The book Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents is now available. Read about it at the book website.
Free download Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents_Intro_and_Ch_1.pdf
Continue reading "Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents" »
Heh....my favorite story but with a twist. Instead of the usual one or two, this one got TEN!
In neighbouring Helmand province police said 10 rebels were killed late Friday when a mine exploded as they were trying to plant it in a road near Musa Qala.
Unbelievable. The LA Times not only continues to use the "resurgent Taliban" Narrative but states "For months, commanders in Afghanistan have been saying that more troops are needed to train the Afghan army (pictured) and thwart a resurgent Taliban."
Commanders in Afghanistan are callng the Taliban resurgent?
Here is an article I wrote about this last February.
Back then the LA Times made the claim the day after the senior American NATO Commander specificaly stated that the Taliban was NOT resurgent, that increased fighting was due to NATO expansion into new territories. The LA Times is STILL reporting the narrative from 2006 wich was accurate for a few months but is now completely false.
Update: In doing more research I found an article from The Age of Australia in which they quote Gen. McNeill having used the term resurgent himself in just the last few weeks. However, that doesn't mean they weren't wrong for the last two years. And a careful reading of the quote shows that his reference was to a very limited geographic area, describing them as regrouping in that area. Well, yeah, they are going to mass from time to time and that can be called a resurgence, but not in the way the media has presented this for so long. A resurgence as they use it would mean that the Taliban is getting stronger, which is false, and that they are somehow closer to achieving their political goal of taking over power. The Taliban is nowhere near that strength. They are going to be able to cause some havoc, but that is not the same as winning. We are still on a victory trajectory, they are still on a losing trajectory if you apply the least bit of critical reasoning to the situation.
I have been watching a flood of op-eds in the vein of "maybe Bush wasn't really the devil after all" for the last few months. My fried Jess sends this from WatchingAmerica.com which is a great website that presents translated foreign media. This op-ed is from Germany. I would add that many in Lebanon credit Bush with running the Syrians out.
People from Georgia, the Ukraine and other countries from east Europe disagree--they are grateful for Bush’s support in both word and deed. Africa also has its reasons to look back with satisfaction at Bush’s term in office. Remember the initiatives against HIV/AIDS, malaria and hunger, a fact that different characters such as Bob Geldorf, Tony Blair, Bono and Nelson Mandela have been pointing out on various occasions.
I am unable to authenticate this document though if I had to bet, I would go with real. It has been published in a Kurd paper. H/T Christopher Holton.
I have no problem with the content. Our work centered around documents that have now been verified by a Pentagon study that links the Iraqi Intelligence Service to the Egyptian Islamic Jihad in 1993 and even earlier. The IIS wrote of meeting with a high level EIJ leader and I always assumed it was likely Zawahiri since another captured letter from an al Qaeda leader claims Zawahiri went to Iraq (and from the context would seem he was not unwelcome). Sammi has provided a translation:
Republic of Iraq Number Sh S / 5083
Office of the Presidency Date 1433 (Muslim calendar)
Intelligence Service 12/12/2002
SECRET
Announcement
Mr. M. M*. Sh. Kh. The respected
To M5, M6, M7
We would like to inform you that the day of 14/12/2002 (Note:14 December 2002)has been designated by the respected secretary to establish the important and top secret meeting with our source number “1000” Ayman Al Zawahiri with the purpose of approving the review of the plan that was established by the respected body of the presidency regarding operation “Revenge” inside the lands of the “Traitor of the Two Holy Mosques”** with our source “Azhar Al Shaykhali” for the purpose of informing him on all the details of the plan as set by the Secretariate of the National Security Council.
Respects
12/12/2002
*(translator’s note:M. M. stands for Mudeer Mukhabarat:. Director of Intelligence)
**(translator’s note: The title of the Saudi king is “the custodian of the Two Holy Mosques” , the first one is in Mecca and the second in Medina, the two holy cities of Islam. In Arabic “Custodian” is written as “Khadim”(4 letters) while “Traitor” is written as “Kha’in”(also 4 letters, the two words having only the first two letters in common). “Kha’in” was used in the document for a purpose. The aim is to portray the King as one who betrayed his duties by being allied with the Americans, therefore making him and his country as a legitimate target in the eyes of Muslim fundamentalists.
*** There are small hand written notes below the main letter which are not clear.
Continue reading "New Iraq document linking Saddam - al Qaeda surfaces in Kurdish media" »
A lot of people are hearing for the first time that we are beating al Qaeda and the Taliban. They are literally baffled by the change in the situation because they have heard the opposite from most major media outlets. The mainstream media barely gave any glimpse of the chaos wrought on al Qaeda since 2006 by US and allied forces. To be fair, government sources weren't exactly pushing the storyline of success after being shell-shocked by the fall out over the “mission accomplished” narrative of the left.1
But if you are a faithful American Thinker reader this news did not shock you. Because we have detailed the evolving environment as best we could from open source material for some time now. Over a year ago we posed the question “Has the Global Islamic Jihad Movement fractured?”
We followed that up with intermittent analysis of new developments from Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan - and elsewhere - that clearly provided indicators that the al Qaeda wave was beginning to break against the military, diplomatic, and most likely covert intelligence operations that make up the US national strategy in the War on Terror. (You can find these articles in the archive section under my name.)
Now CIA Director Michael Hayden has stepped forward to confirm at least the effects of what we have postulated if not necessarily the manner in which we came to this point. Director Hayden has in no uncertain terms declared that although the war against al Qaeda is not ended and the enemy can adapt and overcome, they are at a dead end, for now. Al Qaeda has lost much of its’ effectiveness at sowing dissent in Iraq as the Iraqis have pulled back from the brink of chaos with our help. NATO is growing stronger in Afghanistan and the Taliban elements that support al Qaeda are getting weaker as NATO has detailed in a new report. Even the Pakistani population, long a hot bed for al Qaeda sympathies, has begun to turn against the group according to recent surveys.
Hayden mentions the Predator strikes along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region as an indicator of this success, but he is being circumspect. Those covert strikes rely mostly on the ability to locate and identify targets in remote, rugged terrain. That information usually comes from human sources as Hayden rightly stops short of mentioning. By reason, more targeting indicates more intelligence which implies more cooperation by the people with access to the region. To get that, it follows that al Qaeda is no longer endeared among all the local tribes and that Pakistanis are ratting them out. We predicted that would happen this year.
We predicted that some Taliban tribes would split from al Qaeda and jockey for position to align with the Pakistan government. Subsequently, inter-tribal warfare broke out and some tribal leaders did in fact side with the government. It is likely that the government allied tribes had good intelligence into the locations of al Qaeda leadership. This was probably a main source of the intelligence for increased targeting capabilities. That intelligence led to more dead al Qaeda leaders (amd allied Taliban leaders) in the last year than since the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001-2002.
We mentioned just before the assassination of Benazeer Bhutto that conditions were ripe for the region to explode in violence. We also predicted that once the Pakistan public (and her supporters) figured out that she was killed by al Qaeda the assassination would backfire just as al Qaeda tactics did in Iraq. That did happen. A recent survey reported by The Christian Science Monitor shows that support for al Qaeda especially in the North West Frontier Provinces has plummeted from around 70% to single digits. Our analysis was premised on a West Point Combating Terrorism Center study which showed that fractionalization and a heavy hand were al Qaeda's long standing weakness.
We predicted that an alliance between the MMA, which represents the Pakistan Taliban (though not exclusively) and Musharraf would lead to real military action against al Qaeda and allied Taliban. Subsequently, the Pakistan army routed al Qaeda allied Taliban in the Swat Valley as the MMA sat by quietly in unprecedented silence at the government destruction of fellow jihadis. And we explained why that happened as well.
Last year The New York Times reported the ominous appearance of new “foreign Taliban”. The Times failed to make the logical distinction that the Taliban is a tribal and ethnic movement and may work with outsiders like Arabs, but that they are still held separate. There is a certain amount of ethnic tension and racism even among these jihad groups.
These foreigners were not Taliban recruits. So who were they? These outsiders were appearing in Afghanistan and Pakistan just as the surge in Iraq was kicking into full gear and putting al Qaeda fighters on the run or in their graves. It wasn’t real hard to figure out that al Qaeda was bringing fighters back from the failed effort in Iraq for a reason. So we had to figure out the reason. We did and shared it with our readers.
Al Qaeda was facing a loss of Taliban support because al Qaeda had put a hit out on the “father of the Taliban” Maulana Fazlur Rahman, a leader of the MMA. He is an important politician among the jihad movement supporters of Pakistan. This tactical mistake by al Qaeda would rival the assassination of Bhutto as the main reason for its' (political) defeat in Pakistan.
Rahman and his political block know where the bodies are buried, so to speak. His cooperation with the Musharraf government in bringing other Pakistani Taliban and tribal chiefs into the fold will prove to be al Qaeda's undoing. It is remarkably ironic because this man provided al Qaeda's religious justification for its' war on the United States.
To sum up what happened simply, after al Qaeda saw defeat coming in Iraq it tried to take over the same Taliban that it relied on for safe haven in Pakistan. It had to after targeting the Pakistan Taliban leader, Rahman and losing his support. That was an incredibly dumb move. Al Qaeda then, sensing its' influence and operational space shrinking as tribes followed Rahman and turned on them was forced into attempting to take over the Swat Valley to give itself a buffer against Pakistan's military forces. This decision led to an embarrassing defeat for al Qaeda in Pakistan. Coming so soon after its' defeat in Iraq, al Qaeda popularity began to plummet as the Islamic populace begin to see that al Qaeda was not going to establish the Islamic caliphate after all.
As al Qaeda has failed, “Islamic rage boy” (as Christopher Hitchens so deftly characterized the typical anti-American protester in Pakistan) seems to be taking some time off. The marked decrease of frequency and vitriol of these routine street protests means something. These events are usually presented to us by the media as sincere, spontaneous outpourings of anger.
The truth is that many of these demonstrations were organized and instigated by Maulana Fazlur Rahman (as I noted in my book Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents in a detailed look at his activities). US success against al Qaeda can be sensed by the significant decrease in major anti-American street protests in Pakistan. It means Rahman (and his MMA) is cooperating to some degree.
Director Hayden and his successors might not be able to tell you this, but we can. These are some of the contributing factors for why we now see a flock of predators over the border region. Hayden is not exaggerating, he is, if anything, underplaying the success in this war on terror hard won by our troops.
But as always, we must add the disclaimer that the situation is subject to change by unforeseen events. Even if we get Usama bin Laden tomorrow there will be someone to take his place. In this war, we only take temporary victory on the battlefield. Permanent victory most likely lies through discrediting the ideology that motivated al Qaeda and its' supporters. Changing minds full of such hate might take generations.
1. For the record, President Bush said in that speech that there was tough fighting ahead. He did not say the fighting was over, though we can almost universally agree he had no inkling of just how much tough fighting lay ahead. He did not say that combat had ended. He said it was the end of “Major Combat Operations” (MCO). MCO is a specific type of combat and some military speech writer did the president a disservice (I'm sure not intentionally) by using a term not widely known or understood. Most people took that statement to mean the end of combat. But that is not what the term means as indicated by the fact that he talked of more fighting in the speech. In addition, if “Mission Accomplished” meant “We Won” why didn't the banner just say that? Because the banner was intended to honor the 6,000 people on the carrier who had accomplished their mission.
Senator Obama betrays the "black media" after promising to include them.
My latest at American Thinker
Since the "puppy toss" video came out, DOD has been pushing photos of soldiers/puppies.
So anyway, I am glad to be back blogging. I think the break was good for me. Since my domain went down we had a lot of talk about Saddam and terrorism. I put together an essay on that. Better late than never I guess. Here it is:
One of the most interesting inclusions in the new Institute for Defense Analysis report (Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents Volume 1) is a set of documents revealed by Cybercast News Service. It is interesting because these documents were dismissed by the media as fakes several years ago. A few conservative commentators such as Deroy Murdock at NRO picked up the story of these documents and their importance. But the vast majority of the media ignored them.
In our book Both In On Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents my colleagues and I assert that these documents are very real and critical to the case against Saddam. We referred to them back in 2006 in our Fox News.com series to show how they mirrored information in another important document which reveals the Saddam regime relationship with Taliban leaders.
We have tried to obtain validation from the government about these documents for over two years using the FOIA process but this report now does that. The fact that the IDA study included them in the scope means that they are very real.
Those documents alone crush the arguments that Saddam would not work with Islamic terrorists. He most certainly would and did in operations in Somalia. These documents show the regime negotiating with leadership of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (which was already affiliated with Usama bin Laden at some level) and al Qaeda affiliate Gulbideen Hekmatyar from Afghanistan, to attack US forces in Somalia which were there on a UN relief mission. We go into greater detail in the book, but for now let me put a few pieces together to show how important this matter is to understand modern terrorism.
Usama bin Laden and Aymen al Zawahiri later claimed that they were behind the attacks on American soldiers in the Battle of Mogadishu.
We experienced the Americans through our brothers who went into combat against them in Somalia, for example. We found they had no power worthy of mention. There was a huge aura over America -- the United States -- that terrified people even before they entered combat. Our brothers who were here in Afghanistan tested them, and together with some of the mujahedeen in Somalia, God granted them victory. America exited dragging its tails in failure, defeat, and ruin, caring for nothing.
Others dismiss their claim as false, singling out a Somalia warlord as the culprit. I do not.
For many years, the US government considered General Aideed the man behind the “Black Hawk Down” incident. It wasn't until the carnage wrought by the US embassy bombings in Africa that the US government found reason to suspect that Islamic jihadis were likely involved in the attacks in Somalia. So much so that they included the accusation in a legal case against Usama bin Laden (and al Qaeda). That portion of the indictment was later dropped for lack of evidence.
I have had some disagreement with experts on the subject about the likelihood of al Qaeda's involvement in this incident. So I turned to a neighbor who happens to be quite knowledgeable about the “Black Hawk Down” incident, since he flew one of the helicopters shot down in Mogadishu and was captured by the fighters.
Mike Durant told me that he sees no reason to dismiss the possibility that some of his captures were al Qaeda (Islamic extremists). I don't either. Why?
Because a study of captured al Qaeda documents from the West Point Combating Terrorism Center includes a document in which al Qaeda trainers in Somalia claim that General Aideed was hunting them because of the attacks on the Americans. The document linked here (PDF) includes this passage. Notes:
“unity” is the local Islamic jihad organization which is “hosting” al Qaeda fighters who are training Somalis in jungle terror camps. Sheikh Abdulla Sahal is a local contact for the al Qaeda terror trainers:
“Aideed followers started to call the leadership unity and Sheikh Abdulla Sahal and threaten them. The response of the brothers was positive and they will continue in operations.
Sheikh Abdulla Sahal went to see the brothers and told them that the search is intensified to find their location and they are determined to stop the operations against American Forces. He asked the brothers to discontinue their relationship with disassociated brothers from Sheikh Abdulla and demanded the need to leave Mogadishu within a week.”
From al Qaeda's own document it appears that the attacks against US forces were orchestrated by al Qaeda probably using the local Somalis trained in the jungle terror camps. In fact, this al Qaeda leader, though unidentified is writing directly to core al Qaeda leadership and is likely highly placed. He tells them that Aideed was hunting them to stop it. The English translation says “they are determined” which is a little ambiguous so I asked “Sammi”, a coauthor for the book to have a look at the original Arabic and he confirms the writer seems to be saying Aideed is hunting the al Qaeda trainers.
A logical scenario then becomes apparent. It looks like Aideed had some association with these al Qaeda trainers. He probably sent some fighters to train with these vets of the Afghan jihad. He sent them to gain fighting skills, not to become jihadis. Al Qaeda trainers then used these fighters, and probably fighters from other sources like the “unity” group and rival warlords to attack US forces.
Aideed would know that as the local strongman these attacks would be pinned on him. But according to the rest of the document, he had populous support and had consolidated much of the regional power. Starting a war with UN/US forces that were bringing in relief supplies would have been a fairly idiotic thing for him to do. Really, all he had to do was sit back and take the supplies as they came in. Why start a war?
On the other hand, this tactic is directly from al Qaeda's play book. Al Qaeda gains power through creating internal conflict and stepping in to the power vacuum it creates. They would have wanted to pit Aideed and the Americans against each other so that they could step into leadership. And other parts of this CTC study show their intent to create inter-tribal warfare in Somalia. In this case, the tactic failed miserably because at the time al Qaeda was too week and the local Islamists not dedicated enough to the jihad cause.
This same report also showed, as we cover in the book, that two days after Saddam ordered his intelligence service to hunt the Americans in Somalia using the Afghan jihad vets, Usama bin Laden's number two man Mohammed Atef called his top trainers to Pakistan and ordered them to Somalia to set up these terror training camps in Somalia.
These documents hold great insight into how such things really worked. The big picture here is that al Qaeda, which these documents show was very short on cash for these operations likely went to the Saddam regime looking for financial support. Saddam liked the idea of attacking US forces in Somalia and approved the plan, issued the order and left it to his intelligence service to work out the specifics. The CNS documents now validated by the IDA report show the progress as the plan unfolded and Saddam determined who would carry out his orders. High on his list were groups strongly linked to Usama bin Laden, the man who claimed credit for the attacks, Aideed never did that I could find.
And why would Saddam work with al Qaeda for this plan? Because the fighting was in Somalia. Two of his enemies (if you believe that he opposed Usama bin Laden) would be killing each other off and all he had to do was financially support al Qaeda. It was a win-win for Saddam.
Getting back to how this terrorism works, groups like al Qaeda made plans to attack the US, a mutual enemy of the Saddam regime and Saddam in the very least contributed (although I could go so far as to argue he masterminded). Saddam didn't need to like these terrorists. He didn't need to agree with them. He only needed to support them as long as they stayed out of Iraq. That is what made his regime a particularly important target in the war on terror, a synopsis which is greatly supported by the IDA study.
Hi all, I let me domain registration slip and had to reclaim my domain. I did that a few weeks ago but it still hasnt been working. So last friday I sent an email to yahoo asking them to check it. Of course, I wait for a couple of weeks, it doesnt work, I ask them to check it and now it works. But what the tell me is "it worked for us".....
Rightttttttt
What happened to customer service in this country? Just tell me it was f@#$ed up, no need to lie.
They verified my claims about the implications of the ETHA bill and appearance of impropriety.
I have been saying since the primaries started that the subject of al Qaeda/Saddam ties was going to become very relevant in the general election. Seems the battle started tonight with jabs over the subject between Obama and McCain.
I had hoped Fred was going to be the nominee. However, McCain is actually going to be far more of a bulldog on this.
You see, John McCain sat in a NV prison for what was it 3 or 4 years only to come home and be told it wasn't worth it. He above all other politicians understands the importance of validity for our removal of Saddam. I guarantee you he believes Saddam was working at some level with al Qaeda. I predict he will make a real fight over this and not let the media get by with the "no ties" declaration as President Bush has.
So in case anyone from the campaign happens across this, contact me to advise on this issue. I can show you page and verse from the Iraq phase II intelligence report where the CIA, far from saying "no ties" in fact reaffirmed its' prewar conclusion that they were trying to work together.
Internet Anthropologist is working up a team.
My music promoter friend tipped me off to his client Natural Incense. I checked it out at Sonic bids, a website used by venues looking for talent. They have audio samples. I really enjoy their music and if you are looking for something new, check them out here.
Adding the $26k from Amgen CEO to the Dems and $23k to Pelosi that all came right before the ETHA submission, the Democrats raked in $49k from Amgen employees in the weeks before the ETHA bill which as a side effect would increase the market purchases of Amgen products.
This doesn't even include the totals from all the other Democrats who sponsored this bill. Hopefully someone will take some time and get the complete numbers on this.
The thing to note here is that she did not receive very many Amgen employee donations throughout 2007 except for major donations in the week before she submitted ETHA. She submitted the bill on August 2nd after she received a wopping $23,000 almost all listed as being from Amgen executives on July 27th. I wonder how all these executives just happened to cough up that much change on the same date? Raw data from opensource.org:
Contributor |
Occupation |
Date |
Amount |
Recipient |
BAGLEY, THEODORE |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
BASS, JEFFREY |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
BEIER, DAVID W |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$2,300 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
BONANNI, FABRIZIO |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
BRADWAY, ROBERT A |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$2,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
BROOKS, CRAIG |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$250 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
CANGIALOSE, CHARLES |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/18/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
COMFORT, PETE |
AMGEN/REGIONAL SALES MANAGER |
11/6/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
COSENZA, MARY ELLEN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
DALY, JAMES |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
FELDMAN, PETER |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
FLANAGAN, THOMAS J |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
8/8/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
GIFFIN, SUZANA |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$200 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
GUSTAFSON, KURT |
AMGEN/TREASURER |
7/27/2007 |
$250 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
HELLER, LINDA |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
8/21/2007 |
$300 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
HOHOLICK, JOSEPH |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
HUGHES, MICHAEL |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
KELLY, MICHAEL |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
KILCOURSE, JAMES J |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MANAK, FREDERICK |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MCNAMEE, BRIAN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$2,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MCNAMEE, BRIAN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
8/21/2007 |
$1,700 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MCNAMEE, BRIAN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
8/21/2007 |
$300 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MELTON, FARRYN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$250 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MILLER, ANN C |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
MORROW, GEORGE |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$2,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
PEARL, WAYNE R |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
RYAN, MICHAEL L |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
SAVIN, MICHAEL |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
SCHOCH, STEVEN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
SCHWALM, CYNTHIA |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
SCOTT, DAVID J |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$2,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
SKIBO, ANDREW D |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$1,500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
TROSS, STUART |
AMGEN/EXECUTIBE |
8/22/2007 |
$1,000 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
VERNIERO, JOHN |
AMGEN/EXECUTIVE |
7/27/2007 |
$500 |
Pelosi, Nancy |
A version of this is at American Thinker today. I didnt get the final version to the editor in time. This version includes more massive donations from Amgen execs to dem committees at times of key legislature votes:
For The New York Times, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses a Risk as Well
The New York Times takes a swing (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?ei=5065&en=30275248afff65bf&ex=1204174800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print) at Senator McCain's (R-AZ) presidential bid by exposing rumors of a possible love interest in the context of a general coziness with lobbyists. But since the 2006 congressional victory by the Democrats, The New York Times has ignored a similar situation involving Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi among other leading Democrats.
On August 2nd, 2007 Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) submitted a bill to the U. S. House of Representatives which raised a potential conflict of interest involving the Speaker’s widely publicized family stock holdings, corporate sponsors, and former staffers turned lobbyists. The Speaker submitted the bill called the Early Treatment for HIV Act (ETHA) to the House (http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=0272) with bipartisan support. It would allow states to decide whether or not to extend Medicare benefits for HIV treatment to some currently not covered.
Speaker Pelosi submitted ETHA one day after Medicare officials announced new rules to cut back on significant expenditures for the drugs PROCRIT® made by Johnson & Johnson and EPOGEN® made by Amgen. The new Medicare rules were primarily geared to reduce the use of the drugs for cancer patients. Those pharmaceuticals are used to treat anemia often seen as a side effect of HIV medications and for other conditions. Both companies enjoy massive revenues from the sales of those medicines with Johnson & Johnson reporting $3.2 billion in earnings from PROCRIT® and a similar drug and Amgen showing $6.5 billion for EPOGEN® and a similar drug during 2006.
Last year Amgen started losing stock value as word of the cuts spread. A press release from Amgen at its’ corporate website stated “"Recent changes in coverage rules and adjustments to Amgen's FDA approved labels for EPOGEN(R) and Aranesp have and will adversely affect Amgen's revenue.” The company then announced layoffs.
The ETHA bill would increase the number of HIV infected persons able to receive government assistance. A PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis conducted in 2003 estimated that the act would increase eligibility for treatment by 30,000 people. In turn the government purchasing of the anemia medications associated with their treatment will certainly increase making up some of the difference caused by the planned Medicaid purchasing reductions. In effect, this law could turn things around for Amgen and increase Johnson & Johnson stock values.
Considering that the bill was submitted one day after the Medicare announcement some viewed it as a reaction to the new guidelines and an attempt to improve the finances of those two drug makers. Unless Speaker Pelosi has divested herself of certain stocks that she held in 2006 by the time she sponsored ETHA then she stood to profit from the bill. In addition she has strong personal connections to Amgen and those persons may benefit directly or indirectly.
According to the ethics guidelines for the House of Representatives an elected official must declare their investments and holdings. Those declarations are available online and can be viewed at a website called opensecrets.org. The last declaration on record that covers the calendar year 2006 shows the Speaker owned over $500,000 dollars worth of Johnson & Johnson stock. Such a scenario creates the impression of a conflict of interest.
In addition, her close ties to biotech firm Amgen come into question. Two of her key staffers have left to become lobbyists working for Amgen directly or through lobbying firms. They include George Crawford described by the San Francisco Chronicle as the Speaker’s former chief of staff and Howard Moon described in a Washington Post article as a former senior policy adviser who was named the government affairs director for Amgen. Amgen has supported her campaigns through PAC money and by sponsoring fund raising events. While she does not appear to own stock in Amgen the timing of the bill raises questions about just how closely she is tied to the company.
Between 2002 and 2006 Amgen became a superstar stock amid soaring price hikes and massive profits. Nancy Pelosi attempted and failed to pass the Early Treatment of HIV Act during that run-up. In 2006 Amgen sponsored a fund raiser for Pelosi.
The Democrats won congress in 2006 on a pledge to clean up the “culture of corruption” they ascribed to the majority Republicans. In one example, a Republican congressman in 2004 announced that he was considering taking a position with a pharmaceutical lobbying firm after he had negotiated pharmaceutical legislature. Congresswoman Pelosi charged at the time that the move was an “abuse of power”.
The pharmaceutical industry was expected to be hit hard as Democrats strove to lower prescription drug prices through government negotiations. Pharmaceutical stocks were expected to fall. Speaker Pelosi herself was viewed by many as a threat to ‘big pharma’. One common investment technique for drawing profit from the markets is to buy when prices fall and sell when they go high again. According to the Speaker’s 2006 disclosure she was invested in multiple pharmaceutical and biotech firms that make medications.
This new scandal recalls the early 2007 incident in which the Speaker promoted a minimum wage hike that would include all U.S. areas except Samoa. Some large companies with canneries in Samoa are headquartered in the Speaker’s district. Amgen is a powerhouse in California with a significant presence in the Speaker’s district. That fact mirrors the Samoa controversy in which critics accused Pelosi of playing favorites with her district. And in 2007 it was revealed that the Speaker sponsored a massive earmark that would probably affect the value of property in which her husband was invested. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/09/opinion/main2779118.shtml)
Under extreme pressure from congress, led by Pelosi, Medicare dropped its' planned regulation changes. J&J and Amgen stock immediately soared as The New York Times reported:
Medicare has eased up on some of its proposed restrictions on the use of popular anemia drugs made by Amgen and Johnson & Johnson.
The decision, announced late yesterday, could provide some relief for the two companies, which have already experienced steep drops in sales of the drugs
.......
The federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services had proposed in May to sharply limit coverage for the drugs — Aranesp from Amgen and Procrit from Johnson & Johnson. Some analysts had predicted at that time that use of the drugs could be cut by as much as 50 percent.
......
But investors reacted favorably, sending shares of Amgen by more than $2 in early after-hours trading, though it then began to drop back. Shares had closed at $56.19, up 57 cents.
Shares of the larger and more diversified Johnson & Johnson rose about 30 cents after hours, having closed at $60.07, up 30 cents.
While The New York Times invests the efforts of a cadre of writers to investigate the wisp of rumor concerning McCain, Democratic leaders get a free ride with regard to close ties with lobbyists and doners.
Congress pressured Medicare to backdown from the regulations with votes in the House and the Senate in fall of 2007. The Sense of the Senate nonbinding resolution was approved unanimously (with no votes recorded). As a Senator, Hillary Clinton would have also voted on this measure that proved a financial boon for Amgen. Senator Clinton is also tied to Amgen.
Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aPnPwl7XNJik&refer=home) recently reported that President Clinton's former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Steve Ricchetti, now a lobbyist was paid $1.7 million to his firm from Amgen. He serves as a bundler for Senator Clinton's campaign. That means she is now receiving financial contributions from a lobbyist at a firm that profited from her vote.
One of those types of contributions was from Howard Moon, former Pelosi advisor who donated $2,300 to the Clinton campaign a few weeks after Clinton voted to stay the hand of Medicare. In addition, in the days just before and after Pelosi submitted the ETHA bill in the House on Aug. 2nd, 2007 a slew of Amgen executives made almost $30,000 dollars in private donations to the Pelosi campaign. (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=UNW3W&txtState=(all%20states)&txtCand=pelosi&txtEmploy=amgen&txt2008=Y&Order=N)
The Senate version of the ETHA bill was cosponsored by Senator Clinton.
Barrak Obama who claims not to take lobbyist money received over $12,000 in private donations from several Amgen corporate executives (listed as executives, directors, and vice presidents) as revealed by opensecrets.org (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/search.asp?txtCID=N00009638&name=%28all%29&employ=amgen&state=%28all%29&zip=%28any+zip%29&submit=OK&amt=a&sort=A). The donations listed occured just before the September 4th, 2007 Senate vote on the Sense of the Senate resolution and the day after.
A search on opensecrets.org shows that in 2007 (for the 2008 election cycle) Amgen executives donated less than $500 dollars to the Republican National Committee and $30,000 to Democratic congressional committees. Two donations totaling $26,000 came from Amgen Chairman, CEO, and President Kevin Sharer to the Democratic House and Senate campaign committees a few weeks before the ETHA bill was sponsored by Pelosi and an overwhelmingly Democratic list of Representatives. (http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=CFXKD&txtState=(all%20states)&txtCand=democratic&txtEmploy=amgen&txt2008=Y&Order=N)
This easily discovered appearance of unethical behavior on the part of Democratic leaders weighs far more heavily than the thin evidence provided against Senator McCain. Maybe the The New York Times has an ethics problem of its' own.
I am engrossed in marketing for the book and my real job right now so blogging will be lighter than normal. If you are a regular reader (I think there are about twenty of you - and thanks so much!) check back every few days, probably next week I will get back to it. I haven't abandoned you.
Interesting Washington Post op-ed on why. H/T Real Clear Politics
Code Pink has left the arena of opposing our efforts to win the war and is now cheering for the enemy. Code Pink wants American soldiers to be slaughtered by al Qaeda. They are now allied with the enemy and a viable target in the War on Terror. I wonder if they realize how dangerous this game is they are playing. There are a lot of people who will take this very personally.
Jack M. at Ace and his poem for Suzanne...tear...
Revealed for the first time...the source of Jack's prolific prose and Ace of Spade's writing skilllzzz. In case you can't see it either.
Brett McCrea with some interesting background.
This is the evil that is al Qaeda. Very rough video at Jawa.
My latest at American Thinker
Just buy me one of these
Once again, I can't see the video I just posted on typepad, so here is the link to the 2008 Chicago Auto Show - Bumblebee Camaro if you can't see it either.
This really sucks
ISLAMABAD: Local Taliban on Tuesday claimed responsibility for the abduction of Pakistani Ambassador to Kabul Tariq Azizuddin and said they would release him in return for Taliban commander Mullah Mansoor Dadullah, Online news agency quoted Geo television as saying.
Tariq Azizuddin had gone missing on his way from Peshawar to the Torkham border crossing on Monday when he lost contact with authorities in the Khyber Agency. Mansoor Dadullah was arrested in Quetta on Monday.
For crying out loud, Paksitan appears to be loaded from top to bottom with retards. Why would you send this high level official into the area unprotected after nabbing an HVT?
I mean, it really might come down to nuking the whole moronic bunch of them to end this.
I have been very supportive of the Musharraf government because of the jihadist problem. But these self-inflicted, idiotic, simply retarded officials...I can't take it. My thought at this point is that Bush needs to tell Musharraf that you will not be handing over Dadullah if you want to see another nickel from the US. Sorry ambassador, you are a casualty of war and your own stupidity.
Don't give up Dadullah.
My latest at American Thinker
Warning****Graphic****
This sounds, at first, like the typical liberal media anti-war propaganda, but the sourcing is impressive. Sounds legit: ABC
Troops arriving home from Iraq and Afghanistan have been carrying a mysterious, deadly bacteria, according to a new magazine report.
Doctors have linked the bacterium acinetobacter baumannii to at least seven deaths, as well as to loss of limbs and other severe ailments, according to the report, which found the bacterium has spread quickly since the war in Afghanistan began in the fall of 2001
The soldiers found the diary during a patrol conducted about 15 kilometers south of Balad. Bacon said the 16-page diary contains records about man power, operations, weapons, and finances, and it shows that al Qaeda is hurting badly in the belts of Baghdad.
“There were 600 al-Qaeda members in this sector, now there (are) 20 or less,” said Bacon.
In the diary, Tariq describes each battalion’s number decline and goes on to describe the 4th battalion as “scoundrels, sectarians and nonbelievers.” Tariq attributes his terrorist organization’s decline in large part to groups of concerned local citizens, who are also known as the Sons of Iraq.
The media's "Killer vet" stories are hurting employment rate and pocket books of military veterans: From the AP
A new study finds that war vets returning to the civilian sector are having a hard time finding work.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Strained by war, recently discharged veterans are having a harder time finding civilian jobs and are more likely to earn lower wages for years due partly to employer concerns about their mental health and overall skills, a government study says.
The Veterans Affairs Department report, obtained Thursday by The Associated Press, points to continuing problems with the Bush administration's efforts to help 4.4 million troops who have been discharged from active duty since 1990.
The 2007 study by the consulting firm Abt Associates Inc. found that 18 percent of the veterans were unemployed within one to three years of discharge, while one out of four who did find jobs earned less than $21,840 a year.
So what are the reasons for this? Chiefly:
The study said employers often had misplaced stereotypes about veterans' fitness for employment, such as concerns they did not have adequate technological skills, or were too rigid, lacked education or were at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder.
......
" However, more publicity — especially stories that perpetuate the 'Wacko Vet' myth — has also made some employers more cautious to hire a veteran," said Joe Davis, spokesman for Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Thanks New York Times. Way to screw our heroes.....
My latest is at American Thinker:
Al Qaeda appears to be crumbling in Iraq, a spectacular victory in the War on Terror. A senior leader has bared his soul to Amit R. Paley of the Washington Post, painting a vivid picture of what the surge has done to al Qaeda in Iraq. Here are some notable points from Paley's excellent article.
