LALARRY

Whaddya Mean There's No Oversight ?

We started with really narrowly crafted subpoenas all tied to terrorism," Treasury Secretary Snow said. But because SWIFT "didn't have the ability to extract the particular information from their broad database . . . they said, 'We'll give you all the data.' " Once a suspect was identified, U.S. officials had to present SWIFT with evidence of terrorist connections -- in the form of a name on a watch list, or a classified cable -- and were allowed to access information tied only to that name....

Treasury Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey explained to NPR that the program had "3 levels of safeguards" to prevent abuses. Two were described in this WP article:

SWIFT auditors and Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., an independent firm contracted by the U.S. government, supervised all the searches, Levey said.(and here's a surprise :) "The audit reports have been issued periodically since the beginning of the program, and they have found consistently that the government is not abusing this data, that we are using it for counterterrorism purposes.

"There was one instance noted at one point in an audit that there had been one search that was done that was, in our view, inappropriate. . . . The person who conducted that search is no longer allowed to work on this program. And no information from any search that's even been questioned has ever been disseminated," Levey said. When information appeared that indicated a non-terrorist crime, such as money laundering or drug trafficking, he said the source of the information was "sanitized" before it was passed to other law enforcement agencies.

Oh, and that "third level of oversight" Levey mentioned to NPR: lawyers from the Department of Justice and Dept of Treasury (i.e. the executive branch).

So the program was not questionable legally:

• Congressional notification was minimal, and ongoing oversight from the legislative branch did not exist.
• There was no judicial oversight because it was no necessary.

BUT NOT TO WORRY BECAUSE OVERSIGHT WAS BEING CONDUCTED BY

1. A private banking consortium headquartered in Brussels that told the governement here's all the data take what you need, but had veto power over what the govt could see. The govt cited one instance where one search was inappropriate by the auditiors. But it did not cite any instance where SWIFT officials said the US officials would have to present more evidence before getting access to specific transaction data.
2. A renowned private consulting firm, Booz Allen, operating on a government contract.
3. Lawyers from the Department of Treasury and the Department of Justice, the depts. in the executive branch authorizing and conducting the operations.

So stop with your unpatriotic complaints, !!!!

SWIFT auditors and Booz Allen Hamilton Inc., an independent firm contracted by the U.S.

government, supervised all the searches, Levey said. "The audit reports have been issued periodically since the beginning of the program, and they have found consistently that the government is not abusing this data, that we are using it for counterterrorism purposes.

"There was one instance noted at one point in an audit that there had been one search that was done that was, in our view, inappropriate. . . . The person who conducted that search is no longer allowed to work on this program. And no information from any search that's even been questioned has ever been disseminated," Levey said. When information appeared that indicated a non-terrorist crime, such as money laundering or drug trafficking, he said the source of the information was "sanitized" before it was passed to other law enforcement agencies

Yes Karl Rove is A Freakin Genius

Only a couple weeks after Karl Rove emerged from the Valerie Plame cloud the Repubs have emerged from a strategy of distancing themselves from the admins Iraq strategy. Now they are embracing it with a venegance...and succeeding.

Only a genius like Karl Rove (and the incompetent Dems) could take a war that

• the majority of the American people feel was a mistake,
• the majority feels is being run incompetently and
• a majority feel should include a timetable for withdrawing troops

and...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House is waging an aggressive campaign -- complete with a debate prep book, high-level meetings and daily updates -- to persuade U.S. congressional Republicans to stand firm with President George W. Bush in support of the unpopular Iraq war.

The election-year initiative has paid off so far, with Republicans in both the House of Representatives and the Senate supporting Bush's war position that there can be no speedy withdrawal of U.S. troops as some Democrats advocate.....

The White House, in its ``Daily Iraq Message'' sent to congressional Republicans on Thursday, wrote: ``Three things to remember about Iraq:

--''The president's strategy for Iraq is working.

--''The new sovereign government in Iraq is a new opportunity for progress.

--''There are dire consequences if we leave before Iraqis can defend themselves.''

Included in the meetings with congressional Republicans have been White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and counselor, Dan Bartlett, officials said......

yes he is a freakin genius:

Rove signaled the strategy in a speech on June 13 when he said Democrats advocating a withdrawal of U.S. troops should face tough questions for wanting to ``cut and run'' and said Republicans have no excuses to make about the war.

So we should "stay the course" which I guess means keep on doin' what we've been doin' for 4 years and we shouldn't change anything because the strategy is working.

And we can't leave before the Iraqis are able to defend themselves but we have been told for years that the Iraqis were able to take over their own defense yet we haven't found that to be the case.

And only in bizarro world and in the brilliant mind of Karl Rove can we get this convoluted logic

Earlier this year the Pentagon was leaking that it had plans to draw down the number of US troops by (miracle of miracles) November as the Iraqis take over their own defense.

now that it is clear the above is a pipe dream....

those Democrats calling for a timetable for removing some troops and more pressure for the Iraqis to take control of their own political and military destiny are "cut and runners" who don't care about protecting AMERICA.

In the words of a WH aide:

``We need to show we're addressing the global war on terror while Democrats have no strategy other than withdrawing from Iraq,'' the aide said.

Ah yes the link between the global war on terror and the war in Iraq ( you know the country where 10% of the insurgents are connected to al qaeda, which means 90% are engaged in a civil war not a global islamic struggle). It worked for Rove and W in 2004.

my bet is it will work again

There He Goes Again

Karl Rove is clearly back in the saddle as could be seen in today's Congressional debate over the Iraq war and a resolution calling Iraq a central front in the war on terror. One bright light Congressman said if Cong John Murtha was around at the time of Normandy we would be all speaking German. Others called it a vote for al qaeda or for America. Obviously this is the setup or the congressional election.

In a 256-153 vote that mirrored the position taken by the Senate earlier, the GOP-led House approved a nonbinding resolution that praises U.S. troops, labels the Iraq war part of the larger global fight against terrorism and says an "arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment" of troops is not in the national interest

of course they do have this problem: (cnn):

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A narrow majority of Americans -- 53 percent -- favors setting a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, with 47 percent saying the deadline should be in a year or less, according to a CNN poll released Friday.

Among those who favor setting a deadline of a year or less, opinions also are divergent. The survey found 13 percent of Americans want withdrawal within a few weeks; 15 percent want it in six months; and 19 percent want it in a year.

The poll also showed Americans' approval of the way President Bush is handling the Iraq war is up 5 points from May's poll to 39 percent, while his disapproval rating fell 8 points, to 54 percent.

Along the same lines of the war on terror = war in Iraq you -know - who was back at it again, linking Saddam to 9/11 or at least repeats of 9/11. Something he insists he doesn't do. And he chose to unload this beaut to that crack journalist Sean Hannity:

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think that's right, Sean. The distinction I see here is that there's a failure on their part to understand, or refusal to understand, that this isn't just about Iraq, that it, in fact, is about the broader global war on terror, that this is a global conflict that everybody should be aware of by now. There have been attacks all over the world, in London and Madrid and Bali and Istanbul, as well as New York and Washington; that the key to our success to date has been to actively and aggressively go on offense. Pre-9/11, the policies that were pursued by the U.S. government were not aggressive at all. There was no price really extracted for those who launched attacks against the United States, right up until 9/11 -- 9/11, of course, and this President changed all that.

And Iraq is very much a part of that, in the sense the key is to change circumstances in that part of the world that in fact generated those people who have launched those attacks against the United States. Before 9/11, you might be able to think about retiring behind our oceans and being safe. After 9/11, we know that's not possible. We know 19 guys on 9/11 with box-cutters and airline tickets killed 3,000 Americans.

Iraq is important, just as Pakistan is important and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and all of those countries in that part of the world where we've seen terrorism blossom as it did in Afghanistan, obviously. We've gone in aggressively and dealt with it, and that's exactly what we're doing in Iraq. Iraq was a safe haven for terrorists it had a guy running it who had started two wars, who had produced and used weapons of mass destruction. Taking down Saddam Hussein was exactly the right thing to do.

It's also, I think, in part responsible for the fact that we haven't been hit again in nearly five years. That's no accident. The fact is, we've taken the battle to the enemy. That's been the key to the safety and security of the American people these last few years, and we need to continue to do it. And we need to make certain that Iraq doesn't become a failed state, but instead the Iraqi people have an opportunity for self-government. And that's exactly what we're doing.

I will say this if zarqawi's capture means a turning point to stability in iraq then it will be a great thing, IMO more likely this will just highlight the fact that the al qaeda portion of the insurgency is about 10% of the problem and the country is in civil war. In fact any weakness in al qaeda would just highlight this fact to anyone willing to look critically at the situation.

Fred Barnes' Insight of the Week

Foxie Beltway Boy Fred Barnes

speaking of GTMO detainees deemed no longer of intelligence value and not a security threat:

Barnes: There are some people at gtmo the government wants to release to their home countries but can't do so because they would likely be tortured there. So what else can you do other than hold them at gtmo

errr...no security risk, no intelligence value. How about Martha Stewarts old prison cell instead of gtmo if you don't want to give them asylum.

Bill O Gets Tough (NOT) with Rummy

Somehow Bill O' wasn't quite his usual self in his exclusive one on one with Rummy. Watch out Mr. Secretary you don't want to get hit by one of those flying softballs. And be careful when you get up from your chair. ou might knock over someone behind you on his knees kissing your butt.

O'REILLY: How can the U.S. and Britain stop the Shia from killing the Sunni and vice versa? In that civil war there, how can we stop it?

RUMSFELD: First of all there isn't a civil war by anyone that I talk to's assessment. There's sectarian violence, you're right. Now, how do you stop that? You don't stop it militarily. The only way this is going to stop is if the government engages in a unity government that represents all the people in that country, which they're very close to having, and they then engage in a reconciliation process where they reach out to the elements that are still dissidents and have a process where people can legitimately reengage and they intend to do it, the prime minister designate has announced he was going to do it. The Sunnis and the Shias and the Kurds agreed to it

O'REILLY: Sadr's militia. This is a vicious guy.

RUMSFELD: The first thing that he did, the new prime minister designate, Prime Minister Maliki, he went down and saw Sistani, the senior cleric in the country, and said I'm worried about these militias and Sistani said he's worried about them. And they both announced that one of the new tasks of the new government would be to deal with the militias. And they're making progress.

O'REILLY: I hope so.

(news update :

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- Iraq's parliament approved a national unity government on Saturday, achieving a goal the U.S. hopes will reduce widespread violence so that U.S. forces can eventually go home. But as the legislators met, at least 27 people were killed and dozens wounded in a series of attacks. Police also found the bodies of 21 Iraqis who apparently had been kidnapped and tortured by death squads that plague the capital and another area.

and of course the devil is in the details, a cabinet was agreed upon but they couldn't reach agreement on the permanent choices for the two ministries that will determine the immediate future for Iraq:

Al-Maliki said he would set ''an objective timetable to transfer the full security mission to Iraqi forces, ending the mission of the multinational forces.''

But his (PM Mailiki) failure to fill the top two security porfolios illustrated the challenges ahead. Al-Maliki, a Shiite, said he would be acting interior minister for now, and he made Salam Zikam al-Zubaie, a Sunni Arab, the temporary defense minister.

But I guess they have a permanent choice for Minister of Cultural Affairs.)

Back to Rummy's interview with  tough guy only the facts, I give this administration a rough time Bill O':

and watch out because here goes Rummy again....

O'REILLY: No, they can't lose militarily, but it's cost the United States taxpayer about $400 billion up this point.

RUMSFELD: Think of what 9/11 cost us. Wouldn't you rather fight those people over there instead of fighting them here?

O'REILLY: Yes.

I do think Rummy has lost it long ago. The WH tried the above nonsense as a talking point months ago and dropped it quickly And if no one he's spoken to thinks it's a civil war in Iraq then clearly he doesn't speak to anyone that has the kohones to give their independent assessment of Iraq. Clearly someone in the state, the military, dod, cia or nsa thinks there is a civil war going on.

I'm sure Mr. Secretary would have this for me:

here's more

O'REILLY: But there is a question. You're challenged all the time on that.

RUMSFELD: By people who don't know what they're talking about. The reality is that anyone that you talk to will tell you that — Zarqawi says that the central front on the war on terror is in Iraq.

O'REILLY: All right.

RUMSFELD: It isn't debatable.

O'REILLY: Come on you know if there's a Democratic president elected in 2008, he's going to very likely change your policies or President Bush's policies. But, look, I support the Iraq war because I believe that if we pulled out of there.

RUMSFELD: Oh.

O'REILLY: Iran would move in and then Iran would be the dominant player in the gulf, allying with Syria and it's just going to be a nightmare.

RUMSFELD: That's right. The moderate regimes in that part of the world would be gone.

O'REILLY: Right.

Slow down guys, my head is spinning from the spin.

We're fighting al qaeda, but if we were to leave it isn't al qaeda that would be running the show, it would be Iran. So we're fighting a proxy war against Iran in Iraq ? But the Iranians are Shiites and the democratically elected Iraqi government dominated by Shiites, which Secy Rumsfeld just expressed such faih in have already been cutting deals with Iran.

And al qaeda is fighting on the side of the sunnis, so if they benefitted from a US withdrawal how would it help the Shiite Iranians.

Whew...I'm confused.

I can just here Rummy now...this ones for you kid:

Now This IS Scary

Ann Coulter's new book will have an initial printing of one million. A #1 bestselling book generally sells around 250,000 copies. The equivalent would be 5x for a cd making one million books the same a a quintuple platinum record.

AARGH

  Were these two out on a date ?

Bizarro World at Gtmo

U.S. military: Gitmo suicide attempt a ruse

Prisoner reportedly faked hanging self to lure guards into room

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Guantanamo Bay prisoner staged a fake suicide attempt to draw U.S. troops into a room where they were attacked by other prisoners, military leaders at the camp told reporters Friday.

U.S. troops used rubber bullets and a sponge grenade to subdue the prisoners, who were armed with improvised weapons such as sticks, light fixtures and parts of fans.

"The detainees had slickened the floor of their block with feces, urine and soapy water in an attempt to trick the guards," said Rear Adm. Harry Harris, the commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo. "They then assaulted the guards."

When U.S. troops intervened, they were attacked by prisoners and it took about an hour to regain order, the Pentagon said. (Watch how this incident shows growing frustration with Gitmo -- 1:52)

Prisoners in the medium-security area are generally housed in dormitory-style rooms that hold 10 people.

in its on air broadcast CNN reported this area was considered the most dangerous in the prison because the prisoners are free to move around. Say what ?? the most dangerous part of the prison is the place where you put the least threatening prisoners ?

The inmates involved in the attack were moved to the prison's maximum-security block after the incident. The Pentagon would not say how many prisoners were involved.

Earlier Friday, three other prisoners attempted to kill themselves by swallowing pills they had hoarded, but the Pentagon said later that only two of those were serious attempts.

There have been 41 suicide attempts since the camp opened in January 2002, with a number of those made by the same inmate, Pentagon sources said.

The Associated Press reported that Juma'a Mohammed al-Dossary, a 32-year-old from Bahrain, has attempted suicide 12 times

The military also called this another incident of the prisoners' war against the United States. Yes they're waging war by attempting suicide and refusing to cooperate with US soldiers who force feed them to break their hunger strikes. While they have been held with no charges for 4 12 years and have been told they may be there indefiinitely. Got it

bizarro world

Two Handed Economist Department

WSJ

Bull Run
Behind Surging Stock Market:
Old-Fashioned Economic Boom

Defying Gloomy Predictions,
Profits Rise, Prices Don't;
Dow's Record Approaches

The Return of 'Goldilocks'

By E.S. BROWNING
May 11, 2006; Page A1

After Hurricane Katrina hobbled economic growth late last year and as oil prices soared, many investors thought the economy, corporate profits and the stock market would be running on empty by now.

Instead, an economic rebound has sent corporate profits to an 11th consecutive quarter of double-digit gains, the longest streak since at least the 1950s. Surprisingly strong growth in the economy and corporate profits has shaken stocks out of their doldrums. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is now within sight of its record close.

Unlike the great 1990s bull market, which was sustained by a wave of new technology, this one has the feel of an old-fashioned economic boom, the type investors saw in the 1950s and 1960s

Of course the above would fit the WSJ party line: the domestic economy is great and the Bushies' tax cuts are the cause

And even the article itself belies the headline. US growth is largely a function of the boom in the developing world and a good deal of the growth in corporate profits is in energy and other commodity based companies and comes from those participating in the boom outside of the US.

In fact the LAT (yes I do occasionally look at other parts of the paper) analyzed things far better writing:

Emerging Nations Powering Global Economic Boom

The expansion is the strongest since the 1970s, with China, India and Russia setting the pace. But many U.S. workers are left behind.

By Tom Petruno
Times Staff Writer

May 14, 2006

The global economy is on a growth streak that is shaping up to be the broadest and strongest expansion in more than three decades.

Rising spending and investment by consumers and businesses worldwide are boosting national economies on every continent, pushing down unemployment rates in many countries and lifting business earnings and confidence.

Of 60 nations tracked by investment firm Bridgewater Associates, not one is in recession — the first time that has been true since 1969.

Yet this is a different kind of boom from any other in the post-World War II era, analysts say. The soaring economies of China, India, Russia, Brazil and other emerging nations increasingly are setting the pace, overshadowing the slower growth of the United States, Europe and Japan, where the benefits of the expansion have eluded many workers.

"This is the first recovery where developing economies are playing a dominant role," said James Paulsen, chief strategist at Wells Capital Management in Minneapolis, which manages money for big investors such as pension funds.

The Iraqi Forces Are All Ready To Take Over From US Troops, Just Like We Are Constantly Told Well Except for A Couple Problems

NYT

...One of the most detailed assessments available in the public domain came in a report filed by Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a retired Army commander, who teaches international affairs at West Point and spent a week in the region last month interviewing senior American and Iraqi officers.

"We need at least two to five more years of U.S. partnership and combat backup to get the Iraqi Army ready to stand on its own," General McCaffrey wrote in a seven-page memorandum that circulated widely within the military after his return.

"The Iraqi Army is real, growing, and willing to fight," he said. But he cautioned that "they are very badly equipped, with only a few light vehicles, small arms, most with body armor and one or two uniforms. They have almost no mortars, heavy machine guns, decent communications equipment, artillery, armor" or any air cargo transport, helicopter troop carriers or strike aircraft in their own inventory.

As for the ability of the Iraqi security forces to provide indigenous combat support or service support, he wrote, "Their logistics capability is only now beginning to appear."

Maj. Gen. Thomas R. Turner II, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, is the senior American commander for security across the northern part of the country, an area where Iraqi security forces have made steady gains.

In assessing the ability of the Iraqi military to take over the security mission, he said, "The major inhibitor to independent operations is lack of equipment, manpower, their inability to sustain themselves and a lack of systems or policies in place to manage the organization."

other than the above they'e doing just fine

btw it doesn't take a genius to read between the lines. They're not being given sophisticated weapons because the US military doesn't trust the Iraqi security forces not to give the weapons to insurgents or sectarian militias

Does This Sound A Bit Familiar

Harry Shearer read this on his great program on KCRW (you can hear it here). And I had to track it down.

A good thing Rummy/Dick/W got a full briefing on the cultural and historical background on Iraq before they embarked on regime change.

But what I can't understand is how eminent ME historian Bernard Lewis could have thought a shock to the system of an invasion of Iraq would lead to a wave of democratization. He was a key adviser to the decision makers. Perhaps it is true, as academic henchman Fouad Ajami wrote in a paean to Lewis entitled A Sage in Christendom (sic, a Jewish scholar wrting on the Muslim world) in the May 1 WSJ:

For Bernard Lewis, there is something now of the closing of a circle. As a young man, he had been on His Majesty's service during the Second World War, working for British intelligence between 1940 and 1945. The young medievalist had been pressed into modern government work, and that experience had given him his taste for contemporary political affairs. This new war is something of a return to his beginnings. For an immensely gregarious man of unfailing wit and personal optimism, a darkness runs through his view of the future of the Western democracies. "In 1940, we knew who we were, we knew who the enemy was, we knew the dangers and the issues," he told me when I pressed him for a reading of the struggle against Islamic radicalism. "In our island, we knew we would prevail, that the Americans would be drawn into the fight. It is different today. We don't know who we are, we don't know the issues, and we still do not understand the nature of the enemy."

The irony is too rich. Lewis briefed the administration and advocated the invasion of Iraq, a brutal secular nationalist dictatorship that suppressed islamic institutions. And then he laments that "we don't know the issues and we still do not understand the nature of the enemy."

Of course one hears nothing from Lewis at present about the war. Just as those other "intellectual advocates of the war like Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith are strangely silent. Francis Fukuyama a very early advocate of regime change in Iraq has had the intellectual honesty to write a book explaining how wrong he was.

I find it interesting that browsing the bookshelves there are ample comprehensive critiques or critical histories of the war (Fukuyama, Cobra 2, Assasins' Gate to name a few). But there is no comprehensive history or analytical piece supporting the war and how it fits into US global policy. Please correct me if I'm wrong. That defense is left to the talking points of the administration and their parrots on Fox....Well now I guess it's the on leave to work in the administration Foxie feeding the talking points to be repeated virtually verbatim on Fox.

Would that Lewis had retained some of wisdom of this woman who preceded him and the self proclaimed students of history like Feith and Wolfowitz read about her life.

to do this full justice I have to present the whole article:

British "Queen of Iraq" rests in Baghdad cemetery

11 May 2006 01:03:12 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Ibon Villelabeitia BAGHDAD, May 11 (Reuters) - The cemetery gate groans and the gaunt grave keeper leads the visitor along rows of broken tombs. "There she is," Ali Mansur says pointing to a sandstone gravestone. "I take care of her. But nobody visits." Gertrude Bell, a British traveller, writer and linguist, was one of the most powerful women of the 1920s, an adviser to empire builders and confidante to kings. An "oriental secretary" to British governments, she is credited with drawing the boundaries of modern Iraq out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War One. Now, as her colonial creation stands on the verge of breakdown because of sectarian violence, the woman dubbed the "Queen of Iraq" lies in a forgotten cemetery in Baghdad. Nearly 80 years after Bell's death and more than three years after U.S. forces invaded to oust Saddam Hussein, many fear Iraq's unity is threatened by killings, roving militias and the fear that is uprooting families. Some believe the country could split into three sectarian and ethnic regions. Prime Minister-designate Nuri al-Maliki has pledged to put together a coalition government that would unite Iraq's long competing communities of Shi'ite Muslims, Sunni Arabs and Kurds and avert a slide into all-out sectarian and ethnic conflict. But as history shows, modern Iraq, the land of ancient Mesopotamia, has been a divided nation since its creation. OTTOMAN PROVINCES Bell and her fellow colonialists settled Iraq's borders by merging the old Ottoman provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra, seeking to secure British interests and with scant regard for tribal and ethnic boundaries. "I had a well spent morning at the office making out the southern desert frontier of the Iraq," Bell, who specialised in Arabic and Persian languages, wrote to her father in 1921. What emerged was a centralised state with three peoples with differing aims, ideals and beliefs: non-Arab Kurds in the mountainous north, Shi'ite Muslims in the south and Sunni Arabs in Baghdad and in the rest of the heartland. In 1958, a group of nationalist military officers ousted the puppet monarchy Bell had helped install in a bogus referendum in 1921 that passed with 96 percent of the vote. She had also helped draw up many of the policies that were later taken up by Saddam's Baath Party and which exacerbated the centuries-old tensions between Shi'ites and Sunnis. She ensured that a Sunni elite, previously favoured by the Sunni Turks running the Ottoman territories, dominated the new Iraqi government and the army, and that the majority Shi'ites, whom she regarded as religious zealots, remained oppressed. Kurds were denied self-rule so that London could control Kurdistan's oil fields and build a buffer against the Russians. "I don't for a moment doubt that the final authority must be in the hands of the Sunnis, in spite of their numerical inferiority; otherwise you will have a ... theocratic state, which is the very devil," Bell wrote in another letter. Years later, Saddam, a Sunni, imposed his brand of Sunni pan-Arabism by force, executing tens of thousands of Shi'ites and building a regime around tribal and family patronage. His policies toward Shi'ites and Kurds further accentuated Iraq's three-way split. The Shi'ite community gained political power after the Americans ousted Saddam. In December parliamentary elections, Iraqis cast their ballots along religious and ethnic lines, turning their backs on the centralised state first imposed by Bell and the British authorities and later by Saddam. When asked by a reporter recently why Iraqi politicians argued so much over a new government, President Jalal Talabani quipped: "This is the Iraq our British friends created." Juan Cole, professor of Middle East history at the University of Michigan, agreed. "British policies unbalanced Iraq and Gertrude Bell played a significant role in that." TEA BY THE TIGRIS Bell, who had an aristocratic upbringing, lived in a more genteel Baghdad than today's city of sandbags, armoured vehicles and the bombed-out hulks of Saddam-era government buildings. She wore long muslin dresses and feathered hats and rode side-saddle along the banks of the Tigris. In her letters, she describes a Baghdad of tea parties, regattas, swimming excursions and luncheons on the verandas of colonial buildings. But as revolt spread and Britain used bombs and poison gas against those opposed to its presence, she faded from public life. "We have underestimated the fact that this country is really an inchoate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to any system," she once said. Five years before her death from an overdose of sleeping pills aged 57 in 1926, she wrote: "You may rely upon one thing -- I'll never engage in creating kings again; it's too great a strain." When she was buried, thousands thronged the streets to watch her casket pass as it headed toward the British cemetery in Baghdad's Bab al-Sharji district. Mansur, who lives with his wife in a shack inside the cemetery, said a local church pays him $3 a month to clear weeds from Bell's grave. The tomb itself was cleaned and restored by a well-wisher last year and, before the war, foreign journalists used to stop by. Now, Mansur said, they are too afraid of getting killed or kidnapped to venture here