al Qaeda

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.

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.)

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!)

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…