"Media Rants"... in reverse Journalists' get their own "beef" site

This is a hoot. I have my own category of "Media Rants", so I certainly think it's only fair to allow the accused to rant as well.

And rant they do... on the new site, AngryJournalist.com. (Note, I linked to the "show all comments" version, so wait for the load, and start at the bottom to move up from earliest to most recent at the top)

Most common themes I've see so far? Editors, stupid editors, work overload for low pay, unsavvy internet/web presence editors, less jobs available, etal. But the volume of the over 2920 rants there (at the time of this posting, anyway) are perhaps skewed by high school or college writers, and wannabe writers/journalism grads who can't find a job... yada yada yada. So I'm taking a rough guess that most of the McClatchy, NYTs, WaPo and other big news established media types aren't spending their time venting their frustrations.

But then, that's another of the rants - age related. Young ones rail over the "old, over 45" [Mata gasps here....] journalists who get all the big breaks. The older ones spit on the young ones over deplorable language skills.

Some have great sense of humor, others truly embittered for not being able to change the world to their particulars, rake in the cash, get the beats they want.... Actually sounds like a plethora of other careers, all with interchangable complaints.

So here are some notables that caught my eye for your entertainment. Some funny, some quite serious. And oh, BTW... I've done no "spellcheck" corrections. What you see, is what was posted.

Angry Journalist #76: because my job makes the world worse… Thats not what I was aiming for when I started ten year ago..

Angry Journalist #65: Word. Britney Spears is not news.

Angry Journalist #64: Because entertainment is now news.

Angry Journalist #84: I am angry at America. I am angry that we have become so comfortably numb, that we only care about what Britney’s doing, whatever soundbite made on CNN. I hate that we are so introspective, and that our media has become so self-reflective.

The world exists, goddamnit.

The world exists.

Angry Journalist #95: Incorerct speeling and grammer

Angry Journalist #137: I am very upset that I can no longer work while intoxicated.

Angry Journalist #169: I’m angry because my vent just got lost in the thousands of vents here…

Angry Journalist #300: I’m angry because my colleagues are so self-important, they would rather shape the news then report it.

Then, of course, a few of the beefs was about bloggers and plaguarism. As if to make their point, it wasn't long after AngryJournalists was started that an imitator popped up. HappyJournalist.com was started Mar 2, 3008, by Joe Murphy - a web development guy at the Denver post. Oddly enough, he's one of the breed of bloggers-slash-wannabe-online-journalists that makes the "beef" list on AngryJournalists.

Joe's few 88 "happy" writers/posters out there seemingly lends support to the notion that the "if it bleeds, it leads" adage seems to have permeated the bloodstream of our media. They have become, themselves, a group of drama queens, fixated on personal tragedy and injustice.

According to the Breitbart article that brought this "beef" site to the worlds attention, the unusual enterprise was started by a 23 yr old ex-web journalist, Kiyoshi Martinez. He didn't quit the business out of anger, but out of disappointment in his choice, and in the direction of the industry.

Perhaps young Martinez would also like my personal favorite rant by a self-professed "veteran journalist".

Angry Journalist #268: I’m a veteran journalist. I’ve been reading these comments for 10 minutes now and can see one of the major problems in journalism today. If the written comments are nationally reflective….no wonder we’re in trouble. “Wordsmiths” who can’t think of anything better than the F word to describe how they feel, who can’t write grammatical sentences and who can’t spell.

True, a lot of editors are asses, a lot of newspapers are confusing quantity with quality, and a lot of reporters/editors are being asked to do more with less. Do you think other fields — overall — are drastically different? No. Except, perhaps, for the oil field. — Signed: Sad to see what’s happened in 40 years.

I'm with you, #268. The last four decades have produced alot of narcissistic whiners. Wonder why that is......

Reports of Maliki's demise are premature...

As Mark Twain said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated". So it is with the western press's rush to declare Maliki's demise.

Media outlets - overjoyed that the Basra battle provided a rare opportunity to declare the Surge "failure" - are now falling all over themselves to pronounce Maliki's Operation Calvary Charge against Sadr'ist area mobsters and cartels a loss. Odd to assume that with one battle, a "war" is won *or* lost. Frankly, I've been looking at it as a great start for Iraqi's policing their own.

But before you get all caught up in the mantra of defeat and parroted phrases of western media, I suggest a perspective from one with more inside knowledge... Nibras Kazimi's "The 'Intifada' that Wasn't" at Talisman Gate.

I won that wager. I had written that “the Iraqi Army’s military operation in Basra will be a spectacular win against disorder and Iranian influence”. And I was right.

Of course, most western media outlets are declaring Muqtada al-Sadr and Iran as the victors of Operation Cavalry Charge. Nothing could be furthest from the truth.

The United Alliance List delegation comprising Ali al-Adib of the Da’awa Party, Hadi al-Ameri of the Badr Organization and (I think…) Qasim al-Sahlani representing a group that had splintered from the Da’awa Party, evidently made al-Sadr an offer he couldn’t refuse when they sat down for a friendly chat in Tehran two days ago: the Iraqi state was willing to go all the way in smashing the Sadrist movement—arresting all the leaders and shutting down all the offices—if he didn’t play along with Operation Cavalry Charge and hand over those operatives whose names appear on the wanted lists.

See Maliki went to Basra with a long-ish list of names comprising all those involved in oil smuggling, drug dealing and the various other crimes that have wracked Basra. It just so happens that many of them claim to be Mahdi Army commanders.

This is what I wrote a couple of days ago:

snip... continue reading at link above - truly a MUST REA

Haditha "massacre" myth quietly dissolves Ignored by media and ACLU

FrontPage Magazine's Ben Johnson article today, "The Party of Defeat’s Haditha Lie Crumbles", brings two very important points to bear.

1: The media hype, stoked by Murtha's accusations of murder in cold blood, kept Haditha in the forefront of headlines. Now that the electorate has formed an opinion of Murtha, as the defender of the Iraqi innocent, and the US Marine as a cold blooded killer, the media ignores the dismissal of charges of the third of the fourth defendants. The charge? Not murder. But failure to "properly identify every target before opening fire."

In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

There was also the prosecution's star witness, Lance Cpl Humberto Mendoza, a Venezuelan citizen “trying to get his application for U.S. citizenship released by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is holding up his papers.” Mendoza accused Tatum of issuing orders for Mendoza to kill and, upon refusal he says, Tatum pulled the trigger.

Minor detail in the he said-he said battle. Tatum passed a lie detector. Mendoza failed.

2: What about torture? Isn't the ACLU, Congress and the electorate all up in arms about "torture"? Or is "torture" acceptable because it's performed on US soldiers?

If leftists genuinely cared about U.S. troops, they would have protested the conditions of the Haditha soldiers' interrogations. Investigators refused to provide attorneys when requested, questioned the men for 12 hours at a time, and did not allow them to take bathroom breaks, forcing the men to relieve themselves into bottles. This far outstrips most of the accusations made against U.S. soldiers.

Certainly many of the above conditions are what constitutes "torture" to the left. Which begs the question of where is the ACLU in all this?

I suggest their distinct absence on behalf of the Haditha accused shows that the ACLU cares not about torture, but about giving comfort and opportunity for freedom to our enemy. They are, plain and simple, on the wrong side of the battlefield.

Just who is "beating the drums" for war in Iran?

Chutzpah... pfeh. Can't say much else to the absolute deception of a media headline, concocted with the intent to deceive.

Latest case in point... M K Bhadrakumar's article for the March 27th Asia Times article, "US moves towards engaging Iran".

Oh, but wait! Could just be a tricky play on words, right? "Engaging" Iran with military force vs "engaging" Iran with diplomatic talks are two different ball games. But when you read the headline, and consider the past "beating the drums of war" accusations of media, what comes to your mind first?

Slick... very slick. And still deceptive. The damage is done with the headline alone.

The opening paragraph of Bhadrakumar's article supports the "drums of war" theory.

The coming few weeks are going to be critical in the standoff between the United States and Iran as the upheaval in the Middle East reaches a turning point. And all options do remain on the table, as the George W Bush administration likes to say, from military conflict to a de facto acceptance of Iran's standing as the region's dominant power.

But since what Bhadrakumar was about to report mandated a recanting of that impression... here comes paragraph two.

One thing is clear. The time for oratorical exercises is ending. A phase of subtle, reciprocal, conceptual diplomatic actions may be beginning. An indication of this is available in the two radio interviews given by Bush last weekend and beamed into Iran, exclusively aimed at reaching out to the Iranian public on the Persian New Year Nauroz.

Followed by more details in paragraph's four thru six.

Bush's interviews with the government-supported Voice of America and Radio Farda, especially the latter, were a masterly piece in political overture. He held out none of the customary threats against Iran. This time, there was not even the trademark insistence that "all options are on the table". There were no barbs aimed at President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. Least of all, there were no calls for a regime change in Tehran. Bush simply said something that he might as well have said about Saudi Arabia or Egypt. As he put it, "So this is a regime and a society that's got a long way to go [in reform]."

Bush spoke of the evolution of the Iranian regime's character rather than its overthrow. The criticism, if any, of Iranian government policies approached nowhere near the diatribes of the past. There was none of the boastful claims that the US would work toward isolating Iran in its region and beyond. In fact, Bush acknowledged, "There's a chance that the US and Iran can reconcile their differences, but the [Iranian] government is going to have to make different choices. And one [such choice] is to verifiably suspend the enrichment of uranium, at which time there is a way forward."

Bush assured that in return the US would be "reasonable in our desire to see to it that you have civilian nuclear power without enabling the government to enrich [uranium]". Here again, he pointed out that the problem is that "they [Iranian governments] have not told the truth in the past, and therefore it's very difficult for the United States and the rest of the world - or much of the rest of the world - to trust the Iranian government when it comes to telling the truth".

Sensationalist headlines, followed by content that has nothing to do with the news "trailer". And we wonder why so many in the world are just plain clueless about current events? i.e. why so many believe that Bush is bent on starting a war with Iran before his 2nd term is up.

Yet a closer examination of that "truth" finds that the Bush admin, while refusing rightfully to take any options off the table, has always advocated for int'l diplomacy, and encouragement to the youth of Iran to strive for changes in their country.

So who is really beating the drum for war in Iran?

How about Seymour Hirsch at the New Yorker, who's story was then redistributed by CNN. Or perhaps Pelosi? Maybe Walter C. Uhler at The Information Clearing House? How about the Libertarian Party?

Then, of course, there's Joe Biden on Hardball. And Tim Shipman, reporting for London's The Telegraph. And let's not forget the progressive site, Common Dreams.

Notice any common threads in ideology and agenda here? Of course, in the same illustrious company of the above is Chavez.

And the liberals say they aren't siding with the wrong side of the argument.... uh huh.

The result of all this BS spewed from the mouths of political opportunists? A poll saying American's don't trust Bush on Iran. Well damn... who would, after all the years of media and liberal lies?

Definitely another one of those things that makes you go "huh???" And more fodder for my "media rant" category.

Hating Musharraf Those chickens are comin' home to roost

Upon the return of Benazir Bhutto, the western media was all a'gog. Hailing her as Pakistan's deliverer from the evil Musharraf. Proclaimed A Hero for Democracy, she was given press passes for her less than stellar, and corruption riddled, past PM terms. Then, upon death, unofficially canonized by the same history challenged media (tho saved from such a real perilous fate by her Muslim religion...).

On the opposite end of the stick was the harsh criticism and journalistic sniping at Musharraf. He stood as the fall guy, demonized for all of Pakistan's failures in controlling the al Qaeda and Taliban in their tribal regions.

Western media then rejoiced at Benazir's PPP party victory in elections... sure that such a change would result in a more democratic Pakistan, and a thorough clean up of the militants in their midst.

Musharraf, who previously had threatened to resign if the Parliament so much as whispered the word "impeach" in his direction, now finds himself politically isolated after the inauguration of the new Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Not only does Nawaz Sharif have it in for Musharraf, Gilani also has his past beefs with Pakistan's President. Both have been booted out, and/or jailed and arrested by Musharraf - both charged with corruption. And payback for the Prez is proving to be a real bitch as they apply pressure for his ouster.

So it's no surprise that rumours abound regarding his imminent resignation. Who can blame the guy? The western media treated him slightly better than they treat our own President, totally oblivious to the narrow line a Muslim President must walk, and unappreciative for the help he has provided the US. Fact is, Muslim countries do not like to be seen as cooperating overtly with the evil western US. So most aid needed to remain below the NYT's press radar in order to minimize backlash from the Pakistanis themselves.

Well, congratuations, all you history challenged PPP/Benazir lovers. You are about to be granted that "Pakistan" you have craved since Bhutto's return. A Pakistan that rejects your perceived enemy, Musharraf, and comes up with a new way to deal with the militants in their midst....

There's no more military missions. It's negotiate with the bad guys time.

But Mr Negroponte and Mr Boucher scheduled early calls on Mr Sharif and Mr Zardari, both of whom have indicated that the new democratic coalition intends following a very different policy from Mr Musharraf on the war against terror and dealing with jihadi militants.

Both said this week they believed the Washington-backed military assault against the jihadis had failed and that they were keen to try negotiations in an effort to end the wave of suicide bomb attacks.

It must be pointed out that Sharif's past ties to hardline militants is still of great concern, especially given his position of power today. A position made possible by Musharraf's agreement not to enforce the 10 year exile to Saudi Arabia... thereby signing his own political death warrant.

It must also be noted that the history of negotiations with the militants in the tribal regions has produced more broken truces and failures than the joint military attempts.

Which brings us to today... Pakistan has basically elected an "Obama" impersonator... a prime minister who believes in talk over fighting. Mr. "let's talk" Obama, on the other hand, has just boxed himself into a foreign policy corner. His publicly laid out cowboy policy towards Pakistan, threatening to go in without their permission if he has "actionable intelligence", is not going to sit well with Gilani and the new power in Parliament.

Needless to say, this new and lesser approach by a perceived ally will present problems for either candidate landing in the Oval Office. McCain will face resistance for cooperative joint missions, formerly granted by Musharraf on the sly. And the presumed DNC nominee, Obama, is now on a direct collision course with Pakistan unless he starts furiously backpeddling.

These events will give new meaning to Joni Mitchell's lyrics, "Well, don't it always seem to go - That you don't know what you got till it's gone".... The media drove the US into a frenzy of hate against Musharraf.

Yet he shall be sorely missed when those chickens do indeed come home to roost.

Poll confirms idiocy abounds in American electorate

Unbelievable... the "American people", as all those elected elite and media talking heads like to term the 1000 or so poll responders, demonstrate an amazing amount of smugness in their current events knowledge.

Case in point... there's a poll that says our elected officials should listen to the polls.... HUH? This from an article by Claude Salhani, UPI.

This is, of course, a poll in response to Dick Cheney's ABC interview March 19th where Martha Raddatz suggested his indifference to 2/3rds of American's being against the war in the latest polls was rather shocking. Cheney clarified: (on pg 3 of interview transcript):

No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn't had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there. And this President has been very courageous, very consistent, very determined to continue down the course we were on and to achieve our objective. And that's victory in Iraq, that's the establishment of a democracy where there's never been a democracy, it's the establishment of a regime that respects the rights and liberties of their people, as an ally for the United States in the war against terror, and as a positive force for change in the Middle East. That's a huge accomplishment.

Cheney's point is quite valid. While our officials are certainly aware of poll results (being as they are in our news face daily...) you cannot expect an electorate, educated by agenda driven media and not privvy to intelligence and military briefings, to form qualified opinions on America's policy.

And to demonstrate that "agenda driven media" point home a bit further, lets look at the quote provided below in the ABC accompanying story to the interview, as compared to the actual interview text provided above.

"You don't care what the American people think?" Raddatz asked the vice president.

"You can't be blown off course by polls," said Cheney, who is currently on a tour of the Middle East. "This president is very courageous and determined to go the course. There has been a huge fundamental change and transformation for the better. That's a huge accomplishment."

Yo? What happened to all that middle stuff analogy about if Lincoln used polls to determine the fate of the Civil War? Or did that make too much sense to include? Here lies the dangers of allowing media educated poll responders to dictate America's policy. They merely respond indignantly to what the media decides to share of the Cheney interview (casting a negative light), instead of reading the interview to see what Cheney really said.

Polls are nothing more than a reflection of the latest media headlines. And I don't need Americans, too lazy to read the source material, speaking for me. Let's face it. The majority of American's DON'T read the source material. If they did, all these "polls" we hear about would have seriously different results.

That "too much sense" bit (on what Cheney said) is what brings me back to the original point... the absurdity of a poll that says elected officials should listen to polls.

This latest poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org is part of a larger international research project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland. The study was conducted Jan. 18-27 on a total of 975 Americans by Knowledge Networks. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. Here's what they found:

When it comes to making an important decision, 81 percent say government leaders "should pay attention to public opinion polls because this will help them get a sense of the public's views." But that is assuming government leaders really care what the public thinks, especially when they are not up for re-election.

Only 18 percent of respondents said "they should not pay attention to public opinion polls because this will distract them from deciding what they think is right."

Sounds impressive, eh? 81% say.... Folks, they asked 975 people. And based on what these 975 people say, government policies and direction should be tempered and guided by polls?? Why not go take a poll of the neighborhood and find out what you should make for dinner, even tho they are unaware there is a diabetic in the family... yeeassh.

This is so unbelievably stupid that I hardly know where to begin. If you genuinely believed that the American voice should be heard prior to major decisions, then the only way to get a true measure is to have a national poll, and require every body present in this country to express their opinion.

Yet even that does not negate the same problem - misinformation fed to us daily by media, and the refusal of the majority to research the source material for higher education.

But there is no doubt - 1000 people or so just doesn't cut the mustard as a viable slice of America. In fact, the only purpose of this poll might be for the DNC as proof positive that the average voter doesn't have the intelligence to make wise decisions for his/her own future.

Or at least 780 (the 81%) of them don't.

"Withdrawal" promises fuel Iraq violence Harvard study: The Emboldenment Effect

Researchers at Harvard say that public debates about the rights and wrongs of the U.S. occupation of Iraq have a measurable "emboldenment effect" on insurgents there, and periods when there is a lot of media coverage about the issue are followed by small rises in the number of attacks.

The researchers, a political scientist and a health economist, studied data about insurgent attacks and U.S. media coverage up to November 2007, tracking what they called "anti-resolve statements," either by U.S. politicians or in the form of reports about American public opinion on the issue.

The study, published this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, uses quantitative analysis, a statistical tool employed by economists, to empirically test for the first time the widely held nostrum that public criticism of U.S. policy in Iraq encourages insurgents there.

"We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases," the study says. In Iraqi provinces that were broadly comparable in social and economic terms, attacks increased between 7 percent and 10 percent.

Gee, ya think? Should be obvious, but it takes Harvard researchers, Radha Iyengar, Jonathan Monten, to confirm the obvious to the oblivious - noted in Shaun Waterman's UPI article, "Analysis: Debate on Iraq fuels insurgency".

Anti-resolve... meaning the commitment to bear the cost to succeed. Or, to clarify with their own words, I'll quote from the introduction to the report itself, "Is There an "Emboldenment Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq"

A rational terrorist model suggests that insurgent actors should increase attacks on an occupying country when that country is closer to the margin of withdrawal.1 Researchers have identified the general importance of credible commitments in the initiation and termination of conventional and civil wars and parallels have been made to the case of counterinsurgency campaigns.2 In the context of insurgency, this “resolve” refers to the perceived commitment of the counterinsurgent to bearing the costs of defeating insurgency.

An excerpt from the report gives clue to how the insurgents may use US withdrawal rhetoric in their strategy.

How might the perceived level of US resolve influence an insurgent organization’s choice of violence?

First, declining resolve might directly raise the level of anti-government violence initiated by the insurgents as insurgents respond to information that increasing the costs of engagement will force the US to withdraw.8

Second, declining resolve might reduce support among the wider population for the incumbent government increasing the number of individuals willing to participate in the insurgency. These “fence-sitters” are the critical population for victory.9

The key point of contention is security - creating the belief among the population that pro-government forces can offer better protection than anti-government forces.10The perception of declining resolve can reduce support for the government among the population if it places the commitment to population protection in doubt. Fence-sitters no longer feel safe remaining loyal to the government and are less likely to collaborate with the government if the counterinsurgent forces cannot credibly protect them from future reprisals from insurgents.

In short, the global Islamic jihad movements not only use violence to keep the American citizens and media in a chasm over costs of the war** (and the doubt of success), but to force the Iraqis into a state of constant distrust. A distrust in the continued US assistance, plus instilling doubt about their own government's ability to provide security.

**Consider the references to the war's cost vs commitment, on the heels of the Ben Feller AP story today, "Bush defiantly defends war in Iraq", ... an article where Bush states the complaints now turn to economic cost. Since news from Iraq is no longer filled with daily escalating violence, a new excuse is needed to keep the anti-war movement motivated. Whether the argument is the justification for OIF, deaths of US soldiers or Iraqi citizenry, labels of "civil war", slow progress by the Iraq Assembly, or the costs of the war, the end result is the same. A changing goal post of reasons for withdrawal.

And if this report holds true to form, the increasing new "withdrawal" cry for reasons of US dollars should lead to yet another increase in Iraq violence in it's wake.

Since choosing particular coverage and labeling it inflammatory came down to a subjective judgment, the researchers used two kinds of news stories for their foundation.

In addition to "the release of major polls regarding American attitudes towards the war in Iraq," their index includes mentions by senior Bush administration officials of "statements or actions by other U.S. political figures that might encourage violent extremist groups in Iraq."

But hold on... the Harvard researchers aren't so all fired anxious see the aftermath of it's release, fearing the supporters for the Iraq cause will seize on it, and try to silence war critics.

"We are a little bit worried about that," Jonathan Monten of the Belfer Center at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government told United Press International in an interview. "Our data suggests that there is a small, but measurable cost" to "anything that provides information about attitudes towards the war."

But he added the cost was outweighed by the benefits of vigorous debate about military undertakings.

"There's a body of research, which we cite … that suggests that public debate about strategy helps the military to fight wars more effectively," he said.

Allow me point out something to those brilliant minds at Harvard. It is *not* the anti-war crowd that is being silenced. It is the voices of those who support success for Iraq. The media, dictating public opinion and hanging on Pelosi and Murtha's every anti-war utterance, are overwhelmingly negative in balance. So who is silencing whom?

Needless to say, this study should be an interesting foray into the headlines... assuming the MSM picks it up at all.

Mind you, I am not advocating a restriction on freedom of speech and dissent. It is the very heart of our country. However I am saying that, considering the effects of the vile and venomous remarks of our Congress and media, the rhetoric should be toned down to civil discourse, and the media coverage far more balanced. After years of accusations that our mere US presence is the cause of the Iraq increased violence, it appears some responsibility for that violence can be laid directly at the feet of the Congress, pollsters and the media, who insist upon fueling the terrorists with promises of withdrawal.

________________________________

UPDATE March 22, 2008. This Jan 2008 article from Arthur Chenkoff, appearing in Pajamas Media, shows a study by Sacred Heart University echos the Harvard study.

Nearly three-quarters of all Americans surveyed, 70.7%, indicated they strongly or somewhat agreed that negative media reporting damages troop morale. Over half of all survey respondents, 59.8%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that negative media coverage damages prospects for success in Iraq because it encourages terrorists, and about half, 49.1%, agreed (strongly or somewhat) that things are likely going better for the U.S. than the U.S. media portrays.

BEWARE MEDIA HEADLINE LIES! From the Pentagon Report IV

Again the reading comprehension challenged media rears it's ugly head. Splashed everywhere in headlines of varying forms:

Exhaustive review finds no link between Saddam and al Qaida.. per Warren P. Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers.

An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

The Pentagon-sponsored study, scheduled for release later this week, did confirm that Saddam's regime provided some support to other terrorist groups, particularly in the Middle East, U.S. officials told McClatchy. However, his security services were directed primarily against Iraqi exiles, Shiite Muslims, Kurds and others he considered enemies of his regime.

Whoa there, Nelly. Let's back up, shall we? The "exhaustive" review is a sheer Strobel dramatization. Assuming Strobel wasn't describing the analysts' state of mind while preparing the report, the reality given (as stated in the report) is that of the 600,000 or so docs, only 15% had been translated into English. And, presumably, used for this report.

There is no substitute for a complete read of this document. Trust not your local supposed "journalist" with your own education of the facts.

Link to full report available at this ABC article "Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda", or order direct from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia in paper or CD versions via US Mail services. Warning, it's a 94-pg, 11.74MB PDF). Oh yes... so much for it being "hidden" from public view, right?

Again, these minimum faux pas aside, I am stunned as to the headlines when you read the report. For those "give me the short version" types, let's leap to the conclusion on page 45 of the report (pg 65 of the PDF version).

One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there
anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam's ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting

(1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats,

(2)the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and

(3) organizational relationships and "outreach programs" for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

Hummm... so far, not such a slam dunk proving we had "no justified reason" to eye Saddam warily. In fact, I'd say most American's may sit back and say "wow! I didn't know that!". It's hardly the "no threat" BS pounded into our sheeple heads for the past five years.

So let's go back to the gloating headline... that "no link" between Saddam and al Qaeda bit, and see what the report really did say. From the Executive Summary:

The Iraqi Perspectives Project (IPP) review of captured Iraqi documents
uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the United States. At times these organizations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements. The relationship between Iraq and forces of pan-Arab socialism was well known and was in fact one of the defining qualities of the Ba'ath movement.

But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no "smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda. Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. Some in the regime recognized the potential high internal and external costs of maintaining relationships with radical Islamic groups, yet they concluded that in some cases, the benefits of association outweighed the risks.

No "smoking gun" or "direct connection" was found. I have a serious beef with the media interpretation of this as a headline. And perhaps with the authors for not spelling it out so that the history-challenged can fully understand the global Islamic jihad players and their backgrounds. But the key word here is "direct".


SADDAM REGIME TIES VIA MULLA OMAR's TALIBAN
and PAKISTAN's MAULANA FAZLUR RAHMAN

If I purchase a 6 pack of Budweiser from the local mart, am I supporting Anheiser-Busch? If I buy an appliance made in China from Walmart, am I supporting Chinese industry? If I donate to a charity, whom I know full well works with a designated terror group, am I culpable for supporting terrorism?

The answer to all three is an emphatic "YES". I've no "direct" sale link to Anheiser-Busch or China, but I am most certainly engaging in a relationship that benefits the other end of the "triangulation". And if I knowingly provide monetary aid to a charity that is passing it along to a terrorist network, I most certainly am supporting terrorism.

So we have it that, in Nov of 1999, the Taliban's commander Mulla Omar sent his personal Defense Minister, the Maulana Fazlur Rahman (of today's Pakistan's JUI-F) to meet with Saddam to ask for aid. From the IIS agent's confiscated diary, and quote from Ray Robison's "Both in One Trench",

According to the record of the event, the Saddam regime agreed to provide that vital support to a desperate Taliban regime.

snip

An agent of Saddam’s intelligence service was present to transcribe the meetings in Arabic. His spy tradecraft was a little sloppy at times and perhaps he never considered that his records would someday lead to a revealing look at Saddam’s ties to international Islamic jihad. This man, whose name is believed to be Khaled Abd El Majid, acted as a liaison between Saddam’s government and its contacts with influence with organizations in Pakistan and Afghanistan, including al-Qaeda and the Taliban. He moved between Iraq and Pakistan as evidenced by entries in a notebook he kept that was bought in Pakistan. He coordinated meetings between the Saddam regime and Islamic terrorists.

From another section in Both in One Trench:

The IIS Director described the relationship between the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban in Afghanistan by stating “We already believe that there are no points of disagreement between us and the Taliban because we are both in one trench facing the world’s oppression.”

OBL's al Qaeda, in the meantime, had moved it's headquarters from the Sudan to Afghanistan and allied with the Taliban in 1996. So as of the Nov 1999 meeting with Omar's Defense Minister, Saddam was agreeing to aid the Taliban... who was already playing host to OBL's al Qaeda network. One of those "indirect" ties to al Qaeda.


PLUS THOSE PESKY DIRECT TIES TO AL QAEDA...

Were it not enough for Saddam to be helping the Taliban, and in triangulation, al Qaeda, another truth emerges from this report. Again for the history challenged: Section II, State Relations with Terror Groups reprtings Extract 10 on pg 13-15 in the report (pg 33-35 of the PDF). It is here we find detailed evidence of Islamic jihad groups Saddam's regime was supporting, in a memo dated March of 1993.

Of these groups, the most notable mentioned was Egyptian Islamic Jihad (aka Islamic Jihad Organization). Ring a bell? Well it should. Zawahiri led the EIJ from 1993,and orchestrated the merger with what we know as today's al Qaeda in 1998... then issuing the World Islamic Front Statement of 1998.

This is, contrary to the media headlines, a very direct link to al Qaeda. Saddam is documented in this report as dealing with Zawahiri since his EIJ leadership. Are we to assume that when Zawahiri changed the name of the movement, Saddam magically ostracized him, finding him to be of no further value?

The report addresses this morphing of the players and their group names over time as well. From pg 17 (PDF pg 37):

One other memorandum (Extract 12) bears consideration. Drafted
in Saddam's office, it refers to an agreement with Islamic terrorists to conduct operations against the Egyptian regime during the first Gulf War (1991) and for continued financial support for the terrorists after hostilities ended.

Mata Musing: A memo addressed to Zawahiri's Islamic Jihad Organization is then reprinted.

The last sentence (in italics referring to the agreement with Islamist terrorists) deserves special attention: it refers to a top-secret order for Saddam's intelligence services to maintain contact with any movement in Arab countries. While it is not surprising that Saddam, one of the last of the Middle East's revolutionary nationalists, would endeavor to support revolutionary groups, it is important to recognize that many of these nationalist groups changed in the late 1990s. Saddam viewed these groups through the eyes of a pan-Arab revolutionary, while the leaders of the growing Islamist movements viewed them as potential affiliates for their Jihad. In other words, two movements, one pan-Arab and the other pan-Islamic, were seeking and developing supporters from the same demographic pool.


Captured documents reveal that later IIS activities went beyond just maintaining contact. For example, at the time this memorandum was written 39, the Iraqi GMID was training Sudanese fighters inside Iraq. The details appear in a separate GMID report40 (21 ovember 2001) about the reorganization or reconstruction of a training camp in the Sudan. This memorandum states that Iraq would send one administrative officer to establish and oversee the camp and that the following equipment would be provided initially: (snip)

Yes folks. Not only does this report document that Iraq was training Arab non-Iraqi jihad fighters in Iraq, but was specifically training some Sudanese fighters. It's also a bit more of a troubling coincidence that Saddam:

In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam's decision to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia."

In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up operations inside Somalia. The overlap between bin Laden's and Saddam's interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.

from pg 18 of the Pentagon report/pg 37 of the PDF

And who, pray tell, in 1993 was headquartered in Sudan? That would be al Qaeda's previous address - from 1991 to 1996. Could it be that Saddam's terrorist training camps were training OBL's Sudanese fighters?

Coincidence in timing? I think not. In fact, it begs to be asked, did Saddam finance and/or have involvement with Clinton's infamous Somalian "Black Hawk Down" operation? It is well known that the local fighters, who attacked US troops, were armed and trained by OBL.

This Pentagon Report, contrary to the BS headlines splashed in your faces, validates even further all that I've already read in Robison's "Both in One Trench". That Saddam did, in fact, have ties to al Qaeda. Ties thru the Taliban, and ties thru Zawahiri as not only the Egyptian Islamic Jihad but also as his new status as an al Qaeda member. As well as ties to any other jihad movement that suited his needs.

Do not be fooled, people. This is an important election year. And the headlines are nothing but BS propaganda by an agenda driven media. Their misinterpretation and false claims are easily debunked with the actual reading of the report.

Prince Harry, Drudge & Afghanistan The "real" big story behind the story

There's lots of news and speculation ... oh wait! I guess they are one and the same in today's info era... about the leakage of Harry's whereabouts in the battlefront against the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. But I, for one, think everyone is missing the genuine BIG story here.

And that is how the British press rallied around responsibility, and showed voluntary restraint by doing a blackout on the story. It was 10 weeks before lesser ethical peers spilled the beans.

From today's Guardian, "NoW's Wallis Attacks Drudge over Harry":

Wallis, one of the key figures to broker the non-reporting agreement struck in December by newspapers and the Ministry of Defence, praised the conduct of British media and suggested that foreign outlets were more careless about the Prince's safety than their British counterparts.

Drudge Report: how US website reported the story "For him [Drudge] to claim an exclusive on that was a cheap hit," Wallis told Sky news. "Any number of newspapers or broadcasters in this country could have claimed that as far back as December.

Indeed. Hard for Drudge to claim an exclusive when many knew the story, but bypassed for responsible reasons. Then there's that pesky detail that many say that the Australian women's magazine, New Idea, let the cat out of the bag first.

Whether American or Australian media, two points remain unchanged:

1: Neither genuinely had an "exclusive", as the story was known by British media for months

2: Neither had the restraint, nor inherent ethics, to respect they were not only endangering the Prince, but also his fellow regiment soldiers, in exchange for their hits on this non-exclusive story.

Forgive me if I'm not impressed with their big splash reporting. On the other hand, I am impressed with the British press holding their keyboards in cheek, so to speak.

"There was a consensus that was stuck to rigidly ... this is not about censorship this is about responsibility."

Wallis helped negotiate the deal with other senior newspaper executives including the Mail on Sunday editor, Peter Wright, and Bob Satchwell, the executive director of the Society of Editors and former Cambridge Evening News editor.

The question of how to report Harry's deployment is understood to have been discussed as far back as August last year, leading to the deal which was briefed to British journalists and broadcast media on December 12. This allowed an unprecedented 10-week news blackout on his deployment.

snip

The chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the British army, has also expressed dismay over the leak.

"I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us," Dannatt said.

"This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations."

There was a contingency to the deal... that if the report appeared on foreign websites, the voluntarily mum UK press had a hotline to call to see if the story was then fair game for mass release.

But that phrase sticks in my mind. "This is not about censorship. This is about responsibility." Music to my ears. Kudos to the UK media - willingly putting country before the almighty ratings and a Euro.

Were that our western media could ever demonstrate such integrity and wisdom.

Picture of a biased media... ... worth a 1000 words

It's a good thing... as the saying goes... that a picture is worth a 1000 words. Because in this case - the slow and steady progress of the surge in Iraq, and ensuing political progress - are getting few to no "words" from the western media.

Great graph above gives you the visual results from Jan 2007 to Jan 2008 of the declining coverage, matching the declining violence, *not* brought to you by the mainstay evening broadcasts of ABC, CBS and NBC. The graph accompanies an equally great article at Newsbusters.org, "Fewer US Dead = Less TV Coverage of Iraq".

Subtle praise for Bush Doctrine from WaPo?

Granted, the WaPo columnist here is Reuel Mar Gerecht, a resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, categorized by Wikipedia as a "conservative" think tank. That is if, by some bizarre chance, anyone wants to lend credence to anything on Wikipedia.

But seeing anything in WaPo print that offers a quiet praise for the Bush Doctrine - i.e. aggressively pursuing the Global Islamic Jihad Movement on Iraqi land - is a day that will forever live in infamy.

Gerecht dissects the popular, media fed notion that Iraq has significantly increased the amount of "holy warriors" in both number and intensity by comparing it to the decade long Soviet-Afghan conflict.

Regarding the Iraq war and jihadism, two facts stand out. First, if we make a comparison with the Soviet-Afghan war of 1979-89, which was the baptismal font for al-Qaeda, what's most striking is how few foreign holy warriors have gone to Mesopotamia since the U.S. invasion in 2003.

Admittedly, we don't have a perfect grasp of the numbers involved in either conflict. But the figure of 25,000 Arab mujaheddin is probably a decent figure for those who went to Pakistan to fight the Red Army. Most probably did so in the last four years of the war, when the recruitment organizations and logistics became well developed. In Iraq, we see nothing of this magnitude, even though Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, is in the Arab heartland and at the center of Islamic history. Moreover, for Arabs, getting to Iraq isn't difficult, and once there they speak the language and know the culture. And of course the United States, the bete noire of Islamists, is the enemy in Iraq.

But according to the CIA and the U.S. military, we are now seeing at most only dozens of Arab Sunni holy warriors entering the country each month. Even at the height of the insurgency in 2006-07, the figure might have been just a few hundred (and may have been much smaller).

I would have some argument with Gerecht because the nationality of the Islamic militant enemy is not important. Whether they are Iraqi militants, or foreign, they are still the enemy of not only the west, but of the Iraqis themselves. For it must be remembered, Iraqis voted in this form of rule and their representatives in impressive numbers, and risking their lives to do so.

It still puzzles me why so many were eager to desert Iraq using the retreating rally cry of "civil war". Would they also be so dismissive if we had a fraction of US denizens, violently rebelling against our own elected government, murdering innocents by the hundreds weekly? Or would we not just label them thugs, gangs and criminals and take control? In the same vein, why should we stand by idly and watch native *or* foreign thugs thwart the Iraqi majority after American blood was shed to give them this opportunity?

Pundits will still stubbornly argue that Iraq is creating jihadists left and right, despite Gerecht's history recap pointing to the contrary. There is no doubt that the popularity of jihad has suffered large setbacks, with Iraqis bonding to rebel against radicalization. The brutal rules of engagement of the 21st century militants has worked it's own peculiar magic... that of isolating them from their Muslim brethern. This attitude, happening in the heart of the historic Muslim Caliphate, is a tremendous, strategic victory that pundits and pols are unwilling to give to GWB in an election year.

Evidence of their failure to inspire world wide jihad from the majority of Muslims lies in the events and behaviour of the jihad movement today. Terrorists (i.e. Taliban and AQ, or Sayd Imam vs Zawahiri) now fight amongst themselves about rules of engagement. They work as rogue cells and divided, independent fighters. And evidently they are running out of willing suicide bombers, since they are absconding mentally unstable women as their walking bombs. None of these are indicators of a congealed movement, flush with enthusiastic new fighters.

But I digress... back to that unheralded and faint praise for Bush. Buried deep at the bottom of the article comes the subtle zinger:

It's way too soon to call Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda spiritual outcasts among Arab Muslims, but they have in fact sustained enormous damage throughout the region because of Iraq. The lack of holy-warrior manpower coming from the Muslim Brotherhood is surely, in part, a reflection of this discomfort with al-Qaeda's violence, the complexity of Iraqi politics and America's not entirely negative role inside the country. If bin Ladenism is now on the decline -- and it may well be among Arabs -- then Iraq has played an essential part in battering the movement's spiritual appeal.

Iraq could still fall apart (and if an American president starts withdrawing troops haphazardly, it probably will). The country's descent into chaos and renewed sectarian strife would likely reenergize Islamic extremism. But it is certainly not too soon to suggest that Iraq could well become America's decisive victory over Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and all those Muslims who believe that God has sanctified violence against the United States.

It's going to be hard to un'educate the American population after the BS they've been fed for so many years about the big "Iraq failure". The misinformation campaign was carried on with a vengence by self absorbed media pundits, fancy'ing themselves as strategic analysts. Any military historian can tell you that individual battles, won or lost, is not indicative of the entire game plan. And were the punditry versed in American History, they would have remembered that when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, we went not to Tokyo, but to North Africa.

Most citizens agree that a change of heart for Muslims - distancing themselves from Wahabbism mentality - was necessary to curtail the jihad movement. Certainly the opportunity for the jihad movement to show their use of wonton violence against not only women and children, but their own fellow Muslims indiscriminately, has achieved that distancing as effectively as the Iraqis creating their own Arab democracy. A two for one whammy, if you will.

No doubt, had these "atta boy" paragraphs floated to the top - or heaven forbid to the headline - it most surely would have been buried deeper in the paper, or rejected totally as another "fairy tale". Praise for this President - even deserved - is taboo.

Veterans - the unprotected "class" in America

Ray Robison has noted a very disturbing AP article by Hope Yen on the trend of employment discrimination when hiring returning veterans.

Excerpt graphs from the AP article that stand out:

The report blamed the poor prospects partly on inadequate job networks and lack of mentors after extended periods in war. The study said employers often had misplaced stereotypes about veterans' fitness for employment, such as concerns they did not have adequate technological skills, or were too rigid, lacked education or were at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder.

snip

"The issue of mental health has turned into a double-edged sword for returning veterans. More publicity has generated more public awareness and federal funding for those who return home different from when they left. However, more publicity — especially stories that perpetuate the 'Wacko Vet' myth — has also made some employers more cautious to hire a veteran," said Joe Davis, spokesman for Veterans of Foreign Wars.

Robison has rightly called a spade a spade, laying much of the blame on the anti-war hysteria propagated by the media. Or, as he tersely lays it out:

Thanks New York Times. Way to screw our heroes.....

Can't agree more. The press has largely been responsible in creating and nurturing the current trend of an unappreciation for our military protectors.

But bypassing their irresponsible quest for headlines, ratings and agenda, what is being done to right this obvious wrong? And by whom?

"The military has worked on assisting service members in completing and translating their skills to match equivalent civilian job descriptions; however, training for marketability may require much more preparation than having the ability to improve a resume," the VA study said.

"The federal government may need to reevaluate how it serves the needs of returning service members," it said.

Charles Ciccolella, the Labor Department's assistant secretary for veterans' employment and training, said the department provides a wide variety of services to veterans seeking jobs, including workshops that focus on resume writing and interview skills. Staff also are educating reservists about their job rights as well as seeking to connect veterans to new jobs, he said.

"The Department of Labor is constantly working to better assist transitioning service members and veterans as they enter or re-enter the civilian work force," Ciccolella said.

Okay... I'm confused. Instead of going to bat for the veterans, they are busy complying with paranoid, anti-military employers, refusing to hire veterans who they "believe are at risk" for post traumatic stress syndrome.

Translation? These warriors are diagnosed - by employers, not doctors - with a "mental disability" or a possible future one. And based on that absurd diagnosis, they refuse to hire the veteran.

Just how far can this mentality go if left unchecked? Can an employer then refuse to hire someone they believe may contract a terminal disease in the future? Think the unpopular class of smokers. No one will support their legal rights. But then, think women with genetic DNA make up that is conducive to breast cancer. Or perhaps refuse an applicant because they ride a motorcycle, and may be severely injured in an accident.

It's inconceivable how many "classes" of citizens seeking work may be included in this "but, but they are at risk!" mentality.

Instead of various organizations and government entities spending resources retraining veterans, why are they cow towing to what may just constitute illegal discrimation. Just where is the ACLU or other "compassionate" rights circles investigating the legality of wanton employer discrimination against a perceived potential of mental disability? Perhaps too busy trying to get stateless jihad fighters, picked up off of foreign battlefields, their day in the US court system.

The Equal Employment Act protects "special" classes of American citizens against just such discrimination. However the usual mantra of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" magically leaves out discrimination against military "at risk" of a future mental disorder.

So we turn to the American Disability Act instead. And in here is where, I believe (tho I am no lawyer) veteran employment discrimination may find recourse.

According to the DOJ brochure, "A Guide to Disability Rights":

To be protected by the ADA, one must have a disability or have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability. An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has a history or record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. The ADA does not specifically name all of the impairments that are covered

ADA Title I: Employment

Title I requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide qualified individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from the full range of employment-related opportunities available to others. For example, it prohibits discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, training, pay, social activities, and other privileges of employment. It restricts questions that can be asked about an applicant’s disability before a job offer is made, and it requires that employers make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities, unless it results in undue hardship. Religious entities with 15 or more employees are covered under title I.

Those words, "prohibits discrimination in recruitment, hiring..." and "undue hardship" can go a long way in protecting veterans. If already skilled and qualified, veterans do not need retraining.

Instead, those in need of retraining are the media, and the citizens of this country.

Iran-US Naval Standoff Genuine threat? Or oil price manipulation?

It's widely broadcast that Iran's Revolutionary Guard speedboats and US Naval vessels had a real spitting contest today. In response to radio'ed threats and objects dropped in the US vessel's path, US sailors manned the guns, and the Iranians turned heel.

The usual western response happens.... tough warnings from the WH, Iranian Foreign Ministers saying it was business as usual.

What had me scratching at my head was the "whys?" of it it all. And I believe that Steve Schippert at Threatswatch.org has the answer.

We at ThreatsWatch have dismissed the Iranian threat to choke oil shipments by blocking the Strait as well as its stated aims to stop its own exports. The Iranian ‘Oil Weapon’ remains not the act of cutting off their own economic life blood, but rather the results that such threats have on oil prices to their windfall benefit.

As with other Iranian threats and actions that have caused the world oil markets to nervously drive up the price of crude, this weekend’s action also comes as oil prices fell from a November 2007 average of $92.67 to just $88.21 for December. [Source: OILNERGY: posted oil price (WTI)]

Yep. That sounds about right. It's again all about money, folks. Not an impending war. Just an effort to keep Iran's economy humming along. They are, afterall, quite dependent upon revenues representing around 80-90 percent of total their export earnings, and 40-50 percent of the government budget.


To further clarify a possible motive, the Iranian boats doing the threatening were those under control of Ahmadinejad's Revolutionary Guard, not the Iranian Navy. And the Iranian punk is under the gun for his economic policies that have resulted in a 19.1% increase in consumer prices for 2007.

So chill your nerves. Ignore the impending doom. And rest easy knowing the world still functions with money as it's guiding deity.... even in Ahmadinejad's Iran.

When "covert" isn't so covert...

Ah yes.. the New York Times lack of common sense and objectivity strikes again. Today's article, U.S. Considers New Covert Push Within Pakistan by Steven Lee Myers, David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt is a mixture of jaw dropping stupidity and a somewhat cogent overview of the "what to do with Pakistan" situation.

After stating that the US admin, advisers and military were considering different options to aid in keeping Pakistan and it's nukes from spiraling into hands of jihadists, the NYT's defies all strategic logic in exposing (if true) how many US troops are present in Pakistan, and their proposed tangent for such a "covert" thrust.

Many of the specific options under discussion are unclear and highly classified. Officials said that the options would probably involve the C.I.A. working with the military’s Special Operations forces.

snip

The new options for expanded covert operations include loosening restrictions on the C.I.A. to strike selected targets in Pakistan, in some cases using intelligence provided by Pakistani sources, officials said. Most counterterrorism operations in Pakistan have been conducted by the C.I.A.; in Afghanistan, where military operations are under way, including some with NATO forces, the military can take the lead.

The legal status would not change if the administration decided to act more aggressively. However, if the C.I.A. were given broader authority, it could call for help from the military or deputize some forces of the Special Operations Command to act under the authority of the agency.

The United States now has about 50 soldiers in Pakistan. Any expanded operations using C.I.A. operatives or Special Operations forces, like the Navy Seals, would be small and tailored to specific missions, military officials said.

First off, just how "covert" is a plan - even sans specifics - when said plan is broadcast to the world by journalists interested merely in scoops and ratings? Might as well tell the enemy what phone lines to tap, what areas to concentrate added vigilance. What dodoheads.... Is there some journalistic "hypocritical (misspelling intentional) oath" taken when you pick up a pen that states you will have no loyalty to your country, your family and the nation's safety?

Secondly, the fact that US officials are discussing Pakistan options is NOT news. Discussing these options is what a CIC is expected to do... get input from advisers, kick around ideas, plan for all contingencies. You don't leave things like this to last minute planning.

Last I emphatically doubt, given Bush's very predictable MO over the years and understanding of Musharraf vunerability as a US ally, that he'd head willy-nilly into Pakistan without Musharraf's blessings, as Barak Obama boldly states he'd do, with revolvers loaded and bullets flying. Makes you wonder just who is the "Cowboy" here? I suggest that Obama's utter naivety of the enemy and their relationships to ME countries has become embarrassingly apparent.

Then we move to "Ms. Experience", Hillary. For one touting such unequalled insight, she proves herself to be almost as naive as Obama - suggesting that her WH admin would propose that the Pakistan nukes would have joint US-British oversight.

If elected President, the US senator said, "I would try to get (Pakistan President Pervez) Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and, perhaps, Great Britain, so that there is some fail-safe."

No Pakistani response to Clinton's Manchester, NH suggestion yet. But I'll bet dollars to donuts it won't get a big thumbs up... Guess that "learn on the job" applies even to the Dems' "most qualified". Hopefully... as blue or red, they are my President... that at least *learn*.. and in time.

But back to the NYTs, spilling the beans. If the officials did came up with a plan to present to Pakistan and Musharraf - now "not so covertly" - the correct channel of communication is *not* from three overly ambitious paper hacks. Intent questionable writers who are either unaware, or don't care, that the mere discussion of intervention will not sit well with Pakistan leadership.

And sure nuff... Pakistan responds to the NYTs article. And not with any great affection for "the plan", nor the information laid out (off the record) by the journalists.

The Pakistani military reacted angrily Sunday to reports that U.S. President George W. Bush is considering covert military operations in the country's volatile tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.

"It is not up to the U.S. administration, it is Pakistan's government who is responsible for this country," chief military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad told AFP.

"There are no overt or covert U.S. operations inside Pakistan. Such reports are baseless and we reject them."

Nice going, you idiots. Certainly no ambassador material found in these three.... Their glaringly poor judgement in writing the "breaking news" that the WH admin is doing it's job caused the predictable diplomatic muddying of the water. One can only assume the authors wished to create waves of tension for tomorrow's story. And this, from any journalist, is unacceptable to me.

But I did say one kind thing about the article. It does lay out the quandary well... fully admitting the problems any unwelcome US intervention may cause. Too they didn't heed, or comprehend, their own words and warnings. They instead riled up our allies with what is virtually a non-story.

More idiocy in journalism... Justice Wm Clinton?

Bill Means at CNN's Washington Bureau adeptly demonstrated his incompetent research abilities and knowledge of recent current events.

In his today's article, "If Clinton wins, would Justice Clinton be far behind?", he ponders the possibilty that a Hillary win could result in Teflon Bill being nominated to the Supreme Court.

What Mr. Means failed to uncover is that the Supreme Court not only disbarred Clinton, but removed his name from the roster of lawyers approved for practice at the Supreme Court in Nov 2001. You'll find a collection of articles on this subject here.

Now what makes Mr. Means think that a lawyer who's banned from even an appearance in the Supreme Court as an attorney will pass muster by any Congress... other than a completely corrupt one... as a nominee to sit on that same court?

Not only is this speculation "not news", but it's an absurd tangent to take - even as speculation - trying to pass itself off as "news". Idiots.... we have idiots in charge of educating the American voting public. One can only wonder why Means spent even a nanosecond on penning this waste of space.

Benazir assassinated the finger pointing and analyses start

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.

It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October.

Death squads were allegedly constituted for the mission and ultimately one cell comprising a defunct Lashkar-i-Jhangvi’s Punjabi volunteer succeeded in killing Bhutto.

AQ family of terrorist groups claims responsibility for Bhutto's death, along with many others, in Thursday's suicide/assassination of the former PM. No surprise as she has been warned, and advised by Pak intelligence of multiple plots and threats since her return to the country.

But this time, they succeeded.

Already the US media cable channels are on the 24/7 round robin of speculation wrapped in the tidbits of news.... soliciting ho hum, boring comments from Presidential hopefuls on the campaign trail. As if such shines much light on their qualifications. What can any from any country say but to offer condolences and concern about the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. The same that so many refuse to recognize as a threat to US security.

MSNBC's Ann Curry and host started the finger pointing this AM, subtly blaming Musharraf for providing inadequate security for Benazir. It demonstrates a naivety unbecoming any news professional to assume that any public figure, choosing to appear out in the open despite known threats, can be protected at all costs. It takes only one suicide bomber or sniper with a well adjusted scope to thwart even the best of security measures. But finger pointing is what the media does best... under the guise of "seeking the truth".

Andrea Mitchell, within minutes, suggests that Musharraf will "again" have to impose "martial law" to control the country. Major faux pas for Mitchell as Pakistan was not under "martial law", but "emergency rule". The difference between the two is startling. Again, another not-so-subtle swipe at Musharraf.

Newsweek/WAPOs Lally Weymouth is on Fox News, suggesting that gunning down targets is not the hallmark of terrorists, and that the location of the assassination seems to point fingers at the Pakistani military... indirectly implicating Musharraf who is in control of the Pakistan military. Weymouth also did not hesitate to demonstrate her psychic skills by emphatically predicting that Bhutto would have won the PM position in the upcoming election.

Weymouth was one of the last journalists to interview Benazir. Her feature article clearly painting a good guy (Benazir) - bad guy (Musharraf) picture becomes obvious with the title itself... "Two Leaders, On a Collision Course".

She was highly critical of President Pervez Musharraff, claiming he had allowed the Taliban and Al Qaeda to regroup and spread throughout Pakistan. "I feel like one night they're coming to come knocking at my door," Bhutto said. She was determined to prevail in the country's Jan. 8 presidential elections. "She didn't seem afraid," Weymouth recalls. "She was more concerned about restoring democratic rule to her country, and on getting the international community to make sure the elections were free and fair."

It's rather disingenuous to assume one can stop the proliferation of the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. Even in the US, we have cells and jihadists, waiting for their moments of fame. It's also rather absurd to hear the following excerpt/words from what I would consider the "mother of the Taliban", as created under the Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Mullah Omar.

Why has Musharraf allowed the terrorists to grow so strong in this country? He's got to answer this, because as far as I'm concerned some of the people around him have sympathy for the militants … You have to remember all of this traces itself back to [former military ruler] Zia ul-Haq. He put together a structure in Pakistan to aid, abet, support, sustain and nourish the mujahedin. Part of that structure he put in place was the ruling party. They are the core support for the militants. Those people hosted them, became friends with them—can they break all those bonds that are three decades old? [The militants] have reorganized. They could not do that unless there is some support from the government or intelligence [agencies].

A charge from an aspiring and corrupt politician that recent reviews of history can prove she, herself, was also guilty of the same. This will not, however, sway Weymouth's seemingly rooted belief that Musharraf, the bad guy, and his military are guilty of assassination.

Perhaps it goes over Weymouth's head (and other media as well) that the two leaders agreed on controlling or eliminating the jihad movement from their midst. And when one is in power, dealing with the inevitable compromises (as we see in our own Congress), reality and the record belies the other's election promises. Not only has Bhutto already put her own "compromise" strategy to rest with her previous admins, but witness our own 2006 round of election promises from an anti-Iraq freedom Democrat party. Pols promise anything to get the job.

What *is* true of the headline is the "collision" course of Benazir/Musharraf was that it really was a combination to create an even greater majority of Pakistan, united and tired of Jihad bloodshed.

As is usual, the media gives the true bad guys a complete pass of responsibility.

Note most predictions, ignorance and speculation rendered by the media on Pakistan follow one path always... to discredit Musharraf. Why they wish to destablize the only remaining US ally in power in Pakistan is a mystery. There are few alternatives that are as acceptable. Certainly not ex-PM Sharif. However I believe their attempts to pin Bhutto's death on Musharraf will prove fruitless.

But there is another direction to cast eyes. It was just 4 days before Christmas that I posted about some new developments in the Pakistan jihad movement... the appointment of a new Taliban commander, Baitullah Mehsud. Mehsud's brother, Abdullah Mehsud (killed by Pak forces in July 2007), was behind the first assassination attempt against Sherpao... also a member of Benazir's PPP.

Baitullah has already laid out plans to kill Benazir for "three major offenses against Islamists".

First, she supported the Pakistani military attack on Lal Masjid (the Red Mosque) in Islamabad on July 10, 2007—Lal Masjid was considered a hotbed of Islamist radicalism; one hundred and sixty-four Pakistani special-forces commandos stormed the mosque and madrassah, killing at least 20 and injuring over 100. Second, Bhutto has made it clear that if she takes power in Pakistan, she will allow American forces to search for Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan's borders. Third, she has said that if elected, she would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to question A. Q. Khan.

This fact and proximity to Benazir makes me wonder if assassination orders can be traced to Zawahiri directly. Or is it a Mehsud order, with Zawahiri's nod of approval? The above quoted statement/confession uses the word "we". But brothers in jihad are all one in the same. Yet it is always so simple for the media to blame "al Qaeda" for all jihad woes, never recognizing the intrinsic threads between the jihad movement and their leaders. Jihad,in fact, is not just one named terrorist group.

Why would I first think of Mehsud? Within days of Baitullah's command, a major AQ leader managed to elude Pakistani custody, and the two officers responsible for the security were arrested. There is no doubt that Musharraf's government and courts - or a government under any leader in that country - has a high potential of infiltration of the Global Islamic Jihad Movement. This is true of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even Saddam's Iraq.

Baitullah, tho has sworn allegience to the Taliban's Mullah Omar in the past, still maintains close ties to OBL/Zawahiri's AQ. And again, one of Baitullah's fixations is on A.G. Khan... the father of the Pakistan nuke programme who admitted selling the technology to Libya, Iran and N. Korea. Benazir never missed an opportunity to declare she would turn over Khan to the IAEA for questioning... something that Musharraf has refused to do to date.

I'm not a fan of the Benazir the media glorifies - ignoring her past and her involvement in the creation of the Taliban in the early 90s, and the corruption charges. Yet her death is a loss to Pakistan - another progressive voice for freedom lost. But in a region where countries and leaders walk a fine line - between being able to govern and move towards a Muslim democracy, and survival itself - Benazir's hope to be purely a pro western PM was most likely a pipe dream. Even as she learned when helping to create the Taliban, any future ministry under her governance would advise financial support and a hands off policy towards the jihad movement in exchange for the right to live to govern another day.

As pundits seek someone other than AQ to blame, economists are busy hitting the airwaves with the repercussions on the oil and financial markets. Most see no major upheaval. For in reality, assassinations and murders in the jihad movement's perceived Caliphate are nothing new.

I personally think that the biggest story is being missed. That being the rapid succession of several plots under Baitullah Mehsud in such a short time. If this new commandant can engineer a successful escape (perhaps with the help of loyal security elements within the system), followed so quickly by a successful assassination, then close eyes should be kept on another important target to Mehsud... A.G. Khan - who is allowed to move about Pakistan with some freedom, tho kept under watch.

Benazir's death is tragic, and not unexpected. But A. G. Khan - breaking free from the eyes of Musharraf and held in the fold of Mehsud, the Taliban and AQ - will be beyond tragic. It will be disastrous.