Watcher's Council Nominations 12/19/07

Every week, the Watcher's Council members nominate two posts each, one from the Council members and one from outside for consideration by the whole Council. The complete list of this week's Council nominations can be found at the site of our fearless leader, the infamous Watcher of Weasels


Do take the time and check out the non-Council links..they are always rewarding.


Now, here's this week's Council lineup...

1. JOSHUAPUNDIT: The Saudis Host Hamas' Top Brass -- And Reveal the Middle East's New Order I remember as a child reading Sherlock Holmes and remembering his adjuration to Dr. Watson, `When you eliminate the possible, only the impossible remains.' In this weeks piece, I examine a number of facts on the ground resulting from what appears to be the new US foreign policy in the Middle East and draw what to me seems to be some obvious if unpleasant conclusions.

I've already gotten some feedback in disagreement on this one, and I can only respond that I would like nothing better than for time and history to prove me completely wrong in every respect. Selah.

2. Done With Mirrors:I Bet Not Callimachus writes a short piece on a government computer that ridiculously overcharged residents in a Norwegian town for pre-paid parking. Ain't it fun screwing around with Other People's Money?

3. Soccer Dad: Fish Tales at the PA Aid Conference This week Soccer Dad does a fine piece examining the fiction of the supposedly `broke' and terrorist enabling Palestinian Authority and their apparently successful quest for more ill-gotten gains at the Palestinian Authority Aid Conference.

4. The Glittering Eye: The Changing Face Of America Dave has an interesting take on the nature of change in America.

5. Bookworm Room:More On The Teacher Accused Of Insulting Religion In His Class Ms. Bookworm takes on the lawsuit against Dr. James Corbett, who is accused of using his high school history class to indoctrinate his young students in anti-Christian attitudes
(and more, if the tapes I've heard are accurate). Call me a troublemaker, but somehow I doubt if Dr. Corbett would have said things like this about Islam or Mohammed. We used to call people like that cowards in my neighborhood.Christians remain the safe target for people of this ilk.

Of course the key question is how we deal with the Corbetts who are safely ensconed in our education establishment. School choice and the end of tenure, anybody?

6. Rhymes With Right:What Ever happened To Separation Of Mosque And State? Greg has a fine piece that looks at the craven appeasement given to Islam in our universities and the de facto preferred status given to the Religion of Peace..or else.

Interested parties should do some research on how the ancient tradition of Zoroastrianism was marginalized in Iran by Islam, even though the Muslims were at first a minority.

7.Colossus of Rhodey:Chavez Suspected Of Foul Play Hube writes about the Venezuela referendum and examines a Newsweek piece stating that Hugo Chavez did indeed try to interfere with the results, which is hardly surprising.

8. Cheat Seeking Missiles:Separation of Church and State, Secularist Style Here, Laer likewise writes a well written post about the Corbett case, and does a good job of debunking his statements.


9. The Education Wonks:US Students Not Comparing Well With Others Edwonk writes about the recent test results comparing US student achievement with students overseas. I'm curious as to whether they tested private school students as well as public school ones...

10. Right Wing Nuthouse: The Very deep Thoughts Of Mike Huckabee Rick has a very good time parsing Huckabee's tortured essay in Foreign Affairs on the candidate's thoughts on foreign policy.

11. Big Lizards: The Courage To Do Nothing Dafydd takes a nice look at one of my favorite Senators, James Inhofe from Oklahoma and focuses on Inhofe's superior ideas on energy and global warming.Having heard Inhofe speak on this topic in several radio interviews, I concur that he is an informed and compelling speaker on this subject...

12. Wolf Howling: A Methane Gas emission In Church Wolf Howling likewise has a well written look at the global warming controversy, using the IPCC's Bali Conference as a jump off point. The Church Of Global Warming indeed!

That's this week's lineup..enjoy!

Israel And The Gaza `Problem'

Hi Mom! Lookee, it's me, Ahmed at the car swarm!Hey, I'm on TV!


In response to yet another barrage of Qassam missiles that injured a child and his mother in Kibbutz Zikkim near Sderot , the IAF made a token response, taking out 16 Islamic jihad commanders and fighters in airstrikes in Gaza today, including Majd al Harazin, head of Jihad Islami’s military arm in Gaza and Karim Dahlul, who was in charge of Qassam missile production. Meanwhile,

For those of you who may have forgotten, Islamic Jihad (mostly Sunnis) is funded, trained and sponsored by Shiite Iran - more proof, if needed that the Shiite-Sunni divide means a lot more to western `analysts' than it does to Muslims when it comes to jihad against the infidel.

While this was a welcome response to the beleaguered residents of southern Israel, it's far from ending the problem. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have built a huge terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, aided by the western arms and facilities they captured almost intact from Fatah...and of course, by the short-sightedness of the Olmert government, which allowed them to do so undisturbed. It will be no small task to uproot it, and it will only get more difficult the longer it's delayed.

I've written about Israel's options to deal with the war being waged on them from Gaza before. If anything, Israel's inaction has only made things worse.

So far in 2007, the Palestinians in Gaza have fired off 2,359 missiles and mortar shells into Israel, over 6 per day. That's around twice the amount fired off in 2006. It's not to far a stretch to extrapolate and say that unless the Israelis do something drastic, the 2008 figure will probably double what the Palestinians threw at Israel this year. And that doesn't take into account what might be coming at Israel from the West Bank or from the North if Condi Rice gets her way.

These are the poison fruits of the Gaza retreat, exactly as some of us predicted - just as the Hezbollah threat was the result of Israel's precipitous retreat from south Lebanon.

The conventional wisdom has it that to end the missile barrages into Israel, the IDF is going to have to go in and retake it in force, destroying the military infrastructure, killing or capturing its leaders and cutting off the smuggling routes from Egypt. Not impossible, but not an easy proposition either.

The real problem with pursuing that course is what happens next.Do the Israelis really want to re-occupy the area and assume responsibility for a population of genocidal Arabs? Giving Gaza back to Abbas and Fatah is worthless; they barely have the ability to hold on to Ramallah in the West bank, let alone Gaza and Hamas will just reconstitute and take it back again. Turning Gaza over to the UN is an exercise in futility. One only needs to look at UNIFIL and south Lebanon, where Hezbollah has rearmed, is back in all its' old strongholds and is actually protected by the UN forces to see that.

Short of expelling the population wholesale, repopulating it with Israelis and annexing it to Israel, there is no permanent long term solution for Gaza. And while this would work, that last scenario is unlikely,not only because of the diplomatic repercussions it would involve but because it would mean that the current Israeli government and their enablers would have to admit that they made a major error in kicking the Jews of Gaza - the `settlers'- out of their homes in the first place.

Israel really has only two other options, the way I see it.

There's no chance that Hamas or Islamic Jihad will ever make any agreements with Israel that mean anything. Aside from their poisonous ideology, making peace with Israel would severely effect their bottom line and leave them open to overthrow by more motivated Syrian and Iranian sponsored successors.

But if the leadership of these groups and a substantial number of their fighters could be liquidated, it might just be possible for Israel to come to financial arrangements with the clans and local gang leaders like the Dugmush clan and Jaysh Islami to keep the peace. It's not ideal by any means, and a fairly volatile situation, but it might work in the short term for quite some time.

The other option would involve a major change in the way Israel deals with Arab attacks on its citizens.

Israel should first insist on getting the UN to agree to what anyone with common sense already knows, that Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, has no current authority over its affairs and has no further responsibility for the population there. This may seem superfluous, but believe it or not, the UN still considers Israel the `occupying power' in Gaza and responsible for its affairs, which should give you some idea of the hypocrisy involved. If the UN refuses to recognize this, the Israelis should simply inform them that the alternative is that Israel reoccupies Gaza, annexes it to Israel and deals with its affairs and population in accord with its own sovereignity and desires.

Second, so there's no mistake in intentions, Israel should publicly announce to the Hamas rulers of Gaza that any further attacks on Israel on unacceptable and that the next attack on Israel would be followed by massive response...after which the Israelis should actually follow through and act.

This response should involve cutting off Gaza's electricity entirely and taking out Hamas leadership and infrastructure in the beginning, and progress to attacks on Gaza's population centers if the attacks continued. Attacks on Israel would then become far too costly in terms of the benefits achieved.As an additional benefit, a substantial portion of Gaza's hostile population, faced with no electricity and limited fuel would likely leave the area permanently.

Those are the options in a nutshell; reoccupying Gaza and expelling its hostile population, liquidating much of Hamas and Islamic Jihad and bribing Gaza's gang leaders to make peace or using massive retaliation to make attacks on Israel too costly to pursue.

None of them are perfect and all of them are costly in one way or another, but stupidity has its price. At any rate, continuing along the present course amounts to national suicide for Israel.

Ahmadinejad In Mecca

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the Hajj in Mecca, as the personal guest of our `eternal friends' the Saudis.

Now there's a Real poster boy for the `Religion Of Peace', no?

Oh, and by the way... "Death to America" & "Death to Israel"

hat tip: Gateway Pundit

Another Victim of the Middle East's New Order - The Kurds

Joining Israel and the Lebanon March 17 government as victims of Annapolis and the Bush Administration's new order in the Middle East are some of our best allies in Iraq...the Kurds.

When US Secretary of State Condi Rice made a sudden trip to Iraq, she was scheduled to meet with Kurdish President Masoud Barzani. Instead, Barzani withdrew from the meeting in protest over the Bush Administration's “tolerance” of Turkish air strikes this weekend against Kurdish villages in northern Iraq on the grounds they were harboring PKK seperatists. A number of Kurdish civilians died in the strikes, but no PKK fighters, who were long gone.

“It is unacceptable that the United States, in charge of monitoring our air space, authorized Turkey to bomb our villages,” said Barzani.

`Authorized' is the right word. Apparently the US gave the Turks military intelligence and opened up Kurdish air space for the strikes, according to Turkish army chief General Yasar Buyukanit.The Turkish army also sent soldiers about 1.5 miles into northern Iraq in an operation on Tuesday.

Proving once again that she has become one of the biggest liars on two feet,Secretary of State Rice said that while the US supports efforts against the PKK, it was a "Turkish decision" to act.

As if the Turks would have done so without a US OK!

Aside from upsetting the Kurds, these actions also upset the Iraqi parliament which passed a resolution condemning the bombing and calling it an "outrageous" violation of Iraq's sovereignty that killed innocent civilians.

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said his government thought Turkey would coordinate with it before striking the rebels inside Iraq.

Of course, this tacit approval of the US was appreciated by the Turks and the Iranians, who have their own `Kurdish problem' and have been shelling Kurdish villages from their side of the border.

As for the Kurds, this is the second time they've been sold down the river by a president named Bush.

I can't help but wonder whether we'll have any real allies left in the region by the time this is all over.

Weekend Monkey on Politics - The Real Banana, 12/17/07

WM:Hideeho, Primates! Welcome to the Real Banana.

FF: Hi Monkey. How're things going?

WM: Oh, a little of this, a little of that.

FF: Seems to me that's how you got into trouble in the first place.

WM: Aw, shaddup.

FF: What's going on in the political jungle these days?

WM: Whoo, it's vicious! I guess with Iowa just a coupla weeks away and New Hampshire and South Carolina right after that, the knives are out. On the Democrat side, it's come down to a fistfight between Shrillary and Obama Yo' Mama, for which I gotta give a little credit to Obama...he's not the one yakking about drug use and flinging the poop. Partly, it's because he's a wuss -I mean, the guy obviously squats to pee, but Shrillery is going bananas, and that tells me she's worried, no matter what the polls say. Did you see that picture of her that went out today?



I mean, she looks like Dan Rather in drag!
















Plus, you got Edwards on the sidelines to make things ree-eal interesting.

FF: Do you really see John Edwards as a credible threat?

WM: Hey, in Iowa, in the middle of a snowstorm with caucus rules that make a gang of rhesus monkeys on the rampage look organized? Anything could freakin' happen, and I mean anything. remember, it's a caucus, FF, not a primary. And I betcha we're going to see a lot more poop thrown before that date, Christmas or no Christmas.

FF: Did you see the one where Clinton compared the caucus to a cattle show and was inviting Iowa voters to look inside her mouth if they wanted to?

WM: Yeccch! Bad mental image. I just think a lotta stuff has caught up with her. The whole Clinton strategy, the way I see it was to present her as the queen heading for a coronation, somebody who would bring the Good Old Days back to the White House. That's why Bill has been out there stumping for her like crazy, but I think that backfired a little bit. From what I'm hearing, a lot of people liked her, but didn't like the idea of that sleazy mutt getting back in to the White House again. And there's another group that likes him, but can't stand Hillary, so they sorta cancel each other out.

Plus, another thing has happened. You notice the Dems ain't yakking so much about the war these days?

FF: Yeah. It's going too well in spite of how they tried to sabotage things. Frankly, I think they'd be embarrassed if I didn't know better. You're right though..now they're talking more about bread and butter issues and government gimmees.

WM: Exactly, pal. People are worried about the economy and they're not so focused on protecting our part of the jungle these days...which is why Giuliani has taken a tumble in the polls as well. That's why I see Edwards and Huckabee doing so well lately. Plus, there's all these fund raising scandals Clinton has been involved with lately, Norman Hsu, those Chinese waiters, the whole nine yards. Doesn't look good, just like the poop slinging. Reminds people of the bad side of the Clinton era.

FF: Monkey, I read where in 2000, when he left the White House, Bill Clinton claimed about $1 million in assets and about $2.4 million in legal fees. In Hillary Clinton's latest financial disclosure, she's claiming a net worth estimated at between $17.4 million and $53.7 million. I guess being a US senator or an ex-president must pay a lot more than advertised.

WM: Hee hee hee! Anywho, this is all hitting her at once,and she's scrambling like a cockroach under the sink who just had a light shined on her.

FF: So, Monkey, what about the Republicans?

WM: FF, they're bordering on pathethic. Pretty easy to see what happened....Fred Thompson was supposed to be the `anti-Giuliani', but he pooped out like a wet firecracker. Then it was Romney, but some people realized he's a Mormon and didn't like that, so now we have this guy Huckabee...who's also playing to those bread and butter, government gimmees type issues, and yokking it up with sort of people who see that and the abortion issue as the main thing.

FF: Yeah, and a lot of the National Review mainstream type `conservatives' are now lining up behind Romney. Huckabee scares them.

WM: Hey, I got nothin' against Romney, aside from the fact he looks and acts like a middle aged Ken doll a lot of the time. I mean, I never had a bad word or even once ran over one of those guys in the short sleeved shirts and ties on the bicycles casing the neighborhood for potential suckers...

FF: By that, I take it you mean LDS missionaries? Keep it respectful, OK Monkey?

WM: Ok, Ok, sorr-ee! But anyway, Romney seems like a smart guy, but I don't see him winning in a general election, and I think it might even be what they call a `push' in Vegas for him getting the nomination...although he has enough moola to at least get to the convention if he wants. As for the rest of the guys....well, Huckabee is pretty much the Republican's version of Obama, all public image and no real substance, and he's got a stupid enough mouth that's he's probably going to shoot himself in the foot eventually. McCain is too old and has been all over the place politically and a lot of `conservatives' won't touch him. And Giuliani is getting trashed heavily - a lot of `conservative' types have been sliming him for months and it's finally starting to stick. He seems stalled, especially if people keep ignoring the national security and defense issues. I mean, if the guy doesn't win Florida and a significant amount of delegates in the February 5 blow out, he's over.

So any way you slice the banana, it's going to be a real fight, at least for the next two months. Some of the guys will likely be dead and gone as candidates after February 5th, but I see it coming down to two or maybe three primates standing at convention time. At that point, we'll see who and what's for sale.

FF: Do you think Ed Rollins signing on to Huckabee's campaign changes anything. He's a real pro.

WM: Depends. If Huckabee lets him organize stuff right and Rollins can get Huckabee to keep his mouth shut, he has a shot.

FF: And the Democrats?

WM: Whoo! That one will be fun if nothing else. I still see Shrillary as the primate to beat, even if she loses Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. She's got too much money, too many shills in the media and way too much of an organization to count her out just yet. Obama Yo' Mama could win a primary here and there - Iowa and South Carolina maybe - but he's going down..just not ready for prime time. Edwards could surprise people, especially in the early primaries but I don't think he has the bucks or the organization to go all the way. Still I see a lot of dirt being tossed...this ain't gonna be no Mr. Clean campaign!

Another wild card is whether something happens to get the primates concerned about national security again. That helps Giuliani and McCain for the Republicans, and hurts all the Democrats, but Shrillary probably the least.

FF: Do you ever regret getting out of the race yourself.

WM: Sometimes. But let's face it, I never really had the money to run properly.

FF: Maye you ought to run for Congress, or for something like mayor of DC, their standards are pretty low. And it would give you a platform for another shot at the presidentcy.

WM: Oh,yeah....Representative Monkey! Or Mayor Monkey....hey, wait it minute! What was that crack about `low standards' FF???

FF: Well, if we're talking about Washington DC Monkey, I think `crack' is the operative word.

WM: Hah hah, very funny.

FF: Maybe Marion Barry would endorse you, or at least hook you up if you know what I mean.
Anyway, Monkey that's the Real Banana.

WM: Bye, primates...see you soon!

Weekend Monkey can be contacted for speaking engagements, interviews, bribes or interesting offers at: Wendmonkey@ Yahoo.com

Russians Give Nuclear Fuel To Iran As Putin Heads For The Middle East

The Russian foreign ministry announced the delivery today of the first nuclear fuel shipment to the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear reactor in Iran.

The Russian company building the Bushehr reactor, Atomstroiexport said thta 180 fuel rods would be sent to Bushehr in the next two months.

Atomstroiexport claims that the enriched fuel is below weapons grade and the containers were inspected and sealed by the IAEA, which should make anyone nervous based on their track record. Even if it's true,there's nothing to top Iran from continuing the cycle and making its own weapons grade fuel with the new reactor.

Deliveries had been held up for a while, mainly because of haggling over price and payment, but apparently that's all cleared up, and the deliveries are proceeding.

Russia's President Putin, soon to be prime minister is soon to be headed for the Middle East as a successful cap to his eight year term as president. He is going first to inspect the new Russian combat flotilla of six warships headed by the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, which will be docking in the Syrian port of Tartous and will apparently be photographed with Russian sailors. What this is, of course, is a direct challenge to the US Sixth Fleet and the Israeli navy for strategic control of the Eastern Mediterranean...the Russians haven't put this much muscle into the Middle east since the Cold War.Putin will then go on to visit other Middle Eastern leaders.

This is scheduled a week before President Bush's visit to the Middle East on January 9th and 10th, 2008.

The next Israel-Palestinian peace conference is scheduled for next March or April in Moscow. If I'm right, that's when the major pressure will be put on Israel to give up the strategic Golan Heights to Syria.

Saudi King Abdullah Pardons Rape Victim

King Abdullah has decided to step in and grant an official pardon to the Saudi gang rape victim who was sentenced to six months in jail and 200 lashes for being alone with a man at the time of the attack who was not related to her.

Her original sentence, as you'll remember was 90 lashes, until she and her lawyer complained about it and appealed. The increased sentence was doubtless regarded as a message to other women in the Kingdom.

Saudi Justice Minister Abdullah bin Mohammed al-Sheik told al-Jazirah newspaper that the pardon does not mean the king doubted the country's judges, but instead acted in the "interests of the people."

"The king always looks into alleviating the suffering of the citizens when he becomes sure that these verdicts will leave psychological effects on the convicted people, though he is convinced and sure that the verdicts were fair," al-Jazirah quoted al-Sheik as saying.

The case had sparked international outrage and garnered lots of unfavorable publicity for the Saudis and the sharia-strict wahabi lifestyle they're busily promoting in the west under our noses. I'm sure that this had a lot more to do with the pardon than any`concern' about suffering.

Of course, it's only a back handed pardon. The Saudi Justice Ministry is still defending the sentence, saying the girl was having an illicit affair with the man.

In that culture,this kind of accusation amounts to total ostracism for the woman at best and a brutal honor killing by the family at worst.If she's supremely lucky, the men of her family will give her permission to leave the country.

Ahmadinejad: The NIE ` A Declaration Of Surrender'

In an interview with Iran State Television today, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad referred to the Iran NIE as 'a declaration of surrender'.

"It would be beneficial for both Iran and them (the West) to cooperate with Iran," Ahmadinejad said. "Of course it would be more to their benefit than Iran's."

He's also not laying awake at night worrying about sanctions. When asked whether he expected the U.N. Security Council to impose fresh sanctions on Iran, he said "It is too far-fetched."

He's indeed correct, in my opinion. The NIE is indeed an acknowledgment of surrender by the US, and a fresh round of UN sanctions is both dubious and unlikely.

Joshua's Army members should keep in mind that it is not only Ahmadinejad who regards this as a victory, but our enemies and our friends.

And they will act accordingly.

US OKs HighTech Equipment Shipment For Syria

In yet another example of the change in the Bush Administration's direction in the Middle East, the US Commerce Department, at the express orders of Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice issued a special export license to Cisco Systems to ship routers, switches and other high-tech equipment with military applications to Syria. The routers, switches and other hi-tech items are usable for missile radar and other weaponry as well as for early warning apparatus and intelligence surveillance.

The Bush Administration also instructed its UN Ambassador not to veto a United Nations program that would supply the Assad regime with sophisticated surveillance equipment and computers to monitor its borders....again technology with military applications.

All of this, by the way, is in violation of the America's own sanctions on dealing with Syria.

It's interesting to me that the license was first issued back on November 17th, well after the September 6th Israeli strike on a Syrian nuclear facility the Bush Administration was informed by the Israelis about back in July of this year. You will also remember that Condaleeza Rice was instrumental in delaying the Israelis from taking out the site, and attempted to have them forgo the strike altogether.

This clearly indicates to me that the Bush Administration had the new arrangement with Syria and Iran, the knowledge of the highly flawed NIE and the Middle East's New Order planned out well in advance.

And that they were committed enough to the arrangement so that the last thing they wanted was the Israelis messing it up over any silly concerns about the Assad regime having access to nuclear weapons!

The deal's a simple and obvious one one, at least as far as the Syrians are concerned; Assad has been stopping the flow of arms, explosives, money and al Queda fighters from places like Saudi Arabia into Iraq. In exchange, the US is willing to hang the Siniora government in Lebanon out to dry and let Syria and Hezbollah take over again, forget about the Assad regime's assassinations in Lebanon and its support for Islamic terrorism and pressure Israel to give up the strategic Golan Heights.

And of course, allow shipments like this one..which will make it harder for Israel (or the US, for that matter) to take out any Syrian or Iranian military facilities in the future, and will also undoubtedly improve the missile and radar technology available to Hezbollah and Hamas.

This shameful and hypocritical betrayal will not go unnoticed by our friends or our enemies, and there will be a high price to pay for it in the future.

The Democrats In Congress- Holding America's troops For Ransom

I dislike the sort of partisan rhetoric that seems to be par for the course in this political season, but I can't help agreeing with John McCain

When he was asked what surprised him the most about the behavior House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid with regard to Iraq, he had a simple answer - "their lack of patriotism."

What McCain was referring to, of course, was the wholesale attempt by some of the Democrats in congress to legislate a defeat during wartime in Iraq and Afghanistan by literally starving our troops of funding..simply because a debacle and a shameful retreat works for them politically, regardless of whether it's in America's best interests.

I've chronicled several of these attempts, including a shameful instance of Harry Reid petulantly behaving like a spoiled five-year-old and tabling in committee a badly needed war funding bill that included vital equipment and a pay raise for the military, simply because he couldn't muster the votes to include a written-in-stone surrender date.

The latest instance is even worse. Because President Bush said he would veto a bill tying funding for our troops to millions of dollars in pork and once again rejected a guaranteed withdrawal date, the House and Senate Democrats, led by Reid and Pelosi sent a revised version up for a vote without the pork and without the $50 million in badly needed funds for our warriors.

At a press conference afterwards, Congresswoman Pelosi came out with a this memorable gem:

"They {the Republicans} like this war," she said. "They want this war to continue. That was a revelation to me. I had thought they would listen to their constituents and change their position." She later tried to play catch up on this outrageous freudian slip by saying she meant to say that Republicans like Mr. Bush's strategy — not that they "like" the war.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon has still hasn't received the money they need to continue funding the war....something that directly affects every soldier in the field. The Defense Department is trying to shuffle things around by temporarily laying off 100,000 civilian military employees next week in an attempt to free up money for combat troops.

And those `compassionate' Democrats are quite aware of the Christmastime layoffs. Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England sent letters to senior Democrats, among them Mrs. Pelosi and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin warning them about the pending layoffs and writing that they "will affect the critical support our civilian employees provide to our war-fighters — support which is key to our current operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq." Army and Marine command facilities in the US and abroad with civilian employees and contractors were also warned about the civilian layoffs at their bases.

Again, I agree with John McCain - the lack of patriotism of these people in wartime, the lack of basic support and appreciation for the men and women who pay the price to defend their perks, freedom and lifestyle is astounding.

It is, quite simply, craven, disloyal and conduct unbecoming.

One Of G-d's Small Miracles. 12/14/07

From time to time, I'm going to try and post items that may not have much to do with the overall theme of this site...or then again, they may everything to do with it.

Last week, our miracle focused on the bringing of light, and patience to wait. This week's miracle concerns the saving of life, and the miracle of finding the courage to do so.

Jeanne Assam was a private citizen who volunteered to act as a security guard for the New Life Church in Colorado Springs,Colorado. She was sitting in the congregation when a gunman suddenly opened fire on the church members, two of whom were killed. The murderer, Matthew Murray, was armed with a rifle, a couple of handguns, grenades, hundreds of rounds of ammo and a fierce hatred of Christians.

There were two professional security guards in the church that day, and as eyewitness Larry Bourbonnais related on Michael Medved's radio show, both of them tragically froze. Bourbonnais, a Viet Nam combat veteran told how he begged one of the guards for his weapons to `take the shooter out' but got no response...and then he saw Jeanne Assam walking up the aisle, headed straight for the killer. She made no attempt to save herself, but went right for the much more heavily armed gunman and began firing steadily and shouting "surrender" as she advanced. The gunman got off three shots at her before Jeanne took him out. He died at the church.

Bourbonnais said it was "one of the bravest things he'd ever seen."

The pastor, Brady Boyd, said that she "probably saved over 100 lives".

As for Jeanne Assam herself, she's quite clear on the source of her courage.

She said that she prayed to the Holy Spirit to guide her, and that she "knew I was the one given the assignment to stop this thing. I prayed for steady hands"

"It seemed like it was me, the gunman and G-d", she added,"G-d guided me and protected me."

Courage and the desire to risk our lives to save others is a miracle and a blessing from G-d, one that comes from deep inside of us if we let it. And it may not always involve shooting it out with a murderer. Sometimes, it may simply involve doing the right thing rather than the easy thing. This miracle comes in many guises, and can happen when we least expect it.

And one more thing...G-d works miracles in mysterious ways, and one of them was to have a hero like Jeanne Assam in that church, at that time, armed with not only the the faith but with the means and the skills to save those innocent lives and stop a murderer from acting out his hatred.

Have a peaceful and blessed Sabbath.

Do Tha Lisbon Hustle

The gangsta rap spelling isn't a typo. The people of Europe have been pimped out.

You'll remember that last year, voters in France and the Netherlands voted against an EU Constitution that would have taken away a good deal of their sovereignty.

This week, Britain's Gordon Browne and other European leaders decided that democracy was simply tooo much trouble, so they circumvented it by enacting a treaty in Lisbon with the same provisions - and more - that the voters rejected, and signing it without bothering to let the voters decide whether they wanted it or not.

The treaty imposes centralized EU control on matters like, civil and criminal law, immigration, public services, energy, transportation, civil rights and `hate crime' legislation, the EU budget and a host of other matters.

500 million people will apparently be governed by the diktats of 27 politicians in the EU Council of Ministers, who will now be able to consolidate their control Soviet style by making laws behind closed doors without recourse by the people of the subject `provinces'.

My Friend Richard at EU Referendum puts it quite simply: `Ballocks to Brussels!'

It remains to be seen whether the considerable outrage over this translates into political action. In the meantime, it has significant impact on America's interfacing with its European allies, to say the least.

The Taliban Suffers A Major Defeat

The Taliban suffered major defeat today, as the flag of Afghanistan's government flew over the Taliban an dal Qaeda stonghold of Musa Qala in the Helmand province.Aside from being a major military base, it was also one of the leading centers of heroin and opium production.

The town was taken by a mixed force of Afghan troops, British marines, armor and infantry, NATO forces and US Green Beret special forces teams and airbourne troops.

Hundreds of Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters were reported killed, wounded or taken prisoner in the battle.

This is reminiscent of Operation Mountain Thrust by the amazing US 10th Mountain Division in that it was an attack directed at a point the Taliban thought was simply unassailable.

The jihadis found out differently.

The offensive started last week when British Marine Commandos led the way by attacking across the Helmand River and were joined by the light armor of the U.K. Household Cavalry Regiment who attacked from the west. This set up the Taliban for the main thrust, an airborne drop and attack from the north by a battalion from Task Force Fury from our old friends the 82nd Airborne.

The Taliban and al Qaeda forces,instead of running back to Waziristan chose to stand and fight it out.

As the town was surrounded, the Taliban positions were pounded by heavy ordnance and pulverized from the air by B1 and B52 bombers backed by A10 tank busters, F16s, Apache helicopters and Specter gunships. They took heavy casualties before fleeing Musa Qala.

In a move that was openly criticized by US commanders on the ground,Musa Qala was abandoned last year by the British, after they were subjected to Taliban attacks and suffered heavy casualties. In essence the Brits simply handed the town over to the town elders and pulled out, which simply meant that the Taliban came back and took over last February.

The recapture of Musa Qala is a welcome victory over these brigands, and hopefully this time the NATO forces can hang on to it.

The main problem, of course, is that the Taliban can regroup in their havens in Pakistan and again subject the NATO troops to attacks while the NATO forces are pinned down on defense...just like last year.

Watcher's Council Results, 12/14/07

The Council has spoken! A complete list of results can be found at the site of our fearless leader, the infamous Watcher of Weasels


This week, there was a tie between two entries in the voting, mine and another entry I liked a great deal by Wolf Howling.In these situations, the Watcher votes and breaks the ties' so this weeks' winner turned out to be me:

JoshuaPundit: Pearl Harbor...And 9/11 A few things I felt needed saying about these two events,why they were handled so differently,and the lessons I think we should take from the past for the future.

In second place we had:

Wolf Howling:A Deeply Flawed NIE Changes Nothing & Everything An excellent piece on the NIE and the probable fallout that will ensue from this travesty. I might point out that Wolf Howling won the honors for non-Council piece the week before he joined the Council, debuted as one of our group by winning the top honors for the Council last week and tied for first this week. In a group of writers as talented as this, that's quite an accomplishment!

For non-Council, the winner was:

Michael Yon: Men of Valor: Part IV A great on-the-ground piece from one of our finest war correspondents embedded with British troops in Iraq.

In second place for non-Council was:
Pajamas Media: What Happens After The Surge an examination of our onging strategy in Iraq by my old blogpal Omar Fadhil from Iraq The Model, one of the better places in the `sphere for a real birdseye view of what's happening there.

Hearty Kudos to all the winners!

Condi Rice And The New Apartheid...

The one and only Yaakov at the Dry Bones Blog, of course!

`Sears' Home-Grown Terrorism Case Ends In A Mistrial

A mistrial was declared in the 'Homegrown Terrorists' case as a Federal jury deadlocked. Six of the seven defendents will be retried, while one, Lyglenson Lemorin, was cleared of all charges.

Lemorin remains in custody as he apparently has some pending immigration charges:

U.S. District Judge Joan A. Lenard declared a mistrial regarding the counts against the other men, dealing a setback to prosecutors in a case that had been cited by Justice Department leaders as a reminder of the threat posed by "homegrown terrorists."

The jury had deliberated for nine days.

"It was evenly split on a lot of counts," said jury foreman Jeff Agron, 46, an educator at a local synagogue. "You wish you could reach a decision, but it is what it is."

At trial, prosecutors presented FBI recordings that included video of the seven men swearing allegiance to al-Qaeda. In one recorded conversation, the group's leader proposed knocking down the Sears Tower. As he described it, the tower would topple and cause a disastrous tidal wave in Lake Michigan.

The case against the men had been orchestrated by two confidential informants working with the FBI. One of them posed as an al-Qaeda organizer and led the men in the al- Qaeda oath.

Taking the stand on his own behalf, the group's leader, Narseal Batiste, testified that he had never wanted to blow up the Sears Tower and that he had only described the outlandish Sears Tower plan to the undercover informant in hopes of gaining as much as $50,000 in support.

Batiste, 33, and the other defendants whose fate the jury could not decide -- Patrick Abraham, 28; Stanley Phanor, 32; Burson Augustin, 22; Rothschild Augustin, 24; and Naudimar Herrera, 23 -- could have faced up to 70 years in prison if convicted on four terrorism-related conspiracy charges.

A new trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 7.

Mearsheimer, Walt, And "Cold Feet"

Mideast and foreign policy expert Dr. Martin Kramer is at it again, taking the occasion of an appearance at Princeton by Mearshimer and Walt to hawk their latest twist on the Evil Joos and the dreaded Zionist Lobby to superbly skewer them:

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt appear at Princeton University tonight, to promote their book The Israel Lobby. I've held back while other critics have had their say, and many of them have done a splendid job. But I don't think anyone has understood the neat sleight of hand the authors performed in moving from article to book. The innovation in The Israel Lobby is their "cold feet" thesis about the Israeli genesis of the Iraq war.

But first, remember why pinning the Iraq war on the "Israel lobby" is so important to Mearsheimer and Walt. Their main argument isn't that the Palestinians are paying a terrible price for that support. In most quarters, that draws a simple shrug. Instead, the duo claim that Americans are paying the price for U.S. support for Israel. They paid it on 9/11, and they're paying it now in Iraq. The killers of 9/11 set out on their mission because of their rage against unconditional U.S. backing for Israel; and the pro-Israel lobby got America into the Iraq war because it served Israel's interests, not America's. America is bleeding so that Israel can avoid doing what it should have done years ago: give the Palestinians their state. And it's because Americans are dying that Israel shouldn't be indulged anymore.

Of the two arguments made by Walt and Mearsheimer, the 9/11 argument is the less effective. That's because very early on, Americans decided that Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, and the 15 of the 19 hijackers who were Saudis, weren't out to kill Americans over Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Al-Qaeda hates us for everything we do and represent--they're 200-proof hatred of America. Americans understood that instinctively, and it was confirmed by the 9/11 Commission Report. The report's narrative showed how the 9/11 plot developed precisely during the years when Bill Clinton fussed over Yasser Arafat. The report became a bestseller, and its impact has been profound.

So the Iraq argument is far more crucial to the Mearsheimer-Walt thesis, and it's also dearer to them. It's generally believed that their anger over the Iraq war drove them to write the book in the first place. They both opposed the war before it started, and they signed a prominent letter against it. Much to their chagrin, no one took much notice of their ironclad, realist arguments against going into Iraq. To the two professors, the United States had become an anomaly, a place where the national interest (as they saw it) wasn't driving foreign policy. They explained that anomaly by the distorting influence of the "powerful Israel lobby."

In their original article, Walt and Mearsheimer had a straightforward chain of causation for the Iraq war: Israel pushed the "Israel Lobby" (with a capital L), which pushed the neocons, which pushed the Bush administration into war. I immediately came back with a large body of evidence, proving that Israel wasn't much worried about Saddam, and instead wanted the United States to take care of Iran. Israeli cabinet ministers and officials went to Washington to stress Iran over Iraq, and these efforts even surfaced in prominent stories in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times--articles that Mearsheimer and Walt had missed entirely.

In the book, Mearsheimer and Walt admit that Israel was pushing for Iran over Iraq. And yes, they say, Israel only joined the Iraq bandwagon when the Bush administration seemed set on Iraq. But they haven't dismantled their thesis--far from it. Instead they've come up with the new and improved Mearsheimer-Walt thesis, and it goes like this: the Iraq war must still be blamed on Israel, because in the lead-up to the war, Israel and its lobby worked overtime to ensure that Bush didn't get "cold feet."

Believe it or not, this the new Mearsheimer-Walt twist: the "cold feet" thesis of Israel's responsibility for the Iraq war. For example, page 234: "Israeli leaders worried constantly in the months before the war that President Bush might decide not to go to war after all, and they did what they could to ensure Bush did not get cold feet." And this, page 261: "Top Israeli officials were doing everything in their power to make sure that the United States went after Saddam and did not get cold feet at the last moment."

Mearsheimer and Walt bring not a single footnote, in their copiously footnoted book, to substantiate this new and bizarre claim. You have to be pretty credulous to imagine that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld would waver "at the last moment" when they had Saddam squarely in their sights. You can read Bob Woodward forward and backward and find no evidence of wobble. Nor is there any evidence of Israeli worries that the Bush administration would waver on Iraq. Mearsheimer and Walt just made it up.

In doing so, they miss (or conceal) the real story. Israel did worry in the lead-up to the war--not about "cold feet," but about the "long pause." A year before the Iraq war, Natan Sharansky, then an Israeli cabinet minister, went on the record with this quote (missed by Mearsheimer and Walt): "We and the Americans have different priorities. For us, Iran comes first and then Iraq. The Americans see Iraq, then a long pause, and only then Iran." It never occurred to Israelis that Bush would get "cold feet" on Iraq, but they fretted endlessly over just how long the "long pause" would last, and they had good reason.

For example, four months before the war, Ariel Sharon told the London Times (November 5, 2002) that Iran should be put under pressure "the day after" action against Iraq. Mearsheimer and Walt bring the quote. But they incredibly omit what followed on the very same day: British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw shot back at Sharon on the BBC. "I profoundly disagree with him," Straw said, "and I think it would be the gravest possible error to think in that way." The London Times reported the spat the next day ("Straw and Sharon 'Deeply Disagree'"), adding that both British and U.S. senior diplomats were "dismissive of Sharon's call." The paper went on to quote "a senior American" who spoke these words: "The President understands the nuances. You can't paint Iran as totally black in the same way as you do Iraq.… I would have a hard time buying the idea that after victory in Iraq, the U.S. is going to turn its sights on Iran."

So the Israelis had good cause to worry. Walt and Mearsheimer write (p. 261) that the Israelis "were convinced that Bush would deal with Iran after he finished with Iraq." No they weren't, because they knew Britain would oppose it, along with plenty of "senior Americans." Precisely because they weren't convinced, they kept coming back to it. And they were right to worry, because in the end, the United States accommodated the Brits. There would be no Iran follow-up. Why? Because Tony Blair did Bush an immense favor in Europe, and the British sent thousands of troops to Iraq. Bush's feet were snug and warm--nailing Saddam had 80 percent public support in America--but Blair felt the chill at home. To keep him on board, Bush gave him to understand that there wouldn't be an Iran sequel, at least not on Blair's watch.

Not only wasn't the Iraq war Israel's first choice; the war's aftermath was a defeat for Israel's own openly declared priorities. Israel is now living with the consequences of that defeat. Here we are in the last days of 2007, and the United States is still in the midst of the "long pause." Maybe it should be renamed: the latest U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran has put a lame-duck administration into menopause. So much for the manipulative power of the "Israel lobby." The Iraq war and its aftermath prove exactly the opposite of what Mearsheimer and Walt claim they prove. They're evidence not of Israel's influence, but of the limits of Israel’s leverage when it comes up against other major U.S. interests and alliances.

In sum, the Iraq war thesis of Mearsheimer and Walt is make-believe, and it doesn't get better from the article to the book--in fact, it's worse. Almost every reviewer has questioned it on some grounds, although not one has identified the "cold feet" thesis. But that's what I propose to call it, and it deserves to be known for what it is: a conspiracy theory, pure and simple."

Read the whole thing...it's one of the best beat downs of these lying `anti-Zionist' hacks I've seen.

Everything You Needed To Know About Last Nights' GOP Debate..

From Jackie and Dunlap at Red State Update, of course!

The World's Most Famous PhotoShop Fakes

What are the world’s most famous photoshop fakes?

Photopreneur has its nominees and they're most interesting...you'll like this one.

The Saudis invite Ahmadinejad To Mecca For The Haj

Here's yet another sign of the new order in the Middle East, and the growing closeness between our `eternal friends' the Saudis and Iran.

Today,IRNA confirmed that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had personally issued an invitation to Iran's President Ahmadinejad to come to Mecca to observe the religious festival of the Haj as his guest. This is the first time an Iranian leader has ever been invited to Mecca to partake in the Muslim pilgrimage. The Saudis have announced that the high point of the haj when pilgrims converge on Mount Arafat near Mecca would take place on December 18th, and the Eid al-Adha marking the end of the pilgrimage would be celebrated the next day, the 19th.

The invitation was confirmed by Mohammad Hosseini, Iran's Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Ahmadinejad is almost certain to go, and the meeting is rife with the symbolism of much closer ties between the Saudis and Iran.

Of course, that alliance has been in the works for quite some time. But regular members of Joshua's Army are aware of that.

It started with a private meeting in Riyadh between King Abdullah and Ahmadinejad, and continued at the Arab League Summit in Riyadh and the GCC conference in Doha. In later years, historians may compare these to the meetings between Hitler and Mussolini in the late 1930's.

The players change, but history rarely does.

Incidentally, I also noted in the same essay that Iran and our other Arab `ally', Egypt were preparing to resume relations for the first time in 27 years.That happened December 10th, when Egypt formally announced that it was sending an ambassador to Tehran for talks to finalize the resumption of relations.

Jordan may not be very far behind the Egyptians....and don't be surprised to see Iraq get on board as well.

This is an historic alignment of forces against the west,and one that we continue to ignore to our peril.

Odd and ironic indeed that the same people who continue to ignore this are dubbed `foreign policy realists.'

The Iran Dissidents Who Busted Tehran's Hidden Nukes Say The NIE Is Delusional

Well, they would know...and their track record is better than the CIA or the IAEA on Iran, after all.

Alireza Jafarzadeh, an Iranian dissident and president of Strategic Policy Consulting provided some valuable intel on Iran's nuclear program in an interview with FOX News.

Jafarzadeh, by the way, is the man who exposed Iran's hidden nuclear weapons program in 2002.

He claims that the scientists working on the Iran's `civilian' nuclear centrifuge program are are Republican Guard commanders, and he provided a list of names to the press on December 11th. He also is quite clear that the programs' intention isn't simply civilian energy.

"It's the IRGC that is basically controlling the whole thing, dominating the whole thing," Jafarzadeh told FOXNews. "They are running the show. They have a number of sites controlled by the IRGC that has been off-limits to the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and inspectors, including a military university known as Imam Hossein University. ... That site has not been inspected. They have perhaps the most advanced nuclear research and development center in that university."

According to Jafarzadeh, the regime did briefly stop the program in 2003, after it was exposed, but restarted it again in 2004.

Several sites that Iran had that were exposed could be masked as dual purpose facilities. Lavizan-Shian, located in a suburb of Tehran could not, he said.

"The regime knew that this is not the site that they can invite the IAEA ... this site was heavily involved in militarization of the program," Jafarzadeh said. "They were doing all kinds of activities that were not justifiable. So they decided before the IAEA gets in — and it usually takes four to six months before they can go through the process and get in — use the time and try to basically destroy this whole facility, and that's what they did."

Jafarzadeh claims the Iranians tore down the buildings, carted away the soil, cut down the trees and turned the whole place into a public park..afrter which they allowed the IAEA to inspect it, in June of 2004. Notice that El Baradi and the IAEA gave them plenty of time to camouflage things.

Jafarzadeh said that "in a way it's correct for the NIE to say that in late 2003 the weaponization of the program was stopped, and they said it was due to international pressure. But they failed to say that it restarted in 2004" in a location called Lavizan 2, he said.

Lavizan 2 "has never been inspected by the IAEA," Jafarzadeh added.

I wonder if that could possibly be the code name for this place?

Another Iranian dissident group, the National Council for Resistance on Iran(NCRI) came to the same conclusion that Jafarzadeh did.

Mohammad Mohaddessin, NCRI's foreign affairs chief, told The Wall Street Journal in December 11th's edition ( sorry no link - subscription only) that some of the equipment was moved to another military compound known as the Center for Readiness and Advanced Technology, to Malek-Ashtar University Isfahan and to a defense ministry hospital in Tehran.

The regime broke the facility into 11 fields of research, including projects to develop a nuclear trigger and shape weapons-grade uranium into a warhead. t

"They scattered the weaponization program to other locations and restarted in 2004," Mohaddessin said.

"Their strategy was that if the IAEA found any one piece of this research program, it would be possible to justify it as civilian. But so long as it was all together, they wouldn't be able to."

I think that pretty well covers it.

And of course, we now know that the Bush Administration has no intention of doing anything about it.

Why A Major Terrorism Case Ended In A Mistrial

You will remember the Holy Land Foundation case, where a major `charity' was caught funneling money to Hamas.

As you know, the case ended in a mistrial when the jurors refused to back the verdict as given.

Now, we get an inside look at the reason why....jury room bullying.

She felt the men were guilty and tried to explain why to the 11 other jurors. When she finished, one juror spoke up in an angry tone.

"If you're going by the evidence in this room," she recalls him snapping, "then you need to go home."

The terrorism-support trial of five Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) officials, which began July 24, already had been stressful for 49-year-old Kristina Williams. She had lost her job two weeks into it. Now during deliberations, she felt bullied and intimidated virtually every time she voiced an opinion.

"When I'd get off the jury I'd come home every night and basically cry because I felt like every time I spoke I would get knocked down, criticized, one way or the other for something pertaining to the way I voted," Williams said in an exclusive interview.

While several jurors favored acquittals, just one out of the 12 did most of the knocking down. In fact, interviews with three HLF jurors - speaking publicly for the first time - suggest that juror William Neal's stridency may have changed the trial's outcome. Neal even claimed credit for steering jurors away from convictions in a recent radio interview. Until now, he has been the sole source for public perception of the deliberations and the government's case.

The three jurors interviewed by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) showed the Neal-created perception as skewed. All three jurors say they disagree with his views of the evidence and the prosecution's case. To them, it seems clear that Neal made up his mind going into the jury room and refused to consider any argument in favor of guilt. He preferred to read the court's instructions rather than look at exhibits in evidence, they said. And his often snide manner intimidated and bullied those who disagreed with him.

The effect this had on the case is clear. When a juror walked out in frustration after just four days of deliberations, it followed a confrontation with Neal. When another juror briefly refused to cast a vote, it was after a confrontation with Neal. Williams broke down several times during the 19 days jurors spent locked in debate. Each incident followed what she felt was an attack by Neal.

In an interview with the IPT Dec. 3, Neal said he had no regrets. He disputed only some parts of the other jurors' stories – he said he can't remember telling Williams to go home if she was relying on the evidence in the jury room -- but stopped short of saying it didn't happen.

"We had so many conversations they tend to blend together," he said.

The defendants were accused of illegally routing more than $12 million in support to the terrorist group Hamas through a series of charities, known as zakat committees. Prosecutors said those committees are controlled by Hamas. Defense attorneys argued HLF simply helped out Palestinians living in desperate poverty and provided support to widows and orphans regardless of whether they served Hamas.

Interestingly, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas effectively sided with prosecutors recently by claiming he was closing down 92 charities he said had been taken over by Hamas.

The HLF trial ran for six weeks. Then jurors deliberated 19 days. One defendant, Mohamed El-Mezain, was acquitted on all but one count against him – participating in a conspiracy to provide material support to Hamas. Jurors did not reach a unanimous verdict on that count and El-Mezain is facing a retrial for conspiracy.

Initially, it appeared others had been acquitted on multiple counts, but then two jurors stunned the courtroom: When U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish polled the jury, a standard practice, Williams and a juror named Gail said they did not agree with the verdicts. Curiously, Neal joined them, later saying he wanted deliberations to continue. He believed jurors gave up too soon.

Judge Fish was left with no choice but to declare a mistrial, and did so Oct. 22. Attorneys on both sides are gearing up for a second trial in 2008.

"The jury room was a mess"

Williams describes a factionalized jury room, with those favoring guilty verdicts trying to explain their reasoning only to have those favoring acquittals shoot them down. Many times, jurors could not agree whether evidence was useful to them. Williams pointed to some that she thought was. When she did, she said Neal snapped back: "Go back to sleep, you're not important."

Another time, Williams and other jurors thought it would help to view photographs copied onto a videotape in evidence to see who had attended a pivotal meeting on scuttling Middle East peace hopes. Neal argued it was a waste of time and talked the group out of it.

That's because videotapes sometimes covered hours, Neal said, and jurors had no way to pinpoint the 30-second segment they were shown during the trial.

A second juror corroborates Williams' account. That juror spoke to the IPT only on the condition that the juror's name is not used. The juror didn't care if the defendants knew it. Neal, however, was someone the juror did not want to deal with again.

A third juror, Sylvester Holmes, also spoke publicly for the first time in an IPT interview. He and his two colleagues agreed that their arguments for conviction were dismissed out of hand. Sometimes they were told "that's not evidence." Other times, the argument didn't meet Neal's interpretation of the court's instructions. Or, he simply repeated arguments offered by defense attorneys.

The three jurors interviewed were far from agreement on the verdicts. Holmes believed in guilt on all counts. Williams could not convict on charges involving some specific transactions but felt all five defendants were guilty of conspiracy to support Hamas. The unnamed juror who spoke with IPT was convinced only HLF executive director Shukri Abu Baker and Chairman Ghassan Elashi were guilty of conspiracy. But all three say that Neal bullied and intimidated those who disagreed with him, stifling true discussion of the case.

"He took control of that jury room," Holmes said. "You just look at the case. The jury room was a mess."

Among the examples cited:

* Arguments for conviction met with immediate scorn and ridicule. At times, Neal raised his voice, cursed or otherwise belittled them for what they said. A handful of jurors called for an immediate break after he hollered "f*** your opinion" to a female juror.

* Williams said she felt pressured by a majority of jurors into voting to acquit defendant Mufid Abdulqader. To them, Abdulqader was a bit player with no control over HLF money. Later, however, Williams said she saw receipts showing HLF paid Abdulqader's travel expenses to attend a fundraiser. Already convinced there was a conspiracy to support Hamas, she decided that Abdulqader was a part of it. But the other jurors refused to let her change her vote on conspiracy counts, saying Abdulqader's verdict form already had been signed and put away. Deliberations continued for at least another week after Williams' request was rejected. That's what prompted her to speak up when the judge polled the jury.

* In a case featuring more than 80 videotape and audio recordings, jurors did not watch one video or listen to one tape during the 19 days of deliberations. Those who wanted to examine the exhibits were told it was a waste of time and printed transcripts were sufficient.

It is in this context that one juror named Gail refused to vote several days into deliberations. "People kept saying not guilty because they kept saying there was no evidence," the unnamed juror interviewed by IPT remembered about Gail. "She'd seen evidence herself and she felt they weren't taking the time to look at the evidence. They kept saying there's no evidence and she just got tired of hearing that."

Williams agreed that the juror named Gail just gave up at that moment. "She said ‘I'm just tired. I'm just ready for this to be over with.'"

Holmes got so frustrated that he walked out, forcing deliberations to start over when an alternate took his place. That deprived those favoring a guilty verdict of an ally. He wrote to the court saying he did not "feel that I can give the defendant's (sic) justice. Due to the circumstance in this case, I ask to be dismiss (sic) for this case."

Neal's Account of the Deliberations

Neal, a graphic artist, apparently felt the same way about others wasting his time. He was interviewed by Dallas radio and television stations within days of the trial and by the Dallas Morning News. Thus far, his assertions have provided the only detailed insider assessment about the prosecution case.

Neal made his disdain clear two days after the mistrial in an interview on Dallas radio station KRLD.

"A lot of the jurors couldn't even say words that had four syllables," Neal said on the Ernie and Jay show on KRLD 1080 AM. "They just picked the jury based on socio-economical reasons. A lot of these people are blue collar, you know, working UPS, working food, cafeteria cashier. You had people [from] secluded lifestyles. They had no idea of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They had no idea about worldly affairs. To get them and you show them bombs and show them kids – that's not our lifestyle so we've got to vote them guilty because of that. That's the whole reason."

The Dallas Morning News noted Neal "also had difficulty calling Hamas a terrorist group. ‘Part of it does terrorist acts, but it's a political movement. It's an uprising.'"

He reinforced that assessment in the IPT interview, saying he read the Hamas charter twice during deliberations. "They haven't always been a bombing kind of group," he said.

Hamas' first actions involved shootings and stabbings. Its preamble to the charter includes this: "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

So, to Neal, what is Hamas?

"It is marked as a terrorist organization. My personal viewpoint, I didn't know too much before. I see it as a political struggle. Our country was founded on a terrorist act. The Boston Tea Party wasn't a tea party, dude. It was a rebellion against the king's wrath. They fought back against an oppressive government."

He argues that prosecutors never proved that Palestinian charities, the zakat committees, were controlled by Hamas. HLF routed its money to the committees. Absent that proof of Hamas control, Neal reasons, the defendants can't be convicted. Within hours of the mistrial, he told reporters the government's case "was strung together with macaroni noodles."

"There were so many gaps in the evidence, I could drive a truck through it," he told the Morning News.

That, the three other jurors interviewed said, was not the case. Neal simply refused to consider it as valid evidence. Even at the end, a majority favored convicting Baker and Elashi, Williams and the unnamed juror reported.

The evidence

There wasn't one single exhibit that swayed the jurors interviewed. Rather, each placed exhibits in the broader context of statements and activities by the defendants. Baker, they said, was shown to have lied repeatedly about his attitude toward Hamas. The defendants privately discussed Hamas activities, from a bombing that defendant Abdelrahman Odeh described as "a beautiful operation," to the 1997 arrests in Brooklyn of three alleged Hamas members accused of plotting another bombing.

Williams was struck by transcripts of a secret gathering of Hamas members and supporters in Philadelphia in 1993. They met in the wake of the Oslo peace accord, which they feared threatened to marginalize Hamas politically and which eventually could lead to a peaceful settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which they opposed.

At one point, Shukri Abu Baker tells the others "war is deception." That, combined with other false statements, swayed Williams.

"That was pretty intense for me, that, why would he say that? I know he said it at the Philadelphia meeting. And if it's a charity set up, then why is he saying that? And plus there was Hamas leaders there, and they showed tapes of Hamas leaders," she said.

A January 1995 call from Abdelrahman Odeh to fellow defendant Mohamed El-Mezain entered into evidence at the trial stuck with the unnamed juror. Odeh wanted to alert El-Mezain about a Hamas bombing. El-Mezain hadn't heard about it yet and could not understand the radio report Odeh played over the telephone.

"What is important is that they carried out an operation," Odeh said. Eighteen people were dead and 60 others injured. Odeh called El-Mezain again a little more than a year later to report Yehya Ayyash, the infamous Hamas bomb-maker known as "the Engineer," had been killed by the Israelis.

Then there was evidence introduced at trial concerning fundraising conference calls HLF organized in which speakers repeatedly praised Hamas. In January 1997, one such call featured Mohamed Siam, a prominent Hamas member, and Muslim Brotherhood leader Kamal al-Hilbawi. Hilbawi praised "the steadfast" and named Hamas spiritual leader Sheik Ahmad Yassin, the Hamas bomb-maker Yehya Ayyash and Hamas founder Mousa Abu Marzook as those helping the Islamic world move "from weakness to strength and to the love of martyrdom."

"A legitimate foundation wouldn't do that," the unnamed juror said. But those favoring acquittal argued that HLF officials were not the ones who made the comments even if they were the ones benefiting from the money raised.

"They're the ones who brought these people in and who let them talk in raising this money," the juror said.

The juror also was struck by a 1997 conversation admitted as evidence between Baker and Elashi, in which they discussed the Brooklyn arrests of three men alleged to be plotting a Hamas-connected bombing in the United States. Baker insisted that the suspects had nothing to do with Hamas, whatever they had done; adding that Hamas leader Abel Aziz Al-Rantissi had already issued a denial.

Still, Baker expressed concern that the incident could be damaging:

Sh: I just wanted to tell you because it seems that whoever, the guy in New York, this dog, tried to tie it to parties…Don't be surprised if the fabrication gets bigger than that. They would keep on publishing confessions that…er, which are nonsense. They cannot get us by law, they will try to get us by fabrication, man.

The unnamed juror found that incriminating, wondering why Baker and Elashi would be so concerned about Hamas being falsely blamed for a plot if Baker and Elashi had nothing to do with the organization.

Neal saw that call differently. To him, the call had no significance because between references to the Brooklyn arrests, Baker and Elashi spent several minutes discussing a van Elashi wanted to buy. That section may not have been read to jurors in court. But when he read it during deliberations, Neal accused prosecutors of trying to misrepresent defendants' statements.

"…[T]hey left [that] out conveniently to show the other side of the fence," he told WFAA television. "Take one sentence that says Hamas. Well did you know they were talking about a van in the two sentences before that? No because you just completely want to talk about Hamas."

In his interviews, Neal expressed deep skepticism of virtually every aspect of the government's case. He believed little, if anything, of what he heard from prosecution witnesses. Expert witness Matt Levitt wasn't credible, in Neal's view, because he had testified in a series of similar trials. Levitt has extensively studied Hamas' infrastructure and tactics and authored the book, Hamas: Politics, Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad.

And Neal believed nothing he heard from an Israeli intelligence officer who testified under a pseudonym. "Avi" provided evidence Israel seized during raids of HLF offices in the West Bank and explained how some zakat committee officials were tied to Hamas.

"So you've got this guy who works for the Israeli government, who's gonna name names. That's his job. His job is to find Palestinians who are Hamas or troublemakers or whatever. I expect him to name names. He admitted in open court that he's being paid to be here. So that's completely biased. All the prosecution witnesses were all biased because they've been doing this for 13 years," Neal said on the Ernie and Jay show.

In the IPT interview, he questioned why Hamas was designated a terrorist group.

"The Israeli government is one of our friends. It's a close ally and a lot of our political actions go in favor of Israel. If they'd have been in favor of the Palestinians we wouldn't be hearing about these things. There was probably a lot of pressure" on the United States to designate Hamas as a terrorist group and pass legislation outlawing transactions with it.

( I guess Mr. Neal isn't familiar with Hamas' connection with the Muslim Brotherhood or the American citizens they've murdered - ff)

Defense arguments, in contrast, were embraced by Neal. He used them to rebut Williams when she put stock in a videotape exhibit that she said haunted her during the trial. It showed a skit in which defendant Mufid Abdulqader portrayed a Hamas member who kills an Israeli police officer. The skit was performed at a fundraiser for the Islamic Association for Palestine. The IAP, like HLF, was part of the Muslim Brotherhood's "Palestine Committee," which prosecutors say worked to benefit Hamas.

"I am Hamas, O dear ones," Abdelqader said. "And I am Hamas, O dear ones. In midst of fire, they throw me. And I am Hamas, O dear ones. In midst of fire, they throw me. I swear to wipe out the name of the Zionist. And protect my land, Palestine. And you must get out."

Neal dismissed the skit as meaningless. It was an exercise of free speech, he said, echoing defense attorneys. But to Williams, it showed knowledge of the ultimate objective.

"He's doing a skit raising money for the committees but he's doing it as a Hamas terrorist. If you're raising money, I wouldn't think you would be making Hamas look good. You would try to be helping the charities for the poor Palestinians that are poor and lost their loved ones or are under whatever circumstances whether they're martyrs or innocent bystanders."

When defendant Abdelrahman Odeh singled out the son of a slain Hamas bomb-maker for support, Neal told jurors who found that incriminating that they were wrong. The child shouldn't suffer because of the father's sins, he said, again repeating a defense argument.

Williams and the unnamed juror argued it wasn't about the child; rather, the fact that Odeh made a specific request to support the son of Hamas martyr Yehya Ayyash was telling.

"I don't know why Ayyash's kid was so important," Williams said. "Odeh made it a point of saying ‘This is who I'm going to support.' He didn't hide the fact that he supported Ayyash. And it was obvious Ayyash's son was the son of the major bomb maker of the Hamas."

To Neal, the specific nature of Odeh's action had no deeper significance. "It shows he's supporting an orphaned kid who happens to be the kid of a Hamas bomb maker. It's their religion to give to charity," he said. He seemed to view each exhibit in isolation, refusing to connect it with other evidence that might show a pattern of behavior.

After the mistrial, Neal told WFAA television the other jurors lacked sophistication and accused prosecutors of manipulating their credulity.

"If you're ignorant or you have no idea about any culture or you have no idea about a certain way of life or you don't know that Hamas was once a political – and it still is a political figure – you know, they still do political things. And if you're going to sit there and show bomb belts, and you're going to show what they're doing to the, you know, in their homeland – why didn't they show us what – I know it's not important in the case but at the same token you could show what Israeli people are doing to Palestinian people," Neal said.

In one interview, Neal indicated prosecutors may have falsely believed he would be sympathetic to them. His father works in the military, he said on the Ernie and Jay show.

"My answers [to the questionnaire] looked like I was a pro-American, you know, flag-waving American. I mean, I am, but they thought I was not going to be able to think for myself and just go on the facts that these were Muslims and these were, you know some of the defendants were not American citizens."

Neal told the IPT he went into deliberations with no opinion and wanted to see where the evidence took him. The other jurors never knew how he was voting on secret ballots, he said. Neal told interviewers it was the other jurors who had their minds made up before deliberations started, that it was their refusal to budge that dragged out deliberations.

That's just wrong, the anonymous juror said.

"If he believed not guilty across the board, if he wanted to talk about the case, that was fine. But he shouldn't have said stuff that wasn't true," the juror said. Asked to clarify, the juror said, "He talks a lot about people not changing their minds. I changed my mind throughout the deliberations on several defendants. I guarantee you he never changed his mind throughout. He was at not guilty from the time he sat in there."

Williams, Neal said, was often confused and disorganized. In his view, she "was there for the check," he said on Ernie and Jay. "She lost her job during this case so she was there for vacation and checks. She was flim-flamming all over the place."

Kristina Williams

In court, Williams says, she paid close attention. She filled three binders with notes from testimony and exhibits. Under the court's direction, she wasn't allowed to read from those notes during deliberations, but they did help her remember certain points and find exhibits from dozens of boxes stuffed into the jury room.

On Thursday, Oct. 18, jurors came to an agreement that further deliberations were pointless and they notified U.S. District Judge A. Joe Fish. There were unanimous decisions on some counts, deadlocks on others.

Fish was out of town and the verdict forms, indicating acquittals for defendants Mohammed El-Mezain, Mufid Abdulqader and Abdelrahman Odeh, were sealed until Fish returned Monday morning. Then, as is standard practice, the judge polled the jury – asking each whether they agreed with the verdicts.

Williams stunned the courtroom and her fellow jurors by saying no. She had already written to the court that morning asking whether they would be polled. If not, "I would like to give my statement while the court reporter is there," she wrote.

She said she had succumbed to pressure in voting to acquit Abdulqader on the conspiracy counts. Later, she recalled, she found evidence she felt proved his guilt on conspiracy.

"They [other jurors] said, ‘We've already voted on him. We can't go back and change our vote,'" Williams said. On this point, Neal agrees with Williams' account.

Fish initially sent jurors back to see if more deliberations were possible. Williams said several other jurors were angry with her. "The foreperson was very embarrassed that it came to this. And I come out and I told them, ‘I told you I found some evidence on Abdulqader but you guys didn't want to hear it.' I says ‘I told you I wanted to change my vote to guilty and you told me we couldn't do it … I told you I didn't like my vote when we voted.' They told me, ‘Krissy just shut up and go back to sleep.'"

Williams denies ever sleeping during deliberations. There were times, she said, when she closed her eyes due to tension or fatigue, but she stayed awake. The unnamed juror said it did appear Williams dozed off a few times, but that came in "periods of silence" when jurors were waiting for someone to dig out an exhibit.

Other jurors disagreed with her on the case, Williams said. But they did so without attacking or belittling. For those jurors, Williams said, the evidence simply fell short. They were not sufficiently convinced that the zakat committees were part of Hamas.

Williams was convinced, pointing to a 1991 letter introduced at the trial that was addressed to defendant Shukri Abu Baker. It listed the committees and detailed which were "ours" and how many representatives worked there. Some jurors dismissed the letter due to its age, but Williams looked at it in conjunction with the testimony of "Avi" and FBI agent Robert Miranda. She felt their testimony further tied zakat committee members and HLF guest speakers to Hamas.

In some cases, Miranda was able to show the speakers' telephone or fax numbers traced back to known Hamas offices. For example, at least seven speakers used by HLF to raise money had the same telephone number as Hamas spokesman Ibrahim Ghosheh. Miranda found the number on a 1995 letter Ghosheh had written to U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch protesting American detention of Hamas political leader Mousa Abu Marzook.

It seemed to Williams that, short of a check written from HLF directly to Hamas, jurors were not going to convict.

"These people were smarter than that to just come out and write the word Hamas on a check. I think they knew what they were doing," she said. "They were just smarter than that to be that obvious that they were supporting Hamas. Some of the jurors, they wanted to see the word Hamas on a check. Sure, I would have loved to see Hamas on a check. It's just realistic. I think these people were just that smart."

The 1991 letter listing zakat committee connections was contradicted by other exhibits, Neal said. Oftentimes those documents were undated, making it impossible to determine when those whom HLF considered "ours" were present. Agent Miranda's testimony was barely discussed, he said.

The Common Thread

When things got heated, the one constant was Neal's involvement, the three other jurors interviewed say. Williams remembers one confrontation that prompted other jurors to demand a break to let tempers cool. A woman juror was going toe to toe with Neal, Williams said. At one point, she explained something and said "that is my opinion."

"Well f*** your opinion," Neal hollered back at her.

That tenor made it difficult on some days for her to commute to court from her home about 25 miles south of Dallas, Williams said. "There were just some days where I just didn't want to go in because of one juror and I wasn't the only one who felt that way."

All disputes aside, there is one comment from Neal on which all the jurors might find agreement: "Honestly," he said on Ernie and Jay, "if I hadn't been on that jury this would have been a different case."

The one thing I'd most like to know that the article doesn't really reveal is who Wiliam Neal is, and whom he might be connected to. I have a feeling that the real story lies in figuring that out.Meanwhile, the case is set for retrial in 2008.

A hat tip and a commendation to long-time Joshua's Army member Joyce C. for bringing this to my attention.