U.S. Chummy With Sudan Despite Darfur?

The Skinny: "Pariah State" Working With CIA To Spy On Iraq Insurgents

(CBS)  The Skinny is Joel Roberts' take on the top news of the day and the best of the Internet.

---

Even as the United States has condemned Sudan for its role in the mass killings in Darfur, the Sudanese regime has secretly worked with the CIA to spy on insurgents in Iraq, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.

President Bush has imposed sanctions on Sudan and labeled the killing of tens of thousands in Darfur as genocide. But critics charge the administration has "soft-pedaled the sanctions to preserve its extensive intelligence collaboration with Sudan."

Sudan, the Times says, has become "increasingly valuable to the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks because the Sunni Arab nation is a crossroads for Islamic militants making their way to Iraq and Pakistan." Sudan has also helped the U.S. track militants in neighboring Somalia.

Sudan gets a "number of benefits in return" for its efforts. "Its relationship with the CIA has given it an important back channel for communications with the U.S. government" – which the U.S. has also used to lean on Sudan over the Darfur crisis and other issues.

And while much of the world has censured Sudan, the U.S. State Department recently lauded the country as a "strong partner in the war on terror."

The U.S.-Sudan relationship, the Times says, "underscores the complex realities of the post-Sept. 11 world," in which the U.S. has relied on countries like Sudan and Uzbekistan, which are considered "pariah states" for their dismal human rights records, for intelligence and military cooperation.


Politics And Judges

There are new suggestions Monday that the Bush administration stressed politics above qualifications in its selection of federal judges.

The Washington Post reports the administration "increasingly emphasized partisan political ties over expertise in recent years" in choosing immigration judges, despite laws that forbid such practices.

Based on an analysis of Justice Department, immigration court and other records, the Post says "at least one-third of the immigration judges appointed … since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law."

The Post calls its analysis "the first systematic examination of the people appointed to immigration courts, the relationships that led to their selection and the experience they brought to their position."

Those given immigration judgeships included two GOP loyalists whose bids for seats on the U.S. Tax Court had failed; a former Louisiana Republican Party treasurer; an election law specialist from New Jersey who represented Republican candidates; a former White House domestic policy adviser and a "conservative crusader against pornography."

The appointments, the Post says, were all made by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, or his predecessor, John Ashcroft.

The report comes at a particularly inconvenient time for President Bush, as he pushes to revive the stalled immigration bill, and as the Senate takes up a no-confidence vote on Gonzales over his handling of the controversial firings of U.S. attorneys, whom critics charge were dismissed for political reasons.

Justice officials said they had changed their hiring practices in April but defended those selected earlier as "well-qualified."

---

Listen To This Morning's World News Roundup

---

"The Sopranos" Fades To Black

So you thought they were going to whack Tony. Or his long-suffering wife Carmela. Or at least Paulie Walnuts.

Fuhgeddaboudit.

Much to the surprise of longtime viewers, not a single member of America's favorite TV crime family was killed off on the series finale last night – only rival crime boss Phil Leotardo was whacked, his plan to rub Tony out cut short with a bullet to the head.

The Washington Post hailed the show's "unorthodox and arguably ingenious" ending, in which the screen abruptly faded to black as "menacing strangers" entered the New Jersey diner where the Sopranos were gathered for a family dinner.

The New York Times, in a front-page story, called the ending "almost like a prank, a mischievous dig at viewers who had agonized over how television’s most addictive series would come to a close."

And the Los Angeles Times said the show's producers "faced with deciding between a bang and a whimper, chose neither." Instead they opted to "fool millions of Americans into believing their cable had gone out for possibly the most important moment in the history of televised drama."

But while some may be frustrated at the lack of a definitive wrap-up to the show's eight-year run, keeping the lethally lovable clan alive leaves open "the distinct possibility of 'The Sopranos: The Movie.'"


A NOTE TO READERS: The Skinny is now available via e-mail. Click here and follow the directions to register to receive it in your inbox each weekday morning.

[feelfree1]

Re: "The U.S.-Sudan relationship, the Times says, "underscores the complex realities of the post-Sept. 11 world," in which the U.S. has relied on countries like Sudan and Uzbekistan"

Sudan has a whole lot of oil. Any and all policies of the Bush regime are sure to center around this fact.

In Uzbekistan, government officials are known to boil their political enemies in oil.

This practice ties together 2 favorite topics of the Bush regime- torture and oil. They are natural allies with the Uzbek rulers.

With respect to the CIA related claims, the regime sure seems to be trying very hard to conflate and exploit the 'al Qaeda' adventures as much as possible lately.

I wonder why?

[jjreding-2009]

While it's true the Taleban themselves probably didn't directly attack the US, they still provided material support and funding for those who did. This makes them complicit and therefore subject to reprisal/retaliation - UNLIKE Iraq which had the misfortune to have a horrible dictator in control of the country. The Taleban and their extremists, such as Al Qaeda, are who this 'war on terror' should be aimed at, not sovereign nations.

[jjreding-2009]

How are you getting this stuff lars? When did I ever say anything about attacking ANYONE in the world, let alone 'everyone'? Typical of the right-wingers to stretch and fabricate words into statements with no bearing on the original words at all. I'm staunchly AGAINST attacking ANYONE unless they attack us - like the Taleban in Afghanistan, where the REAL war on terror should be being fought. You seem to have no grounding in reality.

[lars008-2009]

Posted by jjreding at 02:56 PM : Jun 11, 2007

you would rather we attack the whole world then... at one go... brilliant strategy... good diplomacy... please run for president...

In matters of opinion, debate is pointless because you cannot account for taste!

[phantomsoul]

It's pretty obvious that the reason for tracking militants passing through the Sudan supersedes the need to stop the genocide going on there. The real question, however, is does anyone actually know what that reason is? Besides your garden-variety blanket statements that really don't do much to justify our military action there -- like "to protect our freedoms"? Does anyone actually know how its protecting our freedoms, and what kind of progress is being made?

Those are the real questions...

[jjreding-2009]

lars - so you're telling me that the story about Bush's overlooking the terrorists in Sudan is false and not based on facts? Same thing about the Pakistani regime, fugitive Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, accused by Havana of multiple terror attacks, who sneaked into Honduras using an altered U.S. passport after he was freed from a Panama prison, isn't being considered for asylum in this country? These are facts, not opinions. My OPINION is that Bush is only tolerant of terrorists who help him. But a terrorist is a terrorist and Bush's credibility, as if he actually has any anymore anyway, is severely diminished and his moral high ground is washed away with such actions.

[lars008-2009]

lars - I'm not 'blaming' anyone for anything. I'm simply stating facts, rather than reposting my old posts like you seem to love to do. At least I have the cojones to speak my mind rather than reiterate rubbish. Bush tolerates any terrorist or terrorist regime that works when it's politically expedient for him. Rather than take the high road, he'll stoop to their level if it suits his agenda. He has proven this over and over again and it's no wonder the rest of the world looks at America with disdain. The only reason other countries tolerate AMERICA is because we pay their bills and prop up their governments.
Posted by jjreding at 01:45 PM : Jun 11, 2007

name one country that does not do the exact same thing nancy...

you are not stating facts... you are stating opinions... conjecture... with no proof to back up your rants...

In matters of opinion, debate is pointless because you cannot account for taste!

[jjreding-2009]

lars - I'm not 'blaming' anyone for anything. I'm simply stating facts, rather than reposting my old posts like you seem to love to do. At least I have the cojones to speak my mind rather than reiterate rubbish. Bush tolerates any terrorist or terrorist regime that works when it's politically expedient for him. Rather than take the high road, he'll stoop to their level if it suits his agenda. He has proven this over and over again and it's no wonder the rest of the world looks at America with disdain. The only reason other countries tolerate AMERICA is because we pay their bills and prop up their governments.

[rafterman1]

===Bush has never liked black people as Kanye West said so many years ago===

While I think that Bush is an incompetent boob, I don't think he's racist. He's had minorities in his administration, going back to Texas, and I don't think that's fake. But I think Bush is indifferent to the plight of people in general, whether they are minorities or not. Sort of like the Paris Hilton "selfish" syndrome.

[gwagener]

Why are there three different stories on the page? Two are important, one is a trivial bit of entertainment "news".

[lars008-2009]

Posted by trouble1985 at 01:12 PM : Jun 11, 2007

Posted by jjreding at 12:31 PM : Jun 11, 2007

why are you not blaming the UN since you do not want the USA to be the world's police???

[russ1985]

Bush has never liked black people as Kanye West said so many years ago concerning Katrina and the fact that he'd tolerate a partner state's genocidal campaign if they can help him in a different arena should not surprise anyone. I'm surprised people still think this is news. Let's face facts: There's no oil in Sudan. Darfur is filled with poor black people and the only thing Bush needs from them is occasional news about Al Qaeda. If the whole country died due to sectarian violence, he wouldn't bat an eye. He might actually see if the violence could be encouraged in Ethiopia and Kenya just to completely destablize the region.

[jjreding-2009]

Once again the Bush regime shows that it will tolerate terrorism if it works for the US. This 'global war on terrorism' is a farce since the genocide in Darfur still exists and the US has given safe haven for a notorious Cuban terrorist who tried on a few occasions to assassinate Castro. For this 'war' to actually succeed, repressive regimes such as Egypt, Pakistan, Sudan and others must be brought to task for their atrocities, not having them overlooked because it's politically expedient. Once again the United States comes off looking hypocritical, just as it does when it laments torture and other civil rights abuses around the world but continues to keep places like Guantanamo Bay and the secret CIA prisons in Europe in operation. Bush has totally destroyed any credibility the United States has had regarding these type of human rights abuses.

[lars008-2009]

where is the un???

why are you looking to the usa???

you want another reason to blast usa as a warmonger???

has the un passed a resolution authorizing force???

so now you are for what you call illegal wars... like bosnia, afghanistan, iraq, viet nam... good one...

[omega39-2009]

infidel_us, wake up.....The "liberal causes" and "culture war" you speak of are tools of division used against the American people. Both parties are marching us towards the New World Order where sovereignty will be a thing of the past and your own living conditions will rival those of most other third world nations.

[ioweign]

Bush raised a few eyebrows in Rome recently, when he addressed the Pope as "Sir," not "Your Holiness" as required by diplomatic courtesy.

Posted by Iceman_1960 at 11:51 AM : Jun 11, 2007

You should know that you address Bush as "Your Holiness"!!

[radiob-2009]

And while much of the world has censured Sudan, the U.S. State Department recently lauded the country as a "strong partner in the war on terror."


200,000 civilians dead, 2.5 million have fled Sudan on account of Extremist that are working with Al Queda and the Sudan government. Ignore genocide?????????????????

[antoniof123]

"Marvelous. I am now convinced that libs should be seen and not heard from - EVER."
- Posted by infidel_us at 11:21 AM : Jun 11, 2007

The day you try to take away my freedom of speech, arm yourself first.

Posted by Iceman_1960 at 11:54 AM : Jun 11, 2007

Me too!

[rafterman1]

===And it's not a "paranoid" war against liberals...it's a very real culture war in which I feel liberals and their causes/philosophies/politics are at the very core of most of America's problems today.===

And what problems would those be? Being against war? Fighting to end discrimination? Fighting for economic fairness? Checking that ALL votes in America ae counted? Making sure that the Constitution of the US is followed as written and not changed oir circumvented because we are afraid? Wow, those liberal causes, how terrible they are. Please enlighten me on what you stand for.

[antoniof123]

infidel_us first of all I would like to state that I am not a liberal or conservative like most Americans we are down the middle of the road. However, we swing from side to side the reason is we are so busy trying to keep the Reactionary and Radical from fighting and killing everyone. Go and check out the polical spectrum you will find that in the real sense there is not much difference between liberal and conservatism. The problme has happened because we can't keep up with the likes of Recactionay and Radical all the time. They are both extreme points of view and should be removed from society.