Red On Red (Ongoing)

Dexter Filkins and Sabrina Tavernise of the Times continue their coverage of the rift in Iraq  between Sunni insurgents and Al Qaeda foreign fighters.

Jan 12:

Local Insurgents Tell of Clashes With Al Qaeda's Forces in Iraq

 

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and DEXTER FILKINS

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 11 - The story told by the two Iraqi guerrillas cut to the heart of the war that Iraqi and American officials now believe is raging inside the Iraqi insurgency.

In October, the two insurgents said in interviews, a group of local fighters from the Islamic Army gathered for an open-air meeting on a street corner in Taji, a city north of Baghdad.

Across from the Iraqis stood the men from Al Qaeda, mostly Arabs from outside Iraq. Some of them wore suicide belts. The men from the Islamic Army accused the Qaeda fighters of murdering their comrades.

"Al Qaeda killed two people from our group," said an Islamic Army fighter who uses the nom de guerre Abu Lil and who claimed that he attended the meeting. "They repeatedly kill our people."

The encounter ended angrily. A few days later, the insurgents said, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the Islamic Army fought a bloody battle on the outskirts of town.

The battle, which the insurgents said was fought on Oct. 23, was one of several clashes between Al Qaeda and local Iraqi guerrilla groups that have broken out in recent months across the Sunni Triangle.

American and Iraqi officials believe that the conflicts present them with one of the biggest opportunities since the insurgency burst upon Iraq nearly three years ago. They have begun talking with local insurgents, hoping to enlist them to cooperate against Al Qaeda, said Western diplomats, Iraqi officials and an insurgent leader.

It is impossible to say just how far the split extends within the insurgency, which remains a lethal force with a shared goal of driving the Americans out of Iraq. Indeed, the best the Americans can hope for may be a grudging passivity from the Iraqi insurgents when the Americans zero in on Al Qaeda's forces.

But the split within the insurgency is coinciding with Sunni Arabs' new desire to participate in Iraq's political process, and a growing resentment of the militants. Iraqis are increasingly saying that they regard Al Qaeda as a foreign-led force, whose extreme religious goals and desires for sectarian war against Iraq's Shiite majority override Iraqi tribal and nationalist traditions.

While American and Iraqi officials have talked of a split for months, detailed accounts of clashes were provided by men claiming to be local insurgents.

Jan 7:

Americans Said to Meet Rebels, Exploiting Rift

 

By DEXTER FILKINS and SABRINA TAVERNISE

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 6 - American officials are talking with local Iraqi insurgent leaders to exploit a rift that has opened between homegrown insurgents and radical groups like Al Qaeda, and to draw the local leaders into the political process, according to a Western diplomat, an Iraqi political leader and an Iraqi insurgent leader.

Clashes between Iraqi groups and Al Qaeda have broken out in several cities across the Sunni Triangle, including Taji, Yusefiya, Qaim and Ramadi, and they appear to have intensified in recent months, according to interviews with insurgents and with American and Iraqi officials.

Ms. Tavernise also had a story on this last June.

 

 

Comments

[kim]

Mountain people with their own oil I might add. Look to Central Asia. It has been the crossroads of the world for millenia. Its importance has been dimished lately because of sea travel, but oil, and maybe tourism, may bring it back.
==========================================

[Extraneus]

I'm not saying this is the case here, but just hypothetically, if someone with the mind of an Islamist suicide bomber became head of a nuclear state devoid of the checks and balances we take for granted, would anything short of assassination back him down? Have we seen evidence that there's enough internal pressure in Iran that they'll take Ahmadinejad out?

I wonder what the results would be if someone took a poll of Iranians and asked them whether or not they want to go nuclear. Something tells me a significant majority would answer yes, although that doesn't mean they'd be for the whole Armageddon/Mahdi thing, too.

[kim]

I believe, E, though I don't know, that the Revolutionary Guard(the SA) is allied with the President. Two of its leaders have died in plane crashes lately. I don't think it is a conicidence.
=============================================

[kim]

C, the sword rattled in Haifa Bay, and I can hear it all the way over here. I don't think Bush, or Rice, would make Israel go it alone. I agree that Israel must make itself able to at least 'tear off an arm' and it is certainly true that they have to make themselves a credible threat to pull off unilateral action. They are the ones under the gun, but Bush will stand on the wall with them.
=============================================

[Extraneus]

Then maybe we'll be seeing video pretty soon of another one of those big assembly meetings like a smiling Cuban-smoking Saddam hosted in his early days. These guys don't typically waste too much time dealing with their adversaries once they get the capability.

[r flanagan]

nuclear state devoid of the checks and balances we take for granted, quote Kim

I wouldn't say "devoid of checks and balances" Ayatollah Khamenei is in fact the supreme leader and Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad
presumably has no more power to defy him
than did Khatami. Meanwhile Rafsanjani
lurks in the wings.

Contrary to my earlier comments , the FT's article yesterday on Ahmadi-Nejad says he is popular not just with his natural poor,religious supporters "but also , at least for now, in the wider population."

I doubt if that popularity extends to the middle class whose women have been described as "matchsticks marinated in chanel". The book jacket of "Answering Only to God" shows one of them gazing at a non representational painting in a Teheran museum , wearing beneath her Chador a pair of very stylish , very high heeled shoes.

[clarice]

Are the Dems even practicing their "I voted for it..." speeches, yet?

[clarice]

Are the Dems even practicing their "I voted for it..." speeches, yet?

[Rick Ballard]

Extraneus,

On Dec. 6 a C-130 chock full of Iranian journo/propagandists tasked to write about Ahmadinejad's "stunning" election victory made a landing in a ten story building in Teheran. On Dec. 14 Ahmadinejad almost had a very bad day. On Jan. 9 a planeload of Revolutionary Guard commanders almost made an emergency landing.

In other news, Iranian life insurance companies have authorized mandatory overtime for actuaries tasked with determining appropriate premiums for term-life policies on Iranian political leaders.

The only problem with this is that it appears to be an intramural game without participation by the "silent majority". Ahmadinejad's departure from this vale of tears will not resolve the problem.

[clarice]

I forgot about the Dec 14 matter, thanks, for reminding me, Rick.

[Extraneus]

Thanks, Rick. I'd never heard about the journo event.

[kim]

On Dec. 14 El Presidente was riding on a highway in a relatively deserted area. One wonders why he wasn't flying.
==============================================

[kim]

Bush may yet get his Cuban Missile Crisis moment with Chavez, courtesy of that strange bedfellow, Ahmadenijad.
=============================================

[kim]

Two small points, C: The German foreign minister is against sanctions, preferring travel restrictions. I guess that might help stop suitcase bombs. Also, Wretchard seems to think the rope-a-dope champion also has all the big pieces on the board.
=========================================

[clarice]

Except the Dems, Kim.

[kim]

They've turned themselves into pawns.
====================================

[kim]

Look at the Kings they had, confidently astride history; but they've reached the end of the board, and perversely diminished themselves.
==============================================

[Rick Ballard]

Well, Kim did say "big" pieces, Clarice. The diplomatic Kabuki game will continue through the first Tuesday after the first Monday next November. Then the weather forecast for an indeterminate number of locations in Iran will become "hard rain followed by sunshine in the basement". Absent the nuclear toy, Iran assumes its true relevance in the world, annoying but manageable.

Alternatively, the "silent majority" in Iraq will be provided the means with which to cast an effective number of bullets in the traditional Middle Eastern method of voting.

[Rick Ballard]

That would be "play" rather than "game". I see that Preeviw is a perfidious bastard here as well as in other places.

[kim]

Clinton, Lieberman, and Gephart would come along as well as some of the 20% self-labeled 'liberal'. Add 40% conservatives and most of the 40% in-between and you'll have a consensus just about like, and just as just, as the pre Gulf War II consensus, and for just about the same just reason.

Just about.
==========================================

[kim]

Clinton, Lieberman, and Gephart would come along as well as some of the 20% self-labeled 'liberal'. Add 40% conservatives and most of the 40% in-between and you'll have a consensus just about like, and just as just, as the pre Gulf War II consensus, and for just about the same just reason.

Just about.
==========================================

[clarice]

kim, everything you and Rick say bears repeating.%^)

[kim]

It looks like bulls repeating.
===============================

[Extraneus]

Does anyone know what the signal is that verifies when they actually have the bomb, or conversely how we know they don't already?

[kim]

I hope DIA or Mossad can tell us. I'm not counting on CIA. It may come from Putin.
========================================

[clarice]

We don't know. We didn't in Pakistan, and are unlikely to know in Iran--though kim is right, Putin may know before we do.

Putin also advised us before OIF that Saddam was palnning an attack on the US and its interests.

Not that the President's detractors ever note that or credit it.

What I am sure is that should be take the initiative (or Israel for that matter, or both of us together) the backseat drivers will say it wasn't necessary, not the time, give jaw jaw a longer chance...

[Bob in Pacifica]

Kim, the Iranians don't have a bomb now, so saying that it's a plan that didn't work is being a little pessimistic. It's worked so far. Bombing Iran will bring immediate negative results, will unite all Iranians behind the crazy guy, and will end any hope for positive results of our Iraq adventure. And there doesn't seem to be any guarantee that bombing sites will seriously delay their development.

As far as who will be aboard to attack Iran, people always rally around the flag. A vast majority supported invading Iraq even though it was evident that the Administration was playing fast and loose with its facts and justifications. Most people chose to ignore the obvious. Now the majority are opposed to the Iraq invasion. My guess is that the smell of military action against Iran will be discerned a lot more quickly this time around.

Bombing Iran is a bad option militarily, economically and politically, both here and abroad.

Iran has always been a greater threat to US interests, but unfortunately Bush has placed us in such a weakend position that any attack on Iran is doomed to failure.

[kim]

Don't you think some of those Russian technicians at the Iranian nuclear facilities are volunteers on missions potentially lethal to themselves?
=============================================

[clarice]

Actually, strategically, Bob, we are in a far better position to attack Iran today than we were in 2001. Check out the map.And recall it is not a lkand war we are discussing, but aerial attacks; the vast majority of the Iranis love us and hate the mullahs, and we have no intention of carpet bombing Iran, just removing its nukes.

[Extraneus]

Bob, a few questions on your last comment.

1. How do we know they don't have a bomb already?

2. Why does bombing Iran negate the positive effects of removing Saddam?

3. Why is bombing Iran a bad option militarily?

[Cecil Turner]

Iran has always been a greater threat to US interests, but unfortunately Bush has placed us in such a weakend position that any attack on Iran is doomed to failure.

Nonsense. The only place you can attack Iran from is Iraq. Not saying I buy MTT's friend's analysis, but claims that OIF made pressuring Iran impossible are precisely backward.

[clarice]

Afhanistan--say Herat--is not a bad place for an air based attack on Iran, either.

[maryrose]

Bob:
I don't think any attack on Iran is doomed to failure. If we were dealing with reasonable leaders diplomacy might work. Saddam and Iran' president are not in that category. They see themselves as the top dogs in the Middle East that don't have to play nice with the United States Europe or Israel. They have their own agenda and PEACE isn't it. I wish war could be the last resort, I remain hopeful that somehow this can be resolved.

[kim]

Don't mess with Meshad.
=======================

[richard mcenroe]

Bob — "Kim, the Iranians don't have a bomb now, so saying that it's a plan that didn't work is being a little pessimistic. It's worked so far."

And you definition of when it stops working is what? A detonation in Tel Aviv? Los Angeles? Or will you move the goal posts then and say, "Well, there's no evidence they could do it twice..."

They're buying medium range ballistic missiles and working to expand their range; are these part of a dynamic new plan for express delivery of oil to Brussels?

Their president is holding a conference for Holocaust deniers. Is this to make German businessmen feel more at home in Tehran?

[kim]

'Don't have a bomb yet' is a glass 90% full. Sante.
==================================================

[Syl]

What does the Left say about Iraq's wmd capabilities? That they were set back because of strikes earlier so Bush didn't have to invade.

So why can't there be strikes on Iran to do the same thing?

[Sue]

Syl, Syl, Syl, do I have to explain everything to you?

Clinton...Bush

:grin:

[r flanagan]

If we were dealing with reasonable leaders diplomacy might work. Saddam and Iran' president are not in that category. UNQUOTE

Fair enough about Ahmadi-Nejad .Khamenei is a nasty piece of work but not a loose cannon like A-N.And Khamenei IS the supreme
leader.

So why can't there be strikes on Iran to do the same thing. UNQUOTE

Because it would be an act of war. We had complete justification for Afghanistan . It was necessary self defense. End of story.

But any War is a W A R. It ain't beanbag. People die. Not some strange life form , or
ununderstandable weird foreignors but people like MTT's Iranian friend ,like us. Who raise their kids , go to museums , go skiing.

Because wars are wrong. That's why.

Now I'm going skiing. See ya.

[kim]

I think there is good skiing east of the Caspian.
=================================================

[Harry Arthur]

rf, with you up to here, Because wars are wrong. That's why.

The last was a bridge too far. I'd suggest that you contradicted your previous observation WRT making war against Afghanistan.

I would argue that war is virtually always the last option. And while it may at some point prove necessary to prevent a nuclear armed Iran, it arguably isn't just yet.

[kim]

Don't worry Bob in Peacifica, Bush will protect weakend warriors like yourself, too. Just contribute your patriotism in the form of dissent. Pere Ubu, you ain't.
==========================================

[kim]

Pere Ubu et Oncle Buhu.
Quite a pair you are you two.
=========================

[Extraneus]

Germany is the biggest exporter to Iran.

[kim]

Thanks, E. Read his words. "A nation such as mine".
=======================================

[Cecil Turner]

Afhanistan--say Herat--is not a bad place for an air based attack on Iran, either.

It isn't really a good one, though. The problem with anyplace in Afghanistan is that we have to fly in materiel and supplies, which generally isn't feasible. (To give an idea of the weights involved, a typical strike aircraft can carry ~10 tons of fuel and ordnance per mission. Multiply by 12 aircraft flying 3 sorties per day, and you've got 360 tons of supplies per squadron per day just for fuel and ammo--and that isn't even high tempo ops). That's a lot of C-17 loads, and they're already spoken for. Sealift accounts for the vast majority of military tonnage transported in contingencies. This claim is typical:

From World War II on, some 95 percent of all-military equipment and material sent to crisis and combat theaters was carried by sea.

Ships are the ticket for heavy stuff, and that requires ports.

Because wars are wrong. That's why.

Except, apparently, Afghanistan. For those in search of some consistency, try checking out just war theory. The short version of the principles are summed up here (paraphrased):

• Fought as a last resort;
• by legitimate authority;
• must redress a wrong;
• must have reasonable chance of success;
• must be a peaceful goal;
• violence must be proportional; and
• methods must be just (specifically not targeting civilians)

[clarice]

Cecil, thanks for that information.If Iran is not lying and truly has facilities all over the place, we will need to operate quickly from a variety of locations, I think. The story the other day in the UK Times (repeated in the Jerusalem Post) to the effect that the Israelis were practicing an attack, indicated that their plan included both aerial attacks on the bigger facilities and commando raids on the others. Of course, this may not be true at all--just saber rattling or whatever you call that sort of thing these days.

[Cecil Turner]

their plan included both aerial attacks on the bigger facilities and commando raids on the others

I didn't see that story. I'd assumed the previous stories' mention of commando involvement were for the purpose of spotting/designating targets (which raises the Pk of strikes considerably). Inserting enough troops for actual raids is a lot more difficult, and frankly I doubt it's feasible. (And though I'm unfamiliar with the equipment and targets, I think an airstrike by Israel is borderline as well.)

Of course, this may not be true at all--just saber rattling or whatever you call that sort of thing these days.

Personally, I think if they were going to do it they wouldn't telegraph, and took this as confirmation they don't think it's feasible. Could be wrong though; and the equation changes drastically with even minimal US support. (Could we do it and retain plausible deniability? Possible, but I think unlikely.)

[j.west]

Where is our host?

Entertain me…Damn it!

[clarice]

Here's the story, Cecil:IAF Practice

[Cecil Turner]

Thanks Clarice. Normally I wouldn't side with the academic, but in this case, I think I'm with Pedatzur:

"The military option is not relevant, we simply don't have the right amount of intelligence and information; many of the targets are buried deep under ground. Only if the Americans decide to do it, then that option is possible."

He makes the disturbing follow-on implication that nukes are the only real military option for Israel. And again, I think he's right.

[clarice]

Yes, I do, too. Although I think he is a bit wrong on one thing. I think the Israelis have better intel than he thinks.

[Sue]

Because it would be an act of war. We had complete justification for Afghanistan . It was necessary self defense. End of story.

Syl wasn't talking about Afghanistan. How was Clinton justified in bombing Iraq without it being a called an act of war?

[BurkettHead]

Cecil asked: "Could we do it and retain plausible deniability?"

Do we have plausible deniability if we really don't have a thing to do with it?

[Cecil Turner]

Do we have plausible deniability if we really don't have a thing to do with it?

Probably not, but I think Kevin is correct above, that an Israeli strike would require some US support ("at a minimum, refueling in Iraqi airspace"). We'd be blamed whether we had anything to do with it or not, but in this case I'm not sure it'd be wrong.

Glenn points to an interesting future history by Niall Ferguson which presumes we'll do nothing:

The Israelis had shown themselves capable of pre-emptive air strikes against Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1981. Similar strikes against Iran's were urged on President Bush by neo-conservative commentators throughout 2006. The United States, they argued, was perfectly placed to carry out such strikes. It had the bases in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. It had the intelligence proving Iran's contravention of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Which leads to "the devastating nuclear exchange of August 2007."

[clarice]

Once again Kofi works AGAINST nuclear proliferation. http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/bayefsky/bayefsky200601161051.asp

[clarice]

Should read "nuclear NONproliferation"

[kim]

How about 'Submarine Shivering'?
=================================

[clarice]

Latest move per AP:
AP - 2 hours, 13 minutes ago
LONDON - Russia and China agreed with the United States and its European allies Monday that Iran must fully suspend its nuclear program, but the countries stopped short of demanding referral to the U.N. Security Council, Britain's Foreign Office said. In a conciliatory statement, Iran's ambassador to Moscow praised a Russian proposal to move the Iranian uranium enrichment program to its territory — a step that could resolve the deadlock over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

[Bob in Pacifica]

1. Kim, I served my time in the US Army, 71-73, which is better than what deserter Bush did. When I got my honorable discharge in Fort Devens Massachusetts in Sep 73 Bust was again not fulfilling his contract by not joining a reserve unit in the Boston area while he was going to grad school. Looking for a more effective way to resolve an international dispute than a boneheaded war is not cowardice, it's common sense.

2. As for this being a purely air operation, well, that's what you say. That's not what Iran may do. They do have cruise missiles which will make a mess of the Straits of Hormuz. And what if they don't send full units into Iraq, but just open their borders and let irregulars flow through? Don't tell us that the U.S. won't use air power across the border. And so you've got pictures of more US bombing raids.

3. clarice said that the bombing raids would be against military targets, not civilian targets. I presume you haven't been paying attention to wars over the last fifty years. Military targets are placed in places where civilians will get killed precisely for propaganda purposes. Plus, no targeting with even the smartest bombs is always precise.

4. Someone pointed out that Iranis love Americans and hate their mullahs. I won't go that far, but it's clear that there is a lot of opposition to the mullahs and there are a lot of young people who look to the West. The problem is that a foreign power bombing your country is not a good way to recruit supporters. Bush's popularity was slipping badly in his first year prior to 9/11. It shot up in the wake of that crisis. The vast majority of people were willing to follow Bush to war. The same thing will happen if the US attacks Iraq.

5. Does all the above mean that I believe that war can never be an option? Not at all. What I am saying is that it is still far too early in the game, our hand is weak right now, and there are other, better methods of getting Iran to stop developing a bomb.

Note what's coming out of Saudi Arabia. The neighbors can straighten this out better than us bombing Iran, which may just guarantee what we don't want.

[cathyf]

I've often wondered if the only real possibility to break through the mad-mullah logjam is the hold the Russians hostage. As in the Israelis say, "Ok, here's the deal: if Iran nukes Tel Aviv, we nuke Moscow and Tehran. Look, you've been selling them the technology and the supplies, so we are going to hold you responsible for what they do with it. Oh, yeah, and that's launch on warning, too."

We can argue about how good the Israeli's intelligence is, and whether it is detailed enough to take out everything that needs to be taken out. But you can be pretty sure that the Russians know everything -- because they built it. If one were to engage in hopeful fantasies, one might imagine that the Russians are playing the "undercover cops" in this operation. They are pretending to be Iran's enthusiastic supplier and business partner, but this is all about the KGB (or its successor) gathering the necessary in-depth intel to conduct an effective military operation.

I mean otherwise really, you have to seriously wonder if the Russians have taken complete leave of their senses. What other reason could they have to be building nuclear weapons for the buddies of Chechen terrorists?

cathy :-)

[Extraneus]

It's possible that more of this than the obvious might be related to anti-semitism.

[cathyf]

Now there's a cheerful thought, Extraneous. The Russians can stop nuclear armageddon, but since Jews would get saved along with everybody else, the Russians refuse to do it.

cathy :-)

[Sue]

Bob in Pacifica,

You have a job to do. Change the constitution. Otherwise, your beef with Bush is a strawman's argument.

[kim]

In his right hand, Bush has the whole world, Bob. His left is palsied, which is why I pointed out your use of the word weakend. I was not impugning your courage, just your will in this matter. Talking is failing. What next?
==================================

[clarice]

OT but a curious story,
Coincidence?

[Rick Ballard]

They are all coincidences Clarice. We don't have any assets in Pakistan. Or Iran. Things just happen and some people die of bad luck.

De Opresso Liber - aircraft maintenance and road repair done to order.

[kim]

I'm going to return to an irony I mentioned earlier. By developing a weapon for Pakistan, Khan ensured the Pakistan must remain under sane control. I believe that Putin would have gone along with Iran had not he determined that Ahmadenijad is mad. What's to prevent the Wahabbi Saudi from developing one?
===============================================

[kim]

Here's the horror: One lone missile, one rogue suitcase, complete with towel, launched from the wilderness. There won't even be a satisfactory or unambiguous retalitory target. Eyes open. Ears out. Computers awake.
===========================================

[Extraneus]

ACLU Seeks to Block NSA Domestic Spying.

[kim]

How about suing for damages those who financed 9/11?
===============================================

[Lew Clark]

The money quote in the ACLU article is "The ACLU lawsuit says the plaintiffs, who frequently communicate by telephone and e-mail with people in the Middle East and Asia, have a "well-founded belief" that their communications are being intercepted by the government."

I have a "well-founded belief" that Chuck Schumer's staff is illegally getting copies of my credit reports. But the ACLU hangs up on me every time I call for help.

I also note, with interest the cast of characters in the suit ACLU, Greenpeace, CAIR. Which kind of formalizes the alliance between the far left (won’t say commies, that’s inflammatory) and Islamitists supporters.

[kim]

If the shoe fits, wear it.
If the truth hurts, bear it.
If you wanna fly planes into buildings,
Don't call us, we'll call you.
===========================================

[Extraneus]

I also note, with interest the cast of characters in the suit ACLU, Greenpeace, CAIR.

I was thinking the same thing. Strange bedfellows.

[Gary Maxwell]

the scientific socialists and the islamists have indeed been working together against our national interest for some time. Unfortunately for the socialists, it appears to me this time around that they are the "useful idiots."

[Gary Maxwell]

The scientific socialists and the Islamists have indeed been working together against our national interest for some time. Unfortunately for the socialists, it appears to me this time around that they are the "useful idiots."

[maryrose]

Does anyone still tale the ACLU seriously?
Or Al Gore{ no controlling legal authority{ seriously
or Kennedy { i belonged to an organization that excluded women" seriously Or Hill Clinton That the party that freed slaves from the plantations is itself a plantation" seriously
I seriously think not!

[Extraneus]

ShrinkWrapped psychoanalyzes Iran.

[maryrose]

Does anyone still tale the ACLU seriously?
Or Al Gore{ no controlling legal authority{ seriously
or Kennedy { i belonged to an organization that excluded women" seriously Or Hill Clinton That the party that freed slaves from the plantations is itself a plantation" seriously
I seriously think not!

[BurkettHead]

ACLU, Greenpeace, CAIR

Must be fundraising time. Guess they've already spent all the $$ they raised to defeat Chief Justice Roberts & Justice Alito.

[clarice]

Notice that Soros is contributing heavily to the ACLU as he shorts the dollar.

[maryrose]

I see in the news Russia is waffling again about sanction against Iran Doesn't look good.

[BurkettHead]

ACLU, Greenpeace, CAIR

Must be fundraising time. Guess they've already spent all the $$ they raised to defeat Chief Justice Roberts & Justice Alito.

[Lew Clark]

This suit will go nowhere, but think about how chilling the thought. An Anti-American group, or collection of groups is going to federal court to stop a classified spying program in a time of war. If they did win, would that give any liberal federal judge the power to halt any war-related activity. The only salvation is that such a ruling would be ignored. Then what does the judge do, send armed Greenpeace commandos to the White House to enforce it?

[Extraneus]

Armed with what?

[Sue]

Armed with what?

Spitballs!

[Extraneus]

Another urban legend bites the dust?

[Extraneus]

"Meanwhile, two civil liberties groups - the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights - filed federal lawsuits Tuesday seeking to block the eavesdropping program, which they called unconstitutional electronic surveillance of American citizens."

Are they air-brushing CAIR out of the story already?

[BurkettHead]

SpitBalls? You mean BioHazardous Waste?

[kim]

Wahhabi, Ayatollahs, NOK, Chavez: Hatred of the middle unites these very odd bedfellows in some extremities of posture that would make sex look rational. No wonder Khaddafi folded; he isn't fundamentalist enough.
==============================================

[kim]

Knock, knock. Oh Zawahiri, anybody home? Knock, knock, knock.
============================================

[JLawson]

He's not dead - he's just pinin' for the fjords!

(Monty Python Dead Parrot Sketch.)

I wonder though, why he hasn't popped up with a "Nyah, nyan, you missed me!" sort of taunt. If you're alive after a Great Satan attack, don't you want your loyal minions to know it?

J.

[JLawson]

He's not dead - he's just pinin' for the fjords!

(Monty Python Dead Parrot Sketch.)

I wonder though, why he hasn't popped up with a "Nyah, nyan, you missed me!" sort of taunt. If you're alive after a Great Satan attack, don't you want your loyal minions to know it?

J.

[kim]

That these were important people was obvious from the fact that they were taken back dead across the border. Zawahiri's son-in-law is now identified(How?) as one of the dead. I still think Zawahiri's dead, and Zarqawi doomed, and soon.
=================================================

[cathyf]

As to how Zawahiri's son-in-law was identified when the bodies were scrammed across the border -- well, why do we assumed that it's the bad guys who grabbed the bodies and ran? Or if it was the bad guys, that the good guys didn't grab them and the bodies as they were scramming?

cathy :-)

[clarice]

Me, too, kim. Mr. W he dead. Notice the discrepency in the number of bodies--5 or 4? and the id of only 3,the presence of Egyptians, the IED killing 2 more men at a village 5 kilometers away the next day. And then today OBL's offer of a truce.(He must be under the impression Kerry won.)

Surely the rest of the message is a Rovian plot--warning of a new attack here just as the Dems refused to renew the Patriot Act and are carrying on about the NSA program.

[kim]

It's probably hard to find all the bits and pieces after a missile attack in the dark.

And I agree, C, something besides the odor of rotting bodies is in the wind.
==============================================

[kim]

Wild speculation ahead. If Zawahiri has been dialyzing bin Laden in the wilderness, and the doctor is now dead, Osama needs mare than a truce, quickly. However, boiling water, and the recipe for dialysate, are simple to teach and facilitate in quite primitive areas. Just a wild thought. I thought OBL was supposedly dead in Iran. If he really wants a fair and long-lasting truce, that should be facilitated. There is no real need for this conflict that he has invented.
==========================================

[kim]

There is no more real need for the Wahabbi vision or the mullahs hallucinations than there was for the misconstruction and misapplication to the physical world of Hegel's dialectic.
=================================================

[clarice]

And if you're dead or dying and your chief architect was just slain, it'd be a good time to cut and paste some oldies and call for a truce.