"Aside from all of that, Al Qaeda has become the catch-all phrase for every terrorist organization, when the actual Al Qaeda organization was hardly ever that large to begin with. Let's be clear, there are organizations that are far more dangerous, far more ingrained, far bigger in numbers, far better funded, and far better capable of carrying out massive murder. Al Qaeda is not the same thing as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Nazi Muslims as they are known because of their close ties to Hitler. Nor is Al Qaeda the same thing as Gray Wolves, the Turkish neo-fascist terrorist organization that should be also of concern. Why are they not? Perhaps because both groups get their support and funding from our "friends." Yet all terrorist organization, no matter who they are or who is sponsoring them are being called Al Qaeda.* wsj:
But even if we are actually hunting Al Qaeda, that particular organization, and if this administration is actually serious, then why did it take six years to bomb a country that may have some Al Qaeda elements? Why now? And why Somalia and not Pakistan? Why Iraq and not the UAE?"
"An internal Pentagon review of offices under former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith is expected to be completed within the next few weeks, an official close to the investigation said.
Senate Democrats are awaiting the Defense Department’s report, which is being conducted by the Inspector General, to buttress their efforts to revive probes into the Bush administration’s use of pre-Iraq war intelligence. Some former U.S. officials have alleged that Feith’s Office of Special Plans oversold links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda in the run up to the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Democrats have also sought to examine allegations that members of Feith’s office had gone outside legal channels in conducting intelligence operations in Europe and Middle East. Lawrence Franklin, a Middle East expert who worked for Feith, pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally provided intelligence to members of AIPAC, a pro-Israel lobbying group, as well as to an Israeli diplomat."
* apparently the ISG asked everyone if they thought an
".According to the Baltimore Sun, "a U.S. Army infantry battalion fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks in order to deploy to Iraq." Apparently this battalion is about to become a key part of President Bush's surge strategy. However, the results in Afghanistan could be dire"
"Serious Israeli strategists know that the best way to hinder Iran is to (1) work to reduce the price of oil to undermine the economic basis of Iran's growing pretensions; (2) to work covertly to "stir up trouble" inside Iran among its own interest groups -- much like Iran is doing to the U.S. inside Iraq; and (3) to find ways to tacitly work with and recognize other power centers inside Iran rather than the relatively weak but hyperbolic President Ahmadinejad.
What Shtauber and other recent Israeli advocates of a strike against Iran are not discussing is that such a military strike is NOT against concrete and mortar facilities and warehouses storing centrifuges.
The strike would attempt to kill 5,000 to 6,000 of Iran's top tier nuclear engineer talent. To kill those approximately 6,000 people, many more will be injured and killed -- and that human nightmare will agitate huge cross sections of Iranian society far beyond any of the limited groups that have thus far supported Ahmadinejad.
A military strike of this sort would allow a total consolidation of power behind Ahmadinejad and rip power away from all other power centers inside Iraq.
What it would also do is create a massive "terrorist super-highway" stretching from Iran through Iraq, into Syria and permeating Jordan, overrunning Lebanon -- up to the edge of Israel.
Israel has smart people with substantial intelligence resources inside Iran. American and Israeli officials need to listen to them and think this through.
Bombing Iran could easily trigger the worst potential outcomes. There are other choices. The Saudis and Gulf states have suggested some ways to bring Iran down a notch.
The binary choice on Iran simply is not good enough -- but Bush & Co. don't seem to be doing anything substantial to generate an option other than acquiescing to Iran or bombing it."