political history,” Oliver most recently served as national finance vicechairman for Bush-Cheney ’04 and Victory 2004 managing the campaign’s $240 million national finance plan. Prior to that, Oliver was deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee, serving as chief operating officer and overseeing all day-to-day operations of the 2002 effort resulting in historic Republican mid-term gains in the House and Senate. Oliver served as national finance director for then Gov. George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign and managed a fundraising effort in the primary and general election that shattered all previous presidential fund-raising records.

Before joining the Bush campaign in 1999, Oliver served in various political, financial and managerial roles in the campaigns and government offices of Sen. John Ashcroft, Sen. John Danforth, Sen. Kit Bond, Congressman Jim Talent, Congressman Bill Emerson and the Missouri Republican Party.

Oliver serves on the Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, as an advisory council member of the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University, on the National Leadership Council of Communities in Schools, the Robin Hood Foundation Leadership Council, the E-Health Corporation board of directors, as an advisory board member for the Legacy Partners Group and on the Board of Trustees for the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

Yes, a well connected political activist with ties to multiple organizations, thus making him a well connected political apparatchik. The Thurgood Marshall College Fund targets Federal Departments for their students so that activities can be directed upon them by the Fund. They do this not only through private donations but by seeking targeted grants from the Federal Government for Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Having worked inside the Federal Government in an area that had to work on Contracts and Grants, the main difference is that a Grant has very little that need show for it for the money to go out, while Contracts require strict deliverables and 'pay for performance' concepts. Thus bringing in a well connected party functionary allows TMCF to slide pork into the Federal Budget for targeted Grants via the HBCU concept. While I applaud the Fund for its work, I do wish the Federal Government would either just make payments and cut out overhead or put out contracts and hold those in them accountable. Grants are a 'feel good' pain in the ass that take up valuable time and overhead from real work. Not that the political parties care about that.

The National Leadership Council of Communities in Schools has an agenda which is highly laudable of ensuring that children stay in school and do not drop out, and works on a partnership pairing concept. It also has a 'Who's Who' sort of roster of supporters which is this diverse: Steffi Graf, Herb Alpert, Ambassador Andrew Young, Burt Bacharach, Andre Agassi, Michael Milken. Yes they *do* have a lobbying office in DC and my bet is that they, like the TMCF seek to get loans, grants and other goodies socked into the Federal Budget, also. This does point up the problem that education is a local concern, not Federal, and is in no way given to the Federal Government to worry about. Until, of course, Jimmy Carter got the Dept. of Education made....

The Robin Hood Foundation is likewise targeted to ensuring good education for children and young adults in rough neighborhoods in and around NYC, and is one that has a strong partnership concept to it. Plus it is fully funded by private donations and not seeking to suckle from the Federal Budget! These things still exist in America?

Ehealth is an organization that is set up to broker between individuals and multilple health insurance plans, and looks to be a private set-up with only a minimum of lobbying on the Federal side of things. They *do* some of that, but it does look mostly to allow more individual choice in such things.

Looking at Legacy Partners does not yield much beyond their being in the investment banking arena, targeting the middle swath of companies providing goods and services across all forms or industry.

From those I can say that Mr. Oliver associates himself with some pretty decent partners. His depth of party contacts and inroads to the Federal budgeting process do look to be key motivational factors as well as his undoubted ability to fund raise. Can't have a successful lobbying organization like ONE Vote '08 without lots of money.

And you can't have a *serious* lobbying organization with humanitarian outlook without someone that is slightly famous in showbusiness/music/whatever. Thus, Ashley Judd.

From what little I have seen of Brian McLaren and the Emerging Church concept, it appears that religious diversity is still alive in the US and the ability of new approaches to religion, faith and how to live one's life in accordance with beliefs is an ever changing landscape where we tend to shift around and get new views on the mountains in the distance.

Finally, and the backgrounding is almost done (really!) there is Karen Sichinga. Ok, when I hit a place like Friends of the Global Fund to fight against AIDS, TB and Malria and I see them getting goodies from the Federal Budget on the front page... lets just say I am a bit turned off. Yes, $850 million is pocket change to the House of Representatives, where a $1.2 billion biathlon course in Alaska goes unnoticed, but it is not what I like to see at all that it is trumpeted as a *good thing*. So lovely of Congress to decide that OTHER people need help and then NOT provide enough to the VA Hospitals or procure enough war fighting equipment for the troops. And decry *that*. And the amount of paperwork that Vets have to go through. Lovely that they have their own Washington Office to lobby with, isn't it?

Ok, that was the *easy* stuff.

Now time for the ONE Presidential Platform! Yes, they have their very own thing that they want Presidential Candidates to sign up to and support. Isn't that just the thing for a lobbying organization to do? Why yes, yes it is! And it is *so* lucky that there are so MANY lobbying firms involved: Bryan Cave LLC, Ehealth, Communities in Schools, Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund, and, of course, the heavyweight of all time, the US Chamber of Commerce. Thank you to The Center for Public Integrity and their handy, dandy lobbyist search!

The ONE Campaign is loaded for Lobbying and now lets see where their aim is.

For that we can start at p. 18 and get their first steps for the next President to take:

• The U.S. should address the quality of its development assistance by more effectively targeting it and investing it directly in the poorest communities. This should include efforts to increase harmonization both within the U.S. development portfolio and among other donors and host countries. In addition, an aggressive timetable for reducing the proportion of tied assistance is essential.

• The next president of the United States should commit the U.S. to a target date for reaching an additional 1% of the U.S. budget in poverty-focused development assistance, with annual interim targets to reach that goal. The U.S. should then scale up resources through the budget accounts that have the most direct impact on the world’s poorest people to ensure that the MDGs are achieved.

• The next president should create a more robust implementation structure for foreign assistance that prioritizes and harmonizes international development objectives and activities across implementing agencies. For example, the creation of a new, cabinet-level agency focused solely on international development and humanitarian affairs could ensure that critical aid dollars are spent effectively and that poverty alleviation is as much a priority of U.S. foreign policy as defense or diplomacy.

• The U.S. should increase its focus on program measurement and impact evaluation. Policymakers should provide funding for operations research and program evaluation as an integral component of all U.S. funded or supported development, emergency relief and international health activities. Unproven programs should be required to have an evaluation component to determine their effectiveness.

Not even a 5 point plan! Why, how un-doctrinaire! But I do smell "harmonization" and that can lead to no good at all. So lets start with the top and take a look at these lovely points.

First off is that of effectively targeting the poorest communities for aid. Generally a good idea! And when dictators, bureaucrats and local politicians look to get in the way and get 'their cut' of the goodies? Then what? Because that is how it works in almost ALL of these 'poor communities' that have corrupt political structures that reward adherance to the ruling party/strongman/coalition/tribe/religion/ethnic cohort. Poor communities in many areas of the world are often poor for a *reason*. Those areas of the world that do NOT have accountability of their political/police/military class see 'Foreign Aid' as a 'personal domain' FIRST and then whatever is left after the skimming, bribes, payoffs, and such gets delivered. Remember Oil For Food? Where Saddam was able to leverage that program and so corrupt it that it served HIS purposes, both material and media, and served to empower HIM and impoverish his people.

Remember that?

Before you know it those 'on the take' were 'harmonizing' their bribes and payoffs and political pressure in the US, UK, Russia, China, France, Germany... to weaken those sanctions. Aid works in exactly the same way: where funds and goods get siphoned off, stolen, misplaced in a permanent fashion, and then allotted as the regime wants. Excuse me for saying so, but that first point is so idealistic as to be unrealistic. Unless those in charge of the ONE Campaign intend to SUPPORT tyrannical and despotic regimes living off the backs of the 'poor communities'?

Then there is the 'timetable' concept. Has Congress worked out a good 'timetable' since 1986 to secure the borders of the US?

No?

How about good UN 'timetables' to a democratic government in Kosovo?

No?

Ok, then how about having a 'timetable' UN Peacekeepers held accountable for their actions and ending: slavery, sex slavery, pedophilia, sex for food, extortion, and owning up to 'Blue Helmet Babies'?

No?

Excuse me for saying so, but 'timetables' work very good for trains and not so good for Foreign Aid, save as something known as: A Deadline for Cut-Off.

That gets attention. 'Timetables' are flexible, and that flexibility leads to inherent graft, corruption, etc. seen in the likes of the OFF deal, amongst many. You can't get a shipment to 'war torn' or 'impoverished' areas without seeing local thugs and personal militias getting their share FIRST and the regular folks end up with the scraps.

Point two, for me, is a killer: 1% of the Federal Budget allocated to this above and beyond what is already done. Mind you, quite some billions are *already* tied up in the USDA in this sort of thing. But lets take them at their word that an *additional* amount equal to 1% of the current US Federal Budget is what they want to siphon off of the US Taxpayer to send overseas. Current estimates put the Federal Budget (more or less) at $2.9 trillion (US trillion). So an additional 1% is $29 billion.

Lets do a bit of comparison, and to do that I will use the spreadsheet for the 2007 budget and get some summary totals. Ahhh... spreadsheets!

Area	$ billion
Dept. of Agriculture	$92.783
Dept. of Commerce	$6.6
Dept. of Defense - Military, Unclassified	$505.863
Dept. of Health & Human Services	$699.58
Dept. of the Interior	$9.432
Dept. of Justice	$24.682
Dept. of Labor	$53.357
Dept. of State	$14.487
Dept. of Treasury	$494.293
Social Security Administration	$622.709
Dept. of Education	$64.484
Dept. of Energy	$21.419
EPA	$7.904
Dept. of Transportation	$65.651
GSA	$0.898
Dept. of Homeland Security	$43.553
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development	$44.668
NASA	$16.356
OPM	$67.265
SBA	$0.605
Dept. of Veterans Affairs	$73.844
Food and Drug Control Programs	$0.202
International Assistance Programs	$16.843
Other Defense Civil Programs	$47.299
US Army Corps of Engineers - Civil Program	$5.879
EEOC	$0.324
Export-Import Bank	$0.046
FCC	$7.653

So, this splendiferous concept of forking over more would, of course, not be its own line item.... heaven forbid *that*. Mind you the Dept. of State budget also includes goodies for other Nations, so the International Assistance Programs really cannot be seen all on its lonesome. And, as seen before, money gets squirreled away into the USDA and other places for Foreign Aid. But if this idea WERE a line item it would rank ahead of: Dept. of Justice, Dept. of Energy and be far ahead of the already existing International Assistance Program and NASA.

It would, in fact, be 181% of the IAP as it exists and *combined*, for nearly $45 billion, they would place ahead of: Dept. of Homeland Security, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, and be just a bit behind Other Defense Civil Programs.

But Point 2 then looks to SCALE UP all the spending for something that is already larger than: State, Justice, Homeland Security, HUD, Energy, NASA, plus a slew of smaller things like GAO and EEOC. Basically, this becomes the largest, single Federal Giveaway EVER.

Then what do these folks want with Point 3? Why, an ENTIRE BUREAUCRACY to go with it! Take a look at the Dept. of Education sitting up there. Now, here is the problem with it: it has not effected the reading levels of US children. They remain, stolidly, at the levels they were in 1958 when Johnny couldn't read.

I thought the idea was to help the poor and sick, not to ensure that their condition lasts just as it is forever onwards? Just what the Federal Government NEEDS is an entirely new bureaucracy dedicated to giving American Tax Dollars to poor folks overseas. That is one of the best income re-distribution plans that I have ever seen, anywhere, outside of the USSR.

Finally, Point 4, which is made moot by Point 3. You will have a bureaucracy with turf wars and sinecured positions and folks fighting to keep their little areas funded forever onwards and they will NEVER be ended. It only took a little over three decades to end the Mohair subsidy for gloves that were made during the Korean War! Can you imagine trying to end a program that is feeding corrupt tyrants overseas and pointing to the starving people being 'helped' by it?

*You can't END this program as it does so much GOOD!!!*

As some thug pockets 20% of the funds, distributes goods to his inner circle and then stages a truck delivering supplies only when cameras show up. And the bureaucrat in Washington ONLY sees *that*. Don't believe that? Look at the Oil For Food program, in which Saddam kept corpses on ice and defrosted them whenever the media showed up for a corpse and starvation show. That will be how Transnational Progressivists will couch their views, and the Transnational Capitalists will point out how this is economically *good* for them... although not necessarily for the Nation or the People.

Yes, indeed, the ONE campaign is a big old ZERO by adding in Washington, DC to the mix.

Tell you what, why don't you just encourage folks to give a bit more to ACCOUNTABLE CHARITIES and keep the Federal Government out of it, hmmm? So that the People can decide what does and does not need to be done in the world, not some lousy politician looking to empower foreigners with American Taxpayer dollars.

I trust my fellow Citizens to do that.

Why don't these people?

Sphere: Related Content

On illegal aliens, Conservatism and Nationalism

Over at National Review Online there is an interesting post by Linda Chavez to chide conservatives who opposed the recent amnesty bill dealing with illegal aliens. It is fascinating to see how an individual can upbraid others for using emotional arguments and then turn right around and make emotion based arguments in return. She first apologizes, however, for the utilization of the 10% or less that hold extremist views on racism, ethnic bias and other sorts of things that are inherently individual based on outlook. It is, indeed, a long lasting phenomena going back centuries. It is also so minoritarian in extent that it is rarely brought up in any other circumstance, save where racism or ethnic bias is being addressed.

That makes me wonder *why* someone would even bring it up at all, as crimes based on such are rare compared to gangland violence, domestic abuse, and even such things as carjackings and jaywalking. She points to those making the 'talking points' on 'media' and 'talk radio' as pushing an agenda of racial extremism, hatred based on ethnicity and other forms of bias outlook based on individual viewpoints. As her polling points out: it is less than 10% of the Nation that represents that.

Apparently these individuals are leading, but few are following. So, again, why bring them up? So that Republicans can 'disavow them'? Apparently joining the Party of Lincoln now requires an ideological test to ensure that one is following in the footsteps OF Lincoln. If Linda Chavez believes that, then she is looking for adherence to something that those in the GOP should have in their hearts, as seen through the Emancipation Proclamation and via the acts of Lincoln, himself, while going through nearby town and communities right after the war and before he was assassinated. He was a gracious and good gentleman who spoke kindly with blacks and did not demean them. If Linda Chavez really and for true believes that this is necessary in the Party of Lincoln, then it is no longer the Party of Lincoln. That is something that should be understood by Republicans: it is the Party that granted equality to those that had been enslaved.

It is the Party of Emancipation.

It is the Party of Freedom.

I am NOT a Republican and I can still see that.

I do think that some few of the Republican Party should practice as Lincoln taught including, if I may say so, Linda Chavez. President Lincoln set a damned high standard for America and the urge to openness is NOT a message of disavowal but of WORKING with your fellow citizens to ensure the message of Liberty and Freedom rings throughout the Land. Those that have emotional based hatred that guides their decisions are not to be 'disavowed': they are to be reasoned with in hopes that the Nation can remain a Nation built on reason and faith in Our Fellow Man to uphold our joint Liberty together so that all may be Free.

The way to address bias is not to shun, not to hate them, but to pity and forgive them their sins and help them towards redemption.

I am of no known religion and I can still see that.

It is a sacred trust taken up by all Americans. So that this Nation can speak as We the People.

That is the message I get from the Founders of this Nation and even *they* had their problems upholding their beliefs. Those problems would be papered over for decades and cause the mightiest bloodshed this Nation has ever known as brother fought brother. We did not try enough to understand each other and come to a common conclusion on what it means to be HUMAN. Now I hear a message of disavowal, of hatred, of shunning to make one an outcast because they hold beliefs that are not in common. Does answering their emotions with your own HELP? I see that it creates more of a rift, more alienation and less held in common until that portion of the society that holds such beliefs comes to no good end. The Antebellum years between the Revolution and the Civil War should have taught us that: that such things need to be addressed head on and without rancor and that reason should be a guiding means to enact our emotions.

If your blood starts to boil, Ms. Chavez, may I suggest taking a 'cooling off period'? Of not letting your emotions get you in trouble? Of not causing harm before you can help others understand the problems? And if all you meet is unreasoning, emotional hatred, then you know you have met an individual who is BEYOND REASON. You will meet those in life as they do not adhere to the common weal and seek to create a more perfect Union within the Nation. If you cannot deal with your own emotions, Ms. Chavez, then why do you then seek to inflame that of others? Is it to get an unreasoning response? Inflaming passions to justify actions is something the Left loves to do so as to not help people realize that society is held in common. By doing that they seek to overthrow society and the common culture of the Nation and change it to their will. Is *that* what you are doing, Ms. Chavez?

As Ms. Chavez points out 'words do matter', and I cannot agree more!

She then pushes forward that she cannot understand *why* illegal aliens have become such an important issue. I cannot and will not address her personal views on others, save to say that when one confounds illegal aliens with immigrants who have come here legally, one is trying to mix apples and oranges and call them all apples. And then decry when someone else calls them all oranges. I prefer to call them as they are, and illegal aliens, no matter what race, color, ethnic background or Nation of origin, be it Mexico, Ireland, Poland, Russia, Mauritania, Thailand, China, Rwanda or Tahiti, I consider them all the same for what they have DONE not who they are. And what one does in life starts to describe who you are by your ACTIONS.

Their ACTIONS speak louder than words.

I am extremely fair and even in that appraisal. What you DO determines what your outlook is and tells of this thing called 'character'. Because that is another deep premise in American society: you achieve by what you DO in life. The sweetest of a mass murderer is *still* a mass murderer, for all that they may have been kind to dogs and led a good and upstanding life save in that one, tiny area.

If someone cannot, for the life of them, figure out that the Party of Lincoln is about stopping the long lasting wrongs in which the Citizens of the Nation enslaved others against their will and that the Nation could not put up with that to consider Freedom to be a guarntee of being a member of the Nation, which all slaves WERE, then imagine what sort of problems would be had if folks were walking over the border to offer themselves up on the slave market without any coercion involved. That would have made putting the idea of the universality of individual rights as a touchstone more than a bit harder because there would be an ability to point at people that did, indeed, consider themselves to be slaves.

The United States has all sorts of laws to address working in the Nation, freedom of the workplace and the freedom of contract within the Nation and with those Nations that we have set up agreements with so as to allow their Citizens to work in Our Nation. That is the freedom offered by this Nation State known as the United States within the system of Nation States which holds each other accountable when they or their citizens break such agreements. This puts forward that Nations are Sovereign entities that contain their People and that their outlook must be respected both via their physical borders and by the agreements held between Nations.

Do note that Nations may enact discriminatory Treaties and legislation for themselves. Externally one may or may not sign up to Treaties, but we have ZERO say over that internal conception, save to use our Freedoms to decry inhumanity when we see it. Similarly other Nations and their Nationals are expected to do the exact same thing with us. That is something known as 'reciprocity amongst Nations in World Affairs'.

Perhaps Ms. Chavez has heard of this concept in all of her life?

I put forward a very Tart and somewhat Testy idea on Immigration Policy.

I point out, in that, the Powers that We the People grant to Our National Government to CONTROL immigration and naturalization and then, give them the authority to DO what is necessary to UPHOLD those laws they create. I also point out in The People are alienated, not the illegals, rather testily, that this very same authority has been used in wartime to utilize 50% of the GDP plus excess earnings and savings to produce war material and support a conflict the United States was in. That exact, same, power is available for EVERY single power that is Granted to the National Government via the Congress.

Previous to that I looked at the actual Bedrock of the Nation and Warnings the Founding Generation handed to us so that we could know our Nation and ensure its security against invasion and creeping tyranny. Those classical liberal roots of the Nation were given enacting authority via the things that made the bedrock of the Nation.

I think from the concept of the Westphalian system of Nation States and the concept of reciprocity amongst Nations to hold each other accountable and to uphold the right of their own People internally there are some extremely salient points that can be made.

First is that the United States and all of its powers are for those that are here legally or who have sought asylum or refuge or otherwise act in accordance with the policies set up by Congress and administered by the Federal Government.

Second is that individuals in their respective Nation States are to uphold the agreements of their Nations.

Third, that when one breaks the immigration and naturalization laws that are covered by Treaty between agreeing Nations, then one is breaking three sets of laws: That of the Nation of Origin, That of the Nation they are seeking, and that of the Treaty or Agreement between their Nations. That single, solitary activity is one that BREAKS three laws: Two National and one International.

These points are very clear and do not depend upon: race, ethnicity, economic capability, religious outlook, nor, indeed, any personal traits save those that are embodied in those separate areas of law.

Those that have entered the United States from Nations we have Treaties and Agreements with on this matter have broken their own laws, our laws and that of the Treaty.

Those that enter the United States from those Nations which we have no Treaty covering such things and then do NOT seek immediate asylum or relief from persecution have broken their own laws to leave in such manner, our laws to enter in such manner and the Laws of the Seas which recognize the sanctity of the territory of Nations.

I really don't care how *nice* these individuals are in the rest of the respects of their lives.

They are international scofflaws of the first order. They blithely break laws for PERSONAL GAIN.

And to those companies that entice, offer or give any help or leeway to such individuals: they are acting outside the confines of the US Constitution which delegates those things to the National Government. By not behaving in accordance to the National Laws of the Land, these organizations are committing a crime against the Nation and its Sovereign Rights Granted from We the People to Our Government.

I want those companies closed and auctioned off piecemeal.

And those that break the Laws of the Land should face life imprisonment for taking the actions they have done in consorting with foreigners outside of the channels strictly set up by We the People.

I did not elect companies, churches, civic organizations, political parties nor any other group to decide on those matters: that is something that is solely the domain of the Federal Government of the United States.

The actions of those coming here illegally tells me much about those individuals and about the respect the US is being shown by their Nations of origin that DO NOT STOP THEM.

Linda Chavez forgets that we are a Nation based on principle. Our emotions guide us to good principle and we then STATE that principle and back it up with the Powers of We the People.

The Declaration of Independence puts forth that Government is created among men. To have the right to have common government, those doing so must be able to say who IS and IS NOT part of that Government and its Nation. That is a basic and founding right that goes back to Westphalia.

When this Nation put its Constitution together it boldly stated exactly Who has the Power and What their Responsibilities are. I looked over that as it is a basic and guiding view of the Nation which should have some impact on what we do as Citizens to ensure that the Nation is UPHELD.

Perhaps Ms. Chavez has heard of it?

If not I will reproduce it in full:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Does that ring any bells, Ms. Chavez? We have come here as a People to form a more perfect Union and do you see what that next thing IS?

To establish Justice.

Yes it IS discriminatory: those here first get to make the rules.

Even worse is that we get to make them in accordance with our own outlook so that we may have a more perfect Union with our fellow Citizens.

And those rules establish Justice for Ourselves First before any other thing.

We agree, as a People to do this so that we may then have a Nation together.

I do not see any mention of any other Nation involved nor its People.

The US Constitution is, indeed, a highly biased document.

I happen to like it.

I am not so sure about Linda Chavez.

Perhaps if these illegals would act in a legal fashion and respect the Laws of their Nation and those of Our Nation and the Laws held in Common between Our Nations they might get more respect?

Just a thought.

Sphere: Related Content

Monzer al-Kassar and Transnational Terrorism

[The following is a 'rush job', so spelling and syntax are not what I would like them to be]
Previous post in the series is here.
First in the series is here.

So, just who *is* Monzer al-Kassar?

We get a look into his life in the larger work done by Antonius Johannes Gerhardus Tijhuis at Leiden University in the Netherlands by way of a paper he did on this subject: Transnational crime and the interface between legal and illegal actors. And in Chapter 3 - Individuals and Legitimate Organizations as Interface, he would examine the business of mixing up legal and illegal activities by a few individuals, and concentrate on Mr. Kassar along with Viktor Bout and Faoud Abbas. These three range from pretty evenly divided between the legal and illegal with Mr. Kassar, to the very little legal, but enough to give cover, in the case of Mr. Abbas.

From that chapter we get a brief overview of Mr. Kassar's life, from his early dealings in the 1970's with the Mafia and Terrorists as he served as intermediary for drugs and guns, using stolen vehicles, which got him pulled over in 1979 in Paris. Over that span he would work his way closer to a drug wholesaler and finally find himself in business in Morocco when the wholesaler was in jail there. The ever enterprising Mr. Kassar then would utilize the kidnap for ransom fever going on in Lebanon to help alleviate his problems by offering the French the opportunity to get some French hostages freed. A lovely snippet on the ability of Mr. Kassar to influence folks that should be arresting him is described with this:

The primary example here is Al Kassar who, for example, closed a deal with the French government. While being sentenced to eight years in Paris, he negotiated without any problem with the French authorities and several opportunities to arrest Al Kassar were ignored.

So much for this 'rule of law' concept! Yes he could, indeed, influence people and he could help the French... if they would just ship some arms to Iran. Such a good deal! How could the CIA pass that up? Well, from what we see in the Iran/Contra business, it didn't.

Thus comes in Ollie North, Richard Secord and a lively crew of folks looking to purloin some weapons, get some cash, free some hostages and get arms to the Contras all in a few easy steps. They would set up a business they called the 'Enterprise' and it would work with an international arms dealer who had a direct line to Iran: Mr. Monzer al-Kassar. Mr. Kassar had moved offices to Poland so as to avail himself of Soviet bloc arms, which were a bit cheaper and easier to sell than Western ones. So the 'Enterprise' would look to get a ship to do the go between work, owned by a Portugese company: Defex.

So now a bit from Chapter 8 of the Walsh Report on Iran/Contra:

Phases V-VII of the Contra Arms Sales (March-June 1986)

Between February 27 and May 23, 1986, the Enterprise paid Defex Portugal about $860,000 for contra weapons. Weapons were delivered to Central America in March, April and May in three shipments. CSF books show profit distributions between April and June, numbered Phases V through VII, totaling $550,471. In addition, there was an unnumbered distribution of $37,277 on June 20, 1986, resulting from the Phase VII shipment.

The Undelivered Shipment and Distribution (July-September 1986)

In July 1986, the Enterprise paid Defex (Portugal) $2.6 million and $500,000 to another dealer, Monzer Al Kassar, for contra weapons. In late July, a shipment of arms left Portugal for Central America aboard the recently acquired Enterprise freighter, the Erria.8 According to Thomas Parlow, the Erria's Danish shipping agent, the freighter was carrying arms picked up in Poland and Portugal.9

8 Clines, Hakim and William Haskell, an associate of North, traveled to Copenhagen in April 1986 to purchase for approximately $320,000 the Erria, which the Enterprise had leased a year earlier for a weapons shipment to the contras. The ship was purchased by the Enterprise in the name of Dolmy Business Inc., a Panamanian shell company. Thomas Parlow became the Erria's Danish shipping agent. According to Parlow, Hakim would telephone Parlow to direct movement of the ship, and Parlow would communicate those directions to the ship's captain. (Parlow, FBI 302, 3/5/87, pp. 2-3.)

9 Ibid., p. 3.

As the Erria was nearing Bermuda, Parlow, acting on instructions from Hakim, ordered it to slow its speed and await further instructions. Clines then directed the ship to work its way slowly back to Portugal.10 When it arrived in Portugal it could not obtain permission to enter the port. In this mid- to late-August 1986 period, Secord ordered Clines to try to sell the cargo or dump it at sea, according to Parlow. The vessel headed for Spain, where it remained anchored for two weeks.

10 The ship apparently was ordered back to Europe because it was to be used in an impending U.S.-Israeli venture involving Iran.

As the Erria made its circuitous journey, the CIA through a series of commercial entities arranged to buy the weapons aboard. According to CIA officials, they did not learn the identity of either the owner of the ship or its cargo until January 1987, when a newspaper article named the Secord-Hakim Enterprise as the owner of the ship and the weapons.

The CIA paid $2.1 million for the arms shipment, including shipping and handling costs.11 According to the private arms dealer who bought the arms for the CIA, he paid $1.6 million for the weapons. Of that, the Enterprise received $1.2 million, and the remainder went to Parlow or Defex, who worked together to re-sell the weapons.

And a bit further on we get a look at some of the cash amounts involved:

The Iran/Contra Diversion

Because of the commingling of Enterprise funds, it was not possible to determine precisely how much money was diverted from the Iran arms sales proceeds to the contras. After direct U.S. sales of arms to Iran began in February 1986, the amount of proceeds diverted to the contras that could have been proved at trial was $3.6 million. It probably was at least $1.1 million more.51

51 The $3.6 million diversion estimate does not include expenditures OIC could not provide evidence for at trial but were, in fact, contra-related, including: the purchase of a $200,000 Jetstar by the Enterprise for contra-related travel; a $500,000 weapons purchase from Monzer Al Kassar, who was not available to testify; and about $535,000 that was used to purchase, operate and insure the Danish freighter, the Erria, which was not used exclusively for contra operations.

Independent Counsel arrived at the diversion figure of $3.6 million by calculating the Enterprise's total contra-related expenses following the first direct U.S. shipment of arms to Iran in February 1986, less the amount of funds in Enterprise accounts specifically deposited on behalf of the contras. The Enterprise's contra-related expenses after February were conservatively estimated at $6.7 million. The amount deposited for the contras was $3.1 million. Thus, the amount that was clearly diverted from the arms sales was $3.6 million.

North, in his testimony, attributed to Nir and Ghorbanifar the idea for a diversion of arms sales funds to the contras. In the Poindexter trial, although uncertain, he fixed the date in December 1985 or January or February of 1986.52 As early as November 14, 1985, North's notebooks show that he discussed with Nir a plan to obtain the release of the hostages by payments to certain Middle Eastern factions. The questions they discussed included: ``How to pay for; how to raise $,'' and a possible solution was to set up a ``joint'' Israeli-U.S. ``covert op.'' According to the Israelis, North apparently told Israeli defense officials in a meeting in New York on December 6, 1985, that he intended to divert funds from the arms sales to the contras.53

And, of course, Mr. Kassar was unavailable for testimony! Even more amazing is that he went from working for someone else to being his own operation just as this was going on. In exchange for doing this Mr. Tijhuis cites a report that Mr. Kassar would get a 'pass' by the US on his narcotics trafficking in the region, thus allowing him to continue getting benefit for the deal above and beyond arms payments.

That wouldn't be all. Far from it, Mr. Kassar would *also* be getting in good with BCCI and its ability to launder and transfer funds for illicit deals on a global basis. In one short year he would have an *in* with:

Abu Nidal
In the United Kingdom, a key window on BCCI's support of terrorism was an informant named Ghassan Qassem, the former manager of the Sloan Street branch of BCCI in London. Qassem had been given the accounts of Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal at BCCI, and then proceeded, while at BCCI, to provide detailed information on the accounts to British and American intelligence, apparently as a paid informant, according to press accounts based on interviews with Qassem.(66)

As of 1986, the information obtained about Abu Nidal's use of BCCI was sufficiently detailed as to justify dissemination within the U.S. intelligence community.(67)

In July, 1987, as a result of the information provided by Qassem, a State Department report concerning Abu Nidal and Qassem, declassified in 1991 at the request of the Subcommittee, describes Abu Nidal's use of BCCI.

The ANO commercial network comprises several businesses created over the past seven years with the long-term goal of establishing legitimate trading enterprises in various countries, gaining experience in commercial trade, and making a profit for the group. . . The general manager of the commercial network and the principal agent in gray-arms transactions is Samir Hasan Najm al-Din (Samir Najmeddin). He has directed many of ANO's commercial activities, both licit and illicit, from his offices in the INTRACO building in Warsaw, Poland.. . . He has maintained a general account at a major West European Bank [BCCI in London] from which he transfers money to individual company accounts at local banks. He maintains joint control of each company's ban accounts, along with the company manager, and he is responsible for forwarding all major contracts to Sabri al-Banna for final approval.(68)

Following dissemination of this material by the U.S., the U.S. coordinated efforts to shut down the financing of the activities exposed in its targeting of Abu Nidal through BCCI-London, with some success.(69)

Other terrorist groups continued to make use of BCCI, including one "state sponsor of terrorism," and the Qassar brothers, Manzur and Ghassan, who have been associated with terrorism, arms trafficking, and narcotics trafficking in connection with the Government of Syria, and with the provision of East Bloc arms to the Nicaraguan contras in a transaction with the North/Secord enterprise paid for with funds from the secret U.S. arms sales to Iran.(70)

He would also be cited as a player in the BCCI report:

4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al-Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.

5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.

6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.

Yes, within the Top 5 of things that 'really needed to be looked at' from the BCCI report! And who would be Mr. Kassar's prime contact to get an arms shipment to Iran? Why, here is the late Mr. Cyrus Hashemi mentioned, who is cited as working out arms deals for Iran and banking with BCCI. Also, BCCI would be a major player with Mr. Sarkenalian to get weapons and goods to Iraq. What sort of career is it that takes you from 'get on your own or be put away' and in only a year to becoming a major player with illegal arms shipments from the USA and increased involvement with terrorist groups that you get nudged right into the Big Leagues of International Crime? Actually, a bit beyond that as the Achille Lauro attack is blatant Piracy upon a ship used by US Nationals and that attack is one of warfare. True Piracy in the old sense of it.

Now, as a major diversion for a bit, let me address this as it really and for true does need to be addressed: the major problem with transnational crime is that when it involves the subversion or diversion of goods from legitimate purposes to criminal or illegitimate warfare it is Piracy. Not terrorism nor ordinary crime. In my link above on Piracy I look at this question and have come to the conclusion that trying to treat something, that in former times was considered a warlike act, as a civil crime gets one stuck with terrorists and 'arms brokers' who actually don't own or pass on arms, but arrange deals. Under the old Piracy laws, 'arranging deals' was actual aid and support of Piracy and made those doing the arranging liable to be brought in as confederates of Pirates and get a few years in the slammer with some help from the Admiralty. This attack on commerce stuff really does need that as it is a good and hard definition of Piracy and those that actually engage in it can be brought in for war crimes. In this case the penalty is death. And those that aid Pirates that do not give themselves up peacefully? Uh-huh, that steps over the line, also, into the harsh 'end of the noose' or 'hung from the yardarm' deal. Probably too civilized for that today and lethal injection or death by Paris Hilton news would be the norm.

Ok, enough of the rant, back to Mr. Kassar, who would be acquitted in a *Spanish* court of Piracy. Not a US Admiralty court.

In the due course of things, Monzer al-Kassar would also be cited to see if he is in the Supernote business, and this comes from the testimony of Kenneth R. Timmerman before Congress on 27 FEB 1996:

Secret Service reluctance to cooperate with Interpol

Several European judicial and intelligence sources have complained privately to me of their efforts to elicit help from the U.S. Secret Service in tracking down the laundering networks for the supernotes in Europe.

One network several intelligence services were tracking was apparently set up by the Syrian businessman Monzer al Qassar, who has been called "the godfather of terrorism" because of his links to Abu Nidal and other Palestinian terrorist groups.

The Spanish authorities arrested Monzer al Qassar on June 2, 1992 on charges relating to the Achille Lauro terrorist attack, jailing him for two years. As they were preparing to release him for lack of evidence, the Spanish judge was called to Washington. The Secret Service was seeking his cooperation in a new investigation tying Monzer al Qassar to the supernotes. Monzer's brother Ghassan al Qassar, who was expelled from Argentina on a variety of charges including drug smuggling and money-laundering, was believed to be one of the main contacts for obtaining the counterfeit notes. Ghassan, in turn, was in contact with an Iraqi Consul in Vienna, Austria, who was also believed to be passing the supernotes to procure technology on the black market for Iraq's weapons programs. The bills have turned up all over Europe, but especially in Spain and Austria; and I am told that Interpol is increasingly frustrated at the lack of cooperation they have received from the Secret Service.

After an initial meeting in Washington with the Spanish judge in July 1994, the Secret Service went to Spain to pursue its own leads. According to my sources, the Spanish judge has complained that he is "still waiting" for the Secret Service to inform him of the result of its investigation tying Monzer al Qassar to the supernotes. His investigation into supernote laundering networks - which Spanish intelligence sources say are widespread in Spain - has been shelved because of the lack of cooperation from the Secret Service.

Yes, you can't leave my Web of the supernote article far behind, as it also serves to look at the connectivity between Rogue Nations and terrorism. And with this it now ties Mr. Kassar to North Korea as a conduit for supernotes being used to purchase illegal equipment for Iraq. Counterfeit money stretching that budget to get that little bit extra!

This does point up Mr. Kassar's involvement in Latin America and in more than a few other places that would expand his arms shipment horizons. Some of that is gone into via the PBS program Frontline that had a special on Mr. Kassar by Matthew Brunwasser. One of the first parts of interest is the Anatomy of a Deal Gone Bad:

On June 5, 1990, Monzer Al Kassar and his wife opened an account, number 1964, at the Audi Bank in Switzerland. Al Kassar and his wife used their real names and both signed the documents, highly unusual for a bank account that would later be used in an illegal arms deal. The initial purpose of the account is unknown. The bank records from this account and others would later become evidence used by a Swiss prosecutor to freeze Al Kassar's proceeds from the illegal sale of Polish arms to Croatia and Bosnia.

Subsequent events provided the necessary ingredients for an embargo-breaking arms deal: a war, an attempt by the international community to stop it, and a broker able to work around it. Croatia and Slovenia declared themselves independent from Yugoslavia in June 1991. A bloody civil war ensued. The United Nations Security Council voted on September 25, 1991, to impose an arms embargo on Yugoslavia, whose constituent republics were not yet recognized by the international community as independent countries. Bosnia declared its independence in March 1992, which was followed by an even more bloody and complicated civil war.

Like many other states, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the arms ban -- U.N. Security Council Resolution number 713 -- on December 18, 1991, making the embargo Swiss law (RS 514.545). This later formed the basis for Swiss legal proceedings against Al Kassar. U.N. embargoes mean nothing unless they are adopted by the legislatures of individual U.N. member states and enforced by their respective legal systems.

Shortly thereafter, a Croatian couple, Snejana and Zeljko Mikulic, holders of an account at Die Erste Bank in Vienna, ordered $2,649,000 in bank transfers to the account of Bassam Abu Sharif, one of Yasser Arafat's closest advisors, at Arab Bank in Geneva. A Die Erste Bank document states that the transfers were for a shipment of sugar, powdered milk and tea to Croatia.

A few days later, Sharif began a series of transfers, ultimately totaling $2.3 million, to account number 1964 at Audi Bank, the account belonging to Monzer Al Kassar.

In turn, Al Kassar transferred $2,549,135 to the Luxembourg bank account of Cenrex, the Polish state arms company.

On March 10, 1992, a Honduras-registered ship, the Nadia, docked at Ceuta, Spain (a Spanish territory in Morocco) for supplies. When port officials examined the cargo documents, they found the papers in order. The 27 containers of arms and ammunition were being sent by Cenrex in Poland to the defense ministry of Yemen. After the ship was allowed to proceed, it headed not to Yemen but to Rijeka, Croatia, where it unloaded.

The Polish Government was a bit on the incensed side over this as seen by documents at the Norweigan Initiative on Small Arms Transfers and their cache of documents on the small arms trade. It turns out that Mr. Kassar would be doing arms shipments to various groups and organizations from Poland (cited in this FBIS translation of Warsaw Rzeczpospolita in Polish 6 Jan 00 page A4) which would be more than just Croatia, but include:

"Arms and ammunition were smuggled through the port in Gdynia to Latvia and Estonia where they were received by international criminal organizations and to the former Yugoslavia and Somalia, to regions where conflicts were going on and which were under an international embargo," Prosecutor Mariusz Marciniak and Captain Stanislaw Kaminski informed. With the help of trade companies legally operating in Poland, Latvia and Estonia, 24,600 TT pistols, 8,000 automatic pistols, 401 Kalashnikovs, 660 grenade launchers, 100 "Taurus" revolvers, sniper guns, 1,000 grenades, 9,000 mortar shells, and over 36 million pieces of gun and pistol ammunition were illegally exported. Invoices show the total value of the exported arms was above $4.5 million.

Which is how, as described previously, we get to see Mr. Kassar having a picture taken with Farah Aideed's son in Somalia - he was an arms supplier to them. In just a few years he would typify the sales of grenade launchers, sniper rifles, grenades and mortar shells as "small arms sales". And here are the details of how such things as foodstuffs end up containing the nutrients of small arms via their fortifications with the essential minerals and explosives at sea:

The main organizer and coordinator of the undertaking was Lieutenant Colonel Jerzy D., delegated to work outside the Army. He went on to work for Cenrex from the Central Engineering Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Economic Cooperation [MWGZ]. In the 1980's he was a commercial attache in Lebanon.

At the end of the 1980's Jerzy D. met international arms trade dealer Mezner Gaulion a.k.a. Monzer Al Kassar who presented himself as a representative of the defense ministries of Yemen and Algeria. The acquaintance led to the signing of contracts in 1992. The first transport was to go to Yemen. Al Kassar presented documents of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Yemen which had already not existed for two years at the time and signed an agreement. Instead of reaching Yemen, the ship laden with arms ended up in one of the states of the former Yugoslavia.

Via Latvia [subhead] After the successful operation, Gaulion a.k.a. Kassar wanted to broaden cooperation with Cenrex. No contract was signed. When Cenrex applied to the MWGZ for a license to export arms and ammunition, ministry officials expressed doubts regarding the documents of a nonexistent state. Meanwhile, arms purchased from the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministry of Internal Affairs were already in the Gdynia port and a ship was waiting to be loaded. Al Kassar had paid money into Cenrex accounts in Luxembourg. The clock was ticking.

Jerzy D. took advantage of his acquaintance with Colonel Janis D., a high-ranking official of the Latvian Defense Ministry. They agreed to sign a fictitious contract for supplies of arms from Poland for Latvia. Double documents were drawn up enabling the delivery of arms to a location specified by the real recipient.

A Cenrex employee sailed from Gdynia to Latvia. He presented Janis D. with documents that enabled shipping the arms from Latvia to Yemen. The ship immediately set sail from the Latvian port. The documents said it left for Yemen. In reality, the arms were loaded onto another ship off the Somalian coast.

Using the Latvian contract, Cenrex began independently supplying arms and ammunition to the embargoed Croatia. Jerzy D. could no longer count on the help of Gaulion a.k.a. Al Kassar who was arrested in Spain under charges of smuggling, attempted murder, kidnapping and other crimes he had committed as a member of terrorist organizations. Kassar's name surfaced, for example, in the course of the investigation into the hijacking of the Achille Lauro cruise ship in October 1985.

That is an anatomy of an arms deal and how you get from a legitimate Nation to an illegitimate one. The Poles were not happy about this, once it was uncovered, as seen by this NISAT document and the necessity of having to do some Counter-Intellligence work and clean up their Intelligence Agency due to high level corruption suspected there. They did find officers in that organization guilty on illegal arms trafficking. Did I mention earlier that Mr. Kassar was involved with Iran/Contra using arms shipped from Poland? Ah, I did! Now, guess which Nation is cited in sending arms to Bosnia and other places in the Former Yugoslavia? Yes, I went over that in this article, and it is time for a 'blast from the past' of the non-explosive sort from Congressional Record: May 7, 1996 (Senate), DOCID:cr07my96-154, AMERICAN TROOPS IN BOSNIA:[Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)]:

Now, Mr. President, in addition to the total abrogation of his word to the American people regarding when the troops would come home from Bosnia, we now learn that, in fact, while President Clinton was stopping us from lifting the arms embargo, he was allowing another country to provide arms in violation of the embargo. Was it a legitimate ally of the United States? No, Mr. President, it was not a legitimate ally of the United States that was allowed to violate the arms embargo that we in this Congress were trying to lift. No, it was an enemy of the United States, a terrorist country: Iran.

Despite widespread rumors that Iranian arms were being shipped to Bosnia in violation of the arms embargo, an embargo this administration said we must support, and despite senior officials' strong denials, we learn we were deceived. Here we have the quotes, Mr. President. On April 15, 1995, a State Department spokesman, Nicholas Burns, told the Los Angeles Times, "We do not endorse violations of U.N. embargo resolutions whatever. We are not violating those resolutions. We don't endorse anyone else who is violating them."

On June 16, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher said, "I think you get some instant gratification from lifting the arms embargo. It is kind of an emotional luxury, but you have to ask yourself, what are the consequences of that?" As late as March of this year, President Clinton himself told Congress that "Iran continued to engage in activities that represent a threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States."

Mr. President, despite all of those statements by senior administration officials and the President himself, we have learned in recent weeks that this was not the case at all. Just 3 weeks after the President's report to Congress on Iran, it has been reported that the administration had given its tacit approval of the shipment by Iran, one of America's most hostile adversaries, of weapons to the Bosnian Muslim government.

We are justified in concluding, Mr. President, that the Clinton administration policy on Bosnia has been cynical. What many of us were advocating for so long--arming the Bosnians and allowing them to defend themselves with legitimate sales of arms by people who cared about the people--was, in fact, being opposed by the administration by day, but by night secret arms shipments from Iran were moving forward with the administration's blessing.

Now, Mr. President, we are faced with similar cynicism regarding the deployment of American troops. Those troops are there precisely because the administration refused the suggestions by Senator Dole and others in the Senate that arming the Bosnians and letting them fight for themselves was the best way to go. Instead, the administration adopted a half-a-loaf policy of covert arms shipments from Iran, which was too little, too late, from the wrong source.

As with arm sales to Bosnia, the American people have been deceived by the Clinton administration on the question of withdrawing American troops from Bosnia. Very simply, the President made a commitment to the American people, and he is now saying he will not honor that commitment.

Yes, in this lovely world of bipartisan inability to govern we now see *two* Presidents having enabled Mr. Kassar to trade arms and influence with Iran - Reagan Administration and the Iran/Contra scandal and the Clinton Administration in being unable to back up its rhetoric and actually HELP people. Both of those now look to involve Mr. Kassar in an active sense from Iran/Contra and a passive sense from the lackluster Clinton Administration. Actually, I am being too nice to the Clinton Administration and even *Congress* was harsher.

As seen a bit further into things we get the following from Sen. Larry Craig, (R-ID):

Let me read two quotes that I think speak volumes about what our President has caught himself in--that is, doublespeak. Mr. President, today you are not telling the American people the truth. For the last several months, you have been caught in a very difficult and very deceptive game of doublespeak.

Your representative, Richard Holbrooke, who immediate repudiated the Dayton peace accord was quoted on May 3 in a Reuters article saying:

"I will state flatly for the record that this policy was correct--"

He is referring to allowing the Iranians to move arms into the former Yugoslavia.

"and that if it hadn't taken place, the Bosnian Muslims would not have survived and we would not have gotten to Dayton."

That is an absolute opposite from what our President has been telling us. Mr. President, that is double speak.

The next quote from Richard Holbrooke:

"We knew that the Iranians would try to use the aid to buy political influence. It was a calculated policy based on the feeling that you had to choose between a lot of bad choices, and the choice that was chosen kept the Sarajevo government alive. But it left a problem--were the Iranians excessively influential on the ground?"

Mr. President, President Clinton once again was caught in double speak. This Congress gave our President an option, a viable, responsible, well-thought-out option, to allow the arms embargo to be lifted so that parity could be built on both sides. He chose not to do that. He chose to openly and publicly deceive the American people.

[...]

As I mentioned, a main part of the debate on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia has involved the arms embargo, first imposed against the Yugoslavian Government in 1991.

Information continues to surface, showing that while the Congress was openly debating the lifting of the arms embargo, the administration was giving a green light to Iran, allowing them to circumvent the arms embargo.

Richard Holbrooke, the administration's representative who helped to mediate the Dayton Peace Accord, was quoted in a May 3, 1996, Reuters article saying:

"I will state flatly for the record that this policy was correct and that if it hadn't taken place, the Bosnian Muslims would not have survived and we would not have gotten to Dayton."

Mr. President, I would agree with the comment made by Mr. Holbrooke. Allowing Iran to circumvent the arms embargo was not this administration's only choice--it was certainly not a correct choice. The Congress, just last year, provided President Clinton a viable alternative by the passage of S. 21, legislation that would have unilaterally lifted the U.N. arms embargo illegally enforced against Bosnia.

There was ample reason to question the enforcement of the 1991 embargo against Bosnia. The original embargo was not imposed on Bosnia, because it did not exist in 1991. Rather, it was imposed on Yugoslavia. In addition, enforcement of this embargo could arguably violate Bosnia's right to self-defense under article 51 of the U.N. charter.

The legal, unilateral lifting of the arms embargo that was called for in S. 21, would have allowed rough parity to exist in this conflict.

The President chose to veto S. 21, citing concerns that it would be breaking from an agreement with our allies, and diminish our credibility with Europe.

Mr. President, the only credibility that has been diminished here has been through the administration's efforts to allow one of the strongest supporters of terrorism around the world, Iran, to violate the arms embargo and gain a foothold in Europe.

In addition, Iran only provided light weaponry to the Bosnian's, which was fine for providing a little protection. However, it was not enough to provide the needed shift in the strategic military balance, altering Serbia's enormous advantage in the conflict. Therefore, even after this evasion of the arms embargo had begun, thousands of Bosnians were still being killed, and the Serbian forces continued to capture more territory.

[...]

Mr. President, these elections will not occur until September at the earliest. It is, therefore, likely that our troops will not be withdrawn until January 1997.

Mr. President, Richard Holbrooke made another assertion about the administration's decision in the May 3 reuters article, with respect to the risks of dealing with Iran.

We knew that the Iranians would try to use the aid to buy political influence. It was a calculated policy based on the feeling that you had to choose between a lot of bad choices, and the choice that was chosen kept the Sarajevo Government alive. But, it left a problem--were the Iranians excessively influential on the ground?

The article continues with Mr. Holbrooke claiming that this problem was adequately dealt with through the negotiations of the Dayton accord, by including in the agreement that all foreign forces would have to leave the country. This is precisely one of the problems that our troops have had to face: the removal of foreign forces including Iranian forces.

In addition, it is my understanding that this arms transfer operation was allowed to continue until January of this year--after our troops were beginning to be deployed as peacekeepers in Bosnia.

In closing, the Iranian presence that the Clinton administration helped to promote is now actively threatening the Dayton accord, the American and NATO peacekeepers seeking to enforce it, and the military viability and democratic character of Bosnia itself.

Mr. President, this situation needs to be addressed, and our troops need to be brought home.

I thank my colleague from Texas for taking out this special order. I hope the select committee in the House will thoroughly investigate what this President is failing to do in foreign policy.

There, that should get the bipartisan cluebat a good workout to the Left and Right! Mr. Kassar took advantage of BOTH by actively helping along the Iran/Contra deal and then actively involving himself in illegal arms shipments with help, it appears, of Iranian funding in the Balkans. Which, incidentally, has bought them continued work in the Balkans via Mosques and organizations training there, plus a bit of recruitment, too.

Further afield from the Balkans, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Lebanon, Poland and the Eastern European Mafias, we would see that Mr. Kassar was involved with President Carlos Menem and a prosecutor in Argentina. The good folks at NISAT have an article on just that from 31 JAN 2001 - The Riddle of the Argentine Ring:

An ex-terrorist who became a businessman in Argentina, president Carlos Menem and a prosecutor have all been linked to an arms trafficking ring. Their money is stashed away in Switzerland.

For nearly 10 years, the Swiss authorities have been investigating a Syrian national, Monzer Al Kasser, a 55-year-old who the CIA considers one of the world's most dangerous terrorists and an arms trafficker. The American agency believes he helped organize the hj-jacking of the Achille Lauro luxury liner. Last year a court in Geneva managed to freeze $3.3 million of his money that had been deposited in the Audi Bank and allegedly came from the sale of Polish arms to Croatia and Bosnia. The arms deal, which flouted the international embargo slapped on former Yugoslavia, bore a resemblance to another weapons traffic between Argentina and Croatia, in which former Argentine president Carlos Menem has been implicated. Two South American journalists, the Argentine Juan Gasparini and Rodrigo de Castro from Chile, traced links between Al Kasser and Menem (whose parents also came from Syria) in a book La Delgada Linea Blanca (the Thin White Line) that appeared at the end of 2000.

The book also cast light on the role played by a third person, Argentina's current chief prosecutor, Nicolas Bancerra, who is suspected of having helped Al Kassar acquire Argentine nationality. The prosecutor in question is reported to have an account at the Credit Suisse bank in Zurich under the code-named Naranja. Police investigations have recently confirmed a number of allegations in the book. Two accounts linked to Menem and containing $10 million have been frozen in Geneva, and examining magistrate Paul Perraudin has just begun building a case. Elsewhere, Argentina has sent two requests for legal assistance to the Swiss authorities concerning Alberto Kohan, former secretary general of Argentina's presidential office when Menem was in power. He is accused of making illicit gains.

Other Argentine personalities are targeted in the inquiry into the arms traffic to Croatia in 1991 but also to Ecuador in 1995. The trade, involving 6,500 tons of weapons, are said to have been billed $100 million by Argentina's national armaments firm Fabricaciones Militares. It only got $40 million. Who was the middle-man in the transactions?

There you have multiple monetary pass-throughs, accounts, high level corruption and siphoning off of profits of illicit arms deals and who is there? Mr. Kassar! But he was not *only* dealing with Argentina, Ecuador, Croatia and corrupt authorities. And, via NISAT, the Argentinians would seek to pull Mr. Kassar in, and try to hold him accountable.

Now that Frontline story also covers this period of the early 1990's to his money release in 2003, and they see what was going on then:

In 1992, Spain arrested Al Kassar on charges of piracy and providing the arms to the Abu Abbas-led PLF terrorists who hijacked the Achille Lauro cruise ship and murdered American Leon Klinghoffer. Western intelligence agencies concluded that Al Kassar flew Abbas to safety aboard one of his private planes after the hijackers surrendered. One prosecution witness, Ahmed Al Assadi, while spending time in Vercelli prison for participating in the hijacking, changed his story and refused to go to Spain to identify Al Kassar as the person who supplied the hijackers' weapons. After Al Kassar's arrest, another accuser, Ismail Jalid, fell to his death from a fifth-story window in Marbella, Spain, in what the coroner called "an alcoholic coma." During the 1995 trial, in a highly publicized standoff with police, a third witness's children were kidnapped by Colombian drug traffickers shortly before he testified. The witness blamed Al Kassar, who denied involvement and stated, "I have nothing to do with the kidnapping and I hope that it is over as soon as possible. Children are sacred for Arabs. No one, not even your worst enemy, deserves this." Al Kassar was later acquitted of all charges.

While building the case, Spain requested that Switzerland seize Al Kassar's bank accounts. Swiss officials then opened their own preliminary inquiry into money laundering, lack of vigilance in financial operations, and fraudulent documents and foreign certificates. Following this inquiry, Swiss authorities began to investigate Al Kassar's arms sales using Swiss banks.

Questioned on December 9, 1993, by Swiss prosecutors, Al Kassar explained that he was a diplomatic representative of Yemen in Poland and therefore could not answer questions about government-to-government affairs. A search of Al Kassar's Spanish address revealed documents confirming his relationship to the Croatian Zeljko Mikulic and containing the codes used for the ship's contents: "Tea" meant TT pistols (Tula-Tokarev pistols, developed in the U.S.S.R. in the 1930s and subsequently manufactured by other Eastern Bloc countries), and "tea bags" meant bullets.

Bassam Abu Sharif was questioned by Swiss officials while passing through Geneva in 1994. He claimed that he had only met Al Kassar once in 1979 and twice thereafter. He explained that he had been asked by the Yemeni government to use his bank account to transfer money for an arms sale organized by the Yemeni ministry of defense to buy arms for Bosnia and Croatia. He said that he learned only later that Al Kassar had organized the sale.

[..]

"If Yemen does a deal with Bosnia and Croatia, how can I control it?" asked Al Kassar, dismissing accusations that he is an embargo-busting arms dealer. Under existing legal controls, his question is reasonable.

The case is the first of its kind in Switzerland and is expected to set a precedent. The arms did not touch Swiss territory and did not involve Swiss citizens or the country in any way other than through its banking system. Switzerland is not directly affected by the small-arms trade but has an interest in maintaining the respectability of its banking system. Such cases, as well as that of Leonid Minin ,an Israeli citizen arrested in Italy for selling Ukrainian weapons to Liberia and Sierra Leone, are pushing existing legislation in new directions in an attempt to discourage the illegal arms trade.

Al Kassar has lost successive court appeals and has one final chance to have his $2.3 million returned in an appeal to a Swiss federal court.

Which is probably far more detail than a person can deal with, really, but does put forth how a mild mannered international terrorist and illegal arms dealer and drug trafficker can 'work the system' to get desired results.

But we aren't done with Mr. Kassar in the early 1990's! Not by any means, as the folks at the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin have an article on New Report Links Syria to 1992 Bombing of Israeli Embassy in Argentina by Blanca Madani from MAR 2000:

A report recently compiled by Acción por la República, an Argentine political party headed by former minister Domingo Cavallo, provides new evidence of Syrian complicity in the 1992 bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. The bombing on March 17, 1992 killed 29 people and wounded more than 200. The embassy attack was followed by a second bombing on July 18, 1994 which destroyed the AMIA building in Buenos Aires, which housed several Argentine Jewish organizations, killing 86 people and wounding several hundred.

Shortly after the bombing, a group calling itself Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility and the investigation soon focused on Iranian complicity. In May 1998, the Argentine government announced that it had "convincing proof" of Iranian involvement in the bombing and expelled seven Iranian diplomats from the country. This followed the detention in Germany of Moshen Rabbani, who had served as Cultural Attache in the Iranian Embassy in Argentina until December of 1997. Rabbani was alleged to have assisted in planning the bombings along with four Iranian spies who entered the country from the Paraguayan border town of Ciudad del Este, a center of Hezbollah activity in the region. According to reports in the Argentine press, intercepted telephone conversations from the Iranian Embassy and testimony from Ismanian Khosrow, one of the detained Iranians, corroborated Iranian involvement. However, the investigation has since stalled and no action has been taken to prosecute any of the suspects.

"Days after the eight anniversary of the attack on the Embassy of Israel and almost six years since the attack on AMIA, little to almost nothing has advanced in the investigations of the cause of these actions," the report states. "Various groups . . . have systematically denounced the irregularities during the judicial process, the manipulation and disappearance of evidence, going so far as to petition international entities, such as the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, to denounce the attitude adopted by the previous administration with respect to the development of events."

"There is no explanation, either from the perspective of the proceedings, or from that of common sense, to reject with such vehemence, investigative trails that could have helped clarify these attacks. Nevertheless, the previous government has flatly denied all reference to what popularly came to be called the 'Syrian trail of the attacks'."

This report hypothesizes a "Syrian connection" to the bombing of the Israeli embassy and the AMIA building, mainly through the presence and suspicious activities of a Syrian, Monzer al-Kazzar and an Argentine, Alfredo Yabran, and their link to then presidential candidate Carlos Menem's trip to Syria in 1988 and his promises concerning the Condor II missile and the installation of nuclear reactors in return for campaign funding. The report accuses investigators of a cover-up, noting that any possibility that sectors of the Syrian government or its surrogates could have been involved in the preparation or execution of the bombings have been ignored.

According to the report, taped testimony that tied certain people with the main suspects disappeared due to the negligence of the security services. The involvement of foreigners intimately associated with the previous government has been ignored, and they have been freed of suspicions "thanks to the lies spilled by civil employees of the government." These manipulations were to be expected since "all those investigated and soon rejected suspects were related, in one way or another, intimately with sectors of the previous government, including ex-president Carlos Menem himself." Suspicious activity by a number of Syrians are described in the report, including Mohamed Alem, Narman al-Hennawi, Ghassam al-Zein, Hassan Iasin Satin, Ali Chedade al-Hassan, Yalal Nacrach, Jacinto Kanoore Edul, Nassif Haddad, Javier Haddad and Monzer al-Kassar.

While there had been a successful attempt during the years since the attack to show that the Iranian track was antagonistic to the Syrian one, the Argentine group believes that both tracks "not only are not antagonistic to each other, but are interrelated with each other."

"The intent to show their antagonism is due, above all, to a real ignorance of the geopolitical alliances that were established in the Middle East, the deep relations that both sides maintain, the communion of interests, and, mostly, the clear objective to want to deviate the attention of public opinion from any indication that will involve the former government with suspects of the attacks, knowing, beforehand, the international scandal that this signifies."

These common interests between Iran and Syria are due to agreements of economic cooperation and military and intelligence exchange developing toward a common military. "Their union is due basically to the historical dispute that maintains as their most staunch enemy, Iraq, and the interest of Syrian president Hafez al-Assad to block all political development of a fundamentalist Islamic movement in his country, which is governed by an Alawite minority."

The intention of "Menemism," as the report calls it, to hide the truth of the events surrounding the attacks, "has its origin in the very history of the last ten years, and especially in the necessity of the illegal financing of the political campaign of 1989 and the dangerous unfulfilled promises to specific Arab countries for such an objective."

Yes, and those bombings have been linked to Hezbollah, which is a joing military/intelligence Foreign Legion of Iran with direct aid and help from Syria. Note that in this bit of trade terrorism is done in exchange for missiles and nuclear ability, something that Syria has been after since the early 1980's. I cover the Syrian WMD infrastructure and attempts to hide same in a series of articles, including: Finding the mentioned but not pointed out, Palmyra and Homs, and a Basic WMD list plus some other facilities.

More from the MEIB article:

The former government of Menem made promises and then failed to fulfill the promises to these Middle Eastern countries. What it signified to Syria and the rest of the countries, besides not obtaining this military technology (it was perceived that the Condor II was superior to Scud or Badr 2000, a missile similar to the Condor) was the loss of millions of dollars. It is stipulated that more than $100 million was invested "officially" by the various countries involved in the project. Thus, the report concludes that "undoubtedly, such motives are more than sufficient to realize an attack with the characteristics of what occurred against AMIA and the Israeli Embassy. At least, they are more feasible than an action by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists who, because of their hatred of the Jews, attack their mutual headquarters and the diplomatic headquarters, for no other reason than the progress of the peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine."

In 1988, Carlos Menem, at that time a candidate to the presidency for the Justiacilista (Justice) Party, made his first trip to the Arab Republic of Syria. It was a personal trip that "rapidly changed" to an official one due to the interest shown by Assad's government toward the presence of someone who could be the future president of a South American country. According to an interview by Oscar Spinosa Melo, a "Menemist" ex-ambassador, Menem met the Syrian vice-president, Abdul Halim Khaddam, one of the highest officials involved in the negotiations with Israel and who controls, together with the president's brother, Rifat al-Assad, the planting of (opium) poppy and hashish in Lebanon, and is also responsible for the Syrian intelligence forces. During these meetings between Melo and Assad, and later with Khaddam, Menem promised to deliver to Syria the Condor II missile and cooperate with the nuclear development of that country (including the assistance of Argentine experts in the development of such technology) in exchange for money to finance his presidential campaign.

The Syrians not only chose to go with the nuclear reactor in return for the money requested, but in 1992, one month before the attack on Israel, Syria and Iran signed a bilateral agreement for nuclear cooperation. Incidentally, in 1991, Argentina suspended the installation of the nuclear reactor in Syria and dismantled the Condor II missile project due to pressure from the United States, Israel, and then minister Domingo Cavallo, according to the then American chief of the secret service. Iran decided to invest two billion dollars during the course of four years, while Syria would apportion ten billion dollars during the same period.

Although there is no documented proof that the abandonment of the nuclear reactor project by Argentina is related to the strategic pact signed by Iran and Syria, the report notes that "it is highly suggestive," that at Menem's breach of pact, Syria was forced to buy an inferior Chinese reactor. Also "suggestive" is a report presented to the House of Representatives by the chief of the CIA, which reveals that there existed indications that Iran had acquired, with the agreement, Scud missiles, product of the operation's failure to acquire the Condor II. The report adds that: "Absolutely all military analysts agree in pointing out that the Condor II was technologically more advanced than Scud, especially in its navigational system."

[..]

The relationship of al-Kassar with the Condor II was established, through various intelligence documents of the Ministry of Defense while this ministry was headed by the late Raul Borras, by the presence of arms trafficking in Falda del Carmen in 1985, headquarters of the Condor operations, and also by his contacts with the Air Force, especially with the Crespo and Julia squadrons. Nevertheless, one of the "most suggestive" details is the presence of Alfredo Yabran during the initial project and subsequent development. There is no proof for such affirmation, but the report notes there is cause to suspect the relations maintained with Miguel Vicente Guerrero, the brain behind the Condor II project, his relations with the Air Force, which were such as to arise suspicions that he was an intelligence official in said organization, and mostly his control over the fiscal deposits and transfer of money when Ibrahim al-Ibrahim exercised his influence in the Customs of Ezeiza.

In the petition filed against al-Kassar, Public Prosecutor Rivoli pointed out that the unfulfilled promises by al-Kassar (to invest millions of dollars in the country) were for the purpose of realizing activities, publicly acknowledged, such as the sale of armaments. While al-Kassar was settling himself in Argentina under the protection of the former government (he was able to obtain an Argentine passport in "record time"), Ibrahim al-Ibrahim was installing himself in the Customs of Ezeiza, and Yabran was strengthening his power over the fiscal deposits, the post office, and the transfer of wealth. Separate investigations affirmed that the establishment of the trio in "neuralgic sectors of power" facilitated the creation of a "real parallel customs" or "free zone" from where all types of merchandise entered, circulated, and exited without any control. Thus the suspicions that part of the technological secrets of the Condor II left through Customs and that the "exogenous" material that blew the embassy of Israel entered.

Incidentally, it was in 1991 that the illegal sales of arms to Croatia and Ecuador began. A witness, whose identity has not been disclosed and who presumably belonged to the organization led by al-Kassar, declared before the Swiss judge that the Syrian arms trafficker was the intermediary between the Argentine government and Croatian President Tujdman for the resulting arms into Argentina. The witness, of Spanish origin, affirmed that the cargo was destined for Croatia, moving through the Spanish port of Malaga.

Al-Kassar is also linked with the presidential nephew, Yalal Nacrach, known as the "Hezbollah " of Menemism. Yalal appears tied to the arms cause, among others, via the deposits in the famous account of Daforel on the part of the Eltham Trading investment fund with the investigations of the scandal of the sale of arms. Four hundred thousand dollars was deposited in the Daforel account, which Palleros earmarked as the payment of a bribery to a "high-level industrialist tied to the power."

Another element which the report indicates links al-Kassar with the Argentine arms traffic is an Ecuadorian government document, classified as "top secret," published by the Ecuadorian daily Posdata on September 11, 1998, which states that the intermediaries for the arms operation were al-Kassar and Jean Lasnaud. Most importantly were the suspicious relations that maintained ties between the arms operation and some of the suspects in the attack on AMIA.

[..]

According to Anserment's investigation, the Sentex was bought in a Spanish factory by Cenrex Trading Corporation, LTD of Varsovia. The prosecutor was able to establish that the owner of the firm was none other than Monzer al-Kassar, under the alias of "Monzer Galioun." His investigation also showed that the material, which had been destined for the Democratic Republic of Yemen, was never shipped. He also pointed out that part of the cargo of the triangulated Sentex was sent to Syria, and from there, left for Buenos Aires in 1991, a few months before the attack on the embassy.

According to the majority of those who investigated the attack on the embassy (but not all), the explosion resulted from a Ford F-100 truck, which had been rented by a person with false identity, using the alias "Elias Griveiro Da Luz." This person paid $21,000 for the truck, 50 percent more than its value on the market. According to the report, it can be established that the money used to pay for the truck originated at a house of currency exchange in the Lebanese city of Biblos, a subsidiary of a larger house of exchange, the "Society of Change in Beirut," which was the property of al-Kassar.

The Syrian arms trafficker pointed out to the daily, Clarin, and later in a broadcast on "Hora Clave" that he had "abandoned the sale of arms and had dedicated himself to construction and the managing of the most important exchange house in Beirut," which, by chance, was none other than the Society of Change in Beirut, the most important in the Lebanese capital. The Justice department did not bother to investigate if the $21,000 originated from the holding company "Al Khaled Kassar," with headquarters in Damascus and immense interests in Lebanon. According to journalists, the holding company belonged to Ahmed Jibril, leader of the pro-Syrian movement, the Palestine-Comando Special Popular Liberation Front, to Rifaat Assad, brother of the Syrian president, and al-Kassar.

The Court also did not investigate the movement of Customs between the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992, which the reporting opposition group had demanded, despite the fact that organizations such as the CIA, DEA, and others had denounced Ezeiza, which was directed by al-Ibrahim.

Syria has a continued quest for Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles having purchased advanced designs from North Korea in the form of NoDong II missiles, plus some manufacturing capability. And who is there to help this entire project along? Yes, Mr. Kassar. An organization that he imported with the direct point of establishing itself in Argentina at high levels, creating a 'neutral zone' that authorities could not deal with and then looking outwards to spread influence, money and terror, plus advanced weapons designs and nuclear capability to Syria and Iran. Funded from Lebanon by his own companies, both trade and financial, enabling the shipment of arms to a local group that would then carry out terrorist attacks.

These would cause problems in international circles, to be sure, but he was also causing problems for the Imperial Consolidated Group and having an association with... yes... Osama bin Laden. This from a Find Article cache of The Independent on 21 JAN 2001:

A BRITISH finance company is to take legal action against a Spanish newspaper that has accused it of having links with the Islamic terrorist Osama bin Laden.

The claim follows a dispute between the Imperial Consolidated Group, which has over 28,000 customers in the UK, and its former business partner, the Syrian multi-millionaire arms-dealer Monzer al Kassar, who is based in Spain.

Imperial Consolidated says that Mr al Kassar is behind the story, which appeared on Monday in the Madrid newspaper El Mundo. Imperial Consolidated has dismissed as "nonsense" the allegations that the Imperial Consolidated Group, which operates from the site of the former RAF Binbrook base in Lincolnshire, has contacts with Mr bin Laden.

The paper suggested that the approach to Mr al Kassar was a front to obtain arms for Mr bin Laden, who is wanted in the United States for orchestrating the bombing of two embassies in Africa in 1998.

Imperial Consolidated's chairman, Lincoln Fraser, told the Independent on Sunday: "The accusation made in the Spanish press that Imperial Consolidated is somehow controlled and working on behalf of Osama bin Laden for the purpose of procuring arms is fundamentally absurd. The idea that Osama bin Laden would utilise Imperial Consolidated in order to do business with Monzer al Kassar is similarly ridiculous."

Founded in 1994, Imperial Consolidated is a UK-based financial group with subsidiaries in 11 countries, mostly offshore. It started as a debt- collecting agency. But in Britain it now employs more than 200 people.

[..]

According to the Miami-based Offshore Alert newsletter, an Imperial Consolidated subsidiary in the Bahamas launched the HINT Mastercard early last year. But within a few months the card was withdrawn. Last week it was announced that the group is now leaving the Bahamas.

Mr al Kassar, 55, has been involved in controversial arms deals spanning more than 20 years. El Mundo says Mr al Kassar received Imperial Consolidated bosses, including Mr Fraser, in his Marbella mansion last September and signed a contract to exploit a gold mine in the Argentine province of Tucuman. Mr al Kassar received $4m (pounds 2.7m) that Mr Fraser arranged on the spot via his mobile phone.

[..]

Mr al Kassar was involved in the Iran-contra affair, where he received $1.5m in 1985 and 1986 to buy arms for the Nicaraguan contras, according to a ledger released by the US congressional committee of inquiry into the scandal.

Oliver North's private arms procurement operation is reported to have bought from Mr al Kassar 158 tons of assault rifles and ammunition.

Mr al Kassar now has Spanish residency and lives in a marble palace in Marbella. Judge Baltazar Garzon, the scourge of former Chilean president General Pinochet, investigated him in connection with various drugs and terrorism allegations, notably the death of Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro in 1985.

Mr al Kassar was held in custody from 1992 for more than a year, then freed on payment of pounds 10m bail, before Spain's national court acquitted him in 1995 of charges of piracy resulting in death.

No, not so ridiculous as this and other scandals would take Imperial down. To the point where the website that is left is a series of documents on how Imperial Consolidated Group defrauded its investors, and has been shut down. And later, Mr. Kassar would have his Swiss accounts unfrozen in 2003.

And that brings us up to Madrid and the 3/11 bombings. For that I will let Winds of Change's Joe Aguilar look at part of that plot and how it involved Monzer al-Kassar:

Well, we are approaching the culmination of this article, the Schwerpunkt, the point where the main forces of the investigators of 3/11 and the ones that want it covered-up are heading for a perhaps decisive confrontation. At the centre of it, there is a man of Syrian origin, a National Police officer named Ayman Maussili Kalaji.

Kalaji arrived to Spain in 1980 as a political refugee, fleeing from the Civil War in Syria. He had served in the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (FDLP) in Lebanon, and it appears that he reached the rank of second commander of a missile base there. He also took the anti-government side in Syria, during that country's repression of the Muslim Brotherhood, resulting in Kalaji knocking on Spanish Immigration's door in order to keep his head on his shoulders. What may be more interesting to us is that as a bright teenage, he had been well trained in terrorist techniques, including electronics, and intelligence operations, and might even have been trained in the Soviet Union.

Regarding his experience, he began to collaborate with the Spanish security forces. Among other duties, he controlled the communications of Monzer Al Kassar, an arms trafficker that supplied to Palestine terrorists the weapons used in the assault of the Achille Lauro. Al Kassar bought Spanish protection against any awkward Israeli attention by selling two SA-7 portable antiaircraft missiles equipped with a transmitter to ETA. He was also allegedly a friend of Secretary of the Interior Rafael Vera. Later, in 1989, Kalaji worked in an operation to arrest a Hizbullah cell in Valencia, the year in which he was finally admitted to the National Police corps.

What is his relation with the 3/11 plot? Well, he owns a mobile phone store where the mobile phones allegedly used in those attacks were unlocked, (manipulated their software so they can use SIM cards from any company) as he himself has recognized. However, that is not all; the Civil Guard unit that is investigating the plot sent a communication to Judge Del Olmo in which, due to (a) the short time frame (from March 4th and 8th to 11th) to manipulate the phones, (b) the knowledge of Kalaji about terrorists operations and electronics (those well soldered wires) and his relations with other Syrians involved in the attack, requested an arrest warrant against him. The Civil Guards suspect that he is the person that attached the wires to the vibrating units of the mobile phones used in 3/11.

That is, no Al Qaeda, no ETA, but a Police officer.

Not what you expected, was it? Kassar has implication with this report and with the one from my previous article, where Barcepundit gives a 2005 review of events:

El Mundo explains how the police found out that one of their own was the owner of the store where the cell phones were programmed:

From the data obtained in the van, plus the data from the unexploded knapsack bomb, the cell phones that Jamal Ahmidam’s people bought at Bazar Top (the Indian store), and the following “release” [by which the cell phones were able to be operated from any source including calling cards] of those phones, Kalaji’s coworkers at the General Information office came to his store, Tecnología de Sistemas Telefónicos Ayman.

From that very moment, Maussili Kalaji began to fully cooperate with his ex-coworkers at the Information Office, and thanks to him, and to his having written down the IMEI identification numbers of the Bazar Top cell numbers he had been asked to “release” (i.e., program so they phones would allow calling cards from any company and in any modality, prepayment, or contract), the investigators were able to find the Leganés apartment where the terrorist leader of the 3/11 trains of death had taken shelter.
. . .
He was in charge of the Syrian Monzer Al-Kassar
Maussili Kalaji thoroughly knows the Syrian community in Spain, and additionally, was the Spanish agent in charge of listening to and translating all of the telephone conversations of Monzer Al-Kassar, allegad weapons trafficker that was charged by judge Baltasar Garzón for collaborating in the Achille Lauro hijacking.

The ship’s hijacking took place in 1985, and in 1992 judge Garzón charged Al-Kassar -- Syrian resident of Marbella and representative of the Spanish government in some weapons sales to third countries – of allegedly belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (led by Abu Abbas [see link]), of murder, of belonging to an armed gang and terrorist organization, of attempted murder, illegal detention, and piracy.

Kalaji, as member of the Office of Information and by order of the judge, kept close match on Al-Kassar and his family; but eventually the Syrian friend of former Cesid director Alonso Manglano and ex-Secretary of the Interior Rafael Vera, was absolved of all charges of which judge Garzón had accused him.

Kalaji's Palestinian connections are strong and remain strong. El Mundo describes him as "Kalaji, who considers himself a defender of the Palestinian cause". My question is, is it wise of the Spanish intelligence services to have place in such sensitive jobs both Kalaji and members of his family?

At this point I still haven't touched on the Alternate Lockerbie Bombing theory which posits that Mr. Kassar, given a blind eye due to Iran/Contra involvement in his drug running operations in the Med., was able to get the bomb on-board the flight with help from Libyans. Mind you that is *not* outside the realm of what Mr. Kassar has been known to do. There also needs to be a strong look at the BNL scandal, transfer of weapons capability to other Nations, like Chile, and then onwards from there to Iraq for things like cluster bombs. And the whole involvement with Carlos Menem, Syria, Iran and advanced missile designs and possible nuclear technology needs something far more than what Argentina has been able to do to it. His high level contacts there, however, do point to this recent deal with FARC.

FARC is more than just your standard Marxist/Leftist/Narcoterror group: they are trying to get the US Congress to curtail anti-narcotics weapons and training to Columbia. Why is that important?

Because FARC tried to assassinate President Clinton in 2000 on a state visit to Columbia, the bomb being found just a couple of hours before he arrived at a place to give a speech. They are already well known for anti-American terrorism, but that steps over the line to something completely different... and Congress giving into *that* is cowardice.

And cowardice we can ill afford in this nasty future that Mr. Kassar represents.

Sphere: Related Content

More on the dots heading outwards with Monzer al-Kassar

This takes up from my previous post on this. Next post in the series is here.

This post not checked for spelling or syntax. Read at your own risk.

Also blogging: Howie at The Jawa Report v3.0 Beta, Wretchard at The Belmont Club, See-Dubya at Junk Yard Blog.

Picking up with Mr. Kassar, lets dig a bit deeper just on him and see where he is operating. For that we head on over to Globalsecurity.org and their very brief view of him:

Mundhir al-Kassar
Iraqi insurgency Arms Dealer

Details
Importance Medium
Affiliation Iraqi insurgency1
Role Arms Dealer1
Alias(es) Mundhir al Kassar1
Gender Male

Narrative and Notes

Reliable Kassar has connections with the Sabawi Ibrahim al Hassan family, to include Umar, Bashar and Ayman. He is a known weapons dealer and terrorist supplier. A Central Criminal Court of Iraq arrest warrant for Kassar and a reward for information leading to his capture are pending.1

Sources
1 U.S. Central Command press release. "Iraqi Government releases 41 Most-Wanted list." July 3, 2006.

Their confidence level on this is HIGH. It is, indeed, the same man due to his connections to the Hassan family, and currently has a CCCI warrant out for his arrest for work with the insurgency in Iraq. So this individual is NOW tied directly into the Syrian/Ba'athist/al Qaeda insurgency in Anbar and, most likely, elsewhere in Iraq.

Now you can't have pontification and blow-hards without having Sen. John Kerry involved and he does, indeed, involve himself in actually wanting something done about Mr. Kassar. On 30 JUN 1992 as part of Iran/Contra:

Mr. President, Watergate brought down a Presidency, but I must say that Watergate was trivial compared to Iran-Contra. Iran-Contra was nothing less than an effort to subcontract the foreign policy of the United States of America to a bunch of professional arms smugglers, including notorious terrorists like Manzer al-Kassar, drug dealers like Manuel Noriega, and nut cases like polygraph-failing Manchuer Ghorbanifar. It revolved around a scheme to sell weapons to a government responsible for murdering hundreds of American Marines, holding Americans hostage and supporting international terrorists around the world. It involved a specific, planned effort within the White House to evade both the letter and spirit of U.S. law, and it betrayed publicly stated American commitments to isolate terrorist States and to punish--not reward--those who take hostages.

Now if only Sen. Kerry would have had *that* attitude towards Saddam Hussein... but that is, apparently, too much to expect for the long haul. Not enough 'nuance'. While he does use it to decry things done by the Executive, it is strange that the lackadaisical attitude of such a Senator towards holding hearing to find out the EXTENT of Mr. Kassar (and others) influence against the United States is not done. But, I've hit Sen. Kerry on that *before*. And that is surprising, really, as Sen. Kerry was involved with uncovering the BCCI scandal! From the Executive Summary of that report, lets see where Mr. Kassar is situated:

16. INVESTIGATIONS OF BCCI TO DATE REMAIN INCOMPLETE, AND MANY LEADS CANNOT BE FOLLOWED UP, AS THE RESULT OF DOCUMENTS BEING WITHHELD FROM US INVESTIGATORS BY THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT, AND DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES BEING WITHHELD FROM US INVESTIGATORS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF ABU DHABI.

Many of the specific criminal transactions engaged in by BCCI's customers remain hidden from investigation as the result of bank secrecy laws in many jurisdictions, British national security laws, and the holding of key witnesses and documents by the Government of Abu Dhabi. Documents pertaining to BCCI's use to finance terrorism, to assist the builders of a Pakistani nuclear bomb, to finance Iranian arms deals, and related matters have been sealed in the United Kingdom by British intelligence and remain unavailable to U.S. investigators. Many other basic matters pertaining to BCCI's criminality, including any list that may exist of BCCI's political payoffs and bribes, remain sequestered in Abu Dhabi and unavailable to U.S. investigators.

Many investigative leads remain to be explored, but cannot be answered with devoting substantial additional sources that to date no agency of government has been in a position to provide.

Unanswered questions include, but are not limited to, the relationship between BCCI and the Banco Nazionale del Lavoro; the alleged relationship between the late CIA director William Casey and BCCI; the extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program; BCCI's manipulation of commodities and securities markets in Europe and Canada; BCCI's activities in India, including its relationship with the business empire of the Hinduja family; BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Sarkenalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers; the use of BCCI by central figures in the alleged "October Surprise," BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London; its involvement with foreign intelligence agencies; the financial dealingst of BCCI directors with Charles Keating and several Keating affiliates and front-companies, including the possibility that BCCI related entities may have laundered funds for Keating to move them outside the United States; BCCI's financing of commodities and other business dealings of international criminal financier Marc Rich; the nature, extent and meaning of the ownership of other major U.S. financial institutions by Middle Eastern political figures; the nature, extent, and meaning of real estate and financial investments in the United States by major shareholders of BCCI; the sale of BCCI affiliate Banque de Commerce et Placement in Geneva, to the Cukorova Group of Turkey, which owned an entity involved in the BNL Iraqi arms sales, among others.

The withholding of documents and witnesses from U.S. investigators by the Government of Abu Dhabi threatens vital U.S. foreign policy, anti-narcotics and money laundering, and law enforcement interests, and should not be tolerated.

Now there is a happy coincidence of names, places and organizations. Yes, Mr. Kassar is directly involved with Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Sarkenalian, but, also coming from Syria, he would also have a more than peripheral connection to the Central Bank of Syria and its connection to the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London, as seen above. Also the shifting of Banque de Commerce et Placement to the Cukorova Group in Turkey as a means to help the BNL (Banco Nazionale del Lavoro) arms and equipment sales with Iraq. And as BCCI was *also* connecting to the Keating 5 Scandal and Marc Rich, we have possible 'twice removed' connections with: Sen. John McCain and the Clintons.

But just a quick back up to the BNL scandal so that we can get some perspective on it:

LESSON NO. 4: WAR AND OIL
Henry B. Gonzalez, (TX-20)
(House of Representatives - February 21, 1991)

Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Speaker, this is the second in a series of special orders that I have planned concerning the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of the U.S. House of Representatives' investigation of the Banco Nazionale del Lavoro, otherwise known as the BNL, scandal.

As explained in the first special order on February 4, the BNL scandal is a sensational bank fraud and regulatory blunder in which former employees of the Atlanta agency of the BNL, which is really an Italian Government-owned bank, were able to loan Iraq $3 billion without presumably reporting those loans to its headquarters in Rome or to the Federal Reserve and State banking officials.

I brought out also in the first special order that in effect the alarming thing about this, as we first began to look into it more than a year and a half ago, was that it revealed an absence of suitable regulatory oversight on the part of our American regulatory system, which means that the United States is the only nation in the industrialized world, West or East, that permits such a tremendous volume of foreign money, in effect better than $635 billion right now, with little or no accountability or regulatory power exerted from the national interest standpoint of the United States.

The bank regulatory failure in this case is and continues to be the main focus of attention of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. The committee will pursue legislative remedies to ensure that entities like BNL are properly supervised.

As a matter of fact, this morning in the Washington Post there was a considerable story in which it was reported that the Federal Reserve Board was looking into a Washington-based bank's control or ownership influence by Iraq or Iraqi elements.

Well, let me say that if that is coming to light, it is coming too late, as in the case of BNL.

What continues to be disturbing to me is that nobody knows what the type of activity involving this huge amount of money in the United States, in which foreign entities owned by foreign governments can, in the exercise of their business, be acting contrary to the basic national policy as set forth by our own Government.

The second main facet of the investigation deals with BNL's relationship with Iraq. The committee is investigating the role BNL played in upgrading the military capability of Iraq, which is quite considerable.

If our boys, as it looks now, unfortunately and tragically will be the case, will go into the ground fighting, they will be facing death or serious bodily harm by missiles or chemical weapons actually funded and paid for by U.S. businesses and guaranteed by the American taxpayer.

As astounding as this is, it is and has happened, and continues to, incidentally.

BNL was one, not the only one, but probably one of the more significant, sources of funding for a complicated Iraqi scheme to obtain sophisticated Western technology and know-how.

BNL financed the sale of chemicals, specialty steel products, sophisticated computer controlled industrial machinery, electronic components, computers, and engineering and construction services. Much of this technology had civilian as well as military uses.

Evidently the United States and other Western nations ignored the true intentions of Iraq, though personally I think that those intentions were well-known, except that at that time, and I think in view of what is happening today, and being that we seem to have very short memories nowadays, we find it difficult to evoke the environment that existed during the Iraq-Iran War for 8 years, and the years immediately following the truce, in which we actually had, as a matter of Government policy, been aiding and abetting the Iraqis against the Iranians.

That sounds unbelievable today, but it is true. Truth is stranger than fiction.

It is equally true that 47.6 billion dollars--worth in an 8-year period of sophisticated weaponry was provided Iraq by not only the United States but almost every other country, including the so-called People's Republic or People's Country of China which used the technology that our licensing agreements enabled the Chinese to produce, such as the Silkworm missile which, incidentally, was the missile that sank or damaged and killed 37 of our sailors just a few years ago fired by an Iraqi source when our Navy was flying the flag for Kuwaiti oil tankers and patrolling the gulf.

Incidentally, the reason that all this financing could be done by the Iraqi Government through its central bank and through these foreign government-owned banks with either branches or agencies, as they call them, in the United States, and the one particularly in Atlanta, is that President Reagan in 1983 saw fit to remove Iraq from the list of nations that he himself listed as terrorist nations. And when he removed Iraq from that designation it opened the sluice gates for considerable commerce and weapons trading.

The BNL was also a major source of agricultural financing for Iraq. BNL financed the sale of over $850 billion in United States agricultural products to Iraq; $720 million of that amount was guaranteed and ultimately is being paid for by the United States Department of Agriculture's Commodity Credit Corporation, or the taxpayer.

Between 1983 and 1990, the CCC granted credit guarantees which enabled Iraq to purchase a total of $5.5 billion in United States farm products. In addition, the Export-Import Bank granted Iraq a $200 million insurance policy to protect United States companies against the potential risk of loss related to exporting goods to Iraq, and of course they did suffer that loss and, of course, the taxpayers pay that guarantee or insurance.

These United States Government guarantees were very important to Iraq. It not only permitted Iraq to purchase high-quality food for its people and its army, it freed up a like amount in foreign exchange, more importantly, which was used to purchase the technology and military goods from various countries around the globe.

The BNL scandal which burst onto the scene publicly in August 1989 played a key role in the disintegration of United States-Iraq relations. As we are now tragically aware, the break in United States-Iraq relations ultimately ended in war.

Revelation of the BNL scandal was important to United States-Iraq relations because of several reasons. BNL was a major bank participant in the Commodity Credit program with Iraq. Alleged violation of CC regulations by BNL in Iraq, still being investigated by our United States attorney in Atlanta and by the Department of Agriculture, made and compelled the administration, this administration, to rethink the billions of dollars in agriculture credit guarantees provided to Iraq. Iraq received $1 billion in agriculture credit from 1989.

Mind you, it was in August 1989 that we had the first exposure of the deal, but at that time the climate was very favorable in our country and in our Government as a matter of policy toward Iraq, as contradistinguished from Iran. The Department of Agriculture was in the midst of granting Iraq another $1 billion program for 1990 when the BNL scandal surfaced.

Facing pressure from possible irregularities in the Iraq program, the Agriculture Department was reluctantly forced to limit the program with Iraq in 1990 to $500 million. The Iraqis were incensed, because Iraq was effectively bankrupt and had little money to purchase food with. It was counting on an increase in the CCC program, and not a huge cut in the program. This was a blow at the time for Iraq. Iraq took the lowering of the $500 million level as an insult. They claimed this action was indefensible because they were not violating American law at that time, as indeed they were not since Mr. Reagan removed them from the list in 1983, and that no formal charges had been filed against them because of the BNL scandal.

Lowering the level of the CC credit to $500 million also placed increased pressure on Iraq's already scant resources.

The implication of the BNL scandal did not end there. As I have mentioned earlier, BNL was a major source of financing for a complicated Iraqi technology procurement network. During the 1980's, Iraq established ownership or control of a sophisticated network of United States and European front companies whose primary mission was to obtain Western military technology and know-how and export it back to Iraq.

Of course, the Iraqis were very secretive in their dealings and were careful to conceal their true affiliation. During the latter half of the 1980's they relied heavily on these BNL loans to finance the procurement of much of the Western technology they were seeking, including the so-called big gun, the chemical weapons component and other missile and munition facilities, one of which plants was established in Baghdad.

But BNL loans were not ordinary financing. BNL contracted to loan Iraq $2.155 billion at interest rates that were not economically feasible. In addition, a good portion of those loans did not have to be paid back for many years; they were long term, which is incredible. The Small Business Administration has not in many years been able to do anything one-tenth as much for any U.S. businessman.

The former employees of BNL were operating like a charity, not a bank. The BNL raid in August 1989 put an end to this practice at that point and certainly put a damper on the Iraqi procurement of a long list of United States and Western technology. About $1 billion at that point had not yet been disbursed under the charity loan schemes when BNL was raided in August 1989.

The BNL scandal also made the Baghdad diplomatic community worry that Iraq was so desperate for credit it was willing to engage in illegal activity. Iraq feared its already tarnished financial reputation because of their defaults would be further damaged by BNL's scandal, and they were worried that the scandal would possibly jeopardize high-profit Iraqi projects being constructed by foreign companies.

While BNL money and United States credit guarantees would not have been siginficant to a financially strong nation, it was critically important to a country like Iraq because it was in such a poor financial shape after the terribly inhuman 8-year war with Iran.

By the end of 1989, Iraq had already defaulted on most of its debts with the governments and private companies of most Western countries as well as with Japan and Korea. Until the BNL scandal, the United States had almost been the only exception in this rule. Iraq had remained relatively current on its United States obligations.

But limiting United States Government credit programs because of BNL and stopping the flow of BNL lending to Iraq was eventually the proverbial last straw that broke the camel's back in that effectively rendering Iraq bankrupt.

The impact of the BNL scandal and its effect on Iraq is echoed in the words of the Iraqi Foreign Minister during his meeting with Secretary of State James Baker just prior to the allied offensive against Iraq. Iraq had offered many excuses for its brutal invasion of Kuwait. Among others, it accused the United States, other Western nations, Israel, and Kuwait of conspiring to destroy it economically. Related to the United States role in this supposed scheme, Tariq Aziz, the diplomat and Foreign Minister, stated in his Geneva meeting with Secretary Baker, and I am going to quote:

The United States actually implemented an embargo on Iraq before August 2, 1990. We had dealings with the United States in the field of foodstuffs. We used to buy more than $1 billion of American products. Early in 1990, the American administration suspended that deal which was profitable for both sides. Then the United States Government decided to deny Iraq the purchase of a very large list of items.

Evidently, to the Iraqis, the impact of the BNL scandal was a key factor in the decline of United States-Iraqi relations.

As we know, Saddam Hussein reacted to his dire financial straits by invading Kuwait which ironically, along with several other Arab nations, had loaned Iraq tens of billions of dollars during the conflict with Iran.

To summarize, the failure of our bank regulatory system to detect the $3 billion in shady loans to Iraq, coupled with billions in questionable credits to Iraq, along with our inability to stop Saddam from importing BNL-financed technology which was used for military purposes, is being used now in which our soldiers will confront, all worked together to cause our war with Iraq.

Hopefully the committee's investigation of BNL will shed light on how these failures occurred. I would hope an understanding of these failures would work to reduce the risk of more Iraqis on our horizon, even now especially before we are forced to risk many more lives of our soldiers.

I would like to take this opportunity to demonstrate another important reason for proceeding with the Banking Committee's investigation. I have obtained from a source I must protect a memorandum that indicates a top-ranking administratrion official from a Cabinet-level Department had knowledge that BNL was used for purchasing military goods. This administration official was concerned that the revelation of BNL financing of military articles would be bad for his particular program, because it would cause considerable adverse congressional reaction and press coverage.

He stated in this memorandum:

In the worst-case scenario, congressional and other investigators would find a direct link to financing Iraqi military expenditures, particularly the Condor missile.

The astounding contents of this memorandum shed significant light on the administration's and the Federal Reserve Board's efforts to thwart our Banking Committee and its investigation of BNL. To date, they remain silent on the topic of BNL financing of military articles.

With all the lessons we could learn from the BNL scandal, let me say by way of parentheses, I am submitting in furtherance of what this comment from this official implies, in this Record, Mr. Speaker, at this point, an article in the Financial Times of London, an article of February 21, 1991, entitled `Warning Forced Bechtel Out of Iraq Chemical Project,' and believe it or not, this involves a former Secretary of State, George Shultz, who after he left the secretaryship went back to his employer, the Bechtel Corp., which is where he had come from, and this article by Alan Friedman, reporting out of New York for the London Financial Times, says, `I said something is going to go very wrong in Iraq, and if Bechtel was there, it would get blown up.'

So there is a long view of BNL and Iraq, which I am still working on. It is very, very hard to imagine an international arms dealer, drug trafficker and terrorist supporter connected *with* BCCI not getting any wind of this happening in his own back yard. And the scope of the BNL scandal covering: farm commodities, technology sales, arms support equipment sales, manufacturing equipment sales, computer sales and even 'dual use' equipment to Iraq and other Nations, like China, proved to have disasterous consequences. And there was Mr. Kassar sitting in Syria in contact with BCCI that held a bank that helped in the distribution of this entire suite of funds. Especially since the Central Bank of Syria was connected to BCCI and money laundering affairs, which Mr. Kassar had taken part in not only recently, in the Columbia affair cited by the Washington Times on 09 JUN 2007, but 12 MAY 1992, Dennis DeConcini puts forth the following:

Lebanon also provides Syria with much needed infusions of hard currency from its drug trafficking operations. The State Department has estimated that 49 metric tons of opium came from the Syrian controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon last year. An article in the New Republic in January of this year reported that, `Between 20 percent and 35 percent of heroin imported into the United States comes from Syrian-occupied Lebanon.' In fact, the drug business has become so important to President Assad that the Washington Post reported in January 26 of this year that `to a large extent, the glue that keeps the Syrian machinery together is the personal enrichment of Assad's military from narcotics trafficking.'

Terrorism is another nefarious international activity in which Syria continues to be involved. At times Syrian drug trafficking and support for terrorism appear to run hand in hand. According to an April 27 Time magazine article, it was Monzer al-Kassar, a Syrian drug dealer, who planted the bomb on Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. Time's assertions have been supported by Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of the CIA's investigation of the bombing. He was quoted in a New York Times article as saying it was outrageous that Libya could have been fully responsible for the bombing. If this report is true, it is not the first time that Syria has been responsible for the loss of American life.

Published reports have linked Syria to the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks which killed over 200 soldiers. Syrian intelligence has also been implicated in the unsuccessful 1986 bombing of a El Al airliner in London. In addition to its individual acts of terrorism, Syria has been used as a safe haven and training ground for other terrorist organizations.

The Islamic fundamentalist group, Hezbollah, has been receiving its training in Syria. Upon completion of training in Syria, the Hezbollah have their weapons escorted by the Syrians into Lebanon. Hezbollah is the same group that has declared its purpose to be to destroy the cancerous Zionist entity. It also has made more than a dozen attacks on Israeli civilians between 1990 and 1991. Last October, Syrian Vice President Khaddam described the Hezbollah attacks against Israel as brave actions.

Yes, backing up to 1986 and possibly all the way to 1983 with the Embassy bombings and Marine Barracks bombings, Mr. Kassar had that exact, same need, that was being supplied by the Central Bank of Syria and BCCI. One of the follow-ups to BCCI was to look particularly at just that thing, as cited in the BCCI report in 1992:

4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al-Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.

5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.

6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.

Has it really taken 15 years to follow this up? Or is this, as I suspect, just another one of those times where the pure criminality of the individual involved has brought him out of the woodwork *again*? Because Mr. Kassar was *also* involved in the Iran/Contra deal which had utilized BCCI for funding transactions. And if Mr. Kassar was involved with the late Mr. Cyrus Hashemi and London BCCI, that also gives him entrance to the Soviet trade delegation there because he is *also* from a client State of the USSR: Syria. And as Syria is already involved there, having a connection between Mr. Kassar and Mr. Hashemi is not only possible, but nearly mandatory for the types of wheeling and dealing going on to get drugs, arms and cash moved around from the Middle East to Latin America.

Now, inside the actual BCCI report we get a look at the Kassar brothers ties to:

Abu Nidal
In the United Kingdom, a key window on BCCI's support of terrorism was an informant named Ghassan Qassem, the former manager of the Sloan Street branch of BCCI in London. Qassem had been given the accounts of Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal at BCCI, and then proceeded, while at BCCI, to provide detailed information on the accounts to British and American intelligence, apparently as a paid informant, according to press accounts based on interviews with Qassem.(66)

As of 1986, the information obtained about Abu Nidal's use of BCCI was sufficiently detailed as to justify dissemination within the U.S. intelligence community.(67)

In July, 1987, as a result of the information provided by Qassem, a State Department report concerning Abu Nidal and Qassem, declassified in 1991 at the request of the Subcommittee, describes Abu Nidal's use of BCCI.

The ANO commercial network comprises several businesses created over the past seven years with the long-term goal of establishing legitimate trading enterprises in various countries, gaining experience in commercial trade, and making a profit for the group. . . The general manager of the commercial network and the principal agent in gray-arms transactions is Samir Hasan Najm al-Din (Samir Najmeddin). He has directed many of ANO's commercial activities, both licit and illicit, from his offices in the INTRACO building in Warsaw, Poland.. . . He has maintained a general account at a major West European Bank [BCCI in London] from which he transfers money to individual company accounts at local banks. He maintains joint control of each company's ban accounts, along with the company manager, and he is responsible for forwarding all major contracts to Sabri al-Banna for final approval.(68)

Following dissemination of this material by the U.S., the U.S. coordinated efforts to shut down the financing of the activities exposed in its targeting of Abu Nidal through BCCI-London, with some success.(69)

Other terrorist groups continued to make use of BCCI, including one "state sponsor of terrorism," and the Qassar brothers, Manzur and Ghassan, who have been associated with terrorism, arms trafficking, and narcotics trafficking in connection with the Government of Syria, and with the provision of East Bloc arms to the Nicaraguan contras in a transaction with the North/Secord enterprise paid for with funds from the secret U.S. arms sales to Iran.(70)

Yes, Mr. Kassar and his brother getting support from BCCI, working with Eastern European contacts and the Contras as part of Iran/Contra. That coming out from a former manager in BCCI itself. Also note the support to Abu Nidal and how that runs in its own similar courses, also cited by that same manager, who then becomes a prime link to knowing what moved between those organizations.

From Wretchard comes this citation of a NY Post article, Evil Rich 'Prince' hid in plain sight:

But the photographs displayed in his home show al Kassar - arrested on terror-related charges Thursday and suspected of supporting the insurgency in Iraq - is no run-of-the-mill millionaire, the British newspaper The Observer reported in October.

In one photo, he is shaking hands with the late Uday Hussein, the ruthless eldest son of dictator Saddam Hussein. Uday was killed by U.S. troops in July 2003.

Another photo shows al Kassar holding hands with Hassan Aideed, son of a now-dead Somali warlord depicted in the movie "Black Hawk Down."

In a third, he hugs terrorist Abu Abbas, the former leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front captured in Baghdad in 1993.

Wretchard then offers this link to the LA Times article on the FARC deal:

Kassar promised to provide the FARC with "C4 explosives, as well as expert trainers from Lebanon to teach the FARC how to effectively use C4 and improvised explosive devices," the indictment and federal authorities alleged.

"In addition, Kassar offered to send a thousand men to fight with the FARC against U.S. military officers in Colombia," Garcia said.

Kassar, Ghazi and Moreno were charged with four separate terrorism offenses: conspiracy to kill U.S. nationals, conspiracy to kill U.S. officers or employees, conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization, and conspiracy to acquire and use an antiaircraft missile. Kassar and Moreno were also charged with money-laundering.

If convicted on all counts, the men face a sentence of life in prison without parole.

From Wretchard we get direction to Barcepundit who looks at some 2005 connections of Mr. Kassar to the Madrid bombings:

El Mundo explains how the police found out that one of their own was the owner of the store where the cell phones were programmed:

From the data obtained in the van, plus the data from the unexploded knapsack bomb, the cell phones that Jamal Ahmidam’s people bought at Bazar Top (the Indian store), and the following “release” [by which the cell phones were able to be operated from any source including calling cards] of those phones, Kalaji’s coworkers at the General Information office came to his store, Tecnología de Sistemas Telefónicos Ayman.

From that very moment, Maussili Kalaji began to fully cooperate with his ex-coworkers at the Information Office, and thanks to him, and to his having written down the IMEI identification numbers of the Bazar Top cell numbers he had been asked to “release” (i.e., program so they phones would allow calling cards from any company and in any modality, prepayment, or contract), the investigators were able to find the Leganés apartment where the terrorist leader of the 3/11 trains of death had taken shelter.
. . .
He was in charge of the Syrian Monzer Al-Kassar
Maussili Kalaji thoroughly knows the Syrian community in Spain, and additionally, was the Spanish agent in charge of listening to and translating all of the telephone conversations of Monzer Al-Kassar, allegad weapons trafficker that was charged by judge Baltasar Garzón for collaborating in the Achille Lauro hijacking.

The ship’s hijacking took place in 1985, and in 1992 judge Garzón charged Al-Kassar -- Syrian resident of Marbella and representative of the Spanish government in some weapons sales to third countries – of allegedly belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (led by Abu Abbas [see link]), of murder, of belonging to an armed gang and terrorist organization, of attempted murder, illegal detention, and piracy.

Kalaji, as member of the Office of Information and by order of the judge, kept close match on Al-Kassar and his family; but eventually the Syrian friend of former Cesid director Alonso Manglano and ex-Secretary of the Interior Rafael Vera, was absolved of all charges of which judge Garzón had accused him.

Kalaji's Palestinian connections are strong and remain strong. El Mundo describes him as "Kalaji, who considers himself a defender of the Palestinian cause". My question is, is it wise of the Spanish intelligence services to have place in such sensitive jobs both Kalaji and members of his family?

Yes, well connected in the Transnational Terrorist realm and Rogue Nation areas!

And with that we now have a few names, beyond Manzar Al-Kassar to add to the kitty of terrorism, bank fraud, money launder, illegal arms shipments, narcotrafficking and undermining Nations:

Manzur Qassar (variant spelling of Monzer al-Kassar )
Mundhir al-Kassar (alias/variant)
Ghassan Qassar (brother to Manzur)
Ghassan Qassem - BCCI London branch manager
Cyrus Hashemi - deceased, major figure in the Iran/Contra deal via North/Secord connections
Sarkis Soghanalian - Iraqi Arms Dealer under Saddam
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - Customer
Medellin cartels - Possible link via BCCI, Iran/Contra, North/Secord
Hezbollah - Syrian and Iranian backed organization, most shipments coming through Syria - customer
Pan Am flight 103 - Agent for bomb and placement of same cited by Vincent Cannistraro, the former head of the CIA's investigation of the bombing
Assad Family - Ruling family of Syria
Defex - Portugese company cited in the Kassar to Contra arms shipment
Thomas Parlow - Danish National - Shipping manager in charge of the schedule for the Erria from Poland to Portugal
Clines, Hakim and William Haskell, an associate of North - Arms purchasers from Erria
Uday Hussein - deceased, Son of Saddam Hussein
Hassan Aideed - Son of Farah Aideed the Somali warlord
Achille Lauro Hijacking
Abu Abbas - International Terrorist
FARC - not only in 2007, but by implication by Interpol as early as 2000
Madrid bombings
Tareq Mousa Al Ghazi - 2007 arms deals with FARC
Luis Felipe Moreno Godoy - 2007 arms deals with FARC

This gets a good scoping on Mr. Kassar! Lots of dots heading outwards and some of the documents I am looking at see connections beyond that to things like: North Korea and AQ Khan network. The man *did* have the necessary contacts for those, but seeing if they pan out is something else, again. Also any hard ties to the BNL scandal will put *that* in a different light and all events after that, as Mr. Kassar seems to have duplicated their network but on a corporate scale for money laundering.

And I still haven't even gotten to the last two on the list. And this list grows outwards.

Also note that if there is *still* a charge out on the Klinghoffer murder, that IS Piracy.

That is something our Piracy laws can be applied to so as to bring down all of Mr. Kassar's network AND everyone who supports him.

Sphere: Related Content