From the Halls to the Shores

The raid is believed to have been launched based on leads from the capture of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the military said.
..............................
In Friday's Baghdad raid, nine cell members, including the guerrilla leader, were arrested at dawn. The gang leader was responsible for coordinating three different cells, according to Lt. Col. Garry Bishop of the 1st Armored Division.

The raid was based on a tip from an informant and resulted in the capture of rockets, anti-tank missiles, explosives, timing devices and six 100-pound barrels of fertilizer.

It's thought there were enough weapons and ammunition to launch an attack comparable to the October homicide truck-bomb attack on the Red Cross.

"The suspected attack time was tomorrow [Saturday] night," Bishop told Fox News. "The information we received, we believe, is a fallout from information gleaned from the capture of Saddam, which identified certain cell leaders throughout the Baghdad area."

Navy Rounds Up Al Qaeda

U.S. Navy officials told Fox News that during the past week, two interdictions have taken place in the Persian Gulf, resulting in the capture of four suspected Al Qaeda operatives.

One suspect was allegedly trying to enter Iraq. Three were caught with a boat full of drugs, including heroin and hashish. It's believed that they were trafficking drugs as a means of funding terror activities throughout the region. Navy intelligence is still investigating the incidents.

1) I love the American ideal. I'm not so enamored of my country's beauty to believe it comes close to perfection. But it has permitted the advance of human rights in a world that too easily surrenders to the brutal. I'd like to further that and am convinced Howard Dean will achieve that.

2) Howard Dean is a doctor. His partner is a doctor. They have demonstrated a commitment to healing and this country is in need of healing.

3) We suffered as a large, extended family on 9/11/01, at the hands of haters who were indifferent to the value of over 3,000 lives and the tens of thousands of lives they touched. The world mourned our loss with us. Our leaders responded to properly dismantle the government of Afghanistan that had directly harbored the leaders of those haters. But our leaders then redirected that mission to a war with Iraq that was unnecessary, resorting to deception and dishonesty, and resulting in tit-for-tat brutalities that blurred the line between a moral defense and the immoral.
Howard Dean understands the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.

4) To the credit of the Democratic Party, four of its current candidates, including Dean, recognized why this war was wrong and opposed it. But at this point, only Dean has a chance of being elected to utilize the strength of that moral wisdom.

5) Contrary to what his detractors claim, his views on this war do not reflect a commitment to passivity in the face of aggression. He would maintain peace through strength, he would aggressively pursue the dismantling of terrorist organizations and he would yield nothing to any foe. It's an old Republican canard to suggest that a Democratic President would be weak on defense but the historical record provides no evidence to support that myth. They made the claim that Clinton was weak on defense, yet he successfully stopped an ongoing slaughter in Bosnia and it was the military that Clinton built that proved itself up to the task of knocking out the Taliban government and the Hussein government.

Howard Dean, like numerous governors who became President, lacks foreign policy experience, but he displays an understanding of the importance of military strength and has a demonstrable capacity for surrounding himself with talented and successful advisers.

6) Howard Dean understands that the US military is strong enough to go it alone when necessary for the common defense. Yet he also recognizes that in most instances, it is preferable to coordinate and work with allies against common enemies. Without being hamstrung by the intransigence that can occur in bodies like the UN, he recognizes that diplomatic means exist to resolve such differences most of the time.

7) In Iraq, Hussein was weakened by a decade of sanctions, overflights and armed attacks by our vigilant air defense team. While maintaining a belligerent stance, Hussein was gradually ceding to aggressive inspections maintained by the threat of force. Dean felt this approach was succeeding in disarming Hussein and neutralizing his threat. The evidence since we began this war supports Dean's views, as no WMDs have been found.

8) It wasn't just Dean's guesswork that yielded that assessment. It had become clear to many people that Bush's intent to attack Iraq was driven by a policy defined by neocons associated with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), who had articulated a plan to take down Hussein several years before Bush took office. It also became clear to many that the 'evidence' used to justify the takedown was very thin, occasionally was proven to be distortions of past reports or based on hearsay from less than credible sources. Like millions of Americans and millions across the globe, Dean saw through the dishonesty correctly.

9) Dean also understood that most of the mass atrocities committed by Hussein had taken place before the first Gulf War a dozen years earlier, or in the immediate aftermath of that war, when he put down civil uprisings against his regime. He also understood that Hussein was brutal and repressive and that an armed response would be necessary if Hussein were to threaten his neighbors with military action, but that Hussein had not done so for years. Dean wanted Hans Blix to complete the WMD inspections process which is what our allies at the UN asked for.

10) Knowing full well that Americans would overlook the deceptions that sent our troops to Iraq at the first proof of WMDs, many Democratic legislators voted to hand Bush the authority to go to war. Politically, this is called 'playing it safe.' Dean took a big risk with his war opposition. Had WMDs been found, voters would consider him foolish. But he didn't take the position he did to gamble. He took the position because it was morally right to go to war only after the alternatives were exhausted.