EPW FACT OF THE DAY: FRIDAY, DECEMBER 08, 2006Contact: Marc Morano ( ), Matt Dempsey ( )
Washington D.C. – Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the outgoing Chairman of Environment & Public Works Committee, is pleased to announce the public release of the Senate Committee published booklet entitled “A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism. Hot & Cold Media Spin Cycle: A Challenge To Journalists who Cover Global Warming.”

Click here to download the “Skeptic’s Guide” (]

The color glossy 64 page booklet — previously was only available in hardcopy to the media and policy makers — includes speeches, graphs, press releases and scientific articles refuting catastrophe climate fears presented by the media, the United Nations, Hollywood and former Vice President turned-foreign-lobbyist Al Gore.

The “Skeptic’s Guide” includes a copy of Senator Inhofe’s 50 minute Senate floor speech delivered on September 25, 2006 challenging the media to improve its reporting.

The ‘Skeptic’s Guide’, which has received recognition by the LA Times and Congressional Quarterly, is now available free for international distribution on the Senate Environmental & Public Works Web site (]

The book, which features web links to all supporting documentation, also serves as a handbook to identify the major players in media bias when it comes to poor climate science reporting. The guide presents a reporter’s virtual who’s-who’s of embarrassing and one-sided media coverage, with a focus on such reporters as CBS News “60 Minutes” Scott Pelley, ABC News reporter Bill Blakemore, CNN’s Miles O’Brien, and former NBC Newsman Tom Brokaw.

Senator Inhofe’s “Skeptic’s Guide” also includes hard hitting critiques of the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, Associated Press, Reuters, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post.

Senator Inhofe has challenged the media in a series of speeches and hearings to stop the unfounded hype.

“The American people are fed up with the media for promoting the idea that former Vice President Al Gore represents the scientific “consensus” that SUV’s and the modern American way of life have somehow created a ‘climate emergency’ that only United Nations bureaucrats and wealthy Hollywood liberals can solve,” Senator Inhofe said in October.

Skepticism that human C02 emissions are creating a “climate catastrophe” has grown in recent times. In September, renowned French geophysicists and Socialist Party member Claude Allegre, converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic. This latest defector from the global warming camp caps a year in which numerous scientific studies have bolstered the claims of climate skeptics.

Scientific studies that debunk the dire predictions of human-caused global warming have continued to accumulate and many believe the new science is shattering the media-promoted scientific “consensus” on climate alarmism. See: (

Related Links:

12/06/2006 – Inhofe Says Global Warming Media Hearing Exposed Alarmist Media (

10/17/2006 – Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming – Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics (

10/30/2006 – “I Don’t Like The Word ‘Balance’’- Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter (

10/24/2006 – Senator Inhofe Credited For Prompting Newsweek Admission of Error on 70’s Predictions of Coming Ice Age – In Case You Missed It…. ( )

09/25/2006 – Senator Inhofe Speech: “Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming” (

Turks Join the Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan

Turks Join the Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan

By Brian Glyn Williams

While it is a long held maxim that Turkey is “with” the West in the war on terrorism—especially after the 2003 Istanbul bombings—the invasion of Iraq has made anti-Americanism vogue in Turkey. Some Turks believe that Jews blew up the World Trade Center and that the United States has secret plans to invade Turkey in order to create a Kurdistan on its territory. Such sentiments are not strictly limited to an extremist fringe; this is best demonstrated by the fact that Hitler’s Kavgam (Mein Kampf) and Metal Firtna (a Tom Clancy-esque book depicting the “inevitable” U.S. invasion of Turkey) recently became bestsellers in Turkey. It is also seen in the most expensive movie ever produced in Turkey, Valley of the Wolves Iraq, which features U.S. soldiers shooting up Iraqi weddings and harvesting Iraqi body parts for shipment to Tel Aviv. Similar sentiments have subsequently begun to appear on Turkish jihadi websites. While Turkish extremist websites were previously devoted almost exclusively to lionizing Chechen jihadis fighting the “Godless” Russians (often featuring footage of Russian vehicles hitting landmines and Chechen field commanders in action), Americans are now starring in the role of kafir (infidel) targets for Iraqi and Taliban mujahideen on Turkish websites.

Several sites, such as, feature a page entitled “U.S. Roadkill” that displays gory images of slain and maimed U.S. soldiers in Iraq with blogger subtitles ecstatically boasting about “U.S. dogs and road meat who deserve a worse fate than merely being blown up.” Other sites, often with a pro-Hezbollah and anti-Israeli slant that became more prevalent following the recent July-August conflict in Lebanon, feature American caskets, shots of Abu Ghraib and epitaphs to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ( In between the images of Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and stone throwing Palestinians, even more disturbing images are found. One of these images proclaims: “For those who watched Valley of the Wolves, here is a living legend (Osama bin Laden is featured next to a lion). We invite you to the Valley of the Wolves Afghanistan.” Such calls appear to have been heeded. Pictures of Turkish shehits (martyrs) who left NATO-member Turkey to fight as jihadi volunteers against NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan seem to substantiate claims that Turks are being killed in Afghanistan (Khaleej Times, October 19). The Turkish jihadi site recently posted a jihadi epitaph for Zubeyr Kunyeli Ahmet, “our young Turk who was martyred in Afghanistan.” The site similarly posted the jihadi epitaph of an Osman Ozkan from Bursa who “became a martyr fighting alongside the Taliban against the United States.”

Also, the site recently described the “martyrdom” of Bilal Yaldizci who “traveled to Pakistan for schooling” before joining the mujahideen in dangerous operations in the Hindu Kush. There he was martyred in combat before becoming a cause celebre on Turkish Islamist websites which feature songs in his honor. Yaldizci’s final letter chastising his parents for pushing him to succeed in work and school instead of protecting his fellow Muslims reappeared on many Turkish sites which eulogized him ( The case of Bilal Yaldizci is interesting in that the Turkish press previously reported the existence of a little known network of “Afghan-Turks” who fought against the Soviets in the 1980s (Turkish Daily News, October 17, 2001). The fact that the first Turkish volunteer mujahid to die in this struggle was also named Bilal Yaldizci might indicate that the recent martyr’s name is a laqab or kunya (nom de guerre) and not his real name.

Turks who travel to the region today, including one who was recently reported killed by U.S. troops in an NPR report, may be following an older jihad trail through Iran. According to Mehmet Farac, a group of 20 Turks led by Habib Akdas first traveled to the Afghan training camps in Kandahar and Kabul from 1997-2001 [1]. Some of this group subsequently traveled to the Ansar al-Islam jihadi enclave in Iraqi Kurdistan [2]. The Amir of this Turkish group, Habib Akdas, went on to lead the November 2003 El Kaide Turka (Turkish al-Qaeda) bombings of Jewish and British targets in Istanbul before fleeing to Iraq to fight Americans, where he was subsequently killed. There is also the case of the Turkish gastarbeiter (known as the “Bremen Taliban”) from Germany, Murat Kurnaz, who was detained by U.S. forces in Guantanamo after being apprehended in Afghanistan (Der Spiegel, January 10).

There is thus a precedent for Turks engaging in jihad in Afghanistan. The fact that 12 Turks were reported martyred in a recent aerial bombardment in the Pakistani agency of Waziristan—among whom was an Istanbuli who went by the kunya of “Mohammad Atta” (in reference to the team commander for the 9/11 hijackers)—would indicate that the call to the “Valley of the Wolves Afghanistan” has been heeded by Turkish jihadis ( A recent posting describes the martyrdom of a 24-year-old Turk from Bitlis (eastern Turkey, although he moved to Adana) named Arif Guler who traveled from the jihad in Kashmir to fight in Iraq. This indicates that others have found a zone of jihad nearer at hand. Guler, like Akdas before him, was killed in a U.S. aerial strike ( Another jihadi site posted the epitaph of a Muhammad from Trebizond who fought in Chechnya under Shamil Basaev before dying in Iraq (

Such Turkish jihadi activity in the “Valley of the Wolves Iraq” is not limited, according to the pro-Chechen website which reprinted an article from Vakit entitled “Turkish Mujahideen in Iraq.” The claims on this website of Turkish jihadi involvement in Iraq are substantiated by Turkish jihadi websites. One of these mentions the martyrdom of Ebubekir Yigit from Bitlis who is also mentioned on the Kavkaz site. The case of Ebubekir Yigit, whose death was widely reported in the Turkish media, is particularly alarming in that he engaged in a suicide bombing attack against U.S. troops that reportedly killed seven Americans (

Most recently, the jihadi site, which features a video clip of the famous Iraqi sniper Juba and images of Bush being beheaded by al-Qaeda in Iraq, has a full page jihadi epitaph to a Turk named Abu Muhammad Umar. Umar was blown up in a filmed suicide bombing against a CIA base (the photographs of his suicide attack are on the site, entitled “Turkish Mujahideen Martyred in Operation Against CIA Base”) ( His epitaph provides some insight into the world of Turks who reject their country’s secular values and join the jihadis who have ironically enough beheaded Turkish hostages in both Iraq and Afghanistan (usually truck drivers or engineers working for the “puppet” governments of Hamid Karzai or Nuri al-Maliki).

The epitaph read, “The harm he delivered [in his suicide attack on the CIA] is so big the Americans find it is unspeakable. In the name of Creator, on January 2006 Abu Muhammad Umar left his four children and wife to elevate Allah’s religion and he went to Iraq to share the torture and the misery of his brothers and to have revenge against the kafirs (infidels). Every time he’d previously watched jihad videos his hate grew bigger and bigger. He used to cry when he saw the women being raped on the videos. He used to cry and say ‘They are no different from my wife and sister. These disgusting dogs are touching my namuz (pride in one’s ability to protect women, homeland and faith). I have to go kill them for revenge.’ While watching these videos his hatred grew and whenever he saw the explosions and dead American soldiers he used to shout Allahu Akbar (God is Great) and bang the table…Everywhere he went he talked about jihad and how much he loved Sheikh Osama [bin Laden]…He used to tell his kids about heaven and he wanted them to know the infidel. He used to tell them that they need to kill infidels when they grow up…Seeing his brothers being tortured and the unfairness he said ‘It can’t continue! I must blow myself up.’ And he did it, our brother Abu Muhammad Umar did what he said he would do. May God accept him.”

While the participation of Turks in jihad operations against the United States is certainly a dangerous development, it is still a fringe phenomenon and there are many that value American culture, even if it is not as trendy as it used to be before the Iraq invasion. As in the case of Turkish jihadis fighting Russians in Chechnya, their numbers are few and in the case of Afghanistan far outweighed by Turkey’s participation in ISAF, NATO and the Karzai government’s building projects (Terrorism Monitor, April 7, 2005). Nevertheless, they are an example of the unexpected public relations fall-out stemming from the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and the revulsion many Turks felt at the Abu Ghraib images. Such sentiments can be channeled by the growing number of Turkish Islamists into anti-American jihad operations that have cost both Turkish and American lives (Insight Turkey, January-March).

Hamas talks secretly with Democratic Party Officials!

Hamas talks secretly with Democratic Party Officials!

Hamas smuggled $66 million in 8 months

sources close to the Hamas-led government claimed that Hamas representatives recently held talks with officials from the US Democratic Party at a secret location.

The sources told the Bethlehem-based Maan News Agency that Hamas representatives have also been holding secret talks with European government officials, including Britain and France.

The report about contacts between Hamas and American and European officials comes in the wake of the breakdown of negotiations between Hamas and Abbas’s Fatah party over the formation of a Palestinian unity government.

According to the report, Hamas has succeeded in convincing European officials to accept the Islamist movement’s plan for a long-term hudna [truce] with Israel as a substitute for recognizing Israel’s right to exist.
The report quoted sources close to Hamas as saying that the Europeans have bought the idea of solving the Israeli-Arab conflict on the basis of a hudna rather than the principle of land for peace.

Great, so if this is to be believed, the democrats are willing to negotiate will radical terrorist organization, which will not recognizing Israel’s right to exist! Democrats are fools, allowing themselves to be duped into this false sense of security! I realize how nice it sounds to not have any fighting in the world but please look around at the reality we live in.

This hudna sounds like a great plan… give your enemy a break to regroup and rearm, let them use this smoke screen for military preparations??? This was proposed rejected in the past lets not go back down that road again!

Photos of the Student Demonstration in Tehran

Photos of the Student Demonstration in Tehran

Fox News reported that as many as 2,000 students turned out to demand personal freedom in the Islamic state, which has cracked down on political activity on campus this year.

Iranian Student News Agency published photos of the large demonstration in Tehran with statements on their banners such as: “If I rise up and you rise up, everyone will rise up.” Multimedia_pics_1385_9_photo_1166.jpg For more photos see Fars News, here and here.

The full text:

“What do we want? Freedom!”That was one of the banners a large crowd waved on Wednesday at a demonstration at Tehran University.

As many as 2,000 students turned out to demand personal freedom in the Islamic state, which has cracked down on political activity on campus this year in what some have called the Second Cultural Revolution.

The theme of Wednesday’s protest was Student Life is Alive.

The police apparently made no effort to stop the demonstration, which ended peacefully.

One banner, in Persian, read: “If I rise up and you rise up, everyone will rise up.”

Another read: “Our struggle is twofold: Fighting against internal oppression and external foreign threats.”

Photographs of Wednesday’s demonstration were posted on Iranian websites and in the blogosphere.

The student protest was openly defiant of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who at the beginning of the school year asked students to speak out against the secularization of the education system.

The students apparently didn’t, but an unknown number of professors who had been critical of the regime were forced into early retirement.

At the same time, students returning to the university were given “star” ratings by the administration. Students with borderline political leanings were assigned one or two stars. Students deemed to be vocally anti-regime were assigned three or four stars.

In many cases, three- and four-star students — regardless of their academic performance — were barred from returning to campuses this fall.

According to eyewitness reports, the area of the demonstration was blocked off by buses, and police forced cameramen away so that they could not shoot video.

According to one report, some students threw stones at news cameramen, suspecting they might be agents of the state documenting the protests for a future retaliation.

Student and academic sentiment could pose a problem for the Iranian regime. Seventy percent of Iran’s population is under the age of the 30, and 90 percent of the under-30s are literate, well-read and seemingly aspire to greater personal and political freedom.

What a Real War Looks Like

What a Real War Looks Like
By Elan Journo | December 8, 2006

The Iraq Study Group has issued many specific recommendations, but the options boil down to a maddeningly limited range: pull out or send more troops to do democracy-building and, either way, “engage” the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria. Missing from the list is the one option our self-defense demands: a war to defeat the enemy. If you think we’ve already tried this option and failed, think again. Washington’s campaign in Iraq looks nothing like the war necessary for our self-defense.

What does such a war look like?

America’s security depends on identifying precisely the enemy that threatens our lives–and then crushing it, rendering it a non-threat. It depends on proudly defending our right to live free of foreign aggression–by unapologetically killing the killers who want us dead.

Those who say this is a “new kind of conflict” against a “faceless enemy” are wrong. The enemy Washington evasively calls “terrorism” is actually an ideologically inspired political movement: Islamic totalitarianism. It seeks to subjugate the West under a totalitarian Islamic regime by means of terrorism, negotiation, war–anything that will win its jihad. The movement’s inspiration, its first triumph, its standard-bearer, is the theocracy of Iran. Iran’s regime has, for decades, used terrorist proxies to attack America. It openly seeks nuclear weapons and zealously sponsors and harbors jihadists. Without Iran’s support, legions of holy warriors would be untrained, unarmed, unmotivated, impotent.

Destroying Islamic totalitarianism requires a punishing military onslaught to end its primary state representative and demoralize its supporters. We need to deploy all necessary force to destroy Iran’s ability to fight, while minimizing our own casualties. We need a campaign that ruthlessly inflicts the pain of war so intensely that the jihadists renounce their cause as hopeless and fear to take up arms against us. This is how America and its Allies defeated both Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan.

Victory in World War II required flattening cities, firebombing factories, shops and homes, devastating vast tracts of Germany and Japan. The enemy and its supporters were exhausted materially and crushed in spirit. What our actions demonstrated to them was that any attempt to implement their vicious ideologies would bring them only destruction and death. Since their defeat, Nazism and Japanese imperialism have essentially withered as ideological forces. Victory today requires the same: smashing Iran’s totalitarian regime and thus demoralizing the Islamist movement and its many supporters, so that they, too, abandon their cause as futile.

We triumphed over both Japan and Germany in less than four years after Pearl Harbor. Yet more than five years after 9/11, against a far weaker enemy, our soldiers still die daily in Iraq. Why? Because this war is neither assertive nor ruthless–it is a tragically meek pretense at war.

Consider what Washington has done. The Islamist regime in Iran remains untouched, fomenting terrorism. (And now our leaders hope to “engage” Iran diplomatically.)

We went to battle not with theocratic Iran, but with the secular dictatorship of Iraq. And the campaign there was not aimed at crushing whatever threat Hussein’s regime posed to us. “Shock and awe” bombing never materialized. Our brave and capable forces were hamstrung: ordered not to bomb key targets such as power plants and to avoid firing into mosques (where insurgents hide) lest we offend Muslim sensibilities. Instead, we sent our troops to lift Iraq out of poverty, open new schools, fix up hospitals, feed the hungry, unclog sewers–a Peace Corps, not an army corps, mission.

U.S. troops were sent, not to crush an enemy threatening America, but (as Bush explained) to “sacrifice for the liberty of strangers,” putting the lives of Iraqis above their own. They were prevented from using all necessary force to win or even to protect themselves. No wonder the insurgency has flourished, emboldened by Washington’s self-crippling policies. (Perversely, some want even more Americans tossed into this quagmire.)

Bush did all this to bring Iraqis the vote. Any objective assessment of the Middle East would have told one who would win elections, given the widespread popular support for Islamic totalitarianism. Iraqis swept to power a pro-Islamist leadership intimately tied to Iran. The most influential figure in Iraqi politics is now Moktadr al-Sadr, an Islamist warlord lusting after theocratic rule and American blood. When asked whether he would accept just such an outcome from the elections, Bush said that of course he would, because “democracy is democracy.”

No war that ushers Islamists into political office has U.S. self-defense as its goal.

This war has been worse than doing nothing, because it has galvanized our enemy to believe its success more likely than ever–even as it has drained Americans’ will to fight. Washington’s feeble campaign demonstrates the ruinous effects of refusing to assert our self-interest and defend our freedom. It is past time to consider our only moral and practical option: end the senseless sacrifice of our soldiers–and let them go to war.

Click Here to support

Fitzgerald: The folly of the Iraq Study Group

December 08, 2006

Fitzgerald: The folly of the Iraq Study Group

The Iraq Study Group brings us nothing but another kind of folly. It states the obvious, that “we are losing in Iraq” by which it means that, given the Bush Administration’s definition of “winning” (which apparently the Iraq Study Group is too unimaginative to question), then we, who are failing to achieve what would thereby constitute “winning,” therefore “are losing.” And this statement of the obvious is considered a great achievement. But the Iraq Study Group report is even worse than a mere statement of the obvious. For along with that statement of the obvious comes so much else that is even more stupid and potentially dangerous than what the Bush Administration it criticizes now offers, that one is left feeling colossally depressed.

There is, for example, the suggestion that Iraq and Syria be “talked to.” On the face of it, who can object to “talking to” anyone? But in the Middle East, “talking to” lends legitimacy. It gives support to those regimes that one wishes to isolate or at least to cause to feel isolated. It is not as if there the views of these regimes are not fully known already. They are not hermetically sealed off, like the military regime in Burma. We already know what the regime in Syria wants: it wants as much protection from its enemies, as much power and money, as it can get. It wants to continue to dominate Lebanon. It wants to continue the Alawite dictatorship by doing the simultaneous bidding of both the Shi’a in Iran (who have declared the Alawites to be “true Muslims,” which is not what the Sunnis think, and Sunni Muslims constitute 70% of the Syrian population) and the Sunnis, by allowing the latter free entry to leave Syria and go to fight (and, the Alawites hope, die) in Iraq.

As for “talking to Iran,” the American government already knows perfectly well what Iran wants. It wants precisely to “talk, talk, talk” with everyone under the sun, in order to keep any attack from actually taking place that would stop its headlong rush toward obtaining nuclear weapons. Only a fool would think otherwise. And only fools would think that formal “talks” would add to the American store of knowledge, or would help the U.S. find out what “Iran really wants” when we know perfectly well what Iran really wants: it wants that weaponry, and the power and the threat that go with it. And the current regime, we have every reason to believe, is certainly prepared to use such weapons against Israel, in a final chiliastic frenzy. The suggestion that the American government “talk to” Syria and Iran sounds perfectly harmless, perfectly fine, unless one thinks clearly about what such “talks” would mean.

Of course, there are “talks” that could be brief, and could go something like this:

To the Syrian regime, the Americans could say: Alawites are not true Muslims. We know this, and the Sunnis know this, despite your attempts to hide behind that single fatwa from Iran claiming otherwise. The Saudis are prepared to use their money to broadcast through the Arab press, in the Middle East and in London, ably assisted by the Jordanians and the Egyptians, that the Alawites, those non-Muslims, must go. You think you can continue to rule, despite being 12% of the population. You think we will not support a Sunni Muslim effort to depose you. At this point, your behavior is such that we regard you as disposable. But it is not we who will do the disposing. It will be the Ikhwan within Syria. We will publicize your permitting Shi’a missionaries to come from Iran. We will have the Saudis and others display the pictures of Mary that hang in every Alawite village. Your Alawite generals will get more and more nervous. They do not all wish to be slaughtered — which is what the real Muslims will do to you. You have a choice. Leave Lebanon alone. Stop helping Iran. Forget about the Golan Heights; you will never get it back. We will give you a free hand in Syria. But that is it. That is more than enough. That, or a Sunni uprising that will not end in a mere palace coup, but in the mass murder of Alawites everywhere. Your choice.

That would be the way to have “talks” with Syria.

And the “talks” with Iran? Something along the same friendly lines. Something like this: Fifty percent of your population is not Persian. There are Kurds. There are Azeris. There are Baluchis. There are Arabs in Khuzistan, where all your oil is located. We are prepared to arm, through Kurdistan, those Kurds. The mere existence of an independent and American-backed Kurdistan will inspire not only those Kurds, but also those Baluchis and those Arabs and, if we can make a deal with Azerbaijan, possibly even those Azeris as well. The Ottoman Empire dissolved after World War I. What remains of the Persian Empire — that is, modern Iran — can dissolve, or be shrunk still further. Could you put down simultaneous revolts among the Kurds, Baluchis, Azeris, and Arabs? You don’t think we dare do it? Why not? What do we have to lose? What could you do now that is still worse than what you are already doing? Let’s be clear: we are not out to overturn the regime, but we can inflict such damage on your country that others, within, will overturn your regime. And kill the Mullahs in their luxurious homes. Do you want that? Do you want to lose the oil of Khuzistan to the Arabs? We wouldn’t dare, you say? Why wouldn’t we? Why should we care? We buy oil from wherever, and we pay the market price to you or to them. What reason do we have for keeping Iran together? Instability should worry us? Why? Why should it?

Something like that, to both Syria and Iran, would be the only kind of talks worth having.

As for the sinister business in the Iraq Study Group about Israel, it included all the cliches about a “two-state solution,” courtesy no doubt of such operators as that virtual agent of the Arabs, Raymond Close (why has his participation, and his shadowy background, not been made the subject of discussion?). Also involved was Robert Malley, that full-time and tireless promoter of the “Palestinians,” who was the behind-the-scenes organizer (the front man was Gareth Evans) of the International Crisis Group’s little effort (one of those “signed by World Leaders” things) to demand renewed pressure for Israeli surrender. In that effort one of those
“World Leaders” was none other than Lee Hamilton, famously unsympathetic — always has been, always will be — to Israel, though not perhaps for the same reasons as Texas fixer and Saudi-connected (“Our friends in the Gulf”) James Baker.

Oh, there’s a good deal more to say about the Iraq Study Group, none of it good. The only good thing is that, along with much vicious nonsense, and of course without a hint of comprehension of the nature or scope or instruments of Jihad (these are all Yesterday’s Men and Women, and far too famous and busy to have the time to learn, at this point, about Islam), it managed to state the obvious: that the Bush policy, on its own terms, is not “winning” in Iraq.

The more intelligent criticism, the one that requires examination of what should constitute “winning” for the United States in Iraq, was beyond that committee’s capacity. After all, that would take real thought. That would take study, and reading, and time. That is not something to be asked of such busy busy people as James Baker and Lee Hamilton and all the rest. They had their “experts” — such people as Raymond Close and Shibley Telhami. What did you expect?

James Baker’s (Iraq Study Group) Law Firm Represents Saudi Government Against 9/11 Families – MSM Doesn’t Report! — Baker Botts has an office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

James Baker’s (Iraq Study Group) Law Firm Represents Saudi

Government Against 9/11 Families – MSM Doesn’t Report!

December 8th, 2006

Besides the study group being a complete joke, it has now been brought to attention that James Baker’s law firm, Baker Botts, has a secret that nobody, including the MSM, wants you to know.James Baker is the conservative head of the recently formed Iraq Study Group which claims to be bi-partisan and without an agenda. I was one of the first to show you part of their agenda and now I will be glad to help educate you on another. Not to mention this shows that the media is willing to protect a conservative when that conservative is pushing the liberal agenda.

Baker Botts is a law firm of about 700 attorneys and a laundry list of political connections. James Baker is the senior partner of this firm.

Among other places, Baker Botts has an office in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It has also opened an office in Dubai. James Baker has many ties to Saudi Arabia, including numerous meetings that took place when he was the Secretary of State for the first President Bush. He was able to get financial investments in Baker Botts from Price Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States.

If you remember back, the families of the 9/11 victims sued certain Saudis for their involvement in the attacks, the Saudi Defense Minister and his brother, the governor of Riyadh. These two men turned to none other than Baker Botts to form their defense team. The Saudi Defense Minister, Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al-Saud, has given about $250,000 per year for the last sixteen years to the International Islamic Relief Organization, an organization being investigated by the U.S. government for funding Islamic terrorist groups.

In an exciting twist, it was none other than George W. Bush who gained employment at Baker Botts at the age of 15.

Does this make you think twice on why James Baker would recommend that Israel give away its land to Palestine? How about the fact that this Iraq “study” Group was able to come up with more than 75 recommendations, none of which described a way to win the war in Iraq? Why do people with these types of connections continue to be appointed to head councils on foreign policy? I consider this grounds for complete dismissal of the Iraq Study Group’s report and I demand that the taxpayers have their 1.3 million dollars returned to them immediately, with interest.

This information can be found on Newsweek,, and It has also been featured by Michael Savage.

Baker report dismissed as unrealistic and ill-informed

Baker report dismissed as unrealistic and ill-


Michael Howard in Irbil
Friday December 8, 2006
The Guardian

Amid growing Iraqi criticism of the findings of the Baker-Hamilton commission, senior government figures yesterday expressed bewilderment at a proposal to take the police force out of the hands of the interior ministry and put it under the control of the ministry of defence.The report claimed the problems with Iraq’s police – poor organisation and training, corruption, sectarian divisions and infiltration by militias – were so profound that only a radical reorganisation would enable them to carry out their mission “to protect and serve all Iraqis”.

But a senior security adviser to the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, dismissed the proposals. “Like too many of the Baker report’s recommendations, it is likely to cause more problems than it solves,” he said. “The interior ministry needs cleaning of some bad elements, and we are doing so. Transferring the national police lock, stock and barrel to the defence ministry is unworkable and unrealistic.”

He claimed the Iraq Study Group had included the suggestion at the behest of Sunni leaders, who charge the interior ministry, which is under Shia control, with running anti-Sunni death squads. The defence ministry is headed by a Sunni.

Restoring faith in the police among ordinary Iraqis is seen as crucial to reducing popular support for armed militias, which are causing so much damage to communal relations. A recent poll among Shia residents in eastern Baghdad suggested they looked first to their local militias for protection rather than the police.

Despite a lack of equipment and training, the fledgling Iraqi army has remained largely free of infiltration by the militia and the sectarian tensions that are rife in the police. However, forcing the defence ministry and the army into a policing role it is ill equipped to handle is not the answer, said Joost Hiltermann of the International Crisis Group.

“It is important to retain a dividing line between external defence and internal security,” he said. “What could also happen is that by importing bad elements from the police you dilute and possibly undermine those relatively good elements in the Iraqi army.”

The report, greeted with much fanfare in Washington, received only a guarded welcome in Iraq. Yesterday as the country’s politicians began to read the fine print of the 79 recommendations, the caution turned to dismay.

“It is not surprising they got so many things wrong,” said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish MP. “In the nine months it took to prepare this report, they were only in Iraq for four days and never left the green zone.”
Additional reporting by Salaam Jihad

Possible Clinton-Obama Presidential Clash Has Senate Abuzz

For Now, an Unofficial Rivalry

Possible Clinton-Obama Presidential Clash Has Senate Abuzz

By Charles Babington and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, December 8, 2006; A01

On Wednesday night, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy hosted the nine Democratic members of his health and education committee at an intimate dinner in his home in Washington’s Kalorama neighborhood. The surroundings were stylish, the food home-cooked and tasty.

And then there was the entertainment.

The gathering included a former presidential candidate, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, and a close friend of Kennedy’s, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut. But the star attractions were Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois, two junior committee members who may be duking it out for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination in a matter of months.

The air was thick with ambition. “I don’t know why we’re here, Bernie,” Rep. Sherrod Brown (Ohio) quipped to a fellow senator-elect, Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), as the guests walked into the dining room.

Neither Clinton nor Obama has formally declared a candidacy, but their rivalry is already the talk of the chamber, an amusing sideshow for Democrats and Republicans — at least the handful who aren’t weighing their own White House bids.

Kennedy (Mass.) tried not to play favorites on Wednesday, seating the two superstars on his right and left at dinner. But the dais of his committee will be another matter next year, after Obama joins the panel in January: According to seniority rules, the two are likely to be seated next to each other, toward the end. There they will vie for prominence on major issues such as stem cell research, the minimum wage and college tuition subsidies.

In the fishbowl of the Senate, interactions between Clinton and Obama are frequent and closely scrutinized. During a routine vote yesterday morning, Obama and Clinton brushed past each other on the Senate floor. Obama winked and touched Clinton on her elbow. Without pausing, she kept walking.

The 100-member Senate has never run short of presidential wannabes, but this time, Democrats worry that the clash of titans will overshadow their legislative agenda, leaving mere mortals grasping for notice and potentially compromising the party’s efforts to expand its Senate majority.

“Everybody’s going to be fighting for oxygen at a very high altitude,” said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Colleagues say Clinton and Obama appear to genuinely admire each other. So far, they claim to see zero evidence of public rancor. “Everybody gets along just fine,” Harkin said. Kennedy described the pair as “extra-dimensional individuals” and asserted in an interview: “There’s no sort of pettiness or jealousy that I see. They understand the momentous nature of what the search for the presidency is all about.”

Behind the scenes, of course, it’s a slightly different story. “Don’t tell Mama, I’m for Obama” has become the Obama campaign’s unofficial motto. It’s a reference to Clinton’s nickname as first lady and an example of the conflicted loyalties of many Democratic political aides. Some are talking to both camps about possible jobs in the presidential campaigns. Meanwhile, Democratic senators who are not considering presidential bids of their own are remaining neutral.

Some Obama allies suspect that Clinton supporters generated recent rumors that former vice president Al Gore is weighing a 2008 bid, hoping to discourage donors from signing up with Obama just yet. On Monday, Obama tiptoed onto Clinton’s turf, traveling to Manhattan to talk with big-time Democratic donors such as George Soros.

Speaking later to reporters, he made a point of praising Clinton. “I think she is tough, I think she is disciplined, I think she is smart, and I’m not one of those people who believe she can’t win,” Obama said. “I recognize it’s fun to set these things up as a contest between the two of us.”

Clinton has been less effusive. She rarely comments publicly on Obama, and when she does, it’s often in snippets. She declined a request to be interviewed for this article. In October, she said “it’s great” that he is thinking of running for president. And Democrats credit her for letting Obama and a first-term senator, Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), headline a Capitol Hill media event last year while other senior Democrats grumbled about their nonspeaking roles.

Some of Clinton’s chief supporters, however, have been less charitable. John Catsimatidis, a supermarket magnate and Clinton donor, said yesterday of Obama: “He might be ready for prime time, but I think it’s too early.”

Clinton and Obama were unusual senators from the start. They hired established, high-level staffers such as Pete Rouse, who was chief of staff for former Senate majority leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and took the same job in Obama’s office, and Tamera Luzzatto, the former top aide to Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), who now runs Clinton’s staff.

Both senators maintained low profiles, at least at first, restricting most public activities to home-state events. Despite their megawatt qualities, both were deferential to older colleagues, and both made friends and co-sponsored legislation with Republicans.

Because Clinton spent eight years in the White House, she is a particular anomaly, escorted through the corridors by a security detail and rarely engaging in hallway banter with reporters before and after votes. On Tuesday, Obama lingered by the elevators near the Senate floor, feeding quotes on Medicare and tax cuts to a gaggle of scribes. Clinton rushed by a few minutes later, flanked by staff members, and headed straight onto a waiting elevator.

“She likes to stand alone,” said one senior Senate staffer.

Clinton’s colleagues were surprised when she teamed up with former GOP House speaker Newt Gingrich (Ga.) and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.) on health-care initiatives, and when she staked out a moderate stance on abortion in a prominent speech in January 2005. But her reluctance to hog the spotlight has earned her considerable goodwill — to the extent that some of her colleagues have speculated that she might become the top Democratic leader someday, should her presidential bid falter.

Obama, only two years removed from the Illinois legislature, initially stirred jealousy among some colleagues for the rave reviews of his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. But he earned loads of gratitude and goodwill by campaigning doggedly for fellow Democrats this fall, often drawing the largest crowd of each campaign.

Senators say Obama’s explosive rise has startled Clinton and her advisers, who are mulling how to react. With Obama planning a trip to the early-primary state of New Hampshire on Sunday, they may need to decide soon.

“Hang on tight,” advised Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), an Obama fan. “They ain’t seen nothing yet.

Former US President Bill Clinton endorsed the idea of talks with Iran and Syria to help ease the bloodletting in Iraq, saying it would also be in Tehran’s interests

Former US President Bill Clinton endorsed the idea of talks with Iran and Syria to help ease the bloodletting in Iraq, saying it would also be in Tehran’s interestsClinton spoke in the Netherlands the day after the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel that included senior officials from his administration, proposed engaging the two Middle Eastern countries, and US foes, in the search for peace in Iraq.

“I agree that we should reach out to the Iranians and the Syrians and try to get a regional solution. Right now the Iranians don’t want to do anything, probably because their policy seems to be, whatever causes America heartburn is good for us,” Clinton told the Dutch TV program Nova.

“But the truth is there are 1.6 million Iraqi refugees already,” he explained, adding that there could be as many as 10 million if the situation deteriorated to a point similar to the worst days of the Bosnian conflict.

“Most of them would be in Iran. I don’t really think Iran wants that, so I think there may be an opportunity for us all to work together.”

President Bush, however, has objected to that recommendation. He said Iran and Syria “shouldn’t bother to show up” to an international conference on Iraq unless they stop financing terror.

Repeating a long-standing demand, Bush said his administration would not enter direct talks with Iran unless it suspends uranium enrichment, which the U.S. believes is aimed at making nuclear weapons. Iran maintains its nuclear program is peaceful.

Clinton, who was visiting the Netherlands to discuss global warming with business and political leaders, said he also supports the withdrawal of some American troops from Iraq.

“I think if we were to leave as soon as we could physically get out of there, there would be more chaos and more death in the country …. so I don’t favor that,” he said.

But he said pulling out some troops “would send a signal that we’re changing policy, and it, I think, would free up some troops to try to be strong in Afghanistan