DebateGate

Unprecedented Coalition strike nails the
Haqqani Network in North Waziristan

By Matt DupeeMarch 13, 2008 2:55 PM
 
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the tribal areas. Map from PBS' Frontline.
(click to see map)
http://www.longwarjournal.org/maps/paikistan-afghanistan-NWFP-map-2.jpg
 
A decisive Coalition strike against a high-level meeting of Taliban linked insurgents on March 12 took place one and a half kilometers inside Pakistani territory, US military officials have confirmed to the Long War Journal.

Several precision-guided munitions struck a compound owned by a senior member of the Haqqani network, a powerful Taliban splinter group who is based out of the Pakistani tribal state of North Waziristan, shortly after multiple intelligence sources confirmed a high level meeting of the group's upper echelon was taking place in the compound. According to information made available to the Long War Journal, the owner of the compound and other Haqqani network leaders were in the compound at the time of the strike. Several other high level Haqqani commanders, including Sirajjudin Haqqani, had planned to attend this meeting, intelligence sources confirmed.

At 9:40 PM local time, US officials declared the group posed an imminent threat to forces inside Afghanistan and the call to strike the compound was made. After the orders were given to launch a coordinated strike, fixed wing and rotary wing air support along with Predator surveillance and recon began scanning likely insurgent attack positions inside Afghanistan. US military officials confirmed no women or children had been seen in the targeted North Waziristan compound or in any structures near it over the last five days.

Nearly four hours later, a salvo of indirect fire targeting the compound hit their mark, completely obliterating the building and killing an unknown number of people inside of it. Several insurgents working sentry posts around the compound were observed by aerial surveillance leaving the area on foot. Initial intelligence reports on March 12. Indicated three high-level Haqqani network commanders? were killed and that many Chechen fighters also died in the blast.

The targeted strike inside Pakistani territory is the first public announcement by US military officials confirming the coordination of a cross-border attack. The attack is said to have occurred in the village of Lwara Mundi, a flashpoint for clashes between insurgents and security forces, according the AFP. Thousands of pro-Taliban insurgents, al Qaeda fighters, and tribal militias associated with the Taliban operate unhindered in the tribal states of western Pakistan, especially in their stronghold of North Wazristan. Previously, the Pakistani government has denied Coalition and NATO forces from conducting raids against targets inside Pakistani territory.

The attack on March 12 was quickly condemned by the Pakistani military, who claim the strike killed two Pakistani women and two children. Chief Pakistani military spokesman Major General Athar Abbas told reporters, "We have lodged a very strong protest with the coalition forces across the border". The US military has refused to comment on these claims, but intelligence reports strongly indicate no females or children were present in or near the compound at the time of the strike. The Pakistani military has denied commenting if insurgents were among the dead found in the rubble of the compound.

One night prior to the strike, Long War Journal correspondent Phil Peterson witnessed US military officials call off a targeted strike following intelligence reports that women and children were inside a house occupied by a high level insurgent commander. I watched them pass on taking out some bad guys because they were in a compound with other people and there might also be collateral damage to the surrounding structures, possibly causing civilian deaths or injuries, Phil recounted in an email from Bagram Air Force Base. ?The intel was solid; they knew who the guys were and where exactly they were in the compound but they passed to get them another time.

In late January, senior al Qaeda commander Abu Laith al Libi was killed during a missile strike in North Waziristan along with several Arab lieutenants. Al Libi was a top-tier al Qaeda leader and led the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which merged with al Qaeda in Nov. 2007. He attended a high level meeting among insurgents at a compound in Azam Warsak village in North Waziristan, a key al Qaeda controlled village since 2002. American al Qaeda representative, Adam Gadahn, may have also died in the same attack that killed al Libi, according to western sources who spoke to Pakistani news outlets.

Phil Peterson contributed to this report from Bagram, Afghanistan

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/03/unprecedented_coalit.php

Fed takes boldest action since the Depression
to rescue US mortgage industry

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor
13/03/2008

The US Federal Reserve has taken the boldest action since the 1930s, accepting $200bn of housing debt as collateral to prevent an implosion of the mortgage finance industry and head off a full-blown economic crisis

The Bank of England, the key European central banks, and the Bank of Canada all joined in a co-ordinated move with a mix of policies to halt the dowward spiral in the credit markets, expanding on the "shock and awe" tactics used late last year.

The Fed's dramatic step came after an emergency conference call by governors on Monday night. It followed the melt-down of the US chartered agencies -- Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other lenders -- which together guarantee 60pc of the entire US home loan market. Fannie Mae's share price fell 19pc in panic trading on Monday after Barron's magazine said it may need a rescue package.

"The agency crisis was a Tsunami event," said Tim Bond, global strategist at Barclays Capital.

"The market was starting to question the solvency of bodies that stand at the top of the credit pile. These agencies together wrap or insure $6 trillion of mortgages. They cannot be allowed to fail because it would cause a financial disaster. The fact that this sector has blown up has caught everybody's attention in Washington," he said.

The Fed action set off a powerful relief rally, lifting the Dow Jones index over 340 points in early trading. Both US and European equities have been hovering on key support lines in recent days, threatening to break down through 18-month lows in a second, brutal leg to the bear market.

Stress indicators across almost all parts of the global credit system fell from extreme levels on the Fed news. The CDX and iTraxx Europe indexes that serve as a default barometer for corporate bonds retreated from record highs, although it is too early to judge whether the latest action will start to thaw the credit freeze. The stock market rally after the last central bank intervention in December fizzled out after just one day.

"This is not going to be enough," said Hans Redeker, currency chief at BNP Paribas.

"The Fed is doing absolutely the right thing by soaking up mortgage debt that nobody else wants. This will have an impact on spreads, but we're seeing the deflation of a major bubble. The Fed is still going to have to cut interest rates by 75 basis points next week," he said.

It is a ground-breaking move for the Fed to accept mortgage collateral, even if the debt is theoretically 'AAA-grade' debt. The Fed is not allowed to buy mortgage bonds outright, but it can achieve a similar effect by letting banks roll over collateral indefinitely. The European Central Bank is already doing this, shielding Dutch, Spanish, German, and some British banks from the full impact of the credit crunch.

The Fed is to create a new facility that allows banks to swap their mortgage bonds for US Treasuries. It is a well-targeted "sterilized" move to avoid adding fuel to inflationary fire. It follows the Fed's separate pledge last Friday to add up to $200bn in liquidity.

The Bank of England also announced that it was widening the range of elligible collateral as it offers ?10bn of three-month loans, saying pressures in the money markets "have recently increased again." The ECB and the Swiss have boosted swap agreements with the Fed to provide $30bn and $6bn respectively in dollar liquidity to their own lenders.

   
Bernard Connolly, global strategist at Banque AIG, said the Fed action may help calm the markets for now, but it cannot solve the root problem of eroded of bank capital.

"There is the risk of a very damaging credit contraction. We face the most serious global crisis since the Great Depression. But this time at least the North American central banks are doing their best to stop it spreading to the real economy," he said.

The emergency actions appear to have been co-ordinated by the Fed's top two figures, Ben Bernanke and Donald Kohn, working closely with the Bank of Canada's Mark Carney. "We should be thankful that we have people in charge who appreciate the gravity of the situation," said Mr Connolly.

The travails at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- once rock-solid institutions -- had combined in a deadly cocktail with a fresh wave of panic over the solvency of the investment banks with heavy exposure to sub-prime debt.

Bear Stearns was forced to deny reports that it was running out of capital and may seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The spreads measuring default risk on its debt rocketed from 246 to 792 on Monday.

Mr Bond said the mortgage agencies may ultimately need to be nationalized. Fannie Mae has already seen its stock price drop 70pc since October at a cost of $50bn in market value, even though it has an implicit federal guarantee. "There is going to have to be a very big bail-out," he said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/12/cnfed112.xml&CMP=ILC-mostviewedbox

What Did Pelosi Know about Amgen's Woes
and When Did She Know It?

By Ray Robison
March 11, 2008

The Speaker of the House has been very good to Amgen. And vice-versa.

The year 2007 kicked off with expectations of good market news for the California-based biotech firm. It was expected to surge 27 percent on its share value that year according to analysts with Thompson Financial.  Instead, it did just the opposite, beginning a sharp tumble down after just the first few weeks into the year.

After falling from the mid seventies to the mid fifties, the stock started to get back on its feet. Until May of 2007, that is, when Medicare announced it was considering new restrictions on the use of anemia treatment drugs made by Amgen for its own sales, and for Johnson & Johnson to market under a different product name. The New York Times reported on this issue in mid August, 2007:

Amgen executives said the new Medicare policy would force huge restrictions on use of Aranesp and force doctors to change how they practice. Doctors and patient groups are protesting the decision, but it is not clear that Medicare will change it.

When the final decision came out, Medicare had lifted many of the proposed restrictions and it looked like Amgen had dodged a bullet.

Friends in high places

But dodging wasn't the only maneuver that saved the company. As fortune would have it, this company that had never experienced such a down turn had a card up its sleeve. Amgen had an option that was not bound by the limitations of market forces. Amgen had a newly minted Speaker of the House with a portion of the company in her district, her former senior policy advisor in charge of the company's government affairs, and her own financial investment in a company which leased the rights to sell Amgen's most successful drug.

Amgen not only dogged a bullet, it had Nancy Pelosi to help smack the gun out of Medicare's hand. Although her signature is not visible on legislation, as Speaker she sets the agenda in the House. It suddenly became important for congress to intervene in this regulatory matter during the summer of 2007.

The effort in the House was spearheaded by one of her closest confidantes, Anna Eshoo. The sister Congresswoman told the San Francisco Chronicle "we've known each other for 30 years." The Chronicle has labeled her one of Pelosi's closest friends in Congress. A raft of bills, bipartisan in nature but mostly championed by Congresswoman Eshoo in the House, would be submitted that fall: (http://thomas.loc.gov/, search term "Erythropoiesis")

1 . Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within the Department of... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.54.IH]
2 . Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services within the Department of... (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.22.IS]
3 . To express the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the Medicare national coverage determination on the treatment of anemia in cancer patients. (Introduced in House)[H.RES.681.IH]
4 . To express the sense of the Senate regarding the Medicare national coverage determination on the treatment of anemia in cancer patients. (Introduced in Senate)[S.RES.305.IS]

Follow the money

Over the next few months, Amgen executives, including the CEO, Chairman and President of Amgen, began donating money to congressional campaign committees and to some campaign coffers in particular. They were most generous to Pelosi, becoming her largest corporate donor for the year. The bulk of it came the week before Medicare was set to make the change official at the beginning of August.

It's not a new or particularly nefarious concept, donating money to a politician who can help you. It's just usually done a little more subtly, staggered out at seemly intervals, not all dumped in at once, at the end of July, as if to indicate a time of significance had arrived. And it usually doesn't involve a politician with a personal financial stake in the matter. Pelosi and her husband Paul owned between a quarter and a half million dollars of Johnson & Johnson stock as revealed on their 2006 disclosure form (page 10), and apparently still own it.

When Amgen execs pumped thousands of dollars into her campaign coffers, did they know she was immediately going to shepherd an effort to stop the planned restrictions? Did they know she was also going to revive a beneficial piece of legislation that had lain dormant for years?

Did Pelosi know that the bill she was submitting, the Early Treatment of HIV Act would ultimately offset some of the losses caused by the planned Medicare restrictions? To deny knowledge would be to admit ignorance of the effect of her legislation, that it was a rescue bill to help a struggling giant in her district, in her social circle, and its secondary marketing channel in her portfolio.

The public trust

In the scheme of things, a few tens of thousands of dollars in donations is not so much, nor is the mere fraction of a million dollar investment a big deal to the seriously wealthy Pelosis, but our public trust is priceless. So when we see a circumstance in which the government is planning to restrict government purchasing, and then we all of a sudden find anomalous donations to a politicians' campaign, and then we see that politician in charge empower the resurrection of a bill that will counter the effect of the restrictions, it at least raises the question of a quid-pro-quo, doesn't it?

Ironically, even as Pelosi was denying any impropriety in this matter, she was blaming Senator McCain for Boeing's loss of an Air Force fuel tanker contract that went to a foreign competitor. Boeing had originally won the bid, until it was discovered that an Air Force official received the promise of a job with Boeing in return for favoritism. McCain had made sure the renewed bidding process was well supervised.

What's the difference between the actions of the disgraced Air Force acquisition official and the appearances in the case of Speaker Pelosi? In both cases, a corporate moneybags benefited from support by an official with influence over a government acquisition matter. The most visible difference is that the Air Force official went to jail while Pelosi shrugs her shoulders and claims it's okay because the bill she submitted in 2007 had been submitted in 1999 and that she cares about people with AIDS. Could our jailed Air Force official have claimed she cared about keeping the corporate headquarters of the airframe supplier in the United States? Would investigators have bought that?

But even if we support ETHA, even if we believe in the right to make such campaign contributions, even if we believe the Medicare rule change was flawed, and even if we take the Speaker at her word on her motives, the appearance of pay-to-play is a problem. Just as is the appearance of the Speaker sending legislation to come before the House when that legislation affects a quarter to half million dollar entry in the Speaker's own stock portfolio.

Appearances do matter.

In 1999, Congressman Tom Delay was reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee for "participation in and facilitation of an energy company golf fundraiser". The ethics panel determined that at the very least his actions

"created an appearance that donors were being provided special access to you regarding the then-pending energy legislation."

Did Delay even own stock?

Did Amgen have special access to the Speaker in the summer of 2007 either through fund raiser events or friendly contacts? Should her sponsorship of ETHA and legislative management of the Medicare bills be considered "pending [pharmaceutical] legislation"?

Ultimately there may be no way to prove that the Speaker knew her bill would help Amgen. There may be no way to prove Amgen's generous campaign contributions were linked to the timely legislation halting the fall of Amgen in the autumn of last year.

And the public is not likely to hear or care about it.  Not unless the media digs anyway. Will they? Will the New York Times apply the same standard of scrutiny as it did to John McCain's dealing with a certain lobbyist?  Will the media, self-appointed watchdog of the government, do their job when a Democrat leader is on the line?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/03/what_did_pelosi_know_about_amg.html

Clinton-backer Ferraro: Obama Where He Is Because He's Black

March 11, 2008 7:30 AM

Clinton campaign finance committee member, former vice presidential candidate, and former Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, D-NY,  told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Ca., that, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Of Clinton, Ferraro said that the press "has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign."

"I was reading an article that said young Republicans are out there campaigning for Obama because they believe he's going to be able to put an end to partisanship. Dear God! Anyone that has worked in the Congress knows that for over 200 years this country has had partisanship - that's the way our country is."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clinton-backer.html

New York Democratic Governor Eliot Laurence Spitzer linked to PROSTITUTION RING


Gov. Eliot Spitzer to hold press conference at 2:15 pm EDT at his Manhattan office... Developing...

The FARC Files
By MARY ANASTASIA O'GRADY
March 10, 2008; Page A14

Colombia's precision air strike 10 days ago, on a guerrilla camp across the border in Ecuador, killed rebel leader Ra?l Reyes. That was big. But the capture of his computer may turn out to be a far more important development in Colombia's struggle to preserve its democracy.

Reyes was the No. 2 leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, which has been at war with the Colombian government for more than four decades. His violent demise is a fitting end to a life devoted to masterminding atrocities against civilians. But the computer records expose new details of the terrorist strategy to bring down the government of Colombian President ?lvaro Uribe, including a far greater degree of collaboration between the FARC and four Latin heads of government than had been previously known. In addition to Venezuelan President Hugo Ch?vez, they are President Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Nicaragua's President Daniel Ortega and Bolivian President Evo Morales.

Mr. Ch?vez is said to have been visibly distressed when told of the death of Reyes, a man he clearly admired. He also may have realized that he played a role in his hero's death, since it was later reported that the Colombian military had located the camp by intercepting a phone call to Reyes from the Venezuelan president.

Mr. Ch?vez rapidly ordered 10 battalions to the Colombian border. Should the Colombian military cross into Venezuela in search of FARC, he warned, it would mean war. That may have seemed like an unnecessary act of machismo. But the Colombia military has long claimed that the FARC uses both Ecuador and Venezuela as safe havens. Now it had shown that it wasn't afraid to act on that information.

There is a third explanation for Mr. Ch?vez's panic when he learned of the strike: He was alarmed about the possibility that his links with Reyes would be exposed. Sure enough, when the Colombian national police retrieved Reyes's body from Ecuador, it also brought back several computers from the camp. Documents on those laptops show that Mr. Ch?vez and Reyes were not only ideological comrades, but also business partners and political allies in the effort to wrest power from Mr. Uribe.

The tactical discussions found in the documents are hair-raising enough. They show that the FARC busies itself with securing arms and explosives, selling cocaine, and otherwise financing its terrorism operations through crime. In a memo last month, for example, a rebel leader discussed the FARC's efforts to secure 50 kilos of uranium, which it hoped to sell to generate income. In the same note, there is a reference to "a man who supplies me material for the explosive we are preparing, his name is Belisario and he lives in Bogot? . . ."

Though it is far from clear, Colombian national police speculated from this that a dirty bomb could be in the making. An April 2007 letter to the FARC secretariat lays out the terrorists' effort to acquire missiles from Lebanon. When Viktor Bout, allegedly one of the world's most notorious arms traffickers, was arrested in Thailand on Thursday, the Spanish-language press reported that he was located thanks to the Reyes computer files.

The maneuvers of thugs seeking power are no surprise. The more significant revelation is the relationship between the FARC and Mr. Ch?vez, Mr. Correa, Mr. Morales and Mr. Ortega. All four, it turns out, support FARC violence and treachery against Mr. Uribe.

According to the documents, Mr. Ch?vez's friendship with the FARC dates back at least as far as 1992, when he was in jail for an attempted coup d'etat in Venezuela and the FARC sent him $150,000. Now he is returning the favor, by financing the terrorist group with perhaps as much as $300 million. But money is the least important of the Ch?vez gifts. He is also using his presidential credentials on behalf of the FARC.

The FARC puts a lot of effort toward discrediting Mr. Uribe in the court of world opinion. A September letter from a rebel commander to "secretariat comrades" reads: "As to the manifesto, I suggest adding the border policy and making it public by all means possible to see if we can stop all the world from supporting uribismo [the agenda of Mr. Uribe] in the October elections." He then proposes a "clandestine" meeting between one rebel and Mr. Ch?vez in Caracas to discuss "our political-military project." Mr. Ch?vez, the rebels say in a later document, suggested that the FARC videotape any Colombian military strikes in the jungle for propaganda purposes.

In January, FARC leader Manuel Marulanda (aka "Sureshot") wrote to Mr. Ch?vez: "You can imagine the happiness that you have awoken in all the leaders, guerrillas, the Bolivarian Movement of New Colombia [and] the Clandestine Communist Party with the plan you put forth . . . to ask for the analysis and approval of recognizing the FARC as a belligerent [therefore legitimate] force."

The documents also show why it was a good idea for Colombia not to ask Ecuador for permission before moving against the FARC camp -- even though in the past it had done so when tangling with the rebels at the border. A January memo reports on a FARC meeting with the Ecuadorean minister of security, who said that Mr. Correa is "interested in official relations with the FARC" and has decided not to aid Colombia against the rebels. "For [Ecuador] the FARC is an insurgent organization of the people, with social and political proposals that it understands," the memo reads.

It also says Mr. Correa plans to increase commercial and political relations with North Korea, and that he requests that one of the FARC's hostages be released to him next time, so as to "boost his political efforts." A Feb. 28 letter from Reyes summarizes a meeting with an emissary of Mr. Correa: "He explained the proposal of Plan Ecuador, which seeks to counteract the damaging effects of Plan Colombia [the joint U.S.-Colombian effort against terrorism]."

Where do Bolivia and Nicaragua fit into this collaborative effort? An Oct. 4 letter from a rebel to FARC leader Marulanda reports that a Venezuelan minister has agreed that if there is a FARC summit, "Ch?vez would come with Ortega, Evo and Correa." All three, the letter said, are with Ch?vez to the death.

Write to O'Grady@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120510858118323265.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

OBAMA SLAYS HIS 'MONSTER' - AIDE WHO SLIMED HILL QUITS & SAYS SORRY
By MAGGIE HABERMAN
March 8, 2008

March 8, 2008

A top foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama resigned yesterday after calling Hillary Rodham
Clinton "a monster."

Samantha Power, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and Harvard prof who posed last summer for a glamorous
pictorial in Vogue, came under fire after firing off the insult. She further embarrassed Obama by saying
his plan to withdraw from Iraq could become inoperative if he wins the White House.

Discussing Clinton, Power told The Scotsman newspaper: "She is a monster, too - that is off the record -
she is stooping to anything."

On Thursday night, Obama's camp issued a statement from Power apologizing and Obama denounced the "monster" remark.

Power told RTE, Ireland's public broadcast service, that she spoke with Obama by phone yesterday and he "made it
absolutely clear that we just couldn't make comments like this in his campaign." Clinton supporters had demanded
that she be axed.

Power announced she was resigning just as word circulated about a BBC interview where she said Obama's
call to pull all US troops from Iraq within 16 months is a "best-case scenario" that he'd look at again if elected.

"You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," she said.

"He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a US senator.

"He will rely upon a plan - an operational plan - that he pulls together in consultation with people who are on the
ground to whom he doesn't have daily access now, as a result of not being the president."

In her announcement that she's resigning her unpaid post, Power called her remarks about Clinton "inexcusable"
and contrary to her admiration for the former first lady.

Power didn't address her Iraq comments.

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe insisted that the candidate's plan to pull back roughly two brigades
a month as president is "a rock-solid commitment."

But it followed a flap over a Canadian government memo that pointed to double dealing by Obama's top economic
adviser, Austan Goolsbee.

According to the memo, Goolsbee privately told Canadian government officials that Obama's talk about renegotiating
the North American Free Trade Agreement was "political positioning."

Goolsbee has denied the remarks.

Clinton, stumping in Mississippi, said her rival "keeps telling people one thing, while his campaign tells people
abroad something else. I'm not sure what the American people should believe."

She added, "He has attacked me continuously for having no hard exit date [from Iraq], and now we learn
he doesn't have one. In fact, he doesn't have a plan at all."

Obama shot back, "She doesn't have the standing to question my position on this issue.

"It was because of George Bush, with an assist from Hillary Clinton and John McCain, that we got into this war . . .
I will end it in 2009."

Power is an expert on human rights, having written several books and articles on issues like the crisis in Darfour.

A graduate of Yale University and Harvard law school, she moved to the United States from Ireland at age 9.

Power is reportedly close to Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor who has close ties with Obama
and may be tapped as a possible adviser or White House counsel.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03082008/news/nationalnews/obama_slays_his_monster_100949.htm