Social Media are a Stuxnet for Middle East Freedom

Facebook. Twitter. Google Buzz. Stuxnet? Though the latter is not a social media platform, the events in the Middle East make it clear that social media and sophisticated espionage software have something in common: both have penetrated, and will continue to penetrate, sophisticated ideological and technological defenses established by entrenched dictators or extremist theocracies. Social media are penetrating ideological and political defenses that maintain various regimes' power over their citizens; Stuxnet penetrated military and intelligence networks that maintain secrecy surrounding the true nature and progress of Iran's uranium enrichment facilities. All of these penetrations by modern technology into the ideological and cyber domains of non-democratic governments throughout the Middle East work together to expand and protect freedom in a potentially safer environment for all.

The Stuxnet super worm, or "cyber missile", was a remarkably effective tool designed to accomplish a single mission: jump from computer to computer, penetrating every layer of Iran's complex cyber security systems protecting the computer networks operating the Mullahs' uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Bushehr, and destroy those control systems. Stuxnet embedded commands into the software controlling centrifuges and other key machinery, causing breakdowns, incorrect spinning speeds, and other glitches that damaged more than 1100 centrifuges which had been working 24/7 to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium.  For months, the Iranians had no idea they had been hit by arguably the world's first weaponized computer worm.  It worked silently until its damage was done.  The Iranians made repairs, ordered replacement equipment, scratched their heads, and watched as their uranium production ground to a halt.

Many regimes and governments in the Middle East are likewise scratching their heads over the sudden boiling point their citizens have reached, taking to the streets and demanding reforms, resignations, and even democratic elections.  Tunisia, Egypt, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen, Jordan, Iran.  From whence, they wondered, did this viral push for reform spring?  The answer, like Stuxnet in Iran, is found in technology, but not a master work of espionage, but simple social networking platforms that carry discussions and dreams of better lives and more freedom.  Facebook, Twitter, Buzz, and other social media penetrate net filters, arriving on personal devices protesters rely upon to coordinate rallies, launch marches, and direct media attention to brutality. Words of encouragement from around the world, including the U.S., reach into the hearts and homes of protesters for reform via Facebook and Twitter despite the efforts of various oppressive regimes to block citizens from seeing that their protests are known and supported in many lands. The tinderboxes we see today throughout the Middle East may never have spread so broadly, with such speed, and with such effectiveness were it not for the wide availability of social networking and technologically savvy users who, like their more advanced Stuxnet peers, found ways through and around government firewalls and filters to bring reform ideology to the masses, and in some cases, to bring dictators to their knees.

Like Stuxnet, social networking quietly goes about its business, ultimately finding the vulnerabilities of a regime's power and secrets, exploits them, and exposes them to the world. Also, like Stuxnet, social media penetration is not a burden of one nation's people alone, but rather an alliance of like-minded people from any nation intersted in assisting with the ruin of regimes. It is not by coincidence that regimes, when facing protests and international scrutiny, move first to sever communications and Internet access. Yet as Stuxnet and Facebook/Twitter demonstrated, the tech geniuses in the general population always find a way through even the most determined regime's barriers. Freedom, like nature, will always find a way.  Keeping communications open despite clampdowns is a heroic act which has its heart a base desire for human freedom.

Stuxnet crippled Iran's nuclear program for many months, buying nations valuable time to assess the true progress of the Iranian nuclear program and prepare options for an inevitable showdown with the Mullahs. It also reminded Iran that when nations unite their brightest minds for a common cause, anything is possible, even the world's most sophisticated cyber weapon designed for peacefully fighting nuclear proliferation. Social media remind us that likewise, the world's great freedom-loving minds and voices can unite to topple dictators or force reforms that expand human rights and opportunities for self-determination. Technology penetrates barriers to freedom, and carries news of successes to other oppressed peoples who merely need to see what is possible.

Former National Security Advisor: WH Was Not Central to Events in Egypt

MSNBC, in its eternal quest to make us all feel a thrill up our legs while pondering the great achievements of President Obama, interviewed Former national security adviser to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski during the Morning Joe program regarding whether the President's critics are right in claiming he "blew it" in his handling of events in Egypt. Clearly the interview, led by MSNBC co-host and Brzezinski daughter, Mika, was set up for Brzezinski to debunk the criticisms and state, as definitively as a failed national security advisor can, that no, Obama did not blow it in Egypt.  MSNBC displayed a photo of the cover of Newsweek Magazine, which bears the headline, "Egypt: How Obama Blew it" and Mika asked Brzezinski if he agreed with that assessment.

To his credit, Brzezinski did not take that bait.  He sidestepped the question deftly by reminding the disappointed MSNBC hosts that it is still too early to tell what will happen in Egypt.  Then he went on to make an observation that surely took the thrill right out of Chris Matthews' leg, assuming he was watching.  As you will recall, Matthews recently made the audacious and wildly inaccurate claim that "it took Obama to have this happen" when discussing the protests and Mubarak's ouster, giving the President all the credit for inspiring Egyptians to seek reform.  Of course Matthews never observed of the purple-fingered voters in Iraq, "It took Bush to make this happen," but that's another topic for another day.  In today's interview, Brzezinski burst that MSNBC and White House self-importance belief bubble by declaring, "The fact is the U.S. and the White House weren't all that central" to what happened in Egypt, giving the credit to Al Jazeera's coverage of events, the Egyptians themselves, and widespread use of American social networking technology that spread news and helped protesters organize.  The cameras panned back to Mika and Joe Scarborough, who fumbled for words trying to ask a follow-up question to a sound byte they obviously had not anticipated.

Next time, Mika, you might consider asking "dad" what he will answer before you bring him on the air.  Your colleague Chris Matthews will now spend a great deal of his time trying to get that thrill back in his leg instead of focusing on reporting to us nothing significant can occur in the world without President Obama making it happen.  Most importantly, the White House, through its surrogates at MSNBC, needs to stop seeking to take credit for an uprising in Egypt that the President did precious little to inspire.

"Spread Democracy" or "Spread the Wealth" Revolutions?

Before stepping down as Egypt's President, Hosni Mubarak had harsh words for the Obama administration's vocal support for democracy movements in Egypt, Tunisia, and the entire Middle East.  Mubarak warned former Israeli cabinet minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer:

We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that's the fate of the Middle East.  They may be talking about democracy but they don't know what they're talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam.

Ben-Eliezer told Haaretz that on the eve of Mubarak's stepping down as Egypt's President, Mubarak shared his prediction for what will follow in the Middle East:

He contended the snowball (of civil unrest) won't stop in Egypt and it wouldn't skip any Arab country in the Middle East and in the Gulf.  He said 'I won't be surprised if in the future you see more extremism and radical Islam and more disturbances -- dramatic changes and upheavals'.

Will Mubarak's warning prove prophetic, or was it merely the parting bluster of a man who believed, with good reason, that he alone held the religious radicals in his nation at bay for more than 30 years?  Events in other Arab nations offer an immediate opportunity to observe the accuracy of Mubarak's predictions.  In Yemen and Algeria, protests are creating fertile ground for radical Islamist elements to merge their long-term goals with the short-term protesters' goals of toppling their existing governments. 

Photo by Reuters

When the many thousands of Algerian protesters claim they are marching for liberty and freedom, are they actually demanding self-determination - a worthy goal consistent with America's democratic values - or are they seeking to level the economic or social playing field because others within their culture have more opportunity and wealth?  Reports out of Algiers suggest that many ingredients that led to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt are also influencing the street protests in Algeria: (1) high unemployment; (2) Growing gap between rich and poor; and (3) large and restless youth population.  All of these ingredients, if not also motivated by a desire for self-determination and common law, will lead to the same half-baked confection: redistribution of wealth, and, in the case of the French and Soviet revolutions, purging of the wealthy and influential classes in mass bloodshed.

At this point, the ultimate goals and democratic desires of the Algerian and Yemeni protesters remains undefined and frighteningly fluid.  Protests nearly always begin by riding rapidly on a wave of emotion that crests when it appears the initially specific goal has been reached.  In Egypt's case, that initial specific goal was to oust Mubarak.  That goal has now been reached, but what goals beyond the ouster do the protesters have in common?  Iraq proved that toppling a dictator and gleeful celebrations are not the end of political upheaval.  The devil is in the details, and the "details" that established a democratically elected government in Baghdad included much bloodshed, radical Islamist terrorism to discourage the people, and eventually a constitution.  The purple-stained index fingers of voting Iraqis came with a price paid long after the statues of Saddam Hussein were jubilantly dismantled. 

In the absence of clear leadership among protest groups, confusion mounts as to the way forward in the vacuum left by the toppling of an existing government.  In Egypt, the "details" remain to be determined, but Mubarak is likely right that many devils, as it were, will work feverishly to gain strong footholds in vulnerable political climates.  Protesters in Yemen and Algeria face a similar conundrum.  Calling for "government reform" is ambiguous, carrying very different connotations for the myriad largely incompatible political, social, and religious groups united for one moment in time for the sake of "change." 

The Obama administration is in a difficult position.  The world expects America to support democracy and democratic revolutions wherever they arise.  However, the administration must recognize its limitations and avoid knee-jerk support to civil unrest, or "change" for the sake of "change", before gaining a clear understanding of the forces and motives behind Middle East protests.  Revolutions can become ugly very quickly if they are engaged in for societal or economic leveling rather than for constitutional freedoms and protection of inalienable rights. 

The governments in Algeria and Yemen are currently in a dangerous state of vulnerability.  Yemen has been a strategic ally of the United States in the War on Terror.  That term is not popular in the Obama administration, which took office pledging to purge all things Bush.  However, President Obama has slowly recognized when faced with stark reality, that this IS still a war against terrorist ideology.  In war, key allies should not be abandoned at the first opportunity, even if standing with the ally means ignoring its warts and impurities.  Stalin was murdering millions of his own countrymen before, during, and after, WWII, but in the larger was against a radical ideology, the United States turned a blind eye to Stalin's atrocities because the war against Hitler could not be won without him.  By its strategic location and past assistance in identifying and locating terror suspects and operational networks, overlooking Yemeni President Saleh's imperfections may prove the best course for America's interests in a larger struggle against radical Islam.  America's presidents are elected to serve and protect the interests of America, even if that means that at times we form temporary alliances with unsavory or even oppressive governments.  Even in these cases, however, we must never cease encouraging even the most bloodthirsty dictators or regimes to reform.




Mubarak's prediction of a snowball of unrest in the Middle East, that will leave no country untouched, is, in my estimation, accurate.  Radical Islamists will undoubtedly attempt to fill power vacuums throughout the region, attempting to expand their spheres of influence.  President Obama must walk a fine line between encouraging freedom and democratic reforms, as he must, while holding onto key alliances in the War on Terror. 

"Clap On, Clap Off": Is the light on at the DNI?

"Clap on, Clap off . . . way off on Muslim Brotherhood"

When Congress is in session, crowds in the gallery, when allowed to observe, are reminded to hold their clapping until the session concludes.  If only the White House could have held its Clapper until the end of a hearing on Capitol Hill today.  Instead, the Obama administration made the unfortunate decision to allow Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper to answer questions and deliver his assessments of the situation in Egypt without the much-needed benefit of a teleprompter.  

 DNI Clapper, as widely reported, testified that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt had worked peacefully for the "betterment of the political order" and, in a whopper that would have caused Pinocchio great nasal growth pains:

"The term 'Muslim Brotherhood' ... is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam."

 So far out in left field was this assessment, that the White House rushed to correct DNI Clapper's mind-boggling inaccuracy.  A DNI spokesman clarified later today that DNI Clapper was aware the Muslim Brotherhood is a religious, not secular, organization, but that it had largely operated in Egypt in a secular manner under Hosni Mubarak's rule in that country.  What he failed to explain in the hearing was WHY Mubarak kept the Muslim Brotherhood under his thumb for 30 years.  The reason of course, is that the Brotherhood, when speaking to gullible Western media, portrays itself as a minor secular political party with no clout in Egypt, dedicated to building hospitals and other social projects to save humanity.

The peaceful hospital-building political party, the Muslim Brotherhood, no doubt welcoming Egyptian voters on election day in September 2011. 

When one speaks with Egyptians and other citizens in the Middle East, or if one watches Al Jazeera for 10 minutes, one can learn very quickly that the reason the Brotherhood builds hospitals is because the Brotherhood creates a demand for emergency medical facilities by fomenting terrorism and anti-Semitism with a violent tinge to it.  People get hurt around the Brotherhood.  Ask Anwar Sadat whether the Brotherhood "eschews violence", and it might help explain why Mubarak used an iron fist to limit the group's activities in Egypt for decades.  Read the words of the Brotherhood's supreme religious leader and decide for yourself if the "secular political party" is a benign entity as DNI Clapper testified today.  Judge for yourself if the Brotherhood, in its ideology and goals, is any different than al Qaeda, which the Brotherhood allegedly claims is an abomination of Islam.  For a group that is so tightly embracing Hamas that it is impossible to determine where Hamas ends and the Brotherhood begins, its faux condemnation of al Qaeda is ripe with comedic value
beyond anything even the Onion could concoct.

What is most disturbing about DNI Clapper's testimony isn't simply that it was inaccurate, which it clearly was, but that it is in direct conflict with assessments of the Brotherhood produced by the CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and a host of other intelligence and law enforcement agencies, not merely in the U.S. but among all of our key allies across the globe.  Simply stated, no agency in an allied country has ever assessed the Muslim Brotherhood as anything but a terrorist organization that has participated in violence, directly and through financing and recruitment.  DNI Clapper must know this.  The CIA's and FBI's assessments of the Brotherhood are nothing like what DNI Clapper presented today.  It is no wonder he is backing away from his testimony at a speed only Usain Bolt has experienced among mortals.

We must wonder why DNI Clapper, who should know very well the intelligence (that is the "I" in DNI, after all!) the CIA, FBI, and others have gleaned about the Brotherhood, would testify that the group is of little concern and is a bit player in the "revolution" taking place in Egypt since January 25.  Members of Congress in attendance at today's hearing should obtain for themselves the assessments of the Brotherhood from the intelligence and law enforcement agencies DNI Clapper is supposed to listen to, and brief the Obama administration accordingly.  Clapper clapped on about the humanitarian achievements of this terror-sponsoring group, and then he clapped off when one of his staffers with access to simple intelligence sources, such as Google, discovered that no one in the intel industry, except perhaps himself, believed a word of the fiction that the Brotherhood is benign.  Clearly his testimony was politically motivated. Somehow, in all of this Clapping on and off, we must hope and pray that a light came on somewhere in the administration to reveal the very real threat to Egypt and Israel the Brotherhood presents, and that no real political power will be afforded it before or after Egyptian elections are held to replace Mubarak.

An Egyptian Urges Obama to Chill

The White House seems determined to encourage the loudest voices in Egypt to push Hosni Mubarak to relinquish the reins of Government. Perhaps White House and State Department staffers have been too enthralled by the beatings inflicted on U.S. reporters to notice that the real beating is being inflicted upon the true Egyptian voices for democracy and meaningful reform who initiated the first peaceful protest that has since been hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood. The New York Times would have us believe the Brotherhood has little clout and should not be taken seriously.

That's not what a prominent Egyptian, who knows a bit more about conditions in Egypt than the college professor writing for the NYT, thinks. His reasons for telling President Obama to slow down and back off are presented here.

At this point, no one knows whether the protests in Cairo will be a step toward democracy or a step toward a radical Islamist regime. Calling for Mubarak to turn his government over to an uprising that has yet to be defined is ill-advised and reckless.

According to this well-informed businessman, Egypt will descend into chaos if President Obama, and some "conservatives" such as Senator John McCain, continue their knee-jerk reactions to the protests by pushing Mubarak for an immediate transfer of power. The link above leads to an excellent overview of who was protesting what, and when, and what is at stake for Egypt, the region, and the U.S.

Obama Legitimizes Muslim Brotherhood One Day, Brotherhood Vows War with Israel the Next

One day after stating to a global audience that many groups, including the radical Muslim Brotherhood, should play roles in governing post-Mubarak Egypt if they would swear off violence, the Brotherhood dropped any charade of peaceful intentions by assuring they would cause Egypt to withdraw from it's peace treaty with Israel.

Apparently a decade of intelligence reports naming the Brotherhood as a terror sponsor and supplier wasn't enough to convince the President they really meant it when they said they want to establish a global Islamic caliphate on the smoking ruins of Israel, so the Brotherhood had to spell it out clearly for him today. Good luck Mr. President. Your diplomatic relations with a provisional Egyptian government will be very productive with such level-headed beheaders as the Muslim Brotherhood playing a role in Egypt's power structure.

Timing is Everything in Middle East Revolutionary Uprisings

Is it mere coincidence that revolutionary uprisings bearing high global stakes seem to occur when the U.S. is led by foreign policy-weak Democratic Presidents and Secretaries of State?  Jimmy Carter never saw the Ayatollah Khoemeni and his radical Islamic followers for what they were, and as a result, Iran never attained freedom and democracy that seemed possible when the initial protests against the Shah began.  The product of Carter's waffling was a radical Islamist state bent on Israel's destruction and supplying anti-American terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East to the present day.

Today we see the same thing happening in Egypt.  What may have begun as an uprising against Mubarak and for freedoms and democracy is rapidly being hijacked by Islamic radicals, most notably the Muslim Brotherhood.  Intel experts worldwide have long identified the Brotherhood as a spawner of terrorist organizations, with ties to everyone from Hizbollah to al Qaeda.  Yesterday, President Obama described the Muslim Brotherhood as a political entity in Egypt that should have a say in the future governance of that nation.  President Obama is on the same floundering path that Jimmy Carter trod on the way to losing Iran, perhaps forever, to radical, Israel-threatening Islamists.

This column in the Washington Post warns that George W. Bush was right about supporting true democracy in the Middle East and that its peoples have an inborn desire for freedom  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/28/AR2011012803144.html.  What freedoms will the Muslim Brotherhood establish or protect?

It is most unfortunate that the revolutionary spirit and uprisings for freedom in Iran and Egypt did not occur when Presidents were in office who could see groups like the Muslim Brotherhood for what they are, terrorist sponsors and suppliers.  The Democrats thought George W. was a pie in the sky dreamer, or worse, for his fundamental belief that freedom and democracy in the Middle East is the long-term solution to global terrorism.  Now, when given an opportunity to further democracy in Egypt, President Obama ignores the lessons of the past and embraces a radical Islamist group hijacking a revolution and steering it toward Iran part II.

Similar revolutionary uprisings are sprouting in Jordan. Lebanon appears to have already been lost to Hizbollah rule, controlled by Iran and Syria.  If President Obama fails to stand with true revolutionaries for democracy in Egypt, and perhaps eventually in Jordan, against radical Islamist takeover, the ability to act will be taken from him just as it was from Jimmy Carter as he meekly allowed Iran to be taken hostage by Islamic militants, along with the ill-fated U.S. Embassy staff.

Truth a Victim in Report on Israel's Darfur Refugees

There are only two reasons that a reporter might wait until the seventeenth paragraph of an article to provide the other side to a seemingly outrageous story: first, the reporter is an extraordinarily poor writer who is betting unwisely that readers will actually read all the way to the seventeenth paragraph; second, the reporter knows that the seventeenth paragraph takes all the controversy and shock value out of the first sixteen paragraphs and thus the other side of the story is intentionally buried in hopes that readers will not read that far into the article and learn the truth. A perfect example of this "journalistic" technique was available in this morning's AP story, "Israel to Send Darfur Refugees Back to Egypt." We'll let readers decide whether the AP reporter put the real explanation for Israel's seemingly outrageous and hypocritical rejection of Darfur refugees in the seventeenth paragraph of the story or whether the intent was to paint Israel in the worst light possible through a shocking headline and the first sixteen paragraphs.

Capital Cloak prefaces this analysis by declaring that the situation in Darfur is deplorable, and we have sympathy for the hundreds of thousands who have been killed in what many have labeled genocide in Darfur. Any fighting that kills so many and leaves millions with no choice but to flee their lands and become refugees is of grave concern and should be stopped through all available means. Many countries, particularly those that border Darfur, have absorbed large numbers of refugees, particularly Chad and Egypt. Israel likewise has allowed hundreds of Darfur refugees to remain in Israel despite having entered the country illegally. Yet Israel is now under fire, as evidenced by today's AP story cited above, for declaring that it will not accept any more refugees seeking asylum who enter Israel illegally, with no exceptions.

Anyone familiar with the situation in Darfur would read the headline of today's AP story with a sense of disbelief that a nation established specifically as a home for Jewish refugees from the Holocaust would turn away people escaping from genocide. The first sixteen paragraphs only reinforce the perception that Israel, in deporting Darfur refugees, is acting out the ultimate hypocrisy through its intolerant new policy against all illegal aliens found within its borders. Yet once the AP reporter finally got around to including the Israeli explanation for sending Darfur refugees back to Egypt, the logic of the Israeli policy was not hypocritical or sinister. Like the emotional controversy over illegal immigration in America, the key element in the Israeli Darfur immigration issue is the word "illegal."

Not until the seventeenth paragraph does a reader of the AP story encounter a critical factor behind the Israeli policy toward Darfur refugees: the refugees are not fleeing directly from Darfur into Israel seeking asylum. Israel does not border Darfur, thus refugees from genocide in that land illegally enter nations like Chad or Egypt seeking asylum, and only after realizing how poor their living conditions and economic opportunities are in Chad or Egypt do they then illegally cross into Israel. Thus from Israel's perspective, it is experiencing a rapidly increasing influx of African economic refugees rather than victims fleeing from genocide. Egypt had already promised Darfur refugees that it would not deport them back to Darfur, thus once in Egypt they were safe from genocide. What Egypt could not offer, however, were employment and good living conditions. Thus the refugees illegally entering Israel were not actually seeking asylum or protection from genocide, but rather hoped for jobs and a better standard of living than what was available in Egypt. That pertinent piece of information cast an entirely different light on the motives and hard line stance of the Israelis toward illegal aliens, including Darfur's genocide survivors.

Perhaps more than any nation on earth, Israel must be wary of who it allows to cross its borders. To that end, Israel has established, unlike the United States, very strict policies toward legal and illegal immigration. A paragraph near the end of the AP story further clarifies an important reason for Israel's policy:

That the refugees are from Sudan further complicates the matter, because Israeli law denies asylum to anyone from an enemy state. Sudan's Muslim government is hostile to Israel and has no diplomatic ties with the Jewish state.

Americans are wary of Middle Eastern terrorists crossing our border with Mexico by posing as Hispanics, and this has been one frequently cited reason for the need to secure our border with Mexico. Likewise, Israel faces a great peril from Muslim terrorists in Sudan posing as Darfur refugees and infiltrating Israel by playing on that nation's sympathies toward genocide survivors. In reality, Israel has no way to verify the identities of Darfur refugees and confirm whether they were in fact fleeing genocide, seeking jobs or better living conditions than Egypt offered, or were penetrating Israeli security to conduct future terrorist actions. Without the ability to make such determinations, Israel has adopted the most prudent course of action:

On Sunday, a government spokesman said some 500 Darfurians already in Israel would be allowed to stay, but all new asylum seekers would be sent back to Egypt, with no exception.

"The policy of returning back anyone who enters Israel illegally will pertain to everyone, including those from Darfur," spokesman David Baker said.

While international and internal activists fighting to publicize the plight of Darfur refugees condemn Israel for not living up to its "moral and legal obligation to accept any refugees or asylum seekers," Israel has attempted to make it clear that it is not deporting illegal aliens from Darfur back to that country. Israel has been deporting illegal aliens from Darfur back to Egypt, since the refugees entered Israel illegally by crossing Egypt's poorly policed desert border. Thus even in its hard line position toward illegal aliens from Darfur, Israel continues to demonstrate cautious compassion by deporting them back to the safety of Egypt. Yet the AP headline and most of today's article appeared to have been presented in such a way as to generate ill-will and unfavorable impressions of Isreal as enforcing an uncaring and hypocritical policy toward genocide survivors.

Once the distinction is made between asylum seekers and strictly economic refugees from an enemy Muslim government, it is no surprise that Israel has taken decisive steps to curb further attempts by Darfur refugees to come to Israel seeking economic prosperity rather than protection from an African holocaust.

It is a shame that readers of the AP story had to delve nearly twenty paragraphs into it to find the truth behind the emotionally charged headline.

Technorati Tags:
Darfur, Genocide, Israel, Egypt, Sudan, Asylum, Deportation, Illegal Immigration, Chad, Economic Migrants, Holocaust, Associated Press, Biased Reporting