Texas Gentleman

Myths of Iraq By Ralph Peters During a recent visit to Baghdad, I saw an enormous failure. On the part of our media. The reality in the streets, day after day, bore little resemblance to the sensational claims of civil war and disaster in the headlines. No one with first-hand experience of Iraq would claim the country's in rosy condition, but the situation on the ground is considerably more promising than the American public has been led to believe. Lurid exaggerations and instant myths obscure real, if difficult, progress. I left Baghdad more optimistic than I was before this visit. While cynicism, political bias and the pressure of a 24/7 news cycle accelerate a race to the bottom in reporting, there are good reasons to be soberly hopeful about Iraq's future. Much could still go wrong. The Arab genius for failure could still spoil everything. We've made grave mistakes. Still, it's difficult to understand how any first-hand observer could declare that Iraq's been irrevocably "lost." Consider just a few of the inaccuracies served up by the media: Claims of civil war. In the wake of the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a flurry of sectarian attacks inspired wild media claims of a collapse into civil war. It didn't happen. Driving and walking the streets of Baghdad, I found children playing and, in most neighborhoods, business as usual. Iraq can be deadly, but, more often, it's just dreary. Iraqi disunity. Factional differences are real, but overblown in the reporting. Few Iraqis support calls for religious violence. After the Samarra bombing, only rogue militias and criminals responded to the demagogues' calls for vengeance. Iraqis refused to play along, staging an unrecognized triumph of passive resistance. Expanding terrorism. On the contrary, foreign terrorists, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, have lost ground. They've alienated Iraqis of every stripe. Iraqis regard the foreigners as murderers, wreckers and blasphemers, and they want them gone. The Samarra attack may, indeed, have been a tipping point--against the terrorists. Hatred of the U.S. military. If anything surprised me in the streets of Baghdad, it was the surge in the popularity of U.S. troops among both Shias and Sunnis. In one slum, amid friendly adult waves, children and teenagers cheered a U.S. Army patrol as we passed. Instead of being viewed as occupiers, we're increasingly seen as impartial and well-intentioned. The appeal of the religious militias. They're viewed as mafias. Iraqis want them disarmed and disbanded. Just ask the average citizen. The failure of the Iraqi army. Instead, the past month saw a major milestone in the maturation of Iraq's military. During the mini-crisis that followed the Samarra bombing, the Iraqi army put over 100,000 soldiers into the country's streets. They defused budding confrontations and calmed the situation without killing a single civilian. And Iraqis were proud to have their own army protecting them. The Iraqi army's morale soared as a result of its success. Reconstruction efforts have failed. Just not true. The American goal was never to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure in its entirety. Iraqis have to do that. Meanwhile, slum-dwellers utterly neglected by Saddam Hussein's regime are getting running water and sewage systems for the first time. The Baathist regime left the country in a desolate state while Saddam built palaces. The squalor has to be seen to be believed. But the hopeless now have hope. The electricity system is worse than before the war. Untrue again. The condition of the electric grid under the old regime was appalling. Yet, despite insurgent attacks, the newly revamped system produced 5,300 megawatts last summer--a full thousand megawatts more than the peak under Saddam Hussein. Shortages continue because demand soared--newly free Iraqis went on a buying spree, filling their homes with air conditioners, appliances and the new national symbol, the satellite dish. Nonetheless, satellite photos taken during the hours of darkness show Baghdad as bright as Damascus. Plenty of serious problems remain in Iraq, from bloodthirsty terrorism to the unreliability of the police. Iran and Syria indulge in deadly mischief. The infrastructure lags generations behind the country's needs. Corruption is widespread. Tribal culture is pernicious. Women’s rights are threatened. And there's no shortage of trouble-making demagogues. Nonetheless, the real story of the civil-war-that-wasn't is one of the dog that didn't bark. Iraqis resisted the summons to retributive violence. Mundane life prevailed. After a day and a half of squabbling, the political factions returned to the negotiating table. Iraqis increasingly take responsibility for their own security, easing the burden on U.S. forces. And the people of Iraq want peace, not a reign of terror. But the foreign media have become a destructive factor, extrapolating daily crises from minor incidents. Part of this is ignorance. Some of it is willful. None of it is helpful. The dangerous nature of journalism in Iraq has created a new phenomenon, the all-powerful local stringer. Unwilling to stray too far from secure facilities and their bodyguards, reporters rely heavily on Iraqi assistance in gathering news. And Iraqi stringers, some of whom have their own political agendas, long ago figured out that Americans prefer bad news to good news. The Iraqi leg-men earn blood money for unbalanced, often-hysterical claims, while the Journalism 101 rule of seeking confirmation from a second source has been discarded in the pathetic race for headlines. To enhance their own indispensability, Iraqi stringers exaggerate the danger to Western journalists (which is real enough, but need not paralyze a determined reporter). Dependence on the unverified reports of local hires has become the dirty secret of semi-celebrity journalism in Iraq as Western journalists succumb to a version of Stockholm Syndrome in which they convince themselves that their Iraqi sources and stringers are exceptions to every failing and foible in the Middle East. The mindset resembles the old colonialist conviction that, while other "boys" might lie and steal, our house-boy's a faithful servant. The result is that we're being told what Iraqi stringers know they can sell and what distant editors crave, not what's actually happening. While there are and have been any number of courageous, ethical journalists reporting from Iraq, others know little more of the reality of the streets than you do. They report what they are told by others, not what they have seen themselves. The result is a distorted, unfair and disheartening picture of a country struggling to rise above its miserable history. Ralph Peters is a retired U.S. Army officer and the author of 20 books, including the recent New Glory: Expanding America's Global Supremacy.

----------------------------------------------------------------- By Walter E. Williams Mar 1, 2006 High up on my list of annoyances are references to the United States as a democracy and the suggestion that Iraq should become a democracy. The word "democracy" appears in neither of our founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence nor the U.S. Constitution. Our nation's founders had disdain for democracy and majority rule. James Madison, in Federalist Paper No. 10, said in a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said that "in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall added, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." The founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered under King George III. Their vision for us was a republic. But let's cut to Iraq and President Bush's call for it to become a democracy. I can't think of a worse place to have a democracy -- majority rule. Iraq needs a republic like that envisioned by our founders -- decentralized and limited government power. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange. Democracy, what the Bush administration calls for, is different. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. The law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws aren't necessarily based upon reason but power. In other words, democracy is just another form of tyranny -- tyranny of the majority. In Iraq, Arabs are about 75 percent of the population, Kurds about 20 percent and Turkomen and Assyrian the balance. Religiously, Shia are about 60 percent of the population, Sunni 35 percent with Christian and other religions making up the balance. If a majority-rule democracy emerges, given the longstanding hate and distrust among ethnic/religious groups, it's a recipe for conflict. The reason is quite simple. Majority rule is a zero-sum game with winners and losers, with winners having the power to impose their wills on the minority. Conflict emerges when the minority resists. The ideal political model for Iraq is Switzerland's cantonal system. Historically, Switzerland, unlike most European countries, was made up of several different major ethnic groups -- Germans, French, Italians and Rhaeto-Romansch. Over the centuries, conflicts have arisen between these groups, who differ in language, religion (Catholic and Protestant) and culture. The resolution to the conflict was to allow the warring groups to govern themselves. Switzerland has 26 cantons. The cantons are divided into about 3,000 communes. Switzerland's federal government controls only those interests common to all cantons -- national defense, foreign policy, railways and the like. All other matters are controlled by the individual cantons and communes. The Swiss cantonal system enables people of different ethnicity, language, culture and religion to live at peace with one another. As such, Switzerland's political system is well suited to an ethnically and religiously divided country such as Iraq. By the way, for President Bush and others who insist on calling our country a democracy, should we change our pledge of allegiance to say "to the democracy, for which it stands," and should we rename "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" to "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy"?

Bonfire of the Pieties Islam prohibits neither images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion. BY AMIR TAHERI Wednesday, February 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. "The Muslim Fury," one newspaper headline screamed. "The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe," said another. "The clash of civilizations is coming," warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly--though not exclusively--in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged. But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The "rage machine" was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood--a political, not a religious, organization--called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood's rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party's 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut. The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false. There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One. The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous: A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century); Kamaleddin Behzad's miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century); a painting, "Massacre of the Family of the Prophet," showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century); and Kamal ul-Mulk's portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century). Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great "lawgivers" of mankind. There has been other imagery: the Janissaries--the elite of the Ottoman army--carried a medallion stamped with the prophet's head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet's son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God. Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims "suicide martyrdom" as the highest goal for all true believers. The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa'adi's eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the "dry pious ones." And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh. Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy. Mr. Taheri is the author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002). from the Wall Street Journal

That is the New York Times... they intentionally distort anything having to do with the War in Iraq as they share a blind hatered for Bush or anyting about the war in Iraq. ITs all designed to make any efforts of the Bush Administration pursuing the liberation of Iraq look bad... They have become the Democrats propaganda machine.

February 3, 2006 Three Pillars of Wisdom Finding our footing where lunacy looms large. by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online Public relations between the so-called West and the Islamic Middle East have reached a level of abject absurdity. Hamas, whose charter pledges the very destruction of Israel, comes to power only through American-inspired pressures to hold Western-style free elections on the West Bank. No one expected the elders of a New England township, but they were nevertheless somewhat amused that the result was right out of a Quentin Tarantino movie. Almost immediately, Hamas's newly elected, self-proclaimed officials issued a series of demands: Israel should change its flag; the Europeans and the Americans must continue to give its terrorists hundreds of millions of dollars in aid; there will be no retraction of its promises to destroy Israel. Apparently, the West and Israel are not only to give to Hamas some breathing space ("a truce"), but also to subsidize it while it gets its second wind to renew the struggle to annihilate the Jewish state. All this lunacy is understood only in a larger surreal landscape. Tibet is swallowed by China. Much of Greek Cyprus is gobbled up by Turkish forces. Germany is 10% smaller today than in 1945. Yet only in the Middle East is there even a term "occupied land," one that derived from the military defeat of an aggressive power. Over a half-million Jews were forcibly cleansed from Baghdad, Damascus, Cairo, and other Arab cities after the 1967 war; but only on the West Bank are there still refugees who lost their homes. Over a million people were butchered in Rwanda; thousands die each month in Darfur. The world snoozes. Yet less than 60 are killed in a running battle in Jenin, and suddenly the 1.5 million lost in Stalingrad and Leningrad are evoked as the moral objects of comparison, as the globe is lectured about "Jeningrad." Now the Islamic world is organizing boycotts of Denmark because one of its newspapers chose to run a cartoon supposedly lampooning the prophet Mohammed. We are supposed to forget that it is de rigueur in raucous Scandinavian popular culture to attack Christianity with impunity. Much less are we to remember that Hamas terrorists occupied and desecrated the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in a globally televised charade. Instead, Danish officials are threatened, boycotts organized, ambassadors recalled — and, yes, Bill Clinton steps forward to offer another lip-biting apology while garnering lecture fees in the oil-rich Gulf, in the manner of his mea culpa last year to the Iranian mullacracy. There is now a pattern to Clintonian apologies — they almost always occur overseas and on someone else's subsidy. Ever since that seminal death sentence handed down to Salman Rushdie by the Iranian theocracy, the Western world has incrementally and insidiously accepted these laws of asymmetry. Perhaps due to what might legitimately be called the lunacy principle ("these people are capable of doing anything at anytime"), the Muslim Middle East can insist on one standard of behavior for itself and quite another for others. It asks nothing of its own people and everything of everyone else's, while expecting no serious repercussions in the age of political correctness, in which affluent and leisured Westerners are frantic to avoid any disruption in their rather sheltered lives. Then there is "President" Ahmadinejad of Iran, who, a mere 60 years after the Holocaust, trumps Mein Kampf by not only promising, like Hitler, to wipe out the Jews, but, unlike the ascendant Fuhrer, going about the business of quite publicly obtaining the means to do it. And the rest of the Islamic world, nursed on the daily "apes and pigs" slurs, can just scarcely conceal its envy that the Persian Shiite outsider will bell the cat before they do. The architects of September 11, by general consent, hide somewhere on the Pakistani border. A recent American missile strike that killed a few of them was roundly condemned by the Pakistani government. Although a recipient of billions of dollars in American aid and debt relief, and admittedly harboring those responsible for 9/11, it castigates the U.S. for violating borders in pursuit of our deadly enemies who, while on Pakistani soil, boast of planning yet another mass murder of Americans. Pakistan demands that America will cease such incursions — or else. The "else" apparently entails the threat either to give even greater latitude to terrorists, or to allow them to return to Afghanistan to destroy the nascent democracy in Kabul. American diplomats understandably would shudder at the thought of threatening nuclear Pakistan should there be another 9/11, this time organized by the very al Qaedists they now harbor. The list of hypocrisies could be expanded. The locus classicus, of course, is bin Laden's fanciful fatwas. Oil pumped for $5 a barrel and sold for $70 is called stealing resources. Tens of millions of Muslims emigrating to the United States and Europe, while very few Westerners reside in the Middle East, is deemed "occupying our lands." Israel, the biblical home of the Jews, and subsequently claimed for centuries by Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, Romans, Byzantines, Franks, Ottomans, and English is "occupied by crusader infidels" — as if the entire world is to accept that world history began only in the seventh century A.D. The only mystery is not how bizarre the news will be from the Middle East, but why the autocratic Middle Easterners feel so confident that any would pay their lunacy such attention. The answer? Oil and nukes — and sometimes the two in combination. By any economic standard, most states in the Middle East — whether characterized by monarchy, Baathism, dictatorship, or theocracy — have floundered. There are no scientific discoveries emanating from a Cairo or Damascus. It is tragic and perhaps insensitive, but nevertheless honest, to confess that the contemporary Arab world has lately given the world only two new developments: the suicide-bomb belt and the improvised explosive device. Even here there is a twofold irony: the technology for both is imported from the West. And the very tactic arises out of a desperate admission that to fight a conventional battle against a Westernized military without the cover of civilian shields, whether in Israel or Baghdad, is tantamount to suicide. Meanwhile, millions of Africans face famine and try to inaugurate democracies. Asia is in the midst of economic transformation. Latin America is undergoing fundamental political upheaval. Who cares? — our attention is glued instead on a few acres near Jericho, the mountains of the Hindu Kush, the succession patterns of Gulf Royals, and the latest ranting of an Iranian president who seems barely hinged, and without petroleum and a reactor would be accorded the global derision once reserved for Idi Amin. So take the dependency on oil away from Europe and the United States, and the billions of petrodollars the world sends yearly to medieval regimes like Iran or Saudi Arabia, and the other five billion of us could, to be frank, fret little whether such self-pitying tribal and patriarchal societies wished to remain, well, tribal. There would be no money for Hezbollah, Wahhabi madrassas, Syrian assassination teams, or bought Western apologists. The problem is not just a matter of the particular suppliers who happen to sell to the United States — after all, we get lots of our imported oil from Mexico, Canada, and Nigeria. Rather, we should worry about the insatiable American demand that results in tight global supply for everyone, leading to high prices and petrobillions in the hands of otherwise-failed societies who use this largess for nefarious activities from buying nukes to buying off deserved censure from the West, India, and China. If the Middle East gets a pass on its terrorist behavior from the rest of the world, ultimately that exemption can be traced back to the voracious American appetite for imported oil, and its effects on everything from global petroleum prices to the appeasement of Islamic fascism. Without nuclear acquisition, a Pakistan or Iran would warrant little worry. It is no accident that top al Qaeda figures are either in Pakistan or Iran, assured that their immunity is won by reason that both of their hosts have vast oil reserves or nukes or both. The lesson from all this is that in order to free the United States from such blackmail and dependency, we must at least try to achieve energy independence and drive down oil prices — and see that no Middle East autocracy gains nuclear weapons. Those principles, along with support for democratic reform, should be the three pillars of American foreign policy. Encouraging democracy is still vital to offer a third choice other than dictatorship or theocracy — especially when we now recognize the general Middle East rule: the logical successor to a shah is a Khomeini; a Zarqawi wishes to follow a fallen Saddam; a propped-up Arafat ensures Hamas; and a subsidized Mubarak will lead to the Muslim Brotherhood. Puritanical zealotry always feeds off autocratic corruption — as if lopping hands and heads is the proper antidote to military courts and firing squads. And we also know the political blame game at home: past realist failures at propping up dictators are post facto reinvented as sobriety, while the messy and belated democratic correction is derided as foolery. Even the election of Hamas and the honesty it brings are welcome news: support the process, not always the result, while stopping the subsidy and dialogue if such terrorists come to power. Let them stew in their own juice, not ours. In the meantime, until we arrive at liberal and consensual governments that prove stable, there will be no real peace. And if an Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Syria obtains nuclear weapons, there will be eventually war on an unimaginable scale, predicated on the principle that the West will tolerate almost any imaginable horror to ensure that one of its cities is not nuked or made uninhabitable. Yet if billions of petrodollars continue to pour into such traditional societies, as a result they will never do the hard political and economic work of building real societies. Instead their elites will obtain real nuclear weapons to threaten neighbors for even more concessions, as they buy support at home with the national prestige of an "Islamic bomb." Saddam almost grasped that: had he delayed his invasion of Kuwait five years until he resurrected his damaged nuclear program, Kuwait would now be an Iraqi province, and perhaps Saudi Arabia as well. In the long-term, democratization in the framework of constitutional government has the best chance of bringing relief. But for the foreseeable future the United States and its allies must also ensure that Iran, and states like it, are not nuclear, and that we wean ourselves off a petroleum dependency — to save both ourselves, the addicts, and even our enemies, the dealers of the Middle East. ©2006 Victor Davis Hanson

Army Officer Found Guilty in Iraqi's Death An Army officer was found guilty of negligent homicide late Saturday in the death of an Iraqi general at a detention camp, but was spared a conviction of murder that could have sent him to prison for life. A panel of six Army officers also convicted Chief Warrant Officer Lewis Welshofer Jr., 43, of negligent dereliction of duty. He was acquitted of assault after six hours of deliberations. Welshofer was accused of putting a sleeping bag over the head of Iraqi Maj. Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, sitting on his chest and using his hand to cover the general's mouth while asking him questions in 2003. Welshofer, who stood silently and showed no reaction when the verdict was announced, faces a dishonorable discharge and up to three years in prison for negligent homicide and three months for negligent dereliction of duty. Sentencing was scheduled for Monday. If convicted of the original murder charge, he could have been sentenced to life in prison. The defense had argued a heart condition caused Mowhoush's death, and that Welshofer's commanders had approved the interrogation technique. "What he was doing he was doing in the open, and he was doing it because he believed the information in fact would save lives," attorney Frank Spinner said. Spinner said he was disappointed with the verdict and would decide after sentencing whether to appeal. "The verdict recognizes the context in which these events took place," he said. "It was a very difficult time in Iraq. There was confusion, and they were not getting clear guidance from headquarters." Welshofer and prosecutors left without commenting. During the trial, prosecutor Maj. Tiernan Dolan described a rogue interrogator who became frustrated with Mowhoush's refusal to answer questions and escalated his techniques from simple interviews to beatings to simulating drowning, and finally, to death. "He treated that general worse than you would treat a dog and he did so knowing he was required to treat the general humanely," Dolan said. Welshofer used his sleeping bag technique in the presence of lower ranking soldiers, but never in the presence of officers with the authority to stop him, Dolan said. The treatment of the Iraqi general "could fairly be described as torture," Dolan said. In an e-mail to a commander, Dolan said, Welshofer wrote that restrictions on interrogation techniques were impeding the Army's ability to gather intelligence. Welshofer wrote that authorized techniques came from Cold War-era doctrine that did not apply in Iraq, Dolan said. "Our enemy understands force, not psychological mind games," Dolan quoted from Welshofer's message. Dolan said an officer responded by telling Welshofer to "take a deep breath and remember who we are." The defense urged jurors to consider conditions in Iraq at the time of the interrogation: Soldiers were being killed in an increasingly lethal and increasingly bold insurgency. Welshofer had to make some decisions on his own because guidance was lacking and other techniques weren't working, Spinner said. Officials believed Mowhoush had information that would "break the back of the whole insurgency," said defense attorney Capt. Ryan Rosauer. They also thought Mowhoush helping to bring foreign fighters into Iraq from across the Syrian border, he said. Several prosecution witnesses, including one whose identity is classified and who testified in a closed session, had been granted immunity in exchange for their cooperation, Spinner noted. Two soldiers who were initially charged with murder in the case also were given immunity. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ in my opinion this is a shame ! .... not because this American officer accidently killed this Iraqi General, but that he now faces : A: His life ruined with a "dishonorable discharge" from our Military Services ( a very serious handicap for the rest of his life getting a decent job ) B: That he will serve up to three years in prison for "mistreating = "torturing" an Ex-Iraqi Baathist General under Saddam turned insurgent who was instrumental in continuing to kill American soilders. Soldiers that this "convicted" Officer had a duty to protect. These Animals who strive to retain Saddams old defeated baathist regime and its methods of torture, murder, mayhem and terriorism deserve no special treatment under the auspices of any "Geneva Conventions" for warfare. They should not be privy to something they do not honor. I applaud this (now convicted) Officer for knowing what he faced ( from the American Military) for using his methods trying to save American Soldiers's and did it anyway. I do NOT believe he intended to kill this scumbag, but I will say its good one more xcumbag is not among the living. Tex

To Kill an American You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American. This was follwed by Al Qeuada's # 2 al-Zawahri's tape extolling Muslims everywhere to rise in Jihad against the Americans where ever you find them. An Australian dentist then wrote an editorial letting everyone know what an American is . just so they would know when they found one. " An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan. An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans. An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses. An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God. An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world. The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence , which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness. An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return. When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country! As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan. Americans welcome the best of everything...the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, the best services. But they also welcome the least. The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America. Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists. So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

Congratulation Iraqi's (well done) Citizens Turn Over 'Butcher of Ramadi' to Iraqi, U.S. Troops American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Dec. 9, 2005 – The terrorist known as "the Butcher of Ramadi" was detained today, turned in by local citizens in the provincial capital of Iraq's Anbar province, U.S. military officials in Iraq reported. Amir Khalaf Fanus -- listed third on a "high-value individuals" list of terrorists wanted by the 28th Infantry Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team -- was wanted for criminal activities including murder and kidnapping. Ramadi citizens brought him to an Iraqi and U.S. forces military base in Ramadi, where he was taken into custody. Fanus was well known for his crimes against the local populace. He is the highest-ranking al Qaeda in Iraq member to be turned in to Iraqi and U.S. officials by local citizens. His capture is another indication that the local citizens tire of the terrorists' presence within their community, Multinational Force Iraq officials said, adding that Iraqi and U.S. forces have witnessed increasing signs of citizens fighting the terrorists in Ramadi as the Dec. 15 national elections draw near. Officials said 1,200 more Iraqi soldiers recently have been posted in Ramadi. About 1,100 Iraqi special police commandos and a mechanized Iraqi army company completed their planned movement into the city. This plan has Iraqi security forces assuming more of the security responsibilities from the U.S. forces, officials said. As in other locations, as security improves, Iraqi police also will be introduced gradually. (From a Multinational Force Iraq news release.) http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2005/20051209_3596.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions The truth about WP By John Pike November 30, 2005 DESPITE EFFORTS to improve its image abroad, the United States has just suffered a damaging global propaganda defeat. And unfortunately, some of the wounds were self-inflicted. Three weeks ago, the world's news media erupted into a feeding frenzy over new charges that the Americans were up to their evil old tricks. The story was all too familiar: Once again, it seemed, the United States had committed unspeakable atrocities, then lied about its illegal activities and been exposed. Every day there were fresh revelations and allegations. There is just one problem. It isn't true. WP. Willy Pete. White phosphorus. For nearly a century, militaries around the world have used cascading showers of burning WP particles on the battlefield. It makes smoke to mark targets or hide friendly troops. It is also an incendiary weapon, used to burn enemy materiel and enemy combatants. WP was used effectively by U.S. troops in World War II, Korea and Vietnam. It was used by the Russians in Chechnya and all sides in the former Yugoslavia. It has remained a standard part of the U.S. arsenal. The U.S. military used it in the retaking of Fallouja a year ago. It is nasty stuff, but war is nasty. In early November, Italian state television aired a documentary about the use of white phosphorus in Fallouja. It showed video of mangled bodies said to be civilians killed by white phosphorus. The charges were sensational but, even on cursory examination, unconvincing. Nonetheless, in the days that followed, the story spread like wildfire as world news organizations gave credence to this absurdity. The U.S. government only compounded the problem by denying that WP had been used in Fallouja for anything other than illuminating the battlefield. The government flatly rejected the charge that it had been used to burn enemy combatants. This claim, however, was untrue and easily disproved. An Army Field Artillery magazine article written earlier this year by soldiers who had fired the artillery in Fallouja described "shake and bake" missions — cannons firing WP incendiary rounds along with high-explosive shells to flush out insurgents from trenches and hiding places. As usual, it is the coverup that gets you into trouble. The guilty flee where none pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion. What are the facts? What is the law? The corpses shown in the Italian documentary had blackened skin, consistent with putrefaction after death. Their decayed condition provided no indication of the cause of death — except that it was unlikely to have been white phosphorus. The bodies did not have the localized burns expected from WP particles, and their clothes were not burned as they would have been if they had been hit by a shower of WP particles. White phosphorus was indeed used to burn enemy combatants in Fallouja, but the unfortunates depicted in the Italian documentary probably died from some other cause. Furthermore, the use of white phosphorus against military targets is not prohibited by any treaty. Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets, to prevent future Dresdens. It also restricts the use of incendiary weapons against military targets adjacent to concentrations of civilians, but it only applies to bombs dropped from airplanes, not shells fired by artillery as was done in Fallouja. In any case, the United States has not ratified and is not bound by this protocol. Another argument being made is that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon, a poison gas. Bloggers soon found a couple of U.S. government websites containing documents that seemed to assert that WP was a chemical weapon. Closer reading revealed nothing of the sort. Widely ignored in all this is the ultimate source authority, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is the international agency supervising the global destruction of chemical weapons. It flatly states that "napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be [chemical weapons] agents." So with no direct evidence of an atrocity, and the United States using lawful weapons, why does most of the world now believe just the contrary? And make no mistake: This slowly emerged as a story here, but it has been a big story around the world. I was confronted with these disparate realities when I was interviewed both by CNN and CNN International a few days after the story broke. Domestic CNN, airing here in the United States, was skeptical of the scandal. CNN International, airing before an audience that had already accepted the Italian documentary as fact, took a far less skeptical approach. The two CNNs — one for the U.S. and one for everyone else — embodied the separate realities now occupied by the United States and the rest of the world. We see ourselves as well intentioned. Much of the rest of the world does not. And where was the U.S. government while our reputation was dragged through more mud? Where was the State Department's uber-spinmeister, Karen Hughes, all this time? U.S. officials were exacerbating the problem, providing easily debunked denials that simply stoked the feeding frenzy. The only scandal here is that our government allowed the nation to fall victim to clumsy, cheap anti-American propaganda. At least during the Cold War, we made the Soviets work to discredit us. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN PIKE is director of globalsecurity.org.

Our Troops Must Stay America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists. BY JOE LIEBERMAN Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut. Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn. Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress. There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it. It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority. Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right. In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it. None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country. The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead. Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory. The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them. Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week. We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle. Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come. The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq. These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too. I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates." Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi. Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut. Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

About The Reconciliation Conference in Cairo (organized by the Arab League) Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds finally found something they can agree on. They are jointly demanding that the United States set a timetable for withdrawal of its troops from their country. By calling for an eventual U.S. withdrawal, the Iraqis are buying time and perhaps also slowing the drift toward civil war. They can work on new security measures that might actually make a U.S. pullout feasible over the next two years. AND ----- They link any U.S. pullout to development of Iraqi security forces that can co-opt and contain the insurgency. ALTHOUGH ------ "We support the insurgency, but we don't support the suicide bombings," Sunni politician Mishan Jabouri said. WHAT IS galling to ALL AMERICANS in the Cairo statement is its endorsement of the Iraqi insurgency's "legitimate right" to resist U.S. occupation. Too many U.S. troops have died from insurgents' bombs for that to go down easily along with billions of US dollars to give IRAQIS a brighter future. AND EVEN THOUGH ---- THE AMERICAN plan WAS pitched to Sunni tribal leaders as a way to liberate? (TURNOVER) Anbar from the Americans (to Iraqis). The USA (and now IRAQS ) goal is a 6,000-man force that can eventually secure the Euphrates River valley, from the town of Al Qaim along the Syrian border to Ramadi. So far U.S. Marines are said to have trained ( AND EQUIPTED ) about 350 Sunni troops, with another 1,200 in the pipeline. (personally, I think that number is higher) For Americans and Iraqis who have been putting this desert force together, the aim is that it will provide an Iraqi "hold" in the new U.S. counterinsurgency strategy of "clear and hold." Explains one of the Sunni tribal leaders who organized the project: "We would like the force to be strong enough for the U.S. to get out." It's not surprising that the Iraqis want liberation? (US Troop WITHDRAWALS). But most Iraqis are wise enough to understand that a sudden U.S. pullout would be a HUGE mistake. What's the definition of success in Iraq? Perhaps Americans and Iraqis are converging on a similar formula: a stable, unified Iraq, at peace with its neighbors -- without U.S. troops. < the ONLY goal of AMERICANS . That goal is still a long way off, but Iraqis will feel they are making some progress if the new government elected in December can at least begin discussing the terms of an eventual withdrawal. It would be good if the U.S.-Iraqi project were again focused on liberation rather than occupation. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SO --- IRAQ repays AMERICANS with a "legitimate right" of SOME Iraqi/s to resist U.S. occupation (by killing them ?) while allowing them to stay for awhile because IRAQIS are not able to protect themselves from the TERRORIST ? How disgusting is THAT? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I had to re-write the authors article above TO REMOVE his anit-war, anti Bush rhetoric and bias in the name of common decency.. it can be found in its entirety here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2201584_pf.html

My apology Salim it seems I was the one that misread the article thinking it applied to the Saudi's on IRAQ TV. asking for donations to fund killing Jews. I misread "Saudi Government Official on Iqra TV". Maybe that was aired in Saudi Arabia and not Iraq TV. It is still dispicable that so many Muslims Goal is to kill the Jews by supporting these terrorist.

Thanks for your response but I think you misread the article. This article was a translation of Saudi’s presenting on Iraqi TV a program requesting DONATIONS from IRAQI’s to FUND PALESTINIAN TERRORIST , calling it Jihad and a DUTY of EVERY Muslim. This article is asking for DONATIONS FROM IRAQIS to be used to KILL JEWS in Israeli and support the suicide PALESTINAIN terrorist family’s who do this. It is NOT talking about Al Queda ( It is an AL CUD bank account that holds the funds) but it IS talking about Muslims duty to SUPPORT Jihad (translation .. KILL THE JEW) in Israel in this request for donations. That would be the PLO, Hammas and OTHER terrorist organizations who endlessly commit suicide terrorist acts against the Jews. The article has nothing to do with the attacks in Jorden and Al Queada, although Al Quaeda and Hammus, and all the OTHER ISLAMIC TERRORIST organizations are subhuman cockroaches!!! In the above context ......... can someone please tell me where the "RELIGION OF PEACE" is when so many Faithful Muslims are (committing genocide) commited to killing every Jew on Earth? ( by suicide or any other means ) I do appreciate what you wrote though and your view about Suicide Bombings and Al Queda Tex

these low life scumbag cockroaches !!! Saudi Official on Iraq TV: All Muslims Must Support Jihad – Send Money -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Send Money to Kill Innocent People September 22, 2005 No.990 Saudi Government Official on Iqra TV: All Muslims Must Support Jihad – Send Money to the Saudi Committee for Support of the Al-Quds Intifada, Account No. 98 An August 29, 2005 program on Saudi Iqra TV was devoted to supporting Jihad in Palestine. The program host began by telling all Saudis that they must donate and explained how to do so. A caption then appeared on the screen: "Saudi Committee for Support of the Al-Quds Intifada, Account No. 98, a joint account at all Saudi banks." A moderator stated that "Jihad is the pinnacle of Islam" and explained that the funds would go directly to those waging Jihad, where it would "help them carry out this mission." The program included the secretary-general of the Saudi government's Muslim World League Koran Memorization Commission, Sheikh Abdallah Basfar, who explained why it was an "obligation" for all Muslims to support Jihad. He also promised that "all of the funds sent via the known charities and organizations" would reach "your Muslim brothers." TO VIEW THIS CLIP VISIT: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=843. For more on this subject see Special Report No. 17, – "Saudi Royal Family's Financial Support to the Palestinians 1998-2003: More than 15 Billion Riyals (U.S $4 Billion.) Given to 'Mujahideen Fighters' and 'Families of Martyrs,'" http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Pa...a=sr&ID=SR1703. Caption: Jerusalem in their hearts. Host: "Palestine calls out to you – its women, children, elderly, and youth. They appeal to the generosity of the Khalifa Al-Mu'tasem within you. Wage Jihad for the sake of Allahin what you do best, in order to defend the first Qibla [direction of prayer] and the third holiest shrine. Donate, even the smallest thing, for your brothers in Palestine, and you will be blessed." Caption: The Saudi committee for support of the Al-Quds Intifada. Account No. 98, a joint account at all Saudi banks. [...] Organizer: "As the Prophet Muhammad said, Jihad is the pinnacle of Islam. A person who cannot wage Jihad with his soul is required to wage Jihad with his money, with his tongue, with his thought, and with any means at his disposal. There is no doubt that our brothers in Palestine desperately need financial support, which goes directly to this cause, and helps them to carry out this mission." [...] Sheikh Abdallah Basfar: "All the funds sent via known charities andorganizations reach your Muslim brothers, Allah be praised. Undoubtedly, this aid is obligatory and not just recommended. This is the duty of every Muslim, based on the scholars' religious ruling that supporting our brothers in Palestine is obligatory. Therefore, material support is a duty. [...] "The Prophet said: 'He who equips a fighter – it is as if he himself fought.' You lie in your bed, safe in your own home, and donate money – and Allah credits you with the rewards of a fighter. What is this? A privilege. So why this reluctance, despite all this encouragement? The Prophet said: 'He who equips a fighter – it is as if he himself fought' – and what a great difference there is between the two! What comparison is there between someone who pays money while living in comfort, and someone who sacrifices his soul for the sake of Allah, wages Jihad, and exerts efforts? There is a great difference. Yet Allah – because money is so important and since Jihad cannot be waged without it... Who will care for the families of these martyrs who sacrificed their souls? These people sacrificed their souls – can we be stingy with our money? We are not saying we should give away all our money – although it wouldn't be strange for a Muslim to do so for this cause – but a Muslim should at least donate some of his money – and money is abundant, Allah be praised. [...] "The Prophet threatened people who refrain from giving their money for the sake of Allah. He threatened them with disaster that Allah would inflict upon them before Judgment Day. The Prophet says: 'Someone who did not fight or equip a fighter – Allah will inflict disaster upon him before Judgment Day.' In other words, you, as a Muslim, have no alternative whatsoever. You have no alternative if you want to be spared Allah's torments. Allah tempts you. If you give money, you'll be rewarded. But he threatens you that if you don't give money, and you are stingy in spending your money for the sake of Allah, you should expect punishment from Allah, because Jihad is the protection of land and honor. It's a most important thing. When you repel evil from your brothers in Palestine, you repel it from yourself and from your country, your family, your daughters, and your sons. Don't think you are only protecting them – you are also protecting yourself. Furthermore, Allah is trying you with this money. Allah is testing you to see whether you spend this money for His sake. Hence, he who refrains from fighting and from donating money for the sake of Allah, Allah inflicts disaster or catastrophe upon him before Judgment Day." ......... can someone olease tell me where the "RELIGION OF PEACE" is when so many Faithful Muslims are (committing genocide) commited to killing every Jew on Earth?

Congradulations Iraq I am glad you were free to vote your conscience. I probably would have voted no because I don’t like laws of any Country based on a singular Identified Religion forced on all its people. IF I am not mistaken, Islamic doctrine (and Islamic clerics) will have some veto powers over any future Constitutional amendments or other law proposed by soon to be elected officials come this December . ( that may still be one of the sticking points, along with fair representation & equitable national resource wealth sharing between Federal, but independent Provinces.) On the other-hand, if I am not mistaken again this Constitution is only the framework document (at this point) delaying key critical points to be amended by duly elected officials of the people come the December elections. I think this vote is a great step forward and any NO votes will be part of the reminder that this CONSTITUTION still needs a great deal more work to be fully acceptable should it pass. Of course a YES vote moves the process forward more quickly. I believe it took my country approx. 13 years to be finally ratified by all the States. There have been many amendments since. It should be a growing document that amends any inequalities for all out of it when they are recognized at a later time. In either case “yes or no outcome” your elected officials (representatives) come December will have much on their plate to complete this document to the satisfaction of the people of Iraq. Thank God you are now free to voice your opinion and vote your conscience with a YES or NO vote. Congradulations to all no matter how you voted. I believe you have a win win situation. Tex Tex

deleted

CONGRADULATIONS IRAQ

The US will NOT "cut and run" under President Bush. Bush has 40 months left in Office. The article below sums up Americas Left who are powerless with GWB as President and the Republican Party controlling both Houses of Congress. America's Left will probably lose even more of what little power they now have in our 2006 elections because of their obnoxious actions since 911 and the GWOT. They are the opposition political party (Democrats) who oppose anything GWB does. Their obnoxious methods will insure them defeat again in our next US elections. As GWB has said and said often,... We will stay the course in Iraq until it is able to Govern and defend itself and no longer, or "unless asked to by the New Iraqi Government". ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ American Politics THE MYTH OF INCOMPETENCE: Last weekend I was on a radio show debating a Democratic strategist and when the subject turned to Iraq he immediately charged the Bush administration with utter incompetence in managing the war. I've never quite understood why some on the left (and the right) are so eager to make this argument, because it strikes me as neither true nor terribly convincing. Here's the problem: It's easy to sit back and see in hindsight where things could have been done differently which may - and I stress the word "may" - have led to a different result. But even those things which war critics cite most often as examples of mismanagement do not, in and of themselves, represent evidence of "incompetence". For example, it is by no means certain we would be in any better position in Iraq today if we had devoted an additional three weeks to pre-war planning, or if we had decided to try and de-Bathify the Iraqi military instead of disbanding it. Even the charge of not having enough troops in Iraq (to my mind the most legitimate criticism of the war, coming mostly from the right) is debatable. Such a policy might possibly have fueled a greater sense of occupation, strengthened the insurgency and also resulted in more U.S. casualties. There is no way of knowing what could have been based on decisions that weren't made. Set aside, for the moment, the favorable historical context of the achievements in Iraq thus far: Toppled Saddam's government in less than two weeks. Avoided doomsday scenarios of environmental and humanitarian disasters. Established provisional government. Held the most open, free and fair elections in decades. Established interim government. Reached deal on Constitution. Tomorrow a referendum on the charter and two months later, full elections. All of this accomplished in just over two and a half years with less than 2,000 U.S. combat deaths. The war in Iraq is not without problems, but despite the relentlessly negative press coverage pumped out to the public every day, from a historical perspective we've made astonishing progress. Again, setting all that aside, ask Democrats who charge the Bush administration with incompetence what they'd do differently in Iraq under the same circumstances and you get silence and a blank stare. Can they identify a single thing we should be doing in Iraq that we aren't? Is there something we should try that we haven't? John Kerry is a perfect example. Last year, after spending months formulating an Iraq policy for his general election campaign, Kerry and his advisors finally emerged with a five-point plan that didn't contain a single substantive difference from the Bush administration's policy. The best Kerry could do was to offer that he'd "do a better job persuading the international community to share the burden in Iraq." That's more platitude than policy, and it was obviously far from convincing. The other problem with the myth of incompetence is that it falls flat when put to the people responsible for running the war. Don Rumsfeld is no Michael Brown. Few people in America are as intelligent, qualified, and have as much of a track record of managerial efficiency and competence as Rumsfeld. The same can be said of Dick Cheney. Yet after decades of bi-partisan praise for their service and skill - particularly at DoD - Democrats want the country to believe these two men have suddenly morphed into complete boobs. If Democrats want to say the war in Iraq was a mistake because it simply wasn't winnable in the first place, that's one thing. History may eventually bear out the merit of such an argument. (but I doubt it) The problem, however, is that Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion forfeited the right to make that argument, because no one in their right mind would vote in favor of doing something they believed was impossible. Unable to articulate a policy difference and trapped between the pull of a fervent antiwar base and a mainstream public that remains solidly against cutting and running, Democrats abandoned debating the merits of Iraq long ago. Instead they've been focused on building the myth of Bush administration's incompetence in Iraq by touting whatever chaos and carnage is reported in the press and downplaying consequential events like tomorrow's vote. This strategy got an inadvertent boost by the domestic tragedy inflicted by Katrina last month (score another assist for the mainstream media), and the myth of incompetence will almost certainly be a major part of their effort to make electoral gains in 2006. - T. Bevan 12:15 pm Link | Email | Send To A Friend

(from todays Wall Street Journal) A Soldier's Story "The Iraqis are in the fight," says Gen. David Patraeus. BY ROBERT L. POLLOCK Saturday, October 15, 2005 12:01 a.m. WASHINGTON--David Petraeus is not a physically imposing man. Slight, and slightly awkward, he looks every bit the egghead general (he has a Princeton Ph.D.) he is. But in Iraq--where he first governed Mosul as commander of the 101st Airborne and then took over training of all Iraqi security forces in June 2004--he is something of a giant and one of the foremost authorities on many of the major questions about the war: Did we have enough troops? Which Iraqi leaders are most effective? Was it a mistake to disband Saddam's army? What is the current state of Iraqi security forces? That his answers are likely to please neither side in these debates--he simultaneously thinks Ahmed Chalabi is too uncompromising when it comes to former members of Saddam's Baath Party, but also that Mr. Chalabi is committed to reaching out to Iraqi Sunnis and "in the best position to do that of anybody in the government"--is all the more reason to listen to them. For in addition to an impressive résumé, he also has an independent mind. My encounter with the general this week is less dramatic than our first meeting--in Baghdad this August. It was the tail end of what had been a massive dust-storm and we were scheduled to fly, along with virtually the entire Iraqi government, to a graduation ceremony for security trainees at Numaniyah, southeast of the capital. Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jafaari had already canceled, citing the weather. But due solely I suspect to Gen. Petraeus's determination, our fleet of Blackhawks did in fact take off from the Green Zone helipad and fly blindly for about 15 minutes before even he had to concede that there was no choice but to turn back. My consolation prize was a surprisingly frank briefing from the general over a spartan lunch of bologna sandwiches. "You would have seen a unit in training which happened to be the Seventh Division, and those elements now have been deployed into Anbar province," he tells me on Tuesday. This time our venue is a boring Washington conference room, chosen only for its proximity to the general's other appointments of the day. Recently returned from Iraq to take command of U.S. Army training at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., his views are in demand. The week before he briefed President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the chairman of Joint Chiefs. The day of our interview, Mr. Rumsfeld is again on the schedule. Gen. Petraeus seems a little less in his element in Washington. Perhaps he's nervous, or perhaps it's just the hyperalert air of a man who knows the fate of his work of the past 15 months will largely be determined over the next two--starting with today's referendum on the proposed Iraqi Constitution. That's because the Iraqi security forces he built will face their stiffest challenge yet in trying to protect the vote, and because their future will of course be dependent on who ultimately gets elected in December. "The most important coefficient," he emphasizes, "is the political environment." As for the immediate challenge of today, Gen. Petraeus says he's not only optimistic, he thinks there's a good chance the process will actually have a galvanizing effect on morale. "The January elections were a defining moment for the Iraqi security forces," he says, by way of comparison. "They took a huge lift from those elections--their performance and the support they got from the Iraqi people following that, with several of their policemen martyring themselves to smother suicide-vest wearers. And since that time there's not a case of an Iraqi unit folding, going out the back of a police station." He's alluding, of course, to the miserable performance of Iraqi Security Forces (ISF)--both army and police--during the simultaneous Sunni and Shiite (remember Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army?) insurgencies in April 2004. Gen. Petraeus is careful (too careful) not to blame this on the strange combination of inattention and control-freakery that characterized the security strategy of L. Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority. But when pressed, he concedes he was tasked to fundamentally reshape Iraqi security forces in June that year for a reason. "The original conception for the Iraqi military was a force that would be used to defend the territorial integrity of Iraq," he says. But the interim government that assumed control of the newly sovereign country "wisely and inescapably recognized that the biggest threat to Iraq was internal, not external, and those forces that were being trained and equipped and invested in, for whom infrastructure was being rebuilt, clearly needed to help Iraq fight the insurgency." Thus was born the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq, or "min-sticky"--an awkward acronym even by military standards. One of Gen. Petraeus's frustrations is getting people to understand that things really have changed since then. "Is Joe Biden convinced?" I ask, referring to the Delaware senator who spent the summer claiming that only a handful of Iraqi battalions were of any use. "You'll have to ask him," replies the general, launching into a survey of the state of play: "There are now nearly 120 army and police combat battalions [about 750 men each] that are 'in the fight.' And 'in the fight' by the transition readiness assessment means they are either Level One, Level Two or Level Three. Now certainly, roughly 80 of those are Level Three, which means 'fighting alongside.' In other words they're fighting literally side by side with our forces. They're not yet capable of independent operations on their own." But "nearly 40 now are Level Two or better. . . . That's hugely significant because it's at Level Two, at the 'in the lead' category, that means they're doing independent operations. They're not fully independent though, and that's what Level One means. It means they need no Coalition assistance whatsoever." He offers an example: "In one case, one of the units was reassessed from One to Two. It's doing the same mission, by the way, on Haifa Street in Baghdad. It's just a case of someone being asked, 'Are you sure they're really Level One?' and he said, 'Well maybe they do need a little help from the Coalition in logistics so I guess they properly should be Level Two.' The truth is they actually got a little bit better in that month or two since they were reassessed. . . . They own their own area of operations." I can vouch for the general's assessment of the Haifa Street unit's performance, as well as that of the Iraqi forces now manning Baghdad's once-perilous airport road. I was there in June 2004, when one couldn't be sure if the few Iraqi forces visible were the real thing or impostors who might kidnap you and sell you to the highest bidder. Today smartly outfitted ISF are visible everywhere. "People keep asking, 'When will Iraqi security forces take over from Coalition forces?' " says Gen. Petraeus. "Well, they've been doing it for months. . . . There was a ceremony a few months back when Coalition forces transferred security responsibilities to Iraqis in Najaf. The same thing happened just a few weeks ago in Karbala. Mostly recently, within the last week, four districts within Baghdad have been transitioned to Iraqi security force control and I think that's roughly 20% of Baghdad." I ask the general if it was a mistake to disband Saddam's army in the first place. He responds that the decision was a much "tougher call" than most critics realize, given that there was "no infrastructure left" and it was such a "top-heavy force": "We're told there were 1,100 former brigadiers and above just in Ninevah province." Did we send too few troops of our own? He had enough when he was running Mosul, the general replies. If there is a question mark hanging over the Petraeus era, it is the massive procurement corruption that appears to have happened at the Iraqi Ministry of Defense on his watch. When I was there in August, a multitude of sources--U.S. and Iraqi, and including the new defense minister himself--told me that the ministry's budget had been essentially looted during interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's government. The independent Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit had compiled a report documenting apparent kickbacks and worthless weapons contracts, and on the day of our interview this week the judge heading Iraq's Commission on Public Integrity announced that arrest warrants had been issued for 23 officials, including former Defense Minister Hazem Shalaan. I ask Gen. Petraeus if he's aware of the development. "There is a sense, frankly, that there was some degree of corruption," he replies, but insists it involved "Iraqi money," not U.S. funds, and that some of the allegations might be "politically motivated"--both fairly feeble protestations. Building the Iraqi security forces is a joint venture in which there are not "American" and "Iraqi" funds. And the range of voices claiming corruption is too vast for it to be part of anybody's political vendetta against Mr. Allawi and his team. A better explanation, which he also cites, is that corruption appears to have been endemic--and that it occurred in many other ministries besides defense. History will likely judge poor financial oversight to have been a widespread failure of both civilian and military occupation officials. One recent change is that Deputy Prime Minister Chalabi--with whom Gen. Petraeus worked closely, and whom he clearly respects--now chairs a Contracts Committee that reviews all tenders above $3 million. Gen. Petraeus's record nonetheless remains one of massive accomplishment: He built functioning Iraqi security forces where few had existed. I ask him what he most wants Americans to understand about developments over there. "That Iraqis are in the fight," he says. "They are fighting and dying for their country and they are fighting increasingly well."

Important and Wise words from one Benjamin Franklin on the final draft of the US constitution. On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Pennsylvania delegate Benjamin Franklin, one of the few Americans of the time with international repute, rose to give a speech to the Convention prior to the signing of the final draft of the Constitution. Too weak to actually give the speech himself, he had fellow Pennsylvanian James Wilson deliver the speech. It is considered a masterpiece. Speech of Benjamin Franklin: _______________________________________ Mr. President I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right-Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison." In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administered. On the whole, Sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the Convention who may still have objections to it, would with me, on this occasion doubt a little of his own infallibility, and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument. http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html

correction: Salim and Safaa thankyou

Salim and Salim thankyou for your reply and interesting comments Tex

How accurate is this ? Inside the Iraqi constitution: Three main points still remain in dispute By Rick Jervis USA TODAY BAGHDAD — Iraqi legislators are scheduled to vote on a draft constitution today, even though Sunni Arab leaders continue to voice sharp differences with Kurdish and Shiite lawmakers. Some key questions and answers about the state of the constitutional process and the outstanding issues: Q: What major issues have been agreed to? A: Representatives of Iraq's three main factions — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds — have agreed to wording describing how Islam will influence legislation, the distribution of oil revenue and the government's structure. Q: What issues are still being debated? A: As of Wednesday, three main points were in dispute: federalism, or allowing semi-autonomous regions within Iraq; the mention of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party in the constitution; and the division of power among the president, parliament and Cabinet. Q: What does the constitution say now about federalism? A: The constitution allows for one or more of Iraq's 18 provinces to hold a referendum and form a “region” that will enjoy limited autonomy, allowing them to form a parliament, ministries and budget, says Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish legislator who is on the constitutional committee. The provision was included as a way to acknowledge the Kurdistan region to the north, which has enjoyed de-facto autonomy since 1991, Othman says. Sunni leaders have warned it will lead to other breakaway regions and the ultimate splintering of Iraq. They want the provision narrowly applied to Kurdistan, Othman says. Shiites and Kurds want the option open to all provinces. Q: What does the constitution say about purging Baathists from government positions? A: The Baath Party, which ruled Iraq for nearly four decades, is prohibited from being recognized as a political entity. The De-Baathification Commission, a group created two years ago to weed out former Baath leaders from government, is allowed to continue its work. Q: Why do Sunnis object? A: Sunni Arabs dominated the ranks of the Baath Party, giving them a stranglehold on power despite making up about 20% of Iraq's population. Sunni representatives argue that only Baath leaders accused or convicted of crimes should be barred from government, Othman says. Q: What has been decided about distributing oil revenue? A: The constitution currently says the central government in Baghdad will distribute oil and gas revenue to the regions based on population. But poorer regions and those neglected under Saddam's rule will also initially get a higher cut, the draft says. Sunni leaders worry that means more money for Shiite and Kurdish areas. Q: What does the constitution say about the role of Islam? A: The draft identifies Islam as “a major source” of legislation and prohibits the creation of laws that contradict its teachings. It also prohibits the creation of laws that contradict democratic principles and basic human rights, a provision secular Iraqis hope bars Iraq from becoming a hard-line Islamic theocracy like Iran. Kurds, who are Sunni Muslim and generally secular, joined Sunnis in opposing the strong Islamic state advocated by some Shiites. One of the most contentious issues has been the placing of “experts” on sharia, or Islamic law, on the Iraqi Supreme Court. The exact number of experts and the method of choosing them will be assigned by a law enacted by a two-thirds vote in the national assembly. Also at issue was whether to have sharia judges administrating civil cases, such as marriages, divorces and estates. On Wednesday, negotiators agreed to let individuals choose the type of judge to hear their case, Othman says. Q: Is it unusual for Islamic law to be reflected in the constitutions of Arab states? A: Egypt, Oman, Yemen, Kuwait, Syria and Saudi Arabia are among the Arab nations in which Islamic law plays a central role. Those countries vary, however, in how strictly Islamic law is applied. Q. What does the constitution say about the role of women? A. The draft constitution pledges to “pay attention to women and their rights.” It also requires that no less than 25% of the seats in the assembly be reserved for women. The constitution does not mandate religious courts, which can limit the rights of women in inheritance, marriage and other issues, but it allows people to choose between civil and religious courts. Q: Why are Kurds and Shiites so concerned about appeasing Sunnis? A: Kurdish and Shiite political groups hold 258 seats in the 275-member National Assembly and could pass the constitution. But the referendum could be voted down if two-thirds of voters in three provinces reject it. Sunnis dominate at least three of Iraq's provinces. Additionally, U.S. and Iraqi officials have been striving to include Sunnis into the political process as a key strategy in dismantling the mostly Sunni-driven insurgency. Q: What happens if the constitution is rejected by voters in the Oct. 15 referendum? A: Under Iraq's transitional law, the parliament will dissolve if the referendum fails. Elections for another transitional government will be held before Dec. 15 and the political proces will start over. If it passes, general elections are held by Dec. 15 for a permanent government. Iraq's new legislators take office by Dec. 31.

Text of the Draft Iraqi Constitution - 12 The complete text of the draft Iraqi Constitution, as translated from the Arabic by The Associated Press, part 12 of 12: SECOND: TRANSITIONAL GUIDELINES Article (142): 1st The state guarantees the welfare of political prisoners and those who were harmed by the practices of the former dictatorial regime. 2nd The state guarantees compensation to the families of martyrs and those who were wounded by terrorist acts. 3rd What is provided for in these first and second clauses will be regulated by law. Article (143): The Council of Representatives shall rely in its first session on the internal organization of the Transitional National Assembly until its own internal organization is decided. Article (144): The Supreme Iraqi Criminal Court will continue its activities as an independent judicial agency, looking into the crimes of the dictatorial regime and its leading figures. The Council of Representatives can dissolve it by law once its work is finished. Article (145): 1st The National De-Baathification Committee will continue its work as an independent body in coordination with the judiciary and the executive authorities in the framework of law regulating its work. The committee is linked to the Parliament. 2nd The Council of Representatives can dissolve the committee after it finishes its work. 3rd It is a condition upon candidates for the positions of president of the republic, prime minister, ministers, parliament speaker and parliament members, head of the Federal Council and its members and all similar posts in the regions, and members of the judiciary and other posts included under de-Baathification, that they not be included under the provisions of de-Baathification. 4th The condition mentioned in the 3rd clause of this article will remain in effect until it is abolished by law. Article (146): 1st The Property Claims Agency will continue its operations as an independent body in coordination with judicial authorities and executive bodies in accordance with the law, and it is linked to the Council of Representatives. 2nd The Council of Representatives can dissolve the agency by a two-thirds majority. Article (147): Rules in articles concerning the Council of Union wherever they appear in this constitution will not come into effect until a decision is reached by the Council of Representatives, with a two-thirds majority, in its second cycle following the enactment of this constitution. Article (148): 1st The phrase (Presidential Council) replaces the phrase (President of the Republic) wherever it appears in this constitution, and regulations concerning the president of the republic will come into effect after one session following the enactment of this constitution. 2nd (a) The Council of Representatives will elect a president for the nation and two deputies for him to form a council called the Presidential Council. It will be elected in one list with a two-thirds majority. ( The rules for removing the president of the republic in this constitution apply to the president and members of the Presidential Council. © The Council of Representatives can remove any member of the Presidential Council for reasons of lack of competence or integrity with a three-quarters majority vote by its members. (d) If any position in the Presidential Council should come empty, the Council of Representatives shall elect a replacement by a two-thirds majority. 3rd Members of the Presidential Council must meet the same conditions as those for a member of the Council of Representatives, that they must: (a) have reached 40 years of age. ( possess a good reputation, integrity and uprightness. © have left the dissolved party at least 10 years before its fall if they were members in it. (d) not have participated in the repression of the 1991 Uprising or the Anfal Campaign or have committed any crime against the Iraqi people. 4th The Presidential Council must take its decisions unanimously, and any member can delegate his position to one of the other two members. 5th (a) Laws and resolutions passed by the Council of Representatives are sent to the Presidential Council for approval by unanimity, to be issued within 10 days of the date of their arrival at the council. ( If the Presidential Council does not approve, the laws and resolutions are returned to the Council of Representatives to examine the aspects that were objected to and to vote on them once more by majority, whereupon they are sent again to the Presidential Council for approval. © If the Presidential Council does not approve the laws or resolutions again with 10 days of their arrival, they are returned to the Council of Representatives which can adopt them by a three-fifths majority of its members. This cannot be opposed and it is considered approved. 6th The Presidential Council practices the powers provided for the president of the republic until the issuing of a decision by the Council of Representatives as provided for in the 1st clause of this article. Article (149): 1st The executive authority will take the necessary steps to complete implementation of the requirements of Article (58) of the Transitional Administration Law for the Iraqi State, with all its clauses. 2nd The responsibilities placed on the executive authority provided for in Article (58) of the Transitional Administration Law for the Iraqi State are extended to and will continue for the executive authority until the completion of (normalization, census, ending with a census in Kirkuk and other disputed areas to determine the will of the people) in a period no longer than 12/31/2007. Article (150): Laws legislated in Kurdistan since 1992 remain in effect, and decisions made by the government of the Kurdistan region including contracts and court decisions are effective unless they are voided or amended according to the laws of the Kurdistan region by the concerned body, as long as they are not against the constitution. Article (151): A proportion of no less than 25 percent of the seats in the Council of Representatives is specified for the participation of women. Article (152): The Transitional Administration Law for the Iraqi State and its appendix are voided upon creation of the new government, except for what appears in paragraph (a) of Article (53) and Article (58) of the Transitional Administration Law. Article (153): This constitution comes into effect after its approval by the people in a universal referendum and its publication in the official newspaper and the election of the Council of Representatives in accordance with its provisions.

(from the NYT) PREAMBLE We the people of Iraq, newly arisen from our disasters and looking with confidence to the future through a democratic, federal, republican system, are determined -- men and women, old and young -- to respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism. We are the people of Iraq, who in all our forms and groupings undertake to establish our union freely and by choice, to learn yesterday's lessons for tomorrow, and to write down this permanent constitution from the high values and ideals of the heavenly messages and the developments of science and human civilization, and to adhere to this constitution, which shall preserve for Iraq its free union of people, land and sovereignty. .... CHAPTER ONE: Basic Principles Article (1): The Republic of Iraq is an independent, sovereign nation, and the system of rule in it is a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic. Article (2): First, Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation: a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam. No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution. Second, this constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people, and the full religious rights for all individuals, and the freedom of creed and religious practices. Article (3): Iraq is a multiethnic, multi-religious and multi-sect country. It is part of the Islamic world and its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Article (4): 1st -- Arabic and Kurdish are the two official languages for Iraq. Iraqis are guaranteed the right to educate their children in their mother tongues, such as Turkoman or Assyrian, in government educational institutions, or any other language in private educational institutions, according to educational regulations. 2nd -- the scope of ''official language'' will be defined by the law. a) issuing the official gazette in both languages speaking, addressing and expressing in official domains, like the parliament, Cabinet, courts and official conferences, will be in either of the two languages. .... Article (5): The law is sovereign, the people are the source of authorities and their legitimacy, which they exercise through direct, secret ballot and its constitutional institutions. Article (6): Government should be rotated peacefully through democratic means stipulated in this constitution. Article (7): 1st -- Entities or trends that advocate, instigate, justify or propagate racism, terrorism, ''takfir'' (declaring someone an infidel), sectarian cleansing, are banned, especially the Saddamist Baath Party in Iraq and its symbols, under any name. It will be not be allowed to be part of the multilateral political system in Iraq, which should be defined according to the law. 2nd -- The state will be committed to fighting terrorism in all its forms and will work to prevent its territory from being a base or corridor or an arena for its (terrorism's) activities. .... Article (10): The holy shrines and religious sites in Iraq are religious and cultural entities. The state is committed to maintain and protect their sanctity and ensure the exercising of (religious) rites freely in them. .... CHAPTER TWO: Rights and Freedoms Part One: Rights Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status. Article (15): Every individual has the right to life and security and freedom and cannot be deprived of these rights or have them restricted except in accordance to the law and based on a ruling by the appropriate judicial body. Article (16): Equal opportunity is a right guaranteed to all Iraqis, and the state shall take the necessary steps to achieve this. Article (17): 1st -- Each person has the right to personal privacy as long as it does not violate the rights of others or general morality. 2nd -- The sanctity of homes is protected. They cannot be entered or searched or violated except by judicial decision and in accordance with the law. .... Article (19): 1st -- The judiciary is independent, with no power above it other than the law. 2nd -- There is no crime and no punishment except by the text (of law). And there is no punishment except for an act that the law considers a crime at the time of its commission. No punishment can be enacted that is heavier than the punishment allowed at the time of the crime's commission. 3rd -- Trial by judiciary is a right protected and guaranteed to all. 4th -- The right to defense is holy and guaranteed in all stages of investigation and trial. 5th -- The accused is innocent until his guilt is proven in a just, legal court. The accused cannot be tried for the same accusation again after he has been freed unless new evidence appears. 6th -- Every individual has the right to be treated in a just manner in all judicial and administrative procedures. 7th -- Court sessions will be open unless the court decides to make them secret. 8th -- Punishment is for individuals. 9th -- Laws do not have retroactivity unless it has been legislated otherwise, and this exception does not include laws of taxes and duties. .... Article (20): Citizens, male and female, have the right to participate in public matters and enjoy political rights, including the right to vote and run as candidates. .... Part Two: Freedoms Article (35): 1st -- (a) The freedom and dignity of a person are protected. ( No one may be detained or investigated unless by judicial decision. © All forms of torture, mental or physical, and inhuman treatment are forbidden. There is no recognition of any confession extracted by force or threats or torture, and the injured party may seek compensation for any physical or mental injury that is inflicted. 2nd -- The state is committed to protecting the individual from coercion in thought, religion or politics, and no one may be imprisoned on these bases. 3rd -- Forced labor, slavery and the commerce in slaves is forbidden, as is the trading in women or children or the sex trade. Article (36): The state guarantees, as long as it does not violate public order and morality: 1st -- the freedom of expressing opinion by all means. 2nd -- the freedom of press, publishing, media and distribution. 3rd -- freedom of assembly and peaceful protest will be organized by law. Article (37): 1st -- Freedom to establish and belong to political organizations and parties is guaranteed, and it will be organized by law. 2nd -- No person can be forced to join or remain a member of a political party or organization. Article (38): The freedom of communications and exchanges by post, telegraph, telephone and by electronic and other means is guaranteed. They will not be monitored or spied upon or revealed except for legal and security necessity in accordance with the law. Article (39): Iraqis are free in their adherence to their personal status according to their own religion, sect, belief and choice, and that will be organized by law. Article (40): 1st -- The followers of every religion and sect are free in: (a) the practice of their religious rites, including the (Shiite) Husseiniya Rites. ( the administration of religious endowments and their affairs and their religious institutions, and this will be organized by law. 2nd -- The state guarantees freedom of worship and the protection of its places. Article (41): Every individual has freedom of thought and conscience. Article (42): 1st -- The Iraqi citizen has freedom of movement and travel and residence within Iraq and outside it. 2nd -- No Iraqi can be exiled or forced out or forbidden to return to his nation. CHAPTER THREE: The Federal Authorities Part One: The Legislative Authority. Article (47): The federal legislative authority is made up of the Council of Representatives and the Council of Union. First: The Council of Representatives. Article (48): 1st -- The Council of Representatives is made up of a number of members at a proportion of one seat for every 100,000 people from the population of Iraq. They represent the entire Iraqi people and are elected by general, direct, secret ballot, and they take care to represent all groups of people. .... Article (59): The Council of Representatives is given the following duties: 1st -- legislating federal laws. .... Second: The Council of Union. Article (63): 1st -- A legislative council called the ''Council of Union'' will be established and will include representatives of regions and provinces to examine bills related to regions and provinces. 2nd -- The makeup of the council, the conditions for membership and all things related to it will be organized by law. .... Part 2: The Executive Authority. First, The President. Article (65): The president of the republic is the president of the country and the symbol of the nation's unity and represents the sovereignty of the country and oversees the guarantees of adherence to the constitution, the preservation of Iraq's independence and unity and the security of its territory, in accordance to the law. .... Article (68): 1st -- The Council of Representatives elects from among the candidates a president of the republic by a two-thirds majority. 2nd -- If no single candidate gets the requires majority, the two candidates with the highest votes will compete and whoever wins a majority of votes in the second round is declared president of the republic. .... Second, the Cabinet. .... Article (76): The prime minister is the direct executive responsible for the general policy of the nation, the general commander of the armed forces and carries out the administration of the Cabinet and presides over its sessions. The prime minister has the right to remove the Cabinet, with the consent of the Council of Representatives. .... Part 3: The Judiciary Article (85): The judiciary is independent and will be represented by courts of different kinds and levels, and they will issue their rulings according to law. Article (86): Judges are independent, with no authority over them in their rulings except the law. No authority can interfere in the judiciary or in the affairs of justice. Article (87): The federal judiciary will include the Supreme Judiciary Council, the Supreme Federal Court, the Federal Cassation Court, the Prosecutor's Office, the Judiciary Inspection Department and other federal courts that are organized by law. First: The Supreme Judiciary Council Article (88): The Supreme Judiciary Council will administer judicial affairs in accordance with the law. Article (89): The Supreme Judiciary Council will exercise the following powers: 1st -- administering and supervising the federal judiciary system. 2nd -- nominating the head and members of the Supreme Federal Court and presenting their names to parliament for endorsement. 3rd -- nominating the head of the Federal Cassation Court, the chief prosecutor and the head of the Judiciary Inspection Department, and presenting them to parliament for approval. 4th -- proposing the annual budget for the federal judiciary system and presenting it to parliament for approval. Second: The Supreme Federal Court Article (90): 1st -- The Supreme Federal Court is an independent judicial body, financially and administratively, its work and its duties will be defined by law. 2nd -- The Supreme Federal Court will be made up of a number of judges and experts in sharia and law, whose number and the manner of their selection will be defined by a law that should be passed by two thirds of the parliament members. Article (91): The Supreme Federal Court will have the following duties: 1st -- overseeing the constitutionality of federal laws before they are issued. 2nd -- overseeing the constitutionality of the laws and standing regulations. 3rd -- interpreting the text of the constitution. 4th -- ruling in cases that emerge from the implementation of federal laws. 5th -- ruling in disputes between the federal government and the governments of the regions and the provinces and local administrations. 6th -- ruling in disputes between the governments of the regions or provinces. 7th -- ruling in accusations against the president of the republic, the prime minister and the ministers. 8th -- endorsing the final results of parliamentary general elections. Article (92): Resolutions of the Supreme Federal Court are bindings for all authorities.