NYC-USA My American Blog

sabato, marzo 13, 2004

If I were a pacifist.....

........I'd be mighty pissed having felt so used, misused and abused by certain forces who had urged me to demonstarte against the US and UK for having been the cause of 500,000 deaths in Iraq as a result of having imposed on the iraqi people the hardship resulted from the UN's Food for Oil Program.

But as we will be able to read in the following article, the truth is now surfacing and it is a truth that the leftist media does not particularly care to share with the "thought-conditioned" hordes of pseudo-pacifists whom for many months pointed the accusing finger towards this great country of ours as the principal culprit of so much starvation and hardship in Iraq.

Mind you, these people have in the meantime opted not to pursue this line of accusations as the "minds" have decided that the truth is not beneficial to their cause, so please read on the article you will not be able to find on the leftist media:

Kojo & Kofi
Unbelievable U.N. stories.

By Claudia Rosett

In the growing scandal over the United Nations Oil-for-Food program, which from 1996-2003 supervised relief to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and his staff have excused themselves from any responsibility for the massive corruption involving billions in bribes and kickbacks that went on via more than $100 billion in U.N.-approved contracts for Saddam to sell oil and buy humanitarian supplies. U.N. officials have denied that this tidal wave of graft in any way seeped into their own shop, or that they even had time to notice it was out there. They were too busy making the world a better place.

That's fascinating, not least given the ties of Annan's own son, Kojo Annan, to the Switzerland-based firm, Cotecna, which from 1999 onward worked on contract for the U.N. monitoring the shipments of Oil-for-food supplies into Iraq. These were the same supplies sent in under terms of those tens of billions of dollars worth of U.N.-approved contracts in which the U.N. says it failed to notice Saddam Hussein's widespread arrangements to overpay contractors who then shipped overpriced goods to the impoverished people of Iraq and kicked back part of their profits to Saddam's regime.

Cotecna was hired by the U.N. on December 31, 1998. Shortly afterward, press reports surfaced that Kojo was a partner in a private consulting firm doing work for Cotecna, and that just 13 months previously he had occupied a senior slot on Cotecna's own staff. Asked about this in 1999 by the London Telegraph, a U.N. spokesman, John Mills, replied that the U.N. had not been aware of the connection, and that "The tender by Cotecna was the lowest by a significant margin."

It seems there's a lot the U.N. managed not to be aware of. But the information that Cotecna — while employing Kofi's son in any capacity — put in the lowest bid by far for the job of authenticating Saddam's Oil-for-Food imports, is not necessarily reassuring. Cotecna, which got paid roughly $6 million for its services during that first year (the U.N. will not release figures on Cotecna's fees over the following years) was bidding on work that empowered its staff to inspect tens of billions worth of supplies inbound to a regime much interested in smuggling, and evidently accustomed to dealing in bribes and kickbacks as a routine part of business. The issue was never solely whether the monitors were cheap, but whether they were trustworthy.

The whole setup raises disturbing questions. But this is a subject on which neither the U.N. nor Cotecna has been willing to offer illumination. Asked for details, both have stonewalled. The U.N. spokesman Mills, who fielded the question in 1999, is now deceased. A query to the U.N. Oil-for-Food elicits from a spokesman only the information that the five-year-old response by the late Mills "stands, as provided by the U.N." A recent query to Cotecna, asking for at least some detail on ties to Kojo Annan, elicits nothing beyond the reply that: "There is nothing else to add."

It is possible of course, that Kojo Annan had nothing to do with the Iraq program per se, as he told the Telegraph back in 1999: "I would never play any role in anything that involves the United Nations for obvious reasons." Though at the same time, in a comment that suggested at least nodding acquaintance with the Oil-for-Food program, Kojo added: "The decision is made by the contracts committee, not by Kofi Annan."

Then why the reluctance from the U.N., or Cotecna, for that matter, to provide any further details whatsoever? Beyond that, it is disingenuous to suggest Annan had no responsibility for the contracts. Oil-for-Food was run out of the U.N. Secretariat, reporting directly to Annan, who regularly signed off on the six-month phases of the program. Without his approval, the contracts would not have gone forward.

Even if we assume that everyone on the U.N.'s Oil-for-Food staff, as well as Kofi Annan himself, was indeed ignorant of Kojo Annan's involvement with Cotecna, it is hard to buy the argument that Kofi, while signing off regularly on the program's workings, was simply oblivious to the details. Not only was Kofi Annan the boss, but he was directly involved from the beginning. Kofi Annan's official U.N. biography notes that shortly before his promotion to Secretary-General "he led the first United Nations team negotiating with Iraq on the sale of oil to fund purchases of humanitarian aid."

It was Annan, who in October 1997 brought in as Oil-for-Food's executive director Benon Sevan, reporting directly to the Secretary-General, to consolidate Oil-for-Food's operations into the Office of Iraq Program. And it was shortly after Sevan took charge that Oil-for-Food, set up by Kofi Annan's predecessor, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, with at least some transparency on individual deals, began treating as confidential such vital information as the names of specific contractors, quantities of goods, and prices paid.

U.N. staff, such as Under-Secretary General Shashi Tharoor in a letter last month to the Wall Street Journal, have argued that the U.N. was not responsible for Saddam's misdeeds, and that U.N. staff were not concerned with such kickback-relevant matters as business terms of Saddam's contracts. The disturbing implication is that the U.N. — while collecting a commission of more than $1 billion on Saddam's oil sales to cover its own overhead in administering Oil-for-Food — was indifferent to Saddam's short-changing the Iraqi people, whose relief was supposed to be the entire point of the program.

Beyond that, the U.N., during the final months of Oil-for-Food, gave every indication of knowing just where the problems lay. Last May, shortly after the fall of Saddam's regime, the U.N. Security Council voted to end the Oil-for-Food program and gave the U.N. Secretariat six months to tie-up loose ends before handing over any outstanding import contracts to the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority. With Saddam's regime gone as a contracting party, the U.N. began a frenzied process of "renegotiating" billions in contracts, basically winnowing out the graft component that Oil-for-Food had previously approved.

By the end of this sudden housecleaning, the U.N. had scrapped more than 25 percent of the contracts for which, under Saddam, it had already agreed to release funding from the U.N.-controlled Oil-for-Food bank accounts. Uncharacteristically, the U.N. on its website has posted explanatory notes next to some of the dropped contracts. These do not suggest a U.N. that was living in ignorance of Saddam's the 10-percent-overpricing-and-kickback scheme.

For instance, in the U.N.'s own footnotes, there is reference to the welding-machine contractor from Lebanon, "unwilling to accept the 10% deduction"; likewise the Belgian and Jordanian suppliers of medicine, both refusing a "10% reduction." In other cases there is a vaguer note, such as the Russian backhoe supplier, who "refused to accept extra fee deduction." Or the supplier of "fork lift and spares" from Belarus who "stated that the supply of remaining parts cannot be cost effective under the current circumstances." Asked to further explain these notations, an Oil-for-Food spokesman offers no comment except that all available information is already posted on the U.N. website.

Altogether, according to U.N. records, 728 previously approved and funded deals were "removed from the list of amendable contracts," a few because the supplies had already been delivered, but many because the contractors appear to have run for the hills. For instance, there's the Jordanian supplier of school furniture, whose contract was dropped during the U.N.'s post-Saddam frenzy of "prioritization" because the "Company does not exist and the person in charge moved to Egypt." Or the Russian supplier of "vehicle spare parts," who "could not be contacted despite all efforts." Or the Algerian seller of "adult milk" who "has no interest in renegotiation"; the Egyptian seller of "generator" for educational purposes, who "is not enthusiastic about proceeding with the amendment"; the Syrian seller of "laboratory equipment" who is "not possible to contact."

Another 762 contracts set aside indefinitely by the U.N., post-Saddam because of their "questionable utility" were deals for goods that sound handy and humanitarian enough on the generic U.N. face of it. These include medicine from China; sugar and ambulances from Egypt; laboratory materials and medical equipment from France; educational materials from Pakistan; wheat, medical equipment, and ambulances from Russia; and yet more wheat, from Saudi Arabia. One has to wonder if the revised assessment of utility lay in the nature of the goods described, or in the actual terms of the contracts previously blessed by the U.N.

It's commendable that the U.N., facing imminent handover of the program, tried to clean up the remaining contracts. It is plausible, perhaps, that no one at the U.N. knew of the links between Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, and the firm monitoring Iraq's U.N.-approved imports, Cotecna, and that these ties had no bearing on a massively corrupt program. It is possible that only after Saddam fell did anyone among the 1,000 or so U.N. international staff administering Oil-for-Food, or Sevan, or Kofi Annan, notice that they'd been approving Saddam's deals with suppliers that were, in various combinations paying kickbacks, hard to contact, or even, as in the case of the Jordanian school-furniture contractor, nonexistent.

But what has to be clear by now is that the U.N. itself was either corrupt, or so stunningly incompetent as to require total overhaul. There are by now enough questions, there has been enough secrecy, stonewalling, and rising evidence of graft all around the U.N. program in Iraq, so that it is surely worth an independent investigation into the U.N. itself — and Annan's role in supervising this program. If Kofi Annan will not exercise his authority to set a truly independent inquiry in motion, it is way past time for the U.S., whose taxpayers supply about a quarter of the U.N. budget, to call the U.N. itself to account for Oil-for-Food — in dollar terms the biggest relief operation it has ever run, and by many signs, one of the dirtiest.






































postato da vette67stinger | 01:11 | commenti (2)


giovedì, marzo 04, 2004

Great teachings.

Doesn't this image makes you want to convert to Islam?


Shiite Muslim Mohammed Jomahaa cuts the head of his son with a sword during the annual ritual to mark Ashoura Day in the southern Lebanese town of Nabatiyeh, Tuesday March 2, 2004. Ashoura day marks the Shiite Muslim's commemoration of the 7th century killing of their most revered Saint Imam Hussein. Al Hussein was a grandson of Islam's prophet Mohammed and is a symbol of martyrdom for Shiites. (AP Photo/Mohammed Zaatari)
Tue Mar 2,10:48 AM ET

Shiite Muslim Mohammed Jomahaa cuts the head of his son with a sword during the annual ritual to mark Ashoura Day in the southern Lebanese town of Nabatiyeh, Tuesday March 2, 2004. Ashoura day marks the Shiite Muslim's commemoration of the 7th century killing of their most revered Saint Imam Hussein. Al Hussein was a grandson of Islam's prophet Mohammed and is a symbol of martyrdom for Shiites. (AP Photo/Mohammed Zaatari)


postato da vette67stinger | 17:04 | commenti (2)


venerdì, febbraio 27, 2004

Shall we dance?

My dear Charles,
you are doing too much honor to this low-life
of a cleric and soap opera character.
I fail to see the purpose of your visit to Iran.
Did you believe you could achieve that which was
not achieved by Straw, de Villepen and Fischer
in September?What makes you think that you can
deal with these bastards, haven't you seen the
way they behaved with the opposition?
You see, dear Charles, this is the same man who
financed those 19 arabs to attack my city, my country
my people.
C'mon, go back to London and visit Camilla and let
us do our work.
These people understand only one type of music.....
a Gatlin gun.
Yours truly,
An American citizen


















postato da vette67stinger | 03:46 | commenti (1)


martedì, febbraio 24, 2004

Lest we forget I think these words by Andrew Sullivan are worth repeating. Far too often we fall prey to induced forgetfullness by those, in the left, who would like to simply lead us to believe that "we deserved what we got" or we should proceed in a "criminal investigation of a criminal act".
But I disagree with this notion.
I have fallen prey to the thought that is innate in each and everyone of us and it is commonly referred to as VENGEANCE.
Not blind vengeance, mind you, but a cold and calculated way to cripple each and everyone of those responsible for 9/11 both directly and indirectly.
This chapter and 3000 years of dictatorships must come to an end NOW!.
And if it is a matter of going at it alone.........so be it!

WWhy Did It Have To Be A Perfect Morning?
An essay on September 11

Why did it have to be such a perfect morning?

On the streets of New York City and Washington D.C. and in countless other towns and cities in America, the day was one of those September idylls we almost take for granted. I was still sleeping, hundreds of miles away. A close friend was in a plane flying into New York. Another friend who had waved goodbye to me only two days before leaving the gym on his bike, had just left Boston for Los Angeles. A friend of a friend was drinking coffee and staring out of her office on the 102nd floor. Commuters were rushing into work; the children of businessmen and traders were hurrying to school; train stations and airports were bustling with early morning life. A routine fire drill in downtown Manhattan was filming a training video. And in a clip I have now watched so many times with a numbness close to dread, a firefighter heard a sound and looked up into the clear blue sky, with a kind of insouciant curiosity.

And then as a plane passed through the glass wall of the vast building, as seamlessly as a champion diver into water, something in the soul of America ended. We did not know this could happen to us. We did not know that we too were passing through a pane of looking glass into another time, another place, another world. And as I write these words, the throat chokes and thickens, the computer screen shimmers and blurs before my eyes. What was once unimaginable is now something that needs no imagination.

Why did it have to be such a perfect morning?

I wish it were possible to look at these words and regard them as melodrama. But how else can we account for the most searing experience in American life in modern times? When we write and analyze this event, we keep using terms that are inadequate to the task. This was not a terrorist incident. This was not a massacre. This was the first act in the first war in which America itself is at stake. This has never happened before. People keep talking about Pearl Harbour, as if it is a parallel. It is no parallel. Yes, there are resemblances. In the recent film of that name, the scenes that affected American audiences the most were the scenes of everyday life as the bombers approached: children playing, lovers cavorting, washing on lines, troops in practice runs. We saw in that moment the soft carelessness of a democracy still absorbed with itself, protected by two vast oceans, a hemisphere away from real danger. .

But that is where the resemblance ends. In 1941, the world was already at war on one continent. Americans, conflicted about their role in it and their responsibilities, were in some sense girded for something profound and deadly. And yes, the attack was strictly speaking on American soil. But it was on Hawaii that the bombing began - the most remote part of the United States, separated from the mainland by thousands of miles of ocean. Even reeling from the shock, Americans saw it as an attack on their military, but not on their heartland. And it was an attack on armed forces, not civilians. And even this near-miss was never to be repeated. In the conflict of the Second World War, and afterwards in the Cold War, there was never an attack on America itself - its soil, its cities, its land. Even in the tensest moments of the Cuban missile crisis, no-one in America was harmed.

And the sanctity of this continent - a sanctity embedded deep in the American soul - is hard to convey to outsiders. But it is at the very center of what America means to Americans. Its founders saw this new continent as a place apart, a place unlike the old world, a place whose geographic distance and defensive inviolability was intrinsic to its attraction. The Pilgrims came here to escape persecution, to a place where their tormentors could not follow. The Revolutionaries fought the British to insist on their burgeoning difference from the trappings of monarchy and established church. The forces of the Union in the Civil War triumphed in the bloodiest event in American history in order to preserve the unity of this sacred space and to affirm its unique role in the preservation of liberty not merely for Americans but for the world.

And the wave after wave of immigrants who followed arrived to claim a fresh start, a new beginning. They left their old lives behind, as I did mine, when I arrived here almost two decades ago. This place, they believed, was not merely somewhere. It was always, in some sense, an elsewhere. It was the place that would always be different, the place in which a secure refuge could always be found, a place where a new world was not just in existence, but ripe for reinvention with each passing day. And so when hostages were taken in foreign lands, Americans knew that, whatever happened, if the hostages could be brought home, they would be safe. Whatever horrors lay out there, there was always this place, where no external force could harm them, where no foreign threat could ever intrude.

Yes, much of this is myth. But myth matters. A nation that is not built on race or creed or an ancient history must build itself on something else. And Americans built themselves on an idea of liberty and wrapped it in the myth of elsewhere. Their most inspired leaders - from Washington to Lincoln, from Teddy Roosevelt to FDR, from John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan - knew that this myth was central to the success of America, to its self-confidence and cohesion and strength. While others around the world scoffed at the platitudes of cowboys or the rhetoric of log-cabin pioneers, the greatest American presidents spoke to their people in the language of these dreams. This was the myth of the place apart, the city on the hill, the eternal elsewhere. And when you saw the squeamishness of Americans to intervene abroad, their often dangerous reluctance to embroil themselves in foreign entanglements, it was at some level this myth that prompted them. Isolationism, for all its faults, was always the flip-side of American exceptionalism. It was a naivete that was nevertheless founded on a dream that refused to die.

But in one morning, this dream ended as America was wakened from its long sleep. The elsewhere is now somewhere. The refuge is now insecure. The threat from without is now also within. The new world is now just the world. Isolationism is no longer even a choice. It is lying in the rubble in downtown Manhattan.

An American writer last week used, perhaps typically, the metaphor of a movie. This one begins with a young woman in a home alone at night. She gets threatening calls. She dismisses the first. She ignores the second. Her fear grows. The threats get more intense. She calls the police and asks them to trace the calls. She locks the doors. She seals the windows. She sees her boyfriend masked and tied to a chair outside in the garden. The police call back. They have traced the calls. They are coming from inside the house.

What these demons have done is something that reflects not an ignorance of America. The war they have launched is based on a fierce insight into the American psyche. They have attacked from within. Because they have no ability to match American military force, they chose to use no weaponry at all. They used airplanes - civil airplanes - as flying bombs. Their only weapons were box-cutters and razor blades. The message this sends is a simple one: American military and technological might is irrelevant. If criminals are prepared to die, if they can infiltrate American intelligence, then no weaponry is necessary. Why didn't the Japanese think of that? Why didn't the Soviets? In one brilliant stroke, the enemy has shown that the way in which America had come to defend itself is completely obsolete. It is as we had confronted the Nazis with swords.

This is designed to encourage defeatism. It is designed not merely to terrify but to make an argument. That argument is that the very citadel of American democracy - its very Capitol - is defenseless. The plane that eventually crashed to a halt in the Pentagon had previously circled the Capitol, the Mall, and the White House, as if to show us what was possible. Only a few years ago, a light plane had crashed into the White House grounds themselves. Reagan National Airport is just over the river. I cannot tell you how many times I have landed in Washington and looked out the window to see the Washington Monument all but staring me in the face. What were the authorities supposed to do? Shoot down every commercial flight that could be steered a few miles in the wrong direction with barely a warning at all?

For any nation, this possibility is terrifying. For Americans, it is world-changing. The country that can send a missile half-way across the globe and hit a target with an accuracy of inches cannot defend its own White House. The country that has pioneered technology that has revolutionized the world cannot defend itself against razor blades. The eloquence of this is peerless. It is an argument that technology and power are irrelevant in the new war. To tell Americans this at the dawn of the new millennium is to tell them that their current way of life is unsustainable if an enemy is willing to disable it. In this sense, the new security precautions that went into force this week are laughable. There will no longer be curbside check-ins! How any government official could have announced that with a straight face is beyond me.

And the other weapon is America itself. Like a commandeered plane, America itself was hijacked for its own destruction. A free country with open borders and a multi-racial population carries within it its own self-detonation button. It seems clear now that several of the hijackers were trained in American flight schools. Others had lived here for over a year. The Muslim sect that pioneered the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 was connected to Osama bin Laden, but had as its inspiration a demonic mullah who lived in New Jersey! This is not an enemy in a uniform. It is not an enemy that in the ethnic cauldron of New York City even stands out an inch. And in a country which pioneered religious freedom, and guarantees it in its Constitution, there is no ability to deter or even stamp out even the most crazed religious sect. The enemy knows this. Like judo fighters, they used the might and freedom of the United States as a lever to fight back.

This first strike was not the first. We so easily forget that those very buildings were targeted before and that the bombs that went off contained cyanide that was never fully activated. American embassies were bombed. The USS Cole was bombed. The latest attack was an exponential leap forward, and, as such, it was more than a mere atrocity. It was an argument, a threat. If, as some intelligence experts are already speculating, this leap in ambition, with intelligence that extended to knowing top secret White House code, then we are fools to think it is the last. And yet already in America and around the world, there is a sense that this event was a single one, that it is some sort of unique occurrence from which we will now recover. One commentator in America even suggested last week that, given increasingly fast news cycles, this won't even register as a news item in a couple of months.

The only word for this is denial. What has happened so far is, in all probability, merely the latest in a slowly escalating scale of attack. We have been put on notice tha every major Western city is now vulnerable to anything - chemical, biological, even nuclear. We knew this was a possibility and National Missile Defense is a pathetically inadequate but still necessary part of our self-defense. But against the rest we are now clearly with our backs against the wall. It is no longer a matter of whether these weapons will be used against us - but when. In that sense, this is clearly not an American problem alone. It is a problem for civilization itself. If the effect of this day is to collapse the distinction between the new world and the old, it follows that we are in this together. And if the ultimate symbol of that free way of life is America, and if America is the only power capable of resisting and defeating this in alliance with its friends and allies, then something else profound has happened. In one sense, the Guards at Buckingham Palace who played the Star Spangled Banner last week got it right. We are all Americans now.

For the United States itself, however, this means one central thing. Isolationism is dead. Even the distinction between foreign and domestic policy is moribund. Last Thursday up to 50,000 reservists were called up to release active military for war. The streets of Washington are now regularly policed by armed guards familiar in London and Tel Aviv but still chilling in D.C. The question now is simply whether the current administration and Congress are up to a truly mobilized war, a war that could well mean American civilian and military casualties that make the World Trade Center seem like a training exercise.

The only honest answer to that question is that we still do not know. No-one should mistake the current lull for defeatism, or the lack of an immediate response for lassitude. The public mood is still one of the deepest shock imaginable. But there is, among the public, a unity that does not seem as if it will evaporate soon. Everywhere you go, you see American flags. They are draped on roofs, hung on fences, crammed into cracks in walls, stuck on lamp-posts. This tells you something. The response to previous acts against Americans was different. The hostage crisis, the last major event that deeply affected Americans' sense of vulnerability, was greeted with millions of yellow ribbons. But now of course the safe home that those ribbons represented has been attacked. So the symbol now is the brute one of American patriotism and pride: the flag that is the only national symbol in this country of the sacred.

Along with this, there is a sense of solidarity that is hard to convey. Perhaps those in Britain who still recall the Blitz have a sense of what is going on. I haven't been able to get to New York, but the mood of everyone I have talked to is of heroism and rage. Rudy Giuliani was made for this moment. He is New York's Churchill. Barely sleeping, charging through the streets, directing every detail, knowing every inch of his city, he is the only leader in America who has so far visibly grown and dominated the scene. He has reassured and commanded in a way that will never be forgotten. His combination of chutzpah, practicality and deep, deep compassion is the essence of New York City. His troops - the firefighters and cops and medics and volunteers of the city - would make the Londoners of 1940 proud. If New York alone were a nation - and it has almost twice the population of Israel - then this war would already be well under way, and its outcome in no doubt.

Bush himself has so far passed the test. The criticism of his flying to Nebraska on Tuesday rather than to Washington is specious. When given coded warnings that Airforce One and the White House were targets, he would have been criminally irresponsible to cripple the country's command center by putting himself immediately in harm's way. No-one knows yet the extent of the preparation for war that is now underway. But Bush's skill is in executive management. He is right not to strike out counter-productively. But he suffers from one critical weakness. He has yet to speak in a way that commands reassurance let alone resurgence. By Thursday, in an unscripted talk with reporters, he was beginning to improve. We know one thing about him: he can grow as a leader. What we don't yet know is whether he can grow quickly enough. He doesn't have the instinctive grasp of crisis that a Thatcher or a Giuliani or even a Blair has. That is not his style. But if ever there was a moment in which Americans needed to be told that they face a challenge unlike any in their history, it is now. They need to know the reasons for the sacrifices they may now face.

But in one sense, the terrorists have now done this for the president. No eloquence can match the impact of their evil. Americans' critical weakness in the past two decades has been their reluctance to shed blood for their goals. They believed they could construct a huge military and never have it fight real wars and suffer real casualties. They thought they could alter history and advance their interests from the air alone. With the exception of the Gulf War, which they hesitated to finish, they have shrunk from the fight. When the current enemy struck again and again throughout the 1990s, Bill Clinton responded without real credibility, struck back without real endurance, enraged the terrorists without truly hurting them. We are now living with the consequences of his appeasement, and of his refusal to challenge Americans beyond what the polls said they already wanted to do. Whoever launched this war on Americans has now accomplished the task Clinton didn't dare embark on. America has been bloodied as it has never been bloodied before.

I would be a fool to predict what happens next. But it is clear that Bush will not do a Clinton. This will not be a surgical strike. It will not be a gesture. It may not even begin in earnest soon. But it will be deadly serious. It is clear that there is no way that the United States can achieve its goals without the cooperation of many other states - an alliance as deep and as broad as that which won the Gulf War. It is also clear that this cannot be done by airpower alone. As in 1941, the neglect of the military under Bill Clinton and the parsimony of its financing even under Bush must now not merely be ended but reversed. We may see the biggest defense build-up since the early 1980s - and not just in weaponry but in manpower. It is also quite clear that the U.S. military presence in the Middle East must be ramped up exponentially, its intelligence overhauled, its vigilance heightened exponentially. In some ways, Bush has already assembled the ideal team for such a task: Powell for the diplomatic dance, Rumsfeld for the deep reforms he will now have the opportunity to enact, Cheney as his most trusted aide in what has become to all intents and purposes a war cabinet.

The terrorists have done the rest. The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent Left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount what amounts to a fifth column. But by striking at the heart of New York City, the terrorists ensured that at least one deep segment of the country ill-disposed toward a new president is now the most passionate in his defense. Anyone who has ever tried to get one over on a New Yorker knows what I mean. The demons who started this have no idea about the kind of people they have taken on.

But what the terrorists are also counting on is that Americans will not have the stomach for the long haul. They clearly know that the coming retaliation will not be the end but the beginning. And when the terrorists strike back again, they have let us know that the results could make the assault on the World Trade Center look puny. They are banking that Americans will then cave. They have seen a great country quarrel to the edge of constitutional crisis over a razor-close presidential election. They have seen it respond to real threats in the last few years with squeamish restraint or surgical strikes. They have seen that, as Israel has been pounded by the same murderous thugs, the United States has responded with equanimity. They have seen a great nation at the height of its power obsess for a whole summer over a missing intern and a randy Congressman. They have good reason to believe that this country is soft, that it has no appetite for the war that has now begun. They have gambled that in response to unprecedented terror, the Americans will abandon Israel to the barbarians who would annihilate every Jew on the planet, and trade away their freedom for a respite from terror in their own land.

We cannot forsee the future. But we know the past. And that past tells us that these people who destroyed the heart of New York City have made a terrible mistake. This country is at its heart a peaceful one. It has done more to help the world than any other actor in world history. It saved the world from the two greatest evils of the last century in Nazism and Soviet Communism. It responded to its victories in the last war by pouring aid into Europe and Japan. In the Middle East, America alone has ensured that the last hope of the Jewish people is not extinguished and has given more aid to Egypt than to any other country. It risked its own people to save the Middle East from the pseudo-Hitler in Baghdad. America need not have done any of this. Its world hegemony has been less violent and less imperial than any other comparable power in history. In the depths of its soul, it wants its dream to itself, to be left alone, to prosper among others, and to welcome them to the freedom America has helped secure.

But whenever Americans have been challenged, they have risen to the task. In some awful way, these evil thugs may have done us a favor. America may have woken up for ever. The rage that will follow from this grief and shock may be deeper and greater than anyone now can imagine. Think of what the United States ultimately did to the enemy that bombed Pearl Harbor. Now recall that American power in the world is all but unchallenged by any other state. Recall that America has never been wealthier, and is at the end of one of the biggest booms in its history. And now consider the extent of this wound - the greatest civilian casualties since the Civil War, an assault not just on Americans but on the meaning of America itself. When you take a step back, it is hard not to believe that we are now in the quiet moment before the whirlwind. Americans will recover their dead, and they will mourn them, and then they will get down to business. Their sadness will be mingled with an anger that will make the hatred of these evil fanatics seem mild.

I am reminded of a great American poem written by Herman Melville after the death of Abraham Lincoln, the second founder of the country:

"There is sobbing of the strong,
And a pall upon the land;
But the People in their weeping
Bare the iron hand;
Beware the People weeping
When they bare the iron hand."

 

 






































































postato da vette67stinger | 18:05 | commenti

It's about time!

Finally the Bush Administration has warned both Iran and Syria that they will face serious consequenses for not monitoring their borders with Iraq thus allowing "foreign" militants to freely move across the borders.

In the last few weeks we have seen a crescendo of veiled threats from the White House directed at the Iranian regime as US troops and civilians in Iraq have come under repeated terrorist attacks.

But I believe that the most damning evidence that makes a text book case for an attack against Iran are the revelations of a Pakistani scientist who is spilling his guts out and painting a picture most of us would not want to be foprced to stare at.

Yesterday, Sec Of Defense Rumsfeld began taking our "gloves off", it's about time!

 

Syria and Iran warned over Iraq
United States Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused Iran and Syria of allowing militants to cross their borders into Iraq.

Mr Rumsfeld was speaking during a day-long visit to Baghdad to assess the security situation in the country.

Earlier a car bomb killed at least 13 people outside a police station in the northern city of Kirkuk.

Mr Rumsfeld has in the past accused Iran and Syria of harbouring militants - but both have denied the allegations.

"Syria and Iran have not been helpful to the people of Iraq", the defence secretary told journalists on Monday. "Indeed they have been unhelpful."

He added: "We know Iran has harboured al-Qaeda, we know they had people moving across the border. They were certainly aware of that."

'Disruption'

Syria, however, denied that it was coming under pressure from Washington over the security situation in Iraq.

Syrian Prime Minister Naji Otari told the BBC that there had been some disagreements in the past but that these had been cleared up.

In the past three months we've seen a real step up on the part of the professional terrorists
Paul Bremer
US officials in Iraq say militants influenced by al-Qaeda have overtaken supporters of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein as the main threat facing the American-led coalition.

"It's quite clear in the past three months we've seen a real step up on the part of the professional terrorists of al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam, conducting suicide attacks," US administrator in Iraq Paul Bremer said.

Ansar al-Islam is a local group said to be allied with Osama Bin Laden's network.

In February alone at least 250 people have been killed in Iraq - most of them policemen or police recruits.

Mr Bremer added that attacks like the one in Kirkuk were aimed at disrupting plans to give greater responsibility to Iraqi forces for maintaining security.

Thirteen people died and more than 50 were wounded in the attack.

A car sped through the entrance gates and blew up in the courtyard of a police station, US officials said.


postato da vette67stinger | 03:43 | commenti


lunedì, febbraio 23, 2004

Bravo Arnold!

Who is more "American"?

Our Austrian-born and newly elected Governor of the State of California is wondering why the U.S. Constitution does not allow foreign born naturalized American citizens to run for the White House.

I cannot but agree wholeheartedly with his opinion that it is about time that our Constitution contemplates an amendement aimed at allowing those of us who were born abroad to seek such high office.

After all, unlike native born, we freely came to America in search of a better way of life, an ideal and an opportunity to do and to achieve that which was perhaps denied in our former country.

Having lived the reality of our former countries of origin , we freely came to these shores and freely elected to swear allegiance to this flag of ours without exception or coercion from without as we began realizing our American dream.

Our blood has been spilled time and time again in the defence of our great country and this blood is the same color as that of our fellow Americans born here . So the question posed by our distinguished naturalized Governor of California warrants an answer from the powers that be.

 

postato da vette67stinger | 14:46 | commenti


domenica, febbraio 22, 2004

To err is human...... at least that's how the old saying goes and yet, as we witness the spectacle of the upcoming US elections, I cannot but remeber that which Clinton did in his war on terrorism and how our distinguished Senator from Massachussets is likely to act.

An outstanding article of the Washington Post, appearing today on their website, demonstrates that a Kerry win in November is likely to give us more of the Clinton's methods to combat and defeat terrorism.

After all it is to individuals such as Clinton, Torricelli and Kerry that we are principally indebted to for the 9/11 tragedy.

Policy Disputes Over Hunt Paralyzed Clinton's Aides

By Steve Coll
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 22, 2004; Page A17

Between 1998 and 2000, the CIA and President Bill Clinton's national security team were caught up in paralyzing policy disputes as they secretly debated the legal permissions for covert operations against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.

The debates left both White House counterterrorism analysts and CIA career operators frustrated and at times confused about what kinds of operations could be carried out, according to interviews with more than a dozen officials and lawyers who were directly involved.

There was little question that under U.S. law it was permissible to kill bin Laden and his top aides, at least after the evidence showed they were responsible for the attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. The ban on assassinations -- contained in a 1981 executive order by President Ronald Reagan -- did not apply to military targets, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had previously ruled in classified opinions. Bin Laden's Tarnak Farm and other terrorist camps in Afghanistan were legitimate military targets under this definition, White House lawyers agreed.

Also, the assassination ban did not apply to attacks carried out in preemptive self-defense -- when it seemed likely that the target was planning to strike the United States. Clearly bin Laden qualified under this standard as well.

Clinton had demonstrated his willingness to kill bin Laden, without any pretense of seeking his arrest, when he ordered the cruise missile strikes on an eastern Afghan camp in August 1998, after the CIA obtained intelligence that bin Laden might be there for a meeting of al Qaeda leaders.

Yet the secret legal authorizations Clinton signed after this failed missile strike required the CIA to make a good faith effort to capture bin Laden for trial, not kill him outright.

Beginning in the summer of 1998, Clinton signed a series of top secret memos authorizing the CIA or its agents to use lethal force, if necessary, in an attempt to capture bin Laden and several top lieutenants and return them to the United States to face trial.

From Director George J. Tenet on down, the CIA's senior managers wanted the White House lawyers to be crystal clear about what was permissible in the field. They were conditioned by history -- the CIA assassination scandals of the 1970s, the Iran-contra affair of the 1980s -- to be cautious about legal permissions emanating from the White House. Earlier in his career, Tenet had served as staff director of the Senate Intelligence Committee and director of intelligence issues at the White House, roles steeped in the Washington culture of oversight and careful legality.

Tenet and his senior CIA colleagues demanded that the White House lay out rules of engagement for capturing bin Laden in writing, and that they be signed by Clinton. Then, with such detailed authorizations in hand, every one of the CIA officers who handed a gun or a map to an Afghan agent could be assured that he or she was operating legally.

This was the role of the Memorandum of Notification, as it was called. It was typically seven or eight pages long, written in the form of a presidential decision memo. It began with a statement about how bin Laden and his aides had attacked the United States. The memo made clear the president was aware of the risks he was assuming as he sent the CIA into action.

Some of the most sensitive language concerned the specific authorization to use deadly force. Clinton's national security aides said they wanted to encourage the CIA to carry out an effective operation against bin Laden, not to burden the agency with constraints or doubts. Yet Clinton's aides did not want authorizations that could be interpreted by Afghan agents as an unrestricted license to kill. For one thing, the Justice Department signaled that it would oppose such language if it was proposed for Clinton's signature.

The compromise wording, in a succession of bin Laden-focused memos, always expressed some ambiguity about how and when deadly force could be used in an operation designed to take bin Laden into custody. Typical language, recalled one official involved, instructed the CIA to "apprehend with lethal force as authorized."

At the CIA, officers and supervisors agonized over these abstract phrases. They worried that if an operation in Afghanistan went badly, they would be accused of having acted outside the memo's scope. Over time, recriminations grew between the CIA and the White House.

It was common in Clinton's cabinet and among his National Security Council aides to see the CIA as much too cautious, paralyzed by fears of legal and political risks. At Langley, this criticism rankled. The CIA's senior managers believed officials at the White House wanted to have it both ways: They liked to blame the agency for its supposed lack of aggression, yet they sent over classified legal memos full of wiggle words.

Clinton's covert policy against bin Laden pursued two goals at the same time. He ordered submarines equipped with cruise missiles to patrol secretly under ocean waters off Pakistan in the hope that CIA spotters would one day identify bin Laden's location confidently enough to warrant a deadly missile strike.

But Clinton also authorized the CIA to carry out operations that legally required the agency's officers to plan in almost every instance to capture bin Laden alive and bring him to the United States to face trial.

This meant the CIA officers had to arrange in advance for detention facilities, extraction flights and other elaborate contingencies -- even if they expected that bin Laden would probably die in the arrest attempt. These requirements made operational planning much more cumbersome, the CIA officers contended.

In fashioning this sensitive policy in the midst of an impeachment crisis that lasted into early 1999, Clinton's national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, struggled to forge a consensus within the White House national security team. Among other things, he had to keep on board a skeptical Attorney General Janet Reno and her Justice Department colleagues, who were deeply invested in law enforcement approaches to terrorism, according to senior officials involved.

As the months passed, Clinton signed new memos in which the language, while still ambiguous, made the use of lethal force by the CIA's Afghan agents more likely, according to officials involved. At first the CIA was permitted to use lethal force only in the course of a legitimate attempt to make an arrest. Later the memos allowed for a pure lethal attack if an arrest was not possible. Still, the CIA was required to plan all its agent missions with an arrest in mind.

Some CIA managers chafed at the White House instructions. The CIA received "no written word nor verbal order to conduct a lethal action" against bin Laden before Sept. 11, one official involved recalled. "The objective was to render this guy to law enforcement." In these operations, the CIA had to recruit agents "to grab [bin Laden] and bring him to a secure place where we can turn him over to the FBI. . . . If they had said 'lethal action' it would have been a whole different kettle of fish, and much easier."

Berger later recalled his frustration about this hidden debate. Referring to the military option in the two-track policy, he said at a 2002 congressional hearing: "It was no question, the cruise missiles were not trying to capture him. They were not law enforcement techniques."

The overriding trouble was, whether they arrested bin Laden or killed him, they first had to find him.




postato da vette67stinger | 02:20 | commenti (1)


sabato, febbraio 21, 2004

And here is a post published today on this web site, www.legnostorto.com , where my article "Illusion and Reality" has been translated in Italian and has been augmented by their editorial following the most recent revelations of Dr. Khan and the anticipated results of yesterday's elections in Iran.

Can we simply stand by and do nothing while our enemies prepare for our demise?

 

 

Lo spettro del fungo.

Submitted by Il Legno Storto on Saturday, 21 February 2004, 03:54 uur.

A partire dal tardo 2002 Legno Storto, attraverso le analisi offerte dai propri collaboratori, ha cercato di mettere in risalto la serieta' e lo stato critico della situazione internazionale. Non vogliamo certo essere tacciati di allarmismo o sensazionalismo ma ci sembra giusto, alla luce degli eventi odierni, riproporre un articolo apparso il 18 u.s. nella nostra sezione Global News. E' di oggi, infatti , la notizia apparsa sulle varie agenzie giornalistiche che tutto cio' che e' stato riportato al riguardo nelle pagine di Legno Storto si e' tristemente avverato: l'Iran possiede ordigni nucleari.Se quanto affermato dallo scienziato pakistano, Dott. Khan, e cioè che la sua partecipazione alla vendita di armi e materiali nucleari e' vera, e ad oggi non abbiamo alcuna ragione di dubitare della loro veridicita', così come non possiamo neanche ipotizzare la potenziale disponibilita' del regime Iraniano di fare uso di tali armi contro coloro che questi Ayatollah vedono come i Satana di questo mondo.Abbiamo tradotto dall'Inglese l'articolo "Illusion and Reality"del nostro Franco Cimmino non in modo letterale ma comunque fedele, come contenuto, all'originale.Siamo realmente preoccupati anche dallo sviluppo della crisi interna Iraniana con le elezioni politiche tenutesi ieri nonostante le restrizioni imposte sulle forze riformatrici da parte del consiglio supremo dell'Iran.


Riteniamo inoltre possibile il suggerimento fatto da alcune fonti attendibili che l'attuale crisi tra l'Occidente e l'Iran sulle armi atomiche sia notevolmente piu' drammatica di quanto si pensava in un primo momento e tutte le notizie che ci pervengono oggi attraverso le agenzie di stampa estera ne sono prova inconfutabile.Siamo, inoltre, consci del fatto che ordigni nucleari miniaturizzati ed artisticamente celati in valigette 24 ore, possono facilmente essere trasportate e posizionate in luoghi nevralgici e strategici e pronti ad essere impiegati quale deterrente qualora gli USA, o chi per essi, decidessero di "alterare" dall'esterno i risultati di elezioni già compromesse e falsate in Iran.
Se questo ricatto nucleare e' cio' a cui mirano gli Ayatollah nella loro speranza di frustrare qualsiasi nostro tentativo,diplomatico o militare, di rimuovere anche pacificamente e democraticamente una dittatura come la loro e non agiamo con immediatezza e determinazione, dovremo anche sottostare a qualsiasi loro altra ulteriore richiesta o minaccia.Noi siamo dell'opinione che il tempo di usare l'arma della diplomazia nei confronti dell'Iran e' oramai scaduto per la sua attuale irrilevanza ed anacronismo e che agire militarmente sia l'unica soluzione capace di rimuovere, una volta per tutte, una vera "nazione canaglia" ed una minaccia per l'umanita'.


Illusione e realtà
Nell'ottobre del 2003 abbiamo appreso che l'Iran aveva deciso di permettere allo Aiea di intraprendere controlli liberi e autonomi dei loro impianti nucleari. I nostri novelli "Chamberlain", che oggi si chiamano de Villepen, Straw e Fischer, sono ritornati a casa sbandierando il loro "pezzo di carta" orgogliosi del fatto che le loro "arti diplomatiche" avevano funzionato a meraviglia, evitando così di ricorrere a dimostrazioni di forza. Ma il mio scetticismo è rimasto immutato e constato che, ancora una volta,si asseconda un altro despota esattamente come accade 65 anni fa, quando un radioso Chamberlain , scendendo dall'aeroplano, mostrò a tutti "quel pezzo di carta" pronunciando la tristemente famosa frase: " Peace in our time". E così come coloro i quali vissero l'Europa del 1938, lo scorso ottobre alcuni di noi si sono rallegrati e rincuorati nell'illusione che avevamo evitato grazie alla diplomazia, un serio e pericoloso conflitto con il regime iraniano. Questa pia illusione è stata alimentata dalla cattura di Saddam e dall'improvviso voltafaccia di Gheddafi, dandoci, proprio sotto le festività natalizie, la sensazione che avevamo raggiunto l'obiettivo di sconfitta del terrorismo internazionale che ci eravamo prefissi dopo l'11 settembre 2001.


Ma la realtà di questo febbraio 2004 ha avuto lo stesso effetto di una doccia scozzese! I dittatori, in generale, interpretano l'arte della diplomazia delle nazioni democratiche occidentali , come debolezza o scarsa disponibilità a rinunciare al loro agiato modo di vivere. E hanno ragione per quanto riguarda l'Europa, se valutiamo con occhio critico il comportamento di alcune nazioni europee nei mesi che precedettero la liberazione dell'Iraq, nonostante le successive rivelazioni del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite che dietro "i nyets, nein e non" ,si celava,in realtà, l'onnipresente "vil danaro" . Il fallimento diplomatico con l'Iran è risultato poi evidente grazie alle recenti rivelazioni di uno scienziato pakistano che, per parecchi anni, è stato un trafficante di tecnologia e materiale nucleare e che ha confessato di aver venduto a Libia, N.Korea e Iran il "knowhow" per la costruzione di armi nucleari.


Come facciamo a essere certi che ciò sia vero e non frutto delle farneticazioni di uno scienziato visionario? La risposta è tragicamente semplice e la si può trovare in quelle notizie brevi che spesso sono presenti nei quotidiani italiani e che in gergo tecnico si definiscono "riempitivi". Ne richiamo alcune particolarmente significative:


1) subito dopo degli attacchi del 11/9, sono apparse alcune notizie brevi che annunciavano lo smarrimento di 22 degli 80 ordigni nucleari portatili e miniaturizzati contenuti in altrettante( innocenti in apparenza) "valigette 24 ore" di produzione sovietica. Le "brevi" non sono state più riprese e sono scomparse definitivamente dall'olimpo massmediologico.Giova ricordare, a questo punto, che lo scienziato pakistano Khan, ha ammesso, nelle confessioni di questi giorni, di aver ottenuto e rivenduto a "entità sconosciute", 5 di tali dispositivi/valigetta.


2) nel mese di ottobre del 2002, ancora sotto forma di notizia-riempitivo, siamo stati informati che le autorità degli Stati Uniti e turche avevano intercettato e arrestato 2 individui che trasportavano 15 chilogrammi di uranio mentre attraversavano il confine fra l'Iran e la Turchia. Nessuna informazione successiva è stata data sia sull'origine dell'uranio che sull'identità dei due corrieri o sul destinatario finale del pericoloso carico.


3) giusto alcuni giorni fa, cioè lo scorso giovedì per l'esattezza, le autorità irachene hanno fermato due individui  e confiscato un barile contenete uranio talmente arricchito che un poliziotto iracheno, a seguito dell'ispezione del contenuto del barile, ha dovuto essere ricoverato in ospedale con gravi ustioni effetto delle radiazioni nucleari. Quest'ultima notizia è stata diffusa con un solo lancio dall'agenzia Adnkrons e non è stata ripresa da nessun altro media.


4) poco prima delle feste di Natale, siamo stati informati che un certo numero di voli della Air France diretti in USA erano stati annullati "per timore di attentati terroristici".Il governo francese, ripreso dalla stampa mondiale,ha inizialmente protestato per la richiesta dell'ambasciata americana, giudicandola priva di fondamento e allarmistica. Solo dopo parecchi giorni la Francia ha ammesso che la minaccia era non soltanto molto reale e che 3 dei 4 sospettati  terroristi erano stati arrestati e il quarto era ricercato in Inghilterra.


5)Il Presidente del Consiglio italiano Silvio Berlusconi, appena un mese fa, ha rilasciato una dichiarazione,che è stata interpretata come " la solita incauta esternazione del Cav." nella quale disse a chiare lettere che l'Italia e in particolare la città del Vaticano avevano corso un serio pericolo di attentati da parte del terrorismo internazionale. Mi pare che nessuno abbia dato il giusto peso alle parole di Berlusconi, né alcuno ha avviato un'indagine accurata per cogliere il vero significato di quelle preoccupanti "esternazioni".


6) Lunedì scorso 16 febbraio, il governo iraniano ha dichiarato di non voler rispettare gli accordi di ottobre con lo Aiea aggiungendo che avrebbe proceduto con la vendita di uranio arricchito sul libero mercato. Questa dichiarazione non solo contraddice le loro promesse di ottobre, ma rappresenta un grave pericolo perché  si tratta di una nazione sovrana che minaccia di vendere materiale nucleare a chiunque e per qualsivoglia scopo.


Avvicinandoci alla data delle elezioni iraniane , il 20 febbraio, ed alla luce di tutto ciò che è accaduto in quello stato dittatoriale, non possiamo permetterci di chiudere gli occhi e far finta di credere a un documento inutile, sottoscritto e sbandierato da un regime ideologicamente fallito e pericoloso come quello iraniano . Così come nel 1938 le illusioni "peace in our time" furono seguite dalla realtà del 1939 e dagli orrori della seconda guerra mondiale,nel 2004 non possiamo e non dovremmo cadere preda di illusioni e false dichiarazioni di pace. La cruda realtà è che l'unico modo di trattare con i dittatori non è il tavolo della diplomazia ma il fuoco delle armi. Solo ricorrendo all'uso della forza potremo vincere questa guerra e preservare l'umanità da una immane e irreversibile catastrofe.
 https://NYC-USA.splinder.it















postato da vette67stinger | 10:45 | commenti


mercoledì, febbraio 18, 2004

 

And what about Saudi Arabia?


The time has long since passed when the United States should be referring to Saudi Arabia as an ally. It is our enemy.

An unprecedented demand for the bank account records of the Washington, D.C. Saudi Embassy in November 2003 demonstrates that the National Security Council's working group on terrorism is seeking to determine how the millions spent by the embassy may have funded 9-11 and other plots to undermine our nation. The subpoenas were so unprecedented, few can recall if they have ever been issued to any embassy in the past.

The Saudis, of course, have been working desperately since 9-11 to convince Americans they are "a modern nation," determined to fight the very terrorism their millions continue to underwrite.

In June of last year, records show that Saudi Arabia had paid Patton Boggs, an affiliate of U.S. Qorvis Communications, a public relations agency, $1.4 million in the previous six months to massage their image. Part of that money went to arranging a two-day trip and interview by "Today" show host Katie Couric to interview Crown Prince Abdullah and Prince Saudi Al-Faisal.

Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers who destroyed the Twin Towers and attacked the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, were Saudis.

A recent report by United Press International noted that at least 160 of the 650 detainees at the US military base in Guantanamo, Cuba, are from Saudi Arabia. Some were arrested far from the 2001 battlefield of Afghanistan. Others are being held at a number of points around the world. Reportedly, Saudis have streamed into Iraq to assist resistance efforts against US forces there.

The Islamic Jihad being waged around the world today began in eighteenth century Arabia. In 1744, a covenant was drawn up between the Al Saud clan and Muhammad ibn al-Wahhab, the founder of a militant interpretation of Islam now commonly called Wahhabism.

In return for protection, the Wahhabis granted the Al Saud clan with religious legitimacy. What followed was a form of nation building as the leader of the Al Saud clan married the daughters of other clans to bring them under his control.

Saudi Arabia is less a nation than a tribe with a flag. Its "constitution" is the Koran. It is run by a network of some 7,000 "royal princes."

Wahhabism is the religion of Saudi Arabia and it is distinguished by its complete rejection of foreign influences, its opposition to modern interpretations of the Koran, and its contempt for non-Wahhabi Muslims.

Moreover, the Saudis are Sunni Muslims with a long history of strife with Shi'ite Muslims, those who parenthetically are the majority in Iraq and in Iran, the other primary enemy of the US and the West.

Thus, a "nation" that subscribes to the most regressive and oppressive form of Islam is both an "ally" of the United States and the most responsible for 9-11 and other areas of ferment and hostility around the world.

The Saudis have underwritten the efforts of so-called Palestinians in the long history of attacks on Israel. Osama bin Laden's teacher, Abdullah Azzam, was a Palestinian, and the entire educational system in Saudi Arabia is controlled by those who advocate the Jihad for which bin Laden has become the symbol.

The current Wahhabi Jihad movement did not occur overnight. It began in the 1960s (in this regard it parallels the Iranian movement led by Ayatollah Khomeini). By the 1980s, the Saudis were pouring millions into the building and spread of fundamentalist Islam via mosques and madrasses throughout the world. This was done through a series of professed "charities" such as the International Islamic Relief Organization.

Here in the United States, there are an estimated 1,200 mosques and, as of 2000, none of the imams leading them were native-born Americans. Nearly eight in ten US Muslims were born abroad.

The contempt that Wahhabism feels for Muslims who do not subscribe to its viewpoint has begun to come back to bite the Saudi Royal family. Their major cities are virtual garrison towns as the family seeks to cope with the biggest threat to its authority in more than twenty years.

After months, if not years, of denial, the Saudi government has admitted to the fact that they have a terrorist network on its "sacred" soil. This has not, however, encouraged them to work more closely and openly with American military and intelligence communities.

So, we now must contend not just with the re-building of Afghanistan and Iraq. We must keep an ever-watchful eye on the nexus of the Islamic Jihad -- Saudi Arabia. This is a nation in need of a regime change more than all the others of that besotted region that breeds the cancer of violence besieging the world.

The irony, of course, is that it is our billions in oil money that has lifted these camel drivers and goat herders from a nomadic life on the sands of Arabia to a level of wealth that has utterly corrupted a "royal family" whose decadence betrays the very religion they claim to represent.







































postato da vette67stinger | 20:04 | commenti (2)

Illusion and Reality

Back in October of 2003 we heard that Iran had decided to allow the IAEA to undertake intrusive and unfetted inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Our novel new "Chamberlains", namely Straw, de Villepen and Fischka, returned home flying their piece of paper to demonstrate that the diplomacy undertaken by the "masters of diplomacy" had worked and without the need for any saber-rattling or show of force.
But my skepticism remained unabated as I was witnessing, once more, the appeacement of another despot just as it had happened 65 years ago when a gleeming Chamberlain, descending from the airplane, held  a piece of paper for all to see and proclaiming some of the most infamous words ever spoken, "Peace in our time".
And just like those who lived in 1938 Europe,  this past October some of us rejoyced and reveled in the illusion that we had averted a more serious confrontation with the teocrats in Iran.
This illusion was further enhanced by the capture of Saddam and the sudden about-face of Gheddafi just as we were approaching the Christmas Holidays thus affording us the belief that we were truly and tangibly achieving those goals we set out to undertake in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.

But the reality of February 2004 has had the same effect as a Scottish shower!
Dictators, as a rule, perceive the art of diplomacy, as proposed by western democratic nations, as weakness and lack of determination or unwillingness to sacrifice an affluent lifestyle as enjoyed in the West and they are correct, as it pertains to Europe, if we are to evaluate with a critical eye what some european nations did in the months preceding the liberation of Iraq and notwithstanding the subsequent revelations that behind the "nyets, nein and non" in the Security Council chamber of the United Nations, lurked the ever present "almighty dollar".
The beginnings of an obvious bankruptcy of diplomacy with Iran came to the surface with the revelations of a Pakistani scientist who, for several years, had become a merchant of nuclear technology and material and who confessed to have sold to Lybia, N.Korea and Iran the knowhow for the construction of nuclear weapons.
How do we know all this to be factual and not simply the delusions of an elderly and dissatisfied Pakistani nuclear scientist?
The answer is tragically simple and can often be found even in those four or five line news articles located somewhere inside your local newspaper which the media  commonly refers to as "fillers".
Let's see ,now ,if I can juggle your memory by mentioning just a few and somewhat obscure events of the past 28 months and let us further see what conclusions you can come up with:

1) Immediately following the 9/11 attacks, some articles began to surface as to the whereabouts of some 22, of the 80 known to exist, portable and miniaturized nuclear devices contained in as many innocent looking attache' cases developed by the Soviet Union. That bit of news was around for a few days and then disapperaed from the horizon.
Khan, the Pakistani scientist, has ackowledged having obtained and resold to "unknown entities", 5 such devices.

2) In October 2002, again in the form of a newspaper "filler", we were made aware that Turkish and US authorities had intercepted and seized two individuals carrying 15 Kgs. of uranium while crossing the border between Iran and Turkey. No  further explanation or follow-up has been heard since such as the origin of the uranium, the identities of the two couriers or the final destination and addressee of the uranium.

3) Just a few days ago, last thursday to be exact, Iraqi authorities seized 2 individuals in Iraq and confiscated a drum containing uranium so enriched that an Iraqi policeman, following the inspection of the contents of the drum, had to be hospitalized as a result of "serious burns".
This bit of news was only published on a single wire service, ADNKronos, on sunday February 15 ,2004 and not reported by anyone else.

4) Just prior to the Christmas Holidays, we were informed that a number of Air France flights destined for the USA had been cancelled on "fears of terrorist threats". The French government, echoed by most of the world press, initially protested such request by the US Embassy in Paris and it took several days before we found out that the threat was not only very real but that 3 of 4 suspected terrorists sought had been captured and the fourth one was being hunted down in United Kingdom.

5) Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy, just this past January, made what is commonly known as an "off the cuff" remark when he stated that the Italian government, through its secret services, had "saved the country".
What are we to extrapolate from such a phrase? And yet nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has made any attempt to find out the true meaning of that remark since nothing further has been done or written to understand what Berlusconi meant by that remark.

6) This past monday, February 16, the Iranian government made it known that it had decided not to follow through with their October agreement with the IAEA and furthermore they would proceed with the sale of enriched uranium on the open market.
This statement not only contradicts their claims that they sought to establish a nuclear program for "peaceful means" but we now have not a rogue Pakistani scientist but a sovereign nation threatening to sell the material for the ultimate weapon to anyone and for whatever purpose.

As we now approach the date of the next Iranian elections, February 20, and in light of all that has happened in that imprisoned nation in political and WMD terms, we cannot afford to close both our eyes and keep waving that useless document signed ,sealed and delivered by a regime such as Iran.
Just like in 1938 and the illusions of "peace in our time" followed by the reality of 1939 and the horrors of WWII; in 2004 we cannot and should not fall prey to wishful thinking and appeasement.
The stark reality is that the only way to deal with dictatorships is not at the negotiating table but thru the barrel of our guns, it is only thru this sacrifice of ours that we will be able to win this war. For our good and for the protection and preservation of mankind.
















postato da vette67stinger | 17:17 | commenti

So that I may express my true neo-conservative opinions in the language I know best