Iran-Russia Talks in Failure

What amazes me here is not that Russia cares about the spread of nuclear materials or U.N. sanctions; they are pissed off about not getting paid. This is exactly how the world worked in Iraq for a decade under an ineffective U.N. and a corrupt international community. All of which seriously added to the Bush administration's decision to attack Iraq.

As Russia proves today, there is no such thing as allies. There are strategic alliances, just like in business.

Mar. 9, 2007 14:14
Iran-Russia talks end in failure
By ASSOCIATED PRESS MOSCOW

Three days of talks aimed at resolving a funding dispute over the Russian-built Bushehr nuclear plant in Iran ended in failure Friday, signaling yet another delay in the start-up of Iran's first atomic power plant and potentially new tension between Tehran and Moscow.

With the UN nuclear watchdog agency imposing new punitive measures against Tehran, analysts said that Russia's tough stance shows Moscow's readiness to dump support for its ally and trading partner and join the United States and other Western nations in drafting new, tougher sanctions over Iran's uranium enrichment effort.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173173971307&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Krauthammer on the Libby Verdict

And so it goes, this thing of ours - and how nauseating and ultimately self-destructive. I can honestly say I do not know enough about the history of the case to offer a definitive opinion, but based on its coverage, it reeks of partisan politics.

The media in this country presents America's greatest challenge for survival the 21st century. The ultimate question is if the partisan politics will nullify our strengths to the point where America becomes second rate or vulnerable enough to be destroyed by those who hate us.

Fitzgerald's Folly
A Textbook Case for a Speedy Pardon
By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 9, 2007

There are lies and there are memory lapses. Bill Clinton denied under oath having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Unless you're Wilt Chamberlain, sex is not the kind of thing you forget easily. Sandy Berger denied stuffing classified documents in his pants, an act not quite as elaborate as sex, but still involving a lot of muscle memory and unlikely to have been honestly forgotten.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/08/AR2007030801499.html

Chavez: So Predictable and Transparent...

Isn't it interesting to see thug/strongman Hugo Chavez so upset over the United States push into the energy plans for South America that he goes out of his way to stage protest rallies instead of embracing a strategy to better serve the South American continent. All of these bullsh-t artists are the same. They want power for themselves and their cronies. They are terribly threatened by the United States and they go to any extreme to point fingers and divert attention from facts.

If Chavez gave a damn about anything other than his own attempts at grabbing power, he would at least attempt to meet with the United States and work towards a bigger, better goal. Instead, following his circus act at the U.N. last year, he is making more of a fool out of himself by leading anti-U.S. marches.

Where are the members of our media supporting the president on this one? I know Ken Olbermann

Chavez countering Bush tour with 'cry of rebellion'
POSTED: 11:50 a.m. EST, March 9, 2007
CNN News

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (Reuters) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez on Friday attacked President Bush's anti-poverty and energy plans for Latin America as the two ideological opponents embarked on rival tours in the region.

"He's a symbol of domination, and we are a cry of rebellion against the domination. ... He's trying to trick our people to divide us," Chavez told reporters before he met with fellow leftist President Nestor Kirchner of Argentina.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/03/09/chavez.antibush.reut/index.html

New York Times would rather see Chavez succeed than George Bush

The New York Times has now evolved from a highly respected newspaper to a left wing op-ed publication to one that endangers the best interests of the United States. There is really no other way to interpreter the New York Times coverage of President Bush's South American tour to promote ethanol.

Every sane person must agree that it is in our best interests to find alternatives to oil usage. Brazil has been making a successful case for ethanol over the past few years. As President Bush attempts to promote the growth of ethanol usage and the alliances necessary for such an effort to develop, he can once again count on the New York Times and it;s influence to work against him.

The New York Times has decided upon a two-tiered strategy on coverage of this trip. The first is to make it read and appear as low level importance. The second is to force a negative spin on it, focusing on protesters positioning the U.S. again as acting as the imperial giant from the north come to manipulate and exploit the poor.

No where in the coverage does the New York Times detail that the protesters were mostly puppets of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, who wants total control over the region for himself. The way the Times manages to position the article, the reader cannot help but come away questioning and actually rooting against their own government on perhaps the most crucial issue of the day.

I find it reckless, terribly wrong as well as working against the best interests of the U.S.

Visit by Bush Fires Up Latins’ Debate Over Socialism

By JIM RUTENBERG and LARRY ROHTER
Published: March 9, 2007

SÃO PAULO, Brazil, March 8 — President Bush has portrayed his trip to Latin America this week as a “We Care” tour aimed at dispelling perceptions that he has neglected his southern neighbors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/world/americas/09latin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin