WHAT DID THEY KNOW, AND WHEN DID THEY FORGET IT?

S

ix weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, on October 27, 2001, the New York Times reported that Mohammed Atta had flown to Prague in April of that year, and met there with an Iraqi intelligence official. A year later in October 2002, the Times reported that the Czech President Vaclav Havel had phoned President Bush earlier in the year, telling him that the meeting had never happened. Havel immediately responded through his spokesman that this report was false, that he had never had such a conversation with Bush or any other US official. "It is a fabrication," said Havel's spokesman, "Nothing like this has occurred."

The paper then acknowledged Havel's denial of the conversation, and in the same story conflated his "no factual basis behind the report" as referring to the Atta meeting itself, rather than to the Times' own fabricated report. Two days later, the same paper again cited the bogus phone call story in an editorial, declaring that the meeting "almost certainly never took place." Yet Czech officials continued to affirm that it did, and that they had collected "detailed evidence" of it.

Last week, the Times editorialised that this alleged meeting between the terrorist and Saddam's regime was part of President Bush's "rewriting of history" and based on "a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk." What happened here, and where did this "drunk" come from?

The Czech authorities had been investigating the Atta connection since immediately following the Sept. 11 attacks, when their own intelligence agency's source inside the Iraqi embassy in Prague recognised Atta's photo (which was at that time, as we all remember, getting worldwide exposure). This inside-the-embassy source had been tasked with watching the Iraqi official in question, Ahmad al-Ani, because Czech intelligence (known as BIS) were already concerned that he was trying to make contact with foreign-based Arabs to carry out terrorist attacks on behalf of Iraq. The source had witnessed such a meeting on April 9, but being unable to subsequently trace the unidentified man, and believing the risk was too great that al-Ani had already recruited his bomber, BIS recommended that he be expelled from the country. Al-Ani was ordered out on April 19, and returned to Baghdad. Less than five months later, this BIS embassy source recognised Atta's photo as the man he had seen getting into a car with Ahmad al-Ani.

The October 2001 leak to the press by an "anonymous US official" blew the whole BIS investigation out of the water and jeopardised their penetration of the Iraqi embassy. The exposure of the investigation made it much more difficult to acquire confirming evidence, and al-Ani -- by then back in Baghdad -- was vehemently denying having met Atta, or even being in Prague at the time. Here was an information leak which did real damage (certainly a lot more than the revelation of the name of a CIA desk jockey several years later). The Czech authorities and BIS stood by the evidence they had collected and in the reliability of their embassy insider, but were unwilling to get involved in another one of those famous American political leak-fests, and handed the issue off to the CIA to pursue further. Al-Ani was captured in Baghdad after the fall of the regime, and remains in detention there.

So where did this stuff about "unreliable drunk" come from in the current iteration by the NYT? We are simply witnessing the birth of a canard, borne of sloppy journalism and conflated issues which will soon be strong enough to fly on its own. Anybody heard of "Curveball"? This was the codename for an Iraqi informant to the German intelligence service, who purportedly had knowledge of Iraqi training of terrorist cells in biological and chemical weapons, and who US investigators had dismissed as an "alcoholic" and "useless" as a source. Since there was other evidence for Saddam's aid and training for terrorists, and even though "Curveball's" information was much more spectacular, his credibility was not trusted by the Americans. This is the NYT's "unreliable drunk" -- nothing whatsoever to do with the Prague incident.

But it's really quite bizarre to see how short a canard's gestation period is nowadays. Although I'm not positive that the Times was the first to fob off the Atta meeting information onto the alcoholic informant scapegoat, I've seen it in several other news stories in the past week -- and in many more citations by anti-Bush politicians and bloggers by the score. As I understand it from reading Seixon's deconstruction of a recent Richard Clarke appearance on the "Daily Show", the Times provided the insemination last Tuesday the 15th, and Clarke was on with Jon Stewart on Thursday night the 17th. After an opening video collage to make fun of Dick Cheney, and joking together how the VP would always say that Iraq was involved with Sept. 11 (it's the best 'Cheney-ism' says Clarke), and marvelling at how well he could convince everyone about these things without actually, you know, saying them, the former counter-terrorism "czar" came out with this:

CLARKE: He had the best way of picking, you know there's all sorts of intelligence out there, and he picked out the worst reports. So the Mohammad Atta report is from a drunk, literally, we know that.

So there we have it: the "newspaper of record" places this mistake/disinformation (you pick) into an editorial, and two days later an "expert source" of Clarke's (former) stature is repeating it. "...literally, we know that," he coos -- and the fledgling canard takes wing across the ether. Seixon (a Norwegian blogger) has been all over this disinformation campaign stuff lately. There were steaming heaps of this type of BS that he uncovered in a Hardball episode (which I linked last weekend), and he does a terrific job here and here on one of the major purveyors of Dick Cheney canard stockpiles.

By the way, you can watch the (now famous) speech of Mr. Cheney, sans CNN's giant black "X" overlays, right here: [Real Video link]. It's not long, less than 20 minutes and well worth the effort to listen to, considering the amount of crap people have been writing and saying about it. If your player doesn't kick in with that link, find it on C-SPAN's homepage.

Anyway, back to Mohammed Atta in Prague. I have no idea if it really happened or not, but all the polemics about this meeting having been "comprehensively debunked" is nonsense. The Czech authorities are apparently standing by their position that the preponderance of evidence leans heavily in favour of the meeting having taken place, and both they and the FBI had earlier put the probability at around 70%. The BIS source in the Iraqi embassy is sure that it was Atta he saw getting into the car with al-Ani, and BIS also affirms this person as completely reliable. But it hasn't been confirmed 100% (the news media leak probably made that impossible), and over the past four years Mr. Cheney -- who has been asked about it repeatedly -- has always taken great pains to say that it had not been confirmed with certainty. The closest he ever got was to say that it was "mostly confirmed" which seems to agree with the overall "70%" confidence of the professionals. As you'll see if you read Seixon's recent articles, Cheney was very careful with his words, and he said over and over and over again that this was "unconfirmed," that "we just don't know," and that "we've never had confirmation one way or the other."

But why were the Czechs so interested in Ahmad al-Ani, that they were having him watched in the first place? I've been drawing from an article in the Wall Street Journal by investigative reporter Edward Jay Epstein for this, who travelled to Prague recently to speak to Czech government officials and BIS investigators familiar with the case. Ahmad al-Ani was sent by Baghdad to the Prague embassy as a replacement for a man named Jabir Salim, who had defected in December 1998. Epstein writes:

Mr. Salim said in his debriefings that the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, had given him $150,000 and tasked him with carrying out a covert action against an American target in the Czech Republic: Using a freelance terrorist, he was to blow up the headquarters of Radio Free Europe in Wenceslas Square, in the heart of Prague.

This of course prompted heightened security for the Radio Free Europe studios, more surveillance around the Square, and BIS penetration of the embassy itself. When Mr. al-Ani arrived in March 1999 as Salim's replacement, he was already being watched. The Czechs became considerably more worried when their assets inside the embassy told them that al-Ani was "attempting to acquire explosives, and contact foreign-based Arabs." After the meeting with the unknown Arab (later identified by an eyewitness "with certainty" as Atta) who subsequently slipped the surveillance, al-Ani was expelled pre-emptively. The joint Czech - American investigations into the Saddam regime's attempts to hire terrorists for attacks on US targets had been going on since Jabir Salim's defection -- almost two years before Bush became president.

It's clear that folks who still say that Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism are simply not paying attention. Or in some cases perhaps, certain people might feel that suicide-homicide bombings against Israeli civilians are in a special category, and for one reason or another don't count as real terrorism. A sick attitude I know, but it does exist. Everyone should know by now that Saddam called for these attacks, advertised for volunteers and paid up to $25,000 US a pop. There are photos showing him presenting the certificates of accomplishment along with the cheques to the families of these "shahids" (it was originally $15,000 US, but he gave them a raise). And even beyond this clear proof that Saddam's Iraq was a terrorist-sponsoring state, the Prague story shows that he used his embassies as a base to plot terror attacks against US targets, and to hire Arab terrorists to carry out his dirty work so it wouldn't be traced to him.

Atta had been known to travel to Prague twice in the year before the supposed meeting with al-Ani. He flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, spent a short time in the transit lounge, and flew back the same day. Three days later he took a bus to Prague, and flew on to the US the next day. American investigators place him in the US on April 4, 2001 (when he withdrew $8,000 in cash, and checked out of his hotel), and again on April 11. This Telegraph story from December 2001 (and strangely enough, written by the same NYT stringer who would later twist Havel's denial of the Times' fabrication as though it was a denial of the Atta meeting itself) states that "according to the FBI," Atta left the US in early April 2001, travelled to Europe, and (through credit card records) that "he bought a knife at Zurich airport and show him returning to Florida a few days later." An appointment calendar belonging to al-Ani (acquired by BIS from the embassy, probably after the war) had a note for his meeting with a "Hamburg student" in April 2001. Mohammed Atta identified himself as a "Hamburg student" for the purposes of his Czech visa. And Spanish intelligence has identified two Algerians who provided false passports to Atta, perhaps explaining why there's no record of him leaving the US under his own name. More from Edward Epstein on this here and here.

Confirmation of this alleged meeting would certainly do damage to the relentlessly repeated assertion that "Saddam had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 attacks," even though by itself it would not prove his involvement. Even if it's established beyond doubt that the meeting took place, we may never know the substance of it. But it would do fatal damage to the equally relentlessly repeated assertion that "Saddam had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 terrorists." The canard that "Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism" is already dead, though it too is relentlessly repeated in our media. The 1998 Iraqi plot to arrange a truck bomb to blow up Radio Free Europe studios in Prague, the plot to assassinate George H.W. Bush, and Saddam's recruitment of terrorists and payment for their acts have all put the lie to that one long ago. Andrew McCarthy (a former federal prosecutor who worked on the first World Trade Center bombing case) writes in the Corner of a few more items which show both the links themselves, and how the Clinton administration perceived them:

Meanwhile, in 1998 alone, we have $300K going from Iraq to Zawahiri (al Qaeda's number 2); bin Laden's famous February fatwa calling for the murder of all Americans and prominently featuring, as part of the justification, U.S. actions against Iraq; meetings in Iraq between Qaeda members and Iraqi officials in March; meetings in Afghanistan between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda leaders in July; the embassy bombings in August, after which, of all potential targets, the Clinton administration chose to retaliate against al Shifa, believed to be an Iraq/Qaeda joint weapons venture; an Iraqi member of al Qaeda (now held in Guantanamo Bay) traveling with Iraqi Intelligence to Pakistan to plot chemical mortar attacks on the American and British embassies there; and Iraq seeking to recruit Arab terrorists to blow up Radio Free Europe. Oh, and in February 1999, Richard Clarke objected to a suggestion that U-2 flights be used to try to find bin Laden because, if bin Laden learned the walls were closing in, Clarke wrote to Sandy Berger that "old wiley Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."

A lot more will be coming to light, hopefully soon, that may help some Americans get out of this funk of defeatism so many seem to have adopted. The policy of the Iraq Liberation Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton was correct, and the decision of President Bush to finally carry out this policy following Sept. 11 was the only responsible course of action. Giving Saddam the benefit of the doubt, given his support for terrorism, would have been the height of irresponsibility. More information on the nature of Saddam's regime just might turn the tide, give pause to some of the doom mongers, and make possible the unity which is their most important weapon in the fight against the terrorists. It sure seems that the fearless Iraqi efforts to build their new democracy is nowhere near enough to make Americans proud and united. After the first, and highly inspiring show of democratic determination in the elections of January 30 this year, even a supposedly respectable figure such as Nancy Soderberg (former Clinton administration official) popped out with, "Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us . . . . There's always hope that this might not work."

Much of this unreleased information I'm talking about may come out of a project now going on in Doha, Qatar. This program is analysing a vast amount of documentation mainly from the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). Gathered haphazardly after the overthrow of Saddam, some are damaged, many are separated from larger document sets which never made it to Doha, and only comprising that which was ordered saved by unit commanders after the fall of the regime, without much direction or guidance. David Kay, who led the Iraq Survey Group searching for evidence of WMD, told his team to ignore anything not WMD related. As Stephen Hayes reports, "As a consequence, documents describing the regime's training and financing of terrorists were labeled 'No Intelligence Value' and often discarded, according to two sources." So a lot has been lost already, but much remains -- and it's now being examined and catalogued. Hayes, who actually wrote the book on Saddam - al Qaeda connections as well as dozens of other articles in the Weekly Standard and elsewhere, has been trying for two years to get his hands on some of this material -- almost all of which is unclassified. You won't be surprised to read of the bureaucratic obstacles put in his way. After a long period of making Freedom Of Information Act requests and being referred around to various different agencies, he got a break:

Working outside formal Pentagon lines of inquiry, I soon learned more. Many of the documents from Doha had been entered into a database known as HARMONY. HARMONY is a thick stew of reports and findings from a variety of intelligence agencies and military units, and alongside the Iraqi documents were reports from contributing U.S. agencies.

Hayes acquired a list of document titles which seem like they would be extremely interesting, but is no closer to actually getting his hands on any copies of this unclassified information. Here is the list of Iraqi documents, as shown in the above linked article in the Standard:

1. Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) Correspondence to Iraq Embassy in the Philippines and Iraq MFA (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
2. Possible al Qaeda Terror Members in Iraq
3. IIS report on Taliban-Iraq Connections Claims
4. Money Transfers from Iraq to Afghanistan
5. IIS Agent in Bulgaria
6. Iraqi Intel report on Kurdish Activities: Mention of Kurdish Report on al Qaeda--reference to al Qaeda presence in Salman Pak
7. IIS report about the relationship between IIS and the Kurdish Group Jalal Talibani [sic]
8. Iraqi Mukhabarat Structure
9. Locations of Weapons/Ammunition Storage (with map)
10. Iraqi Effort to Cooperate with Saudi Opposition Groups and Individuals
11. Order from Saddam to present $25,000 to Palestinian Suicide Bombers Families
12. IIS reports from Embassy in Paris: Plan to Influence French Stance on U.N. Security Council
13. IIS Importing and Hiding High Tech Computers in Violation of UN
14. IIS request to move persons, documents to private residences
15. Formulas and information about Iraq's Chemical Weapons Agents
16. Denial and Deception of WMD and Killing of POWs
17. 1987 orders by Hussein to use chemical weapons in the Ealisan Basin
18. Ricin research and improvement
19. Personnel file of Saad Mohammad Abd Hammadi al Deliemi
20. Memo from the Arab Liaison Committee: With a list of personnel in need of official documents
21. Fedayeen Saddam Responds to IIS regarding rumors of citizens aiding Afghanistan
22. Document from Uday Hussein regarding Taliban activity
23. Improvised Explosive Devices Plan
24. IIS reports on How French Campaigns are Financed
25. French and German relationships with Iraq
26. IIS reports about Russian Companies--News articles and potential IIS agents
27. IIS plan for 2000 of Europe's Influence of Iraq Strategy
28. IIS plans to infiltrate countries and collect information to help remove sanctions
29. Correspondence from IIS and the stations in Europe
30. Contract for satellite pictures between Russia, France and Iraq: Pictures of Neighboring Countries (Dec. 2002)
31. Chemical Gear for Fedayeen Saddam
32. Memo from the IIS to Hide Information from a U.N. Inspection team (1997)
33. Chemical Agent Purchase Orders (Dec. 2001)
34. Iraq Ministry of Defense Calls for Investigation into why documents related to WMD were found by UN inspection team
35. Correspondence between various Iraq organizations giving instructions to hide chemicals and equipment
36. Correspondence from IIS to MIC regarding information gathered by foreign intelligence satellites on WMD (Dec. 2002)
37. Correspondence from IIS to Iraqi Embassy in Malaysia
38. Cleaning chemical suits and how to hide chemicals
39. IIS plan of what to do during UNSCOM inspections (1996)
40. Secret Meeting with Taliban Group Member and Iraqi Government (Nov. 2000)

One of the documents (#10) was provided to the New York Times last summer, an internal IIS memo. Hayes cites Times reporter Tom Shanker from his story based on the document, which contains much regarding the contacts between Iraqi and Sudanese officials and bin Laden. The Sudanese were the go-betweens, telling Uday Hussein and the director of IIS in 1994 that "bin Laden is willing to meet in Sudan." Bin Laden was then approached after "presidential approval was given." The former head of IIS Directorate 4 met with bin Laden in February, 1995. Hayes also mentions a different IIS document, authenticated by DIA and reported on elsehere by other US media, that the Saddam regime considered bin Laden as an "Iraqi intelligence asset" as far back as 1992, but we don't know what Osama thought about this appellation. The document released to the Times reportedly has bin Laden being uncomfortable with being seen as an Iraqi operative, yet he made requests of the Saddam regime to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and Saddam agreed to do this.

When bin Laden relocated from Sudan to Afghanistan, Saddam was keen to keep up the relationship. Hayes writes:

When bin Laden left Sudan for Afghanistan in May 1996, the Iraqis sought "other channels through which to handle the relationship, in light of his current location." The IIS memo directs that "cooperation between the two organizations should be allowed to develop freely through discussion and agreement."

Wait, did that say "cooperation"? I wonder how that progressed over the next two or three years... [rummage, rummage] ... oh yeah, here it is: Saddam offers bin Laden asylum, February 1999.

Nope, no smoking gun here folks, move along now. All this stuff, much of which was known well before Sept. 11, 2001, is just a lot of coincidence. And those meetings, well they could have been completely innocent -- you know, discussing mutual interests like football and stuff. After all, didn't that high-powered, "blue ribbon" panel, the Sept. 11 Commission assure us that there was no evidence for an "operational relationship" between al Qaeda and Saddam? Of course they did. And didn't the newspapers and talk shows and many politicians immediately translate this for us rubes the next day, telling us that the esteemed commissioners had concluded there was no link between Saddam and al Qaeda whatsoever? That's right, they sure did. And hasn't this particular gloss been drummed into our skulls every day since then, despite a couple of the commissioners immediately asserting that their report had been misrepresented in the media? Right again.

Then we come to the story which broke last August, and which both the Pentagon and the Sept. 11 Omission Commission have done everything in their power to cover up. I did write about it at that time, and it's about to bubble up into the spotlight again -- the Able Danger program. As a brief reminder, this was a secret data-mining operation under the Dept. of Defence tasked with tracing terrorists and terror cells, collecting and connecting information on them mainly derived from open sources. The program was terminated in the final year of the Clinton administration, but not before it had identified Mohammed Atta and several other of the Sept. 11 terrorists in early 2000, according to at least five people who worked on the project.

Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer was the first to come forward publicly. He has since been persecuted and intimidated in a most disgusting manner by officials in the Pentagon, his reputation smeared and his career ruined. The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled hearings into Able Danger in September, but the Defence Dept. issued orders barring Lt. Col. Shaffer, Navy Captain Scott Phillpott and others from giving testimony. Congressman Kurt Weldon has spearheaded the effort to allow these people to testify publicly, and at last report he has gathered 246 signatures of Congress members on a letter to the department, requesting clearance for them to do so.

It seems that there are figures inside the Pentagon who are worried about what might come out. The esteemed Sept. 11 Commission appears equally averse to having this story told, which is certainly not surprising. Not only did the project members attempt to transfer information to the FBI prior to Sept. 11, only to be stymied by the "Gorelick Wall of Silence" (which barred sharing of information from foreign intel operations with domestic law enforcement), but they also had wind of a terror attack brewing in the port of Aden, Yemen shortly before the bombing of the USS Cole. The Able Danger investigators were "jumping up and down" trying to get this information up the chain of command, but the Cole's captain was never informed: he says if he had had any hint of a risk, he could have easily diverted to another port for refuelling.

The team also tried to tell the Sept. 11 Commission about their work. Lt. Col. Shaffer was interviewed in 2003 by commission staff in Afghanistan where he was then serving, but they decided not to follow up with it and refused Shaffer's request for further briefings. Incidentally, that interview had been conducted by one of Jamie Gorelick's staff, and other commission investigative staff have since said they'd heard nothing about it. Capt. Phillpott briefed the commission staff in July 2004. They wrote him off as "not sufficiently reliable to warrant revision of the report or further investigation," and because they were only days from sending it to the printer. The accomplishments of the Able Danger project were deemed "historically insignificant," and there is no mention of it in the final report.

I was never very impressed with the members of this commission, many of whom were obviously playing politics and grandstanding, or running interference on behalf of the Clinton administration. The unwillingness to investigate this issue in a decent way appears to fit that view. One of the commissioners ought to have been answering questions rather than asking them, and I mean of course the former Clinton official Jamie Gorelick. The Navy man, John Lehman is the only one who really inspired any confidence at all.

The former Director of the FBI, Louis Freeh last week wrote in an op-ed that he considers the Sept. 11 Commission to deserve a grade "I" for its work -- signifying incomplete. The commission itself has lived on after its final report was delivered over a year ago, in the form of a "9/11 Commission Discourse Project," in which they've weighed in on hurricanes, nuclear weapons and a bunch of other things -- funded by various private foundations. Now that Able Danger public hearings look likely to take place soon, they have decided to disband their discourse project. I'm looking forward to seeing some if not all of them testifying before congressional oversight committees, and for the whole story to come out into the open.

Apparently, much of the 2.5 terabytes of data collected by the Able Danger project were destroyed when it was terminated in 2000. But recent reporting claims that some of it was carried over, and its databases recreated, in a successor project -- and that the information on Mohammed Atta and other Sept. 11 terrorists survived the move. Only time, and an open inquiry will tell. In the meantime, join me in keeping an eye on the Able Danger Blog for the latest progress on this case.

And Never Forget why this is important.
- posted by Agam @ 7:25 PM 0 comments

 
FOLLOWING THE AL QAEDA PLAY BOOK

Chicken Little, and friend Walt Disney Studios

D

uring the past week, since President Bush began a belated "push-back" against his defeatist opposition in a speech delivered on Veterans' Day, it has been absolutely astounding to witness the degree of historical revisionism being indulged in by many members of the Democratic Party, and of the mass media.

Given that most of these -- politicians and "newspapers of record" alike -- were often more definitive in their statements on the need for regime change in Iraq than was even the Bush White House in the months before the war, and given the "chickenhawk" epithet used to dismiss supporters of Iraq's liberation who haven't actually gone to war themselves (like me, for example), I don't see any problem endorsing Jeff Goldstein's newly coined term - the chickenlittlehawk. Those who once stood on principle (or claimed they did), who once understood why Saddam's continuance in power post Sept. 11 was intolerable (or said they did), who backed regime change through votes in congress, and in editorial pages of the most influential newspapers, but who now cry that they were all deviously tricked into it by others, will now be fairly known as chickenlittlehawks.

Many honourable and principled people opposed Iraqi liberation from the outset -- these are not who I'm writing about. Some are true pacifists, for whom the use of force is never justified under any circumstances. I respect such people if their position is consistent, even though I can't share it. However these Democrat chickenlittlehawks are not pacifists, and we know this from their hawkish statements in support of Iraqi liberation, and in support of President Bush prior to the invasion of Iraq. Bush read out a couple of these statements during his Veterans' Day speech, and in the week that followed many dozens of similar statements have been retrieved from the archives. In cases involving such luminaries as John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke, Nancy Pelosi, Carl Levin, Jay Rockefeller and many others, their pre-war statements are simply incompatible with their present day outrage.

This is not because of new information, and it is not due to changed minds. Everyone has the right to change their mind -- I certainly have on particular issues, especially over the past four years. If these people would admit to having changed their minds, either through a deeper, ethical self-questioning or through acquisition of new information -- in other words to admit to having been wrong -- I could respect them. But they don't. They want to say, "I told you so," when they did nothing of the sort. They want to bray that "We were misled into an unnecessary war," when they had access to the same intelligence analyses that the administration was using. They want to whine that, "Bush lied," when they are unable to point to a single lie on his part, and when many of their own statements of the time went far beyond what the administration had been saying. In short, they want to rewrite history, especially their own histories, for political expedience today.

Either they were being completely disingenuous then, or they're being disingenuous now (and quite possibly both), in the interest of political gain and in disregard for any consequences, including the demoralisation of their own service people at a time of war, weakening the will of the public to see the mission through to completion, and giving aid and comfort to their enemies. I would like to ask them (slightly changing Howard Baker's famous question from the Senate Watergate Committee hearings), "What did you know, and when did you forget it."

Al Qaeda leaders are not stupid. They recognise that the main battlefield is the information war taking place on the American home front, and they've openly stated that this is the battle they plan to win, and believe they can -- dreaming of reprising Vietnam, Somalia and Lebanon. Despite their strategic mistakes both inside and outside Iraq which have resulted in serious loss of status among Arabs and other Muslims around the world, their most effective enablers are still those voices in the United States calling for immediate withdrawal of US forces from Iraq -- in a word, capitulation. While the Arab populace most proportionately opposed to US actions in Iraq (Jordanians) have been rallying against al Qaeda in their thousands, in repeated and still growing demonstrations against the murderers of their own "9/11" (calling for Zarqawi to "go to hell" and worse), the terrorists' hopes for gaining the seminal territory for their new caliphate are continually buoyed up by triangulating politicians and opinion makers in the "news" business back on the home front. Some Americans are following al Qaeda's playbook to the letter -- most of them (I seriously hope), unwittingly.

Think about it: what will be the result if America turns tail and runs home now? In less than four weeks, Iraqis will elect a new parliament under the sovereign legitimacy of a democratic constitution -- the product of a national and inclusive negotiation process, ratified by democratic vote in the face of the most violent intimidation imaginable. What could be a more perfect time to leave them in the lurch -- from the point of view of al Qaeda? What better way to send a clear message around the world, demonstrating for all to see just who is the "stronger horse" (bin Laden's words) -- from the point of view of al Qaeda? How can it be ensured that the US will never again be trusted to keep its word, or to stand with those who are struggling the hardest against the common enemy?

Run up the white flag, that's how it's done. Run from the fight, now that well over 200,000 Iraqi forces are in service, the bulk of them either conducting anti-terrorist operations alongside coalition troops or in fact leading these operations with some degree of coalition support. When US politicians claim that only one Iraqi battalion is ready to fight, they are lying. That's months old news, when there was one battalion ranked at Level 1, in a four rank system. Level 1 means they are fully independent, need no support of any kind -- 100% self-sufficient, not 98% or 99% (those would be Level 2). Nearly all the rest are at Levels 2 and 3 -- planning and leading anti-terrorist operations with some degree of support, or "fighting alongside" (as Gen. Petraeus put it), respectively. The newest recruits and the most recently formed units will of course start out at Level 4, as they all have done. Sen. Levin, who I've heard recite the "one battalion" canard, knows all this -- he's on all the heavyweight committees, and Petraeus testified to him directly.

Gen. Petraeus was the head of the force training program, and says the units' progress up the ranks of readiness are good. The national forces have reached the stage where capabilities grow geometrically, and there hasn't been a case of Iraqi soldiers or police running from any kind of fight since the January 30 elections. They are committed, increasingly capable, and tantalisingly close to shouldering the fight on their own -- which they want as much as anyone else, and probably more.

John Murtha said yesterday that 80% of Iraqis want the US military to leave, citing this in his headline-grabbing call for a full immediate withdrawal. I think that's probably on the low side, and suspect that nearly all Iraq's people want foreign forces out of their country. I want this too. So does the Iraqi government, so does Bush, his generals in the field, and the courageous men and women under them. Everybody wants this -- but some want to do it right, while others seem driven to do it wrong. If Mr. Murtha could ask Iraqis the question he could only imply with his statement -- "Do you want coalition forces to leave immediately?" -- he would find his ratios reversed. Opinion surveys show that three quarters of Iraqis polled answer "no" to this question.

Representative Murtha, noted by every news factory as a Democrat "hawk" who originally supported the US action, expected to make waves today with his "changed" position. He did so, getting top billing in all the papers and news shows. For someone like this to suddenly join the Cut and Run Club was said to have "shifted the ground." But how much of a shift is it, when an astute blogger can find out where he was at a year and a half ago:

By Erin P. Billings and Emily Pierce
Roll Call Staff
May 6, 2004

Signaling a new, more aggressive line against the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, Rep. John Murtha (Pa.), the House Democrats' most visible defense hawk, will join Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) today to make public his previously private statements that the conflict is "unwinnable."

Maybe he made them public, and then everybody forgot? So they became private again? Or something? Here's more from May 2004, wai to Jeff again. So why all the fuss over this guy, the Democrats' big "defense hawk"? If eighteen months ago he said that the mission couldn't succeed, and today he says it's time to cut and run, are we to pretend that all the progress made between those two times didn't really happen? The vastly more effective and growing indigenous security forces, the continuing shift of public opinion against the vicious "freedom fighters", the political advancements which have met every single milestone set -- there is ample evidence of solid progress to anyone who honestly looks. The headlines would have more properly read, "Murtha Still Hasn't Changed His View."

Neither has Ted Kennedy. I saw him again this morning claiming that Bush had been misleading the country when he said the threat from Saddam had been "imminent". Bush never said that, and they can't find a single instance where he did. He is on record many times before the war, saying that the threat needed to be dealt with before it became imminent. Imminent is already too late. Kennedy puts words in Bush's mouth while his comrades struggle to erase the ones from their own. Here's Jay Rockefeller, as remembered by Tom Maguire. Here's Richard Clarke, as Byron York recalls his warning that, if things got too tough for Osama in Afghanistan, he'd just "Boogie to Baghdad." And here's a terrific dissection by Seixon of some "news report" that contains a boatload of disinformation about what Bush said, what Cheney said and much more -- all of it wrong. There are too many examples, but one that particularly caught my eye was this one from he who would be President:

CNN'S LARRY KING: "What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places ..."

KERRY: "Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

There are plenty of these, you can see more of them presented with photographic accompaniment over here. For a full and complete examination of who is really lying about Iraq, this is the article that really wraps it up, and may indeed be the one which finally prompted the administration to start their belated engagement in Setting the Record Straight.

And what about today? Howard Dean was on Russert last weekend, when he refused to appear together with Ken Mehlman, Republican Party chairman and Dean's counterpart on the other side. With such a weak grasp of the facts, I can see why:

HOWARD DEAN: I think Democrats always have to stand up and tell the truth and that's what we're doing. The truth is that the president misled America when he sent us to war. They did -- he even didn't tell the truth in the speech he gave. First of all, think there were a lot of veterans were kind of upset that the president chose their day to make a partisan speech. Secondly, the president didn't even tell the truth in his speech. He said that the Senate had the same intelligence that everybody else did. That was not true. He withheld some intelligence. Then he said the commissions all said that what he had done in the lead-up up to the war was fine.

TIM RUSSERT: What did he withhold?

DEAN: He withheld -- he knew, he knew that there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11 and he insisted on trying to make that case to the American people.

RUSSERT: But he never said Saddam was involved in September 11.

DEAN: He never actually came out and said just that. But in every speech he gave during the campaign and afterwards, he left the impression. He left the impression with 65 percent of the American people, who agreed that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. It made that -- it was dishonest, what he did.

Ah, another favourite "talking point" -- the conflation of the known contacts between Saddam and al Qaeda which went back a decade and which included offers of asylum for bin Laden if he had to leave Sudan, with the issue of involvement with Sept. 11. The first is well documented, and the second was never claimed. Yes, a lot of Americans did believe Saddam was probably in cahoots with bin Laden, and did tell pollsters that they felt it at least likely that he had a role in Sept. 11. That's the kind of result you'll get when asking people what they "believe" as opposed to "know," and not really very surprising.

What nobody has shown, since it never happened, is even a single statement by any official making the claim that it was true. Cheney was questioned on this repeatedly, and always answered that there was no confirmed evidence for it. Yet if you were to poll Americans today, asking if they believe that Mr. Cheney had claimed Saddam's involvement in Sept. 11, I would bet that most would say yes. The power of relentless media repetition of the dishonest mis-parsing of language, exemplified above by Mr. Dean -- "...he (Bush) insisted on trying to make that case..." but "never actually came out and said just that."

Christopher Hitchens this week noted some tricky parsing in a Washington Post "news" story intended to rebut the president's setting the record straight. They quote Bush asserting, "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support." And then the Post knocks it down by answering, "The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power." Hitchens continues:

A prize, then, for investigative courage, to Milbank and Pincus. They have identified the same problem, though this time upside down, as that which arose from the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, during the Clinton-Gore administration, in 1998. That legislation--which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote--did expressly call for the removal of Saddam Hussein but did not actually mention the use of direct U.S. military force.

Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are.

But Chris, you old ex-Trotskyist neo-con, there were no WMD's in Iraq! Whaddya say about that, huh? Even Hans Blix expected the coalition's intervention would uncover hidden weapons...

And this, of course, it actually has done. We did not know and could not know, until after the invasion, of Saddam's plan to buy long-range missiles off the shelf from Pyongyang, or of the centrifuge components buried on the property of his chief scientist, Dr. Mahdi Obeidi. The Duelfer report disclosed large latent facilities that were only waiting for the collapse of sanctions to resume activity. Ah, but that's not what you said you were looking for. ... Could pedantry be pushed any further?

Oh, I just bet it could. You just wait.

Meanwhile the anti-freedom-fighting savages yesterday slaughtered more than 70 Kurdish Shia Muslims at two mosques in north eastern Iraq, and more innocents in Baghdad where they destroyed civilian apartment blocks. While Congressman Murtha was grabbing top billing on al Jazeera, the New York Times, Washington Post and everywhere else with his new "plan" to desert the Iraqi people because the terrorists are obsessed with targeting Americans (the "primary target" of, and "catalyst" for the violence), and that "this is a flawed policy wrapped in an illoooosion," our common enemy once again bursts his illusion by doing what they're best at -- butchering the innocent and defenceless.

But this morning, watching C-SPAN live coverage, I see that Democalypse Now has been postponed for the time being. Reacting to the "Murtha Plan," House Republicans offered a resolution for immediate withdrawal from Iraq. "It is the sense of the House that deployment of US forces in Iraq be terminated immediately." They wanted to give the chickenlittlehawks an opportunity to stand up and be counted. The resolution was supported by three Democrats, and 403 members opposed. Iraqis, who are trying valiantly to establish their new society by making constant and observable progress that is being willfully ignored by defeatist US politicians and media, and their US and coalition allies standing with them against that despicable totalitarian enemy, have a momentary reprieve from the anticipated surrender. They do not want to follow al Qaeda's play book, and the Iraqi sky is not falling. But those who wish to fulfill Zawahiri's prediction by deserting them, might yet bring it down.
- posted by Agam @ 6:27 PM 0 comments

 
DALAI LAMA MEETS PRESIDENT BUSH, HU JINTAO LEAVES BRITAIN

Dalai Lama and President Bush meet at the White House, Nov. 9, 2005. The President wears a khata, a traditional Tibetan offering denoting respect and honour. Reuters photo

T

he Tibetan spiritual leader and head of state of the exiled Tibetan government, the Dalai Lama met yesterday at the White House with President Bush. Also present to welcome His Holiness were the First Lady Laura Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs and Democracy and Special Coordinator on Tibet Paula Dobriansky, and Director for Asian Affairs Michael Green. Accompanying the Tibetan leader were his Special Envoy Lodi Gyari, Representative for the Americas Tashi Wangdi and Secretary Tenzin N. Taklha. Following the meeting with President Bush, the third such meeting for the two leaders, Secretary Rice and the Dalai Lama held further talks at the State Department. He is due to meet US Congressional representatives next week.

There were no immediate details of the discussions, although Bush was said to have expressed strong support for the Dalai Lama's efforts at reaching a mutually agreeable solution with current Chinese leaders. The Buddhist monk told the President that their meeting felt like "a reunion of old friends." Lodi Gyari said later, "His Holiness the Dalai Lama was extremely pleased with the meetings and deeply appreciated the warm reception he received from the President and First Lady, whom he considers as friends."

In his report to Congress on Tibet in April this year President Bush said, "The Dalai Lama can be a constructive partner as China deals with the difficult challenges of regional and national stability. He represents the views of the vast majority of Tibetans and his moral authority helps to unite the Tibetan community inside and outside of China. China's engagement with the Dalai Lama or his representatives to resolve problems facing Tibetans is in the interest of both the Chinese Government and the Tibetan people. At the same time, the lack of resolution of these problems leads to greater tensions inside China and will be a stumbling block to fuller political and economic engagement with the United States and other nations."

Chinese President Hu Jintao views Tibetans waving their national flag, reflected in the window of Queen Elizabeth's coach. Reuters photo

Meanwhile in London, Chinese President Hu Jintao was met by Tibetan protesters and their supporters at every opportunity. He enjoyed a state banquet with the Royal Family, took a ride in the royal carriage, held discussions with Tony Blair, and opened an exhibition to display the treasures of earlier periods in China's imperial history.

The exhibition focuses on three emperors of the Qing Dynasty, and the glories of that expansionist Chinese empire. One of the three, Qianlong, is particularly remembered by communist leaders for his "edict," to which they constantly refer as proof of Tibet's perpetual subservience to the Chinese motherland. The Qing empire ended with the republican revolution in 1911, and the Chinese missions in Lhasa, headed by diplomatic representatives called ambans, were expelled and sent back to China. The thirteenth Dalai Lama reiterated his country's independent status following the change of government in China, which Tibet continued to exercise without hindrance or interference from China until the communist invasion of 1950. Even at the peak of Chinese imperial power, there was never the degree of interference in Tibetan affairs or governance that we see today under the communists and their "Tibetan Autonomous Region." It may seem paradoxical for the leader of the largest, and one of the last governing communist parties on earth, to be so enthralled with the glorious emperors of centuries past (Manchu ones, at that), but this is just a case of (paraphrasing Deng Xiaopeng) socialist history "with Chinese characteristics."

President Hu has now left the UK and proceeded to Germany, for more appointments with the Tibetan freedom movement and German officials. The Dalai Lama will travel to Scotland -- a country with its own parliament and broad autonomy within the United Kingdom -- after his US visit wraps up at the end of next week. And President Bush leaves around the same time for a series of East Asian visits, including a stop in Beijing. China is apparently planning some sort of recognition for the late Hu Yaobang around November 19th, which would be an ideal opportunity to finally address their Tibet problem.

AZAHARI'S DEATH CONFIRMED

T

he deaths of Malaysian terrorist Azahari bin Husin and one of his comrades in East Java yesterday have been confirmed today by police with the use of fingerprint records. The latest information from the scene, where National Police chief General Sutanto gave an impromtu news conference, is that Azahari was killed by police gunfire and did not have the opportunity to "self-detonate" -- something he was said to have been prepared for at all times. His comrade, identified as Arman, was apparently the one who detonated the bomb which blew the house apart. Today's reports are stating that eleven bombs went off during the seige, out of an estimated 30 bombs present in the house. It took until midday today to render the scene safe.

Metro TV News aired video this morning showing the debris and rubble inside the house, strewn with limbs and body parts. One member of the gang by name of Suwandi was taken alive last night, and related arrests were made in the Central Java capital Semarang.
- posted by Agam @ 2:32 PM 0 comments

 
BOMBER AZAHARI MAY HAVE BEEN KILLED

M

etro TV is reporting breaking news this evening, on an operation by anti-terrorist units at a house in Kota Batu, Malang, East Java. The station reports that a gunfight erupted between security forces and those inside the house, believed to be a terrorist group led by the Malaysian "Mad Doctor" Azahari. Dr. Azahari is number one on the most wanted list, for his alleged involvement in the two bombing attacks in Bali, as well as the Jakarta attacks on J. W. Marriott Hotel and the Australian Embassy.

According to witnesses, about 3:30 PM the gunbattle broke out followed by two large explosions inside the house which blew the roof away. One policeman was wounded by gunfire, and at least one of the gang was reported killed, said to be Dr. Azahari himself -- although this hasn't yet been confirmed from the scene. However I see that AP has put a story up, quoting Gen. Gorries Mere, the national detective deputy chief: "We suspect it is him," Mere said, citing "men in the field." The police are still not saying anything, as it sounds like the situation continues.

Metro has been speaking by phone with residents at the scene, who are being kept outside a perimeter and not allowed to return to their homes due to suspicion that more live bombs may be inside the house. It has been reported on other stations that Azahari blew himself up to avoid capture. Police came thisclose to catching Azahari two years ago in Bandung, West Java, when he fled a house on foot, mere minutes before their arrival.

Meanwhile, five arrests have been made in connection with the recent beheading atrocity against school girls in Poso, Central Sulawesi. Two more Poso students were shot and seriously wounded yesterday, their attacker reportedly captured. And an abandoned terrorist training camp has been uncovered in Maluku.

Just getting video now from the scene in Kota Batu... it looks like the whole town is out watching the show!
- posted by Agam @ 8:58 PM 0 comments

 
MORE ON BILL GATES, COMMUNIST TANTRUMS AND DZONGKHA

T

he example I used in yesterday's post to illustrate communist Chinese temper tantrums toward anything remotely linked with the Dalai Lama, seems to have another twist. Evidently, the claims which China had made to Microsoft -- graded by Gates as a "ship-stopper" on Windows new operating system -- are completely bogus.

Dzongkha is the Bhutanese name for Bhutan's own national language -- which is related to, but distinct from Tibetan. China complained to Microsoft that they should not use the term "Dzongkha" in Windows software, but should instead refer to it as "Tibetan - Bhutan." Evidently some sharp-eyed Chinese language scholars had detected the faint whiff of connection between the word Dzongkha and the exiled Tibetan leader. This was unacceptably offensive to China, memos were sent around the corporation, it was a "ship-stopper."

The Bhutan government had funded the Dzongkha Unicode project itself with Swiss assistance, as Bill Poser writes on his Language Log:

What adds insult to injury is that, according to the Bhutanese news site Kuenselonline, the government of Bhutan, with the assistance of the Swiss Development Corporation, paid US$523,000 to add support for Dzongkha. It didn't cost Microsoft a penny. Bhutan should have spent its money on free software. It would probably have been much cheaper, and they would have control over it.

Reading the Kuensel article, it looks like Bhutanese users will have the full functionality of using Dzongkha fonts and keyboard layout, national forms for date and time etc. (which are all different from central Tibetan) -- the only thing they won't have is the word "Dzongkha" in the language list. Oh, and they'll need to download the font, which Microsoft won't include. Having their language listed as "Tibetan - Bhutan" would be something like listing the Lao language (somewhat related to Thai with a similar but very distinct script) as "Thai - Lao People's Democratic Republic." A Lao user would not like that very much at all.

But the ridiculous thing about this, which illustrates even better the silly and childish whining from China when there's the slightest whiff of a lama around, is that it's based on a totally mistaken fear. The Chinese scholars who sussed out this apparently nefarious connection, were probably misled by their own language's inability to distinguish two different words. I had wondered what the basis of their complaint was, which was not specified in the news article. Evidently, they were worried about a Tibetan who died almost 600 years ago, founder of the Gelukpa school of Tibetan Buddhism, one of the four major schools and the one to which the Dalai Lamas belong. Bill goes on to quote Dr. George van Driem, Director of the Himalayan Languages Project, Department of Comparative Linguistics at Leiden University, cited in a comment to a Pinyin discussion board:

The language Dzongkha, literally "language of the fortress", is a South Bodish language related to Dra"njoke [a language of Sikkim] and, more distantly, to Tibetan. Tibetan, however, belongs to a distinct sub-branch and is a Central Bodish language. The word rDzong (pronounced Dzong) denotes the citadels which served as the centres of military power and higher learning throughout Bhutan since the mediaeval period. The word rDzong has nothing to do with the name Tsong-kha-pa, literally "man from the onion district" (1357-1419), who founded the dGe-lugs-pa (pronounced Gelukpa or Gelup) school of Tibetan Buddhism currently headed by the Dalai Lama. Such confusion could only arise in the minds of speakers of Mandarin Chinese or Tibetan who are not literate in either Tibetan or Dzongkha. Neither Mandarin Chinese nor Tibetan distinguishes phonologically between voiced and voiceless obstruent initials, unlike Dzongkha and, for example, English.

So there is no connection between the name Dzongkha, nor the language Dzongkha, and Dalai Lamas, Gelukpa Buddhism or Tsong-kha-pa. Dzongkha is a different language from Tibetan, though related (read other comments on that board, very enlightening). Gelukpa school of Buddhism had never even established itself in Bhutan. The Chinese - Microsoft formulation introduces extra misleading wrongness, where none previously existed. Hey -- and it's guaranteed to piss off the users as well! True to form for both parties.

Bill the Language Log guy again:

So there you have it. China objects to the language name Dzongkha because of an imaginary association with the leader of the legitimate government of its Tibetan colony. In order to please China, Microsoft refuses to use the generally accepted name for the national language of Bhutan. Now there's a company with principles.

But hey, they're consistent! Gates decides which words are not to be used on his Chinese blogging software -- stuff like "freedom" and "democracy" -- and now there's a Bhutanese forbidden word too. The funny part is, Chinese officialdom claimed authority to know about these things, exposing themselves as historically and linguistically ignorant -- and Microsoft bought it without even checking it out. But Gates is the King of Information Technology! And a handful of commenters on a specialist blog, who do know the history and the linguistics involved, sorted the truth out in short order.

I've written it before, and here it comes again: the power of the blogosphere is in its distributed intelligence. And here's another one: Technorati (which led me to Bill's piece on the Language Log) is our friend.

BIG, FAT HYPOCRITE WATCH

H

ere's something which some might find amusing.....

From the Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them department: Michael Moore is a Halliburtonazi corporate greedmonger:

"I don't own a single share of stock!" filmmaker Michael Moore proudly proclaimed.

He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares - including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Heh, I don't know if that's a complete list, but I like it that Best Foods is his second biggest holding. If his holdings reflect relative importance to him, then it's the planet-killing oil company at the bottom, with aircraft and war profiteers coming in above that, drugs taking third spot just behind food, and capitalism itself right on top! MMmmm, Best Foods.... they make real good mayonaise, eh Mike? MMmmm, mayonaise...

Michael is flogging his latest flick now, hoping to be idolised again in Cannes next May. It's called "Katrina - the Wrath of Bush." The French press and "intelligensia" were really very snarky about Katrina, and America's venal and rotten racist society, so he ought to be a shoe-in for the Golden Palm. Maybe he'll have enough time between now and then to bang together a mini-doc opener for it, exposing Bush's role in France's brutal occupation of the Left Bank. He could interview the valiant hip-hop insurgent freedom fighters between car-b-q's.

CNN GETS THE SCOOP, ACCIDENTALLY

V

ia NRO's Media Blog, comes the story of how CNN asked a couple of servicemen just returned from Iraq, what they thought of the way their home media has been telling their story. Cpt. Todd Lindner of the Kentucky National Guard responded this way:

...we did watch the news when we were back in Baghdad, and we had AFN, and we were able to watch CNN, but I don't know that they always had it right, and I don't know that it's anybody's fault, but for us, we understood our purpose for being there, and we just wanted to make a difference and have an impact, and we definitely did that. But it is kind of disheartening sometimes to see everything focused on just the, the death and destruction and the IED strikes and not focused on how well the U.S. and coalition forces are doing building up the Iraqi police services and the Iraqi army. It really is a tremendous effort being put into that infrastructure and building a self-sufficient government over there. And they're absolutely making progress.

There's a link on that page to the video, about 6 minutes. Watch it if you can.

ENEMIES OF ISLAM

I

n recent weeks a number of writers have noted quite a few examples of Muslim intolerance, which seem to border on the neurotic. A lot of this stuff is just so silly, that they really are in close competition with the neurotic and juvenile complaints of Chinese officialdom regarding anything that strokes them the wrong way. Readers are probably familiar with, for example, the British Burger King ice cream cup caper, where the rather abstract graphic swirl on the lid resembled (to somebody) the Arabic calligraphic for "Allah." Jihad was declared, and ice cream cups were withdrawn. Then there were the complaints about a cartoon "Piglet," who I understand was a compatriot of Winnie the Pooh. In other species-ist bigotry, porcine drinking cups and knick-knacks were banished from office workers' desks. Bacon cheeseburgers were removed from newly religiously-correct menus. There were also complaints (or perhaps just fears of complaints) from Muslim banking customers in some remote part of England, over certain banks' use of piggy banks on their advertising posters. These promotions were then changed, to avoid causing any undue offense to anyone. This stuff has not been going on in Muslim countries, but in places where Muslims form a part of multi-cultural, multi-religious but secular societies.

Last week, Tim Blair noticed that on a media-watch type program of the Australian television broadcaster ABC, that last story was "exposed" as a "myth" and "hogwash" (hogwash, cool). Blair tracked down the original source, The Lancashire Evening Telegraph, which stands by their story, and posted it in full. This part stood out for me:

Piggy banks are being removed from promotional displays in Blackburn town centre banks -- in case they cause offence to Muslim customers....

A spokesman for Halifax, which has branches in Accrington, Burnley, Nelson and Blackburn, said: "We no longer have any advertising that features piggy banks or is piggy bank related.

"That has now been out-phased and we use 'Howard' for all our promotions and advertising.

"Customers will now see cardboard cut-outs of 'Howard' in our East Lancashire branches.

"'Howard is of race so we can hardly be accused of being racist. It is very important for us that we engage with all of our customers."

Didja catch that? "Howard is of race..." Bound to be the new PC catchphrase: "He is a person of race," instead of the old form, "He is a person of colour." Previously, whitish people would understand that when "people of colour" are spoken of, that they are not included (pinkness and shades of tan, notwithstanding). But are they to understand that, in the new construction, they are similarly not included as "people of race?" (Suspend for a moment, your understanding that races don't actually exist, but are social constructs which are merely pigments of some people's imaginations)

Does this mean that, in England for example, everyone who is not English is a "person of race," and that only the English have no "race?" Is a Spaniard "of race?" What about a Paraguayan who has no native American heritage? Or only just a little bit? Should an Italian immigrant be catered to as the exalted "person of race," and why not if he's likely to be darker than the immigrant from northern China? Maybe after all this is thought through by the PC police, they'll decide that some people have a lot of "race" while others have just a little, but everybody has some at least. And then we can all be graded, or something. I'd love to see a picture of this inoffensive "Howard" character.

But back to the Islam-offending porkers. As I was watching my favourite Indonesian broadcaster, Metro TV last week on Hari Raya Idul Fitri, the first day of the big national holiday marking the end of Ramadan, it was reported that throngs of holidaying families were flocking to various tourist and recreation spots around Jakarta. And there, bigger than life at the entrance to Taman Impian Jaya Ancol (Ancol Dream Park, the Indonesian Disneyland), families were greeted by characters dressed as cartoon characters, with huge costume heads. Sort of like the giant Mickey, Pluto Pup, Goofy and Donald Duck one might meet at Disneyland. And there, right in front, was a seven foot pig, shaking hands with the holidaymakers who seemed quite pleased to meet him. This is the largest population of Muslims of any country on earth, they didn't seem to have very many hangups about cartoon pigs -- even extra large walking and talking ones.

Undoubtedly, some Muslims living in predominately non-Muslim places are eager to flex their credit cards of victimology, and search out things that they can be offended by. Like Piglet coffee cups. Such people, I am confident, are small in number. They aren't doing any favours for the ummah. They may feel that they are standing strong for Islam, defending the faith. But what they accomplish is the diminution of it, portraying it as something neurotic and insecure. They are obstacles to understanding and respect, and as such are enemies of Islam itself.

There are also other, more powerful neurotics who can get more attention, do more damage, and are thus greater enemies of the vast majority of kind and generous Muslims whom I've had the honour to know and love during my past 15 years of visiting Indonesia. People like the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who made himself extra famous with his recent pledge to "wipe Israel from the map." By the way, it isn't just Israel he wishes to to this to: check out the parts of his graphic prop which the media probably didn't show you. Wai Gateway Pundit for that.

In his speech, he said:

We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years. ...

The issue of this [World without Zionism] conference is very valuable. In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels ...

Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved...

Mr. Ahmedinejad has a close advisor named Hassan Abbassi, regularly cited as his "strategic guru." Mr. Abbassi says things like this:

"We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization and for the uprooting of the Americans and the English. The global infidel front is a front against Allah and the Muslims, and we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them."

Remember now, Iran is going through a seismic shift from the policies of the former leadership, and the new president has already recalled most of Iran's foreign diplomatic corps, who were seen by him as "too liberal." His "strategic guru" also had this to say:

Abbassi actually cites Great Britain as the "the mother of all evils," and her evil offspring include the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Gulf states -- "children of the same mother: the British Empire." France and Germany are "in terminal decline." "Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover."

Iran gives safe haven to al Qaeda, and has done since Afghanistan, also promises $10,000 US to Palestinian Islamic Jihad for rocket attacks on Israel (like Saddam did with suicide bomber rewards).

That's from the Iranian writer Amir Taheri, in the Arab News. The way I look at it, Ahmadinejad is one of Islam's greatest enemies. When an insecure neurotic has little power, he complains about piggy banks and ice cream cups. When he has vast power he can threaten whole countries and even civilisations. The neurosis is little different, but they are all generating ill will toward a lot of very good people who happen to be Muslims.

Condoleezza Rice gave a speech recently, in which she was quoted referring to Islam as a "religion of love and peace." She also said, "We in America know the benevolence that is at the heart of Islam." From my perspective -- and she took a lot of flack from opinion writers on this -- she is right. The Iranian president and all the "littler neurotics" are not representative at all. I have been honoured to be on the receiving end of a great many Muslims' kindness and generosity over the years, their absolute acceptance of me as a non-Muslim friend and brother. Many of these friends are very devout in their religious beliefs, and they have given me both love and peace, which I strive to return to them in equal measure. Some are no longer with us, but I will remember them always with deep gratitude. I am furious at the damage being done to them every day by a few small-minded, insecure bigots who just happen to share their faith.
- posted by Agam @ 8:31 PM 0 comments

 
A TALE OF TWO VISITS

"I'm a person who always wanted to be free and wanted it not only for myself; freedom is for all human beings." - Rosa Parks

T

his week China's President Hu Jintao visits London for talks with Tony Blair and a state banquet with the Queen, while Tibet's exiled head of state, the Dalai Lama, arrives today in Washington for talks with George W. Bush and a 10 day program of events. No state banquets are planned.

The coincident timing of the two visits should make for an interesting, and contrasting set of news stories this week. As much as I like to criticise the mass media's undeniable bias on many issues, there is thankfully not much media axe-grinding going on in regards to the Tibet - China problem. Surely the ruling communist clique which runs China would disagree with that statement, but given their explicit anti-democratic policies and persistent claims that any criticism of these policies amount to nothing more than the "anti-China" bias of the west, such disagreement with my statement would only bolster the case that the media is generally doing a pretty good job on this issue.

The last time a Chinese president visited Britain, when Jiang Zhemin was there in 1999, Tibetans and their supporters dogged his every move with peaceful protests. Law enforcement authorities were later embarrassed by their heavy handed attempts to shield Mr. Jiang from what he might consider to be the offensive sight of Tibetans exercising their freedom of expression. Large buses were used as mobile "view-obstructors," lest the sight of chaba wearing Tibetan women and the colourful flags of independent Tibet would soil his eyes. This week, President Hu -- a man who made his rise to power via an earlier posting as the all powerful Party Secretary in Tibet, overseeing brutal crackdowns on expressions of Tibetan nationalism -- is likely to receive a similar welcome from many Londoners, as Tibet campaigners have pledged to get in his face at every turn. Last week saw many protest actions against collaboration with the half century occupation of Tibet, when offices of the Canadian multi-national Bombardier were targetted at their headquarters in Montreal, and in 18 other cities around the world.

While British authorities will be trying to limit President Hu's contact with any unscreened London commoners during his two days in the capital, the problem in Washington will be precisely the opposite during Dalai Lama's 10-day event packed program. How to ensure that everyone wishing to attend the public events, or simply to see His Holiness, will have the opportunity? He will participate in several scientific conferences, give public talks and meet with students, present the ICT Light of Truth Awards, as well as engage in meetings with the US Congress' House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Last minute schedule info can be found here. President Hu's schedule is highly classified.

The top diplomat of the Tibetan Government, Mr. Lodi Gyari last week spoke about what his country hoped to achieve from Mr. Bush's third meeting with His Holiness:

Gyari said the Dalai Lama would stress to Bush in his third meeting with the US leader since he took office in 2001 that the Tibetans were not seeking independence but "the right to self governance."

"I must say that President Bush, on this issue, has been consistent and we very much appreciate his strong support.

"He does it not because he is pro-Tibet or anti-Chinese but because he understands that resolving the Tibetan issue can bring more stability in that part of the region," Gyari said.

Bush, whose previous two meetings with the Dalai Lama drew angry complaints from China, is scheduled to visit Beijing on November 19 for talks with Hu and is expected to raise the Tibet issue with him.

I notice that his final day in Washington coincides with the 55th anniversary of his official installation as the Tibetan head of state, on November 17, 1950. Normally, it was the practice that political authority would be held by a regent until a Dalai Lama reached the age of 18. But in his case it was done at the age of only 15 in an atmosphere of national emergency, with the Chinese Red Army already crossing into Tibet's Amdo province that autumn.

Chinese leaders always portray their rule of Tibet as one befitting a benevolent elder brother, "developing" the region and its economy for the benefit of local people, protecting their unique culture and language, and so on. The fact is that government policies resulting in population redistribution are making Tibetans into a minority in their own country. They have already become the minority in the Tibetan capital, a place which Tibetan Buddhists consider as their "Holy City." The new railroad, with the collaboration of Bombardier and others, will soon greatly accelerate this process. The end of the civilisation which evolved and flourished for centuries on the Tibetan Plateau, the Roof of the World, is now in sight for Big Brother at last.

Think I'm exaggerating?

One small example might serve to show the vast gulf between what the occupying power says is its good stewardship of the Tibetan language, and what is practiced in reality. Minority rights, including language rights, are "protected" by Chinese law. While one might expect the status of the Tibetan language to be disregarded by the new commercial concerns of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (who after all want to sell products to the people with money, which in Tibet means people who don't read Tibetan), one might expect that state agencies would be slightly more observant of its own regulations. Or at the very least, of the constitution itself. What better example of a state agency which has close interaction with the public, than the postal service? How does a Tibetan, literate in his own language, fare in sending letters to other Tibetans in his own country and in his own language? One student, now studying in the west, recalls:

In summer 1995, as a curious student in Tibet, I went to a local post office to send some registered mail to friends in Lhasa. I was wondering whether my letters would be delivered if I wrote the address in Tibetan. Usually, the Chinese lady clerk, whom I had known for a long time, would give me forms to fill out and tell me the charges. On this occasion she took my letters and, as she was about to put stamps on them, she saw that the addresses on the letters were written in Tibetan. She said with a smile: "You have to write the address in Chinese, otherwise your letter won't be delivered."

In my accented Chinese I replied: "Under the Chinese constitution, all languages in China are equal. Why can I not use Tibetan in Tibetan areas?" She told me that I was wasting my money. For a while we argued the legality of this in a friendly way. Then I convinced her at least to try to send the letters addressed as they were. I filled in all the necessary forms and paid my fees, and went home.

Several weeks later, I went back to the post office to inquire about my letters. They had not been delivered, but had remained in the post office, marked in red ink with the words "WRITE ADDRESS IN CHINESE" (written in Chinese) stamped on the envelope. Since then, several of my friends have tried to send letters with Tibetan writing on the envelope; all of them ended up with the same fate.

How could this be? Tibet had an efficient postal service before the Chinese invasion, and it issued postage stamps for this purpose (which were purchased with Tibetan currency, both stamps and currency of course printed with the Tibetan language). Now, under benevolent big brother, addressing letters in their own national language will ensure that the mail is undeliverable -- and receive a warning stamp in the occupier's language to boot! As a state agency, I suspect that being a postal worker would be a highly prized, dependable job. And as such, there are probably somewhere between few and no Tibetans working in Lhasa post offices, which is why they can't sort out those letters. This student advocates for a mass mailing protest, sending postcards and letters addressed in Tibetan both through the state post office, and via the international courier companies who are now operating in China. Maybe there would be some loss of "face" involved, if DHL could deliver a parcel addressed in Tibetan, while the Chinese post office could not.

While China can marginalise the Tibetan language in Tibet itself, it's more difficult to do so where it is used in other countries whose independence is recognised. China can however, stomp its feet and pressure toadying western capitalists -- such as Microsoft Corp. -- to make sure that other national forms of Tibetan shall be referred to as China wishes it to be. Oh, and that even six degrees of separation from the Dalai Lama, is just not nearly enough.

Microsoft has barred the use of the Bhutanese government's official term for the Bhutanese language, Dzongkha, in any of its products, citing that the term had affiliations with the Dalai Lama. In an internal memorandum, Microsoft employees were told not to use the term Dzongkha in any Microsoft software, language lists or promotional materials since "Doing so implies affiliation with the Dalai Lama, which is not acceptable to the government of China. In this instance, replace "Dzongkha" with 'Tibetan - Bhutan'."

The Kingdom of Bhutan is situated in the Himalayas between India and Tibet. The state religion is the Drukpa Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism and Dzongkha is the official language. Dzongkha has a linguistic relationship to modern Tibetan in a similar way to that between Spanish and Italian.

The use of the word Dzongkha was graded by Microsoft as a 'ship-stopper', which means that a product may not be produced in any form until the problem is resolved. Microsoft has four levels of error severity, ship-stopper being the most severe.

A small example of the sort of baby-like tantrums delivered by Chinese officials at the merest hint of recognition for Tibet's historical status or the Dalai Lama's international stature. A UN-published book plans to include a quote from him? China sez: Stop the presses! A Tibetan artist presumes to participate in an international art show at UN plaza? China sez: Kick him out! I picked up this recent instance from my daily WTN email newsletter, which are archived at WTN News, Oct. 24 edition. After Microsoft's cynical collaboration in helping the PRC to censor such ideas as "freedom," "democracy," and "human rights" from its online "blogging" system, the real "ship-stopper" ought to be Bill Gates' grovelling attitude. In praising China's hybrid system of economic liberal reform with political and social repression, Gates gushed, "It is a brand new form of capitalism, and as a consumer it's the best thing that ever happened."

One of the events in London to be attended by President Hu, is an exhibition of ancient Chinese art. Once he is past the Tibetan protesters and inside the gallery, expect him to reiterate China's current demand for restrictions on the importation of such works. He is not likely to comment on China's plundering of ancient Tibetan artworks:

As the US considers China's request for restrictions on the import of archaeological material, the question of China's alleged organised plunder of Tibetan artefacts is about to come under US congressional scrutiny. The move is likely to be seized upon by dealers in the US who oppose restrictions on the trade in Chinese artefacts.

Dana Rohrabacher, a conservative Republican representative in the United States Congress and a long-standing critic of China's human rights record, has announced he will lead an investigation into what he suspects was the systematic looting of Tibetan art and objects by Chinese authorities since the 1949 Communist revolution. The inquiry has coincided with a high profile auction in Beijing of artefacts that previously belonged to Tibetan monasteries...

Bravo, Congressman Rohrabacher. The same regime which conducted the looting of monasteries and homes, stole every religious artwork it could get its hands on, and took them back to China by the truckload, is still in power today. Many pieces were sold in the international market, gold and silver statuary were often melted down, and much was simply destroyed for the hell of it.

Congressman Rohrabacher suspects the Chinese government carried out systematic confiscation of valuables before the widespread destruction of monastery buildings during the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution. "Just as the Nazis stole from European Jews, Chinese officials have refused to return or apologise for their pillaging of Tibet", Rohrabacher said when announcing his inquiry.

The California congressman is being helped by an exiled senior Tibetan monk, Rinbur Tulku, who has written in his biography about the destruction of Lhasa's Johkang temple and Ganden monastery during the Cultural Revolution and who helped retrieve some Tibetan religious treasures in China in 1982.

China's conquest and relentless destruction of Tibet has continued for more than half a century, with a brief relaxation in the early 1980's when Party Secretary Hu Yaobang recognised that there was a problem. He stated in 1980:

"We feel that our Party has let the Tibetan people down. We feel very bad! The sole purpose of our Communist Party is to work for the happiness of people, to do good things for them. We have worked nearly thirty years, but the life of the Tibetan people has not been notably improved. Are we not to blame?"

Now it is more than fifty years, and the question is the same. Hu Yaobang initiated contact with the exiled Tibetans and permitted representatives to visit during that brief period of openness. The authorities were shocked by the overwhelming and emotional reception these delegations received, and they were halted. Mr. Hu was later purged from the leadership, and zero tolerance returned to the Tibetan plateau -- a policy faithfully carried out by a succession of Party Secretaries of the "Tibetan Autonomous Region," the current President Hu among them.

But the door has opened ever so slowly in the last couple of years, once again allowing some limited contact between the two sides. The above quoted official, Lodi Gyari has led three delegations to China, and this past July continued discussions for the first time outside China, when the two sides met in Switzerland. Mr. Gyari also participated in the Tibetan visits during the brief opening of the early '80's. He is optimistic about prospects for another meeting before the end of this year, and hopefully some signs of progress that China would finally understand that the Dalai Lama had stopped calling for Tibetan independence about 15 years ago. So maybe they could stop shrieking about him being a "splittist" now? The Tibetan spiritual leader has also declared he would have no political role in the new Tibet, having personally driven the democratisation of the exile government over the past 45 years.

China claims that what's left of Tibet -- the part not subsumed into various Chinese provinces -- is an "autonomous" region of China. The Tibetans have conceded a lot by accepting to be a part of greater China, and are asking that the "autonomy" be made genuine. That's not unreasonable. It's merely asking Chinese leaders to be honest, and to genuinely grant what they already claim to have granted. If China continues to play this out as a waiting game until the Dalai Lama's passing, they will be making a big mistake. He is the only Tibetan figure with the capacity to seal such an agreement with his people. After that, all bets are off.

UPDATE: It turns out that Chinese complaints to Microsoft about their Bhutanese language option, were complete nonsense which Microsoft swallowed whole without even checking it out. See my subsequent posting here (if you haven't already).
- posted by Agam @ 7:39 PM 0 comments