About Me

Name:Gabrielle Cusumano
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Search

"The 10 bloggers who can make or break Hillary" Times Online UK

 Plus: 10 Reasons Hillary Wishes the Liberal Blogosphere Would Disappear from ElephantBiz7

The 10 bloggers who can make or break Hillary

Hillary_campaigns

So are bloggers really the big new political voice? Mystery Pollster argues that this Presidential election is a big one for bloggers.

His theory is that Democrats like Hillary Clinton but activist bloggers, for one reason or another, don't. So what matters more? The campaign will tell.

And here is Comment Central's list of the ten bloggers who can make or break Hillary Clinton.

10. Matt Drudge: It's hard to imagine a Clinton campaign without at least one scandal or pseudo-scandal. And Drudge seems the likeliest route. How she responds will decide a great deal.

9. Duncan Black: His Atrios blog has a huge left-wing readership. But that's not all. His speciality is scrutinising the mainstream media for bias against liberals. Given the huge pressure that will be put on a Hillary campaign, she could use this independent war room operation, I'm sure. He could be the anti-Drudge.

8. Arianna Huffington: In the top ten because she's hard to ignore. Doesn't accept that Hillary is a shoo-in as the nominee. Writes for the moneyed establishment so her view could impact the race for cash.

6=. Jay Cost: One of Hillary's biggest problem is that Democrats fear that if nominated she will lose, or worse, that she simply can't win the presidency. So an important determinant of the outcome of the primaries will be astute judgement about the truth of that claim. The Real Clear Politics site will set out the polling evidence. It will be unmissable. And Jay Cost, recruited after his superb Horserace Blog in 2004, will provide analysis. His speciality is using polling to produce probabilities of different results.

6=. Mark Blumenthal: The Mystery Pollster is one of the most respected sources of polling analysis on the web. And his readiness to question the conventional wisdom will make him important to Hillary. He may help her puncture the idea that she can't win.

5. Joshua Micah Marshall: His Talking Points Memo blog is justly popular. His cool style isn't designed to rouse rabble, but his quiet influence will help the undecided Democrats work out whether to go with Hillary or Obama.

4. Andrew Sullivan: The classic swing-vote blog. He voted for Bill and also for George W. first time out. Andrew is a moderate conservative who has lately turned against the Republicans because he finds the party too extreme. If Hillary can't keep him, that suggests she can't hold together the coalition that produced the mid-term victory. This is critical, hence Andrew's high place.

2=. Markos Moulitsas Zúniga: On a given weekday his Daily Kos site has 500,000 hits from people eager to read about Democratic politics. Has a reasonable record of endorsing candidates who win primaries although some, like Ned Lamont, fall at the general election. The problem for Hillary is that Markos prefers insurgent candidates to the establishment. He's already given her both barrels in the Washington Post.

2=. Jerome Armstrong: Markos's comrade in arms, the founder of Direct Democracy and a netroot campaigner. Obama more to his taste than Hillary really, mainly because he likes something fresh each time. All in all Hillary would probably prefer the netroot campaigners to disappear into a big hole. If they don't, she's in trouble.

1. Mickey Kaus: Is Hillary a new Dem or a traditional liberal? Kaus, one of the first to consider himself a new Dem, will read the speeches and help make the call. My judgment? It may not help in the primaries, but only if Hillary steers hard toward the centre can she be President. If she is going to win the swing states, she needs to take the Mickey. I think that matters more than anything. I think confusing the liberal bloggers with the base is the worst possible error a candidate could make. So Kaus is number one.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/7650381

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The 10 bloggers who can make or break Hillary:

» The Cesspool of Politics from Right Truth
So many politicians have thrown their hats into the presidential ring, it looks like an overflowing cesspool. Unfortunately, whatever happens to float to the top may be somebody so undesirable we won't want to touch them with a ten foot
[Read More]

» 10 Reasons Hillary Wishes the Liberal Blogosphere Would Disappear from ElephantBiz
The London Times Daniel Finkelstein summarizes the 10 bloggers who can make or break Hillary Clintons presidential bid. Drudge isnt a blogger, but thats a minor quibble.Interesting observation from Finkelstein that I think is absolu... [Read More]

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ask Your Senator and Congressman: Is It Alright That "Iran Is Arming Iraqi Militias"? And What Is The "New" Congress Going To Do About It?

 "Iran’s plan, as outlined by the ambassador, carries the potential to bring Iran into further conflict here with the United States, which has detained a number of Iranian operatives in recent weeks and says it has proof of Iranian complicity in attacks on American and Iraqi forces."   New York Times

General says U.S. has proof
Iran arming Iraqi militias

BAGHDAD — Iran is supplying Iraqi militias with a variety of powerful weapons including Katyusha rockets, the No. 2 U.S. general in Iraq said Tuesday.

"We have weapons that we know through serial numbers … that trace back to Iran," Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said in an interview with USA TODAY.

His comments came as the Bush administration has been taking an increasingly tough stance against what it alleges is Iranian meddling in sectarian violence in Iraq. Last week, the White House confirmed that the president had authorized U.S. troops to take action against Iranian agents in Iraq who present threats.

On Tuesday, President Bush vowed to crack down on those who supply Iraqi insurgents with arms, though he denied any plans to invade Iran.

"We'll deal with it by finding their supply chains and their agents and … arresting them. … In other words, we're going to protect our troops," Bush told ABC News.

Odierno did not provide further details on how weapons were linked to Iran. The Iranian government has denied providing weapons to Iraqi militias.

Most weapons supplied by Iran end up in the hands of Shiite extremists, Odierno said.

He said the weapons include:

•The RPG-29, a rocket-propelled grenade that can fire armor-piercing rounds. It is larger and more sophisticated than the RPG-7 more commonly found in Iraq.

•Katyusha rockets, so large they are generally fired from trucks.

•Powerful roadside bombs, known as explosively formed projectiles, which can pierce armor. The technological know-how and "some of the elements to make them are coming out of Iran," Odierno said.

Several Iranians have been detained in raids inside Iraq, and some remain in custody. The arrests have provided clues about Iranian operations, Odierno said.

"Every time you pick up individuals, you learn about how they facilitate themselves within a country," he said.

He did not specify whether the Iranians in custody are cooperating or whether evidence was seized during the arrest.

Iran's ambassador to Iraq told The New York Times this week that Iran was taking steps to expand military and economic ties with Iraq.

Page 1A

  USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20070131/1a_offlede31_dom.art.htm
__________________________________________________________________
From The New York Times

January 29, 2007

Iranian Reveals Plan to Expand Role in Iraq

BAGHDAD, Jan. 28 — Iran’s ambassador to Baghdad outlined an ambitious plan on Sunday to greatly expand its economic and military ties with Iraq — including an Iranian national bank branch in the heart of the capital — just as the Bush administration has been warning the Iranians to stop meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Iran’s plan, as outlined by the ambassador, carries the potential to bring Iran into further conflict here with the United States, which has detained a number of Iranian operatives in recent weeks and says it has proof of Iranian complicity in attacks on American and Iraqi forces.

The ambassador, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, said Iran was prepared to offer Iraq government forces training, equipment and advisers for what he called “the security fight.” In the economic area, Mr. Qumi said, Iran was ready to assume major responsibility for Iraq reconstruction, an area of failure on the part of the United States since American-led forces overthrew Saddam Hussein nearly four years ago.

“We have experience of reconstruction after war,” Mr. Qumi said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. “We are ready to transfer this experience in terms of reconstruction to the Iraqis.”

Mr. Qumi also acknowledged, for the first time, that two Iranians seized and later released by American forces last month were security officials, as the United States had claimed. But he said that they were engaged in legitimate discussions with the Iraqi government and should not have been detained.

Mr. Qumi’s remarks, in a 90-minute interview over tea and large pistachio nuts at the Iranian Embassy here, amounted to the most authoritative and substantive response the Iranians have made yet to increasingly belligerent accusations by the Bush administration that Iran is acting against American interests in Iraq.

President Bush has said the American military is authorized to take whatever action necessary against Iranians in Iraq found to be engaged in actions deemed hostile.

The Iranian ambassador abruptly agreed to a longstanding request for the interview — made repeatedly after the first American seizure of Iranians here on Dec. 21 — and seemed eager to rebut the accusations.

The political and diplomatic standoff that followed the Dec. 21 raid until the Iranians were released nine days later has contributed, along with a dispute over the Iranian nuclear program, to greatly increased tensions between the United States and Iran. This month, American forces detained five more Iranians in a raid on a diplomatic office in the northern city of Erbil.

While providing few details, the United States has said that evidence gleaned in the Baghdad raid, made on an Iraqi Shiite leader’s residential compound, proves the Iranians were involved in planning attacks.

How much direction, if any, Mr. Qumi was taking from his government was unclear in the interview, in which he showed disdain for the American accusations as well as a few flashes of restrained sarcasm.

He ridiculed the evidence that the American military has said it collected, including maps of Baghdad delineating Sunni, Shiite and mixed neighborhoods — the kind of maps, American officials have said, that would be useful for militias engaged in ethnic slaughter. Mr. Qumi said the maps were so common and easily obtainable that they proved nothing.

He declined to say whether he believed the maps bore sectarian markings or address other pieces of evidence the Americans said they had found, like manifests of weapons and material relating to the technology of sophisticated roadside bombs. But that is not why the Iranians were in the compound, he said.

“They worked in the security sector in the Islamic Republic, that’s clear,” Mr. Qumi said, referring to Iran. But he said that the Iranians were in Iraq because “the two countries agreed to solve the security problems.” The Iranians “went to meet with the Iraqi side,” he said.

In a surprise announcement, Mr. Qumi said Iran would soon open a national bank in Iraq, in effect creating a new Iranian financial institution right under the Americans’ noses. A senior Iraqi banking official, Hussein al-Uzri, confirmed that Iran had received a license to open the bank, which he said would apparently be the first “wholly owned subsidiary bank” of a foreign country in Iraq.

“This will enhance trade between the two countries,” Mr. Uzri said.

Mr. Qumi said the bank was just the first of what he said would be several in Iraq — an agricultural bank and three private banks also intend to open branches. Other elements of new economic cooperation, he said, include plans for Iranian shipments of kerosene and electricity to Iraq and a new agricultural cooperative involving both countries.

He would not provide specifics on Iran’s offer of military assistance to Iraq, but said it included increased border patrols and a proposed new “joint security committee.”

Any Iranian military assistance to Iraq would be fraught with potential difficulties. Aside from provoking American objections, such assistance could further alienate Sunni Arabs, many of whom already suspect that Iran, overwhelmingly Shiite, is encouraging Iraq’s Shiite-led government in persecuting them.

A number of American and Iraqi officials said Sunday that it was difficult to respond to Mr. Qumi’s statements until they had been communicated through official routes. A spokesman for the American Embassy in Baghdad, Lou Fintor, declined to address the statements.

Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman, said Sunday that the United States had a significant body of evidence tying Iran to sectarian attacks inside Iraq. “There is a high degree of confidence in the information that we already have, and we are constantly accumulating more,” Mr. McCormack said.

He did not address any of the specifics of Mr. Qumi’s comments about plans for stronger economic and security ties, but said that Iran currently plays “a negative role in many respects” in the country.

Iraqi officials also said that they could not comment on specific programs until they had seen the details, but expressed a range of views on the wisdom of expanding ties with Iran.

“We are welcoming all the initiatives to participate in the process of reconstruction,” said Qasim Daoud, a former national security adviser who is now a secular Shiite member of Parliament. “My belief is that our strategic alliance is with the Americans, but at the same time we are looking for the participation of any country that would like to participate,” Mr. Daoud said.

Barham Salih, a deputy prime minister who is Kurdish and whose duties include economic matters, took sharper issue with Mr. Qumi’s criticism of the American presence.

“Iraqi national interest requires seeking good neighborly relations with Iran as with other neighbors, but that requires respect for Iraqi sovereignty,” Mr. Salih said.

Mr. Qumi spoke largely in Persian during the interview, but he occasionally broke into English when he wanted to be certain that a point had been conveyed forcefully.

Although Mr. Qumi was not given specific questions before the interview, he was made aware of the general topics that would be covered and seemed prepared with detailed answers in many cases. He seemed keen to give his government’s view of what occurred in the early morning of Dec. 21, when American forces raided the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite leaders, who had traveled to Washington three weeks before to meet President Bush.

Within the compound, the Iranians were seized in the house of Hadi al-Ameri, who holds two powerful positions: he is chairman of the Iraqi Parliament’s security committee and leader of the Badr Organization, the armed wing of Mr. Hakim’s party, which spent years in exile in Iran.

Although the Americans have suggested that the Iranians were providing support for militias like the Badr Organization, Mr. Qumi said that his countrymen were dealing with Mr. Ameri in his government capacity.

The Iranians would not even have stayed the night in the compound except, in a situation faced by many Baghdad residents, their business lasted beyond the early-evening curfew and they were forced to spend the night, Mr. Qumi said.

Mr. Qumi also warned the United States against playing out tensions in what he called “the nuclear file” in Iraq. “We don’t need Iraq to pay the cost of our animosity with the Americans,” Mr. Qumi said.

As the interview was breaking up, Mr. Qumi made one last stab at the Americans. If Iran is allowed to undertake reconstruction activities in Iraq, he said, all international construction companies would be welcome. “Urge the American companies to come here,” he said.

Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi contributed reporting from Baghdad, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

All Credit Given To: The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/29/world/middleeast/29iranians.html?ex=1170651600&en=78765303b16c9562&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY
__________________________________________________________________

AT WAR?


The U.S. vs. Iran
One side is playing for real, the other only for time.

BY MICHAEL RUBIN
Wednesday, September 20, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

The Iranian government continues to enrich uranium despite Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's generous package of incentives--and in defiance of the U.N.'s Aug. 31 deadline. Still, European officials hold out hope for the success of diplomacy. On Sept. 15, Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said, "We are really making progress. Never before have we had a level of engagement . . . as we have now." Diplomats will look for any hopeful sign from Iranian President's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's forthcoming U.N. speech. But can talk work? Successful diplomacy requires that both sides negotiate in good faith and honor commitments. That Tehran's track record undercuts confidence should not surprise. From its very inception, the Islamic Republic has eschewed diplomatic norms.

On Nov. 4, 1979, Iranian students seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, holding 52 hostages for 444 days. Warren Christopher, deputy secretary of state during the crisis, called the Iranian move a "flagrant violation" of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. But Iranian officials endorsed the seizure. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini praised the students. His successor as supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, showed support with a visit to the embassy soon after its seizure. Ironically, while the Iranian leadership often demands apologies for transgressions both real and imagined, it continues to uphold the righteousness of hostage seizure, underscoring official contempt for diplomatic convention.

Still, the embassy seizure might be long forgotten had Tehran's disdain for diplomatic norms been the exception rather than the rule. In 1986, former U.S. national security advisor Robert McFarlane's traveled to Tehran. While the Iran-Contra Affair is remembered today for the Reagan administration's attempts to circumvent Congressional prohibition of funding of the Nicaraguan resistance, it also illustrates the inadvisability of trusting Tehran. President Reagan sought to win the release of American hostages in Lebanon but, as soon as Washington compensated Tehran for its bad behavior, its militias accelerated hostage seizure. Diplomatic enticement--bribery by another name--backfired. But diplomacy is not just about incentives; it is also about trust. What could have been just a failed initiative turned to scandal when, on the seventh anniversary of the embassy seizure, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, today the chairman of the Expediency Council, broke a pledge of secrecy and revealed the meetings to the international press.

Iranian authorities showed diplomatic duplicity once again after Khomeini issued a declaration calling for author Salman Rushdie's death. Four months before Khomeini's death, then-president Khamenei demanded that Mr. Rushdie apologize in exchange for cancellation of a religious edict ordering his murder. Mr. Rushdie apologized, but the Iranian government nevertheless kept the bounty in place. President Khamenei was insincere, his diplomacy was a tactic. By winning an apology, he confirmed Mr. Rushdie's guilt.

Iranian lying should not surprise; what should is how often Western governments fall prey to it. The British government demanded that Tehran lift the bounty on Mr. Rushdie's head as a precondition to re-establish relations. On Sept. 24, 1998, the Iranian government said it would do nothing to harm Mr. Rushdie. No sooner had London and Tehran exchanged ambassadors, than Iranian authorities once again reversed themselves.

For U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the cost of Iranian lying is high. While Iranian diplomats pledged not to destabilize Afghanistan and, indeed, cooperate in its reconstruction, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps sent in operatives disguised as school teachers to further instability. As Afghan President Hamid Karzai struggled to wrest control away from warlords, Afghan commanders intercepted a dozen Iranian agents and proxies organizing armed resistance.

In Iraq, too, Iranian diplomacy has been duplicitous. Prior to the Iraq war, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif, pledged Iranian noninterference to British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and Zalmay Khalilzad, then President George W. Bush's envoy to the free Iraqis. But, Iranian journalists now describe how, days after Saddam's fall, the Iranian leadership dispatched 2,000 Revolutionary Guards replete with radio transmitters, money, and supplies. On Nov. 18, 2003, Mr. Kharrazi again pledged good behavior. He lied outright; his promise coincided with a new deployment of Iranian intelligence across Iraq. The Revolutionary Guard stepped up its training of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia. Hasan Kazemi Qomi, previously Iran's liaison to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, became Tehran's top diplomat in Baghdad. Mr. Qomi assured diplomats that "Iran will not accept anything that destabilizes Iraq." Four months later, Iraqi forces captured 30 Iranians fighting alongside Sadr's militia.

Earlier this month, I traveled to the Middle East to meet Shiite tribal leaders and urban notables from southern Iraq. They described how Iran has transformed its consulates in Karbala and Basra into distribution points for everything from money to shaped charges. That Tehran uses diplomatic pouches and protocols to safeguard its network reflects their insincerity. While the West approaches diplomacy with sincerity, the Islamic Republic mocks diplomatic convention to shield subversion.

Iran's nuclear program raises the stakes of its deceit to U.S. national security. There is little doubt that Tehran's nuclear program is not peaceful. On Feb. 14, 2005, Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer Kharrazi, secretary-general of Iranian Hezbollah, promised, "We are able to produce atomic bombs and we will do that." In February 2006, Mohsen Gharavian, a Qom theologian well-connected to the Islamic Republic's staunchest ideologues, called Iran's possession of nuclear weapons "natural."

Iran's nuclear program has advanced through the trust of diplomats and their willingness to provide hard currency in the name of dialogue and engagement. Between 2000 and 2005, European Union trade with Iran almost tripled. Tehran invested much of this money in arms and nuclear infrastructure. For more than a decade, through both the Rafsanjani and Khatami administrations, Iranian authorities hid the existence of a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Khondab. That Western diplomats label Mr. Rafsanjani a pragmatist and Mr. Khatami a reformer underscores the danger of judging Iranian officials by style rather than action.

In February 2003, the Iranian authorities opened the secret plants to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors. Their subsequent report was damning: Not only had the Iranian government designed the Natanz facility to house at least 50,000 centrifuges, but Tehran had the import of almost a ton of uranium from China, and could not account for missing processed uranium. During subsequent inspections, Iranian authorities repeatedly changed their stories when asked about the origin of weapons-grade uranium traces. Subsequent inspections exposed other lies. Finally, on Sept. 24, 2004, the IAEA Board of Governors, after recalling a litany of Iranian mistruths, found Iran in breach of its Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement. While Iranian officials have made many subsequent pledges to cooperate, their actions belie their words. They have yet to abide by the Additional Protocol's inspection standards and, earlier this year, turned away IAEA inspectors from Natanz in violation of the NPT.

While diplomacy necessarily involves talking to adversaries, Washington should not assume that the ayatollahs operate from the same set of ground rules. During his long exile in Najaf, Khomeini endorsed taqiya, religiously sanctioned dissembling. From his perspective and that of his followers, the ends justify the means. Hence, Khomeini saw nothing wrong when he told the Guardian newspaper, just months before his return to Iran, "I don't want to have the power of government in my hand; I am not interested in personal power." Tehran may still conduct diplomacy to fish for incentive and reward but, at its core, Iranian diplomacy is insincere. The Iranian leadership will say anything and do anything to buy the time necessary to acquire nuclear capability. That Foggy Bottom still advises against any strategy that might undercut the possibility of some illusionary breakthrough signals triumph not of realism but of negligence. Diplomacy cannot succeed if one side is playing for real and the other only for time.

Mr. Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is co-author, with Patrick Clawson, of Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos (Palgrave, 2005).

 Copyright © Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008968
__________________________________________________________________________


See Also : Iran caught red-handed – twice in Iraq! Now A Way To Topple the Mullahs

Friday, January 19, 2007 12:38 PM

http://gabriellecusumano.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=504eb2cd-17bd-4e9b-adbb-1f977539a2dc

And

Wednesday, January 03, 2007 6:57 PM

And

It'sThe War On Terror Stupid! Iran Included Itself A Long Time Ago, Now The US's Gloves Come Off!
Saturday, January 13, 2007 2:24 PM

__________________________________________________________________________

Insurgencies Rarely Win – And Iraq Won’t Be Any Different (Maybe)
By Donald Stoker
Page 1 of 1
Posted January 2007
Vietnam taught many Americans the wrong lesson: that determined guerrilla fighters are invincible. But history shows that insurgents rarely win, and Iraq should be no different. Now that it finally has a winning strategy, the Bush administration is in a race against time to beat the insurgency before the public’s patience finally wears out.

STR/AFP/Getty Images

Not invincible: The that insurgents can’t be beaten is a myth, because history shows otherwise.

The cold, hard truth about the Bush administration’s strategy of “surging” additional U.S. forces into Iraq is that it could work. Insurgencies are rarely as strong or successful as the public has come to believe. Iraq’s various insurgent groups have succeeded in creating a lot of chaos. But they’re likely not strong enough to succeed in the long term. Sending more American troops into Iraq with the aim of pacifying Baghdad could provide a foundation for their ultimate defeat, but only if the United States does not repeat its previous mistakes.

Myths about invincible guerrillas and insurgents are a direct result of America’s collective misunderstanding of its defeat in South Vietnam. This loss is generally credited to the brilliance and military virtues of the pajama-clad Vietcong. The Vietnamese may have been tough and persistent, but they were not brilliant. Rather, they were lucky—they faced an opponent with leaders unwilling to learn from their failures: the United States. When the Vietcong went toe-to-toe with U.S. forces in the 1968 Tet Offensive, they were decimated. When South Vietnam finally fell in 1975, it did so not to the Vietcong, but to regular units of the invading North Vietnamese Army. The Vietcong insurgency contributed greatly to the erosion of the American public’s will to fight, but so did the way that President Lyndon Johnson and the American military waged the war. It was North Vietnam’s will and American failure, not skillful use of an insurgency, that were the keys to Hanoi’s victory.

Similar misunderstandings persist over the Soviet Union’s defeat in Afghanistan, the other supposed example of guerrilla invincibility. But it was not the mujahidin’s strength that forced the Soviets to leave; it was the Soviet Union’s own economic and political weakness at home. In fact, the regime the Soviets established in Afghanistan was so formidable that it managed to survive for three years after the Red Army left.

Of course, history is not without genuine insurgent successes. Fidel Castro’s victory in Cuba is probably the best known, and there was the IRA’s partial triumph in 1922, as well as Algeria’s defeat of the French between 1954 and 1962. But the list of failed insurgencies is longer: Malayan Communists, Greek Communists, Filipino Huks, Nicaraguan Contras, Communists in El Salvador, Che Guevara in Bolivia, the Boers in South Africa (twice), Savimbi in Angola, and Sindero Luminoso in Peru, to name just a few. If the current U.S. administration maintains its will, establishes security in Baghdad, and succeeds in building a functioning government and army, there is no reason that the Iraqi insurgency cannot be similarly destroyed, or at least reduced to the level of terrorist thugs.

Insurgencies generally fail if all they are able to do is fight an irregular war. Successful practitioners of the guerrilla art from Nathanael Greene in the American Revolution to Mao Zedong in the Chinese Civil War have insisted upon having a regular army for which their guerrilla forces served mainly as an adjunct. Insurgencies also have inherent weaknesses and disadvantages vis-à-vis an established state. They lack governmental authority, established training areas, and secure supply lines. The danger is that insurgents can create these things, if given the time to do so. And, once they have them, they are well on their way to establishing themselves as a functioning and powerful alternative to the government. If they reach this point, they can very well succeed.

That’s why the real question in Iraq is not whether the insurgency can be defeated—it can be. The real question is whether the United States might have already missed its chance to snuff it out. The United States has failed to provide internal security for the Iraqi populace. The result is a climate of fear and insecurity in areas of the country overrun by insurgents, particularly in Baghdad. This undermines confidence in the elected Iraqi government and makes it difficult for it to assert its authority over insurgent-dominated areas. Clearing out the insurgents and reestablishing security will take time and a lot of manpower. Sectarian violence adds a bloody wrinkle. The United States and the Iraqi government have to deal with Sunni and Shia insurgencies, as well as the added complication of al Qaeda guerrillas.

But the strategy of “surging” troops could offer a rare chance for success—if the Pentagon and the White House learn from their past mistakes. Previously, the U.S. military cleared areas such as Baghdad’s notorious Haifa Street, but then failed to follow up with security. So the insurgents simply returned to create havoc. As for the White House, it has so far failed to convince the Iraqi government to remove elements that undermine its authority, such as the Mahdi Army. Bush’s recent speech on Iraq included admissions of these failures, providing some hope that they might not be repeated.

That’s welcome news, because one thing is certain: time is running out. Combating an insurgency typically requires 8 to 11 years. But the administration has done such a poor job of managing U.S. public opinion, to say nothing of the war itself, that it has exhausted many of its reservoirs of support. One tragedy of the Iraq war may be that the administration’s new strategy came too late to avert a rare, decisive insurgent victory.


Donald Stoker is professor of strategy and policy for the U.S. Naval War College’s Monterey Program. His opinions are his own. He is the author or editor of a number of works, including the forthcoming From Mercenaries to Privatization: The Evolution of Military Advising, 1815-2007 (London: Routledge, 2007).
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3689_______________________________________________________________

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What Happened At Three Ex-Terrorists Speaking Event At University of Michigan Last Night.

 "We should raise our flag, our American flag, and say, Allah bless America," Saleem said. "Because - after all - if we don't like her, we should leave her."  Kamal Saleem, One of Three Ex-Terrorists Speakers. 

The three men billed as ex-terrorists - Walid Shoebat, Zachariah Annani and Kamal Saleem - speak in Rackham Auditorium last night.
(DEREK BLUMKE/Daily)


LSA junior Hanan Dakhlallah protests the speakers. (PETER SCHOTTENFELS/Daily)


Department of Public Safety officers remove a heckler during last night's speech by three men billed as ex-terrorists in Rackham auditorium. (DEREK BLUMKE/Daily)


From: The Michigan Daily
A fury over 'ex-terrorists'

Protesters say event promotes intolerance

Lisa Haidostian and Daniel Trump

Posted: 1/31/07

More than 300 people - including both students and non-students - protested an event last night organized by the University's chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom called "Terrorism: The World's Greatest Threat."

Billed as a lecture by three ex-terrorists, the event drew opposition from several student groups and the Michigan office of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

A large crowd gathered outside of the Rackham Building an hour before the event's scheduled 7 p.m. start. Flashes of yellow shirts worn by the protesters showed through the winter coats of many in the crowd.

A half hour before the event, YAF Chair Andrew Boyd shouted "We're ready!" and the doors to the auditorium opened. The aisles filled immediately with people in yellow shirts, who had gathered early for the event.

As the protesters rushed to fill seats, already-seated YAF members stuck their feet out into the aisles.

After the initial surge, seats continued to fill steadily.

By the time the event began, protesters make up about a quarter of the audience.

Once the auditorium reached capacity, YAF Vice President Ryan Fantuzzi took the microphone.

"I ask those who would like to disrupt this event to leave as soon as possible," he said. "There are many who support peace and freedom who would like your seat."

But the protesters didn't get up.

The first speaker was Kamal Saleem, who said he was recruited by the Palestine Liberation Organization when he was 7 and trained with live weapons to fight Israelis.

A website for the three speakers says Saleem converted to Christianity after being treated by a Christian doctor.

"We should raise our flag, our American flag, and say, Allah bless America," Saleem said. "Because - after all - if we don't like her, we should leave her."

As Saleem finished this remark, much of the crowd roared with applause while others were silent or voiced their disapproval.

"If we don't like her we should change her," a woman in the back of the auditorium yelled.

After 15 minutes of Saleem's speech, the heckling intensified to the point where Saleem stopped speaking and asked the woman to "shut up."

"Why aren't the moderate Muslims protesting about the extremists of their faith?" he asked the crowd again prompting loud applause.

After 30 minutes, the protesters in yellow stood up and walked out. There was some jeering from the remaining audience, but the exit went off with little incident.

Roughly a quarter of the seats in the auditorium emptied during the walkout.

After an hour, Fantuzzi took to the stage and issued a warning to the same woman who had continually heckled the speaker. She ignored the warning, and Department of Public Safety officers escorted her from the building.

Sirene Abou-Chakra, one of the organizers of the protest, condemned the woman's behavior.

Walid Shoebat, the last speaker, drew cheers from the remaining members of the audience with his final remark.

"We will have peace when we love our children more than we love peace," he said.

After the event, about 30 people lined up to meet the three men.

While the speakers at the root of the controversy were answering questions, the protesters were holding a meeting of their own.

The swarm of protesters, mostly students, made their way to the Michigan League Ballroom to discuss the protest and the goals of the Arab and Muslim community.

"The main purpose of the protest is to really call out the fact that this program is generalizing an entire group of people and saying the actions of a few represent everyone," Abou-Chakra said in an interview before the event.

Muslim Student Association Vice President Abdul-Rahman El Sayed, who spoke at the protester's counter event, said he was elated at the success of the walkout.

"We've done something good today, and we need to keep that going in the future," he said.

Some in the audience, however, found the walkout disruptive and ineffective.

"The protesters deprived themselves of a voice," said LSA junior Jasper Kigar. "They should not have walked out. "

The event's purpose was to educate the campus community about the dangers of Muslim extremism, not promote intolerance, Boyd said in an interview before the speeches.

All Credit Given to: Lisa Haidostian and Daniel Trump and The Michigan Daily

© Copyright 2007 Michigan Daily
Article can be found at: http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2007/01/31/CampusLife/A.Fury.Over.exTerrorists-2687776.shtml?sourcedomain=www.michigandaily.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From:       The Detroit News


January 31, 2007   Ann Arbor

Panel on terrorists draws crowd, protests

Some have called three speakers at U-M fakes; organizers says they wanted to improve cultural climate.

Marisa Schultz / The Detroit News

ANN ARBOR -- Amid hecklers, an apparent death threat and a staged walkout, a panel discussion by three self proclaimed "ex-terrorists" managed to carry on at University of Michigan's Rackham Auditorium on Tuesday night.

"Yes, we confess we were terrorists, but by confession we can begin to heal," said Walid Shoebat, one of those who spoke at the event marked by outbursts, protests and disappointed students turned away from the auditorium crowded with more than 1,000 people.

The men, who say they committed acts of terror against Jews, were invited to speak by the conservative student group Young Americans for Freedom, which wanted to discuss differences between the extremist Muslims and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims, according to group co-chairman Andrew Boyd.

However, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and at least one expert on jihad have called the men fakes.

"Without doubt, the threat from political extremism is serious, and the threat of homegrown jihadism is growing, but this type of extremist language is as much a threat to stability as a bomb attack itself," said Tom Quiggin, an expert on global jihadism who has researched one of the ex-terrorist's stories.

Shoebat, who is American, was joined by Kamal Saleem, another U.S. citizen, and Zachariah Anani, a Windsor resident. Anani was recently targeted by Islamist groups, which threatened his life if he spoke at U-M, according to his representative.

Shoebat and Saleem say they are former members of the Palestine Liberation Organization, according to their Web site. Shoebat said he participated in acts of terror against Israel and was later imprisoned in Jerusalem.

Anani was a teen militia fighter, where he was trained to kill Jews, according to www.3xterrorists.com. He says he killed 223 people.

Students opposed to the speakers wearing maize walked out of the event midway as a way to symbolically to protest the message. Once the 200 students left, scores waiting outside were refused entry.

U-M freshman Kamelya Youssef, who helped organize the symbolic protest, said if the true intention of Young Americans for Freedom was to improve the cultural climate on campus, then the group should have worked with the Muslim and Arab groups.

"This is something that we feel will provoke discrimination, and this is something that is not going to improve the campus climate," she said. One heckler was removed by police, which led to a standing ovation by the crowd.

Young Americans for Freedom sparked controversy in October when it sponsored "Catch an Illegal Immigrant."

"I get so upset that people are all so politically correct, especially on this campus," Boyd said in an interview last week. "I think it's at times necessary to be more outspoken."

The ex-terrorists said they risk their lives to spread what they consider an important message.

Robert Birach, an immigration law attorney in Detroit, said the men would have had to have disclosed their affiliation with the PLO on their applications to become U.S. citizens if what they claim is true.

"Failure to list the affiliation on the citizenship application is enough to go back and open the file and charge them with fraud and perjury," Birach said.

"And now they are admitting to being former terrorists. So under the Real ID Act, that's enough for their removal from the United States."

You can reach Marisa Schultz at (313) 222-2310 or mschultz@detnews.com.

All Credit given to: Marisa Schultz / The Detroit News

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070131/METRO/701310398/1003

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Three Ex-Terrorists: 'I'll give you a hundred dollars for every peace sentence in the Quran, and you give me five dollars for every hate sentence."

"Anani cited an incident in Ottawa during which he said a Jewish girl stood up and defended the Quran at one of his speeches."

"I asked her if she had ever read it and she said no," Anani said. "I told her, 'I'll give you a hundred dollars for every peace sentence in the Quran, and you give me five dollars for every hate sentence. You'll pay me a fortune.' "
 


From the Michigan Daily

An Update on Three Ex-Terrorists to Speak In 2 Hours on University of Michigan's Ann Arbor, Michigan Campus
.

The Michigan Daily is a student run newspaper serving the University of Michigan

Event billed as speech by ex-terrorists draws ire

Daniel Trump, For the Daily

Posted: 1/30/07

Although Zachariah Anani is being billed as one of three ex-terrorists who will speak at 7 p.m. in Rackham Auditorium tonight, he said the label doesn't apply to him.

"I wasn't a terrorist," he said. "I was only a militant fighter in a civil war."

The University's chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, a right-wing student group, is sponsoring the event. In promotional materials for tonight's event, Anani, Walid Shoebat and Kamal Saleem are referred to as former terrorists.

"They created this picture," Anani said.

The event has drawn allegations of hate speech from the Michigan office of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, whose representatives asked the University administration to block it.

Members of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee met with University administrators to voice their concerns yesterday afternoon. But the event will go on as scheduled.

Imad Hamad, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's state director for Michigan, said he is worried about the effect this event will have on the public impression of Islam.

"We can't take terrorists and put them through rehab and make them role models," Hamad said. "We can't do extreme makeover on terrorists."

Anani was born in Lebanon. When he was a teenager, he joined a small, local group of militant youths at the age of 13, supported by the Palestinian Liberation Organization, he said. Anani claims to have killed 223 people by the time he was 17, when he converted to Christianity.

University spokeswoman Kelly Cunningham said in written statement that the administration acknowledged the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's concerns.

"Both the (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee ) and the University agreed on the importance of the free expression of ideas in an academic community," Cunningham said.

Anani said he cooperated with law enforcement authorities in Canada to secure asylum, but in an interview he downplayed the degree to which he participated in terrorist activities.

"I was in battlefields, not stopping people on streets like they do now," he said. "Today, when you think of a terrorist, you think of a suicide bomber. In my time, suicide meant you're outnumbered and you go out and fight and die."

Hamad questioned Anani's claims.

"Where is the FBI? Where is the (Immigration and Naturalization Service) to strip his citizenship, as they did with so many others with so fewer allegations?" he asked.

In response to the allegations that Anani is not a former terrorist, YAF Vice President Ryan Fantuzzi said, "(The allegation) sounds absurd to me. I know nothing about it. Why would someone be making death threats against him if he wasn't a terrorist?"

After a speech in Windsor last week, Anani reported receiving death threats and having his car vandalized.

"That's the story of my life. When they will take me out, they will take me out," he said.

He is now an advocate against what he calls "the violent doctrines of Islam," which he says are followed by "radical, orthodox Muslims."

When asked if those radical clerics who advocate violence have an incorrect interpretation of Islam, Anani said, "Unfortunately, no."

Anani cited an incident in Ottawa during which he said a Jewish girl stood up and defended the Quran at one of his speeches.

"I asked her if she had ever read it and she said no," Anani said. "I told her, 'I'll give you a hundred dollars for every peace sentence in the Quran, and you give me five dollars for every hate sentence. You'll pay me a fortune.' "

That's the sort of message that students like Kamelya Youssef, co-founder of a new University student group called the Arab Unity Movement, oppose.

"It's not correct," she said. "They're giving terrorism a religion. Terrorism is a concept, you can't put a face or a religion on it."

Youssef is part of a coalition of student groups planning a walkout during the event.

"We all agreed that this event won't improve the campus climate with regard to Arab and Muslim students," she said.

The protesters are planning their own alternative event to take place after the walkout.

Both sides of the issue claim to have the same purpose - to teach people.

"We're here to educate," said Keith Davies, director of the Walid Shoebat Foundation, a small Christian Zionist organization that promotes the three speakers and their message.

"It's not about hate," Davies said. "We love Muslims, we love Hindus, we love everybody. It's the ideology we oppose."

The protesters and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said they respect the speakers' First Amendment rights.

"The point is not to censor," Hamad said.

Another member of the Arab Unity Movement, Sirene Abou-Chakra, was also planning to walk out of the event.

"We obviously promote freedom of speech," she said. "But we feel that this event is very inflammatory."

Fantuzzi said he wasn't worried about the protesters.

"As long as everyone follows the rules, and no one violates our freedom of speech … we'll be fine," he said.

Hamad said he hopes people won't listen to the speakers.

"They have nothing to say except to spread hatred, division, animosity and hostility against Islam," he said. "This is a show. They are acting."

All Credit Given To the Michigan Daily
http://www.michigandaily.com/
2007 Michigan Daily
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Weekend Anti-War Protest: Peace? "Violence"? Anarchy?

"These anarchists enjoy joining a rally of sheep (maybe most are sheep) and then running off to some area and acting the fool with their "revolutionary", willing to make a "real" statement actions. What kind of actions? Spray-painting some steps or breaking a window? An 11-year old juvenile delinquent could do more "revolutionary" activity. Until you show the ones that hold power that you are willing to give up your *life* for what you believe in, like Malcolm X, then you're just a clown in black, not fooling anybody. How about doing something really revolutionary like staying away from the next sheep rally? Create your own actions. Don't associate yourself/smear others (sheep as you call them) with your clownish, pathetic acts. Sadly the CIA doesn't have to pay you, you're such tools you do it for free."    "Peace? "Violence"? Anarchy?    Comment by sheep   in DC Indymedia.com


VIDEO] Protesters rage at US soldier at anti-war protest

'Peace' Rally? - Protesters rage at US soldier at anti-war protest

www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.h... - 1k - 2007-01-30


[VIDEO] Demonstrators in Wash. spit on soldier; attack FOX News satellite ...

Anti-War Protest - Demonstrators in Wash. spit on soldier; attack FOX News satellite truck

www.foxnews.com/video2/launchPage.h... - 1k - 2007-01-29



FOXNews.com

US      Video

Crowds on Both Coasts Protest Iraq War

Saturday, January 27, 2007

By CALVIN WOODWARD and LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writers

ADVERTISEMENT

WASHINGTON — 

Convinced this is their moment, tens of thousands marched Saturday in an anti-war demonstration linking military families, ordinary people and an icon of the Vietnam protest movement in a spirited call to get out of Iraq.

Celebrities, a half-dozen lawmakers and protesters from distant states rallied in the capital under a sunny sky, seizing an opportunity to press their cause with a Congress restive on the war and a country that has turned against the conflict.

Marching with them was Jane Fonda, in what she said was her first anti-war demonstration in 34 years.

"Silence is no longer an option," Fonda said to cheers from the stage on the National Mall. The actress once derided as "Hanoi Jane" by conservatives for her stance on Vietnam said she had held back from activism so as not to be a distraction for the Iraq anti-war movement, but needed to speak out now.

The rally on the Mall unfolded peacefully, although about 300 protesters tried to rush the Capitol, running up the grassy lawn to the front of the building. Police on motorcycles tried to stop them, scuffling with some and barricading entrances.

Protesters chanted "Our Congress" as their numbers grew and police faced off against them. Demonstrators later joined the masses marching from the Mall, around Capitol Hill and back.

About 50 demonstrators blocked a street near the Capitol for about 30 minutes, but they were dispersed without arrests.

United for Peace and Justice, a coalition group sponsoring the protest, had hoped 100,000 would come. They claimed even more afterward, but police, who no longer give official estimates, said privately the crowd was smaller than 100,000.

In California, smaller rallies were held in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Sacramento.

At the rally, 12-year-old Moriah Arnold stood on her toes to reach the microphone and tell the crowd: "Now we know our leaders either lied to us or hid the truth. Because of our actions, the rest of the world sees us as a bully and a liar."

The sixth-grader from Harvard, Mass., organized a petition drive at her school against the war that has killed more than 3,000 U.S. service-members, including seven whose deaths were reported Saturday.

More Hollywood celebrities showed up at the demonstration than buttoned-down Washington typically sees in a month.

Actor Sean Penn said lawmakers will pay a price in the 2008 elections if they do not take firmer action than to pass a nonbinding resolution against the war, the course Congress is now taking.

"If they don't stand up and make a resolution as binding as the death toll, we're not going to be behind those politicians," he said. Actors Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins also spoke.

Fonda was a lightning rod in the Vietnam era for her outspoken opposition to that war and her advocacy from Hanoi at the height of that conflict. Sensitive to the old wounds, she made it a point to thank the active-duty service-members, veterans and Gold Star mothers who attended the rally.

She drew parallels to the Vietnam War, citing "blindness to realities on the ground, hubris ... thoughtlessness in our approach to rebuilding a country we've destroyed." But she noted that this time, veterans, soldiers and their families increasingly and vocally are against the Iraq war.

The House Judiciary Committee chairman, Rep. John Conyers, threatened to use congressional spending power to try to stop the war. "George Bush has a habit of firing military leaders who tell him the Iraq war is failing," he said, looking out at the masses. "He can't fire you." Referring to Congress, the Michigan Democrat added: "He can't fire us.

"The founders of our country gave our Congress the power of the purse because they envisioned a scenario exactly like we find ourselves in today. Not only is it in our power, it is our obligation to stop Bush."

White House spokesman Trey Bohn responded that Conyers "needs to learn the difference between fact and fable, between a soundbite and a slur." He said Conyers' "assertion that the president fires generals with whom he disagrees is flat wrong."

On the stage rested a coffin covered with a U.S. flag and a pair of military boots, symbolizing American war dead. On the Mall stood a large bin filled with tags bearing the names of Iraqis who have died.

A small contingent of active-duty service members attended the rally, wearing civilian clothes because military rules forbid them from protesting in uniform.

Air Force Staff Sgt. Tassi McKee, 26, an intelligence specialist at Fort Meade, Md., said she joined the Air Force because of patriotism, travel and money for college. "After we went to Iraq, I began to see through the lies," she said.

In the crowd, signs recalled the November elections that defeated the Republican congressional majority in part because of President Bush's Iraq policy. "I voted for peace," one said.

"I've just gotten tired of seeing widows, tired of seeing dead Marines," said Vincent DiMezza, 32, wearing a dress Marine uniform from his years as a sergeant. A Marine aircraft mechanic from 1997 to 2002, he did not serve in Iraq or Afghanistan.

About 40 people staged a counter-protest, including Army Cpl. Joshua Sparling, 25, who lost his leg to a bomb in Iraq.

He said the anti-war protesters, especially those who are veterans or who are on active duty, "need to remember the sacrifice we have made and what our fallen comrades would say if they were alive."

Bush reaffirmed his commitment to his planned troop increase in a phone conversation Saturday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The president was in Washington for the weekend. He is often is out of town during big protest days.

"He understands that Americans want to see a conclusion to the war in Iraq and the new strategy is designed to do just that," said Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

Protest organizers said the crowd included people who came on 300 buses from 40 states.

___

Associated Press writers Stephen Manning and Kasie Hunt contributed to this report

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2007Jan27/0,4675,IraqProtest,00.html
___________________________________________________________________________



Anti-war protesters spray paint Capitol building

Anti-war protesters were allowed to spray paint on part of the west front steps of the United States Capitol building after police were ordered to break their security line by their leadership, two sources told The Hill.

According to the sources, police officers were livid when they were told to fall back by U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) Chief Phillip Morse andDeputy Chief Daniel Nichols.  "They were the commanders on the scene," one source said, who requested anonymity. "It was disgusting."

After police ceded the stairs, located on the lower west front of the Capitol, the building was locked down, the source added.

A second source who witnessed the incident said that the police had the crowd stopped at Third Street, but were told to bring the police line in front of the Capitol. 

Approximately 300 protesters were allowed to take the steps and began to spray paint "anarchist symbols" and phrase such as "Our capitol building" and "you can’t stop us" around the area, the source said.

Morse responded to these claims in an e-mail Sunday afternoon explaining that the protesters were seeking confrontation with the police.

"While there were minor instances of spray painting of pavement by a splinter group of Anarchists who were seeking a confrontation with the police, their attempts to breach into secure areas and rush the doors of the Capitol were thwarted," Morse said. "The graffiti was easily removed by the dedicated [Architect of the Capitol] staff, some of whom responded on their day off to quickly clean the area."

He added, "It is the USCP's duty and responsibility to protect the Capitol complex, staff and public while allowing the public to exercise their First Amendment rights … at the end of the day, both occurred without injury to protestors or officers."

Yet, the sources who talked to The Hill were furious that protesters were not stopped before reaching the Capitol.

"To get that close to the Capitol building, that is ridiculous," the second source said. "[Police] were told not to arrest anyone."

The second source added that police had to stand by and watch as protesters posed in front of their graffiti.

Tens of thousands of people rallied on the Mall and the Capitol complex Saturday in protest of the increased troop deployments and the war in Iraq.

The contents of this site are © 2007 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications Inc.

http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/012507/protesters.html

______________________________________________________________________________________

Protestors lay seige to US Capitol, smash window at military recruiter

Congress and military recruiters both got a small sample of what will happen if the US invades Iran, brings back the draft-or maybe just stays in Iraq two more years-from anticapitalist marchers during the larger Jan 27th antiwar mobilization.
new_hope_surge_of_resistance_j27.mp3
New_Hope_Surge_of_Resistance_J27.mp3 (1768 k)
iraq_j27_seige_of_the_capitol.mp3
Iraq_J27_Seige_of_the_Capitol.mp3 (3521 k)
iraq_j27_recruiter_smashed.mp3
Iraq_J27_recruiter_smashed.mp3 (3029 k)
At the start of the march I joked that SDS, the organizers, would have to "make their bones or leave their bones." Well, they've made their mark in a big way today!

The march from Dupont Circle started out with 150 people or so, but grew as reinforcing contingents joined in at seveal points. In front were "tower" shields like those used by Roman soldiers or riot cops today.

We passed through the shopping area in Chinatown on the way to the Capitol, and all the yuppies there wer reminded that children are being killed in Iraq while they shop and dine.

The real action begain at the US Capitol, where Congressional Democrats are trying to shirk their responsabiity to block the surge, cut off funding for the war, and impeach buth Bush and Cheney. These are the things they were elected to do, ant ALL parts of today's action are a reminder that they had better get in the fight.

At the Capitol, police tried to block anyone from going past Third St, but were quickly bypassed by goign between parked cars. Capitol police then tried to hold the line, but a bulge formed and their lines collapsed under the sheer weight of hundreds of furious people with tower shields in front.

The cops were pused back, the crowd turned the corner and flanked them, and finally they abandoned the reflecting pool and fell back to 1st st. The crowd soon followed, and police lines wer pushed back again, with resistance stiffenign at the Capitol steps. We got the plaza ther but no further-so people flanked out again, finally laying seige to the south entrance(House side) of the Capitol.

Here things stabilized, and eventually marchers moved on as the main march got going.

It appeared that when the main march lead elements got back to the mall, others were still elaving the mall, thus surrounding the entire US capitol with hundreds of thousands of protestors. This in combination with the earlier action amounted to a true seige of Capitol Hill!

When the main march ended, anticapitalist proestors moved back into the streets of NW, and decided to protest at the military recruiters at 14th and L sts. Once there, someone threw a rock, smashing the recruiter's window damned good.

At this point, cops boiled up like angry hornets-onloy to be told by someone that mass arrests wer out of the question. Nobody was arrested but several people were punched.

AN INDEPENDANT REPORTER WAS PUNCHED IN THE FACE BY A COPT FOR TAKING NOTES ON THIS INCIDENT-interview included in the audio piece.

Unable to make mass arrests after setting their perimeter, cops had to let everyone elave, at which point people headed back to the Mall-and again to the US Capitol.

At the Capitol for the second time, there were repeated threats of mass arrest, and people wer forced off the Capitol grounds, but no arrests reported as of 6PM Jan 27.

This is but a tiny taste of what will happen if the tens of millions of people who voted NO on Republican rule in November are betrayed by Nancy Pelosi or Hillery Clinton.

WE'LL BE BACK!

AUDIO:

First piece is stirring "New Hope-Surge of Resistance" intro

Second piece is Seige of the Capitol coverage

Third is coverage of the march on the recruiting center


http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/137573/index.php

January 27 March on Washington Reports