The Republican attack machine unleashes ... the New York Times?
By Edward N. Luttwak
BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. The resulting emotional intensity adds greatly to the more conventional strengths of the well-organized Obama campaign, and it has certainly sufficed to overcome the formidable initial advantages of Senator Hillary Clinton.
One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.
This idea often goes hand in hand with the altogether more plausible argument that Mr. Obamas election would raise Americas esteem in Africa indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in his fathers native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent.
But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mothers Christian background is irrelevant.
Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is irtidad or ridda, usually translated from the Arabic as apostasy, but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victims family may choose to forgive).
With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obamas case.)
It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Irans Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.
For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.
Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.
At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obamas conversion to Christianity once it became widely known as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.
That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the worlds Muslims is the least realistic.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/10/2008 13:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
The Republican attack machine unleashes ... the New York Times?
By Edward N. Luttwak
BARACK OBAMA has emerged as a classic example of charismatic leadership a figure upon whom others project their own hopes and desires. The resulting emotional intensity adds greatly to the more conventional strengths of the well-organized Obama campaign, and it has certainly sufficed to overcome the formidable initial advantages of Senator Hillary Clinton.
One danger of such charisma, however, is that it can evoke unrealistic hopes of what a candidate could actually accomplish in office regardless of his own personal abilities. Case in point is the oft-made claim that an Obama presidency would be welcomed by the Muslim world.
This idea often goes hand in hand with the altogether more plausible argument that Mr. Obamas election would raise Americas esteem in Africa indeed, he already arouses much enthusiasm in his fathers native Kenya and to a degree elsewhere on the continent.
But it is a mistake to conflate his African identity with his Muslim heritage. Senator Obama is half African by birth and Africans can understandably identify with him. In Islam, however, there is no such thing as a half-Muslim. Like all monotheistic religions, Islam is an exclusive faith.
As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mothers Christian background is irrelevant.
Of course, as most Americans understand it, Senator Obama is not a Muslim. He chose to become a Christian, and indeed has written convincingly to explain how he arrived at his choice and how important his Christian faith is to him.
His conversion, however, was a crime in Muslim eyes; it is irtidad or ridda, usually translated from the Arabic as apostasy, but with connotations of rebellion and treason. Indeed, it is the worst of all crimes that a Muslim can commit, worse than murder (which the victims family may choose to forgive).
With few exceptions, the jurists of all Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith not under duress; the recommended punishment is beheading at the hands of a cleric, although in recent years there have been both stonings and hangings. (Some may point to cases in which lesser punishments were ordered as with some Egyptian intellectuals who have been punished for writings that were construed as apostasy but those were really instances of supposed heresy, not explicitly declared apostasy as in Senator Obamas case.)
It is true that the criminal codes in most Muslim countries do not mandate execution for apostasy (although a law doing exactly that is pending before Irans Parliament and in two Malaysian states). But as a practical matter, in very few Islamic countries do the governments have sufficient authority to resist demands for the punishment of apostates at the hands of religious authorities.
For example, in Iran in 1994 the intervention of Pope John Paul II and others won a Christian convert a last-minute reprieve, but the man was abducted and killed shortly after his release. Likewise, in 2006 in Afghanistan, a Christian convert had to be declared insane to prevent his execution, and he was still forced to flee to Italy.
Because no government is likely to allow the prosecution of a President Obama not even those of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the only two countries where Islamic religious courts dominate over secular law another provision of Muslim law is perhaps more relevant: it prohibits punishment for any Muslim who kills any apostate, and effectively prohibits interference with such a killing.
At the very least, that would complicate the security planning of state visits by President Obama to Muslim countries, because the very act of protecting him would be sinful for Islamic security guards. More broadly, most citizens of the Islamic world would be horrified by the fact of Senator Obamas conversion to Christianity once it became widely known as it would, no doubt, should he win the White House. This would compromise the ability of governments in Muslim nations to cooperate with the United States in the fight against terrorism, as well as American efforts to export democracy and human rights abroad.
That an Obama presidency would cause such complications in our dealings with the Islamic world is not likely to be a major factor with American voters, and the implication is not that it should be. But of all the well-meaning desires projected on Senator Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the worlds Muslims is the least realistic.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/10/2008 13:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
I beg your pardon but I enjoyed this so much, I couldn't stop myself from posting the whole darn thing...
A patron saint for George W.
By Wesley Pruden
"Davy Crockett is the patron saint of every politician who ever left Washington with a bruised ego and a broken heart. When he was bounced out of Congress in 1830, Davy told the folks on the banks of the Nolichucky River in Tennessee: 'I'm going to Texas, and the rest of you can go to hell.'
"Departing presidents have left town nursing similar sentiments but avoided saying them out loud. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, continuing their endless rassling match today in Indiana and North Carolina, could take Davy Crockett's benediction as a caution. George W. Bush surely feels like Crockett is kin, and there's the fantasy of a speech floating across the Internet that George W. could but never would deliver. But if he had only the self-discipline of his critics, this is what he might say:
"'If the polls are right, more than half of you don't regard yourselves as 'my fellow Americans, so I'll cut right to the chase. I'm getting out of Dodge. Before anyone gets in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, let me assure you that no laws were broken, the Constitution is intact. I'm quitting because I'm fed up with you people. You have no interest in what's actually going on in the world. Most of you are too lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
"'Let's start local. The politicians and pundits have persuaded you that the economy is in the tank. That's despite record numbers of homeowners, including record numbers of minority homeowners. Minority business ownership is at record levels, too. Our unemployment rate is as low as it ever was during the Clinton administration. The stock market has rebounded to record levels and more Americans than ever own stocks. But all you can do is whine about gasoline prices, and most of you are too dumb to realize that the price of gasoline is high because the Chinese and the Indians are driving cars now, and because Al Gore and a handful of wacko greenheads are more worried about polar bears and their beachfront property than they are about you.
"'I'm tired of this 'blood for oil' crap. If I were trading blood for oil, I would have seized Iraq's oil fields a long time ago. And don't give me this 'Bush lied, people died' crap, either. I could have planted chemical weapons all over Iraq to be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty. The rest of the world thought Saddam Hussein had the goods, too, same as me.
"'Fools don't understand that we face a unique enemy. The 'soldiers' of our new enemy, unlike our old Soviet enemies, are actually eager to die. That's OK with me, and good riddance, as long as they aren't trying to take as many of you with them as they can. But they want to kill you in the name of what I generously called 'the religion of peace' (not that I ever believed it any more than you do). You all should be grateful that the Islamists haven't killed more of us here in the United States since September 11, but you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that.
"'I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight, but most of you think 'a long and difficult fight' amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.' You won't look through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do.
"'The facts are easy enough to find. They're all over the Internet, along with a lot of stuff that ain't true. You have to pay attention and sort it out, but most of you would rather watch 'American Idol'. I could say more about your idiotic belief that government, not your own wallet, is where money comes from. But it would sail right over your heads.
"'So I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there that Al Gore could only dream of. Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Nancy Pelosi will be your new president. God bless what's left of America. Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you can kiss my you know what.'
"We might well think he wants to say all that. But of course presidents would never say such things."
#1
So there's a white Wright? From the same Obama neighborhood? Friends with Rev, Wright, too? How conciliatory. How un-devisive. Real Change at its best.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/10/2008 6:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Obama promises to bring change to the country. If he wins I suspect there will a big coat-tails effect and he will be able effect some change. The only thing, I suspect that change is all Americans will have in their pockets if he gets his way.
In trying to understand news about the conflicts in Iraq, I work to keep in mind the difference between what we know now about decision making in World War II and what most Americans knew at the time. From the memoirs and documents published after the war, we've learned how leaders made critical judgments. But at the time, even well-informed journalists only could guess at what was going on behind the scenes.
Today we're only beginning to learn about what went on behind the scenes in regard to Iraq. One important new source is the recently published "War and Decision" by Douglas Feith, the No. 3 civilian at the Pentagon from 2001 to 2005. Feith quotes extensively from unpublished documents and contemporary memorandums, just as in the late 1940s Robert Sherwood did in "Roosevelt and Hopkins" and Winston Churchill did in his World War II histories. The picture Feith paints is at considerable variance from the narratives with which we've become familiar.
One such narrative is, "Bush lied; people died." The claim is that "neocons," including Feith, politicized intelligence to show that Saddam Hussein's regime had weapons of mass destruction. Not so, as the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Silberman-Robb Commission have concluded already. Every intelligence agency believed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and the post-invasion Duelfer report concluded that he maintained the capability to produce them on short notice. There was abundant evidence of contacts between Saddam's regime and al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Given Saddam's hostility to the United States and his stonewalling of the United Nations, American leaders had every reason to believe he posed a grave threat. Removing him removed that threat.
Unfortunately -- and here Feith is critical of his ultimate boss, George W. Bush -- the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren't found. Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others. The fact that millions of law-abiding Americans have guns is not a problem; the problem is that criminals can get them and have the will to kill others. Similarly, the fact that France has WMDs is not a problem; the fact that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and the will to use them against us was.
Feith identifies as our central mistake the decision not to create an Iraqi Interim Authority to take over some sovereign functions soon after the overthrow of Saddam. Bush ordered the creation of such an authority March 10, 2003. But it was resisted by State Department and CIA leaders, who argued that Iraqis would not trust "externals" -- those in exile -- and who were especially determined to keep the Iraqi National Congress' Ahmed Chalabi from power. As head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Paul Bremer took the State-CIA view and, without much supervision from Washington, decided that the U.S. occupation would continue for as long as two years. Only deft negotiation by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld produced a June 30, 2004, deadline for returning authority to Iraqis. The January 2005 elections placed many of the "externals," including Chalabi, in high office.
Feith admits he made mistakes and misjudgments. He criticizes Bush for not defending the main rationale for invasion -- protecting Americans from a genuine threat -- and instead emphasizing the subsidiary and iffy goal of establishing democracy. He says little about military operations, beyond noting that Bremer and the military leaders had no common approach to combating disorder.
There's still much to be learned about our decisions, good and bad, in Iraq. But Feith's book is a step forward, as were those of Sherwood and Churchill 60 years ago.
#1
Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others.
This is a subset of the real liberal fallacy: they believe that, in the end, mankind is perfectable. If you push hard enough, work hard enough, get rid of the reprobates and re-educate everyone else, we'll have a paradise on mother Gaia herself.
Whereas the truth is (as noted in the Bible and other religious writings), mankind is not and will never be perfectable.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/10/2008 21:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
mankind is not and will never be perfectable.
exhibit one: see "Frank G"
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/10/2008 21:48 Comments ||
Top||
Ever since the prime minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, launched Operation Cavalry Charge in Basra on March 25, which has been going on there and elsewhere across Iraq, three important conclusions can be drawn: the Iraqi state and the Iraqi army can function on their own; an influential figure in Iraq, Muqtada al-Sadr, is much weaker than he was deemed to be; and Iran has bet on the wrong horse.
As a result of being unable to rely on Mr. Sadrs organization, Iran would lose a menacing avenue for retaliation against America should Irans illicit nuclear program get attacked.
Basra had a moment of clarity, illuminating the convergence of several positive trends in Iraq. Whats driving these trends is a sense among regular Iraqis that their state has outlasted its challengers, whether they are Sunni insurgents, organized crime cartels, or hostile regional powers. Basra is Exhibit A for those who argue that Iraqs remaining problems are fixable, that the achievements seen so far are irreversible, and that a sense of patriotic cohesion is salvageable and viable.
Consequently, the events in Basra do not sit well with those who have argued otherwise and staked their careers and credibility to the storyline that Iraq is irredeemable, such as the many journalists and pundits who have been covering Iraq over the last five years. This has seemingly induced them to fabricate a negative and false narrative in the hope that their predictions would go unchallenged.
Six weeks ago, Iraqi policemen in Basra were dodging RPG projectiles fired by teenagers. These days, though, they keep themselves busy with house-to-house sweeps in search for weapons caches. Moreover, on a daily basis, they issue hundreds of tickets for traffic and parking violations. Indeed, the situation in Basra has changed dramatically.
The violence in Basra was not sectarian in nature even though Iraqs southernmost province first in potential wealth with between 60% and 70% of the countrys oil and second, after Baghdad, in its population size boasts a significant Sunni minority, as well as Christian, Mandean, and non-mainstream Shia denominations.
Basras chaos resulted from a unique mélange of Iranian meddling, proliferation of organized crime, and Britains unsteady hand in running military and political matters. The Americans had delegated Basras management to their British allies, who ended up ruining things in Iraqs most promising piece of real estate.
However, it is not surprising that the British would mismanage a place that they had thoroughly studied a little over 90 years ago, the first time they came to occupy Basra as a result of World War I.
Basra was founded by the Arabs who invaded the city 1,400 years ago. They used it as an operating base against the Persian Empire. It became a military base in a land teaming with Jews, Christians, and Manichean peasants, all of various Semitic extractions.
In that intensely fertile land, a land open to the influences and trade of the Indian Ocean, many propagandists roamed and many bastard children were left by a passing sailor. Thus, the pure-bred Arabian tribes that were settled south of the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates were instilled with a distinct identity that meant that ones roots in Basra would set one apart from those who originated in Baghdad or Nejd or Isfahan.
But something of the original mission against Persia seems to have survived among Basras original Arab tribes, for today it forms the backbone of the tribal elements that have flocked to Mr. Malikis side in his battle against the organized crime cartels criminality that had found political refuge and patronage within the Sadrist movement.
This divide is historical in origin too: most of these Sadrists descend from destitute families that escaped the poverty and tribal hierarchies of the nearby Amara Province in the 1930s and 1940s. They were looking for menial work and if that was not available, they turned to a life of crime. Some of their kin also flooded into Baghdad, creating the human overflow in the slums that would become Sadr City. A derogatory name was coined for the boorish newcomer: shroogi or easterner. In the last five years, being a Sadrist was almost synonymous with shroogi ancestry.
Various troublemakers in modern Iraq have made up their unruly mobs with these dislocated social misfits. The Iranians are no different as they set about establishing a parallel contingency plan in Iraq that would unleash chaos and terror should America contemplate a war against Tehran. That is supposed to be Irans strategic deterrence.
Once Mr. Maliki launched Operation Cavalry Charge, the Iranians and the organized crime cartels that they have been patronizing realized that they were no match for a prime minister who is bent on their destruction. He had enough soldiers with armored vehicles to withstand that first volley of Iranian-supplied RPGs that were unleashed when his troops drove down previously no-go alleyways. Mr. al-Maliki also rallied the silent majority of Basra to reclaim their city after they had receded into the safety of their homes. The Iraqi state had endured the worst, and came back to reclaim its turf.
Mr. Maliki can draw upon a war chest of $60 billion from this years budget. He has enough bags of money to entice the bulk of the shroogis away from life on the margins and into the benevolence of the state. He offered them a newer sense of belonging within the ranks of the government-employed lower middle-classes.
Over the last five weeks, the Iraqi army has smashed through many myths that have been internalized by Iraq-watchers about the weakness of the Iraqi state, the strength of the Sadrists, and the omnipresence of the Iranians.
Last year, many had speculated that Mr. Malikis government would collapse as a result of a boycott by the Sadrists. Periodically since then, some have been holding their breath every time a confrontation between Messrs. Sadr and Maliki seemed imminent. Yet no lessons were drawn about who has the upper hand even though Mr. Sadr has been the one to back down at every juncture.
If some worry that the Iranians may unleash a Sadrist deluge against the Green Zone should America conduct a bombing run against Irans nuclear facilities this summer, then those worries should be downgraded. It seems now, as the Iraqi state keeps pressing on, that the Sadrists will fold easily.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC ||
05/10/2008 00:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Mahdi Army
#1
the new question is, how well is iran at multitasking? Do their network interfaces have the bandwidth required to function against multi pronged assaults, of varying complexity?
its apparent now, that such a test is near. Achmans broad sweping rhetoric serves to ignite and inflame sensibilities across wide swaths of potential. While each network node might have specific interests being inflamed, the specifics of which, narrow within the infrared, and a common illuminated source is show for what it is.
this will become a time of network nodes, as bots, unleashed to common purpose....a model for counterprogramming the unleashed meglomania is completed. flip the switch...
#3
Iran - and the mainstream western media - has bet on the wrong horse...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
05/10/2008 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
the Iraqi state and the Iraqi army can function on their own
Funny, everything I see on the issue leads me to believe that USA forces doing most of the work (probably also keeping an careful eye on their Iraqi "allies"---getting shot in the back ain't healthy)
#1
by what logic are the Palestinian Arabs deemed entitled to their own state today? Palestinian Arabs are no more a nation and no more entitled to their own state than are the Arabs of Detroit or of Paris.
JERUSALEM: The overwhelming view in Israel on Friday, just hours after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared his innocence in a bribery investigation involving a Long Island businessman, was that the post-Olmert political era had already begun.
Calls for his resignation came from left, right and center although all acknowledged that by vowing, as he did Thursday night, to resign if charged, Olmert had won himself time. The investigation will probably take another month or two.
Gaza is going to explode. Lebanon currently is exploding. Syria is a constant menace. Iran is waiting in the wings. And Israel has this putz as a leader. If you want another 60 years, folks, you'd better upgrade the prime minister office real soon.
"The public doesn't have too much more patience," Colette Avital, a member of Parliament from the Labor Party, a partner in the governing coalition with Olmert's Kadima party, asserted in a typical comment. "He is simply discredited. It may take some more weeks or even months, but he won't be able to go on."
Since Olmert has been investigated several times before and proved himself to be a highly skilled political survivor - a "Houdini," in the words of a senior official who spoke on the condition of anonymity - his political obituary may yet again prove premature.
But this inquiry is widely viewed as the most serious, involving allegations that hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes were passed to him by a New York businessman, Morris Talansky, over the course of a decade. Olmert said that they were legal campaign contributions and that his name would be cleared. "I look in the eye of each and every one of you and say: I never took a bribe. I never took a penny in my pocket," he said at a news conference late Thursday night.
Shalom Yerushalmi, a commentator for the newspaper Maariv, wrote Friday that while the prime minister was asking to be believed, "if the public could respond collectively it would, of course, ask: 'Why? For how many years can we hear about your escapades with the police and go on believing you?' "
Numerous analysts argued that Israel's intense security challenges could not effectively be met by a leader benefiting from such low public confidence. Peace negotiations with the Palestinians, a process that President George W. Bush is hoping to bolster by coming here next week, and moves toward Syria require hard decisions, especially in the wake of the violent Hezbollah takeover of parts of Beirut on Friday.
"Until now, Olmert was threatened but surviving, and it seemed he needed the peace negotiations as a source of strength, which Palestinian negotiators appreciated," said Ghassan Khatib, a Palestinian lecturer in cultural studies at Bir Zeit University in the West Bank. "But now it feels like he is headed out, and that is very bad news for the negotiations. For Hamas, of course, which has long said the peace talks were useless, this will be a plus, another chance to say, 'I told you so.' "
Abraham Friedman, a former civil service commissioner and now dean of management studies at the Center for Academic Studies or Yehuda, said that both right and left had reason to seek Olmert's departure. "On the right, they are afraid that he is so desperate that he will be willing to agree with the Syrians on things he wouldn't otherwise," Friedman said. "On the left, they may want the peace to move forward, but they have made a big issue of fighting corruption in government. So the pressure is from both sides."
Yuval Steinitz, a member of the opposition Likud party in Parliament, took the opportunity to condemn the entire foreign policy of Olmert and his foreign minister, Tzipi Livni. "Today we can see clearly that Olmert and Livni deluded us and maybe themselves when, after the second Lebanon war two years ago, they said that Hezbollah had become much weaker," Steinitz said. "Today we see it was a lie."
In that month-long war, Israel fought against Hezbollah, which, like Hamas in Gaza, is heavily supported by Iran and seeks Israel's destruction. "We may end up with an Iranian mini-state in Lebanon as well as one in Gaza, and the political trouble in Jerusalem makes it much harder for Israel to react as it should," Steinitz added. "But, of course, this is not just a problem for Israel but for the whole Western world, especially the United States and France."
In theory, even if Olmert steps down at some point, the government could continue under Livni. The Labor Party, led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak, says that for now it will stay in the government and not cause it to fall.
Regarding the talks with the Palestinians, Asher Arian, a senior fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute and a public opinion expert, said Olmert's situation was paradoxical. "People are interested in peace, but not in 'peace' in inverted commas - not any peace at any price," he said. "It seems to me there were big doubts about the package he was about to produce. So he begins from a very weak position, and this blow weakens him even more."
If it is harder for Olmert to make peace, there remains the possibility of his making war - a major incursion into Gaza, for example, that could unify a country faced with rockets and border attacks from the Hamas-controlled area.
But that seemed even less likely, because taking a country's soldiers to war requires an esteemed leader. "Constitutionally, of course, he has the legitimacy," Arian said. "Morally, it's a problem."
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/10/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Peace negotiations with the Palestinians, a process that President George W. Bush is hoping to bolster by coming here next week, and moves toward Syria require hard decisions, especially in the wake of the violent Hezbollah takeover of parts of Beirut on Friday.
The American College of Physicians (ACP), the nation's second largest professional body of physicians, has declared their endorsement for the medicinal use of cannabis.
The announcement comes after many arduous years of fighting between the federal government and states like California that have passed their own laws regarding medical marijuana. In short, the ACP feels that cannabis' classification as a Schedule I drug is unjustified in lieu of objective evidence to support its dangers and that the federal government has refuted what some say is overwhelming evidence supporting its medicinal value.
The ACP's big brother, the American Medical Association (AMA), has never indicated support for the rescheduling of marijuana, but has urged for further research into the nature of cannabinols and other cannabis-related chemicals. Some hope that little brother's announcement may sway the AMA.
"Duude, the American College of Physicians says, like, don't bogart the stash."
Posted by: Mike ||
05/10/2008 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I've been for this for years. There are more and more professionals that I know that are occasional closet tokers. Like any other drug, you have to be aware of the side effects, like, losing your train of LOOK AT THAT BIRD OVER THERE!
Oh, I thought I saw something. But never mind. You drink from your cup and I'll drink from mine.
You guessed wrong.
You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...
#6
I keep refreshing, but there's no bird. Wait! oh...no bird
D'oh!
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/10/2008 19:46 Comments ||
Top||
#7
One of the best friends of my brother the pharmacist is addicted to cannabis (if feels so odd to use the botanical term, but if that's what the professionals are using...), and has been since high school. He's a county assistant prosecuting attorney. Otherwise he's a wonderful man, a good husband and father, and a crackerjack lawyer.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/10/2008 21:01 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"or is that whom's? I get so confused"
Tokin' again, Frank? ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
05/10/2008 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
#10
hey, at least it's not a skull bong!
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/10/2008 21:46 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Uses daily, Frank G., can't function as usual without it. There's always a small subset of the population excessively sensitive to something. Mr. Wife could die of anaphylactic shock if he ate an apple. The last time he tried, they kept him in hospital for three days.
#12
TW - that's a singular failing in that person. There's no evidence Pot leads to addiction in people who did not already exhibit the same behavior, IIUC. Just like alcohol, if you have the dependencies "itch", you'll find your fix. Pot would seem the least-immediate-gratification of all the opportunities. I went to college - I know :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/10/2008 23:02 Comments ||
Top||
#13
While you slam back Scotch Pot Rots Your Tots!
#1
overall, this will damage the Islamist movement.
When the Gazan's voted in Hamas, they got what they asked for. It wasn't pretty. Beirut will be yet another example for the rest of the Muslim world to see what happens when they get what they ask for. It can only frighten sense into them. Just like the communist movement, it all sounds so pretty on paper. But as their wishes are granted, the sane "believers" are forced to reevaluate.
I think Beriut will have an even greater impact once the city degenerates under Islamist thug-like control. It will not have an immediate effect, but in the long term it will erode the support for their movement.
The Legend of Hezbollah ceased to be after it turned its weapon internally on Lebanon. In the wake of [Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan] Nasrallah's speech and after declaring war on Siniora's government; the party and its leader (the architect of the divine victory) have been exposed for what they truly are.
Hezbollah is not concerned with a balanced Lebanon and does not care much for a Lebanon for all Lebanese. Lebanon is not for Sunnis or Shia; neither is it for Druze or Christians Lebanon is for all the Lebanese people.
Lebanon is a state based on diversity, not the state of a supreme guide or an [Baath Party founder] Aflaq party. Hezbollah's hijacking of Beirut, which it has been actually occupying since the famous sit-in, has revealed that the talk about resistance was just a cover and a big lie to which the Arabs have been accustomed repeatedly as well as to believing it.
This lie about Hezbollah's resistance is one we have encountered often in our contemporary history, and we still continue to believe it and argue over it even though we know that it is nothing but a lie.
Lebanon's issue is not the airport or that of an officer who disobeys the state and obeys a party's orders but the principal issue is the lie and believing it, the lie that leads to the destruction of our nations.
A lie we saw in the summer war of 2006. Some believed at the time that Hassan Nasrallah had taught Israel a harsh lesson. But what was the price of this lesson? Of course, a broken Lebanon, a besieged government, ministers under house arrest in a hotel, a state begging for money, and more imperative than all this 1,000 Lebanese killed, sacrificed for Nasrallah.
We are used to lies and have become accustomed to living with lies in the Arab world; how else could Iran be capable of setting up a telecommunications network for Hezbollah that operates outside the state's framework and then have the party consider the communications company part of the resistance weapon, just like the airport and the airport manager - so what remains of Lebanon as a state?
What is happening in Lebanon today is clear evidence that Hezbollah must be disarmed and the state must impose its authority over all Lebanon and it should not be in the hands of Nasrallah, Iran, and Syria. Lebanon must be a state administered by a cabinet, not from secret hideouts.
Therefore when I say we have become accustomed to lies, this is not emotional talk or the targeting of the Shia as a community. Have we forgotten that Sunni Hamas swept over and occupied Gaza and declared a coup? And what is the difference now when we have a party occupying Beirut, a group occupying Gaza, with Iran and Syria's support?
Hezbollah's legend has most certainly ended. But the price of discovering the lie of Hassan Nasrallah and his party is going to be costly for Lebanon and the Lebanese and the Arab world as a whole. We are facing a new chapter that is as bad as the previous one in which the Lebanese citizen will pay a very heavy price and therefore those toying with Lebanon must pay a price that ensures an end to the era of violating Lebanon.
#6
Should have been "frenchs", I never known when to put a S to english adjectives, since they're normally invariable or something.
I was referring to the Drakkar bombing... or to the 1986 Paris bombings string, sponsored by iran.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
I beg your pardon but I enjoyed this so much, I couldn't stop myself from posting the whole darn thing...
Unfortunately -- and here Feith is critical of his ultimate boss, George W. Bush -- the administration allowed its critics to frame the issue around the fact that stockpiles of weapons weren't found. Here we see at work the liberal fallacy, apparent in debates on gun control, that weapons are the problem rather than the people with the capability and will to use them to kill others. The fact that millions of law-abiding Americans have guns is not a problem; the problem is that criminals can get them and have the will to kill others. Similarly, the fact that France has WMDs is not a problem; the fact that Saddam Hussein had the capability to produce WMDs and the will to use them against us was.
JERUSALEM: The overwhelming view in Israel on Friday, just hours after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared his innocence in a bribery investigation involving a Long Island businessman, was that the post-Olmert political era had already begun.
The Legend of Hezbollah ceased to be after it turned its weapon internally on Lebanon. In the wake of [Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan] Nasrallah's speech and after declaring war on Siniora's government; the party and its leader (the architect of the divine victory) have been exposed for what they truly are. 
