The Legacy of Iraq?

(Here's where I lose some of my "conservative" friends.)

First, Did the Iraqi surge succeed? by Thomas E. Ricks, July 26, 2010:

Yes, if you think its purpose was to enable the United States to find a way to get out of Iraq with a few shreds of dignity. (But that would be cynical!) No, if you think its purpose was to improve security in such a way that Iraq would have a political breakthrough.

I dredge this all up because of a good article by young Leila Fadel in the Saturday edition of the Washington Post that examines how all the basic issues in Mosul remain unresolved. She writes that, "Kurdish and Sunni Arab leaders battle over disputed lands, provincial and central government officials wrestle for control, and Sunni insurgents continue to slip back and forth across the porous borders with Turkey and Syria."

This is a microcosm of Iraq's problems as a whole: There is no agreement on how to share oil revenue, no resolution of the basic relationship between the country's three major groups, and no decision on whether Iraq will have a strong central government or be a loose confederation. And no resolution on the future place of the Kurds and Kirkuk.

On the upside, it is going to be interesting to see how Iraqi officials treat journalists after there no longer are so many Americans about. Here's a taste that Fadel and her friends got from Iraqi Lt. Col. Shamel Ahmed Ugla when they asked about a detainee who said he was beaten as he was interrogated about his connections to al Qaeda: "If he was beaten, to hell with him," Ugla yelled. "Stop asking these questions."

(Please see the original for formatting and links which I did not reproduce.)

Saddam Hussein's brutal regime was removed, but under American occupation, abuse of prisoners continued.

Make no mistake about it - the American military, at its worst, is nowhere near as bad our enemies at their best. No military does as good a job caring for "enemy" populations as the US military - Vietnam and the Indian wars notwithstanding.

But, prisoner abuse occurred, due not just to negligence on the part of the civilian command authorities, but due to the active intervention of our civilian leadership to make sure certain harsh, abusive things happened.

Once American troops pull out, though, Iraq will wind up with another brutal regime, where the treatment of prisoners will be far worse - on a par with what happened under Hussein.

So, what were our troops sent in to die for?

Hussein's Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and the Bush-43 regime knew that.

Hussein's Iraq was connected to the Oklahoma City bombing, but that has, so far, been covered up.

The invasion has been very lucrative for certain business interests.

Strategically, though, it was a blunder.

A secular regime was removed; the replacement will ultimately be one that pushes militant Islam.

America's reputation has suffered for various reasons.

America's federal debt has dramatically increased, leaving us far less able to deal with future issues, whether natural disasters, wars or economic catastrophes.

It will be interesting to see what the legacy of the Iraq war will be.

One thing is for sure - the Obama Administration has neither the intelligence, nor the integrity, nor the guts to fix the blunders of its predecessor.

In fact, we have sunk to a new level - far below where we were a couple of years ago.

The OKBOMB and the TiNRATs, Part 3

(Prior to reading this, you may wish to review the contents of Part 1 and Part 2.)

Sometimes old news is the best news to watch:



Jayna Davis is an exceptionally competent investigative reporter. She put her findings in a book, entitled The Third Terrorist. The case it presents is airtight. Years prior to writing her book, when the OKBOMB cases were still being investigated and tried, she took her information to the FBI, and a description of her reception by the FBI is at the end of the vid embedded above. Jayna Davis finishes the segment with these words:

"They outrightly refused to take the information and that information implicated a Middle Eastern terrorist cell funded by Osama bin Laden as assisting Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols in executing the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Building. Their reasons? Their motivations? That's a question for the Department of Justice and the former Attorney General [Janet Reno]."

Well, they're not going to tell us, so let's speculate.

As Jayna Davis explained in Take AIM: Jayna Davis on OKC Third Terrorist, April 22, 2010:

DAVIS: Well at the time I was an investigative reporter for Oklahoma City's NBC affiliate, KFOR TV, and just by virtue of proximity I was one of the first news correspondents to report the death and destruction of April 19th, 1995. In fact CNN took our live broadcasts within fifteen, twenty minutes of the bombing, and I was one of the reporters on the scene. So I've been following this from its inception, from the moment of detonation, and I spent the next nine years documenting, very copiously, a Middle Eastern connection to the Oklahoma City Bombing. And I laid out that research in my book, The Third Terrorist, and it outlines details of sworn affidavits from very credible witnesses who link the convicted bombers, Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols, to an Iraqi hit squad of former soldiers who served in Saddam Hussein's army, the Republican Guard, during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. They immigrated to the United States after Operation Desert Storm as false defectors. In the fall of 1994, about six months before the Murrah Building attack, these Iraqi servicemen suddenly showed up in an Oklahoma City property management company and began working for a Palestinian real estate mogul, who, according to my research, and the federal court record, this man was suspected of ties to the terrorist organization known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Now these 22 witnesses, that I gathered and collated all their copiously presented evidence and testimony, they positively identified eight specific Iraqi soldiers aiding and abetting Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols in the months, the weeks, the days, and the final hours leading up to that deadly moment of 9:02 AM on April 19th, 1995.

So, there was a definite connection to Iraq, with Saddam Hussein striking back as he could for his mother-of-all-defeats in the Gulf War.

Skipping down:

I met with the FBI in May of 1995. Shared all my evidence. Within four days of that meeting and turning over surveillance video tape of these Iraqi soldiers at this local property management company, where they worked, after I turned that over, within four days the FBI held a national press conference and said John Doe Two may be a case of mistaken identity. But they were speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They parsed their words very carefully. Janet Reno stated, 'We have not officially ruled out the suspect.' So while the press assumed the search was over, the national manhunt, they left the door open that if anything were to come up, they could always step aside and explain why they pulled the search for John Doe Two; they pulled the plug on the tipline. I believe that's because when I handed my surveillance tape of those Iraqi soldiers, they knew who John Doe Two was, and President Clinton was not about to arrest a foreign suspect in which the United States of America would cry out for a military response to take out Saddam Hussein.

The picture painted is one of a Bill Clinton in 1995 wanting to direct anger against American "right-wingers" for political purposes. Again skipping down some:

DAVIS: [President Clinton] actually had a political boost and a bonus as a result of no foreign connection to the Oklahoma City bombing. He was able to capitalize on the rhetoric of the day. And actually he propagated that rhetoric. He actually lit the fuse, okay, and he fueled the flames of demagoguery.

After the stunning defeats the Democrats were dealt in the 1994 mid-term elections, His Slickness understood very well his own job would be on the line in 1996, but if he could castrate the Republicans and put them on the defensive by painting them not as mean-spirited, but as terrorists, he might save his Presidency and gain another term.

But, then, why, when Bush-43 wants to invade Iraq a few years later, does "W" not dig this up and point this out as a legimate reason to connect both Iraq and Al Qaeda, and go after Hussein's regime? Why does "W" send his minions out with the Curveball crap about weapons of mass destruction?

Perhaps a clue can be found in Davis' answer to another question in another interview. From The Real Story of the Oklahoma City Bombing, April 27, 2010:

I asked Davis what it will take for the version of history that she has largely written to become the accepted narrative of what really happened. She said the people have to continue to press the authorities and the major media, even at this late date, for the truthful answers.

"Here's where I think it, it lies: It's going to have to be the peasants with the pitchforks," she said, referring to popular disgust with the official version of the story. "These people are going to have to rise up, just like the Tea Party movement is angry about Washington policies that affect their pocketbooks and the future of their children and the national deficit. They're going to have to rise up and demand that this record is corrected."

Otherwise, she said, the liberal left will continue to use their version of Oklahoma City to smear anybody critical of their control of the federal government.

She explained, "They're going to continue to label anybody who carries a placard or raises a voice of dissent in a peaceful protest as a 'Tim McVeigh wannabe.' And until The Third Terrorist, and this evidence embodied in my book, is actually proven, prosecuted, and validated in a courtroom setting, the label of 'Tim McVeigh wannabe' is going to continue to be attached to God-fearing Americans who dare to step forward and question and hold to account their elected officials."

So, McVeigh really was a terrorist, connected to the Middle East. But, they will deny this and use his example to accuse you of being a terrorist until you step forward and prove that they are criminals.

With all that in mind, do you really think they want to be able to illegally wiretap you (and waterboard you if necessary) to protect you from the very terrorists they have just shown they themselves protect whenever it's convenient to do so?

Also, check out McVeigh Mania from Atlas Shrugs.

More to follow.

War of Civilizations?

First of all, for those of you who missed it last Sunday night, please watch the following vid from 60 Minutes:

Watch CBS News Videos Online

CBS is part of the mainstream media. Having said that, they do excellent work, within the bounds of what they find it comfortable to do.

In the video, Lesley Stahl missed an important opportunity.

Several Muslims - dare I call this particular group extremists? I'm not sure if it is a fair characterization - in Pakistan were debating with a former jihadist, Maajid Nawaz, about jihadist ideology, and Ms. Stahl then entered the conversation. One of the men alleged that the US was behind the attacks on 9/11 - in what we would call a "false flag" operation - to have a pretext to attack the Muslim world.

Ms. Stahl seemed to find the allegation that 9/11 was a false flag operation incredible.

Since the idea is incredible - and growing in popularity - why does no one in the mainstream media delve into it and thoroughly investigate it? If it is so incredible, it should be easy to disprove.

Let's get our history straight.

Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy - and, he acted alone.

Before that, Polish troops crossed the frontier into Nazi Germany in late August of 1939, and Germany was forced to defend itself.

Our government is trustworthy and, even if it should be shown that the incident along the Polish-German border in August, 1939, was a false-flag operation, that does not trump the fact that all of our American government officials are absolutely honest and brave, and can not be bought off or intimidated.

:|

It was not to wage war on Islam.

Most of the attackers were Saudis, and Saudi Arabia is the home of Islam's two holiest sites.

If we wanted to wage war on Islam, Mecca and Medina would be pig farms now.

(Pigs are particularly repugnant to Islam, so would be a natural choice to defile Islam's holiest cities.)

There was the incentive of tremendous profits to be made supporting the war, not to mention the illegal profits enabled by the hostilities.

This is on top of the natural resources to which we would have unfettered access by invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Nawaz correctly points to oil and other possible reasons behind the US presence in Iraq and Afghanistan - not to an American hatred of Islam.

:|

The terrorist attack on 9/11 was the crime of the century.

Why was the Federal Bureau of Investigation not allowed to investigate this terrorist incident? The FBI was sent in to investigate other Al Qaeda attacks elsewhere. Why was the WTC not cordoned off as a crime scene?

Why does the FBI's "Wanted" poster for Usama Bin Laden not refer to 9/11?

It was revised in November of 2001.

Where is the mention of 9/11 in the FBI's UBL wanted poster?

Enquiring minds want to know.

I want to know. :)

__________

The war of civilizations is as follows.

The United States was born - imperfect - in a quest to establish a government based on the principle that all people are equal: not equally tall or short, smart or dumb, rich or poor, but equally human; especially that no royalty was more human, having the authority to take away fundamental rights bestowed up us by our Creator.

To be sure, this new country was imperfect, and its implementation of this principle of equality was very imperfect. In many parts of the new nation, people could be bought and sold as property; slavery still existed. Even half a century after slavery was outlawed, people were still treated as second-class citizens (and worse) based on their skin color and gender.

Problems exist to this day.

The fact that this nation is not perfect does in no way negate the validity of the founding principle: we are all created equal, and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In sharp contrast, Islam is a medieval ideology, wherein women are treated little better than cattle, according to laws codified centuries ago, and acccording to the example of the ideology's founder, who is considered to be a perfect example of humanity.

As long as some glimmer of hope for a better, more equitable life exists anywhere in creation, those who have been enslaved by Islam, like those who were enslaved by communism, will dream of throwing off their own chains in search of the freedom intended for them by their Creator, and for which an eternal fire burns in their hearts.

As long as this is the case, Islam, like communism, is in danger.

To prevail, all America has to do is survive.

But, to prevail, Islam must conquer and destroy; that is why it was spawned in battle with holy warriors challenging all they encountered with the infamous triple choice: conversion to Islam, submission to the caliphate in dhimmi status, or war of annihilation.

There is indeed a war between what America stands for and the Islamic world, but it is not America that seeks to conquer.

__________

Having said that, though, there are things in Muslim lands of great value, and there are corrupt and criminal people in our "government of the people, by the people and for the people" who seek to hijack our nation's might for personal enrichment.

Of course, the reverse is true, as well: there are things of value in America, and the Islamic world has corrupt and criminal leaders whose authority is "divinely" unquestionable, and for whom Islam is a vehicle....

We Have Warned You

From Iraq: The Hidden Crime of Rape, by Anna Badkhen:

The three policemen put a burlap sack over Khalida's head and took her to the Iraqi Interior Ministry in Baghdad. There, they interrogated her and beat her, knocking out her front teeth. Then they tore off her clothes and took turns raping her.

"After they finished, the fourth man came into the room," Khalida told me, stubbing out one cigarette to light another. "He was an officer. I could see the rank on his shoulders. He looked at me and said: 'Oh, it's my bad luck that you’re bleeding, because it was supposed to be my turn.'" The officer ordered his men to get rid of Khalida. They wrapped her in a blanket, put her in a car, and dumped her, hemorrhaging, on a Baghdad sidewalk.

We pick up Khalida's story from Rape's vast toll in Iraq war remains largely ignored:

As though recoiling from her own memories, Khalida shrank deeper into her faded armchair with each sentence she told: of how gunmen apparently working for Iraq's Interior Ministry kidnapped her, beat and raped her; of how they discarded her on a Baghdad sidewalk.

But her suffering did not end when she fled Iraq and became a refugee in Jordan's capital, Amman. When Khalida's husband learned that she had been raped, he abandoned her and their two young sons.

Rumors spread fast in Amman; soon, everyone on her block knew that she was without a man in the house. Last month, her Jordanian neighbor barged into her apartment and attempted to rape her.

Khalida never reported the incident. Like tens of thousands of Iraqi refugees in Jordan, she does not have a permit to live or work here, and she is afraid that if she turns to authorities for help she will get deported. So instead of seeking punishment for her assailant, she latched the flimsy metal door of her apartment and stopped going outside.

This is not uncommon in post-invasion Iraq. As Amnesty International reports:

Women and girls are being attacked in the street by men with different political agendas but who all want to impose veiling, gender segregation and discrimination. Islamist armed groups have claimed and justified violent attacks on women not complying with their views.

Women are also suffering violence at the hands of their fathers, brothers and other relatives, particularly if they try to choose how to lead their lives. Many face terrible retribution if they refuse to be forcibly married or dare to associate with men not selected by their families – even though Iraqi legislation specifically prohibits forced marriage, and the right to choose a spouse is guaranteed under international law applicable in all parts of Iraq.

Wars and conflicts, wherever they are fought, invariably usher in sickeningly high levels of violence against women and girls. Amnesty International is concerned that even if greater stability and peace return soon to Iraq, levels of violence against women may remain high if the authorities continue to allow men to kill and maim women with impunity, and if gender segregation and discrimination against women become further entrenched.

The problem is multifold.

First, it involves an oppressive religion from the middle ages, which codifies treatment of women as objects, with an emphasis on their being objects for sexual gratification.

Mixed in with this is a generous dose of tribal culture, where women are kept submissive by being second-class citizens, needing a male to protect them from society.

Superimposed on this is something more familiar to Westerners: the inevitable criminal activity, and especially the victimization of women, that accompanies the chaos of armed conflict.

LICENCED TO KILL

Many men who commit violent crimes against women are never brought to justice because the authorities are unwilling to carry out proper investigations and punish the perpetrators. Six years after the overthrow of former President Saddam Hussein, Iraqi legislators have yet to amend legislation that effectively condones, even facilitates, violence against women and girls.

The Penal Code, for example, provides that a convicted murderer who pleads in mitigation that he killed with "honourable motives" may face just six months in prison. It also effectively allows husbands to use violence against their wives. The "exercise of a legal right" to exemption from criminal liability is permitted for: "Disciplining a wife by her husband, the disciplining by parents and teachers of children under their authority within certain limits prescribed by Islamic law (Shari'a), by law or by custom."

As a result, police frequently fail to arrest men accused of violence against their female relatives and, in the rare prosecutions, judges may hand down lenient sentences, even when a woman has been murdered. This sends out a terrifying message to all women in Iraq – that they may be killed and beaten with impunity.

When things are functioning reasonably well in Western societies, victims of sexual assault can usually turn to the police and various crisis centers for help. But, where do you go when your society has no crisis center, and when the police are your assailants?

Some women do escape domestic violence and seek refuge in special shelters, but there are far too few of these. In the Kurdistan Region, the local authorities have established shelters and others are run by non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In the rest of Iraq, the authorities do not provide shelters and those that do exist are run by NGOs and often have to function more or less clandestinely.

The following video link opens the PBS page in a pop-up window:

See also Behind the Veil.