Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor
By PATRICIA COHEN
Published: January 31, 2007
The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/arts/31jews.html
Jan. 29, 2007 0:20 Updated Jan. 29, 2007 10:23
Muslims 'about to take over Europe'
By DAVID MACHLIS AND TOVAH LAZAROFF
Islam could soon be the dominant force in a Europe which, in the name of political correctness, has abdicated the battle for cultural and religious control, Prof. Bernard Lewis, the world-renowned Middle Eastern and Islamic scholar, said on Sunday.
The Muslims "seem to be about to take over Europe," Lewis said at a special briefing with the editorial staff of The Jerusalem Post. Asked what this meant for the continent's Jews, he responded, "The outlook for the Jewish communities of Europe is dim." Soon, he warned, the only pertinent question regarding Europe's future would be, "Will it be an Islamized Europe or Europeanized Islam?" The growing sway of Islam in Europe was of particular concern given the rising support within the Islamic world for extremist and terrorist movements, said Lewis.
An interesting, rational article from The Jerusalem Post analyzing the risks of a nuclear Iran and what real options exist.
Rattling the Cage: Against a preemptive Holocaust
By LARRY DERFNER
Almost imperceptibly, the debate in Israel over what to do about Iran's nuclear development has gone over the edge. The unthinkable is now not only thinkable, it's speakable, it's writeable, it's doable. In the last few weeks or so, it has become acceptable, legitimate, to argue for an Israeli nuclear first strike to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities.
This ultimate escalation in the debate happened mainly, I think, because it came to be widely understood that Iran's nuclear operations are probably too well buried, hidden, defended and widespread to take out with conventional weapons. Destroying them the "normal" way might also require a ground invasion, which, after what's happened in Iraq, doesn't appeal to many people. Moreover, in another outgrowth of the debacle in Iraq, it now seems unlikely that President Bush, or his successor, will be politically able to go to war against Iran.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467824712&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Today's Guardian published an editorial that drew it's own analogy between United States President George Bush and Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It basically placed both men's backgrounds, comments and actions on a level playing field. I find it so smug, condescending and absurd that it must be posted to be memorialized.
Once one gets past the opening analogy, the article raises some important issues on how other governing bodies must step up and help avoid another terrible confrontation. It will prove interesting to see if anyone else does or simply sits back and criticizes after the fact.
They're broken men, so don't let them take us to a new war
Presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad have lost face at home; now others must forge peaceful settlements in the Middle East
Henry PorterSunday January 28, 2007The Observer
There is a striking likeness in the expressions of George W Bush and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran as they confront each other over the issues of uranium enrichment and dominance in the Middle East. It falls somewhere between the chastened and defiant playground bully.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2000375,00.html
Energy Independence?
A Serious Plan Requires Taxes, ANWR and Nukes
By Charles Krauthammer Friday, January 26, 2007
Is there anything more depressing than yet another promise of energy independence in yet another State of the Union address? By my count, 24 of the 34 State of the Union addresses since the oil embargo of 1973 have proposed solutions to our energy problem.
The result? In 1973 we imported 34.8 percent of our oil. Today we import 60.3 percent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501547.html
If you would like to know what life might be like for Jews in a world without an Israel, this article offers some interesting insight. An article that was intended to read as informative and quaint offers interesting insight. In a now clearly secular Europe, Jews are tolerated in small numbers as long as they are well behaved and know their place. I wonder how they would react to the loud mouth, media dominating, world controlling type that rule the world ? (tongue in cheek) .
Renewal, in Real Estate and in Culture, for Ancient People
By IAN FISHER
Published: January 26, 2007
ROME, Jan. 25 — As a boy, in October 1943, Pacifico Disegni watched from his window as two German trucks hauled people from the ghetto in Rome, a city where Jews have lived for 2,000 years.
Last year, in blessedly more peaceful times, a rich visitor from Boston took in the view from that same window. A magnificent front-row view of the Theater of Marcellus, first planned by Julius Caesar, somehow salves the sting of history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/world/europe/26rome.html?hp&ex=1169874000&en=9807feec5f1bae3c&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Below you will find an interesting article from the Jerusalem Post with Alan Dershowitz critiquing former U.S. president Jimmy Carter's recent speech/forum at Brandis University.
A real dialogue would have been better
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ
A real dialogue would have been better.
President Carter's speech at Brandeis University on Tuesday should have been a real debate. Instead, it was a one-way dialogue with pre-screened questions and no rebuttals. Had Carter allowed the dialogue he says he wants to provoke, we all could have learned something.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467814586&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Does anyone actually believe Pakistan does not know the exact location of Bin Laden and company? It's one of the biggest jokes running since 9/11. Pakistan knows the minute Bin Laden is in U.S. hands their importance level drops significantly in American eyes. This is why they will never disclose his location. Every time I read one of their denials in print I find it hard not to laugh out loud.
PM: Bin Laden not hiding in Pakistan
POSTED: 11:42 a.m. EST, January 25, 2007
DAVOS, Switzerland (Reuters) -- Osama bin Laden is not in Pakistan, as far as the government is aware, and if anyone has intelligence to the contrary, they should share it, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said on Thursday.
U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte, in testimony to a Senate committee earlier this month, wrote that al Qaeda leaders were holed up in a secure hide-out in Pakistan, without naming bin Laden or his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/01/25/pakistan.qaeda.davos.reut/index.html
By Playback Editor on 01/21/07
I am amazed each time I come across an Israeli news article meticulously anaylsing a road map to peace. I greatly admire the tireless effort to bring security to the Jewish homeland. The intentions are so genuine it makes your heart ache because we all know there is only one answer. The unfortunate truth is that other than close up shop, there is very little that can be done autonomously by the Israelis.
It's very similar to buying a house. Each side needs one authorized negotiator with final approval. That is clearly not the case here. Israel has always been a buyer forced to negotiate with a dozen sellers, each with a different set of terms and conditions. Some have no intention to sell at any price. The reality is a sale ain't happening.
The Arab world wants Israel out of its neighborhood, period. They believe that natural resource allocation, the leveling of the military playing field and world sentiment are all in their favor. They are correct on all accounts. Underneath spin cemented by decades of worldwide anti-semitism, self-serving Arab regimes, European blow back and American Left self-hatred, the most educated and honest among us know this to be the truth. The Arab logic is why settle? Once an isolated, exhausted America fully comprehends what it is up against, Israel is through.
Israel and the Palestinians are both pawns in a triangulated chess match involving the Arab world, Europe and America. Each is maneuvering for it's own agenda. The Arab world leaders will only push for real peace when it is in their best interest. That time may be coming as an Iranian lead Shia revival is changing the playing field.
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the rest of the Sunni gang feel pressure as never before. They must act fast or they will be plowed over by the Shia wave. Their strategy to re-establish credibility over the Arab world is to position themselves as the saviors of the Palestinian people. They will create/allow peace with Israel, as long as it makes strategic sense. It never has been and never will be a Palestinian decision.
Below you will find yet another gut wrenching article by an Israeli trying to make new sense out of a long answered question. Painful, yes. However, it makes interesting reading.
Interesting Times: What Arabs can do
By SAUL SINGER
At the august Herzliya Conference three years ago, Ariel Sharon unveiled his plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip - a plan he called "disengagement." Eighteen months ago, this plan was carried out, and six months ago we fought a two-front war against Hamas in the south and Hizbullah in the north.
What should we learn from this history?
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467762777&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
The Jersulam Post - Essay: This Holocaust will be different
By BENNY MORRIS
The second holocaust will not be like the first. The Nazis, of course, industrialized mass murder. But still, the perpetrators had one-on-one contact with the victims. They may have dehumanized them over months and years of appalling debasement and in their minds, before the actual killing. But, still, they were in eye and ear contact, sometimes in tactile contact, with their victims.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1167467762531&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
A Plausible Plan B
By Charles KrauthammerFriday, January 19, 2007; Page A19
If we were allied with an Iraqi government that, however weak, was truly national -- cross-confessional and dedicated to fighting a two-front war against Baathist insurgents and Shiite militias -- a surge of American troops, together with a change of counterinsurgency strategy, would have a good chance of succeeding. Unfortunately, the Iraqi political process has given us Nouri al-Maliki and his Shiite coalition.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801509.html
Playback Editor 01/19/07
In between photo ops with fellow madman Hugo Chavez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is starting to feel some serious heat back in Tehran.
A united international community led by the Bush Administration has succeeded in imposing U.N. sanctions and generating negative worldwide attention on the extremist regime. President Bush clearly stated in his recent national address that Iran will be confronted if it continues to interfere in Iraq. Ahmadinejad's fiery rhetoric, open defiance and nuclear ambitions are pushing his country to the brink of a war the majority do not want and know they cannot win. It's one thing to hide behind Hezbollah, another to see Tomahawk missiles take out downtown Tehran. Ahmadinejad is feeling the pressure and it's going to get a lot worse.
Score one for the"dunce" from Texas.
I have not heard about any recent North Korean nuclear tests. As of late their banking contacts have been frozen and their counterfeiting operation squashed. China, their only ally, has been pushing them to take a time out and get rational. They are back at the negotiating table and progress is being made. This is not the result of Bubba giving Kim the keys to the castle or a Carter kiss on the cheek. Instead, a Texas style noose has been tightened around a suddenly rational "Dear Leader" and it is the result of another resolute, Bush administration driven international coalition.
Score "anotha for Dubya."
Everybody knows Iraq is a mess. Everybody forgets what a threat the defiant, mass murdering Hussein was and how he made sport of a greedy, corrupt international community. The entire world was convinced he possessed weapons of mass destruction because he used them on Kurds and Iranians. The risk a nuclear armed Hussein posed could not be exaggerated.
As the remains of the towers smoldered, Bush told a nation in shock that we were in for a long war and he would never relent from protecting this country from those who would see it destroyed. At that time, the scavengers who today are trying to cement his political obituary were applauding him as he morphed before our eyes. That they were able to later change colors seemlessly tells volumes about a society that is spoiled and clueless to the costs of our luxury.
Hindsight is 20/20. Many mistakes have always been made during wartime and Iraq is no exception. The difference is that no one has ever had to lead a war in real time and have it critiqued relentlessly by a politically driven far left media. Bush has made mistakes. He is not without fault. However, he is also not without precedent. Every wartime president has made his share.
This being established, there are two points I would like to make.
The first is that I believe the current war debate on Capital Hill will have positive results. Both parties agree that a retreat and loss is unacceptable. America will somehow make lemonade from this mess.
The real loser is the Middle East. The unspoken truth is that the Iraq war is the icing on the cake. No well-intending Western society will choose to enter that hornet's nest again for generations. The white man's burden is over. The west, exhausted and disgusted by barbaric, tribal mentalities and a complete lack of accountability now see the bridge between civilizations as an evolutionary one. Maybe a Hussein was needed to force peace at the water hole after all. They may not say it out loud but they believe it.
The second point is that there would be no international community worth a damn if George Bush did not take out Saddam. Countries previously content to milk their share of the corruption, are now held accountable for their actions. The stakes have been raised and they are on board for confronting Iran and North Korea. At the same time it's also the reason why there haven't been any suicide bomb attacks in the US. No one wants to be the state sponsor held accountable by this sheriff.
Much of the world is convinced Bush is an ignorant warmonger who is in way over his head. In our country the media delights in distancing themselves from this inarticulate buffoon. They never liked him and they never will. However in a world filled with atrocity, the elite sleep at night knowing come High Noon he can and will take out the bad guys.
I can only imagine the sleepless nights the editors in New York and London had over the decisions to publish these articles.
Rebuke in Iran to Its President on Nuclear Role
By NAZILA FATHI and MICHAEL SLACKMAN
Published: January 19, 2007
TEHRAN, Jan. 18 — Iran’s outspoken president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, appears to be under pressure from the highest authorities in Iran to end his involvement in its nuclear program, a sign that his political capital is declining as his country comes under increasing international pressure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/19/world/middleeast/19iran.html?hp&ex=1169269200&en=2cf7a23e1a8d0a8e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
'Progress' in N Korea-US talks
North Korea and the US say they have had positive talks over Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programme.
But the US denied reports from the North that an agreement was reached when chief negotiators for the two sides met in Berlin this week.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6277551.stm
This is where The Times goes far left, off the charts. We are in a time of war where lunatics are desperately trying with every means possible to get nuclear weapons to destroy American cities. Many of the conspirators are right here, right now in the United States. For the safety of the nation the Bush Administration created the Patriot Act to protect the public from this exact sort of horrific event becoming a reality, a reality that remains very possible.
Like children, we have The Times ranting about abuses of civil liberties. Again they position it as if the Bush Team has ulterior motives, at work to manipulate as much as possible for some sort of personal and political gain. I truly think they are so far out of reality that it is scary. On one hand you have mass murderers vowed to kill as many of us as possible. On the other you have a government trying to adjust to an near endless number of potential loopholes.
Who would you be rooting for?
A Spy Program in From the Cold -
The New York Times Editorial on 01/18/07
Of the many ways that President Bush has trampled civil liberties and the balance of powers since the 9/11 attacks, one of the most egregious was his decision to order wiretaps of Americans’ international calls and e-mail without court approval. It was good news, then, when the administration announced yesterday that it would now seek a warrant from the proper court for that sort of eavesdropping.
The president’s decision hardly ends this constitutional crisis. Among other things, the public needs to know why Mr. Bush broke the law for more than five years and what should be done to ensure there will be no more abuses of the wiretap statute.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/18/opinion/18thu1.html
Letter to the Editor
THE TYRANNY OF THE ELITES
By 449 Quentin
They study journalism at Princeton, Harvard and Yale and although they are a minuscule percentage of the general population they dictate terms to the rest of us. The media is almost completely under their thumb so they control much of what we think. It does not matter that 89% percent of us want child molesters punished more severely than they are today, they do not and they prevail. From their elite perch they mold the American culture into politically correct clay.
Jokes about ignorant southern whites (hillbillies) are permissible while those about blacks are not. Anti christian rhetoric Si, bashing Muslim rhetoric No. Not content with molding our thought processes they also control our dreams through their sub contractors in Hollywood. Even though the C. I. A. has been neutered by legislation passed by their liberal lap dogs they still churn out film after film that portrays the agency as an omnipotent killing machine, moving other countries around like pieces on a chess board.
Beyond that they also hold sway in Academia thus insuring that fresh generations of politically correct hypocrites are churned out on an ivy clad conveyor belt. This is unfortunate because their perspective on American reality is a tad skewered. They do not actually know 95% of the American’s they rule.
Walk along Madison Avenue in Manhattan or shop the boutiques on Rodeo Drive in Los Angeles and count how many soldiers, coal miners, waitresses and carpenters you see mingling with the cultural elites as they shop for the latest offerings of Prada or Gucci. Then head out to the Hampton's on a summer Sunday and watch the editorial staff of the New York Times in a killer softball game with the guys and gals from C B S News. On your way to the hot dog stand check the crowd for truck drivers, plumbers and dish washers. When you resume watching the game do not worry about brushing up on your Spanish because there won’t be anyone in the stands who recently waded across the Rio Grande.
The kids from Media Central are a homogeneous lot devoid of inner city blacks and eastern European immigrants. Their blacks have “token” stamped on their foreheads. The same can be said about any other “ethnics” in their group. All these people know is each other. That is why on Friday January 13, 2007 when the A team at the New York Times posted yet another subliminal message to the American public nobody really took note. The elites at the Gray Lady sped back from brunch at the Four Seasons and never looked out the window at the janitors , cab drivers and office workers that they passed. They chatted amiably in the plush cocoon of their Limo and focused on each other.
Something horrible was happening in America and they, the anointed ones, must filter it through the prism of their collective conscious so that the unwashed in the hinterlands could understand it . Some minor league jackass at the pentagon was telling the truth to the American public and that would never do. Charles D Stimson was the swine’s name and suddenly he was numero uno on the Liberal elite medias hit list from sea to shining sea. This upstart who was probably the product of a state university if not a mail order one had the temerity to release a list of top tier law firms who were representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
The guys from the Times were livid. The lawyers mentioned were all frat brothers of theirs. That kind of McCarthyism was not going to let go unchallenged on their watch. It did not matter that we lived in a different world and were fighting a different war. It did not matter that the gentlemen in Cuba stood for executing Gays, restricting women to housebound illiterates or employing capitol punishment against jaywalkers. Nor did it matter that these people were plotting to surprise Chicago with a nuclear cloud for Christmas. What mattered was the party line and the liberal credo. What mattered was going for Bush’s jugular twenty four seven and never letting up.
“These are the major law firms in this country”, Mr. Stimson had the temerity to say and they are helping those who would destroy us. Perhaps he went on to declare that they should be punished by losing paying clients at America’s top tier businesses. The elites are always crowing about George Bush being in a state of denial. They however are in double denial. While any truck driver knows better than to give aid to someone who threatens his home and family, it is our elites who remain clueless.
The reason I welcome the ongoing battle on Capital Hill regarding Iraq is that the truth of our current status must come out. I do not care about past mistakes, every war had them in abundance. Let us now be definitive about where we are and what we are up against. While I cannot stomach partisan politics, I truly believe we will rise above it on this issue. Too many on both sides realize what is at stake if we lose. No one is talking about cut, run and accept a loss mentality. Everyone appears to be well aware of the severity of such actions. The debate is over how to proceed.
When I read articles like the one published today by the BBC, I get more than a little uncomfortable. If the United States, no matter how noble it's original intentions, is being played a fool with the lives of our soldiers at stake, the game must be changed. If we are being manipulated by Shiites on one hand and Sunni's on the other while our people are being killed, it's time to call a time out. We don't have to call the game but a break to reassess, absolutely.
I don't know for sure what is going on over there. For far too long every source of information has been filtered, tainted and spun. However, the debates taking place now are essential to clear the air, educate the American people and allow proper perspective to sink in. Then, united, we must devise the best strategy possible to protect our nation long term.
Iraqis split on Bush's last gamble
By Clive Myrie BBC News, Baghdad
So what do ordinary Iraqis think of President Bush's decision to send around 20,000 extra troops to their country?
Well it depends who you ask, and whether they are Shia or Sunni. The vast majority of the Shia population here think it is a disastrous idea.
Ask Haythem Zalzala, a pharmacist with impeccable English. He runs a chemist shop in the Karada area of central Baghdad and he summed up the view of many here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6252123.stm
The New York Times is relentless in it's pursuit of spinning every possible negative angle imaginable regarding the administration's efforts to succeed in Iraq. They must wake up every day and ask themselves "what negative spin can we create today?"
This morning's lead headline reports how the hanging of mass murderer Hussein and his equally guilty family members has created far more damage than good in the war on terror. It's obvious that The Times is counting on its readers to either be as biased as they are or have the emotional maturity of children. Once again, they utilize their once highly respected publication as a partisan (far left) means to weaken American will against the war.
Without question they are a far larger asset to Iran than Hezbollah.
News Analysis
Hangings Fuel Sectarian Split Across Mideast
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
A pan-Muslim unity from the war between Israel and Hezbollah is waning and Sunni-Shiite tension is rising after the executions of Saddam Hussein and two lieutenants in Iraq.
With so much going on between the Arab world and the United States outside of our boarders, it's easy to forget that we have a young and growing Arab population within the United States. As the demographic grows, they are integrating and developing their own arteries for expression.
Below is a recent article from one such newspaper, The Arab American News. The attached article describes how many young American Arabs interpreted President Bush's speech last week on raising troop levels to Iraq. While I welcome the reporter's opinions, I am a bit concerned to see that many American Muslims see the debate as one sided as do their Middle Eastern counterparts.
There is no criticism of Iran's involvement and no criticism of the fact that Saddam killed millions of Muslims. It appears to me to be simply a toned down version of the same victim-driven mentality. While they certainly are welcome to their opinion and to express it, I still have yet to see any significant portion of the Muslim population stand up and commend the administration for a noble if flawed effort.
It is truly a world where no one appreciates the effort, only the achievement.
Young Arab Americans react to Bush speech
By: Aatif Ali Bokhari / The Arab American News
DEARBORN — If Bush's speech was supposed to convince young Arab Americans that he's got a plan for bringing peace to Iraq, it failed.
Two local activists with their finger on the pulse of the community, Zeinab Chami and Bilal Dabaja, spoke to "The Arab American News." Chami is an office manager for the Michigan chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, while Dabaja is a senior studying political science at the University of Michigan-Dearborn.
http://www.arabamericannews.com/newsarticle.php?articleid=7262
In the potential upcoming confrontation with Iran, I constantly read of countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan referred to as our "allies." It is interesting to hear what our allies in the region have to say about us. This one is a beauty, written by Ayman El-Amir of Egypt's state sponsored Al-Ahram. Despite the hundreds of millions our government has given Egypt to keep their longtime dictator propped up, Mr. El-Amir has no problem blasting America as a failed nation guilty for all the world's miseries.
I wonder how much Mr. El-Amir is paid by the Egyptian government to focus on American issues and not the poverty and despair most young Egyptians live in. Somehow I'm sure his decision is a no brainer; write state- sponsored propaganda or nothing. Challenging the government would result in Mid-Eastern style justice, something I am sure Mr. El-Amir wants no part of.
The decline of empire
Arrogant and deaf to history, the American imperial moment already appears short-lived
writes Ayman El-Amir
Few empires in history have recognised the limits of their power and in good time saved themselves from the consequences of over-ambition. While historians point to the Roman Empire as the most classical example of the decline of overstretched empires, there are equally disastrous models in modern history. The Romanov's imperial Russia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the Habsburg and the Ottomans who ruled the Islamic State all collapsed under circumstances of revolution or global conflict. The British Empire learned the lesson of the limits of imperial power after it was battered by Germany in World War II and pressured by national liberation movements. London chose to relinquish the empire on which "the sun never sets" because it was unsustainable. The Soviet Empire, on the other hand, imploded. Contrary to claims by some US analysts, it was not Ronald Reagan's confrontational policies that brought it down.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/827/op23.htm
Below is a fascinating article by Victor Davis Hanson that accurately details the dependency and expectations demanded by the rest of the world on the United States. How we assumed this degree of responsibility is a long and complicated story, but its time paramaters are set. No one can carry the ball for the entire planet. There will always be extremely difficult decisions to be made resulting in bitterness from those not in on the winning hand.
January 15, 2007
Global Schizophrenia
by Victor Davis Hanson - Tribune Media Services
When it comes to intervening in international affairs, the United States is damned when it does and damned when it doesn't. Critics of U.S. policy are always quick to pounce — and in this age of globalization, they're only getting more impatient.
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson011507.html
Yes, yes, yes. Instead of partisan politics or ridiculous, half-baked Monday morning quarterback attacks on the Bush Administration, The New York Times is doing something Constructive. They are coming out strong for a new energy policy. I hope they consistently utilize their still considerable influence campaigning for this issue.
It can save the world from itself.
Editorial - The New York Times - 01/15/07
Energy Time
Al Hubbard, the economic adviser who’s coordinating the administration’s energy strategy, recently promised that President Bush would produce “headlines above the fold that will knock your socks off in terms of our commitment to energy independence.”
Every president since Richard Nixon has talked this way, while every year the country slides further into dependency. Mr. Bush’s overpromising has included a forecast that we would all be buying hydrogen-fueled cars in 20 years and his pledge a year ago to rid the country of its addiction to oil.
Still, we must hope that Mr. Bush is serious this time, because we simply cannot continue to hold our national security and the health of the planet hostage to our appetite for fossil fuels.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/opinion/16tue1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
As Mark Steyn reported in America Alone, Western nations are not alone in their population droughts. Russia has one of the great, diminishing populations in the world. The void is being filled by it's Muslim population boom as noted in Al Jazeera on 01/15/07
Russia sees Muslim population boom
By Jonah Hull
Low domestic birth rates and rising immigration from the former Soviet republics have produced an explosive growth in Russia's Muslim community.
At the same time Russia's overall population is in crisis. Short life spans and low birth rates among ethnic Russians mean the population is declining by 700,000 people a year.
The return of long-denied religious freedoms in Russia has seen Islam flourish. As a result, many ethnic Russians fear their country is losing its national identity.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F8C5F608-FA29-4BB3-A7CA-A6F05B98BE23.htm
Below you will find an article written by Barry Rubin of the Jerusalem Post. I feel it paints an accurate picture of the trap the Sunni/Non-Extremest Arab countries have created for themselves. They either have to side with extremists that want them overthrown or see themselves portrayed as pro-American/Israeli. It's a mess of their own brewing and one they will have to deal with sooner than later.
Their obvious first move will be to link their position with an Israeli/Palestinian objective, going with what has always worked in the past: Blame it on Israel and appear to be forcing the U.S. to attempt to make peace. Behind the scenes we know they are terrified their days are numbered.
Here we go again.
The Region: The New Mideast Alignment
By BARRY RUBIN of The Jerusalem Post
The Middle East has undergone a dramatic shift in alignments, perhaps more significant than anything that has happened since the 1950s. On one side are the HISH powers - Hizbullah, Iran, Syria, Hamas - and on the other virtually every other Arab state. The latter, less radical group is also placed in a situation where its interests parallel those of Israel and the United States. They are very much aware of this fact.
There is, however, the rather big question of what, if anything, the relative moderates are going to do about that fact. In this context, there are four big issues with different factors affecting each one.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467731986&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Letter to Editor
By 449 Quentin
The first vote that I cast was for Barry Goldwater. That was long ago and far away. I’m sixty five now and a lifelong Republican and a conservative. But as the teenagers say, “that is so over”.
Mr. Bush gambled and he failed massively. The chips on the table represent over two thousand years of western civilization. The fact that Bush 2 meant well does not mitigate the scope of the disaster. In fact despite the relentless vilification from the Democrats and their running dogs in the media his quest was noble.
He sought no oil or any other treasure. It was not an empire he was after just a solution as to how to proceed against evil in it’s purest form. He sought to eliminate a small time Hitler and plant the flag of Democracy in the area where oil and evil intersected. Meanwhile his opponents in the Democratic Party worshipped at the alter of appeasement. Nevertheless he failed and he should do the decent thing and resign along with Mr. Chaney.
At this most critical of junctures in the history of the Republic which he loves and which his noble family has given so much to it would be the only honorable thing to do. By underestimating the tenacity of our enemies he has brought us to the precipice and forced the mantle of power onto the shoulders of the undeserving and craven Democratic party. They are all that is left to us. We are nearing the end of a struggle with Islam that has lasted over a thousand years. The problem is that the west is divided and weak while the enemy is resolute and on the brink of possessing weapons of mass destruction. Friedrich Nietzsche the nineteenth century German Philosopher declared that ,”God is dead”. That may be but the forces of darkness are quite alive and they are fast approaching our shores.
They have always had the will to destroy us and soon they will have the means. All we have left is a failed and moribund Republican party and a Donkey.
The Sunday Times January 14, 2007
Ousted Bolton puts world to rights
Sarah Baxter, Washington
As America’s ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton was no tame diplomat. Armed with his feared red pen, ready to strike out waffling resolutions, he was an able and aggressive defender of US interests, but he often had to uphold policies with which he was not in tune.
“To the great chagrin of many people, I followed my instructions at the UN,” he said in his first newspaper interview since relinquishing his post. He is a free man now and eager to have his say. Bolton engaged in tortuous negotiations over sanctions for Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programmes with little confidence they would work.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2546055,00.html
(WORK IN PROGRESS - INCOMPLETE ROUGH DRAFT)
It's Coming back to Israel
Here we go again except this time, the stakes are higher than ever and it might have to stick.
The Middle East is in chaos. Civil War between Shia and Sunni's, two ancient cultures who have been at each others throats for centuries are about to drag the entire region into a civil war. Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, armed to the teeth are on the verge of taking over the region. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the remaining Arab states are preparing on the other side for the ultimate showdown. Extremists from both sides run rampid, killing without conscious along the way. So how do we avoid Middle Easter Armageddon between these two diametrically opposed tribal cultures? It's easy. Make Israel give up land!
Isn't it always deflect by blaming the Jewish State? Arab dictators from each country have been dong this through their state sponsored medias and religious partnerships through the mosques for decades. It has propped the Palestinian issue up without allowing for resolution for over fifty years. The difference this time is that the dictators are almost out of cards and the U.S. is running kind of light itself.
There are only so many coffins that can keep coming back to Arlington Cemetery. The country is extremely frustrated and has long lost patience for this war. If events keep going from bad to worse, the picture is not going to be pretty and fingers will be pointed. History can tell us where they will be aimed.
(To be continued)
Despite all the terrible media coverage regarding Iraq, I am actually encouraged by the check and balance activity I see on Capital Hill. We are witnessing very intelligent players from both parties step up and present well researched positions on how to proceed.
I continue to be very impressed with Joseph Biden. This morning after watching Meet the Press, I came away equally impressed with Chuck Hagel. While I am all for staying the course to insure an ultimate resolution we can live with, that definitely does not mean a blank check and free pass to the president on policies that have clearly failed in the past.
Many experienced, well researched, highly intelligent minds are knocking heads with the ultimate goal of salvaging this situation. I remain disgusted with the overwhelmingly left driven media. However, there are several moderate democrats out there who are very impressive. It is very encouraging to see our best and brightest from both parties stepping up, going on the record and working to a solution.
Below you will find today's New York Times editorial on Iraq. While they started with their customary attack on the president and declaration of defeat, they actually went on record with their own ideas on how to proceed. While the suggestions were quite vague and filled with holes, at least it was a step above simply ripping the president. I guess they will leave that to attack dogs Rich, Dowd, Herbert and Krugman (the Hyena) who combined have never written one positive piece on the Bush Administration, ever.
It's time to put partisan politics aside, stop complaining about past mistakes and focus on what to do now. Now while were on a roll, let's ramp up the "Off the Oil Today" campaign. Whoever courageously, intelligently and effectively pushes that issue has their finger on the real problem and will have my vote.
Editorial - New York Times - 01/14/07
Picking Up the Pieces
It was surreal how disconnected President Bush was the other night, both from Iraq’s horrifying reality and America’s anguish over this unnecessary, mismanaged and now unwinnable war. Indeed, most Americans seem far ahead of the president. They understand that what the country urgently needs is for Mr. Bush to chart a way out of Iraq that also limits the chaos that will be left behind.
Here's something to think about when discussing the future reguarding Iran.
So many here believe the differences between the two countries are irreconcilable due to mad fundamentalists in Tehran. Irrational creatures from another planet content on blowing up all infidels. However, why is it Ahmadinejad has no problem publicly embracing and conspiring with an infidel like Venezuela's Chavez? Why are they able to deal with Putin who's Russia is at war constantly with Muslim Chechnya's? My point is let us think very carefully before we have another Iraq.
I have always been of the mindset that we could have made peace with Saddam after the first Gulf War. Instead the policy from Bush 41 through Clinton was to contain and strangle the "madman," basically backing him into a corner. Now that we all have a much better idea of what sort of a primitive, tribal mentality world the Middle East really is, is it any wonder that Saddam had no alternative but to defy us? If he did not, he would have been taken for weak at the water hole and overthrown from within for sure.
My point here is not to cry about what has been done in Iraq. We must deal with it as it currently is. However, lets not repeat it with Iran. When I see Ahmadinejad hugging Chavez, I'm not buying into that Islamic madman kill all infidels bit. I believe that with a strong, consistent, concentrated effort we can find common ground with Iran without compromising Israel. Let's not box another nutty group into a corner.
Iran and Venezuela back oil cuts
BBC News 01/14/07
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6258243.stm
The Hidden Enemy
Jerusalem Post - 01/12/07
President George Bush's much-awaited speech on Iraq was a pragmatic one, grimly given. Bush knows that he will be judged less on what he says than on the results.
That said, the significance of the "surge" of more than 20,000 new US troops that Bush has ordered may lie less in their military impact than in what they signal: a rejection of the voices of retreat.
The new Democrat-controlled Congress is expected to attempt to thread the needle between registering opposition and attempting to block their commander in chief at a time of war. A smarter approach would be to claim credit for forcing Bush to reassess his policy, give the new policy a chance, and pledge to reassess in November, the month by which Bush said the Iraqi government has pledged to "take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1167467714776&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
By Amir Taheri - New York Post
January 12, 2007 -- 'A SIGH of relief!" So one resident of Haifa Street, in the heart of Baghdad's badlands, reacted to the new plan to secure the Iraqi capital with the help of thousands of additional American troops.
"Maybe the Americans aren't running away after all," said the resident, a Sunni Arab, over the phone moments after President Bush unveiled his new plan. "The message seems to be that the United States will remain committed as long as Bush is in the White House."
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01122007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/how_iraqis_see_ws_new_plan_opedcolumnists_amir_taheri.htm
The Hypocrisy of it All
Playback Editor
As the possibility of an American defeat in Iraq looms large, revisionist history abounds. Today's news hubs read as if a mass murderer named Hussein never existed, towers never toppled and all the world's troubles are attributed to an idiot savant's holy quest for "Texas style" revenge. Because we live in an age of short attention spans and an ignorance of history, rats are jumping ship with pointed fingers. The tragedy is that most will succeed.
Our American Idol driven culture offers little gig space for details. We are a soundbite society and we may be about to take it on the chin, big time. In the shadow of withdrawal, realizing the potential magnitude of the loss, I would like to memorialize lessons I have been learned watching this sequence of events unfold.
The first lesson is that the media is a business. News outlets no longer reports news but editorialize it. Uncle Walter and his methods are as extinct as the T-Rex. In an age of exceptional competition, each outlet has become an editorial center churning out it's own sensationalized interpretation of events. Each having their own style and cast of characters. Some are more dramatic or theatrical than others. All are in the business of making money and that always means "audience" share. You can no longer believe anything because you "saw it on the news" or "read it in the paper." Digest the information and filter it accordingly. We're in the laissez faire news age.
The second is there is no such thing as "allies." The term, a holdover from the Cold War, is as antiquated as the World War propaganda films that harvested it. We are no longer at war with the Axis. The Iron Curtain is kaput. In today's world, globalization and the Internet have changed the landscape. Today, as always, countries form alliances driven by economic agendas. Each grandstanding motion at the U.N., the steps of an embassy steps or the Rose Garden is a device structured to massage the public. The real cause and effect behind national policies are negotiated backstage, now as always. That being clarified, please, no more "we're losing our allies." To say such a thing displays one's ignorance once you've passed the age of twelve.
The third is as long as we are an oil driven society, this mess is going to get much worse. Every major industrialized nation's foreign policy is resource driven. Oil tops the list. Michael Klare spelled this out in his fine book Resource Wars. China, Russia, India, Japan, the E.U. or the rest are absolutely no different than we are. Each of us makes it's our best concentrated effort at getting as much access to oil as possible and the competition is each other (see no such thing as allies, above).
This equation shifts from complication to mess due to the fact that the world's oil supply is centered in the Middle East, the world's most volatile region. Here jet-setting dictators of underdeveloped nations hold their hopeless populations in check by using various channels to deflect hatred at the United States and Israel. Not nice, fair or a great long term strategy but maintenance on a 200,000 sq. ft. palace can get rather expensive.
Our nation is addicted to oil. George Clooney could not fly his private jet to Italy without it. Republicans and Democrats have done nothing to wean us off this addiction for over fifty years and it is a disgrace. Ultra-powerful lobbies control this world-altering issue. The fact that neither party has managed to stop this addition reeks of hypocrisy and a complete lack of integrity.
There are other options to oil and they have been intentionally submarined for decades. This is the inexcusable crime committed against families who have lost loved ones in Iraq. It's easy to blame Bush for reacting to repercussions, but he's not the root. That guilt runs fifty years deep and there is tons to pass around. I have yet to see one politician have the guts to make a career-defining stand on this issue and it fills me with disgust. Not one significant politician is without his or her share of blood on their hands. It is due to this cultural addiction that we are forced to placate countries we really would prefer not to even know, a feeling that is mutual.
As far as supply goes, oil is a natural resource. Logic dictates that the supply is not endless. We are consuming it at a greater rate than ever before. Only a very small handful have a clue as to how much may actually exist and they are keeping their cards really tight to the vest. We better wake up fast and force some serious and difficult decisions before they are made for us. I personally have never had to hunt for food and the thought is a bit scary.
As I read today's New York Times surgical dissection of President Bush, I wonder what are they really thinking. They realize that the article printed below is intended to further steer American support away from the war. That is their right, but I keep asking myself, what are their thoughts for an alternative strategy? Once Iraq is lost, what's next?
No matter who occupies the Oval Office in January of 2008, they are going to face one hell of a set of problems. Hilliary will only be able to blame it on Bush for the first 100 days. After that, she's up against the Mullahs, Sadr, Hezbollah, Hamas, Assad, Osama, Omar and the other half billion. I'm not comfortable with a welfare state/peace sign mentality going up against guys who chop off heads around a water hole. I'm not inclined to bet on the daises.
There lies the rub. We live in a society with a thirty second attention span. The media is 90% left, 99% of that anti-Bush. It's 10 to 1 at this time that Iraq fails and Bush is a dead man. The potential catastrophe that the media-driven left may be forging is not going to go away with a change of parties in 2008. Remember, Bin Laden and team massacred 3000 civilians at a time of peace after eight years of a thumb chewing Bubba who did fight hard for Middle East peace and did save thousands of Muslims from genocide in Bosnia.
Maybe the Left is right. Maybe negotiations will Iran and North Korea will lead the way to peace. Maybe the differences are not irreconcilable. Every sane person must root and fight for it. However, ever since the Internet allowed poverty stricken Abdullah in Pakistan to see Jessica Simpson in shorts, he's wanted her too. The genie is more than out of the bottle, it is jammed down throats worldwide. Knowing that something exists and that your circumstances prohibit even the dream of having your taste breeds a deep, dangerous, easily manipulated resentment.
I hope The New York Times is right, that common ground can be established and that West 44th Street does not end up a radioactive graveyard.
In Europe and Elsewhere, Bush’s New War Strategy Is Greeted With Skepticism
By ALAN COWELL - New York Times
Published: January 13, 2007
LONDON, Jan. 12 — Whatever the impact of President’s Bush’s new strategy for Iraq in Baghdad or in Baquba, it has won few converts across a worried world, where dismay and hostility toward the American expedition have grown while support trickles away.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/world/europe/13react.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Today the BBC News published what may go down as one of the most biased, one sided polls in the history of surveys. To prove the point that the entire world is against George Bush they went ahead and offered a random quote from residents of over twenty countries. All comments were negative. Do I have to explain how ridiculous this is?
Press savages Bush's Iraq plan
BBC World News - 01/11/07
President Bush's new strategy in Iraq is given a clear thumbs down by many commentators in the international press.
Many believe sending in more US troops will only fuel the violence, with several comparing the situation to the escalation of the Vietnam War.
Other papers describe the president's latest plan as "too little, too late".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6255361.stm
The Surge Gamble :
All eyes now turn to Baghdad and Sadr City.
By Victor Davis Hanson
This was not Churchill, not FDR, and not JFK Wednesday night, and there was not quite enough about winning and victory — but the content was still good enough.
Many of us were skeptical of a surge/bump/increase for an obvious reason: Our military problems in Iraq have been tactical and strategic (too-slow training too few Iraqis, arrest/release of terrorists, too many targets off limits, patrolling in lieu of attacking, worry over our own force protection rather than securing the safety of Iraqi citizens, open borders with Syria and Iran, etc.) — and not a shortage of manpower.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWUyYTI0ZGVhNGIyZTE0NDQwNzZiNzAxYTU3ODVhMmU=
Playback Editor
The American left is so full of hatred for George Bush, so bitterly determined for Hillary (Mom) to succeed in 2008 that they have lost all perspective and rationality. The ramifications of their partisan behavior will do far more than bring down this president and insure defeat in Iraq; such actions may ultimately cost us an American city. (Such loss will be blamed on Bush whenever it occurs.)
Today the left can taste blow back for everything from Monicagate to a self-destructing Howard Dean. The damage to our security as a result of the partisan emasculation of a wartime president has gotten lost in the frenzy. The left is too immersed in their 21st Century dream of Camelot. Dreams of Hillary, Bill and Barbara again on stage with Fleetwood Mac, blue balloons and peace signs in the air. A disgraced Bush exiled to rural Texas. Cheney in a coffin. This is their moment to realize their dream and they are going for broke.
Their strategy may very well work. They deny, shift (do the Kerry), point fingers at Bush and let the media do the rest. No man can struggle against the spirit of his country or make his contemporaries share feelings that run counter to their hopes and desires. (Tocqueville) This especially applies to leaders who lack the fluid communication skills necessary to lead a nation ignorant of history and in possession of a very short attention span. President Bush, honest, brave and resolute to a point , is such a man. He simply can no longer sell the significance of winning this war to the American public. The window is almost closed.
In last night's address, the president personally admitted mistakes, defined new strategies and put Iraq's government on notice. He stressed the importance of victory to our national interests. He spoke openly about Iran and Syria impacting the war and how he intends to deal with them. He was direct and he was honest. It bought him zero reprieve. From the moment the speech ended, tribal drums and screams were heard across the country. The focus was not on what to do next. It was all about driving the final spike into Bush.
The Left's immediate response was to butcher Bush with attacks. Prior to the speech MSNBC had the atmosphere of a tailgate party. Chris Matthews was literally foaming and drooling. Keith Olbermann's eyes glared with customary smug, condescending glee, displaying the trademark childlike behavior and massive insecurities that got him fired from ESPN 2. (The cradle of journalism)
CNN was a bit more professional. Their pre-speech coverage resembled hospice service, their post speech, an autopsy. The often criticized Fox, the only network with a double digit percentage of bi-partisanship representation, took a position of acknowledging a grim moment in American history without throwing in the towel. Fox was the only network asking time and again, definitively, "If we leave, what then Nancy?"
Democracy is facing a 21st century gut check. Religious fanatics sponsored by state governments are eager to get their hands on weapons capable of leveling our cities. If acquired, they will not hesitate to use them. If successful, hundreds of millions in the Muslim world will celebrate in the streets. This is the mentality and challenge we are up against.
The question is how to stop this from happening. Will we fight as necessary to maintain our security or will our ideological differences neuter us, ultimately insuring disaster? There is little question over whether we could prevail if we fought with the ruthlessness of a Hussein, an Assad or Osama. It is no coincidence that the ironfisted Saddam was able to keep Iraq united for decades while we have floundered.
President Bush's most effective line from a military perspective was when he said he would loosen the handcuffs on the troops. To what degree this transpires into reality remains to be seen. The media will be watching everywhere, eager to broadcast any mistake worldwide. At the same time the "save the whales crowd" will be marching in the streets, screaming for the end of the war, never bothering with presenting a rational endgame alternative.
All of this will continue to play out worldwide, real time. We have become "The Truman Show". The administration is extremely aware of this. It's been their biggest challenge since the war began. Our opponents count on it as a key to their success. They watched Arafat master western media manipulation for decades against the Israelis. Their game plan has been to flood our cable networks with carnage so that the Keith Olbermann's will pound it home to an American public preoccupied with American Idol, Donald and Rosie. Why mess with success?
In the days following 9-11, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netenyahu addressed the United Nations, telling the civilized world that we have the skill to defeat the terrorist threat. He followed by questioning if we have the will. It is a question that remains to be answered. Will the United States shift necessary gears, stay the course and emerge victorious or crumble and suffer the consequences? History is written by the victors and one hell of a chapter is coming up.
After reading today's New York Times editorial, I have terrible concerns it might be written in Persian. You don't have to strain to hear them laughing in Tehran. If the Left's media campaign succeeds and we withdraw, People Magazine's next ad campaign (If People Magazine still exists) won't read "save Darfur" , it will read "Where's Clooney?"
You see the sexiest man alive won't be in the line of fire. He will have long fled the country, having been been privately jetted to his ten million dollar villa in the Italian Rivera. The question is where will you and your children be?
New York Times Editorial
The Real Disaster
Published: January 11, 2007
President Bush told Americans last night that failure in Iraq would be a disaster. The disaster is Mr. Bush’s war, and he has already failed. Last night was his chance to stop offering more fog and be honest with the nation, and he did not take it.
Americans needed to hear a clear plan to extricate United States troops from the disaster that Mr. Bush created. What they got was more gauzy talk of victory in the war on terrorism and of creating a “young democracy” in Iraq. In other words, a way for this president to run out the clock and leave his mess for the next one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/11/opinion/11thu1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Letter to the Editor dated 01/10/07
A New Stratergy
By: 449 Quentin
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Both George Bush and his Democratic opponents ought to take note of this.
Bush has been staring like a deer in the headlights ever since he did his little photo op flying onto the aircraft carrier and declaring victory. When the Islamo Facists continued to wage war, he had no idea what to do next. Letting our troops drive around Iraq until they get blown up is not a strategic plan. His Democratic opponents continue to preach appeasement at any price and to rule out force as an option. Maybe it’s time to really strategize and come up with something different.
Abraham Lincoln kept switching generals until he found Grant and the key to victory. Stalin issued Order No. 27 during the summer of 1941 which allowed deserter’s to be shot by the thousands until deserter's stopped retreating. Maybe Bush and the Democrats should do some creative thinking and try something new. Maybe there is a way to get out of Iraq without handing the enemy a victory. Maybe the way to do that would be to leave Iraq and attack Iran. Now. Maybe the United States Congress should stop dining with lobbyists and vote on what they are legally charged with deciding.
If Iran goes nuclear and we wake up one morning and find Chicago missing, where do we send the bill? To North Korea, China, Iran, Hizbollah, Al Qaida or Russia? Nuclear proliferation is a bigger nightmare than taking Iran out now. Hopefully we will have learned not to proceed as we did in Iraq. Fighting in back alleys and taking casualties is not the way to endear an American public that is addicted to celebrities and is endlessly obsessed with sports.
We learned the hard way not to invade Arab countries with ground troops. However ground troops are not our only option. All we have to do is send the Navy and the Air force and slowly pick them apart; starting with port facilities and railroads then incrementally move to the rest of their infrastructure. When the locals start to run out of electricity, food, water, gasoline and heat they will decide on their own to make a deal and they will kick out the mullahs. Sitting in a cold, dark house without television and an empty refrigerator is a powerful motivator. Then we can really bring the troops home.
