Despite a strong showing from the USA’s Democratic party, and their champion Olympic Waffler John F. Kerry, Australia’s Labor party is predicted to sweep the board in the Backflip event at the next Olympics.

Under a Labor Government
* All Troops will be withdrawn by Christmas
* Except for the ones there at the moment
* Who will be definitely be withdrawn…
* ..at some unspecified time…
* Then sent back.
* Except they won’t.

As reported in a previous post, Australia’s Opposition leader, Mark Latham, has promised that under a Labor Government, Australian Troops in Iraq would be “Home By Christmas”.

Then the Opposition Defence Minister said “Not Neccessarily”. But Opposition Leader Latham re-affirmed Labor’s position the day after. The day after that, the position changed again. Then it didn’t. Or maybe it did - it’s difficult keeping track.

What may be the final act of this farce has now been played.

From News Ltd :

The Federal Opposition could support keeping Australian troops in Iraq beyond Christmas, Labor backbencher Dick Adams said today.

Right! It’s changed

Opposition Leader Mark Latham has committed a Labor government to withdrawing Australian military forces from Iraq by Christmas.

Or maybe not….

An ACNeilson Poll published in Fairfax [Rupert Murdoch’s Deadly Rival - AEB] newspapers today found 61 per cent of Australians supported keeping Australian troops in Iraq until their job was done.
[…]
Mr Adams said the Australian troops currently in Iraq were part of an occupying force and should be withdrawn but they could be replaced by Australian members of a United Nations peacekeeping force.

So Labor policy is now to withdraw all troops… only to send them back in! Brilliant Move by Labor, a Gold Medal for sure!

“When we start talking about peacekeepers and we’re talking about reconstruction, we’re talking about different things than (when) we are talking about troops that go there to fight a war,” Mr Adams said.

Of course, all the SAS and other special forces who actually did the fighting were withdrawn long ago. The people there now are all engaged in training Iraqis and rebuilding infrastructure, with a small contingent providing local security for the Australian Embassy. He can’t be as clue-free as not to know this. Can he?

He said it was also possible that Mr Latham’s Christmas deadline for bringing the troops back to Australia could be extended.

”It was a date that was given, but I think if circumstances change, circumstances change,” he said.

“… you’ve got to be flexible in that and I think our leader would be flexible in that and the party would be if things change.”

So policy has changed again. Or has it? Yes. No. Maybe. Although this flexibility sounds plausible, even praiseworthy and obvious, why didn’t they say so in the first place? Or is it that they’re just waffling…

Liberal [i.e. Government - AEB] backbencher David Jull said Labor had failed to think through its policy on Iraq.

”They’re carrying on like a pack of half-shut penknives,” he told reporters.

And not the sharpest blades in the bunch, either.

But wait, according to the ABC, they won’t be sent back after all.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says Labor is inconsistent.

”It’s just chaos, it is absolute chaos and it’s an enormous embarrassment for the Labor Party and it strikes at the very heart of Mr Latham’s integrity,” Mr Downer said.

Federal Labor leader Mark Latham denies there has been any internal division on the policy announced last week.

Mr Latham has dismissed Mr Adams’s call for Australian troops to remain in Iraq as United Nations peacekeepers.

So there’s no division, they’re just divided.

As for what Australians of Iraqi origin have to say, there’s this from the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) :

The president of the Iraqi Migrants Council in Australia, Kasim Abood, says the current debate over whether Australia should withdraw its troops is premature.

”It’s because the election is looming and each party is trying to score a point on that very important issue,” Mr Abood said.

He says while security is an important issue for the Iraqi people, the question of whether foreign troops remain should wait until Iraqis themselves can decide, once handed power is handed over at the end of June.

As soon as a reasonably representative elected government is installed, the Iraqis decide for themselves what should happen. Sounds good to me.

But one thing’s for sure: when it comes to Political Summersaults, the American Democrats take days, weeks or even months to do what Australian Labor does between the beginning and end of the day. Even the USA’s Democratic Champion took months between voting for something and voting against it.

Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi! Oi Vay, that is.

Looks like apologies are in vogue.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in [reporting on the war], a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

For a second, my heart stops. A reporter is going to apologize for the media’s one-sided, bad news only coverage of the war? I just may faint.

Well, that was too good to be true.

“The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We’re sorry,” Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

“Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell’s performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn’t bring ourselves to hold the administration’s feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

“Maybe we’ll do a better job next war.”

Mercier admitted that it was “absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post.”

I must respond to Mr. Mercier:

Perhaps because you are young, you still have that tiny shred of idealism that usually disappears by age 30 or so. Or perhaps you have been swayed by too many readings of Noam Chomsky columns.

Or perhaps you were swayed by Mr. Apology himself, Richard Clarke. Following a trend, maybe? Insincere mea culpas are the new black, I suppose.

But here’s the main thing that bothers me: your list of reasons to be sorry seem borne out of some alternate reality; perhaps a bizzaro world where the media doesn’t question the administration, write negative articles or dig for dirt when they are standing on cement.

I’ve just spent some time looking back at news articles from the past year, and it seems to me that most of the media concentrated on the bad things going on; the lack of WMDs, the slow hunt for Osama, the death toll, the despair of the Iraqi people and so on.

Judging from the hundreds upon hundreds of news stories spanning the last twelve months, what the media needs to apologize for is misleading the public into the thinking this war reached quagmire status about twelve hours in.

Even when good things did happen - for instance, the day that Baghdad fell and the statue was toppled - the media put a negative slant on every report. They tried to tell us that the statue toppling was set up. They tried to tell us that Iraqis hated us, yet there were Iraqi bloggers popping up all over the place telling us the opposite.

I could go on with many examples, the most glaring of which are the exagerrated body counts and the comparisons to Vietnam, but I think I’ve made my point.

The media should be sorry. They should apologize to the coalition soldiers from other countries who are made to feel insignificant when the media calls this war unilateral. They should apologize for the swarming coverage of anti-war protests and the complete lack of coverage of rallies for the troops. They should apologize for going out of their way to find negative statistics when good things like rebuilt schools and hospitals were staring them in the face. They should apologize for pretending as if the freedom of the Iraqi people was inconsequential given that no WMDs have yet to be found.

I really like that snide little comment about the “next war” that you managed to insert in there. That lets me know what side of this war you are on, giving your credibility on this issue a zero balance.

So, Mr. Mercier, your apology is worthless. I will, however, forward it to a bunch of Iraqi soldiers I know to see how they feel about it. In fact, I’ll forward it to all the Iraqi bloggers who have spent quite a bit of time thanking the American troops and President Bush. I’m sure the soldiers in particular will be thrilled to know that in Fredricksburg, Va., there is a small time reporter who thinks the media should have done even more to turn this country against them and make their job even more difficult than it is.

Speaking strictly for myself, I would like you to take the paper your apology was written on and stick it up your ass.

Thank you.

This is a duplicate of the original post on the nikita demosthenes weblog.

The war against Saddam Hussein was an integal part of the global war against terror. Here’s why.

Liberals and Democrats say again and again that: “The war in Iraq actaully detracted from the war against terror.”

This is false. The war in Iraq was, and is, an integral part of the war against terror. (And besides - the results flowing from the war against Iraq can be very good for the U.S. and the world without regard to the debate over their contribution to the war against terror).

Here’s why.

First, it’s worth noting that this debate has grown sad in a way. Both sides just talk past each other. Certainly, it seems that, no matter how many times the case for war against Saddam is made, liberals and Democrats pretend like they didn’t hear the case - they just ask all the same questions over again, but just pound the table a little harder each time.

The war against Saddam was crucial to the war on terror for the following reaons:

1. Prior our troops’ entry into Iraq, we knew that there was a global al Qaeda network that very much wanted to kill as many Americans as possible. (See 9-11).

2. Also prior to our troops’ entry into Iraq, it was the consensus view among the global intelligence community and the UN that Saddam had WMD that he had failed to reveal and/or destory. This was corroborated by Saddam’s own admissions. That is, Saddam listed WMD in reports to the UN after the 1990 Iraq war which WMD he never accounted for.

So the situation faced by the Bush Administration post-9-11 was a global al Qaeda network plus a nation-state (Iraq) that admittedly had WMD (and which all global intelligence agencies able to opine on the topic agreed had WMD).

So the Bush Administration fairly asked, “What is the threat we need to be most worried about?” A fair answer to that question was: “The threat that Saddam will give or sell (using bin Laden’s fortune) WMD to al Qaeda for use against the U.S.

Was this a risk to be taken seriously? The answer is “yes” for several reasons.

First, Saddam had tried to assassinate President GHW Bush. Bill Clinton had responded to this remarkable attempt by Saddam to decapitate the U.S. Government in a perfunctory way - by shooting a single closely-targeted missle into Iraq. This one-shot response caused little to no harm to Saddam or his regime.

So the idea that Saddam might undertake an aggressive act harmful to the U.S. (e.g., sell or simply give Iraqi WMD to al Qaeda for use against the U.S.) was not farfetched.

Second, the type of danger posed by these 2 threats potentially connecting - the al Qaeda network plus WMD in the hands of a Stalinist dictator like Saddam - was very great. In other words, a small amount of biological, chemical or nuclear material given to al Qaeda by Saddam could create a horrific result in an American city - dwarfing the carnage of 9-11.

The point of the above is that the fear that al Qaeda and Saddam would work in concert in some manner was not unreasonable. The additional point is that, even a very small chance that they would work in concert was still unacceptable - because the potential harm to the US was so potentially huge. (For example, release of a small amount of chemical agent like ricin into the NY City water suppy could kill thousands or more).

Thus, the Bush Administration gave Saddam an ultimatum and, when he didn’t meet it, our troops went in.

The way the above-discussed war against Iraq helped the war on terror was by quite literally addressing a grave terror threat that faced the nation: the danger that al Qaeda and Saddam would work in concert vis-a-vis Iraqi WMD.

The fact that this danger appears to have been less threatening after our troops entered Iraq than it did before our troops entered Iraq does not mean it wasn’t a legitimate national security concern for the Bush Administration at the time - for the above-discussed reasons.

So - as part of the war on terror - based on the intelligence we (and the rest of the world) had at the time, we went into Iraq.

To say that the war in Iraq did not help the war on terror is to engage in the most transparent kind of 20-20 hindsight. If we could have been certain prior to going into Iraq that Saddam had no WMD and/or that he wouldn’t work in concert with al Qaeda to harm the U.S. - then we wouldn’t have gone into Iraq. We didn’t have the luxury of that knowledge at the time, though.

And, certainly, if Saddam and al Qaeda working in concert HAD put ricin into the N.Y. City water suppy, or otherwise harmed or killed Americans, John F. Kerry and his ilk would be the first to be saying …”G.W. Bush should have invaded Iraq before this happened.”

Also, a democracy in Iraq will, over the long-run, help put pressue on the Middle-East’s tyrannical states to democracize. This process will reduce threats to the U.S. This result is being seen today in pressure exerted internally on the Syrian government by its citizens for more indivdual liberties and press freedoms.

Finally - a point that it’s surprising Democrats don’t get - promoting freedom and democracy in former dictatorships like Iraq is a good in-and-of-itself - without regard to any debate we may have on its affect on the war on terror. (In effect, the “how did it help the war on terror” is a false dichotomy the Democrats are creating; we as a country can and do undertake many actions that may or may not directly help the war on terror - but are beneficial to us and the world all the same).

George W. Bush has liberated over 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq. 50 million! This is a very great good. Liberals like John F. Kerry are missing the forest for the trees.

Is the War on Terror really a war between the West (or at least some parts of the West) and Islam? Do the terrorists speak the true thoughts and aspirations of Muslims around the world? And can Westerners speak freely about the limitations of Islamic societies? This is a sensitive and complex topic. My hope here is to begin a thoughtful discussion about the role that religion plays in international affairs and how that role may impact us all in the 21st century. The issue goes well beyond Islam.

Last week the former (Anglican) Archbishop of Canterbury spoke out regarding Islamic culture, saying it was authoritarian, inflexible and under-achieving:

“[Lord Carey] acknowledged that most Muslims were peaceful people who should not be demonised. But he said that terrorist acts such as the September 11 attacks on America and the Madrid bombings raised difficult questions.

Read The Rest…

[The following editorial originally appeared here and is reprinted with persmission of the author]

RICE AND THE UPCOMING 60 MINUTES INTERVIEW
By Joe Gandleman

Partisan storm clouds are in place for political lightning over National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice, in the ongoing clamor for her to testify publicly under oath in the Congressional 911 hearings, the White House refusal to allow her to do so, and her high-profile 60 Minutes interview Sunday night.
—-Like everything else in Campaign 2004, this issue has become highly polarized. If you make the slightest criticism of Rice, you are pigeon-holed as anti-Bush. If you defend her in the slightest way, you’re a Bush supporter.
—-A few things:
—-1. SHE HAS A SUPERB REPUTATION. Before George Bush was elected, two academics who don’t know each other personally told me that they wanted Bush elected BECAUSE OF Rice: they knew Rice and described her to me as a person with impeccable credentials, a superb intellect, a delight to deal with personally, and someone with lots of integrity. They felt the U.S. would be in skilled hands if Bush won and she played a role in the administration. These are prominent academics in their field. This was before she became well-known; their zeal about having someone like her in the government was NOT due to political agreement but academic and intellectual admiration.
—-2. EARTH TO THOSE IN DENIAL…THERE IS INDEED A MAJOR CONTROVERSY SWIRLING HERE: There is precedent for a White House refusing to let a National Security advisor testify publicly under oath. And the case can also be made that the White House argument is a flawed case and that other top officials have been allowed to testify publicly under oath under other administrations in the past.
—- While on the road this week. we received comments suggesting that somehow The Moderate Voice was part of a media/Democrat conspiracy, that there was no controversy about her testifying and that she already had. One suggested we get “our facts straight.” A reporter for Insight Magazine even wrote a letter to the readers using that same phrase, blasting the media.
—-So we did a quick internet news search and here are the facts: She testified privately before commission members, and got extremely high marks. Many of those who support the White House position especially want to have her talk in public under oath (like former terrorism Czar Richard Clarke did) .
—-So, YES, this battle over sworn testimony definitely is a BIG, fat, authentic controversial issue.
—-To those who still insist anyone who mentions a controversy is either making it up or a closet Bush hater, just check a few places on the internet like this and this and this and this and this and this. And there are lots more, like this. Even this and also this.
—-Clearly, this very quick medley of links above — from the editorial, to the news report, to the downright anti-Bush — indicates there is indeed a definite controversy out there that the White House must defuse because it’s giving critics ammunition. And although none of these analysts and reporters above epitomize TRUE PERFECTION, the bottom line is: the storm clouds have gathered for months and 60 Minutes will likely the the catalyst that will cause them to burst.
—-Also: those who suggested this is a non-issue and only Democrats want her to talk should go this link and you’ll see how Senate Majority Bill Frist wants Rice to testify as well (he MUST be a closet Democrat or Bush hater or on the media elite’s payroll…). So does Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas Kean (another person who must be out to get Bush and is an agent of the New York Times and Katie Couric…)
—-3. THE WHITE HOUSE IS SHOOTING ITSELF IN THE FOOT: There have been exceptions made by Presidents to allow top security officials to testify publicly under oath. At this point it’s irrelevant what the reasons were…the fact is, there have been instances where other presidents ALLOWED IT.
—-If she testifies the Republic will survive and the White House will remove a potential credibility stumbling block that Democrats could use to win swing voter support.
—-4. SHE IS A CHARISMATIC INDIVIDUAL WITH A BRIGHT FUTURE: You’d think the White House would want Rice to be talking under oath, getting massive international media coverage, presenting not only its case for its 911 efforts — and case against Clarke’s testimony — but also use the testimony to profile a true rising Republican star.
—-5. THE WHITE HOUSE HAS HURT ITS OWN ARGUMENT BY RAISING HER PROFILE: She has been on CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX and now comes 60 Minutes. It seems the only network she has not appeared on is Cartoon Network.
—- A friend emailed me this NEW JOKE (not a good sign): “AT&T is marketing a new Condi Rice public telephone. You can get information by dialing ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX but you can’t get information if you dial 911.”
—-If she’s on every network and on 60 Minutes refuting former terrorism Czar Richard Clarke but won’t appear before the commission in public and under oath what is the net difference? All of her public appearances are brief ones and not under oath. Who testified under oath? Clarke…and he’s the one GOPers are now suggesting just might have committed perjury. No one can accuse Rice of that…since she hasn’t testified publicly under oath.
—- To someone who doesn’t belong to either party, it seems as if oaths and perjury are vital values to the GOP, but not always. The are exceptions, except of course in cases that involve executive privilege …although there are cases that show there HAVE been exceptions made in executive privilege..(Oh. Now I see the consistency…????)
—-6: OVERALL: The White House is suppressing one of its best voices, prominent policy intellects, and appealing future stars — and by not letting her testify under oath makes it seem as if they’re afraid to have her give sworn testimony in front of the country. She can testify on 60 Minutes…but Mike Wallace doesn’t require an oath (if he did that would probably mean spiking 60 percent of their stories and 90 percent of the “sources say” reporters’ statements).
—-7. IMPACT ON THE CAMPAIGN: No matter what she says or how effective it is, no matter how many more hours of private testimony she gives the commission, it won’t be the SAME as sworn public testimony under oath — and the Democrats will have a potent issue.
—-You can already see John Kerry leaping on this political gift to his sagging campaign in this statement: “If Condoleezza Rice can find time to do `60 Minutes’ on television before the American people, she ought to find 60 minutes to speak to the commission under oath,” Kerry told reporters. “We’re talking about the security of our country.. Certainly we can find a way to respect executive privilege, not to have it be an opening to the door, but nevertheless to accomplish America’s needs to protect the security of our country.”
—-All this political verbiage means is: “Thank You White House lawyers for this opening that will be featured in our ads and speeches in the future!”
—-Bottom line: Condi Rice unrestricted is the best defense for Condi Rice and the administration. White House lawyering will only hurt Rice and a Bush re-election campaign relying on the issue of his anti-terrorism leadership qualities. 60 Minutes won’t erase the sworn public testimony issue; sworn public testimony will.

Joe Gandelman is former Madrid-base Correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor

Um, dude - lying under oath to Congress is, like, really frowned-upon. And I think you’re about to find out the hard way.

Lying under oath to Congress is especially frowned-upon when you do it in a self-interested, cover-your-ass, self-rightous, cash-in-on-your-own-failures kind of way - like you did. You’re the poster-child of the new blogospheric term: “self-fisking.” (And - no - it’s not a compliment).

You, Mr. Clarke, had more to do with America’s national security lapses vis-a-vis al Qaeda during the 1990’s than any other person alive. Your ham-handed attempt to CYA at this late date is transparent, desparate … and not working.

Richard A. Clarke, you get the Chutzpah Award indeed:

- - - - - - -

It is only March, but the 2004 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for Sept. 11 — after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.

The 1990s were al Qaeda’s springtime: Blissfully unmolested in Afghanistan, it trained, indoctrinated, armed and, most fatally, planned. For the United States, this was a catastrophic lapse, and in a March 2002 interview on PBS’s “Frontline,” Clarke admitted as much: “I believe that, had we destroyed the terrorist camps in Afghanistan earlier, that the conveyor belt that was producing terrorists, sending them out around the world would have been destroyed.” Instead, “now we have to hunt [them] down country by country.”

What should we have done during those lost years? Clarke answered: “Blow up the camps and take out their sanctuary. Eliminate their safe haven, eliminate their infrastructure. . . . That’s . . . the one thing in retrospect I wish had happened.”

It did not. And who was president? Bill Clinton. Who was the Clinton administration’s top counterterrorism official? Clarke.

- - - - - - -

As Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified, three times the CIA was ready with plans to assassinate Osama bin Laden. Every time, Clinton stood them down, because “we’re not quite sure.”

We’re not quite sure — a fitting epitaph for the Clinton anti-terrorism policy. They were also not quite sure about taking bin Laden when Sudan offered him up on a silver platter in 1996. The Clinton people turned Sudan down, citing legal reasons.

The “Frontline” interviewer asked Clarke whether failing to blow up the camps and take out the Afghan sanctuary was a “pretty basic mistake.”

- - - - - - -

“Pretty basic mistake.” CYA. And John F-word Kerry is the “Real Deal.”

How ironic. These guys are all bush-league.

This is a duplicate of the original post at the nikita demosthenes website.

[ This editorial was written by Wayne Fielder and originally appeared here. It is reprinted with permission of the author]

We have an interesting combination of items in the news these days. We have Richard Clarke’s book hitting the shelves and the 9/11 Commission hearings at the same time. Nice scheduling there Mr. Clarke!

We’ve all seen the news and have some idea as to what has been said at the Commission hearings and about Mr. Clarke’s book so you won’t find quotes here.

What I’m seeing here is a Government trying to place blame for the attacks. Obviously, as Michele points out, Al Queda and Bin Laden is to blame but there are some lingering questions we should ask to make sure this thing doesn’t happen again. Thankfully, the Bush administration already asked those questions. Questions like why wasn’t the FBI and CIA sharing information more eagerly and why is there such a back log of SigInt at NSA. The President put together the Homeland Security Department to ride herd on the boys and girls at the FBI, CIA, and NSA. But, alas, it is an election year so we have to draw this thing out for a while and try to find some political blood in the wreckage. The discussion in and out of the hearing chamber has been very enlightening.

There are some folks, like Richard Clarke, that are claiming the Bush Administration did nothing to protect those 3000 folks who died on 9/11. Mr. Clarke has said made this administration out to be the whipping “boy” for all things terror related. Heaven knows President Clinton did all he could to put down Bin Laden, right? Sure! and I’m serious about that.

You see, what is now politically possible wasn’t politically possible on September 10th, 2001 and it has nothing to do with who’s butt is sitting in the Oval Office. Had President Clinton given the Taliban the 48 hour ultimatum he would have been the subject of international ridicule. Had President Clinton went on national TV after the USS Cole bombing and said, “Every nation must now choose…” he would have been laughed off the World Stage. Yes, it is true that Sudan offered Bin Laden to us and the fact we didn’t take him is something we can debate for years to come because, as the saying goes, hindsite is indeed 20/20. Especially when the field of view has been cleared of the debris from WTC, the Pentagon, and that field in Pennsylvania.

This jaw flapping will continue in the 9/11 Commission hearings. A big book will be written to share the shelves with the other great investigative commissions our country has endured. The newsies, bloggers, and pundits will have lots of fodder to chat about for years to come. The extreme political left and right will blame the heroes of the other side and we will all get excited..then irritated…then angry. The fact of the matter is that on 9/11 EVERYTHING changed for us from the way we view the Middle East, to the way we consider our neighbors who happen to be Muslim, to the way our Government handles Foreign Affairs. We can’t look back and play what if games because the world was a much different place then.

At 7am EDT on September 11th 2001, no President could demand a country turn over a single man. After 10am EDT on September 11th 2001, ANY President can demand a country turn over a single man if that man was involved with a terrorist incident.

Wayne Fielder writes at Confessions of a Pilgrim

I thought I would take the liberty (because I can) of re-printing Alan E Brain’s editorial from June of 2003 - Hamas in their own Words.

Now that Hamas is in the news more than ever, this piece might help people who are unfamiliar with this particular group gain an understanding of who they are.

HAMAS IN THEIR OWN WORDS
By Alan E. Brain for The Command Post

Many people (myself included) have wondered about the nature of Hamas, whose leaders are now officially targets for the IDF. Recently, I found (courtesy of Yale University’s Avalon Project) the “Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement”, otherwise known as the Hamas Covenant, which clearly states the nature of the organisation, its aims and aspirations.

It contains things that surprise me, but in retrospect shouldn’t have. (Not for the first time - I was aghast when I found out that Itzak Shamir, ex-PM of Israel, once headed a group that proposed an alliance with the Nazis against the British). No-one really believed what Adolph Hitler said in Mein Kampf until he started to implement the Endlosung, the “Final Solution”. Think the comparison is invalid (as I tend to do when anyone ever starts talking about Nazis)? Read on, to find out exactly what Hamas’s beliefs and aims are.

WARNING : May be offensive to Freemasons, Rotarians, members of the Lions Club, and other tools of the International Zionist Conspiracy (just read it, OK? I can’t make this stuff up.

Some quotes;

Article Two:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern times.

So while “Moslem Brotherhood” and “Hamas” are not synonyms, Hamas is part of the Moslem Brotherhood - support for it is support for Hamas.

Article Eight:
Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its constitution: Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.

Taken literally, this would lead to Hamas members becoming Human Bombs to kill unbelievers. Hmm, I guess we do have to take this document’s words literally, no matter how unbelievable. OK….

Article Six:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned….

Given the situation where Sharia law is practiced, I have grave misgivings about the truth of this proposition, but at least the intent is relatively sane and rational.

Article Seven:
…

“The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.”

(related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

You know what I said about “sane and rational”? I take it all back. Still, you can find equally crazy things in the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavid-Ghita etc etc. But these people take it literally.

Article Ten:
As the Islamic Resistance Movement paves its way, it will back the oppressed and support the wronged with all its might. It will spare no effort to bring about justice and defeat injustice, in word and deed, in this place and everywhere it can reach and have influence therein.

More rationality, few could quarrel with these words as worthy objectives.

Article Eleven:
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.
…
This is the law governing the land of Palestine in the Islamic Sharia (law) and the same goes for any land the Moslems have conquered by force, because during the times of (Islamic) conquests, the Moslems consecrated these lands to Moslem generations till the Day of Judgement.

This includes Spain, France as far north as Tours, India, and all parts of Europe east of Vienna. Osama Bin Laden is not alone in not accepting the “Tragedy of Andalucia” as he put it in one of his tapes, and so will continue to fight as long as Spain remains outside of the Caliphate. Hamas says they will do likewise, unless this translation is erroneous.

Article Twelve:
Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed. Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Moslem, male or female. A woman can go out to fight the enemy without her husband’s permission, and so does the slave: without his master’s permission.

An interesting section from a Feminist perespective : to praise because it gives the Right of Women to blow themselves up (as long as they kill unbelievers), or to condemn because it portrays women as slaves? To an old Abolitionist like me, any slavery is odious, whether it be due to gender or otherwise, and I don’t value the right to become human dynamite very highly.

Article Thirteen:
Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement….

OK, so they’re being consistent. Peace is impossible as long as Hamas exists(and Israel, Spain, and India aren’t under Sharia law). Rigghhht.

Article Fifteen:

…It is necessary that scientists, educators and teachers, information and media people, as well as the educated masses, especially the youth and sheikhs of the Islamic movements, should take part in the operation of awakening (the masses). It is important that basic changes be made in the school curriculum, to cleanse it of the traces of ideological invasion that affected it as a result of the orientalists and missionaries who infiltrated the region following the defeat of the Crusaders at the hands of Salah el-Din (Saladin). The Crusaders realised that it was impossible to defeat the Moslems without first having ideological invasion pave the way by upsetting their thoughts, disfiguring their heritage and violating their ideals. Only then could they invade with soldiers.

So the Renanaissance, the Enlightenment, in fact all of Western Civilisation is all just a plot, hatched over 8 centuries, to win the Crusades. Damn Cunning, these Fiendish Occidentals! These people really believe this….

Article Seventeen:
The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.

So Feminists, Rotarians, and Freemasons are all part of the International Zionist Conspiracy. Sorry, my bogglemeter just pegged at maximum. I’m not playing Illuminati, these people are For Real.

Article Nineteen:

…All this is utterly serious and no jest, for those who are fighters do not jest.

Believe me, we’re not laughing. there’s nothing funny about Psychopathic Insanity and serial Killers.

Article Twenty:

…The society that confronts a vicious enemy which acts in a way similar to Nazism, making no differentiation between man and woman, between children and old people - such a society is entitled to this Islamic spirit. Our enemy relies on the methods of collective punishment. He has deprived people of their homeland and properties, pursued them in their places of exile and gathering, breaking bones, shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason. The enemy has opened detention camps where thousands and thousands of people are thrown and kept under sub-human conditions. Added to this, are the demolition of houses, rendering children orphans, meting cruel sentences against thousands of young people, and causing them to spend the best years of their lives in the dungeons of prisons.
In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder.

Such sub-human conditions that the 750,000 Palestinians that left Israel, some “ethnically cleansed” by Jewish terrorists, some just temporarily vacationing until the victorious Arab Armies killed all the Jews, have now grown to 4 millions. There’s no mention of the similar number of Jews in the surrounding Arab countries that were forcibly deported, or sometimes just exterminated. To compare the survivors of the Holocaust with the perpetrators of it is a classic case of “blaming the victim”. What are suicide bombings against civilians but a classic case of “collective punishment” and “shooting at women, children and old people, with or without a reason.” There’s still more than just a smidgeon of justice in what they say though.

Article Twenty-Two:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.
You may speak as much as you want about regional and world wars. They were behind World War I, when they were able to destroy the Islamic Caliphate, making financial gains and controlling resources. They obtained the Balfour Declaration, formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains by trading in armaments, and paved the way for the establishment of their state. It was they who instigated the replacement of the League of Nations with the United Nations and the Security Council to enable them to rule the world through them. There is no war going on anywhere, without having their finger in it.

Ummmmmm…… Genuine Moonbats. we’re talking serious reality dysfunction and derangement here. Any moment now they’ll start babbling on about the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”.

Article Twenty-Eight:
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

So the International Zionists control the UN, the drug trade, the alcohol industry, the Freemasons, Lions, Rotarians… and it’s all a part of an 800 year plot by the Crusaders.

Article Thirty-One:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is a humanistic movement. It takes care of human rights and is guided by Islamic tolerance when dealing with the followers of other religions.

<sarcasm>Whew! That’s a relief!></sarcasm>

It does not antagonize anyone of them except if it is antagonized by it or stands in its way to hamper its moves and waste its efforts.

In other words, do what we say, ad no-one gets hurt.

Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions - Islam, Christianity and Judaism - to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Peace and quiet would not be possible except under the wing of Islam. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

As for Hindus or Buddhists - they don’t count.

It is the duty of the followers of other religions to stop disputing the sovereignty of Islam in this region, because the day these followers should take over there will be nothing but carnage, displacement and terror. Everyone of them is at variance with his fellow-religionists, not to speak about followers of other religionists. Past and present history are full of examples to prove this fact.

We are the Master Race - er - Religion, destined to rule all Untermenschen - er - inferior religions, in a Thousand Year Reich - er - Caliphate.

Article Thirty-Two:
…The Zionist plan is limitless. After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

There! Told you the good old Protocols would be making an appearance.

Summary:

• Islam is the Master Religion, it is the duty of all other religions to peacefully submit to co-existence under the benevolent rule of Islam
• Spain, Most of France, Israel, Europe east of Vienna, and India should be under Sharia Law
• Until this is achieved, in full and in every particular, there can be no Peace
• And any violence (as well as the French and Russian Revolutions, WW I and WW II) is all the fault of the Zionists, and their puppets, the Freemason, Rotarians, Lions Club, and 800-year-old Crusader Conspiracy against Islam

There’s always a danger in any article quoting from another that parts may be taken out of context, that the lilly may end up being gilded. So rather than take my word for it, read what the original article actually says - then tell me where I’ve gone wrong with my interpretation. Because if I’ve got it right, then this organisation must be destroyed, root and branch, purely as a matter of self-defence. Especially if you’re a Freemason, Rotarian or Lion.

________

And there you have it. Discuss as needed.

Worried about the U.S. Patriot Act? Then don’t go to Europe. There journalists can be arrested, interrogated, and all their files taken (including all their confidential sources), and IT’S ALL LEGAL.

This is what happened to Hans-Martin Tillack, Brussels editor of the German news weekly Die Stern.

Fainting in Coyles weblog has been watching what happens when there is no First Amendment.

Per the EU Observer, for example:

- - - - - - -

Under Belgian law, a lawyer is not allowed to be present during questioning on the first day of police custody, said Mr Tillack’s lawyer.

- - - - - - -

The Faining in Coyles weblog has been reporting on this sorry spectacle of lack of freedom in the heart of Europe.

See Terrance’s reports starting here (“This is scary”). The latest report is here (“Hans-Martin Tillack update”). Scroll down to follow this sad example of what happens when there’s no First Amendment.

This is a duplicate of the original post from the nikita demosthenes weblog.

Per Clinton Administration diplomat Mansoor Ijaz:

- - - - - - -

Clinton administration diplomatic troubleshooter Mansoor Ijaz charged Monday that one-time White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke blocked efforts to gather intelligence on al Qaeda and torpedoed a deal to have Osama bin Laden extradited from Afghanistan in the years before the 9/11 attacks.

“I was personally asked to brief Condoleezza Rice’s deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on exactly what had gone wrong in the previous efforts to get bin Laden out of the Sudan, to get the terrorism data out of the Sudan, which I negotiated the offer for,” Ijaz told Fox News Channel’s “Fox & Friends.”

He said he also personally negotiated an deal “to get bin Laden out of Afghanistan in the spring and summer of 2000, using at Abu Dhabi Royal Family as a proxy to get him out on an extradition offer.”

But Ijaz told Fox:

“In each case of things that were involved in the Clinton administration, Richard Clarke himself stepped in and blocked the efforts that were being made over and over and over again.”

- - - - - - -

Via the Little Green Footballs weblog.

This is a duplicate of the original post at the nikita demosthenes weblog.

Imagine you are running for President. You have asked for Secret Service protection just in case some lunatic takes a shot at you. You have been campaigning hard and have wrapped up your party’s nomination. So you take a much needed vacation that you expect will provide some nice photo ops. You are a good snowboarder, so you invite the media along to admire your prowess. Most of them hate the current president, so they’ll make you look good unless you do something really stupid. Then it happens.

A secret service agent cuts in front of you and you go tumbling. This should not be a big deal, reporters say you fell at least six times during the day. But you wanted to look in control, a hip sixty-something, perfect. You know, you wanted to look presidential. So you tell the reporters “I don’t fall down. The son of a bitch knocked me over.”

Never mind the fact that you have reinforced your reputation of being a vulgar man. Many Americans use profanity and your base will certainly overlook that. However, you just publicly insulted one of men responsible for protecting your life. This man is expected to jump in front of a bullet for you. In the remote chance anyone decides you are worth killing, you have now reduced the Secret Service agents’ motivation for placing your welfare above their own. Your lack of judgment is astounding. And you expect voters to give you responsibility for our well being. Senator Kerry, I am not that stupid.

This story was put together from accounts I heard on television, but you can find some details at Drudge.

Richard A. Clarke - Bill Clinton’s counter-terror point man on the National Security Council - has made some serious charges against the Bush Administration. In his new book, “Against All Enemies,” Clark alleges that President Bush tried to find a 9-11 - Saddam link where there was none. Based on these charges, Clarke was the star of a segment on 60 Minutes.

Yet many other commentators have noted the hollowness of such charges coming from a member of the Clinton Administration - especially Richard A. Clarke.

1. Clarke’s legacy - as a public official - of acurately focusing the nation’s resources on the correct set of threats was dismal, as noted by George Smith in his article, “Richard Clarke’s Legacy of Miscalculation.”

2. Democratic Senator Joseph Lieberman has denied that there is any basis for Clarke’s allegations.

3. National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice has denied the allegations.

4. The Drudge Report notes that CBS - in a serious breach of journalistic ethics - has helped promote Clarke’s book without revelaing CBS’s financial stake in the project.

5. FrontPage.com has generally discussed the hypocrisy of a Clinton national security staffer leveling charges at anyone:

- - - - - - -

Richard Clarke is a bitter, discredited bureaucrat who was an integral part of the Clinton administration’s failed approach to terrorism, was demoted by President Bush, and is now an adjunct to John Kerry’s presidential campaign.

- - - - - - -

Luckily, through the blogosphere, the fact that Richard A. Clarke is a fraud can now be revealed.

Via Instapundit.

This is a duplicate of the original post at the nikita demosthenes website. See, also, the commentary at Lucianne.com.

Update: See, also, the discussion at Tacitus.

Update: Jimmy Carter decries the liberation of 50 million Muslims from rape and torture under the Taliban and Saddam Hussein dictatorships. Compare this post from The Command Post archives.

Meanwhile, Clarke, Clinton and Kerry apologists attack your humble blogger at the John Kerry for President blog and at Atrios.

by Gabriel Gonzalez (Paris, France)

After reading Kenneth Timmerman’s condemnation of France in his recent article “The French War For Oil”, and my own recent article “From Madrid to Paris,” some commentators have expressed the view that France is just an ordinary country defending its interests and is no different than any other country, including the U.S. Indeed, for some in the anti-war camp France is even assumed to be necessarily a morally superior nation.

This view is so thoroughly ignorant of French foreign policy realities that it should really be put to rest once and for all.

Read The Rest…

By MJ Sheppard

I was very reluctantly for the war in Iraq. I was well aware of the problems the aftermath would present to the U.S as an occupying power and, if anything, I overestimated the number of casualties that American forces would sustain in combat. In conversations that I had in the 18 months before operations began, I said that the U.S could sustain upwards of 5,000 dead. As I write this, the number is slightly over one-tenth of that.

My support of the war arose from its inevitability. Given the continuing conduct of the Iraqi regime and its continuing non-compliance with the provisions of the cease-fire agreement it signed in March of 1991 and later ratified in several United Nations Security Council resolutions, this war had to happen at some point. As everyone knows, the ’91 Gulf War ended through a cease-fire NOT a peace treaty. Therefore, as is still true with North Korea, the United Nations was still in a state of war with Iraq. For Saddam Hussein to continue ignoring multiple resolutions of the Security Council and the conditions of the cease-fire calls into question the purpose of the U.N itself.

On the matter of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), it should be remembered that everyone was in agreement that Iraq was in continued possession of them. This includes the most passionate critics of the war such as France, Germany, Russia and Howard Dean. Insofar as John Kerry believes anything, he was certain of the existence of WMD in Iraq and voted for the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act on those grounds. For the Bush administration to predicate the war on WMD was a disastrous mistake and one that only fed the cynicism of the war’s opponents. A much better case for war would have been Saddam’s continuing abrogation of his commitments to the international community, or the threat that his having such weapons continued to pose to both his neighbours and the autonomous Kurdish region within his own country. At no time did serious people ever believe that Iraq’s WMD posed a direct threat to the American homeland. Nor did anyone seriously believe that Iraq was an operational collaborator with al-Qaeda.

Those who opposed the war implored the administration to continue to leave the U.N sanctions in place. Yet many of those same critics decried the sanctions as unduly targeting the Iraqi people. The United Nations itself estimated that the sanctions were responsible for the deaths of some 500,000 Iraqi civilians.

President Bush, however, did predicate the war on the imminent threat of WMD and suffers the political consequences of that decision today. The administration concedes an “intelligence failure” but still stands behind the premise of the war. The problem with the opposition of the Democratic Party to American reliance on this intelligence is that it overlooks the fact that said failure was not contained to the CIA. The intelligence services of Britain, France, Germany and Russia all came to similar conclusions over the course of the previous 13 years. The Iraqi government itself did nothing to correct that misimpression. It is my belief that the Iraqis desired the world to continue to fear its possible possession of WMD for the strategic purpose of intimidating its neighbours, particularly Kuwait.
One should also remember that much of the same evidence that the Bush administration cited in its case for war was also the predicate for Operation Desert Fox, launched in 1998 on the eve of President Clinton’s impeachment by the House of Representatives. In a speech to the nation Clinton clearly stated that the operation was launched because of Iraq’s intransigence with weapons inspectors and the threat that WMD posed. For the most part, this is the same intelligence that Bush relied upon and very probably originated from the same sources.

The president’s Democratic critics, however, have chosen to ignore the consistency of the faulty intelligence and have asserted that Bush has “mislead” and “lied” to the American people in his drive to war. There is no power more grave than a president’s ability to make war. As I have noted before, most analysts felt that the 2003 war on Iraq could well have sustained between 5,000 to 10,000 dead servicemen and women. If the Democrats wish to assert that President Bush knowingly and with malice aforethought deceived the American people and therefore endangered thousands of lives in doing so, then they are suggesting that this president is guilty of a war crime at most and an impeachable offence at minimum. Accordingly, if Senator Kerry truly believes that this assertion, then it is his moral and constitutional obligation to call for the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives to begin an impeachment inquiry against President George Walker Bush. The fact that he has not done so belies the fact that this is mere campaign rhetoric. If Kerry honestly believes that Bush has committed what most people would agree is a High Crime and Misdemeanor and does not call for the impeachment of the president, he is in violation of his own oath to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.” The president would do well to point this out during his campaign for re-election. In short, he should call for his own impeachment and note that failure to do so exposes that the Democrats are “playing politics” with national security.

The Republican Party should welcome a debate on executive reliance on intelligence agencies. Any such debate would allow for the exploration of what intelligence the Clinton administration exploited in the 1998 bombing of Iraq, and perhaps even the 1994 bombing conducted weeks before the disastrous Congressional elections. As the Democrats continue to point out, the Kay Report asserts that there is no evidence that there were WMD in Iraq after 1994. They cannot have it both ways. Either Presidents Bush and Clinton manipulated intelligence for political purposes, or neither did. Bush/Cheney ‘04 can make no wiser political move than to expose the cynicism of Kerry’s position. The president should stand up and say, “If my congressional opponents firmly believe that I knowingly endangered the security of the United States for political purposes, the constitution makes their recourse clear. I am, in effect, being accused of treason. If they believe that I betrayed my country and my oath of office, they have no choice but to begin the process of impeachment. If they do not, then the voters can infer what their true motivations are in making such a charge.”

At a minimum, the president can elevate the campaign by challenging his opposition and inoculate himself from potentially damaging charges during a campaign. At maximum, there actually will be congressional hearings that will get to the root causes of intelligence failures over the past decade. In any event, the presidency and the national security apparatus of the United States will be better for it.

MJ Sheppard is an aspiring writer with strong interests in American politics and International affairs. He lives in Toronto, Ontario.

From my e-mail archives:

From: “Alan and Carmel Brain” <aebrain@webone.com.au>
To: <michele@asmallvictory.net>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:11 PM
Subject: Request to Blog

Dunno if I qualify - I’ve commented on a lot of blogs,
but don’t have one of my own. Yet.

But I would like to contribute to commandpost.

Alan & Carmel Brain
mailto:aebrain@webone.com.au

Again, from the archive:

From: “Michele” <email.address.suppressed>
To: “Alan and Carmel Brain” <aebrain@webone.com.au>
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 10:57 PM
Subject: Re: Request to Blog

Alan,
You’re in. An invite email is on the way. If you need any help working Blogger, just let me know.

That was it.

At the time, I knew absolutely nothing, ga nichts, blogger all, about blogging. (Some say this hasn’t changed). A.E.Brain, my Blog didn’t start up till much later, when I found I had more to say than would be relevant to TCP.

But in the process, I learnt something. Alan and Michele were very encouraging to this clueless newbie, gently steering me straight when I deviated from the guidelines, but never in a way that left me feeling chastised. A few “attaboys” go a long way, and I got more than my share from them, despite the hectic pace they were operating at. As Team Leaders, they shone.

I got to be, if not a participant, then a diarist of history. When Saddam’s statue fell, my post on the subject “..and the crowd goes Wild!” was on the net within 20 seconds of it happening (we beat pretty much all the mainstream media, sometime by minutes, sometimes by hours on that one). When the BBC World telecast started, I told my wife Carmel “What they need is an armoured recovery vehicle.” and started blogging it. As soon as I saw that big old M-88, I knew what was about to happen, and it was every bit as enthralling as I expected. A moment in history that will long be remembered. (hmm.. I hope the guy who called in the M-88 got appropriate recognition).

Australia being one of the original “Coalition of the Willing”, or as John F Kerry puts it, “The Bribed, the Bought, the Coerced and the Extorted” (Don’t you love this guy’s nuanced, subtle diplomatic language?), I thought I’d make sure that in this allied action, Australia’s contribution wouldn’t be completely overlooked.

(Quick Quiz: How many readers knew that Australia was a US ally in Vietnam? Or that in World War I, the first American troops in Europe were brigaded with, and trained by, Australians, all under Australian command?)

As it turned out, the time zones worked for me. Events in Baghdad in the morning ocurred in Australia’s early afternoon, while most of America was sleeping, or just going to bed. I often had 6 or more hours of reports and expert analysis to sift through and post, well before any US blogger not suffering from insomnia got around to it. At really hectic times, I’d often be “manning the post” till after midnight local time, until Michele, Alan or other contributors came “on-line” and took over. We had 24/7 coverage, often duplicated by posters in Europe or Israel.

There have been times when I’ve been heartsick - such as when reporting the ever-increasing deathtoll in Madrid. There’ve been times when I was elated, such as when reporting the capture of Saddam. I’ve tried to report not just the successes, but the setbacks too. In fact, I’ve put more emphasis on reporting analysis I didn’t agree with, to try to balance my very pro-War stance. My objectivity hasn’t always been what it might have been, and for that I apologise. (So dock my pay for it.). Remember that, despite all appearances to the contrary, we’re not some high-priced clipping service. TCP is free, as in beer, and the contributors get paid nothing, nada, zilch, tiddley-squat. Given the less-than-stellar objectivity shown by major mainstream media, from Fox through to the New York Times, I think we did pretty well.

If nothing else, I must have increased the overseas readership of The Australian and the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not the US TV network, Dammit!) significantly. Not that the b*stards have hit my tip-jar, the sods. <grin>

To the many who’ve given me bouquets in the comments section, my grateful thanks. To the few that have given me well-aimed painfully truthful brickbats, my thanks doubled. To all my readers, hope I’ve been useful.

And to Alan and Michele who did all the hard work… Onya mates.

This birthday post comes from TCP reader Jeff MacMillan.

***********************************

I went through a period of abject, political, lonliness when I first attended college. During my freshman year, I made liberal friends and they remained my friends throughout the years. However, I could never find a conservative for three years straight. There wasn’t a College Republicans group on campus. I had to sit and cringe at the liberal perspective from students, teachers, and professors for three years. I was astonished to see so many liberals in one place. It was like walking into Caesarland only to be swarmed by 72 kids (Caesarland is a children’s pizza, playground. I used to work there, long ago.).

Then, finally, a liberal classmate informs me that there is a brand new College Republicans organization. I join up with this group during election campaign 2002. Imagine a group of people who have formed a brand new, political organization and then helped elect a candidate, among others, that has never entered the political, legislative arena before!

The passion I had for politics nearly exploded when I finally found students who were conservative. It was liberating. It was like finding someone that speaks your language in a foreign country. I felt the same, powerful, and liberating feeling from the moment I first discovered the Command Post.

Here was this website during the era of Sept. 11th, 2001, that clearly rivaled the partisan, mainstream media. A website that was like an interactive newspaper, that brings you the news of the day, that greatly effects us and reaches out for our soul, across the world, and seemingly begs for your immediate opinion. The Command Post is like a public, opinion, command center.

The Command Post shares with you the statements and opinions from our allys AND our enemies. It brings you topics that the mainstream press does not mention or emphasize, but should. What makes ‘The Command Post’ draw you in and keep you ensared in its pages are the intelligent, painstaking pursuit of the truth shown by the people who post on the Command Post. In a time of American crisis, we are all in it together. Ideological beliefs and passions need to yield to understanding, knowledge, and truth.

I don’t need to mention names, you know who you are. You are the people (without knowing it) that keep reminding me that no matter how much I feel my gut instincts are correct, I should consult the facts before cementing my opinion. Thank you all and long live the Command Post!

This birthday observation comes from reader Waffle Stomer.

******************************

I can’t really remember when I first came across TCP, but I know I was late to the party. Being relatively new to the entire blogdom, I lurked for a little while before daring to post a comment. Although I couldn’t tell you what they were, I used a few different nic’s before settling in on ‘wafflestomper’. I did a search to try to find my first comment on TCP using the stomper nic; the earliest one that I found was June 10 - a rhetorical question on whether it was appropriate to haggle when buying suicide vests (that comment is actually pretty representative of the level of incisive philosophical discussion I bring to the CP table).

In the beginning, I stayed fairly low-key until I read that a post by Alan that he expected the occasional snarky comment which put me at ease. I remember that post distinctly because it was the first time I had ever seen the word ‘snarky’. Looking back now, I hope to hell that means what I think it means. I use wafflestomper almost exclusively for any blog, although I will on occasion make a new nic (once the corporate office of Burger King). I like the stomper nic, but I liked it better before ‘waffling’ became a campaign issue.

Snarky was just one of many terms I learned reading blogs. Troll is another. A verb defined on one website as meaning to deliberately post inflammatory comments to a blog in order to bait other users into responding. I think that definition makes The Command Post possibly the largest collection of trolls on the net. It’s not our fault, though - it’s the subject matter. Generally, I can write opinions or link together thoughts that I believe present a moderate, tranquil viewpoint only to be shocked with the realization that my logic can be aggravating to others.

You don’t really have to try to bait others here, it happens when you speak your mind. Intentionally baiting someone here is like deliberately breathing. It’s something I typically have never done (outside of once falsely accusing a certain General of pedophilia which I know now that was wrong, just wrong).

Everyone knows that you should not feed the trolls. But I gotta say that we are all trolls and damn, are we ever hungry. The Command Post is a relatively unique place where trolls diametrically opposed in more ways than I thought were possible coexist provided they have thick enough skin to get past the more aggressive comments. Here I give the left-of-center commenters here the highest praise for standing in there and dishing it out as well as you all do (I would give you all high praise for your insight and rationale, but that would just mean you’re not left-of-center :-P)

I like the news portion of TCP, but I love the comments section. It’s interesting to watch the dynamics of this group. Who writes-off who as insignificant. Who refuses to give an inch to who. Who reflects on the counter argument and who ignores all opposing views. It seems to me that there is someone here that gets under the skin of each one of us.

My favorite comment threads:

• Pass challenges the righties of TCP to post comments at Kos

• Johnnymozart parodies the group - the all-time, must-read classic (Alan notes: “Yes!”)

There are people here that have absolutely overwhelmed me with their wit, with their style, with their knowledge, and with their intelligence. Looking back at old posts, I see names that I miss now. Names like Seth, Wolf, Elvis/Thurston Powell III, Lefty Patriot, GPiF, June 16…

My hope is that you may all continue to find interest in this site and continue to post your thoughts.

wafflestomper

Observed at the Peace Protests in Melbourne on Saturday -

Tom Paine of Silent Running describes the festivities here.

The first of our Reader TCP Birthday submissions, sent in by our always opinionated but avid supporter, Pass The Gas.

*************************

Congratulations on reaching the ripe old age of one.
By TCP reader Pass The Gas

When I first came upon Command-Post, and started reading the comments, I thought, what a bunch of weirdos. I mean, it had never occurred to me that there were people out there that actually believed that stuff. And then when I posted a couple of comments of my own, whew, these guys jumped down my throat like I’d never seen. They were calling me a “lefty,” of all things! Well, natcherly I was insulted, and Pass the Gas doesn’t sit still for that sort of thing. So, natcherly I insulted them in return (in my gentle and always-tactful way). And away we went. There were times that I felt quite alone, but I couldn’t just walk away, that’s too much like giving up.

The discussions here have a lot of content to them, people post links and quote sources, and I’m sure these bloggers are ten times more knowledgeable about the war in Iraq than the typical voting-age American. But beyond that there is a lot of passion. People really feel strongly about this war, and the attitudes that led up to it, and yes, sometimes this turns into a shouting match. And that’s fun, too.

I think of C-P as a microcosm of world opinion — and in fact we do have people from all over the world. Sometimes the talk is technical, sometimes it’s purely inflammatory, sometimes it’s political and sometimes it’s personal. All sides are represented here, or if they’re not it’s their own fault!

I use a pseudonym in these discussions, and there have been several times I was real glad of it. A couple of times it got more intense than I was comfortable with, or weird — do you guys remember when that girl accused me of stalking her??? Yikes. My particular pseudonym is easy for people to make fun of, and I can’t explain why I picked it, I just was looking at the screen, trying to fill in the little box with your name and everything, and, mmm, the voices in my head told me I had to go forth and preach The Truth as “Pass the Gas.” I don’t know where it came from, but I’m glad I was able to create and develop this alternate persona, which no one in my real life knows about, but which keeps me sane in a crazy world.

All in all, Command Post has provided me and a bunch of other people many hours of good, stimulating conversation and thought-provoking debate. We have solved all the world’s problems many times over, and the world just keeps comin’ up with new ones for us to argue about.

Michele asked for thoughts from the contributors, and since everybody knows that I don’t have any thoughts besides the occasional berserk outburst, I thought I’d share this’all instead…

A year since a whole country of Oil-For-Food starving cowards had to get liberated by some Texas know-how, but also a year since Command Post had to get built to tell you about it all. Way too many razor-thin lines being drawn by a bunch of gung-ho weekend-warrior media types embedding their heads up their posteriors to test out their new toys and satellites, so somebody had to read in between them to paint the Big Picture before the batteries ran down on everybody’s clicker trying to chase down all that news flying around.

There I was, flat broke, no job prospects, suicidal, rickety computer on a cheesy dial-up, and nothing better to do that watch the cats arguing on who’d eat my corpse first and the Dead Pool turn into the Live F—-ing Forever Pool. Michele gave me something to do, and I think I’ve done it better than rock-bottom awful at times.

…

Read the rest at ATS.

Quite a few times during the course of the war, we posted some correspondence (mostly uncredited, by request) from reader Sondrak K.’s Cousin Joe.

One year into the war, Cousin Joe, by way of Sondra, has sent us this excellent, informative and detailed article on the first year in Iraq.

A Year in the life of Cousin Joe…

The 504th Military Police Battalion Secures the Iraqi Theater Main Supply

The Long Road to Baghdad

By Major John Voorhees and First Lieutenant Adria Toth

The advanced party of the 504th Military Police Battalion arrived in Kuwait on 20 March 2003 and immediately began operations to receive assigned follow-on units. The battalion was assigned to the 220th Military Police Brigade (a U.S. Army Reserve unit from Maryland), as part of the 377th Theater Support Command (TSC). Due to the critical need for military police to support combat operations, the advanced party was tasked to move forward to occupy Convoy Support Center (CSC) Navistar on the Kuwait/Iraq border. Its mission was to coordinate and direct essential troop movement and combat resources across the border into Iraq by the theater Main Supply Route (MSR) Tampa. With equipment loaned from Headquarters Company, 220th Military Police Brigade, and some staff augmentation from the brigade adjutant (S1), intelligence officer (S2), and supply officer (S4), the 504th entered combat operations. With no originally allocated units, the battalion took command and control of L Troop, 3-2 Armored Cavalry Regiment, 302d Military Police Company (Texas Army National Guard) and 2d Platoon, 410th Military Police Company (Fort Hood, Texas) (all previously assigned security force missions in Kuwait) and began securing CSC Navistar. They worked to protect, stage, and move the convoys in support of 1st Marine Expeditionary Force (1MEF) and V Corps offensive operations in Iraq.

The 504th Military Police Battalion has a rich history of supporting and securing its military brethren during combat operations, as reflected in its support of World War II and Vietnam. Then after several contingency deployments to Panama and Kosovo the 504th was battle-tested again during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The task organization of the battalion included the 105th Military Police Company (New York Army National Guard), 300th Military Police Company (Fort Riley, Kansas), 333d Military Police Company (Illinois Army National Guard), and 933d Military Police Company (Illinois Army National Guard).

The small battalion staff worked with the British forces, movement control units, Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC) operations (C3) and logistics (C4) personnel and individual convoy commanders to prioritize, stage, and secure all coalition convoys passing through CSC Navistar. By setting up a briefing area in the staging yard, the S2 section ensured that convoys were situationally aware as they readied to cross the border. The operations (S3) section used military police on the ground to ensure the most combat essential supplies were moved forward quickly. This required establishing hasty holding areas and staging yards to accommodate the increased traffic volume at Navistar, which exceeded the capacity of the initial staging yard. Working with limited resources, the battalion continued planning and conducting security operations.

On 4 April, three days after landing in Kuwait, the 300th Military Police Company arrived at CSC Navistar. The company soon became the main effort for escorting critical Class III (petroleum, oils, and lubricants) and Class V (ammunition) supply convoys along the extended supply lines to keep 1MEF and V Corps forces on the offensive. On 8 April, the remainder of the 504th’s headquarters detachment arrived and began to integrate into ongoing operations. At the same time, the battalion’s area of responsibility was extended 125 miles north of CSC Navistar to Tallil Air Base in An Nasiriyah, Iraq, as the 18th Military Police Brigade moved forward in support of V Corps. This was a result of the CFLCC directive for the 377th TSC to secure MSR Tampa.

One of the first efforts to improve security for units on the MSR was the battalion’s installation of a 911 emergency frequency utilizing a series of communication relay points and two OE-254 antennas per site. The self-secured relay sites provided an emergency frequency for coalition forces traveling the MSR and enabled the battalion to operate a communication network to direct operations. The relay system has become the primary method for convoy assistance and medical evacuation requests-its relevance reflected in the fact that it’s still in use today and has been specifically tasked to other units by Coalition Joint Task Force-7 (CJTF-7). The large-scale dependency upon the communication system was not anticipated at the battalion level, but its frequent use by thousands of convoys has made it an