Only Five Years On in Iraq. In Their Own Words.

“Bring ‘em on. We’ve got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.”

–President Bush, when asked if the insurgency and resulting U.S. casualties might cause him to ask for more help from U.S. allies, July 2, 2003.


Five years on in Iraq and we have no reason to believe that things will be different five years from today. There are some differences. Oil that was $25 a barrel in 2003 is now $100 and the value of the dollar has declined 40% against the Euro. There are 4000 more dead American warriors and 40,000 wounded. Bin Laden is still alive. George Bush will be getting a handsome pension in eight months and you will be paying for his foolishness for generations.

_____________________

From the Agitator and Reason online

I went browsing throught the Cato website archives, and pulled up a few old predictions from Cato scholars as to what might happen in post-war Iraq. I then found similar predictions from Bush administration officials.

I’ll let you judge for yourselves which predictions came closer to foreseeing what’s actually going on right now.

First, from Catoites:

“In the words of one Iraqi: ‘We thank the Americans for getting rid of Saddam’s regime, but now Iraq must be run by Iraqis.’ To prevent that gratitude from turning to resentment and hostility, we must have the wisdom to leave as quickly as possible. If we don’t, the United States runs the risk of reliving its experience in Lebanon in the 1980s. Or worse, our own version of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan — Arabs and Muslims from the region could flock to Iraq to expel the American infidel.

–Charles V. Pena, May 8, 2003.

“Promoters of nation-building in Iraq, including many who scorned similar efforts by a Democratic administration a few years ago, point to nation-building successes in Germany and Japan following World War II. Along these same lines, Bush declared that ‘[r]ebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment’ and that the United States would ‘remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.’ But there are still more than 70,000 U.S. troops in Germany and 50,000 in Japan, and this lingering troop presence has given rise to a virulent anti-Americanism. If these ’success’ stories reflect the model for post-war Iraq, we should expect U.S. troops to remain in this troubled region for many years.”

–Christopher Preble, March 4, 2003

“In the absence of strong allies and regional bases, the successful prosecution of another war in Iraq may be more costly in time, lives and resources than the Gulf War.”

–William Niskanen, December 31, 2001

“Another war in Iraq may serve bin Laden’s objective of unifying radical Muslims around the world in a jihad against the United States, increasing the number of anti-U.S. terrorists. In contrast, the Sept. 11 attacks and the successful prosecution of the war in Afghanistan have divided the Muslim political elite.”

–Niskanen

“American popular support may not be sufficient to prosecute a sustained war against Saddam.”

–Niskanen

“Yet no matter how emotionally satisfying removing a thug like Saddam may seem, Americans would be wise to consider whether that step is worth the price. The inevitable U.S. military victory would not be the end of America’s troubles in Iraq. Indeed, it would mark the start of a new round of headaches. Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq’s political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems.”

–Ted Galen Carpenter, January 14, 2002

“If Iraq’s forces don’t quickly crumble, the U.S. might find itself involved in urban conflict that will be costly in human and political terms.”

–Doug Bandow, August 12, 2002

“The Gulf War Cost $80 billion (in 2002 dollars). Because the United States would probably be faced with a long occupation of Iraq to stabilize the country after the invasion, the cost is likely to be higher this time around. And unlike the Gulf War, no financial support from other nations can be expected to defray the costs.”

–Ivan Eland, August 19, 2002

“The MacArthur Regency worked in Japan because the U.S. occupiers entered a country sick to death of war, with a tradition of deference to authority…

…That process is particularly unlikely to be repeated in Iraq, a fissiparous amalgam of Sunnis, separatist Shiites and Kurds. Keeping the country together will require a strong hand and threatens to make U.S. servicemen walking targets for discontented radicals.”

–Gene Healy, January 1, 2003

“My best guess is that war and its aftermath would be more costly and difficult than the optimists admit. The fact that presidential adviser Larry Lindsey publicly estimates it would cost $100 billion to $200 billion implies the administration expects a second Iraq war to be two or three times more difficult than the first one.”

–Alan Reynolds, November 21, 2002.

Keep those in mind when reading the following, from the war’s chief architects:

“The United States is committed to helping Iraq recover from the conflict, but Iraq will not require sustained aid.”

–OMB Director Mitch Daniels, quote in the Washington Post on April 21, 2003.

“Well, the Office of Management and Budget, has come up come up with a number that’s something under $50 billion for the cost. How much of that would be the U.S. burden, and how much would be other countries, is an open question.”

–Donald Rumsfeld, January 19, 2003.

“Costs of any [Iraq] intervention would be very small.”

–White House economic advisor Glen Hubbard, October 4, 2002.

“Iraq has tremendous resources that belong to the Iraqi people. And so there are a variety of means that Iraq has to be able to shoulder much of the burden for their own reconstruction.”

–Ari Fleischer, February 18, 2003.

“We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.”

–Paul Wolfowitz, March 27, 2003.

“A year from now, I’ll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.”

–Richard Perle, September 22, 2003.

“I expect we will get a lot of mitigation [from other countries re: the cost of rebuilding Iraq], but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact.”

–Paul Wolfowitz, March 27, 2003.

“Some of the higher-end predictions that we have been hearing recently, such as the notion that it will take several hundred thousand U.S. troops to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq, are wildly off the mark.

–Wolfowitz

“There are other differences that suggest that peacekeeping requirements in Iraq might be much lower than historical experience in the Balkans suggests.”

–Wolfowitz, February 27, 2003

“I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down.”

–Wolfowitz

“Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way. . . . The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein, and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.”

–Dick Cheney, when asked if the American public is ready for a long, bloody battle, March 16, 2003 (Incidentally, in a mid-May 2004 poll commissioned by the U.S.-led CPA, just 2% of Iraqis viewed U.S. troops as “liberators”).

“I don’t think it would be that tough a fight.”

–Cheney.

Islamenoma News

From The Gathering Storm, here's a fascinating 120 minute podcast featuring interviews with Walid Shoebatt and an Englishman, Mark Alexander, author of "The Dawning of a New Age." Both say that Islam is not a religion but rather a geo-political movement wrapped in a diety.

________________________

Purported new Osama bin Laden audio tape urges holy war to liberate Palestinian territories

MAAMOUN YOUSSEF and KATARINA KRATOVAC
Associated Press Writers

CAIRO, Egypt — Osama bin Laden lashed out Thursday at Palestinian peace negotiations with Israel and called for a holy war to liberate the Palestinian lands.

A day after a bin Laden audio on a militant Web site threatened Europeans, Al-Jazeera TV broadcast audio excerpts attributed to the al-Qaida leader that urge Palestinians to ignore political parties "mired in trickery of the blasphemous democracy" and to rely on armed might.

"Palestine cannot be retaken by negotiations and dialogue, but with fire and iron," he said.

It was the first time bin Laden spoke of the Palestinian question at length since the deteriorating situation in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, where the Israeli military has been fighting with militants who fire rockets into southern Israel.

Bin Laden added that Palestinians who are unable to fight in the "land of Al-Quds" — a Muslim reference to Jerusalem — should join the al-Qaida fight in Iraq.

"The nearest field of jihad today to support our people in Palestine is the Iraqi field," he said.

He also called on the people of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to "help in support of their mujahedeen brothers in Iraq, which is the greatest opportunity and the biggest task."

Al-Jazeera did not say how it obtained the recording, which was broadcast with an old photograph of bin Laden in a white headscarf and traditional Arab dress.

There was no indication how recently the recording was made, or if it was an unreleased part of the audio posted late Wednesday on an extremist Web site that has carried al-Qaida statements in the past. The two messages were bin Laden's first this year.

In the first recording, bin Laden accused Pope Benedict XVI of helping in a "new Crusade" against Muslims and warned of a "severe" reaction for Europeans' publication of cartoons seen by Muslims as insulting Islam's prophet.

In the audio on Al-Jazeera, bin Laden said the sufferings of Palestinians in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip began when Arab leaders supported the U.S.-hosted Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Md., and the "Zionist entity," the militant name for Israel

The mention of the Annapolis summit in November was the only time reference given in the audio.

"By their support, they are considered partners to this horrible crime," bin Laden said of Arab leaders who are backing the Mideast peace talks.

He appeared to be seeking to merge the Palestinian cause into the wider al-Qaida struggle. There have been concerns al-Qaida would try to increase its influence in Palestinian territories, with supporters of the terror network calling for such action on Web sites.

Israel has been battling Hamas in Gaza since the Islamic militant group took control of the strip last June from followers of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Israeli air raids are common in Gaza and militants fire rockets into Israeli towns near the strip.

"Palestine will not return to us with the negotiations by the submissive rulers, their conferences, nor by demonstrations and elections," bin Laden said. "Palestine will come back to us if we awaken from our ignorance and adhere to our religion and sacrifice our lives and means to it."

Although al-Qaida has previously released two messages in as many days — most recently by bin Laden's top deputy Ayman al-Zawahri in December — the latest two appeared to be the closest by bin Laden, said Ben Venzke, head of IntelCenter, a U.S. group that monitors militant messages.

"Al-Qaida has been making a concerted effort to be responsive to developments in news cycle and to respond to current events with their perspective on it," Venzke said. "The situation in Gaza and the reprinting of cartoons was something bin Laden felt was important to address."

A militant Web site that frequently carries al-Qaida postings, said later Thursday that it expected bin Laden's new audio on "The Way to Salvage Palestine" soon.

In Israel, Foreign Ministry spokesman Arye Mekel told The Associated Press that Israel does not comment on bin Laden's statements.

Saeb Erekat, a negotiator for Abbas' Palestinian administration, said it was up to all parties in the talks to show that bin Laden's path isn't the way.

"We and the international community must prove him wrong, because we have been pursuing peace through negotiations, and I believe the parties involved must make every effort to make the year 2008 a year of peace," Erekat said.

The audio released Wednesday raised concerns al-Qaida was plotting attacks in Europe. Some experts said bin Laden, believed to be hiding along the Afghan-Pakistan area, might be unable to organize attacks himself and was trying to fan anger over the cartoons to inspire violence by supporters.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the contents of bin Laden's message "are filled with hate and encouraging people to murder innocents in the name of a perverted and depraved cause."

A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Thursday that bin Laden's accusation about the pope was baseless. He said Benedict repeatedly criticized the Muhammad cartoons, first published in some European newspapers in 2006 and republished by Danish papers in February.

Clinton Gets Easter Kiss From Richardson

“An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.
“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.


Just in case you forgot just how vicious and despicable most politicians are, savor the perfidy of the amiable Bill Richardson. This of course is the same honest Gov. Bill Richardson that was forced to admit that his baseball draft claim, (being picked for the Kansas City A's in 1966) was untrue.

For nearly four decades Richardson maintained he was drafted by the Kansas City Athletics.

The claim was included in a brief biography released when Richardson successfully ran for Congress in 1982. A White House news release in 1997 mentioned it when he was about to be named U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. And several news organizations, including The Associated Press, have reported it as fact over the years.

But an investigation by the Albuquerque Journal found no record of Richardson being drafted by the A's, who have since moved to Oakland, or any other team. In other words he is full of sh*t, but he does see something special in Barack:

_____________________

First a Tense Talk With Clinton, Then Richardson Backs Obama NY Times

PORTLAND, Ore. — “I talked to Senator Clinton last night,” Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico said on Friday, describing the tense telephone call in which he informed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton that, despite two months of personal entreaties by her and her husband, he would be endorsing Senator Barack Obama for president.

“Let me tell you: we’ve had better conversations,” Mr. Richardson said.

The decision by Mr. Richardson, who ended his own presidential campaign on Jan. 10, to support Mr. Obama was a belt of bad news for Mrs. Clinton. It was a stinging rejection of her candidacy by a man who had served in two senior positions in President Bill Clinton’s administration, and who is one of the nation’s most prominent elected Hispanics. Mr. Richardson came back from vacation to announce his endorsement at a moment when Mrs. Clinton’s hopes of winning the Democratic nomination seem to be dimming.

But potentially more troublesome for Mrs. Clinton was what Mr. Richardson said in announcing his decision. He criticized the tenor of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. He praised Mr. Obama for the speech he gave in response to the furor over racially incendiary remarks delivered by Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

And he came close to doing what Mrs. Clinton’s advisers have increasingly feared some big-name Democrat would do as the battle for the nomination drags on: Urge Mrs. Clinton to step aside in the interest of party unity.

“I’m not going to advise any other candidate when to get in and out of the race,” Mr. Richardson said after appearing in Portland with Mr. Obama. “Senator Clinton has a right to stay in the race, but eventually we don’t want to go into the Democratic convention bloodied. This was another reason for my getting in and endorsing, the need to perhaps send a message that we need unity.”

In many ways, the decision by Mr. Richardson, a longtime political ally of the Clintons, was as much a tale about his relationship with them as it was about the course of Mr. Obama’s campaign.


Mr. Clinton had told his wife’s campaign that he had received several assurances from Mr. Richardson that he would not endorse Mr. Obama.

One adviser who spoke to Mr. Clinton on Friday said that the former president was surprised by the Richardson endorsement, but described Mr. Clinton as more philosophical than angry about it.

Mr. Richardson looked anguished when asked in an interview if his relationship with the Clintons would withstand endorsing Mr. Obama. In doing so, Mr. Richardson was not only taking sides in the most bitter of political fights, but rejecting the candidacy of a close friend.

“There’s something special about this guy,” Mr. Richardson said of Mr. Obama. “I’ve been trying to figure it out, but it’s very good.”

Mr. Clinton helped elevate Mr. Richardson to the national stage by naming him his energy secretary and ambassador to the United Nations. And Mr. Clinton left no doubt that he viewed Mr. Richardson’s support as important to his wife’s campaign: He even flew to New Mexico to watch the Super Bowl with Mr. Richardson as part of the Clintons’ high-profile courtship of him.

But Mr. Richardson stopped returning Mr. Clinton’s calls days ago, Mr. Clinton’s aides said. And as of Friday, Mr. Richardson said, he had yet to pick up the phone to tell Mr. Clinton of his decision.

The reaction of some of Mr. Clinton’s allies suggests that might have been a wise decision. “An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Mr. Richardson said he called Mrs. Clinton late on Thursday to inform her that he would be appearing with Mr. Obama on Friday to lend his support.

“It was cordial, but a little heated,” Mr. Richardson said in an interview.

Mrs. Clinton had no public schedule on Friday, and spent the day at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y. Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, played down the importance of the Richardson endorsement, suggesting that the time “when it could have been effective has long since passed.”

Mr. Richardson called Mr. Obama about two weeks ago to tell him that he was “99 percent with him,” Mr. Obama’s aides said. The announcement was delayed because Mr. Richardson had been scheduled to go on vacation in the Caribbean. Even though Mr. Richardson had promised Mr. Obama that his mind was made up, Mr. Obama’s aides said they grew worried that the furor over the racially inflammatory remarks made by Mr. Obama’s former pastor might lead Mr. Richardson to reconsider.

But Mr. Richardson, who had sought to become the nation’s first Hispanic president, pointed specifically to the speech that Mr. Obama gave in Philadelphia on Tuesday in explaining why he endorsed him.

“Senator Barack Obama addressed the issue of race with the eloquence and sincerity and decency and optimism we have come to expect of him,” he said. “He did not seek to evade tough issues or to soothe us with comforting half-truths. Rather, he inspired us by reminding us of the awesome potential residing in our own responsibility.”

He added: “Senator Obama could have given a safer speech. He is, after all, well ahead in the delegate count for our party’s nomination.”

more of all the news fit to print

Pass the Popcorn, Please

Obama Aide: Bill Clinton Like McCarthy

By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer

SALEM, Ore. (AP) - A retired Air Force general compared former President Clinton to Joseph McCarthy, the 1950s communist-hunting senator, on Friday after Clinton seemed to question Democrat Barack Obama's patriotism.

Merrill "Tony" McPeak, a former chief of staff of the Air Force and currently a co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign, said he was disappointed by comments Clinton made while campaigning for his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a speech Friday in Charlotte, N.C.

"I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country," Clinton said. "And people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."

McPeak learned of the remarks while at an Obama rally in Salem, Ore. Afterward, he called Clinton's statement horrible and compared it to McCarthy, the Republican senator from Wisconsin who held hearings on suspected Communist sympathizers in the 1950s.

"It sounds more like McCarthy," McPeak said. "I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it."

Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer rejected the comparison.

"To liken these comments to McCarthyism is absurd," Singer said. He said McPeak was "clearly misinterpreting" the remarks and suggested that might be an intentional effort to divert attention from a recent controversy involving controversial statements by Obama's former pastor.

In a posting on Hillary Clinton's Web site Thursday, the campaign said the former president was simply talking about the need to keep the race focused on issues, "rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism."

McPeak, who served under Clinton and the first President Bush, was skeptical.

"It's a use of language as a disguised insult. We've seen this before, this little clever spin that's put on stuff," McPeak said. "I have no idea what his intentions are, but I'm disappointed in the statement. I think Bill Clinton is, or ought to be, better than that."

The former president has attracted criticism over earlier comments during the heated Democratic primary race. Following South Carolina's primary in January, he was accused of fanning racial tensions for appearing to cast Obama as little more than a black candidate popular in state with a heavily black electorate.

He also criticized the news media for making a race story out of his comments.

Meanwhile, Back at the Border

Mexican police chief requests US asylum

By MARK EVANS, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 38 minutes ago

The police chief of a Mexican border town racked by smuggling-related violence fled to the U.S. seeking asylum after his deputies abandoned him, federal officials said Friday.

Emilio Perez, the chief of Palomas, Mexico, showed up at the international port of entry in Columbus, N.M., late Tuesday, saying his two deputies had left the department and that he now needed protection, too, according to Doug Mosier, a U.S. Border Patrol spokesman in El Paso.

Perez was taken in and was believed to be in custody of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Friday, according to Mosier. Letitia Zamarripa, an ICE spokeswoman, declined to comment on the case, citing privacy issues.

"This is a little off the beaten path, I haven't seen this before," Mosier said. "(But) with the escalating violence in Palomas, we understand why this individual sought asylum."

Perez's village, just south of the border with New Mexico, was once a relatively quiet town. But violence has increased in the last few years, as it has elsewhere along the U.S.-Mexico border, and appears to have spiked of late.

On Thursday, the bodies of two people were found wrapped in blankets and dumped along a road near Palomas, and several other people were seen taken hostage over the past few days by heavily armed men, the newspaper El Diario of Juarez, Mexico, reported Friday.

Last month, two men were gunned down at a gas station near the international checkpoint, officials said.

The telephone went unanswered Friday at the Mexican consulate in El Paso, Texas, and at federal police headquarters in the state of Chihuahua — where Palomas is located.

Palomas has had a spate of drug-related violence as Mexico's ongoing crackdown on powerful cartels fuels turf wars among traffickers. The area also is a common meeting point for migrants heading north.

Mosier also pointed to another recent crime in which the mayor of Columbus visited a dentist in Palomas — only to have his root canal interrupted by two pistol-toting men came in demanding money. No one was injured.

"They're getting brazen down there," Mayor Eddie Espinoza later told the Deming Headlight newspaper. "I didn't have no fear about going to Palomas, before. Now, I do.

"We Will Accept No Outcome but Victory." George Bush

After five years, what have we won?
By Diana West
Friday, March 21, 2008

As a conservative in no way comforted by the Clinton-Obama-Pelosi-Reid rhetoric on the war in Iraq, I should have taken heart from the president's fifth-anniversary remarks revisiting the Battle of Baghdad, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the thrill of Iraqi elections, the perfidy of Al Qaeda terrorists, the Anbar Awakening, and the success of the surge.

I didn't.

Was it because the speech, with its tone of meandering reminiscence, sounded more appropriate to a Soldiers Home remembrance 40 years hence? Or was it because I'd heard it all 40 times before? ("Defeating this enemy in Iraq will make it less likely that we'll face the enemy here at home."... "The future of the Middle East belongs to freedom.") That's part of it. But there was something else. In these remarks taking stock five years later, there was very little sense of, well, taking stock.

Indeed, the president was still rhapsodizing about the "transformative power of liberty" -- even as such power has failed to transform any of the Islamic societies we have been micro-managing over the past few years, from Afghanistan to Hamastan, into anything resembling liberty-based societies. ("Liberty" in Hamastan has practically destroyed Israel, a bona-fide ally and genuine democracy.) Turns out the "transformative power of liberty" always hits a rut in a Sharia-based society, but such a blip still doesn't show up on the presidential radar.

Rather, as Bush put it, "a free Iraq will fight terrorists instead of harboring them" -- although wasn't Iraq perfectly happy to "harbor" arch-terrorist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a little earlier this month? (And didn't more than 100,000 Baghdad residents rally in favor of Hezbollah in 2006?) "A free Iraq," the president continued, "will be an example for others of the power of liberty to change the societies and to displace despair with hope."

Such is the conservative dream -- and, more troubling, the conservative strategy to thwart jihad coming from the Middle East. Charles Krauthammer recently contemplated Iraq in similar terms: "Imagine the transformative effects in the region and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over Al Qaeda."

I dunno. I look across the Iraqi border and see Kuwait -- "a secure and stable" state, to be sure, "friendly"-ish to the United States, and "victorious" over Saddam Hussein, all fruits of an earlier U.S. victory. But there was absolutely nothing transformative about that accomplishment, not in the region, not in the Muslim world. (You'd think we'd at least get a break on oil prices from countries we saved from Saddam Hussein.) Do we have reason to expect that even a democratic Iraq will turn into something better -- a linchpin of our Middle Eastern strategy?

Listening to Gen. David Petraeus low-ball the much-vaunted surge's effect -- "I wouldn't ever use the word success or victory or anything like that," he recently told Voice of America -- and express frustration at the pace of Iraqi "reconciliation" to The Washington Post, it's hard to say yes. And especially not after sifting through the more disturbing findings of a recent BBC poll of Iraqi opinion. For selective optimists, the poll does indeed reflect an increasing Iraqi optimism, which has cheered conservatives as happy anniversary news. What has gone more or less overlooked (or dismissed) are the survey results indicating a shocking Iraqi hostility to America's efforts on Iraq's behalf.

For example, 79 percent of Iraqis have not much or no confidence in U.S. forces; 70 percent think U.S. forces have done a bad or very bad job; and, most appalling, 42 percent think attacks on U.S. forces are acceptable. Acceptable! This last figure is down 15 points from six months ago, so I suppose we should applaud the "progress." But just imagine if, after D-Day in 1944, 42 percent of the French believed attacking Americans was "acceptable"; or if after the Battle of Chosin Reservoir in 1950, 42 percent of South Koreans did, too; or if 42 percent of Grenadians after being liberated by Ronald Reagan in 1983 were of the same violently anti-American mind.

Would we consider such peoples worthy of American blood and treasure? And would we consider them likely linchpins of a long-term alliance?

"Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it," the president said. Me, I'm still waiting for a straightforward discussion of what it is we can reasonably expect to win.

Diana West is a contributing columnist for Townhall.com and author of the new book, The Death of the Grown-up: How America's Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization.

Obama demands probe over passport breach.

Two contract employees of the State Department were fired and a third person was disciplined for accessing passport records of Sen. Barack Obama.

MSNBC is going orgasmic over this:

Barack Obama's campaign tonight is demanding a full investigation of reports that his passport files at the State Department were viewed without authorization.

“This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an Administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years. Our government’s duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes. This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach,” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

NBC News is reporting that several low-level State Department employees have been fired over the January incident, and the department is conducting an internal investigation"

Fox is Reporting:

State Department officials are expected soon to address reports that Barack Obama’s passport records have been breached.

Two State Department employees have been fired for the breach, according to reports by MSNBC and The Drudge Report.

Sen. Obama’s presidential campaign responded sternly.

“This is an outrageous breach of security and privacy, even from an Administration that has shown little regard for either over the last eight years,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement released Thursday night. “Our governments duty is to protect the private information of the American people, not use it for political purposes.

This is a serious matter that merits a complete investigation, and we demand to know who looked at Senator Obama’s passport file, for what purpose, and why it took so long for them to reveal this security breach.”

MI6 Predicts Summer of War

Jihadism's Dangerous Liasons
By W. Thomas Smith, Jr
Tuesday, March 18, 2008

Analysts with MI6, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, believe an elite force of Hamas fighters in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon will launch a coordinated attack against Israel within a few months, says author and espionage expert Gordon Thomas.

According to Thomas’s report published at World Net Daily’s G2 Bulletin:

“Iran's Revolutionary Guards are training hundreds of Hamas fighters to prepare for an all-out war this summer against Israel.

“The Gaza-based organization's elite Izzedine al-Qassam Brigade will form the southern front of an attack against the Jewish state while Hezbollah will launch its simultaneous assault from southern Lebanon, according to MI6.”

Thomas contends the attacks would come at a time when the Bush White House is all but “spent,” and the Democrat and Republican parties are “looking inward to their conventions.”

No surprise there: Jihadists are patient opportunists. And terrorist allies like the Palestinian militant group, Hamas, and the Lebanon-based terrorist army, Hezbollah; as well as marginally – perhaps unlikely – connected terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are increasingly coordinating their efforts in campaigns against the West.

Few Americans are talking about any this: Most understand the danger of international terrorism, but few grasp the exponentially increasing danger associated with terror alliances. Problem is it’s not politically correct to discuss Islam’s house of war. The two Democrat presidential contenders seem to be more concerned about who is calling whom names, or who is best able to answer a telephone at 3:00 a.m. And the mainstream media is too busy soft-soaping or completely ignoring the facts about Islamic terrorism. Either that, or MSM reporters are too busy cheering some distorted revelation they have confusingly gleaned in a recent Pentagon report that – the MSM contends – shows no Saddam-Al Qaeda link in pre-war Iraq, when in fact the report reveals stark evidence there was.

But that was then. This is now, and the connections today must be our focus.

Two weeks ago, a Jihadist gunman brutally murdered eight Israeli children at a Jerusalem seminary. Israel’s Haaretz newspaper has since reported the gunman was “acting on instructions” from Hamas, with instructional dots connecting Gaza operatives to bosses in the Syrian capital, all “in coordination with Hezbollah.”

Daniel Doron, writing for the Wall Street Journal, says, Hamas has been massively rearmed with “Iranian weapons, bought with Saudi money and transported into Gaza with the connivance of Egypt.”

The mass killing in Jerusalem comes on the heels of the assassination of Hezbollah terrorist-mastermind Imad Mughniyeh, of which columnist Caroline Glick writes:

“Every Palestinian terror group - from Fatah to Hamas to Islamic Jihad, to the Popular Resistance Committees, the PFLP and DFLP - mourned Mughniyeh as a hero and martyr and called for revenge against Israel and the U.S.”

True, and it wasn’t just the Palestinians. Others mourning Mughniyeh’s death and calling for revenge include likely and unlikely sorts from Somalia to Argentina to Indonesia all with common goals against the West. After all, Mughniyeh was respected by both the Iranian mullahs and Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants. Both Iraq’s Shiia militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr and Sunni Al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Omar al-Baghdadi (Al Sadr’s “supposed arch-foe,” as Glick says) called for revenge killings. Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moualem publicly referred to Mughniyeh as “a backbone of the Islamic resistance.” And ranting in the wake of Mughniyeh’s death, Hezbollah’s secretary general Hassan Nasrallah declared that a state of “open war” exists with Israel.

There’s more.

In January, French counterterrorist commandos – Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure – raided a terrorist safe-house in Paris and nabbed six men, including two Lebanese and one Syrian. In doing so, the commandos disrupted a major Hezbollah plot to kill or kidnap international leaders in several European cities. A plan of this magnitude – to be carried out far beyond Lebanese borders – could never have been executed without the assistance of other Islamic fundamentalist groups and Jihadist sympathizers, not necessarily Hezbollah, operating in the region.

In a recent conversation with Human Events editor Jed Babbin, Gen. David Petraeus – commander of Multi-National Force—Iraq, who currently has his hands full fighting both Shiia insurgents and Al Qaeda in Iraq – said:

“We do, with a pretty high degree of confidence, we know that the Iranians continued to train militia extremists, the so-called ‘special groups’ that are supported by the Iranian Qods Force, that are literally funded, trained, equipped, and directed by the Qods Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. And you may recall, we captured the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800. We captured the head of the special groups. We’ve captured other very senior leaders in those organizations in recent weeks.”

Then there is the previously mentioned coordination between Al Qaeda and Hezbollah: Despite their differences, these two have been cooperating in varying degrees since at least the 1990’s. They were discovered to be working together again last month when a 35-man terrorist sleeper cell was discovered and shut down in Morocco. The members of the cell had received tactical training by Al Qaeda operating in Afghanistan and Pakistan. They had received weapons and explosives training by Hezbollah based in Lebanon. Hezbollah, financed by Iran, also helped fund the North African cell. The cell-members – businessmen, politicians, a police official, a journalist, and others – were planning to assassinate senior civilian and military leaders, as well as Jewish Moroccans.

Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, their sponsors and subsidiaries (to include their allies, apologists, and sympathizers) are increasingly working together throughout the Middle and Far East, in Africa, in Europe, and, yes, even the Americas to recruit foot soldiers, probe Western defenses, and attack us at any weak point in those defenses.

“Different groups will coalesce and align against conventional wisdom,” Dr. J. Peter Pham, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told me during a recent interview for Human Events. “What most analysts view as the Shiia-Sunni divide is papered over as militants and extremists will take money from anyone, and build alliances of convenience against their common enemy.”

The most disturbing particular in all of this is that almost no one – not the MSM, nor Barack or Hillary, nor anyone hoping to gain or retain a Congressional seat – is talking about the threat, except to downplay the danger, or say that the threat is nothing more than a handful of bad apples who have hijacked the “noble religion” of Islam.

Most Americans I’ve spoken too say either the threat is not as great as counterterrorism experts say it is – that the threat is based on the so-called “politics of fear” – or that the threat is too complex and unwieldy to begin to understand.

The threat of Jihadist terrorism is huge and growing. The Jihadist groups – no matter what side of the Islamic ideological divide they hail from – are increasingly working together. And for the sake of our own existence we had best try to sever the lines that connect the dots, as we crush the dots.

W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine infantry leader, parachutist, and shipboard counterterrorism instructor and co-author of The Complete Idiot's Guide to Pirates.