UNSC Passes Syrian Resolution

I'm pleasantly surprised that the UN managed to unanimously pass a resolution calling for Syrian cooperation with the independent investigation of Hariri's assassination. Among the provisions is a required that Syrian arrest anyone the probe deems a suspect, and to allow the investigators to question them in any location they choose. Direct threats of sanctions were removed to obtain a unanimous vote, but since the resolution was passed under Chapter VII, it is legally enforceable by military means.

The most disturbing part of the news is another section of the resolution dropped out of the final wording. In order to obtain Russian and Chinese support, the sponsors removed the wording appealing Syria to cease support for "all forms of terrorist action and all assistance to terrorist groups." Why would any country oppose that plea?

Because China and Russia know that Syria won't like cooperating with the investigation, but they will. They also know that Syria is about as likely to become the 51st State as cease supporting terrorism. Passing a resolution requiring Syria to stop supporting terrorism is an automatic approval for action e.g., sanctions, against Syria, a major trading partner with both countries.

But hey, we can accept a little terrorism as long as our trade goods keep flowing. Especially if the terrorism is directed against Israelis and US troops.

News links here and here.

Postnote: Mohammed has a wonderful post on the subject here, and I highly encourage you to read it if you haven't already.

Labels: Syria, terrorism, UN

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

This week in Iraq has seen quite a bit of good news that missed the media spotlight. First, I'd like to congratulate the San Francisco Chronicle for having the courage to report on MAJ Steve Warren, and how he feels about the Western coverage of Iraq. In this article, MAJ Warren says that he watches American TV reports from Iraq, "and I ask myself, 'where are they?'"

MAJ Warren is in Diyala, part of the Sunni Triangle. He had a translator listening to a local radio talk show, where Sunnis complained of the US troops' presence. But they also complained about the trash on the streets. Knowing that soldiers are training from boot camp to be as clean as possible, he saw a solution. The troops bought garbage trucks and cleaned the city up, literally. Now instead of complaining about the Americans, the Baquba residents complain about schools and unemployment. Progress is being made, thanks to heroes like MAJ Steve Warren and his men.

Chad Evans from In The Bullpen posted an entry yesterday about the US troops reducing their presence. I think it's too early to significant withdrawal -- there is much left to be done. Nevertheless, we have been cutting back. Since February, the US has either closed or transferred to the Iraqi military ten bases in Iraq. Next month we'll be turning over Saddam's presidential palaces to the Iraqi government.

In other news,

• Two generators installed at water treatment facilities in Baghdad (10/24) Further increasing the flow of clean water.
• Construction begins on a million-dollar water project in Kirkuk (10/25) Ditto. This is a lot of money being spent to fight disease and starvation.

Do all these reconstruction news bits really make a difference? You bet they do. LTCOL S. Jamie Gayton, commander of the 2nd Brigade Troops Battalion wrote "Technicians and operators were challenged with maintaining an electrical distribution network that was ignored throughout the years of Saddam Hussein's reign.... The electrical distribution system in Betoul has changed the lives of all the residents. When we arrived here, this area was one of the first I visited. The project had just started and the residents told me of its importance. On every return trip, they remained upbeat and patient, trusting that good things would happen. They were rewarded this summer when a special electrical feeder was linked to the distribution network and the system was energized for the very first time." The picture above shows Gayton's troops looking over the new electrical system in Betoul, a poor Baghdad suburb.

Labels: heroes, iraq, media

Permalink

Did I Say Holocaust? No, I meant Holocaust.

Yesterday I linked to a new story entitled Arab States Silent on Iran's Remarks. I thought about it some more, and decided it was worthy of further discussion.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that "Israel must be wiped off the map." All but a full declaration of war, from a country trying to defend its right to develop nuclear technology. Western nations have been quick to condemn his comments, but Arab states has been mostly silent.

Chad Evans posted in In the Bullpen that this wasn't the first time Iran had called for the destruction of Israel. He linked to a 2003 article in the Guardian where Iran had threatened the same thing.

Some Iranian diplomats are trying to downplay the issue. According to this AP story, the Iranian embassy in Moscow released a statement saying "Mr Ahmadinejad did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict."

Hey, I've got a bridge in Moscow I'll sell ya. Would you like to know what Ahmadinejad said when he heard that? "My words are the Iranian nation's words. Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid."

Pop quiz: Which of these statements was made by Usama bin Laden, and which by President Ahmadinjad:

• "We won't hesitate to kill the Israelis who occupied our land and kill our children and women day and night. And every person who will side with them should blame themselves only."
  
• "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

The complete text of Ahmadinejad's recent speech is here.

Labels: iran, israel

Permalink

Profiting From Dictators

Before I begin, I just want to link to this AP story. Should a later post talk about the Iranian government, I want everyone to know just how dangerous that country is.

In a speech Wednesday, [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad denounced Israel and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks "will wipe this stigma from the face of the Islamic world." Citing the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Ahmadinejad said: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

In other news, the Independent Inquiry Committee investigating abuses in the Oil for Food program released its final report that clearly shows who was and wasn't profiting from the program. Not surprisingly, those who profited most (France, Russia, and Germany) were the ones most strongly against the war.
What does the report say?

Iraq received $1.8 billion in kickbacks and bribes from 2,200 companies. That would be one-point-eight billion dollars paid to Saddam Hussein's coffers. American, British, and Japanese companies did not make any such bribes, if only because Saddam Hussein would not allow companies from those countries to obtain contracts. On the other hand, French, Russian, and Chinese companies were given preferential treatment in the awarding of contracts -- a move that successfully split the Security Council on all matters involving Iraq.

Worse, Iraq paid some of this money back out to those it needed to secure support. Most notably, France's ambassador to the United Nations received $165,725 from the Iraqi government.

One issue that was not covered in depth by the report is the $34.5 billion dollars in "humanitarian goods" sold to Iraq. Table Seven of the report (linked above) describes loosely what the UN was allowing Iraq to buy despite the sanctions. Some of the items are clearly humanitarian (e.g., rice). Others are very questionable (e.g., black tea). And still others are just downright confusing (e.g., decorated wall tiles). Since when has decoration been a basic human need? What's the point of sanctions if those sorts of deals are allowed? What were we sanctioning, anyway? Keep searching, and you'll find cars, art supplies, computers, stained glass, office chairs, cigarettes, and other assorted "humanitarian needs." You'll also find items that clearly have military applications, just as mobile radios and radio relay links.

Now that the final report is out, it's time to take action against the companies that profited from supporting Saddam in violation of UN sanctions. With this report we can account for every dollar illegally made by various companies around the world. The United Nations should take that money back, and donate it to Iraqi reconstruction. To let them keep the money would be to reward criminal profiteering.

Labels: iran, iraq, israel, UN

Permalink

Our Oldest Enemy

I'm not opening with a picture of a woman with large breasts just to improve my site traffic, although I'm sure I'm going to get some extra pervert traffic from the search engines. Rather, the picture is inspired by a recent news story about our oldest enemy, France.

"France Says Too Early for Sanctions Against Syria," read the headline of this news article. I agree it's too early, since the final report of the United Nations won't be released until December. But somehow I suspected France meant waiting longer than two months.

"We have here an opportunity to do justice with an independent inquiry. Let's go to the end ... if we need to make it longer, let's do it, and afterwards lets see what the consequences should be, including on the question... of sanctions," stated French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy. That's right; the French are already asking for an extension, even though the UN hasn't asked for it.

Let's review the facts quickly. Rafiq al-Hariri, former prime minister of Lebanon, was killed along with 22 others when his motorcade was blown up in Beruit last February. The UN probe issued a preliminary report indicating they had evidence of Syrian involvement. Lebanon even froze five accounts they believe are related to the murder. Things aren't looking good for some major Syrian officials.

But again, I wouldn't suggest sanctions before the final report. So why has Bush warned that he would push for them, and why is France already objecting? Because the report also found evidence of massive systematic cover-ups by the Syrian government. So we find ourselves in a familiar situation; see if you can see any analogies:

• A government is widely believed to have conducted something illegal.
• The UN is investigating.
• The UN complains that the government is not cooperating, and writes a letter to the Secretary General asking for help.
• The US tries to apply pressure to force cooperation.
• France objects.

Why would a country that has profited from stealing money from the Oil for Food program, bought oil from Saddam under sanctions, conducted illegal trade with Iraq, and generally profited from Saddam's rule -- why would such a country possibly oppose anything to upset Syria? Maybe because Syria, the former French colony, conducts eighteen percent of its trade with France. That's over a billion dollars worth of exports, and nearly as much in imports, each year. How many French politicians can you buy with a billion dollars? All of them.

French politicians are reliving the past, believing that they are a second superpower that can counter America's influence in the world. As such, the believe anything that hurts America is good for them. Saving a few billion in trade is a cherry on the top.

Really think the French are our friends, deep down? A survey found that twenty-five percent were hoping America would lose the war in Iraq. And President Chirac? Remember in the early 1990's, when Jose Bove destroyed a McDonald's franchise (which he viewed as a symbol of America)? Chirac publicly supported him, claiming "complete solidarity," and even going so far as to say "I detest McDonalds."

France has been a thorn in America's side since the French and Indian Wars of the eighteenth century. Why should we expect a change of heart now?

If you'd like a complete history of America's relationship with France, I recommend Our Oldest Enemy, an excellent book on the subject.

Labels: France, iraq, Syria

Permalink

American Workers Too Proud To Work (but not too proud for unemployment benefits)

"If an employer has a job that no American is willing to take, we need to find a way to fill that demand." - President George W. Bush (news article)

It's the economy, stupid. If people aren't willing to take a job, the need for that labor drives wages up. Allowing illegal immigrants to take the jobs at minimum wage (or less) drives down the cost of labor, and puts middle class out of reach for more and more Americans.

Bush's plan to allow "undocumented workers," which is a kinder, gentler way of saying illegal immigrants, to work for up to six years is in direct contradiction to this pledge to "return every single illegal entrant, with no exceptions."

Low-skill jobs were once filled by proud Americans who took pride in what they did. Not anymore. We are practically begging illegal workers to come into our country and do our dirty work for us, just because they will. And the very idea of accepting those jobs is unthinkable to many Americans. They won't admit it, but they just aren't willing to do "immigrant work."

The net result: Higher unemployment, lower average wages, and an unstoppable tide of illegal immigrants. Not worried yet? Take a look at Saudi Arabia, which like most rich Arab nations employs foreigners to do the majority of its "dirty work." Thirty five percent of its workforce are non-citizens, and the domestic unemployment rate exceeds 25% (World Factbook).

The US unemployment rate stands at around 5%. Historically, that's about average for us. But that's coincidentally about the same number of illegal immigrants working in the US, according to the Pew Hispanic Center (report).

Stop coddling our unemployed. Stop telling them it's all the government's fault. Start telling them that there's a job waiting for them, and even if that means they need to flip burgers or change sheets at a hotel, it's still better than nothing.

Labels: immigration

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

Well, I'm happy to say it's Saturday, and time for another This Week in Iraq. Like last week, the news in Iraq is dominated by the referendum. I'll give you some "you heard it here first" news and statistics in a second, but first let's see what else in cooking in the country:

• Two new electricity distribution projects complete in Al-Talayee and At-Thawra (10/20) We continue to bring Iraq closer to a never-before reached goal of 24/7 electricity to each home.
• New road built in Al-Basrah (10/21) Half a million US dollars invested in a road to allow village residents to bring their wares to Basrah. What did Saddam ever do for Basrah province? I'll wait for an answer.
• New water project begins in Baghdad (10/22) Two million dollars invested in clean running water for the city, bringing a nation out of the third world.

So onto the referendum. Results were so massively in favor of a peaceful representative government that the world cried foul, insisting that the results must have been faked. There will be an investigation, and if there was wrongdoing, we will see that it is corrected. A week later, the Electoral Commision has said the vote appears fair (news story), but they won't release the results until Monday or Tuesday. Place your bets on a "yes" vote, however.

And the statistics? Here they are:

• 450,000 -- just under a half million people -- volunteered to work at polling centers. Unlike last year's election, hundreds of thousands (279,000, to be exact) were turned away as unneccessary.
  
• While still preliminary, it appears that approximately 9.6 million Iraqis voted, including detainees held by the United States.
• Total attack tallies: 89 attacks, of which 19 took place at polling centers, which resulted in ten deaths -- only three of whom were civilians. Zero suicide bombers. Last year's elections were hailed as amazingly peaceful with only 299 attacks.

Slow but steady progress wins the war, and wins freedom for millions of Iraqis. March on!

Labels: iraq

Permalink

Our Soldiers Are Not Criminals

Do you remember when the UN wanted us to put our soldiers under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and President Bush said no? We were ridiculed around the world for holding a double standard. But Bush argued that small nations, unable to defeat the US by any other means, would hold us down by attempting to prosecuted our soldiers for all sorts of fictious charges. I, for one, believed him.

It looks like I was right.

The Lone Voice had a blog entry yesterday covering a story that somehow didn't get much press coverage from our leftist media. A Spanish judge has issued an arrest warrant for three US soldiers who accidentally killed a Spanish journalist and a Ukrainian cameraman. Let's review the facts of the case:

1. Both of the casualties had intentionally entered a war zone for the purpose of recording a war. They were aware of the dangers they were subjecting themselves to.
2. The three soldiers were part of a tank crew that fired into a building, from which they were receiving fire. Under US Rules of Engagement, which are based on the International Law of Warfare, a soldier always has the right to self-defense, and may return fire in order to save himself.
3. The three soldiers were subjected to a review at the highest level, with the US Secretary of State declaring that the soldiers' actions were in accordance with law.

Should Spain, which fled Iraq after terrorists detonated bombs on its public transportation system, really have the right to review our soldiers' actions on the battlefield? I think not. Even if the soldiers had done something wrong, which they hadn't, they were acting as agents of the United States Government. Spain should seek redress from the government, who would in turn take action against the soldiers should there have been wrongdoing.

This attempt by the weaker nations to undermine the actions of the United States by attacking our soldiers is wrong, and displays exactly why Bush was right to refuse it. America will not hand our national heroes over to Spain.

While you're visiting The Lone Voice, please also read this post about the "rising death toll" in Iraq. Soon we will crest the 2,000 dead mark, and the media is sure to leap on it as a sign of failure in Iraq. The fact that only 2,000 Americans have died means this has been one of the least costly wars in American history. Food for thought.

Labels: heroes, iraq, UN

Permalink

Saudis Speak Out

Saudi Arabia is a net exporter of Salafist theology, and probably contains more radical imams than any other country. But just as America has more Pat Robertsons and Louis Farrakhans that any other country, that doesn't mean we're all radicals.

If you listen to CNN, the entire Middle East is full of hatred for America. I was watching Blackhawk Down on DVD earlier this week, with commentary from veterans of the battle. In the final scenes, as the Americans returned to the safe zone, you saw hundreds of Somali's cheering the Americans on. The soldiers commented that this was very accurate, and esitmated that eighty percent of Somali's were grateful for the US intervention. The disparity between soldiers' observations and the media's observations seemed oddly reminiscient of Iraq.

Do all Arabs hate the US? Not at all. Nor do they all believe in violence. Sheikh Salman Al-Oadah, a widely respected religious scholar in Saudi Arabia, writes (translated from the original Arabic):

This brings us to the concept of jihâd. There is no such thing as “holy war” in Islam. This is a mistranslation of the word. Holy war is carried out to forcibly subject others to one’s religious beliefs. As we have seen, this is expressly forbidden in Islam. The word jihâd literally means struggle and applies to any colossal effort, not just to warfare. Jihâd may be against one’s own desires or evil inclinations....

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) forbade the killing of non-combatants. Ibn `Umar, a Companion of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), said: “I saw the body of a slain woman during one of the battles of the Prophet (peace be upon him), so he forbade the killing of women and children.” [Sahîh al-Bukhârî and Sahîh Muslim]

Recently, Muhammad bin 'Abd Al-Latif Aal Al-Sheikh printed two columns in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah. A choice quote: "In my opinion, the ideology of Al-Salafiyya Al-Jihadiyya is very similar to Nazism in terms of its causes and reasons." A slightly longer one, deriding the idea that terrorists are true Muslims who "strayed from the path" and should be treated with forgiveness:

The question that must be asked courageously is: Have the clerics of our times fulfilled their duty, as our forefathers did when they [fought] against the Khawarij? The most direct answer is: Sadly, no! Let's assume that the government decides to allow women to drive without obligating them, for instance, to wear a veil; what would be the reaction of these clerics and students? How many protest delegations would come to Riyadh from all the provinces? How many fatwas would be signed? How many accusations would be leveled? How many noisy sermons would be delivered by many imams in the mosques?... Is a woman driving a car, or even not wearing a veil, a more serious prohibition in Allah's eyes... than the acts of murder, slaughter, destruction, and violation of women's honor [committed] by these 'sick people?' Why in the name of God [do we how] all this gentleness, forgiveness, and a tendency to 'speak gently' when it comes to terrorists, while [we show] extreme blatancy and harshness when it comes to women, for instance?

What's the point of all this? America needs to help Arab moderates take control of Islam. Isolationism is not the answer; engagement is. By supporting and working with the moderates, we can help elminate the driving factors behind radicalism.

Closing note: If you feel like getting angry, take a look at what Time Magazine has done. In the Bullpen covers the story here.

Labels: media, Saudi Arabia, Somalia

Permalink

DC Bill Passes

Good news! The emergency legislation that I mentioned here has passed. Unless the mayor vetoes it, you can no longer be charged with DUI regardless of your blood alcohol content. The new rules put DC in line with Maryland and Virginia. Namely:

Under 0.05	You are presumed not intoxicated
0.05 - 0.079	You are not presumed intoxicated. You may be charged if you exhibit other signs of intoxication, such as slurred speech, erratic driving, etc.
0.08 and above	You are presumed intoxicated.

Not sure what these numbers mean? Run this test to see how quickly your
own BAC rises.

I'll tell you now that my opinion is 0.08 is too low, and many drivers are able to drive perfectly well at that level of alcohol. However, let's celebrate one battle at a time. And I'd also like to thank all the Nervous Rodent readers who wrote or called their councilmen to help get this legislation through.

Mayor Anthony Williams has ten days to decide whether to veto the legislation. He's already attacked it, calling it "hastily written" and criticized the council. E-mail and call the mayor, explaining that it is necessary to keep DC businesses alive, and DC drivers safe from unfair prosecution.

Assuming the mayor doesn't stand in the way of this bill, it will take effect for ninety days. In that timeframe, new legislation will have to pass to make the changes permanent. Tell you councilmen that you don't think police should be able to charge drivers with crimes they can prove they didn't commit.

Voting against the measure: Kathy Patterson (D-Ward 3), Phil Mendelson (D-At Large) and Sharon Ambrose (D-Ward 6).

Check out Paulie's post on this at Paulie World.

Labels: alcohol, dc, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

Death and Taxes, and We're Working on Death

In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes. -- Benjamin Franklin

Ask any American history professor for the causes of the American Revolution, and high taxes is near the top of the list. But today, our taxes are several times higher than those paid by the colonists. Not just in real dollar terms, but in terms of the percentage of your labor that goes into government. What's wrong here?

Firstly, the government wastes money on non-essential functions. Unless you believe the fallacy that our government is more efficient than private industry, you must realize that every dollar spent by the government includes a "friction" charge of government inefficiency. Transfer non-essential services to private industry, and watch productivity go up -- and taxes go down.

Of course, certain functions remain central to the federal government, like national defense. Fortunately for us, there's a good guide already drafted that tells us which functions are essential and which are not. It's called the Constitution, and it lays it all out in black and white. If it ain't in there, don't try to spend federal dollars on it.

The second step to reducing the tax burden is fixing the tax code itself. Beyond the millions of dollars spent to keep the IRS running, how many billions are spent by companies and individuals trying to comply with the law? How many poor business decisions are made because a loophole will allow a tax-writeoff in excess of the loss itself? I can file my 1040 by myself each spring, but there's no man alive that can claim to understand the entire US Tax Code, pictured to the right. This is insane.

Debbie (from In the Bullpen) blogged about a Chicago Sun Times article on this subject, which caught my attention. You should all know I stand for minimization of federal spending outside that enumerated within the Constitution, but the way we collect that tax is important as well. Every engineer will tell you that each added complexity to a system will only add friction and losses. Our entire tax system is nothing but a collection of complex additions!

Rep John Linder is pushing for a solution. The FairTax bill calls for a repeal of all current corporate and individual income taxes, payroll taxes, self-employment taxes, capital gains taxes, estate taxes and gift taxes. It replaces them with a single personal consumption tax (sales tax). Business-to-business transactions are exempt, as are sales of used items (already taxed). To remain progressive, individuals can obtain refunds on taxes paid on consumption up to the poverty level.

This is exceptionally simple, and easy to enforce. It eliminates the arbitrary double- and triple-taxation the current system entails. It's fair, and it will improve efficiency. We need folks like John Linder to help us break out of the "income tax is here to stay" mentality, think outside the box, and think of solutions for our country.

President Bush has formed a tax panel that is recommending simplifying the system. Get in touch with your congressmen and tell them it's not enough to remove a few deductions. It's not just personal income tax that's fatally flawed, it's income tax itself. Don't use the government to discourage income.

Want to learn more? Visit Americans for Fair Tax, and see what you can do to help.

Labels: state's rights, taxes

Permalink

Around the World, the Media Hates Peace

I was driving with my wife this morning, and I mentioned that the Iraqi referendum had passed with virtually no violence. About a half percent of voting stations were attacked, which means ninety-nine and a half percent of polling stations watched thousands of Iraqis vote without incident. And like last year, Iraqis held their thumbs high with pride -- without fear of reprisal.

Meanwhile, the radio news came on. It reported, and I'm not making this up, "Despite scattered attacks, Iraqis turned out to vote..." Scattered attacks? God forbid you allow the news on Iraq to be portrayed in a positive light. But it's not just the radio that wants people to think our country is failing.

The Media Research Center has recently released a report on ABC, CBS, and NBC's coverage of Iraq (press release, summary, PDF, html). The bottom line -- only 15% of MSM stories about Iraq were positive. Forty percent of stories were on the actions of terrorists, whereas only 0.6% of stories actually reported on positive accomplishments of US forces. Even stories about the political progress were overwhelmingly negative. A third of the optimistic reports about Iraq's future were aired in the two days after the January elections.

Ouch. With friends like that, who needs enemies? Five years ago I wouldn't have been caught dead saying this, but Al Jazeera is more trustworthy than our own press. Need proof? Try reading Al Jazeera's headline article today. Compare it to this AP article, where you can see the author trying to find a negative spin. Even the title seems negative: "Sunnis Appear to Fall Short in Iraq Vote." Or, without the spin, "Iraqi Voters Appear to Approve New Constitution."

Conservative Nation has some additional thoughts on this, as well as the validity of Bush's recent polls numbers.

It's not just the Western press that hates us. And it's not just the West that is affected by the pervasive slanting of reality. If you were unlucky enough to have watched Fahrenheit 9/11, you may have thought the damage was limited to left-wing reactionaries convincing Americans that our government is a collection of incompetent crooks. But in this modern world, a movie like that has repercussions throughout the world. As we speak, the Iranian-owned Channel 2 is broadcasting a satire called Fahrenheit Infinity (video, transcript). Between Hollywood and the MSM, we are providing our enemies everything they need to convince audiences that we are evil incarnate.

Here's the good news: Despite the bad press, it appears that the constitution will pass. I'm sure more complete numbers will trickle in throughout the day, but here are the most complete numbers I've found to date.

Labels: iraq, media

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

I made a prediction last week that the referendum would limit the starting of new projects in Iraq, and it looks like I was right. The big news, of course, is the referendum.

You've probably been reading the blogs about the upcoming referendum. If you missed it, you'll definitely want to read this one written by an Iraqi citizen, where he describes the Ba'athist propaganda, as well as compares this vote to those under Saddam.

But here's the news: Out of 1,200 polling stations, only five were attacked. Nobody was killed, and only seven voters were injured. During last year's elections, I remember the editorials talking of violence, but the embedded reporters were just showing Iraqis dancing in the streets, holding their thumbs in the air. The terrorists were unable to stop that election, and they did even worse stopping this referendum.

Make no mistake, this referendum is important -- far more important than the elections. And whether they vote yes or no, it's still a good thing. The elections allow the Iraqi people to choose leaders, but the referendum allows them to choose a system of government.

Nervous Rodent's prediction: 65% yes, 10.5 million votes cast, constitution passes. We'll see how well I do.

But since you expect to hear things here that aren't printed elsewhere, I do have a little tidbit to tide you over. Thursday and Friday saw groundbreaking ceremonies for the construction of two new substation feeders, costing a total of $1.5 million, in Baghdad. And a new $200,000 clinic is opening in Baghdad. Next time you wonder why the US is spending so much on the "war" in Iraq, remember that much of the money is helping people help themselves.

Also, Michael Yon has a new blog post up. While it may not be news events from Iraq, it is news from Iraq. And as always, he will help you see what life in Iraq is really like. This time he also helps show why the media is giving such a distorted view.

In other news, the DC Council has introduced emergency legislation that states anyone driving with 0.05% BAC or below is presumed not intoxicated. Keep calling your councilmen, and let's make this thing pass!

Labels: alcohol, dc, iraq, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

Too Drunk to Drive, Continued

Remember this mug shot? You should, because I posted an article about Police Chief Ramsey last week. I called on him to admit his mistakes and correct them. And now, as the Washington Post continues its series about DUI laws in the District, I'd like to say it again.

Given my previous article on DUI laws, and the controversy that the Washington Post has stirred up, you'd think that the Police Chief would set about to correcting the wrongs, right? Or would you expect him to lie, again, to the press? Let's examine the facts:

While being interviewed by the Washington Post, Officer Dennis Fair was quoted saying "If you get behind the wheel of a car with any measurable amount of alcohol, you will be dealt with in D.C. We have zero tolerance."

When the Post asked Ramsey about that quote, Ramsey replied "He's wrong if he's saying that. It's not coming from me, and that's certainly no policy I've instituted. That's just incorrect." Ramsey then denied that he has ever used the term "zero tolerance" to describe the DC policy on drinking and driving. Why then, Chief Ramsey, did the DC Police Department's website say that DC has a "zero tolerance" policy until Tuesday, the day that the Washington Post printed the first article in the series?

Don't believe me? Use the Web Archive to check the facts. This link will take you to an archived copy of the DC Police's website from last week, and this link will take you to the same webpage today.

That's twice in two weeks that Police Chief Ramsey has been caught in an outright lie. Folks, call your Councilman and demand that DC's laws on drinking and driving be brought in line with the rest of the nations. And Chief Ramsey, it's time for you to start telling the truth.

Labels: alcohol, dc, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

Too Drunk to Drive, Too Sober to Patrol

It's a well-intentioned law, I admit that. But DC's DUI laws are hurting innocent people, and it's time they were changed.

After the Washington Post ran an article earlier this week about Debra Bolton's legal troubles, people are starting to notice. And it's about time.

In most states, the legislature has set a legal limit for the maximum concentration of alcohol in the blood when driving, usually 0.08%. This is generally acknowledged as a simplistic solution to a complex problem. We all know someone who can drink way more than they ought to, and still act sober. We also know people that drink very little and still stagger about. What this means is that not everyone reacts the same way to the same concentration of alcohol.

To even things up, many states having two threshold levels. In Maryland, for example, driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% is illegal -- period. You will be charged with DUI in that case. If the BAC is between 0.07% and 0.08%, that is considered prima facie evidence of DWI, and you will probably be charged. Between 0.05% and 0.07%, you may be charged with DWI, if your other actions indicate that you not only ingested alcohol, but that you are impaired by it. Below 0.05%, you are not considered impaired by alcohol.

This system gives police a little leeway to evaluate drivers straddling the fuzzy line, where some might be perfectly safe, while others are clearly unable to safely drive. Of course, there are cases when police make poor decisions, but the law does limit the policeman's ability to make judgments that aren't backed by evidence. He couldn't declare someone with a 0.15% BAC to be sober, nor could he declare someone at 0.02% to be drunk.

Not so in Washington, DC, where the law gives the policeman all the latitude he needs to make judgment calls. Driving at 0.08% or higher is an automatic DUI charge, but a police officer may charge any individual with DUI, based solely on his judgment, regardless of blood alcohol levels. As a result, hundreds of people are charged each year with DUI or DWI, despite having blood alcohol levels of 0.03% or lower.

How low is 0.03%? An average woman who drinks a single glass of wine with dinner, over the course of an hour, will typically score about 0.03%. Ever seen a woman sip a single glass over an hour, then stagger down the street drunk? Me neither.

But some DC police go even further. This year they even charged a computer programmer who registered a perfect 0.00% on the scale, because in the officer's judgment, he was drunk.

The vast majority of these cases are dropped without conviction, generally for lack of evidence. But that doesn't mean they don't matter. It can cost thousands of dollars to contest a DUI charge. And being found innocent in court doesn't mean your insurance company will consider you innocent -- or even the DMV. According to Corey Buffo, the general counsel for the DC DMV,

"Our burden of proof is lower.... Not enough evidence for them may be enough evidence for us."

You you get pulled over on a bum charge, the officer decides he doesn't like you, and he charges you with DUI. You spend thousands of dollars to prove you're innocent, but your license is still suspended. When you finally get it reinstated, your insurance has doubled.

All those in favor of responsible legislation, raise your glasses. Unless you plan on driving home tonight.

Labels: alcohol, dc, nanny state, personal freedoms

Permalink

Sins of the Court

Despite what you may hear during some of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices, the Supreme Court has one real job. The Court should balance the powers of the Executive and Legislative branches of government, especially when it comes to violations of the Constitution. If someone violates your Constitutional rights, the Supreme Court is your final resort.

Unless, of course, you're a minority.

Which is rather hypocritical for a court that has "Equal Justice for All" emblazoned across the front of the building. But that's the way it is.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case of Cynthia Simpson, who had been denied the right to give an invocation for the Chesterfield County board meetings. She was denied the right because she is a Wiccan, and therefore not Christian.

Cynthia successfully sued on the basis that the county was giving preference to Christian clergy over other religions. However, the county appealed to the District Court after changing their policy to disallow the mention of "Jesus" during invocations, and the District Court held that meant that the county was no longer giving one religion preference over another. Since the Supreme Court will not hear the case, the District Court's decision stands.

The county will accept invocations from Jewish, Muslim, and Christian clergy. No other religions are permitted to give invocations. While many may not see a problem with this, try role reversal. Imagine if over the next twenty years, most of the country converts to another religion. Now imagine you are a Christian, and a minority. Would you feel the same way if you were told that Christians could not give invocations at government functions, while other religions could?

Frankly, I don't think a government meeting is the right place for group prayer. If you're going to do it, you're going to have to let every religion do it. Banning all but three religions is nothing less than the establishment of three official religions, and as we all know,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Labels: church, personal freedoms

Permalink

Beautiful Maidens

The Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC), which owns five television channels (including Al Arabiya) as well as a radio station, is helping shatter America's misperception that Arabic TV is more biased than CNN.
Jeremiah Stoddard wrote an article yesterday about a new TV show on MBC, which takes extremist Islamists to task. By quoting the Quran and discrediting extremist religious foundations, it weakens the base from which extremists can draw from. The director for the show even admits its targeted to those who have yet to make up their minds about terrorism, and show them how un-Islamic violence really is.

Of course, extremists across the Middle East are angry. Even some of the moderates are angry, or at least angry at the title: Al-Hour Al-Ayn, or Beautiful Maidens. Most of the terrorists and extremists are sexually repressed young men, waiting for their seventy two virgins when they martyr themselves. One of the attackers in the 2003 bombing of a residential center in Saudi spoke his last words over his radio: "One second to the beautiful maidens."

It must be very upsetting for young men to discover the Quran doesn't say anything about seventy-two virgins. The Hadith does specifically mention seventy-two virgins, but only in the context of a reward for virtuous men. Killing young children is apparently not a prerequisite the poking them in the afterlife.

The American equivalent would be a popular morning evangelist saying that discriminating against gays will prevent you from coming into Heaven. Or maybe the Catholic Church saying that the Bible isn't accurate on certain points, but that's another story entirely.

Either way, it's making news. Extremists are mad, and the common folk are talking about it, and this is all good news to me. My favorite part? Airing the show during Ramadan, when the righteous have little else to do but watch TV until the sun goes down.

Labels: media, terrorism

Permalink

Free Speech vs. Fair Elections

Councilman Jack Evans, shown to the right, is in hot water. Maybe not as bad as Marion Barry, who has been indicted for tax fraud, but hot water nonetheless. Apparently, Jack Evans has been running a Political Action Committee, and handling the money and reimbursements himself. In English, he has been accused of taking money from supporters, and spending it on his campaign.

Say what?

The Federal Election Commission has developed rules to prevent rich corporate moguls from "buying" elections. These rules limit how much can be given as campaign contributions, and how much can be spent on TV ads and so forth.

Just to prove how effective those rules are, I challenge you to name a single candidate for president that garnered significant support, but was not a millionaire. I couldn't either. But I do remember Ross Perot, who tried to buy an election without a party behind him. Kerry had the Heinz fortune, and Bush is rich in the wealth of Texas oil. Even Cheney's got Halliburton backing him up.

The reasons that money still talks in politics are multiple. Firstly, would you vote for a man that was not capable of raising significant funds? If you've got the charisma, intelligence, and social aptitude to be the leader of the free world, you're not going to be flipping burgers at McDonalds at forty-five. Secondly, Political Action Committees (PAC's) can spend millions of dollars without being bound by the FEC's rules.

Over the last few elections, you've seen PAC's in action. As the FEC tightened rules elsewhere, PAC's grew in importance. Now it seems that PAC's, like Swift Boat Veterans and MoveOn are more vocal than the candidates. And that's because they are! As long as they don't endorse a specific candidate or break various other rules, they can spend all the "soft" money they want.

Most bloggers were completely unaware of campaign law until the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold Law, was extended to apply to the Internet by US District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Unable to register and comply with complex PAC regulations, bloggers who endorse candidates will be considered campaigners -- and subject to a candidate's limitations on campaigning. Fundamentally, this will legally prevent bloggers from endorsing candidates at all, to include quoting or reprinting press releases or linking to campaign sites.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I think most people agree that money shouldn't buy elections. Major media conglomerates should not charge less for ads for candidates from one party than another. But our government has no right to prevent the public, or the press, from expressing our own opinions on candidates. Nor should our government restrict candidates from spending money to obtain airtime, in order to have their opinions heard by the public. Because while money may be the root of all evil, free speech is the foundation of a free society.

Labels: dc, free speech, personal freedoms

Permalink

Clinton Talks About Iraq

It's almost a tradition for former presidents to not criticize current presidents. No, let's not call it a tradition. It's more than respect even -- it's what's best for the nation as a whole. It serves no purpose except to devolve politics into the same chest-beating world of, say, professional wrestling.

Nevertheless, it should surprise no-one that Slick Willy has made a habit of criticizing our current administration, from the government handling of Katrina to the war in Iraq. But Clinton's past statements don't support his current attacks, as Republican Vet points out in this article.

As recently as October of 2003, former president Clinton insisted that he had no doubt that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction up to the start of the war. In July of 2003, he even said the same thing on Larry King Live. Yet he recently told George Stephanopoulos that there was no evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

It's one thing to say, "I was wrong; I made a mistake." It's another thing entirely to change your story, then blast your successor for making the same mistakes you made.

Labels: iraq

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

I apologize, for various reasons I wasn't able to compile as much information about humanitarian projects ongoing in Iraq this week. This is primarily due to me being busy, although it's possible that the rate of "key events" such as groundbreakings and completion ceremonies is little going to decrease until after the referendum. Still, here are a few updates:

$22 Million Infused into Local Economy through Construction Projects (10/3) A thousand construction contracts in nine provinces means a lot of jobs and a lot of new facilities.

Construction Complete on Two Water Treatment Plants in Najaf, Begins on one in Baghdad (10/4) Sanitary water is one of the necessities that brings a nation out of third-world status.

Six New Schools Open in Sulamaniyah (10/6) If you were an Iraqi parent living in Sulamaniyah, surely you'd appreciate America giving you the best opportunities for education in Iraq in decades? Too bad AP didn't interview those parents.

Three More Water Supply Projects Started in Hit, Al Jubayl, and Al Anbar (10/7) Again, fresh clean water to the people is something that Saddam should have delivered. It would only have cost him one of his many palaces.

I want to stress that these are just a handful of projects that I'm aware of going on this week. The CENTCOM newsletter has information about many more projects, including completion of a new 260-bed maternity hospital in Mosul, and the start of construction for a new 400kV substation in Mosul that will allow for an additional two hours of electricity per day in a nation that has never seen 24/7 power to any homes except presidential palaces.

Labels: iraq

Permalink

Letters from the Front, Part Deux

A few days ago I posted a blog article about letters written to America by soldiers deployed to Iraq. Foolishly, I forgot that Americans aren't the only "fighters" writing letters, and today the Pentagon decided to help fill that gap.

The Pentagon has released portions of a letter written by Ayman al-Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. If you don't follow the war on terror, this would be approximately equivalent to Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, writing a letter to General Abazaid, the commander of US Forces in the Middle East -- and having our enemies obtain a copy of the letter. I'll break down some key points here:

• Zawahiri warns that things are not good in Afghanistan. He tells Zarqawi that they have been defeated, and are hiding to avoid capture. Their communications and funding have been cut off. Desperately, he pleas for Zarqawi to send money to him. Fewer than half of Americans think we can win this war, but our enemy's leadership seems to think we can.
  
• He warns Zarqawi that the violence he is causing, especially beheadings and other "terror" attacks, will ultimately serve to turn the population against him. Gruesome images like the one to the right only serve to make Iraqis realize that Al Qaeda is not "on their side." While I cannot find good evidence of this on CNN.com or Fox News, I will tell you that conversations with friends in Iraq back this statement up. The message from Iraqis to our soldiers: Help us get rid of this menace!
• Expressing optimism that somehow Al Qaeda could force America to abandon Iraq, Zawahiri implored Zarqawi to not end the fight there. Instead, he urges him to push out into other countries, expanding the war until it encompasses the entire world. While some may be deluded into thinking that pulling out means peace, it is clear that Al Qaeda's plan is "Iraq first, then the world." Appeasement didn't work with the Nazi's, and it won't work now.

Captain Ed and Discerning Texan both have good blog entries about this letter as well, kudos to 'em for beating me to the punch.

"And it is that the Mujaheddin must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us."

Labels: afghanistan, iraq, media, terrorism

Permalink

More Ground Truth in Iraq

Before I even begin this post, let me tell you all to go to Michael Yon's blog and read this post. It is one of the best pieces on "ground truth in Iraq" that I've ever read, and should be read from top to bottom. There is no excuse for not reading it. Once you do, read the President's speech from today again, and maybe you'll understand what it is that the media hasn't been telling you.

"Against such an enemy, there's only one effective response: We never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory," Bush declared. I couldn't agree more.

The photo on the right shows US soldiers swimming with Iraqi children, from Michael Yon's blog mentioned earlier. The media wants you to think Iraqis hate us, and they're trying to kill us all. Its a lie, and a racist one at that. The Iraqi people are smart enough to see what's going on around them, and they're helping us out. They can do the math and see what America has done for Iraq, and what the terrorists have done to them.

The Baltimore Sun ran an editorial today that should be required reading as well. I'll cover some of the highlights, with some of my own analysis added in:

• Medical - Under Saddam, Iraq had some of the worst health care in the world. Money from the Oil for Food program, which was supposed to be spent on food and medicine, was instead diverted into weapons purchases and luxuries for Saddam and his inner circle. Since 2003, America has built 600 medical facilities, and vaccinated over four million Iraqis against common diseases that ravished the country under the Ba'ath party. Additionally, a half-billion dollars worth of food has been shipped into the country and donated to the poor and hungry.
  
• Education - Over two thousand five hundred schools have been built or renovated with modern facilities. Most schools in Iraq prior to the war did not even have electricity.
• Utilities - Basic services form the foundation of a strong economy. We've added a quarter-million telecommunications lines, turning the dream of a phone into a reality for many Iraqis. Since we entered the country, we've added 1,100 megawatts to the Iraqi power capacity, far exceeding the power available under Saddam. Not to mention the half billion dollars we've spent on sanitation to provide clean water to communities that previously had none.
• Environment - Saddam lit wells and spilled oil to wage "environmental war" against Kuwait. He also drained the marshlands in an attempt to starve opposing tribes that lived in the southern part of the country. We are re-flooding these lands, much to the joy of the natives who live there.

Five years ago, Iraq had a political system in which Saddam would order his forces to gang-rape his opponents' female relatives as punishment. Today, women serve in senior positions in government. Five years ago, the sadistic Uday would roam Baghdad, searching for attractive women to kidnap, torture, and sometimes kill. Today, Uday and Qusay are dead, and Saddam is under trial.

The way ahead is clear. We can't abandon a grateful population in need, to watch them fall prey to villains as evil as the one we just rescued them from. We must fulfill our promise to the Iraqi people to give them freedom, democracy, and peace.

On a slightly related note, Military.com has revamped its photo and video collection -- check it out.

Labels: iraq, media

Permalink

Your Safety for Sale

Folks, if you don't live in Washington, DC, you may not recognize the man to my left. His name is Charles Ramsey, and he's the Police Chief here in town. And he's a lying crook.

Despite today's Washington Post article which revealed the District's red-light cameras have not had any effect whatsoever on accident rates, Chief Ramsey stands by them as effective. He says that the number of red lights being run has dropped by sixty percent since the cameras were installed in 1999. "They make people slow down. They reduce the number of traffic violations, and that's a good thing."

Okay, Chief. One question -- sixty percent fewer people run lights, but accident rates remain constant, what does that tell us? It tells us the people running red lights aren't causing the accidents. Second question -- why should the police department waste resources enforcing a traffic law that doesn't cause accidents?

Did I just say "waste resources"? These cameras don't waste resources. In fact, since installation in 1999, the forty-five cameras have netted the District a cool $32 million. If these cameras were meant to prevent accidents, not raise money, then why were seven installed at intersections that had not seen a single crash in years?

This isn't a new issue. In 2002, the Weekly Standard ran a five-part serial about this. One of the surprising things they exposed was how this program was managed. The entire process was contracted to Lockheed Martin IMS, who kept $32.50 for every red-light ticket, and $29 for every automated speeding ticket. (Since then, the contract moved to Affiliated Computer Services.)

What's wrong with this picture? Not only does the program not serve a public purpose, but it also allows fines to be levied and points issued without the review of a government official. Pretty scary, since over a quarter of citations issued are successfully contested in court as misidentifications. It becomes worse when you realize the contractor has a financial incentive to ticket as many drivers as possible.

If you want to stop people from running red lights, increase the length of the yellow. They're way too short in Washington, DC -- and the government knows it. The average yellow at an intersection with a camera is four seconds, even though Federal guidelines suggest six seconds. None of the forty-five targeted intersections have seen yellow length increases to attempt to save lives. Of course, increasing the length of the yellow would decrease violations, and thus decrease revenues.

What about the speeding cameras? Surely those are helping us be safe, right? Wrong again! Repeated studies have shown that people generally ignore posted speed limits, and drive what they feel is a safe speed for the road. A Federal Highway Administration study found that changing speed limits by 15 mph caused drivers to shift speed an average of 1 to 2 mph.

People drive with the flow of traffic. A police officer in the median tends to slow the flow, at least temporarily. A hidden camera doesn't affect speeds at all, but it does issue citations to drivers that would risk being rear-ended if they drove the speed limit. How many drivers? In the first week of the Districts use of speed cameras three years ago, the police caught close to 10,000 drivers speeding. That's four percent of DC's population, and equal to the number of speeding tickets issued the prior year.

The net result is roads that are less safe, thanks to this hidden tax on drivers. But it's not just our roads that are less safe -- the Washington Times once reported that the large number of automated speeding tickets issued to fire trucks and ambulances had increased the average response time to a 911 call.

Folks, this is insane. There comes a point in the inevitable growth of any bureaucracy where its primary function becomes to grow larger. At this point, the District Police is more concerned with increasing revenues and expanding the government than protecting citizens.

Chief Ramsey, three years ago you said "It isn't about revenue making. It's about saving lives." With thirty two million dollars in revenue, and no lives saved, it's time to admit you were wrong.

Click here for more links on red light cameras, and here for a large collection of studies about this.

Labels: dc, nanny state, privacy

Permalink

Letters from the Front

The American Legion has opened up a new feature on their website called "Letters to America from the Front." At the moment, only one letter is up on the site, but it's worth reading. If I could quote Adam Bock (rank unknown):

"...it is great to know that I have been a part of the future for the Iraqi people. They have an amazing culture; they are supportive, polite and respectful to all of the Americans serving here. It is truly the actions of a few that have destroyed the image of the whole. I have met many locals and they always show a smile and sense of gratitude to all of the soldiers and their sacrifices."

I read that, and it reminded me of a letter I recently read from Henry Knox over on Paulieworld. I'll quote it here as well:

"Anyway, we’ve got work to do and a lot yet to accomplish. Part of my point is that an awful lot has been successfully accomplished already and the efforts continue. By far the biggest obstacle to a more speedy success and return home to the States is this liberal media, the academic and Hollywood freaks who have no clue or purposely misrepresent or ignore the truth to push forth their own agendas. Continue to watch ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS, and read the NY Times and Washington Post if you want to be manipulated and let them form your opinion. Start ignoring them or, better yet, challenging them if you truly do “support the troops”! The last thing these guys over here need is all that two-faced “we support the troops” hoopla when people don’t. If you’re not behind the mission, you’re not behind the troops. If you can’t acknowledge what they’re doing is important and necessary, then you’re belittling their efforts and sacrifice. They don’t need and want that. So, thank you to all who truly do “support the troops”."

To those deployed, I can only say these letters are important to us. Please continue sending them, not just to your family and loved ones, but also to the American public so that the truth can be told. To those at home, write these fine men and tell them you support them. But please, no more baby wipes. They have enough of those.

Labels: heroes, iraq

Permalink

The Carrot and Stick Approach

Libya, and Col Qadhafi, is by no means America's greatest friend. Col Qadhafi has personally ordered numerous terrorist attacks, including the 1988 bombing of a Pam Am flight over Lockerbie Scotland. As a strong believer that the US needs to stand strong against terrorism, why then do I applaud this move by the US?

Because it shows us the War on Terror is working. If you had asked me in 2000 what states were the largest sponsors of terrorism, I would have answered Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Libya. Strike two state sponsors of terrorism to military action. Which leaves Iran, Syria, and Libya.

Iran remains belligerent. Syria has been making baby steps, pulling out of Lebanon and attempting to stem the flow of foreign fighters across their border in Iraq. While these measures by Syria show some willingness to join the international community of civilized nations, they are not enough. Libya, on the other hand, has seen the light.

Col Qadhafi's decision to renounce his WMD program, even though the West had no solid evidence of illegal weapons, and thus had not applied pressure on him to disarm, caught many by surprise. Examining Libyan nuclear weapons research, US intelligence analysts discovered they were far more advanced than previously believed. Why would a dictator who was successfully hiding his WMD come clean?

The answer is obvious. For the first time in modern history, America has a president that is serious about confronting terrorists and rogue states. Bill Clinton responded to Al Qaeda's twin bombings of US embassies by firing missiles at a camp in Afghanistan, but took no further action when it was discovered that Bin Laden was not hurt in the attack. And his response to a failed assassination attempt by Iraq against a former president of the United States was... firing missiles. It may have come as a surprise to America, but the rogue nations of the world already knew that no country has ever fallen to missiles alone. Without the threat of boots on the ground, all America could do was talk loudly and carry a very small stick.

With the successful overthrow of two rogue states and sponsors of terrorism, Libya knew that America was no longer the paper tiger of the West. Bush's foreign policy had teeth. Given the carrot of renewed trade and the stick of serious military action, Col Qadhafi's decision makes perfect sense. This is the power diplomacy that is understood by Arab culture, and this is evidence that the world is, despite CNN's insistence to the contrary, becoming a safer place.

Labels: libya, terrorism

Permalink

This Week in Iraq

I'd like to take a moment to reflect on what was, and was not, reported on the US Military's actions in Iraq this week. First let's see what did hit the AP wire:

• U.S. Soldier Killed in Vehicle Rollover (9/25) "The death raises to 1,914 the number of U.S. service members who have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003, according to an Associated Press count." By my count, that raises to 426 deaths caused by accidents and illnesses unrelated to combat.
• Gunmen Kill Five Shiite Teachers in Iraq (9/26) (Buried deep in the article, the author admits "The shooting was a rare attack on a school...")
• Iraq's First Female Suicide Bomber Kills 6 (9/28) "This could be a sign that the insurgency is getting greater support among a larger segment of the population, that women are getting more militant and willing to take on a greater role." A closer reading of the article will tell alert readers that this is actually the third female suicide bombing in Iraq.
  
• Bombs Kills 60 in 10 Minutes (9/29) "A string of car bombs exploded Thursday in the Iraqi city of Balad, killing at least 62 people and wounding more than 70 others."
• Bomb kills 8 at market in Hilla (9/30) "The motive behind the blast was unclear, but police said it appeared to target civilians."
  

Now let's take a look at a very small sampling of what wasn't in your local newspaper:

• Al Faradazdk school renovated (9/25) We've added electricity and plumbing to a school. Yes, electricity and plumbing.
  
• Coalition forces donate school supplies to Saliyah School in Baghdad (9/25) US troops are helping underprivledged children get an education, amidst terrorists who would like nothing more than children raised in ignorance and religious indoctrination.
• Water project completed in Kirkurk (9/26)
  
• Water treatment facilities costing $230,000 built in Kufa and Shamtonia (9/28) These headlines show the financial committment the US has made to the health of our Iraqi breathen. Despite attempts by terrorists to starve the population into a Somalia-like lawlessness, we are fighting to maintain health and order.
• Two new schools completed in Al Tamim and Diyala (9/29) More funding to improve education.
• Ground broke on new electrical distribution network in Baghdad province. (9/30)

The soldiers deployed to Iraq are chasing down terrorists. But they are doing so much more. We are helping a people rise above violence, decay, and oppression! We are doing good!

If you're interested in news like this, leave a comment. If there is enough interest I may make this a regular weekly feature of the blog. In any case, feel free to join USCENTCOM's newsletter which carries some of these stories widely ignored by the press.

Labels: iraq, media

Permalink