Hetz mod eksotiske religioner - kun acceptabelt når det går ud over hvide mennesker

Følger man lidt med i medierne vil man huske, at texansk politi i starten af april "stormede" en ranch near Eldorado, Texas, hvor medlemmerne af FLDS-kirken (FLDS = Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints) boede. Efter stormen blev i første omgang 137 børn smidt op i busser og lastbiler og kørt derfra - senere steg antallet til 416, hvortil kom 133 mødre, der frivilligt havde valgt at komme med for at være nær deres børn.


Allerede dengang var der noget, der føltes forkert ved sagen. Til at starte med er antallet voldsomt - hvad kan retfærdiggøre tvangsfjernelsen af 416 (fire hundrede og seksten) børn fra deres forældre? Den danske presse (her Politiken) kunne fortælle, at de første 137 børn var blevet "befriet", men var samtidig nødt til lige at smide at afsnit ind, der gjorde klart at politiet ikke har ønsket at "oplyse, hvor mange der er gået med frivilligt, og hvor mange der er fjernet med magt".



Det viste sig, at den absolut eneste begrundelse for at man havde revet flere hundrede børn fra deres forældre var, at en krise-telefon havde modtaget et telefon-opkald fra en person der påstod at være 16 år gammel. Denne påstod samtidig at være blevet tvunget til at gifte sig med en 50-årig mand, der mishandlede hende jævnligt.


Som sådan intet problem: man tager ud til pigen, fastlår hendes identitet, får en edsvoren erklæring, og bruger denne til at få en kendelse. Eller: det skulle man da tro.


Hvor der nemlig er en aversion mod at slå til mod eksotiske religioner som feks islam, hvor man jo kunne komme for skade at blive beskyldt for at være racist, så er der ingen hæmning når det drejer sig om generelt hvide mormoner. Ergo tog man et rygte, trommede flere hundrede politifolk sammen, og tog på en såkaldt "fiske-tur" - det er når politiet godt ved de har en absurd tynd sag, men man får udtaget en kendelse der kan give adgang til evt. mistænktes hjem så man der kan finde et eller andet man kan bruge mod dem.


I tilfældet med FLDS var "det man kunne bruge" 416 børn, der blev revet fra deres familier. At drengebørn i det hele taget, og pigebørn under 14-årsalderen ikke på nogen måde var truet af, hvad politiet officielt påstod de mistænkte sekten for var ligegyldigt - de blev også taget med. Til at starte med kunne mødrene følge med børnene, men snart fandt man på at alle over 4-års-alderen ikke måtte have kontakt med deres mødre. Ud over det blev de også placeret i uhygiejniske gruppe-hjem, hvor en del af dem hurtigt blev syge.


Som sådan slemt nok, men det skulle blive værre.


Det viste sig nemlig efterhånden, at den telefonopringning, hele sagen hvilede på, var blevet foretaget ikke af en 16-årig misbrugt pige, men af en 33-årig kvinde ved navn Rozita Swinton der ville have opmærksomhed. Hun blev afsløret som stående bag en hel serie af løgnagtige anklager om seksuelle overgreb:

• Gennem oktober måned 2007 foretog hun en serie opkald, hvor hun udgav sig for at være en person ved navn Dana Anderson. Heri påstod hun at være en ung kvinde, der blev misbrugt af hendes præst ved New Life-kirken i Colorado Springs


• Senere udgav hun sig for at være en 13-årig elev ved Liberty High School. Her påstod hun, at hun blev bedøvet og seksuelt misbrugt af sin far.


• I februar ringede hun til politiet og udgav hun sig for at være en kvinde ved navn Jennifer. Denne gang påstod hun, at hendes far havde låst hende inde i sin kælder i dagevis.


• I marts-april kom så hendes falske opkald om FLDS-ranchen nær Eldorado

Hele begrundelsen for politiets storm af ranchen var altså løgn fra ende til anden.

I forgårs kom så endnu et slag mod politiets sag: en domstol afgjorde, at politiet absolut intet grundlag havde for at fjerne børnene fra ranchen. Politiet havde argumenteret med, at selve FLDS-kirkens trosgrundlag udgjorde en trussel mod børnene, og at disse derfor burde fjernes fra enhver rettroende FLDS´er. Dette afgjorde domstolen imidlertid ikke var tilfældet, hvorefter politiets sag kollapsede og blev afvist. Det besynderlige er, at domstolen samtidig undlod at beordre børnene givet tilbage til deres familier - disse er stadig i politiets varetægt.

Det er ikke første besynderlige sag mod medlemmer af FLDS-kirken. For et par år siden blev den tidligere leder af FLDS-kirken idømt to livstidsstraffe for to tilfælde af medskyldighed i voldtægt. Igen er der som sådan intet mærkeligt i dette. Det mærkelige kommer ind i sagen ved, at sagen mod Warren Jeffs hviler på, at han skal have viet en 14-årig pige til hendes 19-årige fætter, og at denne så skulle have voldtaget hende to gange. Selve manden der skulle have voldtaget hende er imidlertid ikke blevet dømt, og det er således ikke blevet slået fast at han i det hele taget skulle have voldtaget hende.

Sidste år kunne Time Magazine bringe en del af forklaringen. Såvel sagen mod Jeffs som tvangsfjernelsen af flere hundrede børn er del af en kampagne mod polygami, som den amerikanske anklagemyndighed har ført siden 2003. Da man mente at straffen for polygami var for lav, og at det var for svært at bevise, skiftede man istedet til at bruge en serie andre lovkomplekser mod blandt andet FLDS. Da sex med nogen under den seksuelle lavalder pr definition er voldtægt ifølge amerikansk lovgivning (uanset om begge parter var villige nok), så brugte man f.eks. lovgivningen om voldtægt, hvis én eller flere koner var under den sexuelle lavalder. Og hvis nogen havde viet dette par, så blev man således også dømt for medvirken til voldtægt.

I tilfælde hvor der faktisk ER tale om voldtægt eller misbrug kan den slags sager accepteres. Men når alt man har at basere dem på er ét løgnagtigt telefonopkald, så begynder det at lugte kraftigt af hetz. En hetz der, så længe det går ud over hvide, kristne mennesker, åbenbart er solid støtte til i danske medier.

McCain: Jeg var "ret bundet" i 1968

Under den sidste debat i USA mellem emnerne til at blive republikansk præsidentkandidat ved valget næste år kom McCain med en af de bedre one-liner hidtil:



"Tied up" = manden sad på det tidspunkt i en kommunistisk fangelejr i Nordvietnam.

Hvordan et land lades i stikken

Den amerikanske venstrefløjs forsøg på at trække de amerikanske tropper i Irak ud fortsætter, og USA står måske over for at lade endnu et land i stikken. Sidste gang det lykkedes for dem var da de kvalte Syd-Vietnams forsøg på at standse det kommunistiske diktatur Nord-Vietnam´s invasion i 1975 ved at afskære al hjælp til landet. Efterfølgende mistede et sted mellem to og fem millioner mennesker livet.

Selv om den følgende artikel af James Webb er 10 år gammel giver den et godt billede af situationen dengang, og prikker huller på en del myter, både amerikanere og danskere stadig tror på:

It is difficult to explain to my children that in my teens and early twenties the most frequently heard voices of my peers were trying to destroy the foundations of American society, so that it might be rebuilt according to their own narcissistic notions. In retrospect it’s hard even for some of us who went through those times to understand how highly educated people—most of them spawned from the comforts of the upper-middle class—could have seriously advanced the destructive ideas that were in the air during the late ’60s and early ’70s. Even Congress was influenced by the virus.

After President Nixon resigned in August of 1974, that fall’s congressional elections brought 76 new Democrats to the House, and eight to the Senate. A preponderance of these freshmen had run on McGovernesque platforms. Many had been viewed as weak candidates before Nixon’s resignation, and some were glaringly unqualified, such as then-26-year-old Tom Downey of New York, who had never really held a job in his life and was still living at home with his mother.

This so-called Watergate Congress rode into town with an overriding mission that had become the rallying point of the American Left: to end all American assistance in any form to the besieged government of South Vietnam. Make no mistake—this was not the cry of a few years earlier to stop young Americans from dying. It had been two years since the last American soldiers left Vietnam, and fully four years since the last serious American casualty calls there.

For reasons that escape historical justification, even after America’s military withdrawal the Left continued to try to bring down the incipient South Vietnamese democracy. Future White House aide Harold Ickes and others at "Project Pursestrings"—assisted at one point by an ambitious young Bill Clinton—worked to cut off all congressional funding intended to help the South Vietnamese defend themselves. The Indochina Peace Coalition, run by David Dellinger and headlined by Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, coordinated closely with Hanoi throughout 1973 and 1974, and barnstormed across America’s campuses, rallying students to the supposed evils of the South Vietnamese government. Congressional allies repeatedly added amendments to spending bills to end U.S. support of Vietnamese anti-Communists, precluding even air strikes to help South Vietnamese soldiers under attack by North Vietnamese units that were assisted by Soviet-bloc forces.

Then in early 1975 the Watergate Congress dealt non-Communist Indochina the final blow. The new Congress icily resisted President Gerald Ford’s January request for additional military aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia. This appropriation would have provided the beleaguered Cambodian and South Vietnamese militaries with ammunition, spare parts, and tactical weapons needed to continue their own defense. Despite the fact that the 1973 Paris Peace Accords called specifically for "unlimited military replacement aid" for South Vietnam, by March the House Democratic Caucus voted overwhelmingly, 189-49, against any additional military assistance to Vietnam or Cambodia.

The rhetoric of the antiwar Left during these debates was filled with condemnation of America’s war-torn allies, and promises of a better life for them under the Communism that was sure to follow. Then-Congressman Christopher Dodd typified the hopeless naiveté of his peers when he intoned that "calling the Lon Nol regime an ally is to debase the word.... The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." Tom Downey, having become a foreign policy expert in the two months since being freed from his mother’s apron strings, pooh-poohed the coming Cambodian holocaust that would kill more than one-third of the country’s population, saying, "The administration has warned that if we leave there will be a bloodbath. But to warn of a new bloodbath is no justification for extending the current bloodbath."

On the battlefields of Vietnam the elimination of all U.S. logistical support was stunning and unanticipated news. South Vietnamese commanders had been assured of material support as the American military withdrew—the same sort of aid the U.S. routinely provided allies from South Korea to West Germany—and of renewed U.S. air strikes if the North attacked the South in violation of the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. Now they were staring at a terrifyingly uncertain future, even as the Soviets continued to assist the Communist North.

As the shocked and demoralized South Vietnamese military sought to readjust its forces to cope with serious shortages, the newly refurbished North Vietnamese immediately launched a major offensive. Catching many units out of position, the North rolled down the countryside over a 55-day period. In the ensuing years I have interviewed South Vietnamese survivors of these battles, many of whom spent ten years and more in Communist concentration camps after the war. The litany is continuous: "I had no ammunition." "I was down to three artillery rounds per tube per day." "I had nothing to give my soldiers." "I had to turn off my radio because I could no longer bear to hear their calls for help."

The reaction in the United States to this debacle defines two distinct camps that continue to be identifiable in many of the issues we face today. For most of those who fought in Vietnam, and for their families, friends, and political compatriots, this was a dark and deeply depressing month. The faces we saw running in terror from the North Vietnamese assault were real and familiar, not simply video images. The bodies that fell like spinning snowflakes toward cruel deaths after having clung hopelessly to the outer parts of departing helicopters and aircraft may have been people we knew or tried to help. Even for those who had lost their faith in America’s ability to defeat the Communists, this was not the way it was supposed to end.

For those who had evaded the war and come of age believing our country was somehow evil, even as they romanticized the intentions of the Communists, these few weeks brought denials of their own responsibility in the debacle, armchair criticisms of the South Vietnamese military, or open celebrations. At the Georgetown University Law Center where I was a student, the North’s blatant discarding of the promises of peace and elections contained in the 1973 Paris Accords, followed by the rumbling of North Vietnamese tanks through the streets of Saigon, was treated by many as a cause for actual rejoicing.

Denial is rampant in 1997, but the truth is this end result was the very goal of the antiwar movement’s continuing efforts in the years after American withdrawal. George McGovern, more forthcoming than most, bluntly stated as much to this writer during a break in taping a 1995 edition of cnn’s "Crossfire." After I had argued that the war was clearly winnable even toward the end if we had changed our strategy, the 1972 presidential candidate who had offered to go to Hanoi on his knees commented, "What you don’t understand is that I didn’t want us to win that war." Mr. McGovern was not alone. He was part of a small but extremely influential minority who eventually had their way.

There is perhaps no greater testimony to the celebratory atmosphere that surrounded the Communist victory in Vietnam than the 1975 Academy Awards, which took place on April 8, just three weeks before the South’s final surrender. The award for Best Feature Documentary went to the film Hearts and Minds, a vicious piece of propaganda that assailed American cultural values as well as our effort to assist South Vietnam’s struggle for democracy. The producers, Peter Davis and Bert Schneider [who plays a role in David Horowitz’s story—see page 31], jointly accepted the Oscar. Schneider was frank in his support of the Communists. As he stepped to the mike he commented that "It is ironic that we are here at a time just before Vietnam is about to be liberated." Then came one of the most stunning—if intentionally forgotten—moments in Hollywood history. As a struggling country many Americans had paid blood and tears to try to preserve was disappearing beneath a tank onslaught, Schneider pulled out a telegram from our enemy, the Vietnamese Communist delegation in Paris, and read aloud its congratulations to his film. Without hesitating, Hollywood’s most powerful people rewarded Schneider’s reading of the telegram with a standing ovation.

Those of us who either fought in Vietnam or supported our efforts there look at this 1975 "movie moment" with unforgetting and unmitigated amazement. Who were these people who so energetically poisoned the rest of the world’s view of us? How had they turned so virulently against their own countrymen? How could they stand and applaud the victory of a Communist enemy who had taken 58,000 American lives and crushed a struggling, pro-democratic ally? Could they and the rest of us be said to be living in the same country anymore?

Not a peep was heard then, or since, from Hollywood regarding the people who disappeared behind Vietnam’s bamboo curtain. No one has ever mentioned the concentration camps into which a million South Vietnamese soldiers were sent; 56,000 to die, 250,000 to stay for more than six years, and some for as long as 18. No one criticized the forced relocations, the corruption, or the continuing police state. More to the point, with the exception of the well-intentioned but artistically weak Hamburger Hill, one searches in vain for a single major film since that time that has portrayed American soldiers in Vietnam with dignity and in a true context. ...

Among everyday Americans, attitudes during this troubled time were much healthier. Behind the media filtering and distortion on Vietnam, the fact is that our citizenry agreed far more consistently with those of us who fought than with those who undermined our fight. This was especially true, interestingly, among the young Americans now portrayed as having rebelled against the war.

As reported in Public Opinion, Gallup surveys from 1966 to the end of U.S. involvement show that younger Americans actually supported the Vietnam war longer than any other age group. Even by January of 1973, when 68 percent of Americans over the age of 50 believed it had been a mistake to send troops to Vietnam, only 49 percent of those between 25 and 29 agreed. These findings that the youth cohort as a whole was distinctly unradical were buttressed by 1972 election results—where 18- to 29-year-olds preferred Richard Nixon to George McGovern by 52 to 46 percent.

Similarly, despite persistent allegations to the contrary by former protesters who now dominate media and academia, the 1970 invasion of Cambodia—which caused widespread campus demonstrations, including a riot that led to four deaths at Kent State University—was strongly supported by the public. According to Harris surveys, nearly 6 in 10 Americans believed the Cambodian invasion was justified. A majority in that same May 1970 survey supported an immediate resumption of bombings in North Vietnam, a complete repudiation of the antiwar movement. ...

Vietnam veterans, though persistently maligned in film, news reports, and classrooms as unwilling, unsuccessful soldiers, have been well thought of by average Americans. In the most comprehensive study ever done on Vietnam vets (Harris Survey, 1980, commissioned by the Veterans Administration), 73 percent of the general public and 89 percent of Vietnam veterans agreed with the statement that "The trouble in Vietnam was that our troops were asked to fight in a war which our political leaders in Washington would not let them win." Seventy percent of those who fought in Vietnam disagreed with the statement "It is shameful what my country did to the Vietnamese people." Fully 91 percent of those who served in Vietnam combat stated that they were glad they had served their country, and 74 percent said they had enjoyed their time in the military. Moreover, 71 percent of those who expressed an opinion indicated that they would go to Vietnam again, even knowing the end result and the ridicule that would be heaped on them when they returned. ...

Contrary to persistent mythology, two-thirds of those who served during Vietnam were volunteers rather than draftees, and 77 percent of those who died were volunteers. Of those who died, 86 percent were Caucasian, 12.5 percent were African-American, and 1.2 percent were from other races. The common claim that it was minorities and the poor who were left to do the dirty work of military service in Vietnam is false. The main imbalance in the war was simply that the privileged avoided their obligations, and have persisted since that time in demeaning the experience in order to protect themselves from the judgment of history. ...

What an eerie feeling it must have been for those who staked the journey of their youth on the idea that their own country was an evil force, to have watched their naiveté unravel in the years following 1975. How sobering it must have been for those who allowed themselves to move beyond their natural denial, to observe the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese fleeing the "pure flame of the revolution" on rickety boats that gave them a 50 percent chance of death at sea, or to see television pictures of thousands of Cambodian skulls lying in open fields, part of the millions killed by Communist "liberators." How hollow the memories of drug-drenched and sex-enshrined antiwar rallies must be; how false the music that beatified their supposedly noble dissent.

I disse dage lægger den amerikanske venstrefløj igen an til at lade et land i stikken. Sidste gang det lykkedes for dem kostede det millioner af menneskeliv.

Endnu en Politiken-kampagne baseret på fejlagtige kilder

Politiken kunne for fem dage siden triumferende brøle, at selv det amerikanske forsvarsministerium nu indrømmede, at Pentagon havde "manipuleret med oplysninger forud for irak-krigen". Beskyldningerne kom, da Pentagons generalinspektør Thomas F. Gimble stod for at offentliggøre en rapport om især Douglas Feith og hans Kontor for Særlige Planer, og om dette kontor havde handlet passende under behandlingen af efterretninger om Irak. Feith var dengang (i 2003) særlig rådgiver for den daværende amerikanske præsident Donald Rumsfeld.

Problemet er, at Politikens eneste kilde til beskyldningerne - rapporten var endnu ikke udkommet, så heller ikke Politiken havde læst den selv - var den stærkt venstreorienterede* demokratiske senator Carl Levin. Det var Levin selv, der i 2005 startede korstoget mod Feith og bad generalinspektør Gimble om at undersøge ham.

Politiken gad ikke at give manden, der er mål for anklagen ordet, så det gør jeg så for dem. Fra Washington Post:

Promoters of the "Bush Lied, People Died" line claim that the recent Pentagon inspector general's report concerning my former office's work on Iraq intelligence supports their cause. What the IG actually said is a different story.

The IG, Thomas Gimble, focused on a single Pentagon briefing from 2002 -- a critique of the CIA's work on the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship. His report concluded that the work my office generated was entirely lawful and authorized, and that Sen. Carl Levin was wrong to allege that we misled Congress.

Gimble made Levin happy, however, by calling the Pentagon briefing "inappropriate," a word the senator has whipped into a political lather. At issue is a simple but critical question: whether policy officials should be free to raise questions about CIA work. In Gimble's opinion, apparently, the answer is no. I disagree.

The CIA has a hard job. Some of its work has been good; some has been famously and disastrously bad, as everyone familiar with the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction fiasco knows. Intelligence is inherently sketchy and speculative -- and historically often wrong. It is improved when policy officials freely probe and challenge it.

In evaluating our policy toward Iraq after Sept. 11, 2001, my office realized that CIA analysts were suppressing some of their information. They excluded reports conflicting with their favored theory: that the secular Iraqi Baathist regime would not cooperate with al-Qaeda jihadists. (We now face a strategic alliance of jihadists and former Baathists in Iraq.) Pentagon officials did not buy that theory, and in 2002 they gave a briefing that reflected their skepticism. Their aim was not to enthrone a different theory, but to urge the CIA not to exclude any relevant information from what it provided to policymakers. Only four top-level government officials received the briefing: Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, and (together) Stephen Hadley and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

A 2004 Senate intelligence committee report praised the quality of the Pentagon's Iraq-al-Qaeda work -- the critical briefing and the related Pentagon-CIA dialogue. The policy officials "played by [intelligence community] rules" and asked questions that "actually improved the Central Intelligence Agency's products," it said. Levin and Sen. Jay Rockefeller both endorsed that judgment.

The recent inspector general's report argues that policy officials "undercut" the CIA by pointing out " 'fundamental problems' with the way the Intelligence Community was assessing information" on the issue of Iraq-al-Qaeda relations -- even though Gimble last week said at a Senate hearing: "Again, I need to just remind everyone, we didn't make an assessment on the validity of either side of this issue." He labeled the Pentagon briefing "inappropriate" not because of any errors in it but because he viewed it as an "intelligence activity" that "varied" from "the intelligence community consensus." The Pentagon officials told the IG, however, that the briefing was a policy activity -- a critique of an intelligence product.

If this report hadn't become part of a political battle, Gimble's position would be scoffed at across the political spectrum. Sensible people recognize the importance of vigorous questioning of intelligence by the CIA's "customers." In bipartisan, unanimous reports on Iraq intelligence, both the Senate intelligence committee and the Silberman-Robb WMD commission called for more such questioning.

Specifically on the Pentagon's criticism of Iraq-al-Qaeda intelligence, the 2004 Senate report noted that our challenges were helpful: Intelligence analysts "stated that the questions had forced them to go back and review the intelligence reporting, and that during this exercise they came across information they had overlooked in initial readings."

In his Senate testimony, Gimble said his report -- and therefore all related claims that my office "manipulated intelligence" -- concerned only this single briefing. His whole argument rests on the claim that the briefing was "disseminated" as "an intelligence product" rather than a policy product. But he acknowledged that neither Rumsfeld nor Tenet could have mistaken the briefers for intelligence community spokesmen. His objections applied solely to the briefing that Hadley and Libby received in September 2002.

Astonishingly, the IG acknowledged that his office had not interviewed either of these officials to ask whether they thought the briefing was an intelligence product. Knowing well that the briefers worked for me, neither could have believed that Pentagon policy officials were speaking for the intelligence community. One of the briefing slides was "Fundamental Problems With How the Intelligence Community Is Assessing Information." Gimble had no basis to say the briefing was seen as an intelligence activity.

In his report, Gimble wrote that the Pentagon briefing was not the "most accurate analysis of intelligence." This has been taken to suggest it was false or deceptive. But the IG said he meant only that the briefing was at "variance with the consensus of the Intelligence Community." Of course it was at variance! It was a critique. That's why it was prepared in the first place.

Gimble's characterization is absurdly circular. Cheered on by the chairmen of the Senate intelligence and armed services committees, he is giving bad advice based on incomplete fact-finding and poor logic. He is discouraging tough questioning of intelligence. Our government needs more such questioning, not less.

* Mht amerikanske forhold gælder det, at da næsten alle politikere er koncentreret i to store partiet, så hjælper alene parti-tilhørsforhold ikke vælgerne meget når de skal vurdere, hvor politikerne ligger på det politiske spektrum. Derfor er amerikanerne vilde med at graduere politikerne efter, hvordan de reelt stemmer når de er blevet valgt. Ifølge National Journal´s Project Vote Smart lå senator Carl Levin således til venstre for 95% af alle andre senatorer i udenrigspolitiske spørgsmål i 2005.

Med andre ord svarer det altså efter danske forhold til, at Politiken havde bedt Frank Aaen om at udtale sig autoritativt om, om Anders Fogh har løjet for folketinget, som det påstås i DR-Enhedslisten co-produktionen "Den Hemmelige Krig". Ikke at sådan noget kunne ske i Danmark (Sarkasme /off)

Troværdigheden er derefter.

Mens vi venter på 20.000 amerikanere

Allerede før yderligere 20.000 amerikanske tropper er landet i Irak begynder de at påvirke kampene i landet. De to hoved-lejre, der lejlighedsvist slår koalitions-styrker ihjel er blevet mål for yderligere angreb i opløbet til troppeforstærkningerne:

For de sunni-muslimske jihadier i det al-Qaeda-centrerede Irakiske Mujahedin Shura-Råd er det et simpelt spørgsmål om overlevelse. Fallujah viste jihadierne, at bykamp mod amerikanere ikke fører til andet end tusindvis af døde jihadier. Derfor er de af deres nye leder Abu Ayyub al-Masri blevet beordret til at flygte fra Baghdad til Diyala-provinsen, hvor de imidlertid er blevet mål for en ny irakisk-amerikansk offensiv, der allerede har slået 50 af dem ihjel.

For de shia-muslimske jihadi der er nuværende eller tidligere medlemmer af Moqtada al-Sadr´s Mehdi-hær er det mere et spørgsmål om politisk end fysisk overlevelse, al den tid at moder-organisationen ikke officielt er i kamp med hverken den irakiske regering (den samarbejder ofte med den) eller de amerikanske styrker, men ikke desto mindre kan se sine kadrer af tortur-bødler blive stadig mere udtyndet af en bølge af arrestationer. Hidtil er over 600 Sadrister blevet sat bag tremmer, deraf 16 af høj rang. En syttende er blevet dræbt. Af samme grund er mange af lederne af Baghdads dødspatruljer også flygtet til Iran (via LGF - hold den tidligere fremførte skepsis overfor sunnimuslimske MP´ers beskyldninger for øje, men overvej også om det ikke kan være sandt):

DEATH SQUAD leaders have fled Baghdad to evade capture or killing by American and Iraqi forces before the start of the troop “surge” and security crackdown in the capital.

A former senior Iraqi minister said most of the leaders loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American cleric, had gone into hiding in Iran.

Among those said to have fled is Abu Deraa, the Shi’ite militia leader whose appetite for sectarian savagery has been compared to that of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, who was killed last year.

The former minister, who did not want to be named for security reasons, backed Sunni MPs’ claims that Nouri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, had encouraged their flight. He alleged that weapons belonging to Sadr’s Mahdi Army had been hidden inside the Iraqi interior ministry to prevent confiscation.

Maliki said last week: “I know that senior criminals have left Baghdad, others have left the country. This is good — this shows that our message is being taken seriously.”

En gruppe der stadig står en del mystik om er målet for dagens overskrifter om, at irakiske og amerikanske tropper har dræbt 250 bevæbnede ekstremister i kampe i plantagerne i Najafs nordlige forstad Zarqa. Antallet kan man stille spørgsmålstegn al den tid at det kommer fra det irakiske politi, der har en tendens til at blæse tabstal op før de har haft mulighed for at overhovedet at tælle de dræbte. Najafs guvernør siger da også, at det totale antal af ekstremister er 200, hvoraf altså ikke alle er dræbt.

Også ekstremisternes identitet er der imidlertid tvivl om. Mens guvernøren kalder dem sunnimuslimske oprørere iblandet udenlandske krigere siger shia-muslimske politiske kilder, det er en blanding af sunni-muslimer og shia-muslimer loyale over for en præst ved navn Ahmed Hassani. Reuters nøjes med det neutrale "en muslimsk kult".

Googler mand navnet Ahmed Hassani dukker der kun en enkelt nyhedshistorie op, om at han i juli, da han var tilknyttet Sadr´s Mehdi-hær, blev arresteret sammen med en kendt terrorist. Noget kunne altså tyde på endnu en aflægger af kampagnen mod Sadr´s tropper. For at krydre historien nævnes det, at de 200 ekstremister skulle have som mål at slå højtstående shiitiske præster ihjel under Ashura-højtiden, der begynder i disse dage.

Inkluderer man muligheden af, at Ahmed Hassani oprindeligt kommer fra Baghdad - og at hans tilnavn altså er al-Baghdadi - finder man ham gennem de sidste 3 år som en konstant stemme mod at sunni- og shiamuslimske irakere skal slå hinanden ihjel, og istedet koncentrere sig om at slå alle andre ihjel. Som sådan har han fordømt de demokratiske valg, har været medstifter af Det Politiske Bureau for den Irakiske Modstand, og har opnået den "ære" sammen med Mutada al-Sadr at være undtaget fra al Qaedas officielle politik med at udrydde alle Iraks shia-muslimer.

UPDATE:

Støvet er ved at lægge sig lidt efter elimineringen af nogle hundrede islamister i Najaf. Men også kun lidt. Alt efter hvilket medie, man lytter til er der nu tale om en shiitisk kult eller en blanding af shia- og sunnimuslimer der kun af ydre var shiitisk og om en irakisk gruppe eller en gruppe ledet og delvist udgjort af udlændinge. Antallet af dræbte der rapporteres om varierer mellem 200 og 350, og selv sektens/kultens/gruppens leder kan man ikke blive enige om. Oprindeligt blev som ovenfor nævnt navnet Ahmed Hassani bragt på banen. Han er nu forsvundet fra medierne, og istedet køres to andre personer på banen: Ali bin Ali bin Abi Talab i New York Times og hos BBC, og Ahmed Hassan al-Yamani i Washington Post.

Med andre ord ved vi idag reelt ikke ikke meget mere end i går.

• New York Times: Shiite Cult Aimed to Kill Clerics in Iraq
• Washington Post: Iraqis Raid Insurgents Near Shiite Holy City
• Al Jazeera: US, Iraqi forces kill 350 fighters near Najaf
• BBC: "Hundreds" killed in Iraq battle

Bemærk forøvrigt, at al Jazeera traditionen tro rapporterer de højeste tabstal, og åbenbart mener at de 120 fanger der er taget rapporteres som dræbte.

Alt for at irritere Bush

DR har allerede fejret, at demokraterne har vundet flertallet i begge den amerikanske kongres´ kamre. Indtil videre har de også ladet os vide, at demokraterne prøver at forhindre at Bush kan sende 20.000 ekstra soldater til Irak, for eksempel ved at fastfryse det amerikanske budget på 2006-niveauet, så Bush ikke kan få godkendt financieringen af de ekstra tropper. Hvad vi indtil videre IKKE har fået at vide er, at demokraterne derved står til at dømme mellem 110.000 og 175.000 aids-syge til døden:

A stalemate in Congress over financing the federal government through the remainder of the year could shortly upend progress in bringing AIDS drugs to needy patients in poor countries hardest hit by the global scourge.

At stake is nearly $1 billion in new spending for various programs to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria abroad. The Bush administration had sought the money, and both houses in Congress were inclined to support the funding, but it could all disappear by the end of February without special consideration by lawmakers whose attention is now focused on Iraq. ..

Dr. Mark Dybul, director of PEPFAR, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, warned a Washington audience last week that unless Congress authorizes the additional money to continue expanding the program, new overseas enrollment in antiviral drug treatment -- at a rate of 50,000 new patients each month -- will have to stop by the end of February.

Because of an impasse over budget priorities that began during the waning days of the Republican-controlled Congress last fall, nearly all federal spending for this year has been frozen at 2006 levels. That creates special problems for programs, like PEPFAR, that were scheduled for big expansions in 2007.

Unless the new Democrat-controlled Congress makes an exception, PEPFAR will have to stay at last year's spending level through September -- leaving no money for new enrollment after February. As a result, 350,000 HIV-positive people slated to start AIDS drug treatment, most of them in Africa, won't get their medicine. Dybul estimated that 110,000 to 175,000 of them will die.

"That's what we are talking about. It's not just enrolling people on therapy,'' he said during a meeting of the Global Health Council. "It's people who will die -- they're gone.''

Dybul also estimated that without the additional money, 23,000 children will become infected at birth because services to prevent mother-to-fetus transmission of HIV "will pretty much have to halt.''

Politiseren på DR - og ønsketænkning

Engang imellem bliver man bare så træt, så træt af DR´s nyhedsdækning. Fra Cheney anklager Bush-modstandere:

- At trække soldater hjem fra Irak nu ville være den største og farligste fadæse, siger Cheney til den højreorienterede tv-station Fox News.

Fra Favorit melder snart ud om kandidatur:

Den populære demokratiske senator fra Illinois, Barack Obama, sagde i et interview med tv-stationen CBS søndag, at han "temmelig snart" vil meddele, om han stiller op til præsidentvalget i USA i 2008.

Avisen Chicago Sun-Times spår, at Obama vil meddele sin beslutning i den kommende uge, der indledes med en mærkedag for borgerretsforkæmperen Martin Luther King.

I den første historie får vi at vide, at Fox News er højreorienteret. I den anden får vi ikke at vide, at Chicago Sun-Times er højre- og CBS er venstre-orienteret. Fox News og Chicago Sun-Times er ellers ejet af samme mand, og har samme politiske profil.

Den eneste forskel på de to historier er, at den fordømmende historie er om en republikaner, mens den neutrale er om en demokrat.

Eller..."neutral" er så meget sagt. Vi får også en overskrift på historien om Obama, der mere er ønsketænkning end fakta. Ritzaus "Obama på vej med melding om præsidentvalg" bliver således i DR´s mund til "Favorit melder snart ud om kandidatur".

Man græmmes.