The Proof’s in the Puddin’

Al Qaeda’s influence in Iraq continues to wane, as moderate Muslims grow increasingly tired of its terrorist acts to stir sectarian violence, and its attempts to instill its own brand of Islam on the people. More proof of this came Thursday, as Al Qaeda fighters attacked a pair of villages near Baqouba in the province of Diyala.Coalition forces had recently swept through Diyala in a massive 3-week operation called Phantom Thunder. The successful operation cleared 50 villages, yielded the capture of almost 500 insurgents, more than 50 large weapons caches, and the discovery of a type of “al Qaeda shadow government,”[1] including a courthouse, jail, and torture center. However, the major gains made by Phantom Thunder appear to be in the hearts and minds of the people of the Diyala Province.

“The most remarkable thing about these gains is that the actions are increasingly a result of local Iraqis coming forward with tips (an Iraqi forces) responding to those tips,” [Army Brig. Gen. Perry Wiggins] said.

The Iraqi people know who the enemy is, they know where caches are, and they are turning enemy fighters in to Iraqi security forces, he said.
…
These operations go hand in hand with U.S. and Iraqi special operations forces going after al Qaeda leaders and Jaysh al Mahdi special groups and car bombs networks throughout Iraq.

Phantom Thunder operations continue to squeeze insurgent forces, Wiggins said. He added that he expects the enemy to oppose the coalition effort by launching spectacular attacks on the Iraqi people. [2]

And that is just what the enemy did Thursday. Two community leaders were killed in the early-morning attack, one being forced from a mosque and executed in the street. The men had been trying to form an anti-al Qaeda tribal alliance in what was once a stronghold for the terrorist group. It seems that al Qaeda doesn’t like us making too many friends in Iraq. Associated Press reports:

The attack on the Sunni village, Ibrahim al-Yahya, began when about 25 gunmen exploded a bomb at the house of Sheik Younis al-Shimari, destroying his home and killing him and one member of his family. Ten people were wounded, including four other members of the family and passers-by. Some of the wounded were hit by gunfire.

“They were shouting ‘Allah Akbar and a curse be upon the renegades,’” said Umm Ahmed, a woman who was wounded in the attack. She refused to give her full name fearing retribution. “This attack will cause the uprising against them to spread to other villages.” [3]

And the attacks did not stop there:

While the Sunni village was under attack, another band of alleged al-Qaida fighters stormed Timim, the nearby Shiite village and an obvious sectarian target, according to Baqouba police Brig. Ali Dlaiyan, who reported both assaults and gave the casualty tolls. He said the villagers were able to fight off the attack in a 30-minute gunbattle. [4]

Attacks like this show the growing desperation of al Qaeda in Iraq, and will likely have a negative domino effect for the terrorist group. But don’t take my word for it:

Kara Driggers, a Mideast analyst at the Terrorism Research Center, said al-Qaida attacks on the leaders of opposing groups have prompted more Iraqis to turn against them.

“The al-Qaida tactic of targeting leaders of anti-al-Qaida movements is counterproductive in that Iraqi society’s tribal leanings requires reprisal killings,” she said. “The tribal loyalties of Iraqi civilians are ignited to increase anti-al-Qaida sentiment among the population.” [5]

Pretty interesting stuff for the surge that isn’t working on the group that has no presence in the place that isn’t central to the War on Terror.

An Old Way of War

There is a very interesting article at Newsweek.com entitled “A New Way of War,” written by Evan Thomas and John Barry, which asks the question, “How do you stop foes who kill with devices built for the price of a pizza? Maybe the question is, can you stop them?” The article tells of the innovative ways that Iraqi insurgents are using Improvised Explosive Devices-or IEDs-to kill and maim American troops.

Insurgents sometimes want the Americans to find the IEDs-so they can draw them into an ambush.

The Iraqis are getting cleverer as the Americans try to shield U.S. troops with more and more armor. In a recent incident, insurgents used a small IED to blow out the tires of one vehicle. When the passengers scrambled out to transfer to another vehicle, a larger IED detonated, killing two.
…
Primitive versions used rudimentary triggers-sometimes just a car battery and a long wire. Today’s IED makers have inexpensive gadgets like garage-door openers and disposable phones to detonate their bombs.[1]

It goes on to explain how the numbers of people capable of creating these types of devices has gone from about 5 to just about anyone with an internet connection. It then makes the claim that “The insurgents in Iraq have perfected a new way of war.” But what we are seeing in Iraq is not at all a new way of war. It is simply a natural progression of guerrilla warfare, using new low-technology weapons.

Booby traps have been used in guerrilla warfare for many decades, because they are inexpensive to build, and have the ability to create casualties among the enemy without exposing those who employ them to harm. Booby traps and anti-personnel mines-which IEDs can also be compared to-certainly took their toll on American troops in Vietnam.

According to Human Rights Watch:

A mine awareness pamphlet distributed by the Army reminded its readers: “Mines and booby traps have been employed so often and effectively by the Viet Cong that the war has often been referred to as the `War of Mines and Booby Traps.’”
…
In a July 1969 letter to the Army’s Chief of Research and Development, the Deputy Commanding General in Vietnam summed up the scale of the problem facing his troops: “Our experience in Vietnam with mines and booby traps has not been pleasant. Mining incidents… are a major source of personnel casualties.
…
The letter continued: “The increasing use of non-metallic mines, both home-made and factory produced items…has essentially thrown us back upon visual means as the primary mode of detection. The lessons we have learned here in Vietnam should not be interpreted as an isolated problem peculiar to this war only,” and Vietnamese use of mines has “outstripped the capability of our counter systems to detect and destroy them. Vietnam has seen the emergence of mines as a major weapons system, used on a scale, relatively speaking, never before encountered.”
…
During 1967 mines and booby traps caused 4,300 U.S. casualties. The following year the casualty figure ratcheted up to 5,800. By 1969 the Chief of the U.S. Mine Warfare Center conceded that official casualty figures were almost certainly too conservative: “We suspect that the figures attributed to mines are low. It is probable that the classification `fragmentation casualties,’ which we have not counted, contains the results of many mines and booby traps incidents. Several divisions have reported, for example, that about half of their hostile casualties are inflicted by mines and booby traps.”[2]

Anyone see anything familiar looking in there? They aren’t talking about coal mines. And that was around 30 years ago. Too bad nobody listened to that general.

Time and time again we see our enemies in Iraq using our own history against us. We facilitate their efforts because we refuse to learn the lessons of that history. Instead, we give our enemies credit for “perfecting a new way of war.”

Thomas and Barry give fair warning about the future of guerrilla warfare:

Guerrillas, even armies, elsewhere are watching: most of the world’s conventional militaries would be vulnerable to similar tactics. Already, locally made devices have begun appearing on battlefields from Somalia to Thailand to Pakistan.
…
The success of the insurgent tactics employed in Iraq seems to guarantee we will see them again elsewhere. In the dry jargon of military thinkers, guerrilla fighting is called “asymmetrical warfare.” The asymmetries are not just physical or technological, but moral. Martin Van Creveld, a well-respected historian at Hebrew University, puts the proposition starkly: because occupying powers are automatically cast as the bully, they have to show restraint in the battle for world opinion. “You cannot be both strong and morally right at the same time,” says Van Creveld. “But if you are small and weak, then you can do what-ever you want. Necessity does not have any moral bounds.” [3]

In 1988 retired General Phillip B. Davidson ended his book on the Vietnam War with this paragraph:

Sad to say, we cannot counter revolutionary war even now-our defeat in Vietnam has taught us nothing. After a lengthy study of “low-intensity conflict” (which includes revolutionary war) a high-level Joint Study Group (army, navy, air force, marines, and civilians) concluded in a study dated 1 August 1986 that “The United States does not understand low-intensity conflict nor does it display the capability to adequately defend against it.”[4]

Unfortunately our history proves that these warnings-like the lessons of history-will continue to go ignored by everyone but our enemies.

Sanctuary

Some people just don’t get it. Liberal columnist and proponent of illegal immigration, Ruben Navarrette Jr. is certainly one of them. On July 31, 2007, CNN.com ran Navarrette’s article, entitled “Illegal immigration is a self-inflicted wound.”[i] In it, Navarrette conveniently selects when and where federal laws should apply to cities, states, and illegal immigration.Navarrette admonishes the small town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania for its attempts to do what the US government refuses to do-protect their town from illegal immigration. In 2006, the Hazleton town council passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. The Act prohibited landlords from renting to illegal immigrants or face a fine of $1000 per person. The Act also made it a crime to employ illegal immigrants, with employers facing a loss of permits for violations. A separate, but connected act also made English the official language of Hazleton. Many cities across America followed Hazleton’s lead, and passed similar ordinances to protect their cities from the illegal immigrant invasion, including San Bernardino, California and Avon Park, Florida.

Unfortunately, a federal judge struck down Hazleton’s controversial new law as unconstitutional, and for its preemption of federal laws. Mr. Navarrette is sure to point out this fact in his article, stating “the Founding Fathers were on the right track in prohibiting that sort of thing by conceiving of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that a state or locality may not pass laws that interfere with federal law.”

Ironically, Navarrette seems to conveniently forget about federal laws overriding city ordinances on the subject of sanctuary cities and their sanctuary policies. Sanctuary cities are cities that have declared themselves as sanctuary for illegal immigrants. To make matters worse, there are entire states giving themselves the designation of “sanctuary states,” including California, Maine, and Oregon. These cities and states have passed ordinances that are referred to as “sanctuary policies.”

Sanctuary policies begin with standing orders that prohibit law enforcement from inquiring about a person’s immigration status without criminal cause. This goes directly against the guidelines suggested by the 9/11 Commission, which calls for state and local officials to aid federal officials in identifying terrorists and other individuals that are not authorized to be in this country. This particular sanctuary policy has led directly to the sexual molestation of a minor, several counts of assault, and the execution of three college students in Newark, New Jersey by an illegal immigrant from Peru. Jose Carranza was arrested twice, and allowed bail both times, before he killed the three young students. The city of Newark as well as the state of New Jersey have marked themselves as areas of sanctuary for illegal aliens.

Recommendations from respected commissions may not be federal law, but the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 is. Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII of this federal law specifically states:

Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien inadmissible under section 1182 (a)(2) (insofar as an alien inadmissible under such section has been convicted of an aggravated felony) or 1182(a)(3) (other than subparagraph (E) thereof) of this title to enter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to enter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.[ii]

Another sections of this law states:

Any person who-knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law…[iii]

And still another states:

It is unlawful for a person or other entity-to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section) with respect to such employment, or to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section
…
It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.[iv]

I don’t know about anyone else, but that all seems pretty clear to me. Sanctuary for illegal immigrants violates several federal laws that have been in the books since the 1950’s-plain and simple. While the Immigration Act of 1990 revised many of the INA laws, none of these I have listed are among them.

Ruben Navarrette and sanctuary areas are content to ignore these federal laws because they are designed to deter illegal immigration, rather than encourage it. This form of selective memory and hypocrisy is an all-too-common occurrence in both cases. It is sad that towns like Hazleton, Pennsylvania and opponents of illegal immigration are the only ones being reminded of federal laws.

Just 1 of over 12 million reasons why we need to end illegal immigration

The failure of Congress to pass any kind of illegal immigrant legislation has forced the Bush administration to finally start calling for enforcement of some laws already in place. (What a concept!) A “new” proposal would force employers to fire any employee who is unable to square away issues found with their social security numbers. Any employers that do not comply will face fines, which will be raised by nearly 25% under the “new” rule that will go into effect in 30 days.[1]Ironically, this development takes place on the same day we get shown just another reason to be concerned about illegal immigration.

Last Monday police made the gruesome discovery of three young adults who had been lined up against a brick wall and shot in the back of the head. The sole witness to the horrific crime is a fourth victim who had been shot in the head and left for dead. The execution of these young people, just days before they were to begin college, has rocked the city of Newark, New Jersey to its very core.[2] So far there have been three arrests made. The suspects are two juveniles, and 28-year old Jose Carranza-an illegal immigrant from Peru.[3]

Carranza, who appeared in court today, has been charged with three counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, four counts of robbery, and various weapons violations. Though ballistic and fingerprint evidence, along with victim testimony directly links Carranza to the scene, he has pleaded innocent to all charges.

However the irony does not end there. Jose Carranza was scheduled to be in court on the same day he was massacring three people.

Carranza had been scheduled to appear in court Monday to answer two previous indictments. One accuses him of sexually assaulting and threatening to kill a 13-year-old, a girlfriend’s child. Another charges him with an array of assault and weapons offenses.[4]

Jose Carranza was able to stay in America to rape and murder our children for two reasons. Carranza requires an interpreter while in court, yet he was able to post bail for both of his previous indictments and neither prosecuter saw fit to investigate his immigration status.[5] The second reason brings me back to the original point. Jose Carranza was in possession of a bogus social security number.[6]

The Supreme Court of Public Opinion

As the highest judicial body in the nation, it is the duty of the United States Supreme Court to interpret and protect the Constitution and the basic rights of all Americans. But there is an unofficial court in America that has almost as much power as the Supreme Court. This court has no regard for an individual’s rights. Its judges and juries are fickle mobs who base their verdicts on en vogue emotions and the cause-du-jour. And it will never, ever, ever go away. It is the Court of Public Opinion.The 1st Amendment to the Constitution protects our freedom of speech. But the Court of Public Opinion does not always recognize the cherished right to say what we want to say, when we want to say it, or about whom we want to say it. It sees the victims of this heinous crime as anyone who is offended by any words of another. And once it has determined that a violation has been committed, it will not adjourn until the offender has been found guilty.

The 5th Amendment to the Constitution protects our right to due process. Suspects are presumed innocent until they have been proven guilty in a court of law. But the Court of Public Opinion cares little for due process. Courtrooms are replaced by break-time gatherings around the watercooler. Opening arguments are replaced by tabloid headlines. Physical evidence is replaced by rumors and speculation. And eyewitness testimonies are replaced by comedic late-night monologues.

While there is no incarceration for those found guilty by the Court of Public Opinion, its punishments are no less harsh. Careers and livelihoods are lost. Reputations are destroyed. Lives are interrupted, and often brought to ruin. There is no appeal process, no parole board, and rarely time off for good behavior.

The Court of Public Opinion has been around since mankind developed language and is as strong as ever in the Information Age. The only thing that has changed is the size of the mob presiding over the court. But don’t be too quick to condemn this court. It is us. It always has been, and always will be.

Not-So-Sweet Little Lies

Tell me lies,
Tell me sweet little lies,
Tell me, tell me lies…

In 1987 the rock band Fleetwood Mac’s single Little Lies reached #4 on the American Top 40 charts.[i]

Americans love hearing lies, as long as the liars are telling the people what they want to hear. The liberal media has made this their bread and butter for years. They lie about our wars. They lie about our presidents. The lie about our brave men and women in uniform. And these lies are not so sweet.

The 1968 Tet Offensive during the Vietnam War as a crushing defeat for the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong forces. Howard K. Smith of the American Broadcasting Company claims:

Viet Cong casualties were one hundred times ours. But we never told the public that. We just showed pictures day after day of Americans getting hell kicked out of them. That was enough to break America apart.[ii]

Not even the iconic Walter Cronkite was above telling lies about the Tet Offensive. Phillip B. Davidson writes:

He (Cronkite) went further, saying that he had been to Hue and seen the open graves of the South Vietnamese civilians murdered by the NVA troops and that he had decided to do everything in his power to see that this war was brought to an end…[iii]

Cronkite came home and did just that. His reporting that the Tet attacks had rendered the war “unwinnable” for the United States made a huge impact on public opinion. A public opinion that eventually led to America’s defeat in Vietnam.

But media lies by highly respected journalists have not been limited to the Vietnam era. Take Dan Rather, for example. In November 2004, Rather walked away from his 24-year career at CBS rather (pun intended) than face up to an investigation that he rushed to report a misleading story on George Bush’s service in the National Guard. Rather has since admitted the story he reported was indeed flawed.[iv]

A mere four months later, CNN executive Eason Jordan walked away from a 23-year stint at CNN after making comments at the 2005 World Economic Forum that US forces in Iraq had deliberately targeted journalists. Following their standard practice, event organizers have refused to release transcripts of the forum, and Jordan denies making the claim.[v] So why did he quit his job for saying something he supposedly didn’t say?

More recently is the case of US Army soldier Thomas Beauchamp, who wrote his Baghdad Diarist series for the liberal website The New Republic under the pen name Scott Thomas. In his entry entitled Shock Troops, Beauchamp/Thomas makes several claims of inhumane behavior by US troops in Iraq, leading to his “morally and emotionally distorting effects of the war.”[vi] The series eventually led to a military investigation of the horrific claims made by Beauchamp. The very day the investigation was set to begin, Beauchamp recanted his stories, admitting they contained only a “smidgen of truth.” Ironically, the same day Beauchamp was admitting he is a liar, The New Republic issued a statement from him stating he was “willing to stand by the entirety of [his] articles.”[vii]

It’s not hard to figure out why the liars are telling their lies. As I said before, it’s their bread and butter, and they offer a steady diet of it. What is hard to figure is why the American public continues to eat it up by the plateful, and then ask for seconds.

Wages of Shame

It has been suggested by many, including our own president, that illegal immigrants come to America to do the jobs that Americans don’t want to do. However this belief fails to see the real issue. The issue isn’t about jobs Americans find unacceptable, it’s about pay Americans find unacceptable.Americans have never been afraid to put in a hard day’s work for an honest day’s pay. Yet our leaders would have the world believe that we are a nation filled with lazy and spoiled citizens that feel they are above hard labor. This is absolute nonsense!

The recent Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 increased the federal minimum wage to a mere $5.85 per hour, with further incremental increases raising it to $7.25 in 2009.[1] Many states have minimum wage laws that exceed the federally mandated wage, with the state of Washington topping the list at $7.93 per hour.[2] To put those numbers in perspective, a person working a 40-hour work week at the federal minimum wage standard makes $12,168 per year. By contrast, a person working a 40-hour work week in Washington State makes $16,949 per year.

Now let’s compare those numbers to those of a farm worker, for example. According to the National Farm Worker Ministry, the average annual salary for a farm worker is $8,000 per year, and has declined by more than 20% over the last two decades.[3] To put that number in perspective, the US Dept. of Health and Human Services has set the 2007 Poverty Guideline at $10,210.[4]

Some supporters of illegal immigration would have us believe that Americans just want too much money for the work they do. Syndicated columnist Ruben Naverrette Jr. recently wrote that the high wage Americans want to pick produce is $1,000 per week. Does he base this figure on detailed research? No. He makes this absurd claim on what “a reader” told him.[5] In fact, the US Dept. of Labor cites that in 2006, there were 1.7 million Americans working for equal or less than the federally mandated minimum wage, which at that time was set at $5.15 per hour.[6] Even at the current rate of $5.85 per hour, this $234 weekly rate is a far cry from Mr. Navarrette’s ridiculous claim.

So the real issue here is that illegal immigrant farm workers are willing to work for wages that are more than 20% below the poverty level, while Americans are not. SHAME ON US!

The Butterfly Effect

As a history major, I place a great deal of emphasis on timelines. Timelines offer 20/20 hindsight for cause and effect, showing how a singe event can lead to another, and another, and still another. I am also a firm believer in chaos theory, and how a small initial cause can lead to a giant final effect. The classic example for chaos theory is known as the butterfly effect-when a butterfly flapping its wings in China can eventually cause a tornado in Kansas. In the case of the war in Iraq, Bill Clinton is the butterfly, and George Bush is the tornado.

During the first five years of Bill Clinton’s tenure in office (1993-1998), the United Nations issued ten resolutions concerning Iraqi violations of UN peace agreements.[i] Citing these many violations, the United States Congress overwhelmingly passed H.R. 4655, known as the Iraq Liberation Act. President Bill Clinton approved the bill, and it became the law on October 31, 1998. The Act specifically states:

It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.
…
It is the sense of the Congress that once the Saddam Hussein regime is removed from power in Iraq, the United States should support Iraq’s transition to democracy by providing immediate and substantial humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, by providing democracy transition assistance to Iraqi parties and movements with democratic goals, and by convening Iraq’s foreign creditors to develop a multilateral response to Iraq’s foreign debt incurred by Saddam Hussein’s regime.[ii]

It would seem that regime change and democracy in Iraq wasn’t George Bush’s war-mongering wet dream after all. It was all Bill Clinton’s idea from the beginning. Let’s take a look at how much funding and manpower was allotted for this monumental task…

On May 1, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-174, which made $5,000,000 available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition for such activities as organization, training, communication and dissemination of information, developing and implementing agreements among opposition groups, compiling information to support the indictment of Iraqi officials for war crimes, and for related purposes.
…
The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.
…
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act. Speaker of the House of Representatives.[iii]

Overthrow a foreign regime then set up a completely new form of government with no troops and for a total of $102,000,000?!? To put that number in perspective, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have raised more than half of that sum combined just to try and capture the Democratic nomination.[iv] It would seem that going cheap and undermanned on Iraq wasn’t limited to George Bush.

On December 16, 1998, President Clinton put the initial phase of his plan into effect, launching Operation Desert Fox. The Operation was a four-day bombing campaign designed to hamper Iraq’s ability to make, use, and/or sell weapons of mass destruction, but not necessarily eliminate it. In an interview, Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated:

Well, I think that – you know – I don’t think we’re pretending that we can get everything, so this is – I think – we are being very honest about what our ability is. We are lessening, degrading his ability to use this. The weapons of mass destruction are the threat of the future. I think the president explained very clearly to the American people that this is the threat of the 21st century.

It’s hard to control, hard to get at, that we need to – you know – Saddam Hussein had the capability to – with the VX agents – to destroy every man, woman, and child on Earth. So we have a serious problem here. He is a threat, and what the president decided to do, I think, was very sound, very important for our national security and take action when he could, and what it means is that we know we can’t get everything, but degrading is the right word.[v]

So by almost 1999, less than 3 years before 9/11, the United States government believed that Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction were a threat to America, as well as “every man, woman, and child on Earth.” Looks like that misjudgement wasn’t only George Bush’s.

The operation achieved its objectives. Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William S. Cohen reported, “Iraq’s ability to deliver chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons had been degraded,” (there’s that word again) and “Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war against his neighbors had been reduced.”[vi] I will point out again that neither “degraded” nor “reduced” mean “eliminated.”

The operation kept to the troop limitations set by H.R. 4655, and no ground forces were used.

[President Clinton's national security affairs advisor, Samuel R. Berger] emphasized that Desert Fox was not aimed at dislodging Saddam from power, saying that that is not a military objective that could plausibly be achieved through the use of air power. “He [Saddam] is weaker, deterrence is stronger, and the Middle East is safer than before the operation,” Berger said. Answering critics of the administration’s policy on Iraq who have suggested that it is time for the United States to downgrade the threat posed by Baghdad, Berger said that the reality is that Saddam’s external aggression and internal repression still pose a genuine threat not only to his neighbors but to global stability in general.[vii]

So after the operation, President Clinton was able to score some public opinion points during his impeachment hearings with the claim he hurt Saddam Hussein. However he still believed that Iraq was a global threat. What was his plan to meet that threat?

In his remarks at the National Press Club, Berger also ruled out the use of U.S. ground forces to dislodge Saddam from power, saying it would require the commitment of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. “I do not believe that the costs of such a campaign would be sustainable at home or abroad,” he said. Moreover, he added, “… the reward of success would be an American military occupation of Iraq that could last years.”

Clinton’s national security advisor said that the strategy the United States will continue to pursue is to contain Saddam in the short and medium term-by force if necessary-and to work toward a new government over the long term.[viii]

Now remember, this operation went on two years into Clinton’s second term in office. He wasn’t willing to commit ground troops during the short-term remaining of his presidency, but he made sure to keep it a medium- and long-term option for the next administration. Even after he was advised to “downgrade” the Iraqi threat.

As late as November 1999, Secretary of State Albright still believed that Hussein was spending money on weapons of mass destruction.[ix] In the year between Albright’s claim and George Bush’s inauguration, Iraq prohibited UN weapon inspectors from entering the country on multiple occasions.

When President Bush took office on January 20, 2001, these were the beliefs, situation, and foreign policy on Iraq that he inherited. Nine months later, terrorists attacked America and killed over three thousand people.

And the rest is history. It seems to be the only part of the history that gets remembered. History will forever remember the tornado that George Bush unleashed on Iraq, and he will leave a legacy as one of the worst presidents in American history for his part in it. It’s just too bad the butterfly that started the chain of events will never get his share of the credit.

The Memos and the Mosque

Thanks to the awsome blog known as Back Talk, I discovered the existence of these intercepted memos. They have given me an entirely different outlook on the current situation in Iraq.In late January of 2004, a 17-page document was intercepted along with the al Qaeda currier who was carrying it. It is suspected to have been written by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, once leader of organization known as “al Qaeda in Iraq,” and is believed to have been on its way to none other than Osama Bin Laden. The memo lays out Zarqawi’s plan to fire up the people of Iraq by sowing the seeds of sectarian violence. (Read the entire memo here.)

This memo proves that the supposed “civil war” in Iraq was started by Zarqawi’s al Qaeda in Iraq, and has nothing to do with Sunnis or Shi’as, and everything to do with spreading terrorism throughout Iraq.

[They (Shi'a) are] the insurmountable obstacle, the lurking snake, the crafty and malicious scorpion, the spying enemy, and the penetrating venom. We here are entering a battle on two levels. One, evident and open, is with an attacking enemy and patent infidelity. [Another is] a difficult, fierce battle with a crafty enemy who wears the garb of a friend, manifests agreement, and calls for comradeship, but harbors ill will and twists up peaks and crests (?). Theirs is the legacy of the Batini bands that traversed the history of Islam and left scars on its face that time cannot erase.

This portion leads one to believe that the author is on the side of the Sunni. But read on…

As regards the Sunnis. They are more wretched than orphans at the tables of the depraved. They have lost the[ir] leader and wandered in the desert of artlessness and negligence divided and fragmented, having lost the unifying head who gathered the scattered [pieces] and prevented the egg from shattering. They also are [various] kinds.

That doesn’t appear to me to be a very favorable opinion.

And here is the author’s opinion of the Iraqi insurgents up to that point in time…

Jihad here unfortunately [takes the form of] mines planted, rockets launched, and mortars shelling from afar. The Iraqi brothers still prefer safety and returning to the arms of their wives, where nothing frightens them. Sometimes the groups have boasted among themselves that not one of them has been killed or captured. We have told them in our many sessions with them that safety and victory are incompatible, that the tree of triumph and empowerment cannot grow tall and lofty without blood and defiance of death, that the [Islamic] nation cannot live without the aroma of martyrdom and the perfume of fragrant blood spilled on behalf of God, and that people cannot awaken from their stupor unless talk of martyrdom and martyrs fills their days and nights. The matter needs more patience and conviction. [Our] hope in God is great.

Nice huh? And what about those foreign jihadists that supposedly don’t exist?…

The Immigrant Mujahidin. Their numbers continue to be negligible as compared to the enormity of the expected battle. We know that the convoys of good are many, that the march of jihad continues, and that only confusion over the banner and a muffled reality keep many of them from [answering] the call to battle. What prevents us from [calling] a general alert is that the country has no mountains in which we can take refuge and no forests in whose thickets we can hide. Our backs are exposed and our movements compromised. Eyes are everywhere. The enemy is before us and the sea is behind us. Many an Iraqi will honor you as a guest and give you shelter as a peaceable brother. As for making his house into a base for launching [operations] and a place of movement and battle, this is rarer than red sulphur. For this reason, we have worn ourselves out on many occasions sheltering and protecting the brothers. This makes training the green newcomers like wearing bonds and shackles, even though, praise be to God and with relentless effort and insistent searching, we have taken possession of growing numbers of locations, praise be to God, to be base sites for brothers who are kindling [the fire of] war and drawing the people of the country into the furnace of battle so that a real war will break out, God willing.

And here is what the author thinks of America in Iraq…

There is no doubt that the Americans’ losses are very heavy because they are deployed across a wide area and among the people and because it is easy to procure weapons, all of which makes them easy and mouth-watering targets for the believers. But America did not come to leave, and it will not leave no matter how numerous its wounds become and how much of its blood is spilled. It is looking to the near future, when it hopes to disappear into its bases secure and at ease and put the battlefields of Iraq into the hands of the foundling government with an army and police that will bring the behavior of Saddam and his myrmidons back to the people. There is no doubt that the space in which we can move has begun to shrink and that the grip around the throats of the mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the deployment of soldiers and police, the future has become frightening.

What on Earth can a weak group of terrorists do about this daunting situation? How can they convince America to leave Iraq? Read on…

[The Shi'a] are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies … and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands of these Sabeans. Despite their weakness and fragmentation, the Sunnis are the sharpest blades, the most determined, and the most loyal when they meet those Batinis (Shi`a), who are a people of treachery and cowardice. They are arrogant only with the weak and can attack only the broken-winged. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people, watch their sides, and fear the consequences of empowering them.
…
This matter, with the anticipated awaking of the slumberer and rousing of the sleeper, also includes neutralizing these [Shi`a] people and pulling out their teeth before the inevitable battle, along with the anticipated incitement of the wrath of the people against the Americans, who brought destruction and were the reason for this miasma. The people must beware of licking the honeycomb and enjoying some of the pleasures from which they were previously deprived, lest they surrender to meekness, stay on the[ir] land, prefer safety,, and turn away from the rattle of swords and the neighing of horses.
…
Our fighting against the Shi`a is the way to drag the [Islamic] nation into the battle. We speak here in some detail. We have said before that the Shi`a have put on the uniforms of the Iraqi army, police, and security [forces] and have raised the banner of preserving the homeland and the citizen. Under this banner, they have begun to liquidate the Sunnis under the pretext that they are saboteurs, remnants of the Ba`th, and terrorists spreading evil in the land. With strong media guidance from the Governing Council and the Americans, they have been able to come between the Sunni masses and the mujahidin. I give an example that brings the matter close to home in the area called the Sunni Triangle – if this is the right name for it. The army and police have begun to deploy in those areas and are growing stronger day by day. They have put chiefs [drawn] from among Sunni agents and the people of the land in charge. In other words, this army and police may be linked to the inhabitants of this area by kinship, blood, and honor. In truth, this area is the base from which we set out and to which we return.
…
I come back and again say that the only solution is for us to strike the religious, military, and other cadres among the Shi`a with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis. Someone may say that, in this matter, we are being hasty and rash and leading the [Islamic] nation into a battle for which it is not ready, [a battle] that will be revolting and in which blood will be spilled. This is exactly what we want, since right and wrong no longer have any place in our current situation.

Not convinced? Many weren’t when this memo was first made public, and its authenticity was highly scrutinized. However, hindsight has more than proven that this memo is either the real deal, or an uncanny display of someone’s ability to see into the future.

But this is not the only memo that has been intercepted concerning this issue. In July 2005, al Qaeda’s second-in-command-Ayman al-Zawahiri-sent a letter to a fellow terrorist about the proposed plan for Iraq. (Read the complete letter here.)

My dear brother, we are following your news, despite the difficulty and hardship. We received your last published message sent to Sheikh Usama Bin Ladin, God save him.

Still believe there isn’t a current connection between al Qaeda and Iraq?

al-Zawahiri voices concerns about the proposed plan, but admits that he doesn’t have all the information, so he does not condemn it.

I want to keep corresponding with you about the details of what is going on in dear Iraq, especially since we do not know the full truth as you know it. Therefore, I want you to explain to me your situation in a little detail, especially in regards to the political angle. I want you to express to me what is on your mind in regards to what is on my mind in the way of questions and inquiries.

What might al Qaeda’s political angle be?

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

Clear enough? Obviously America in Iraq is unacceptable to al Qaeda. Ironic, since there is supposedly no connection between the two.

This portion leads one to believe that the author is on the side of the Sunni. But read on…

As regards the Sunnis. They are more wretched than orphans at the tables of the depraved. They have lost the[ir] leader and wandered in the desert of artlessness and negligence divided and fragmented, having lost the unifying head who gathered the scattered [pieces] and prevented the egg from shattering. They also are [various] kinds.

That doesn’t appear to me to be a very favorable opinion.

And here is the author’s opinion of the Iraqi insurgents up to that point in time…

Jihad here unfortunately [takes the form of] mines planted, rockets launched, and mortars shelling from afar. The Iraqi brothers still prefer safety and returning to the arms of their wives, where nothing frightens them. Sometimes the groups have boasted among themselves that not one of them has been killed or captured. We have told them in our many sessions with them that safety and victory are incompatible, that the tree of triumph and empowerment cannot grow tall and lofty without blood and defiance of death, that the [Islamic] nation cannot live without the aroma of martyrdom and the perfume of fragrant blood spilled on behalf of God, and that people cannot awaken from their stupor unless talk of martyrdom and martyrs fills their days and nights. The matter needs more patience and conviction. [Our] hope in God is great.

Nice huh? And what about those foreign jihadists that supposedly don’t exist?…

The Immigrant Mujahidin. Their numbers continue to be negligible as compared to the enormity of the expected battle. We know that the convoys of good are many, that the march of jihad continues, and that only confusion over the banner and a muffled reality keep many of them from [answering] the call to battle. What prevents us from [calling] a general alert is that the country has no mountains in which we can take refuge and no forests in whose thickets we can hide. Our backs are exposed and our movements compromised. Eyes are everywhere. The enemy is before us and the sea is behind us. Many an Iraqi will honor you as a guest and give you shelter as a peaceable brother. As for making his house into a base for launching [operations] and a place of movement and battle, this is rarer than red sulphur. For this reason, we have worn ourselves out on many occasions sheltering and protecting the brothers. This makes training the green newcomers like wearing bonds and shackles, even though, praise be to God and with relentless effort and insistent searching, we have taken possession of growing numbers of locations, praise be to God, to be base sites for brothers who are kindling [the fire of] war and drawing the people of the country into the furnace of battle so that a real war will break out, God willing.

And here is what the author thinks of America in Iraq…

There is no doubt that the Americans’ losses are very heavy because they are deployed across a wide area and among the people and because it is easy to procure weapons, all of which makes them easy and mouth-watering targets for the believers. But America did not come to leave, and it will not leave no matter how numerous its wounds become and how much of its blood is spilled. It is looking to the near future, when it hopes to disappear into its bases secure and at ease and put the battlefields of Iraq into the hands of the foundling government with an army and police that will bring the behavior of Saddam and his myrmidons back to the people. There is no doubt that the space in which we can move has begun to shrink and that the grip around the throats of the mujahidin has begun to tighten. With the deployment of soldiers and police, the future has become frightening.

What on Earth can a weak group of terrorists do about this daunting situation? How can they convince America to leave Iraq? Read on…

[The Shi'a] are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in [their] religious, political, and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies … and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger and annihilating death at the hands of these Sabeans. Despite their weakness and fragmentation, the Sunnis are the sharpest blades, the most determined, and the most loyal when they meet those Batinis (Shi`a), who are a people of treachery and cowardice. They are arrogant only with the weak and can attack only the broken-winged. Most of the Sunnis are aware of the danger of these people, watch their sides, and fear the consequences of empowering them.
…
This matter, with the anticipated awaking of the slumberer and rousing of the sleeper, also includes neutralizing these [Shi`a] people and pulling out their teeth before the inevitable battle, along with the anticipated incitement of the wrath of the people against the Americans, who brought destruction and were the reason for this miasma. The people must beware of licking the honeycomb and enjoying some of the pleasures from which they were previously deprived, lest they surrender to meekness, stay on the[ir] land, prefer safety,, and turn away from the rattle of swords and the neighing of horses.
…
Our fighting against the Shi`a is the way to drag the [Islamic] nation into the battle. We speak here in some detail. We have said before that the Shi`a have put on the uniforms of the Iraqi army, police, and security [forces] and have raised the banner of preserving the homeland and the citizen. Under this banner, they have begun to liquidate the Sunnis under the pretext that they are saboteurs, remnants of the Ba`th, and terrorists spreading evil in the land. With strong media guidance from the Governing Council and the Americans, they have been able to come between the Sunni masses and the mujahidin. I give an example that brings the matter close to home in the area called the Sunni Triangle – if this is the right name for it. The army and police have begun to deploy in those areas and are growing stronger day by day. They have put chiefs [drawn] from among Sunni agents and the people of the land in charge. In other words, this army and police may be linked to the inhabitants of this area by kinship, blood, and honor. In truth, this area is the base from which we set out and to which we return.
…
I come back and again say that the only solution is for us to strike the religious, military, and other cadres among the Shi`a with blow after blow until they bend to the Sunnis. Someone may say that, in this matter, we are being hasty and rash and leading the [Islamic] nation into a battle for which it is not ready, [a battle] that will be revolting and in which blood will be spilled. This is exactly what we want, since right and wrong no longer have any place in our current situation.

Not convinced? Many weren’t when this memo was first made public, and its authenticity was highly scrutinized. However, hindsight has more than proven that this memo is either the real deal, or an uncanny display of someone’s ability to see into the future.

But this is not the only memo that has been intercepted concerning this issue. In July 2005, al Qaeda’s second-in-command-Ayman al-Zawahiri-sent a letter to a fellow terrorist about the proposed plan for Iraq. (Read the complete letter here.)

My dear brother, we are following your news, despite the difficulty and hardship. We received your last published message sent to Sheikh Usama Bin Ladin, God save him.

Still believe there isn’t a current connection between al Qaeda and Iraq?

al-Zawahiri voices concerns about the proposed plan, but admits that he doesn’t have all the information, so he does not condemn it.

I want to keep corresponding with you about the details of what is going on in dear Iraq, especially since we do not know the full truth as you know it. Therefore, I want you to explain to me your situation in a little detail, especially in regards to the political angle. I want you to express to me what is on your mind in regards to what is on my mind in the way of questions and inquiries.

What might al Qaeda’s political angle be?

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

Clear enough? Obviously America in Iraq is unacceptable to al Qaeda. Ironic, since there is supposedly no connection between the two.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq…

How many times do we need to see it before we are convinced? If this still isn’t enough, maybe this one will do it.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

Wait just a minute! We’ve been told Iraq is not central to the War on Terror. I guess someone forgot to tell the terrorists that.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

And there you have it. So how do they go about setting this plan into action? It begins with the Iraqi people.

The Muslim masses-for many reasons, and this is not the place to discuss it-do not rally except against an outside occupying enemy, especially if the enemy is firstly Jewish, and secondly American.
…
If we look at the two short-term goals, which are removing the Americans and establishing an Islamic amirate in Iraq, or a caliphate if possible, then, we will see that the strongest weapon which the mujahedeen enjoy – after the help and granting of success by God – is popular support from the Muslim masses in Iraq, and the surrounding Muslim countries.
…
The Americans will exit soon, God willing, and the establishment of a governing authorityas soon as the country is freed from the Americans-does not depend on force alone. Indeed, it’s imperative that, in addition to force, there be an appeasement of Muslims and a sharing with them in governance and in the Shura council and in promulgating what is allowed and what is not allowed.

And how are our enemies so certain that we will be leaving soon?

The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam-and how they ran and left their agents-is noteworthy.

It seems our enemies are more familiar with our history than our leaders are. That must be why it is being repeated.

The memo goes on to warn that sectarian conflict could be dangerous if the people do not properly understand the reasoning behind it. So what would be a reason they accept? Fast forward to February of 2006. (Read the complete article here.)

Destruction of holiest Shia shrine brings Iraq to the brink of civil war

By Patrick Cockburn
Published: 23 February 2006

Iraq took a lethal step closer to disintegration and civil war yesterday after a devastating attack on one of the country’s holiest sites. The destruction of the golden-domed Shia shrine in Samarra sparked a round of bloody sectarian retaliation in which up to 60 Sunni mosques were attacked and scores of people were killed or injured.

The bomb attack has enraged the majority Shia population, who regard the shrine in the same way that Roman Catholics view St Peter’s in Rome.
…
There was little sign of stability yesterday. Some 50 Sunni mosques were either burnt, blown up or taken over in Baghdad alone. At least three Sunni clerics were among 22 reported deaths nationwide.

And just in case there is anyone unaware of the results this brought… (Read here.)

This is not our fight

Congress must end U.S. role in a civil war nobody voted for

By ROBERT BYRD & HILLARY CLINTON
Tuesday, July 10th 2007, 4:00 AM

On Oct. 11, 2002, the Senate gave President Bush authority to use force against Iraq. Nearly five years later, it is time for Congress to say enough is enough.

Did Hillary Clinton suddenly get amnesia, or did she just choose to forget that she voted in favor of invading Iraq? But I digress.

As one can clearly see, the rash of sectarian violence and “civil war” in Iraq is completely by design of al Qaeda-the group that supposedly has no influence in Iraq. And their plan is working like a charm. Today Iraq. Tomorrow the surrounding nations. And the day after that, Isreal and the entire Middle East.

And you thought Iraq wasn’t key to the War on Terror.

Class dismissed.