This part of our CIC's speech in West Virginia, certainly has the media in a defensive mode. They have justification (excuses) everywhere.
Q -- can you use this, and it will just end up in a drawer, because it's good, it portrays the good. And if people could see that, if the American people could see it, there would never be another negative word about this conflict.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. (Applause.) No, it -- that's why I come out and speak. I spoke in Cleveland, gave a press conference yesterday -- spoke in Cleveland Monday, press conference, here today. I'm going to continue doing what I'm doing to try to make sure people can hear there's -- why I make decisions, and as best as I can, explain why I'm optimistic we can succeed.
One of the things that we've got to value is the fact that we do have a media, free media, that's able to do what they want to do. And I'm not going to -- you're asking me to say something in front of all the cameras here. (Laughter.) Help over there, will you? (Laughter.)
I just got to keep talking. And one of the -- there's word of mouth, there's blogs, there's Internet, there's all kinds of ways to communicate which is literally changing the way people are getting their information. And so if you're concerned, I would suggest that you reach out to some of the groups that are supporting the troops, that have got Internet sites, and just keep the word -- keep the word moving. And that's one way to deal with an issue without suppressing a free press. We will never do that in America. I mean, the minute we start trying to suppress our press, we look like the Taliban. The minute we start telling people how to worship, we look like the Taliban. And we're not interested in that in America. We're the opposite. We believe in freedom. And we believe in freedom in all its forms. And obviously, I know you're frustrated with what you're seeing, but there are ways in this new kind of age, being able to communicate, that you'll be able to spread the message that you want to spread. Now comes a long explanation from the Washington Post -- well worth the read. They still just don't get how to cover the military and a war. EFL
snip
Those complaints anger journalists who risked their lives to cover a war in which 67 of their colleagues have been killed and many others, including ABC-TV's Bob Woodruff, have been injured. There are other risks; Jill Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor is still held captive by terrorists.
After talking and corresponding with Post staffers and other journalists with Iraq experience and experts in and outside the military, I find no easy resolution to the complaints.
Here's why:
· The press corps is trained to see the story, and the war is the story. The Post has heavily covered the efforts to build a democracy, but the continuing insurgency and the lack of security for Iraqis are still the main news.
· Reporters are scrambling to keep up with daily events in an atmosphere so dangerous that Post reporters find it impossible to freely move and report.
· There is a built-in tension between the press, always skeptical of authority, and the military culture of respecting authority and keeping secrets. snip
#1
One reader wrote a Post reporter a few weeks ago: "Be nice to see your traitorous ass shot."
That's totally inappropriate. The reader should have said, "Be nice to see your traitorous ass tried and shot." This is a nation of laws, for gosh sakes.
Posted by: Matt ||
03/27/2006 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The press corps is trained to see the story,..."
Oh, bullshit. The press corp is trained to write propaganda for the Democratic Party, not to see or report the story.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/27/2006 18:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's not an agenda if you think everyone believes it. Shows again how arrogant and out-of-touch journos can be. Easiest major in college after PE
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2006 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
these two WAPO c*ck su*kers, Jonathan Finer and Doug Struck, tried to smear Bill Roggio with the "paid Mil blogger" lies.
The Pentagon also is reaching out to bloggers writing about the military. Pro-war blogger Bill Roggio was invited late last year to embed with the Marines, and a story in The Post quoting him brought about 100 critical e-mails generated off Roggio's blog, http://www.billroggio.com/ . Roggio was mentioned in the lead paragraph of a Dec. 26 story by Jonathan Finer and Doug Struck, then doing a rotation in Iraq, on the military's efforts to get its story told favorably. Finer and Struck also wrote about the military's controversial Information Operations program, where Iraqi news media are asked to do stories that focus on efforts to help Iraqis' quality of life and to counter insurgents' attempts to influence coverage. Those stories are often backed up by cash payments.
Roggio was furious that he was mentioned in the same story with journalists paid to write favorable pieces. He said it looked like "I must be part of a nefarious scheme by the military to influence the perceptions on Iraq. All they did was extend an invite that is no different than extending an invite to any reporter. I was invited on my merit. I felt I earned the right to be embedded. I took the risk of leaving my family and job and financing this with donations. Then to see it put in this light, I felt very wronged."
Finer and Hoffman said any close reading of the story would have told readers that Roggio was not paid by the military. That is correct, but a more expansive explanation of the difference between the two programs would have been helpful.
Roggio embedded under the a Pentagon public affairs program that deals with the news media and runs military Web sites. Information Operations, on the other hand, is basically meant to influence coverage. The issue of blurred lines between the two has been raised both by the military and the press.
Lapan arranged Roggio's embed near Fallujah. In Lapan's view: "We have invited bloggers . . . to embed in an effort to tell the story. Bloggers, in my mind, are just another means to communicate accurate, truthful information about what we do. These are not Information Operations any more than embedding a reporter from The Post or the New York Times is."
"The crux of the matter: Public affairs . . . is meant to inform the public. Information Operations is meant to influence our adversary and local populations. PA is primarily directed at American audiences. IO is primarily directed at enemy and supporting foreign publics. By law, IO is not to be directed at the American people. The purpose of IO is to influence; the purpose of PA is to inform," Lapan said.
Finer, in an e-mail, said: "The decision to embed Bill Roggio, a widely read military blogger whose views on the war are well known, came at a time when the military was increasingly expressing frustration with coverage they were receiving in the mainstream media. It also came amid the revelation of efforts to influence coverage in the Iraqi press by paying journalists to publish favorable stories. The story sought only to document what appeared to be a growing effort on the part of the military, and the insurgency, to control the dissemination of information from Iraq. Incidentally, the military, as well as independent analysts, seemed to agree the war over information was picking up on both sides and the Marines I spoke with did not object to the portrayal of Roggio as part of that effort."
#5
"There is a built-in tension between the press, always skeptical of authority, and the military culture of respecting authority and keeping secrets."
Allow me to suggest a press that is skeptical AND respectful. That would be a nice change. Allow me to also suggest that the secrets should not be the story -- the traitorous leakers who are pedaling them should be the story.
Actually, Frank, I suspect that journalism is an easier major than PE for those who enter college with basic writing skills. Every day I read news stories that my high school journalism teacher would have torn apart for shoddy content and poor organization -- and I'm talking about the bigtime MSM. And the editors just pass it along. Apparently an editor today is just a former journalist who operates a spell checker.
#6
The free press is an extension of freedom of speech. Since the MSM piss us off, I consider it my duty to smear them at every oportunity. I focus my freedom of speech directly against them, personally. If they don't like it, they can cry.
The MSM have caused massive problems in America for which they will never be forgiven.
for which they will never be forgiven
But since they never will be held accountable as well, to them it's no big deal... only answer is to stop believing them, and pay them no attention anymore past bare minimum keeping-in-touch with actuality and local news.
#8
Crap like this article is one of the prime reasons for declining circulation and influence by newspapers like the Post and the NYT. The report whatever they want and if they can't find what they want, they just make it up. Pompous, punctilious, supercilious, vacuous c*cks*ck*rs.
The Zimbabwe crisis does not need to be described, as it has become obvious to all. So, to attempt to redefine it would be a grave insult to the collective intelligence of the nation. I will, therefore, attempt to depict 10 possible scenarios, which may obtain from the current situation, which will enable Zimbabwe to pull herself from this quagmire. I will attempt to present a number of scenarios and critically evaluate their practicality, worth and effectiveness.
The first option, of course, is Organised Mass Action. This is the most talked about and least practiced option. It looks to me the one in March 2003 called for by the MDC was the only real success. Organised stay aways by the ZCTU and the National Constitutional Assembly have been massive flops largely due to poor organisation, ill-conceived timing, lack of consultation with relevant stakeholders, a culture of apathy and fear amongst the general masses of the population and the existence of oppressive laws such as the Public Order and Security Act and repressive State apparatus such as the quasi-military units in the form of Zanu PF militia as well as a ruthless police, intelligence and military system.The conditions are ripe for such an action, but the nation does not seem sufficiently motivated to resort to this option.
The second option is Spontaneous Mass Action - an option highly favoured by the MDC and many other Zimbabweans. It does not place responsibility for action squarely on the shoulders of an individual, party or institute, but relies on somebody, somewhere in some fuel or bread queue saying enough is enough. Spontaneous mass action has emerged as a favourite option for the following reasons: It cannot be easily contained by the brutal State security apparatus because it may start anywhere and spread anywhere. It is difficult to pinpoint leaders of such an action and to isolate or incarcerate them. It is a demonstration of people, which may appeal even to individuals in the State security apparatus as evidenced in Romania and the former Yugoslavia. The economic climate is ripe for such an action as evidenced by fuel queues and food shortages. Food shortages have always been a trigger for revolution.
The third option can be labelled the Palace Coup. This theory supports the implosion scenario whereby the President, who has emerged as the personification of the Zimbabwe crisis, is ousted by his own colleagues in the ruling party. This option seemed to be an unfolding reality when he was on holiday in Malaysia. This option can only work if the conspirators have the support of the military and, therefore, are limited to those who have a measure of influence in the military. This option appears to be quite appealing for the following reasons: Historically, even the most powerful of empire builders such as Julius Caesar and Tshaka the Great were eliminated by those closest to them and not by distant enemies. There is great pressure on sections of Zanu PF for the displacement of the old order.
The fourth option is a Military Takeover. But this is an unlikely and undesirable option as African history has proved that military takeovers have resulted in military dictatorships. The perceived "saviours of the people" may soon become ensconced in an eternal transition to civilian power, as was the case with Ibrahim Babangida in Nigeria and Ghana's Jerry Rawlings who later transformed himself into a civilian president albeit by democratic consent. Zimbabwe has suffered under a one-man one-party dictatorship and a military takeover may be suicidal and genocidal to the emergence of democracy in Zimbabwe. This option should not be encouraged, supported or celebrated by peace-loving Zimbabweans.
The fifth option is a rerun of the presidential election through the courts. As long as conditions for an election rerun remain the same, the ruling party will continue to use the uneven playing field to continuously win elections by dubious means. But that option should not be abandoned, as it will give the MDC the moral high ground to challenge the legitimacy of the Zanu PF government.
The sixth option is to allow things to disintegrate. There are many who argue that the current situation is not sustainable and the government will inevitably collapse. Whilst this is quite possible, probable and desirable, it may not be practical because it appears like the ruling party is willing to hang on to power even if it means ruling over skeletons. It may also be difficult to rebuild once the economic framework of the country collapses. The verdict is, whilst the current situation is not sustainable, the rulers of the land do not give a hoot and will hang on to power by hook, crook or book.
The seventh option is to wait for the next elections. The presidential election is only two years away. If the MDC chooses to quietly rebuild its effectiveness, credibility and image, it may succeed in winning the presidential election. Indicators, however, are that: Zanu PF will not sit idly and watch the MDC grow. More MDC leaders will be arrested, detained and tortured on trumped-up charges. Some could even be killed. The MDC and other alternative voices will be systematically silenced by current and prospective draconian laws which will further erode the democratic process.
But the most reasonable and practical route which is also the eighth option seems to be that of a negotiated settlement. In this regard previously stated strategies, such as mass action, could well be an effective means to gaining leverage to negotiate a workable settlement for Zimbabwe. A transitional authority would involve the setting up-of a transitional government of national unity composed of both Zanu PF and the MDC.
A constitutional conference of all stakeholders would then be convened to formulate a new democratic constitution, which would be the framework of democratic elections in which the parliamentary election would be held concurrently with the presidential election. Dissolution of all quasi-military units and institutions such as the militia, the national youth service and war vets and depoliticisation of food aid would also be imperative.
Ninth - A government of national unity is unlikely. Such a government would involve President Mugabe inviting the MDC to be a part of a government of national unity which Mugabe has vowed he would never do.
The last option is to do nothing and still expect something to happen. This is the option, which most Zimbabweans are practicing at the moment and nothing will happen as long as nothing is done.
You are of your father the Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of liars. John 8:44
And Paul said:
Be angry and do not sin. Don't let the sun go down on your anger, and don't give the Devil an opportunity. Eph. 4:26-27
There was a reason why the Demon wanted her to stop praying.
While most media accounts of the "cartoon jihad" focused on the publication of the cartoons, and on the ensuing violent reaction by some Muslims -- who were depicted by the much of the press as victims! -- few reporters have ventured to describe the increasingly hostile climate that Muslim extremists had succeeded in creating in Denmark before the publication. In fact, an examination of Jyllands-Posten's own pages reveals why its editors likely decided to publish the cartoons in the first place -- as well as why the obscurantist rioters were so confident that they would prevail.
In late 2004 -- a University of Copenhagen professor of Moroccan Jewish descent -- was kidnapped in broad daylight and brutally beaten by three Muslim youths for the "crime" of having read from the Quran during a lecture. A few months later, a Danish publisher used anonymous translators for an essay collection critical of Islam for fear that any named assistant would suffer a similar fate. And in an incident immediately preceding Jyllands-Posten's decision to run the cartoons as a test of self-censorship, Danish artists refused to illustrate a children's book about Muhammad.
These incidents, all disturbing, don't even scratch the surface of the appeasement Danes have made to accommodate the people who unleashed violence against them. In Copenhagen's public schools, the only food available to students -- regardless of their religious affiliation or lack thereof -- are Halal (prepared according to Islamic dietary requirements). In Denmark, a country which enjoys well-deserved praise for the courage with which citizens came together to save its small Jewish community during World War II, Danish Jewish students today cannot attend certain public schools because their very presence is viewed by administrators as "provocative" to radicalized Muslim peers. The country's only Jewish school, Copenhagen's 300-pupil Carolineskolen, founded in 1805, nowadays is constrained to operate behind a double ring of barbed wire.
Naser Khader, the Damascus-born son of a Palestinian father and Syrian mother who has served as a Danish parliamentarian from the Social Liberal Party since 1994, now lives under round-the-clock police protection because he committed the "crime" of giving his daughter a kafir ("infidel," read "Western") name. Compounding his "apostasy," he founded a moderate Muslim group with over 700 members, Democratic Muslims, after the outbreak of the "cartoon jihad" to campaign against Islamic establishmentarianism. Imam Ahmad Abu Laban -- the same character who instigated Middle Eastern anti-Danish riots with his portfolio of doctored cartoons -- then labeled Mr. Khader and his supporters "rats in a hole." One of the members of Khader's new group, Iranian refugee Kamran Tahmesabi, recently told a Belgian newspaper, "It is an irony that I am today living in a European democratic state and have to fight the same religious fanatics that I fled from in Iran many years ago."
After the "cartoon jihad" had seemingly run its course, this past February 12, the Danish chapter of the radical group Hizb ut-Tahrir availed itself of the Scandinavian country's "decadent" freedoms to hold a meeting in the Copenhagen neighborhood of Nørrebro, where it attempted to stoke the flames of hatred. The participants at this gathering minced no words about the "infidels" who populate their country. Leader Fadi Abdullatif (who had previously received a 60-day sentence for threatening to kill Jews) turned his wrath on Denmark's popular bicycle-riding sovereign, Queen Margarethe II, whom he accused of involvement in a "conspiracy" with Jyllands-Posten and Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to "harm Islam." The state prosecutor, under pressure from Muslim groups, declined to bring charges.
Historically, non-Muslim minorities (i.e., Jews and Christians) could escape the ravages of violent jihad only by surrendering to Islamic domination through a treaty of agreed-upon subjugation and oppression (dhimma) that turned them into "protected persons" (dhimmis) with second class status within the real of Islam. Today, it seems that even non-Muslim majorities are requested to descend into dhimmitude to avoid the wrath of some new immigrants. But, to paraphrase our own American Freedom Marchers, we are citizens, not dhimmis. Of course, once one has let oneself be treated like a dhimmi, it becomes hard to protest.
J. Peter Pham is director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs at James Madison University. Michael I. Krauss is professor of law at George Mason University School of Law. Both are academic fellows of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2006 13:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Danish Jewish students today cannot attend certain public schools because their very presence is viewed by administrators as "provocative" to radicalized
Appears home-schooling may have yet another new field to harvest.
#2
I think a more accurate headline would be "Descent into Stupidity and Mass Cultural Suicide"
But that's just me....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/27/2006 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Danish Jewish students today cannot attend certain public schools because their very presence is viewed by administrators as "provocative" to radicalized
As evoked yesterday, this is true also in some areas in France, which are now forbidden to jewish kids.
I wonder if there is the same pressure (mentioned by the rapport which revealed this de facto muslim apartheid against jews in french schools) is applied toward professors regarding certain subjects?
For example, the holocaust cannot be teached anymore, as are the crusades, the history of the Middle East,... students petition for not having a "western-centered" view of History, biology cannot touch human reproduction, etc, etc... and the national education is complicit, since its policy is "low profile" and "submit" (many schools now not even bother to propose pork in their menus). It actually even sided with the pious muslim parents when an history teached was sued for having had the audacy to describe old Mo' as a thief and a jew-killer (affaire Chagon).
#4
The strength of the opposition to controlled immigration, was revealed yesterday. In Los Angeles alone, 500,000 protested proposed laws that would only effect law-breakers. Muslims are, unlike Hispanics, un-assimiliable. And they are anxious to hate the West from close range. Either we enforce our laws, or accept theirs.
Hispanics blame social residue from the feudal "latifunda" system of war lord economism, for their backwardness. According to the mythology, US backed strongmen in order to create dependencies. Reality dictates that the latifundistas were highly protective, and insisted on local control of foreign owned operations, thus, hindered profit taking and investment interest. But from whence did that system come? From the Iberian sultanate model.
Frankly, if the world's worst crybaby peoples - Muslims and Hispanics - get together, the sobfest could end badly.
#5
Muslims are, unlike Hispanics, un-assimiliable. And they are anxious to hate the West from close range.
I'd be interested to see sufficient evidence that this is true of the Muslims living in the U. S. Certainly there are some for whom it may be true. But there was a German-American Bund too.
And Mexico is a feudal country. The only reason it has not had a revolution is that illegal immigration provides a saftey valve. Build the fence and watch the fun begin.
#6
There was a German-American Bund too.
If that's your argument, YOU LOSE !
They still have Hungarian clubs too, but the people in them are not Hungarian. And they all speak English. Islam is the enemy. Wake up, please.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
03/27/2006 18:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I won't forget the image of hundreds of unused buses that could have taken thousands out of the city. Incidently, the buses weren't trapped in flood water until the last levy broke.
#7
Don't forget, a female public employee alleged that almost all of the city's public-controlled buses, etal weren't working, or were in questionable working condition, anyways.
Dream talaq turns nightmare
The Pioneer, India
March 27, 2006
Siliguri
A Muslim couple in Jalpaiguri district have been ordered by local religious leaders to separate as the husband allegedly uttered talaq three times in his sleep. Those who trust Muslims need to ask if it is wise to tolerate a group whose legal system even controls sleep-talking. After Partition, India included sharia powers for Muslims, in its Constitution. Pakistan gave nothing similar to the 20% of its population that were Hindu (reduced to 1% by jihad-intimidation and murder).
While the couple, who have three children, refused to obey the order since there was no discord between them, the community leaders are adamant that they must separate or face a "social boycott". A Muslim man need only say talaq (Arabic for "I divorce") 3 times to effect a split. For women it requires 2 years of legal proceedings, and abandonment of parental privilege. Of course, the men usually saddle the mother with the children, and omit support.
Aftab Ansari and Sohela have been married for the past 11 years. However, on the night of December 20 last year, Aftab allegedly uttered talaq three times in his sleep after a tiff with his wife.
The matter came to light when Sohela discussed it with her close friends and soon it reached the ears of the Muslim leaders.
The leaders, quoting the shari'ah, ruled that the talaq has to be implemented and if it is not acceptable, the only alternative was temporary separation for 100 days during which the wife will live at her father's house and spend a night with another man.
She can remarry her husband only after the man has given her talaq. As the couple were unwilling to accept the verdict, the matter went to the family counselling centre at Falakata police station... In France, the jury trial system has been almost abandoned in face of nullification of law and fact, by the sharia polluted invaders. A single Muslim on a Philadelphia jury, means: automatic exhoneration of anyone from the dawah (recruitment and indoctrination) target group. Shariah: soon to be in your neighborhood.
Posted by: Listen to Dogs ||
03/27/2006 04:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
From Jewish World Review online
By Jeff Jacoby
A Gallup Poll released last month puts American support for Israel at near-record levels. When asked for their views on the Middle East, 59 percent of Americans say they sympathize with the Israelis, while just 15 percent favor the Palestinians. Pro-Israel sentiment rises with increased knowledge 66 percent of those who follow international affairs ''very closely" support Israel, compared with 52 percent of those who don't pay close attention to foreign news.
Other findings are comparable. More than two-thirds of Americans say their overall view of Israel is favorable. Only 11 percent, by contrast, have a favorable opinion of the Palestinian Authority. While 22 percent of the public wants Washington to conduct diplomatic relations with the Hamas-controlled Palestinian government even if it refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state, 44 percent say recognition of Israel must be a precondition to relations with the United States. Another 25 percent one American in four oppose any US dealings with Hamas at all.
Staunch American support for Israel is nothing new. In February 2005, Gallup reported similarly lopsided findings 69 percent of the public viewed Israel favorably, 25 percent unfavorably. In 2004, when Israel was being denounced in Europe and the United Nations for its assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the leader of Hamas, 61 percent of Americans said Israel was justified in killing him. In 2002, when a CBS News poll asked whether Israel's actions against Yasser Arafat and his forces were equivalent to US actions against Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, 59 percent agreed that they were.
In short, solidarity with Israel is an abiding feature of American public opinion. Because the American people are pro-Israel, the American government is pro-Israel. And because Americans so strongly support Israel in its conflict with the Arabs, American policy in the Middle East is committed to Israel's defense.
Only someone far outside the American mainstream, [like the MSM, heh.] then, would insist that ''Israel's past and present conduct offers no moral basis for privileging it over the Palestinians." Or that US policy is engineered through a Zionist ''stranglehold on Congress." Or that ''neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel," leaving only one possible explanation: ''the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." Ah, yes, the Sinister Israel Lobby
Those aren't the words of American neo-Nazi David Duke though Duke has ringingly endorsed them. They aren't the words of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the granddaddy of Islamist radicalism though a top Brotherhood official praises them. They aren't the words of the PLO though the PLO is actively distributing them.
The source of those words, and many more like them, is a bitter anti-Israel screed masquerading as academic scholarship. Co-authored by Stephen Walt, academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, ''The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" was released last week as a ''working paper" on the Kennedy School website. But so slipshod is the paper's research and so extreme its bias that within days the Harvard and Kennedy School logos were stripped from the title page. ''It clearly does not meet the academic standards of a Kennedy School research paper," said Marvin Kalb, one of the school's best-known scholars. "and give us back your cap, gown, and sash, too!
The idea that the American public and US policy makers dance to a tune played by an all-powerful ''Israel Lobby" is an old canard. Neo-Nazis like Duke have long described Capitol Hill as part of the ZOG, or Zionist Occupation Government. Right-wing nativist Pat Buchanan notoriously charged ''the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States" with ''beating the drums for war" in 1990. Kinda like a tribal lashkar?
If the truth be told, it isn't hard to understand why America's ardent support for Israel might strike some people as odd, or even suspicious. In so much of the world Europe, the Middle East, the UN General Assembly Israel is despised. Even if Americans don't share the anti-Semitism that is rife in other lands, wouldn't it be more practical for them to stop taking Israel's side? After all, there are 500 million Arabs in the world, and they control one-third of the world's oil supply. Why should Americans alienate them by continuing to support Israel, a country with no oil and just 6 million people?
As a matter of plain economic common sense, the United States has every reason to turn against the Jewish state. What accounts for its refusal to do so? If it isn't an ''Israel Lobby" pulling hidden strings, what on earth can it be?
Something more powerful than economics: the kinship of common values.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2006 20:42 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In separate news, bears sh*t in the woods and the Pope is Catholic.
Posted by: Tibor ||
03/27/2006 23:10 Comments ||
Top||
Barring a last-minute hitch Iran and the United States are expected to begin talks on what they have both called "measures to benefit the Iraqi people." The euphemism is unlikely to deceive anyone. What Tehran and Washington are really interested in is to find out each other's true intentions in Iraq.
There is no doubt that both Iran and the United States have benefited from the demise of the Baathist regime under Saddam Hussein. The US has eliminated an enemy that it had wounded but not killed in 1991, something that Machiavelli had warned against almost five centuries ago. With Iraq likely to have a pluralist regime in which Shiites are a majority, Iran may no longer face a coalition of Sunni Arab regimes determined to challenge it in the region.
But while US and Iranian interests in Iraq converge up to a point, the two powers have diametrically opposite visions when it comes to the future of Iraq, indeed of the entire Middle East.
The US wants a democratic and pro-West Iraq with a capitalist market-based economy, and open to the new globalization trends. In his better moments President George W. Bush has even spoken of turning Iraq into a model for the entire Arab world, indeed for all Muslim countries. And that, of course, is indirect competition with Iran that claims that its own system is the ideal one for all Muslims.
Iran wants an Iraqi regime that adopts at least some aspects of Khomeinism if only to prove that the Islamic republic in Tehran is not a historic anomaly. The Tehran leadership is also concerned that the emergence of a Shiite-dominated democracy next door may well inspire a democratic revolution in Iran as well. With he center of Shiite theological authority clearly shifting to Najaf, Iran's rulers may risk losing the religious card they have played for the past 27 years.
The crucial question in regional politics now is whether Iraq, and beyond it the Middle East, will be reshaped the way US wants it or remolded as Iran's Khomeinist leaders have dreamed of since 1979.
It is against that background that it is important to know what Iran would actually bring to the table when, and if, the promised talks materialize.
Iran has already scored a point simply by being invited by the US for talks. Although Iran did nothing to oust Saddam Hussein, this invitation bestows on it a stature that only a liberating power would normally have. For example, at the end of World War II no one invited Switzerland or Poland, as neighbors of Germany, to discuss its future.
Iran has scored yet another point by positioning itself as a power speaking for the Iraqi people. The leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Abdul-Aziz Hakim has helped Iran's maneuver by issuing a verbal "invitation" to enter the talks almost as a protector of the people of Iraq. The fact that Hakim and his party have been supported by Iran for more than a quarter of a century does not diminish the importance of that move.
The Iranian strategy is clear from the outset. Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki has said that Iran's chief priority is to discuss the withdrawal of the US-led coalition forces from Iraq.
Mottaki knows that the US and its allies are in Iraq under a United Nations' mandate that will run out in December. He also knows that that mandate cannot be renewed without the consent of the newly elected Iraqi Parliament and government. Finally, he also knows that President George W. Bush is under pressure from both Democrats and Republicans to bring the Iraqi episode to an end. So, when the Americans and their allies start to leave, as they are certain to do later this year, Iran would be able to pretend that it was its efforts that ended the "occupation".
Iran, however, has more important ambitions in Iraq. Strategically, it sees post-Saddam Iraq as a corridor through which it can communicate with Syria and Lebanon that it considers as part of its broader glacis. In fact, once Tehran's influence is established in Iraq as it is in Syria and Lebanon, Iran would be able to project power in the Levant for the first time since the early 7th century when the Persian Empire under Khosrow Parviz drove the Byzantines out of Mesopotamia and what is now Syria.
It is no accident that scholars in Tehran have just rediscovered the set of agreements that Iran had signed with the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century. Known as the Erzerum treaties, these documents give Iran a droit de regard (the right of oversight) over Iraq's principal Shiite centers of Najaf, Kerbala and Kazemayn (now a suburb of Baghdad).
The agreements also enable Iran to take "appropriate action", a code word for military intervention, if it felt that its security, or the access of Iranian pilgrims to "holy places", was being threatened by the presence of foreign hostile forces in southern Iraq.
If implemented those agreements could lead to the emergence of an Iranian administration in the "holy cities" and an Iranian veto on key aspects of Iraq's foreign policy.
Iran has already used those agreements to persuade the new Iraqi government to sign an agreement under which more than 600,000 Iranian pilgrims would be able to visit Iraq each year with little control from the Iraqi authorities.
The second set of documents that Tehran is now dusting up is known as the Algiers Accords, negotiated and signed in Algiers, Geneva, Tehran and Baghdad between 1975 and 1976. These give Iran and Iraq shared sovereignty over the Shatt Al-Arab estuary that constitutes Iraq's principal outlet to the open seas. The agreements, signed by Saddam Hussein as a tactical ploy to end Iranian support for the Kurds in the 1970s, would, if fully implemented, give Iran a chokehold on Iraq's foreign trade, including oil exports.
Iran does not want the US to fail in Iraq. It wants the US to succeed in eliminating all possibility of a new Sunni-dominated regime being installed in Baghdad. But Iran wants the US to succeed at the highest possible cost, both in blood and treasure.
It is a mystery why Washington wants to give Tehran a place at the high table in Iraq. It is certain that the Islamic republic will continue doing whatever it can to make life difficult for the US-led coalition. The supply of new and more lethal explosives, smuggled into Iraq from Iran, partly via Syria is unlikely to dry up. Nor is Tehran likely to end the training programs launched by its Lebanese Hezbollah clients for Iraqi militants.
The decision to involve Iran in Iraqi affairs is likely to anger the United States regional allies who have never discounted the possibility of an Irano-American deal that might leave them in the lurch. The Arab states will also be concerned about the possibility of Iraq's Arab identity being diluted as a result of Iranian intervention.
The US may have made this strange move because of the experiment in Afghanistan where talks with Iran did help speed up the defeat of the Taleban and the creation of a new regime in Kabul.
But Iraq is not Afghanistan if only because it offers far more scope for Iranian mischief making. The invitation to Iraq is also likely to encourage Iran in its defiance of the United Nations on the nuclear issue. After all if Iran is treated as a major power in one domain it cannot be "bullied" as a weakling in another.
Has the Bush administration made its first major mistake with regard to Iraq? It is too early to tell. But this decision may be even worse than a mistake; it may be unnecessary. And, as Talleyrand noted almost 200 years ago, in politics doing something that is not necessary is worse than making a mistake.
#2
MadMoud and the Mullahs want revived Regional and Global Empire - the world must acknowledge and verify their "Great Nation/Power" status however undeserved, or its death to the world. As the Mullahs have no scruples inducing super-power confrontation to achieve its agenda, Iran may end up being the post-modern version of pre-WW2 POLAND and the NAZI-SOVIET NON-AGRESSION PACT, except that where power-manic, pro-OWG/Anti-sovereignty Anti-American Americans are specifically concerned, "NAZIS" are both THE HATED ENEMY + PSEUDO-ALLIED PRO-STALIN LIMITED COMMUNISTS/SOVIETS!?
From Puffington... In 1978 or so, Mstislav Rostropovich, the famed cellist who ultimately made the National Symphony Orchestra into a national treasure, arrived on our shores from Russia from which he had been exiled by Leonid Brezhnev. While a student at Georgetown University, I was honored to be present for his honorary degree ceremony there. Single-handedly? This will come as a rather large surprise to the rest of the orchestra...
He could not speak English well, so he instead played the cello as a response to his honor. Gaston Hall was silent, not only during his soul-stirring solo, but even after the thunderous applause, becauase [sic] neither ovation nor words expressed what we felt, what he had touched. Nope. Better not go there...
Al Gore spoke tonight at the Human Rights Campaign dinner here in Los Angeles, after many stirring talks by Al Franken, Torie Osborn and the Mayor, among others. Al's was the last speech of a late night and yet, as with Rostropovich, the enormous ballroom was silent during his talk. I found myself leaning forward, perched on the edge of my chair as he moved easily on stage, rarely looking at even a note. He stirred souls tonight. It wuz frickin' tenterhooks, I tells ya... And it's shaken, not stirred, d00d.
The former Vice President, the should-be president, spoke from his heart, his soul and his intellect about equality, about fear and about the future. The subject happened to be equality of gay people in this country. But it was really a call for America to stand as what we have been for more than 200 years, to be that porous bastion of hope and grace that has struggled at times with itself, but has always risen to greater heights. There's definitely some struggling goin' on, awrighty...
He reminded me and I dare say the fifteen hundred or so present tonight, of the power of democracy, well led. Sadly, he reminded us also of the ineloquence of George Bush at which we laugh, but which in fact represents a simplicity of the mind, a unidemensional view of life that Mr. Bush carries forth into the world that sews fear and destruction in its path. Al Gore called us to action. He also vivified Plato's ideal in The Republic, Madison's President in the Federalist Papers, Jefferson's expectation in the founding documents of this country. He spoke. You dared. I'm bored. Evoking the names of Great Men doesn't transfer anything to the Moonbat Prez in Loonyland Exile.
After he finished speaking, the standing ovation seemed almost an interruption of the soul. Just as Rostropovich played chords that defied description, Al Gore tonight hit commanding, courageous notes that are America. We'll make it through the current time of trouble, but only because we can rise above the small, insulated minds that would rather destroy our world than make it safely humane. How different our unstable world today would be had Mr. Gore been President. How hard we must work to assure that 2006 brings us the beginnings of balance, and 2008 the end of one of the most dangerous times in our history. Defying description, insulated, dangerous - wow, Jeffy, you're on roll! What would our world look like if alGore was Prez, Jeffy? Very stable, right, LOL.
We have all become cynical. We have seen what might have been and criticized how it was presented. But when I hear a graceful, truly stirring analysis of the humanity that is our nation, I know we can again find our way in this world and, if Bush et al have not by then encouraged too many of our neighbors to attack us, we can again lead. I'm pretty cynical about where the likes of alGore could possibly lead anyone. The attacks will come regardless, dimwit. It's not about Gore, moron, it's about Islam.
Thanks for speaking the truth, for the elegance of thoughtful words. Thanks, Al Gore. Indeed, keep talking - we appreciate it al baby.
#3
One more thing. Having played cello for 14 years, I reached the conclusion that there is no way to play it properly unless it causes pain in several parts of your body.
Al is like that, too. Everytime he opens his mouth, he says something that creates several intellectual ouchy places. For example:
"We're entering--have already entered--a new phase of human history. The fundamental relationship between our species and our home planet has been utterly transformed."
That sounds like something you would hear from a real fan at a Star Trek convention, whose boundless enthusiasm for a television show is such that he has decorated his bedroom with Star Trek paraphernalia, and every night looks himself in the mirror with Mr Spock ears and says "Live long and prosper" before bed.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2006 20:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
As Marxism-Leninism/Communism teaches, the
"Socialist Revolution" will come from the Right, i.e. a mature Capitalist-Mercantilist, even Bourgeois, economy. The Failed Lefties problem is NOT alleged Fascist Amerika waging war vv 9-11/WOT, its Communist Amerika NOT being the outcome of the WOT. America [Free or Socialist]
"volunteering" to give up its sovereignty, Government, and endowments = America being militarily forced to. In CLINTONISM, Fascist Dubya is both Adolf Bushitler whom needs to be stopped or wiped out, as well as Stalin and Mao's HALF-A-COMMIE/SOCIALIST IDEO-BROTHER, an arrogant warmongering selfish greedy unruly Rightist Capitalist Imperialist little boy and Male Brute whom refuses to listen to his holocaust-happy, Utopian-/Perfectionism-minded, Commie Mother and pro-Mama older/better ideo-brothers.
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.
In 1978 or so, Mstislav Rostropovich, the famed cellist who ultimately made the National Symphony Orchestra into a national treasure, arrived on our shores from Russia from which he had been exiled by Leonid Brezhnev. While a student at Georgetown University, I was honored to be present for his honorary degree ceremony there.
