Atlas Shrugs

ISLAM EMPOWERS WOMEN [SUICIDE BOMBERS]!

Religion of pieces empowers women! Check out how she's dressed - that's a problem. She may have saved herself from suicide bombing death, but they will surely cut her head off for that dress. Va va voom.

GIRL SUICIDE BOMBER GIVES HERSELF UP Telegraph (hat tip aug)

IRAQI police today paraded a girl of 15 caught wearing an explosives vest, saying she planned to follow her father and stage a suicide bombing.

They later arrested her mother and a sister, as it was revealed the number of women carrying out suicide attacks has more than tripled this year.

Her arrest on Sunday heightened concern about a rise in suicide bombings by women in Iraq.

The number of female bombers has more than tripled this year, from eight in 2007 to 29 this year, according to U.S. military officials.

The girl gave her first name as Rania and said she was born in 1993.

Her exchange with the police offered a rare glimpse at a teenager allegedly recruited by insurgents.  (VIDEO HERE)

However, it was not clear to what extent her answers were given out of fear.

The latest fascion across the Muslim world:

WOMEN IN GAZA PREPARE TO BE SUICIDE BOMBERS (Memri)

"When the Goal is the Defense of the Homeland – There Is No Difference between Man and Woman"

Just in everything else. Women are chattel. In homicide bombings - they are equal! Disgusting savages. It must be crushed.

Reporter: "This elderly Palestinian woman, named Fatima Al-Najjar, led women's demonstrations at the entrance to the town of Beit Hanoun in the winter of 2006, calling upon the occupation to leave her town and stop the killing and destruction. But despite her advanced age, she decided to take a different path."    

Fatima Al-Najjar: "I sacrifice myself for the sake of Allah, the homeland, and Al-Aqsa. I ask Allah to accept my sacrifice."

    Reporter: "Fatima Al-Najjar blew herself up near several soldiers of the occupation, thus joining the many Palestinian women before her who chose martyrdom over a life of humiliation – Ayat Al-Akhras, Hanadi Jaradat, and Rim Al-Riyashi, who left her two children behind and decided to blow herself up at the Beit Hanoun crossing in northern Gaza. She left her two children an unforgettable lesson on the struggle.    

"When the goal is the defense of the homeland, there is no difference between man and woman. Here the women train and learn how to confront the enemy, which plundered the land and besieged their people. Dozens of young Palestinian women undergo training every year – university students, mothers, and working women. They know that their role in the conflict is not restricted to nursing the sick and caring for the children, and that what they are doing here might just change the equation."

    "The Mothers and Daughters of Palestine Believe that Death for the Sake of a Free Palestine is a Cheap Price to Pay, Compared to a Life of Humiliation Under the Boots of the Occupation"

Reporter: "This young woman, who calls herself 'Lover of Al-Quds,' has set out more than once on combat operations, some of which were successful and others not. But she is determined to continue."    

"Lover of Al-Quds": "This is the belt we wear around our waists, so that we can detonate ourselves at the push of a button. This is a safety button, and so is this. We won't explode unless we press this button. When God instills the will in our hearts... Our strength lies not in the body, but in the heart. If the heart so desires and we are inspired by God to set out... Every female martyrdom-seeker is inspired by Allah."    

Reporter: "'Lover of Al-Quds' is about to be married, but she has told her fiancé: 'If my land calls me, I will respond to the call.' She will not sit at home, awaiting the soldiers of the occupation. Instead, she will go out to confront them, wearing her explosives belt, with which she never parts."    

"Lover of Al-Quds": "Even if the Jews come on my wedding day, I will go out to confront them in my wedding gown. Nothing will stop me from committing martyrdom. I have given up all my dreams and aspirations to become a martyrdom-seeker. I have lived an ordinary life. I have lots of free time, I go in and out, I draw – just like any other girl. But when it is the will of Allah that we become martyrs, I will cast all this aside."

CORRUPTION ERUPTION: Obama tied to Iraqi government fraud?

We knew that Obama's ties to Auchi ran deep and he was in Rezko's pocket. This man can't helm the greatest force for good in human history. This is a very dirty guy.  

Obama tied to Iraqi government fraud? WND hat tip Van

Hundreds of millions in deals with candidate's associates

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama's office engaged in six months of negotiations with a company controlled by convicted criminal Tony Rezko to lobby the U.S. government to push through a nixed $50 million contact to train Iraqi security personnel at a site in Chicago.

The contract was awarded to Rezko's company while Aiham Alsammarae, a long-time, close Rezko friend and a contributor to Obama's campaign, served as Iraq's U.S.-appointed electricity minister.

Rezko was a major Obama fundraiser and associate for two decades.

Alsammarae also awarded another Rezko-controlled operation as part of a $150 million contract to construct a 250-megawatt electricity plant in Iraq.

Alsammarae later was arrested by Iraqi authorities for bilking the coalition government out of some $650 million. He was sprung from prison under questionable circumstances in 2006 and escaped from Iraq, where he is still wanted for questioning with regard to major financial crimes.

The information raises questions into the nature of Obama's relationship with multiple deals made by Iraq's Electricity Ministry while Alsammarae was in charge. Obama has ties to Alsammarae and to the recipients of several of the massive contracts Alsammarae handed out.

[...]

WND reported Alsammarae posted more than one-third of Rezko's jail bond earlier this year, putting up as surety his $1.9 million Chicago home and two other properties.

Alsammarae contributed the maximum allowable donation of $2,300 to Obama's campaign, sending money six times in January, February and March. Obama donated the funds to charity in April, only after Alsammarae posted bond for Rezko.

As electricity minister, Alsammarae not only granted a Rezko firm the $50 million security training contract but also approved a contract with another Rezko company, Rezmar, to construct a 250-megawatt plant in the Kurdistani city of Chamchamal. That contract was granted to both Rezmar and the London-based General Mediterranean Holdings, which is headed by British billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, who was also involved in a large real estate deal in Chicago with Rezko and others around Obama.

Auchi, a former Baathist who left Iraq in 1979, was convicted in 2003 in a French court of corruption in an oil deal that stretched back to the Saddam Hussein regime. Auchi denies the charges.

Auchi could not be reached for comment

In another connection to Obama, when Alsammarae was jailed in Iraq in 2006, his Chicago-based family reportedly contacted Obama's U.S. Senate office for information. Obama's office passed a written request to the State Department about Alsammarae Oct. 16, 2006, and received a reply from the U.S. consul in Iraq about a week later. The reply was forwarded by Obama's staff to Alsammarae's daughter.

Obama Partied with Crook Rezko & "taste for blood Saddam hatchet man Auchi ...

IRAQ: CULTURE OF INGRATES, ALIGNS WITH IRAN UPDATE: IRAN FIRES LONG RANGE MISSILE

Islam is political. No matter how slice it. It cannot co-exist with democracy. It cannot. It is one or the other.

Bostom was right. 

Iraqi Ingrates to US infidels: “We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn’t have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq.”Iraqi National Security Adviser al-Rubaie: “American Infidels Out”—Aya-Told-Him-So?

Fresh from a meeting with “Nobel Peace Prize-worthy” Ayatollah Sistani, the Iranian citizen denizen of Najaf (and Zebibahstan—see forehead), and theocratic purveyor of najas, Jew hatred, and subjugation of women,  Iraq’s national security adviser Mouwaffak al-Rubaie opined,

Our stance in the negotiations underway with the American side will be strong … We will not accept any memorandum of understanding that doesn’t have specific dates to withdraw foreign forces from Iraq…

Al-Maliki granted the Islamic Iranian regime covert permission to attack Camp Ashraf. Right Truth hat tip Michael

Breaking -- Anti-Mullah is reporting that Sources from inside Iran have advised that earlier today, the Islamic regime has fired missiles at, and sent mortar shells into Camp Ashraf, where the Mojaheddin (MEK) in Iraq are sequestered.

Indications arose that something was about to happen when Islamic Iranian forces announced a high level state of emergency in the Khuzestan region and moved additkional missile launchers to Shalamcheh, one of their military sites on the Iranian side of the border.

Reports state that on his recent visit to Iran, Iraqi premier, Al-Maliki, agreed to arrest and try some 150 or so MEK members who were at Camp Ashraf for having killed both Shias and Kurds for Saddam Hussein.

When some Sunni leaders (and apparently US forces) nixed this idea and protected the MEK members, Al-Maliki granted the Islamic Iranian regime covert permission to attack Camp  Ashraf.

Continue reading here.

And former UN Ambassador John Bolton says Tehran is delighted with Bush’s new North Korea stance. ... (more here)

"The combination of how North Korea has been treated, plus the very real concern that the Iranians have that Israel or possibly the United States might use military force against the Iranian nuclear weapons program has certainly concentrated their attention," he points out.

Bolton says Bush's North Korea nuke deal reflects the administration's lame-duck status. But he contends the administration could still save face. "I have a lot of faith in the North Koreans...that they will tip their real hand...," states Bolton. "...[I]t's still possible that there will be a glaring discrepancy in their declaration...that's just so obviously a lie that even the State Department won't be able to swallow it," he says.

In a recent newspaper column, Bolton argued "what is collapsing is not the North's nuclear program, but President Bush's foreign policy."

UPDATE: Iran stages Persian Gulf fires missiles, misses target Iran fired  Shahab-3, a missile with an operating range of 2,100 km (1,300 mi). John Bolton on Iran's missile firing:

Click on 'CONTINUE" to watch video of John Bolton and of Iran's  missile firing.

Breaking -- Anti-Mullah is reporting that Sources from inside Iran have advised that earlier today, the Islamic regime has fired missiles at, and sent mortar shells into Camp Ashraf, where the Mojaheddin (MEK) in Iraq are sequestered.

Indications arose that something was about to happen when Islamic Iranian forces announced a high level state of emergency in the Khuzestan region and moved additkional missile launchers to Shalamcheh, one of their military sites on the Iranian side of the border.

Reports state that on his recent visit to Iran, Iraqi premier, Al-Maliki, agreed to arrest and try some 150 or so MEK members who were at Camp Ashraf for having killed both Shias and Kurds for Saddam Hussein.

When some Sunni leaders (and apparently US forces) nixed this idea and protected the MEK members, Al-Maliki granted the Islamic Iranian regime covert permission to attack Camp  Ashraf.

Continue reading here.

And former UN Ambassador John Bolton says Tehran is delighted with Bush’s new North Korea stance. ... (more here)

"The combination of how North Korea has been treated, plus the very real concern that the Iranians have that Israel or possibly the United States might use military force against the Iranian nuclear weapons program has certainly concentrated their attention," he points out.

Bolton says Bush's North Korea nuke deal reflects the administration's lame-duck status. But he contends the administration could still save face. "I have a lot of faith in the North Koreans...that they will tip their real hand...," states Bolton. "...[I]t's still possible that there will be a glaring discrepancy in their declaration...that's just so obviously a lie that even the State Department won't be able to swallow it," he says.

In a recent newspaper column, Bolton argued "what is collapsing is not the North's nuclear program, but President Bush's foreign policy."

UPDATE: Iran stages Persian Gulf fires missiles, misses target Iran fired  Shahab-3, a missile with an operating range of 2,100 km (1,300 mi). John Bolton on Iran's missile firing:

Click on 'CONTINUE" to watch video of John Bolton and of Iran's  missile firing.

550 Metric Tons Of Yellowcake Removed From Iraq

"Let them eat yellowcake" ! I'd bake a yellowcake and make the leftards eat it, I swear. The endless flagellation and recrimination of the removal of Saddam is/was the real crime here.

Oh and while they are pretending this isn't happening, I am sure they will continue to ignore  the Iraqis leading the final purge of Al Qaeda from Iraq (You do remember al  qaeda dont you?_

Secret U.S. mission hauls uranium from Iraq MSNBC hat tip Michael

Last major stockpile from Saddam's nuclear efforts arrives in Canada

The last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program — a huge stockpile of concentrated natural uranium — reached a Canadian port Saturday to complete a secret U.S. operation that included a two-week airlift from Baghdad and a ship voyage crossing two oceans.

The removal of 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" — the seed material for higher-grade nuclear enrichment — was a significant step toward closing the books on Saddam's nuclear legacy. It also brought relief to U.S. and Iraqi authorities who had worried the cache would reach insurgents or smugglers crossing to Iran to aid its nuclear ambitions.

What's now left is the final and complicated push to clean up the remaining radioactive debris at the former Tuwaitha nuclear complex about 12 miles south of Baghdad — using teams that include Iraqi experts recently trained in the Chernobyl fallout zone in Ukraine

IT'S IRAN NOT IRAQ, STUPID

Dr. Andrew Bostom expands upon what I touched on yesterday in his hard hitting analysis:  Iraqi “Democratization,” With Shameful Outsourcing of the Real Jihadist Threat—Iran—to Israel. He pulls no punches in his clear, objective sum up of events on the ground in Iraq and hits the nail square on the head. All that blood and treasure in pursuit of a dream like liberal democracy in Iraq is a lovely, fluffy dream, but it is Iran that must be dealt with and now. Reality must be dealt with. “we can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality,” so said Ayn Rand. Fantasists are a luxury we can ill afford and what amounts to as knuckleheadedness, is, at this point, fatal.

According to the London Telegaph, Israel is apparently preparing to neutralize a real time threat—Iran’s nuclear program—while the US apparently has other (absurd and delusional) “priorities” in Iraq.

A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election.

We must salvage our foolhardy extended involvement in “democratizing” Iraq—this Iranian client state being made “safe for Sharia”—by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities NOW, while Bush is still in office, and not delay risking that opportunity any longer with the election of Obama, and/or any change in the transient public perception that in fact the surge has at least as of this very fragile moment, been of some success. Otherwise it is a shameful dereliction of our duty placed upon the Israelis who are in the end far more constrained by true existential threats than are we.

The US should not wait till beleaguered Israel is compelled to attack at great risk—both in performing the mission, and in suffering potential retaliation from the global jihadist umma—including Iranian supplied missiles from Gaza Hamastan and Lebanon Hezbollahstan—while our mass of forces—land, water, and air—just sits by and does nothing (other than awaiting retaliation by Iran, at any rate, perhaps?) from its bases in neighboring Iraq.

Delay—with both the distinct possibility of Iran gaining nukes, and our limited surge related “success” in Iraq being reversed—is the worst possible option, if the overriding goal is to prevent a nuclear armed Iran from emerging in the near future. This is infinitely more important than the “(Blair Witch?) Democracy Demonstration Project” in Iraq, which almost 75 years later is no further advanced than what the British “hoped” to have accomplished, circa 1935, as I wrote two years ago:

…the same misplaced optimism expressed 70 years ago by the British Arabist S.A. Morrison. Despite great expense of British blood and treasure, more than a decade of military occupation, and even after the Assyrian massacres (by Arab and Kurdish Muslims) of 1933-34, shortly after Britain’s withdrawal, Morrison wrote, (in “Religious Liberty in Iraq”, Moslem World, 1935, p. 128):

Iraq is moving steadily forward towards the modern conception of the State, with a single judicial and administrative system, unaffected by considerations of religion or nationality. The Millet system [i.e., dhimmitude—not reflected by this euphemism] still survives, but its scope is definitely limited. Even the Assyrian tragedy of 1933 does not shake our faith in the essential progress that has been made. The Government is endeavoring to carry out faithfully the undertakings it has given, even when these run directly counter to the long-cherished provisions of the Shari’a Law. But it is not easy; it cannot be easy in the very nature of the case, for the common people quickly to adjust their minds to the new legal situation, and to eradicate from their outlook the results covering many centuries of a system which implies the superiority of Islam over the non-Moslem minority groups. The legal guarantees of liberty and equality represent the goal towards which the country is moving, rather than the expression of the present thoughts and wishes of the population. The movement, however, is in the right direction, and it may yet prove possible for Islam to disentangle religious faith from political status and privilege.

Over seven decades later, the goals of true “liberty and equality” for Iraq remain just as elusive after yet another Western power has committed great blood and treasure toward that end. More ominously, Iraq’s newly empowered Shi’ites and their leaders appear to have forged an unholy alliance with Iran which is more likely to promote Sharia despotism, than liberal democracy.

Further, it would behoove you to read: “The Tax Paid In Lieu of Being Slain”—And The Murder of Iraqi Archbishop Rahho

IRAQ SUES UN: Obama's Iraqi Oil for Food connection

Iraq will be suing the UN for the biggest scandal in human history. BRAVO!!! This is interesting to me because Obama's backers, Rezko and Auchi were both involved and dirty in this travesty. Obama better hope the international wheels of justice (now there's an oxymoron) will turn slowly - if not in reverse: Auchi is  Obama's Iraqi oil for food connection

Teflon Obama took Millions from Billionaire Nadhni Auchi

Atlas Shrugs: Obama Partied with Crook Rezko & "taste for blood AUCHI

A great deal of Mr. Auchi's money was made doing business with the regime of Saddam Hussein, much of it under the table. In 1987, Mr. Auchi helped French and Italian firms win a huge oil pipeline contract in Iraq, chiefly by paying off Iraqi officials, according to testimony given by an Italian banker to prosecutors in Milan. In 2003, he was convicted for his role in what was then the largest scandal in French history, involving payoffs from executives of the oil company now known as Total to political figures in Spain, Germany and Africa.

And funds from Auchi's loan may have helped finance a complex series of transactions between Rezko and Democratic Presidential candidate Illinois Senator Barack Obama involving the 2005 purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion and Rezko's purchase of an adjoining landlocked parcel.

Claudia Rosset must be jumping for joy. I am.

Iraq sues UN over Oil-for-Food programme fraud-Justice Ministry hat tip Big dog

Iraqi judicial source said his country would lodge a lawsuit against the United Nations at a U.S court over corruption charges in the Oil-for-Food programme overseen by the International organisation for seven years.

“A Texas-based legal firm would lodge an Iraqi government lawsuit at state court in NewYork”, Iraqi Justice Ministry source, who requested anonmity, told Aswat al-Iraq-Voices of Iraq(VOI).

The source noted “Iraq file the case to catch up with its deadline  expiring by the end of June”.
The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995, which started working on April16th 1996 and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military.

The programme was introduced by U.S administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. The sanctions were discontinued on November21, 2003 after the U.S. Invasion of Iraq, and the humanitarian functions turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority.

As the programme ended, there were revelations of corruption involving the funds.

According to an interim report released by an idependent commission led by former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker food aid supplied under the programme "was unfit for human consumption".

The report concluded that former regime of Saddam Hussein had gained nearly $1.8 million in bribes and paybacks skimmed over the course of the programme..

Larwyn adds, and Don't Forget the Global Governance Movement which Obama is trying to have passed in Congress.  Idea is to tax the U.S. to give billions to "poor" countries and guess who gets to distribute the $$$???  THE UN!!! How special is that!!

Related: Atlas Shrugs: Obama Lied About Rezko's $$$ Payoffs

Atlas Shrugs: bama & Indicted Syrian SlumLord Rezko

Atlas Shrugs: Obama's Graft Man: Antoin "Tony'' Rezko Undue ...

Atlas Shrugs: Obama: Sleeping with Dogs (many)

Atlas Shrugs: Obama: "It was a mistake"

Atlas Shrugs: OBAMA THUG BACKER SENT TO JAIL SECRET MIDDLE EAST ...

Atlas Shrugs: Obama:The Audacity of Graft

Atlas Shrugs: Obama: Defense Witness for Thugs

Atlas Shrugs: Teflon Obama took Millions from Billionaire Nadhni Auchi

Atlas Shrugs: More Dirty Obama Middle Eastern Bucks

TIME FOR A MAJOR BUSH ADDRESS ON IRAQ VICTORY

Reliapundit speaketh! He's right of course. Bush's second term has been an enormous disappointment for freedom lovers everywhere and advocates of The Bush Doctrine but the surge was the one great thing Bush did. It was ballsy, effective and right. Scream it from the rooftops, it's the only way you'll get heard over the cacophony of ass kissing in the in-the-tank-for-Obama media.

IT'S TIME FOR BUSH TO GIVE A MAJOR ADDRESS ON VICTORY IN IRAQ - BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS DURING PRIME TIME Reliapundit

The surge in Iraq has been a HUGE AND UNDENIABLE SUCCESS.

Obama opposed it. McCain supported it earlier than anyone else.

Their JOB DONE, 30,000 US troops are returning to the USA next month.

This news WAS NOT WIDELY REPORTED.

A GOOGLE NEWS SEARCH of " bush july 30,000 troops iraq" returns ONE SINGLE ITEM.

"GEE: I WONDER WHY?!?!" (Sarcasm off.)

That's why it's time Bush drive the point home as ONLY A PRESIDENT CAN: in a major address. Maybe even before a JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS DURING PRIME TIME.

I'd love to see the Dems giving Bush a standing o' when he announces our victory and asks Petraeus to stand up and then Maliki and then a wounded US vet and a wounded Iraqi vet.

THEN: Obama can give the Democrat reply.

It will be a short reply: "I was wrong; you were right. I showed poor judgment; you showed good judgment."

IMHO: This would do more to help Bush's legacy and McCain's chances than anything else right now.

Milblog: Man Up or Shut Up!

I dig this Marine's blog:

One nasty aspects of this war is the use of women and children by the Jihadist.  We are seeing more women getting drugged up and being used as suicide bombers as Americans by nature don’t see women as a threat.  We have even seen babies with Down Syndrome being left in areas where coalition forces and Iraqis come by only to be blown up along with the baby.  Absolutely cowardly.  I know over 70% of the people here in Iraq cannot read but one would think imams  could pass down the passages that speak of the purity of women and children and how they are not to be engaged in fighting on any level.

In regards to fierce warriors, this is so easily dispelled.  Not that I blame them because anytime the Marines matched up with them they lost their lives or freedom.  A random shot or IED does not make you a fierce warrior.  It makes you a realist and not believing in your cause enough to die for it.

Lastly, let’s speak to the Muslim faith.  Their faith is like so many faiths of the world in that it varies from region to region and many times village to village.  There is nothing wrong with that of course but its best to dispel the myth that it unifies them.  Clearly if it did, the jihadist really would have started a holy war.

I guess what I am trying to express in today’s rant is this: Man up or shut up.

Man Up:  If you think you’re a tough guy then mass up on the battlefield and let the Marines give you a chance to me Allah.

Shut Up:  If you cannot stand up and fight for Al Qaeda then drop your weapons, go home to your families, and read the Qur’an for the spiritual and peaceful aspects.

Yes, Iraq is still a war zone.  Dangerous in more then a few places yet at the cusp of thriving in so many more.

Everyday Iraqis turn in bad actors because they wish to live in peace.  They realize who their friends are and they have manned up.  The number if Iraqi Police (IP) and Iraqi Army (IA) continue to increase and become more efficient.

In fact it’s the IA and IP that are taking the lead in more and more operations.  In fact the upcoming turnover of provinces will be secured by IA and IP not coalition forces.

Man up and shut up time.  Americans and Iraqis have manned up.  Now its time for the jihadist to shut up.

Semper Fi,

GySgt Jonathan Jenkins

Saddam, Al Qaeda and the Media

Source: www.knwe.org 

The media is irresponsible - dangerous even. They will not report the facts. Instead, they are running wild with the Plame affair. ugh - can anyone say ..... ARMITAGE? hat tip Ron the cop

Despite the most recent attempt by Senate Democrats to "report away" Saddam Hussein's links to terrorism evidence continues to come in and be ignored in the reports and in the mainstream press.  Here is the latest as cited by AJ Strata and Gateway Pundit, linked to MEMRI's translation.

Mark Eichenlaub of Regime of Terror 

Kurdish Paper: Cooperation Between Saddam Regime, Al-Qaeda

The Kurdish daily Kurdistani Nwe has published a 2002 letter from the Iraqi presidency that it says proves that there was cooperation between the regime of Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

The letter, which appeared on the paper's front page, was published by the intelligence apparatus of the Iraqi presidency and discussed an intention to meet with Ayman Al-Zawahiri in order to examine a plan drawn up by the Iraqi presidency to carry out a "revenge operation" in Saudi Arabia.

And more here:

This story was followed by headlines of a similar bent. Steve Schippert's sample of some of the more prominent headlines provides readers with what the story's narrative looked like a few days ago:

ABC: Report Shows No Link Between Saddam and al Qaeda
New York Times: Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie
CNN: Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda not linked, Pentagon says
Washington Post: Study Discounts Hussein, Al-Qaeda Link
AFP: No link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda: Pentagon study

And within hours the (mainstream media) die had been cast. Saddam was not linked to al Qaeda went the theme.

The initial news reports of the study's findings were so far off base that one of the researchers involved in the report said (via Stephen Hayes) "The document is being misrepresented. I recommend we put [it] out and on a website immediately."

The full report was then posted online, and made available by ABC News, does indeed include a sentence that no "smoking gun" linking Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda was discovered during their research but goes on to give compelling evidence that mustn't meet the authors criteria in the "smoking gun" test. A closer reading of the study (see here, here, here, here, here and here) shows that Saddam Hussein's Iraq cooperated with, financed and supported a number of Islamic terrorist groups, including al Qaeda proxies (at least five according to Thomas Joscelyn) and had a larger capacity for state apparatus terrorism (car bomb training, IED training, jihadist suicide bomber recruitment, etc.) than previously believed by many.

Of the many noteworthy findings in the report is the assertion made in the conclusion that Hussein had retained not only the capacity to launch anti-West terrorist attacks but the will to use those terrorist capabilities, including directly against the United States, which was also a matter of previous debate. The report's conclusion, while noting that a perfect grasp of Hussein's mindset at the exact time of U.S. invasion remained elusive, states that "evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."

Instead of newspaper and television headlines such as "Hussein had the capability and intention of striking U.S. with terror attacks" the public is presented with disappointingly shallow stories that even days after the full version of the report is out still promoting the narrow "no links" narrative. The coming days and weeks should be a time when members of the media can and should put aside their previously conceived notions on this serious and important topic and read and then seriously report on this study. The time for that is long overdue.

Marine Story: Iraq Crack House

While working on my recent tech issues the excellent Rich Davis put a Marine in Iraq in touch with me who is helping me sort through my issues. Interestingly enough, the Marine has an excellent military blog from Iraq: Conservative Bog. Check out this post:

What’s so infamous about the Iraqi crack house? J P Jenkins

A number of people have been asking what I meant by the infamous Iraqi crack house.  I won’t say where this place is until after we leave here but know it’s a tower with a very horrid past.  As for the name, the Marines have been calling it the crack house because it is falling apart.

Personally, I think after the Marines leave this dust bowl the building should be destroyed as it symbolizes the murder and maiming of hundreds of thousands of people.  While serving as a staging point for crimes against humanity, its legacy also extends to the torture and murder of Saddam rivals within these very walls.

One dark take that especially stands out is from the 1990s.  A pilot lifted off with bombs to drop on Saddam Hussein but his plot to kill him failed.  When the pilot was captured they took him in the tower with his staff.  Saddam tortured then burned the pilot alive before beheading his entire staff. 

And yes to all the idiots who say Saddam didn’t have weapons of mass destruction (WMD); this is one of the main hubs he used to kill and disfigure Kurds and Iranians with WMD.  And yes too it’s all fully documented by the United Nations and every intelligence agency in the Middle East.

Well since we are on the subject or crack-houses and crazies…(keep reading here)

UPDATE: Bruce over at the Democracy Project: Soldier Reports From Iraq 2-Years Later

GLICK: STUNNING NEW WORLD ORDER

Glick's column today is a real news. Stunning. If you missed my live interview with Glick go here.

Peace with Friend Caroline Glick, J Post

There's one thing you have to admire about the Iranians - they always tell you just what they think of you. They never beat around the bush.

On Tuesday, the day after Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki completed his three-day visit to Iran, his envoy to the Islamic Republic received a care package - delivered to his front door. When Iraqi Ambassador Muhammad Majid al-Sheikh's driver opened the package, he discovered it was a bomb.

In their best Farsi imitation of the Godfather, Iranian police spokesmen claimed that the package was not a bomb - but aquarium equipment. And in a way, they were right. The package was supposed to help Sheikh "sleep with the fishes."

lol!

Just as is the case with their Syrian allies, the Iranians view assassination as the easiest way to "signal" their displeasure with diplomatic developments. In this case, clearly the Iranians were acting out after what they considered to be a deeply disturbing discourse with Maliki.

[...]

Writing in Iraq's Al-Dustour newspaper ahead of Maliki's visit, editor-in-chief Bassim al-Sheikh opined, "Maliki's delegation will be presenting the Iranian side with irrefutable evidence of Iranian interference in Iraqi domestic affairs. In this light, the visit could prove to be a watershed in Iraqi-Iranian relations, especially now... that the covert game Iran has been playing in Iraq has become all too overt, with very few hidden cards left in Teheran's hand."

Then too, Iraq's Al-Sabah al-Jadid editorialized, "Maliki's visit to Iran could be the last chance for a rational settlement of any differences and a final dissipation of any misunderstanding that may still exist between us and our big neighbor. There is nothing in the lexicon of political pragmatism that will help us evade the consequences of living next door to this neighbor, as recent history has shown with such clarity."

Media reports of the visit included no details of what Maliki told his Iranian hosts. But given their attempt to assassinate his ambassador the day after he left, it can be assumed that the Iranians were uninterested in "a rational settlement of any differences." And indeed, it can be assumed that Maliki didn't mince any words as he discussed the war Iran is waging against his people.

[...]

But here is  where it gets  really interesting and  what "victory looks like":

he strategic agreement now being negotiated between the US and the Iraqi government is a watershed event. Five years after Saddam Hussein's terror-supporting, weapons of mass destruction-seeking regime was brought down by the US-led coalition, a democratically elected Iraqi government has emerged that views its strategic interests as aligned with the US's. Its forces are fighting side by side with US forces toward the shared goal of routing al-Qaida and Iranian-backed terror militias in Iraq. Indeed, in March, Maliki himself led the Iraqi assault on the Iranian controlled militias in Basra. Two months later, Iran had been routed not only in Basra, but in Sadr City in Baghdad where Iraqi and American forces fought side-by-side in street after street.

Although referred to as a security agreement, to all intents and purposes, the agreement that the US and Iraq are now negotiating is a peace agreement. As most political theorists will attest, peace agreements are contracts between countries with shared interests whose representatives sit down and write out how they will advance their shared interests together. So five years after the fall of Saddam, a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional democracy in Iraq has emerged that views the US as its primary ally.

This is what a strategic victory looks like.

A new world order. Read this carefully. This is where it gets wildy interesting and Glick is no cock-eyed optimist as we know but this is the most hopeful, wonderful, logical  analysis I have read.

For months, US commanders in Iraq have been saying that the Iraqi people cannot abide the Iranians, the Syrians or the Saudis. They know that these countries have been the chief sponsors of the insurgencies that have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens over the past five years. From the mass graves of al-Qaida victims in Diyala Province to the death squads of Iranian-backed militias in Basra, the Iraqis know that these countries have acted with malice aforethought in their actions aimed at transforming Iraq into a massive killing field.

For Israeli ears, what is striking about the Iraqi discourse is the near total absence of anti-Israel or anti-Semitic propaganda. Indeed, there is no discussion about Israel at all. From the 1930s through the fall of Saddam's regime, Iraq was one of the central propagators of Arab hatred of Israel of both fascist and jihadist pedigrees. Successive Iraqi regimes have used hatred of Israel as a way of solidifying and justifying their tyranny. And now, for the first time, Israel isn't an issue.

The Iraqis are concerned about their future. Whether US forces remain in place for years to come under a President John McCain or they are summarily withdrawn by a President Barack Obama, the Iraqis know that one day they will be on their own. And they will need allies. They cannot trust their Arab neighbors, which treat the Shi'ite majority country now governing democratically with hostility and suspicion. Obviously Iran and Syria aren't good options. They will both be quick to pounce on a post-US withdrawal Iraq.

And then there is Israel.

THERE IS no reason to doubt that Israel has a potential strategic ally in Iraq today. Indeed, Iraq could become the next decade's version of Turkey in the 1990s or Iran in the 1960s and 1970s. Both in their day were Israel's primary regional ally.

Diplomatic and military discussions may be drawn out and difficult. They may even be exasperating. And depending on developments in Iran in the coming years they may never lead to the signing of a peace treaty on the White House lawn or the exchange of ambassadors. On the other hand, they might.

But what is clear enough is that today Iraq shares vital interests with Israel. It has common enemies. It has common challenges as a democracy. And it doesn't hurt that Palestinians are nearly universally reviled by Iraqis who view them as Saddam Hussein's most stalwart henchmen.

An Israeli-Iraqi alliance would help secure Jordan. It would frighten Syria and perhaps force Damascus to reconsider its alliance with Teheran. It would provide Israel with a new source of natural gas and so end its dependence on fickle Egypt. It would mitigate Israel's political isolation in the region. It would provide Iraq with a safe port in the Mediterranean for its oil exports in the event that the Shaat al-Arab is closed by Iran in a future war. Iraqi Shi'ite leaders could help draw Lebanese Shi'ites away from Iran's Lebanese proxy Hizbullah. Indeed, the potential of an Israeli-Iraqi alliance is seemingly endless.

A basic political fact of life stands at the heart of this theoretical Iraqi-Israeli alliance. Peace is possible for the first time between Israel and Iraq because, for the first time, Iraq perceives its interests as aligned with Israel. That is, peace is possible because at a very basic level, Iraqis today - whether they admit or not - are Israel's friends. And they know it.

And this raises the larger point that should inform the next Israeli government. Specifically, unlike what Israel's Left has been preaching for the past 20 years, peace is made with friends and not with enemies. It is impossible to make peace with enemies because enemies perceive their interests as being in competition with one another. And since peace agreements are nothing more than codifications of the modalities for acting on perceived shared interests, no peace treaty with an enemy is worth the paper it's written on.

It is hard today to find an Iraqi leader who overtly states his desire for peace with Israel. Mithal Alousi is the one heroic exception. But that is not important. By signing a peace treaty with the US and confronting Iran head-on, the Iraqis are making it abundantly clear where they believe their interests lie.

You have no choice, YOU MUST READ IT ALL.

UPDATE: More on the Iraqi argument over at Commentary - the American perspective

Obama's Filthy Payoffs: Hussein Afraid to go to Iraq?

A Jacksonian has written the definitive post on Obama crooked ties to convicted  Rezko and Saddam hatchet man Auchi. It is lengthy, well documented and important. Read it.
Jackson posits,  "Something is seriously wrong when a Presidential candidate wants to pull out and try to put Iraq back into a very, very bad place of insurgents and competing criminal and religious groups that can do no one any good.

Why is Sen. Obama unwilling to go to Iraq since JAN 2006? What was he trying to accomplish there when he did go? Did it have anything to do with the various contracts Rezko was involved in? Or Alsammarae's negotiations with Ba'athist insurgents?"

OBAMA AND IRAQ A Jacksonian, Dumb looks still free

It is one of those fascinating juxtapositions that two of the people associated with Sen. Obama have had ties to Iraq. The first, of course, is Nadhmi Auchi who I detailed in this article a while ago and tangentially in this more recent one. One of his deals in post-war Iraq was with Orascom and standing up a mobile phone network which he partnered with Egyptian entrepreneur Naguib Sawiris. Orascom would get the cellphone contract for central Iraq, which was divided into North, Central and Southern zones, thus this was the area covering Baghdad and the main telecom route north to south in Iraq. With charges of vote rigging, corruption and pure inability to deliver cell phone service or even adequate handsets, the deal would be sold off in 2005 to a Kuwaiti company and renamed Iraqna.

One thing that popped up was covered in a Newsmax article of  24 NOV 2005 (via Freeper cache) which looked at one of the firms partnering with Auchi being Huawei from China, that the People's Daily Online of 24 SEP 2004 had touted previously.  Huawei, as I had looked at before, is a main arm of the People's Liberation Army of China to strong-arm their way into telecom markets globally, undercut competition, practice various forms of blackmail, shady legal deals, spy on Nations, and had dealt with both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein.

Another deal in Iraq was between Nadhmi Auchi and Antoin 'Tony' Rezko of Chicago, the second person to have ties to Iraq, and that was to supply an electrical generation facility to northern Iraq. Auchi had previously invested in Rezko's South Loop project of land dealings in Chicago which the Chicago Business News had covered on 29 SEP 2005. That was a mere $130 million investment and a follow-on to the investments that Auchi had made in the Riverside Park project, which put him in as a General Partner.

Right after that deal, Rezmar would with a joint-venture contract to build a $150 million power plant in Iraq, one of three plants with the other two going to other bidders, as seen at Chicago Business News on 29 JUL 2005:

There is much much more.

ROCKEFELLER AND CO: INCAPABLE OF INTELLIGENCE

First off, must read editorial in The NY SUN: "These are inconvenient facts for Democrats that decided some time in 2004 that they could wash their hands of the war for Iraq by claiming they were duped by the president and his conservative backers. It turns out that even their own investigation mocks their claim."

Party before country, baby,  party before country. Always.

"Our evidence suggests that Baghdad is strengthening a relationship with al-Qaeda that dates back to the mid-1990s, when senior Iraqi intelligence officers established contact with the network in several countries."

"We have some evidence that Iraqi Intelligence has been in contact with elements in the northeastern area. And the al-Qaeda operatives there are in regular contact with other operatives located in Baghdad. The Iraqi government has also received information from other sources alerting it to the presence of al-Qaeda operatives in Baghdad."

"We have hard evidence that al-Qaeda is operating in several locations in Iraq with the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam's regime."

***

Guess who wrote that? If you have been following the Democratic Party's narrative on Iraq, you might guess Ahmad Chalabi, Douglas Feith, Vice President Cheney or some neoconservatives hell bent on twisting intelligence to overstate the connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. But those words are from Carl Ford, assistant state secretary for intelligence and research, whose bureau was singled out for praise after the war for its dissenting assessment of Iraq's nuclear program.

Read it all.

Also the committee looked at only the finished intelligence products but not the daily spot analyses the intelligence community produces for senior administration officials. Mr. Rockefeller decided to exclude a handwritten note from the CIA's terrorism analyst of the Mr. Bush's 2002 speech in Cincinnati on the eve of the Congressional vote authorizing the war saying the paragraphs about Iraq and terrorism were "all-Okay." Wrote Senators Bond, Chambliss, Hatch, and Burr in an addendum to the report: "Apparently the majority did not think this was something the public needed to know since they denied our request to include it and did not allow a vote on the amendment offered to fix this shortcoming."

There were reports over the weekend that Congressmen are going to have an agenda in Congress to promote Obama. Rockefeller-big Obama supporter-in part of this campaign. (hat tip Lasky) Over at WaPo:

But dive into Rockefeller's report, in search of where exactly President Bush lied about what his intelligence agencies were telling him about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and you may be surprised by what you find.

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

After all, it was not Bush, but Rockefeller, who said in October 2002: "There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

Rockefeller was reminded of that statement by the committee's vice chairman, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.), who with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent that includes many other such statements from Democratic senators who had access to the intelligence reports that Bush read. The dissenters assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in "Bush Lied" mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the "Bush Lied" bumper sticker off his or her car.

But the phony "Bush lied" story line distracts from the biggest prewar failure: the fact that so much of the intelligence upon which Bush and Rockefeller and everyone else relied turned out to be tragically, catastrophically wrong.

And it trivializes a double dilemma that President Bill Clinton faced before Bush and that President Obama or McCain may well face after: when to act on a threat in the inevitable absence of perfect intelligence and how to mobilize popular support for such action, if deemed essential for national security, in a democracy that will always, and rightly, be reluctant.

For the next president, it may be Iran's nuclear program, or al-Qaeda sanctuaries in Pakistan, or, more likely, some potential horror that today no one even imagines. When that time comes, there will be plenty of warnings to heed from the Iraq experience, without the need to fictionalize more.

Obama's Implausible Deniability

When Obama invoked the word CHANGE and made CHANGE his core message, who knew that the CHANGE would be his CHANGING positions, his CHANGING of history, his CHANGING his story?

Skittish Obambi yet again twists, inverts, and backs away from what he previously said (think Jerusalem). This guy is has no sign, no real epistemology, a constantly shifting premise.

Obama Campaign Continues to Deny Obama's Position on the Surge
John McCormack, The Weekly Standard blog

BRAVE MOTHER OF HONOR KILLING VICTIM GUNNED DOWN BY MUSLIMS

I am going to SCREAM! They killed this woman.   Leila  Hussein had the courage to leave the barbarian that STOMPED HER DAUGHTER TO DEATH for talking with a British soldier.  The brutal killer, the father,  was then allowed to walk free from the police station. Is this what we spent all our blood and treasure for? Where is feminist outrage? Where are the damn womens groups, the leftards, the commies, the socialists, all the full-of-shitniks? Why wasn't this women protected? She was being threatened daily.

"Death to betrayers of Islam who don't deserve God's forgiveness".

Five weeks ago Leila Hussein told The Observer the chilling story of how her husband had killed their 17-year-old daughter over her friendship with a British soldier in Basra. Now Leila, who had been in hiding, has been murdered - gunned down in cold blood.  See the Observer story below for Islam's insatiable and depraved misogyny.

The crime, so grotesque, is not the worst of it. After stomping to death, the father was released from custody,  "'Not much can be done when we have an "honour killing" case. You are in a Muslim society and women should live under religious laws".  Read her story her.

Mother who defied the killers is gunned down Guardian UK hat tip Davida

Hussein lived her last few weeks in terror. Moving constantly from safe house to safe house, she dared to stay no longer than four days at each. It was the price she was forced to pay after denouncing and divorcing her husband - the man she witnessed suffocate, stamp on, then stab their young daughter Rand in a brutal 'honour' killing for which he has shown no remorse.

Why weren't the Americans protecting her? This is why we fought and died? To institute sharia?

Though she feared reprisals for speaking out, she really believed that she would soon be safe. Arrangements were well under way to smuggle her to the Jordanian capital, Amman. In fact, she was on her way to meet the person who would help her escape when a car drew up alongside her and two other women who were walking her to a taxi. Five bullets were fired: three of them hit Leila, 41. She died in hospital after futile attempts to save her.

Her death, on 17 May, is the shocking denouement to a tragedy which had its origins in an innocent friendship between her student daughter, Rand Abdel-Qader, 17, and a blond, 22-year-old British soldier known only as Paul.

The two had met while Rand, an English student at Basra University, was working as a volunteer helping displaced families and he was distributing water. Although their friendship appears to have involved just brief, snatched conversations over four months, Rand had confided her romantic feelings for Paul to her best friend, Zeinab, 19.

She died, still a virgin, four months after she had last seen him when her father, Abdel-Qader Ali, 46, discovered that she had been seen talking 'to the enemy' in public. She had brought shame on his honour, was his defence, and he had to cleanse his family name. Despite openly admitting the murder, he has received no punishment.

Notice how the dhimmi media always points out that she was still a virgin. So what? And if she wasn't then there might be cause. The status of the girl's vagina has no place in this story NONE.

It was two weeks after Rand's death on 16 March that a grief-stricken Leila, unable to bear living under the same roof as her husband, found the strength to leave him. She had been beaten and had had her arm broken. It was a courageous move. Few women in Iraq would contemplate such a step. Leila told The Observer in April: 'No man can accept being left by a woman in Iraq. But I would prefer to be killed than sleep in the same bed as a man who was able to do what he did to his own daughter.'

They didn't protect this woman who had been beaten and had her arm broken?

Her words were to prove prescient. Leila turned to the only place she could, a small organisation in Basra campaigning for the rights of women and against 'honour' killings. Almost immediately she began receiving threats - notes calling her a 'prostitute' and saying she deserved to die like her daughter.

Even her sons Hassan, 23, and Haydar, 21, whom she claimed aided their father in their sister's killing, disowned her. Meanwhile, her husband, a former government employee, escaped any charges, and even told The Observer that police had congratulated him on what he had done.

All of our blood and treasure, for this. Why didn't the Americans arrest him?

It is not known who killed Leila. All that is known is that she was staying at the house of 'Mariam', one of the women's rights campaigners, whose identity The Observer has agreed not to reveal. On the morning of 17 May, they were joined by another volunteer worker and set off to meet 'a contact' who was to help Leila travel to Amman, where she would be taken in by an Iraqi family.

'Leila was anxious, but she was also happy at having the chance to leave Iraq,' said Mariam. 'Since the death of her daughter, her own life was at serious risk. And this was a great opportunity for her to leave the country and to fight for Iraqi women's rights.

'She had not been able to sleep the night before. I stayed up talking to her about her plans after she arrived in Amman. I gave her some clothes to take with her and she was packing the only bag she had. She was too excited to sleep.'

Mariam said that when she awoke Leila had already prepared breakfast, cleaned her house and even baked a date cake as a thank-you for the help she had been given. After the arrival of 'Faisal', the volunteer (whose identity is also being protected), the three left the house at 10.30am and started walking to the end of the street to get a taxi. They had walked less than 50 metres when they heard a car drive up fast and then gunshots rang out. The attack, said by witnesses to have been carried out by three men, was over in minutes. Leila was hit by three bullets. Mariam was hit in her left arm and Faisal in her left leg. 'I didn't realise I had been shot for a few seconds, because as I heard the gunfire I saw Leila falling to the ground and saw blood pouring from her head,' said Mariam. 'I was so shocked, I didn't immediately feel the pain.'

Two men ran from their homes to help. They rushed Leila to hospital and a passing taxi took the other two. But Leila died at 3.20pm, despite several operations to save her. As she lay in her own hospital bed receiving treatment, Mariam said that she heard someone saying that Leila had been shot in the head. But there were other mutterings that were clearly audible. 'I could hear people talking on the corridors and the only thing that they had to say was that Leila was wrong for defending her daughter's mistakes and that her death was God's punishment.

'In that minute I just had complete hatred in my heart for those who had killed her.'

Police said the incident was a sectarian attack and that there was nothing to link Leila's death to her family.

Read that again. This is the same police that let the stomping murderer go. Do we need to believe anything they say?

'Her ex-husband was not in Basra when it happened. We found out he was visiting relatives in Nassiriya with his two sons,' said Hassan Alaa, a senior officer at the local police station in Basra. 'We believe the target was the women activists, rather than Mrs Hussein, and that she was unlucky to be in that place at that time.'

These men should rot in hell.

It is plausible. Campaigners for women's' rights are not acceptable to many sections of Iraqi society, especially in Basra where militias have partial control in some districts and impose strict laws on locals, including what clothing they should wear and what religious practice they should follow.

Dhimmi media happy to assist the jihad!

Since February 2006, two other activists from the same women's organisation have been killed in the city. One of them was reportedly raped before being shot. The other, the only man working for the non-governmental organisation (NGO), and a father of five who was responsible for the organisation's finances, was shot five months ago.

There could be many with a grudge against such organisations. However, Mariam believes Leila was targeted, pointing out she had been hit by three bullets. 'When we were shot, they focused on Leila, not us,' she said.

d'oh

Since the attack the NGO has stopped its work in Basra. 'We daren't answer the phones because we have received so many threats since we gave our support to Leila's case,' said Mariam. 'Most of our members are preparing to leave the city and even Iraq if they can raise the money.'

Iraq - the new democracy. Shining beacon of death.

A single mother since her husband was killed for refusing to join a militia, she too intends to move when she can. Faisal, who also survived her injuries, is still suffering post-surgical infection. She preferred not to speak, but her mother, who wished to remain anonymous, said: 'My daughter is very shocked at what happened, and my two grandsons can't stop crying since they saw her in hospital.'

Leila's burial was arranged within hours of her death by the husband of one of her cousins and Mariam's father.

The Observer visited Rand's father and two brothers at their Basra home, but they refused to talk beyond Hassan proclaiming his father's innocence. When asked if he would be visiting his mother's grave, he shrugged: 'Maybe in the future.'

Leila was an orphan, raised by an uncle who died in the Shia uprising against Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s. Hamida Alaa, 68, a friend of the uncle, said: 'The poor woman was killed and now her name and history is buried with her. No one wants to speak about it. She is just one more woman killed in our country who has already been forgotten by the local society.'

In the last days of her life, Leila was suffering from the pressure of having gone against her husband. 'She was sleeping with the help of sedatives,' said Mariam. 'She would wake up at night with terrible nightmares, even dreaming of being suffocated as her daughter was. She had been threatened so many times and that's why she was so scared. Her indignation over Rand's death is what led her to her own coffin. Their history ends here. But Leila was a hero. A woman who was strong enough to say no to Iraqi men's bad attitudes. Sadly most Iraqi women do not have the same strength and they will stay in their homes.'

Leila is my hero.

Mariam has moved out of her home. But within hours of speaking to The Observer a close friend went to her new address to deliver a message that had been left for her at her front door. It read: 'Death to betrayers of Islam who don't deserve God's forgiveness. Speaking less you will live more.' She believes it was sent by Leila's killers.

'They want this story to be buried with Leila,' she said. 'But I cannot close my eyes to all this.'

OBAMA TO MCCAIN: NO, I WON'T GO TO IRAQ

Watch this video.  hat tip Paul D

John McCain called out Senator Barack Obama for refusing to join him on a trip to Iraq. McCain rightly asserts  that Obama will not understand the progress thats been made in the region unless he sees it for himself. McCain reads Obama's comments on Iraq and says that it represents a fundamental misunderstanding about the war.

Barack Hussein totally pussys out, calling it a political ploy. Visiting our trips is a political ploy? Seeing the success of the surge is a political ploy?

Obama hates America.

UPDATE: Texas Fred says: Stop the Obamanation

Shrugging Iraq

West, whose best, has a column today on where Iraq went wrong. It's pathetic. I expect abject denial from the Dhimmicrats, but this coming from conservative thinkers. Bodes ill my friends.

Iraq War Architects Shrug Off Truth Diana West, Town Hall

So there I was, listening to a few of the major "architects" of the war in Iraq -- Paul Wolfowitz, formerly No. 2 man at the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld; Douglas J. Feith, formerly No. 3 man at the Pentagon under Rumsfeld; Peter Rodman, another former senior adviser to Rumsfeld; and Dan Senor, former senior adviser to Paul Bremer of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). They had assembled at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., for a discussion of Feith's new book, "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism," but what they were drawn to discuss was what went wrong with the war in Iraq.

A rather large topic. Would it cover, perhaps, such grand themes as the multicultural Big Lie that insists Western ways may be grafted -- presto! -- onto Islamic cultures? Or maybe the difficulties inherent in the Western-style, humane projection of power against seventh-century terrorist barbarians?

No.

The main discussion I heard turned more or less on one extremely narrow point of historic contention. It concerned the CPA rule of Iraq, which came to an end almost exactly four years ago. Wolfowitz and Feith, and Rodman to a less explicit degree, agreed that this period of American governance -- that is, the interlude before Iraq officially became sovereign -- was the fatal flaw, the fly in the ointment, the monkey wrench, the skunk at the garden party, the bad penny and overall cause of all of America's troubles in Iraq. It wasn't the overweening Bush administration plan for Jeffersonizing the Fertile Crescent, or our leaders' misreading of the "democratic ally" potential therein. It was the 14-month-reign of the CPA that caused all our woes. The CPA, the argument goes, in effect created the Sunni insurgency, which later gave rise to the Sunni-Shiite wars, and which ultimately required the added infusion of American troops known as the surge.

If I'm following this theory correctly, there is absolutely nothing in Iraqi history, politics, religion, sectarianism or culture that manifested itself in the bloody insurgency that followed the removal of Saddam Hussein. According to Feith & Co., it was only the American face on (and muscle behind) initial efforts to bring order, civil society and air conditioning to Iraq that made the newly ejected-from-power Sunnis (and others) organize, shoot, stab, blow up, maim and make violence a fact of Iraqi life to this day, four years into Iraqi sovereignty.

This sounds a bit like the asinine theory that tells us U.S. foreign policy made 19 jihadists attack us on 9/11. But isn't there also something a little goofy about the notion that if only the United States hadn't run an occupation government for a year, everything in Iraq would be hunky-dory? Not surprisingly, the CPA's Senor didn't agree with the Feithian proposition, arguing that the lack of a U.S. counterinsurgency strategy was a bigger problem. He didn't get much argument that this was a problem; indeed, Wolfowitz agreed the United States was, as he put it a trifle breezily, "pretty much clueless on counterinsurgency."

The classic clueless moment, however, came later in answer to a question from the floor: Did the administration ever tell Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to bar combatants from crossing their borders into Iraq -- or else? And if not ("not" is clearly the answer since these borders have been Grand Central Station for jihadists), why not? Wolfowitz owned up that the United States had said something or other at some point, but, overall, the consensus on the dais came down to a big, shrugging non-answer.

I got one of those answers myself, at least from Feith. I asked: What did these gentlemen think the United States would ultimately get out of Iraq in exchange for our massive investment of blood and treasure? And had they learned anything to make them doubt the president's often-repeated promise that Iraq would become an "ally" in the "war on terror"? Shrug. Not interested in answering.

Looking back, there was a narrowness in the scope of discussion that time constraints alone can't explain. It was as though the men believed every clue to heartbreak in Iraq could be found in the chain of events as they had already occurred -- in papers already generated, debates already argued, rounds of infighting already waged, decisions already executed. In other words, to these men, there would seem to be nothing new worth pondering -- like, for instance, the havoc Islamic ways wreak on Western-style nation-building.

Shrug.

Released EX-Gitmo Inmate is Iraq Suicide Bomber

Capitulating to the self loathing left is always a disaster. Gitmo releases are a suicidal move (literally). I am sure they'll blame Bush for this but the bottom line is good people would be alive today if we had kept this jihadi behind gitmo bars.  Kumbaya, my ass. Add this to the limitless list of  how the left destroys this nation (and inevitably, the world).

Ex-Guantanamo inmate in Iraq suicide bombing: TV hat tip rut

Reuters) - A Kuwaiti man released from the U.S. prison in Guantanamo Bay in 2005 has carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq, his cousin told Al Arabiya television on Thursday.

A friend of Abdullah Saleh al-Ajmi in Iraq informed his family that Abdullah carried out the attack in Mosul, his cousin Salem told the Dubai-based television channel.

"We were shocked by the painful news we received this afternoon ... through a call from one of the friend's of martyr Abdullah in Iraq," said Salem al-Ajmi in a telephone interview aired by Arabiya.

Obama Partied with Crook Rezko & "taste for blood" Saddam hatchet man Auchi

Obama was partying with extortionist thug Antoin Rezko and blood for money dealer Nadhmi Auchi at a party in 2004. Auchi was charged along with Saddam Hussein for conspiring to assassinate Iraqi President Abdul-Karim Qasim in 1959. Qasim was injured while his bodyguard was killed; Saddam managed to flee the country. Auchi was arrested for delivering weapons to the assassins but was later pardoned by President Qasim. Auchi is currently barred from entering the US by the state department as an undesirable alien.^[3](more here)

Obama appeared at 2004 party at Rezko's home Chicago Tribune hat tip cherie

April 14, 2008; 12:57 p.m.
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's name came up again at the Antoin "Tony" Rezko corruption trial and in a way that earlier filings in the case did not telegraph.

Stuart Levine, the prosecution's star witness, said he and Obama were at a party Rezko threw at his Wilmette mansion on April 3, 2004, for Nadhmi Auchi, a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire who Rezko was trying to get to invest in a South Loop real-estate development.

Auchi, now a citizen of the United Kingdom, has faced criminal charges in Europe. He also figured in the revocation of Rezko's bond early this year after attempting to wire him more than $3 million. Upon learning of that attempt, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve declared Rezko a flight risk and ordered him held in a federal jail in the Loop.

The Rezko party in 2004 was designed to induce Auchi to pour money into the South Loop investment. Obama's presence at the party was not previously known. At the time, Obama was fresh off a surprise win in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and was riding a crest of national publicity.

More on Auchi here (Jack Kelly RealClearPolitics):

A great deal of Mr. Auchi's money was made doing business with the regime of Saddam Hussein, much of it under the table. In 1987, Mr. Auchi helped French and Italian firms win a huge oil pipeline contract in Iraq, chiefly by paying off Iraqi officials, according to testimony given by an Italian banker to prosecutors in Milan. In 2003, he was convicted for his role in what was then the largest scandal in French history, involving payoffs from executives of the oil company now known as Total to political figures in Spain, Germany and Africa.

Oil for food bloodsucker.

"He has been able to collect British politicians the way other people collect stamps," wrote Nick Cohen in a 2003 profile of Mr. Auchi in the left wing British newspaper the Observer.

Mr. Auchi was a leading supplier of arms to Saddam's regime. A former Belgian ambassador to Luxembourg charged that a bank in Luxembourg owned principally by Mr. Auchi laundered funds -- including oil for food money -- for Saddam and other Islamic dictators.

The London Times describes him this way:

London's left-wi