A look inside the U.S.S. Intrepid...

A Ship's Belly, a Nation's Strength BY BRENDAN MINITER Wall Street Journal Friday, June 30, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT Most visitors to the U.S.S. Intrepid, the vintage World War II aircraft carrier docked on the west side of Manhattan, come to hear combat stories--how the ship survived five separate kamikaze attacks--or to see some of the neat modern warplanes now parked on its flight deck. But when I got the opportunity this week to visit the carrier, I had something else in mind. I wanted to get down into the belly of the floating war machine and see what few visitors have been allowed to see during the 2 1/2 decades that it has been on public display: the machinery that propelled this giant halfway around the globe to project American power first against the Japanese Imperial Empire and then, two decades later, against the North Vietnamese. In the 230 years since America's founding, mechanical know-how has helped the nation to defend liberty abroad and at home, from the fortifications George Washington used during the Revolution to drive the British out of Boston to the railroads shuffling federal troops during the Civil War and the B-17 "Flying Fortresses" that helped win World War II. Along the way, America has also turned out some pretty nifty war machines. Chief among them has to be the U.S.S. Intrepid--the keel of which was laid just one week after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. It was launched less than two years later, on Dec. 3, 1943, and saw action in October 1944, in the largest naval engagement in history, the Battle of Leyte Gulf, helping win control of the Philippine Islands. The Intrepid took a pounding during the war. At Leyte, two kamikaze attacks engulfed the ship's midsection in flames and smoke. Visitors today can see photos of the Intrepid taken at a point in the battle when many thought she was headed for the bottom of the sea. Twice during the war the Intrepid was so badly damaged that it had to return to port for extensive repairs. In February 1944, a torpedo smashed the ship's rudder and the crew rigged up a sail in the lower decks to steer the way back to Pearl Harbor. The price of liberty is not only eternal vigilance but also a whole lot of elbow grease. And Middle America has had plenty to spare. In World War II, it was the farm boys used to tinkering with tractors and combines who proved adept at repairing tanks in the field, when their German counterparts often abandoned theirs. Today a generation of videogame-playing GIs maintain computer systems that run the modern war machines in Iraq's deserts. The Intrepid Sea, Air and Space Museum's president, Bill White, offered me a warm welcome. "I've never been down there," he admitted as we prepared to descend a steep set of stairs. Deep in the lower decks there are two engine rooms, four boiler rooms and pipes heading every which way. Few of them are in the kind of shape that the Navy would demand before setting out to sea. It's hard to maintain a ship, Mr. White notes, without thousands of sailors plugging leaks, painting bulkheads and combating rust. There are standing pools of water in the deep recess of the hull. Gavin "Shippy" Shephard, a Guiana-born immigrant who knows just about every nook and cranny of the boat, says the biggest problem isn't water seeping in from the Hudson River but pipes that drain water into the ship rather than out of it. There are so many running through the ship that plumbers installing new sinks and other fixtures are prone to connect drains to the wrong pipes. That's one reason why the Intrepid is now rumored to be heading to a dry-dock for repairs. Mr. White won't comment on this, except to say that "all will be revealed" within the next week or two. But the ship is in pretty good shape considering that it has been sitting here for nearly 25 years. In 1976, real-estate magnate Zachary Fischer decided to rescue the Intrepid from the scrap heap and paid $25 million to have it brought to New York and set up as a museum. Today the museum spends $17 million a year on overhead and millions more on capital projects to keep the ship afloat and full of exhibits for 700,000 annual visitors. The Intrepid also raises money through its Fallen Heroes Fund to help wounded servicemembers from Iraq and Afghanistan and their families, and is building a $40 million physical rehabilitation center in San Antonio. One soldier who visited the Intrepid recently had just returned from Iraq, where he had lost his left eye, part of his right hand, most of his left arm and his right leg. He came to express his gratitude to the Intrepid family for helping him. But Mr. White doesn't think that any thanks are necessary. Maintaining the ship, supporting troops returning from combat and reminding Americans that freedom isn't easily defended, he says, "is a duty."

Israel moves into Hamastan..

Jed Babbin: Washington Times/Real Clear Politics Unless he is extraordinarily lucky, Israeli Army Corporal Gilad Shalit won't live to see his twentieth birthday. The Sunday raid by Hamas terrorists from the Gaza Strip succeeded in wounding and kidnapping Shalit, killing two of his comrades and wounding two more. Israel has begun a sizeable military penetration into Gaza which aims to recover Shalit - alive or dead - and punish the Palestinians for their raid. As the Israeli incursion began early Wednesday, America and Egypt were counseling calm and - if he's still alive -- a scared teenage boy was sitting in some lightless room in Gaza praying for rescue. Like every soldier, Shalit was trained to understand that hostages are expendable but - in the rough confidence of youth - understood that idea only in terms of people he would someday try to rescue. By now the unimaginable has occurred. Shalit's mind must be focused on the soldiers' dilemma his comrades face. They will do anything to rescue him, but nothing to trade for him. He knows he is the expendable hostage in this episode like so many have been before him and so many will be after. This is the definition of stability in the Middle East. The kidnapping of Shalit, the Palestinian political maneuvering around it, and the Israeli counter-strike are tactical exchanges. But in war a tactical event sometimes has strategic effects. A tactical defeat, such as the one Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson suffered at Kernstown on 23 March 1862, was a strategic victory for the Confederates because it resulted in stalling 50,000 Federal troops in Maryland that would have otherwise reinforced McClellan's peninsula campaign. Shalit's kidnapping can be turned into a strategic defeat for the Palestinians. It should be used to destabilize the relationship between the Palestinians and the nations that use them as cannon fodder in a perpetual war against Israel. Palestinians are the only people apparently incapable of acting in their own self-interest. For generations they have been willfully ignorant of the fact that their refusal to make peace with Israel serves only their enemies. Since Israel was created by UN mandate, the Palestinians have been rejected by Jordan (itself 60% Palestinian), Egypt and Syria. Saudi Arabia and Lebanon don't want them. But for decades under Arafat, the Palestinians did the bidding of the same countries that rejected them. Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others bought Arafat's regime for the price of terrorist campaigns against Israel. They fund and provide sanctuary for Hamas and other Palestinian terror groups for two reasons: first, to keep alive the Palestinians' hope of erasing Israel from the map; and second to absorb the casualties in the terror war against Israel that those nations don't wish to suffer. In the Middle East, the stability that we have helped nurture is the stability of terrorist states. Last year's Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip was a council of despair. Ungovernable and with a deeply-embedded terrorist infrastructure, Gaza was only a source of casualties for Israel. Withdrawal - accompanied by sealing the borders to prevent terrorist incursions - appeared the last best hope. Maybe Ariel Sharon could have brought off the idea of withdrawing and sealing off Gaza as a terrorist base. But Ehud Olmert is no Sharon, and as Olmert watched Gaza became Hamastan. Terrorist, anarchic Hamastan proved a jar that couldn't be sealed. This year alone about eight hundred rockets were fired from it into Israel and though dozens of terrorist incursions were foiled, more and more succeeded as the Gaza-based terrorists learned how to penetrate the Israeli barriers. Still, the Olmert government hung back. It lacked the courage and decisiveness needed to re-enter Gaza to stamp out the terrorist enclaves. And, more importantly, it couldn't go back into Gaza without admitting that its withdrawal policy was a failure. Instead, Olmert ineptly struck back at rocket launch points and Israel's ability to defend itself seemed - thanks to Palestinian disinformation campaigns directed at sympathetic media -- to produce innocent civilian casualties among the Palestinians. Hamastan poses problems both too large and too small for Israel to solve. The small problems, such as terrorists excavating the terror tunnel used to surprise Gilad Shalit's unit, can never be entirely prevented. The military strike into Gaza this week won't re-establish Israeli occupation, and it will from time to time be repeated. Bigger problems, such as the Hamas government and the support it gets from Israel's neighbors, won't, say some top Israelis, be solved by topping Hamas because there's no moderate Palestinians to take their place. That is another counsel of despair. Israel is stuck in a military cycle it thinks can't be broken. But it can, and it must, for our benefit as much as Israel's. Israel can never settle the Palestinian problem by dealing only with the Palestinians just as we cannot ever settle Iraq's problems by dealing only with Iraqis. Because Israel's neighbors, and Iraq's, are the sources of their problems, so they must be the focus of the solutions. They are regional problems. If they are not solved throughout the region, they will not be solved at all. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal - operating from his headquarters in Damascus -- ordered the raid in which Gilad Shalit was kidnapped. Meshaal, and pretty much every other terrorist leader other than Usama bin Laden, operate from Syria with impunity because Bashar Assad's Syria - the Syria he inherited from his father, and which has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1979 - is entirely stable. He has no fear that through American or Israeli action his support for terrorism will be interrupted. From Syria money, weapons and terrorists flowed into Iraq for months before and ever since the American invasion of 2003. Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon said that Meshaal - even in Syria - was a target for Israeli action. We should encourage Israel to strike into Syria, and not just to capture or kill Meshaal. Destabilizing Syria, and thus destabilizing its support for terrorism in Israel and Iraq is the goal. If anyone chooses to equate "destabilization" with "regime change", we should do nothing to encourage or dissuade them. It's time to put the terrorist genie back in the bottle. If the genie won't comply, we may soon have to smash the bottle all to pieces. Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a contributing editor to The American Spectator and author of Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States (with Edward Timperlake, Regnery 2006) and Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think (Regnery 2004).

Iraqi PM Maliki: No amnesty for killers of Americans

New York Times By SABRINA TAVERNISE and JOHN F. BURNS BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 27 — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki said publicly on Tuesday for the first time that attacks on American soldiers would not be pardoned under the rules of a new Iraqi amnesty plan. In his first meeting with Western journalists since he became prime minister a month ago, Mr. Maliki sought to allay concerns raised by many in the United States that the plan, which he unveiled Sunday as part of a broad effort to reduce insurgent violence, could lead to pardons for some who had killed American soldiers and spur attacks on American units. Americans, he said, came to Iraq to help make it free. "Therefore, out of respect for their contribution to Iraq," no pardon will be offered to their killers, or to insurgents who have killed Iraqi soldiers and police officers, he said. It was the most unequivocal statement by any Iraqi official about the amnesty, which had caused confusion among Iraqi political leaders as well as American officials since it was announced in broad terms on Sunday. The amnesty is part of a "national reconciliation" program that Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, offered in an effort to find a political solution to the violence that continues to kill dozens of people a day, a vast majority of them Iraqi civilians. Iraq now has an elected government with a four-year term, but it has failed to improve security here in the battered capital, where Sunni and Shiite militias continue to kill with impunity, and some neighborhoods have sunk into conditions resembling anarchy.Insurgent violence on Tuesday claimed the lives of 21 Iraqis and 2 American servicemen, and wounded an additional 41 people. The American military also announced the deaths of 2 service members killed Monday in fighting in Anbar Province. Mr. Maliki was at pains on Tuesday to explain his reconciliation plan, which emerged from long consultations with the competing political blocs in his national unity government, but drew criticism for the vagueness of its amnesty provisions. They reflected the deep divisions in the government. Religious Shiites strongly opposed amnesty for Sunni insurgents, while Sunni Arabs said it would be meaningless without provisions to encourage insurgents to disarm. The Americans strongly favored reaching out to the insurgents, but opposed anything amounting to a pardon for rebels who participated in killing Americans, more than 2,500 of whom have died in the three-year war. Despite the vagueness of the amnesty terms, Mr. Maliki said the plan had drawn widespread interest from groups important to its success, including members of political militias, tribal groups, religious leaders and insurgent groups. He would not identify the insurgent groups. Asked to identify the sort of groups and individuals who would be eligible, he cited Iraqis who had carried out "sabotage" against the government, though only "minor" acts, as well as to those who had joined the insurgency out of hostility for the American-sponsored political process but had not killed anyone. He said it also would apply to members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein who renounced that allegiance. Insurgents who face trial over attacks would be eligible for pardons if they were found not guilty of any killings. "Whoever can prove himself innocent of murder in the judicial process will be allowed to join the political process," he said. Allies of Mr. Maliki have said that the amnesty, presented by American officials and the prime minister's aides among many initiatives that would give momentum to the new government, reflected his relative political weakness."Maliki's intentions are good, but he is not free to do as he likes," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish member of Parliament. "He is part of this Shiite bloc, and they don't believe in this initiative to begin with." Also on Tuesday, American military commanders released new details about three American servicemen killed by insurgents last week near Yusufiya. Maj. Gen. James Thurman, the commander of American forces in Baghdad, said 8,000 American and Iraqi troops followed a trail of "evidence," in a power plant, in a pickup truck there and on a canal road that helped lead to the bodies of two of the soldiers who had disappeared after an attack on June 16. The third soldier, who was killed in the initial attack, was found in the canal, he said. "We did not know the demise of the two soldiers at that point," he said. Also on Tuesday, the Iranian Fars News Agency reported that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran would visit Iraq to meet President Jalal Talabani. A spokesman for Mr. Talabani, Kameran Qaradaghi, said he had no details about the visit. Marine Won't Be Punished for Song WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) — The United States military will not punish a marine who performed a graphically violent and obscenity-laced song to a laughing and cheering crowd of fellow soldiers in Iraq, making light of killing Iraqis, the Marine Corps said Tuesday.The Marines two weeks ago began a preliminary inquiry into whether the marine, Cpl. Joshua Belile, who returned home from Iraq in March, had violated military law or rules by singing the song, a four-minute video of which was posted on the Internet."No punitive action will be taken against Corporal Belile, and there will be no further investigation," said Maj. Shawn Haney, a spokeswoman at Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point in North Carolina. Sahar Nageeb and Omar al-Neamicontributed reporting for this article.

New York Times harming national security again..

Letter from Treasury Secretary John Snowe to New York Times Editors: "The New York Times' decision to disclose the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, a robust and classified effort to map terrorist networks through the use of financial data, was irresponsible and harmful to the security of Americans and freedom-loving people worldwide. In choosing to expose this program, despite repeated pleas from high-level officials on both sides of the aisle, including myself, the Times undermined a highly successful counter-terrorism program and alerted terrorists to the methods and sources used to track their money trails. Your charge that our efforts to convince The New York Times not to publish were "half-hearted" is incorrect and offensive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the past two months, Treasury has engaged in a vigorous dialogue with the Times - from the reporters writing the story to the D.C. Bureau Chief and all the way up to you. It should also be noted that the co-chairmen of the bipartisan 9-11 Commission, Governor Tom Kean and Congressman Lee Hamilton, met in person or placed calls to the very highest levels of the Times urging the paper not to publish the story. Members of Congress, senior U.S. Government officials and well-respected legal authorities from both sides of the aisle also asked the paper not to publish or supported the legality and validity of the program. Indeed, I invited you to my office for the explicit purpose of talking you out of publishing this story. And there was nothing "half-hearted" about that effort. I told you about the true value of the program in defeating terrorism and sought to impress upon you the harm that would occur from its disclosure. I stressed that the program is grounded on solid legal footing, had many built-in safeguards, and has been extremely valuable in the war against terror. Additionally, Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levey met with the reporters and your senior editors to answer countless questions, laying out the legal framework and diligently outlining the multiple safeguards and protections that are in place. You have defended your decision to compromise this program by asserting that "terror financiers know" our methods for tracking their funds and have already moved to other methods to send money. The fact that your editors believe themselves to be qualified to assess how terrorists are moving money betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a deep misunderstanding of this program and how it works. While terrorists are relying more heavily than before on cumbersome methods to move money, such as cash couriers, we have continued to see them using the formal financial system, which has made this particular program incredibly valuable. Lastly, justifying this disclosure by citing the "public interest" in knowing information about this program means the paper has given itself free license to expose any covert activity that it happens to learn of - even those that are legally grounded, responsibly administered, independently overseen, and highly effective. Indeed, you have done so here. What you've seemed to overlook is that it is also a matter of public interest that we use all means available - lawfully and responsibly - to help protect the American people from the deadly threats of terrorists. I am deeply disappointed in the New York Times. Sincerely, John W. Snow, Secretary U.S. Department of the Treasury

John Murtha should read this..

Iraq oil output hits record level June 26, 2006 UK Guardian IRAQ'S oil production is now over 2.5 million barrels a day, a record since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the country's oil minister said overnight. Oil Minister Hussein Shahristani said on US television that Iraq hopes to be producing 4.3 million barrels by 2010 and to be challenging Saudi Arabia as the world's largest producer by 2015. Production was about 2.5 million barrels a day when president Saddam Hussein was deposed by US-led forces in 2003. It then collapsed to virtually nothing and has been slow to rebuild because of insurgent attacks and other problems. In an interview with CNN television, Mr Shahristani emphasised that only one month and three days after the Iraqi government took office, "we have been able to break a record". "Today's oil production was in excess of 2.5 million barrels a day. And that's a record since the fall of Saddam's regime in April 2003," he told CNN's Late Edition program. He said Iraq hopes to increase production to 2.7 million barrels by the end of the year and to 4.3 million barrels by 2010, which would be a new all-time record for Iraq. The minister said Iraq's highest oil production was 3.5 million barrels a day."Our ultimate aim is to reach more than six million barrels a day, hopefully by 2012."And needless to say, Iraq holds one of the largest reserves of oil and gas in the world, and we are determined to prove it has the largest world reserve."

The La Kos-a Nostra Scandal

The emerging scandal over at Daily Kos. He is a huge hypocrite but most of the sheep over there will never acknowledge it. Ace of Spades website: "So, just to be honest, I'll run through the possible charges against Kos, assigning them a probability of guilt and also a corruption rating. I'm ignoring the charges against Jerome Armstrong, as the SEC seems to be handling them quite well. Besides, Armstrong is a little fish, a former blogger and now a minor political consultant. He's the equivalent of Ben "The Nech" Domench. But Kos on the other hand... he's the Jeff Gannon of the Left, to the extent that any human being can be said to be "Gannonesque." Pay for Play. In the most concrete charge against Kos, it is suggested that Armstrong gets hired by a politician, said politician agrees to advertise on Kos, in exchange for which Kos says nice things about the politician and, for example, invites them as a major speaker to the YearlyKos gathering. (Well, not quite; Mark Warner's party was supposedly independent of the YearlyKos moonbat party, but there were approved Kos/Warner t-shirts passed out and other suggestions that this is a man who should be listened to.) This is the one we all hope is true, but it seems very unlikely. First of all, Kos makes crazy blog-money. Seriously crazy. Last time I checked, a one-week ad in the top position at Kos cost five thousand dollars or thereabouts. And he's got a lot of ad slots, costing less, but still in the same crazy blog-money ballpark. So-- Kos doesn't really need the money. Even if, say, Mark Warner would agree to pay him for an ad slot in exchange for favorable treatment, it's not like Kos would be hurting for money without Warner's media-buy. He'd have other advertisers willing to pay. Maybe not quite as much, but basically in the same bracket. So, any money Kos could stand to make for corruptly selling favorable coverage would be only marginally more than he would make without the corruption. Would that be worth the tradeoff? Maybe, but you'd have to be damn greedy, and damn stupid, to think so. To make a little extra money, you'd put at risk the legitimate, clean piles of cash you're making now. On the other hand, Kos was hired by Dean in 2004, and did not immediately disclose this arrangement. He was always a Dean supporter, as he's a lunatic, but he didn't rush right out to tell people he was now on Dean's dime. He did disclose it, but not immediately. Still: a pure pay-for-play theory seems pretty unlikely. Armstrong isn't making a lot of money, and isn't given an awful lot by his patrons with which to make blogger ad-buys; Kos, on the other hand, makes a shitload of money. Usually, to be corrupted by money, you have to be corrupted by someone making more money than you. Likelihood of Charge's Accuracy: Very low. Corruption Factor: Very high. Play For Play. In this theory, Kos isn't selling out for money. He's selling out just have his movement taken seriously by the Democratic establishment. Using Armstrong as his more establishment agent, Armstrong and Kos team up together to prove to the Democratic Party they're not just a bunch of wild-eyed lunatics. This is a sort of common play by people. One can remain the ideologically-pure outsider-radical, or one can allow oneself to be co-opted by the establishment and hope to work a bit of change from inside the establishment. Armstrong and Kos, as a team, try to do an inside-outside job on the Democratic Party at the same time. Is this corrupt? Not really. It's just adjusting one's tactics to better advance one's policies. The only "corruption" here would be Kos continuing to deceive his readers by clinging to the "Netroots Revolutionary" image while actually cozying up the establishment he one so despised, including the DLC-types he declared war on a year ago. But it's hardly unusual for someone to maintain a dishonest pose in the interests of political appeal. Likelihood of Charge's Accuracy: Moderately High to High Corruption Level: Low or Very Low, depending on how you look at it; since Kos is a douchebag, I tend to look at it as merely "Low" Play For Personal Aggrandizement: Armstrong may not be able to provide Kos with enough money to corrupt him, but he can help him get the sort of thing money can't buy-- respect, admiration, a seat at the table when Democrats discuss strategy. This is a little bit different from the last one, because in this scenario, Kos isn't making a deal with the estalblishment (through Armstrong) to advance "the netroots movement," but chiefly as a vehicle for increasing his own status and clout. Kos is making oodles of money. But the brass ring is to be taken seriously, to be interviewed as a big muckety-muck on Inside Politics. He can achieve some of this on his own, by moderating his own intemperate leftist bile, but it sure helps to have a buddy with real politicians as clients to show that Kos Is All Grown Up Now And Ready For The Keys To The Car. When he was younger, he dated wilder, less respectable people -- Kucinich, etc. -- but now he's older and looking for a candidate he can take home to mom. And in order to gain that personal status, he has to lead his minions to support candidates they otherwise would reject outright. Like, say, Mark Warner. He has to deliver if he's to be considered anything other than a gadfly, nuisance, and internet rage-monkey. So, to aggrandize his own power, he kinda-sorta disingenuously leads his minions to support Jerome Armstrong's clients. The trouble here is that this is sort of understandable at a human level. It's more of a defect of character than true corruption. Likelihood of Charge's Accuracy: Moderate to high Corruption Level: Moderate, but largely subconscious and more about human weakness than knowing corruption Doing Favors For A Friend. Mickey Kaus trotted this theory out on his recent Bloggingheads.tv "diablog" with Robert Wright. Kaus suggested that just "doing favors for a buddy" was, in a soft, vague way, somewhat corrupt, as it was just a case of old-school old-boy-network politics, which is precisely the opposite of what the "netroots revolution" is supposed to be about. Corruption Level: Very Low The Ohio incident can be explained as simply a case of Armstrong convincing Kos that, whatever problems he had with Sherrod Brown, Brown was the candidate, and there was no point doing the GOP any favors by punching up Brown. And as for Mark Warner-- well, certainly he's not the dream candidate from a hard-left perspective, but I imagine the dream candidate for many on the hard-left is anyone who can beat the Republicans. This sort of thinking makes him a hack, but that is not yet, fortunately, a crime. Probability of Charge's Accuracy: Moderate Corruption Level: None So, there it is. The one truly corrupt charge is most likely untrue, the charges suggesting moderate corruption may or may not be true, and, alas, there's a decent chance there's no corruption at all here. However. As they say, it's not the crime, it's the cover-up. Even if Kos is found to have done nothing wrong in his dealings with Armstrong and his clients, there's still that matter of the La Kos-a Nostra oath of silence. And there's still that matter of a previously-secret behind-the-scenes message-unifying email list. Liberal bloggers are coordinating with each other, outside the view of their readers, to agree upon a common message for the day. Wonder why every lefty blogger decides, one day a week, to attack Jeff Goldstein as a "paste-eating drug addict housewife"? Well, wonder no more. What is held out as "independent" commentary and "spontaneous netroots response" is in fact at least partly a coordinated, pre-debated, top-down, here-are-your-marching-orders sham. The left of the blogosphere is employing the old tool of the political parties-- the blast-fax. As they say, it's not so much "grassroots" as astroturf politics -- artificial "grass" made to look and feel like the real thing. Nothing like that goes on in the right of the blogosphere. At least, nothing like that exists that I know about. It's possible that somewhere out there there is coordination, but I've never caught wind of it. The most interesting thing about this scandal isn't what Kos might have agreed to do with Armstrong, but what many of the biggest leftist bloggers have agreed to do with eachother -- prescreen their postings with each other to arrive at a single focus-grouped message of the day.

More WMDs found in Iraq..

Nice summary of recent developments over at RedState: One of the pieces of the WMD case against Saddam Hussein's regime was that the regime had never accounted for stocks of chemical weapons known to exist even dating back before the Gulf War. This letter (more here and here and here), noting the discovery of over 500 chemical shells since 2003 (not new discoveries, mind you, but the accumulation of various discoveries over a period of years) just underlines David Kay's conclusion that even without huge stockpiles Saddam's Iraq was, if anything, more dangerous than we thought given the dispersed nature of such weapons. (More shells will surely be found for years into the future - the Belgians still have a booming business turning up World War I era explosives that remain dangerous). And that's before we even get to the biological programs; recall that you can store deadly biotoxins in vials, not warehouses. George W. Bush has lost the public debate over the pre-war state of Saddam's arsenal of non-conventional weapons. He lost that debate partly because, yes, the nature of the threat was not as Bush and others depicted it - some of the intelligence (even intelligence on which there was a broad international consensus) was faulty, and some of the specific cases in which the Administration made judgment calls to assume the worst turned out not to be as bad as all that. And he lost the debate partly because Bush has always taken the view that the most important thing since 2003 has been to move forward rather than wallow in the original decision, which after all can no longer be changed. I would argue that that has been a huge mistake - Bush's opponents have understood far better than he that controlling the past gives you power over the future. But facts are stubborn things. One can yet hope that historians, given the time to pull together the whole story and not just each day's drip-drip of news, will recognize that (1) pre-existing, if scattered, stocks of chemical weapons, (2) ongoing or ready-to-revive biological weapons programs and (3) long-range schemes to reactivate Saddam's nuclear weapons programs were a part of the multifaceted threat to the U.S. and its allies presented by the Saddam regime.

North Korean Saber Rattling..

N. Korean threat activates shield By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Pentagon activated its new U.S. ground-based interceptor missile defense system, and officials announced yesterday that any long-range missile launch by North Korea would be considered a "provocative act." Poor weather conditions above where the missile site was located by U.S. intelligence satellites indicates that an immediate launch is unlikely, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. However, intelligence officials said preparations have advanced to the point where a launch could take place within several days to a month. Two Navy Aegis warships are patrolling near North Korea as part of the global missile defense and would be among the first sensors that would trigger the use of interceptors, the officials said yesterday. The U.S. missile defense system includes 11 long-range interceptor missiles, including nine deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The system was switched from test to operational mode within the past two weeks, the officials said. One senior Bush administration official told The Washington Times that an option being considered would be to shoot down the Taepodong missile with responding interceptors. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice added that any launch would be a serious matter and "would be taken with utmost seriousness and indeed a provocative act." White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment when asked if shooting down a launched missile was being considered as an option. President Bush had telephoned more than a dozen heads of state regarding North Korea's launch preparations, Mr. Snow said. He did not identify the leaders who were called by Mr. Bush. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the U.S. has made it clear to North Korea that the communist regime should abide by the missile-test ban it imposed in 1999 and reaffirmed in a pact with Japan in 2002. "The United States has a limited missile defense system," Mr. Whitman said. He declined to say if the system is operational or whether it would be used. "U.S. Northern Command continues to monitor the situation, and we are prepared to defend the country in any way necessary," said spokesman Michael Kucharek.

Pulling No Punches in Push for Navy SEALs

Pentagon Looking to Increase Ranks Without Easing the Tough Training By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 20, 2006; Page A03 CORONADO, Calif. -- As Navy Ensign Brandon lay slapped by wave after black wave of frigid Pacific surf, his arms linked with a row of other would-be Navy SEALs, a cold but comforting thought surfaced from his murky consciousness: "No matter what," he reassured himself, "they're not going to kill me." Shaking uncontrollably in the cold brine, the slight, 22-year-old from Ohio dreaded the nighttime "surf torture" as one of the toughest ordeals of the SEALs' aptly named Hell Week, designed to break down the bodies and wills of all but the steeliest young men. Navy SEAL candidates take part in the exhausting selection process known as Hell Week at the Naval Special Warfare Center in Coronado, Calif., in May. About 80 percent of each class usually drops out because of the intense pressure. Today, one of the Pentagon's main dilemmas is how to get more candidates such as Brandon to outlast the trials of selection -- without lowering standards -- as it tries to expand the ranks of SEALs and other elite U.S. military forces for critical missions in the war on terrorism. Facing their biggest deployments in history, as much as 80 percent of the combat forces of the 53,000-strong U.S. Special Operations Command -- including Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets and Rangers, and Delta Force operatives -- are committed in Iraq, Afghanistan and surrounding countries. That leaves too few for other vital missions, many of them clandestine, such as intelligence gathering and partnering with forces in nations where the United States is not at war, according to senior military officials.Stepped-up war-zone rotations are cutting into training time, and shortages in the force mean hundreds of Special Operations jobs are unfilled, leading to more reliance on civilian contractors, they said."We as a nation are taking great risk" by having too few maritime commandos, said Rear Adm. Joseph Maguire, commander of Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) here. NSWC should have 2,200 SEALs but is undermanned by about 400 men on SEAL teams and scores of officers, he said. The Pentagon in February announced a plan to add 13,000 more Special Operations troops to meet demands. But producing such highly skilled troops is not easy -- especially as war, low unemployment and negative health trends such as obesity shrink the military's overall pool of candidates. Of all the elite forces, SEALs pose the biggest recruiting challenge. The Pentagon's goal is to add 500 new SEALs in the next two years. Maguire says 2010 is more realistic. But the number of SEAL applicants has dwindled by hundreds in recent years. This year's goal is to bring in 1,400 to try out, but by late April, only 364 had been sent to boot camp, according to Navy statistics. "We're behind the power curve," said Ed Kearl, a Navy recruiting official. Ground zero for the push to create more SEALs is the rugged beaches and pounding surf off Coronado, where the young men of Basic Under Water Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) Class 259 found out who had "the right stuff." The Start of Hell Week- It was a Monday night in May, about 24 hours into Hell Week for Class 259, and Seaman Brian was sitting on the beach next to his rubber dinghy, eating a chili-mac packaged military meal. For security reasons, all SEALs except senior leaders spoke on the condition that only their first names be used. Similar to the rest of his class, Brian had no sleep, was soaked and shaking. He had muscle cramps from lunging with 15-foot-long sandy logs. His legs were chafed raw. "It's like taking a piece of sandpaper to your skin for a week," said Brian, 23, who is from Ventura, Calif. As the sky darkened, the entire group knew what was next -- surf torture (officially called "water immersion"), jumping on and off a pier and being hosed down with cold water. At 4:30 a.m. on Wednesday, the 79 remaining candidates staggered out of the mud flats of the 65-degree San Diego Bay, looking like a scene from "Night of the Living Dead." "They're basically zombies," said Cmdr. Adam Curtis, looking on. Awake for 55 hours, the men could only shuffle. But they were expected to follow directions.Navy SEAL candidates take part in the exhausting selection process known as Hell Week at the Naval Special Warfare Center in Coronado, Calif., in May. About 80 percent of each class usually drops out because of the intense pressure. Brandon, a boat team leader, was having trouble. "You're trying to cheat me, Sir," berated an instructor. Brandon's team had paddled their boat by hand instead of swimming beside it in the last race. Now, they would pay the price. "Prepare down boat -- down boat! Prepare up boat -- up boat!" the instructor spat commands with a bullhorn. Next the offenders had to roll in the sand. "We're going to have a little bath," the instructor said, ordering them into the bay. Each time a device beeped they bobbed underwater, green light sticks glowing eerily on their life vests. Hell Week is designed to simulate the rigors of a combat mission. "They can't say 'I quit' because no one will come get them," explained Command Master Chief Lu, a 25-year Navy veteran and instructor. The end result, Lu said, is impressive. On a recent tour in Baghdad, he fought side by side with former SEAL students and found that "I trusted them as much as guys I was with 20 years," he said. To qualify, over a six-month period SEAL candidates must swim 150 miles in the ocean and run more than 1,300 miles in sand wearing boots, and later they must learn to dive, parachute, shoot and conduct close-quarters combat. Born from World War II underwater demolition units, Navy Sea Air Land teams focus on maritime skills, including diving, forced ship boardings, laying undersea charges and reconnaissance. But today, SEALs are occupied mainly on land. Most 16-man SEAL platoons are in Iraq training Iraqi forces, using snipers to watch for insurgents planting bombs and guarding Iraqi leaders. New missions, many secretive, are creating demands for a more diverse force trained in language and culture. "We are a relatively white, non-Hispanic force. It's nice to have someone who can blend in more," said Capt. Gary Bonelli, NSWC chief of staff. Class 259 has only a handful of minorities.SEAL recruiters this year are attending dozens of events, such as wrestling matches and "X-games," manning a new call center, and offering a $40,000 bonus to all new SEALs, said recruiting chief Cmdr Duncan A. Smith. Still, nothing can guarantee that recruits will have the tolerance for stress, flexibility and what Lindsay calls the "fire in the gut" that psychological studies show is critical. By Friday morning, the class was down to 73, having lost a few more to pneumonia and injuries. In a finale, the exhausted recruits had to low-crawl from the beach to an obstacle course obscured with smoke and rocked by the blast of simulated grenades. Worming their way under concertina wire as instructors fired off blanks from rifles, they slid through a drainpipe into a muddy pool. Barely able to move his legs, Brandon dragged himself forward with his arms, third to last. "You knew you'd never quit. . . . The courage, the mental toughness is contagious," Lindsay told the bedraggled class on the beach afterward. "You guys are what we want to work with to become Navy SEALs!" "Hooyah!" Class 259 yelled. Relaxing later in dry clothes with a pizza and Gatorade, the victorious few reflected on how they made it. "It's just putting one foot in front of the other," said Brandon, rubbing swollen calves. Still shivering, Airman Brandon said that after his body broke down, his mind took over. "The main thing I thought about," he said, "was doing things that every guy dreams of doing, but few do."

On the Offensive in Afghanistan..

BAGHRAN VALLEY, Afghanistan (AP) — U.S. soldiers descended on a mountain ridge Sunday, quickly setting up fortified posts and mortar positions overlooking a key Taliban transport route as the coalition pressed a major offensive that has killed dozens of suspected militants.It was the first time in several years that soldiers from the U.S.-led military force have ventured into Baghran Valley in the northern part of Helmand province. Troops from the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division poured out of CH-47 Chinook helicopters in the early morning and scouted the mountain for militants. The position will allow U.S. forces to block the movement of Taliban fighters and supplies, said one of the officers, Lt. Col. Chris Toner. More than 10,000 coalition soldiers are spread out over four southern provinces — Helmand, Uruzgan, Kandahar and Zabul — in Operation Mountain Thrust, a blitz aimed at quelling a surge of Taliban attacks. It is the largest offensive since the 2001 ouster of the Taliban regime."We are the focus of Mountain Thrust right now," said Capt. Jared Wilson. "This is the decisive part of the operation because if we do not get on the mountain, we will not be able to accomplish this mission." Before boarding the helicopters, Wilson warned his troops about the dangers of the operation. "I want you to understand the seriousness of what you are about to do. We are landing fully loaded CH-47s on the top of a mountain. This is a highly dangerous mission. On the top of those dangers, we're going to an area where no one has been for years," he said. Their new encampment is remote — more than 60 miles from the nearest ground forces — but Wilson said that serves as an advantage. "The enemy did not suspect we would come up here. They believe they have a safe haven area up here because it has been untouched by coalition troops for years," he said. Once down on the mountain ridge, soldiers went to work setting up defense positions and firing mortar rounds into the valleys to test their equipment and check ranges. Standing guard with an M-16 rifle on a ridge line, Spc. Daniel Borisow, 23, from Akron, N.Y., looked down into the valley at a smattering of mud huts. He said he was ready to fight. "For once we are in the position where we're going to take the fight to the enemy instead of us rolling through (in Humvees) and them attacking us," he said. The open-ended offensive aims to hunt down Taliban fighters blamed for an onslaught of ambushes and bombings in recent months, the worst spate of militant violence since 2001. More than 500 people — most of them militants — have been killed in the past month as insurgents launched increasingly bold attacks on coalition forces. More than 90 suspected militants have been killed the past few days, the coalition says. At least nine coalition soldiers have been killed since mid-May. On Sunday, Taliban militants fatally shot a former chief of one of Helmand province's districts and four of his bodyguards in an ambush of their convoy, provincial spokesman Ghulam Mohiudin said. The official, Jama Gul, was traveling between Sangin and Grishk districts. Southern Helmand was also the scene of fighting Saturday, when British troops killed six Taliban fighters near Kajaki dam, a British spokesman, Capt. Drew Gibson, reported Sunday. Militants had been firing mortars the past few day in an attempt to damage the dam, and British forces "tightened security in this area," Gibson said. In nearby Zabul province, a joint operation between police and coalition soldiers in Shahjoy district killed two suspected militants. Two other wounded insurgents were captured, said the provincial police chief, Noor

The big difference between Vietnam and Iraq The American Thinker- Greg Richards June 16th, 2006 A couple of days ago Senator Kerry clarified his position on the Iraq War. At the Democrats’ Take Back America strategy conference, in Washington, he said that his vote for the war was a mistake and that we should bring the troops home. His analogy is Vietnam – in Kerry’s view we stayed too long in Vietnam and now “it is time for us to go” from Iraq. And there are superficial parallels between Vietnam and Iraq that many have remarked on – particularly that we are fighting an enemy who is hard for us to find, with much initiative on his side. But there is a big difference between Vietnam and Iraq. Ultimately, in Vietnam, we could choose as much war as we wanted. We could, and ultimately did, retire without serious consequences. That is not true for Iraq. Ho Chi Minh, whatever his faults, only wanted to get to Saigon. Osama bin Laden and the radical Islamist jihad wants to get to New York and Washington. That is the big difference. We are fighting in Iraq, yes, for the Iraqis, but also for ourselves. This war is enlightened self-interest. We fight and prevail over the Islamist forces in Iraq, which will go a long way to discrediting them, or we fight them here. Yes, there is no assurance that we won’t also have to fight them here anyway, but our offensive strategy in the War of Terror has been far more successful than anybody would have bet on after 9/11 – no major attacks in the U.S. in five years. Another attack will come. We cannot seal ourselves off. But it will come sooner and more ferociously if we surrender in Iraq. For if we surrender there, where will we fight? When, in a war, a country goes on the offensive, there are always endless alternatives, endless strategies, endless disagreements. If people think that World War II was a royal road to victory with “everybody agreeing” think again. The Navy and the Army fought each other over the priorities of the Pacific and of Europe. The British and the Americans fought over strategy in Europe. If you read the memoirs of any of the leading players, particularly the more acerbic ones, you find little harmony. It is simply a cost of doing business that there will be disagreements. That we have them now, concerning how the Iraq War should have been or should be fought, well, welcome to reality. Surrender is a seduction. Surrender vs. pressing on regardless was the essential difference between the French and the British in World War II. Surrender is the choice the French General Staff made in June 1940 – that it was the smart choice to give up than fight a great evil. So history shows that this is not a decision that others have refused to take. They have taken it. The French were lucky that first the British and then ourselves stayed in the field and so they did not have to live with the consequences of their decision over the long term. But we would live with the consequences. Clinton is criticized for abandoning Mogadishu after the Black Hawk Down incident. I have never agreed with that. The mistake was letting our troops get into mission-creep: to go from guarding the UN food operation to going on the offensive against Aideed without the proper leadership and planning. The reason our guys got into trouble in Mogadishu is that the Abraham Lincoln carrier battle group had been sent off into the Indian Ocean, the Marine amphibious unit had been sent back to the Gulf and the request for heavy equipment – tanks and artillery was refused in Washington. There was no back-up for our light forces when they were bushwacked. But, having made that mistake, Clinton was right to withdraw the troops (after securing the return of the captured helicopter pilot Michael Durant by sending Robert Oakley to tell Aideed that either Durant was released or we would flatten the entire city looking for him). Why? Because we had no real mission in Mogadishu. And aside from securing Durant’s release, it is not in the American character to engage in destruction purely for revenge. But none of that applies in Iraq. In Iraq we do have a mission – to defeat terrorism as a political tactic, both for the benefit of the Iraqis and for our own benefit. If we fail in that mission, if we retreat, if we surrender, the price will be much higher and very likely to be paid closer to, if not at, home. Iraq is not Vietnam, whatever the superficial similarities. This time there is no substitute for victory now that we have been called out.

Looks like Zarqawi agreed with President Bush..

Text of al-Zarqawi Safe-House Document Jun 15 8:58 AM US/Easternhttp://img.breitbart.com/images/ap.gif By The Associated Press Text of a document discovered in terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout. The document was provided in English by Iraqi National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie: The situation and conditions of the resistance in Iraq have reached a point that requires a review of the events and of the work being done inside Iraq. Such a study is needed in order to show the best means to accomplish the required goals, especially that the forces of the National Guard have succeeded in forming an enormous shield protecting the American forces and have reduced substantially the losses that were solely suffered by the American forces. This is in addition to the role, played by the Shi'a (the leadership and masses) by supporting the occupation, working to defeat the resistance and by informing on its elements. As an overall picture, time has been an element in affecting negatively the forces of the occupying countries, due to the losses they sustain economically in human lives, which are increasing with time. However, here in Iraq, time is now beginning to be of service to the American forces and harmful to the resistance for the following reasons: 1. By allowing the American forces to form the forces of the National Guard, to reinforce them and enable them to undertake military operations against the resistance. 2. By undertaking massive arrest operations, invading regions that have an impact on the resistance, and hence causing the resistance to lose many of its elements. 3. By undertaking a media campaign against the resistance resulting in weakening its influence inside the country and presenting its work as harmful to the population rather than being beneficial to the population. 4. By tightening the resistance's financial outlets, restricting its moral options and by confiscating its ammunition and weapons. 5. By creating a big division among the ranks of the resistance and jeopardizing its attack operations, it has weakened its influence and internal support of its elements, thus resulting in a decline of the resistance's assaults. 6. By allowing an increase in the number of countries and elements supporting the occupation or at least allowing to become neutral in their stand toward us in contrast to their previous stand or refusal of the occupation. 7. By taking advantage of the resistance's mistakes and magnifying them in order to misinform. Based on the above points, it became necessary that these matters should be treated one by one: 1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance. 2. To assist some of the people of the resistance to infiltrate the ranks of the National Guard in order to spy on them for the purpose of weakening the ranks of the National Guard when necessary, and to be able to use their modern weapons. 3. To reorganize for recruiting new elements for the resistance. 4. To establish centers and factories to produce and manufacture and improve on weapons and to produce new ones. 5. To unify the ranks of the resistance, to prevent controversies and prejudice and to adhere to piety and follow the leadership. 6. To create division and strife between American and other countries and among the elements disagreeing with it. 7. To avoid mistakes that will blemish the image of the resistance and show it as the enemy of the nation. In general and despite the current bleak situation, we think that the best suggestions in order to get out of this crisis is to entangle the American forces into another war against another country or with another of our enemy force, that is to try and inflame the situation between American and Iraq or between America and the Shi'a in general. Specifically the Sistani Shi'a, since most of the support that the Americans are getting is from the Sistani Shi'a, then, there is a possibility to instill differences between them and to weaken the support line between them; in addition to the losses we can inflict on both parties. Consequently, to embroil America in another war against another enemy is the answer that we find to be the most appropriate, and to have a war through a delegate has the following benefits: 1. To occupy the Americans by another front will allow the resistance freedom of movement and alleviate the pressure imposed on it. 2. To dissolve the cohesion between the Americans and the Shi'a will weaken and close this front. 3. To have a loss of trust between the Americans and the Shi'a will cause the Americans to lose many of their spies. 4. To involve both parties, the Americans and the Shi'a, in a war that will result in both parties being losers. 5. Thus, the Americans will be forced to ask the Sunni for help. 6. To take advantage of some of the Shia elements that will allow the resistance to move among them. 7. To weaken the media's side which is presenting a tarnished image of the resistance, mainly conveyed by the Shi'a. 8. To enlarge the geographical area of the resistance movement. 9. To provide popular support and cooperation by the people. The resistance fighters have learned from the result and the great benefits they reaped, when a struggle ensued between the Americans and the Army of Al-Mahdi. However, we have to notice that this trouble or this delegated war that must be ignited can be accomplished through: 1. A war between the Shi'a and the Americans

Aftereffects of Zarqawi's death...

Treasure Trove of Information on Al Qaeda By KIM GAMEL Associated Press Writer BAGHDAD, Iraq Iraq's national security adviser said Thursday a "huge treasure" of documents and computer records was seized after the raid on terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's hideout, giving the Iraqi government the upper hand in its fight against al-Qaida in Iraq. National Security Adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie also said he believed the security situation in the country would improve enough to allow a large number of U.S.-led forces to leave Iraq by the end of this year, and a majority to depart by the end of next year. "And maybe the last soldier will leave Iraq by mid-2008," he said. Al-Rubaie said a laptop, flashdrive and other documents were found in the debris after the airstrike that killed the al-Qaida in Iraq leader last week outside Baqouba, and more information has been uncovered in raids of other insurgent hideouts since then. He called it a "huge treasure ... a huge amount of information." When asked how he could be sure the information was authentic, al- Rubaie said "there is nothing more authentic than finding a thumbdrive in his pocket." "We believe that this is the beginning of the end of al-Qaida in Iraq," al-Rubaie said, adding that the documents showed al-Qaida is in "pretty bad shape," politically and in terms of training, weapons and media. "Now we have the upper hand," he said at a news conference in Baghdad. "We feel that we know their locations, the names of their leaders, their whereabouts, their movements, through the documents we found during the last few days." Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, pressed forward with his initiative to crack down on violence in Baghdad. Government forces fanned out across Baghdad for a second day, setting up checkpoints and frisking motorists. Al-Maliki has promised the crackdown would not target any ethnic or sectarian group. Gunmen killed an engineer and kidnapped another, and a detergent factory worker was shot to death as he was headed to work elsewhere in western Baghdad, police said, but no major violence was reported in the capital, a day after al-Maliki's major security operation was launched. In addition to announcing the security crackdown, al-Maliki opened the door Wednesday for talks with insurgents opposed to the country's political process as part of a national reconciliation initiative, but he said any negotiations would exclude terrorist groups. The plan could include a pardon for some prisoners. A senior White House official said the Iraqis have indicated that they are looking for "models" in national reconciliation. Another official said al-Maliki had inquired whether Bosnians or South Africans might be able to provide expertise. "There is also a space for dialogue with insurgents who opposed the political process and now want to join the political process after offering guarantees," al-Maliki said. "But on the other hand we are not going to negotiate with the criminals who have killed the innocent." A top al-Maliki adviser told The Washington Post the plan could include pardons for those who had attacked U.S. troops. Adnan Ali al- Kadhimi told the Post "there is a patriotic feeling among the Iraqi youth and the belief that those attacks are legitimate acts of resistance and defending their homeland. These people will be pardoned definitely, I believe." The security crackdown in Baghdad includes a curfew extended by 4 1/2 hours _ from 8:30 p.m. until dawn _ and a weapons ban. The government did not say how long the crackdown would last and declined to give precise numbers about checkpoints and troops. Operation Forward Together, involving 75,000 Iraqi army and police forces backed by U.S. troops, began Wednesday at a crucial time _ one day after Bush visited Baghdad to reassure Iraqis of Washington's continued support and exactly a week after al-Zarqawi's death in a U.S. airstrike. During Bush's visit, Iraq's Sunni Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi asked him for a timeline for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Iraq, the president's office said. "I supported him in this," President Jalal Talabani said in a statement released Wednesday. Al-Hashimi's representatives could not immediately be reached for comment Thursday. Bush made it clear that a U.S. military presence now at about 132,000 troops would continue, although he stressed the fate of the Iraqis was in their own hands. Al-Hashimi also said there were "promises to free about 3,500 detainees" by June 26, the statement from Talabani's office said. That number that would be above the 2,500 to be freed as part of a bid by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to soothe Sunni Arabs over allegations of random detentions and maltreatment at the hands of the Shiite-led government. More than 450 detainees were being released Thursday as part of al- Maliki's national reconciliation efforts, according to the U.S. military. Many Baghdad residents were hopeful about al-Maliki's efforts, although some were clearly impatient as they waited for 15 minutes or more to get through the checkpoints. "The reconciliation plan should exclude those responsible for bloodshed of the Iraqi people," resident Abdul-Sada Ali told AP Television News. "It is a very good step by Mr. Nouri al-Maliki." The security operation was al-Maliki's first major action since his new government of national unity was sworn in on May 20, and a week after he gained the consensus he needed from Iraq's ethnic and sectarian groups to fill three key posts of defense, interior and national security.

How do Milbloggers view the home front?

My good friend Bill Crawford has asked me to pen a short essay on the view of the military towards those back here on the home front. As a serving member of the Reserve component, there are several salient issues which have to be addressed when discussing political-military relations. First, every member of the US military is taught that the civilian branch of our government always reigns supreme. That even though Air Force Chief of Staff General Moseley is my boss, it is actually HIS boss Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who wields ultimate control over our military. So, there is a fine line one must tread when analyzing how the military views those politicians who direct our actions. Furthermore, through the Constitution which we all swore to protect and defend- we realize that it is the political class that will always control our fates to one degree or another. Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice states that “Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department…or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.” Clearly then, a professional member of the military must never demonstrate contempt to any of our duly elected representatives. This policy serves to maintain order in the ranks, and is a fundamental bulwark of our Republic. You will not hear long discourses by those in the military on nebulous concepts of “treason” or “summer patriots” or “chickenhawks”. The majority of those serving in the military have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in such polemics. What you will hear is a singular question. And that question is, “do the people back at home have a true and valid conception of what is happening overseas?” Many in the military blogger community are constantly surprised when they return Stateside at the end of their combat deployment. To them, we are engaged in a very difficult campaign, but one in which the United States has succeeded to a significant degree. The fact that: the homeland has not been attacked since 9/11; there have been two national elections in Iraq; one Constitutional ratification; as well as upcoming regional elections in that country. The fact that: thousands of schools; hospitals; and police stations have been built and refurbished; that every day, there are more Iraqi Interior Ministry and Army forces hitting the streets on patrol with our forces. The fact that there is now a functioning permanent Cabinet serving in Baghdad, with non-sectarian leaders holding the critical positions for Minister of Defense and National Security Advisor. These are all real and important achievements. Four years ago these actions would have been unimaginable events taking place within the despotism of Saddam Hussein and the heart of the Arab Middle East. Deservedly, our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines rightfully believe they have made great sacrifices in the furtherance of a great and just cause. At the same time however, many are confused as to why grunts on the front lines of Baquba and Ramadi seem to possess a better overall strategic perspective on the war against terror than certain people back in Washington. From reading their blogs, it seems to them that a minority of politicians believe they have carte blanche to utter untrue statements about our forces- and this fills many with heartache and sadness. The overwhelming majority of our military forces around the world believe that we are winning. And that we will continue to win this war- as long as the political establishment continues its support for the mission. Today I listened to various sound clips from a certain politician, claiming that “our children are being sent to war with no plan for victory.” I am not sure which “child” she is talking about, as everyone who enlists has at least graduated from high school and is old enough to drive and vote. And as I just confirmed, there is a 38 page document on the White House website which lays out exactly what our plan for victory entails. It is entitled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq.” So many in the military community are simply puzzled as to the disconnect between what they observe, and what some in Washington and the media observe. Many media articles which portray our forces as inept or in over their heads indeed have insidious effects on the warfighter- and not because it weakens their own resolve. Instead, when the media publishes untrue statements, it gives succor to our vicious enemies, and demoralizes our families and the general populace of our country. The jihadists realize they can not beat us on the battlefield- at this stage they rarely engage our troops directly other than through improvised explosive devices. But they are crafty enough to realize that if they can cause as much violence and mayhem as possible, parts of the media and political class in Congress may exert pressure on the Administration to retreat on the precipice of victory. This is part of the strategy of our enemies- and is the greatest fear of those in the military. Many fear that as success in Mesopatamia is within our grasp, we will not follow through until final victory is attained. Many military bloggers believe that often times members of the media and partisan operatives portray our forces in a needleesly negative light. Furthermore, if we were to enact the policies of the “pull out now crowd” we would be faced with the following consequences: thousands of innocent civilians would be butchered throughout Iraq; Al-Qaeda would achieve its greatest victory; our allies would learn to no longer trust the word of the United States; Iran and its nuclear program would be emboldened; and sooner rather than later we would be hit on the streets of New York rather than Fallujah. Many in the military- who have been schooled in doctrine, strategy, and tactics realize that any counter insurgency operation is going to prove both difficult and slow. They only ask that those in the rear consistently tell the truth about them, rather than making their job more difficult and painful.

President Bush supports our troops in Iraq...

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE TROOPS IN IRAQ Green Zone, Baghdad THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for the warm welcome. Thought I'd stop in to say "hello." (Laughter and applause.) I bring greetings from a grateful nation. (Applause.) I thank you for your sacrifice, I thank you for your service, I thank you for making history. You know, one of the things I try to do is put good people in place who accomplish hard jobs. And I can't think of two better leaders than Zal Khalilzad and General Casey to lead this important effort. (Applause.) I thank you all very much for your service to our country. Your sacrifice is noble and your sacrifice is important. I understand long deployments are tough -- they're tough on you and they're tough on your families. And so the first thing I want to tell you is the American people are incredibly grateful for what you do, and I bring their greetings and their thanks for the sacrifices you and your family make. These are historic times. The mission that you're accomplishing here in Iraq will go down in the history books as an incredibly important moment in the history of freedom and peace; an incredibly important moment of doing our duty to secure our homeland. You know, right after September the 11th I knew that some would forget the dangers we face. Some would hope that the world would be what it's not -- a peaceful place in which people wouldn't want to do harm to those of us who love freedom. I vowed that day, after September the 11th, to do everything I could to protect the American people. And I was able to make that claim because I knew there were people such as yourself who were willing to be on the front line in the war on terror. Baghdad and Iraq is a front in the war on terror. It is a part of our mission to help make sure that the world is a better place. I truly believe the work that you're doing here is laying the foundation of peace for generations to come, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart. The progress here in Iraq has been remarkable when you really think about it. The people of this country suffered under the hands of a brutal tyrant -- and thanks to the United States forces and coalition forces, the people are liberated from the clutches of Saddam Hussein. (Applause.) America is safer, the world is better off and the Iraqi people have a chance to realize the great blessings of liberty because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power.Thanks to your hard work, the Iraqi people have been given a chance to go to the polls -- not once, but three different times -- to elect a government that is dedicated to the will of the people. Today, I have come to not only thank you, but to look Prime Minister Maliki in the eyes -- to determine whether or not he is as dedicated to a free Iraq as you are, and I believe he is. I met with the cabinet officials from all walks of life here in Iraq, and came away with the distinct impression that they are unified in serving the people of Iraq. They want to succeed. The faith and future of Iraq is in their hands, and our job is to help them succeed -- and we will. (Applause.) I have come today to personally show our nation's commitment to a free Iraq. My message to the Iraqi people is this: seize the moment; seize this opportunity to develop a government of and by and for the people. And I also have a message to the Iraqi people that when America gives a commitment, America will keep its commitment. (Applause.) Our work is not done with the formation of a unity government. This government is just getting started. And the enemies of a free Iraq will do everything they can to stop the progress. That should tell us something about the enemies of a free Iraq. Who wouldn't want the people's will to be expressed? Who wouldn't want a government to be able to meet the needs of the people? Those who kill the innocent lives or those who have no concept of liberty, have no sense of justice, have no respect for human rights and human dignity. But I believe the Iraqi government that's formed does respect human rights and human dignity, it will respond to the will of the people. There are going to be tough days ahead, and more sacrifice for Americans, as well as Iraqis. But I come here -- come away from here believing that the will is strong and the desire to meet the needs of the people is real and tangible. You know, one of the things that we've got to realize -- "we," the world, have got to realize, is that Iraqi women want their children to grow up in a peaceful world; they want their sons and daughters to be well educated; they want to live in peace and harmony; they want to be able to realize their hopes and aspirations. It's a common desire, and is one that you all are helping the Iraqis realize. It's important work, it's vital work, and it's historic work. Our military will stay on the offense. We will continue to hunt down people like Mr. Zarqawi, and bring them to justice. (Applause.) We will continue to train the Iraqis, so they can help the unity government secure the peace. I've told the American people that as the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down, and I appreciate all the military folks here who are working hard to help the Iraqi forces become capable and able to do the job the Iraqi people expect them to do. Those of you who are not in the military, the civilians, have got a really important job to do, as well, and I want to thank you for the job you're doing. (Applause.) It is clear that Saddam Hussein destroyed many of the institutions necessary for this society to succeed. It is clear that he was a selfish, brutal leader who was willing to sacrifice infrastructure and civil society in order to meet his narrow objectives. And it is clear to me that our job is to help the Prime Minister and his government implement his strategy and his plan to restore infrastructure and education and health and agricultural society so that people have the confidence in their new government. Yours is hard work, but it's necessary work, and the government of the United States stands strongly beside you. The stakes are high, and what happens here in Iraq reaches far beyond the borders of Iraq. The war on terror really will be addressed by strong actions by our intelligence and military services to bring to justice those who would do us harm. I've told the American people, we will defeat the enemy overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) Ultimately, the victory in the war on terror, the victory in a struggle against those who have no ideology -- well, they've got an ideology, but it's an ideology that is dark and dismal. It's one that doesn't respect human dignity. It's an ideology that doesn't believe in the freedom to worship. It's an ideology that doesn't respect the role and rights of women in society. It's an ideology that has no hope. The way to defeat that ideology is with an ideology of light. I believe in the universality of freedom. I believe deep in everybody's soul is the desire to be free. We don't expect the Iraqi government to look like the American government. We expect an Iraqi government to honor its traditions and its histories and its religious faiths. But we do expect the Iraqi government to honor the right of every man, woman and child to live in a free society. And when Iraq succeeds -- and it will -- the rest of the world, particularly in the Middle East, will see such a hopeful example of what's possible. I told you earlier we were laying the foundation of peace for generations to come, and we are, because we go with confidence knowing that liberty is the desire of every soul. When Iraq succeeds, reformers and people who desire to live in a free society will see such a hopeful example, and they'll begin to demand the same rights and the same conditions and the same hopeful society. And that's why I tell you what you're doing is historic in nature. People will look back at this period and wonder whether or not America was true to its beginnings; whether we strongly believed in the universality of freedom and whether we were willing to act on it. Certainly we acted in our own self-interest right after September the 11th; and now we act not only in our own self-interests, but in the interests of men, women and children in the broader Middle East, no matter what their religion, no matter where they were born, no matter how they speak. This is a moment -- this is a time where the world can turn one way or the other, where the world can be a better place or a more dangerous place. And the United States of America and citizens such as yourself are dedicated to making sure that the world we leave behind is a better place for all. It is such an honor to be here. (Applause.) It is such an honor to be with you. May God bless you all, may God bless your work, may God bless your families, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. (Applause.)

Good analysis on the affects of the Zarqawi hit...

A Good Day's Work- Why Zarqawi's death matters. By Christopher Hitchens Posted Thursday, June 8, 2006, at 2:00 PM ET The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is excellent news in its own right and even more excellent if, as U.S. sources in Iraq are claiming, it resulted from information that derived from people who were or had been close to him. (And, if that claim is black propaganda, then it is clever black propaganda, which is also excellent news.) It hasn't taken long for the rain to start falling on this parade. Nick Berg's father, a MoveOn type now running for Congress on the Green Party ticket, has already said that he blames President George Bush for the video-beheading of his own son (but of course) and mourned the passing of Zarqawi as he would the death of any man (but of course, again). The latest Atlantic has a brilliantly timed cover story by Mary Anne Weaver, which tends to the view that Zarqawi was essentially an American creation, but seems to undermine its own prominence by suggesting that, in addition to that, Zarqawi wasn't all that important. Not so fast. Zarqawi contributed enormously to the wrecking of Iraq's experiment in democratic federalism. He was able to help ensure that the Iraqi people did not have one single day of respite between 35 years of war and fascism, and the last three-and-a-half years of misery and sabotage. He chose his targets with an almost diabolical cunning, destroying the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad (and murdering the heroic envoy Sérgio Vieira de Melo) almost before it could begin operations, and killing the leading Shiite Ayatollah Hakim outside his place of worship in Najaf. His decision to declare a jihad against the Shiite population in general, in a document of which Weaver (on no evidence) doubts the authenticity, has been the key innovation of the insurgency: applying lethal pressure to the most vulnerable aspect of Iraqi society. And it has had the intended effect, by undermining Grand Ayatollah Sistani and helping empower Iranian-backed Shiite death squads. Not bad for a semiliterate goon and former jailhouse enforcer from a Bedouin clan in Jordan. There are two important questions concerning the terrible influence that he has been able to exert. The first is: How much state and para-state support did he enjoy? The second is: What was the nature of his relationship with Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaida? For the defeatists and pacifists, these are easy questions to answer. Colin Powell was wrong to identify Zarqawi, in his now-notorious U.N. address, as a link between the Saddam regime and the Bin-Ladenists. The man's power was created only by the coalition's intervention, and his connection to al Qaida was principally opportunistic. On this logic, the original mistake of the United States would have been to invade Afghanistan, thereby forcing Zarqawi to flee his camp outside Herat and repositioning him for a new combat elsewhere. Thus, fighting against al-Qaida is a mistake to begin with: It only encourages them. I think that (for once) Colin Powell was on to something. I know that Kurdish intelligence had been warning the coalition for some time before the invasion that former Afghanistan combatants were making their way into Iraq, which they saw as the next best chance to take advantage of a state that was both "failed" and "rogue." One might add that Iraq under Saddam was not an easy country to enter or to leave, and that no decision on who was allowed in would be taken by a junior officer. Furthermore, the Zarqawi elements appear to have found it their duty to join with the Ansar al-Islam splinter group in Kurdistan, which for some reason thought it was the highest duty of jihad to murder Saddam Hussein's main enemies. But perhaps I have a suspicious mind.We happen to know that the Baathist regime was recruiting and training foreign fighters and brigading them with the gruesome "Fedayeen Saddam." (This is incidentally a clue to what the successor regime in Iraq might have looked like as the Saddam-plus-sanctions state imploded and Baathism itself went into eclipse.) That bomb at the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, for example, was no improvised explosive device. It was a huge charge of military-grade ordnance. Are we to believe that a newly arrived Bedouin Jordanian thug could so swiftly have scraped acquaintance with senior-level former Baathists? (The charges that destroyed the golden dome of the Shiites in Samarra were likewise rigged and set by professional military demolitionists.)Zarqawi's relations with Bin Laden are a little more tortuous. Mary Anne Weaver shows fairly convincingly that the two men did not get along and were in some sense rivals for the leadership. That's natural enough: Religious fanatics are schismatic by definition. Zarqawi's visceral hatred of the Shiite heresy was unsettling even to some more mainstream Wahhabi types, as was his undue relish in making snuff videos. (How nice to know that these people do have their standards.) However, when Zarqawi sought the franchise to call his group "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia," he was granted it with only a few admonitions.Most fascinating of all is the suggestion that Zarqawi was all along receiving help from the mullahs in Iran. He certainly seems to have been able to transit their territory (Herat is on the Iranian border with Afghanistan) and to replenish his forces by the same route. If this suggestive connection is proved, as Weaver suggests it will be, then we have the Shiite fundamentalists in Iran directly sponsoring the murderer of their co-religionists in Iraq. This in turn would mean that the Iranian mullahs stood convicted of the most brutish and cynical irresponsibility, in front of their own people, even as they try to distract attention from their covert nuclear ambitions. That would be worth knowing. And it would become rather difficult to argue that Bush had made them do it, though no doubt the attempt will be made. If we had withdrawn from Iraq already, as the "peace" movement has been demanding, then one of the most revolting criminals of all time would have been able to claim that he forced us to do it. That would have catapulted Iraq into Stone Age collapse and instated a psychopathic killer as the greatest Muslim soldier since Saladin. As it is, the man is ignominiously dead and his dirty connections a lot closer to being fully exposed. This seems like a good day's work to me.

Your time will also come...

Jun 11, 2006 — CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced on Sunday that he will visit Iran and North Korea, two nations at odds with Washington over nuclear development, at a time when Chavez is seeking to distance Venezuela from the United States. Chavez, who has promised a socialist revolution to end poverty in the world's fifth-largest oil exporter, has drawn fire from the State Department for building alliances with U.S. foes like Cuba and Iran. "We will soon be in North Korea, we will soon be in Tehran, deepening our … strategic alliances," Chavez said during his weekly Sunday broadcast. He said the tour will also include stops in China and Russia, where Venezuela will sign military cooperation agreements with the Russian government, following U.S. moves to block Chavez's arms purchases from other countries. He did not provide dates for the trip, which he said will include a stop in "North Vietnam." The State Department last month added Venezuela to a list of nations not cooperating in the fight on terrorism and has repeatedly accused Chavez of supporting leftist guerrillas in neighboring Colombia, though there has been no clear evidence to support this claim. The U.S. government in January blocked sales of Spanish military planes and ships to Venezuela by refusing Spain an export license for the U.S. technology used in the vessels. Chavez has aggressively supported Iran's efforts to develop nuclear technology, and has helped undermine the U.S. embargo of Cuba by increasing trade and providing oil on favorable terms. He drew State Department criticism in 2000 by visiting former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein as part of a tour to strengthen the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Last month, he took a Venezuelan delegation to England, Italy, Austria, Libya, and Algeria. The leftist former paratrooper, who has hurled insults like "donkey" and "assassin" at President Bush, is up for re-election in December.

Even the UK papers see a victory in Zarqawi's death..

The death of an evil man brings hope to Iraq- UK Guardian (Filed: 09/06/2006) His star may have been waning before his death, but the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is the most spectacularly good bit of news to come out of Iraq since the capture of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Combined with the appointment of interior and defence ministers to Nuri al-Maliki's cabinet, it gives Iraq and the coalition forces a window of opportunity to halt the slide towards civil war. The establishment of a Sunni theocracy was al-Zarqawi's goal and the method he used was terror, whether to scare away foreigners, as in the beheading of the British hostage Ken Bigley in 2004, or to incite sectarian violence, as in the bombing of the Shia Golden Mosque in Samarra last February. There were signs that he had over-reached himself with the triple bombing of hotels in his native Jordan seven months ago: the killing of 60 civilians was criticised by other Islamic terrorists. Shortly after, al-Zarqawi announced the merger of his group, which consists mainly of foreign fighters, with an umbrella organisation of Iraqi rebels. Nevertheless, the reluctance of the outside world to become involved in Iraq, and the current mayhem in Baghdad and the province of Diyala, where al-Zarqawi was killed, are telling evidence of his malign influence.The announcement of the death of this evil man coincided with the final assignation of portfolios in the Iraqi government. Controversy within the coalition of Shias, Sunnis and Kurds over the key posts of defence and the interior had delayed completion of this task for nearly three weeks after the new administration had taken office. They have been filled, respectively, by General Abdel Qader Jassim, a Sunni who was the army commander, and Jawad al-Bolani, a Shia whose predecessor, Bayan Jabr, was disastrously sectarian. With the prime minister, they have the daunting task not only of crushing the Sunni rebellion, but also of bringing the Shia militias under central control. In this struggle, the allies have two essential supporting roles. The first is military: to continue taking the fight to the rebels in the western province of Anbar, while acting as mentor to Iraqi forces elsewhere. The second is diplomatic: to persuade neighbouring countries of the benefits of preserving the territorial integrity of Iraq. In this respect, the willingness of Washington to deal directly with Iran for the first time since 1979 could provide a vital conduit. If they take place, the talks will in the first place be about nuclear weapons but, as Condoleezza Rice, the American Secretary of State, has indicated, they could lead to wider co-operation. The Americans and British will be hoping that yesterday's good news will open the way to troop withdrawals later this year. Such hopes are premature. The Iraqi government has only just been formed; it is not yet clear, for instance, whether it has the authority to bring the militias in Basra to heel. The foreign jihadis have lost their leader but they will re-form. In the meantime, Mr al-Maliki and his allied backers have a brief chance to seize the initiative.

We need a movie about Task Force 145...

The demise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, courtesy of Task Force 145 By Bill Roggio Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan: The death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the late commander of al-Qaeda in Iraq, has provided the Coalition forces and the Iraqi people with a moral victory against al-Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi was a powerful symbol of modern jihad, a ruthless commander willing to exercise brutality on the battlefield. Zarqawi is a legend in the jihadi community, who is often said to rival Osama bin Laden in popularity among the younger breed of jihadists. Zarqawi's image and audio and video tapes are widely distributed, and his trademark skullcap a fashion statement. Task Force 145 was very likely the linchpin in the success in killing Zarqawi, Sheik Abd-Al-Rahman, his spiritual adviser, and seven other lieutenants during a high-level meeting. Over the past two months, TF-145 has conducted numerous raids and killed or captured numerous high-level members of Zarqawi's organization in the area directly north and west of Baghdad. Known strikes against senior members of al-Qaeda in Iraq's organization were executed in Baghdad, Ramadi, Yusifiyah, Muthana Chemical Complex at Lake Thar Thar, Samarra, Karbala, Jublayah, and Balad. Zarqawi was finally identified and targeted in Baquba, a city with an entrenched insurgent presence. “Tips and intelligence from Iraqi senior leaders from his network led forces to al-Zarqawi and some of his associates who were conducting a meeting approximately eight kilometers north of Baqubah when the air strike was launched,” according to Multinational Forces-Iraq. Task Force 145's operations were not random, but a concerted operation based on intelligence on al-Qaeda's organization and whereabouts in the region north and west of Baghdad. Zarqawi and al-Qaeda focused their efforts on the Iraqi capitol of Baghdad in an effort to influence the western media, incite a civil war and destabilize the nascent Iraqi government. This required moving their operational capabilities closer to the capitol. Major Task Force 145 operations lead to death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Click to view map. The tightening of al-Qaeda's network in and around Baghdad provided Task Force 145 an opportunity to focus on Zarqawi's organization. Task Force 145 systematically began to dismantle al-Qaeda's organization from the bottom up. Cell leaders, financiers, facilitators and military commanders were rolled up in a series of target raids, slowly degrading al-Qaeda's capabilities while opening a window to al-Qaeda's organization and operations. The raids provided intelligence for follow-up strikes, which ultimately led to the attack of Zarqawi's safe house. Despite the popular perception that killing or capturing al-Qaeda mid-level commanders is a game of "whack-a-mole", the reality is al-Qaeda in Iraq has limited resources and a finite pool of expertise. Over time, as less experienced leaders fill the positions of the more experienced, this impacts al-Qaeda's organization in effectiveness, leadership, ability to network and degrades operational security. The death of Zarqawi will not end the insurgency or bury al-Qaeda in Iraq. The race is now on to find a suitable replacement to Zarqawi. His organization has been degraded over the past year, and Zarqawi's death will show the west the real status of the Mujahideen Shura Council. Zarqawi's last audiotape called for a furthering of the Sunni-Shiite divide, a position which al-Qaeda senior command was at odds with (not from a philosophical perspective but from an operational perspective - al-Qaeda was concerned with alienating the Muslim world while fighting the "far enemy" in Iraq.) Another question which is raise is who will succeed Zarqawi in his international terrorist organization, al-Tawhid wa'l-Jihad (Unity and Jihad Group), which operates in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, and his network extends into Northern Africa and Europe.

"Prince" of Al Qaeda meets the US Air Force...

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Rose Garden Washington, D.C. THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Last night in Iraq, United States military forces killed the terrorist al Zarqawi. At 6:15 p.m. Baghdad time, special operation forces, acting on tips and intelligence from Iraqis, confirmed Zarqawi's location, and delivered justice to the most wanted terrorist in Iraq. Zarqawi was the operational commander of the terrorist movement in Iraq. He led a campaign of car bombings, assassinations and suicide attacks that has taken the lives of many American forces and thousands of innocent Iraqis. Osama bin Laden called this Jordanian terrorist "the prince of al Qaeda in Iraq." He called on the terrorists around the world to listen to him and obey him. Zarqawi personally beheaded American hostages and other civilians in Iraq. He masterminded the destruction of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. He was responsible for the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan, and the bombing of a hotel in Amman. Through his every action, he sought to defeat America and our coalition partners, and turn Iraq into a safe haven from which al Qaeda could wage its war on free nations. To achieve these ends, he worked to divide Iraqis and incite civil war. And only last week he released an audio tape attacking Iraq's elected leaders, and denouncing those advocating the end of sectarianism. Now Zarqawi has met his end, and this violent man will never murder again. Iraqis can be justly proud of their new government and its early steps to improve their security. And Americans can be enormously proud of the men and women of our armed forces, who worked tirelessly with their Iraqi counterparts to track down this brutal terrorist and put him out of business. The operation against Zarqawi was conducted with courage and professionalism by the finest military in the world. Coalition and Iraqi forces persevered through years of near misses and false leads, and they never gave up. Last night their persistence and determination were rewarded. On behalf of all Americans, I congratulate our troops on this remarkable achievement. Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues. We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue. Yet the ideology of terror has lost one of its most visible and aggressive leaders. Zarqawi's death is a severe blow to al Qaeda. It's a victory in the global war on terror, and it is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide of this struggle. A few minutes ago I spoke to Prime Minister Maliki. I congratulated him on close collaboration between coalition and Iraqi forces that helped make this day possible. Iraq's freely elected Prime Minister is determined to defeat our common enemies and bring security and the rule of law to all its people. Earlier this morning he announced the completion of his cabinet appointments, with the naming of a new Minister of Defense, a new Minister of the Interior, and a new Minister of State for National Security. These new ministers are part of a democratic government that represents all Iraqis. They will play a vital role as the Iraqi government addresses its top priorities -- reconciliation and reconstruction and putting an end to the kidnappings and beheadings and suicide bombings that plague the Iraqi people. I assured Prime Minister Maliki that he will have the full support of the United States of America. On Monday I will meet with my national security team and other key members of my Cabinet at Camp David to discuss the way forward in Iraq. Our top diplomats and military commanders in Iraq will give me an assessment of recent changes in the political and economic and security situation on the ground. On Tuesday, Iraq's new Ambassador to the United States will join us, and we will have a teleconference discussion with the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet. Together we will discuss how to best deploy America's resources in Iraq and achieve our shared goal of an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself and sustain itself. We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continued patience of the American people. Yet the developments of the last 24 hours give us renewed confidence in the final outcome of this struggle: the defeat of terrorism threats, and a more peaceful world for our children and grandchildren. May God bless the Iraqi people and may God continue to bless America.

Many more terror arrests around the world...

British computer whiz-kid exports terror via internet By Daniel McGrory UK Guardian 06/07/06 An e-mail trail has led to the arrest of suspects across the world who were recruited and then schooled in bombmaking. AN INTERNET trail left by a British computer expert has led investigators to an intricate terror network spreading from the backstreets of Baghdad through cells of young militants living in European capitals to Islamic extremists plotting car-bomb attacks in North America. For nine months police and intelligence agents in eight countries have patiently worked through a forest of e-mails and intercepted telephone calls that have so far led to the arrest of up to 30 men. Most of these suspects have never met. They had no need. They were recruited, groomed by skilled propagandists and schooled in bombmaking via the internet. A senior security source told The Times that there is a far greater number of terror networks operating in Britain than had been thought, all using the internet to plot attacks here and abroad. A series of criminal trials in Britain, the US, Canada and Bosnia over the coming months will determine whether the much maligned Western security agencies have successfully disrupted a dangerous ring of al-Qaeda sympathisers or been duped by faulty intelligence.In a week when the competence of Scotland Yard and MI5 is being questioned, the outcome of what police here codenamed Operation Mazhar will demonstrate whether the long-promised co-operation of rival international intelligence agencies is succeeding. The operation is not connected to the raid in Forest Gate, London. The arrest of 17 suspects, many of them teenagers, picked up in the suburbs of Toronto at the weekend is said to be the latest stage in dismantling a terrorist nexus that, worryingly, has its links with one of the world’s most wanted men — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. On his website al-Zarqawi has encouraged young Muslims to take up the fight in their own countries and spread his religious war further than Iraq and Afghanistan. One aim is to create an army of “white-skinned” militants, men born in Europe and America who can convert to Islam and become harder for the authorities to detect as they cross the world on their missions, including suicide attacks. Using skilled computer operators around the world, al-Zarqawi’s outfit passes on bombmaking manuals, advice on how to sustain terror cells and even ways to use credit card fraud to hack into vital internet sites. These are home-grown recruits planning to follow the example of the 7/7 bombers in London and bring devastation to their own backyards. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police claims that the gang it intercepted was set to bomb the country’s financial centre and the Parliament in Ottawa using vans packed with explosives. These rival cells had no need to visit one another and risk being shadowed. Instead, with a few key strokes, the groups reportedly kept in touch with each other’s progress and synchronised their attacks. A series of raids in recent months in a number of Europe’s capitals and in Atlanta in the US has passed virtually unannounced. One US official told the Wall Street Journal: “We let the operation run as long as we had to make sure we could identify as many would-be terrorist operators as we could and then picked them off one, two, three and finally 17 at a time.” The first arrests came in a scruffy apartment in Sarajevo in October last year when Bosnian police picked up 18-year-old Mirsad Bektasevic. Born in Sweden to Serbian parents, he had converted to Islam, grown a beard and was known as “Maximus”. He had been watched since arriving in Sarajevo on September 27.