The Cool Blue Blog

Eviction Notice

Back in May I reported on an uprising in Uzbekistan that was brutally crushed by the Uzbek government. Many innocents were killed by the government forces. But they weren't the only ones. At the time I wrote:

It is clear that the Uzbek government is under-reporting the number of deaths and refusing to allow international agencies to conduct an independent investigation. One might assume they have something to hide and most likely do.

From what I can tell, this is a big problem for US foreign policy in its attempt to promote Democracy and not coddle dictators. It is not simply a matter of the US supporting pro-Democratic forces as was likely done in neighboring Ukraine because here there is a component that is clearly willing to use violence. And this component is likely led by folks who are allied with al Qaeda and Taliban types.

Later, I read Sean Naylor's "Not A Good Day to Die" which is a thrilling account of Operation Anaconda which took place in March of 2002 in Afghanistan's Shah-i-Khot Valley. According to Mr Naylor, the enemy that was coalescing in the mountains above the valley were Afghan Taliban, Chechens and Uzbeks. Specifically a man named Tohir Abdouhalilovitch Yuldeshev. Naylor writes (in page 138)

...as analysts worked feverishly to build the intelligence picture, one name was popping up repeatedly in the chatter: Tohir Yuldeshev.

A skilled organizer and passionate orator, Tohir Abdouhalilovitch Yuldeshev was a radical Islamist from Uzbekistan's Fergana Valley who had spent the 1990s traveling to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Caucasus and elsewhere forging bonds with pan-Islamic jihadi groups.....

In 1998 he and Juma Namangani, a fellow Islamic militant from his hometown, formed the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, dedicated to the violent overthrow of Uzbek President Islam Karimov's authoritarian government and its replacement by an Islamic state.

He was know to have escaped capture during Operation Anaconda according to Naylor (page 376).

Interestingly, Yuldeshev's name surfaces as a leader of the uprising in May.

Unlike the more pacifist Hizb-ut-Tahrir, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) advocates the violent overthrow of the government. It was born in December 1991, when young Muslims seized the local Communist Party headquarters in the eastern city of Namangan. They were protesting against the mayor's refusal to allocate land for a mosque. The protesters were led by Tohir Abdoulhalilovitch Yuldeshev, a fiery 24-year- old activist in the underground Islamic movement during the Soviet era, and Jumaboi Ahmadzhanovitch Khojaiev, a former Soviet paratrooper who spent many years in military service with the Red Army in Afghanistan, during which he developed a high regard for the Afghan mujahideen and their fighting skills.

Clearly the Bush's administrations desire to promote Democracy around the world includes the replacement of Uzbekistan's repressive regime.

Just as clearly the alternative can't be Tohir Yuldeshev and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.

Despite this, the Bush Administration has called for an international investigation into the Uzbek government's actions during the May uprising and recently aided a United Nations evacuation of refugees from Uzbekistan. As a result, the Uzbek government has given the US 180 days to vacate the important US base located there.

"When we got notice of the Uzbek action Friday morning, we decided it would be inappropriate for me to go at this time," he said in an interview. "We were going to have a conversation about human rights, Andijon and the fact that the Uzbek government's failure to reform has put it in international isolation."

Mr. Burns said the United States had been "profoundly concerned" about the status of the Uzbek refuges in Kyrgyzstan who fled after the Andijon incident. "We have energetically supported the efforts to bring them to safety in Romania," he said, "because we feared they would be persecuted if they were sent back to Uzbekistan."

"We are not willing to overlook these very important human right concerns," he added.

Another State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of department ground rules, said, "Obviously we don't want to lose K-2." But he added that loss of the base was preferable to backing away from demanding that Uzbekistan start political and economic reforms and agree to an international investigation of the Andijon killings.

This is obviously an extremely precarious position in which the Administration finds itself. Yet it has decided yet again to abandon Realism as a Foreign Policy in favor of supporting, what Charles Krauthammer has called Democratic Globalism.

This conservative alternative to realism is often lazily and invidiously called neoconservatism, but that is a very odd name for a school whose major proponents in the world today are George W. Bush and Tony Blair--if they are neoconservatives, then Margaret Thatcher was a liberal. There’s nothing neo about Bush, and there’s nothing con about Blair.

Yet they are the principal proponents today of what might be called democratic globalism, a foreign policy that defines the national interest not as power but as values, and that identifies one supreme value, what John Kennedy called “the success of liberty.” As President Bush put it in his speech at Whitehall last November: “The United States and Great Britain share a mission in the world beyond the balance of power or the simple pursuit of interest. We seek the advance of freedom and the peace that freedom brings.”

Beyond power. Beyond interest. Beyond interest defined as power. That is the credo of democratic globalism. Which explains its political appeal: America is a nation uniquely built not on blood, race or consanguinity, but on a proposition--to which its sacred honor has been pledged for two centuries. This American exceptionalism explains why non-Americans find this foreign policy so difficult to credit; why Blair has had more difficulty garnering support for it in his country; and why Europe, in particular, finds this kind of value-driven foreign policy hopelessly and irritatingly moralistic.

Democratic globalism sees as the engine of history not the will to power but the will to freedom. And while it has been attacked as a dreamy, idealistic innovation, its inspiration comes from the Truman Doctrine of 1947, the Kennedy inaugural of 1961, and Reagan’s “evil empire” speech of 1983. They all sought to recast a struggle for power between two geopolitical titans into a struggle between freedom and unfreedom, and yes, good and evil.

And the fact is, that if the Uzbek government is deposed by  Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, there will be more than enough of an excuse to make sure they don't remain in power long.

 

Over Where?

In October of 2004, the Annenberg Public Policy Center did a survey of the attitudes of military members. One of the questions they asked "What was your primary reason for joining the military?"

Of enlisted personnel who served in Iraq, the highest scored reason was to serve the country, with tuition benefits coming in second at 23%. Of junior enlisted personnel, service was a near second to tuition benefits; 26% as opposed to 29%. Of NCO's, service was by far number one at 37%.

In December of 2003, the Army Times also did such a survey. They found that

•About half described their political views as conservative or very conservative; four in 10 called themselves moderate; and only 7 percent called themselves liberal.

•More than half called themselves Republicans, and just 13 percent said they are Democrats. Recent polls of the general public show the nation evenly split, with Democrats, Republicans and independents making up about a third of the population each.

•Two-thirds said they think military members have higher moral standards than the nation they serve. More than 60 percent called the country’s moral standards only fair or poor.

In follow-up interviews, service members repeatedly said the choice to serve, by itself, demonstrates moral quality above most civilians. Once in the military, many said, members are wrapped in a culture that values honor and morality.

The survey also found that

•Three of four said they would choose to continue their military career if forced to decide today. Those who would stay cited patriotism, pension and job security as top reasons. Experts said the makeup of the poll’s respondents — much older, more experienced and career-oriented than the military as a whole — likely influenced those numbers.

The Annenberg survey cited above asked the question "In your experience, what is the most satisfying thing about military service?" The most popular response was Serving the country, with Camaraderie second and benefits third favored by only 9% of the respondents.

Given that at it's lowest, one quarter joined the military with service as their primary motive, and that most find that the most satisfying thing about the military is the feeling of service to the nation, why is it that when Steven Bochco put together his FX TV show "Over There", which is set in Iraq, not one cast member joined because they wanted to serve?

OK, there was one, but he was depicted as an idiot.

In fact, it seemed to me that the "back story" on each of the characters was straight out of the Vietnam era stock character selection guide for writers; just as if the draft was never eliminated.

The tactical situation was ridiculous: a transportation squad ordered to hold a fighting position for three days? In the real world they would have been replaced by a combat arms unit within hours. No air support available for three days? Again, not a chance. And then there is the fact that the enemy, cozily holed up in a mosque, decides (after three days) to run out of their defensive positions across the desert to be cut down by our grumbling crew of transportation soldiers.

The NCO yells all the time, the LT is stupid, and the Captain is fatherly. And all three hold court at one point in range and exposed to enemy fire. Perhaps they knew that the bad guys were praying at that particular moment because no one shot at them and this outrageous error went unpunished.

The dialog was silly, the plot was silly and about the only thing the show had going for it was excellent production values.

According to the  Annenberg survey, when asked "Think about the women you or the person in your household on active duty has served with. Would you say in general they have performed better than the men they served with, worse than the men they served with, or about the same as the men they served with?" 74% responded that they performed as well as men. So why did the women in Bochco's show act like total fools endangering not only themselves, but the squad as well?

There are so many instances of women performing well under fire in Iraq that catering to the old stereotype of women and combat seems almost gratuitous.

Could it be that had Bochco made a show that showed a more realistic and representative view of the US service people today, his Hollywood friends might think he was working for Bush?

God forbid.

But it you think that I'm being too picky, see what other veterans think. Blackfive has a whole bunch who have weighed in and many of these have actually been in Iraq. Check out Jonah's Military Guys as well.

See how wrong I am.

The Phony Fatwa

Yesterday, a North American Council of Islamic scholars issued a fatwa against terrorism.

American Muslim scholars issued an edict yesterday condemning religious extremism and calling terrorists "criminals, not 'martyrs.' "

The 18-member Fiqh Council of North America said Muslims were barred from helping "any individual or group that is involved in any act of terrorism or violence."

"There is no justification in Islam for extremism or terrorism," the scholars wrote in the edict, called a fatwa. "Targeting civilians' life and property through suicide bombings or any other method of attack is haram — or forbidden."

Glenn Reynolds, in his Slate Op/Ed piece, sees this as an encouraging sign.

About time, and the (relative) absence of weasel-wording is nice.

I, on the other hand am a bit more skeptical mostly because I noticed that the preeminent organization behind this is CAIR; the Council for American-Islamic Relations. Now this organization has been two-faced in the past. As Daniel Pipes notes

• [CAIR is an] organization founded by Hamas supporters….
• CAIR was started by Hamas members….
• CAIR … was founded by Islamic terrorists.

Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad, former officials of the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP), founded the organization, while IAP's president, Rafeeq Jabar, was (according to Steve Emerson) one of CAIR's founding directors,.

Former FBI counterterrorism chief Oliver "Buck" Revell has described the IAP as "a front organization for Hamas." This linkage between the IAP and Hamas was decisively established in 2004, when a federal judge in Chicago found it partially liable for $156 million in damages for its role in aiding and abetting Hamas in the murder of David Boim, a 17-year-old American citizen.

Steve Emerson points out that

The Chairman of the Fiqh Council, Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami al-Arian, the alleged North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, whose trial began in June 2005 in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Alwani has been named in court documents as an official of several entities in northern Virginia suspected of being connected to terrorist financing. Documents released in the Al Arian trial show that Alwani funded the Islamic Jihad front groups in Tampa.

Another past trustee of the Fiqh Council, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, is serving a 23-year prison sentence for illegal financial dealings with Libya and immigration fraud, has admitted to his part in a plot to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince, and has vocally announced his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Additionally Alamoudi was just named by Treasury as having been a financier for Al Qaeda.

In 1998, Fiqh Council member Sheikh Muhammad al-Hanooti, gave a speech calling for jihad against the United States and the United Kingdom, saying that “Allah will curse the Americans and British” and “Allah, the curse of Allah will become true on the infidel Jews and on the tyrannical Americans.”

OK, fine. So a major supporter of the Fatwa is strongly connected to terrorist organizations including Hamas and al Qaeda. But does it mean that the fatwa is not useful? Doesn't it come down strongly against terrorists and terrorism?

To an outside observer it would appear that this is the case. But given that we know the issuing council are terrorist-supporters (at least) we should think and research further. One excellent resource for helping us do this is Dr Walid Phares is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington and a Professor of religions and world politics. Writing for the CounterTerrorism blog today he comments of a CAIR sponsored Public Service Announcement that supplements the fatwa's message:

The fifth sentence is uttered by a woman: “We reject anyone of any faith who commits such brutal acts.” It is followed with a sixth sentence by the same male stating: “And we’ll not allow our faith to be to be hijacked by criminals.” The readers and listeners would then wait for the next sentence and most important conclusion that is “who?” Indeed, rejection of brutal acts and obstructing criminals from hijack is a universal principle. It could apply to common criminals, dictators and all sort of theological extremists too, depending on the circumstances. But the particular statement Americans, and now all democracies are waiting for, is an unequivocal condemnation of Jihadism as a legitimate political tool, and the Jihadists as an acceptable force: At least a clear condemnation of al Qaida and its ideology, because of whom and which many have been questioning the link to the religion. The PSA is strangely silent about it. 

The last sentence could have done it and served the cause of Muslim visibility much better: It could have simply said, we condemn al Qaida, we condemn Osama bin Laden, al Zarqawi, the Jihadi clerics. The PSA could have stated that al Qaida is about hatred and violence while Muslims seek peace. Instead a woman concluded: “Islam is not about hatred and violence. It’s about peace and justice.” It would be the equivalent of a saying in Arabic: man daraba al ma’a bil ma’a. (treating water with water), meaning no tangible results achieved.

In the final analysis, CAIR’s initiative could have been a basis for a strategic resistance to the Jihadists in general and al Qaida in particular. Language is everything here. While I’d leave the political intentions behind the campaign to others for now, it is clear to connoisseurs in Islamic politics that the PSA aim at shielding a political lobby from growing public inquiries rather than triggering an anti-Jihadist campaign. All what the lobby writers had to do was to call al Qaida and Bin Laden by the name: Terrorist. One, not seven sentences would have sent a huge message to the American public. And that is not so difficult, if the intentions were available. Other Muslim groups have done it, such as Free Muslims against Terrorism and American Islamic Forum for Democracy. The difference is this: The latter have the intentions of fighting real Terrorism, but they don’t have the money.

Yes, it is clear. Something is missing from the fatwa. The actual, clear, and unequivocal condemnation of particular terrorists and terrorist organizations. The actual, clear, and unequivocal condemnation of jihadism as an ideology.

You see without this, without saying that OBL and al Qaeda members are going to hell, there are enough loopholes in the statement for someone to say "Well, that applies to that suicide bombing or civilian attack, but not this one."

So for all it's hoopla and slick PR. CAIR and the Fiqh Council's fatwa is just a way of diverting attention away from them.

And quite possibly a way to get you to donate money to the "reasonable Jihadists" when in fact there are no reasonable Jihadists.

Oh and I'm still waiting for International ANSWER and  United for Peace and Justice to stage an anti-Terrorism rally. I'm waiting for them to condemn terrorism, Osama bin Laden, al Zarqawi and the Jihadist military hegemony. I think I'll be waiting a while.

I do note, however, the UFPJ will be attempting to stage a massive rally in September in Washington DC to end the war in Iraq. Why?

Iraq, a once sovereign nation, now lies in ruins under the military and corporate occupation of the United States; U.S. promises to rebuild have not been kept and Iraqis still lack food, water, electricity, and other basic needs.

No mention of the fact that TERRORISTS are responsible for the delay however or the fact that the US will keep it's promise to rebuild....

As long as United for Peace and Justice doesn't get it's way.

So it goes....

Representatives who Support Terrorism

So yesterday I took note of some Amendments to HR 2601 which authorizes funding for the State Department. Specifically I looked at an Amendment that made it the policy of the US to stay in Iraq until the job is done and who voted against it. Now some may think well fine, just because they (the "they" are Representatives Conyers, Dingell, Waxman, Rangel, Pelosi, Kucinich, Levin, McDermott, Brown, and Sanders (famously) among others) want the US out of Iraq doesn't mean they support terrorism.

I disagree because it has to be clear to any thinking human that if the fledgling Iraqi government fails, Islamic Extremists (in the new parlayance of the Pentagon), will take over that government and enslave its people. So how can supporting the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq before they can defend themselves be anything other than supporting terrorism?

But, if you need more evidence that these same Leftist Extremists in the House do in fact support terrorism, I direct your attention to another Amendment that was proposed in House Bill HR 2601: H.AMDT.482 which passed the House 330-100

H.AMDT.482 is an Amedment to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act proposed by Rep Shelley Berkley of Nevada that

contains a declaration of policy that states that the U.S. should promote the emergence of a democratic Palestinian government that denounces and combats terrorism.

It's stated purpose

contains a declaration of policy that states that the U.S. should promote the emergence of a democratic Palestinian government that denounces and combats terrorism; has agreed to disarm terrorists; has agreed to work to eliminate terrorist incitement; has agreed to respect the boundaries and sovereignty of its neighbors; and respects the human rights of all people.

Now who in their right mind would not want the US to promote a democratic Palestinian government that denounces and actively combats terrorism?

Who in their right mind would not want the US to promote a democratic Palestinian government that works to eliminate terrorist incitement?

Who in their right mind would not want the US to promote a democratic Palestinian government that respects the boundaries and soverignty of its neighbors?

Who in their right mind would not want the US to promote a democratic Palestinian government that respects the human rights of all people?

Well that would be Representatives Conyers, Dingell, Pelosi, Kucinich, McDermott, Wexler, and of course, Bernie Sanders.

I make note of the fact that Representatives Waxman, Rangel, Levin, who voted against staying in Iraq voted for this Amendmenent. I won't speculate as to why that is.

But I will note that it is clear to me that Representatives Conyers, Dingell, Pelosi, Kucinich, McDermott, Wexler, and, Bernie Sanders are the extreme extremists in the House today.

How can you come to any other conclusion but that these are Representatives who support terrorism and terrorists?

Naming Names

ON July 20th the House of Representatives passed HR 2601 by a vote of 351 to 78. The Bill was a routine authorization for funding of the State Department for fiscal year 2006-2007. Boring, right?

Wrong.

For two reasons. First was an Amendment proposed by Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida (H.AMDT.488) to restate and affirm that it is

the policy of the U.S. to pursue a transfer of responsibility for Iraqi forces only when they are ready to assume such responsibility and not to withdraw prematurely the U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq. Requires any withdrawal to be done only with careful coordination with a decision by the elected government of Iraq which shall be reached jointly when it is clear that the aim of the establishment of a free and stable Iraq that is at peace and not a threat to its neighbors has been or is about to be achieved.

Of the Republicans, 220 voted for the amendment and 7 voted against it. Of the Democrats, 71 voted for it and 129 voted against it.

And, of course, Vermont's own Socialist Bernie Sanders, who will make a run for Senate next year, also voted to cut and run.

Let me repeat, One Hundred and Tweny Nine Democrats voted to abandon the people of Iraq and assure a failed terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East. One Hundred and Tweny Nine Democrats voted to against Demnocracy and for the enslavement of innocent Iraqis by our enemies. Most if not all who voted against staying in Iraq often repeat the tired line that they were glad to see Saddam ousted, but the war was wrong.

If they think it was good for Saddam to be ousted, why would they want to assure the installation of something far worse? I wonder how many would have voted for Stalinism too?

Voting against the Amendment are the usual suspects, Conyers, Dingell (who voted against the war from the outset), Waxman, Rangel, Pelosi, Kucinich, Levin, McDermott, Brown, and of course, Sanders.

Interesting are the Democrats who voted for the Amendment because they represent the sane faction of the Democratic Party; a faction which needs to grow in numbers.

Take note of their names.

Second, was an Amendment to HR 2601 proposed by Rep Dana Rohrabacher of California (H.AMDT.487) intended to

express the sense of Congress that the capture, detention and interrogation of international terrorists are essential to the successful prosecution of the Global War on Terrorism and to the defense of the U.S., its citizens, and coalition partners from future terrorist attacks; and that the detention and lawful, humane interrogation by the U.S. of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is essential to the defense of the U.S. and its coalition partners and to the successful prosecution of the Global War on Terrorism.

Only 119 Democrats voted against this one, but the list above pretty much can be counted on for "nyets" (so long as a Republican is in office).

Strangely, even with these two measures included, some voted for HR 2601 despite their opposition to the fact that it would make staying in Iraq until the job is done the official policy of the United States, and despite the fact that it declares capturing and detaining terrorists at Gitmo "essential" to the War on Terrorism. Those Democrats who switched side on the final vote include Representatives Pelosi, Waxman and Dingall. So I'll leave it to you to decide if that's hypocritical or not because what concerns me is not the hypocrisy, but the short-sightedness of voting against these two amendments in the first place.

Check the roll call.

Note the names.

Remove the insane from the Democratic Party or the Democrats will be left with only the insane.

And, what's worse, there will be only one viable political party for the foreseeable future.

And if you think that's a good idea, then you are insane as well.

(Thanks to Greyhawk of Mudville Gazette for bringing this to my attention)

How will we know if we're winning?

Back in October of 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked his leaders some fundamental questions:

Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror?

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Good questions. But he didn't stop there he also made a fundamental observation

The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists’ costs of millions.

As is often the case, questions are easy while answers are tough. So tough that it took almost two years for the Pentagon to come up with a way to answer those questions. But as a result, we are soon to be introduced to a long range plan for defeating what the Pentagon is now calling "Islamic extremists". What's more, we now have a definition for who it is we are fighting.

The Pentagon document identifies the "primary enemy" as "extremist Sunni and Shia movements that exploit Islam for political ends" and that form part of a "global web of enemy networks."

It advises that the War on Terrorism is not just a military battle alone nor should it be a US effort exclusively. Much will be made of this, I'm sure, even though both have be recognized by the Administration from the outset.

So what is new?

The Pentagon's Special Operations Command is designated in the new plan as the global "synchronizer" in the war on terrorism for all the military commands and is responsible for designing a new global counterterrorism campaign plan and conducting preparatory reconnaissance missions against terrorist organizations around the world.

And

The new Pentagon directive, General Caslen told U.S. News , has unified the military behind one counterterrorism plan for the first time: "Prior to the release of this document, everybody had their own idea of what the enemy was. Therefore, everybody had their own idea of how to fight it. We had different ideas among the services, among the commands, among the different agencies. Heck, we even had different ideas among the different organizations within this building."

So what about the answer to Secretary Rumsfeld's question which started this whole thing?

The Pentagon will use a new set of metrics twice a year to measure its progress in the war against terrorism. Commanders are to report, for example, on successes in locating and dismantling terrorist safe havens, financial assets, communications networks, and planning cells for each of the target groups.

It is clear that the huge bureaucracy that is the government is doing what it can to analyze and adapt to the threat we face. And while some will say that it proves that we've been "wrong" up until this point, I say it proves that we can respond immediately and still question and correct our strategy and tactics in the face of learned facts.

Had we spent two years analyzing before taking any action after 9-11, I do believe we would be in worse, not better shape now. And the fact that the folks within the government are willing to question basic assumptions and re-orient themselves based on the answers indicates to me that they are doing as good a job as can be expected and doing the job I expect them to do.

Even so, things remain to be sorted out

While there may be consensus on the broad approach, the devil will be in the hard bargaining over "who's in charge." The most important document to come out of the National Security Council review will be a new presidential directive that reconciles the conflicts among four counterterrorism directives. Two are from the Clinton era; two were signed by President Bush. Clinton's Presidential Decision Directive 39, signed in 1995, for example, gives the State Department the lead role in counterterrorism efforts abroad, but after 9/11, President Bush gave the CIA the lead for disrupting terrorist networks overseas. National Security Presidential Directive 9, signed on Oct. 25, 2001, directs the Pentagon to prepare military plans for eliminating terrorist sanctuaries. Similar overlapping jurisdictions exist for the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the new intelligence entities created since 9/11. Since many planks of the Pentagon's new strategy require it to work with these other agencies, resolving these intramural issues will be essential.

Officials say that the Pentagon has proposed that the new National Security Presidential Directive include a mechanism that would allow the president to delegate a particular task in a particular region to whichever entity he deemed best suited to execute it. Would such an approach end the chronic turf warfare that cripples the Washington bureaucracy?

I don't know, but I'm feeling pretty confident they'll work it out.

Shock and Awe

On July 25th, 1965 the earth shook and those folk music purists who thought Bob Dylan was one of them, found out otherwise.

And Dylan himself learned a lesson.

[Pete] Seeger announced that the Sunday night final program was a message from today's folk musicians to a newborn baby about the world we live in. Unfortunately, this theme did not correspond to Dylan's conception of his performance.

Secretly, Dylan, Al Kooper (who played organ on the studio version of Like a Rolling Stone) members of the Paul Butterfield Blues Band (guitarist Mike Bloomefield, drummer Sam Lay and bassist Jerome Arnold) and pianist Barry Goldberg had been practicing in a Newport Mansion a set of songs that would rock the socks of the granola crowd. Since Dylan had already released an "electric" album and electric bands had played before at the Newport Folk Festival, Zimmy figured it would be a pleasent surprise for his audience.

they walked onstage, Dylan, in a matador-outlaw orange shirt and black leather, carrying an electric guitar. From the moment the group swung into a rocking electric version of "Maggie's Farm," the Newport audience registered hostility. As the group finished "Farm," there was some reserved applause and a flurry of boos. Someone shouted: "Bring back Cousin Emmy!" The microphones and speakers were all out of balance, and the sound was poor and lopsided. For even the most ardent fan of the new music, the performance was unpersuasive. As Dylan led his band into "Rolling Stone," the audience grew shriller: "Play folk music! ... Sell out! ... This is a folk festival! ... Get rid of that band!" Dylan began "It Takes a Train to Cry," and the applause diminished as the heckling increased. Dylan and the group disappeared offstage, and there was a long, clumsy silence. Peter Yarrow urged Bob to return and gave him his acoustic guitar. As Bob returned on the stage alone, he discovered he didn't have the right harmonica. "What are you doing to me?" Dylan demanded of Yarrow. To shouts for "Tambourine Man," Dylan said: "OK, I'll do that one for you." The older song had a palliative effect and won strong applause. Then Dylan did "It's All Over Now, Baby Blue," singing adieu to Newport, good-bye to the folk-purist audience.

It's always been the case, though, that Dylan defied audience expectations. When people thought he was the voice of the anti-War movement, he wrote love songs. When they thought he was a rock'n'roll icon, he made a country album. When they called him a legend, he produced albums that were less than legendary.

And of course he horrified everyone when he became a Christian.

He shocked aging hippies when his recent "autobiography" Chronicles: Volume One hit the bookstores and they read things like

"When I was in Woodstock, it became very clear to me that the whole counterculture was one big scarecrow wearing dead leaves," he says. "It had no purpose in my life. It's been true ever since, actually."

And then there's the bit about Dylan and guns

People think that fame and riches translate into power, that it brings glory and honor and happiness. Maybe it does, but sometimes it doesn't. I found myself stuck in Woodstock, vulnerable and with a family to protect. If you looked in the press, though, you saw me being portrayed as anything but that. It was surprising how thick the smoke had become. It seems like the world has always needed a scapegoat—someone to lead the charge against the Roman Empire. But America wasn't the Roman Empire and someone else would have to step up and volunteer. I really was never any more than what I was—a folk musician who gazed into the gray mist with tear-blinded eyes and made up songs that floated in a luminous haze. Now it had blown up in my face and was hanging over me. I wasn't a preacher performing miracles. It would have driven anybody mad.

Early on, Woodstock had been very hospitable to us. I had actually discovered the place long before moving there. Once, at night, driving down from Syracuse after playing a show, I told my manager about the town. We were going to be driving right by it. He said he was looking for a place to buy a country house. We drove through the town, he spied a house he liked and bought it there and then. I had bought one later on, and it was in this same house that intruders started to break in day and night. Tensions mounted almost immediately and peace was hard to come by. At one time the place had been a quiet refuge, but now, no more. Roadmaps to our homestead must have been posted in all fifty states for gangs of dropouts and druggies. Moochers showed up from as far away as California on pilgrimages. Goons were breaking into our place all hours of the night. At first, it was merely the nomadic homeless making illegal entry—seemed harmless enough, but then rogue radicals looking for the Prince of Protest began to arrive—unaccountable-looking characters, gargoyle-looking gals, scarecrows, stragglers looking to party, raid the pantry. Peter LaFarge, a folksinger friend of mine, had given me a couple of Colt single-shot repeater pistols, and I also had a clip-fed Winchester blasting rifle around, but it was awful to think about what could be done with those things. The authorities, the chief of police (Woodstock had about three cops) had told me that if anyone was shot accidentally or even shot at as a warning, it would be me that would be going to the lockup. Not only that, but creeps thumping their boots across our roof could even take me to court if any of them fell off. This was so unsettling. I wanted to set fire to these people. These gate-crashers, spooks, trespassers, demagogues were all disrupting my home life and the fact that I was not to piss them off or they could press charges really didn't appeal to me. Each day and night was fraught with difficulties. Everything was wrong, the world was absurd. It was backing me into a corner. Even persons near and dear offered no relief.

He's still horrifing and defying those who think they "get" him. Recently he made an exclusive deal with Starbucks; a company hated by every true-blue burkenstock-wearin', granola crunchin', tatooed, dreadlocked, pierced anti-establishment type from the left coast of New England to the Left Coast of America.

Starbucks, the ubiquitous coffee chain, has signed an exclusive deal with Bob Dylan, the revered music legend. Under the deal, Starbucks will hold first rights to sell Bob Dylan: Live at the Gaslight 1962. The album will be available at the 44,000 Starbucks locations in North America August 30th, and at other stores after 18 months. Having an album sold at a coffee shop is pretty much full circle for Dylan, who often played coffee shops in the early years of his career. Bob Dylan: Live at the Gaslight 1962 consists of ten live tracks recorded at New York's Gaslight Cafe. Bootlegs of the recordings have long circulated, but have recently been restored.

There is little doubt that Dylan's music has contributed in a big way to the soundtrack of my life. And I reveled every time he did a turn and alienated the audience that most recently claimed to be his true-blue fans.

So here we are, on the 40th Anniversary of the first time he did turned his audience against him and all I can think is

Took an untrodden path once, where the swift don't win the race,
It goes to the worthy, who can divide the word of truth.
Took a stranger to teach me, to look into justice's beautiful face
And to see an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

I and I
In creation where one's nature neither honors nor forgives.
I and I
One says to the other, no man sees my face and lives.

Speaking out against terrorism

People are waking up. There are only two responses to a terrorist attack; capitulation or Resistance (I 'spose there are those who are indifferent, but is that really a response?). Certainly the terrorists hope for the former. More and more people are adopting the latter.

In Denmark, they know they are a target for terrorists and still:

Half of those surveyed by Gallup support Denmark's participation in the Iraq coalition and 43 percent are opposed. More than 500 Danish troops are stationed in southern Iraq, near Basra.

And it seems Iraqi's living there noticed the mass murder of children that took place in Iraq and were as outraged as I was.

Iraqis place candles on City Hall Square in Copenhagen, Denmark, Friday July 22, 2005, in the shape of the number 36 to commemorate 36 children killed in a recent attack in Iraq.

In Iraq itself they are protesting terrorism as Powerline reports

Tens of thousands of Iraqis stood silent for three minutes in over 130 Fahrenheit heat to commemorate victims of terror and in a sign of unified defiance of terrorism and I have not seen a single report on this. I waited all day Wednesday and all day today and nothing. The news reported the small anti America demonstration by Alsadar and some Baathists in April but some how missed the whole Iraqi nation standing still in defiance of terrorism.

Anti Terrorism protests were held in Egypt in weekend

More than 1,000 Egyptian hotel workers, bedouin sheikhs and foreign dive school instructors marched through Sharm el-Sheikh on Sunday to condemn bombs which killed 88 in the Red Sea resort. "There is no God but God and terrorism is the enemy of God,"  chanted the Egyptian protesters...

And the Gateway Pundit has pictures.

In Palmdale California, people are taking to the streets.

"Islam is Peace," the signs read as about 100 Muslims and supporters from across the Antelope Valley offered that message to their fellow residents in a street-corner rally Friday evening....

Asema Sultan immigrated to the United States from Pakistan 24 years ago and has lived in Palmdale for 15 years.

The sign she carried said: "Not in our name."

"Killing any person is not right," she said. "Jihad is an inner struggle, not killing people."

People are waking up and standing up instead of cowering in Madrid.

Where is the media? Glenn Reynolds precedes his new piece for Slate with the header

Ignoring the anti-terrorist Arabs?

When Arabs and Muslims defy news-media typecasting, they seem to be ignored

But what I want to know is, when will International ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice stage as large a demonstration against terrorism as they did for the Republican National Convention?

C'mon guys, let's get a moveon(.org) and get with the program here.

Where's the Love?

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has been tough on the Sudanese government for their participation in the ethnic cleansing of the Darfur region.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says there has been progress in Darfur but the world will not accept mere promises from Sudan's new government to halt the violence...."We don't rely on words, we rely on action," Rice said.

Still, she went to Sudan to encourage the new coalition government that was formed when a separate civil war was settled some months ago.

For its part, the Sudanese government wants US economic sanctions lifted. But it's hard to win concessions when you rough up the US Secretary of State's delegation.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's official visit with President Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir of Sudan turned ugly Thursday when Sudanese security officers manhandled members of her delegation and the news media, blocking their way to the meeting in the presidential palace.

Rice said she was "outraged" and demanded an official apology, which the foreign minister delivered by phone a little more than an hour later. But it was clear the incident left her angry, and it worsened an already difficult relationship.

"They had no right to manhandle my staff," she said afterward, adding, the Sudanese "still have a long way to go."

Well that's for sure. But even though members of the press were manhandled, and in one case, an NBC reporter was involved in fisticuffs with Sudanese security after he tried to ask a question about Darfur, very little has been made of this incident by the press. And this even though the Secretary's senior advisor was shoved into a wall in front of their eyes.

Imagine what the reports would have been had US security had done that to a Sudanese delegation?

Surely Sudan showed no love and the Secretary continued on her trip. Now she is in Lebanon after a trip to make sure Israel does their part to settle things down. Her surprise visit is intended to show support for the newest Democracy in the region. And she also showed respect.

On arrival she went directly to visit the shrine of the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Al-Harriri. Rice held talks with the Lebanese senior officials regarding the latest developments in Lebanon and the bilateral cooperation.

And she did not call for Syria's isolation. Problamatic as that government has been for the US, the region and Lebanon in particular, she encouraged Lebanon to make peace.

"We would like to see the day when there are good neighborly relations between Syria and Lebanon based on mutual respect and equality," Rice said in a joint press conference with Lebanese Prime Minister-designate Foud Saniora.

But she was talking to Syria too

"But good neighbors don't close their borders to their neighbors," she said referring to tightened Syria security measures that have delayed or stranded hundreds of Lebanon vehicles at the two countries' border. "It is a very serious situation on the Lebanon border, where Lebanese trade is being strangled. "

But her trip to Lebanon can be summed up by her own words

``What I'm here to do is to support the new Lebanon,'' Rice said. ``The new Lebanon is one that is democratic; the new Lebanon is one that should be free of foreign influence. It is a Lebanon in which the Lebanese should make decisions for Lebanon.''

Can you show any more love than that?

And no one tried to beat her up...

Keeping Hope Alive

London Mayor Ken Livingtone was quoted in the Tehran Times which, obviously, added concurring editorial comments of their own

"And I think the particular problem we have at the moment is that in the 1980s... the Americans recruited and trained Osama Bin Laden, taught him how to kill, to make bombs, and set him off to kill the Russians and drive them out of Afghanistan. "They didn't give any thought to the fact that once he'd done that he might turn on his creators." -----------No justice?

Mr. Livingstone said Western governments had been so terrified of losing their fuel supplies that they had kept intervening in the Middle East. He argued: "If at the end of the First World War we had done what we promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this wouldn't have arisen."

He attacked double standards by Western nations, such as the initial welcome given when Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq.

Aside from the fact that Mr Livingstone either doesn't know history or intentionally is misrepresenting it, it is obvious that he is keeping the hopes of Islamists alive.

Clearly the attacks of July 7th in London were intended to get Britain to divorce themselves from the Foreign Policy being led by America. Goal numero uno for the Islamists is to prevent Iraq and Afghanistan from becoming successful free market democracies. Peeling off as staunch an ally as Britain would go along way towards that goal, at least in the minds of the murderers.

And clearly the statements by the Mayor of London inform the terroists that this is still possible.

Did this result in the subsequent (attempted) bombings today? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it is quite likely.

One thing I do know for sure is that as long as Britain, and the US, is a country divided in their resolve, the Jihadists have hope that they can eventually win the war...

---even after losing every battle.

Hey, it's been done before.