Author: hfiend

I love it when al-Qaeda releases a new vid and then the media rushes to analyze every part of.  Taking note the number of times the speaker glanced around the room, the make of the gun included in the vid, and the color of his turban (White).  Although this analysis is pointless and does little to protect anyone, it is sadly more than our own Government is doing to find and fight the al-Qaeda entity at its head.
The most recent communication between al-Qaeda and the rest of the world stared Ayman al-Zawahri, al-Qaeda’s #2.  It was basically a stump speech where al-Zawahri made al-Qaeda’s case against secular and democratic reform in Arab countries.  He asserts that the use of non-violent disobedience is not enough to resist the those he referred top as “Crusader and Jewish invaders”.  

Ayman al-Zawahri hasn’t been heard from since early February.  

In a brief spurt of decent reporting, NBC stumbles on this

Not pointed out was the events that seemed somewhat related after his recent February communication; to me although I may be reaching.  On 10 February, Zawahri spoke about   bushCo.’s claim of democracy taking hold in the Mid-East.  On 14 February an explosion in Lebanon that now has been confirmed as a truck bomb; squashing any thought that the explosion was the result of an inside job, planted in the ground somewhere around the building.  This is the act the resulted in the protest and counter protests that caused Syria to exit Lebanon, and brought a first un-weighted election that has increased Hezbollah representation in the Lebanon government from 12 total to 33 as of now; with one more round to go.  It also made Lebanon a Shi’a state.  An al-Qaeda connection or speculation?

Now this has been a short diary so how about a speculative poll?

I must have missed this, if so I’ll delete.  Otherwise… I wear no tin foil hat but this is interesting stuff.

credit Raw Story

WashTimes

Someone has a score to settle?  Roveian countermeasure?  Is their any truth to this?  I sure hope not…

The so-called liberal media attempts to rewrite history, and gets caught by the Raw Story.

The AP transcript says the reporter asked a question which included the phrase, “intelligence and facts remain fixed” around the policy of removing Saddam Hussein. The official White House transcript and audio file confirmed by RAW STORY found that the reporter in fact had said “intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action.”

The  incorrect AP copy distributed to the papers was:

Q: Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called “Downing Street Memo” from July 2002, says, “Intelligence and facts <u>remain</u&gt fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military actions.” Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations.

The official White House / Milbank account stated correctly:

Q Thank you, sir. On Iraq, the so-called Downing Street memo from July 2002 says intelligence and facts <u>were</u&gt being fixed around the policy of removing Saddam through military action. Is this an accurate reflection of what happened? Could both of you respond?

PRIME MINISTER BLAIR: Well, I can respond to that very easily. No, the facts were not being fixed in any shape or form at all. And let me remind you that that memorandum was written before we then went to the United Nations.

Small difference, but why???

Can’t link to it enough, the Downing Street Minuets

Like no other country in the modern westernized world, America has the highest rate or religious devotion.  We also have no problem with mixing politics and faith; this is apparent with the high level of exposure the American Taliban in the past 5 years.

Religious devotion sets the United States apart from some of its closest allies. Americans profess unquestioning belief in God and are far more willing to mix faith and politics than people in other countries, AP-Ipsos polling found.

…

Only Mexicans come close to Americans in embracing faith, the poll found. But unlike Americans, Mexicans strongly object to clergy lobbying lawmakers, in line with the nation’s historical opposition to church influence.

“In the United States, you have an abundance of religions trying to motivate Americans to greater involvement,” said Roger Finke, a sociologist at Penn State University. “It’s one thing that makes a tremendous difference here.”

70% of Americans and 80% of Mexicans “Know God really exists […] and have no doubts about it.” While Canada is at 43%, Italy is at 53% and the U.K. came in at 23% when asked the same question.

Full results here.
Well that is scary, and a monumental change in the principals established by our founding fathers.  I was born into a country vastly different than the country I now see day to day.  Unfortunately it gets worse according to the same article.

Nearly all U.S. respondents said faith is important to them and only 2 percent said they do not believe in God. Almost 40 percent said religious leaders should try to sway policymakers, notably higher than in other countries.

“Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian policies and religious leaders have an obligation to speak out on public policy, otherwise they’re wimps,” said David Black, a retiree from Osborne, Pa., who agreed to be interviewed after he was polled.

Wimps!  Unbelievable, no it is actually believable and scary.

When compared to the French we are a religious state; French population overwhelmingly agree (85%) that there should be no “clergy activism“.  Australians are at 50%, while 2/3 of South Korean and Canadian populations said “religion is central to their lives“.  But in difference with the new American trend all three countries oppose the mixing of faith and politics, strongly.

Why is this happening?  I think it is a combination of the effects of 11 September 2001 and the use of religion by conservative politicians.  Real researchers say:

Researchers disagree over why people in the United States have such a different religious outlook, said Brent Nelsen, an expert in politics and religion at Furman University in South Carolina.

Some say rejecting religion is a natural response to modernization and consider the United States a strange exception to the trend. Others say Europe is the anomaly; people in modernized countries inevitably return to religion because they yearn for tradition, according to the theory.

Some analysts, like Finke [Penn State Univ.], use a business model. According to his theory, a long history of religious freedom in the United States created a greater supply of worship options than in other countries, and that proliferation inspired wider observance. Some European countries still subsidize churches, in effect regulating or limiting religious options, Finke said.

Some cited history:

Many countries other than the United States have been through bloody religious conflict that contributes to their suspicion of giving clergy any say in policy.

A variety of factors contribute to the sentiment about separating religion and politics.

“In Germany, they have a Christian Democratic Party, and they talk about Christian values, but they don’t talk about them in quite the same way that we do,” Nelsen said. “For them, the Christian part of the Christian values are held privately and it’s not that acceptable to bring those out into the open.”

In Spain, where the government subsidizes the Catholic Church, and in Germany, which is split between Catholics and Protestants, people are about evenly divided over whether they consider faith important. The results are almost identical in Britain, whose state church, the Church of England, is struggling to fill pews.

Italians are the only European exception in the poll. Eighty percent said religion is significant to them and just over half said they unquestioningly believe in God.

But even in Italy, home to the Catholic Church, resistance to religious engagement in politics is evident. Only three in 10 think the clergy should try to influence government decisions; a lower percentage in Spain, Germany and England said the same.

But as I said above, in the U.S.,

some of the most pressing policy issues involve complex moral questions — such as gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research — that understandably draw religious leaders into public debate, said John Green, an expert on religion and politics at the University of Akron.

The poll found Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to think clergy should try to influence government decisions — a sign of the challenges ahead for Democrats as they attempt to reach out to more religious voters.

“Rightly or wrongly, Republicans tend to perceive religion as, quote-unquote, `on their side,'” Green said.

(I got my first degree from the Univ. of Akron)

More trends are covered noting that women are more devout than men and the old more devout than the young.

Polling info; 10000 adults, 1000 each in 10 countries with a MoE of +/-3%.

This info was brought to my attention from an article by the BBC on the recent release of the United Nations Environment Programme‘s amazing “One Planet Many People” Atlas.  

I guess I’m not surprised by the content but the comparisons are amazing.

Here is the first pic with an explanation after the jump, follow me please.

What you are looking at is the Southern tip of Iraq and neighboring Iran near al Basra.  The dark purple color you see in the 70s is the once lucrative fig farming industry along the Shatt al-Arab estuary.  This once thriving crop has been destroyed by, “[t]he UN estimates war, pests and salt have destroyed 14 million palms.”

On a side I want to look at a recent article from Reuters covers the problems of the current invasion and occupation of Iraq

Back to the atlas…

This is a shocking change in Spain; I’m, however, not too worried by the view.  What was once traditional farmland has been replaced by greenhouses.  So at least the land is being used for nature not industry, but the Fertilizer can be problematic.  I’ll let people in the comments clear that up.

This pic has two interesting points

First notice the dam and the change that occurred.  Second notice the lack of change in Argentina as opposed to Paraguay and Brazil.  What remains in Argentina was once a larger Iguazú National Park.  This is an example of a victory for those fighting deforestation; well at least a victory in Argentina.

There are a few more pictures at BBC here.

UNEP has an extremely informative press release here.

Originally posted at my blog.

With all the hoopla in congress with the filibuster fight it is easy to overlook or push aside the current and pending battle over stem cell research.  Stem cells are pure magic, they can be harvested in any number of ways, some more controversial that others.  But with an administration that’s policies are mostly based on the philosophy of means justifying the ends it is hard to believe the amount of opposition the stem cells and all of its benefits receive from bushCo. and Bush himself.  For example, South Korea has made monumental developments in stem cell research and so has other countries; even we (the US) has mode moderate developments in the field despite a rightwing roadblock on the matter.
The lead swap between America and South Korea

Just a few years ago, Michigan State University scientist Jose Cibelli was considered the leading expert on cloning human embryos to treat and study disease. Now, there’s no debate that the cloning king is Hwang Woo-suk of Seoul National University.

On Thursday, Hwang announced yet again that he had successfully cloned human embryos, this time extracting stem cells from embryos created using the DNA of sick and injured patients. It was the second time in a little more than a year that Hwang had successfully cloned. He remains the only acknowledged scientist to have done so.

Hwang is succeeding where the United States is failing because generous South Korean government support helped him create an efficient cloning factory. In his lab, an army of researchers trained in specialized individual tasks mans a high-tech assembly line that often operates 24 hours a day, Cibelli and others say.

In contrast, the few U.S. researchers eager to clone are left scrambling for funds and staff and must contend with legal vagaries as well as staunch opposition from President Bush, who reaffirmed his position on Friday with a veto threat.

This is a damn shame.  Not because we lost the lead in this area of research, but because with our scientist limited so severely, the benefits that the world will reap when this technology is perfected will be put off that much longer.  People who suffer from or will suffer from conditions such as (from the Stem Cell Research Foundation)

•   leukemia and other cancers (which I just lost my grand mother to)
•   impared sight / macular degeneration (grandmother suffers from this)
•   severe burns
•   kidney disease (lost grandfather to)
•   diabetes
•   Parkinson’s disease
•   Alzheimers (lost grandfather to)
•   multiple sclerosis
•   spinal injuries / paralysis
•   aging organs
•   organ rejection (reduce the risk of transplant rejection, it would be made from your own DNA)
•   This list goes on and will only increase with time and research.

Will pay dearly.
But when a scientist makes a discovery like Dr. Hwang made earlier this week…

South Korean scientists have dramatically sped up the creation of human embryonic stem cells, growing 11 new batches that for the first time were a genetic match to injured or sick patients.

Our leader replies by  condemning it.

Which bring us to the action.

I would imagine that the Dems are all for the lifting of the 2001 ban on Government funded stem cell research, and the GOP is divided but it is almost guaranteed that the bill will get its 218 votes in the House.  That is step one, as you all know.  Then it is of to the President to sign the bill, which he wont do.  He has stated that he will veto the bill, this would send it back to the House.  Here it would be possible to override the veto with a 2/3 majority in both chambers.  23 Repubs and an Independent (assuming all the Dems are on board) in the Senate, and 90 more Representatives in addition to the 200 cosigners the bill already has.  This, in my opinion, is a posiblity.

So in conclusion I request that given the tremendous amount of lobbing that is going on currently, surrounding the filibuster; you take an extra minute to write a short letter of concern and/or encouragement for this bill, now and in the coming weeks after the veto.  It is possible to slip this by Bush; it is possible in the Senate and since this is a topic that is popular across the country, getting as many as 300 votes in the House is a definite possibility.
Imagine the look on Bush’s face if he looses on this, as well as, the outrage in the small circles of opposition that control him; a.k.a. the extremist religious right. 🙂

note:  I don’t claim to be an expert in political/Constitutional matters or in the science of stem cell’s so any corrections are encouraged.

The new Iraqi Government requested that its neighbors stop the resistance

Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari called on neighboring countries Thursday to help prevent foreign terrorists from crossing into Iraq as a series of attacks killed more than a dozen Iraqis and two American soldiers.

Al-Jaafari’s appeal came a day after a top U.S. military official said the leaders of Iraq’s most notorious terrorist group recently held a secret meeting in neighboring Syria, where they plotted the recent wave of insurgent violence that has killed hundreds of people.

“There are infiltrations of non-Iraqis through the border to carry out sabotage activities,” al-Jaafari said of the meeting that may have been attended by most-wanted militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi himself. “It’s up to our geographical neighbors. We are keen to preserve relations between us and neighboring countries, and these relations should be good.”

The only problem is the resistance, it is not an insurgency, is not based totally, or for that matter, at all outside of Iraq.  The only ones saying this is bushCo. and the new Iraqi Government.

In an inappropriately named WaPo article

U.S. military estimates cited by security analysts put the number of active jihadists at about 1,000, or less than 10 percent of the number of fighters in a mostly Iraqi-dominated insurgency. But military officials now say the foreigners are responsible for a higher percentage of the suicide bombings, and the online postings include few names of dead Iraqis affiliated with Zarqawi’s group.
…
“This is not al Qaeda’s first team,” said Hammes of the National Defense University. “These are the scrubs who could never get us in the States.”

Furthermore, western press is so quick to blame Syria and Iran, when the greatest number of jihadists come from Saudi Arabia

In a paper published in March, Reuven Paz, an Israeli expert on terrorism, analyzed the lists of jihadi dead. He found 154 Arabs killed over the previous six months in Iraq, 61 percent of them from Saudi Arabia, with Syrians, Iraqis and Kuwaitis together accounting for another 25 percent. He also found that 70 percent of the suicide bombers named by the Web sites were Saudi. In three cases, Paz found two brothers who carried out suicide attacks. Many of the bombers were married, well educated and in their late twenties, according to postings.

“While incomplete,” Paz wrote, the data suggest “the intensive involvement of Saudi volunteers for jihad in Iraq.”

In a telephone interview, Paz said his list — assembled from monitoring a dozen Islamic extremist Web forums — now had more than 200 names. “Many are students or from wealthy families — the same sociological characteristics as the Sept. 11 hijackers,” he said.

Juan Cole weighs in noting that some jihadists get sent back without a fight in Iraq

From al-Hayat of May 14 via BBC World Monitoring:

‘ Al-Hayat has learnt that two Saudi brothers who went to Iraq across the Syrian border for “jihad” against the occupation returned without taking part in any fighting after a bitter experience.

Sources told Al-Hayat that the two young men followed news of the resistance against the occupation since the former Iraqi regime’s downfall and the Al-Fallujah confrontation inflamed their zeal and they decided to go to Iraq. Their relatives intervened to persuade them not to carry out what they intended until everyone became convinced they would not go. But, according to the sources, the two brothers sneaked into Iraq and were able to contact a network which receives the fighters on the Iraqi-Syrian border. The two met a few days later the fighters’ “emir” [commander] at the border and asked him to take them to Al-Fallujah. But he refused, claiming that the road was difficult and full of dangers.

The sources added: “The group’s emir then confronted them with the truth, which the two young men considered very bitter because it came as a surprise. He told them: We have a number of booby-trapped cars ready for suicide bombings. The brothers were almost thunderstruck by the shock and told him: You want us to end our life in a suicide operation as soon as we set foot in Iraq! He answered indifferently: This is what we have now if you like it; if not, look for somebody else! They decided at that moment to return to their country and totally dismissed the idea of taking part in what they thought to be resistance in Iraq.” ‘

So the claim that the neighbors are behind the resistance seems to be false and we are truly dealing with a national resistance supported at a low level by foreign jihadists, contrary to western press reports and MSM claims.

I usually like the emails from factcheck.org but this latest one troubles me.  In it they compare ad’s from rival political groups Progress for America and American Way.  The subject of course is judicial nominee’s.

They describe the Progress for America ad as, as far as I can tell, a lie.

In my book that is a lie.  So to compare this with the American Way ad it should be an equal lie.  Correct?

Here’s what they found wrong with the American Way ad.

I don’t see what is wrong with using a metaphor of a belief spoken publicly, as a sound bite.  Moreover, I don’t see how this can be paired with a blatant lie from the right.  But clearly, we again come out on to morally!

Full text of email.

The RAND Corp. is Gov’t supported think tank, its work is usually well done although it was originally a part of the Gov’t.  It’s now independent.  Their latest report was presented to Rummy re: the occupation of Iraq.

The first paragraph in Knight Ridder sums it up well:

It isn’t all that often that a think tank dependent on government contracts dares tell the emperor that he is naked, and that makes a recent Rand Corp. report to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on lessons learned in Iraq all the more remarkable.

First, they criticize the “shock and awe campaign”

The Rand researchers found that the “shock and awe” air attacks against the enemy leadership did not achieve the advertised objectives of “decapitating, isolating or breaking the will” of that leadership. They added that future operations should not be predicated on expectations of fast regime collapse through air attacks because of a host of limitations, some self-imposed to avoid civilian casualties.

Second, It cautioned the idea of a slimed-down military, citing the benefits to the top tears while acknowledging the pressure and danger put on the lower-level ground forces.

The study also cautioned the Pentagon to move very carefully as it shifts the Army to a family of lightly armored fighting vehicles heavily reliant on networked systems of intelligence information until such time as those fighting the war at lower levels have the wide-band satellite communications to access the information and trained personnel to interpret the images of what’s waiting up ahead for a fast-moving tank column.

Rand said that division commanders and above were well served by the increased situational awareness provided by aerial sensor aircraft and satellite coverage in Iraq, but lower-level commanders actually fighting the battles didn’t get the specific intelligence needed in time to make use of it.

Then they go after the planning of the invasion of Iraq:

…the Rand study sharply criticized the Pentagon for failure to plan in detail for postwar stabilization and reconstruction “largely because of the prevailing view that the task would not be difficult.”

In fact, the study said, it is highly likely that in future operations the United States and its allies will quickly defeat outmatched opponents but then spend “months or years winning the peace.” The Rand researchers recommend that the planning process for future interventions be stood on its head and the military and civilian resources needed to secure the peace and launch reconstruction be given primary focus and priority in resources.

Next RAND begins to ask for accountability from the leadership.  Rummy, et al.

The Rand study added, with understatement, “Some process for exposing senior officials to possibilities other than those being assumed in their planning also needs to be introduced.”

In a separate section the report criticized National Security Council and Department of Defense coordination for Iraq operations. It said the NSC focused on military operations and humanitarian aid, while postwar planning was handed to Rumsfeld and the Pentagon, and this approach “worked poorly.”

The report mentions that lack of care for the citizens of Iraq.

The report said that no one bothered to provide for the security of the Iraqi people after Baghdad fell “given the expectations that the Iraqi government would remain largely intact, the Iraqi people would welcome the American presence, and local militia, police and the regular (Iraqi) army would be capable of providing law and order.”

In fact the burden of handling law and order in Iraq fell, by default, to U.S. and coalition military forces who were ill-prepared and unavailable in the numbers required to secure so unruly a nation and people.

The Rand researchers said in the future the U.S. military cannot assume that someone else will take that responsibility – and American soldiers need to be trained and prepared to handle law-and-order missions as soon as they have toppled the enemy regime.

The report added that “Iraq underscores … the overwhelming organizational tendency within the U.S. military not to absorb historical lessons when planning and conducting counterinsurgency operations.”

It recommended that in the future American forces assigned to this duty should be composed of troops with training and skills similar to special operations forces – people who know the language and culture of the country and the vital importance of political, economic, intelligence, organizational and psychological dimensions in defeating an insurgency.

I’m sure this report will quickly be added to the collection of similar critisims in the trash can in Rummy’s office.

This is covered at dKos by Coldblue Steele here.

We are all aware of the pending problem with our Social Security program, and we are all aware of the presidents plan to privatize it.  This is good; your president is entitled to informing the public and promoting his agenda.  But when is too much?  Most would think that a clause in the State of the Union, a prime time press conference, and/or a brief blurb every few days as he makes his rounds as the Commander and Chief would suffice.

For the last two months Mr. Bush has traveled the country using tax payers money to promote his plan to save Social Security.  At tax payer expense he has carefully choreographed? No… Set up? No… Staged a campaign of propaganda in order to force his agenda.  

Mr. Cheney is at it to, in Georgia Monday he invaded a High and held one of these staged events.  I say staged because it is staged, every part of it.  The crowd is all Repubs, carefully vetted Repubs that are fed questions from the administration.  These town hall meetings are pure propaganda.  They are held in order to get some Repub talking points framed in front of a cheering crowd, and aired on the echo chambers of the So-Called Liberal Media.

I’d say that this has gone too far.  One, because it is paid for with taxes.  Two, because it is now being used as a megaphone to smear the opposition, to bring religion into the battle.

Cheneys opening remarks on 2 May 2005 at said town hall meeting, emphasis mine:

If we don’t do anything at all, if we just stay where a lot of people have said we ought to stay — there are a number of members of Congress of the other faith who have said that we don’t need to do anything — well, if you don’t do anything, the net result will be, for somebody today, say, in their 30s, by the time they get to retirement age, their benefit levels are going to be cut some 26 percent or 27 percent. Automatic, that’s what will happen with today’s existing law.

…of the other faith?  How odd, well this is a one time thing right?  
Nope.  I told you, this is all staged…

Later, when the general public was allowed to ask the VP questions , emphasis mine:

Q: Mr. Vice President, thank you for coming to Georgia, and thank you and the President for your leadership in the war on terror. Millions of Americans appreciate that.

I just threw up on my keyboard. Continuing:

My question is, I watched the press conference the other night with the President, and it seems like when the two of you come up with serious ideas that those from the other faith, in the other party, all they do is demonize and, in many cases, just lie and try to divide the older generation, our grandparents from us, those in our 30s.

There it is again …the other faith.  propaganda!  A later questioner, emphasis mine:

Q: Good morning, Vice President Cheney. I’d like to ask a question. This morning you’ve really delineated very well a lot of points in the program and what you and the President want to do. Could you delineate for us, because I think we have a little bit of an easy audience this morning on convincing us of this program — could you delineate out a few other points from the other side, or the other faith, differences maybe in what you’re saying this morning, and maybe what they’re saying or not saying?

Staged = Propaganda
Rep. Henry Waxman in a letter to the GAO:

In recent months, questions have been raised about the Administration’s use of taxpayer funds for propaganda purposes. Two GAO reports have found that the Administration violated the law by disseminating fabricated video news releases on Medicare and drug policy.  Other investigative reports have revealed that taxpayer dollars have been spent to hire journalists to promote Administration initiatives, such as the contract with commentator Armstrong Williams to tout the No Child Left Behind Act.  Another investigation revealed that TV news stations across the nation have — without disclosure to the public — aired countless video news reports fabricated by the Administration on topics from women in Afghanistan to the activities of the Department of Agriculture.

Now serious questions are being raised about whether the Administration is inappropriately using federal resources to rally political support for his Social Security proposals.A report that I released in February presented evidence that the Social Security Administration, contrary to its history of nonpartisanship, has been systematically rewriting its communications to the public to build support for the President’s Social Security proposals.

I don’t know about you, but this isn’t right.  It wouldn’t be right if a Dem was doing it and it isn’t right now.  I disagree, in the strongest sense of the word, with any part of any government that tries to force an agenda on me, especially at our expense.

Update [2005-5-4 19:2:8 by hfiend]:

This is kinda ironic… I don’t know the laws around Union pension funds. But while we are slammed with SS nonsense, the unions are asked to remain quiet.

The Labor Department cautioned organized labor in a letter made public Wednesday not to use money from pension funds to lobby against President Bush’s proposal to overhaul Social Security.

“The department is very concerned about the potential use of plan assets to promote particular policy positions,” Alan D. Lebowitz, a department official, wrote AFL-CIO’s top lawyer.

[snip]

Lebowitz sent the letter after GOP Reps. John Boehner of Ohio and Sam Johnson of Texas requested an investigation.

The Labor Department letter to the AFL-CIO marked a political turnabout of sorts. Democrats have complained for months that the White House has improperly used the Social Security Administration itself to lobby on behalf of Bush’s proposals.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., has asked the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to determine how much the administration’s effort is costing. “Using taxpayer resources to mount a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign is an abuse of the president’s high office,” he said earlier this year.

on a side note, John Boehner’s daughter went to school with me back in the day. Not your class act if you know what I mean.