June 2, 2006
Haditha, the Laws of War, and the Terrorists
If the Marines at Haditha started indiscriminately killing civilians, they should pay for their crimes. I want that clear right now. The point of this piece is not to defend their actions. However, there are those who never cease the chance to start throwing corpses at political opponents who are using this event to paint the military as a bunch of baby-killers or "prove" the policy of the United States is just to start killing people wherever they are. Unlike disgraced ex-Marine Murtha (he disgraced himself after his service), I'm willing to let the facts be heard and a fair trail be had before trying to score political points on the backs of others.
There are laws of war in place to prevent this kind of thing. They've been in place hundreds of years before anyone conceived of a United Nations. At each step, the terrorists (and they are terrorists) have not only violated the laws of war, but used those laws of war against us to further attacks on our soldiers.
First, a military uniform was not created to give something for the woman to oogle at (though it is certainly effective at that). A uniform is a public statement to the enemy that you can shoot the person wearing it. Plain and simple, a military uniform is a full-body bull's-eye. Why would any government want their soldiers to wear them then? Simple. It let's both sides easily figure out who the civilians are so they don't engage them. When the terrorists don't wear uniforms, they might be able to eek out another kill or two, but they also but their own civilian population at risk because it becomes impossible to tell who is a combatant and who is not.
Second, the laws of war dictate you don't attack civilian structures such as schools, houses, and churches. This should be obvious why this is so, but the rule comes with a caveat. The price for not getting your residential areas attacked is that you don't use them for fighting to begin with. Many like to make much of the fact that US military has attacked mosques. What those same people refuse to acknowledge is that those buildings were used as weapon's stores, sniper nests, and central places to coordinate attacks on the US military. The military was left with two options; either engage the enemy or surrender. It is not the US's fault that fighting involved mosques, it was the terrorists defiled those buildings from houses of worship to dens of killing.
Third, when an enemy surrenders the fighting is over. Once an enemy affects his surrender by throwing up a white flag, raising his arms, or getting wounded they are no longer valid targets of attack. This also comes with a caveat. The surrendering person may no longer fight. Once they pick up a weapon, they are a fair target again. When the terrorists use our mercy against us, they put at risk those who legitimately want to surrender. Is this one going to pull out a grenade on us when we get close or does he really want medical care?
This is not an exhaustive list of all the ways that the terrorists have violated the laws of war but a mere few examples. These laws are not western impositions on the world but practices developed over centuries to minimize the abuses that could come with war. Almost every nation at least says they are going to respect these customs because they want to protect their own civilian population, even though some tactical benefit could be derived from violating those customs of war.
The terrorists simply don't care about the civilian population. If the military mistakenly engages civilians or they hit civilian buildings after taking fire from them, the terrorists mark up another PR victory because of the willingness of the allies on the American left to use these incidents for political gain. In this way, the terrorists are extremely intelligent… and incredibly evil.
So those who wish to sit in judgment against the Marines at Haditha (before the investigation is even completed, mind you) manage to put on the blinders and refuse to consider how the actions of the terrorists almost guarantee these events will happen. If these Marines did snap and break the laws of way, they will be tried and punished. It is a damn shame, however, no one seems to blink and eye and stand up for the soldiers who have to put up with an enemy who consistently break the laws of war. It's a national disgrace that some will stand up for the actions of those terrorists as legitimate.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:20 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
May 16, 2006
Yet Another Journalistic Fraud?
It appears another drive-by media attempt to discredit the President and advance the claim that Republicans are trying to usher in a new era of fascism has fallen flat on its face. Claims by USA Today using sources with “direct knowledge of the program” that the NSA has been collecting massive databases of phone calls don’t appear to match with the records of two of the three apparent participants, Verizon and Bell South.
Sure, they could be lying but that would be stupid considering they’re going to be on the frontline for litigation over this issue as it is easier to sue a company for breach of privacy then getting anything out of the NSA. If they took the time to search their records (as it appears they did) all they would have done was generate more evidence for such a relationship. However, it appears now that there really was no relationship at all, or for that matter, any requests by the NSA in the first place. Some of the bitter-enders will still insist the program exists and there is a massive cover-up, just like some continue to insist that 9/11 was staged despite the release of flight recorders, telephone calls, and video feeds that show the opposite.
Once again, we are faced with an “objective” journalistic medium that didn’t do enough footwork to verify the claims that were made before it splashed them on the front page and riled the population. The irony is that it appears the population would support such a database if it existed.
Time after time there are those who continue to make up claims (i.e. KoranGate and RatherGate) in the media who never seem to be held to account on their frauds. If the media wishes to continue to be seen as a serious medium of information (and more and more people are turning elsewhere for news) it needs to take seriously its responsibility to report accurately the news instead of pandering to the worst elements of the left.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
May 13, 2006
Is Big Brother watching?
The latest controversy about the NSA spying on Americans once again takes facts, twists them to the breaking point, and then panics that the sky is falling. The sole source for this program has been the USA Today article that alarmingly says the NSA is spying on Americans.
The program was voluntary
According to the USA Today article, giving the information to the NSA was not required. In fact, one carrier (Qwest) declined to participate. This means that the federal government did not require these companies to participate, it merely asked them. In fact, it paid the companies for the information and it was provided “under contract”.
The NSA's domestic program began soon after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to the sources. Right around that time, they said, NSA representatives approached the nation's biggest telecommunications companies. The agency made an urgent pitch: National security is at risk, and we need your help to protect the country from attacks.The agency told the companies that it wanted them to turn over their "call-detail records," a complete listing of the calling histories of their millions of customers. In addition, the NSA wanted the carriers to provide updates, which would enable the agency to keep tabs on the nation's calling habits.
The sources said the NSA made clear that it was willing to pay for the cooperation. AT&T, which at the time was headed by C. Michael Armstrong, agreed to help the NSA. So did BellSouth, headed by F. Duane Ackerman; SBC, headed by Ed Whitacre; and Verizon, headed by Ivan Seidenberg.
With that, the NSA's domestic program began in earnest.
The government is not prevented by any law from buying records that companies willingly will sell. If those companies violated their privacy policy, an entrepreneurial lawyer will have a cause of action in litigating the phone companies for their breach of privacy policy. However, the government is not “spying” when it buys records that are put out on the common market, even if there is only one buyer.
Data-mining in not spying
Once again, data-mining is not the same as spying. What the NSA received was a list of phone calls with call durations and source and destination phone numbers. That’s it. Spying would be listening to the call. Spying would be recording the call. This was not spying.
The continuing use of the most inflammatory language possible indicates an agenda and an attempt to drum up fear that “Bush will kill us all”
Don’t believe everything you read
It is important to note that the first draft of these so-called scandals that get run by the MSM tend not to hold up much more than a week after being scrutinized. The press has to gain readership to raise their advertising income. They tend to do this two ways, by making their readers afraid or making their readers angry. This influences how they write their stories.
In this case, the inflammatory language is misleading and the legal question rests not on whether or not warrants were needed, but whether or not the phone companies should have sold the information in the first place. Certainly in the complete absence of any coercion.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 8, 2006
Toward a More Perfect CIA
The appointment of General Hayden to run the Central Intelligence Agency is the ideal appointment to help reform the CIA at this critical point in time.
What many people don’t understand is the relationship between the military and the CIA. The military, quite obviously, is aligned with the Department of Defense and the CIA is aligned with the Department of State. While this doesn’t seem to have much of a meaning, the two departments really have very different ways of looking at the world and looking at conflict.
The purpose of the Department of Defense is to kill people and break things. That’s what the military does best. When the military looks at the world, they look at ways to win wars. When they find threats, they eliminate them.
The Department of State, however, looks at the world very differently. They look at the world diplomatically and seek to maximize the amount of information on adversaries or potential adversaries. When the CIA finds threats, they seek to get as much information as possible, including who is supporting or financing those threats, what their intentions are, and whom else they are working with.
To be perfectly clear, both are necessary. In order to adequately deal with threats, one needs to fully understand where those threats come from and who is involved to eliminate them. Knowing everything you can about the enemy is useless without eventual action. Knowing who the 9/11 hijackers are doesn’t, by itself, prevent them from flying into buildings.
The situation, combined with typical inter-agency rivalry, has led both Departments into a form of opposition. While the military (and Bush for that matter) have backed action into Iraq to end the conflict that has been going on for 12 years (at the time of the second invasion), State and the CIA was opposed because that conflict would end the information flow and diplomacy. That difference in world-view has been the source of much public contention on the Iraq War and the War on Terror in general.
By appointing Hayden to the CIA, it appears that the intent is to shift the viewpoint of the CIA to be more action-oriented. Hayden is in intelligence, so he obviously knows the value of information, however, as a soldier he also surely knows the value of action and that there comes a point to act on intelligence even if there is more information that could be gathered.
This change is a good thing, as it will help both Defense and State to moderate the poles that have been generated from the rivalry. This appointment is a good thing at a great time that will help both agencies to understand the values each provide and help them learn to work together in the future. The military will learn the value of diplomacy and information and the CIA will learn the value of action. Our national defense will be the clear winner.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 24, 2006
Mexico Invades the United States
Just after it has been released that there has been over 200 unauthorized border crossings unto US soil by the Mexican military, it appears that people dressed as Mexican military provided armed cover for drug dealers fleeing Texas into Mexico. Mounted machine guns were pointed at law enforcement apparently by the Mexican military inside the borders of the United States.
Some will dismiss this as meaningless posturing despite the fact that if the US military every crossed a border in an unauthorized fashion they'd scream bloody murder. Some may dismiss this as another attack on immigration, despite the fact that no immigrants were involved. In this case, suspected drug dealers fleeing with over a half-ton of drugs were trying to escape Texas law enforcement inside the Texas border, and they were provided armed cover by what appears to be the Mexican military. Some may say it just appears they were dressed like that, and it remains to be seen exactly who those people were, but if there are people running around in military uniforms using military-grade weaponry, Mexico ought to be doing something about it. Especially if they make a habit of causing international incidents on American soil.
For too long the border has gone underprotected. This isn't about immigration, per se. The United States should significantly loosen the restrictions on those who wish to come here to work and have a better life. However, that has largely been lost in the debate where few people understand that there is even a legal way to immigrate and equate those who illegally enter the country with those who follow the proper process. The political cowardice of those in office to enforce the laws related to the border have led not only to rampant illegal immigration but outright mockery of the law. Mexico provides guides for people wishing to enter the US illegally and then the Mexican government demands that Social Security checks be sent to Mexico.
There is nothing wrong with someone trying to get to the US for a better life for themselves and their children and the fact that people still come here in droves speaks volumes about the strength and vitality of the American economy. However, the de facto open borders policy has lead to military incursions, open drug trade, and even easy terrorist access into the country. There are those who say we can't win the drug war. They have a point when a foreign military can invade the United States and provide cover for drug dealers while the White House remains silent.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:57 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
January 23, 2006
Guard the Boarders: Video Footage of Mexican Military Incursion of US Soil
It's one thing to debate whether or not workers should sneak into the country. It's another to pretend that Mexican military defending drug lords on our own soil is no big deal. Do you think Mexico would like Marines on their side of the border? You bet they'd raise a stink in the UN about it. But the US shrugs it off. There are those who think we can't win the drug war, well it certainly doesn't help when we let the military of another country defend the drug trade on our own soil. Below is the GTB blogburst.
====
Last week, those of us who keep an eye on border issues noticed that several mainstream media sources had featured articles about the regular Mexican military incursions over our borders and into our country. This is nothing new, as the Border Patrol has documented hundreds of such illegal incursions by an armed Mexican military over the past decade, and our government has done nothing to curb these incursions. In fact, it seems our government has looked the other way. While I'm relieved that this information is getting out into the mainstream, I have little confidence that our governement will actually do its job and secure our borders.
Some confrontations between the Mexican military troops and our own Border Patrol agents have become violent as Mexican soldiers have fired their weapons at the Border Patrol. It's a mystery why our government refuses to acknowledge these hostile invasions. They surely know about it, and the Mexican Embassy in Washington D.C. has gone so far as to publicly deny that the Mexican soldiers are hostile, but rather there to "patrol for illegal border jumpers". Contrary to that public statement, however, most of the Mexican military troops on the border are moonlighting as security escorts for drug smuggling gangs the coyotes who are running large groups of illegals across the border.
T.J. Bonner, a 27-year Border Patrol veteran who heads the National Border Patrol Council [said], "Intrusions by the Mexican military to protect drug loads happen all the time and represent a significant threat to the agents. "Why else would they be in the area, firing at federal agents in the United States? There is no other explanation," said Mr. Bonner, whose organization represents all 10,000 of the nonsupervisory Border Patrol agents.He also challenged reports that Mexican military units had crossed mistakenly into the United States, saying, "Every country's military has a [global positioning system] nowadays, including the Mexicans. "If the border is so poorly marked, why don't the thousands of Border Patrol agents working 24/7 along it ever seem to get lost, and none of us have been issued a GPS," he said.
[...]
Attacks on Border Patrol agents in the past few years have been attributed to current or former Mexican military personnel. U.S. law-enforcement officials have long thought that current and former Mexican soldiers are being paid to protect drug shipments bound for the United States.Several agents said the attacks have escalated in the past two years as U.S. security efforts on the border have increased -- including the July shooting of two agents in an ambush near Nogales, Ariz., by assailants in black commando-type clothing, who fired more than 50 rounds. Authorities said the gunmen used military-style cover-and-concealment tactics to escape back into Mexico. No one has been arrested.
Without any federal commitment to secure our borders, the Minutemen, a volunteer citizen's group, has performed an invaluable civic service in patrolling our borders to document and verify the location of illegal border crossers. They, too, have encountered Mexican soldiers on the WRONG side of the border. The video clip below comes directly from the Arizona Minutemen who told the Mexican soldiers, when confronted, they were there as "media" to document the border situation. It is incredibly important to note that there is no reason why American citizens should EVER be required to justify their lawful activities on American soil to a FOREIGN military presence. That is anathema to our rights as American citizens!
(SCOTTSDALE, AZ) January 20, 2006 – The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps ("MCDC") announced the release today of video footage of an incursion by a unit of the Mexican army across the U.S. border in Arizona.Chris Simcox and a group of Civil Defense Corps volunteers encountered a squad of approximately eight armed Mexican soldiers about 500 yards inside American territory. The Mexican soldiers started running back through the brush to Mexico when they realized they had been spotted.
The video shows a uniformed Mexican soldier climbing through a barbed wire fence on American soil to return to the Mexican side of the border as he races to catch up with the other Mexican soldiers who had also climbed back through the fence as they retreated back into their country.
A group of armed Mexican soldiers then returned to the barbed wire fence (on American soil) and confronted Simcox and the volunteers. A discussion in Spanish ensued, with the agitated soldier 'in charge' saying the Americans had no business being there.
Simcox and the volunteers did not budge. The Mexican soldiers left and drove off. Judging from earlier activity observed at the ranch that morning, Simcox is of the belief that a trafficking operation had been disrupted by the volunteers.
The footage, filmed in 2004, was sent to then Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. His office did not respond. The video has remained in the Minuteman video archive and is being released in response to recent news reports that over 200 cross-border incursions by the Mexican army have been documented since 1996.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 21, 2006
Food for Thought - Iran, Israel, and the bomb
The US's EIA chief has said we can't get by without Iranian oil. Can we get buy with a nuclear crater that used to be Tel Aviv?
War with Iran may be ugly and require some real sacrifice from the citizens, but if the alternative is sitting on our thumbs when Iran vaporizes Tel Aviv and tells us that they've got a nuke pointed at Paris if anyone does anything, then I think I can handle walking to work.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
January 19, 2006
Weak attempt at an Anti-ACLU Post
There is a movement to intervene in the ACLU case so that real Americans can have real views represented in the NSA lawsuit filed by the ACLU...
Debbie Schlussel, blogger/investigative writer/lawyer, is extending an invitation to citizens interested in intervening in the ACLU's NSA lawsuit. She practices in Eastern Michigan, where the suit was filed.
Take a look and sign up.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The War on Terror has been Won
Today, Bin Laden has offered a truce. He has been beaten and knows it so he wants time. Holding up a white flag is not the sign of a victor, it's the sign of defeat. He's losing Afghanistan and Iraq and he wants to save face by getting out before those countries turn against him. He wants time to build "good will" by mimicking the image of the US in those countries, that of a rebuilder and friend.
He knows he cannot win with terrorism there, so he wants to wait.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:46 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
January 12, 2006
War With Iran is Coming
The European project has failed. The EU has come out and said that diplomacy has failed and they are referring the matter to the Security Council. There is talk of economic sanctions, but economic sanctions alone have always been useless to deal with problems of this sort (see Cuba).
Make not mistake, Iran is building nukes. The issue would be easily resolved if Iran would allow public inspections of what they are up to and they have refused them. This barely concealed agenda is not lost on the Europeans who may waffle on terrorism are very concerned about weapons proliferation. It's a question of whether China or Russia will stonewall, but the politics of this situation make it unlikely that either of those superpowers will get themselves alienated so Iran can make nukes and threaten Israel.
The timing of these developments almost sets up an invasion. US troops are already in Iraq, the next nation over, and will be scaling down operations in the coming months. Iraq has elected its own permanent government and as the dust settles, likely so will the terrorist attacks (generated in no small part because of the assistance of Iran). No one seriously would consider attacking Iran without the US onboard, and the US will surely be leading that operation. The EU military certainly isn't up to the task.
While Iran is doing everything possible to push a confrontation including its saber-rattling towards Israel, there are political downsides domestically. The United States will ramp up for war (this time a globally supported one) during the 2006 election season making the election solely about war which will largely favor Republicans, and rightfully so. However, this will push other political issues back to the background. This shouldn't be read into such as to assume I'm suggesting this is a big GOP conspiracy, I don't think that at all.
However, several issues remain on the table, none the least of which is apparent corruption in Congress. With war going on, corruption will get forgotten. While the partisan witch-hunt that has developed is doing nothing to help matters, there are other efforts afoot that could help, such as the pushing of lobbying reform. Social Security will once again be forgotten and will stay unreformed and insolvent. Tax reform will be forgotten. Reforming the non-free market health care system will fall by the wayside.
The fact is being in a solid majority has made the GOP rest on their laurels not pushing for the limited-government conservative ideals that put them in power. War, while seemingly necessary in this case, will exaggerate this problem. The upcoming elections could provide the necessary motivation for the GOP to stand for the principles they enunciate and the unfortunate reality is that if war does come, the reigning-in will most likely be postponed.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:56 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
January 6, 2006
Fearmongering for Fun and Profit
Come on! Space terrorists???. Let's analyze the last few terrorist attacks shall we? Let's start with 9/11. They bought plane tickets, got flight training, and had box cutters. All in all, low rent. Subway bombings? Homemade explosives. Then there was the husband-wife duo who's gear was so crappy that the wife's bomb didn't even go off.
I'm not suggesting there is no such thing as terrorism, but the term has become so widely used to pad budgets with grant money, we are making ourselves MORE vulnerable to terrorism. Instead of paying attention to real threats, we are going to be goosing millionaires to see if they have bombs before they board a space shuttle. How about we focus on the real threat?
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 19, 2005
Forget Eavesdropping - Let's just surrender
After Katrina, one of the blog posts that was making the rounds was tribes. It's essentially a societal commentary written during the aftermath and political blood-letting that took place.
I remembered this article in the recent debate on the eavesdropping that the government is apparently doing in the course of the War on Terror. Politicians are taking turns pointing fingers, and apparently the New York Times timed the release not for the soonest possible dissemination of the information, but to shill a book that's coming out and try to sink the Patriot Act. (Yes, they are just that unpatriotic that they can't even vote for a law called the Patriot Act).
Particularly, that the pink tribes out there still don't believe there is a war on. They believe that they can still blame 9/11 on us and that all we need to do to win the War on Terror is "understand" our enemies and "raise awareness" (read as surrender).
First things first, who cares if the government is listening to phone calls? There are complaints that warrants haven't been issued. Let me get this straight, a warrant issued by a star chambers court (FISA court) where only the government gets to present a case, all the proceedings are sealed, and the judge hearing the case is appointed by the administration is safe and protects civil liberties, but a policy reviewed by the Administration every 90 days to make sure it's actually targeting bad guys is not? Would you trust a closed court that did not allow for the accused to present a defense an adequate way to try criminal offenses? Didn't think so. The whole process is cloak-and-dagger to being with, how is this news?
I have a cell phone; that means everyone within about 25 miles can hear what I say on it. That's right, you can listen in to the occasional suggestive comment I make to my wife. I don't call phone sex lines, I don't buy drugs, and I'm not trying to score some hookers. You listen to my phone calls and about the most you'll get out of it is that I love my wife. Scandalous! I figure most people are the same way. Innocence rarely utters shrill shrieks.
That should not be read to mean that I think the man should be in the business of listening to everyone's phone calls, but that there are some phone calls I'd like the government to listen in on. Particularly the ones that say when and where the next terrorist strike is going to happen.
However, the pink tribes have once again mounted the ramparts against the sheepdogs. It's not the wolves that are dangerous; it's the sheepdogs that protect us. Cops don't protect us from criminals, they intimidate minorities. Soldiers aren't defenders of freedom; they are indentured baby-killers. In short, the perpetrators are the victims and the defenders are the perpetrators. If we would only disarm, then we can all live in peace, and joy, any light.
For every victory the United States achieves, there are those who would choose to then lay blame. "We must learn from our mistakes!" The Iraqis just voted for their first constitutional government, instead of celebrating this event we are mourning our "failure".
After 9/11 and in fact during Hurricane Katrina, I tried various ways to get involved. I made several phone calls, was turned down, and moved on. I didn't feel good about it because I knew I could have done something. I learned more than peeling potatoes in the military and, if nothing else, I have proven that I'm a darn good crisis manager. That's the difference between the greys and the pinks. I wanted to get involve and helped. The pink wanted to blame FEMA.
The culture war is little more than this: will we do it ourselves, or will we hold out our hands and wait for someone else to do it for us. There is the constant drumbeat from the left, "you can't do it" (aka affirmative action), "you can't trust others to do it" (aka the fight against faith-based initiatives), and so on.
The facts are these, no one ever was known for being able to find the best government welfare programs. Stories of success in history are of people who fought, strived, failed, but got up and succeeded. These are the people we celebrate.
Before we give in to pessimism, despair, and finger-pointed, how about we at least figure out if the powers were misused first. Maybe we should wait to kick around the sheepdogs until we figure out if they did wrong. How about, for a change, we not assume every evil motivation simple by the fact that someone somewhere has another opinion? Instead of the raging pink brigade telling us everything that's wrong, how about they contribute something that helps things get better instead of telling us who is to blame?
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:29 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
December 8, 2005
Why We Can't Pull Out Of Iraq... Yet.
If one is looking for a reason that the United States cannot nor should not pull out of Iraq, they only need to look to neighboring Iran. After flagrantly developing nuclear weapons in full site of the world, all the international community will do is send delegations. When the president of Iran suggests that the "tumor" of Israel be wiped off the map, all they international community did was send delegations. Now, when the Iranian president suggests all Jews be expelled back to Europe, there will be the usual hang wringing, but not action.
Osama calculated, after witnessing our lack of spine in Mogadishu, that the United States has no patience for protracted conflict. The first sign of a body count, the American people will demand a pullout, the argument goes. Saddam knows this and is counting on it. He knew beforehand his army would be mopped. He counted on waiting us out, and by extension, a Kerry win. Iran and North Korea know the same thing. Even our Asian allies are coming to us with doubts we could ever real do anything should China start getting belligerent. The general consensus is that if you get in a fight with America, you'll lose the initial battles, but all you need to do is wait until the anti-war crowd, liberal media, and liberal politicians whine enough and the tide of public opinion will shift.
If we pull out of Iraq before finishing our objectives (which have always seem perfectly clear to me), Iran could simply nuke Israel and nothing would happen. North Korea could feel comfortable crossing the DMZ and taking South Korea. China could finally take that prime-beef real estate known as Taiwan without fearing an American response. Why? Because even if the US initiates military action, all they need to do is run the clock and the Left will talk the public into giving up. The anti-war crowd will come to us with stories about how the Jews are to blame.
There comes a time to pullout. That time starts after a permanent government is in place and when they are ready to be mostly responsible for their own security. The time is coming relatively soon, and most have thought that after this next round of elections, troop reductions would begin to occur. Look for the anti-war left to start claiming credit for the execution of a plan that has been in place for years.
UPDATE:
When the head of one of the major parties gets on national television and says the most powerful, best trained, and most advanced military in the word cannot beat low-rent suicide bombers with home-made bombs that can't seem to go off reliably, it says something. It says that if we cannot beat them in Iraq, we cannot beat them on our own soil. Howard Dean has not only said that our military is incompetent (as opposed to Kerry who says they are terrorists) but that we cannot even win the war on terror. In a nutshell, he leaves only one option left... surrender.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:55 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
December 7, 2005
Polls Show When Bush Talks About his Plans, America Supports
The latest cBS/NYT poll shows that Bush's numbers are on the rebound. The reason? He's actually started talking about his successes and hitting back at his opponents. We have a plan for victory in Iraq, pretending like it isn't there is a deception. We get them to elect a soveriegn government, we prepare their government, we leave. Undoubtedly, when we leave the anti-war crowd will claim victory despite the fact it will have nothing to do with them.
People have been down about the economy for years despite the fact it has been going good. The more Bush and the GOP talks about their plans, the better they do. For too long they've been quiet, hopefully this will get them to speak up, put their platform out there and move forward.
I suppose it doesn't help that Kerry called the troops terrorists, and Howard Dean says we can't be low-rent terrorists with bombs stapped to themselves. If we can't beat them there, we can't beat them here. If that's what they believe, they are left with only one option, appeasement. The corrolary is that when the Democrats (Dean specifically) talk, the WORSE they do in polls.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
November 28, 2005
Why Does the ACLU Hate the Troops?
Many have heard the ongoing debate on military recruiters in schools and the counter-recruitment efforts of the Left. Some schools are going so far as to sue the federal government on the grounds that their free speech is adversely affected by being compelled to allow military recruiters on campus in exchange for federal money. Get that? Schools (government actors) say their free speech is prevented because of conditions in accepting federal money don’t allow them to deny free speech to military recruiters (government actors). War is peace and all that. You know the drill.
Enter the ACLU. An organization that is solely devoted to the protection of the bill of rights is in the role of advocating the removal of military recruiters from schools and campuses. Much like their war on abstinence education, this isn't an issue having to do with rights. You are free to listen to a recruiter, to ignore a recruiter, and to have protests about recruiters in schools. But the presence of a recruiter in no way, shape, or form impedes anyone's rights.
The ACLU and others are not fighting military recruiting because it is a Bill of Rights issue. Nothing in the Bill of Rights implies that one has an absolute right to never be presented with ideas you disagree with, or, in this case, someone else being presented ideas you disagree with. They are fighting military recruiters because they insist only THEIR policies and ideas be presented. They fight Christmas because Christianity is unacceptable in the public sphere. They fight abstinence education because that ideas is unacceptable. Likewise they fight military recruiters because people signing up to serve is unacceptable. This is not the advocacy and welcoming of free speech, this is the enforcement through judicial fiat of social conformity.
You can't be all you can be if you're dead, reads one sign. This is the side that the ACLU is on, the side that is against the troops. The side that says America is not worth dying for. The side that says people are stupid to serve. The side that says an 18 year old is too young and ignorant to join the military but a 14 year old is old enough to make intelligent choices about getting an abortion. The side that is trying to disarm us in the hopes that our weakness there is strength. The side that insists on due process rights for unlawful combatants not entitled to them by law, but routinely undermines due process rights of soldiers awaiting trial for their abuse of prisoners.
Our pre-9/11 response was weakness. Did that help? Osama was quite clear and is quite clear; he thinks he can win because we are weak. Our Asia allies worry that we can't win a war against China. The ACLU is on the fronts making sure we can't.
Posted by John Bambenek at 5:34 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
October 29, 2005
MoveOn Watch: MoveOn Caught in Deceptive Cover-Up!
The MoveOn e-mail reads "Indicted! White House Caught In Iraq Cover-Up". Except one thing, the investigation has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.
Here is the text of the memo that empowered Fitzgerald as to what he can investigate:
Dear Patrick: At your request, I am writing to clarify that my December 30, 2003, delegation to you of "all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity" is plenary and includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses; to conduct appeals arising out of the matter being investigated and/or prosecuted; and to pursue administrative remedies and civil sanctions (such as civil contempt) that are within the Attorney General's authority to impose or pursue. Further, my conferral on you of the title of "Special Counsel" in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.
You can read all the documents from the investigation here, but you'll quickly notice that whether the administration lied or not has NOTHING to do with this investigation. The investigation is SOLELY in relation to the alleged outing of a CIA agent. Coincidently no one has been charged with that. The motivations for going to Iraq, what was said and not said, what intel might have been twisted, and so on, are no where near the scope of this investigation. At all.
MoveOn, so desperate to spin this is making this investigation something that it is not. Such attempts at deception indicate that they have to resort to deception and lies because they have no other points. They are trying to make a Watergate where it does not exist.
The e-mail is attached with only parts that might identify the email I subscribed with removed.
====
Subject: Indicted! White House Caught In Iraq Cover-Up
Dear MoveOn member,
Today, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States was
indicted by a federal grand jury.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, a Republican appointee, announced
that Lewis "Scooter" Libby lied to a grand jury, lied to FBI agents and
obstructed an investigation into the White House cover-up of the lies that
led our nation to war in Iraq. Libby has now resigned. Top White House
advisor Karl Rove remains under federal investigation.
This is one of the biggest scandals to rock the White House in America's
229-year history.
But The New York Times reported that the Bush spin machine will resort to
"attacking any criminal charges as a disagreement over legal
technicalities." [1] The battle over public opinion begins today. We must
remind the country that this scandal isn't about a "technicality"--it's
about a White House scheme to cover-up the lies that led our nation into
one of the most deadly foreign policy blunders in our nation's history.
Can you write a letter to the editor to remind folks that there's no
graver crime than misleading a country into war, and then covering it up?
Our tool makes it easy to write to your local paper:
Today's indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation into
the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson.
The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around the same charge.
So why did the White House leak a CIA agent's name? To punish her husband,
a former ambassador who had gone public with evidence that the Bush
Administration lied about WMD and nuclear threats in the run-up to war in
Iraq.
Here is a primer on what happened:
The 2003 Bush State of the Union: President Lies About Iraq Nuclear
Capability
* In his January 2003 State Of The Union, President Bush made his case
for war in Iraq. He included this now-infamous 16-word deception about
Iraq's nuclear capability: "The British government has learned that
Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa." [2]
* But the White House had known for nearly a year that this claim was
false. In February 2002, the CIA sent former Ambassador Joseph Wilson
to Niger to investigate the unsubstantiated claim that Saddam Hussein
tried to buy uranium from Niger for use in nuclear weapons [3].
* Wilson had discovered that the claims were bogus and documents used to
support the claims had been forgeries. He reported this to the CIA,
and the CIA told the White House [3].
Why Did The President Ignore Wilson's Findings And Lie? It's About Iraq
* Why did President Bush use the discredited nuclear claims in his
January 2003 State of the Union Address to make the case that Iraq was
a nuclear threat? They wanted to invade Iraq.
* A CBS News polling report in late 2002 made clear, "there is no
consensus on adopting a pre-emptive strike policy in general--except
where a nuclear attack against the United States is
contemplated..." [4]
* Only well after the war had begun would the Washington Post report on
"a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President Cheney and their
subordinates...made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons
program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat
than the data they had would support. On occasion administration
advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to their views." [5]
Wilson Strikes Back--Exposes Bush's Lie In Lead-Up To War
* Six months after the President's 2003 State of the Union Address, as
Bush's WMD and nuclear claims began to unravel, Wilson went public and
exposed the Bush Administration's false nuclear claims in a New York
Times op-ed [6].
* The full July 6, 2003 op-ed, "What I Didn't Find In Africa," can be
read here: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1070
* The White House saw Wilson as a major threat. According to the Los
Angeles Times, "Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff was so
angry about the public statements of former Ambassador Joseph C.
Wilson IV, a Bush administration critic married to an undercover CIA
officer, that he monitored all of Wilson's television appearances and
urged the White House to mount an aggressive public campaign against
him, former aides say." [7]
White House Retaliates--Outs Valerie Plame Wilson As CIA Agent
* The week after Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times, "two senior
administration officials" were cited by conservative columnist Robert
Novak in his column outing CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson [8].
* The White House Iraq Group (WHIG), originally formed to sell the war
to the public, "morphed into a virtual hit squad that took aim at
critics who questioned its claims." [9] WHIG was run out of Vice
President Cheney's office, and included Cheney's Chief of Staff
"Scooter" Libby, top Bush strategist Karl Rove, and other top Bush
administration officials.
* Not only did this leak end Valerie Plame Wilson's 20-year career as a
CIA covert agent, but it also exposed a longstanding CIA front
company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, where Plame worked and put at
risk many of the undercover agents who had worked with Wilson in the
past [10].
Today's Indictment--White House Official Obstructed Investigation Into The
Lie
* Today's indictment says Libby illegally obstructed the investigation
into the White House outing of an undercover CIA agent, Valerie Plame
Wilson. He also was charged with perjury and making false statements
to FBI agents. The ongoing investigation of Karl Rove revolves around
the same issues, among possible others.
* Former President George H. W. Bush was right in 1999 when he said, "I
have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by
exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most
insidious, of traitors." [11]
* Former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie was right when
he said, "I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of
an undercover CIA operative--it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime,
and it is a crime." [12]
The American people must know this important truth: Today's indictment is
about a cover-up of the lies that led our nation to war in Iraq.
Please write a letter to the editor to remind people that this was crime
against our entire nation, and could not be more serious. This letter tool
makes it easy.
Thanks for all you do.
--Tom, Jennifer, Adam, Carrie and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Friday, October 28th, 2005 [1] "Republicans Testing Ways to Blunt Leak Charges,"
New York Times,
October 24, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1071 [2] "Rice: 16 words dispute 'enormously overblown,'"
CNN, July 14, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1072 [3] "Cast of Characters Grows in CIA Leak Drama,"
Associated Press,
October 24, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1073 [4] "Poll: Don't Go It Alone On Iraq," CBS News,
September 7, 2002
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1074 [5] "Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting
Evidence," The Washington
Post, August 10, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1075 [6] "What I Didn't Find In Africa," New York Times,
July 7, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1070 [7] "Bush Critic Became Target of Libby, Former Aides
Say," Los Angeles
Times, October 21, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1076 [8] "Mission To Niger," syndicated column, July 14, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1077 [9] "Prez Iraq team fought to squelch war critics,"
New York Daily News,
October 19, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1015 [10] "Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA
Front Firm," October 4,
2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1079 [11] Remarks By George Bush, 41st President of the
United States, At the
Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence, April 26,
1999
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1080 [12] Hardball With Chris Matthews, September 30, 2003
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1078
Support our member-driven organization: MoveOn.org Political Action is
entirely funded by our 3.3 million members. If you'd like to support our
work, you can give now at:
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION,
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
________________
Subscription Management:
This is a message from MoveOn.org Political Action. To change your email address,
update your contact info, or remove yourself () from
this list, please visit our subscription management page at:
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
October 13, 2005
Katrina and Darfur
(Crossposted from Coalition for Darfur======
When Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast last month, the American public was privy to 'round-the-clock media coverage of the disaster, especially of stories relating to the extraordinarily difficult living conditions faced by those who had been unable to evacuate. Thousands of people were left without food or water for days; their homes and cities destroyed, they were left to fend for themselves, trapped in squalid conditions and at the mercy of roving gangs of well-armed criminals.
As it turned out, many of the more horrific stories were later found to be false. Yet for the people of Darfur, the horrors that befell the people of New Orleans have become a way of life.
For more than two years, nearly two million people have been relegated to displacement camps across Darfur, with limited access to food, water and medical attention. They live in makeshift tents that provide little shelter from the elements, and in constant fear of rape, looting and death at the hands of the Janjaweed militia.
An aid worker and blogger known only as Sleepless in Sudan, who has been working in Darfur for six months, has been kind enough to provide this assessment of the conditions in which the displaced are now living ("Sleepless" has chosen to remain anonymous in order to protect herself and the agency for which she works from the very real threat of retribution from the Sudanese government)
People are living inside temporary shelters, covering their branch or wooden huts (those who have been there longer have built mud brick ones) with plastic sheeting from the aid agencies, and even this has often already been torn apart by the rains. Everyone sleeps on the floor, sometimes in puddles - 10 people in a little shelter is not unusual, more is common.While the United States government was blamed for a poor response to the Katrina catastrophe, the government of Sudan is directly responsible for the catastrophe in Darfur. And whereas the state and federal government are now in the process of cleaning up, and will soon begin the process of rebuilding, the devastated Gulf Coast, the people of Darfur currently have no prospects of ever being able to leave the camps because insecurity is still rampant.
Now that the aid agencies are operating in many camps there is regular water supply, there are latrines, there are medical clinics and most importantly, there is a monthly food distribution of staple grains and things like oil - but this does not mean people have it easy. This season has brought many floods and people have lost their belongings or even shelters, huts and latrines sometimes collapsed in the rains, and the food is never enough (and people have to scramble for things like fresh vegetables themselves anyway, as these are not included in the distribution). Malnutrition inside the camps is still high.
Overall, I would say conditions are adequate for survival - though some camps (especially the ones further away from big cities) are a lot worse off than others (Abu Shouk, for example, has dozens of aid agencies, while places just a few hours outside of it have 1 or 2). Whether they are adequate for what you would consider a normal life is debatable - I would say absolutely not, and I have no doubts any American would find them a lot more "unacceptable" than New Orleans.
I suppose the worst part of living in the camps is having absolutely no idea how much longer you will be there (many people have already been there for 2 years) and also constantly having to worry that you will be attacked - Aro Sarow showed us that even large scale attacks and killings inside IDP camps are still a threat. In many camps - Kalma, Tawila, etc. - it is part of everyday life to hear shooting at night, and in nearly all of them it is still very dangerous to wander outside and carry out chores like collecting firewood. Knowing that you are constantly at risk of looting and assault is be an easy thing to live with.
In the last few weeks, there have been a series of attacks on villages and camps that have created several thousand new IDPs. In addition, nearly 40 African Union troops and workers were kidnapped over the weekend and, in a separate incident, five members of the AU force were ambushed and killed. And even if a semblance of peace does ever come to the region, the people of Darfur have nothing to return to, as their villages and homes have been utterly destroyed while their land and possessions have been stolen.
The post-Hurricane nightmare faced by the victims of Katrina has been the reality in Darfur for more than two years - and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Posted by John Bambenek at 6:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 28, 2005
Local C-U Anti-War Protesters Mocked by the Daily Show
If you take a look at the Daily Show and watch the episode "March of the Peaceniks", you'll see C-U's own anti-war protesters mocked by John Stewart...
Awesome.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
What is it with Anti-semites?
David Green, local anti-semite, writes in to the DailyIllini on the occasion of Simon Wiesenthal's death to spew his hateful diatribe. He has nothing against Wiesenthal, he just can't stand to let them man pass in peace without taking a swipe at the Jews and the US for being evil regimes. He much prefers us to be happier and more just regimes like Soviet Russia, Saddam's Iraq, the Taliban's Afghanistan, Hitler's Germany, or some other of the joyous left-wing paradises out there.
For reference, this was the column he was writing in response to.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Coalition for Darfur: Anarchy and the UN
Another great post up on the situation in Sudan. On the 65th Birthday of the UN, it should be quite telling that in a nation where they are supposedly active, the reality is that people are still dying and the nation is descending into anarchy.
===
As Darfur descends into anarchy, the United Nations appears unable to do any more than express concerns and continue to ask the parties involved to cease their violent attacks.
After rebels attacked and took control of the town of Sheiria last week, the Sudanese army said it was prepared to retake the town, to which the rebels replied that they would "repulse anything from the Sudanese government's army."
The upsurge in violence forced thousands more out of the villages, swelling the ranks of the internally displaced that already numbers nearly 2 million.
As the violence was raging, even the UN's own Special Representative Jan Pronk, a man who tends to see everything in Sudan through rose-colored glasses, was forced to admit that the violence was spiraling out of control. He was joined by the US government, which stated that the "uptick in violence ... is of concern to us" and the UN's genocide advisor, Juan Mendez, who acknowledged that Khartoum had done little to disarm militias or end the "culture of impunity" that exists in Darfur.
Pronk went on to state that the UN must give the Sudanese government and rebels an ultimatum to compel them to reach some sort of peace
agreement and even made the startling admission that, thus far, the UN has utterly failed to deal with Darfur
Pronk said that when the Darfur conflict began U.N. humanitarian officials agitated for the Security Council to take up the conflict, which it refused to do.Pronk was quoted elsewhere as saying
A "massive force" was needed [in 2003] then to guarantee security but instead several thousand African Union troops and monitors had to carry the burden. And now the council needed to plan for how to keep the peace in case a peace deal was signed.
He said the war situation in Sudan was "everybody’s failure" and could have been avoided if the international community had acted quickly.Of course, the international community did not act quickly, nor are they acting quickly now.
How could the present day situation have been avoided?
"I think there should have been intervention in 2003," Pronk said, adding that while the occurrence of genocide in the country was debatable, "There was mass slaughter of people. It needed humanitarian intervention."
In fact, while Darfur burned, the BBC reported that American and British intelligence officials, along with representatives of the UN, China and 12 African nations were in Khartoum discussing cooperation on counter-terrorism operations in the region.
Hosting the conference is part of a sustained diplomatic push by Sudan to shake off its pariah status ... When the opportunity for this second regional conference on counter-terrorism came up, Sudan competed for the right to host it ... The decision of the CIA to agree to come to Sudan shows the pragmatism of the intelligence community against the continuing political desire of America to punish Sudan for what has happened in Darfur.Khartoum continues to work to "shake off its pariah status," with Sudanese Ambassador Khidir Haroun Ahmed publishing an op-ed in the Washington Times today claiming that "After two decades of brutal civil war, Sudan is emerging as a reminder that engagement, dialogue and intensive diplomacy can resolve seemingly intractable problems and permit a country to look to the future with optimism."
Meanwhile, the violence and anarchy Khartoum unleashed is now spilling over into neighboring Chad, a country that is already host to an estimated 200,000 refugees from Darfur
A group of unidentified armed men in military uniform crossed into Chad from Sudan early on Monday, killing 36 herders and stealing livestock, the Chadian government said.The violence, in addition to threatening the people of Darfur, is also threatening the relief work that sustains them, as U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland noted yesterday
"If it (the violence) continues to escalate, we may not be able to sustain our operations for 2.5 million people requiring life-saving assistance," he said, adding: "In Darfur, it (aid distribution) could all end tomorrow. It is as serious as that."As Eric Reeves never fails to remind us,
in December 2004, Egeland warned that 100,000 people could die a month if humanitarian organizations are forced to suspend operations in Darfur.
Despite all of this, Pronk still managed to recently declare that progress was being made on implementing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South and on efforts to reach peace in Darfur.
Such a statement is utterly feckless and shameful.
As Gerald Caplan, author of "Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide," wrote last week
But what we are learning from Darfur, which we never remotely imagined, is that even naming a genocide is an utterly inconsequential exercise in hot air ... despite the apparent concern of many western leaders, despite the pressure from elements of civil society, the catastrophe in Darfur is explicitly allowed to continue ... As always, everything takes precedence over the suffering and death of hundreds of thousandsAfter two years, 400,000 deaths, and an estimated 3.5 million now entirely dependent on humanitarian aid, it must be stated that the UN and every one of its member nations have failed the people of Darfur and, in all likelihood, will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
of distant, exotic others. It won't be the last time."
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 22, 2005
Hurricane Katrina: Radical Campus Left Claims Racial Cleansing is Going on in New Orleans
From the local campus anti-war protesters who are also struggling with the issue of whether or not to openly support the "Iraqi resistance":
"And still, even tonight, teams of military, US Marshals, and local police perform sweeps and raids on the remaining hold-outs. We will never know the true death-toll of the storm, nor the near certain fact that many brown and black residents were gunned down in cold blood in a form of ethnic cleansing."
It's one thing to talk about race and poverty, its another to say that the federal government is wiping out black people in the streets of New Orleans.
There's only one word for stuff like this... agitprop.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Coalition for Darfur: Decent into Anarchy
Crossposted from Coalition for Darfur. More updates on the deteriotating condition there that the new and improved UN is still failing to do anything about.
====
One week ago, experts and observers warned that Darfur risked "sliding into a perpetual state of lawlessness." At a time when Khartoum and the Darfur rebels were preparing to meet in an attempt to move the essentially non-existent peace process forward, IRIN was reporting
Banditry and continuous attacks by armed groups on humanitarian workers, Arab nomads and villages in Darfur have increased significantly over the past weeks and threaten to destabilise the fragile ceasefire in the volatile western Sudanese region.The "fragile ceasefire" has never really existed
and fears of "perpetual" lawlessness are misplaced considering that Darfur has been essentially lawless for more than two years.
Last week, the World Food Program reported that "security levels deteriorated in Darfur during the reporting week." This week, the WFP reported that "despite precautionary security measures, attacks on commercial and humanitarian vehicles continue in Darfur."
And as the UN was expressing
its concern "about the recurrent attacks carried out by armed men and gangs in Darfur states, which target civilians and commercial vehicles hired by relief organizations," Norwegian Church Aid was reporting that "relief convoy has been raided at gunpoint by bandits in Darfur for the second time in a short period. The security situation in Darfur shows signs of deterioration"
A growing problem is also that aid convoys are now being ambushed with increasing regularity by bandits on horses and camels. Norwegian Church Aid vehicles have been raided at gunpoint twice in a matter of weeks ... The field teams who travel most often through the western and southern parts of Darfur regularly encounter en route, and are often chased by, heavily armed men riding on horses and camels. Since the aid operation began just over a year ago, security has presented a great challengeAnd the violence continues.
for the agencies. Yet whereas assault, exchanges of fire and attacks on villages were previously politically motivated, much of the violence seems now to be criminal in nature.
Just yesterday, it was reported that 40 were killed in fighting after an attack on the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement/Army by "armed nomadic tribesmen" [aka "the Janjaweed"]. This was followed by another report that 80 government soldiers had been killed by the SLM when they captured the town of Sheiria in a surprise attack in retaliation for earlier
government attacks on rebel-held territory.
The attack on Sheiria put at risk some 33,000 civilians who rely on humanitarian assistance after staff from three NGO's were withdrawn due to the fighting. And for good measure, the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) "reported that the security situation in the Kalma camp housing displaced persons has further deteriorated with a large number of security incidents, including some 60 reported
attacks on women over the last week alone."
All of this took place while the sixth round of peace talks were being held in Nigeria.
It has now been more than a year since the United States declared the situation in Darfur a "genocide" - and the security situation on the ground is now even arguably worse. While government-orchestrated attacks on civilians have diminished, mainly because "there are not many villages left to burn down and destroy," the rampant insecurity in all likelihood still qualifies as part of Khartoum's genocidal campaign to "deliberately [inflict] on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part."
The genocide is not ending and the situation is not improving. The people of Darfur have, for all intents and purposes, been abandoned.
Posted by John Bambenek at 7:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 31, 2005
Coalition for Darfur: What It Is All About
Here's the weekly Darfur post.
---
Last weekend, the blog Blue Girl, Red State wrote a post about a regular blog commenter who went by the name "Shameless Hussy."
Blue Girl reports that "Shameless Hussy" went to Darfur in June as a humanitarian volunteer and was traumatized by what she saw
WhatThis post receive a fair
she dealt with daily goes beyond the pale...beyond the nightmares of
most people; Children with all four limbs hacked off right above the
knee or below the elbow. Twelve year olds who died in childbirth after
being gang-raped by the Janjaweed. Women who gave birth to rape-babies
who were then cast out by their families for shaming the family name,
leaving only one avenue of survival for themselves and their children
after the camps: Prostitution.
What is f**ing her up is the
desperation, and the fact that she worked herself to death for over a
month, and she still didn't really save anyone. Now that she's gone,
it's like she was never there. Even the ones she helped keep alive, she
didn't save. You try dealing with that reality.
And women are
the preponderance of victims. Men do not leave the villages to go to
the countryside to gather firewood and other necessary items of
sustenance. Women venture out, even though every time they leave their
villages, they are at horrific risk of being beaten and raped and
disfigured. The reason they go instead of the men? The women are only
attacked, the men are killed.
amount of attention within the blogosphere (as far as posts about
Darfur go) mainly due to the fact that Kevin Drum
linked to it. And while getting bloggers to pay attention to Darfur, if
only for a minute, is a minor miracle, it is worth asking why it takes
a post about traumatized aid workers to generate any interest in
genocide.
This situation in Darfur has existed for over two
years and, if people were interested, they could find accounts of
death, disease, rape and torture occurring there on an almost daily
basis. 400,000 people have died and nearly 3 million have been
displaced and yet nobody - not politicans, not the media, not bloggers
- really seem to care.
To anyone who has been paying attention,
the atrocities witnessed by "Shameless Hussy" are, sadly, well-known.
If her story generates concern for the people of Darfur, then for that
we should be thankful. And if people who were moved by it are really
interested in Darfur, then they should start reading the analyses
produced by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Eric Reeves and the International Crisis Group, supporting organizations like Doctors Without Borders, Save the Children, Save Darfur and STAND, reading blogs like Passion of the Present, Sudan Watch, the Coalition for Darfur, and Sleepless in Sudan and demanding that their elected leaders do something about it.
Our
thanks goes out to "Shameless Hussy" and all those who sacrifice to
help those in need. But we must keep in mind that Darfur is not about
them - it is about this
Posted by John Bambenek at 3:05 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 29, 2005
9/11: Still Not the Jews' Fault
An 11 year old turns an art project into a political statement by showing Bush referring to seeing the first plane crash into the World Trade Center. The contest was organized by the San Francisco Chapter of the 911 Truth Alliance, which the main organization distributed literature that suggests Israel and/or the Mossad were responsible for 9/11. There seems to be no end of those who espouse bizarre conspiracy theories linked Bush, the Mossad, Saudis, short sellers, and insurance companies with the 19 people who actually did hijack the planes on 9/11.
With the breaking news on Able Danger one wonders if the conspiracy theories will have to be rewritten. The Clinton Administration "wall of separation" prevented the military from sharing critical information that would have prevented 9/11 years before it happened. Even when some tried to share the information anyway, the information went ignored. It looks like more and more that terrorists did hijack planes and that the CIA dropped the ball long before Bush even hit office.
The conspiracy theorists will have you believe bizarre theories about the international neocon conspiracy (closely related to the international Zionist conspiracy) but a review of the facts once again shows that radical Islamic terrorists are targeting this country, the Clinton Administration did nothing about it, and they'll keep attacking until they are stopped. Iraq is the latest front and only victory there will provide protection against future attacks.
Blogs talking about this: PowerBlog!, Strate Sphere, Captain's Quarters, et al.
Posted by John Bambenek at 4:25 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Misuse of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
With rising oil prices and Hurricane Katrina, there are the usual calls for tapping the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Sen. Schumer asked Bush to release oil to "ease higher prices" which shows that he doesn't understand the point of having the reserve to begin with.
The reserve was established in 1975 after the Arab oil embargo as a means of protection when countries decide to hit us in our oil supply. Taking that protection away now would make any such efforts much greater in effect and much more appealing. The SPR was never intended nor should be used as a means of price manipulation of the gas markets in the United States.
First, let's say you get a 20 cent reduction in gas prices by tapping the reserve. Would it even be politically feasible to back off until the reserve was gone and bring that 20 cent reduction back? Doubtful. Gas prices have been inflated for a long time now and it is not likely that the price is going to come down that much in the near future, not until regulators allow the construction of more refineries.
Second, it takes 15 days from the order until the oil starts to hit the markets. The SPR can only sustain its highest rate of drawdown for 90 days and will be completed depleted in 180 days. The price affect is negligible during periods of drawdown and there are no instant real effects (save psychological). What the SPR is good for is dealing with supply cutoffs, not dealing with price manipulation. Maximum drawdown would only supply the United States with a maximum of 20% of its oil consumption per day. That would be good for dealing with a disruption of oil supplies by a hurricane not to counteract long-term market pressures.
With Venezuela threatening an oil embargo and the situation as it is in Iraq, tapping the only source of protection to our oil supplies by foreign manipulators is only encouraging them to go ahead and attack our oil supplies.
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:28 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
First Letter to the Editor in DI
Apparently AWARE was highly offended by my half-fragment semi-literate jab at them. C. G. Estabrook wrote in today to discuss the "errors" in my column. The reason I find their activities disruptive is that they were disruptive during Sen. Obama's talk. Canvassing the aisle with their garbage was not the appropriate thing to do while the Senator was talking, and I'm no supporter of the Senator. The anti-war movement seems to think that the more disruptive and offensive they become (see the protests outside Walter Reed) the better they serve their cause. The reverse is true. Note that Cindy Sheehan's approval ratings are the only ones falling below President Bush's at the moment.
Second, my column didn't talk about the war because the Senator didn't. If I want to write a war column, I will. Just because I don't include AWARE's pet issues, doesn't make it an error. There's only so much I can fit in 650 words and its certainly not going to cater to the demands of the radical left.
The fact is, the war has been debated non-stop for over 3 years. You've lost the debate. It's time to MoveOn.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:31 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 28, 2005
More Disgusting Protests
Lest I be accused of having double standards, I think this is crap too. A funeral is never a place for protests, right or left. Anti-war protesters should have the common courtesy to let the dead lie, as should the anti-gay protesters (which I disagree with also). That doesn't mean (like AWARE) seem to think I'm for restricting free speech. But that also doesn't mean every expression of speak is praiseworthy and free of criticism.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack