MediaCynic.com

Archives
Homepage
Linking to Us
Recent Headlines




Add to MyYahoo

Add to MyMSN

Add to Bloglines

Add to NewsGator





Categories

2008 Election
George W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Economy
John Edwards
Entertainment
Environment
Al Gore
Health Care
Immigration
International
Iraq
John Kerry
John McCain
Media
Middle East
Miscellaneous
Barack Obama
Sarah Palin
Plamegate
Politics
Polls
Religion
Condoleezza Rice
Donald Rumsfeld
Scandals
Science
Social security
Supreme Court
Taxes
Technology






MediaCynic.com Homepage | Middle East

President Obama Breaks Silence on Iran

Huge protests were held in Iran today as many supporters of opposition candidate Mirhossein Mousavi believe the election was stolen by current Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The protests turned violent with at least 1 death when he hardline Islamic Basij militia fired on the crowds.

President Obama says the Iranian voters should be heard but he also said diplomacy with Iran should continue. Vice President Joe Biden has also spoken out and says he has "real doubts" about the Iran election results. Iran's Supreme Leader has called for a recount in the wake of the large protests. Experts believe this may be the start of a democratic shift in Iran.



Posted on June 15, 2009
Permalink | | | Comments (View)



Obama and Sarkozy Tell Iran No Nukes

President Barack Obama and French President Nicholas Sarkozy are both calling for Iran to not develop a nuclear weapons program. President Obama says that Iran's possession of a nuclear weapon would be "profoundly dangerous" to the entire region and the world. He said if Iran gets a nuclear weapon than many countries in the Middle East are also going to want a nuclear weapon.



Posted on June 6, 2009
Permalink | | | Comments (View)



Defense Secretary Robert Gates Says Finding Osama Bin Laden Could Take Many Years

Don't expect Osama Bin Laden to be captured any time soon. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates compares the hunt for Bin Laden to the FBI's 17-year long manhunt for the Unambomber.
How long might it really take to find al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden? U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggests the FBI's 17-year hunt for convicted Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski as a reasonable guide.

Or worse still, Gates said on Wednesday, consider the fate of Americans taken hostage decades ago in Lebanon who died before the United States could find and rescue them.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, Gates dismissed the notion that something might be amiss because bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, remain free more than seven years after the September 11 attacks.

"To a certain extent, I think too many people go to too many movies. Finding these guys is really hard, and especially if they have some kind of a support network," he said.
Robert Gages is pretty good at downplaying expectations. He also said, "Everybody continues to look for No. 1 and No. 2. And we will continue that effort and I think everyone's hope is that one of these days, we'll be successful."

Posted on March 18, 2009
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

George Mitchell Named Special Envoy to Middle East

Today President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton named former senate majority leader George Mitchell as Special Envoy to the Middle East and Richard Holbrooke as Special Envoy to Afghanistan. Both Clinton and Obama spoke to the State Department as they announced the picks. Take a look:


Posted on January 22, 2009
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Joe the Plumber to Become War Correspondent

Samuel Wurzelbacher is heading off to cover the conflict in Israel between Israel and Hamas. Wurzelbacher became known to many as Joe the Plumber after he asked Barack Obama a question on his tax policies during the 2008 Elections. Joe the Plumber later criticized John McCain post-election for supporting the bailout. Joe the Plumber will be covering the conflict for ten days as a correspondent for Pajamas TV. Apparently, his fifteen minutes of fame have not yet ended.



Posted on January 8, 2009
Permalink | | | Comments (View)



Pervez Musharraf Resigns

Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has resigned.
Facing imminent impeachment charges, President Pervez Musharraf announced his resignation on Monday, after months of belated recognition by American officials that he had become a waning asset in the campaign against terrorism.

The decision removes from Pakistan's political stage the leader who for nearly nine years served as one of the United States' most important — and ultimately unreliable — allies. And it now leaves American officials to deal with a new, elected coalition that has so far proven itself to be unwilling or incapable of confronting an expanding Taliban insurgency determined to topple the government.

"Whether I win or lose the impeachment, the nation will lose," Mr. Musharraf said, explaining his decision in an emotional televised speech lasting more than an hour. He will stay in Pakistan and will not be put on trial, government officials said. The question of who will succeed Mr. Musharraf is certain to unleash intense wrangling between the rival political parties that form the governing coalition and to add a new layer of turbulence to an already unstable nuclear-armed nation of 165 million people.

"We've said for years that Musharraf is our best bet, and my fear is that we are about to discover how true that was," one senior Bush administration official said, acknowledging that the United States had stuck with Mr. Musharraf for too long and developed few other relationships in Pakistan to fall back on.
Not only does this leave a power vacuum in a nuclear-armed country, it also throws our Afghanistan policy into more disarray. Islamic militants in Afghanistan are using Pakistan as a base for operations, and Pakistan has steadfastly refused to do anything about it. The assassination of Benazir Bhutto hangs like a pall over the entire political process. She was our only other hope of a U.S.-friendly regime that would assist us in keeping the nukes safe and rooting out extremist factions.

Posted on August 18, 2008
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Barack Obama Visits Jersusalem

Barack Obama visited the Western Wall in Jerusalem early this morning. He seemed to be having a bit of trouble placing a prayer he had written in the wall, but eventually succeeded. A rabbi read a psalm calling for peace in the holy city. Some worshippers chanted "Obama, Obama" but others yelled "Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale" and "Jerusalem is our land". Today he speaks to a very large crown at the Victory Column in Berlin's central Tiergarten park. That location has been controversial because Hitler moved the column to its present location to celebrate German nationalism and the country's victory over other countries.



Posted on July 24, 2008
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

President Bush Does the Sword Dance

Now here's something you don't see everyday: the leader of the free world dancing with a giant sword. During his trip to the Middle East, President Bush was presented with a sword from the King of Bahrain. Bush then took part in a sword dancing ceremony. The sword looks pretty heavy; I wonder if he was briefed beforehand by the State Department that he was going to have to sword dance on international television?



Posted on January 14, 2008
Permalink | | | Comments (View)



Pakistani Government Gives Conflicting Reports of Bhutto's Death

Photo of Parade magazine The tragic assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has plunged the country into chaos, with reports of mass rioting. The Pakistani government can't seem to get its story straight about the incident. Eyewitnesses say a man jumped on Mrs. Bhutto's car and shot her twice, then blew himself up. She died an hour later at the hospital. But now, the government has contradicted itself again with a ridiculous story that she died by hitting her head on the sunroof as she ducked gunfire. The report also claims that her car sped off to get help, which is absurd, since there were hundreds of people in front of the car at the time, none of whom were injured.

So, to sum up: the government now says that Mrs. Bhutto was shot at point blank range yet suffered no bullet wounds and that she was not injured from any shrapnel although a bomb blew up right next to her car. No autopsy was performed, but her doctor says she had a huge wound. An eyewitness in the car with the prime minister also said she was shot, as did a Getty photographer who had been with her all day.

Apparently, the government of Pakistan wants the world to believe that she just hit her head -- sort of by accident -- and that it really wasn't anyone's fault. Hillary Clinton, who knew Mrs. Bhutto for years, has called for an international inquiry into her death, as have other political leaders. The goal of her detractors is to keep her from being named a martyr, by saying she did not die a martyr's death. Pretending that Mrs. Bhutto wasn't murdered isn't going to quell the violence in Pakistan or diminish Mrs. Bhutto's accomplishments. All it does is make Musharraf's government look like it is masterminding a coverup.

Posted on December 28, 2007
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Ahmadinejad Speaks At Columbia

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia University today, but he didn't get a very friendly reception. Columbia's President Bollinger opened things up by blasting Ahmadinejad, calling him a petty dictator.
The president of Iran opened his remarks by objecting to the scolding he got from Columbia University's president.

After sitting through the blistering introduction by Lee Bollinger - in which he was lambasted for calling for the annihilation of Israel, denying the Holocaust and supporting the execution of children - Ahmadinejad said it was insulting to be spoken about that way.

"At the outset, I want to complain a bit about the person who read this political statement made against me," Ahmadinejad said. "In Iran, we don't think it's necessary to come in before the speech has already begun with a series of complaints ... It was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here."

In his scathing introduction to the much-anticipated on-campus event, Bollinger told the leader of Iran that he resembled "a petty and cruel dictator."

Bollinger levied repeated criticisms against Ahmadinejad, calling on him to answer a series of challenges about his leadership, blasting his views about the "myth" of the Holocaust "absurd" and saying that he doubted he "will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions."

"Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," Bollinger said, to loud applause.

He said Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust might fool the illiterate and ignorant.

"When you come to a place like this it makes you simply ridiculous," Bollinger said. "The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history."

Ahmadinejad rose, also to applause, and after a religious invocation, said Bollinger's opening was full of "insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully."

*****

On the Holocaust - which the Iranian leader has called a "myth" - he said that "if the Holocaust is a reality, why don't we let more research be done on it? ... Where did the Holocaust happen to begin with? It happened in Europe, and given that, why is it that the Palestinian people should be displaced? Why should they give up their land?"
Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel, which he says can be achieved peacefully. He certainly didn't change any hearts and minds today. But the funniest part of the event came when he was asked about gay rights in Iran.
And the Iranian leader denied that homosexuality exists in his country when asked to explain the execution of homosexuals in Iran.

"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he said, to laughter and boos from the audience. 'In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this."
Ahmadinejad is living in a state of total denial: there was no Holocaust and there certainly aren't any gay Iranians. It must be a sort of freeing philosophy: just believe whatever makes you happy, regardless of the facts. Let's hope he doesn't get any more major U.S. speaking invitations, because I am totally sick of hearing this guy's tired routine.

Posted on September 24, 2007
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

U.S. and Iran Hold First Bilteral Talks in 25 Years

In one of the few positive international developments lately, today the U.S. and Iran held the first bilateral talks between the countries in 27 years. The sole subject for discussion was the deteriorating security situation in Iraq. This meeting was recommended by the Iraq Study Group, chaired by Howard Baker. It's an excellent first step towards a more diplomatic approach to the disastrous situation in Iraq.
Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told reporters after the session that his four-hour meeting with Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi had been business-like and "proceeded positively" and that both sides wanted to move toward a stable, federal Iraq. But he said at a press conference that he made clear that the United States wants "Iranian actions on the ground to come into harmony with their described principles."

"I laid out to the Iranians direct, specific concerns about their behavior in Iraq and their support for militias that are fighting Iraqi and coalition forces," including the imports of explosives from Iran into Iraq that have been used against U.S. and Iraqi forces, Crocker said. He added that the Iranians accused the United States, which invaded Iraq in March 2003 to topple the government of Saddam Hussein, of acting as a colonial power.

The Iranians, Crocker disclosed, have suggested a tri-lateral security mechanism that would include U.S., Iraqi and Iranian efforts. Crocker gave few details about that proposal but said he was referring it to Washington for consideration. In a separate meeting with reporters, Qomi said he told Crocker that Tehran would train and equip the Iraqi army and police to create "a new military and security structure," the Associated Press reported. He did not provide details of that plan or how the Americans responded to the offer.

Crocker said the meeting focused solely on the situation in Iraq. No other matters were on the agenda, including the contentious issue of Iran's nuclear program or Iran's recent detention of a handful of U.S. citizens. Crocker also added that the Iranian ambassador proposed a second meeting. The United States will consider that, he said, but the "purpose of this meeting was not to arrange other meetings." Qomi told an AP reporter after his news conference, that he expected such a meeting within the month. The meeting took place in the offices of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone--the walled, high security enclave in the center of the capital that is the seat of the Iraqi government and headquarters for U.S. forces.

*****

The United States and Iran have not had diplomatic relations since the country's 1979 Islamic Revolution, when revolutionaries led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the U.S.-backed shah and established an Islamic state in Iran. Khomeini supporters sacked the U.S. Embassy and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The two countries have numerous complaints against each other, fueled by years of hostility and suspicion. In particular, the United States accuses Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons and is leading an international effort to force Iran to stop enriching uranium. Iran claims that it has the right to develop peaceful nuclear technologies and says its nuclear programs is strictly for electric power.
Expectations for the meeting were low and no agreement was reached today. But it's an excellent first start. Iran claims its nuclear ambitions are strictly to provide power, and has emphatically denied that it is funneling money to terrorists in Iraq. Very wisely, Washington decided to hold these talks without demanding that the nuclear issue be tied to it. Because, as the Iraq Study Group concluded, no peace in Iraq is possible without the cooperation of the surrounding Muslim countries, whose porous borders are contributing to the violence.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are unclear, but it's safe to assume that the country -- like every other country in the Middle East -- would love to have nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Science and information want to be free and it is simply not possible to keep every unstable regime from gaining a nuclear weapon. With all the ex-Soviet talent available today, any country with enough money can begin research on a nuclear program. Our goal should be to delay the unstable countries' plans as long as possible, while pouring money into research into a missile shield or space laser that could quickly and easily shoot down any weapon aimed at the U.S. and its allies. The country with the most advanced technology will be able to protect itself from any threat, from space.

Posted on May 28, 2007
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Iran Bans Western Hairstyles and the Tweezing of Eyebrows

Iran has now decided to crack down on men's hairstyling and eyebrow grooming. Yes, the morality police are back again and this time they're going after barbers who cut Iranian men's hair in Western styles, using gel to spike the hair. They are also going after barbers who dare tweeze any man's eyebrows.
Iranian police have warned barbers against offering Western-style hair cuts or plucking the eyebrows of their male customers, Iranian media said Sunday. The report by a reformist daily, later confirmed by an Iranian news agency, appeared to be another sign of authorities cracking down on clothing and other fashion deemed to be against Islamic values. "Western hairstyles ... have been banned," the newspaper Etemad said in a front-page headline.

It came a week after police launched a crackdown against the growing number of young women testing the limits of the law with shorter, brighter and skimpier clothing ahead of the summer months. Under Iran's Islamic Sharia law, imposed after the 1979 revolution, women are obligated to cover their hair and wear long, loose-fitting clothes to disguise their figures. Violators can receive lashes, fines and imprisonment.

The student news agency ISNA quoted a police statement as saying: "In an official order to barbershops, they have been warned to avoid using Western hair styles and doing men's eyebrows." Iranian young men have in recent years started paying more attention to the way they look and dress, especially in affluent parts of the capital Tehran. Spiked up hair, by using gel, is known as the Khorusi (Rooster) style and some also use make-up.

Several hairdressers for men in Tehran offer cuts in the style of Hollywood movie stars and other Western celebrities. Clients can also have their eyebrows plucked. The head of the barbers' union, Mohammad Eftekharifard, said police had instructed it to "exercise specific regulations in barbershops that work under its supervision." Barbers who do not follow these rules might be closed down for a month and even lose their permits to operate, Etemad quoted him as saying. "Currently some barbershops apply make-up and use (hair) styles that are in line with those in European countries and America," Eftekharifard said.
Barbers are being threatened with the closure of their shops, as well as fines and imprisonment for violating the absurd ban. Clearly, the Cro-magnon Unibrow Look is about to make a big comeback in Tehran. It's a shame that it's so difficult to get unbiased news out of Iran these days. Because there is just no way that the college students are on board with this kind of repression of a man's natural rights not to look like a hairy beast.

Posted on April 30, 2007
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Saudi King Calls U.S. Occupation of Iraq Illegal

More bad news for the Bush Administration: Saudi King Abdullah has publicly stated at a major Mideast conference that the U.S' occupation of Iraq is "illegal." This is a follow up to Dick Cheney's last visit to the Kingdom, when reportedly he got read the riot act by the Saudi king for the botched invation of Iraq. As you might recall, Saudi Arabia is terrified of waves of millions of Iraqi immigrants coming its way when the Iraqi civil war really gets going. They're building that giant wall to keep the immigrants out, but they know it's a race against time.

Abdullah was speaking at the Arab conference and attempting to get Arab leaders to unite. Good luck with that one, Abdullah. The only thing most of the Arab countries have in common these days is a hatred of George Bush and his foreign policy. But Abdullah apparently feels he can take that seed of unity and grow it into some kind of happy, pan-Arab coalition.
King Abdullah denounced the American military presence in Iraq on Wednesday as an "illegitimate foreign occupation" and called on the West to end its financial embargo against the Palestinians. The Saudi monarch's speech was a strongly worded lecture to Arab leaders that their divisions had helped fuel turmoil across the Middle East, and he urged them to show unity. But in opening the Arab summit, Abdullah also nodded to hardliners by criticizing the U.S. presence in Iraq.

"In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war," said the king, whose country is a U.S. ally that quietly aided the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. U.S. allies at the summit are trying to win support from other Arab governments to promote an Arab peace initiative that Washington hopes could revive the peace process with Israel. Arab hard-liners fear Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will bow to U.S. pressure to water down the land-for-peace offer in an attempt to win Israeli acceptance.

"In wounded Palestine, the mighty people suffers from oppression and occupation," Abdullah said. "It has become vital that the oppressive blockade imposed on the Palestinians end as soon as possible so the peace process will get to move in an atmosphere without oppression." The United States has so far rejected calls to end the financial embargo imposed on the Hamas-led Palestinian government formed after elections last year. Saudi Arabia and Arab states have called for an end to the sanctions after Hamas formed a new government last month that includes members of the moderate Fatah party.

Abdullah insisted that only when Arab leaders unite will they be able to prevent "foreign powers from drawing the region's future." "The real blame should be directed at us, the leaders of the Arab nation," he said. "Our constant disagreements and rejection of unity have made the Arab nation lose confidence in our sincerity and lose hope." The two-day summit plans to revive a 2002 initiative offering Israel peace with the Arab world if it withdraws from lands it seized in the 1967 Mideast war, a proposal the United States and Europe hope can build efforts to resume the long-stalled peace process.
Of course, Saudi Arabia didn't say much when we invaded Iraq. But now that its borders are threatened, the Kingdom is apparently very unhappy with Bush's mismanaged war which is threatening to spill over its borders. It's interesting that Dick Cheney hasn't been back to Saudi Arabia in months: apparently that dressing down he got was anything but fun. And he had to sit there and take it: after all, those guys have the oil we need.

Posted on March 28, 2007
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Intelligence Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

The White House so far has refused comment on an incredibly embarassing report issued by the major intelligence agencies which states unequivocally that the Iraq War has made the U.S. much less safe than before, and has actually increased the liklihood of terrorist attacks.
The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

*****

The NIE, whose contents were first reported by the New York Times, coincides with public statements by senior intelligence officials describing a different kind of conflict than the one outlined by President Bush in a series of recent speeches marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "Together with our coalition partners," Bush said in an address earlier this month to the Military Officers Association of America, "we've removed terrorist sanctuaries, disrupted their finances, killed and captured key operatives, broken up terrorist cells in America and other nations, and stopped new attacks before they're carried out. We're on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront, and we'll accept nothing less than complete victory."

But the battlefronts intelligence analysts depict are far more impenetrable and difficult, if not impossible, to combat with the standard tools of warfare. Although intelligence officials agree that the United States has seriously damaged the leadership of al-Qaeda and disrupted its ability to plan and direct major operations, radical Islamic networks have spread and decentralized.

Many of the new cells, the NIE concludes, have no connection to any central structure and arose independently. The members of the cells communicate only among themselves and derive their inspiration, ideology and tactics from the more than 5,000 radical Islamic Web sites. They spread the message that the Iraq war is a Western attempt to conquer Islam by first occupying Iraq and establishing a permanent presence in the Middle East. The April NIE, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," does not offer policy prescriptions. "What these guys at NIC are supposed to do is to lay it out in very clear, understandable terms," said the intelligence official. "It's not the role of the NIC to offer recommendations." Rather, it "basically states the conditions" as the intelligence community sees them, he said.
The bottom line is this: the facts in the NIE report clearly contradict everything President Bush has been saying about the war in Iraq. Saddam hated bin Laden and al-Queda. The invasion and Rumsfeld's disastrous understaffing of the occupation have inspired young, disaffected Muslim men to join the jihadist movement against the United States. That makes us less safe.

It will be interesting to see how Karl Rove tries to spin this report. When your own intelligence agencies say that your actions have endangered the U.S., it's not exactly a cause for celebration, now is it?

Posted on September 25, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Crazy Dictator Day at the U.N.

Apparently it was Crazy Dictator Day at the U.N. today. Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez called President Bush the Devil and told the U.N. that it was a worthless organization.
"The devil came here yesterday," Chavez said, referring to Bush, who addressed the world body during its annual meeting Tuesday. "And it smells of sulfur still today." Chavez accused Bush of having spoken "as if he owned the world" and said a psychiatrist could be called to analyze the statement.

"As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world. An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: 'The Devil's Recipe.' " Chavez held up a book by Noam Chomsky on imperialism and said it encapsulated his arguments: "The American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its hegemonistic system of domination, and we cannot allow him to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated."

Chavez also blasted the United Nations, calling the General Assembly "merely a deliberative organ" that meets once a year. "We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation in the world," he said. Chavez called the veto power shared by the five permanent members of the Security Council "anti-democratic," and cited the U.S. veto of a resolution that would have demanded the Israelis halt their bombing of Lebanon this summer.

That move "allowed the Israelis with impunity to destroy Lebanon in front of us all as we stood there watching," Chavez said. He recommended that the world body's headquarters be moved to another country and offered Venezuela as a possible new home. He noted that he recently returned from a summit of more than 50 heads of state from nonaligned nations in Havana, Cuba, and urged his audience to support their efforts for "a world of peace."

At a news conference after the speech, he further lambasted the United States and U.N., saying of the latter, "There is no way to save it." The U.N. was founded in an era of two superpowers, he said. "The Soviet Union collapsed. The United States empire is on the way down and it will be finished in the near future, for the good of all mankind." He also said the U.S. government was the "first enemy" of its people. "Their freedoms are restricted through the Patriot Act. They are sent to die in Iraq for no reason. The people of the United States are being deceived," he said.
This is classic Hugo Chavez. It's actually one of his milder speeches. Once you've told world leaders that you have the ability to "smell the Devil" when he's in the room (another barnburner of a speech he made), your credibility suffers a bit. And that sulpher he smelled was probably just a plumbing problem.

But it's too easy (and tempting) to dismiss Chavez and his ravings. Unfortunately for us, there are a lot of people around the world that view America and the U.N. the same way he does. And that is a direct result of President Bush's disastrous foreign policies.

It's interesting to note that Hugo Chavez and the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolten hold exactly the same view of the United Nations: they both want it destroyed. And that would not be good for the U.S., regardless of what Bolten (who is just as crazy as Chavez) says.

Posted on September 20, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Pope Benedict Says Sorry -- Sort Of

Pope Benedict said he was sorry -- sort of -- for his remarks in a recent speech that have infuriated the Muslim world. "The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers" said Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican secretary of state.
But Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood said the statement did not go far enough and called on the pontiff to apologise in person. "The Vatican Secretary of State says that the Pope is sorry because his statements had been badly interpreted, but there is no bad interpretation," Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh, a senior official from the opposition party told AFP.

*****

In his speech at Regensburg University on Tuesday, the German-born Pope quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire. Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted the emperor saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." He also said that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

Reactions to the speech have come from such leaders as Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who said efforts to link Islam and terrorism should be clearly opposed. Street protests have been held in Pakistan, India, Turkey and Gaza. In the West Bank city of Nablus, two churches were firebombed on Saturday in attacks claimed by a group which said it was protesting against the Pope's remarks. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel has come to the pontiff's defence, saying the aim of the speech had been misunderstood.
Pope Benedict has never had the relationship with the media that his predecessor had and he has been remarkably unsuccessful at creating a media-friendly image. In today's world -- in which Muslims around the world literally went nuts over some cartoons -- it's probably not the most diplomatic choice to quote some long-dead personage who said that Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

He'd also get a lot more sympathy from the West if he weren't busy backtracking on the Vatican's official position that supports Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and hadn't just fired the Vatican's chief astronomer for his supportive statements about science.

His handlers are crazy if they let him go to Turkey, as planned.

Posted on September 16, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Reflections on 9/11

As we reflect on the tragedy of 9/11 five years ago, it becomes blindingly obvious that the path President Bush took in the aftermath has made our country much less safe than we were on 9/10/01. A new Senate report concludes once again that Saddam Hussein had no operational ties to Al Qaeda, nor did he have weapons of mass destruction when the U.S invaded Iraq in March, 2003. It also reveals that Saddam absolutely hated Al Qaeda.
The report, released Friday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, provides details to support the committee's earlier, July 2004 conclusion that much of the intelligence that led up to the Iraq war was flawed, and the report did not turn up any new evidence to support the administration's claim that Iraq was trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, the committee's chairman, sought to minimize the political fallout of his committee's findings by noting that doubts about intelligence on Iraq are nothing new. "The long-known fact is that the prewar intelligence was wrong," Roberts said. "That flawed intelligence was used by policymakers, both in the administration and in Congress, as one of numerous justifications to go to war in Iraq."

But committee Democrats, presaging a certain campaign theme this fall, said the new report substantiates suspicions that the White House trumped up the case against Iraq. "The Bush administration's case for war in Iraq was fundamentally misleading," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the committee's ranking Democrat. "The administration pursued a deceptive strategy of using intelligence reporting that the intelligence community had already warned was uncorroborated, unreliable and, in critical instances, fabricated."

Since the invasion of Iraq, the conflict has devolved into an extended battle among anti-American Iraqi insurgents and U.S. and British forces, and, increasingly, fighting between Sunni and Shiite Muslim militias and death squads, according to a recent Pentagon assessment. As of midmorning Friday, 2,662 Americans have died in Iraq operations, and more than 19,945 have been wounded, according to the Pentagon. No weapons of mass destruction have been found by U.S. forces in Iraq, with the exception of some older chemical weapons shells. After the U.S. invasion, the CIA and Pentagon dispatched a substantial team of experts to search for such weapons.
By destabilizing the most secular middle eastern country, Bush ignited a Sunni-Shiite civil war and created a breeding ground for terrorists the likes of which the world has never seen. Five years later we are in a quagmire, our troops are dying, and the oil fields of Iraq are essentially useless because of insurgent attacks. Afghanistan is once again being taken over by the Taliban. Our borders are wide open to illegal immigrants, terrorists and anyone else who wants to come here. Yet we can't take a bottle of Evian on a plane, even if we purchased it at an airport store.

Lives were lost on 9/11. Their families still grieve. And we are not safer. These are the inescapable facts of 9/11/06.

Posted on September 11, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Army's New Weapon of Choice: the Attack Frisbee

Image of robotic frisbee weapon Just when you think the defense department can't do anything more ridiculous, it does. The latest weapon for hunting terrorists is a robot-controlled frisbee of death.
The Air Force recently tapped Triton Systems, out of Chelmsford, Mass, to develop such a "Modular Disc-Wing Urban Cruise Munition." "The 3-D maneuverability of the Frisbee-UAV [unammned aerial vehicle] will provide revolutionary tactical access and lethality against hostiles hiding in upper story locations and/or defiladed behind obstacles," the company promises.

The circular drones will be lanuched "from munitions dispensers or by means of a simple mechanism similar to a shotgun target (skeet) launcher," Triton adds. Once in the air, they'll be tele-operated by soldiers on the ground. Or, if needed, the fightin' frisbees will pilot themselves as they hunt for guerrillas.

Once they catch up to the baddies, the drones will use a series of armor-piercing explosives, shooting jets of molten metal, to eliminate their targets. And these MEFP [Multiple Explosively Formed Penetrator] "warheads will be controllable so as to provide a single large fragment (bunker-buster) or tailorable pattern of smaller fragments (unprotected infantry or light utility vehicles)." The decision of whether to go bunker-buster or infantry-annihilator mode can either be determined by the drones' human operators, "or autonomous target classification routine built into the UAV."

Now, Triton's Frisbee-UAV concept isn't the first time roboticists have looked into disc-shaped drones. From 1992 to 1998, the Navy experimented with a set of unmanned, 250-pound, six-foot-diameter flying saucers. In 2002, Norweigan researchers showed off plans for a circular flying robot "inspired at least partly by the design of Star Trek's USS Enterprise," New Scientist noted.

Around the same time, at the University of Manchester, Jonathan Potts studied how best to control UAVs "based on the Frisbee TM sports disc shape." "The Frisbee disc has proven its potential on the sports field as a platform for short free-flights," Potts wrote back in an '01 paper. Without "predefined flight orientation," a Frisbee drone "offers novel flight characteristics and manoeuvrability. It is potentially suitable for a variety of mission objectives fulfilling surveillance, communications, munitions and/or airborne radar warning systems."
This seems like the kind of weapon that could easily go out of control and take out a bunch of our guys. If you're using it in caves, there are going to be problems with losing the signal to the device. And in cities, there are going to be other problems. Are the frisbees controlled by radio waves that can be interfered with? And what is an "autonomous target classification routine built into the UAV"? Does that mean they're heat-seeking? Or does it mean the targets have to be painted first somehow by a soldier (who might as well go ahead and kill the target if he's close enough to paint him)?

And if the frisbees can be programmed with specific coordinates, wouldn't it be easier to just drop a regular bomb on the target? The probability for an entire mission going totally FUBAR within a few minutes of launching a swarm of these things seems rather high. I'm thinking it's back to the drawing board on this one.

All I can say after reading this is: the next time you see multiple black frisbees coming at you in the park or in some urban situation, you might want to take cover.

Posted on September 8, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

England Faces Homegrown Terrorists

The source for terrorism is no longer found in the caves of Afghanistan. The colleges of Great Britain have become the new terrorist training camps. A Washington Post article indicates that MI5 is overwhelmed by the volume of terrorism suspects and potential plots.
The British security service, known as MI5, disclosed last month that it had about 1,200 Islamic militants under surveillance who were considered capable of carrying out violent attacks. Peter Clarke, the head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism branch, said police were engaged in 70 separate terrorism investigations, the most ever. "This is unprecedented and the flow of new cases shows no sign of abating," Clarke said. "If anything, it is accelerating."

Since the July attacks, Blair's government has toughened anti-terrorism laws, making it a crime to "glorify" terrorism and easing procedures for deporting clerics and others who advocate violence. The government has increased the number of Muslim police officers on the beat and conducted extensive outreach in Britain's Muslim community, which officially numbers 1.6 million people but is widely believed to be 2 million or more.

The attacks last summer, and this week's disclosure of a plot to bomb jumbo jets from the sky, have created a sense of unease not often seen in a nation that stoically endured some of World War II's worst bombings and a 30-year campaign of violence by the Irish Republican Army. Being a target of a new kind of terror -- one without specific demands, that seems to many here to be motivated by vengeance and hate -- has created a new uncertainty.
With this kind of volume it is getting increasingly difficult to thwart terrorist attacks. Tracking and monitoring thousands of potential terrorist will stop some attacks, but it doesn't get to the root of the problem that countries like England and France are facing. Rising unemployment, the War in Iraq and anti-Western clerics are all helping to turn some of the Muslim population against their home countries. It's a monster of a problem that appears to have few easy solutions. In the meantime, the British and U.S. governments have increased security measures at airports while they hope the rising British terrorist threat will somehow subside. The increased airport security measures provide merely an illusion of safety. Banning toothpaste and lip gloss on airplanes isn't going to stop terrorists. It's not a solution to the actual problem. As one Israeli expert noted on CNN: "You Americans look for weapons. We look for terrorists." Translation: time to profile and stop the ludicrous random checks that lead to searches of grandmothers and infants.

As for this particular plot, the more information that comes out the more it appears that this plot was far from ready to be put into action. The suspects did not have plane tickets and many did not have the necessary passports. Explosives had been tested in Pakistan. But in England, although some chemicals had been purchased, nothing had been mixed or prepared. A MSNBC.com article says British intelligence officials wanted to continue tracking the suspects and disagreed with Americans over the timing of the arrests. Or, as one expert noted on the Sunday talk shows, "this operation was more aspirational than operational." So the British apparently think we jumped the gun on this particular operation.

What this incident shows us is that we have moved into a new phase of terrorism. There are thousands of young, angry, Muslim men who have been galvanized by the ill-conceived war in Iraq and the propaganda spouted by the likes of Osama bin Laden. And if there is one thing we have learned -- and that the Israelis are learning all over again -- you can't fight terrorists with an army. It takes a much more complex and broader-reaching plan than that. It also takes leadership, which is something that the United States is sorely lacking right now.

Posted on August 14, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Lebanon-Iraq War Tensions Spreading in Middle East

Leaders of many Arab countries are becoming increasingly worried that the Lebanon/Iraq War is stirring up Islamic extremism in their own countries.
As their anger against Israel and America swells, protesters across the Middle East are also increasingly venting their frustration at their Arab rulers, especially in moderate countries whose governments have been reliable U.S. allies. Nearly four weeks of fighting between Hezbollah and Israel have aggravated a summer of discontent over the bloodshed in Iraq, stalled democratic reforms and price increases. Angry at their governments, demonstrators are praising a new hero: Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.

"The whole region has been engulfed in anger since the war on Iraq more than three years ago," said Diaa Rashwan, an Egyptian analyst with the Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies. "The frustration is just huge." The rising resentment is weighing heavily on Arab leaders as their foreign ministers gather in Beirut on Monday for an emergency meeting. Moderates like Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia may want a halt to the fighting, but they can't be seen as backing a U.S.-promoted cease-fire plan that Hezbollah has depicted as a surrender.

Even more worrisome for Arab leaders is the possibility violence may turn on them. On Saturday, al-Qaida announced that an Egyptian militant group had joined the terror network. While the group denied it, many fear that public anger could nonetheless boost militants around the region. Demonstrators have denounced leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia for blaming Hezbollah — sometimes implicitly, sometimes overtly — for starting the fighting by snatching two Israeli soldiers in a July 12 cross-border raid.

Three straight days of protests broke out last week among the normally quiet Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia, where demonstrations are rare, though protesters were cautious not to criticize the ruling family. Hundreds of Shiites waved posters of Nasrallah, chanting "Oh Nasrallah; oh beloved one; destroy, destroy Tel Aviv." Cairo has seen nearly daily demonstrations against Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for what protesters see as his failure to support Hezbollah. On Sunday, demonstrators held up a poster of Mubarak with a Star of David on his forehead, labeling him "the enemy of the Egyptian people."

Last week, more than 1,000 protesters rallied in downtown Cairo, burning Israeli and American flags. "Arab majesties, excellencies and highnesses, we spit on you," one banner read. Similar protests have erupted in Jordan and Kuwait, where anti-U.S. demonstrations are rare. Lebanon may be the spark, but there's plenty of tinder for the discontent, particularly the situation in Iraq and domestic economic strains.
The Wahhabi Shiite Muslim clerics of Saudi Arabia have issued fatwas against Hezbollah, warning Muslims not to pray for the success of Hezbollah which they say is a "cult of the Devil." Well, what do you know? The Saudi clerics have finally done something useful for a change. Not that anyone in the Arab world is listening to them, of course. The Hezbollah leadership is being treated like rock stars in the region: they are very, very popular among even the more moderate Arab countries, where the people are poor and unhappy with their own governments. To them, Hezbollah looks brave and bold, fighting the Jews who they -- and apparently Mel Gibson -- believe are responsible for all their problems.

And who's providing the money for Hezbollah's moment in the sun? Why, it's Iran, of course. Hundreds of rockets don't come cheap, either. This is a very well-financed little war which is benefiting absolutely no one -- except Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.

Posted on August 8, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Israel Attacks Beirut's Airports as Violence Escalates

Isreal is stepping up its attacks on Lebanon, as the violence in the Middle East appears to be escalating. Israel attacked Beirut's airports in response to a launch of rockets by Hezbollah militants against the Israeli city of Haifa.
The fighting, which killed 57 people, was a dramatic escalation in the battle between Israel and Hezbollah, an Islamic militant group which has a free hand in southern Lebanon and holds seats in parliament. The Lebanese government, caught in the middle, pleaded for a cease-fire. But Israel said it was determined to beat Hezbollah back and deny the militant fighters positions they traditionally held along the northern border.

"If the government of Lebanon fails to deploy its forces, as is expected of a sovereign government, we shall not allow Hezbollah forces to remain any further on the borders of the state of Israel," Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said. Israel's offensive was its heaviest in Lebanon in 24 years, launched after Hezbollah guerrillas snatched two Israeli soldiers in a brazen cross-border raid Wednesday. Two days of Israeli bombings killed 45 Lebanese and two Kuwaitis and wounded 103. Two Israeli civilians and eight Israeli soldiers have also been killed, the military's highest death toll in four years.

With the airport closed, many tourists were trapped while others drove over the mountains to Syria -- though Israeli warplanes struck the highway linking Beirut to the Syrian capital of Damascus early Friday, closing the country's main artery and further isolating Lebanon from the outside world. Beirut residents stayed indoors, leaving the streets of the capital largely empty. Others packed supermarkets to stock up on goods. Long lines formed on gas stations, with many quickly running out of gas.

Israel said its attacks were intended to prevent the movement of the captured soldiers and hamper Hezbollah's military capacity. It said it had information Hezbollah was trying to take the two soldiers to its ally, Iran. Fears mounted among Arab and European governments that violence in Lebanon could spiral out of control in a volatile region already torn by conflicts in Iraq and in Gaza. Israel has launched an offensive in Gaza against Hamas, whose fighters are holding another Israeli soldier captured two weeks ago.
This entire conflagration started when militant members of Hamas tunnelled under the border from the Gaza Strip to attack an Israeli army post. They killed two Israeli solders and kidnapped a third soldier. But instead of sending in the Israeli equivalent of Special Forces to rescue the young soldier and extract revenge, new Prime Minister Olmert decided to take a different path and moved troops into Southern Gaza. It escalated from there.

The United States stood up for Israel at the U.N. Security Council meeting, as we usually do. Meanwhile, however, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was on the phone to the Israeli Prime Minister's office strongly advising Israel to de-escalate the situation. That made sense: defend Israel publicly, but privately ask them what the heck they think they are doing and demanding they back off. But, in a surprise move, the Prime Minister's office reportedly told Condi to "back off." In other words, there's a new sheriff in town and he's no Ariel Sharon. When Hezbollah militants from Lebanon decided to fire rockets into the port city of Haifa, well, that was it. Israel really couldn't ignore that without looking weak. The rest of the moderate Arab world is quite unhappy with Hezbollah for kicking the situation up a notch. President Bush, caught flat-footed at a news conference in Germany, kept trying to talk about the roasted pig dinner they were about to enjoy even when reporters tried to get him to comment on the situation.

Eventually, Bush said Israel can defend itself but that he was worried about the fledgling democracy in Lebanon. I'd say the White House is furious with Olmert's original actions, which gave Hezbollah an opening. Now the U.S. is stuck defending Israel's actions, as the rest of the world demands that Israel stand down. Meanwhile militant wings of Hezbollah and Hamas are pledging a full-blown war with Israel, against the wishes of the Lebanese and Palestinian governments. Not that militants ever listen to governments, theirs or anyone else's.

The Associated Press has an good timeline that shows how things got to where they are now.

Posted on July 13, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Iran, Diplomacy and the Price of Oil

According to U.S. News and World Report the Saudis are warning the U.S. that if a diplomatic solution isn't reached with Iran, that oil prices could triple.
World oil prices could double or triple over the current painful $70-per-barrel level if diplomacy failed and military conflict broke out over Iran's nuclear ambitions, Saudi Ambassador Prince Turki al-Faisal warned this morning.

"We don't know" what will happen if the United States chooses a military option in Iran, al-Faisal said, but "if there is military conflict, if bombs are dropped, ships are blown up, oil facilities on our side of the gulf are targeted . . . just the idea of somebody firing a missile at an installation somewhere would shoot up the price of oil astronomically." In such a scenario, he said, Saudi Arabia "hopefully would defend our oil installations as best as we can and seek an immediate resolution," but the risks would be grave. "Not just our installations, but the whole gulf would become an inferno of exploding fuel tanks and shut-up facilities," al-Faisal said.

Al-Faisal, who has served as Washington-based ambassador to the Saudi kingdom since last year, is the son of former Saudi King Faisal. Although he has warned against military conflict in Iran previously, his remarks today were his most specific yet on the consequences of an outbreak of violence.

Speaking this morning in Washington, D.C., at the U.S. Energy Association, an organization of public and private energy companies and agencies, Al-Faisal said that Saudi analysts estimate that a $20-to-$30 premium of today's world oil price is a result of fear in the marketplace over global political problems. When asked what would be the most important foreign policy step the United States could take to address these issues, Al-Faisal said, "I think they can fix the Middle East problem, fix the Iraqi problem, and carry through with the diplomatic process on the Iranian problem. All of these things are doable." He added that "the entire world community" must become more engaged, "but the United States has the leading role on all these issues."
Al-Faisal also noted that the U.S. came into Iraq uninvited, but that's it's important that it not leave uninvited. In other words, he thinks if we just bail out that the entire area will collapse. Which could be true. But the problem is that the entire are is already near collapse, according to our own embassy reports.

It's just a matter of time before the entire country is in anarchy and Iran and the Mullahs move in for the cultural kill. Then it's hello theocracy, goodbye fledgling democracy. George Bush has created such a mess in the middle east that no one really knows how we're going to fix it.

Posted on June 20, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Writes A Letter

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad surprised just about everyone by writing a hefty eighteen page letter to President Bush.
Iran's president declared in a letter to President Bush that democracy had failed worldwide and lamented "an ever-increasing global hatred" of the U.S. government. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice swiftly rejected the letter, saying it didn't resolve questions about Tehran's suspect nuclear program. "This letter is not the place that one would find an opening to engage on the nuclear issue or anything of the sort," Rice said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It isn't addressing the issues that we're dealing with in a concrete way."

Rice's comments were the most detailed response from the United States to the letter, the first from an Iranian head of state to an American president since the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made only an oblique reference to Iran's nuclear intentions, asking why "any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East region is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime."

Otherwise, it lambasted Bush for his handling of the Sept. 11 attacks, accused the media of spreading lies about the Iraq war and railed against the United States for its support of Israel. It questioned whether the world would be a different place if the money spent on Iraq had been spent to fight poverty. "Would not your administration's political and economic standing have been stronger?" the letter said. "And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever- increasing global hatred of the American government?

Ahmadinejad on Tuesday called his letter "words and opinions of the Iranian nation" aimed at finding a "way out of problems" facing humanity, according to the official Iranian news agency. He spoke briefly before boarding a plane for Indonesia, where he was to attend a summit of developing nations.

*****

Most of Iran's newspapers devoted their front pages to Ahmadinejad's message on Tuesday. "Ahmadinejad's letter, an initiative in global diplomacy," read a headline in the hard-line daily Resalat. The moderate daily Shargh, or East, said the message may open a new page in relations with the United States. But a conservative lawmaker lambasted Ahmadinejad for failing to consult parliament before he sent the letter. "This message is the outcome of a series of taboo-breaking behaviors in Iran's foreign policy. ... That the parliament is not aware of (the contents of the) letter is questionable," Hashmatollah Falahatpisheh told an open session of the parliament broadcast live on state-run radio Tuesday.
The letter (which was sent in English translation by the Iranian government via the Swiss Embassy) doesn't really say anything about dealing with the nuclear standoff. Nevertheless, it is a well-timed volley by Ahmadinejad at a time when the U.S. is desperately trying to get the U.N. to sanction Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Clearly, he saw what happened to Saddam Hussein and is trying to get ahead of the game politically. By sending out a letter to world leaders (Bush wasn't the only one who got a letter) he is trying to appear reasonable and ready to negotiate.

Which makes one wonder: is there someone from the West advising him? Because so far Iran has run circles around us in this diplomatic go-around. He sends a letter and George Bush tells the press that he didn't know anything about it (presumably he does now, although at eighteen pages (in a handy .pdf file from The Wall Street Journal) it seems unlikely in the extreme that our president has even read it.

What makes the Iran situation all the more infuriating is that many of our options for dealing with this repressive regime have been taken off the table by this administration's bungling of the Iraq war and its aftermath.

Posted on May 9, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

The Secret Building Projects in Iraq You'll Be Paying For

The Iraq strategy grows murkier by the day. According to the Associated Press, we are building a giant "fortress-like compound" next to the Trigris River in Baghdad.
The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future. The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome. "We can't talk about it. Security reasons," Roberta Rossi, a spokeswoman at the current embassy, said when asked for information about the project.

A British tabloid even told readers the location was being kept secret — news that would surprise Baghdadis who for months have watched the forest of construction cranes at work across the winding Tigris, at the very center of their city and within easy mortar range of anti-U.S. forces in the capital, though fewer explode there these days.

The embassy complex — 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report — is taking shape on riverside parkland in the fortified "Green Zone," just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam Hussein's, and across the road from the building where the ex-dictator is now on trial.

The Republican Palace, where U.S. Embassy functions are temporarily housed in cubicles among the chandelier-hung rooms, is less than a mile away in the 4-square-mile zone, an enclave of American and Iraqi government offices and lodgings ringed by miles of concrete barriers. The 5,500 Americans and Iraqis working at the embassy, almost half listed as security, are far more numerous than at any other U.S. mission worldwide. They rarely venture out into the "Red Zone," that is, violence-torn Iraq.

This huge American contingent at the center of power has drawn criticism. "The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country," the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in one of its periodic reports on Iraq.

*****

Original cost estimates ranged over $1 billion, but Congress appropriated only $592 million in the emergency Iraq budget adopted last year. Most has gone to a Kuwait builder, First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, with the rest awarded to six contractors working on the project's "classified" portion — the actual embassy offices.
This is absolutely bizarre. Put this together with similar reports of numerous permanent military bases being build in Iraq and you have a picture that is quite different from the one being portrayed by the White House as to what exactly we're doing in Iraq. This is a major undertaking that is costing a lot of money. We're building permanent buildings in a complex that is the size of Vatican City. Yet we keep being told that we'll "stand down as soon as the Iraqi people stand up" and that the cost is under control. This is looking more and more like the same kind of activity seen in South Korea. Our military bases were built in South Korea in 1953 and so far they have cost us a tidy (inflation adjusted) $1 trillion.

Is this the plan for Iraq? Because I sure don't remember President Bush saying anything in his State of the Union address about occupying permanent bases in Iraq for the next 50 years at a cost of several trillion dollars.

Posted on April 14, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Sy Hersh: Bush Plans War on Iran

The hot topic on the Sunday talk shows was Sy Hersh's new article in The New Yorker in which Hersh says that President Bush has plans to go to war with Iran, and will use tactical nukes to take out any sites suspected as being connected with a nuclear weapons program. The article futher states that the U.S. military brass is vehemently opposed to the plan and is apparently leaking to the press left and right to put a stop to Bush's "Messianic" plan.
A senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror expressed a similar view. "This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war," he said. The danger, he said, was that "it also reinforces the belief inside Iran that the only way to defend the country is to have a nuclear capability." A military conflict that destabilized the region could also increase the risk of terror: "Hezbollah comes into play," the adviser said, referring to the terror group that is considered one of the world’s most successful, and which is now a Lebanese political party with strong ties to Iran. "And here comes Al Qaeda."

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been "no formal briefings," because "they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively."

The House member said that no one in the meetings "is really objecting" to the talk of war. "The people they’re briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?" (Iran is building facilities underground.) "There’s no pressure from Congress" not to take military action, the House member added. “The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it." Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, "The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision."
Many military and diplomatic experts cited believe that the situation is so precarious in Iraq right now, that if the U.S. drops a nuke of any kind, the Middle East is going to explode into World War III. Our military is overextended and has a serious shortage of both recruits and officers. We're spending $6 billion a month in Iraq and not getting any oil out of the country because of that pesky undeclared civil war that's raging.

When top military leaders start chatting up Sy Hersh, it certainly appears that the military brass has serious questions about the competence and leadership ability of the White House. It's time for some cool logic, not more messianic zeal. After all, we managed a Cold War with the U.S.S.R. very nicely indeed. Soviet projects mysteriously "failed." There was sabotage. We used our spies. There is simply no need to wage yet another expensive, pointless hot war that will kill more American men and women when effectively mangaged, deniable covert operations could accomplish far more. We negotiate in good faith, and make sure Iran's weapons program (if it even has a viable one, which is debatable) never gets off the ground.

And if all that hasn't raised your blood pressure quickly enough, you can always go watch the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens take to the streets today across the United States to demand rights under the U.S. Constitution which -- by the way -- does not apply to them.

Posted on April 10, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Moussaoui Trial Reveals Pre-9/11 FBI Bungling

Testimony by two FBI agents in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial was supposed to prove to the jury that if Moussaoui had not lied to the FBI, the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented. But the prosecution's case was dealt a blow when the agents' testimony showed nothing of the kind. Instead, the testimony revealed how missteps by the FBI allowed 9/11 to happen.
The first witness, Harry Samit, an F.B.I. agent in Minnesota who questioned Mr. Moussaoui at his arrest, firmly asserted that had he been given the truth "we would have several new leads to investigate," and the plot might have been thwarted. Instead, he said, Mr. Moussaoui's answers sent investigators on "wild goose chases."

Under cross-examination by Edward B. MacMahon Jr., a court-appointed lawyer for Mr. Moussaoui, Mr. Samit acknowledged that after the attacks he had written strongly worded reports saying his superiors had improperly blocked his efforts to investigate Mr. Moussaoui. He added that he was convinced that Mr. Moussaoui was a terrorist involved in an imminent hijacking plot.

That senior bureau officials dragged their feet on investigating Mr. Moussaoui by seeking search warrants from a special intelligence court or a more routine criminal search warrant was not new. But it had never been presented so vividly as a reluctant Mr. Samit was obliged to do under cross-examination.

He offered a devastating comment from a supervisor who said pressing too hard to obtain a warrant for Mr. Moussaoui would hurt his career. Mr. Samit also wrote that his superiors did not act because they were guilty of "criminal negligence" and they were gambling that Mr. Moussaoui had little to offer. The lost wager, Mr. Samit said, was paid in many lives. Mr. Samit was followed to the witness stand by Michael Rolince, a retired F.B.I. counterterrorism supervisor who similarly recited a list of actions that the bureau could have taken if Mr. Moussaoui had told them about Qaeda plans to take over planes with knives and fly into buildings.

But when Mr. MacMahon began reading from a document detailing many suspicions about Mr. Moussaoui's intentions, Mr. Rolince interrupted, "Can I ask what document that's coming from?" Mr. MacMahon obliged, noting that it was an urgent memorandum written by Mr. Samit on Aug. 18, 2001, hoping to attract the attention of headquarters. Mr. Rolince had inadvertently underlined that the agent's suspicions had never risen to his attention.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the 9/11 investigation is the revelation that numerous FBI agents in the field had clues about the 9/11 hijackers which were routinely reported to their superiors. These superiors, for whatever reason, refused to take action on the agents' reports. Journalist Peter Lance (who testified during the 9/11 Commission hearings) outlined the actions of these brave FBI agents in his book 1000 Years For Revenge, and in an interview in which he discussed other clues that were missed by the FBI.

The field agents who pushed their superiors to investigate these potential terrorists were either transferred to remote FBI offices or threatened with their jobs if they didn't back off the case. FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley testified about the attitude and institutional malaise which pervaded the agency during this time period. But the 9/11 Commission Report never satisfactorily explained why these lapses occurred, nor has anyone at the FBI ever been held accountable for dismissing the reports of seasoned, reliable agents: reports that could perhaps have prevented 9/11. And that is very strange indeed.

Posted on March 24, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

The UAE's Shopping List

The apparently inexhaustible geyser of money from the UAE has erupted once again. The next items on the shopping list of the Emir and his pals are some casinos.
The Dubai oil sheiks who tried to buy New York's ports now want to snap up the popular Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut and the glitzy Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas. The oil-money crowd from the United Arab Emirates is joining deep-pocketed New York developer Steve Ross of The Related Companies, along with high-powered real estate funds Whitehall Street, Colony Capital and Providence Equity Partners to buy up casino mogul Sol Kerzner's empire.

Kerzner has erected gargantuan resorts around the world, including Sun City off the southern tip of Africa and a 60-acre water park in the desert of Dubai. The group said it will buy out Kerzner's publicly traded company for about $3.6 billion - and allow Kerzner and his son Butch to run it with a stake of about 25 percent. Shares of Kerzner International Ltd. soared 13 percent to $79.43, up $9.07. The company manages the Mohegan Sun and built the $1 billion Atlantis resort with its spectacular 34-acre aquarium. The same Dubai firm that touched off a firestorm of protest at trying to acquire management business at America's major ports - Istithmar - is behind the Kerzner deal.

Kerzner and his partners would take their offshore company private and away from the scrutiny of public investors and regulatory agencies. The group would pay $76 a share, and assume $599 million of debt. Istithmar, a Dubai investment bank, is operated by the United Arab Emirates government holding company, called The Corporate Office, or TCO. TCO also owns Dubai Ports World, which in turn took over the firm that manages U.S. ports - Britain's Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. - for $6.8 billion.
It's starting to look like these guys have a serious compulsive spending problem. Maybe it's time to invite them to Las Vegas for "billion dollar a hand" poker night. We might just reduce the trade deficit.

Posted on March 21, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Yet Another Dubai Deal

Those who were saddened by the demise of the Dubai Ports deal can take heart: apparently yet another Dubai-based company is now poised to take over another U.K. company that provides crucial products for the U.S. This company makes military equipment for the U.S. military. The company is now complaining about the fact that American citizens will no doubt want closer scrutiny of this deal, as well.
Dubai, which agreed this month to sell its interest in U.S. ports, said its $1.2 billion takeover of a U.K. company with U.S. plants that make military equipment is delayed while the authorities investigate security concerns. Dubai International Capital LLC, which is owned by the government of the Persian Gulf emirate, and Doncasters Group Ltd. agreed to delay the transaction by as many as two months from March 31 while government agencies review the purchase, Sameer Al Ansari, Dubai International's chief executive, said in an interview today.

"After what happened with Dubai Ports, the government is looking at this deal more closely," Al Ansari said after a press conference in Dubai announcing an agreement with HSBC Holdings Plc. Dubai's bid may ignite a political debate in the U.S. similar to that caused last month by the emirate's $6.8 billion purchase of London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. DP World had to agree to sell interests in six U.S. terminals. Revenue from Doncasters' nine U.S. plants, which make parts for tanks and military aircraft, account for about 40 percent of total sales.

"If this deal isn't approved by the U.S., it wouldn't proceed," said Angus Blair, chief executive of Mena Financial, a London-based company which advises foreign companies about doing business in the Middle East.

*****

The Committee on Foreign Investment, a federal body which considers the sale of U.S. assets to foreign companies, started a detailed 45-day investigation into the Doncasters agreement at the end of February, said Al Ansari. Al Ansari declined to comment on whether the transaction will go through.

*****

Kuwait's state-controlled PWC Logistics, which won a U.S. military contract last year worth as much as $14 billion to feed troops in Iraq, agreed in July to buy Santa Ana, California-based GeoLogistics Corp. for $454 million. GeoLogistics is an international freight management company with operations in more than 100 countries, according to its Web site.
Apparently, the Dubai Ports deal was just the tip of the iceberg. Dubai-based companies appear to be embarking on a spending spree to purchase companies that provide crucial services and material to the United States. It's time for a full Congressional review of the procedures and rules under which foreign companies and foreign governments can purchase and/or control essential U.S. assets and services.

Posted on March 20, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

The Other Dubai Deal

Time magazine reports on another Dubai deal that most Americans don't know about: a Dubai firm has landed a huge contract with the U.S. Navy.
Yet while one Dubai company may be giving up on U.S. ports, another one shows no signs of quitting the U.S.—or of giving up a contract with the Navy to provide shore services for vessels in the Middle East. The firm, Inchcape Shipping Services (ISS), is an old British company that last January was sold to a Dubai government investment vehicle for $285 million. ISS has more than 200 offices around the world and provides services to clients ranging from cruise ship operators to oil tankers to commercial cargo vessels. In the U.S., the company operates out of more than a dozen port cities, including Houston, Miami and New Orleans, arranging pilots, tugs, linesmen and stevedores, among other things. The firm is also a defense contractor which has long worked for Britain’s Royal Navy. And last June, the U.S. Navy signed on too, awarding ISS a $50 million contract to be the "husbanding agent" for vessels in most Southwest Asia ports, including those in the Middle East, according to an unclassified Navy logistics manual for the Fifth Fleet and a press release from ISS.

*****

No question, the husbanding contract provides the potential for mischief. Husbanding agents arrange everything from fuel to spare parts to fresh vegetables for vessels at ports of call. More critically, they often provide security, like erecting concrete barriers and what the military calls "force protection." Husbanding agents often learn weeks in advance of a ship’s schedule so as to be prepared when the vessel arrives, information that the Navy keeps closely guarded since it could be invaluable in the hands of terrorists. The suicide bombing of the Cole, for instance, occurred less than three hours after the ship had completed mooring in the harbor of Aden, Yemen. "It would have been much more difficult for the bombers to execute the attack without some previous knowledge of the ship's schedule and its intent to pull into Aden," says a former Navy officer.

Contacted by TIME, a spokesman for ISS confirmed the existence of the contract, but said that confidentiality terms prevented him from discussing it. A statement issued by the firm declared that "ISS has undergone rigorous external security checks" and has "comprehensive internal policies on security." Regarding its U.S. port operations, the company states that all port staff "are fully vetted and cleared and undergo a background check to enable them to work within the port limits."

*****

ISS, in fact, isn’t the only Dubai company that has won big business with the Pentagon. In December 2004, another such firm, Seven Seas Shipchandlers, won a $700 million contract to be the prime vendor for maintenance and repair operations for troops in the U.S. Central Command region, which includes the Middle East. Seven Seas has also provided food supplies to U.S. troops in Iraq. Another Dubai-based firm, MAC International, is under contract to deliver $67.2 million worth of police trucks to the Army.
So far, Time magazine is the only media outlet reporting on this latest Dubai deal. Isn't it time we had a comprehensive policy regarding which U.S. assets should and which should not be allowed to be owned or controlled by foreign governments? The Emir of the UAE has so much money that he's been building islands to amuse himself. One island is shaped like a giant pineapple and others replicate a map of the world. The ocean keeps trying to reclaim these offshore islands, so the Emir has giant machines constantly building back up the sand that is eroded each day by the waves. We get it: the UAE is really wealthy. Clearly, the royal family is in need of some good investment opportunities where they can park all that extra cash. In the reality of the global economy, it is not logical to assert that no foreign governments can ever be allowed to invest in the United States.

But what is wildly illogical is for the White House to tell Americans that we are such imminent danger of being attacked by extremist Muslim groups that we must give up our rights to privacy via the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping, yet at the same time to turn over our ports and essential Navy services to a foreign government which routinely facilitates banking transactions for the same terrorists that want to kill us. The American people won't stand for it. And if Congress doesn't realize that fact very quickly, many lawmakers may find themselves out of a job in November.

Posted on March 15, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

The Ports Deal is Over...Or Is It?

DP World of the UAE has announced that it is withdrawing from the deal in which it would take over a number of U.S. ports. In an odd move, Senator John Warner (R- WA) made the announcement on behalf of the UAE. It was a very vaguely worded statement which said that DP World will transfer "operations" of the U.S. ports to an American company.

But what company? For how much money? Will DP Ports still be an investor? An owner? What does "operations" mean? What's really going on here? And why does an American Senator now speak on the Senate floor for a foreign government?
"Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve that relationship ... DP World will transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Operations North America to a United States entity," Edward H. Bilkey, DP World's chief operating officer, said in a statement. The announcement did not specify which U.S. company would be involved.

*****

A source involved in talks between the White House, Congress and DP World said the exact meaning of the UAE firm's statement is unclear, in part because the details of the transaction have not been worked out. "The next steps are very hard to predict at this point, either in terms of who they'll actually sell to and in terms of what it means for U.S. relations in the region," the source said. A source told CNN that the White House believes DP World's American assets would be sold to a U.S. firm.

*****

Because of sparse information about the transaction, Senate Democrats reacted cautiously to the company's announcement and continued to press for a Senate vote that would kill the deal.

"If the U.S. operations are fully independent in every way, that could, indeed, be promising," said Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. "If, on the other hand, there is still ultimate control exercised by DP World, I don't think our goals would be accomplished, and obviously, we'll need to study this agreement carefully."
You got that right, Senator Schumer.

Posted on March 10, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Dubai Ports World Tries To Censor Lou Dobbs

CNN's Lou Dobbs reports that Dubai Ports World (which is controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates) is trying to censor his reporting on the UAE ports deal. They told CNN that if they didn't "shut up Lou Dobbs" they wouldn't allow CNN to film any of their oprations around the world, nor would they allow any CNN reporter to interview anyone from their company. You can see the video here.
Lou Dobbs reported today that "Dubai Ports World" officials have tried to silence him and get CNN to suppress his reports.

Mark Dennis, spokesman for Dubai Ports World said: "CNN won't shut up Lou Dobbs." They are refusing to give any more interviews to CNN or allow them to video tape their operations overseas. To CNN's credit they have refused to comply with their demands.
Lou gave his opinion that he believes that Bush Administration officials are not being honest with the American public about the real reason behind the ports deal.

Kudos to CNN for refusing to kowtow to the thugs at Dubai Ports World. If this doesn't prove that this is not the company to be running our ports, I don't know what does.

Posted on February 28, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

The UAE: A Criminal Crossroads

In December, David E. Kaplan of U.S. News and World Reportsfiled an interesting piece about Dubai, the "criminal crossroads" of the United Arab Emirates, which is poised to take over six of the U.S.'s most important ports. As part of the deal, the UAE will be exempted from a number of key regulations: for one thing, the UAE will not be required to store any of its records on-site in the U.S. where they would be subject to a subpeona from a U.S. court.
From Egypt to Afghanistan, when terrorists and gangsters need a place to meet, to relax, maybe to invest, they head to Dubai, a bustling city-state on the Persian Gulf. The Middle East's unquestioned financial capital, Dubai is the showcase of the United Arab Emirates, an oil-rich federation of sheikdoms. Forty years ago, Dubai was a backwater; today, it hosts dozens of banks and one of the world's busiest ports; its free-trade zones are crammed with thousands of companies. Construction is everywhere--skyscrapers, malls, hotels, and, soon, the world's tallest building.

But Dubai also serves as the region's criminal crossroads, a hub for smuggling, money laundering, and underground banking. There are Russian and Indian mobsters, Iranian arms traffickers, and Arab jihadists. Funds for the 9/11 hijackers and African embassy bombers were transferred through the city. It was the heart of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan's black market in nuclear technology and other proliferation cases. Half of all applications to buy U.S. military equipment from Dubai are from bogus front companies, officials say. "Iran," adds one U.S. official, "is building a bomb through Dubai." Last year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents thwarted the shipment of 3,000 U.S. military night-vision goggles by an Iranian pair based in Dubai. Moving goods undetected is not hard. Dhows--rickety wooden boats that have plowed the Arabian Sea for centuries--move along the city center, uninspected, down the aptly named Smuggler's Creek.

U.A.E. rulers have taken terrorism seriously since 9/11, but Washington has a half-dozen extradition requests that they refuse to honor. The list includes people accused of rape, murder, and arms trafficking, and the last fugitive of the BCCI banking scandal. The country has put money laundering controls on the books but has made few cases. Interior Minister Sheik Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan told U.S. News the U.A.E. has made great strides in cracking down, but he insists that the real problems lie elsewhere. "We are a neutral country, like Switzerland," he says. "Give us the evidence, and we will do something about it. Don't blame others." Not everyone agrees. "All roads lead to Dubai," says former treasury agent John Cassara, author of Hide and Seek, a forthcoming book on terrorism finance. Cassara tried explaining U.S. concerns about Dubai to a local businessman but got only a puzzled look: "Mr. John, money laundering? But that's what we do. "
The key to understanding the UAE ports deal is to follow the money. Who's making the money here? The investigation is just beginning, but here's a nice starting point: Neil Bush, the scandal-plagued baby brother of President Bush (who narrowly avoided going to jail in the infamous Silverado savings and loan fraud case), absolutely loves Dubai and is very tight with the royal family.

Today, Lou Dobbs connected the financial dots:
The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment firm where President Bush's father once served as senior adviser and is a who's who of former high-level government officials. Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government-backed buyout firm, invested in an $8 billion Carlyle fund.

Another family connection, the president's brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his educational software company from the UAE investors. A call to his company was not returned.

Then there is the cabinet connection. Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of railroad company CSX/. After he left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international port operations to Dubai Ports World for more than a billion dollars.

In Connecticut today, Snow told reporters he had no knowledge of that CSX sale. "I learned of this transaction probably the same way members of the Senate did, by reading about it in the newspapers."

Another administration connection, President Bush chose a Dubai Ports World executive to head the U.S. Maritime Administration. David Sanborn, the former director of Dubai Ports' European and Latin American operations, he was tapped just last month to lead the agency that oversees U.S. port operations.
The connections are just beginning to emerge, but it's starting to paint a disturbing picture of what's really going on in the Dubai port deal.

Posted on February 23, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Bush Vows Veto of Bill Banning UAE Port Sale

President Bush is refusing to listen the avalanche of negative opinions being expressed about the UAE ports deal; in fact, he has now vowed to veto any legislation that would put a stop to selling control if our major ports to a company that is wholly-owned by the United Arab Emirates.
The president on Tuesday defended his administration's earlier approval of the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to Dubai Ports World, despite concerns in Congress it could increase the possibility of terrorism at American ports.

The pending sale — expected to be finalized in early March — puts Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

*****

Bush sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York's two Democratic senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer. Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

*****

Bush said that protesting lawmakers should understand his approval of the deal was final. "They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."
President Bush, pictured here in his infamous hand-holding stroll with Saudi King Abdullah (at the time, Crown Prince Abdullah) among the bluebonnets, does not seem to realize that his own party is ready to revolt. Speaker Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Frist have thrown down the gauntlet. The president has never exercised his presidential veto power even once since he was first sworn into office. And this is the bill he swears will be his first veto? To allow a foreign power who is known to support terrorism to take over our ports, while we are at war? It's politically tone deaf, to say the least. This is starting to look like this is Bush's "Read my lips: no new taxes" moment.

Message to the White House: it's time to stop tip-toeing through the tulips with Arab royalty and start paying attention to our ports and border security.

Posted on February 22, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Governor Pataki Takes a Stand

Republican New York Governor Pataki and New Jersey lawmakers have stated that they are going to pursue legal action in order to stop the already-approved deal which would allow a Dubai-based company to control a number of major U.S. Ports. But they'd better hurry, since the Bush Administration is just as determined to allow the deal to stand.
Elected officials from New York and New Jersey are vowing to block a controversial plan that many say places our ports at risk. The Bush Administration is allowing an Arab company to assume control of several major ports including several in this area.

Governor Pataki wants the Port Authority to explore the state's legal options as the federal government goes ahead with plans to let a Saudi Arabian based company take over six major U.S. ports, including one in New York and one in New Jersey.

Senator Charles Schumer and Long Island Congressman Peter King are expected to announce emergency legislation to try and put a stop to this. Critics do point out that two of "9/11" hijackers did come from the United Arab Emirates. Rep. Peter King, (R) New York: "I'm confident, certainly very hopeful that if we speak loudly enough and really focus on this issue, we can get the contract delayed, get it frozen, get it held."

The port deal is said to be worth seven billion dollars.
Seven billion dollars? Yes, that's what this is really about: money. But what it should be about is the safety of the ports of the United States of America. Currently, only 4% of containers that come into this country are inspected. Our ports are our biggest weakness, from a terrorism standpoint. U.S. law requires that all airport security be handled by approved, American firms. The same standard should be applied to our ports.

Kudos to Governor Pataki for taking a courageous stand on this issue.

Posted on February 21, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Space Tourism's First Stop: Dubai

Not only will cargo coming into the United States through several of its major ports have to go through facilities owned by the UAE (United Arab Emirates), now it appears that if you want to go into space as a space tourist, you will have to visit a the new Spaceport operated by and located in -- you guessed it -- the UAE.
The space travel agency, Space Adventures, has announced plans to develop a commercial "Spaceport" in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to take tourists on sub-orbital flights. The proposed facility in Ras al-Khaimah, the most northern of the seven emirates that form the UAE, would be the first of several such spaceports under a global development project budgeted at more than 250 million dollars.

Other potential locations have been identified in Asia, specifically Singapore, and North America. The company said it had already received clearance from the UAE authorities to operate sub-orbital space flights in their air space. "The close proximity to Dubai, one of the worlds leading luxury tourist destinations, makes (Ras al-Khaimah) a choice location for Spaceflight operations," said space adventures president and CEO, Eric Anderson yesterday. "Suborbital flights will offer millions of people the opportunity to experience the greatest adventure available, space travel," Anderson said.

Currently the only operating space tourism agency, space adventures first made its name by sending US millionaire Dennis Tito into space in 2001. Since then, two other ultra-wealthy tourists have made similar trips, South African mark Shuttle worth in 2002 and last year another American millionaire businessman, Greg Olsen, who paid 20 million dollars to spend eight days aboard the international space station.
So when did Dubai suddenly become 1) the gatekeeper of U.S. international cargo and 2) the owner of the world's first Spaceport? Dubai became the international banking center of choice of terrorists after Switzerland starting complying with those pesky international laws. And because America has stopped focusing on innovative new technologies to get us off our dependence on Arab oil, we've made that part of the world rich beyond belief, while we slowly fall behind in the space race, stem cell research and scientific progress.

Posted on February 20, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

And Now...The Muhammed T-Shirt

Just in time for Valentine's Day, a company has created what every woman wants: a t-shirt of of one of the infamous Danish cartoons. This t-shirt shows a picture of Mohammed's face, with a bomb stuck in his turban.

Let's see if the creator of the t-shirt is brave enough to wear it in downtown Beirut. Yeah, that's what I thought. I'm all for free speech, but this is getting ridiculous.

Posted on February 9, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Iran Ups the Ante With Holocaust Cartoon Contest

The Islamic fury over the Mohammed cartoons continues into midweek with more violent protests in the Middle Eastern countries. Several people were killed today in protests in Afghanistan. Adding fuel to the fire, a French weekly newspaper called Charlie Hebdo reprinted the cartoons then -- just for good measure -- added a new one, according to a Reuters news story.
The French satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo reprinted cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad on Wednesday and published one of its own, further angering Muslim groups.

The weekly's front page carried the new cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammad burying his face in his hands and saying: "It's hard to be loved by fools." President Jacques Chirac condemned "overt provocations" which could enflame passions. "Anything that can hurt the convictions of someone else, in particular religious convictions, should be avoided," Chirac said.

Moderate Muslims, while condemning the cartoons, have expressed fears that radicals are hijacking the debate over the boundary between media freedom and religious respect.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg reports that the boycotts of Danish products continue, and in Palestine there are threats to kidnap Westerners.
In countries including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, Muslims are boycotting Danish goods, and, in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian militants threatened to kidnap Westerners if governments don't apologize for the actions of newspapers in their countries. Iran cut trade relations with Denmark when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Feb. 4 issued a decree calling on the Trade Ministry to terminate economic agreements with all Western countries where the cartoons were published.
But the Award for the Most Disgusting Yet Juvenile Response to the Cartoons by an Official Government Agency clearly goes to Iran. The daily Hamshahri, one of Iran's five biggest newspapers, is running a contest asking for cartoons ridiculing the Holocaust. The Iranian government supports the contest (the municipal government owns the newspaper in question.)

Last night on The Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert revealed that the Muslims had been "Punk'd"; he then proceeded to do a standup routine showing how "one man's joke is another man's jihad."

What the protestors don't seem to realize is that the more out of control and violent the protests, the more difficult it's going to be for mainstream newspapers and TV shows to explain the story without showing the cartoons themselves.

Posted on February 8, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Mohammed Cartoon Fury Continues Unabated

The furor over the Dutch cartoons showing the prophet Mohammed continues unabated. In fact, the violence appears to be escalating. The latest developments:
  • The Pakistan Medical Association is now refusing to prescribe any drugs from firms based in European countries where the Mohammed cartoons were published. The Association will boycott drugs from from Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Germany and France to protest the "blasphemous" drawings. That means no Tamiflu for Pakistanis -- Tamiflu is made by Roche in Switzerland. Roche also manufactures the breast cancer drug Herceptin, the HIV drugs Fortovase and Invirase, the Cystic Fybrosis drug Pulmozyme and the acne drug Accutane -- just to name a few. Hey, what a great idea -- make sure your own people don't get their cancer drugs just to spite a bunch of Danish cartoonists.
  • In India riots broke out over the cartoons. The riot police used tear gas and water cannons to quell the protest -- four students were injured.
  • Four are dead in Kabul where 2,000 armed protesters tried to break into a U.S. army base outside Bagram, the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan. They must not have gotten the sniveling memo from the U.S. State Department condemning the cartoons.
  • British Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed has declared that the Danish cartoonists should be tried under Islamic law and then (after it's proven that they committed the crime of blasphemy) they should be executed. He noted with dismay that this did not appear to be legal under British law. Bummer.
  • Meanwhile, American Muslims peacefully protested against the Philadelphia Inquirer for reprinting the cartoons; they also have threatened a boycott of the newspaper if the newspaper does not apologize. The demonstrators carried signs that said, "Freedom of Speech, Not Irresponsible Speech," "No to Hate" and "Islam=Nonviolence." Not a death threat or burning effigy in sight so far, just civilized, non-violent protests -- the way citizens of enlightened nations tend to do.


Posted on February 6, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Mohammed Cartoons Spark Rage in Middle East

The republishing of cartoons featuring the prophet Mohammed have caused outrage in some Islamic communities. The cartoons were originally published in Denmark in the Danish newspaper called Jyllands-Posten. The Financial Times reports that Danish products are being boycotted in some Middle East countries.
Publication of the cartoons in Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the Netherlands triggered condemnation in the Muslim and Arab world, where consumers turned their anger on Danish companies.

Arla, the dairy company based in Denmark, where the cartoons were first published, admitted on Thursday its sales in some Middle East countries had fallen to zero. Carrefour, the French retailer, said it had removed Danish products from shelves in its Middle East operations.

Other Danish companies targeted in the boycott include Lego, the toymaker, and Novo Nordisk, the pharmaceuticals company.

As popular protests spread, the leaders of Egypt and Afghanistan warned the cartoons had offended millions of Muslims and could be exploited by terrorists in their war against the west.
Of course, in their righteous zeal to denounce an unflattering comic portraying Mohammed, they are conveniently ignoring the offensive anti-Semitic and anti-Christian comics that run every day in the mainstream, supposedly "moderate" Arab media.

A Deutsche Welle article reports that an independent Jordanian newspapers has published the controversial cartoons.
Meanwhile, a Jordanian gossip tabloid defiantly published three of the cartoons that have triggered outrage in the Arab and Muslim world.

"Muslims of the world, be reasonable," said the editor-in-chief of the weekly independent newspaper Al-Shihan in an editorial alongside the cartoons, including the one showing the Muslim religion's founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban.
Editor & Publisher also has articles on the story including a fired French editor and protest by gunmen in the Gaza Strip. In the blogosphere the topic is being heavily discussed. If you run a Technorati search for "Jyllands-posten Mohammed," there are hundreds of posts. CJR Daily blogs about the blogosphere coverage and says the blogs uncovered this collection of depictions of Mohammed throughout history which includes a few of the recent cartoons.

Right now various European newspapers are trying to decide whether to cave into this xenophobic nonsense and refuse to run editorial cartoons or to be brave and stand up for freedom of expression. If anyone is offended by the Danish cartoons and wants to show his displeasure by refusing to buy Danish Butter Cookies or some of the other myriad Danish products that are being removed from Middle Eastern store shelves, fine. That's a non-violent way to protest (although it's quite unfair to Danish companies who had nothing to do with the cartoons in question). But if anyone carries out a threat of violence to innocent bystanders -- Danish or otherwise -- because of a cartoon, they they should be dealt with in a very harsh manner.

Why not show your support for free speech by either 1) eating a delicious Danish Butter Cookie, 2) buying a Bang & Olufson stereo system or 3) buying a new set of Legos for a favorite child.

Posted on February 2, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Hamas Considers Its Options

So now that the terrorist group Hamas has 75 seats in the Palestinian government and is likely to score a couple of cabinet positions, what's going to happen to all that aid money the U.S. and Europe send to Palestine? If Hamas doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist and denounce terrorism (and suicide bombings in particular) that flow of aid money is going to dry up, says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will press U.S. allies today in London to deprive the incoming Hamas-led Palestinian government of financial support unless it abandons terrorism and accepts the existence of Israel.

The U.S., reacting to the setback to its Middle East policy posed by the surprise victory of Hamas in parliamentary elections Jan. 25, is seeking to build a consensus on withholding aid. European Union foreign ministers, meeting in Brussels today, said Hamas deserves time to embrace peace before a decision is made to cut off money.

"The United States is not prepared to fund an organization that advocates the destruction of Israel, that advocates violence," Rice said while traveling to London. Rice, who arrived late yesterday in the U.K., today plans to review the Palestinian elections with representatives of the United Nations, European Union and Russia. That group, known as the Quartet, has been working on negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis intended to lead to a peace agreement.

"We are looking to Hamas to renounce violence," U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said as he arrived for the EU meeting in Brussels. European governments "have an opportunity to pause and to think about" putting conditions on EU financial support. Dutch Foreign Minister Bernard Bot said that "we still have three or four weeks to make up our minds."
Germany has already said it's not going to send aid to the Palestinian Authority unless those conditions are met. But there is another concern: what if Saudi Arabia steps up to the plate and picks up the differnce in aid -- say $1 billion a year or so? After all, they did hold telethons to raise money for families of suicide bombers.

Rice admitted that the Hamas win caught our government totally by surprise, that clearly we were out of touch with what the Palestinian people are thinking. Clearly, the corruption of Yassir Arafat years was a big campaigning point for Hamas who ran on a "clean up the corruption/destroy Israel" platform that played well to the masses. So once again we have a secular Arab government (Fatah - Palestine, the Baathists - Iraq) kicked out of power while a fundamentalist Islamic religious group takes over (Hamas - Palestine and the Shiites in Iraq).

And this is progress how exactly?

Posted on January 30, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Fatah Wins Palestinian Election

Bloomberg reports that the ruling Fatah Party won the largest number of votes in the Palestinian elections. But coming in right behind Fatah is Hamas, which will now be a part of the Legislative Council. Hamas is classified as a terrorist group by the United States.
Fatah, the party founded by the late Yasser Arafat, took 46 percent of the ballots cast throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, compared with 39 percent for the Hamas-supported Change and Reform list of candidates, according to the poll of voters conducted by Bir Zeit University in the West Bank.

Palestinian Authority Deputy Prime Minister Nabil Shaath, a leader of Fatah, earlier cited unspecified exit poll results showing his party won between 40 percent and 46 percent of the vote and Hamas got 30 percent to 32 percent.

Hamas, which is classified by the U.S. as a terrorist organization and has staged 58 suicide bombings against Israeli targets in the past five years, would join the Palestinian Legislative Council for the first time since the body was founded in 1996. The group campaigned on a platform opposing the Palestinian Authority's efforts to resume peace negotiations with Israel.

"We need the world's support to help us get back to the negotiating table with the Israeli side in order to renew the peace process and implement what hadn't been implemented," Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a leader of Fatah, told reporters at his headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

Voter turnout was almost 78 percent, the Palestinian Central Election Commission said on its Web site. Voting was heavier in the Gaza Strip, where 82 percent had gone to the polls, compared with 74 percent in the West Bank, it said.
It may seem shocking to Americans that Hamas is now considered a major political player in mainstream Palestinian elections, but the leadership of Hamas has been working very hard on its image at home. With a huge flow of money coming into the party from other countries, Hamas is able to distribute aid to the poor and sick, which gains them big points with the public. Some of their leaders recently said that talking to Israel isn't out of the question, which would be a major change in position for the group.

The United States is putting pressure on President Mahmoud Abbas to exclude Hamas from the new government, which puts Abbas in a really awkward position. The U.S., along with major European powers, has repeatedly said it won't deal with Hamas unless it disarms and agrees that Israel has a right to exist. Abbas says he wants Hamas to disarm, but he won't use force to make this happen. So for now, everyone is just sitting around wondering if Hamas will morph from being a terrorist group into a peaceful political party. After all, in his day, Yasser Arafat was a notorious terrorist and he founded Fatah. But it seems most unlikely. And if Hamas ever gains control of Palestine, that's probably it for any hope of a peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine problem.

At the same time, the incapacity of Ariel Sharon has led to uncertainty about what's going to happen in the upcoming Israeli elections. As usual, the Middle East shows no signs of settling down anytime soon.

Update 1-26-05: Update: It looks like the Palestinian exit polls were wrong; Hamas has won the majority of votes in the election. President Bush today praised democracy in Palestine but also noted that is was going to be difficult for Hamas to be a partner in peace negotiations if it is still calling for the destruction of Israel.

Posted on January 25, 2006
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

A Sea of Red Ink in Iraq

Today, decorated war hero and congressman John P. Murtha (D - Pennsylvania), the ranking member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, responded to President Bush about the war in Iraq:
MURTHA: Twenty years it’s going to take to settle this thing. The American people is not going to put up with it; can’t afford it. We have spent $277 billion. That’s what’s been appropriated for this operation. We have $50 billion sitting on the table right now in our supplemental, or bridge fund we call it, in the Appropriations Committee. They’re going to ask for another $100 billion next year.

*****

QUESTION: Can we come back to the $100 billion? You said that you expect the military to ask for $100 billion. Where are you getting that figure?

MURTHA: Where I get all my figures: the military. Let me tell you -- they didn't ask for this $50 billion. We put it in. We talked to them about where it ought to be. When I visited the three bases that I talk about, which were down south, I came back and I said to the military: Go to Iraq and tell me what shortage you have there. They sent the Marine Corps over, the highest level people in the Army over, they came back with -- what was it, $8 billion?

STAFF: Yes, sir.

MURTHA: $8 billion in requests for equipment they need today. Our equipment is absolutely run out. We're running our Bradleys a thousand miles a month, where it used to be a thousand miles a year. So there's substantial rehabilitation that has to be done.
Another $100 billion? This is becoming increasingly unpalatable to fiscal conservatives, whether they are Republican, Democrat, or Independent. A simple cost benefit analysis shows us going deeper and deeper into the hole to continue a war in which we are viewed as occupiers, not liberators, according to numerous polls of the Iraqi people. The oil fields of Iraq are not pumping the oil they should be because of the insurgency. This war is not paying for itself by any stretch of the imagination. This is a disgraceful situation for a so-called Republican president to be in.

Posted on December 7, 2005
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Condi's World Tour Hits a Snag

The Financial Times reports on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's world tour, which has been anything but pleasant for her. The world press continues to fire questions at her about the revelation that the United States has secret prisons all over the world and that suspects are being sent to other countries secretly for questioning and/or torture. The polite word the U.S. uses is "rendering." Everyone else calls it "kidnapping." Condi doesn't seem to be able to quell the growing discontent over the revelations.
In her response to allegations about the Central Intelligence Agency’s activities in Europe, the US secretary of state failed to get to grips with European perceptions that President George W. Bush's America is a wild, brutal place that contrasts with the peaceful, law-abiding EU.

Ms Rice's statement this week included three big legal arguments, all of which fell far short of bringing the debate to a close. She spent most of her time justifying the US use of "rendition" - transporting suspects from third countries without the say-so of a judge - in what US officials say is the first official acknowledgement of the practice since September 11.

"There have long been many… cases where for some reason the local government cannot detain or prosecute a suspect and traditional extradition is not a good option," she said. "In those cases the local government can make the sovereign choice to cooperate in a rendition. Such renditions are permissible under international law and are consistent with the responsibilities of those governments to protect their citizens." She added that the US and other countries had used renditions for decades, and that the French government's abduction of the terrorist Carlos the Jackal in the 1990s was judged as legal by the European Commission of Human Rights.

But the problem is that to say that some renditions have been held to be legal is not the same as proving that all such abductions are legal. As extra-judicial measures, renditions are legally controversial by definition. In addition, one principal feature of Carlos the Jackal's case was that he was put on trial - unlike many of the US's detainees.
One former CIA official noted on CNN today that "rendering" a suspect to some other country for questioning is a useless tactic. Once a prisoner is out of the U.S., he said we have lost control over the interrogation and that it is unlikely that some former Eastern bloc country is going to turn over reliable intelligence to us, assuming they learn anything at all.

There is the PR aspect of all of this: with the gross mismanagement of the war in Iraq, the last thing we need is more bad PR abroad. It is no secret that the intelligence agencies of most countries use some unorthodox methods to fight terrorism -- and always have. But this latest fiasco exposes even more of the Bush administration's flawed plans for fighting terrorism. If we're learning so much from prisoners at these secret prisons, then why is Iraq such a disaster? Why is Afghanistan slowly being infiltrated again by the Taliban, while heroin production finances interests inimical to the United States?

There is also that little issue of human rights. That concept seems to have been jettisoned, right along with the so-called "Patriot Act."

Posted on December 6, 2005
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Iraqi VP Disputes Bush's Assessment of Iraqi Military

Apparently, Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer didn't get his faxed copy of the talking points memo for today. In a huge embarassment to the Bush administration, Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer today said that the training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in the last six months. He declared that the army and other armed forces are being used for private political purposes and to settle private scores. In other words, they're being used as a private goon squad instead of as a unit to fight terrorists. The Associated Press reports:
Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops. Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq's own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country.

Al-Yawer, a Sunni moderate, said he agreed the United States cannot pull out now because "there will be a huge vacuum," leaving Iraq in danger of falling into civil war. In particular, armed Shiite militias in the south might try to incite war if U.S.-led coalition forces leave, he said in an interview with The Associated Press and a U.S. newspaper at a conference here. "I wish it were that simple," he said of calls to set a timetable for withdrawal or a drawdown.

But al-Yawer said recent allegations that Interior Ministry security forces -- dominated by Shiites -- have tortured Sunni detainees were evidence that many forces are increasingly politicized and sectarian. Some of the recently trained Iraqi forces focus on settling scores and other political goals rather than maintaining security, he said.

In addition, some Iraqi military commanders have been dismissed for political reasons, rather than judged on merit, he said. He said the army -- also dominated by Shiites -- is conducting raids against villages and towns in Sunni and mixed areas of Iraq, rather than targeting specific insurgents -- a tactic he said reminded many Sunnis of Saddam Hussein-era raids. "Saddam used to raid villages," using security forces, he said. "This is not the way to do it."
He had a lot more to say: he thinks that the Iraqi army will be used to keep Sunni voters from the polls on December 15th, he said that there was intimidation and voter fraud in the October 15th constitutional referendum, and that the entire country is going to fall apart the minute U.S. troops leave.

Did he sleep through the orientation meeting run by Chalabi? Someone has got to explain to this guy that this isn't the way we do things. He's not supposed to tell the truth, he's supposed to regurgitate the talking points over and over to the press. Look for this guy to announce his retirement "to spend more time with his family" very soon.

Posted on December 5, 2005
Permalink | | | Comments (View)

Political Roundup

  • Juan Cole reports that the U.S. has compromised and allowed Islamic law into Iraq's constitution. But that should not be a surprise since we did the same thing in Afghanistan. Afghanistan's constitution also calls for an Islamic Republic according to Cole. Here is an excerpt from the Afghanistan constitution provided by Cole:
    Chapter I The State

    Article 1 [Islamic Republic]
    Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

    Article 2 [Religions] (1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam
    (2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.

    Article 3 [Law and Religion]
    In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam . . .

    Article 131 [Shia Law for Shia Followers]
    (1) Courts shall apply Shia school of law in cases dealing with personal matters involving the followers of Shia Sect in accordance with the provisions of law.
    (2) In other cases if no clarification by this constitution and other laws exist and both sides of the case are followers of the Shia Sect, courts will resolve the matter according to laws of this Sect. '

  • Think Progress offers a guide to the Plame affair with 21 connected Bush administration officials.

  • New York Times reporter Judith Miller will not be receiving a Conscience in Media award.

  • Conservative blog ProfessorBainbridge.com worries that Bush has blown it for the conservative movement. He also says the Iraq War uses our troops as fly paper:
    "The trouble with Bush's justification for the war is that it uses American troops as fly paper. Send US troops over to Iraq, where they'll attract all the terrorists, who otherwise would have come here, and whom we'll then kill. This theory has proven fallacious. The first problem is that the American people are unwilling to let their soldiers be used as fly paper. If Iraq has proven anything, it has confirmed for me the validity of the Powell Doctrine."
  • BloggersBlog.com reports that the U.S. Government now offers RSS Feeds.

  • Frank Rich says Cindy Sheehan is being "swift boated" by the Bush administration but that the public isn't buying the Sheehan "crackpot" attacks. Rich also explains how Sheehan's son Casey Sheehan died -- a story the media often avoids.
    Specialist Sheehan was both literally and figuratively an Eagle Scout: a church group leader and honor student whose desire to serve his country drove him to enlist before 9/11, in 2000. He died with six other soldiers on a rescue mission in Sadr City on April 4, 2004, at the age of 24, the week after four American security workers had been mutilated in Falluja and two weeks after he arrived in Iraq. This was almost a year after the president had declared the end of "major combat operations" from the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln.
    Cindy Sheehan has left Crawford temporarily to attend to her mother who has suffered a stroke. Sheehan plans to return to the protest which continues in Crawford without her and is edging closer to Bush's ranch. Meanwhile, President Bush continues to tie the Iraq War to 9/11 despite the lack of evidence.

  • Human society would crumble without gossip.

  • Former President Bill Clinton is taking on childhood obesity through a partnership with the William J. Clinton Foundation and the American Heart Association.

  • Political Books: President Bush's summer reading list includes a book about salt. Some of the authors on the reading list are not Bush fans. Madeline Albright has inked a two book deal. Bob Woodward's book about Deep Throat did not do as well as hoped -- but he hit the New York Times list anyway. And several authors, including Stephen King and Nora Roberts, are auctioning off character names on eBay to raise money for the First Ammendment Project (FAP).

    Posted on August 21, 2005
    Permalink | | | Comments (View)

  • Political Roundup 8-7-05

  • Blogger and journalist Steven Vincent has been murdered in Iraq following a New York Times article where Vincent explained how Islamic religious extremist were taking control of Basra and running the police force.

  • Construction of a reinforced concerted barrier will begin soon in Arizona. The AP reports that the barrier will "eventually cover 123 miles from San Luis to Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument south of Ajo."

  • U.S. Senator Joe Biden, who intends to run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, has cut a deal with Random House to publish his memoir.

  • Katherine Harris says newspapers doctored photographs and colorized her make-up to make it appear worse than it actually was:
    On Monday, on a conservative radio talk show, Harris, now a congresswoman from Longboat Key running for the U.S. Senate, hit back, blaming newspapers for the criticism and charging that some - without saying which - altered her photographs.

    "I'm actually very sensitive about those things, and it's personally painful," Harris said when host Sean Hannity asked about her image problems from 2000.

    "But they're outrageously false, No. 1, and No. 2, you know, whenever they made fun of my makeup, it was because the newspapers colorized my photograph," Harris said.

    She didn't explain what she meant by "colorized."
  • Colin Powell the venture capitalist. Powell, the former Secretary of States has taken a job with Kleiner Perkins.

  • Ambassador Joseph Wilson told the Brad Blog that President Bush should fire Karl Rove.

  • Respected journalist Helen Thomas threatens to off herself if Cheney runs for President in 2008.
    "The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself," she told The Hill newspaper. "All we need is one more liar."
  • Here is a look at how Beijing censors the blogosphere. Even Microsoft cooperates and allows words like "democracy" to be censored by the Chinese government.

  • TPMCafe.com has a post by a former classmate of Valerie Plame.

  • Reuters reports that the Pentagon has requested that the recruitment age be raised from 35 to 42.

  • Telemarketers are trying to poke holes in the Do Not Call list by getting the FCC to change some state laws.

  • Juan Cole follows the origins of Al Qaeda from the half billion dollar annual budget of support for the radical Muslim Mujahidin in Afghanistan under President Ronald Reagan to today's War on Terror.

  • The L.A. Times reports on President Bush's obsession with exercise.

  • GamersGame.com reports that Congress has called for a federal investigation into game developer Rockstar after explicit sex acts were found inside their Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas game.
    U.S. House of Representatives has voted 355 to 21 to pass House Resolution 376 which calls for a federal inquiry to determine if Rockstar intentionally deceived the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) to avoid an Adults-Only rating. The bill was introduced by Congressman Fred Upton (R - MI).
    US Senator Hillary Clinton was also outspoken in calling for an investigation of Rockstar.

    Posted on August 7, 2005
    Permalink | | | Comments (View)

  • Rice Angered by Sudan Media Scuffle

    Andrea Koppell reports on the media scuffle in Sudan during Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's trip there. Rice is visiting Sudan to help stabilize the new government, which is on shaky ground after all the years of civil war between the Islamic north and the Christian and animist south. But she didn't exactly get the reception she thought she would.
    While Rice and el-Bashir were meeting, journalists were taken inside in groups to see the meeting for a photo opportunity. At first, only Sudanese journalists, not those from the United States, were allowed in. Later, U.S. journalists were allowed access in two separate groups. In the first group, authorities pulled one journalist's microphone out of her tape recorder.

    Afterward, Sudanese officials came and apologized to the media. But when a journalist in the second group attempted to ask a question, she was pulled away and authorities intended to kick her out. CNN's Andrea Koppel said journalists and Rice's staff members were "pushed and pulled" in attempts to keep them out of the meeting. One of Rice's aides eventually said, "We have a free press in the U.S.," and a Sudanese official responded, "Well, we don't here," Koppel reported.
    It's nice that Sudan is so free and open about their lack of a free and open press. Rice was said to be furious that American journalists were manhandled by another country's police.

    Posted on July 21, 2005
    Permalink | | | Comments (View)

    London Endures, Chertoff Takes the Stage

    The deadly terrorist bombings in London today appear to have been timed to coordinate with the G8 Summit and the announcement of the city as the 2012 Olympic venue, to provide maximum exposure and terror. But London isn't Manhattan in 2001. This is a city and a people that have been dealing with terrorists for years with the IRA bombings. Emergency services operated quickly and efficiently, and world leaders quickly closed ranks behind Tony Blair. Everyone put politics aside during the crisis, which is as it should be. We are all British today.

    In the U.S., the Department of Homeland Security raised the terror threat level, but only for mass transportation. We got our first look at Michael Chertoff in a crisis. He did pretty well; he talks much faster and more forcibly than Tom Ridge. He sounds competent, he fairly exudes impatience as he hops from foot to foot. If he weren't hellbent on stripsearching U.S. citizens at airports with x-ray machines and expanding the Patriot Act to the point where U.S. citizens will have virtually no privacy left, he might actually be a fairly decent Homeland Security Secretary. He seems quite agressive: how about turning that enthusiasm against the terrorists instead of against law-abiding U.S. citizens?

    Posted on July 7, 2005
    Permalink | | | Comments (View)

    Miller Goes to Jail: Novak Lounging at Home

    Well, it looks like Judith Miller is headed for jail, while Robert Novak -- you know, the guy that actually named Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in his column -- is free to chill out at home, apparently without a care in the world. Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, has agreed to testify in front of the grand jury. In a last-minute development, his source called him this morning and waived confidentiality.

    And Karl Rove, the man who has been fingered by MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell as the source of the Plame leak? He refuses to answer questions about the incident, although his lawyer admitted that he did speak to Matthew Cooper. Rove has retained criminal counsel in connection with the matter and the word is that the prosecutor has Rove in his sights. Novak's not talking, so we don't know whether he's already testified to the grand jury in secret, or cut a deal, or what.

    It looks like Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald isn't fooling around. National careers have been made on cases just like this one.

    Posted on July 6, 2005
    Permalink | | | Comments (View)

    Political Roundup 6-29-05

  • MSNBC.com reports that Democrats and Republicans alike are trying to persuade President Bush not to veto a new bill that would fun embryonic stem cell research. Bush has threatened to veto the bill which has already passed in the House. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch has been one of the loudest supporters of the bill:
    But Republican proponents such as Hatch and Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., argue that the stem cells used in research would come from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization programs, embryos that would be discarded anyway.

    On Wednesday Hatch praised the House-passed embryonic stem cell funding bill and urged the Senate to pass it as well.

    "It seems ridiculous to make the argument that we’re going to allow those 400,000 in vitro fertilization embryos to die by discarding them, but we can’t utilize them for the benefit of mankind," Hatch said.
  • President Bush's recent speech at Fort Bragg, N.C. to shore up support for the Iraq War has been criticized for once again linking the Iraq War to 9/11 despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a link. A USA Today article detailed some of the reaction to the speech:
    House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accused Bush of demonstrating a willingness "exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq.

    "The president's numerous references to September 11 did not provide a way forward in Iraq," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said. "They only served to remind the American people that our most dangerous enemy, namely Osama bin Laden, is still on the loose and al-Qaeda remains capable of doing this nation great harm nearly four years after it attacked America."
    Both Democrats and Republicans said that President Bush speech offered nothing new in the speech and that there are still not enough troops in Iraq to secure the country:
    Sen. John McCain, interviewed on CBS's The Early Show, maintained that "one of the very big mistakes early on was that he didn't have enough troops on the ground, particularly after the initial victory, and that's still the case."

    Sen. John Kerry, Bush's Democratic opponent in last year's presidential election, told NBC's Today show that the borders of Iraq "are porous" and said "we don't have enough troops" there.

    Sen. Joseph Biden Jr., appearing on ABC's Good Morning America, disputed Bush's notion that sufficient troops are in place.

    "I'm going to send him the phone numbers of the very generals and flag officers that I met on Memorial Day when I was in Iraq," the Delaware Democrat said. "There's not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency."

    Biden argued, "The course that we are on now is not a course of success. He (Bush) has to get more folks involved. He has to stand up that army more quickly."
  • The ScotusBlog has emerged as a popular blog with discussions on the Supreme Court's Ten Commandments and Grokster decisions. Many blogs and media outlets noted that there was no resignation announcement from Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

    The Washington Post sums up the Grokster decision in this article:
    Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.

    The unanimous decision sends the case back to lower court, which had ruled in favor of file-sharing services Grokster Ltd. and StreamCast Networks Inc. on the grounds that the companies couldn't be sued. The justices said there was enough evidence of unlawful intent for the case to go to trial.
    The Grokster decision is being heavily discussed online and HowToWeb has links to some news articles and blog posts about the Grokster decision.

  • Take it to Karl is a new blog that posts emails from military personnel who are mad at Karl Rove's recent comments about liberals.

  • Bloggers are organizing to fight the possibility of government regulation.

  • Military Casualties: Obleek uses Flash to show U.S. casualties over time and where they occured in Iraq. Icasualties.org has detailed information about military casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan (Operating Enduring Freedom).

  • Several bloggers have formed BlogPac, an online political action committee. Bloggers on BlogPac's advisory board include: Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, Duncan Black of Atrios, Jeralyn Merritt of Talk Left, John Aravosis of AmericaBlog, Matt Stoller of BOP News, Anna of Annatopia, Jesse Taylor of Pandagon, Chris Bowers of MyDD and Steve Gilliard's News Blog

    Posted on June 29, 2005
    Permalink | | | Comments (View)



  • Our Blogs

    Bloggers Blog
    Book Blog
    Crafters Craft
    Drivers Drive
    Fantasy SF Blog
    Gamers Game
    Health News Blog
    HowToWeb.com
    The IWJ Blog
    Lovers Love
    Media Cynic
    Petosphere
    Pleasant Morning Buzz
    Science News Blog
    Shopping Blog
    Singers Sing
    Surfers Surf
    Traders Trade
    Video Nacho
    Watchers Watch
    Workers Work
    The Write News
    Writer's Blog





    www.mediacynic.com
    Copyright © 2003-2009 by Writers Write, Inc. All Rights Reserved.