all about, they were warned , no sudanese got killed no damage to sudanese property (unless a sand dune is a big deal) and except Iranian property who got destroy everything is ok.

are they hinting that the US satisfied itself by monitoring Israel rather than monitoring Sudan?

so obvious

someone is in hiding, usually it happens when I am right, and the other side don't have any wisdom up staris, ti hi. ^_^

Duh. Terrorists are terrorists, wherever in the world they may be.

just as condi rice ( a lousy secretary of state) cautionned against wiping out the syrian reactor,t he US actually tipped off the sudanese to a third party awareness of the iran fajr rocket smuggling route. Fortunately israel did what it had to do. Whether its mullen , or powell in limiting sharon, or rice or now clinton, they seem always do the wrong thing. Clinton has some great advisors especially richard holbrooke, who should actually be secretary of state. And the US will learn much as radovan karodic told mike wallace about moslems, that you cannot buy their loyalty. You can arrange truces of varying lengths, and establish clear ground rules, then hold the line. Example, the palestinians pass out sweets on the west bank and gaza when 9/11 occurred. Or the indonesians praise al-quaeda after all the USA did for tsunami(note the russians do nothing in international disaster with all of their might).

between this country and AFPAK?

The audacity of warning a terror states that another country, or anyone, is preparing to react to their complicity in murder and terrorism is indicative of the leanings and priorities of the new administration. The Sudan, an acknowledged terror state that has now murdered hundreds of thousands of Black Africans, has somehow found themselves on the good side of the Obama/Clinton alliance. To see an African-American president commit treason against his own people is a heresy that will insure his one-term presidency. If he was a self-hating Jew attacking other Jews, the term used to describe home would be "Kapo."

You have to respect the Israeli military. When their security is threatened, they wipe out the threat quickly, quietly, and efficiently -without a lot of internal bickering and hand-wringing. There are no moral ambiguities from their leadership, and no sorry excuses or backpedaling afterward. They don't base their self-defense on public opinion polls. I think the politicians (of all stripes) in America could learn a lot from Israel...

if america, or at least some high-ranking american officials, use information provided by israel to undermine israel's operational security, it is clear that israel should draw the necessary conclusions, and stop passing sensitive information to the americans. was this a matter of american policy or a rogue "career-ending move"? as a security breach, relaying intelligence information to sudan jeopardizes america's relations with israel, and for what? did anyone seriously expect the sudanese to stop the convoy, even if they could? and does anyone in the state department expect the sudanese to reciprocate with anything of value to the states?