Informed Comment

Larry Johnson on the Plame Scandal

I think this interview by Wolf Blitzer with Larry Johnson on CNN’s Situation Room on Wednesday is extremely important and worry that it may be missed. I’m quoting some excerpts below. I was struck by the information that Plame Wilson has had death threats from al-Qaeda, and that the CIA has declined to offer her any special protection even though she still works there.

So the Bush administration is throwing our own counter-proliferation intelligence operatives to al-Qaeda by outing them, and Porter Goss refuses even to provide any security? Oh, yeah, we’re going to recruit a lot of capable, competent people into counter-terrorism after this.

At one point former CIA officer Larry Johnson slams Clifford May as “not credible.” May, a far rightwing Zionist, has been a hatchet man for the Neocons, smearing Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, the husband of Valerie Plame Wilson, with innuendo and half-truths. The principle on American television news (aside from Fox, which gets a pass because Rupert Murdoch is so rich and crazy) is that some sort of partisan balance has to be maintained. So Johnson’s going after May required Wolf to step in to defend May’s credibility, since he didn’t have a guest on to counter Johnson.

Johnson’s anger and bitterness, as a US intelligence professional, about the damage done by Rove and Libby in leaking Plame’s name to the press for petty political advantage, are well worth considering.

‘BLITZER: . . . For more on the damage that may have been done by the leak, I’m joined now by former CIA officer Larry Johnson. He was a classmate of the outed operative Valerie Plame at the CIA’s training school way back.

How many years ago was that, Larry?

LARRY JOHNSON, COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERT: Nineteen-eighty-five, September.

BLITZER: So, you were basically with Valerie Plame…

JOHNSON: Right . . .

BLITZER: Now, in order for any charges, an indictment, to really have weight, I think what everyone wants to know is, was there serious damage done to U.S. national security? And I have been trying to find out if the CIA actually did a postmortem, a damage assessment. You have been looking into that as well.

JOHNSON: Now, CIA did a postmortem. There’s no way that they could not have. They have not delivered any written report to Congress, to the House or Senate Intelligence Committees.

But what they done with this report, they had to do it internally, because…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Is there a piece of paper there that’s written?

JOHNSON: Yes. There will be a written — there’s a written document within the CIA. There has to be, because every time that someone like this is outed, it’s not just the person. In this case, it’s the front company. It’s other NOCs who may have been exposed.

BLITZER: Non-official cover is the NOCs.

JOHNSON: Non-official cover officers, also other intelligence officers who were exposed to that company, as well as intelligence assets overseas who were working with Brewster-Jennings who didn’t know that it was a CIA front, and some who may have been witting…

BLITZER: Well…

JOHNSON: … assets.

BLITZER: … do you know whether or not they concluded that serious damage did occur?

JOHNSON: I have heard that serious damage did occur.

BLITZER: In terms of lives lost, agents, foreign agents…

JOHNSON: To that…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: … U.S. allies?

(CROSSTALK)

JOHNSON: To that extent, I don’t know.

But what I do know for certain is, we’re not just talking about Valerie Plame. We’re talking about an intelligence resource, a United States national security resource that was destroyed by these White House officials that went out and started talking to the press about this. Reckless. And they have — they have harmed the security of this country. They’re trying to pretend no harm, no foul, and find lots of excuses.

BLITZER: Let me read to you from a Bob Novak column in “The Chicago Sun-Times” and other newspapers October 1, 2003, a couple of months or so after he revealed her name . . . That doesn’t make it sound like she was very covert.

JOHNSON: Not only does — you know, Bob Novak once again demonstrates he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And that is a lie.

I defy anybody. I have got $5,000 that says that you can’t find a reference to Valerie Plame and the CIA prior to Robert Novak’s column. Can’t do it. The fact that she’s married…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: Well, why would Clifford May say that he knew about it?

JOHNSON: Clifford May has been wrong on a whole variety of things.

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: But he’s a respected guy, Clifford May.

JOHNSON: Well, he’s respected by some people. I don’t respect him, because I…

BLITZER: I have known him for many years… JOHNSON: I…

BLITZER: … going back to when he was a reporter for “The New York Times.”

JOHNSON: His information — his information — his information on this issue has been repeatedly wrong.

And, again, I’ll bet Clifford May $5,000. Find the reference prior to Robert Novak’s column in which that information was out there. It wasn’t out there. Not only that. When Valerie wrote that check to Al Gore’s campaign as a member of Brewster-Jennings, she was living her cover. Not a single neighbor knew that she worked for the CIA.

She protected that cover. She was in the process of moving from non-official cover to official cover, but, under the law, official cover still protected.

BLITZER: Because there is some suggestion that she had been outed by other — by Aldrich Ames or others…

JOHNSON: Well, my…

BLITZER: … who were U.S. — were American spies spying for…

JOHNSON: Sure.

BLITZER: … the Soviet Union or other countries.

JOHNSON: My understanding is that, as a result of the Aldrich Ames betrayal, the damage assessment there came up with the possibility that she may have been compromised, so she’s moved back to the United States, home-based here, but continues to operate from here, traveling overseas as a consultant with Brewster-Jennings. So, she was continuing to work overseas.

BLITZER: What about the argument that she was driving in and out of Langley, CIA headquarters, on a daily basis for her job as an analyst in counter — nuclear counterproliferation?

JOHNSON: People saying that just demonstrate their further ignorance of the CIA.

At least 40 percent of the people driving through those gates every day are undercover. They are — sometimes, they are here in the United States for two or three assignment. Then they go back overseas. Their acknowledged relationship with the CIA is unacknowledged. They’re presumed to work for some other U.S. government agency. Their covers are backstop.

So, just because they are driving through the gates there doesn’t mean that they’re not undercover. I was out there for four years driving through the gates. I was undercover until I day I left. And the only one who knew I worked with CIA was my wife . . .

BLITZER: Were you surprised that, after her name was revealed, that she posed for pictures, that famous picture in “Vanity Fair,” that she posed for pictures elsewhere with her husband? . . .

JOHNSON: Yes. With the benefit of hindsight, I don’t think Joe and Valerie would have done that again.

But they also recognized, at the time when they did it, her career had been completely destroyed. And she had received death threats overseas from al Qaeda. So, as a result of that outing…

BLITZER: How do you know she got death threats from al Qaeda?

JOHNSON: I have heard it directly from people that have been told that there was a threat.

BLITZER: Because she is a…

JOHNSON: Because…

BLITZER: … a former CIA operative?

(CROSSTALK)

JOHNSON: … operative and outed by Robert Novak.

There were three people that were identified as having a threat. And she was contacted by the FBI.

BLITZER: Does she get security protection…

(CROSSTALK)

JOHNSON: She did not.

BLITZER: Why didn’t she?

JOHNSON: She called…

(CROSSTALK)

BLITZER: She still works for the CIA.

JOHNSON: She called CIA and was told, you will have to rely upon 911 . . .

BLITZER: Larry Johnson, former CIA officer, worked at counterterrorism at the State Department as well.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Cockburn Misrepresents Cole

Alexander Cockburn says in his piece in The Nation: ‘Cole says to The Nation Institute’s Tom Engelhardt that for the United States to “up and leave” Iraq would be to become an accomplice to genocide. He counsels the heightened use in Iraq of “special forces and air power.” In other words, assassinations and saturation bombing.’

Cockburn is referring to my interview with Tom Engelhardt.

I actually haven’t called for any assassinations or saturation bombing, and Mr. Cockburn’s “In other words” is just a trite way to open up a mendacious smear.

For the thousandth time, what I have in mind is that in the wake of a substantial drawdown of US troops (which I think advisable), a civil war may well break out in Iraq. It is also likely that Sunni Arab militiamen will attempt to kill the members of the current government. (I mean, they are already trying to kill them, they just aren’t usually succeeding.)

I am distressed at the prospect of a Cambodia in Iraq, which strikes me as a real possibility. As it is, there was that nastiness of Shiite and Sunni militiamen killing each other Thursday.

I’d like to see such an outcome prevented. I said earlier that I thought the best outcome would be for Iraq to be internationalized and to have a United Nations military force enforce the peace. However, it does seem increasingly a rather forlorn hope (the UN is made up of member nations whose politicians would like to stay in power, and that might be difficult if they send their constituents’ young men into the meat grinder of Anbar province.) The Bushies aren’t very likely even to allow it during the next 3 years. I haven’t stopped advocating it, I just don’t see it happening tomorrow.

So what is left, if I am right that the US ground troops engaged in assaults such as Fallujah, Tal Afar and Qaim are doing more harm than good and there is no cavalry coming to the rescue any time soon?

I’m suggesting that the sort of tactics used in northern Afghanistan be retrofitted. The Northern Alliance fighters (surely not that much better than the current Iraqi army) accepted Special Ops embeds. They told the Special Ops guys where the Taliban positions were, and the GIs put lasers on the targets and called down smart air strikes on warlord HQs, tanks, etc. Once the Taliban positions were disrupted and their armor and machine guns taken out, the Northern Alliance could advance on cities like Mazar and take them, even on horseback. I think the same sorts of synergies can be deployed to protect, e.g., the Green Zone from the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement should it mount an aggressive army to march on parliament.

Many readers have told me that this tactic would not prevent car bombings or other killings. That is correct. Nothing can prevent the low-intensity guerrilla war from continuing, probably for a decade or more. The question is only if it can be kept from escalating into a civil war that kills a million Iraqis and sparks a generalized Middle East war.

I am arguing for a defensive set of tactics, not offensive. I think I am probably the first observer in Iraq to speak out consistently against US bombing raids on civilian neighborhoods in Iraqi cities. I don’t know where Cockburn gets his weird misinterpretation of what I said.

If Mr. Cockburn has any realistic ideas for preventing this outcome, I’d be glad to hear them. But, he can’t just dismiss the possibility of massive killing– that would be intellectually dishonest and morally reprehensible. The real possibility exists. How to guard against it?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Sunni Arabs Launch Political Campaign to Kick US Out

Three small Sunni parties formed a coalition list on Wednesday. The Iraqi Islamic Party, the National Dialogue Council and the People’s Gathering will join forces to contest the December 15 elections.

Before anyone gets too excited about this development, it should be noted that Reuters goes on to report,

‘ “Our political program will focus more on getting the Americans out of Iraq,” Hussein al-Falluji, a prominent Sunni who took part in talks on the constitution, told Reuters. “Our message to the American administration is clear: get out of Iraq or set a timetable for withdrawal or the resistance will keep slaughtering your soldiers until Judgment Day.” ‘

How this is good news for the Bush administration I do not understand, but that is the way that Rupert Murdoch will spin it on Fox Cable News.

The other thing to remember is that most Sunni Arabs in Iraq are not followers of the Iraqi Islamic Party, which is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood mainly based in Mosul. A lot of Sunni Arabs are still secular Arab nationalists. Al-Hayat pointed out recently that there is a fair Baath constituency in Iraq still, which some parties are angling for. Even among religious Sunnis, opinion polls show that Hareth al-Dhari of the Association of Muslim Scholars is far more popular than Muhsin Abdul Hamid of IIP.

Still, the Sunni Arabs will certainly improve their position in parliament on December 15.

Al-Hayat says that Muqtada al-Sadr is attempting to form a coalition list that will run with Sunni Muslims in Anbar. There has been a pan-Islamic tinge to the cooperation of hardline Shiite nationalist Muqtada with hardline Sunni nationalists such as the Association of Muslim Scholars.

AP is reporting that the Sadrists will largely stay in the United Iraqi Alliance. It also says that Grand Ayatollah Sistani is not endorsing the largely Shiite UIA this time around, having been disappointed by the performance of the Jaafari government. Personally, I think that the control of 9 provinces by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq and its allies gives the UIA such a strong party “machine” in the provinces that they no longer need Sistani’s endorsement to win.

AP also says that the Iraqi National Congress, which leans more to the secular side (but actually you could say it just leans to any side that benefits it at any time), has split from the UIA. Unless it gets a big infusion of foreign money and buys a lot of votes, I’d be surprised if the INC can win more than a handful of seats running on its own in a free election.

The Iraqi Electoral Commission has released the distribution of seats by province. The distribution seems to me grossly unfair to the Kurds and incredibly generous to the Sunni Arabs, but it is unlikely that the Sunni Arabs will be able to take advantage of this opportunity, because so many of them reject the idea of elections in the shadow of foreign military occupation, while others will be afraid to come out and vote, for fear of guerrilla reprisals. About 45 seats will not be contested by election as I understand it, but will be appointed in some way. That would leave about 230 in play in the elections. [I’ve been corrected that the 45 seats are not appointed but will be distributed by some complicated formula among parties that did not reach a certain threshold or perhaps also that did.)

How the 230 would be apportioned in the election can only be guessed out. But let me just do a thought experiment to see what is likely to happen. I am not making tight predictions, just thinking heuristically to get the likely lay of the land.

Below, I am going to arrange the seats by likely ethnic outcome:

Sunni Arabs:

Al-Anbar 9
Salahuddin 8
Ninevah 19

I think the Sunni Arab lists will get all the seats in Anbar and Salahuddin, for 17. I think they will pick up about 10 in Ninevah (they would get more, but the turnout may be light among Sunni Arabs, throwing a disproportionate number of seats to the Kurds and perhaps Shiite Turkmen). So that is 27.

Other places the Sunnis could pick up some seats are:

Babil 11
Baghdad 59
Diyalah 10

However, if the constitutional referendum was any guide, the Sunni Arabs seem unlikely actually to compete well in these mixed provinces. Again, in provinces such as Anbar and Salahuddin where they are the vast majority, light turnout will still produce Sunni seats in parliament. But in the mixed provinces, light Sunni turnout would allow Shiites to pick up most of the seats. I think this is what will happen. From the three provinces above, the Sunni Arabs could pick up as few as 15 seats. They could also get a few seats here and there elsewhere.

So, the Sunni representation in the new parliament could increase from the current 17 to more like 45 to 50. But I think this is the upper range. Obviously, this group could easily be outvoted by the Shiites and Kurds.

The Kurds

Duhok 7
Erbil 13
Sulaimaniyah 15
Kirkuk 9

The Kurds will get almost all the seats in the three northern provinces where they predominate, for a total of about 35. I suspect they will get about 5 of the Kirkuk seats, though it could be more if there is light Sunni Arab turnout. Call it 40.

They can also pick up some seats from some mixed provinces, say 7 or so from Ninevah and a few from Diyalah. There are said to be a lot of Kurds in Baghdad province (several hundred thousand), and they could get 5 or so there. Call it 55.

So, I think the Kurds will be cut down from their current 78 seats to only about 50 or 55, and they they will have only a few more seats than the Sunni Arabs or perhaps only be equal to them.

The Shiites:

Basra 16
Karbala 6
Maysan 7
Muthanna 5
Najaf 8
Qadisiyah 8
Dhi Qar 12
Wasit 8

I believe that the Shiite religious parties will dominate all of the Shiite-majority provinces. There are 70 seats above, and all but a handful will go to the United Iraqi Alliance or its successors. (The Basra middle class could vote for Iyad Allawi’s secular list or for the INC. But it has been devastated as a constituency by decades of poor economy, with many of its members driven into poverty or abroad. It is easy to be surprised in making these prognostications, but if the secular parties got more than 3-5 seats from Basra, I would be astonished. I doubt anyone in Dhi Qar or Wasit would vote for them, and certainly not in Karbala or Najaf).

Then let’s revisit the mixed provinces:

Babil 11
Baghdad 59
Diyalah 10

The religious Shiites could pick up as many as 60 of these 80 seats. Remember that they may also pick up stray seats in mixed provinces such as Ninevah and Kirkuk. So the religious Shiites could have 130 seats easily. They need 138 for a simple majority. They could get it. But in any case they will be close to a simple majority, and would probably only need to find a couple of small lists with which to ally in order to form a government. Moreover, there is the wild card of the 45 or so seats that will be allocated by redistribution afterward. If any of them go to the religious Shiites, it would clench it.

You could also imagine an alliance of the Shiite fundamentalists with the Iraqi Islamic Party on issues such as Islamic law. If that development occurred, I suspect it would hasten Kurdish secession, since the Arabs could consistently outvote the more secular-leaning Kurdish bloc if they united.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

More on Niger-gate

Part One of an article in La Repubblica about the Niger uranium forgeries has been translated and made available. Part two has been made available here. And this is Part 3.

Laura Rozen has been on this story for a couple of years now, and her remarks are important. Scroll down.

The new information is that Nicolo Pollari, head of Italian military intelligence (SISMI), met with deputy director of the national security council, Stephen Hadley. SISMI circles, with their American acolytes on the right, are suspected of having a hand in the creation and distribution of the forgeries alleging Iraqi purchases of Niger yellowcake uranium. Such a meeting is unusual, since foreign officials usually meet their own peers. So Pollari should have been meeting with the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, not with a high national security council staffer. If Hadley gathered intelligence from Pollari, I suspect it may even have been illicit. (See below*).

This meeting could be important, because as I remember the story, Hadley authorized the claims in Bush’s State of the Union address about Iraqi purchases of African uranium. Bush kept wanting to put the claim in, and the CIA kept making him take it back out, as the Washington Post reported in 2003. When the CIA wouldn’t sign off on the Niger uranium claims, someone in Rice’s national security council staff (I remember it as Hadley) suggested that it be sourced instead to “British intelligence.” But I suspect “British intelligence” is actually a euphemism for “Italian military intelligence.” Anyway, Tenet was forced to go along with the change as long as the CIA did not have to certify it was correct. He later apologized even for that much of a lapse. But of course Hadley should have been made to resign.

If Pollari passed the Niger forgeries over to Hadley, that was a form of intelligence gathering on Hadley’s part and should have been reported to the Senate Intelligence committee according to the 1947 National Security Act:

‘ REPORTING OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN COVERT ACTIONS

SEC. 502. [50 U.S.C. 413a] To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and other entities of the United States Government involved in intelligence activities shall -

(1) keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, other than a covert action (as defined in section 503(e)), which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity and any significant intelligence failure; and

(2) furnish the congressional intelligence committees any information or material concerning intelligence activities, other than covert actions, which is within their custody or control, and which is requested by either of the congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities. ‘

Not to mention that if Hadley believed those forgeries to be true, he is a fool. Elbaradei of the International Atomic Energy Commission was able to show they were false in an afternoon with some google searches.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

The Amazing Shrinking Donkey

Arianna Huffington nails it: the Democratic leadership is continuing to make a big mistake on the Iraq issue by refusing to provide the alternative voice that the American public truly wants. Ironically, Republicans like Chuck Hagel are taking the more courageous stance. If 2008 came and it were Hilary with her AIPAC speeches versus a veteran like Hagel asking hard questions about the Iraq misadventure, my guess is that Hagel wins hands down.

After Arianna posted, Senator John Kerry called for a drawdown of 20,000 US troops by the end of this year and bringing all of them out by the end of 2006. But this sort of “troops out ASAP” policy is not realistic. If Kerry wants there to be a December 15, election, then he needs to acknowledge the need for 150,000 or so troops to be in Iraq so as to lock the country down and stop vehicular traffic so that suicide bombers don’t blow up the voters at polling stations. And, you couldn’t get 20,000 out by the end of December if they were still there on December 17. You could physically succeed in getting US troops out by the end of 2006, of course. But 20,000 out this year makes no sense. (Actually there will be a drawdown after the elections anyway; Rumsfeld sent an extra 10,000 for the election season and they’ll come back out). I’m glad Kerry addressed Iraq. Now he has to do so with something more practical than applause lines.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

A Shining Beacon on a Hill
Iraq and Israel/Palestine

The Neoconservatives promised us that an American-dominated Iraq would become a model for the rest of the Middle East.

Iraq has been turned, by the mismanagement of Bush and the Neoconservatives at the Department of Defense, into a hellhole of suicide bombings and subterranean campaigns of ethnic cleansing. Another 14 Iraqis were killed in guerrilla violence on Wednesday. And, groups like the Association of Muslim Scholars charge the Shiite Badr Corps with waging a “campaign of extermination” against Sunni Arabs. Hard line Shiites launch the same accusation at Sunni Arab extremists. Suicide bombings planned out from Sunni Arab cities draw retaliation in the form of US air raids.

But you know what? At least the Neocons were right about “Iraq the Model.”

Therewas a gruesome suicide bombing in Israel which the Palestinian al-Jihad al-Islami said that it carried out to avenge the Israeli murder of its leader on the West Bank last Monday.

So then the Israelis bombed Gaza in retaliation.

Then on Wednesday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who stole the Iranian election last June, talked about wiping Israel off the face of the earth.” His (stupid and monstrous) speech underlined what kind of trouble Ariel Sharon’s policies of annexing all of Jerusalem and gradually cleansing it of Muslims is likely to cause in the Middle East. So we have the same language about ethnic groups being wiped out, as in Iraq.

Yup, suicide bombings, retaliatory air strikes, charges and counter-charges of ethnic cleansing, and genocidal threats.

Iraq has become the model for the Middle East.

Or, was it the other way around?

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Iraq requires more sacrifice: Bush
Constitution Enacted, According to Electoral High Commission

It takes an Aussie newspaper to put the headline so bluntly. As the milestone of 2,000 US military deaths in Iraq since the beginning of the war passed on Tuesday, ” Iraq requires more sacrifice: Bush.” Now Bush is menacing us with Usamah Bin Laden taking over Iraq. Note that this scenario would have been utterly laughable in 2002. That is, anyone who heard that Bush thought Usamah Bin Ladin could overthrow Saddam and take over Iraq would have just fallen down laughing. Saddam would have had all the al-Qaeda people just taken out and shot. Twice. It was risible. Now, Bush has screwed up things so royally that he can even say this with a straight face. (It still is fairly ridiculous, since 80 percent of Iraqi is Shiites and Kurds who would kill Usamah on sight, and few Iraqi Sunni Arabs would want a fugitive Saudi terrorist as their leader). It is George W. Bush’s fault if this outcome is at all plausible. His policies have reduced Iraq to violent chaos, and he is the one who let Usamah escape at Tora Bora. And then he made the US military lie about it during the presidential campaign! Impeachment is too good for this kind of dishonesty and incompetence. Actually I have to just stop writing about this now before my blood pressure goes into the 200s. Usamah in Iraq, indeed.

Al-Hayat: The Iraqi High Electoral Commission announced that 78.4 percent of Iraqis who voted in the constitutional referendum approved the new constitution. But there were enormous differences among the provinces, which observers expected to result in increased violence. The two largely Sunni Arab provinces of Anbar and Salahuddin rejected the constitution by a wide margin. The third province where they might have done so was Ninevah, and if they had succeeded in mustering a two-thirds majority against it there, it would have failed. As it was, the official tally against in Ninevah was 55.08 percent.

The Kurdistan Alliance and the United Iraqi Alliance, the two coalitions that dominated parliament and produced the constitution, hailed its passage as “historic” and said it would help fight terrorism.

Nancy Youssef of Knight Ridder reports on the extreme suspicion with which the results were viewed by Sunni Arabs and by Shiites of the Sadr Movement.

A constitution should be a bargain and a compromise among the major factions in a nation. If a single bloc like the Sunni Arabs of Iraq rejects the constitution, then it isn’t really a constitution. And this one guarantees that the guerrilla war goes on for a long time.

Al-Hayat: Sunni figure Salih Mutlak complained that the tallying in Ninevah was carried out by Peshmerga militiamen, who, he alleged, tampered with the ballots. He insisted that the vote in Ninevah was in fact 2/3s against, and that the constitution had really failed, even if the elected Iraqi government would not recognize it. Mutlak intimated that the Sunni Arabs would now boycott the December 15 parliamentary elections.

Three car bombs exploded in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniyah, resulting in the deaths of 13 Peshmerga militiamen. This city is the power base of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, and the Sunni Arab guerrillas are underlining that they can reach into any corner of the country. No one is safe. In other attacks, guerrilla violence killed 2 US GIs and 11 Iraqis.

Al-Sabah: Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari dedicated $182 million to the southern port city of Basra, much of it to be used to build two new docks. Jaafari and his government will go to the polls on December 15.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off