The Mysterious CIA Flight for a Microbiologist

In a story about a CIA plane, the Washington Post reports the old story about Pakistani intelligence officers handing over to U.S. authorities a Yemeni microbiologist, Jamil Qasim Saeed Mohammed, who was wanted in connection with the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. The attack on the Cole was October 12, 2000. He was actually a 27-year-old microbiology student. Why would he be involved in the Cole attack? Or was he involved in the post 9/11 anthrax attacks?

The Post admits that FreeRepublic.com has been on top of this, having exposed the CIA's use of the plane.

But the bigger issue is the futility of the FBI's anthrax investigation.

One story said that, "Saeed, who studied and did research at Karachi University starting in 1993, vanished from the campus in early October, only days before the Interior Ministry started to make inquiries about his movements, his study plans and his habits." The anthrax latters were mailed on September 18 and October 9, 2001.

According to Amnesty International, Saeed has never been heard from again.

Troops Ask: How Do We Win the War in the Media?

Excerpt: (Reuters): Defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld today took a delighted dig at the media after troops he was visiting in Iraq complained their good works were ignored by the press while disasters grabbed the headlines...A few hours later in Tikrit, the same frustration surfaced with another soldier complaining that she had a hard time explaining what they were doing in Iraq when she got back home.

Robert Burns of AP was more specific: "How do we win the war in the media?" asked one soldier in Mosul. Another soldier in Tikrit wondered why there is not more coverage of reconstruction efforts going on in the country. "I guess what's news has to be bad news to get on the press," Rumsfeld said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld presents the Purple Heart Medal to Army Sgt. Chris Scott, 29, of Oklahoma City, Okla., Dec. 24 at the 67th Combat Surgical Hospital in Mosul, Iraq. Rumsfeld shared Christmas-Eve cheer with U.S. troops serving in Baghdad and in the cities of Mosul, Tikrit and Fallujah. Photo by Gerry J. Gilmore Source: www.defenselink.mil

The transcript:

UNIDENTIFIED SOLDIER: Everything we do good, no matter whether it's helping a little kid or building a new school, the public affairs sends out the message that the media doesn't pick up on. How do we win the propaganda war? RUMSFELD: That does not sound like a question that was planted by the press. That happens sometimes ...Everything we do here is harder because of television stations like Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabia and the constant negative approach. You don't hear about the schools that are open, and the hospitals that are open, and the clinics that are open, and the fact that the stock market is open and the Iraqi currency is steady and the fact that there have been something like 140,000 refugees coming from other countries back into this country. They're voting with their feet because they believe this is a country of the future. You don't read about that. You read about every single negative thing that anyone can find to report. I was talking to a group of congressmen and senators the other day, and there were a couple of them who had negative things to say and they were in the press in five minutes. There were 15 or 20 that had positive things to say about what's going on in Iraq and they couldn't get on television. Television just said we're not interested. That's just -- sorry. So it is, I guess, what's news has to be bad news.

GOP "Strategist" Urges Return of Draft, Bombing of Iran

Republican strategist Jack Burkman scared the pants off the American people on MSNBC's Scarborough Country show on Tuesday night, when he was pressed by host Pat Buchanan about his policy of hitting Iran while being bogged down in Iraq. Burkman, said to be "a regular commentator on a variety of nationally recognized news shows such as CNN, MSNBC, FOX and AM talk radio," called for a return to the military draft and suggested that President Bush is going soft on Iran. Here are some excerpts:

Burkman: "Bring back the draft. Bomb Iran."

BURKMAN:  If the Iranians don‘t come to the table soon on the nuclear issue, the United States has no choice but to issue a final warning and then to be prepared to use military force.  We cannot allow a barbarian—we cannot allow a barbarian state to become a nuclear state in the heart of the Middle East. ... The reality is, we‘re probably going to have to draft, because incentives won‘t bring it up.  We‘re heading for a draft in this country.  The choice for the United States is this.  Do we have the guts as a people to lead the world?  World leadership is not easy. 

What we have to do is.  You have to issue a final ultimatum to the Iranians on the nuclear issue.  If they don‘t respond, we need heavy airstrikes.  Now, why won‘t Bush do that? 

(CROSSTALK)

RAGHIDA DERGHAM:  You can‘t even go there.  Look at how tied up we are in Iraq.  How are you going to—it is not feasible.  It is not feasible to do Iran. 

(CROSSTALK)

BUCHANAN:  You start another war right in the middle of the gas station of the world. 

JACK BURKMAN:  You don‘t have a choice, because you‘re going to have a nuclear state in Iran.

BUCHANAN:  We don‘t have a choice?  We have a choice not to. 

(CROSSTALK)

DERGHAM:  You think it‘s OK to just draft our kids and—just because you don‘t have a choice, because you don‘t want to think about it? 

---------------------------------

Is this a winning strategy for the GOP?

U.S. Troops Ordered To Wear U.N. Blue

 John Gerstein of the New York Sun deserves credit for covering this case. My full statement on the ruling follows his article.

GIs Can Be Ordered To Wear U.N. Beret

BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
December 24, 2004
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/6763

A federal judge in Washington has upheld the right of the American military to place its personnel under United Nations command and force those soldiers to wear insignia designed by the world body.

The ruling from Judge Paul Friedman came in the case of a former Army specialist, Michael New, who resisted orders that he serve in a U.N. peacekeeping mission in Macedonia nearly a decade ago. He also refused, during unit muster in 1995, to wear the light blue U.N. cap and shoulder patch.

Mr. New was court-martialed for failing to obey the order to don the cap and patch. He was convicted in 1996 and given a "bad conduct" discharge from the Army. Military appeals courts upheld the decision.

In his 35-page decision filed Wednesday, Judge Friedman rejected all of the legal arguments put forth by Mr. New's attorneys. The judge said most of the ex-soldier's assertions involved thorny political disputes best left unresolved by the judiciary.

Judge Friedman wrote that trying to sort out whether the president had ceded too much authority to foreign military officers "would involve policy determinations beyond the competence of the court."

Mr. New could not be reached for comment yesterday. His father, Daniel, said his son was in Germany for the holidays.

"We're disappointed," Daniel New said. "It's not printable what I want to say." He added that an appeal is likely.

A spokesman for the Pentagon said no one was available yesterday to comment on the decision.

In the mid-1990s, Michael New's act of defiance became a cause celebre for those wary of placing American soldiers under the control of the U.N. A Web site devoted to the case, www.MikeNew.com, includes a picture of the former specialist and the words, "Michael New was right... Real Americans don't wear U.N. blue."

In legal filings, lawyers for Mr. New argued that under the Constitution and the law that governs America's involvement in the world body, the U.N. Participation Act of 1945, the president may not send American troops into possible combat under U.N. command without express authorization from Congress. The attorneys also said that under the Constitution, no American soldier was obliged to answer to a military officer who was not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Congress.

Mr. New's counsel further argued that forcing him to serve under an international army he never signed up with abridged the ex-soldier's rights against "involuntary servitude" under the 13th Amendment. Their final claim was that American soldiers could not accept the U.N. caps and shoulder patches under a constitutional provision that prohibits federal officials from taking "emoluments" from a foreign government.

Judge Friedman said those claims either had no merit or were given proper consideration by the military courts. The judge also said Mr. New could have pursued his legal points without defying his commanders. "Petitioner had numerous avenues, besides direct disobedience, by which to challenge that order," Judge Friedman wrote.

The author of a book about Mr. New's crusade, Cliff Kincaid, said the judge was right to suggest that Congress could have stepped in.

"The Congress should have done more, but Friedman should have overturned the illegal order and New's badconduct discharge," said Mr. Kincaid, whose book is entitled, "Michael New: Mercenary or American Soldier?"

Much of the initial anger over Mr. New's case was directed at President Clinton, who ordered that American forces take part in the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Macedonia. However, Mr. Kincaid and others fault President Bush for leaving the same procedures in place. "U.S. troops deployed on U.N. missions under Bush still wear U.N. markings on their uniforms, including a U.N. shoulder patch and beret. And even though they serve under a foreign U.N. commander, he insists they are still somehow under U.S. command," Mr. Kincaid said. "It doesn't add up."

A military analyst at the Brookings Institution, Michael O'Hanlon, said that if Mr. New prevailed, the president's authority to defend America would be hurt.

"You'd be undercutting our ability to work with our allies. You'd also be weakening the power of the commander in chief of the United States," he said.

Mr. O'Hanlon said the practice of putting American troops under foreign command has gone on for decades with little objection. "We've put troops temporarily under tactical foreign command in past wars, including last year's in Iraq, more than we ever did with the U.N.," he said.

The Brookings scholar criticized Mr. New and his legal team for claiming that they are adhering to the principles set forth by America's founders. "It's sort of depicted as a defense of the Constitution, but it's actually an affront to the Constitution," Mr. O'Hanlon said.

Mr. New's father said he thinks the Pentagon got a "bloody nose" from the battle with his son and now prefers to look overseas to staff U.N. missions. He described the new approach derisively: "Pakistanis and Indians are cheaper than Americans and there's no political fallout if they die. So let's just outsource it all."

----------------------------------------------------------------------

My full statement on the case:

"Judge Friedman's ruling essentially blames Congress for allowing Michael
New to be court-martialed by the Clinton Administration for refusing to wear
a U.N. uniform and being forced to serve, in violation of his oath,  under a
foreign U.N. commander. The Congress should have done more, but Friedman
should have overturned the illegal order and New's bad-conduct discharge.
The tragedy is compounded by the fact that President Bush has not revoked
Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25, under which Clinton claimed the
ability to place our troops under U.N. control and command. What's more,
U.N. figures still show U.S. troops deployed in U.N. missions.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2004/November2004_5.pdf
A summary of the U.S. presence is found at the end of:
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/2004/November2004_3.pdf
According to William Imbrie, then-Director, Office of Peacekeeping and
Humanitarian Operations, in the State Department's Bureau of International
Organization Affairs (he assumed duties as Deputy Chief of mission in
Brussels in August 2004), U.S. troops deployed on U.N. missions under Bush
still wear 'U.N. markings' on their uniforms, including a U.N. shoulder
patch and beret. And even though they serve under a foreign U.N. commander,
he insists they are still somehow under U.S. command. It doesn't add up.
Bush has continued the Clinton policy."

These figures show U.S. troops or U.S. military observers in five U.N.
military operations.
UNOMIG - 2 mil observers
MINUSTAH 3 troops
UNMEE 6 mil observers
UNTSO 3 mil observers
UNMIL 5 troops, 6  mil observers

Murdoch's New Show: Who's Your Daddy? My question: Where's His Conscience?

Rupert Murdoch does it again. He gives us Fox News, then he gives us sleaze. His latest Fox TV offering, "Who's Your Daddy," has sparked fury, acording to a Reuters dispatch. Reuters said, 'The "Who's Your Daddy?' show, in which a young woman given up for adoption as a child gets a $100,000 prize for picking out her biological father from a line-up, is the latest in America's obsession with reality TV programming." 

The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute says the Fox program is “destructive, insensitive and offensive” to the tens of millions of Americans with adoption in their families. The group says, "The very idea is perverse and offensive. By turning adoption reunions into a game show, 'Who's Your Daddy?' takes an intensely personal and complex situation - and an increasingly commonplace one - and transforms it into a voyeuristic display."

Amy Ridenhour predicts, "Now that Fox is turning adoption into a reality show with its unfortunate Who's Your Daddy? (should be called: 'Who's Your Sperm Donor'? -- real Daddies father ["father" is a verb]) reality show, I predict we'll soon see an ever worse development. That is, a reality show in which newborn babies are taken from their parents and the parents have to guess which son or daughter is their own."

Actually, Maury Povich (Mr. Connie Chung) does a variation of this almost every day, when he features women who don't know who fathered their children. DNA tests are used to narrow down the culprits.

Here's the show for Thursday -12/23/04:

Vince McMahon of WWE Rips the Media Over Iraq Coverage

While MSNBC was running non-stop coverage of injured U.S. troops arriving in Germany, because of the Mosul base attack, an interview was aired with WWE chairman Vince McMahon about his trip to Iraq. McMahon used the interview on MSNBC to rip media coverage of the war, noting the tremendous amount of negative news.  

The WWE will present "WWE Christmas in Iraq: A Holiday Tribute to the Troops," at 8 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 23 on UPN. The Miami Herald reports, "In between the in-ring action, there will be several touching taped features which share with the American public the experience of daily life for U.S. servicemen and women as they continue to fight in the name of freedom in Iraq." 

Mike Johnson of PW Insider.com reports that McMahon, during an appearance on Fox News, "said that the troops are doing a lot for the local schools and public and the Iraqi nation has a lot to look forward to with their upcoming election. McMahon said that they went over there to boost the spirits of the troops, but it ended up working the other way around."

The Facts: 8,000 Military Vehicles Without Armor Protection

Some conservative media outlets are attacking the basis of the question posed by the soldier (and planted by a reporter) to Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld about armor for vehicles. The soldier, Specialist Thomas Wilson, said that "vehicles are not armored" and that "We're digging pieces of rusted scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass that's already been shot up . . . picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat. We do not have proper . . . vehicles to carry with us north." Brit Hume of Fox News countered that "according to senior Army officers, about 800 of the 830 vehicles in Wilson's Army regiment, the 278th Calvary, had already been up-armored" at the time of his question. But, by this account, that still left 30 vehicles that had not been armored up.

The facts: According to Lieutenant General Steve Whitcomb, commander of Third Army and the Coalition Forces Land Component Command at Camp Arifijan in Kuwait, "We've got about 30,000 wheeled vehicles in our theater -- in Iraq and Afghanistan and other areas that CFLCC and Central Command operate.  Of that 30,000 vehicles, around a little less than 8,000 of them do not have some type of armor protection on them -- level one, two or three....".

The criticism of the question ignores the fact that Matt Salmon, a former conservative Republican Congressman and president of ArmorWorks of Tempe, Arizona, told CNN his company, which designs and manufactures high-tech vehicle armor, could double its production from 300 to 600 kits per month. MSNBC said: "Mr. Salmon said the company recently laid off about 15 percent of employees because ArmorWorks contract expires in January. He anticipates more workers will need to be laid off if the contract is not renewed. 'We can step it up,' Mr. Salmon said of production. 'If our (U.S.) goal is really to do it as quickly as possible, why wouldn't you want to employ all your resources?'"

What's more, CNN noted that the Army said that until news reports this week it was unaware that another company, Armor Holdings, based in Jacksonville, could retrofit more vehicles and so it approached the company. "The Army said it thought the company had commitments to other customers, including the Marine Corps," CNN added. MSNBC quoted Armor Holdings spokesman Michael Fox as confirming prior news accounts that the company's capacity is higher. "We can do 50 to 100 more vehicles (a month) and we do 450 now," he said.

On MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Salmon said, " We are producing vehicle armor right now for the Humvee and for other vehicles, and we are not even close to capacity." He added: "We have told them repeatedly that we are only at 50 percent capacity.  We are actually putting 300 kits out a month.  We could be putting out 600. And...it‘s not just about the Humvees.  This is about all the vehicles that are over there.  The security of the soldiers has been compromised.  And we have a solution.  Right now, our technology is a ceramic-based composite, which is far lighter than steel.  Now, the Pentagon has said today one of the reasons we don‘t like the retrofitted stuff is because it‘s too heavy.  Well, our stuff is one-third the weight of steel." 

Who Is Thomas P.M. Barnett?

C-SPAN has devoted a lot of time and attention to Thomas P.M. Barnett, author of  the book, The Pentagon's New Map. I was struck by his soft-on-China views. Then he mentioned that he had adopted a child fom China.  Nothing wrong with that. But then I went to his blog and saw these words: "...people will think my views on China are somehow distorted by this adoption, when in reality my views on China were many years in the making. This adoption brought us to China because my wife and I felt strongly about reaching abroad for a new sense of connectivity with the world at large. Because my sister had already adopted from China, our growing knowledge of the challenges of trans-racial adoption told us it made a lot of sense that our Chinese-American daughter should have someone else in her extended family who looked like her, and that—by making this choice—our niece Ally would be similarly rewarded."

Barnett adds, "As for myself, this adoption will form the back half of my high-low mix of education on all things Chinese: while my work will remain high-end and big-picture on China as a force of global change, my personal life will become intimately low-end and small-picture on China as a force of familial change."

In another posting, he says he has a gripe with how some in the Pentagon regard China as a "competitor." He even envisions Chinese peacekeepers side-by-side with American troops.   

In yet another posting, he  writes that  "...China’s rise is less a threat the more it unfolds, so long as we don’t fix to make them our enemy for lack of imagination."

One thing you have to say for him - he is really a self-promoter. Take a look at his web site. The Man, The Vision, The Speaker, The Book. This is TOO MUCH. He sells a newsletter for $295 a year.  A charter subscription, $1000.00 per year, "entitles you to receive additional items and benefits free or at a discounted price as they are offered... (Items and benefits can include autographed copies of “The Pentagon’s New Map,” articles by Tom Barnett, and the sequel to PNM, which is forthcoming in 2005.)"

There is also a page devoted to his adopted Chinese daughter. That's nice, but what about the Chinese Communist threat?  

U.S. Officials Approved Oil-for-Food Contracts

CNSNews.com reports that former U.S. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft supports U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. It reported, "While some in Congress want Annan to resign because of the U.N.'s Oil for Food program scandal, Scowcroft last week said the secretary general's critics are misplacing the blame." Scowcroft said,
"Let me just say ... that this broad oil-for-peace program was not under the secretary general, it was under the [U.N.] Security Council, formed as a committee, which oversaw the contracts and so on and so forth, and that is where the primary responsibility for any lapses lies."

Richard Lessner of the American Conservative Union countered,  "It's basically saying that no one is responsible, no one is to be held accountable. If I'm not mistaken, didn't [Annan] appoint the officials who ran the Oil-for-Food program? But he had nothing to do with it? He only ... hand-picked those who ran that corrupt program."

Sorry, Richard, but Scowcroft has a point. The U.N. Security Council not only oversaw but approved the contracts. So if Annan should go, so should the officials at the U.S. Mission to the U.N. who approved those contracts.

Let's have a full-blown investigation.  As we noted, "It was under [Ambassador Madeleine] Albright as U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. that Linda Shenwick, the budget analyst at the U.S. Mission, was harassed and eventually fired because she was raising alarms about waste, fraud and abuse in U.N. programs. The public interest law firm Judicial Watch defended Shenwick, who had to sue the State Department for damages for persecuting her. Curiously, the Colin Powell State Department hired Clinton lawyer Gregory Craig to defend itself against Shenwick. There was a settlement, but Shenwick was not allowed to return to the U.S. Mission. Did Albright suspect that Shenwick would uncover the oil-for-food scandal..."

Why didn't the Bush Administration put her back in her position at the U.S. Mission?

Pushing Dope to Kids

Want to get kiddies interested in dope? Sell them "Hemp Pops."  This Candy tastes just like Cannabis Really!

Here's what one person wrote to them: "You people are an absolute disgrace - no better than thugs and drug dealers on the street.  You and your product are part of the destructive drug culture and your marketing is along the order of big tobacco who denied for years that it was harming anyone.  Marijuana flavored candy is a pretty straightforward attempt to lure children into the drug culture you promote.  I hope they close you down."

Another wrote: This subliminal message is aimed at young people, especially children and teens. It is the head shop mentality all over again. They are promoting a new generation of drug users. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!