Hussein Hanging Video from Cell Phone

http://pandachute.com/videos/leaked_saddam_being_hung_video

Fareed Zakaria - Reinventing History on 12/30/06

Below is a textbook example of revisionist history, courtesy of Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. Mr. Zakaria blames Iraq's current plight on the Bush administration's "thoughtless engineering." He steers blame away from the Iraqis themselves despite the fact that Iraqis have been unable to resolve disruptive tribal behavior in order to capitalize on the exceptional opportunity afforded by our country. He ends his article with a definitive statement even though the effort is still a work in progress. This is the classic "white man's burden" mentality that western countries have historically adopted attempting to assist third-world countries without success.

What I find most manipulative is that Zakaria refuses to mention the Bush administration's continued loyalty to the Iraqi people despite the fact that they are almost alone in their quest. Larger than the Iranian led insurgency itself is the American media's constant negative spins fueled by personal bias pumped daily to the public, which is directly responsible for blow back the administration must daily overcome. The resultant loss of public support engenders a loss of support for the war effort, thus hampering the administration's ability to go all out and win.

As is often the case in such smug articles, I see no solution suggested. Simply a finger pointed to facts, based on incomplete knowledge, recognizing that eventually a percentage of the masses will digest and believe incomplete facts as rote. This transparent tactic deserves to be singled out.

Vengence of the Victors
By Fareed Zakaria Newsweek

(Last paragraph of Zakaria's Article - for article in full, see attached)

It has now become fashionable among Washington neoconservatives to blame the Iraqis for everything that has happened to their country. "We have given the Iraqis a republic and they do not appear able to keep it," laments Charles Krauthammer. Others invoke anthropologists to explain the terrible dysfunctions of Iraqi culture. There may be some truth to all these claims—Iraq is a tough place—but the Bush administration is not quite so blameless. It thoughtlessly engineered a political and social revolution as intense as the French or Iranian one and then seemed surprised that Iraq could not digest it happily, peaceably and quickly. We did not give them a republic. We gave them a civil war.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16409404/site/newsweek/

NY Times Glorifying Husseim, Mass Murderer, in Death !

Editor: I find it amazing that of all the coverage I have read regarding the execution of Saddam Hussein, from the BBC to Al Jazeera, no one went out of their way to print a more glorified final portrait of Hussein than our own New York Times. You would think NYT was reporting on the execution of Christ. I place this article on this site simply to memorialize the well-choreographed actions of the top paper in the western world and it's obvious attempt to shape our viewpoints. Again, their version was far more animated and tilted than Al Jazeera's.

On the Gallows, Curses for U.S. and ‘Traitors’

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/31/world/middleeast/31gallows.html?hp&ex=1167627600&en=9b617230ec600c9d&ei=5094&partner=homepage

How History will Record the Execution of Hussein

Editor- Ralph Peters captured the ultimate reality of what the removal and execution of Saddam Hussein will mean to the world. While it is clearly across the grain to praise any Bush Administration activity, Peters defies the media masses with his clear vision and perspective.

A PROUD DAY FOR U.S. AND A LESSON FOR TYRANTS
By RALPH PETERS - New York Post

December 30, 2006 -- SADDAM Hussein is dead. The mighty dictator met a criminal's end on the gallows. The murderer responsible for 1 1/2 million corpses is just a bag of bones.
For decades, the world pandered to his fantasies, overlooking his brutality in return for strategic advantages or naked profit. Diplomats, including our own, courted him, while the world's democracies and their competitors vied to sell him arms.

Saddam always bluffed - even, fatally, about weapons of mass destruction - but the world declined to call him on his excesses. Massacres went unpunished. His invasions of neighboring states failed to draw serious punishment. He never faced personal consequences until our troops reached Baghdad (a dozen years late).

As long as Saddam paid sufficient bribes and granted the right concessions to the well-connected, the world shut its eyes to his cavalcade of atrocities. Even when his soldiers raped Kuwait, the United Nations barely summoned the will to expel his military - and the alliance led by the United States declined to liberate Iraq itself from a tyrant with a sea of blood on his hands.

Everything changed in 2003. For all of its later errors in Iraq, the Bush administration altered the course of history for the better. It may be hard to discern the deeper meaning of our march to Baghdad amid the chaos afflicting Iraq today, but President Bush got a great thing right: He recognized that the age of dictators was ending, that the era of the popular will had arrived. He and his advisers may have underestimated the difficulties involved and misread the nature of that popular will, but they put us back on the moral side of history.

Bush revealed the bankruptcy of the European-designed system of international relations. An unspoken code agreed between kings and czars, emperors and kaisers, had protected rulers - however monstrous - for centuries, while ignoring the suffering of the masses. The result was that any Third World thug who seized a presidential palace could ravage his country as long as his crimes remained within his "sovereign" borders.

Supported by other English-speaking democracies, Bush acted. Breaking Europe's cynical rules, our forces invaded a dictatorship to liberate its population. And suddenly, the world was no longer safe for tyrants.No matter the policy failures in the wake of Baghdad's fall, the destruction of Saddam's regime remains a historical turning point. When our troops later dragged the dictator out of a fetid hole, every other president-for-life shivered at the image.
Tonight, none of those other oppressors will sleep well. They may try to console themselves that America is failing in Iraq, that we've learned our lessons. But no matter what they tell themselves, they'll never feel safe again.

We set a noble precedent, and the critics who insist that deposing Saddam was a mistake are rushing to a very premature judgment. We did a great thing by overthrowing Saddam. We may have done it poorly, but we did it. We also revealed the hypocrisy of those governments who sold out their professed values for oil money (and pathetically cheaply, too). From Paris and Berlin through Moscow and Beijing, many will never forgive us. We should be honored.
Was justice done when the trapdoor opened under Saddam's feet? In a clinical sense, yes. But such an easy death was far too kind. He should have been turned loose, naked and handcuffed, in the central square of Halabja, where the survivors of his most notorious poison gas attack could have ripped his flesh with their bare hands.

But we live in a civilized community of nations. Bloodthirsty dictators must be executed humanely - and over the protests of human-rights advocates who insist they shouldn't be executed at all. Still, Saddam's death was a last humiliation for him. He lived long enough to see his sons die, destroying his dynastic dreams. And long enough to discover that all those Iraqis jumping up and down and crying "We will die for you, Saddam!" didn't really mean it.
Given all of the recent violence in Iraq, it's remarkable how little has been committed in support of Saddam - occasional demonstrations on his home ground, and little else. There'll be a hiccup of violence now, but even his fellow Baathists have been seeking to regain power for themselves, not for their erstwhile master. (And it's easy to picture their relief at the death of the man they, too, once had to fear.)

The various factions of Iraq are fighting for many things - but Saddam hasn't been one of them. Sycophantic lawyers - Western and Iraqi - doubtless whispered that the people still supported him, that they and his Western friends would never let him hang. (He must have thought ruefully of Ramsey Clark as the noose tightened around his neck.)
Saddam's pathetic grandeur lies in ruins. Millions will celebrate his death; few will mourn. In the end, the all-powerful dictator was just a delusional old man in a cage insisting, "I am the president of Iraq!"

Of course, the Middle East has an ongoing problem with reality. Conspiracy theorists who insisted that the United States was keeping Saddam alive to restore him to power as part of a complex plot will now suggest that one of Saddam's doubles went to the gallows, that the dictator still lives, held in reserve by mysterious forces. But Saddam Hussein is dead, condemned to death by an Iraqi court. Even the die-hards will figure it out in time.
Again, we can be proud that the United States of America brought him down. And that no dictator can ever feel entirely safe again.

President Bush changed the world. For all of today's carnage and confusion, and despite the appalling policy errors after Baghdad fell, the future will show that the change was for the better.

Ralph Peters' most recent book is "Never Quit the Fight."

Voices on the Execution Of Saddam Hussein...hear what they think.

Editor on 12/31/06....Below you will find quotes I have taken directly from the Al Jazeera website following the Iraqi government's execution of Saddam Hussein. Although Al Jazeera did operate a board where anyone could post their thoughts and many thoughts were in favor of the execution, the count was 80% negative. Further, I am disturbed by the position taken by so many and their lack of information.

We hate the americans and we will hate them more for murdering our hero.
muslim, gjovik, Norway


We all in this world know this execution is done by the help of the evil of the century George W.Bush. As he has mentioned, this is a very happy news for him. But we all know one day he will be facing the consequences for what he has done to the human kind. May Allah give Saddam peace. He is a great leader, and we all pray for his soul.
Ibrahim, Kualalumpur, Malaysia


NOW LETS GET THE REAL CULPRITS - Who encouraged Saddam to invade Iran in 1980, which was the greatest war crime he has committed for it led to the deaths of a million and a half souls? And who sold him the components for the chemical weapons with which he drenched Iran and the Kurds? We did. No wonder the Americans, who controlled Saddam's weird trial, forbad any mention of this, his most obscene atrocity, in the charges against him. Could he not have been handed over to the Iranians for sentencing for this massive war crime? Of course not. Because that would also expose our culpability.
Corpus Mentis Teuchter, Elgin, United Kingdom


i think by hanging sadam on such a occasion is humiliating message for muslims.it show how US is bruital to mulim countries and theire leaders. i agreed that sadam did so many wrong deeds which he has to do to controle his country.but what US hypocrites has done to iraq.the numbers of iraqis killed in one week is equall to the numbers sadam killed during his regieme,if muslims leadrs dont learn any lesson from this history will not forgive them.
jaidu, mardan, Afghanistan


History is always written by the winners. But Americans are not the winners and will not be the winners. Saddam was condemned by a court nominated from a bondservant government in an occupied country. And if Saddam was criminal, Bush and Blair are massive killers, who should be on trial for crimes against humanity. They paid the prize for their policy so far, they will pay bigger prize from now on.
Dimitris , Hania-Crete, Greece


Another great example of American disrespect of Muslim Holy Days, culture and custom. I dont think any other country claiming to be civilized would have chosen execution on a day of significant religious worship & celebration. Perhaps this was Bush's new year present to Papa Bush. This is a direct slap in the face of all muslims. Wake up people, especially muslims in the Middle East and the rest of us else where. Every Muslim on this planet is directly and indirectly responsible for the suffering of our fellow community memebers.
anjum05, Philadelphia, USA


I am ashamed to be an American. We have attacked a sovereign state unprovoked and murdered the ruler and his family and 650,000 Iraqis. I can only theorize that Bush and his handlers - Pat Robinson, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggart, Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfelt, and unnamed others - are working under the delusion that they are conducting the fourth Christian Crusade that will result in the second coming of Christ.
Bill MacClarence, Anchorage, USA


i have always seen Saddam Hussein asa dictator, now he is a hero for me, a martyr.his execution will not bring stability to Iraq, on the contrary, it will make matters worse, especially for the occupiers.
Saad86, Rabat, Morocco


The US have once again shown their hypocritical colours. Through the US there will never be peace. Their barbaric policies have killed more innocent people in Iraq than Saddam Hussein ever did. They put Saddam in power, armed him, encouraged him, used him and now have killed him. US history in the region reads with blood on every page. If their arrogant crusador mentality did not cause so much pain and suffering, it would be laughable. Another one of their puppets has realised that US 'democracy' is 'hypocrisy'.
Ishaq, London, United Kingdom


The LION OF ARAB WORLD was finally killed by a bunch of blood thirsty Jackals. They did every wrong in the world to Sadam BUT NEVER BROKE HIM. I saw this gallant man very cool, composed and smiling in the last minutes of his life. Hope someday the Bushites and Blair will face justice for Invading Iraq and Afghanistan and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent children, men and women.
Hamayun , Daegu, South Korea


The hanging of Saddam is such a perverse twist of human behavior that it defies all Human decency. The kangaroo court that tried him was an insult to any idea of equal justice ,under the law, for all. The real purpose for his " show trial and execution" was to further Bush's and Blairs goal of creating a devestating civil war between the Sunni's and Shia sects in Iraq. Bush and stooges are responsible for the deaths of 600,000 innocent Iraqi civilians... Will any court ever try them for war crimes and crimes against humanity? The hanging of Sadam will only create more devestation in Iraq and bring us closer to WW lll which Bush,Blair and Olmert want. Humanity prays that the Shia annd Sunni and all Islamic sects will unite against their real enemies as the wisdom of The Holy Koran tells them to do.
Joemomo2003, Boise, USA

Now Here's Some Interesting News

Editor on 12/30/06

I have to look into this in greater detail but just to see it all from a creditable source is a major positive to me.

Italian Jews join Muslims in anti-Iran demo

ROME (EJP)--- The Italian Union of Jewish Students joined the Italian Young Muslim Union at a protest against Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Held outside the Iranian embassy in Rome last Thursday, the sit-in, which attracted more than 200 people, was aimed at expressing solidarity with those Iranian students who, on December 11, staged an unprecedented demonstration against Ahmadinejad.

http://ejpress.org/article/12576

Charting Propaganda in the Arab World

Editor - This is how Al Jazeera, the dominant cable news network in the Arab world chooses to report the reaction to Saddam Hussein's execution. The fact that Hussein murdered millions of Muslims is not mentioned. The comments sources are not mentioned; no mention that perhaps the comments are made by Sunni's. Instead the comments are purposely left open ended to craft the image that the entire Muslim world is revolted by this mass murderer's execution by the new Iraqi government. This is the sort of propaganda that keeps the Muslim world 500 years behind the rest of the planet.

Saddam execution angers pilgrims - 12/30/06 from Al Jazeera

Muslims at the Hajj, shocked at the death of the former Iraqi leader, have said the timing of his execution was an insult to Muslims.

Nawaf al-Harbi, a Saudi national speaking outside the Grand Mosque in Mecca, said Saddam's hanging during the Eid al-Adha, was poorly timed and disrespectful.

"I don't want to believe it. Saddam cannot die. Is this the good news we get on our Eid?" al-Harbi said.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C8396129-4469-41BF-9508-BCE4E81B6BA3.htm

CNN Today: "Poor Saddam"

12/29/06

You had to see it to believe it. I had to look at the news loop twice for it to penetrate. On the day of Saddam Hussein's execution by a free, democratic Iraqi governing body, CNN was running a segment twisted to make you feel almost bad about the death of one of history's most accomplished mass murderers. (More to come)

Right in the Heart of London, The Challange in Black and White

Below are the comments made by the London-based editor of a major Arab newspaper following the execution of Saddam, the murdered of millions of Muslims. If this is the response, imagine the challenge we are up against. Is there a more clear message of hating the infidel first, no matter what, than this statement?

This is the message that will be read in Muslim newspapers and preached in mosques all over the Arab world by millions who refuse to let go of thinking that is outdated by 700 years. Sad but true and very dangerous.

Abdel-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper

The timing of this execution [during the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha] is an affront to all Arabs and Muslims. It is an act of scorn against a great religion by the United States and the Iraqi government.

Arab public opinion wonders who deserves to be tried and executed: Saddam Hussein who preserved the unity of Iraq, its Arab and Islamic identity and the coexistence of its different communities such as Shias and Sunnis ... or those who engulfed the country into this bloody civil war.

Saddam Executed today - 12/30/06

Below are comments from readers of Al Jazeera posted following the execution of Saddam Hussein.

"Saddam's death will serve only to hasten World War III"

Andrew, Isle of Wight, UK

Below you will find comments from Readers of the New York Times posted following the execution of Saddam Hussein.

Share your thoughts on the hanging of Saddam Hussein.

• Post a Comment
• Read Comments

Self-Hatred and Denial....

HOW THE WEST CAN LOSE
By Daniel Pipes of the Jersulam Post


After defeating fascists and communists, can the West now defeat the Islamists? On the face of it, its military preponderance makes victory seem inevitable. Even were Teheran to acquire a nuclear weapon, Islamists have nothing like the military machine the Axis deployed in World War II nor the Soviet Union during the cold war.

What have Islamists to compare with the Wehrmacht or the Red Army? The SS or Spetznaz? The Gestapo or the KGB? Or, for that matter, to Auschwitz or the Gulag? Yet, more than a few analysts, including myself, worry that it's not so simple.

Islamists (defined as persons who demand to live by the sacred law of Islam, the Shari'a) might in fact do better than the earlier totalitarians. They could even win. That's because, however strong the Western hardware, its software contains some potentially fatal bugs. Three of them - pacifism, self-hatred, complacency - deserve attention.

Pacifism: Among the educated, the conviction has widely taken hold that "there is no military solution" to current problems, a mantra applied in every Middle East problem - Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Kurds, terrorism, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this pragmatic pacifism overlooks the fact that modern history abounds with military solutions. What were the defeats of the Axis, the United States in Vietnam, or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, if not military solutions?

Self-hatred: Significant elements in several Western countries - especially the United States, Britain and Israel - believe their own governments to be repositories of evil, and see terrorism as punishment for past sins. This "we have met the enemy and he is us" attitude replaces an effective response with appeasement, including a readiness to give up traditions and achievements.

By name, Osama bin Laden celebrates such leftists as Robert Fisk and William Blum. Self-hating Westerners have an outsized importance due to their prominent role as shapers of opinion in universities, the media, religious institutions and the arts. They serve as the Islamists' auxiliary mujahideen.

Complacency: The absence of an impressive Islamist military machine gives many Westerners, especially on the Left, a feeling of disdain. Whereas conventional war, with its men in uniform, its ships, tanks and planes, and its bloody battles for land and resources, is simple to comprehend, the asymmetric war with radical Islam is elusive.

BOX CUTTERS and suicide belts make it difficult to perceive this enemy as a worthy opponent. Like John Kerry, too many dismiss terrorism as mere "nuisance." Islamists deploy formidable capabilities, however, that go far beyond small-scale terrorism:

A potential access to weapons of mass destruction that could devastate Western life.
A religious appeal that provides deeper resonance and greater staying power than the artificial ideologies of fascism or communism.
An impressively conceptualized, funded and organized institutional machinery that successfully builds credibility, goodwill and electoral success.
An ideology capable of appealing to Muslims of every size and shape, from Lumpenproletariat to privileged, from illiterates to PhDs, from the well-adjusted to psychopaths, from Yemenis to Canadians. The movement almost defies sociological definition.

A non-violent approach - what I call "lawful Islamism" - that pursues Islamification through educational, political, and religious means, without recourse to illegality or terrorism. Lawful Islamism is proving successful in Muslim-majority countries like Algeria and Muslim-minority ones like the United Kingdom.
A huge number of committed cadres. If Islamists constitute 10 to 15 percent of the Muslim population worldwide, they number some 125 to 200 million persons, or a far greater total than all the fascists and communists, combined, who ever lived.
Pacifism, self-hatred and complacency are lengthening the war against radical Islam and causing undue casualties. Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses will left-leaning Westerners likely overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been.
Should Islamists get smart and avoid mass destruction, but instead stick to the lawful, political, non-violent route, and should their movement remain vital, it is difficult to see what will stop them.


The writer is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures. His next column will appear in mid-April, after he teaches a course on "Islam and Politics" at Pepperdine University in Malibu, California (www.DanielPipes.org).

Why Radical Islam - And Why Now?

Editor: Another focused, well-researched, non-partisian articled by Professor Hanson. This is a man we can all read for profit.

December 26, 2006 - "Why Radical Islam - And Why Now?"

by Victor Davis Hanson
Tribune Media Services

Read any newspaper or turn on any news broadcast and you're bound to encounter stories of Islamic radicals fighting, killing and threatening each other — and just about everyone else.

In Somalia, jihadists, with the support of al Qaeda, have clashed with troops loyal to the country's internationally recognized interim government and now threaten neighboring Ethiopia with all-out war.

More "Why Radical Islam - And Why Now?"

What Hanging Saddam Will Accomplish

Editor on 12/29/06

Today's New York Times editorial discusses thoughts on the Iraqi governing body's decision to execute Saddam within a short, finite period of time. However, following their path of negativity throughout this entire campaign, the editorial focused on what the decision would not accomplish. The New York Times track record of negatively spinning every action taken regarding Iraq has been unfair as well as counter productive to the entire war campaign.

Let me explain what Saddam's execution will accomplish. First and foremost, Saddam will not continue to manipulate the governing bodies around him. Saddam has proven to be a master survivor his entire life. The world this saw first hand after the first Gulf War. Despite the outcries of so many including the writers for the NY Times, the first Bush administration did not topple Saddam in Bagdad knowing well the dangers of getting bogged down into a civil war. They accomplished their mission, removed Saddam from Kuwait and did so in stunning fashion with the world community behind them.

It is unfortunate that we live in a society with a short attention span and a limited knowledge of history. Saddam was able to regroup, again and again, counting on, capitalizing and manipulating our short sighted western mindset that quickly loses interest and will. The 1990's television coverage dictated our foreign policy and persuaded the American people that it was our obligation to take the lead in basically another European war despite the active participation of the E.U. Saddam utilized our distractions and our bleeding hearts to survive and prosper, always picking key moments to erupt, knowing time was not on our side. As his trump card, he used oil to manipulate greed of many of our so called allies. The end result was the the US ended up footing the bill for two war campaigns, the fighting in Bosnia and the containment in Iraq, while others milked the system behind our backs and snickered along the way.

Saddam managed to play out this card through out the remainder of the first Bush administration (holding a national parade, televised, when he lost) and during the Clinton years when inspections basically fell to pieces and international corruption was at it's zenith. Saddam proved himself a master at playing Western minds against each other, realizing he paralyzed us . He knew we we distracted easily, he knew we walked on egg shells during election season and he knew essentially we were a people who still could not grasp the magnitude of his barbaric behavior. He survived far longer than he should have at the cost of hundreds of thousands dead and incalculable terrible PR to the US worldwide image. Simply maintaining bases for containment in Saudi Arabia was a major factor in Al-Qaida's attacks on 9-11. They hate us for our beliefs but despised us and attacked us for keeping troops in their holy land.

If and when Saddam hangs a statement will finally be made in a language that many in the mideast clearly understand. He will be dead. He will never be coming back and it never would have happened without the action of an exceptionally brave American president and our exceptional American armed forces.

NY Times
Editorial: The Rush to Hang Saddam Hussein

Here's another from the Guardian Unlimited. They support a position that the justice system in Iraq is unjust and that Saddam's rights are bring violated. While I appreciate their position in a theoretical sense, how about spending a little time in the real world. Weigh in the fact that the man is one of histories mass murderers, add in that his mastery at manipulating a bleeding heart , left leaning west that lives in a world of the abstract and I get to a point. Let's move on with it. Let's make a statement, enough, and let's put our considerably energies into how to handle Iran, the "Heart of Darkness" issue of our age. When even an angry Thomas Friedman who hates the Bush administration with a passion and blames them in entirety for the entire Iraq odyssey, excluding his subconscious deep disappointment for his beloved Arab societies, says the mullahs are nuts, we have a problem on our hands.


Iraq's shallow justice

Saddam's trial has been a missed opportunity for the government to respect human rights

Richard Dicker
Friday December 29, 2006
The Guardian

The imminent execution of Saddam Hussein and two other former Iraqi officials marks a further step away from respect for human rights and the rule of law in a deeply polarised and violent Iraq. For 15 years Human Rights Watch and other organisations documented rights violations committed by the former government. There is no question that Saddam and his cohort were responsible for horrific practices. But by ratifying the execution order the tribunal's appeals chamber has compounded the serious errors committed at trial and further undermined the credibility of the process.

http://keyword.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=guardian+news&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3Dfb64cdd3cf4340a%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dguardian%2Bnews%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.guardian.co.uk%252F%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DnsBrowserRoll%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2F

The Chess Match Continues on Many Fronts...

Iran Is Seeking More Influence in Afghanistan
By DAVID ROHDE
Iran is investing in Afghanistan as part of a bigger drive to spread its influence and ideas farther across the Middle East.

Of Course it's All About the Oil

Editor on 12/26/06

It has been a fascinating experience watching and listening to critics of the Bush administration explain the motive for the push to war with Iraq.

I have friends who to this day believe without question Bush knew all about the planning of 9-11 and did nothing to avoid it happening. The goal all along was to get us into a war with Iraq.

I have heard many claim to this day that Bush did it all to get back at Saddam for trying to assassinate his "daddy" on a diplomatic visit to the Middle East years ago.

I have heard many claim it is all about the oil. It was all a plot by Bush, Cheney and Company to line their greedy Republican pockets with all that oil money. The boy's club on steroids.

The third group actually has some merit although their idea of motive is wrong. It was not about Bush and team lining their pockets. I really don't have to explain how flat out stupid is such reasoning. However, they are right when they say it is all about the oil.

Let everyone get this point straight. Our country's economy and safety depends on oil. We live in an oil-driven society; not just Texas ranchers or New York stockbrokers, but also the Hollywood elite who pull up to anti-war benefits in their Hummers and then jet off to St. Bart's for a three-week $100,000 holiday. Without oil our country could evolve into a state of anarchy in a finite period of time. Oil is as vital to the United States interests as it is for any country on the planet.

Does anyone notice how forms of economic competition are shifting worldwide? As Thomas Friedman detailed in "The World is Flat," technology has changed the gameboard play. Access is far easier in the computer age with Internet. Two Asian giants; China and India are emerging as the most noticeable new players and they intend to stay for keeps. Russia remains in play as well. Everybody is primarily concerned with securing as many key resources as possible, knowing how essential resources are and that the supply may not last that much longer.

Those who take the position that we must weed ourselves from oil consumption are absolutely correct. Not only would it relieve our dependency from an resource we lack but would get us the hell out of the Mid-east once and for all.

It is obvious we face a monstrous uphill struggle. I personally believe that the challenge is less driven by developing the new energy sources but freeing ourselves from the oil company lobbies that face their own death sentence. It will be reversing generations of American oil habit and it is the challenge of our time.

If we do not free ourselves from oil dependency, it will ultimately be the catalyst for the destruction of our society. How freedom from oil dependency will happen is the question.

Circle in the Sand: Why We Went Back to Iraq

Editor on 12/26/06

I clearly admit that prior to 9-11 my knowledge of US history with respect to foreign policy was shaky at best. Like many, I was self-absorbed. When I saw the towers fall a mile from my home, smelled the burnt flesh and asbestos and basically survived for two years in a state of semi-shock only then did I awake and attempt to pay attention. Backdating consumed a major portion of my waking hours; it was a learning process to begin to comprehend how we arrived at that horrific point.

So many books sprung up along the way it became my personal challenge to qualify the author's position and agenda. Was the author a legitimate student of history or simply a cash hungry opportunist? It is often difficult to determine and more often accomplished only through research of an author's body of work. Attempting to discern sources and theories longevity requires some research time. Needless to say the vast majority of authors leave much to be desired in the area of legitimacy.

While making my bookstore rounds, a singular US-Iraq history hardcover volume seemed to keep catching my eye. That is quite an achievement as I have basically browsed through at least 95% of the books that are based upon Middle Eastern content since 9-11 . Well I finally picked up Christian Alfonsi's Circle in the Sand and have not been able to put it down yet.

As of today I am halfway through this fascinating book. For starters the author appears to be completely without a partisan agenda. He presents a detailed chronology of the events beginning from the first Iraq war through our present day circus. Along the way he adds fascinating details that both inform and peek further curiosity.

I continued to ponder "did the Bush administration know what it was getting itself into by removing Saddam? Did they understand the tribal histories of the peoples and the challenges they would face once Saddam was removed? How could they?" The answer is that they knew it exceptionally well. In fact, the driving force behind Bush Sr.'s absolute refusal to take out Saddam was that he did not want to drag the US into a long, unwinable Iraqi civil war. They knew all about the population and all about the possible consequences. Despite this awareness, they were eventually driven into a series of compromises to protect political capital from a very well intended but ignorant general public who could not stomach television footage pumped daily into their homes featuring Saddam and Republican Guard slaughtering thousands of Kurds, ultimately creating a terrible humanity crisis. As the media pounded home how we abounded the Iraqi people, in a campaign year public sentiment swiftly turned against a president and administration that had actually managed a tremendous achievement.

Newsweek Magazine framed the Bush Administration crisis with a cover article featuring a badly burned child under the caption "Why won't they help us." Once that topic became a national debate our mission went from removing Saddam from Kuwait, saving Saudi Arabia and the world's oil supply to one of missionary work. That led to no fly zones, partitioned sections of Iraq, an inability to leave Iraq, Turkey and most importantly Saudi Arabia.

(I will continue this fascinating book and finish the review after New Year's holiday) .

Muslim Population in Europe by Country

Newsweek's website posted an interesting interactive graph detailing the breakdown of the Muslim populations in all the European countries as a means of tracking immigration and the issues facing Europe regarding assimilation issues in today's political and religious climate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12757599/

Kenneth Pollack and his Threatening Storm

Editor on 12/25/06

As a book junkie, I am in bookstores all the time, studying what is new in the categories that interest me and many do.

The post 9-11 world is filled with books covering every topic and every angle imaginable. Everyone is attempting to get their word out or their two cents in. It's really quite interesting. Often more interesting than the book is the strategy behind each book. You often learn more about the motive of the publisher and author by how they choose to invest their time in putting out the volume than you learn about the book itself. More importantly, it is necessary to realize that whoever the author, you must determine to what degree you buy what is being sold.

A case in point is the 2003 publication by Mr. Kenneth Pollack of The Council of Foreign Affairs. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Pollack put out a monster of a book called The Threatening Storm that required tremendous efforts to detail the vast WMD factory Saddam had cooking and how we were basically seconds away from Armageddon. The reason I refer to it as a monster of a book is the size, the package, the reviews, the effort put forth portraying Pollack as a genuine expert on the topic. Anyone that read that book came away feeling that Saddam was an eminent threat to this country that had to be dealt with "pronto." For the record, the book was hailed by many at the time who condemn the war today such as Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek who raved about it as "must reading."

Needless to say, things did not play out as Pollack reported. Now I understand that anything could have happened to the definite WMD's Pollack reported. However, I am most disturbed by his reaction as the events that followed did not support his work. In the few interviews he managed to give, Pollack did not support his research. Not in the slightest. Instead, he took a position of victim, as if he was lied to by the administration and not at all responsible for what had to be a body of work that took years of his life to manufacture. It was a terrible turn off.

My point here is that you simply must research your sources. Just because a book is published, well-packaged and even well-reviewed, that does not guarantee there is legitimacy to it's content at all. Today Pollack's book does serve a purpose, but certainly not the one he intended. It is a valuable reference source for the climate at the time prior to the ultimate invasion.

Never Again ?

Searching through my personal archives I came across a frightening article by Charles Krauthammer that has stayed with me. I think one of the great misconceptions of the left and right views in this country is to selectively discount the word of others. Should a Bin Laden state he wants to kill all "infidels," do not discount such statement because it seems improbable by Western values. If the leader of the Iranian regime says he wants to destroy Israel in a great ball of fire at the same time they are fast breaking towards a nuclear weapon, pay attention. Let's not treat these people as pets that we can pacify with carrots and daises. Of course, it is imperative we educated ourselves, make every rational attempt at dialogue and work hard towards peaceful solutions. However, to simply ignore dialogue from a culture so different than our own culture is a huge miscalculation.

Never Again?

By Charles Krauthammer Friday, May 5, 2006

When something happens for the first time in 1,871 years, it is worth noting. In A.D. 70, and again in 135, the Roman Empire brutally put down Jewish revolts in Judea, destroying Jerusalem, killing hundreds of thousands of Jews and sending hundreds of thousands more into slavery and exile. For nearly two millennia, the Jews wandered the world. And now, in 2006, for the first time since then, there are once again more Jews living in Israel -- the successor state to Judea -- than in any other place on Earth.
Israel's Jewish population has just passed 5.6 million. America's Jewish population was about 5.5 million in 1990, dropped to about 5.2 million 10 years later and is in a precipitous decline that, because of low fertility rates and high levels of assimilation, will cut that number in half by mid-century.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/04/AR2006050401458.html

Watching us Self-Destruct ... How they musy be laughing ...

Playback Editor's Note:

Two-and-a-half years ago in May 2004, VDH warned that all the squabbling over Iraq could be put to rest should the United States take the initiative and defeat the insurrectionists, the premise being that most have no ideology, but most certainly do not want to be associated with a losing enterprise. Then he was worried that the withdrawal from the first attack of Fallujah and the escape of Sadr sent a terrible message that the United States was not winning, and that such magnanimity would be unfortunately considered weakness, leading only to more violence.

May 28, 2004
Our Reptilian Brains When “Just Win, Baby” sadly trumps everything else.

by Victor Davis Hanson National Review Online

After our victory in Afghanistan, the president's approval ratings soared, only to descend during the acrimony leading up to the March invasion of Iraq. But after the three-week war, somewhere between 60 and 70 percent of these same Americans purportedly returned to their earlier support of the president's initiatives.

More "Our Reptilian Brains"

Ahmadinejad's Basis of Reality

Editor on 12/25/06

The following article is published in The Jerusalem Post on 12/25/06 by Alan Dershowitz. It basically exposes the guest list for the recent Holocaust denial conference sponsored in all seriousness by Inan's ruling regime. Perhaps more frightening and disturbing than the fact that the conference took place at all is the guest list the Iranian president appeared proud to showcase. Following the purported seventeen page lecture letter that he sent to President Bush a few months back urging conversion to Islam as an intricate part of a peace process; it appears the chasm between our understanding each others' cultures is gigantic.

Jews for Ahmadinejad By Alan Dershowitz

By this time, everyone knows that Jews for Jesus are not really Jews. They are Christians using the cover of their Jewish origin to fool people into coming to their proselytizing services. But many people still think that the seven bearded enemies of Israel - members of an extreme cult called Neturei Karta - who accepted an invitation from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to come to Iran's Holocaust denial festival, are also real Jews.

Still others believe that supporters of Hizbullah and Holocaust minimizers like Norman Finkelstein - who uses his Jewish birth to cover for his anti-Semitism - are real Jews. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I now propose a new vocabulary for describing these imposters. From now on, the Neturei Karta should be known as Jews for Ahmadinejad, and Norman Finkelstein and his ilk should be known now as Jews for Hizbullah.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881965352&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

Read Whats Wrong with the New York Times?

Editor on 12/25/06

This came out as the top headline on Christmas Day. . . it is widely recognized that Iran is the main destabilizing force in the war in Iraq. They are clearly opposed to the US goal of a successful democracy in Iraq.

For months Iran has been destabilizing our efforts by backing the Shia military militia with weapons and money. The Republican Guard has been training terrorist forces that have been killing both American soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians. In the last two weeks Iran has held a highly publicized conference on Holocaust denial and has openly refused to comply with UN sanctions for nuclear determent. Today we find out that the US military has captured Iranian "officials" in Iraq but the way the article reads, it subtly makes the military appear to be the bad guys.

The article appears to be framed as if the US military is acting like a loose cannon, kidnapping Iranian diplomats that were Iraqi government guests, upsetting them greatly. In addition, the Bush administration has not released it's explanation for it's actions as if the military in a time of war must clear it's tactics in time for the media's deadline.

Just unbelievable. Closer to reality would be a lead stating "The US military has captured Iranian agents who were responsible for the sabotage and killing of hundreds of US and Iraqi soldiers and civilians over the past six months? " Perhaps if there was any support of this magnitude, public sentiment would not be as distorted as it is today.


U.S. Is Holding Iranians Seized in Raids in Iraq

By James Glanz and Sabrina Tavernise
Published: December 25, 2006
BAGHDAD, Dec. 24 — The American military is holding at least four Iranians in Iraq, including men the Bush administration called senior military officials, who were seized in a pair of raids late last week aimed at people suspected of conducting attacks on Iraqi security forces, according to senior Iraqi and American officials in Baghdad and Washington.

The Bush administration made no public announcement of the politically delicate seizure of the Iranians, though in response to specific questions the White House confirmed Sunday that the Iranians were in custody.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html?hp&ex=1167109200&en=4e111a821b3118d9&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Has Anything Changed ?

Playback Editor on 12/25/06

Below is an article I stored a few months back and came upon as I accessed my archives. I recall it caused quite a controversy at the time when Ariel Sharon called for Jews to leave France where anti-semitism was at an all time high and violence was in the air. I remember Chirac was quite displeased with Sharon for making such a statement. He felt he was wrong and that it only added tension to the issue. I have since learned the issue is a bit more complex.

France has the largest Muslim and Jewish population in Europe. The French political system is one that is based upon all citizens are French first. Every citizen is a Frenchman. From all the information I have been able to ascertain, the vast majority of anti-Semitic violence is from the Muslim population. It is not a reflection of the non-Muslim French population. This is not to say that the non-Muslim, non-Jewish French population would prefer not to have to deal with the problem, but the record should be clear. It is a Muslim driven problem. Additionally, the French government does not in any way ignore it. They take immediate and direct measures to punish guilty parties. The difference is that they definitely prefer to keep their issues to themselves and not have every news agency reporting it, hence fanning the flames.

Who is to say who is right? There is a major problem in France with a huge, unassimilated Muslim population. The burnings of a summer ago were no accident. Only time and French actions will determine how it will pan out over time. However, no matter how one rationalizes it, it is not a pretty picture for the small Jewish population.

FEARFUL JEWS FLEEING FRANCE - CBS NEWS REPORT

A relative holds a sign reading "Leave in peace" as a family of French Jews arrive at Charles de Gaulle airport in Roissy, north of Paris, Wednesday July 28, 2004. (AP)

(CBS/AP) Just 10 days after Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon enraged French leaders by urging France's Jews to leave for Israel, a group of 200 French Jews arrived to start a new life in the Jewish state, with Sharon at the airport to greet them. As one émigré told CBS News Correspondent Mark Philips: You wear something to say you are Jewish and you have difficulty. We are afraid. It's simply that we are afraid." At a welcoming ceremony, Sharon appeared to try to correct the damage from his earlier statements, saying anti-Semitism threatens the Western world, without singling out France. "We therefore very much appreciate the determined actions of the French government, as well as the French president's stand against anti-Semitism. We hope that his determination will serve as an example to other countries as well." Softening his earlier appeal, Sharon said, "Jews must come to Israel not because of hatred or fear. Jews must immigrate because it is their homeland." Emerging from the plane, the immigrants sang "Heveinu Shalom Aleichem," or "we bring peace to you," a traditional Hebrew song of greeting. A heavyset man with a beard, wearing a white shirt and skullcap, danced, his arms above his head. Carol Ben Guigui, 41, carrying a dog in her arms, said: "In five or 10 years, all the Jews of France will be in Israel because of anti-Semitism." "Welcome to Israel," Sharon said, "welcome home."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/world/main632610.shtml

Kerry (Today) Calls for Time Table on Withdrawal

In Washington Post today, Senator John Kerry's case for a scheduled withdrawal from Iraq.
THE CASE FOR FLIP-FLOPPING

When Resolve Turns Reckless

By John F. Kerry Sunday, December 24, 2006; Page B01

There's something much worse than being accused of "flip-flopping": refusing to flip when it's obvious that your course of action is a flop.
I say this to President Bush as someone who learned the hard way how embracing the world's complexity can be twisted into a crude political shorthand. Barbed words can make for great politics. But with U.S. troops in Iraq in the middle of an escalating civil war, this is no time for politics. Refusing to change course for fear of the political fallout is not only dangerous -- it is immoral

I'd rather explain a change of position any day than look a parent in the eye and tell them that their son or daughter had to die so that a broken policy could live.
No one should be looking for vindication in what is happening in Iraq today. The lesson here is not that some of us were right about Iraq or that some of us were wrong. The lesson is simply that we need to change course rapidly rather than perversely use mistakes already made and lives already given as an excuse to make more mistakes and lose even more lives.
When young Americans are being killed and maimed, when the Middle East is on the brink of three civil wars, even the most vaunted "steadfastness" morphs pretty quickly into stubbornness, and resolve becomes recklessness. Changing tactics in the face of changing conditions on the ground, developing new strategies because the old ones don't work, is a hell of a lot smarter than the insanity of doing the same thing over and over again with the same tragic results.

Half of the service members listed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial died after America's leaders knew that our strategy in that war was not working. Was then-secretary of defense Robert McNamara steadfast as he continued to send American troops to die for a war he knew privately could not be won? History does not remember his resolve -- it remembers his refusal to confront reality.

Clark Clifford, the man who succeeded McNamara in 1968, was handpicked by President Lyndon B. Johnson because he was a renowned hawk. But the new defense secretary reviewed the Vietnam policy and concluded that "we cannot realistically expect to achieve anything more through our military force, and the time has come to begin to disengage." By the time he left office, he had refused to endorse a further military buildup, supported the halt in our bombing, and urged negotiation and gradual disengagement. Was Clifford a flip-flopper of historic proportions, or did he in fact demonstrate the courage of his convictions?
We cannot afford to waste time being told that admitting mistakes, not the mistakes themselves, will provide our enemies with an intolerable propaganda victory. We've already lost years being told that we have no choice but to stay the course of a failed policy.

This isn't a time for stubbornness, nor is it a time for halfway solutions -- or warmed-over "new" solutions that our own experience tells us will only make the problem worse. The Iraq Study Group tells us that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." It joins the chorus of experts in and outside of Baghdad reminding us that there is no military solution to a political crisis. And yet, over the warnings of former secretary of state Colin Powell, Gen. John Abizaid and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington is considering a "troop buildup" option, sending more troops into harm's way to referee a civil war.

We have already tried a trimmed-down version of the McCain plan of indefinitely increasing troop levels. We sent 15,000 more troops to Baghdad last summer, and today the escalating civil war is even worse. You could put 100,000 more troops in tomorrow and you're only going to add to the number of casualties until Iraqis sit down together at a bargaining table and compromise. The barrel of a gun can't answer the question of how you force Iraqi nationalism to trump sectarian loyalty.

The only hope for stability lies in pushing Iraqis to forge a sustainable political agreement on federalism, distributing oil revenues and neutralizing sectarian militias. And that will happen only if we set a deadline to redeploy our troops.

Last May, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad gave the new Iraqi government six months to make the necessary political compromises. But a deadline with no teeth is only lip service. How many times do we have to see that Iraqi politicians respond only to firm, specific deadlines -- a deadline to transfer authority, deadlines to hold two elections and a referendum, and a deadline to form a government -- before we understand that it's time to make it clear that we are leaving and that we will not sacrifice American lives for the sake of squabbling Iraqi politicians?

CONTINUED 1
document.write('2')
22
document.write('Next')
NextNext >

The Ever Shrinking Europe ... Population Realities !!

The shrinking birthrate in Europe is quite real. The effects will be felt for generations in many different, most dramatically in population demographic shifts. This is an object of awareness and of some concern to many that is discussed rarely, similar to most issues challenging Europe. Here is an article from DW-World that makes mention of the situation.


Best Christmas Gift for Germany: More Children?
Germany's family affairs minister has said she's confident a new government-funded parents' support program will result in Germans having more children and help reverse the steep decline in the nation's birth rate. »Mehr zu: title"

DW-WORLD
DW-World: German Population Plunge Expected

The Bottom Line on Iran ....

Playback Editor on 12/24/06

An interesting article from today's Jerusalem Post that basically says all the international community's huffing and puffing over Iran's direct and blatant claims regarding Israel is nice, but the article asks who will really stand up to Iran? It is clear the Iranian hardliners have every intention of calling the West's bluff. It's a nasty game of chicken.


View from America: The real denial By Jonathan Tobin

Iran's threat requires action, not just harsh talk about Holocaust buffoonery.

Listen to the military experts at The New York Times....

Playback Editor 12/24/06

Sunday's New York Times on 12/24/06 was typical ... a lecture on all the Bush Administration military wrong doings, of course leaving out so many details that could support today's troop numbers as more than sufficient. While having no problem personalizing issues as if the administration demonstrated no empathy along the way. The irony is that the New York Times would have been the first to criticize the call for more troops in a draft situation.

A Real-World Army
Larger ground forces are an absolute necessity for the sort of battles America is likely to fight during the coming decades.

While elsewhere in the paper, far from any front page headline, there is a minor mention of a buried article detailing Iran's blatant refusal to agree to the U.N. sanctions for their nuclear program, a victory achieved by our president leading a consensus from the international community. As if it happened on it's own.

MORE NEWS
Iran Condemns

Keith Olbermann...What's Wrong with this guy ?

Playback Editor on 12/23/06

I attempt to remain balanced. I try to read all perspectives and watch various media forms to view what everyone has to say. While without question the America media is tilted seriously left, most news programs attempt to keep a degree of open minded integrity about themselves. Keith Olbermann is an exception. Frankly I have never seen the likes of him anywhere.

This is a portrait of an unhappy man trying to play off a failing image, proven by his ratings. I honestly have never seen such a smug, condescending, obnoxious figure on any major cable news program in my life. He is an embarrassment to himself as well as to MSNBC.

The first time I recognized he was a bit off was when I caught him exploding on his show as Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Here was Olbermann ranting on, literally foaming at the mouth, as he bitterly lashed out at the president personally. It was such an unprofessional moment it literally took me moments to ingest what channel I hit and who I was watching.

I understand cable networks are not network news (or what once passed for network news), but usually the 8 p.m. time slots are programed with the most credible of the cable networks, their poster boys. Olbermann is a real disgrace; his constant singling out of Bill O'Reilly is pathetic. Hardly a show goes by without Olbermann bring up O'Reilly and either lashing out at him or trying to talk down about him. Obviously O'Reilly is no saint, but he never even acknowledges that Olbermann exists. Possibly it is a key reason that O'Reilly's show destroys Olbermann's in the ratings and has done so for years.

I am going to keep a running tab of how often Olbermann rips out at his competitor. It is a morbid study because it is really sad. The man should work on increasing the level of content on his rudderless show.

See below from today:

WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD

• Bill O'Reilly gets caught in a lie Dec. 15: Bill O'Reilly falsely accused the city of Seattle of preventing a toy drive.

The U.N. Passes Sanctions on Iran !!!!

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. What are the actual terms and how effective are they? Do they have to be extremely effective if they unsettle the hardliner's rulership position in Iran?

I look forward to seeing how the US media covers this in tomorrow's papers. This is a major achievement for the Bush administration. Without their efforts this would never had taken place. I wonder if one media outlet will credit them for working within the international community and getting sanctions passed?


UN passes Iran nuclear sanctions


The UN Security Council approves a resolution imposing sanctions against Iran over its nuclear activities.

In quotes: Reaction to sanctions
Q&A: Iran nuclear stand-off

An Interesting Article from The Guardian

A piece that accurately details a bit of the complexity of the Middle East crisis specifically dealing with Iran. . . unfortunately as is common with the left view, it deals mostly in criticism of actions without offering a realistic plan of how to proceed with Iran. This is a Republic that clearly laughs at the positions of the UN; realizes it has the oil that influences council members China and Russia; openly calls for the destruction of Israel and soon; and is likely responsible for the failure of the war in Iraq.

I ask this writer, what should be done ?

The Guardian (London) argues that Iran is too serious a player in today's Middle East to be addressed solely through the rhetoric of confrontation.

Yet Another Military Bashing Book Without Accountability ...

Today we live in a world lacking knowledge of history or time for perspective; it is a sound-bite culture where everyone wants to cash in without regard for accountability of facts or details. Presented below is a yet another book review that "details" all the horrendous mistakes made by the American military. As usual, most of the information comes from "unnamed" sources. Additionally, an unresolved conflict is tried, convicted, pronounced a horrendous failure, then pumped into the media which features it ad nauseum; and fed to the public which digests it as fact. Is there any wonder why the Administration cannot win this mess . . . what fools the Mullahs must view us as . . . we truly destroy our own.

December 23, 2006 Whose Fiasco?

by Victor Davis HansonPolicy Review

A review of Fiasco: The American Adventure in Iraq by Thomas E. Ricks

Thomas Ricks, the distinguished Pulitzer-prize-winning former Wall Street Journal and current Washington Post journalist, has published widely on defense issues, winning the respect of many, both inside the Pentagon and while on deployment abroad, for his disinterested narratives.
More "Whose Fiasco?"

Meanwhile, In Our Own Backyard ....

This article is from today's Arab American Press - 12/23/06 . . . the immediate tone is again, blame America. The writer's position is that it is now America's position to draw the entire region into civil war. Same old sad stories . . . if we stopped the Israeli's, all would be peachy . . . you really have to read this article to believe it. It's all us folks, not Iran, not Saudi Arabia, no one but the US. No one here is saying that we are not out for our own best interests like every other nation but no other nation has made the effort we have to make things right as well . . . I find the blame game pathetic and boring . . .

Messing up the Middle East

By: Jonathan Cook

The era of the Middle East strongman, propped up by and enforcing Western policy, appears well and truly over. His power is being replaced with rule by civil war, apparently now the American administration's favored model across the region.
Fratricidal fighting is threatening to engulf, or already engulfing, the occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Iraq. Both Syria and Iran could soon be next, torn apart by attacks Israel is reportedly planning on behalf of the U.S. The reverberations would likely consume the region.
Western politicians like to portray civil war as a consequence of the West's failure to intervene more effectively in the Middle East. Were we more engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or more aggressive in opposing Syrian manipulations in Lebanon, or more hands-on in Iraq, the sectarian fighting could be prevented. The implication being, of course, that, without the West's benevolent guidance, Arab societies are incapable of dragging themselves out of their primal state of barbarity.
But in fact, each of these breakdowns of social order appears to have been engineered either by the United States or by Israel. In Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq, sectarian difference is less important than a clash of political ideologies and interests as rival factions disagree about whether to submit to, or resist, American and Israeli interference. Where the factions derive their funding and legitimacy from - increasingly a choice between the U.S. or Iran - seems to determine where they stand in this confrontation.
Palestine is in ferment because ordinary Palestinians are torn between their democratic wish to see Israeli occupation resisted - in free elections they showed they believed Hamas the party best placed to realize that goal - and the basic need to put food on the table for their families. The combined Israeli and international economic siege of the Hamas government and the Palestinian population, has made a bitter internal struggle for control of resources inevitable.
Lebanon is falling apart because the Lebanese are divided: some believe that the country's future lies with attracting Western capital and welcoming Washington's embrace, while others regard America's interest as cover for Israel realizing its long-standing design to turn Lebanon into a vassal state, with or without a military occupation. Which side the Lebanese choose in the current stand-off reflects their judgment of how plausible are claims of Western and Israeli benevolence.
And the slaughter in Iraq is not simply the result of lawlessness - as is commonly portrayed - but also about rival groups, the nebulous "insurgents," employing various brutal and conflicting strategies: trying to oust the Anglo-American occupiers and punish local Iraqis suspected of collaborating with them; extracting benefits from the puppet Iraqi regime; and jockeying for positions of influence before the inevitable grand American exit.
All of these outcomes in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq could have been foreseen - and almost certainly were. More than that, it looks increasingly like the growing tensions and carnage were planned. Rather than an absence of Western intervention being the problem, the violence and fragmentation of these societies seems to be precisely the goal of the intervention.
Evidence has emerged in Britain that suggests such was the case in Iraq. Testimony given by a senior British official to the 2004 Butler inquiry investigating intelligence blunders in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq was belatedly published last week, after attempts by the Foreign Office to hush it up.
Carne Ross, a diplomat who helped to negotiate several U.N. Security Council resolutions on Iraq, told the inquiry that British and U.S. officials knew very well that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs and that bringing him down would lead to chaos.
"I remember on several occasions the U.K. team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the U.S. (who agreed)," he said, adding: "At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the U.S. raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."
The obvious question, then, is why would the U.S. want and intend civil war raging across the Middle East, apparently threatening strategic interests like oil supplies and the security of a key regional ally, Israel?
Until the presidency of Bush Jr., the American doctrine in the Middle East had been to install or support strongmen, containing them or replacing them when they fell out of favor. So why the dramatic and, at least ostensibly, incomprehensible shift in policy?
Why allow Yasser Arafat's isolation and humiliation in the Occupied Territories, followed by Mahmoud Abbas's, when both could have easily been cultivated as strongmen had they been given the tools they were implicitly promised by the Oslo process: a state, the pomp of office and the coercive means to impose their will on rival groups like Hamas? With almost nothing to show for years of concessions to Israel, both looked to the Palestinian public more like lapdogs than rottweilers.
Why make a sudden and unnecessary fuss about Syria's interference in Lebanon, an interference that the West originally encouraged as a way to keep the lid on sectarian violence? Why oust Damascus from the scene and then promote a "Cedar Revolution" that pandered to the interests of only one section of Lebanese society and continued to ignore the concerns of the largest and most dissatisfied community, the Shi'a? What possible outcome could there be but simmering resentment and the threat of violence?
And why invade Iraq on the hollow pretext of locating WMDs and then dislodge its dictator, Saddam Hussein, who for decades had been armed and supported by the U.S. and had very effectively, if ruthlessly, held Iraq together? Again from Carne's testimony, it is clear that no one in the intelligence community believed Saddam really posed a threat to the West. Even if he needed "containing" or possibly replacing, as Bush's predecessors appeared to believe, why did the president decide simply to overthrow him, leaving a power void at Iraq's heart?
The answer appears to be related to the rise of the neocons, who finally grasped power with the election of President Bush. Israel's most popular news website, Ynet, recently observed of the neocons: "Many are Jews who share a love for Israel."
The neocons' vision of American global supremacy is intimately tied to, and dependent on, Israel's regional supremacy. It is not so much that the neocons choose to promote Israel's interests above those of America as that they see the two nations' interests as inseparable and identical.
Although usually identified with the Israeli right, the neocons' political alliance with the Likud mainly reflects their support for adopting belligerent means to achieve their policy goals rather than the goals themselves.
The consistent aim of Israeli policy over decades, from the left and right, has been to acquire more territory at the expense of its neighbors and entrench its regional supremacy through "divide and rule", particularly of its weakest neighbors such as the Palestinians and the Lebanese. It has always abominated Arab nationalism, especially of the Baathist variety in Iraq and Syria, because it appeared immune to Israeli intrigues.
For many years Israel favored the same traditional colonial approach the West used in the Middle East, where Britain, France and later the U.S. supported autocratic leaders, usually from minority populations, to rule over the majority in the new states they had created, whether Christians in Lebanon, Alawites in Syria, Sunnis in Iraq, or Hashemites in Jordan. The majority was thereby weakened, and the minority forced to become dependent on colonial favors to maintain its privileged position.
Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, for example, was similarly designed to anoint a Christian strongman and U.S. stooge, Bashir Gemayel, as a compliant president who would agree to an anti-Syrian alliance with Israel.
But decades of controlling and oppressing Palestinian society allowed Israel to develop a different approach to divide and rule: what might be termed organized chaos, or the "discord" model, one that came to dominate first its thinking and later that of the neocons.
During its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel preferred discord to a strongman, aware that a pre-requisite of the latter would be the creation of a Palestinian state and its furnishing with a well-armed security force. Neither option was ever seriously contemplated.
Only briefly under international pressure was Israel forced to relent and partially adopt the strongman model by allowing the return of Yasser Arafat from exile. But Israel's reticence in giving Arafat the means to assert his rule and suppress his rivals, such as Hamas, led inevitably to conflict between the Palestinian president and Israel that ended in the second intifada and the readoption of the discord model.
This latter approach exploits the fault lines in Palestinian society to exacerbate tensions and violence. Initially Israel achieved this by promoting rivalry between regional and clan leaders who were forced to compete for Israel's patronage. Later Israel encouraged the emergence of Islamic extremism, especially in the form of Hamas, as a counterweight to the growing popularity of the secular nationalism of Arafat's Fatah party.
Israel's discord model is now reaching its apotheosis: low-level and permanent civil war between the old guard of Fatah and the upstarts of Hamas. This kind of Palestinian in-fighting usefully depletes the society's energies and its ability to organize against the real enemy: Israel and its enduring occupation.
The neocons, it appears, have been impressed with this model and wanted to export it to other Middle Eastern states. Under Bush they sold it to the White House as the solution to the problems of Iraq and Lebanon, and ultimately of Iran and Syria too.
The provoking of civil war certainly seemed to be the goal of Israel's assault on Lebanon over the summer. The attack failed, as even Israelis admit, because Lebanese society rallied behind Hizbullah's impressive show of resistance rather than, as was hoped, turning on the Shi'a militia.
Last week the Israeli website Ynet interviewed Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli citizen and co-founder of MEMRI, a service translating Arab leaders' speeches that is widely suspected of having ties with Israel's security services. She is also the wife of David Wurmser, a senior neocon adviser to Vice-President Dick Cheney.
Wurmser revealed that the American administration had publicly dragged its feet during Israel's assault on Lebanon because it was waiting for Israel to expand its attack to Syria.
"The anger [in the White House] is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians ... The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space ... They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah. It was obvious that it is impossible to fight directly against Iran, but the thought was that its [Iran's] strategic and important ally [Syria] should be hit."
Wurmser continued: "It is difficult for Iran to export its Shi'a revolution without joining Syria, which is the last nationalistic Arab country. If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and [changed] the strategic map in the Middle East."
Neocons talk a great deal about changing maps in the Middle East. Like Israel's dismemberment of the Occupied Territories into ever-smaller ghettos, Iraq is being severed into feuding mini-states. Civil war, it is hoped, will redirect Iraqis' energies away from resistance to the U.S. occupation and into more negative outcomes.
Similar fates appear to be awaiting Iran and Syria, at least if the neocons, despite their waning influence, manage to realize their vision in Bush's last two years.
The reason is that a chaotic and feuding Middle East, although it would be a disaster in the view of most informed observers, appears to be greatly desired by Israel and its neocon allies. They believe that the whole Middle East can be run successfully the way Israel has run its Palestinian populations inside the Occupied Territories, where religious and secular divisions have been accentuated, and inside Israel itself, where for many decades Arab citizens were "de-Palestinianized" and turned into identity-starved and quiescent Muslims, Christians, Druze and Bedouin.
That conclusion may look foolhardy, but then again so does the White House's view that it is engaged in a "clash of civilizations" which it can win with a "war on terror."
All states are capable of acting in an irrational or self-destructive manner, but Israel and its supporters may be more vulnerable to this failing than most. That is because Israelis' perception of their region and their future has been grossly distorted by the official state ideology, Zionism, with its belief in Israel's inalienable right to preserve itself as an ethnic state; its confused messianic assumptions, strange for a secular ideology, about Jews returning to a land promised by God; and its contempt for, and refusal to understand, everything Arab or Muslim.
If we expect rational behaviur from Israel or its neocon allies, more fool us.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book, "Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State," is published by Pluto Press.