The Command Post Op-Ed Page

Rally Against Illegal Aliens In Redondo Beach A Success [ Pics ]

A rally held in Redondo Beach at the Civic Center on Saturday, Jan. 15, 2005 was a success and it's organizers, SaveOurState.org, reported a large increase in supporter turnout.

The protest and rally started at 8AM in a popular illegal alien day laborer pickup spot in Redondo Beach. Numerous attempts were made by employers to pick up the illegal day laborers, but they quickly left upon spotting the cameras and rally supporters. From there the rally moved on to the starting location at the Civic Center. Positive responses from those in the community far outweighed the negative and some joined the rally.

The protest was peaceful and there were no reports of violence or any problems throughout the day. Nearly 100 people showed up for the rally with more than 50 individuals showing their support on the corner at the apex of the rally. A small contingent of open border supporters -- consisting of four individuals -- showed up later in the day for a counter protest, but there were no reported clashes between the two groups.

Several notable people showed up to the rally including the Chairman of Save Our License, Mike Spence, Western Field Director for Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Rick Oltman, talk show host, Terry Anderson, Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate, Walter Moore and State Assembly Candidate, Michael A. Jackson.

Illegal Day Laborers in Redondo Beach

"We are all just average folks who are tired of watching our communities turn into third world slums." said the head of SaveOurState.org on the website "Until more of us get off our butts and in the streets, we will continue to get what we have been getting, political whores who refuse to represent the will of the American people."

MadameButterfly, a user at the website, added "Today, you all showed the city of Redondo Beach, the beach community, and every person that is going to read about the rally in the paper that citizens, average people like us are seriously committed to ending illegal immigration. They're even willing to give up the better part of a Southern Californian Saturday to do it."

In addition to the successful rally, many signatures were gathered for a ballot measure that is being put forth to deny illegal aliens drivers licenses and government services. The measure is being put forth by California Republican Assembly and is being backed by Congressman Darrell Issa, who is well known for his backing of the successful signature drive for the recall of Governor Gray Davis. The measure requires nearly 600,000 signatures by February 21, 2005 to be put on the ballot.

Further Information

Summary post of the Redondo Beach Rally at SaveOurState.org

More pictures from the Redondo Beach Rally at SaveOurState.org

Pictures are from member SecondSon2nd1 at SaveOurState.org

Related Entries on Diggers Realm

Jan. 15, 2005
Redondo Beach Immigration Reform Rally And Ballot Measure Drive Reminder

Jan. 11, 2005
Immigration Reform Rally In Redondo Beach January 15th

Dec. 20, 2004
Darrell Issa May Fund California Bill To Deny Benefits To Illegal Aliens

Dec. 8, 2004
Redondo Beach Blocked From Arresting Day Laborers

Nov. 19, 2004
California Looking At It's Own Proposition Restricting Illegal Aliens From Services

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

Charges Dropped Against Hassan al-Turabi

The details are still very sketchy, but Turabi's lawyers have confirmed that the government of Sudan has dismissed the charges that have been the basis for imprisoning Hassan al-Turabi in Khartoum.

Quick background: Hassan al-Turabi, sometimes known as the “Pope of Terror,” is viewed by many Southern Sudanese as the architect of the destruction of the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-present). He was released from prison in 1977 by President Nimairi, who was in the process of co-opting the Islamic agenda to strengthen his own power base. Shortly there after, he became the Sudan's attorney general, using the position as a bully-pulpit to Islamize the country. He is closely linked with the “September Laws” of 1983 that imposed Sharia on wide swaths of the Southern Sudan, and he is also linked to many of Nimairi's policies of trying to divide the South into smaller, weaker regions easier for the Khartoum government to exploit.

When Nimairi got the boot, Turabi began to organize what became known as the National Islamic Front: a political party devoted to Islamizing the Sudan, and to exporting virulently intolerant strains of Islam abroad. When Omar al-Bashir seized power in July 1989 coup, he was capitalizing on the dissatisfaction of the NIF with President Sadiq al-Mahdi's decision to suspend Islamic law in the Sudan, and to open negotiations with the SPLA- the main rebel group led by John Garang.

Turabi was paid back for his loyalty to Bashir with a position has head of the ulama (the parliament), and more or less unquestioned power- so long as he didn't start stepping on Bashir's toes. Turabi's ulama, in January 1992, issued a fatwa declaring the civil war against Southern rebels a “jihad against unbelievers and apostates.” If you look at the charts I've done explaining violence in the Sudan, you can see that this is the period in the country's history when violence is at its most primordial. Resource mobilization and the existence of large numbers of dislocated, alienated and itinerant peoples still contribute, as does the presence of conflict entrepreneurs, but there is also the unquestioned influence of the NIF's Islamism.

Throughout the 1990's, Turabi's continued support for Islamic revolution abroad, and his willingness to harbor Islamic terrorists within Sudan (like Osama bin Laden), turned the Sudan into an international pariah. Turabi, though, was undeterred. When the state began to go bankrupt, Turabi was the one who engineered the land parcel schemes- with money laundered through the elaborate and confusing network of Islamic banks- that resulted in the dislocation of the entire Nuba Mountain population in the 1990's, and the beginnings of the ethnic cleansing policy in Darfur. That money was sufficient to keep things going long enough for the government to fortify its position South of Bentiu and start pumping oil along the pipe line to the Red Sea.

In 1999, though, Turabi started to push for even stronger power. He proposed amendments to the constitution that would have increased his power relative to Bashir's. Bashir was able to beat these measures back, and a spat between the two continued until Turabi aligned with Garang and the SPLA against Bashir's government in February 2001. Turabi was promptly thrown in prison, as were 20 or so of his colleagues. Since then, Turabi has been between prison and house arrest (his health is failing), and has been believed to be involved in a number of attempts to overthrow Bashir's government. The charges in question are related to a coup attempt last March that Turabi denies being involved in.

So what are we to conclude from the decision of the government to drop the charges against Bashir? The interesting thing is that the government is saying they were unable to find any evidence of Turabi's guilt. That is hard to believe. Garang- the SPLA leader with whom Turabi made a pact- has been adamant about the agreement he made with Turabi, partly because Turabi didn't deliver a lot of the things he said he would (including a fighting force to aid Garang's armies). We know there was a “memorandum of intent” that Turabi signed with Garang, and the whole episode from early 2001 has been widely reported in literature about the Sudan. It is not as if a prosecutor couldn't find enough evidence to bring this case before a jury. A decision was made by someone- presumably Bashir- to drop the charges.

Turabi has been very critical of Bashir's policy in Darfur, so this can't be considered a “reward” for coming around to Bashir's position. Because the government of Sudan is so closed, it is difficult to assess how strong Bashir is at any given moment, but most accounts would have us believe he is doing well right now. Indeed, China and Russia, and to a lesser extent France, have stomached his violence in Darfur when debating at the United Nations Security Council, and have continued helping to prop Bashir up to maintain the Sudan's oil output. But, in the past, Sudanese leaders cater to Islamists only when they feel they are weak and need to expand their base of political support. Nimairi let Turabi out of prison in 1977 for the exact same reason, and Bashir rose to power, in many respects, due to Turabi's base of support. One crucial detail in these emerging events is that Bashir hasn't actually released Turabi from prison. That could happen in the future pending a “political decree.” Is Bashir creating the framework for Turabi's potential return to politics? By providing Turabi with some reason to be hopeful, Bashir may have calculated that he can get Turabi to agree to play ball. That still doesn't answer the question of what Bashir gets out of all this, and I really am having a hard time figuring that one out.

All that we can presume to know here is that there is more to this story then what is being reported. I suspect we'll find out more in the next few weeks, but it would be a huge mistake to sweep this under the rug until then. A shake up in Khartoum would have a monumental impact on the violence in Darfur.

Cross-posted at Mayflower Hill.

California Looking At It's Own Proposition Restricting Illegal Aliens From Services

After the successful approval of Proposition 200 in Arizona, conservatives in California are looking at putting their own proposition together severing services for illegal aliens.

Even with businesses, politicians and churches against the Proposition in Arizona, which requires proof of citizenship when seeking public benefits or registering to vote, it was passed with a fifty-six percent vote approval. An astounding statistic within that approval percentage is that forty-seven percent of Hispanic voters voted in favor of the proposition. This reinforces the fact that the legal Hispanic community is sick of the bad name illegal aliens are giving them and that they are also sick of their taxes being wasted and people jumping ahead of those trying to come to the United States through legal channels.

In Arizona the proposition, which will be ratified on November 22nd, will face a lawsuit by the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund attempting to bar its enforcement.

In California Republicans are more positive on the mandate passing this proposition has delivered.

San Bernardino County Sun

"It's clear there is public support for cutting off benefits to people here illegally,' said Mike Spence, president of the California Republican Assembly, a group pushing a similar proposal in California. "What happened in Arizona is definitely a benefit because it keeps the issue at the forefront.'

...

"This serves as a model for what can be done around the country," Mehlman said. "If government isn't going to be responsive to concerns about illegal immigration, then this is a way of going over their heads."

This is not the first time that a Proposition has been put forth, and approved, in California. In 1994, Proposition 187 was passed with a fifty-nine percent approval rating and went into effect on November 9, 1994.

Proposition 187, Section I.

"provide for cooperation between state and local government agencies, and to establish a system of required notification by and between such agencies, to prevent illegal aliens in the United States from receiving benefits or public services in the State of California."

A preliminary injunction was approved against Proposition 187 on December 14, 1994 -- just 34 days after the people spoke. The preliminary injunction is still in force. ( more info on the injunction ).

There of course are opponents to bringing the issue back up again.

"The passage of Prop. 200 in Arizona obviously gives them media momentum and energizes their political base,' said Nativo Lopez, president of the Mexican-American Political Association. "That's part of the challenge we face."

Lopez agreed: "California is definitely different than Arizona because of the history of Prop. 187."

The real question, he said, is "whether the party leadership and the moderates in the Republican party are going to risk the future of the party by getting behind this type of initiative."

Ahh the shear arrogance of his statement! I would like to direct Mr. Lopez to the forty-seven percent of Hispanic voters that voted for restricting this in Arizona. It is no longer simply a "Racist Issue" as these pro illegal alien groups would have you believe. It is not a racial issue it is an issue of law and taxes. People who are paying taxes for their families services are getting fed up with those taking and taking without giving back.

Politicians in California are of course worried about a potential backlash from the Hispanic community if they support such an initiative, but the people have spoken. They spoke in 1994 with approving Proposition 187 in California and they spoke again in 2004 with Proposition 200 in Arizona. Politicians need to stop fearing this issue and realize that the people want these issues addressed and will support leaders who step up and take on the challenge.

Thomas Galvin tipped me off to this issue.

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

Why The New Sudan Accord Will Fail

Another attempt at peace in the Sudan has been signed in Nairobi. The Associated Press report passed on by the NY Times offers a glowing account of its prospects, but it doesn't realize how far its reporting misses the mark. I'll try and explain a few of the issues I have with the AP's characterization of the fighting in the Sudan.

Rebel officials and the Sudanese government committed themselves Friday to ending the 21-year civil war in southern Sudan before January, signing an agreement at a special meeting of the U.N. Security Council in Africa.

The 21 year figure they are referring to is the amount of time it has been since former President Nimairi dissolved the Southern Regional government and began moving harder to implement Sharia law throughout the country. This angered many in the South, causing a massive split in the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) between those interested in working with the Khartoum based government for a solution and those interested in seceding from it. But the issue that the peace treaty is trying to address— and the reason that there has been as much attention from the United Nations Security Council as there has been— is the violence in the Darfur province of the Western Sudan. In actuality, that conflict is related only tangentially to the Second Sudanese Civil War, which most experts agree began on a low level in 1983, but escalated dramatically in 1985/1986 after Nimairi was thrown out of power.

Historically, Arab pastoralists in the Sudan (who are essentially nomadic camel herders) have always gone South- where the land is richer- during the dry season. I don't have a physical map I can put up for you to see, but Northern Sudan is all desert with a very low altitude, and the Northern and Southern Darfur are much more fertile and have land that ranges from 1500 feet above sea level to 3000 feet above sea level, with some isolated areas (like the Nuba Mountains) reaching heights of 6000 feet. Having Arab pastoralists come South during the dry season to use the land was always a source of contention, but the tribal system was usually effective at resolving these disputes by getting the Arabs to pay some sort of tribute to the local tribes for use of their land.

In the 1980's, with the proliferation of automatic weapons and other light arms, the tribal system of resolving these problems broke down entirely. The Arabs were refusing to pay for what they were taking, and were using violence to ensure they were not challenged. Many of the Africans fled the area, but many more stayed. They began arming themselves, and for several years there were a series of seasonal small-scale engagements between the Arab pastoralists and the African tribal members. By 1989, most estimate that around 5000 members of the Fur tribe (the dominant African tribe in the region) had been killed, and over 40000 displaced.

When the conflict in Darfur began to become entwined in the Sudanese Civil War is when the SPLA split in August 1991 over, among other things, the issue of self-determination. The Nassir faction- led by Riek Machar and Lam Akol- saw an independent Southern state as essential, and the Torit faction- led by John Garang- wanted a unified central government that granted the South degrees of autonomy. Over the years, the Torit faction steadily established itself in the Western area of the Sudan (including Darfur), and the Nassir faction stayed in the East by the Ethiopian border.

In November 1999, Hassan al-Turabi (the Islamist Kingmaker in Sudan, and President of the Sudanese Parliament) introduced constitutional amendments that would have restricted President Bashir's power. This was the first in a series of spats between the two power-players that culminated when Turabi was imprisoned in 2001- where he still languishes today. But, despite being imprisoned, Turabi is still a powerful figure, and he managed to strike a kind of the-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend deal with Garang against the Bashir's government in Khartoum.

Ultimately, the SPLA came out worse from the deal with Turabi. The fighting force he promised to deliver for Garang's SPLA faction was never created, and the Southern diaspora was furious at Garang for striking a deal with Turabi- who is viewed as the chief architect of the devastation in the South. But, regardless of the political fallout, last April the SPLA launched an attack against an airport in al-Fashir that killed 75, destroyed four military aircraft and resulted in the kidnapping of the Sudanese Air Force Chief. The increase in violence against the Africans in Darfur that we've seen since last year- over 20000 janjaweed militiamen armed by the Bashir government, around 75000 killed and over 1 million refugees- is not the central front in the civil war, then, but rather it represents a) the continuing effort of the Arab government to carve out new territories for its nomadic pastoralists, and b) revenge against Turabi.

Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Taha and southern rebel leader John Garang, the main negotiators for the two sides, made a similar pledge last year that never came to fruition. But this is the first time the warring sides have put a deadline in writing before the U.N. panel.

As I've just established, Garang doesn't have the power to negotiate because he is politically weak after alligning himself with Turabi and because there is another faction of the SPLA to contend with (as well as several other militias that must be considered), and the Bashir government simply doesn't want to negotiate. Right now, Khartoum has the military initiative and the political and economic advantages. That is why the peace accord last year broke down so miserably, and those underlying factors have not changed at all in the last year.

Garang, in a rare address by a rebel leader to the council, said the only way to avert tragedy is “to install a broad-based coalition government of national unity.''

There are some in the SPLA who believe that to be true, but there are many who simply refuse to negotiate with Khartoum and demand independence. The remnants of the Anyanya forces from the 1950's and 1960's are part of this group, as are many of the disparate elements. One of the reasons the conflict in the Sudan has been so intractable over the last 60 years is because the debate over independence in the South has not been settled amongst Southerners. The North knows just where it stands, and has been unified- more or less- in its pursuit of an Islamic state and the subjugation of the South for material gain. And the South's divisions have made it weak and incapable of mounting a really effective response against the North.

Creating the framework for a solution to the conflict in the Sudan is a near impossible task at this point, but any progress depends on violence being halted, and that depends on the insertion of a foreign military force designed to keep the peace while the political solution is hammered out. And when I say “foreign military force,” I'm not talking about 300 Nigerians under the flag of the African Union. I'm talking about a couple battalions of Americans or Europeans, or some other disinterested modern fighting force. From a political standpoint, I believe that it would be hard to enforce a two-state solution in the Sudan because the North would never accept international borders that denied them access to the South's considerable oil wealth, hydro-wealth, and rich soil. Because of this, if there is to be a settlement, it must be a jacked-up version of the Addis Abba accord of 1972 that granted the South and the North large amounts of regional autonomy. One of the reasons that treaty unraveled is because it didn't address issues important to Southerners- like the structure of the economy, the presence of Islamic Banks, the over population of administrative positions in the South with Northern bureaucrats, and the existence of Northern Army garrisons in the Southern territory- and because it didn't foresee the 1978 oil discoveries by Chevron and Total. All of these factors would need to be seriously addressed in any new agreement. And the North would also have to accept secularism, which would be a tough thing for the National Islamic Front to handle.

We're a long way off.

UPDATE: The New York Times' Mary Lacey and Christine Hauser have done some original reporting on the Nairobi accord. They do make the distinction between Darfur and the broader Civil War, but, without challenging, they pass on the belief of some UN Security Council ambassadors and create the false impression that a North-South resolution would resolve the conflict.

But hanging over the meeting was another military clash, the war in Darfur, in western Sudan, which has continued unabated. On Darfur, the Council continued to hedge. Council ambassadors believe a north-south peace accord for Sudan could serve as a blueprint for Darfur.

As I went over above, no “North-South” blue print will succeed because no matter how far North the regional borders are drawn, the Arab pastoralists will still insist on going South during the dry-season, and Bashir's government- which officially declared the violence against Africans in the Sudan a jihad several years ago- will still foment violence in Darfur, under the auspices of an Islamic fatwa, to punish Turabi's allegiance with Garang. And no matter how far South the regional borders are drawn, a significant and well armed portion of the SPLA- using an absurdly complicated labyrinth of backchannels to take funding from Bashir to fight against Garang- will still advocate secession.

There is no way to resolve this conflict without military intervention. That should be abundantly clear at this point, and it should also be clear that the failure of the international community to live up to the commitments it made in the wake of the Second World War, and reiterated time and again throughout the last 50 years, is an embarrassment on a scale we will only begin to understand when the results of Bashir's policy towards Darfur is exposed as the holocaust that it is.

Cross-posted at Mayflower Hill.

John Kerry: Wrong Man, Wrong Time, Wrong Party

“When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, (John Kerry's) voting record was that. When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it.” — Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman

“(F)irst, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed — body armor, spare parts, ammunition — they voted against it. I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops. Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?” — Dick Cheney

John Kerry's waffling on the war on terrorism is almost entirely based on politics. Quite frankly, that should scare the living hell out of anybody who cares about the safety and security of the American people. In an age when a failure in the war on terrorism may literally lead to nuclear bombs going off in American cities, can we afford to have a man in office whose first consideration is politics, not protecting our country?

If John Kerry had been in office after 9/11, would he have had the guts to pass the Patriot Act over the objections of his base? Would he have allowed John Ashcroft to go after illegal aliens from terrorist sponsoring countries? Vladimir Putin said that,

“I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received…information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations.”

If Kerry had been President, if he had been the one to receive Putin's warning, would he have been willing to take action or would he have risked another 9/11 rather than make his base angry and fail the “global test”? If John Kerry had been our President instead of George Bush over these last four years, is it not entirely possible that we might have been hit again and again by terrorists while John Kerry made decisions that left us vulnerable to attack simply because he thought they were political winners?

You're not supposed to point this sort of thing out, even though it's obvious, because it upsets Democrats. But, everybody — even his own supporters — knows that John Kerry is letting politics dictate his position on Iraq and the rest of the war on terrorism. If John Kerry came to the conclusion that being pro-war in Iraq gave him a better chance of being elected, his position would change, just like that — and it has many times. That's why John Kerry has earned his well deserved reputation as a flip-flopper. Whichever way the polls move, his position soon follows.

Then there's George Bush who has shown time and time again that he's willing to do what he thinks is right in order to stop another 9/11 from happening, whether it's popular or not. That's quite a shift from John Kerry who has shown time and time again that he's willing to radically change where he stands on national security to reflect what he thinks is the popular opinion of the moment.

Now think back to great American war leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. Were they dovish flip-floppers who based their decisions around telling people what they wanted to hear or men who made decisions and tried to lead people towards what they believed was the right direction?

In perilous times, you need a man in the White House who has the guts to hang in there and do the right thing, not a politician who makes life or death decisions based on nothing more than which way the political winds are blowing. That's why John Kerry would be the wrong man for the job of Commander and Chief.

Their money or your safety

From August 28's edition of the CPUSA's house organ People's Weekly World (cache used because site down):

U.S. Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) has introduced controversial legislation to sharply curtail the rights and daily activities of immigrants [sic; only illegal immigrants would be affected —LW]. The legislation would block undocumented workers in the U.S. from opening bank accounts and deny them any access to Social Security payments.

Culberson has cloaked this reactionary legislation, an amendment to a House appropriations bill, as a measure to enhance national security. Attempting to exploit the fears generated by the Bush administration rhetoric about terrorists, Culberson claims that Middle Eastern terrorists have disguised themselves by using Hispanic names and that his bill will help keep such terrorists out [see Congressman: Terrorists are infiltrating the U.S. via Mexico —LW].

Among other things, the amendment would make it much more difficult for immigrants [sic; illegal immigrants —LW] to use foreign IDs, such as the matricula consular issued by the Mexican government, to open bank accounts…

Those “Matricula Consular” cards (“MC”) are only of use to illegal aliens. And, Culberson does have a point:

Last June, before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Steve McCraw, assistant director of the FBI's Office of Intelligence, said that the bureau and the Justice Department have concluded that the card is not a reliable means of identification. McCraw warned that the “ability of foreign nationals to use the matricula consular to create a well-documented, but fictitious, identity in the United States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely in the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that are disseminated to local police officers. It also allows them to board planes without revealing their true identity.”

Given that, you might expect Culberson's legislation to have passed, but you'd be wrong. From House Backs Bush on Mexican ID Cards:

The U.S. House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to support a Bush administration plan to allow the use of Mexican identification cards to open U.S. bank accounts.

The House voted 222 to 177 remove language in an $89.9 billion bill funding the Transportation and Treasury Departments aimed at preventing the use of the cards. The House has yet to vote on the overall bill…

According to data from the Mexican foreign ministry, over 2.2 million of the cards have been issued since March 2002 and 178 financial institutions and 1,180 police departments in the United States accept them as proof of identity.

The Inter-American Development Bank and Treasury Department have backed the matricula as a way for Mexicans to open bank accounts and send billions of dollars in remittances back to their families in Mexico.

Before the vote, Treasury Secretary Snow said this:

“The Administration believes as a general matter that Americans are better protected if consumers of all nationalities are invited into the financial mainstream”

After the vote, Culberson had this to say:

“The Treasury rule is an embarrassment and a danger to national security, and so I will continue to work relentlessly to do away with this rule,” Mr. Culberson said Wednesday.

In that last link, Nancy Pelosi weighs in with a quote in support of MC cards. In case you weren't confused already.

See also 222 House Members Put Interests of Banking Lobby Ahead of Homeland Security and the extensive backgrounder “IDs for Illegals: The 'Matricula Consular' Advances Mexico's Immigration Agenda”.

But, there's more. And, you might consider it even worse…

If you were an illegal alien living in, say, Sherwood Arkansas, would you need to travel to the Dallas TX Mexican consulate to pick up your MC card? Not if the consul comes to you. Recent news reports detail how Mexican consuls travel to various outposts in the U.S. exchanging an MC card for the $26 fee. And, most of the reporters who cover the consul coming to their town do so in either a gullible or a disingenuous manner.

In almost all of these reports the sales job given by the consuls is presented without comment. In most cases, nary a dissenting word is heard. And, in some cases local churches or banks are involved.

Some reports are provided below, along with contact information for the editors involved.

· Sherwood [AR] Voice
Arkansas needs Mexican consulate; new documentation
by Warren Watkins (editor)

(church is involved; gullible local leaders provide quotes; no dissenting voices)

includes this consul quote: “[I came to Arkansas to] continue the negotiations with the state and city authorities for making sure that we are going to inaugurate a Mexican consulate in the coming year in Little Rock… Governor Huckabee was a large part of this… He went to Mexico City and met with President Fox and proposed this… [when you get your MC we] don’t care if you are documented or undocumented… I like Arkansas… It is so green. It’s so clean, nice, with very warm, open people, and many friends of Mexico.”

· Hilton Head SC's Island Packet
Mexican Consulate issues IDs
by Noah Haglund
Fitz McAden, executive editor fmcaden@islandpacket.com

(mentions that social security number is required for a driver's license in SC and NC, but no terrorism mention; includes FAIR quote)

includes this consul quote: “[The consul] also said he didn't like seeing illegal immigration because it hurt his national pride to see so many compatriots living far from home.”

· That report generated the letter to the editor ID cards a cash cow “The consulate, as well as the matricula and the cash remittance sent by illegal alien laborers, are cash cows to the Mexican government… Our local governments should avoid being a party to this travesty and refrain from aiding and abetting illegal aliens who seek to arrive and remain illegally in the United States. That too is a federal crime.”

· Naples [FL] Daily News
Mexican nationals flock to mobile consulate for passports, ID cards
by Tracy Miguel
editor: Phil Lewis pplewis@naplesnews.com

(event was co-sponsored by Bank of America; MC's “acknowledge [a person's] presence in the United States”; a church is involved; alludes to stricter DL procedures after 9/11; MCs “can be issued whether or not the holder is legally in the United States… The Mexican Consulate will provide the matricula and passport if the person who is requesting the document can prove that he or she is a Mexican national”; article ends with the phone number of the Mexican consulate for those who want more information)

· WKYT (via Paducah News working for AP?)
Mexican government helps immigrants acquire passports, identification cards
Contacts: rclark@paducahsun.com, Jim.Ogle@wkyt.com, info@ap.org

(no mention of terrorism risks, no quotes from consul; church involved; minister says: “These are illegal and legal people… This has nothing to do with immigration.”)

· Racine, WI Journal Times
“Mexican Consulate helps locals with their papers”
by Julio Urdaneta
editor Randolph Brandt: rbrandt@journaltimes.com

(no downsides mentioned; includes this: Alberto Martin, North Shore Bank branch manager in Milwaukee [said] “This is our third venture with the Mexican Consulate. We have participated in activities like this before in Milwaukee and Green Bay and now in Racine… “I believe we are creating a union, a joint work with the Mexican consulate to help Mexicans to obtain matriculas consulares.”)

Contact the North Shore Bank's president, Jim McKenna, at 1-800-236-4672 or through this complicated form.

If that's not enough, see Pressure on to support immigration measure. Althoug not directly related to MC cards, that article concerns how banks are forming together to oppose the Protect Arizona Now initiative.

And, for more information on Mexican consulates, search for maus here or consider this quote from 11/02:

[Mexico's foreign minister Jorge] Castaneda said Mexican officials will begin rallying unions, churches, universities and Mexican communities… “What's important is that American society sees a possible migratory agreement in a positive light,” Castaneda said. “We are already giving instructions to our consulates [in the U.S.] that they begin propagating militant activities — if you will — in their communities.”

Who Did It?

Paul from Wizbang asks the same question that was rolling around my head after a post-run stretch. Who did it?

I can think of a couple of people right away. Start looking at people involved in 527s—plausible deniability for the Kerry campaign.

As I'm no attorney, I'll leave it up to one of you folks to name the law that covers fabricating a federal document.

Lance Armstrong Charges into 2nd Place in the Tour de France

Lance Armstrong charges into 2nd place as the Tour de France begins the brutal ascent of the Pyrennes.

In 2003, Lance Armstrong indelibly placed his mark on the world of sports by becoming only the fifth cyclist in history to win the Tour de France five times. Lance is now attempting an unprecedented sixth win - and has charged into second place after 12 days of hard racing.

Earlier today Lance Armstrong widened the gap between him and his main rival in the Tour de France, Jan Ullrich, on the 12th day of the Tour, ending in La Mongie. Jan Ullrich's diary for his T-Mobile team is here. Armstrong left the bulk of the field behind in a final charge with Italian cyclist Ivan Basso.

Frenchman Thomas Voeckler toughed out the final ascent of the day to hold onto the yellow jersey for the seventh consecutive day. With his final push, Lance jumped from sixth place in the overall standings to second.

As the cyclists begin an even more brutal ascent into the Pyrennes tomorrow's 13th day, ending in Lannemezan, Lance's U.S. Postal team is setting the pace and paving the way for their star.

Lance is attempting his sixth consecutive victory in the Tour de France - an unprecedented feat.

The link to the nikita demosthenes post is here.

Many Jews Set To Flee France

Anti-semitic incidents are accelerating at such a rate in France that Jewish Agency officials believe tens of thousands of Jews may immigrate to Israel — and a top Nazi hunter is urging them to get out now.

The prominent French Nazi-hunter Serge Klarsfeld bluntly told the Jerusalem Post this weekend that French Jews would be better off leaving their country.

“One of the lessons of the Holocaust is that even if you want to fight against a wave of anti-Semitism, the best [thing] is to leave if you can,” he said, and noting Arab-Jewish tensions he added:”“There will be an escalation of attacks [against Jews] in Europe, and especially in France.”

Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Jewish Agency said a report compiled by the agency had found 30,000 out of France's 575 000 Jews were considering leaving for Israel and he characterized French Jews' situation as increasingly “difficult.” This comes on the heels of French Justice Minister Dominique Perben reporting that 180 anti-Jewish acts had been recorded so far this year.

Many Americans often seemed puzzled (and some enraged) by France's attitude towards the war on terror and especially by the events leading up to the Iraq war. But there is a reason — internal domestic politics…and that's why the Jewish community finds itself increasingly beset with blase, half-hearted or blatantly incompent government responses to accelerating hate crimes. Front Page magazine noted:

France is home to the largest Muslim community in Europe — estimated between 5 and 8 million, roughly over 10 percent of France’s total population. In the past few years, the radical element of these French citizens has grown quickly, and is quietly overpowering more moderate Muslim voices. Many French Muslims idolize Osama bin Laden and consider the destruction of synagogues and assault of Jews to be justified retribution. These worrisome phenomena are caused by a number of things: increasing influence of radical imams in French mosques, the penetration of Saudi Wahhabism and extremist satellite networks spreading their propaganda.

Nazi Hunter Klarsfeld offers a bleak verdict of the situation: he feels “things cannot improve” in France for Jews. And he attributes the growing number of attacks to the way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is beamed into French Muslims' homes by rabble-rousing Middle East Arab TV stations via satillite, plus France's foreign policy which he calls “openly pro-Arab.” The final ingredient in the mix, he says, is “years and years” of French public and media support for the Palestinian cause.

This has implications for the United States because all this taken together makes it clear France will never support U.S. Middle East foreign policy, even if the Bush administration is replaced by a Kerry administration.

In the longrun, as the Arab population there increases in size and political clout, it also means less support for the United States in what will be a decades long war on terror. If France has been an ally but iffy at times, it'll likely be more iffy more times in the future.

(The Real Dummy thanks Allah Is In The House for the tip.)

"United States Marines! If you can hear us, yell or tap!"

Gary Farber is a new contributor at Winds of Change.NET. H's home blog is Amygdala.

A reminder:

bq.. “Karnes hadn't been near the World Trade Center. He wasn't even in New York when the planes hit the towers. He was in Wilton, Conn., working in his job as a senior accountant with Deloitte Touche. When the second plane hit, Karnes told his colleagues, “We're at war.” He had spent 23 years in the Marine Corps infantry and felt it was his duty to help. Karnes told his boss he might not see him for a while.

Then he went to get a haircut.

The small barbershop in Stamford, Conn., near his home, was deserted. “Give me a good Marine Corps squared-off haircut,” he told the barber. When it was done, he drove home to put on his uniform. Karnes always kept two sets of Marine fatigues hanging in his closet, pressed and starched. “It's kind of weird to do, but it comes in handy,” he says. Next Karnes stopped by the storage facility where he kept his equipment—he'd need rappelling gear, ropes, canteens of water, his Marine Corps K-Bar knife, and a flashlight, at least. Then he drove to church. He asked the pastor and parishioners to say a prayer that God would lead him to survivors. A devout Christian, Karnes often turned to God when faced with decisions. “

It's an amazing story. Read The Rest…

Congressman Responds

This item speaks for itself, literally.

A listener wrote a letter to Congressman Pete Stark, D-Fremont:

Pete Stark
House of Representatives
239 Cannon HOB
Washington D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Stark,

I am appalled that you voted against today's House Resolution 627, Roll Number 150. This measure would have shown publicly that you condemn the abuse of the prisoners in Iraq while simultaneously commend the service of the fine men and women who are serving in Iraq that bring honor to the uniform that they wear and to the Nation that they serve.

There are many Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen and Coastguardmen from your 13th Congressional District who are serving with pride and distinction . These men and women bring great credit upon their hometowns and the State of California.

Your “NO” vote is an indication that you do not support the troops who selflessly serve our nation and in many cases have given the ultimate sacrifice so that you might have the freedom that you enjoy as a citizen of this great Nation. Further, your “NO” vote on this resolution is a disgrace to the people of this district who have elected you.

I urge you to stop your contemptuous display of bitter partisanship and your politicization of this War. Your actions are very divisive and destructive to the morale of our troops and the morale of our nation. I know that a majority of the population of the 13th Congressional District are very strong in their support of our soldiers and in their support of the War in iraq. Your “NO” vote today reflects that you are way out of touch with the people of this district.

Very Sincerely,

Daniel L. Dow

Click here to listen to Congressman Stark's response. You will be shocked. Maybe not.

Richard A. Clarke blocked efforts to capture bin Laden

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.

Subpoena The Reporters!

It's time to STOP this ridiculous soap opera known as the Wilson/Plame Affair.

The media is guilty of a coverup and should be forced to perform real journalism.

As Glenn Reynolds says:

This isn't a "whistleblower" leak, where somebody exposes government misconduct on condition of anonymity. Here, it's the leak itself that's the misconduct, and it's the anonymity that let it happen, and that is keeping the leaker from being punished for conduct that everyone seems to regard as wrong.

In an earlier post, Glenn eloquently points out three key reasons why...

...the White House has a lot to gain by subpoenaing reporters who know about the Plame leaks. Doing that serves several useful purposes. First, once the press clams up and starts going on about protecting sources, it becomes extremely hard for it to claim that the White House is covering things up. "Who's stonewalling now?" can be the response.

Second, the press's complaints will look like special pleading (which they are). "If you leak this you're a traitor, but if we publish it, we're being great Americans," won't wash.

Third, subpoenaing reporters will likely reduce the number of leaks in the future. And that's a good thing, right? We keep hearing that these leaks were disastrous for national security. If that's true, we certainly want people to think twice before leaking in this fashion again, or publishing the results of such leaks.

And as Howard Kurtz notes:

There are at least six people in Washington who know the answer to the city's most politically charged mystery in years. And they're not talking.

That's because they're journalists.

Whether they should maintain their silence -- and whether they might be legally compelled to break it -- lies at the heart of a burgeoning debate about media ethics and the whispered transactions with government officials that shape the daily flow of news and opinion.

President Bush should demand, and The Justice Department should immediately subpeona and demand, that Robert Novak and all reporters who have publicly quoted an anonymous source linking Wilson's wife to the CIA, identify their source or risk criminal charges.

UPDATE: Bill Hobbs says it better than me, and quite rightly references the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists to buttress our argument. As Bill says, "So, if the reporters don't reveal the name of the leaker, you'd almost be tempted to think they want a scandal involving the Bush White House to drag on and and on... "

Judge Roy Bean Moore

Probably missed in all the furor over the 10 commandments display in Alabama is the fact that high-profile evangelical Christians disagree on Judge Moore's stand against the federal courts.

James Dobson of "Focus on the Family" is fully supportive of Moore's stand, while Jay Sekulow, prominent Christian lawyer; Richard Land, Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission president; and Pat Robertson (!) oppose Moore's stand.

Dobson even mentioned Land by name, saying that Land is a "great friend and I agree with him on almost everything. I just think he's making a mistake here."
But Land, noting that the issue "has sadly and sharply divided evangelical Christians," said the court order must be followed and the judicial system allowed to work.
"Do evangelical Christians really want to say that this United States government is no longer a legitimate government and that we are no longer obligated to obey its courts when we disagree with their rulings?" Land wrote. "If so, let us understand it for what it is. It is insurrection. I want to reform this government, not rebel against it as an illegitimate government beyond repair."

Land goes further to offer some examples where Moore's stand would be harmful to the evangelical Christian movement.

"Would we have supported the Florida Supreme Court in defying the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling and continuing with yet another recount effort [in the 2000 presidential election] while the Electoral College was thrown into crisis by having perhaps two sets of electors from Florida and no agreed upon president?" Land asked.
"If the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, would we support the California State Supreme Court defying the U.S. Supreme Court and saying that since their state constitution explicitly guarantees the right to privacy, they planned to defy the federal government and continue to permit abortion on demand in California?"

Interesting, but not likely widely reported.

Why Texas? Howard Dean's Bold Move

Howard Dean is running a television ad in Texas of all places. Why Texas? The state’s primary isn't until March 2nd! Shouldn't Dean be worrying about D.C., New Hampshire, and South Carolina first?

There are several possible reasons for Dean’s choice. First, he probably hopes to force Bush into eventually devoting time and resources to a state that he should have locked up. The strategy of diverting resources is nothing new. Many attribute Bush's Florida win in 2000 to his hard campaigning in California just weeks before the election. Gore was thereby forced to divert time and expenses away from Florida and toward the west coast. Dean hopes to do the same thing here in the fall. Every minute of the fall that Bush spends in Texas is a minute he should be spending elsewhere.

This isn't Dean's only goal though. If diversion of resources was the only potential gain, Dean would probably choose to run ads in the "So Goes the Nation" state, Florida, a state not nearly as pro-Bush as Texas. But Dean also desperately needs to prove to party rank and file that he can win in Bush country.

Dean's vehement opposition to Bush’s Iraq policy has created serious problems among DLC’ers and other moderate Dems who support the war. Democrats already have national security problems. Polls generally show that the public favors Republicans on Terrorism and National Security by +20%. For any respectable political strategist, this demands immediate action. Moderates worry that Dean's lack of action, i.e. compromise; will doom him to a 1972, McGovern-esque failure. But if Dean can be competitive in pro-war Texas, he will likely quell this sort of opposition.

Of course, there is probably a more visceral purpose to his Texas TV campaign; his fans love it. Just take a look at some of the commentary at Dean for America (the blog) or Watchblog and you'll see his supporters charged from the sight of their guy sticking it to the President in his home state.

If successful this will be looked at as a brilliant move on Dean’s part, a move that simultaneously appeals to the wary souls in the party and the true believers in the field. The risk, however, is that Dean won't generate the kind of support in Texas that he will need to win the south, and thus the united support of both wings of the party.
Whatever the merits of Howard Dean's campaign might be, it is certainly fun to watch.

(If you enjoyed this article, read The Armchair Analyst)

Dear Mrs. Bixby

Executive Mansion, Washington, November 21, 1864.
Mrs. Bixby, Boston, Massachusetts:

DEAR MADAM: I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

A. Lincoln.

As it turns out, only two of Mrs. Bixby's sons were killed. 'Only'.

And two more American sons were laid on 'the altar of freedom' just yesterday.
Most of us never knew Sergeant First Class Gladimir Philippe of New Jersey or Private First Class Kevin Ott of Ohio. But they knew us. And knowing us, they were willing to put their lives on the line for us. We honor them because they honored us first. And we offer our respects to their families who love...and mourn.

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!" And take these men into Your care.

Godspeed, brothers. Our brothers.

Questions about Iraq War

This isn't an opinion... it's a bunch of questions I have:

- What is the status of blogger Salam Pax?

- Where is Saddam?

- Where are the WMD's?

- Where is Dr. Germ?

- Why was there so little SAM activity over Baghdad?

- What percentage of the Iraq army actually fought? RG? Fedayeen?

- How much Iraqi armor was destroyed by air attack? How many units were destroyed by air?

- Were there ever mobile WMD labs?

- Why were WMD's not used against coalition?

- There was a report that mustard gas was detected in one of the rivers. What is the final status on that?

- Where were the SCUDs?

- For how long was it possible for bad guys to escape into Syria?

- What happens to the remaining "Arab fighters?" How many were there? How many were captured on the way in-country? How many were killed?

- Did the US get enough of the intelligence files? If not, why not?

- What happened to the reported 60km of subway tunnels under Baghdad? Have they been searched? Are Saddam and Elvis hiding down there?

- Have the two "decapitation" bombing sites been thoroughly examined by forensics experts? If so, what did they find?

- Were any of the inert (concrete) bombs ever used? [Update: yes - at least on a palace - per Ollie North]

- An Apache regiment, in one attack, had 27 of 34 choppers put "unserviceable" in a single attack (they were ambushed). One was downed and the crew captured. None of the originally intended targets were engaged. All of this was from small arms fire and possibly some ZSU-23s. This was considered the only combat defeat of the war. What happened? Are Apaches just too vulnerable? Were they used improperly? How did Apaches fair in the rest of the war?

-I was going to ask about Baghdad Bob, but he has appeared. So the only question is when he will first appear on the Jay Leno show.

The Military Should Lead The Rebuilding Of Iraq

Rebuilding Iraq: No Job for a Coalition (washingtonpost.com)
I wasn't going to blog today but had to get a couple of things out or I'd bust.

I can already hear the military screaming over the idea of leading the rebuilding of Iraq. That's precisely why they should do it. First, as the woman who wrote this excellent article has noted, the Pentagon has run the only two successful post-WW2 reconstructions: Japan and Germany. Second, because it isn't their primary job they have an incentive to get it done -- and done well as they do everything -- and get out. That doesn't mean weeks or months, but a couple of years.

I recently heard that our military spent four years running Germany after WW2 and six years running Japan. That's a long time, but when they left the job was done. The UN and other organizations have an incentive to stay in place as long as possible whereas the Pentagon has other things to do. The UN has not ever successfully democratized a country. Not once. The military, which is itself not a particularly democratic institution, has done it twice and very well because they are adept at laying out goals and reaching them.

Let the screaming begin, but the U.S. military should own Iraq for the time being. It's the surest way to success.

The military has led the only two successful attempts at postwar democratization. In Japan and Germany, defense officials took full responsibility. Used to thinking strategically, they focused on overarching values and critical missions. The centralized defense structure allowed America's core values to remain consistent and penetrate every aspect of the mission. Yet, after setting and enforcing broad guidelines, they gave the Germans and Japanese great leeway in setting up their own governments. Perhaps most important, the military authorities did not want to remain. Unlike international organizations, whose entire job is to "help" other countries, the Pentagon has other work to do. It has every incentive to create a viable local government and then allow it the autonomy to function on its own.

Those who support multilateral reconstruction believe we can begin repairing rifts in the international system by diffusing responsibility for reconstruction. Yet under all proposed scenarios, America is going to run the reconstruction effort. Our detractors will still frame us as occupiers, while our attempts to placate international critics will sentence Iraq to a decade of uncertainty and limbo under international auspices.

Helping Iraq build a functioning democracy in which Iraqis can soon govern on their own is essential to our international legitimacy and crucial to the Iraqi people. The United Nations and other international organizations are staffed by many capable, intelligent, well-intentioned people. They should be encouraged to run humanitarian relief efforts in Iraq and should create a broad, multilateral coalition to control Iraq's oil revenue to expunge the accusation that this has been a war for oil. Yet in concert, they would fail to democratize Iraq and would prevent it from regaining its autonomy and sovereignty. The Pentagon has succeeded in the past, and it has the unified structure that will allow it to succeed again. Let it do the job.

82nd Airborne War Diary

Karl Zinsmeister of American Enterprise has several excellent reports up in this month's issue:
"Charlie Company is ordered to fall in. Painted red by firelight and ferocity, 120 men form in neat ranks. "At ease men. Gather around me," barks Captain Adam Carson. Carson has been company commander for one year and three months. He saw his first combat three days earlier. But he is prepared.

"You," he pauses for emphasis, "are all part of history. After that nasty firefight at the bridges two days ago, you have already seen more combat than any unit of the 82nd Airborne since the 1960s. Now we're going to finish that job.

"I need guys who can hit targets. I need guys who will do anything to protect their buddies. I need guys who are ready to kill.

"Unlike last time, we're going in tonight with some armor. And Apaches. And with Delta Company. I'm gonna be damn glad to have the Delta boys with us. We're gonna need them. But gun trucks stand out. They can get cornered on tight city streets. They're a juicy target for an RPG.

"If one of those trucks get hit, I want you to treat it like a damn downed helicopter. I want you to run to that vehicle and get everybody out. We're not leaving anybody behind, understand?

"And I want you to remember something. You are Americans. Americans don't shoot women and children. They don't kill soldiers who have surrendered. That what the assholes we're up against do. That's what we're fighting. We're gonna do things differently.

"But if your life is in danger, you shoot. And you shoot to kill."

A quiet burst of "hoo-ah"--the airborne cry of enthusiasm and seriousness--rises from the circle of men.

The commander ends by reading Psalm 144, with its tribute to those who battle against unrighteousness. "How's everyone feeling?"

Instantly, a roaring "HOO-AH" surges from 120 throats."

(cross-post Sharp Knife).

Replacing One Kind Of Tyranny With Another

The Globe and Mail: U.S. will block Iraqi theocracy
Iran is already on our shit list -- also known as the "Axis of Evil" and the list of state sponsors of terrorism -- and they would be well served not to provoke us. Substituting one type of tyranny for another should be off the table and apparently is according to Rumsfeld.

Democracy, plainly understood, is majority rule or three wolves and a sheep deciding who's on the dinner menu. It's also another form of tyranny if unrestrained by a Constitution.

Liberal democracy should be our aim in Iraq: a form of self-government that recognizes the individual as rights-bearer and the purpose of the state to protect those rights. There's no room in this kind of democracy for a theocracy, regardless of how many people want it. The tyranny of the majority cannot be tolerated.

If Iran goes too far in its interference we should use a few of those leftover JDAMs to make our displeasure known.

The United States will thwart efforts to create a pro-Iranian Islamic theocracy in Iraq, the U.S. Defence Secretary warned yesterday.

Attempts backed by Tehran to "transform Iraq in Iran's image will not be permitted," Donald Rumsfeld said. "We will not allow the Iraqi people's democratic transition to be hijacked by those who might wish to install another form of dictatorship."

As a rising chorus of clerics -- mostly from among the long-oppressed Shia Muslims who form the largest single group in Iraq -- demand that U.S. and British troops leave the country now that Saddam Hussein's regime has been toppled, the White House is caught between its promise that Iraqis could chose their own government and the possibility that many might opt for an Iranian-style theocracy.

"The Shias in the country are Iraqis and the Shias outside the country from Iran are Persians," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "My guess is that the Iraqi people would prefer to be governed by Iraqis and not Persians."

Despite a long and bitter war between the two countries in the 1980s, Iraqi Shiites, especially in the south, have close religious ties to the ruling clerics in Tehran.

By far the best-known and probably most powerful Iraqi opposition figure is Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir Hakim, whose Tehran-based Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq represents the most powerful challenge to U.S. hopes of a multiethnic democracy in a federal state.

"The government of Iran has encouraged people to go into the country [Iraq] and . . . they have people in the country attempting to influence the country," Mr. Rumsfeld said yesterday.

This should be fought to the death. We didn't expend American blood to allow tyranny to pop up in another form.

Here's a glimpse into

Here's a glimpse into thickheaded media coverage of this war. Apparently, they're still not taking it seriously, as AP just printed this on the wire (emphasis added):

WARSAW (AP)--Two Polish reporters were abducted by armed men at a checkpoint some 130 kilometers south of Baghdad on Monday afternoon, their editors said.
Marcin Firlej, 27, a reporter for the private TVN24 news channel, and 31-year-old Jacek Kaczmarek, with Polish state radio, had set off from the town of Nasiriyah with a larger group of journalists, TVN24 editor Malgorzata Laszcz
said. They were stopped by armed Iraqis at a checkpoint near Hillah. TVN24 reporter Marcin Woroch who was in driving in another car in the same convoy, said the group was driving toward Karbala and came across the checkpoint after leaving the highway. They saw "five or six armed men, some still in military uniforms, some in black," Woroch said in a report aired Monday
afternoon by his channel
"Nobody could have expected such a situation, and also the Americans were
telling us that nothing could threaten us here," Woroch reported. The remaining
cars backed away from the checkpoint after the two men were taken, TVN24 said. Marek Lipinski, a spokesman for Polish state radio, confirmed that Kaczmarek -who was based in Kuwait but reporting in Iraq - was stopped with Firlej.
Both men carried accreditations issued by the U.S. military. Laszcz said
Firlej and the TVN24 crew were originally assigned to a U.S. unit, but they left
it on Friday and started traveling independently together with another crew from parent company TVN.

Now, here are a couple of quick checklist items I would go through, personally, before embarking on the mission:

1. You're in a warzone! Do you think there's NOTHING TO FEAR?
2. You're in a warzone! Do you think there's a CHANCE you're taking a risk, especially if...
3. You're in a warzone! And you decide to leave the military unti you're assigned to and decide to go sightseeing?

Defecting Iraqi general 'offered refuge in Britain'

Times Online: BRITAIN has offered an amnesty and refuge to one of Iraq’s top military commanders in exchange for the secrets he has passed on about Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Former Uday Double Experiences Immigration Problems and Painful Memories

From Reuters:

A former double of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's feared elder son Uday said on Wednesday he was treated "like dirt" by immigration officers who refused him entry to Britain at the weekend.

...

As well as immigration problems, the Iraq war has revived unwelcome memories for Yahia of his traumatic four-year stint as a double, for which he was given new teeth and plastic surgery.

...

In his autobiography "I Was Saddam's Son," and in past interviews, Yahia describes how, after being forcibly recruited for the job due to his similar features, he was made to watch videos of rapes and tortures to toughen him up to be like Uday.

...

Posing for Uday on occasions deemed to be risky, Yahia said he survived nine assassination attempts and witnessed many atrocities. Once, Uday shot him in the shoulder, he said.

But he's ready for more:

Understandably, Yahia has vehement views about Saddam. But, perhaps more surprisingly for some, he is equally vehement in condemning the war on Iraq and says he would return to fight against American and British troops if he could.

Critic: Embedded Reporters Embedding Selves in Coverage

The San Francisco Chronicle's Tim Goodman:

...what has become nearly unbearable to anyone watching television for any length of time is the nonstop "How are you holding up?" questions that anchors ask of reporters. It has grown progressively wearisome as the war moves on and predictably rears itself on allegedly slow news days.

CNN's Walter Rodgers, who has been working hard for the Ernie Pyle award and is a curious mix of salty dog military man and unrepentant war junkie, filed a taped segment where he talked about how tough his assignment was, complete with shots of where he sits, knees forced under chin thanks to sand bags buffeting the floor beneath as a precaution against land mines.

Look, nobody said these guys don't deserve extra merit points for tough duty, and there is an all-too-real chance that some of them could end up killed in action, but surely they knew the trip to Baghdad wasn't sponsored by the Ritz-Carlton. Yes, it's dusty and hot and dangerous, and you look in desperate need of a shower. But how about giving us some news or some perspective, instead of an update on your sleep deprivation or shoddy living conditions? (Link via Romenesko)

Also somewhat painful, but not referenced by Goodman: Watching Zahn, et al., working without the benefit of teleprompted script, trying to wrap up conversations with "regular folks" (like Jessica Lynch's school teacher) with a personal close. It appears they want so badly to demonstrate identification with salt-of-the-Earth Americans that the traditional (and strictly professional) "thanks for taking the time to speak with us" has given way to disingenuous-sounding expressions of goodwill and pseudo-witty banter.

Greenpeace Uncovers American Plot To Disrupt The General Assembly

US to UN: Butt out: US pressures General Assembly not to meet
Greenpeace has a funny definition of "peace". Is living under a tyrant peace? Is having your wife raped in front of you to extract information from you peace? Is being tied to a stake in the middle of town with your tongue cut out because you said something that offended Saddam peace?

There are other countries like this, but unlike Iraq, they are not state-sponsors of terror and are not in possession of or pursuing weapons of mass destruction. We have an opportunity to do well for ourselves by increasing our security and good for the Iraqi people by freeing them of a tyrant.

The UN has been the main stumbling block to this and when this war is over we need to follow through on threats to withdraw from the UN. The scuttlebutt is that we'll withdraw, take our money with us and have a list of reforms as prerequisites for us rejoining. We should do that at a minimum and ideally quit and create an institution that has membership criteria and is better suited to the challenges of the day.

Also, if the General Assembly actually meets and votes to have us stand down that will be the final nail in the UN's coffin. More on this later.

An extraordinary communication from the United States to UN representatives around the world has been leaked to Greenpeace. In it, the United States warns that the simple act of support for a General Assembly meeting to discuss the war will be considered "unhelpful and directed against the United States." They further threaten that invoking the Uniting for Peace resolution will be "harmful to the UN."

Greenpeace has been actively lobbying at the United Nations against the war, and many delegates have expressed both publicly and privately their distaste for what they see as US attempts to "strongarm" the world community to do as it is told. One delegate was so incensed with the memo circulated by the US that he leaked the full document.

The Uniting for Peace resolution, which the US is trying to head off, has a long history of stopping conflict. Ironically, it has most often been invoked by the US to overcome vetoes by the Soviet Union during the cold war. Under its terms, the full 191 member United Nations General Assembly can gather to make recommendations for restoring the peace when the Security Council is deadlocked or unable to take action. Somewhat hilariously, one of the reasons the US says the General Assembly should not take up the issue of war in Iraq is that the "Security Council remains seized of this matter." Seized is certainly the correct term: the engine of peace is simply not turning.

There are those who say that the United Nations has been harmed by the Security Council debate on Iraq and the US coalition action without authorisation. However, it can also be said that the UN showed extraordinary strength in withstanding the pressure to rubber-stamp an illegal invasion. The only course of action open now to the global community is to demand the immediate end of hostilities and a return to UN-sanctioned disarmament measures. It's the right thing to do for world peace, it's the right thing to do for the future of the United Nations.

Geraldo Working For Baghdad?

Amongst all the tooth gnashing about Peter Arnett's horrible suck-up to the Iraqi powers-that-be comes the more treasonous tactics of Fox News' Geraldo Rivera. Apparently unbowed by Geraldo's playing fast and loose with the facts during the Afghan conflict, the Fair and Balanced news network sent the mustachioed one once again into the breach - only to have him endanger American soldiers for the chance to make a few headlines.

Rivera, traveling with the 101st Airborne Division in Iraq, revealed tactical information and at one point told about an attack two hours before it took place, according to sources at the U.S. Central Command who asked not to be identified.

Hey, Geraldo, the mustache should have been the clue - but we never really thought you were working with Saddam!

Robert Fisk Analyzes The Iraqi Suicide Bomber, Predicts Jihad

Robert Fisk might as well come out and say he's rooting for the Iraqis. He hasn't missed an opportunity to criticize the allied forces even when the evidence isn't in: the bombing in the market the other day is but one example.

His predictions of catastrophe aren't supported by the facts. He's making a rather heroic assumption: that we will tolerate suicide bombers in the way we have hypocritically forced Israel to do. My prediction is this: if Hamas or Islamic Jihad, or any other terrorist group, is tied to suicide bombings that kill Americans they'll go on the list with al Qaeda and we will seek to destroy them by whatever means is at our disposal.

Remember Mr. Fisk, the United States doesn't tolerate threats, we remove them.

Suicide Bomber ‘Opens Door to Jihad’:

Sergeant Ali Jaffar Moussa Hamadi Al-Nomani was the first Iraqi combatant ever known to stage a suicide attack. Not even during the uprising against British rule did an Iraqi kill himself in order to destroy his enemies. Al-Nomani was also a Shiite Muslim — a member of the very group whom the Americans faithfully believed to be their secret ally in their invasion of Iraq.

The details of the 50-year-old army sergeant’s life are few but nonetheless intriguing. He was a soldier in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and volunteered to fight in the 1991 Gulf War, dubbed the “Mother of All Battles” by the Iraqi leader who believes he was the victor.

Then, overage though he was willing to partake in further fighting, Al-Nomani volunteered yet again to defend his country from the Anglo-American invasion. And so it was, without telling his commanding officer and in his own car, he drove into the US Marine checkpoint just outside Najaf.