More thoughts on North Korea

If there really are four U.S. Navy aircraft carriers deploying to the Taiwan Strait (See previous post), this is a startling development. Just today "U.S. negotiators presented the first detailed American proposal Wednesday on resolving the standoff with North Korea, offering the North energy aid and a security guarantee in exchange for dismantling its nuclear program."(Reuters) (Hardly the stance you'd expect us to be taking if we were planning a preemptive attack.}

This is a reversal from the standing U.S policy of not "rewarding" North Korea by negotiating before they freeze their nuclear program. Now, we're willing to give them food aid, fuel oil and give assurances we won't attack them. It is strangely enlightened and reasonable. Quite a departure from the treatment most "Axis of Evil" countries receive and a long way from Undersecretary of State John Bolten's ham handed bull in a china shop approach. I'm suspicious.

Either the Bush administration has taken Colin Powell's advise, finally, to resume the Clinton administrations policy of engagement or, any back talk from the North will be used as an excuse to end talks and start the war.

Deja vu all over again?

In 2003, during the last crisis with North Korea an article in the Scotsman described what may turn out to be d?j? vu all over again:

"The US military assets now being sent to the region could stage air and missile strikes against the nuclear plant at Yongbyon and other sites where the North may have concealed production facilities for, and stockpiles of, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Strikes would also target the production and launching sites of North Korea's growing ballistic missile programme.

But the odds are not good for the US. According to its own estimates, one million casualties could be expected in the first 24 hours of a war.

Even though much of North Korea's hardware is old, its army is nearly a million strong and more than half of its soldiers are deployed within 100 miles of the demilitarised zone with 8,000 artillery pieces. It is estimated that North Korea could fire 300,000 shells an hour on to targets in the south.

In addition, it is believed to have about 5,000 tons of chemical and biological agents, including sarin, anthrax, smallpox and the plague."

The fun bunch

It would be nice to think this bunch in the White House wouldn't be insane enough to even consider such a reckless idea, but we know better, don't we? Forget about four more years, how about no more years!

Additionally, according to Global Security.com (Not to be confused with globalsecurity.org)

"President George W. Bush's increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader's state of mind.

In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as "enemies of the state."

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.

"It reminds me of the Nixon days," says a longtime GOP political consultant with contacts in the White House. "Everybody is an enemy; everybody is out to get him. That's the mood over there."

http://www.globalsecurity.com/

(the article is reminisent of the Weekly World News, so I'm not vouching for the accuracy of the piece)

The next show is about to begin
Mood:  incredulous
The following is an excerpt of a much larger article from the Asia Times by Craig B Hulet:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FF24Ak05.html

Imperial Hubris

Quoting Anonymous the author of a new book on how we're losing the war on terror called "Imperial Hubris:"

The most profound assertion the author made (Anonymous), who published an analysis of al-Qaeda last year called "Through Our Enemies' Eyes", thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place. Bush is good for the Islamists the world over who want to make war on America and the West. Anonymous again:

I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now. One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president. In every age ... the ultimate sources of war are the beliefs of those in power: "their idea about what is of most fundamental importance and may therefore ultimately be worth a war." - Evan Luard, International War

Anonymous believes Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.

It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: "What is going on?"

-----------------------------------------------------
What's next on the menu?

Monday, February 17, 2003:

US Under Secretary of State John Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials on Monday that he has no doubt America will attack Iraq, and that it will be necessary to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea afterwards.

Bolton, who is under secretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings about preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In a meeting with Bolton on Monday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that Israel is concerned about the security threat posed by Iran.

It's important to deal with Iran even while American attention is turned toward Iraq, Sharon said.

(Source: "US official to Israel: We'll deal with Syria, Iran after Iraq war", Monday, February 17, 2003, by Haaretz correspondents, Haaretz Service and Agencies.)

----------------------------------------------------

Add to that that French intelligence services have seen more on the horizon than Americans would:

It has been reliably reported that the American president and his closest military advisors, in conjunction with the highest military commands, have determined that military operations should be prepared for and executed against two main targets.

The first and primary ones are in the Middle East and comprise Iraq and most especially Iran. The secondary object is North Korea. The use of conventional US ground troops is counter-indicated. US ground troops are being withdrawn from South Korea (2nd Infantry Division etc) ostensibly for replacement duties in Iraq, but in fact to remove these units from any collateral damage from projected nuclear attacks on North Korea.

There are insufficient personnel available for either operation at the present time and increasing their size is not politically viable. Therefore, a determination is made for both a show of force and the ability to launch a powerful attack against these targets if and when the commander in chief deems it necessary.

In furtherance of this policy, the United States naval forces will be utilized as the focus of the attack forces. These units will not be subject to counter attacks because they can stand off at a distance and attack their targets with complete impunity. Naval personnel will not be subject to guerrilla warfare in any sense and will supply a very powerful attack force capable of delivering deadly blows against designated targets.
(Source: TBRNEWS -special edition of June 17.)

Given the evidence immediately below, one cannot but admit that Bush and his gruesome crew are going to continue the path they have selected as the chosen elite to administer peace through strength under a new definition.

US naval deployment as of June 15, 2004
USS Enterprise - Atlantic (unknown location - possibly headed for the Middle East)
USS George Washington - en route to the Gulf of Arabia
USS John F Kennedy - Atlantic (unknown location - possibly headed for the Middle East)
USS Roosevelt - Atlantic, heading for the Middle East
USS Harry S Truman - Atlantic
USS Kitty Hawk - normally stationed in Japan, now moving towards China (Korea Operation)
USS Stennis - Pacific - headed for Taiwan (Korea Operation)
USS Carl Vinson - Pacific - headed for Taiwan (Korea Operation)
USS Abraham Lincoln - Pacific (backup-Korea Operation)
USS Ronald Reagan - port visit in Rio De Janiero, Brazil
USS Nimitz - Still in drydock, refueling its reactor
USS Eisenhower - Still in drydock, refueling its reactor

Note: Most ships left port with little notice and were markedly understaffed.

[Tell your friends you heard it here second. Read the rest of the article, it's very scary.]

Rummy feels their pain.
(From TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040623/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_prisoner_abuse&cid=544&ncid=716)

[According to the secret torture memos the Bush administration released today, Rummy was willing to let suspected terrorists feel his pain:]

In a Pentagon memo, dated Nov. 27, 2002, the Defense Department's chief lawyer, William J. Haynes II, recommended that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld approve the use of 14 interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, such as yelling at a prisoner during questioning and using "stress positions," like standing, for up to four hours. [Like what he does to the Washington press corps on a regular basis?]

Haynes also recommended approval of one technique among harsher methods requested by U.S. military authorities at Guantanamo: use of "mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing." [So warm and fuzzy! Good golly!]

Among the techniques that Rumsfeld approved on Dec. 2, 2002, in addition to the grabbing, the yelling and the stress positions:

_ Use of 20-hour interrogations.

_ Removal of all comfort items, including religious items.

_ Removal of clothing.

_ Using detainees' "individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress. [And presumably, his big phobia, truth telling]

Rumsfeld scribbled a note on Haynes' memo that said,

"However, I stand for 8-10 hours a day. Why is standing limited to 4 hours."

[Pansy bastards!]

A day in Iraq.
ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkey on Tuesday cautiously accepted Israel's denial of a report that the Jewish state was training Kurdish commando units in northern Iraq, but made clear it was keeping a close eye on the region.

"Israel has told us it (The New Yorker's story: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?40628fa_fact) is not true.

We also want this to be the case. Everyone knows Turkey's sensitivities on this issue. Naturally we have to believe what we are told," Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters.

"I hope our trust is not in vain."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040622/wl_nm/iraq_turkey_israel_dc

[That's reassuring.]


A DAY IN IRAQ: On the "run up" to the "turn over" of power.

06/22/04 AP: Houston-area Marine killed in Iraq on Monday
The Defense Department says 27-year-old Lance Corporal Pedro Contreras of Harris County died Monday from hostile fire in Al Anbar Province, west of Baghdad.

06/22/04 AP: Kidnappers behead S. Korean in Iraq
In Iraqi militant group has beheaded its South Korean hostage, Al-Jazeera television reported Tuesday.

06/22/04 AP: Saboteurs blast oil pipeline in Iraq
Saboteurs blasted a key oil pipeline transporting crude oil from the northern town of Beji to one of the countries largest oil refineries - another in a series of attacks targeting Iraq's infrastructure, authorities said Tuesday

06/22/04 NBC: 1st Battalion, 5th Marines to be Replaced in Iraq
Hundreds of Marines from Camp Pendleton's 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment will enter Iraq to replace the 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, another Camp Pendleton unit, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune.

06/22/04 Xinhuanet: 2 children killed in car bomb blast west of Baghdad
The explosion took place in al-Ameriya suburb west of Baghdad killing two children as their family car was passing near the area and their parents were also wounded in the attack, according to witnesses.

06/22/04 Novinite: Karbala Hit by Violence
A convoy of patrolling Bulgarian troops was attacked on Monday with an improvised gun machine in the outskirts of Karbala, Defense Ministry announced.

06/22/04 AP: One of Marine Deaths from 21st is Identified
Twenty-one-year-old T-J Parker of Heber Springs was among four U-S Marines killed yesterday in an ambush in Ramadi, 60 miles west of Bagdad.

06/22/04 AP: Witnesses: Blast rocks neighborhood
They say the blast rocked a neighborhood today, killing two people and injuring two others.

06/22/04 Reuters: Car Bomb Blast Kills Bodyguard of Iraqi Minister
A car bomb exploded in a Baghdad street Tuesday as a convoy of U.S. troops and Iraqi police drove past, killing two Iraqi bystanders, police said.

06/22/04 Turks.us: Kerkuk Boils; Many Dead
Among several tragic events yesterday in northern Iraq, Shiites attacked the governor's office in Kerkuk (Kirkuk); many people reportedly lost their lives in the attack.

06/22/04 Albawaba: Three Americans wounded in Baqouba attacks
Troops were attacked twice on Monday in the predominantly Sunni Muslim city of Baqouba, some 60 kilometers from Baghdad, said Maj. Neal O'Brien of the 1st Infantry.

06/22/04 Al Jazeera: Lecturer and spouse killed in Mosul
A university dean and her husband have been murdered at their home in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

06/22/04 Boston.com: Good summary of Iraq attacks on 21st
A mortar attack in Baghdad and two assaults on U.S. forces northeast of the capital killed one soldier and wounded nine others, the military said Tuesday.

06/22/04 CENTCOM: Death of Soldier in Mortar Attack on 21st Confirmed
One Task Force Baghdad Soldier was killed and seven others were wounded in a mortar attack in north-central Baghdad at about 10 a.m. June 21.

06/22/04 CENTCOM: Deaths of 4 Marines on 21st Confirmed
Four Marines assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force were killed June 21 in action against anti-Iraqi forces near Ar Ramadi.

This from a tremendous resource: Iraq Casualties.org

http://icasualties.org/oif/

Mossad sturs up the Kurds. ( Our best friends)
[Go back to my post on this issue for more background on the Syrian/Kurd uprising: index.blog?start=1080257099]

Mossad, is at it again. With friends like this, who needs enemies?

From Haaretz (Via The New Yorker):

Report: Israel operating hundreds of agents in northern Iraq
By Nathan Guttman, Haaretz Correspondent

WASHINGTON - Israel operates hundreds of agents in the Kurdish areas in northern Iraq, according to a report published in the upcoming issue of The New Yorker magazine.

In an interview to CNN on Sunday, reporter Seymour Hersh said that hundreds of Israelis, some of them Mossad agents, are operating in the region in order to collect information on Iran's nuclear program and monitor events in Syria.

According to the report, Israel in the past has had many ties with the Kurds, which with the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime are currently being renewed.

Israel is not confident of the success of the American program for the stabilization of the country, the report says, and that is why it is interested in setting up independent connections in the region.

Israelis operating in the region are also attempting to assist Kurds living in Syria, the report says.

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=441208

Coupled with this bad news the BBC reports:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3828149.stm

UK diplomats have been holding talks with Iran after the seizure of three British naval craft and their crews in a waterway shared with Iraq.

Iran said the boats had entered its part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway without permission on Monday
morning and were duly impounded.

A British embassy spokesman in Tehran said he was looking forward to a swift solution to an "unfortunate mistake".

[I'm sure the Iranians will be reasonable and do the right thing.]

Our correspondent says the worry remains that it could easily escalate into a more serious crisis.

[Don't worry, the Mossad will handle it]

Consider the source
Mood:  irritated

AP reports: "The al-Qaida cell allegedly led by Abdulaziz al-Moqrin fulfilled its threat to kill engineer Paul M. Johnson Jr., beheading him and showing grisly photos on the Internet on Friday."

The beheading was condemned around the world:

Jordan issued a statement condemning the "barbaric act" and calling for those responsible to the brought to justice.

Such heinous acts of terror do not represent the true values of Islam which is based on tolerance, compassion and peaceful coexistence," the statement said. [Except in Saudi Arabia apparently]

President Bush called the killers "militants thugs" and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the slaying was "an act of barbarism."

What kind of society produces these terrorists anyway?

Consider a report from Amnesty International from 2000: http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar99/mde23.htm

AI has begun a campaign to "raise awareness both internationally and within Saudi Arabia about the human rights situation, Amnesty said, "Secrecy and fear permeate every aspect of the state structure in Saudi Arabia.

There are no political parties, no elections, no independent legislature, no trades unions, no bar association, no independent judiciary, and no independent human rights organisations.

Anyone living in Saudi Arabia who criticises the system is harshly punished. After arrest, political and religious opponents of the government are detained indefinitely without trial or are imprisoned after grossly unfair trials.

Torture is endemic. Foreign workers are always at risk." [Foreign workers are in danger from the Saudi government. That's pretty ironic.]

About beheadings: [where did they ever get that idea?]

A Human Rights Watch report [www.hrw.org/wr2k/Mena-08.htm] states that the number of executions rose to 84 before the end of 1999, from 29 in 1998. Death sentences are typically imposed for murder, rape, drug trafficking and armed robbery.

The executions, usually beheadings, were carried out in public after Friday prayers.

The majority of those publicly beheaded were foreigners, including two women. Until the mid-1990s, women were usually executed by firing squad in prisons and not in public.

Operation "bug out."
Mood:  accident prone

NOTHING IS WRONG!!

Not that anything is going terribly wrong in Iraq, mind you, we just expect more violence on the "run up" to the "turn-over" of sovereignty to Iraqis on June 30th.

So, the massive car bombing in the heart of Baghdad on Thursday which killed 41 people and wounded 138, folks mainly waiting to sign up for the new Iraqi army, was just another attempt by terrorists, (naturally) to prevent the Iraqi people from being liberated by George Bush; and we say bring `em on! (Damn it!)

New Democrats!

The new Iraqi leadership is really stepping up to plate, though, and showing their true democratic colors. The Interior minister, who was appointed totally independent of U.S. interference, says he "won't hesitate" to declare martial law if the attacks continue.

The newly appointed defense minister, Hazim al-Shalaan, in response to the attack (and his new sense of power) says, "We will chase them from house to house, we will limit them, we will cut off their hands and we will behead them."

Sounds familiar

An unnamed U.S. official commenting on the "martial law" comment of the Interior minister said, "There's got to be a period of stepping back...there are going to have to be a lot of Iraqi solutions to the problems and they aren't necessarily the solutions we would have used."

Hmmm...sounds like the very liberal attitude the Reagan administration took on the uniquely "Iraqi solutions" Saddam's regime applied to his Iranian and Kurdish problem in the 80's.

Can you say "Operation Bug Out?"

Darth has a derth of evidence...you betcha
Mood:  a-ok
The small lies that set up the big lies.

These are the words president Bush used to inform the speaker of the House of Representatives that he was going to war against Iraq, presumably, judging by this letter from March 18th 2003, to avenge 9/11.

"...Acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law...the United States and other countries (are)continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

The recent 9/11 Commission Report states, "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Ergo, Al-Qaeda attacked us, not Iraq.

Vice-president Dick Cheney begs to differ. He apparently has a problem with the press, specifically the New York Times, who have been petulant enough to draw the conclusion that there is a fundamental disconnect between what the stated reason for the war was, versus what the actual facts were at the time according to the findings of the Commission.

In a Times article today ["Bush and Cheney respond on Qaeda-Hussein link," June 18], which I quote at length, (Sorry.) Cheney trashs that bastion of the liberal media, during an appearance on "Capital Report" on CNBC:

Gloria Borger asks "But the press is making a distinction between 9/11 and . . ." [what you said about Iraq, jerk.]

"No, they're not," Mr. Cheney said. "The New York Times does not. `The Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Ties,' " he said, quoting the headline. "That's what it says. That's the vaunted New York Times. Numerous -- I've watched a lot of the coverage on it and the fact of the matter is they don't make a distinction. They fuzz it up. Sometimes it's through ignorance. Sometimes its [sic] malicious. But you'll take a statement that's geared specifically to say there's no connection in relations to the 9/11 attack and then say, `Well, obviously there's no case here.' And then jump over to challenge the president's credibility or my credibility."

Credibility?

The only one who is "fuzzing" it up here is Cheney. He's quibbling about a headline that says, "The Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Ties." Whether there were or not is beside the point. The most important "distinction" to make is, regardless of some meeting between low level members of both parties, there was no collaboration in relation to 9/11, the stated reason for going to war against Saddam Hussein; end of story.

But not for the `we were really massively wrong and can't admit it `cuz it's our ass' crowd.

The "Mohammad Atta in Prague" story keeps breathing because of Darth Vader of the undisclosed location, who, in the CNBC interview (Still from the Times), "went on to cite a Czech intelligence service report that Mohammad Atta, one of the lead hijackers, met a senior Iraqi intelligence official in April 2001. "That's never been proven," he said. "It's never been refuted."

It's never been refuted? It's the `absence of evidence is no evidence of absence' defense used by Donald Rumsfeld on the WMD question, who apparently is still trying to define what the meaning of "is," is. (Slick Willy must be beaming with pride.)

Anyway, wrong again Dick. It was refuted back in October of 2002 by the Czech president Vaclav Havel himself, who informed the White House there was no evidence to confirm reports that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague.

The Commission also found videotape of him at an ATM when he should have been in Prague and, by the way; no one in his right mind is buying this crap.

Vlad:

One more wrinkle to this whole issue that came up after the Times article: Our good friend Vlad the Impaler of Chechnya has come to "W's" defense saying today "After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services ... received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests,'"

I can already see Bill Kristal getting his groove back and riding this wave, but; the butcher of Grozny didn't really say anything.

"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing terrorist attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any known terrorist attacks,'' he said.

And for good measure, "Despite that information ... Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged." (That position was "Nyet" in case you missed it.)

Grover Norquist: The enigma
It truly is springtime for Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) a group that has been in the forefront of the libertarian goal of de-funding the U.S. government. Finally, thanks to ATR's fellow travelers in the White House, his objective has almost been achieved. The baby is drowning in the bathtub and the beast is starving, to paraphrase Norquist's many colorful metaphors for the federal government's impending bankruptcy, and the cotton (And the deficit) is high.

As if that great accomplishment weren't enough, another of his non-profits "The Reagan Legacy Project," (RRLP) which according to its web site, "is dedicated to promoting the legacy of President Ronald Reagan's leadership by working toward one significant monument named after him in each of America's 50 states, as well as some dedication in every county in America," has finally got the country's attention.

After a full week of the mainstream media lauding the accomplishment's of the dearly departed "great communicator" in a wall to wall, around the clock, cult of personality extravaganza even Joseph Stalin would be embarrassed by; Grover is all over the news, plugging his idea of getting Alexander Hamilton off the $10 bill. CNN reports, "Norquist... has already had discussions with treasury secretary John Snow and senior White House staff about the idea, and found no opposition." Ground breaking for the Reagan memorial on the National Mall, a long time dream, surely can't be far behind.

Dark Clouds on the horizon

But all may not be well in Groverland. Franklin Foer an associate editor at The National Review, has quoted one former intelligence official saying CIA and FBI counter-terrorism agents are "pissed as hell about Grover," because of his connections to some dubious characters associated with terrorists who have over a period of years gained access to the White House through his cozy relationship with the Bush administration.

In 1998 Norquist was the founding chairman of the Free Market Institute, better known as the Islamic Institute, an organization that promoted conservative core values to Arab-Americans and then sought to sign them up as Republicans. Because he saw their conservative religious values as a possible vote getter, (He has claimed "American Muslims look like members of the Christian Coalition.") he touted them to Karl Rove his old school buddy, who was very receptive, as then Texas Governor Bush's political adviser.

When Bush got into office Norquist had an "in." Paul Weyrich, a long time republican activist, has said "just like [administration officials] ask my advice on inviting religious figures to the White House; they rely on Grover's help [with Muslims]."

Questionable judgment

No one is accusing Norquist of aiding terrorists, of course, but you really have to question his judgment. David Horowitz, the well-known right-winger, wrote in a damning essay about this undue influence with the Bush people, that the "exposure" of some of his acquaintances "as agents of terrorism" has not "resulted in noticeable second thoughts on Grover's part or any meaningful effort to dissociate himself from his unsavory friends."

The Washington Post reports Abdurahman Alamoudi one of those "unsavory friends," a prominent leader of Northern Virginia's Muslim community, that worked closely with Norquist and provided seed money for the Institute, is currently sitting in a federal prison after being arrested in 2003 on charges of "money laundering, fraud and illegal travel in his relationships with the government of Moammar Qaddafi."

On June 11th the Post broke the story that Alamoudi was involved in a plot to assassinate Crown Prince Abd Allah of Saudi Arabia at the behest of Qaddafi.

Conservative backlash

Frank J.Gaffney Jr., a former senior Reagan Defense Department official and now President of the Center for Security Policy in Washington, has been very critical of Grover's efforts in promoting and defending his Muslim friends and is now in the middle of a very nasty dispute with his former comrade in arms.

Gaffney has been "uninvited" from the 115 member "Wednesday Group" a conservative get together, because as Grover says "there is no room for bigotry in the movement." He also asserted that Gaffeny was "rude to Muslims and made faces at them" at their meetings.

The great crime Mr. Gaffney committed was authoring an incendiary denunciation of Norquist's associates saying, "The growing influence of this operation -[The Islamic Institute] and the larger Islamist enterprise principally funded by Saudia Arabia - has created a strategic vulnerability for the nation, and a political liability for its President."

The enigma

Bizarrely, part of the reason the right wing are up in arms against Norquist is due to his undying opposition to the Patriot Act. He is a regular at People For the American Way rallies, and his work against government racial profiling and secret evidence goes back to the Clinton administration.

On September 11th 2001 a group of Muslim leaders were to meet president Bush at the White House to express displeasure on the contentious issue, but instead wound up meeting at Norquist's offices after they were turned away, for obvious reasons.

Mixed feelings

Despite his doubtless noble intentions regarding the preservation of our constitutional republic, I remember the first time that I ever heard of Grover Norquist in the late nineties. I was listening to NPR's Diane Rehm show and the subject of discussion was his advocacy of building a monument to the still living Ronald Reagan on the National Mall. I, the callers and the e-mailers were beside themselves.

One caller had the audacity to question Norquist's background and funding, at which point he went ballistic. He accused Diane Rehm's audience of being all liberals and refused to answer any more questions.

Now I see why. Why doesn't the Bush administration?

Mood:  surprised
In September, Dick Cheney asserted that Iraq had been "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

---That's the one even Bush had to admit wasn't true.

Vice President Dick Cheney said once again in a speech this Monday in Florida that Iraq: "had long-established ties with al Qaeda."

And now, guess what?

"President Bush repeated his administration's claim that Iraq was in league with al Qaeda under Saddam Hussein's rule, saying Tuesday that fugitive Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ties Saddam to the terrorist network."

But wasn't that AFTER we invaded? The fact that the guy is there now because of us doesn't mean it was right to go in before he was there. Right? Even I'm getting confused.

Well, the 9/11 commission will explain us for us...

Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3812351.stm

The commission investigating the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US has found no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped al-Qaeda carry them out.

The statement was published before the bipartisan commission began the final two-day public session.

It contradicts Monday's remarks by the US vice-president about Saddam Hussein "long-established ties" with al-Qaeda.

Iraq's alleged links with al-Qaeda were part of the justification the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq.

We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States
Commission statement said.

The 11 September attacks killed nearly 3,000 people after members of Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network flew hijacked planes into New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

A final report on the commission's findings is due on 28 July.

But preliminary statements published by the commission on a range of issues are building up into a complex picture of missed opportunities and some of it does not make pleasant reading for the Bush administration, says BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus.

Bin Laden spurned

The statement entitled Overview of the Enemy has been prepared by commission staff and contains "initial findings to present to the public on the nature of the enemy that carried out the 11 September attacks".

Outlining the roots of al-Qaeda and its activities, it said Osama Bin Laden had explored the possibility of co-operation with Iraq, despite his opposition to Saddam Hussein's secular regime.

It said a senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Bin Laden in 1994 to hear his requests for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the statement says.

It adds: "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."