I can't imagine anyone, even -- dare I say it -- criddic not wanting to sign this petition to restore habeas corpus,
http://www.defendhabeas.org/
New Developments III
-
99-1100896887
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8006
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>3,501</span>
BAGHDAD (AP) - The four-year U.S. military death toll in Iraq passed 3,500 after a soldier was reported killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad. A British soldier was also shot to death Thursday in southern Iraq, as Western forces find themselves increasingly vulnerable under a new strategy to take the fight to the enemy.
The British ambassador to Iraq, meanwhile, signaled his government was ready to talk to those behind the abduction of five Britons in Baghdad last month. Iraqi officials have said they believe the Britons were taken by the Mahdi Army militia, which is largely loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
In a rare televised interview, al-Sadr blamed the United States for Iraq's woes, often referring to it as "the occupier" and accusing it of being behind the sectarian violence, the growing schism between Iraq's majority Shiites and once-dominant Sunni Arabs and economic hardships.
"We are now facing a brutal Western assault against Islam," he said, draped in his traditional black robe and turban. "This agenda must be countered with a cultural resistance," he said.
The mounting U.S. casualties, most by makeshift bombs placed in potholes on roads or in fields where troops conduct foot patrols, come as American troops work with Iraqi forces on the streets and in remote outposts as part of a joint crackdown on sectarian violence.
A U.S. soldier was killed and two others were wounded Wednesday when a roadside bomb exploded during combat operations in a southwestern section of Baghdad, the military said Thursday. At least 3,501 U.S. service-members have been killed since the beginning of the war, according to an Associated Press count.
They include at least 23 American deaths during the first six days of June - an average of almost four per day, a similar pace to that in May. American troops deaths reached 127 in May, making it the third-deadliest month since the war started in March 2003. The average is nearly double the roughly two a day killed in June 2006.
A British soldier also was shot to death and three others were wounded Thursday while on patrol in southern Iraq, according to Britain's Ministry of Defense, pushing to at least 150 the number of deaths reported by the British military.
Separately, the British ambassador to Iraq, Dominic Asquith, appealed to the kidnappers of five Britons to release them or open negotiations.
The five - four security guards and a consultant - were abducted from the Iraqi Finance Ministry on May 29 by some 40 heavily armed men who then rode off with them in the direction of the sprawling Shiite district of Sadr City.
Iraqi officials say the Mahdi Army may have grabbed the men in retaliation for the killing by British forces of the militia's commander in the southern city of Basra.
"I ask those holding them to release them so they may return to their families," Asquith said. Then, in a clear offer to consider demands, he added, "We have people here in Iraq who are ready to listen to any person about this incident, or any person who may be holding these men and who may wish to communicate."
The Mahdi Army, which fought U.S. forces in 2004, has been blamed for many of the sectarian attacks in Iraq. The U.S. accuses Iran of fueling the violence by providing weapons and training fighters.
On Thursday, al-Sadr said he maintains "friendship and good relations" with Iran but rejects any interference by Tehran in Iraq's affairs.
"I must maintain friendship and good relations with Iran but nothing else," he said.
The anti-American cleric dodged a question about his disappearance from public view during which he was believed to have been in Iran.
The interview on Iraqi state television was believed to be al-Sadr's first since he re-emerged in public nearly two weeks ago. The program, which aired Thursday, was taped Sunday at his office in the holy city of Najaf, according to his aides. Al-Sadr had dropped out of sight at the start of a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in February.
Despite the crackdown, bombings, shootings, mortar attacks and execution-style killings left at least 63 Iraqis dead nationwide Thursday. They included 32 unidentified men who were handcuffed, blindfolded and shot to death in Baghdad - the apparent victims of so-called sectarian death squads usually run by Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, stressed it was too early to see results because the buildup of some 30,000 extra U.S. forces for the operation would not be complete for nearly two more weeks.
"We achieved some early success through the first several months of the effort. The sectarian murder and execution rate was cut by over two-thirds, and then we saw it come back a bit during the month of May," he told CNN.
"We do have some aggressive plans to ... go after al-Qaida and some of the sanctuaries they've been able to build and dispatch car bombs from for some time. That won't be without a fight, but it is something that we must do in the areas around Baghdad to provide better security for the people in Baghdad," he said.
The day's deadliest attack was a simultaneous suicide bombing of a bus and a truck in the town of Rabia, near the Syrian border.
The truck exploded at a police station, killing at least five policemen and five civilians and wounding 22 other people, including 14 policemen, according to army Capt. Mohammed Ahmed.
A guard shot the driver as he approached the building, but the truck still penetrated its blast walls and exploded, destroying the one-story structure, said Ahmed, an officer with the army's Third Division, which oversees the area.
Another bomber driving a minibus struck a building about 500 yards away at the same time, according to police officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared retribution. They said five Britons working in the building were wounded. British officials could not immediately be reached to confirm that report.
In Baghdad, a bomb beneath a parked car exploded at lunchtime outside a falafel restaurant, killing at least seven people and wounding 14, police reported. The teeming slum, which is a Mahdi Army stronghold, has repeatedly been targeted by Sunni extremists seeking to terrorize the Shiite majority and inflame hostilities between the Muslim sects.
Iraqi journalist Sahar al-Haidari, 45, was shot to death while she was waiting for a taxi Thursday in a predominantly Sunni area in the northern city of Mosul. Al-Haidari covered political and cultural news for the independent Voices of Iraq news agency and was the second employee of the organization to be killed in little more than a week.
BAGHDAD (AP) - The four-year U.S. military death toll in Iraq passed 3,500 after a soldier was reported killed in a roadside bombing in Baghdad. A British soldier was also shot to death Thursday in southern Iraq, as Western forces find themselves increasingly vulnerable under a new strategy to take the fight to the enemy.
The British ambassador to Iraq, meanwhile, signaled his government was ready to talk to those behind the abduction of five Britons in Baghdad last month. Iraqi officials have said they believe the Britons were taken by the Mahdi Army militia, which is largely loyal to the radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
In a rare televised interview, al-Sadr blamed the United States for Iraq's woes, often referring to it as "the occupier" and accusing it of being behind the sectarian violence, the growing schism between Iraq's majority Shiites and once-dominant Sunni Arabs and economic hardships.
"We are now facing a brutal Western assault against Islam," he said, draped in his traditional black robe and turban. "This agenda must be countered with a cultural resistance," he said.
The mounting U.S. casualties, most by makeshift bombs placed in potholes on roads or in fields where troops conduct foot patrols, come as American troops work with Iraqi forces on the streets and in remote outposts as part of a joint crackdown on sectarian violence.
A U.S. soldier was killed and two others were wounded Wednesday when a roadside bomb exploded during combat operations in a southwestern section of Baghdad, the military said Thursday. At least 3,501 U.S. service-members have been killed since the beginning of the war, according to an Associated Press count.
They include at least 23 American deaths during the first six days of June - an average of almost four per day, a similar pace to that in May. American troops deaths reached 127 in May, making it the third-deadliest month since the war started in March 2003. The average is nearly double the roughly two a day killed in June 2006.
A British soldier also was shot to death and three others were wounded Thursday while on patrol in southern Iraq, according to Britain's Ministry of Defense, pushing to at least 150 the number of deaths reported by the British military.
Separately, the British ambassador to Iraq, Dominic Asquith, appealed to the kidnappers of five Britons to release them or open negotiations.
The five - four security guards and a consultant - were abducted from the Iraqi Finance Ministry on May 29 by some 40 heavily armed men who then rode off with them in the direction of the sprawling Shiite district of Sadr City.
Iraqi officials say the Mahdi Army may have grabbed the men in retaliation for the killing by British forces of the militia's commander in the southern city of Basra.
"I ask those holding them to release them so they may return to their families," Asquith said. Then, in a clear offer to consider demands, he added, "We have people here in Iraq who are ready to listen to any person about this incident, or any person who may be holding these men and who may wish to communicate."
The Mahdi Army, which fought U.S. forces in 2004, has been blamed for many of the sectarian attacks in Iraq. The U.S. accuses Iran of fueling the violence by providing weapons and training fighters.
On Thursday, al-Sadr said he maintains "friendship and good relations" with Iran but rejects any interference by Tehran in Iraq's affairs.
"I must maintain friendship and good relations with Iran but nothing else," he said.
The anti-American cleric dodged a question about his disappearance from public view during which he was believed to have been in Iran.
The interview on Iraqi state television was believed to be al-Sadr's first since he re-emerged in public nearly two weeks ago. The program, which aired Thursday, was taped Sunday at his office in the holy city of Najaf, according to his aides. Al-Sadr had dropped out of sight at the start of a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown in February.
Despite the crackdown, bombings, shootings, mortar attacks and execution-style killings left at least 63 Iraqis dead nationwide Thursday. They included 32 unidentified men who were handcuffed, blindfolded and shot to death in Baghdad - the apparent victims of so-called sectarian death squads usually run by Shiite militias like the Mahdi Army.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, stressed it was too early to see results because the buildup of some 30,000 extra U.S. forces for the operation would not be complete for nearly two more weeks.
"We achieved some early success through the first several months of the effort. The sectarian murder and execution rate was cut by over two-thirds, and then we saw it come back a bit during the month of May," he told CNN.
"We do have some aggressive plans to ... go after al-Qaida and some of the sanctuaries they've been able to build and dispatch car bombs from for some time. That won't be without a fight, but it is something that we must do in the areas around Baghdad to provide better security for the people in Baghdad," he said.
The day's deadliest attack was a simultaneous suicide bombing of a bus and a truck in the town of Rabia, near the Syrian border.
The truck exploded at a police station, killing at least five policemen and five civilians and wounding 22 other people, including 14 policemen, according to army Capt. Mohammed Ahmed.
A guard shot the driver as he approached the building, but the truck still penetrated its blast walls and exploded, destroying the one-story structure, said Ahmed, an officer with the army's Third Division, which oversees the area.
Another bomber driving a minibus struck a building about 500 yards away at the same time, according to police officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared retribution. They said five Britons working in the building were wounded. British officials could not immediately be reached to confirm that report.
In Baghdad, a bomb beneath a parked car exploded at lunchtime outside a falafel restaurant, killing at least seven people and wounding 14, police reported. The teeming slum, which is a Mahdi Army stronghold, has repeatedly been targeted by Sunni extremists seeking to terrorize the Shiite majority and inflame hostilities between the Muslim sects.
Iraqi journalist Sahar al-Haidari, 45, was shot to death while she was waiting for a taxi Thursday in a predominantly Sunni area in the northern city of Mosul. Al-Haidari covered political and cultural news for the independent Voices of Iraq news agency and was the second employee of the organization to be killed in little more than a week.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
OscarGuy wrote:To correct a small incorrect portion of your statement. The constitution was amended during the Truman administration, not during the Roosevelt. If he hadn't died, he could have kept getting re-elected, I'm sure. However, Truman felt that two terms would be enough and thus pushed for the amendment.
Truman initially sought a third term, but he pulled out early due to low approvals. That is why he declined a third term. It was not because he felt he needed to be the new Washington.
I agree with Mister Tee, though. The amendment was one the worst things the Republicans ever passed in Congress. Reagan would have certainly won a third term, and possibly Eisenhower. Unfortunately, Clinton might have actually won a majority had he run a third time. So we all lose with that amendment. [though if Reagan had won a third term, we may not have had a Clinton, and maybe Bush 41 wouldn't have picked Quayle as his VP in 1992] I actually think the idea to limit to 3 terms would have been smarter, but the reason it passed at 2 was the reference to Pres. Washington.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8653
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Umm..actually, the amendment was proposed and promoted by the newly elected Republican Congress, and was widely seen as their after-the-fact revenge on FDR. Truman may well have felt the way you say about it, but it was the GOP that desperately wanted the amendment. (And, in one of history's wonderful ironies, it was they who had the more popular presidents over the next half-century, who were ineligible to run for third terms)
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
To correct a small incorrect portion of your statement. The constitution was amended during the Truman administration, not during the Roosevelt. If he hadn't died, he could have kept getting re-elected, I'm sure. However, Truman felt that two terms would be enough and thus pushed for the amendment.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
99-1100896887
Of course, you would have seen a Gore victory. The election was stolen by the Republicans. The Pubs even agree, and gloat about it( at least the ones I know).
All this arguable stuff. And no criddic. He must have already run out of excuses for his Saviour.
Would be interested if any one of you had run into such an incompetent pair of HS people as we did. Magilla, you have. Anyone else?
All this arguable stuff. And no criddic. He must have already run out of excuses for his Saviour.
Would be interested if any one of you had run into such an incompetent pair of HS people as we did. Magilla, you have. Anyone else?
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8653
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Well, as far as 2000, Gore clearly won the popular vote, which is all the Keys system promises to predict (no sense getting into Florida again). Clinton was immensely popular, and had he been eligible to run, the margin would likely have been far wider; Gore lost additional two keys -- charisma and incumbency -- which made it a tougher race, but he was still the predicted victor (and in a rational world, that's how it turned out).
Regarding other turnovers from two-term presidencies: in 1988, Reagan's second administration left a positive record (growing economy, foreign policy successes with Gorbachev) that made Bush a favorite (despite insistent media myths that Dukakis "blew" the election). The '61-'68 JFK/LBJ run wasn't an orthodox two-term, but the circumstances -- the war, the violent protests, the Wallace third party run -- made it impossible for Humphrey to succeed. Eisenhower's two terms are usually misjudged by pundits, who point to Ike's enduring (and merited) popularity with the public due to his WWII heroics and thus proclaim the adninistration a success. To the contrary, his second term featured the Sherman Adams scandal, a midterm election disaster, poor economic growth (culminating in a recession during the '60 campaign), and the foreign policy humiliation of the downed U-2 plane. For an utterly non-charmismatic (and non-incumbent) Nixon to win in that circumstance would have been miraculous -- though Kennedy's then-controversial Catholicism made it closer than it ought to have been.
Going back in history: Truman's almost-two terms left a mess of scandals and foreign policy disasters (Korea and China) that made it impossible for Stevenson to win. Wilson's second term -- which actually resembles Bush's, apart from the fact he won his war -- included recession, big losses in the midterms, and huge failure to sell the League of Nations; his would-be successor was wiped out.
There aren't actually that many pristine two-term examples -- Harding/Coolidge/Hoover filled just 12 years, two of the terms successful and the third disastrously not; FDR had three successful re-elections (before they amended the Constitution to forbid such long runs), then died leaving Truman the incumbent for '48. And, going further back, McKinley/T. Roosevelt was 12 years between the two with McKinley's assassination helping prolong incumbency.
Regarding other turnovers from two-term presidencies: in 1988, Reagan's second administration left a positive record (growing economy, foreign policy successes with Gorbachev) that made Bush a favorite (despite insistent media myths that Dukakis "blew" the election). The '61-'68 JFK/LBJ run wasn't an orthodox two-term, but the circumstances -- the war, the violent protests, the Wallace third party run -- made it impossible for Humphrey to succeed. Eisenhower's two terms are usually misjudged by pundits, who point to Ike's enduring (and merited) popularity with the public due to his WWII heroics and thus proclaim the adninistration a success. To the contrary, his second term featured the Sherman Adams scandal, a midterm election disaster, poor economic growth (culminating in a recession during the '60 campaign), and the foreign policy humiliation of the downed U-2 plane. For an utterly non-charmismatic (and non-incumbent) Nixon to win in that circumstance would have been miraculous -- though Kennedy's then-controversial Catholicism made it closer than it ought to have been.
Going back in history: Truman's almost-two terms left a mess of scandals and foreign policy disasters (Korea and China) that made it impossible for Stevenson to win. Wilson's second term -- which actually resembles Bush's, apart from the fact he won his war -- included recession, big losses in the midterms, and huge failure to sell the League of Nations; his would-be successor was wiped out.
There aren't actually that many pristine two-term examples -- Harding/Coolidge/Hoover filled just 12 years, two of the terms successful and the third disastrously not; FDR had three successful re-elections (before they amended the Constitution to forbid such long runs), then died leaving Truman the incumbent for '48. And, going further back, McKinley/T. Roosevelt was 12 years between the two with McKinley's assassination helping prolong incumbency.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
The only wrench in your theory, Tee...at least based on your examples...was that both Reagan and Clinton were running against one-term presidents. Do you have any pertinent examples that would associate with a two-term president ending? We know the party affiliation switched after Clinton, but Gore was riding a wave of popularity with Clinton's tenure. Matter of fact, if Florida hadn't disenfranchised half its Democratic votership and gone to great lengths to ensure a victory for Gov. Jeb's brother, I think we would have seen a Gore presidency.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8653
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Actually, Akash, this is another thing that is widely believed -- especially by those on our side -- but the Keys system told a different story. Bush had a united party, an economy not in recession, and the GOP had made gains in the midterm election; these elements were enough to nudge a very competitive election slightly to Bush's advantage (though the outcome was debatable). Such is not the case for next year: the midterm blowout, the likelihood of a battle for the GOP nomination (and the lack of incumbency), combined with clear disaster in Iraq and burgeoning scandals, make it a far worse environment for a party trying to hold onto the White House.Akash wrote:But after, the stunning disappointment in 2004 - which should have been an easy victory for anyone who wasn't Bush - I'm not dismissing the Dems ability to fuck up a great opportunity.
As for Hillary or Obama's weaknesses -- I'm generally a believer (as is Lichtman) that the particular candidate matters substantially less than is generally thought. Early in 1980, no one looked more unelectable than Ronald Reagan -- he was "another Goldwater"; Democrats couldn't believe their luck in drawing him as an opponent; even many GOPers looked for alternatives deep into the year (proposing a co-presidency with Gerry Ford). We know how that turned out. Similarly, in 1992, most Republicans were convinced Clinton's "character issues" were going to carry the demonstrably weak GHWBush to victory. Wrong again. Presidential elections are zero-sum games, and all evidence is the vote is up or down on the incumbent administration. A truly popular/charismatic challenger can make the process easier (which is why I think John Edwards would be the strongest candidate next year, and why I think Obama, despite the racial issue, would be more potent than Hillary), but the outcome seems to be the same, even (as in 1968) when the most unlikable candidate imaginable is offered.
From your mouth to God's ear Mister Tee. But after, the stunning disappointment in 2004 - which should have been an easy victory for anyone who wasn't Bush - I'm not dismissing the Dems ability to fuck up a great opportunity. So far the Democratic front-runners are a polarizing woman and a black man in what is still sexist, racist America. More mistakes to come?
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8653
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I know alot of people say and believe this, but the history of presidential elections -- since the arrival of the two-party monopoly in 1860 -- is that no unpopular president has ever been succeeded by a president of his own party. Candidates in 1896, 1920, 1952 and 1968 all ran at least somewhat in opposition to the incumbents of their own parties (in 1896, William Jennings Bryan explicitly denounced the economics of the Cleveland adminstration), but all were dragged down by the failures of their predecessors. I see no reason why that won't happen again next year.Akash wrote:If the Pubs are now jumping on the bash Bush bandwagon, that could only help even the score in an election against the Dems who don't even have their anti-Iraq platform to stand on anymore (having dithered on the ONE ISSUE they could have claimed without trepidation).
Whoever gets the Republican nomination is going to isolate himself from Bush as well. Come election time, all he has to say is "You're anti-Bush? Well so am I! What else you got?" and wait for the chirping crickets.
Alan Lichtman has a fascinating theory of presidential elections, The Keys to the Presidency, which retroactively analyzes all elections from 1860 through 1980, and has accurately forecast all the elections since. His take on '08? It's the most lopsided environment for one party -- the Democrats -- since he developed the theory.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8006
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Romney would be a step up. Giuliani is the most scary. If he's prez, we'd be wishing for a return of the good ol' Bush days.Akash wrote:Sonic Youth wrote:But the point was, Bush is losing support from all over the spectrum, other than the brainwashed 'droids. I don't much care what the reasons are.
The problem though is that this across the board realization (more to the point: among Republicans) will do the Democrats no favors in 2008. The only reason those cowardly fucks took the House and the Senate last year was a final national frustration with the ass hattery of the Bush Administration. If the Pubs are now jumping on the bash Bush bandwagon, that could only help even the score in an election against the Dems who don't even have their anti-Iraq platform to stand on anymore (having dithered on the ONE ISSUE they could have claimed without trepidation).
Whoever gets the Republican nomination is going to isolate himself from Bush as well. Come election time, all he has to say is "You're anti-Bush? Well so am I! What else you got?" and wait for the chirping crickets.
President Romney may be a chilling reality.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8006
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Okay, maybe not...
Thursday June 7, 4:27 AM
Baghdad, Ankara, WHouse deny reports of Turkish incursion
AFP News
The foreign ministers of both Iraq and Turkey, as well as the White House, all denied reports Wednesday that Turkish troops had launched a cross-border raid to strike Kurdish rebel bases in Iraq's northern highlands.
Turkey has stepped up its military presence in its own southeastern region, Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told AFP, but both he and his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul denied there had been a recent incursion.
Ankara suspects northern Iraq's Kurdish authorities of turning a blind eye to cross border attacks by separatist fighters from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is fighting for self-rule in southern Turkey.
In recent weeks the tone of the dispute has hardened following a spate of attacks by Kurds inside Turkey, spawning Wednesday's invasion rumours.
"These reports are inaccurate. There hasn't been any Turkish military incursion into Iraqi territory," Zebari told AFP in a telephone interview.
"We've checked those reports with Kurdish regional authorities and with border guards all along the Turkish frontier. They denied that there has been any such incursion or any operation whatsoever," he said.
The minister, himself an Iraqi Kurd, confirmed the Turkish military was increasing its presence near the border, but denied it was on the move.
"There has been Turkish build-up for some time, but it's all been in their own territory, there hasn't been any movement across the border," he said.
In Turkey, Gul confirmed this, telling reporters: "There is no incursion into any other country at the moment. There is no such thing. If there ever is, we will tell you."
But he warned that Ankara's patience was not limitless.
"No one should forget that we are involved in a war on terror. We will not flinch from taking whatever action is necessary to eradicate terror... There are preparations in that respect," he said.
The White House also denied reports with White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe stating: "I am here to say that the Turkish government and US officials on the ground say that it is not occurring."
Johndroe was speaking in the northeast German city of Rostock, not far from Heiligendamm, where US President George W. Bush was attending a summit of Group of Eight leaders.
"There's been no new activity" on the part of the Turkish military, aside from increasing its presence near the border, Johndroe said.
Since April, the Turkey has been conducting large-scale operations against the PKK, including in areas close to the Iraqi border.
The Turkish media has reported that thousands of troops, backed by heavy armour and air power, are involved in the operation, triggering speculation that the army is poised to pour into northern Iraq.
But the head of Iraq's troops on its northern frontier with Turkey on Wednesday also denied the reports of a Turkish raid, which were carried on several websites and news agencies, but not AFP.
Colonel Hussein Roshid, the commander of the Iraqi border guards in the Kurdish province of Dohuk, said: "It's untrue. There have been no cross-border incursions on the Iraqi frontier in Dohuk."
Roshid said that last month there had been a brief Turkish military push into Dohuk, the Iraqi province bordering Turkey, which saw troops push two kilometres (one mile) into Iraqi territory near Zakhu.
But the probe was short-lived and had not been repeated, he said.
Thursday June 7, 4:27 AM
Baghdad, Ankara, WHouse deny reports of Turkish incursion
AFP News
The foreign ministers of both Iraq and Turkey, as well as the White House, all denied reports Wednesday that Turkish troops had launched a cross-border raid to strike Kurdish rebel bases in Iraq's northern highlands.
Turkey has stepped up its military presence in its own southeastern region, Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told AFP, but both he and his Turkish counterpart Abdullah Gul denied there had been a recent incursion.
Ankara suspects northern Iraq's Kurdish authorities of turning a blind eye to cross border attacks by separatist fighters from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is fighting for self-rule in southern Turkey.
In recent weeks the tone of the dispute has hardened following a spate of attacks by Kurds inside Turkey, spawning Wednesday's invasion rumours.
"These reports are inaccurate. There hasn't been any Turkish military incursion into Iraqi territory," Zebari told AFP in a telephone interview.
"We've checked those reports with Kurdish regional authorities and with border guards all along the Turkish frontier. They denied that there has been any such incursion or any operation whatsoever," he said.
The minister, himself an Iraqi Kurd, confirmed the Turkish military was increasing its presence near the border, but denied it was on the move.
"There has been Turkish build-up for some time, but it's all been in their own territory, there hasn't been any movement across the border," he said.
In Turkey, Gul confirmed this, telling reporters: "There is no incursion into any other country at the moment. There is no such thing. If there ever is, we will tell you."
But he warned that Ankara's patience was not limitless.
"No one should forget that we are involved in a war on terror. We will not flinch from taking whatever action is necessary to eradicate terror... There are preparations in that respect," he said.
The White House also denied reports with White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe stating: "I am here to say that the Turkish government and US officials on the ground say that it is not occurring."
Johndroe was speaking in the northeast German city of Rostock, not far from Heiligendamm, where US President George W. Bush was attending a summit of Group of Eight leaders.
"There's been no new activity" on the part of the Turkish military, aside from increasing its presence near the border, Johndroe said.
Since April, the Turkey has been conducting large-scale operations against the PKK, including in areas close to the Iraqi border.
The Turkish media has reported that thousands of troops, backed by heavy armour and air power, are involved in the operation, triggering speculation that the army is poised to pour into northern Iraq.
But the head of Iraq's troops on its northern frontier with Turkey on Wednesday also denied the reports of a Turkish raid, which were carried on several websites and news agencies, but not AFP.
Colonel Hussein Roshid, the commander of the Iraqi border guards in the Kurdish province of Dohuk, said: "It's untrue. There have been no cross-border incursions on the Iraqi frontier in Dohuk."
Roshid said that last month there had been a brief Turkish military push into Dohuk, the Iraqi province bordering Turkey, which saw troops push two kilometres (one mile) into Iraqi territory near Zakhu.
But the probe was short-lived and had not been repeated, he said.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
Sonic Youth wrote:But the point was, Bush is losing support from all over the spectrum, other than the brainwashed 'droids. I don't much care what the reasons are.
The problem though is that this across the board realization (more to the point: among Republicans) will do the Democrats no favors in 2008. The only reason those cowardly fucks took the House and the Senate last year was a final national frustration with the ass hattery of the Bush Administration. If the Pubs are now jumping on the bash Bush bandwagon, that could only help even the score in an election against the Dems who don't even have their anti-Iraq platform to stand on anymore (having dithered on the ONE ISSUE they could have claimed without trepidation).
Whoever gets the Republican nomination is going to isolate himself from Bush as well. Come election time, all he has to say is "You're anti-Bush? Well so am I! What else you got?" and wait for the chirping crickets.
President Romney may be a chilling reality.