I bet you didn’t know that being surrounded on two sides by the US military is viewed as a great thing by Iran’s ruling mullahs. You didn’t?

Well, sit back and let the New York Times explain to you how this is a terrible situation for us and just the ticket for Iran:

Explosions rock Saddam Hussein’s complex in central Baghdad during the U.S.-led “shock-and-awe” aerial campaign.

Guess Who Likes the G.I.’s in Iraq (Look in Iran’s Halls of Power)

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: January 29, 2006

NOT long after the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq in 2003, a top aide to L. Paul Bremer III, then the head of the American occupation authority there, excitedly explained that Iraq had just become the front line in Washington’s effort to neutralize Iran as a regional force.

If America could promote a moderate, democratic, American-friendly alternate center of Shiite Islam in Iraq, the official said, it could defang one of its most implacable foes in the Middle East.

Iran, in other words, had for decades been both the theological center of Shiite Islam and a regional sponsor of militant anti-American Islamic groups like Hezbollah. But if westward-looking Shiites — secular or religious — came to power in southern Iraq, they could give the lie to arguments that Shiites had to see America as an enemy.

So far, though, Iran’s mullahs aren’t feeling much pain from the Americans next door. In fact, officials at all levels of government here say they see the American presence as a source of strength for themselves as they face the Bush administration.

In almost every conversation about Iran’s nuclear showdown with the United States and Europe, they cite the Iraq war as a factor Iran can play to its own advantage.

"America is extremely vulnerable right now," said Akbar Alami, a member of the Iran’s Parliament often critical of the government but on this point hewing to the government line. "If the U.S. takes any unwise action" to punish Iran for pursuing its nuclear program, he said, "certainly the U.S. and other countries will share the harm."

Iranians know that American forces, now stretched thin, are unlikely to invade Iran. And if the United States or Europe were to try a small-scale, targeted attack, t he proximity of American forces makes them potential targets for retaliation. Iranians also know the fighting in Iraq has helped raise oil prices, and any attempt to impose sanctions could push prices higher.

In addition, the Iranians have longstanding ties to influential Shiite religious leaders in Iraq, and at least one recently promised that his militia would make real trouble for the Americans if they moved militarily against Iran.

All of those calculations have reduced Iranian fears of going ahead with their nuclear program — a prospect that frightens not just the United States, Europe and Israel, but many of the Sunni Muslim-dominated nations in the region, including Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

In recent days, Iran has moved aggressively to restart its nuclear program, insisting that it is aimed only at research and producing energy. The United States and Europe, who remain suspicious of Iran’s intentions, are trying to block it, with cooperation from Russia and China, and have threatened to take Iran to the United Nations Security Council.

Disagreement between the West and Iran on this issue is not new. But Iran’s apparent confidence that it can move ahead with little risk of serious punishment is. It is part of a change in the way Iran has decided to address the world, abandoning a strategy of diplomatic compromise pursued by the reformist president Muhammad Khatami, who served from 1997 until last year.

The hard-line conservative, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was elected in June to replace Mr. Khatami, has joined the religious leadership in a policy of confrontation.

With the Americans stuck fighting a protracted, murky war in Iraq, the Iranians felt they were in a position to defy the West even over the nuclear issue.

A Western diplomat based in Tehran said that Iran’s recent behavior has been infuriating, an apparent effort to undermine the diplomatic process. The envoy said that in August, when Europe was about to offer what it called a compromise, the Iranians balked even before seeing the proposal.

"Before we even met, they said: ‘We know what’s in it. We know what we are looking for is not there,’ " the diplomat said, insisting on remaining anonymous so as not to antagonize Iranian authorities.

The West has tried to push back, but Iran has barely budged. Part of the reason, the diplomat said, is that "what was seen as power then may be seen as weakness now," referring to the American presence in Iraq.

This month, Iran welcomed the Iraqi cleric Muktada al-Sadr in a way that helped send just that message. The cleric’s militia, the Mahdi Army, rose up twice in 2004 against the American military. Mr. Sadr and his followers have since joined the political process in Iraq, but during his visit to Tehran he warned that any attack on Iran could inspire a response from his militia.

"If neighboring Islamic countries, including Iran, become the target of attacks, we will support them," he said in comments reported by The Associated Press. "The Mahdi Army is beyond the Iraqi Army. It was established to defend Islam."

Not all Iranians think their country’s aggressive drive to resume its nuclear program will work as a long-term strategy.

Iran’s influence in Iraq and Afghanistan has limits, said Davoud Hermidas Bavand, a political science professor at Tehran University. "It might work as a deterrent for a military strike against Iran but it is not a deterrent to lift the pressure against Iran’s nuclear program."

Still, there is near unanimity in the government that the nuclear program should not be canceled. Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University who said he has close ties with many in government, said there was a compromise among the core factions over how far to go in the nuclear program. Basically, he said, there is agreement to develop a weapons capability, but not to go as far as building a bomb.

The logic, he said, is based on an assessment that if Iran builds a bomb, it could set off an arms race in the Middle East that could "eventually undermine Iran’s conventional superiority if others, like Syria and Egypt, get the bomb."

 

Is there anyone in their right mind who doesn’t realize how much better positioned we now are to face down Iran than we would be if our closest military forces were "over the horizon in Okinawa"?

In fact, if we weren’t in Afghanistan and Iraq we’d be up the proverbial creek and paddle-less in the extreme in providing any credible deterrence to Iran’s nuclear weapons development.

Happily for everyone but America-haters like the Timesmen, we are actually in a fairly good strategic position to call the shots in Iran. But not to those military experts at The Times.

And mind you, this NYT article is not an editorial. It is presented as a news report. Yet it is laced with belly laughs like this:

And if the United States or Europe were to try a small-scale, targeted attack, the proximity of American forces makes them potential targets for retaliation.

This is simply Orwellian.

But the article does provide one insight.

It tells us just how far The Times is willing to pervert reality to try to aid and comfort our country’s enemies.

It turns out that not a sparrow falls that it isn’t Bush’s fault.

Just ask that fount of objective journalism, The New York Times:

Fear, fueled by a recent wave of violence, has left the central market district in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, nearly empty at night.

Mixed U.S. Signals Helped Tilt Haiti Toward Chaos

By WALT BOGDANICH and JENNY NORDBERG
Published: January 29, 2006

PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — As his plane lifted off the runway here in August 2003, Brian Dean Curran rewound his last, bleak days as the American ambassador in this tormented land.

DEMOCRACY UNDONE

Haiti, Mr. Curran feared, was headed toward a cataclysm, another violent uncoupling of its once jubilant embrace of democracy more than a decade before. He had come here hoping to help that tenuous democracy grow. Now he was leaving in anger and foreboding.

Seven months later, an accused death squad leader helped armed rebels topple the president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Haiti, never a model of stability, soon dissolved into a state so lawless it stunned even those who had pushed for the removal of Mr. Aristide, a former Roman Catholic priest who rose to power as the champion and hero of Haiti’s poor.

Today, the capital, Port-au-Prince, is virtually paralyzed by kidnappings, spreading panic among rich and poor alike. Corrupt police officers in uniform have assassinated people on the streets in the light of day. The chaos is so extreme and the interim government so dysfunctional that voting to elect a new one has already been delayed four times. The latest date is Feb. 7.

Yet even as Haiti prepares to pick its first elected president since the rebellion two years ago, questions linger about the circumstances of Mr. Aristide’s ouster — and especially why the Bush administration, which has made building democracy a centerpiece of its foreign policy in Iraq and around the world, did not do more to preserve it so close to its shores.

The Bush administration has said that while Mr. Aristide was deeply flawed, its policy was always to work with him as Haiti’s democratically elected leader.

But the administration’s actions in Haiti did not always match its words. Interviews and a review of government documents show that a democracy-building group close to the White House, and financed by American taxpayers, undercut the official United States policy and the ambassador assigned to carry it out.

As a result, the United States spoke with two sometimes contradictory voices in a country where its words carry enormous weight. That mixed message, the former American ambassador said, made efforts to foster political peace "immeasurably more difficult." Without a political agreement, a weak government was destabilized further, leaving it vulnerable to the rebels.

Mr. Curran accused the democracy-building group, the International Republican Institute, of trying to undermine the reconciliation process after disputed 2000 Senate elections threw Haiti into a violent political crisis. The group’s leader in Haiti, Stanley Lucas, an avowed Aristide opponent from the Haitian elite, counseled the opposition to stand firm, and not work with Mr. Aristide, as a way to cripple his government and drive him from power, said Mr. Curran, whose account is supported in crucial parts by other diplomats and opposition figures. Many of these people spoke publicly about the events for the first time.

Mr. Curran, a 30-year Foreign Service veteran and a Clinton appointee retained by President Bush, also accused Mr. Lucas of telling the opposition that he, not the ambassador, represented the Bush administration’s true intentions.

Records show that Mr. Curran warned his bosses in Washington that Mr. Lucas’s behavior was contrary to American policy and "risked us being accused of attempting to destabilize the government." Yet when he asked for tighter controls over the I.R.I. in the summer of 2002, he hit a roadblock after high officials in the State Department and National Security Council expressed support for the pro-democracy group, an American aid official wrote at the time.

The International Republican Institute is one of several prominent nonprofit groups that receive federal funds to help countries develop the mechanisms of democracy, like campaigning and election monitoring. Of all the groups, though, the I.R.I. is closest to the administration. President Bush picked its president, Lorne W. Craner, to run his administration’s democracy-building efforts. The institute, which works in more than 60 countries, has seen its federal financing nearly triple in three years, from $26 million in 2003 to $75 million in 2005. Last spring, at an I.R.I. fund-raiser, Mr. Bush called democracy-building "a growth industry."

Translation: The New York Times will never be happy until we invade Haiti and restore the defrocked priest and Communist Aristide back in power. The Solons at The Times and other democracy lovers like Senator John Kerry (D-France) have been pushing this agenda for almost 15 years.

This is just the latest installment of The Times’ bi-annual call for the US to invade Haiti. Kerry has also used The Times’ editorial pages to call for the US to attack Haiti and reinstall the America-hating dictator Aristide.

The following passages are from Kerry’s May 16, 1994 editorial for the New York Times:

Haiti’s military rulers continue to thumb their noses at the United States and the rest of the world. Since the ouster of President Jean-Bertrande Aristide in September 1991, the international community has consistently tried to pressure the junta to step aside, but nothing has worked –not diplomacy, not tighter sanctions, not a partial naval embargo. By tolerating their defiance and unrelenting brutality, we have empowered Haiti’s military thugs…

Opponents argue that President Aristide is so flawed that he does not deserve our help, that an invasion would be bloody and costly and could involve us in a long-term military quagmire…

Some argue that intervening in Haiti is not worth the loss of an American life. We should remember that American soldiers were at risk when we intervened in Grenada, Panama and Iraq. Those who supported Presidents Bush and Reagan ought to ask themselves why the Haitian situation is different. Is it simply that the President is of a different political party? What other facts are different? …

No one should ever casually entertain the use of military power. Certainly I do not; it is a most serious proposition. But it is imperative that we and other nations in the hemisphere put the option on the table now. It is the best means to avoid a unilateral response under emergency conditions later on. It’s also the best means of putting teeth in our diplomacy now.

The people of Haiti cannot restore democracy — cannot overthrow a drug-running, gun-wielding military regime — by themselves. They need our help. If our stated goal of restoring democracy is real, if our concern for the Haitian people is genuine, if our credibility as a world leader is important, then we must confront the crisis in Haiti with the will to act.

Why the surprise? There is no hypocrisy here. The Democrats and their lickspittles in our media have been amazingly consistent on this point.

These Solons are always eager to use our military power to help the enemies of our country. They believe war is always justifiable when it hurts US interests.

Wouldn't it be great?

Can't you just imagine the fun we would have exploring some of Mother Sheehan's more untoward comments?

From the DNC's Associated Press:

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez greets U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, at Miraflores presidential palace in Caracas, Venezuela, Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006.

Jan 28, 8:47 PM EST

Sheehan Considers Challenging Feinstein

By IAN JAMES
Associated Press Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Cindy Sheehan, the peace activist who set up camp near President Bush's Texas ranch last summer, said Saturday she is considering running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein to protest what she called the California lawmaker's support for the war in Iraq.

"She voted for the war. She continues to vote for the funding. She won't call for an immediate withdrawal of the troops," Sheehan told The Associated Press in an interview while attending the World Social Forum in Venezuela along with thousands of other anti-war and anti-globalization activists.

"I think our senator needs to be held accountable for her support of George Bush and his war policies," said Sheehan, whose 24-year-old soldier son Casey was killed in Iraq in 2004.

Feinstein's campaign manager, Kam Kuwata, said the senator "doesn't support George Bush and his war policies."

"She has stated publicly on numerous occasions that she felt she was misled by the administration at the time of the vote," Kuwata said by phone from California.

But with troops committed, Feinstein believes immediate withdrawal is not a responsible option, Kuwata said.

"Senator Feinstein's position is, let's work toward quickly turning over the defense of Iraq to Iraqis so that we can bring the troops home as soon as possible," he said.

Sheehan accused Feinstein of being out of touch with Californians on the issue.

She said she would decide whether to run after talking with her three other adult children. The Democratic primary will be held in June, and candidates must submit their statements for the voter guide by Feb. 14.

Kuwata said Feinstein and Sheehan appear to have a fundamental disagreement over whether troops should be pulled out right now. "That's why they have elections, and if she decides to file (paperwork to run), so be it," he said.

Sheehan said running in the Democratic primary would help make a broader point.

"If I decided to run, I would have no illusions of winning, but it would bring attention to all the peace candidates in the country," she said.

Sheehan, 48, who lives in Berkeley, Calif., said she would head to Washington on Sunday for protests against Bush's State of the Union address on Monday, and then return to California to discuss her idea of running against Feinstein with her son and two daughters.

"I can't see – if they think it's going to help peace – that they would be opposed to me doing it," she said.

Sheehan and other peace activists met Saturday with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, himself a critic of Bush and the Iraq war.

"He said, why don't I run for president? … I just laughed," she said.

There, there. Let's have none of that false modesty, Mother Sheehan. We know you have the weight of the world on your broad shoulders.

Heck, I'd even be tempted to start a fundraiser here for her. But with Soros' and Chavez's money behind her, laundered through Code Pink, Global Exchange and a hundred other 501c3s and 527s, al-Cindy should be able to buy quite a few votes even without our help.

Seriously, though. This is the third or fourth time this story has passed through the news cycle. And not one of our one party media's "journalists" has thought to mention that Cindy's puppet master, Medea Benjamin, ran against Feinstein the last time she was up for election in 2000.

United States Senate
100.0% ( 25702 of 25702 ) precincts reporting as of Dec 18, 2000 at 12:48 pm

Statewide Returns	County Returns | Other Races

Candidate Party Votes Percent
	View Map
* Dianne Feinstein Dem 5,932,522 55.9 Tom Campbell Rep 3,886,853 36.6 Diane B. Templin AmI 134,598 1.2 Medea Susan Benjamin Grn 326,828 3.1 Gail Katherine Lightfoot Lib 187,718 1.8 Brian M. Rees Nat 58,537 0.5 Jose Luis Camahort Ref 96,552 0.9

They haven't figured out what is going on yet?

Sheesh.

Did your mom ever say to you just after you broke something around the house: "this is why we can’t have nice things"?

From those terrorist enablers at Reuters:

Gunmen storm Palestinian parliament

Saturday January 28

RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) – Firing into the air, Fatah gunmen and police stormed Palestinian parliament buildings on Saturday in growing unrest after their long-dominant party’s crushing election defeat by Hamas Islamists.

Hamas leaders meanwhile rejected as "blackmail" Western demands that it renounce violence against Israel or risk losing aid vital to the survival of the Palestinian Authority.

Hopes of peacemaking with Israel have been pushed further into limbo.

Turmoil since the parliamentary election landslide has fuelled fears of inter-Palestinian strife as Hamas tries to form a government and possibly take over security forces packed with Fatah loyalists at odds with the Islamic militants.

Thousands of gunmen from President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah held protests across the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, many firing automatic rifles into the air.

They took over parliament in the West Bank city of Ramallah for about 20 minutes, shouting demands from the roof before descending peacefully. Fatah militants and police also seized the parliament building in the Gaza Strip.

The gunmen demanded Fatah leaders resign. They also aimed to dissuade the party from any idea of sharing power with Hamas or letting it control security forces — after Hamas politburo chief Khaled Meshaal said it planned to form "an army".

"We will transform the army of the Palestinian Authority into armed militias. We are not waiting for Hamas to teach us their Islamic beliefs. We know the Koran by heart," said Fatah gunman Ramzi Obeid.

In Gaza, where eight people were hurt on Friday in clashes between Fatah and Hamas activists, the gunmen were joined in their protest by police opposed to any Hamas control over them.

Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz repeated Israel’s vow not to negotiate with Hamas and to strike at its leaders if the group, which has waged a suicide bombing campaign against the Jewish state, broke a February truce.

ISRAEL TESTS ABBAS

"We will not under any circumstances agree to speak with Hamas," he told Israel’s Channel 2 television. "If Hamas chooses a way of terror and violence like before … it will come under an unprecendented Israeli attack."

Hamas leaders have also ruled out peace talks with the Jewish state. Mofaz said Israel would negotiate only with Abbas and would wait to see if he disarmed militants, as required by a U.S.-backed peace "road map", before deciding its next steps.

Both Abbas and interim Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who was chosen to run in Ariel Sharon’s place in a March 28 ballot after Sharon suffered a stroke last month, have vowed to follow the peace plan, which has been stalled by violence.

In a message clearly aimed at Hamas, Palestinian Authority police commander Ala Hosni said the Islamist group would not be in charge of security forces because they came under the authority of President Abbas.

"The security institution is the only guarantee to prevent sedition and civil war. Civil war began in Somalia after the collapse of the army and security institutions," Hosni said.

Fatah leaders have so far rejected joining any coalition with Hamas, and it could take weeks to form one anyway. Popular jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouthi urged an orderly transfer of power to Hamas.

Hamas leaders are preparing to set up a government by themselves if need be, after winning votes from Palestinians tired with corruption and Fatah’s failure to deliver a state, as well as supportive of a Hamas suicide bombing campaign.

The United States has said it will review aid to the Palestinian Authority if Hamas enters government and Israel suggested it could suspend customs revenue transfers. The European Union, the biggest donor, is looking at its options.

Top Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh told Reuters that the group could turn towards sources in the Arab world if the West cut off funding.

In Damascus, Meshaal said that not only would Hamas not disarm but it would form a new Palestinian security force which would be an "army like every country … an army to defend our people against aggression".

No kidding. They really mean it this time.

From the terrorist cheerleaders at the Associated Press:

Kidnappers Threaten to Kill Four Activists

By SAMEER N. YACOUB
Jan 28, 1:49 PM EST

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) — Kidnappers threatened in a new videotape broadcast Saturday to kill four Christian peace activists unless all Iraqi prisoners were released, saying they were giving the U.S. and Iraqi governments a "last chance" to save the hostages.

The tape dated Jan. 21 and broadcast on Al-Jazeera showed the four men – two Canadians, an American and a Briton – standing near a wall, before cutting away to another shot in which they were seated and talking, but their voices were not heard.

The newsreader said the group issued a statement with the tape saying it was the "last chance" for U.S. and Iraqi authorities to "release all Iraqi prisoners in return of freeing the hostages otherwise their fate will be death." No deadline was set.

The previously unknown Swords of Righteousness Brigades has claimed responsibility for the kidnapping.

Also Saturday, a Sunni Arab leader condemned recent police crackdowns on Sunni neighborhoods in the Iraqi capital and demanded government protection from further raids – a day after police and insurgents fought pitched battles in southern Baghdad with about 60 people detained and three killed, apparently by insurgents.

At least nine people, including a prominent professor, were killed Saturday in other violence across Iraq.

Khalaf Al-Ilyan, a senior member of the Sunni Arab-coalition, the Iraqi Accordance Front, blamed the outgoing government of Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a Shiite, for launching attacks and not protecting members of his minority community.

"We condemn the treacherous and terrorist acts that have targeted and killed dozens of innocent people who were only guilty of rejecting the (U.S.-led) occupation," al-Ilyan said at a press conference. "Any government should defend its people, otherwise, why it should be called a government?"

Garwood reports the ordeal appears to be taking a toll on the hostages.

Sunni Arabs, who were dominant under Saddam Hussein but lost power after his ouster, are the driving force of the insurgency and the U.S. has been pushing to bring them into the political process to blunt the violence.

But many have accused Shiite-led security forces of torture and the indiscriminate detention of Sunnis, raising sectarian tensions.

Police Lt. Bilal Majeed said the bound and gagged bodies of two men in their 40s who had been shot in the head were found Saturday in southern Baghdad's Rustamiyah sewage plant, about three miles south of Baghdad.

Al-Ilyan said the Rustamiyah plant had "become the place where families go to search for the bodies of their sons killed by the government forces or militias."

Police also found the buried bodies of six laborers who had been bound, gagged and shot in the head 12 miles south of the southern city of Karbala, spokesman Rahman Mashawi said.

Meanwhile, a spate of shootings Saturday left at least four people dead in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora, including an Iraqi Army soldier. A mechanic was gunned down in nearby Jihad, the scene of fierce fighting Friday.

University professor and political analyst Abdul-Razzaq al-Na'as, who often appeared on Arab TV talkshows to discuss Iraqi politics, also was shot to death in central Baghdad on Saturday, said police Lt. Nadum Nasser.

Gunmen in the northern city of Mosul killed a policeman 30 minutes before slaying another who had left the force, police said. A roadside bombing in the western city of Fallujah killed one policeman and wounded another Saturday.

Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32; Tom Fox, 54, of Clear Brook, Va., and Norman Kember, 74, of London, were seized Nov. 26 as they were working with Christian Peacemaker Teams, a Canadian-based organization that has investigated allegations of abuse against Iraqi prisoners.

Al-Jazeera editor Saad al-Dosari declined to say how the station obtained the tape, which was about 55 seconds long, all of which was aired.

"We're still very concerned but at least we have proof that they are alive," Loney's youngest brother, Matthew, said in a telephone interview from Vancouver, British Columbia.

Christian Peacemaker Teams, which has been working in Iraq since October 2002, released a statement saying it was encouraged to see the activists alive and calling on their kidnappers to release them unharmed.

The group blamed the continued U.S. and British military presence in Iraq for the abductions.

"Christian Peacemaker teams, all of us here, continue to be very disturbed by the abduction of our teammates," the statement said. "We pray that those who hold them will host them with the grace that so many of us in CPT have received as guests in Iraq."

The videotape, which could not be independently verified, was the third in which the four activists were shown being held captive, including another one that threatened their lives unless all prisoners were freed in Iraq by Dec. 10.

More than 250 foreigners have been taken hostage in Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that toppled Saddam, and at least 39 have been killed.

Among the hostages still unaccounted for is American reporter Jill Carroll, 28, who was abducted Jan. 7 in Baghdad. Her kidnappers have demanded the release of all Iraqi women in custody. The U.S. military said this week's release of five Iraqi women who had been in military custody was routine and not in response to the ultimatum.

U.S. Marines and Iraqi Army soldiers in western Iraq ended an almost two-week military operation on Friday that destroyed 45 weapons caches and detained 20 suspected insurgents, the Marines said in a statement.

Operation Wadi Aljundi started Jan. 15 north of the town of Hit, 85 miles west of Baghdad. No U.S. or Iraqi casualties were sustained, according to the statement. Lt. Col. Drew Smith, a Marine commander, said Iraqi soldiers and coalition forces worked well together.

In another development, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Britain hopes to lower the number of troops it has in Iraq but only when the government is secure.

"We hope to do some of that during the course of this year," Straw said at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, without specifying an exact date. Some 8,500 British troops are in Iraq.

You know what?

The group blamed the continued U.S. and British military presence in Iraq for the abductions.

To hell with them.

I didn't post the news about Sada's claim about Iraq moving its chemical weapons to Syria right before the start of hostilities because it was a second hand account from two pilots who told him the story.

But this Sada claims, involved him directly.

From the Jerusalem Post:

Saddam ordered WMD strike on Israel

By JPOST.COM STAFF

Jan. 28, 2006

The former deputy of the Iraqi air force, General Georges Sada, revealed on Saturday that that former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, ordered him during the first Gulf War to bomb Israeli population centers with chemical weapons.

The ousted dictator, said Sada in recently published book, Saddam's secret's, ordered 96 Russian fighter jets to be armed with chemical weapons and sent to bomb Israel.

According to Sada, who recently served as a national security advisor to the temporary prime minister and was in the midst of a book tour in the US, said he succeeded in convincing Hussein to reconsider his order.

Sada said he convinced Saddam to abort the mission by telling him that the Iraqi pilots could not complete the mission with the equipment at their disposal, and that the Israelis had radar that could detect them before they reached their target.

In his book, which was written four years ago, Sada also claims that Iraq's chemical weapons were taken to Syria aboard civilian Iraqi "Boeing" airplanes just prior to the US invasion.

The 65-year-old Sada said that 56 flights of this type took place, but went largely unnoticed because they were flying under the guise of humanitarian aid.

Prior to the second Iraq war Israel warned that Iraq was moving chemical weapons from its territory into Syria.

Chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq by US-led allied forces.

Certainly Sada's claims are highly plausible. Especially the story about the WMDs being squirreled away in Syria. But why, if he wrote this book four years ago, are we just hearing from him now?

I suspect Sada had a hard time finding a publisher. (It's one I've never heard of.) But given the nature of the material, that is strange in and of itself.

But also, given all the attention paid the WMD story, you'd think he would have gone on the talk shows with this information.

It's very peculiar.

It's just such a darned kool thing to do that just about everybody is doing it ! — Signing up to post their ramblings on the Howard Dean paid stooge site, the Daily Kos.

Meet the newest Kos Kid on the block:

Thank You for Helping To Stop Alito

by Senator Edward M Kennedy
Fri Jan 27, 2006

At events throughout Martin Luther King Day earlier this month commemorating the great civil rights leader, countless people who care about civil rights today emphasized the major threat that Alito poses to our values of equality and justice if he becomes a member of the Supreme Court, with the power to roll back so much of the extraordinary progress we've made. I was inspired by their passion and commitment to defend the progress we've made in our country's history.

:: Senator Edward M Kennedy's diary::

Those conversations – and the overwhelming calls, letters, and e-mails I've received make it clear that the issue is all-important if our progress is to continue. The right wing is salivating over the prospect of Justice Alito on the Supreme Court, and the Republican majority in the Senate intends to rubber-stamp the nomination. The only realistic way to stop this nightmare is to stand up using tool we have.

Other than voting to send our men and women to war, there is no more important vote in the Senate than our vote on a Supreme Court nominee. Long after President Bush leaves office, the damage he can do with Supreme Court appointments like this will continue, since Justice Alito would be able to serve for decades in the future because federal judges serve for life.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings confirmed our worst fears, and we have to take the strongest possible stand against him.

We owe it to this generation and future generations of Americans to oppose any such nominee who will roll back the progress we've made.

The next three days will make all the difference in whether enough Democrats are willing to stand firm against this shameful nomination. Thank you for all of your support, and for all you can do between now and then to help us in this crucial vote.

I will not be able to stay in front of the computer, as I have quite a bit to take care of today. Crystal will monitor this post, though, and I've asked her to keep me updated with your feedback.

Maybe somebody should tell Ted — or rather, "Crystal" (nudge, nudge) — that Judge Alito actually hasn't been stopped.

But then again, why bother?

I guess she figures crazy times call for crazy candidates.

From NBC11.com:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (L) greets U.S activist Cindy Sheehan as he arrives at the meeting with World Social Forum Organizations in Caracas, Venezuela January 27, 2006.

Cindy Sheehan Threatens To Run Against Feinstein

Sheehan Says She'll Run Unless Feinstein Filibusters Alito Nomination

January 27, 2006

CARACAS, Venezuela — According to a press release issued Friday, Cindy Sheehan has decided to run against California Senator Diane Feinstein if Feinstein does not filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.

Sheehan made that announcement from Venezuela where she is attending the World Social Forum.

Sheehan's son Casey died in Iraq in 2004 and she has since become an outspoken protester of the war.

Sheehan is quoted to have said, "I'm appalled that Diane Feinstein wouldn't recognize how dangerous Alito's nomination is to upholding the values of our constitution. and restricting the usurpation of presidential powers, for which I've already paid the ultimate price."

Sheehan became well known across the United States when she stood vigil outside President Bush's ranch in Crawford last summer. She demanded to speak with the president about the cost of the war in Iraq.

Sheehan returns to the United States on Monday. She will travel to Washington, DC on Tuesday to participate in an alternative State of the Union event.

One has to wonder why Mother Sheehan would decide this on the basis or Feinstein's Alito vote. Cindy has already called the Senator from California and all of the rest of the Congress hypocritical murderers any number of times.

Such as here:

Every member of Bush’s executive branch (past and present) and e very member of Congress who voted to give George the authority to invade Iraq have innocent blood on their hands. For the next State of the Union address, maybe the hypocrites in Congress should shamefacedly display blood-soaked hands, instead of proudly wriggling fingers stained with ink to symbolize sham Iraqi elections.

And here:

Every person who has been killed since the sham [2004] elections–that is innocent blood on the hands of Congress.

Not voting for a futile filibuster is worse than causing the death of so many thousand innocent Iraqis?

Update!

We laughed, but it worked. Ms. Feinstein just issued this pronouncement, which reneges on all of her previous promises:

Senator Feinstein to Vote No on Cloture for the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

January 27, 2006

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced that she will vote no on cloture regarding the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

“Based on a very long and thoughtful analysis of the record and transcript, which I tried to indicate in my floor statement yesterday, I’ve decided that I will vote no on cloture.”

Which is really too bad. I would have loved to have seen Mother Sheehan run against her. Maybe she still will. Here's hoping.

Anyway, it's now official. The Democrat Party is certifiably insane.

Hold on to your teeth. In their latest attempt to whip up their colleagues on the fabled "Arab Street," the DNC's Associated Press is reporting the latest atrocities of the US military.

Imagine, holding the wives of terrorists. People who have information that could save lives. — And TWO of them!

After Friday prayers, over 500 worshippers gather with copies of the holy Quran to denounce cartoons published last year in a Danish newspaper.

Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic

Jan 27, 5:41 PM EST

By CHARLES J. HANLEY

The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."

The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed.

The U.S. military on Thursday freed five of what it said were 11 women among the 14,000 detainees currently held in the 2 1/2-year-old insurgency. All were accused of "aiding terrorists or planting explosives," but an Iraqi government commission found that evidence was lacking.

Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspects' houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in.

Iraq's deputy justice minister, Busho Ibrahim Ali, dismissed such claims, saying hostage-holding was a tactic used under the ousted Saddam Hussein dictatorship, and "we are not Saddam." A U.S. command spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said only Iraqis who pose an "imperative threat" are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities.

But documents describing two 2004 episodes tell a different story as far as short-term detentions by local U.S. units. The documents are among hundreds the Pentagon has released periodically under U.S. court order to meet an American Civil Liberties Union request for information on detention practices.

In one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect's house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets.

"During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.

Like most names in the released documents, the officer's signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint.

Of this case, command spokesman Johnson said he could not judge, months later, the factors that led to the woman's detention.

The second episode, in June 2004, is found in sketchy detail in e-mail exchanges among six U.S. Army colonels, discussing an undisclosed number of female detainees held in northern Iraq by the Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division.

The first message, from a military police colonel, advised staff officers of the U.S. northern command that the Iraqi police would not take control of the jailed women without charges being brought against them.

In a second e-mail, a command staff officer asked an officer of the unit holding the women, "What are you guys doing to try to get the husband – have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?"

Two days later, the brigade's deputy commander advised the higher command, "As each day goes by, I get more input that these gals have some info and/or will result in getting the husband."

He went on, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceit and misinformation."

The command staff colonel wrote in reply, referring to a commanding general, "CG wants the husband."

The released e-mails stop there, and the women's eventual status could not be immediately determined.

Of this episode, Johnson said, "It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held."

War really is hell.

By the way, could someone explain to me why the taxpayer-supported American Civil Liberties Union is protecting Iraqi terrorists?

From the ACLU's own website:

American Civil Liberties Union: About Us

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Exactly what American civil liberties do foreign terrorists have a claim to?

Of course that's a rhetorical question.

We all know that the real mission of the ACLU is to destroy our country and our system of government by any means necessary.

The New York Times says the vast majority of New Orleans blacks might not return to their beloved chocolate city on the Mighty Mississippi.

Study Says 80% of New Orleans Blacks May Not Return

January 27, 2006
By JAMES DAO

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — New Orleans could lose as much as 80 percent of its black population if its most damaged neighborhoods are not rebuilt and if there is not significant government assistance to help poor people return, a detailed analysis by Brown University has concluded.

Combining data from the 2000 census with federal damage assessment maps, the study provides a new level of specificity about Hurricane Katrina's effect on the city's worst-flooded areas, which were heavily populated by low-income black people.

Of the 354,000 people who lived in New Orleans neighborhoods where the subsequent damage was moderate to severe, 75 percent were black, 29 percent lived below the poverty line, more than 10 percent were unemployed, and more than half were renters, the study found.

The report's author, John R. Logan, concluded that as much as 80 percent of the city's black population might not return for several reasons: their neighborhoods would not be rebuilt, they would be unable to afford the relocation costs, or they would put down roots in other cities.

For similar reasons, as much as half of the city's white population might not return, Dr. Logan concluded.

"The continuing question about the hurricane is this: Whose city will be rebuilt?" Dr. Logan, a professor of sociology, writes in the report.

If the projections are realized, the New Orleans population will shrink to about 140,000 from its prehurricane level of 484,000, and the city, nearly 70 percent black before the storm, will become majority white.

The study, financed by a grant from the National Science Foundation, was released Thursday, 10 days after the mayor of New Orleans, C. Ray Nagin, who is black, told an audience that "this city will be a majority African-American city; it's the way God wants it to be."

Mr. Nagin's remark was widely viewed as an effort to address criticism of a proposal by his own rebuilding panel, the Bring New Orleans Back Commission, that calls for a four-month building moratorium in heavily damaged areas. He said later that he had not meant to suggest that white people would not be encouraged to return.

"Certainly Mayor Nagin's comments reflected a concern on the ground about the future of the city," Dr. Logan said. "My report shows that there is a basis for that concern."

The study coincides with growing uncertainty about what government assistance will be available for property owners and renters. Louisiana will receive $6.2 billion in federal block grants under an aid package approved by Congress in December, part of which will be used to help homeowners. But that will not be enough money to help all property owners in storm-damaged areas, Louisiana officials say.

Those officials have urged Congress to enact legislation proposed by Representative Richard H. Baker, Republican of Louisiana, creating a corporation that would use bond proceeds to reimburse property owners for part of their mortgages, then redevelop the property. But the Bush administration has said it opposes the bill, out of concerns that it would be too expensive and would create a new government bureaucracy.

Asked Thursday about his opposition to the measure, President Bush told reporters that the $85 billion already allocated for Gulf Coast restoration was "a good start." He added that he was concerned that Louisiana did not have a clear recovery plan in place.

But Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco of Louisiana, a Democrat who has clashed frequently with the White House, said Mr. Baker's bill provided a clear plan.

"Administration officials do not understand the suffering of the people of Louisiana," Ms. Blanco said in a statement.

Demographers are divided over the likelihood of a drastic shift in New Orleans's population. William H. Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution who has studied the hurricane's impact on the city, called Dr. Logan's projections "a worst-case scenario that will come about only if these evacuees see that they have no voice in what is going on."

But Dr. Frey also said low-income evacuees might indeed begin to put down roots in cities like Houston or Dallas if they did not see movement toward reconstruction in the next six months.

Elliott B. Stonecipher, a political consultant and demographer from Shreveport, La., said that unless New Orleans built housing in flood-protected areas for low-income residents, and also provided support for poor people to relocate, chances were good that many low-income blacks would not return.

"If they didn't have enough resources to get out before the storm," Mr. Stonecipher said, "how can we expect them to have the wherewithal to return?"

But according to many reports, such as this from the Houston Chronicle, that might not be such great news to their new neighbors:

Police arrest 8 in connection with 11 Houston-area homicides

Jan. 27, 2006, 12:10PM

Houston police have arrested eight of 11 people believed to be involved in nine homicides in the city's southwest side and two others in Pasadena since last November.

The arrests come just a few weeks after HPD acknowledged the surge in violent crime last year was linked to evacuees relocating here after Hurricane Katrina.

Police said the arrests were part of an initiative recently launched to investigate homicides believed related to gang activity.

In analyzing some recent cases in the southwest Houston area, police said today that several involved Louisiana suspects who relocated to Houston following Hurricane Katrina.

Police today said those suspects arrested were associated with two different gangs in New Orleans and continued their rivalry here.

Those in custody are:

• Kalvin Forcell, 21, charged with murder in a fatal shooting at 9373 Richmond e on Nov. 20;

• Alvin Sims, 20,charged with capital murder in a fatal shooting of two Louisiana men at 8901 Bissonnet on Dec. 31;

• Jason McMaster, 24, charged with aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping;

• Cornelius Gordon, 21, charged with engaging in organized crime and possession of a weapon;

• Daryl Robinson, 27, charged with murder in a fatal shooting at 11555 Bissonnet on Dec. 25;

• Tyler Mackyeon, 23, charged with deadly conduct and aggravated robbery;

• James Taylor, 24, charged with unauthorized use of a motor vehicle;

• Keith Ron Williams, 20, charged with assault-family violence.

Investigators are also asking for help in locating the three suspects not already in custody. They are:

• Ivroy Harris, 20;

• Travis Jordan, 21;

• and Terrence Richards, 20.

Harris is charged with aggravated robbery and aggravated kidnapping in the 339th State District Court. Jordan is charged with aggravated robbery and Richards is charged with evading detention in a Webster Police Department case.

Anyone with information on the whereabouts of the three wanted suspects is being asked to contact HPD at 713-308-3600 or Crime Stoppers at 713-222-TIPS.

It’s almost as if the DNC’s Associated Press doesn’t like Ann Coulter.

Coulter Jokes About Poisoning Justice

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Conservative commentator Ann Coulter, speaking at a traditionally black college, joked that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.

Coulter had told the Philander Smith College audience Thursday that more conservative justices were needed on the Supreme Court to change the current law on abortion. Stevens is one of the court’s most liberal members.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ crème brulee," Coulter said. "That’s just a joke, for you in the media."

Coulter has made a career of writing and lecturing on her strongly conservative views.

At one point during her address, which was part of a lecture series, some audience members booed when she cut off two questioners. "I’m not going to be lectured to," Coulter told one man in a raised voice.

She drew more boos when she said the crack cocaine problem "has pretty much gone away."

Of course the real joke in the article is that the Associated Press is considered an objective source for news by some of our deluded populace.

Have you ever seen the AP ever mention some of their designated spokesperson and saint Cindy Sheehan’s more memorable remarks? Such as this bon mot regarding Iraq’s newly elected leaders

And if [Bush] says we have to get a government in place [in Iraq], I say ‘how many hands do you have, to pull everybody’s string?’ You know that is a puppet government. A sham government. It’s people who encouraged the invasion so they could get rich. They are feeding off of our children’s flesh and blood.

Of course there are dozens more quotes like that or worse from Mother Sheehan. And Cindy isn’t kidding.

But speaking of jokes, what a great name for a college, huh? What was Smith’s reputation that he got tagged with such a nickname?

And then there’s the joke of there even being "traditionally black" colleges in this day and age of racial intergration.

Our good friends at The American Thinker and Israpundit have uncovered a fascinating limitation upon 501c3s like Cindy Sheehan’s Gold Star Families For Peace and Medea Benjamin’s Code Pink and Global Exchange.

To wit, it is a violation of their tax exempt status for such "charities" to plan and engage in illegal activities.

From the guidelines of the Internal Revenue Service:

J. ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ILLEGAL OR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY

1. Introduction

Exempt purposes may generally be equated with the public good, and violations of law are the antithesis of the public good. Therefore, the conduct of such activities may be a bar to exemption. Factors that have to be considered in determining the effect of illegal activities on an organization’s qualification for exemption are the paragraph of IRC 501(c) under which the organization is exempt or is applying for exemption, and the nature and extent of the illegal activities engaged in by the organization.

2. IRC 501(c)(3) and IRC 501(c)(4) Organizations

A. Charity Law

Exemption recognized under IRC 501(c)(3) is unique in that, unlike exemption under other paragraphs of IRC 501(c), it is grounded in charity law, so that denial of exemption under IRC 501(c)(3) may be based on charity law.

(1) Substantiality Test

Violation of constitutionally valid laws is inconsistent with exemption under IRC 501(c)(3). As a matter of trust law, one of the main sources of the general law of charity, planned activities that violate laws are not in furtherance of a charitable purpose. "A trust cannot be created for a purpose which is illegal. The purpose is illegal … if the trust tends to induce the commission of crime or if the accomplishment of the purpose is otherwise against public policy…. Where a policy is articulated in a statute making certain conduct a criminal offense, then …, a trust is illegal if its performance involves such criminal conduct, or if it tends to encourage such conduct." IV Scott on Trusts Section 377 (3d ed. 1967). Thus, all charitable trusts (and by implication all charitable organizations, regardless of their form) are subject to the requirement that their purpose may not be illegal or contrary to public policy. Rev. Rul. 71-447, 1971-2 C.B. 230; Restatement (Second) of Trusts, Section 377, Comment c (1959). Moreover by conducting criminal activities, an organization increases the burden of government and thus thwarts a well recognized charitable goal, i.e., relief of the burdens of government.

Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(1) states that an organization will not be regarded as operated "exclusively" for IRC 501(c)(3) purposes if more than an insubstantial part of its activities is not in furtherance of an exempt purpose. The presence of a single non-charitable purpose, if substantial in nature, will destroy the exemption regardless of the number or importance of truly charitable purposes. Better Business Bureau v. United States, 326 U.S. 279 (1945). Therefore, if an organization engages in illegal acts that are a substantial part of its activities, it does not qualify for exemption under IRC 501(c)(3).

And this:

(4) Planning Illegal Acts

Not only is the actual conduct of illegal activities inconsistent with exemption, but the planning and sponsoring of such activities are also incompatible with charity and social welfare. Rev. Rul. 75-384 holds that an organization formed to promote world peace that planned and sponsored protest demonstrations at which members were urged to commit acts of civil disobedience did not qualify for IRC 501(c)(3) or (4) exemption. G.C.M. 36153, dated January 31, 1975, states that because planning and sponsoring illegal acts are in themselves inconsistent with charity and social welfare it is not necessary to determine whether illegal acts were, in fact, committed in connection with the resulting demonstrations or whether such a determination can be made prior to conviction of an accused. However, it is necessary to establish that the planning and sponsorship are attributable to the organization, if exemption is to be denied or revoked on this ground.

In fact, a public minded citizen can even earn monetary rewards from the government by reporting such violations of the IRS code. Again from the IRS website:

Where Do You Report Suspected Tax Fraud Activity?

If you suspect or know of an individual or company that is not complying with the tax laws, you may report this activity by completing Form 3949-A. You may fill out Form 3949-A online, print it and mail it to:

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888

If you do not wish to use Form 3949-A, you may send a letter to the address above. Please include the following information, if available:

* Name and address of the person you are reporting
* The taxpayer identification number (social security number for an individual or employer identification number for a business)
* A brief description of the alleged violation, including how you became aware of or obtained the information
* The years involved
* The estimated dollar amount of any unreported income
* Your name, address and daytime telephone number

Although you are not required to identify yourself, it is helpful to do so. Your identity can be kept confidential. You may also be entitled to a reward.

Is there any doubt that Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin’s groups have promoted the breaking of laws and actually engaged in law-breaking themselves?

Mother Sheehan and her cadre, including Code Pink, chained themselves to the White House fence and were arrested and later convicted of breaking various laws.

Medea Benjamin’s groups are widely credited as being the organizers behind the Seattle WTO riots. Dozens of press accounts credited Global Exchange’s role, as they themselves did in the Boston Phoenix:

But many who were in the streets during WTO week hope to remember Seattle for the start of a new dialogue about the global economy. "This was historic!" says Kevin Danaher, who heads Global Exchange, a human-rights-watch organization based in San Francisco. "Have you ever seen the public get concerned about a trade ministers’ conference? Never! We dragged the snake out from underneath the rock."

Global Exchange promotes "Reality Tours" to Cuba, which is a violation of US law.

Cuba

Currently our program concentrates on four thematic areas: Environment, Education, Healthcare and Community Development. We offer the following travel opportunities:

Organizing research delegations for the topics listed below

Customized tours for humanitarian organizations, educational institutions and religious groups with a license that need program and logistical support

We provide informational resources and guidance for organizations, educational institutions and religious groups who are interested in acquiring a license

For a current listing of our Research Delegations to Cuba, go to: Research Delegations to Cuba

Then there is Code Pink’s erstwhile plans to visit Castro’s paradise over New Year’s:

Join CODEPINK for New Year’s in Cuba December 27-January 2, 2006

Cuba is one of the most beautiful and fascinating countries on Earth—and George Bush says you can’t go there. Well, we’re going anyway, and we invite you to join us!

This New Year’s CODEPINK will be organizing a large group of fun-loving and freedom-loving Americans to break George Bush’s ban on travel to Cuba. Join co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans, together with Academy Award winning producer Paul Haggis, as we visit with farmers at their co-ops, doctors at their family clinics, dancers at the National Folklore Group, and young people at the ballpark. Don’t miss this historic chance to dance salsa, drink mojitos, and visit beautiful beaches—all while defending our constitutional rights!!!

The federal restrictions barring travel to Cuba are not only counterproductive and outmoded in this post-Cold War context, but also a violation of our constitutional freedom to travel. The Bush administration says we can only travel to Cuba if we have immediate family there. Well, we do. Cubans ARE family—Somos Familia. And while we’re there, we’ll be holding a mutual adoption ceremony in order to demonstrate that family transcends political boundaries. In the ceremony, each participant will be paired with a Cuban brother or sister. After all, we are all part of one human family and there should be no artificial barriers dividing us. This historic opportunity to visit Cuba will cost approximately $1,500 (to Cancun) or $1,800 (to Mexico City). Participants will fly out of three points of entry: San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. We will all meet in Mexico City, where we will then take a chartered flight to Havana. Our trip this New Years will truly be a family affair. Feel free to bring children, parents, partners, neighbors, and friends. It is a trip designed for all ages, interests, and backgrounds (family rates available).

After seven action-packed days on this wonderful island, we will re-enter the United States through these same three points of entry. This re-entry will be a powerful challenge to Bush’s restrictive policies that deny us our fundamental liberty to travel where we please. Though past high-profile “travel challenge” groups have experienced no adverse legal consequences to date, we will have our lawyers ready at each airport of entry to provide legal aid, if necessary.

Because we will be traveling to Cuba without government permission (i.e. a license from the US treasury), CODEPINK participants will be breaking the embargo and therefore subject to civil penalties. (For further questions on the legal implications of unauthorized travel to Cuba, check out www.nlg.org/cuba). With these risks in mind, your participation in our trip is a crucial protest in the growing movement to end the travel ban.

We expect a huge response to this trip, so get your applications in early. Also year–end travel gets booked up VERY early (especially the return flights after New Years), so make your plans early! We look forward to spending some marvelous days together, while pushing to overturn a policy that keeps us from building bonds of friendship with our neighbors.

If you are interested in participating in this trip, please contact Dana (at) codepinkalert.org. You can also reach Dana by calling the CODEPINK office at (310) 827-4320.

Alas, however, this trip hit a snag:

Dear Friends,

We have some bad news to relay about the Cuba trip. We knew that this trip was a challenge to the Bush administration’s restrictions on travel to the island.

However, we had anticipated that, as in the past, the government would either let us come and go without incident, or would send us a letter after we returned. Instead, we—CODEPINK, Global Exchange, and some of the participants—have already received ominous letters from the Treasury Department, calling on us to “cease and desist” our plans for the trip, demanding the names of all the people who had signed up, and threatening us with a million dollar fine and ten years in jail.
When some individual participants received these letters, they canceled their plans—leaving us without the “safety in numbers.” And while our organizations are willing to fight the government on this (Global Exchange has been fighting the travel restrictions for 15 years!), we feel that right we are too overloaded with other efforts, such as stopping the war in Iraq, to take on a prolonged legal battle right now.

Nevertheless, it is still against the IRS guidelines to even plan such illegal activities, which Global Exchange admits to doing. And there are surely plenty more examples of their scofflaw activities.

All in all, this little known fact about the IRS regulations covering 501c3s should be a very handy tool to use against these and the many other tools on the left that masquerade as "charities."

Such as Cindy’s other close friends, the Veterans For Peace.