While there is no end in sight to the Iraq war, it looks as though covert operations are being undertaken in Iran.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who was on the money regarding Iraq, says that covert operations have already started in Iran:

President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.

The most visible of these is the CIA-backed actions recently undertaken by the Mujahadeen el-Khalq, or MEK, an Iranian opposition group, once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations.

It is bitter irony that the CIA is using a group still labelled as a terrorist organisation, a group trained in the art of explosive assassination by the same intelligence units of the former regime of Saddam Hussein, who are slaughtering American soldiers in Iraq today, to carry out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.

It is amazing that such things are happening without a peep from the “liberal” media. Another example of similar shenanigans was reported Philip Giraldi in the latest issue of The American Conservative. Giraldi claims that the Pentagon created phony jihadist websites claiming that Abu Mu’sab al-Zarqawi was injured and traveling with two supporters in a “neighboring country.” These phony allegations appear designed to justify Special Forces incursions into Syria and Iran. Maybe you will read about this in about 2007 when the NY Times is apologizing for their sorry coverage leading up the next war.

Last week I spent about twenty minutes watching Fox News, only to be reminded that it is even more ridiculous than I thought. During one segment, viewers were duly informed by the cheery hosts that pinkocommielibs in the media were only reporting half the story from Iraq.

To correct the imbalance, a Pentagon spokesman was on to provide that mysterious missing half of the story we aren’t getting in the NY Times or on CNN. Unfortunately, this gentleman had nothing to say–literally. Nary a single fact about the mess in Iraq crossed his lips. The only message he had for Fox viewers was that the growing lack of support in the country would ultimately impact the morale of fighting men in the field. In short, his message was, “Shut up and don’t criticize the president. If you do, you are guilty of sedition and the blood of soldiers is on your hands.”

To get any actual news from Iraq, one must come to the Web, or read European papers. Today, I stumbled across Patrick Coburn’s latest analysis of the situation. Here are a few stats from that piece:

Then and now

Average daily attacks by insurgents

Pre-war March 2003: 0

Handover June 2004: 45

Now: 70

Analysis:

Figures should be viewed with caution because US military often does not record attacks if there are no American casualties.

Total number of coalition troops killed

Pre-war March 2003: 0

Handover June 2004: 982

Now: 1,930

Analysis:

Number of US troops killed increased sharply during Fallujah fighting in April and November 2004.

Iraqi civilians killed

Pre-war March 2003: n/a

Handover June 2004: 10,000

Now: 60,800 (includes 23,000 crime-related deaths)

Analysis:

Estimates of Iraqi civilian deaths have varied widely because the US military does not count them.

Electricity supply (megawatts generated)

Pre-war March 2003: 3,958

Handover June 2004: 4,293

Now: 4,035

Analysis:

Coalition is way behind its goal of providing 6,000 megawatts by July 2004. Most Iraqis do not have a reliable electricity supply.

Unemployed

Pre-war March 2003: n/a

Handover June 2004: 40%

Now: 40%

Analysis:

More than a third of young people are unemployed, a cause for social unrest. Many security men stay home, except on payday.

Telephones

Pre-war March 2003: 833,000 (landlines only)

Handover June 2004: 1.2m (includes mobiles)

Now: 3.1m

Analysis:

Landlines are extremely unreliable and mobile phone system could be improved.

Primary school access

Pre-war March 2003: 3.6m

Handover June 2004: 4.3m

Now: n/a

Analysis:

83 per cent of boys and 79 per cent of girls in primary schools. But figures mask declining literacy and failure rate.

Oil production (barrels a day)

Pre-war March 2003: 2.5m

Handover June 2004: 2.29m

Now: 2.20m

Analysis:

Sustainability of Iraqi oilfields has been jeopardised to boost output. Oil facilities regularly targeted by insurgents.

Coburn should cease and desist with trying to inject facts into his analysis and give us some good news. We need a few stories that are a bit more upbeat. Here are a few recommendations for headlines:

1) “Baghdad McDonald’s Thriving”
2) “Women’s Options Expanding as Baghdad Abortuarium Opens for Business”
3) “Alcohol Sales on the Decline as Christian Liquor Stores Burned to the Ground” (My Baptist brothers will especially admire the prohibitionist zeal of Shiite Muslims)
4) “Satellite Television Explodes in Liberated Iraq, Baywatch a Huge Hit”
5) “Boy Opens Lemonade Stand in Fallujah, Goes Into Business With Formerly Oppressed Little Girl”

Attempting to shore up waning public support for a war which even those in the so-called political mainstream are now questioning, President George “Stay the Course” Bush had this to say today:

Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? It is worth it, and it is vital to the future security of our country.

Is “it” worth “it?”

Let’s call these “its” “It One” and “It Two,” respectively. It Two possibly refers to the high cost our country is paying for having a military presence (it’s never officially been declared a war) in Iraq. This animation vividly portrays the rising cost in American deaths in that country (thanks to Jon Luker for pointing this out). Over 1700 U.S. military personnel have perished since the beginning of the war military action. The map in this animation would be filled with black spots if the Iraqi war dead were included.

Donald “I Don’t Do Quagmires” Rumsfeld said on Sunday that “insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years.” Does “stay the course” mean commiting to whatever number President Bush and his advisors pick out of a hat? It may have to be best two out of three when making that decision as the president’s advisors don’t seem to agree about whether the glass is half full or half empty of quicksand…Vice President Cheney says the insurgency is in its “last throes.” Later, he qualified his remarks by saying that it all depends on what “throes” means.

What about It One? I am assuming that this “it” refers to the original reasons we took 140,000+ troops to Iraq. How many reasons, let me count the ways…at various times we’ve been told it is to secure freedom for the American people, because there is an Al-Qaeda/Saddam Hussein connection, because Iraq had WMD (we have satellite photos to prove it), because Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who needed to be deposed, because we need to secure freedom for and bring democracy to the Iraqi people. I’m not sure I feel freer under the Patriot Act’s impositions on law-abiding citizens; yes, Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, and I can think of a bunch more dictators who are oppressing their people and wishing bad things on our country, who didn’t even have the support of our government in the past to prop up their evil regimes; no WMD were ever found; and supposing that our Constitution even gives our government permission to invade other sovereign nations and impose a certain political system on them, the Iraqi people may have gone from the frying pan into the fire. The elections netted a majority of fundamentalist Shiite Muslim leaders, a group with little love for westerners or for western-style democracy. The persecuted Christians of Iraq may question whether “it” has been worth “it.”

And American Christians may question whether attempting to secure a nebulous “freedom” for the avowed enemies of God trumps our obligation to those Iraqis who are of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10).

I love the Republican Christian right, I really do. That’s why threads such as this over at World Magazine drive me crazy to no end. The issue at hand is the appointment by President Bush of Israel Hernandez, an openly gay man, as assistant secretary of commerce. The consensus seems to be that as long as he doesn’t push the gay agenda it’s not a problem. Now, if you’ll think back several years to the Clinton administration, you’ll recall that we oftentimes heard that character does count. This was an accurate statement, yet it’s now being ignored because we’re dealing with a Bush appointee.

It’s really sad to see good people bending over backwards to defend this man’s having this job. There seem to be conflicting reports about when the President found out that Mr. Hernandez was homosexual, so in the spirit of charity we’ll assume he found out after the fact. It’s just sad, however; to see so many good Christians who ought to know better hold such a blatant double standard.

Our brave girls in uniform face the enemy. Are they in combat roles, or not?

A suicide car bomber and gunmen ambushed a convoy carrying female U.S. Marines in Fallujah, killing two Marines and leaving another four American troops presumed dead, the military said Friday. At least one woman was killed and 11 of 13 wounded were female.

The terror group al-Qaida in Iraq claimed it carried out the bombing, one of the single deadliest attacks against the Marines – and against women – in this country. The high number of female casualties spoke to the lack of any real front lines in Iraq, where U.S. troops are battling a raging insurgency and American women soldiers have taken part in more close-quarters combat than in any previous military conflict.

1732 members of the American military have died since the start of the war, thousands more have been wounded. Eleven women were wounded in this attack. But the government has been good to its female military personnel, footing the bill for all sorts of surgeries, so I’m sure they will be well taken care of.

Explaining why women don’t belong in combat positions, R. Cort Kirkwood says:

Lastly, assigning women to combat, or even combat support units like the 507th, purposely subjects them to trials and tribulations for which nature has not prepared them. Such assignments endanger not only the women but also the men around them, who will redirect their attention from fighting toward protecting or helping the women. Men will do that because they are men, because regardless of feminist propaganda, good parents teach their sons about chivalry and honor. The Steinem brigade doesn’t like it, but it’s true nonetheless. Thus, men will die unnecessarily. That is immoral and unjust, as is ordering married men and women to live in close quarters where they are tempted to adultery. Some observers even question the legality of orders sending women into combat. But that is a debate for another day.

I think it’s time for that debate to happen. And unless Christians are willing to take a stand on the biblical distinctives between men and women, they won’t have a first amendment leg to stand on when draft registration is required of their daughters.

Y’all have no doubt heard about the Supreme Court’s decision to allow local governments to seize homes if it’s proven to be in the public’s interest. This is, as Thomas Fleming and Joesph Farah have pointed out, a trampling on a vital right, the right to land ownership. Essentially, this ruling takes the view that the government owns the land in practice, and can boot tenants out as it sees fit. While I generally don’t get all worked up over greedy businesses and what have you, it’s nonetheless obvious that unscrupulous persons with access to the right people could build any place they please regardless of who lives there already.

Justice John Paul Stevens cited the fifth amendment, which says that “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Stevens, a good liberal, argues that “Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government”. Stevens is using a very broad definition of public good, and while he’s obviously wrong it points to one of the problems with the Constitution – statements like this that can be broadly interpreted. Of course, people will twist words regardless so perhaps the problem lies not so much in the document as it does its readers.

How taking away a person’s property fits the public good is beyond me. One could argue that one is doing as much damage as good, but that’s not really the point. (With apologies to any Lockeans reading.) No, the point is that if you force someone to sell their land, what you’ve done is stolen it. That you paid for it was awfully considerate, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s theft. Imagine I walked into some random person’s house, pointed a gun at their face and told them to sell me their TV for $200. They may be getting a good deal on the TV, but they were forced to sell it. I highly doubt that the police would deal with me as anything but a thief. The same principle applies writ large, even if five judges call it legal. Hopefully this will be overturned at some point. While I doubt we’ll see a rash of people losing their homes to greedy businessmen, it’s nonetheless a bad ruling that deserves to be overthrown. Oh, and impeaching some judges may be a good idea as well.

Scoring another victory in their ongoing fight to expand the size of government, the Republicans in the House of Representatives pushed through a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the American flag. Freedom-loving Americans are now hoping that the Senate will start slicing and dicing and kill this bill in a grandiose fashion worthy of a Quentin Tarantino film.

There is little room for doubt that 9/11 played a major role in the renewed push for a flag-burning amendment. Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.), self-appointed representative of terrorist victims, said, “Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: ‘Pass this amendment.’”

This comes as no surprise. Any politician knows that the best way to garner support for an expansion of government power is to play the patriotism card. Studies (well, at least those studies I assume exist that cover this subject) have shown that people are less inclined to speak out against something if doing so makes them look like unpatriotic sheep to the rest of the flock.

I have no reason to question Rep. Cunningham’s love for his country, but his statement has to be one of the dumbest ever uttered by a politician–within the last few days. Is he suggesting that a flag-burning amendment will give the victims of 9/11 some sort of cosmic justice and grant their souls the eternal rest they have so far been denied? Does he think that had this amendment to the Constitution been ratified prior to 9/11, those twin towers might still be standing today? And if not, would we have had the satisfaction of prosecuting those responsible for desecrating every flag that happened to be damaged in the attacks? Clearly, Cunningham’s statement betrays the idiotic reasoning behind this proposed amendment.

What’s even scarier is that the Democrats are now beginning to sound like small-government conservatives. Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, “If the flag needs protection at all, it needs protection from members of Congress who value the symbol more than the freedoms that the flag represents.” I hate it when I have to side with a liberal Democrat, but he’s right. This is just another example of symbolism over substance.

Symbolism, however, is important in post-9/11 America. Terrorism, as portrayed by the Bush administration, is a nebulous, shadowy, elusive evil that lurks behind every closed door, around every corner and down every dark alleyway. Confronted with a frightening, faceless enemy, the American people need something tangible to cling to–a kind of security blanket–and the flag is as good a symbol as any.

You will no doubt hear arguments from “conservatives” who will say that this flag-burning amendment is necessary. Sure, the country somehow managed to survive over 200 years without such an amendment to its Constitution, but perhaps the time has come to really start getting serious about our internationally recognized symbol of freedom.

But when you get right down to it, the American flag is just that: a symbol. And even though the word “desecration” is typically reserved for the act of defacing a sacred object, there is nothing holy or sacred about the American flag; it is a symbol of the state.

Some may insist that this amendment honors that for which so many men fought and died, but I hesitate to believe that a single American soldier ever gave his life in defense of the flag. If any of them had, then they died in vain for a symbol, a multi-colored piece of cloth. What diminishes the sacrifices made by our nation’s veterans is allowing politicians to assign special protection to a glorified dish towel while they continue their mission to desecrate the rest of the Constitution.

The exact wording of the amendment in question reads as follows: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” Seeing as how the proponents of this amendment aren’t offering any further explanation, I would like to address four main concerns of mine.

First of all, the amendment fails to define “desecration.” Must the desecration be deliberate, or can it be accidental? Are there degrees of desecration? Will the failure to properly illuminate the flag at night be considered a federal crime?

Secondly, there is no definition of “flag.” Are we talking about the actual star-spangled, red-white-and-blue banners flying over government buildings? Would privately owned flags be included? If so, what does that do to property rights in this country? And what about representations of the flag on bandanas, scarves, boxer shorts, t-shirts, jackets and countless other items of clothing? Will certain uses of the flag be taboo? For example, could a Republican-controlled Congress rule that the waving of miniature flags at the Democratic National Convention constitutes a form of desecration?

Thirdly, we have no way of knowing this amendment’s economic impact. What will it cost to investigate and prosecute incidents of flag desecration? Would yet another federal agency have to be created to crack down on the apparently vast, organized criminal network of flag-burners? Will this turn into yet another black hole for taxpayer dollars?

Finally, this amendment does nothing but expand the power of the federal government. With such vague wording, it would be left to Congress to arbitrarily define–and redefine–its scope. Washington bureaucrats would essentially have absolute dictatorial power over this issue. They will be constantly tinkering with the meaning of the amendment through various pieces of legislation, and that will most assuredly give rise to an endless stream of costly court battles.

It may seem silly to think that an 85-year-old veteran, who raises Old Glory in his front lawn and forgets to take it down during inclement weather, resulting in a torn, faded flag, could be considered guilty of a federal offense. But with ratification of this new amendment, what once seemed absurd suddenly appears within the realm of possibility and becomes an issue that Congress must confront when defining what it means to physically desecrate the flag.

Here’s something else that may help put the flag-burning amendment into perspective. When the Chinese government assumed control of Hong Kong in 1997, one of the first laws it passed was a ban on the defacing of the national flag. Do we really want to emulate China? Why can’t we leave such laws to oppressive communist regimes and keep this the Land of the (Relatively) Free?

I realize that in these uncertain times people want to do something to show they can be good little patriots, but this amendment has nothing to do with patriotism. In fact, it goes against everything the flag is supposed to represent.

And if supporters of this ridiculous amendment think there’s a flag-burning problem now, wait until it becomes illegal. Man-made global warming would suddenly become a reality.