You are currently browsing the archive for the Terrorism category.
Just announced: John McCain has selected Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his VP running-mate! Palin, a little-known, but popular, reform-minded woman has taken Alaska by storm, cleaning up a government plagued by corruption.
I think she’s a breath of fresh air in the stale, stagnant world of politics. Of course, her relative youth and lack of executive experience may be a liability for McCain, who cited those reasons for Obama’s naivete. However, Palin possesses a leadership quality that seperates her from the Democratic presidential nominee, integrity!
I have a good feeling about this…
MORE: Ed Morrissey at Hot Air points out that
“McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party — and won.
This is change you can believe in, and not change that amounts to all talk.”
I have a very good feeling about this!
Negotiators for the U.S. and Iraq have finally come to an agreement on the disposition of American forces in Iraq. The new security deal will require U.S. forces to leave Iraq cities and towns by next summer as a prelude to a complete withdrawal by 2011. In the meantime, the U.S. troops will reside in bases outside the populated areas it vacated. President Bush is expected to accept the agreement, but it still needs to pass through several layers of Iraqi bureaucracy , so who knows?
Although, I don’t think Bush is really too happy with the concessions he’s had to make, I’m looking forward to a U.S. drawdown. However, I would have liked to see a SOFA agreement and the permanent stationing of U.S. forces in Iraq, a goal I think the President was shooting for, too. Still, Iraq is a a sovereign state and can (and should) manage its own affairs. If they want us to leave, we should. I’m interested to see what happens in the areas we vacate. As we exit and larger areas are left to Iraqi control, will we see the terrorists move back in? Will we see Iran attempt to achieve control by fueling a new insurgency?
If things get tough for Iraq after America leaves, who are they gonna call for help?
Not surprisingly, Russia continues to defy the international community by reneging on the ceasefire agreement and refusing to pull-out of Georgia. In fact, Russia is digging in, building ramparts around tanks and posing sentries on a hill in central Georgia about 30 miles from the capital of Tbilisi. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice observed,
“From my point of view … the Russians are perhaps already not honoring their word.”
Perhaps? Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, made it pretty clear what they intended to do when he reported that although Presiddent Mr. Medvedev had signed the cease-fire agreement and ordered its implementation, Russian troops wouldn’t withdraw until Moscow is satisfied its forces have taken the necessary effective security measures to protect the interests of the breakaway provinces.
So what are the Russians up to? It’s plain top see that Russia is simply diverting attention while it solidifies its hold on the breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Earlier today, Russian army units and separatist fighters in Abkhazia took control of 13 villages and the Inguri hydropower plant. So far, Abkhaz officials couldn’t be reached for comment. Furthermore, Lavrov said Russia would also strengthen its peacekeeping contingent in South Ossetia. (translation: Russia will absorb South Ossetia).
Still, from his ranch in Texas, President Bush said,
“A major issue is Russia’s contention that the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia may not be a part of Georgia’s future. These regions are a part of Georgia and the international community has repeatedly made clear that they will remain so.”
I think the Russians have a different idea, Mr. President. They’ve made it very clear by their words and actions that Georgia can forget about South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
And with each day that passes, Russia tightens its grip. Are you watching America? E.U.? Georgia’s next!
MORE: Hot Air; Flopping Aces; Little Green Footballs; Neoconservative? Moi?; Political Pistachio; Right Wing Nut House
An interesting group decision support system is currently evolving to help fight the global war on terror (GWOT). A National Virtual Translation Center connects linguists embedded with troops on the front line with networked translation assistance technologies. Currently this is accomplished with thousands of linguists pouring over the actual documents and audio clips brought from the front in an effort to extrapolate useful information. The new technology will digitize, parse and digest raw intelligence material, to facilitate the analyzing of material, instead of simply translating it.
Despite an American diplomatic presence for the first time in 30 years, Iran would not yield any ground in its uranium enrichment program.
(this is a surprise?)
So, what does the EU (+1 American) delegation do? Why, give the Iranians more time to reconsider, of course. This was not an ultimatum, mind you, because the delegation did not threaten more sanctions or military action should Iran fail to capitulate.
The U.S. response to Iran’s lack of cooperation hinted at more sanctions. Per State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack:
“We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only led to further isolation [i.e. more sanctions].”
It appears the only ultimatum presented at the meeting came from the man who we thought was only there to listen. When it was his turn to speak, Undersecretary of State, William Burns, delivered a simple message to his Iranian counterpart:
“Iran must suspend uranium enrichment to have negotiations involving the United States.”
Of course, by participating in this meeting the U.S. is negotiating with Iran and Burns statement would be considered a direct one-on-one negotiation. An action the U.S. said it would not undertake.
The Iranian response was definitive (and predictable). According to Keyvan Imani, a member of the Iranian delegation,
“Suspension–there is no chance for that.”
This should come a surprise to no one. This is the first face-to-face meeting between Iran and the U.S. government since the Shah was in power. Had Iran given in to the demands of the delegation it would appear to be due to the American presence and they would lose tremendous face. The result of their rebuff?
Advantage: Iran.
The U.S. is sending Undersecretary of State, William Burns, a senior diplomat, as part of a European Union delegation meeting with Iran’s top nuclear official, Saeed Jalili. The topic of discussion? An incentive package for Iran to persuade them to stop their uranium enrichment program.
State Department Spokesman, Sean McCormack, says Burns will listen to what Iran has to say, but will not engage in one-on-one discussions with the Iranian negotiator. He will also ensure that Iran understands that the U.S. will not engage in direct talks with Iran until it suspends its enrichment program.
(really?)
How do you suppose he’s going to hammer home this message while not engaging in a one-on-one discussion? Maybe he’s going to pass a note through one of the other delegation members?
I don’t care what you do or don’t say Undersecretary, what you’re telling Iran is that if you hold out long enough, the U.S. will give in.
Nice work Mr. President.
With insurgent violence increasing in Afghanistan, the Bush administration’s top military official made a surprise visit to Pakistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pressed Pakistani leaders to crack down on the Islamic militants moving freely about the country’s tribal areas. These militants are crossing unimpeded into Afghanistan to carry out terrorist attacks and destabilizing both countries. Mullen said,
“That border is more porous than it was a year ago.” [and] “It’s very important that action be taken to respond to that.”
Admiral Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials are placing the blame for these attacks squarely on the shoulders of the Pakistani government.
(and rightfully so!)
Of course Pakistani officials rebuffed these assertions. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi claims that,
“We are pursuing a policy of political engagement, but that does not mean that we will capitulate in front of terrorists.” [and that it was an] “exaggeration to just pass the buck to Pakistan.”
Mr. Foreign Minister, a “policy of political engagement” is just another way of saying you’re trying to solve this problem through diplomacy. Considering your efforts have resulted in increasing terrorist activity, the militants aren’t listening. Obviously, the terrorists aren’t concerned about the consequences of continued activity because your words don’t carry any bite. I’m afraid that your “policy of political engagement” has failed and is tantamount to capitulation in front of these terrorists.
(are you listening Obama?)
Iraq’s National Security Advisor, Mouwaffak al-Rubaie, says that any security deal with the U.S. must contain a specific timetable for troop withdrawal.
Fine.
I don’t have a problem with leaving Iraq after the job is done. But to post a departure schedule is beyond ridiculous. The Iraqi’s position calls for all U.S. led forces to leave once Iraqi forces have resumed security responsibility for all 18 of the country’s provinces. So far, Iraq has assumed primary responsibility for security in 9 of the 18 provinces.
So, essentially Iraq is asking us to say,
“Hey, al-Qaida! We’ll be out of Iraq just as soon as we turn over this last province. Just lay low for a while and things will soon be back to normal. In fact, if you’re quiet, we’ll probably finish the job faster!”
You know, Japan has the second largest GDP, China is #4 and South Korea is #12. A large portion of the world’s economic exchange takes place within this relatively small portion of the world. And in the middle of it all is North Korea, a failed economy. North Korea, whose stated objective is the reunification of the Korean peninsula. Imagine what this would do to the region and the world’s economy. What’s preventing North Korea from moving on its southern neighbor? The U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force, who have maintained stability in the region for almost 60 years.
Perhaps that’s just what the Iraqi and other Middle Eastern governments are afraid of.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court voted to give detainees at Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. According to the courts decision, the detainees could not be denied the constitutional right of habeas corpus. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, stating,
“The costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody. The detainees in these cases are entitled to a prompt habeas corpus hearing.”
The court’s dissenting opinion was provided by Justice Antonin Scalia who wrote that
“America is at war with radical Islamists” and that “the nation will live to regret what the court has done today”.
Although both John McCain and Barack Obama have vowed to close Gitmo, McCain indicated that he was not happy about the court’s decision. Agreeing with the dissenting judges, McCain considers the detainees to be unlawful combatants and not American citizens.
He’s right.
We’re engaged in a war that is unprecedented in the history of our nation. We’re not fighting a tangible enemy, but rather an idea: terrorism. I wrote about this on the day Saddam Hussein was hanged. This is the result of a prolonged war with limited objectives. Clausewitz said,
“Never engage the same enemy for too long, or he will adapt to your tactics.”
We see that here. We’ve given the enemy the opportunity to use our own legal system against us. They’ve seen that this is one area that we’re vulnerable and are slowly taking the high ground. Soon we will lose this war, unless we can orchestrate a decisive victory. Our problem lies in just exactly what is our definition of “victory”
MORE: Hot Air
The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran is withholding information relating to its nuclear program. The report actually accuses the Iranians of a willful lack of cooperation based on, among other things, their refusal to answer allegations that their nuclear program may be intended for military use, rather than the generation of energy.
According to Western intelligence agencies, the Iranians have “ventured into explosives, uranium processing and a missile warhead design.” Not the normal activities one would associate with a peaceful energy program. The IAEA has presented this evidence to the Iranians and asked for an explanation.
The Iranians, always the honest brokers, dismissed the evidence as “forged” or “fabricated,” claiming their experiments were peaceful in nature and have nothing to do with a nuclear weapons program. Of course, Iran refused to provide any documented proof to support their claims and denied the agency access to its scientists.
This is the stance for a government with nothing to hide?
In a comical response to President Bush’s (Barack-attack) comment “…some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists…” Barack Obama in pure Kerry “I was for the war before I was against it” flip-flopping style said, “George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists.” Referring to the President’s comment as a “false political attack,” Obama did what comes naturally…he lied!
(say it isn’t so!)
In a piece entitled, “Renewing American Leadership”, Mr. Obama wrote,
“Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy…could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria…we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran.” (emphasis mine)
So, Mr. Obama, how exactly does one “not hesitate to talk directly with Iran” without negotiating with terrorists?
Mealy-mouthed ex-president Jimmy Carter claims that no one in the U.S. government told him not to travel to the Middle East. However, he did acknowledge that Assistant Secretary of State, David Welch, told him the trip was not advisable. That sounds to me like the U.S. government urging him not to go, doncha think? After all, how does one “tell” a former POTUS not to do something? I would think the ex-president would respect and heed the advice of the current administration.
(not so…obviously!)
Anyway, Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, left no doubt as to the administration’s actions and intent in this matter:
“I just don’t want there to be any confusion”…”The United States is not going to deal with Hamas, and we certainly told President Carter that meeting with Hamas was not going to help.”
In fact, WaPo reports that Secretary Rice went out of her way to issue an on-the-record statement saying,
“we counseled President Carter against” the trip. “We wanted to make sure there would be no confusion and that there would be no sense that he was somehow a party to peace negotiations” between Israel and the Palestinian government.
So, nobody told you not to go, Mr. ex-president? Gimmieabreak!
Why should anyone have to tell you? Hasn’t it always been U.S. policy that we do not negotiate with terrorists, and hasn’t the U.S. made it quite clear that until Hamas recognizes Israel’s right to exist and calls an end to violence, there will be no negotiations? How hard is that for an ex-president to understand?
Maybe you’re just trying to relive those old glory days of Begin-Sadat. Maybe you’re trying to legitimize the politicized peace prize you won in 2002.
Maybe you’re just a meddler!
Former President Jimmy Carter on a one-man crusade to achieve peace in the Middle East has brokered a one-sided, one-piece agreement. Speaking at a press conference in Jerusalem, Carter explained,
“Hamas leaders said they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 border and the right of Israel to live as a neighbor, provided the agreement was submitted to the Palestinian people for overall approval.”
Of course, Hamas later said it might not accept the results of a peace referendum.
(Big surprise!)
Still, it probably wasn’t necessary for Hamas to hedge their bet since the number of Palestinian people who support attacks against the Israelis is on the rise. In fact, more than half of them support suicide bombings and consider them a form of “resistance”!
So, nice work, Mr. ex-president! Hamas is sworn to the destruction of Israel and regularly fires rockets into the country, killing and maiming innocents. Thanks for giving these terrorists a seat at the bargaining table. Thanks for giving their unrecognized terrorist government an undeserved legitimacy. Finally, thanks for alienating our ally in the region, Israel.
In other words, Mr. ex-president, thanks for nothing!
MORE:
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air explains how Carter was twice punked by Hamas on his dream trip of peace in the Middle East!
In an unsurprising move, President Bush decided to suspend troop withdrawals from Iraq this summer. Based on the assessment presented to Congress by Gen Petraeus that the current progress was “fragile and reversible.” Therefore, between now and the end of July, we’ll draw-down from 20 to 15 brigades before taking a 45-day pause to reassess the situation before making anymore changes. This will likely mean the next president will assume office with over 100,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Additionally, President Bush will announce a reduction in Army combat tours from 15 to 12 months, with 12 months between deployments. This new tour length will be applied to units deployed to the region in August. Hopefully, this will reduce the number of “in lieu of” taskings the other services perform in order to ease the deployment burden of their Army counterparts.
So, what about financing the war? Last year, the President asked Congress for $108 billion, to which Congress added $17 billion in domestic spending. Of course, this earned a veto from the President. This year, Congress is eyeing the war-funding bill as a catalyst to stimulate the economy, meaning more ear-marks.
{ sigh }
Supposedly, Congress is concerned with the cost of the war, but rather than trying to control those costs, they’re adding to it. Prudent? Evidently, they didn’t learn anything last year.
The U.S. has now spent over $500 billion on the war in Iraq, a total that could amount to trillions of dollars after factoring in the costs of veteran healthcare and the refurbishment of the military’s depleted equipment and materials.
What does this mean, really?
Current defense spending is roughly 4% of our GDP, compared to 9% in 1968, during the Viet Nam War. Though substantial, it’s hardly budget-busting.
Still, it’s time for the Iraqi government to pony-up! Iraq is pumping about 2.4 million barrels of crude oil a day, the highest output since the 2003 invasion. Ambassador Crocker said that “the era of U.S.-funded major infrastructure projects is over” and Iraq will be spending its own money to pay for rebuilding.
Well, that’s a start…I think the Iraqis also need to re-pay the U.S. for the tremendous cost of their liberation. After all, we’ve essentially financed this war with debt and those bills are coming due.
Pakistan held their parliamentary elections and the people have spoken–they’re not happy the Musharraf government. With the vote-counting nearly complete, the two main opposition parties have secured 154 of the 268 contested seats with Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party leading with 86; the pro-Musharraf party trails with only 39 seats. It’ll be interesting to see if Musharraf resigns as he said would if he lost the support of the Pakistani people.
(doubtful)
Since no one party attained the two-thirds majority necessary to take action against the sitting president, the opposition groups led by the PPP will likely form a partnership force Musharraf to step down or face impeachment.
The election also dealt a serious blow to the pro-Taliban Jamiat-e-Ulema party who won only three seats. Also, a coalition of Islamist religious parties, the United Action Forum, are projected to lose control of the North West Frontier Province, winning only 9 of 96 contested seats.
MORE: Hot Air
Finally, the United States will seek justice for the 9/11 attacks! The Pentagon has charged six Guantanamo detainees with murder and war crimes in connection with the 9/11 terror attacks. Among the six is Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the attacks.
The military is recommending the six be tried together before a military tribunal recommend that the six men be tried together before a military tribunal. This would afford the detainees with the same rights given U.S. service members tries under the military justice system. However, there’s concern that the case may be clouded due to recent revelations that Mr. Mohammed was waterboarded. Of course, this will be something the military judge will have to consider. It will be up to him to determine what evidence is allowed.
Previously, the Bush administration shied away from public trials of suspected terrorists; instead, interrogating them in secret in the hope of staving-off future attacks. However, only resulted in fear and distrust of the U.S., both domestically and abroad. And if that wasn’t enough, the trial procedures first issued by the Bush administration significantly deviated from current military law, such as excluding the defendant from his own trial, allowing the introduction of any “probative” evidence, including statements made under torture, and forbidding the defendant to appeal to an independent court. Naturally, this didn’t bode well for the President and the Supreme Court shut him down.
Now, the tribunal will unfold in a specially designed courtroom at Guantanamo, within a tent city called “Camp Justice”. The camp will house the prosecution, defense lawyers, journalists and others. Survivors and relatives of 9/11 victims will be invited to watch the trial through closed-circuit broadcasts in the U.S. However, according to officials, wider public access is unlikely.
This is no time for secrets! Censor the testimony if you must, but air the trial on CSPAN!
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said twice yesterday that Iraq “is a failure,” and the President’s troop surge has “not produced the desired effect.” Pelosi argued that
“[t]he purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq”… “They have not done that.”
and yet Pelosi concedes,
The troops have succeeded, God bless them.
(sounds like someone is trying to have her cake and eat it, too!)
These words from Pelosi after a letter from Abu-Tariq, emir of the al-Layin and al-Mashahdah sector, an al-Qaeda leader in Anbar province, reports that Iraq faces an “extraordinary crisis”. Abu-Tariq says last year’s mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight” and al-Qaeda’s security structure suffered “total collapse”. He goes on to describe that his force, once 600-strong, has shrunk to 20.
Abu-Tariq also blames the local community:
We were mistreated, cheated and betrayed by some of our brothers…Those people were nothing but hypocrites, liars and traitors and were waiting for the right moment to switch sides with whoever pays them most.
as well as al-Qaeda itself, referencing their brutal tactics:
“We helped them to unite against us…The Americans and the apostates launched their campaigns against us and we found ourselves in a circle not being able to move, organize or conduct our operations.”
Seems to me when your enemies are making statements like these, you just may be winning!
What Pelosi and the dhimmi-crats are trying to do is separate themselves from the new direction Bush has taken in Iraq, but they don’t want to sound like defeatists in light of the Iraq’s improved stability. This is the only way they’re going to win on National Security in November.
Pelosi is playing political games and although she doesn’t want to sound like a “naysayer”, she is certainly coming off as one. Ms Pelosi has joined her Senate brother, Harry Reid, with some “This War is Lost” comments of her own.
In mid-January, Scotland Yard, who was called in by Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to investigate the murder of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, concluded that Ms Bhutto was not shot, but died from head trauma. They also reported that the supposed government cover-up was nothing more than shoddy police work. So, it should come as no big surprise that Bhutto’s supporters are rejecting the Yard’s findings.
(and with good reason!)
According to Scotland Yard’s report:
“The only tenable cause of her rapidly fatal head injury in this case is that it occurred as the result of impact due to the effect of the bomb blast.”
While Scotland Yard contends their “primary focus…was to assist the Pakistani authorities in establishing the cause and circumstances of Ms Bhutto’s death.” They readily admit that,
“The task of establishing exactly what happened was complicated by the lack of an extended and detailed search of the crime scene, the absence of an autopsy, and the absence of recognised [sic] body recovery and victim identification processes.”
Yah think? So, how did they arrive at their conclusion? According to the report
“Considerable reliance [was] placed upon the X-rays taken at Rawalpindi General Hospital following Ms Bhutto’s death.” Accordingly, the examination revealed,
“Ms Bhutto’s only apparent injury was a major trauma to the right side of the head. The UK experts all exclude this injury being an entry or exit wound as a result of gunshot. The only X-ray records, taken after her death, were of Ms Bhutto’s head. However, the possibility of a bullet wound to her mid or lower trunk can reasonably be excluded. This is based upon the protection afforded by the armoured [sic] vehicle in which she was travelling [sic] at the time of the attack, and the accounts of her family and hospital staff who examined her.
However, the Yard’s pathologist admits that he is
“unable categorically to exclude the possibility of there being a gunshot wound to the upper trunk or neck” [but] “the available evidence suggests that there was no gunshot injury.”
So, without actually seeing the body and with only x-rays of Bhutto’s head, Scotland Yard has determined that she was killed by a bump to her head; the result of a bomb blast perpetrated by a suicide bomber.
This simply doesn’t jive with eyewitness accounts and video footage. This information, gathered independently from Pakistan, left few doubts that Ms. Bhutto was shot by one or more assailants. According to a U.S. administration official working in Pakistan, “There is a consensus emerging that she must have been shot.”
It appears this investigation solved nothing; the country is still divided.
As for Scotland Yard’s investigative skill: I suppose if I was asked to determine the cause of a car crash, and all I was given to examine was a flat tire, I’d determine the cause of the crash was a blow-out.
Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, a 25-year old Canadian citizen of Iraqi descent, was sentenced to life in prison after planning to kill federal agents and prosecutors. Jabarah was an al-Qaeda member who admitted to being sent by Osama bin Laden to bomb U.S. embassies in Manila and Singapore. He pleaded guilty to the foiled bombing plots and provided information to authorities that led to the capture of the architect of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. However, during a search of Jabarah’s room in 2002, prosecutors discovered that he intended to kill FBI agents and prosecutors with whom he had contact. After the accusation, he subsequently refused to cooperate any further.
Assistant U.S. Attorney David Raskin said the agents found two steak knives, a 3 1/2-foot length of nylon rope and notes in Arabic among Jabarah’s possessions. In one note, he said “I swore to life in dignity or to die.” In a letter to his parents, he wrote “I have a mission that I can’t ignore.”
Defense attorneys argue that it was the FBI that chose to stop dealing with Jabarah after discovering the items, which BTW, were obtained for “legitimate” purposes.
(maybe so, but…)
What else did authorities find?
- a list of prosecutors and federal officers involved in terrorism cases in Manhattan, including the case of Ramzi Yousef, convicted of masterminding the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
- The lists also included officials involved in the cases of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, who was found guilty in a plot to bomb New York landmarks, and the four bin Laden followers convicted of involvement in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
- A photo of Mohammed Atta, a Sept. 11 hijacker, and had written over the picture “Commander of the 11 September units, may God bless his soul.”
- A photo of bin Laden, Jabarah allegedly wrote “God keep you” and “May he grant you the highest, most lavish and sweetest honors of heaven.”
- A note written in Arabic stating, “Oh God, make my aim accurate, balance my feet on the ground, protect my heart.”
- A list of FBI agents, New York police detectives and prosecutors with whom he had contact and a list of tasks he wanted to complete.
- Directions for how to make an explosive device
- A map of Fort Dix, the U.S. Army installation in New Jersey where he was held for part of his time in secured custody.
- A U.S. Army memo describing New York City’s drinking water system and a map of the city’s water supply and testing results.
After the discovery of these items, the prosecutors argument that
“Jabarah had secretly disavowed cooperation and was affirmatively planning further jihad operations,including in all likelihood the murder of government officials in some sort of suicide operation.”
seem very reasonable.
Of course, Jabarah told U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones,
“I do not believe in terrorism, violence or killing,” … “I am not, I repeat, I am not an infamous terrorist who was indoctrinated at an early age to kill Americans on a terrorist mission.”
and asked to be allowed to return to live with his family, which has relocated to Kuwait, instead of being sent to prison. He said he would like to study medicine and become an ophthalmologist.
(…and not, certainly not, a terrorist. I promise, your honor!)
Evidently, Judge Jones didn’t have too much faith in his veracity.
Scotland Yard has completed their investigation of the Bhutto murder and have come to the conclusion that al-Qaeda was responsible for her death. They also concluded there was no government cover-up, simply poor police work.
Still, they can’t say exactly who is responsible for the killing. Scotland Yard disputes the Pakistani government claim that Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal leader from the Afghan border area of southern Waziristan, was the master-planner. It appears Musharraf pointed the finger at Mehsud out of political expediency due to the militant’s link to al-Qaeda.
Scotland Yard has insisted their job wasn’t to determine who killed Bhutto, but just exactly how she died. How can they do that when they can’t examine the body, and the crime scene and Bhutto’s vehicle were sanitized within hours of her death? If “evidence” points toward al-Qaeda, where was this evidence obtained?
(the Pakistani government, of course.)
(h/t Spree at Wake up America) Army Major Andrew Olmsted was killed in Iraq on January 3rd and leaves to a friend the task of putting up his FINAL POST
I didn’t know Major Olmsted before I read Spree’s blog post this morning, and feel that I have missed a great opportunity. I wish I had found his blog sooner. In reading through it, Major Olmsted appeared to be a very practical, centered and honorable human being with a wonderful sense of humor. It appears he quit posting to his personal blog in February 2007 because
“…it turns out that I have been blogging in violation of a Department of Defense directive that restricts how much political activity soldiers may be involved with.”
Still, Olmsted kept blogging, publishing his experiences in Colorado’s Rocky Mountain News.
Major Olmsted’s final post is very emotional, extremely honest and funny!
What I don’t want this to be is a chance for me, or anyone else, to be maudlin. I’m dead. That sucks, at least for me and my family and friends. But all the tears in the world aren’t going to bring me back, so I would prefer that people remember the good things about me rather than mourning my loss. (If it turns out a specific number of tears will, in fact, bring me back to life, then by all means, break out the onions.)”
and being a military man myself, I respect and admire his singular sense of duty:
“As a soldier, I have a duty to obey the orders of the President of the United States as long as they are Constitutional. I can no more opt out of missions I disagree with than I can ignore laws I think are improper. I do not consider it a violation of my individual rights to have gone to Iraq on orders because I raised my right hand and volunteered to join the army. Whether or not this mission was a good one, my participation in it was an affirmation of something I consider quite necessary to society. So if nothing else, I gave my life for a pretty important principle; I can (if you’ll pardon the pun) live with that.”
To Major Olmsted’s wife, Amanda, and his family: You’re in my thoughts and prayers. God bless you.
It should come as no big surprise that nK will miss the nuclear disclosure deadline it agreed to in February. As I predeicted, here, here, here and here , Pyongyang has identified U.S offenses necessitating the delay. Specifically, nK is decrying the U.S. military activity in South Korea (otherwise known as routine training) as “flexing…military muscle.” Per the Yonhap news agency:
“Dialogue and clamor for war cannot stand together” … “The U.S. should abandon its hostile policy toward the North.”
It appears the reason for the delay in the declaration is a difference of opinion over the the country’s uranium enrichment program and the amount of plutonium produced. The U.S. feels its greater than nK is admitting to.
The real crux for the delay, suggest South Korean analysts, is nK’s perception that the U.S. is dragging its feet in removing the country from a list of terror-sponsoring states. This is likely to result in a lull in the denuclearization program for a few months.
The truth is that nK is will move forward only when promised more concessions and aid.
(as always)
The principle professor of surgery at Rawalpindi General Hospital, Dr. Muhammad Mussadiq Khan, said on the night of her death that Bhutto had died of a bullet wound. This, according to hospital board member Athar Minallah, who released the medical report written by Khan and six other doctors together with an open letter supporting the doctors in their call for an autopsy.
Minallah’s open letter was distributed to the Pakistani news media and to The New York Times. In the letter he suggested the doctors felt they were being pressured by the government to back the theory that Ms Bhutto had died by hitting her head on the car’s sunroof lever. The doctors argued that “without an autopsy it is not at all possible to determine as to what had caused the injury.” Still, Aziz Saud, Rawalpini Chief of Police, “did not agree” to the doctor’s autopsy request.
The absence of a gunshot wound was crucial for the government’s vindication, because had there been one, it meant the security they provided Ms Bhutto was grossly inadequate. Bruce Riedel, an expert on Pakistan at the Brookings Institution in Washington, explained, “If there is a gunshot wound the security was abysmal,” and the government didn’t want to be exposed to this level of carelessness.
Makes sense, but I don’t think it’s that simple. Analysts are suggesting the use of a handgun in addition to explosives is a departure for militant groups in Pakistan. Security analyst Nasim Zehra explains, “This is not by any means a signature killing by Al Qaeda” … “A targeted shooting, even in combination with a familiar suicide bombing, makes it look more like a political killing than one by some militant group.”
If it looks like a duck…
In a curious turn-of-events, pro al Qaeda militant leader, Baitullah Mehsud, denied involvement in the assassination of former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. However, Pakistan is still insisting the terrorist organization is responsible for Bhutto’s murder, citing “irrefutable evidence that al-Qaida [sic], its networks, and cohorts are trying to destabilize Pakistan…” But, the government has yet to actually present this evidence and the citizens aren’t buying it:
The government’s “official” report of the incident has a gunman firing three shots at Bhutto and missing, then blowing himself up. Ms Bhutto died when the force of the blast caused her to hit her head against the lever of the sunroof of her car.
But that doesn’t jive with eyewitness accounts…
According to Shery Rehman, Ms. Bhutto’s close aide and secretary of information for her Pakistan People’s Party, the government’s claim is “ridiculous”:
“What the government is saying is completely ridiculous, in fact it’s dangerous nonsense that she knocked her head against the lever of the sunroof or some such thing, as if that would attack her. But frankly, it’s very clear, it’s running on all the Pakistan TV channels, the footage of an assassin who took clear aim at her with his gun and fired the shot that went through the back of her head and came out the other. I have seen the bullet wound myself, I was part of the bathing ritual party and she bled to death from that wound.”
Now, al Qaeda denies any involvement in the crime (after initially taking credit?). Why? The Pakistan government says al Qaeda killed Ms Bhutto to destabilize the country because Pakistan is “in the forefront of the war against terrorism.” Perhaps al Qaeda did have something to do with it and are taking advantage of the tumultuous situation to blacken the eye of Musharraf’s administration.
Still, Musharraf was, at least, an al Qaeda enabler, giving them a sanctuary in the mountains of Pakistan. Perhaps al Qaeda is unhappy with Musharraf and are attempting to set the stage for a new leader, one whose even more sympathetic to their cause…like the new Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani.
The WSJ is reporting that “The [Pakistan] government blamed al Qaeda and the Taliban for the assassination of the opposition leader, [Benazir Bhutto]…” She was buried alongside her father.
Yesterday, Musharraf blamed unnamed Islamic militants, but according to Pakistan Interior Minister, Hamid Nawaz, they now possess “evidence that al Qaeda and the Taliban were behind the suicide attack…” Interestingly enough, they’ve resolved the “whole mystery” behind the opposition leader’s killing and plan to provide details at a press conference later today.
(wow. I can’t wait to hear this!)
As violence erupts all over Pakistan, Musharraf insists the January elections will take place as planned. With Bhutto’s party in disarray and rival party leader, Nawaz Sharif, planning to boycott the elections, things certainly seem to be falling into place for President Musharraf (who probably isn’t really interested in any “power-sharing” agreement).
UPDATE 12/28/07: Pakistan’s Interior Ministry spokesman, Javed Iqbal Cheema, cited a communication intercept implicating al Qaeda in the Bhutto murder: “We have intelligence intercepts indicating that al Qaeda leader Baitullah Mehsud is behind her assassination.” Supposedly, according to the communique, Mehsud had congratulated his people for the attack on Ms Bhutto. However, no solid evidence was presented.
It’s no surprise that the government’s “official” explanation was quickly dismissed by Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) who believe President Musharraf’s embattled administration was only trying to cover up its failure to protect her. A spokesman for the PPP said, “The government is nervous,” and “They are trying to cover up their failure” to provide adequate security.
(I agree)
Cheema also claimed that Bhutto had not been shot, as doctors and eyewitnesses had previously reported, but had died from a skull fracture: “No bullets…were found in her body.”
Of course, Bhutto aides balked at the notion.
(cover-up!)
UPDATE 1/1/08: Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz apologized for the report that the sunroof lever killed Bhutto and said it was a “mistake”. Conducting damage control, Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz Khan, asked the media and people to “forgive and ignore” comments previously made by his ministry’s spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema.
(Indeed!)
Former Pakistan Prime Minister and opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated today in what appears to be a suicide attack in the town of Rawalpindi, just outside Islamabad. She was killed along with at least 20 others after addressing a campaign rally in the small military garrison town. Her party security adviser said she had been shot before climbing into her vehicle, and then the bomber blew up.
The primary suspects in the assassination are “Islamic militants,” whom Bhutto openly criticized during her election campaign, pledging to “root” them out.
Of course the Islamists are the likely suspects, but there are others who stand to benefit from a Bhutto assassination: President Musharraf and supporters from within the military intelligence service, for one. After all, Rawalpindi, where Bhutto was killed, is the power base of the Pakistani army. Curious that Ms Bhutto was assassinated in the same town that her father, former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was hanged in 1979 after being deposed by a military coup.
And considering many previous assassinations of Pakistani politicians remain unsolved, it’s a distinct possibility (and I believe highly probable) Bhutto’s killers will never be identified.
Many are concerned Bhutto’s assassination will delay the January 8th elections. I think it will and expect President Musharraf to once again impose a state of emergency. I believe it’s inevitable–he wants this state of emergency and the authority he derives from it. Bhutto’s killing provides a convenient excuse…
MORE: Michelle Malkin; Wake up America; Hot Air; TPMCafe; Red State; LGF; The American Pundit; ComingAnarchy.com; Webloggin; Power Line
The State Department and the Pentagon have differing opinions on Iran and its current role in stabilizing Iraq. Basically, the State Department believes Iran is curbing weapons flow into Iraq; while the DoD believes it’s too early to assume Tehran has changed its behavior.
According to the WSJ:
The differences between the Pentagon and the State Department over Iran have come into clear view in recent days.
On Friday, Mr. Gates told reporters that he had “not yet” seen any persuasive evidence that Iran was trying to reduce the flow of weaponry into Iraq. A new Pentagon report about Iraq similarly concluded that there “was no identified decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shia militias in Iraq.”
State Department officials have taken a very different tack. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker told reporters in Baghdad on Sunday that there were “some indicators that the Iranians are using some influence to bring down violence from extremist Shia militias.” That echoed similar comments by David Satterfield, the top State Department official on Iraq.
emphasis mine
The problem the president faces is how much credit to give Iran with respect to diplomatic talks. Previously, Iran’s suspension of its nuclear program was a prerequisite for any diplomatic engagement. However, in light of November’s lukewarm National Security Estimate, many analysts believe this requirement should no longer apply. In fact, signs are pointing to the State Department ultimately agreeing to talks without the nuclear suspension.
I believe this is a serious mistake and sincerely hope our government officials aren’t duped into going forward with any diplomatic discussions with Iran without the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program. Although the NIE appeared to paint a favorable picture of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, the truth is there was much that needed to be read between the lines. Specifically, the first sentence of the NIE states, “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” However, a footnote to this statement reveals, that the definition of a “nuclear weapons program” does “not mean Iran’s declared civil work related to uranium conversion and enrichment.”
What does this mean?
How does one make a distinction between what is “civilian” and what is “military”? For a country like the United States, civilian and military distinctions are easily made because they’re written into our laws. But how can such a distinction be made within a terrorist state like Iran? I don’t think it can be done because it doesn’t exist. The NIE tells us that Iran lied about its secret military efforts until it was discovered on 2003. Furthermore, Iran has 3,000 centrifuges and continues to enrich uranium on an industrial scale in defiance of binding U.N. resolutions. Since Iran has access to all the fuel it needs for civilian nuclear power from the Russian plant in Bushehr, there is no civilian purpose for such enrichment.
Though buried within its pages, the NIE contains all the information necessary to answer the question of easing diplomatic restrictions with Iran: The answer is unequivocally, NO!
The National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was released Dec 3 and it brings to light that Iran probably stopped its covert nuclear weapons work sometime in 2003. More than likely this was due to international pressures and increased scrutiny of their activities. Now everyone is behaving as though Iran is no longer a threat. Most notably the “Dhimmi”-cratic presidential candidates! They’re pointing fingers at the administration (and Hillary Clinton, no less) for their positions on Iran.
Yes, the NIE says Iran likely stopped working toward the development of nuclear weapons. However, they were in the process of developing them. Evidently, they stopped “in response to international pressure;” which begs the question, “why let-up on the pressure now?” It’s obviously working!
The NIE goes on to say that Iran is technically capable of producing enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) to make weapons as early as 2009, although this is unlikely. However,
“We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame.”
Furthermore, the NIE expresses with “moderate confidence” that if Iran began producing HEU for a weapon, it would use covert facilities (really??), instead of its declared nuclear sites.
The NIE certainly doesn’t paint a very pretty picture of Iran and its nuclear ambitions. The fact that they stopped (or more appropriately, postponed) production of nuclear weapons, doesn’t mean they’re no longer a threat! Iran remains the biggest Middle Eastern threat to peace and the United States must not relent…no matter how the appeasers spin it!
Israel has acknowledged that it carried out an air strike against a “military target” deep inside the Syrian border, but has not provided any specifics. Syria has acknowledged the air strike, stating the target was “under construction.”
Now, the Syrians are rapidly dismantling a building at the supposed site of the bombing. According to the Institute for Science and International Security, a suspected reactor building visible in aerial photos prior to the Israeli attack had disappeared and the ground underneath had been sanitized. Reporting on the incident, the International Atomic Energy Agency surmised that
“Dismantling and removing the building at such a rapid pace dramatically complicates any (IAEA) inspection of the facilities and suggests Syria may be trying to hide what was there,”
Yah think?
I find it very interesting that the supposed Syrian nuclear facility looked an awful lot like the nuclear facilities in North Korea. But this can’t be, can it? After all, this would mean nK was sharing nuclear technology with a state sponsor of terrorism. This of course, would implicate nK as a terrorism enabler.
Of course, if nK was doing this, we wouldn’t be removing them from the state sponsor list. So, it must just be a coincidence. Right?
If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
Middle East countries riding high on oil revenues are becoming savvy financial players in the global marketplace. According to the WSJ,
“Yesterday saw a burst of activity involving Mideast governments, including a battle between two Persian Gulf emirates over stakes in the London Stock Exchange and a bid by one of them for a stake in Nasdaq Stock Market Inc.”
The Nasdaq deal is part of a larger battle between Dubai and Qatar for increasing control over parts of the world’s stock exchanges. In addition to Nasdaq, the London Stock Exchange Group PLC and OMX AB (a company operating stock exchanges in Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and the Baltics) are also involved in the maneuvering.
This deal would give Dubai a 19.9% stake in Nasdaq and buy a 28% stake in the London exchange from Nasdaq. The deal would also result in Nasdaq owning OMX. Qatar’s play involved the spending of $1.36 billion before the market opened to buy 20% of the London exchange. It also spent $470 million during trading hours to buy 10% of OMX.
The WSJ also reports,
While President Bush promised a careful review of the deal, a key legislator, Democrat Barney Frank, said it “doesn’t raise any alarm bells to me.” Rep. Frank, who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, noted Nasdaq is a highly regulated entity and “there’s no physical transfer of property” in the proposed deal.
You’ve got to be kidding!
No alarm bells?
We’re talking about selling an interest in our stock exchange to a state that finances terrorism! Dubai is a banking center believed to attract funds from known terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. And Qatar, although more friendly to the U.S., is a safe-haven for terrorists! Qatar provides sanctuary for exiled Islamic terrorists and radical preachers from Algeria, Chechnya, Egypt, Lebanon and the occupied territories.
So, why do these countries have such tremendous buying power? It’s easy to attribute their financial power to the growing price of oil, but why have oil prices skyrocketed? The answer is simple: the devaluation of the U.S. dollar! (today $1 will buy you about £0.50 or €0.70)
The dollar is the world trading currency, which means all goods and services are priced in U.S. dollars. With a U.S. dollar devaluation, the impact on international trade is tremendous. Any country trading with the U.S. will raise their prices in light of this devaluation. This is one reason why oil has peaked at $80 per barrel. Since the dollar is worth less in the world market, oil producers are forced to raise their prices to protect their investment.
Why is our dollar devalued? Two reasons: The budget deficit (spending more than tax revenue collected) and trade deficit (importing more than you’re exporting) are the primary reasons for the US dollar decline today. Currently, the budget deficit is close to $500 billion and the trade deficit is also close to $500 billion. We’re talking $1 trillion in deficits!
What does that mean? No one wants to hold a currency that is declining in value. As the U.S. dollar declines investors will turn to the stronger currencies, such as the British pound and the Euro. Ultimately, it could lead to the collapse of the U.S. economy!
And we’re selling our stock exchange to terrorists…
The Washington Post reports that New York’s Columbia University will not cancel Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s speaking engagement. Many are outraged, including New York City Council speaker Christine Quinn who said, “the idea of Ahmadinejad as an
honored guest anywhere in our city is offensive to all New Yorkers” … and that he is only coming to the city “to spread his hate-mongering vitriol on the world stage.”
(undoubtedly)
Ahmadinejad will arrive to the U.S. on Sunday, September 23, to address the U.N.’s General Assembly. Afterward he’ll be speaking at Columbia University. Columbia University President Lee Bollinger, defending his decision, said the Iranian president has agreed to answer questions about Israel and the Holocaust, and the visit is in keeping with “Columbia’s long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate.”
(I doubt Bollinger’s intentions are that pure)
Personally, I don’t have much of a problem with Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia. I believe this will be another opportunity for the world to see this man for the fascist leader he is. Open (and honest) debate is the only way to work through issues. Through debate, we glean understanding. We don’t have to like the messenger or his message, but I would like the opportunity to hear what he has to say and have an opportunity to rebut his assertions. I’m also interested in seeing those among us who coddle this terrorist madman; for these are our true enemies, and more dangerous because they’re “us”.
(of course, if someone were to “pick him off” from the stage, well, I wouldn’t have a problem with that either)
White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said of Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia, “This is a country where people can come and speak their minds” … “It would be wonderful if some of the countries that take advantage of that here allowed it for their own citizens there.”
(true)
Ahmadinejad also wanted lay a wreath at ground zero of the 9/11 attacks. His plans were rightfully derailed! Speaking at Columbia is one thing, but allowing a terrorist to “pay homage” (i.e. gloat) to those whose deaths he endorsed is blasphemous!
MORE:
It appears that in some respects, I’m in the minority of right-of-center thinkers…
Michelle Malkin; Hot Air; Little Green Footballs; The American Pundit; Power Line
Wake up America has a very interesting article illustrating Columbia’s skewed values in inviting Ahmadinejad to speak, yet refusing to allow an ROTC program. The article also cited Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead, observing that…
Socialist influence doesn’t go after the poor or the middle class. It goes after the bored wealthy, those who they can make feel guilty for their wealth, not those who made their money by EARNING it, but more those who INHERITED it. That, and through sufficiently disgusted (and in many cases, disgustING) entertainers who make it “fashionable” (Barbara Streisand comes to mind here for her many causes through the years, as does Jane Fonda).
What better place to indoctrinate young wealthy heirs and heiresses than at the Ivy League colleges and universities they attend?
An excellent point!
The U.S. is losing its patience with Iran and is considering strategic strikes against the terrorist nation’s nuclear facilities. It seems that political and military officers are advising Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the diplomatic approach has failed and the Bush administration must actively prepare for a military solution (h/t: FoxNews).
It shouldn’t come as any real big surprise that many in the Bush camp are discussing the implications of taking military action against Iran. In fact, according to insiders, the likely timeframe would be within the next 8 to 10 months. If this timeline holds true, action against Iran would occur after the presidential primaries, but well before the November 2008 elections. (a Republican power-play?)
The likely scenario would be a blockade of Iranian gasoline imports and oil exports or a full-scale aerial bombardment. These next few months are going to be dangerous indeed. With Germany becoming wishy-washy about sanctions, China obstructing action by the UN Security Council and Russia now getting chummy with Iran, it’s increasingly obvious that diplomacy has failed. What’s the next logical step?
I wonder what the shopping is like in Tehran?
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to be the king of contradictions. The peace-loving Ahmadinejad says that Iran wants “friendship to all,” because as we all know, Iran “love[s] all nations and all human beings.”
Except, of course, if you’re Jewish! According to Ahmadinejad, Isreal “cannot continue its life.”
What else? The Iranian president also says his countrymen don’t believe in war, considering it a “last resort.” Yet, he’s made it abundantly clear that Tehran would fill any power vacuum left by a withdrawal of coalition forces in Iraq.
And what of Iran’s nuclear weapons program? After all, according to Ahmadinejad, “Our bombs are dangerous…” but that isn’t important because Ahmadinejad also says, “[w]e do not need a bomb. We are against bombs, actually. There are many reasons we are against it. From a political point of view, it’s not useful, we think.”
(That’s why the UN has imposed sanctions on Iran’s “peaceful” uranium enrichment program)
It’s hard to believe there are actually people in our government who take this guy seriously! That’s a much more dangerous situation than Iran!
On September 11, 2001, I was assigned to the 42d Medical Group at Maxwell AFB, AL and was conducting business in the Education and Training Office, when the first plane struck the World Trade Center in NYC. I remember standing, dumbfounded, as the smoke poured out of the building, and watching in horror as a second plane struck the adjacent building. At that point, it was painfully obvious the United States was under attack! I was already moving to the door when the announcement activating the Medical Control Center was broadcast overhead. At that moment, we went to 24-hour operations that would continue for the next two weeks. The base gates were closed and increased security measures were implemented on Air Force bases around the world.
Nothing is the same. The tragic loss of life that continues, exacerbated by the ridiculous (and mind-numbing) politically correct posturing of the Islam apologists in this country! This attitude has gotten more Americans killed than any deployment order given by our military commanders. This attitude has kept us in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is also giving Iran a foothold. This attitude may very well lead to America’s demise. I’m deeply saddened by this thought and incredibly angered by the blind stupidity of so many.
Today marked the release of all the South Korean missionaries held hostage by the Taliban terrorists (h/t: Michelle Malkin). Why did the terrorists hold the seven remaining hostages for an additional day? I believe they wanted to see what kind of response the hostage release received from the media. If it didn’t go their way or if thought they could gain some new advantage, they’d still have some leverage. Just more game-playing.
Now it appears the Church that sent the missionaries to Afghanistan will be charged by the South Korean government for the expense of transporting them home.
According to the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade,
The government will first request compensation for the cost of airfare, the transfer of dead bodies, and expenses for the transportation and medical treatment of the captives.”
The chief pastor of the Bundang-based church said the church will reimburse the government for all costs associated with transporting the dead bodies and freed hostages home. The pastor made the commitment after the government said it would seek compensation from the church since all expenses were paid by taxpayer money.
First taken hostage by Taliban, then robbed by their own government. South Korea has the twelfth largest economy in the world! How cheap can you be?!?
MORE: Tel-Chai Nation
UPDATE: South Korean officials hint at recouping expenses from the hostages themselves (h/t: Hot Air).
Twelve of the nineteen South Korean hostages held by the Taliban have been released. The hostages were released into the care of the International Committee of the Red Cross in small groups at three different locations in central Afghanistan. The Taliban said they would release the seven remaining hostages within the next few days.
At first, South Korea had vowed not to engage in direct talks with Taliban terrorists who had threatened to kill the missionary hostages. However, following the murder of two of the hostages as a result of failed negotiations between the terrorists and the Afghan government late last month, the South Korean government began direct negotiations with the kidnappers.
Of co