Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Iranian Weapons Arm Iraqi Militia

The blogosphere has been talking about it for years. Iran is at least in part responsible for the so-called insurgency in Iraq. Now, even ABC News reports on what appears to be proof that Iran is supplying the Mahdi Army with both weaponry and training.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30, 2006 —  U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

Iranian-made munitions found in Iraq include advanced IEDs designed to pierce armor and anti-tank weapons. U.S. intelligence believes the weapons have been supplied to Iraq's growing Shia militias from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which is also believed to be training Iraqi militia fighters in Iran.

Evidence is mounting, too, that the most powerful militia in Iraq, Moktada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, is receiving training support from the Iranian-backed terrorists of Hezbollah.

Anyone that still believes that Iran is serious about brokering a peace in Iraq should put away their crack pipes. This includes former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and his Iraq Commission, who according to leaks will suggest next Wednesday that the U.S. negotiate with these backstabbing terrorist sponsoring madmen.

Linked at Rightwing Guy - Why Have We Yet To Take Out al-Sadr, Rightwing Guy - If The Iraq Study Group Wants To Retreat, We Cannot Follow.

Drunkard Supreme Court Justice overturns murderer's death penalty

If someone in your family is raped, robbed, and then stabbed to death in Washington, don't expect justice. At least not from Justice Bobbe Bridge (you know the one, the hit-and-run-drunk-driving supreme court justice) and her cohorts on the Washington Supreme Court. Especially if the prosecutor suggests that life in prison for the rapist, robber, and murderer is too lenient.

Aggravated murder is a capital crime and it should carry a mandatory death sentence. Allen Eugene Gregory certainly didn't show any leniency to Geneine Ann Harshfield on the night he raped, robbed and killed her ten years ago.

The state Supreme Court overturned a convicted murderer's death penalty today, saying evidence from his rescinded rape convictions and a prosecutor's misconduct require a new sentence.

The 8-1 ruling came in the consolidated case of Allen Eugene Gregory, who appealed his convictions for rape in 2000 and his aggravated murder conviction from 2001.

The majority, led by Justice Bobbe Bridge, overturned the rape convictions, saying the trial judge should have considered evidence that may have helped Gregory's defense.

The justices then threw out Gregory's death sentence, saying evidence of the rapes influenced his sentencing for murder. The court also said it would have overturned the death sentence anyway, because the prosecutor committed misconduct by improperly suggesting life in prison was too lenient for Gregory.

...

Justices Richard Sanders and Mary Fairhurst agreed with the Supreme Court's result, but said they differed on the reasoning. Justice Jim Johnson dissented from the ruling, writing that the ruling "comes in total disregard of Washington's victims of crimes rights."

Source: The Seattle Times: Local News: Wash. Supreme Court overturns murderer's death penalty

Cross posted at NWBloggers.com

Yushchenko, Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, and Gaidar?

People that run afoul of the current Russian administration seem to turn up with a sudden, mysterious, potentially fatal illness. First, the pro-western Ukrainian Victor Yushchenko was poisoned with dioxins leading up to a run-off election against pro-Moscow Viktor Yanukovitch. Then investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya was murdered last month. Then Alexander Litvinenko was murdered using Polonium 210, a rare radioactive mineral that could only have been produced in a nuclear facility. Now former Russian Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar may have also been poisoned.

From the Daily Mail:

Doctors treating former Russian Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar, who is gravely ill, believe he was poisoned. It follows the death of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko from poisoning and the discovery of radioactive material at 12 UK sites as four BA planes were grounded.

The call came as an aide to Mr Gaidar revealed doctors treating the formier Premier in Dublin believe he has been poisoned.

"Doctors don't see a natural reason for the poisoning and they have not been able to detect any natural substance known to them" in Gaidar's body, spokesman Valery Natarov said. "So obviously we're talking about poisoning (and) it was not natural poisoning."

Gaidar, 50, one of the leaders of a liberal opposition party who served briefly as prime minister in the 1990s under President Boris Yeltsin, began vomiting and fainted during a conference in Ireland on Friday, and was rushed into intensive care at a hospital.

Gaidar's illness follows the poisoning of former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko, who died in London just one day before Gaidar fell ill.

The incident came amid heightened suspicions in the UK about the poisoning of former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko, who died a day before Mr Gaidar fell ill. The former spy worked as a bodyguard to Mr Gaidar at one point during his career.

...

The decision to ground three commercial passenger planes is another extension of the net which has already seen searches for signs of contamination at a string of London locations.

It throws the spotlight back on to a meeting that Mr Litvinenko had with another former KGB agent, Andrei Lugovoy, in London's Millennium Hotel on the day he was apparently poisoned with polonium 210.

Two Russians who met Mr Litvinenko in the hotel that day are thought to have travelled on the grounded aircraft. Security sources described yesterday's developments as 'potentially very significant'.

If police discover traces of polonium 210 on an aircraft that travelled to London before November 1, when Mr Litvikenko became ill, the finger of blame for the poisoning would point to Moscow. Meanwhile, the Health Protection Agency revealed that as of midnight last night, NHS Direct had received 1,325 calls from members of the public worried about radiation contamination.

It seems likely that someone in Russia is trying to stifle dissent. I wonder what they have to hide.

Earlier posts:

• Radiation found on London-Moscow route planes
• Litvinenko victim of "state-sponsored" assassination
• Did Vladimir Putin have Alexander Litvinenko silenced?

Linked at Basil's Blog, Assorted Babble by Suzie.

U.S. military leaders unanimously reject pullout, timetable

Despite what you may have read in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or Associated Press reporting, top military leaders are against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq or imposing a specific withdrawal timetable. They are unanimous in wanting victory.

Not "peace with honor", not a "graceful exit". They want victory.

The media is fond of quoting retired military "experts" that believe that victory is unattainable. We see the reporting every day. The vast majority of these experts have one thing in common. They're retired. They are not actively engaged in the planning and strategy for the war on terror. They're on the outside looking in.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff on the other hand are on the inside, and they're all against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq now. They're all also against a specific withdrawal timetable.

From the Washington Times:

...

"The chiefs are solid. They want victory," the source said. "There is no dissent."

...

At a press conference, Gen. Pace endorsed the idea of shifting more Iraqi forces into violence-wracked Baghdad, where Shi'ite and Sunni terrorists are on a killing spree to gain control of the capital. A number of lawmakers, including Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican and House Armed Services Committee chairman, advocate sending more Iraqi battalions to the capital.

"I think that idea has a good amount of appeal for multiple reasons," Gen. Pace said. "Because Baghdad is extremely important to the Iraqi government, and their armed forces and their security forces are the proper long-term solution to that problem."

...

Gen. Pace said the Joint Chiefs review has been augmented by senior officers who have recently served in Iraq. They have compiled a list of ideas and personally discussed them with the chiefs in the "tank," the group's secure meeting place.

It seems to me that if the Joint Chiefs think victory is possible that they must be on to something, despite the pontifications of Henry Kissinger. "Senior officers who have recently served in Iraq" beats the heck out of "retired generals" who haven't, or aging former Secretaries of State that helped to promote the idea of "Peace with Honor" (another term for "Cut and Run").

Linked at Sister Toldjah.

Mahdi Army "Not a Problem"

The Associated Press via the Tacoma News Tribune reports this morning on the talks between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki... 

" I appreciate the courage you show during these difficult times as you lead your country," Bush told al-Maliki after nearly two and a half hours of talks. "He's the right guy for Iraq." It was their third face-to-face meeting since al-Maliki took power about six months ago.

"There is no problem," declared al-Maliki.

... 

A senior al-Maliki aide who attended Thursday's talks said the Iraqi leader presented Bush a blueprint for the equipping and training of Iraqi security forces. The aide, who spoke anonymously because of the sensitive nature of the information, declined to give details.

...

Privately, Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice repeatedly pressed the Iraqi prime minister to disband a heavily armed Shiite militia loyal to al-Sadr and blamed for much of the country's sectarian violence, according to the senior al-Maliki aide.

The official quoted al-Maliki as telling Bush that controlling the group "is not a big problem and we will find a solution for it." Al-Sadr is a key al-Maliki political backer and the prime minister has regularly sidestepped U.S. demands to deal with the Mahdi Army.

Before the cameras, Al-Maliki sent the protesting forces at home a message.

"Those who participate in this government need to bear responsibilities, and foremost upon those responsibilities is the protection of this government, the protection of the constitution, the protection of the law, not breaking the law," he said.

... 

Bush, meanwhile, continued to reject drawing Shiite-led Iran into helping Iraq in its struggle for peace.

"I appreciate the prime minister's views that the Iraqis are plenty capable of running their own business and they don't need foreign interference from neighbors that will be destabilizing the country," he said.

... 

The two agreed that Iraq should not be partitioned along sectarian lines into semi-regions for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites, Bush said.

"The prime minister made clear that splitting his country into parts, as some have suggested, is not what the Iraqi people want, and that any partition of Iraq would only lead to an increase in sectarian violence," the president said. "I agree."

I'm not sure that I agree with President Bush that al-Maliki is "the right guy for Iraq". He's clearly on the side of terrorists in Iraq. The Iraqi people seem to agree with the President.

Al-Maliki plainly wants to the United States to leave without finishing the work of preparing Iraq to deal with its security problems. He's eager to take full control of his country.

He also wants to negotiate with Iran and Syria to manage the sectarian violence. turning to Iran and Syria won't fix things there. The current sectarian violence is between Sunnis and Shiites. Many of the Sunni "insurgents" (terrorists) are believed to have infiltrated the country from Syria. Many of the Shiite  "militia" (also terrorists) are believed to have come from Iran.

Neither of these nations is interested in a Democratic Iraq. They both have a lot to gain from a destabilized Iraq. Even so, President Bush's words may come to be a rallying cry for the left here at home...

"I appreciate the prime minister's views that the Iraqis are plenty capable of running their own business and they don't need foreign interference from neighbors that will be destabilizing the country," he said.

If the Iraqis are "plenty capable" and "don't need foreign interference", the left will pounce upon those words and accelerate their timetable for the Vietnamization of the exit strategy.

Ultimately the Iraqi people will have to decide their own fate. They've chosen their own government. If I recall correctly, some time ago President Bush said that it would be up to the Iraqi government when the United States left Iraq. Then he was arguing that a timetable would be a bad thing.

A timetable is still a bad Idea. A "speedy withdrawal" is still a bad idea. But, if the Iraqis are truly ready, then when they ask, through their government, we should leave. It won't be a defeat, but a victory, because when that happens, we will have achieved our original goal in Iraq. We will have toppled a thuggish dictator and given the Iraqis a democracy.

What they do with it is their business.