If you want to do business with Iran, the best way is to use a proxy in Dubai. This makes Dubai a perfect center for Iranian links to terrorists around the world. Dubai is a legitimate business destination that will raise the fewest suspicions of just about any Middle Eastern destination. The UAE rulers are very friendly to Iran and to such groups as Hamas. Last month Sheikh Zayed met with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, who had also been the target of an Israeli assassination attempt. Dubai serves as one way for Iran to move money and goods over to Hamas through front organizations that are actually Iranian run, through banks that do business with Iran while pretending to do business only in Dubai, and through ports controlled by Dubai Ports World, which is itself a subsidiary of the government.
Mahmoud al-Mabhouh who had received linguistics training in Syria, possessed an engineering background and had spent much of his adult life living in different Arab countries and forming radical contacts there was the perfect man to oversee a regional weapons smuggling network. And Dubai was the perfect place for him to do business. That confluence in turn made Dubai the perfect place for al-Mabhouh's assassination, not simply because he was there, but because it was meant to send a message. The very visible nature of the operation demonstrated that Dubai was not a safe zone for terrorists, despite its distance from Israel and a terrorist friendly government.
The publicity accompanying the assassination was a feature not a bug. Sheikh Mohammed is being sent a message that at a critical time when Dubai needs foreign investment, he has to choose between backing terrorists and stabilizing his economy. The killing of al-Mabhouh creates the very association between Dubai and Islamic terrorism that it would like to avoid. Dubai would like to be thought of as representing fun in the sun and a growing business environment, even as the UAE funds Islamic extremism. The assassination shines light on the Islamic dark side of Dubai and it will create nervousness among visiting business executives. A British newspaper article wonders if the German executives of firms who produce parts for Iran's nuclear reactors will also be subject to assassination. Of course they won't be, but having them worry about it may keep them out of the Iran business and out of Dubai.
This isn't just about Hamas, though al-Mabhouh's presence on Israel's Most Wanted list and his murder of Israelis would have certainly provided enough incentive on its own. As does his place in the smuggling network that moves weapons from Iran to Israel, where they are used to murder Israeli citizens and bomb Israeli villages. It's about Dubai and the UAE. While Egypt and Saudi Arabia, despite their own hostility toward Israel, have gotten into the Anti-Iran camp, the UAE and Dubai in particular is Iran's connection to the rest of the world. Dubai has built up its position in international business in no small part because it is a convenient access point for companies looking to do illegally business with Iran. If Israel can't get Dubai out of the Iran business by pointing out the danger it faces from Iran's growing power, a danger that the Saudis and Egyptians have already recognized, then it can force Dubai to choose between being a mecca for international trade, or being Iran's stooge. And the al-Mabhouh demonstrates the dangers of being a front for Ahmadinejad.
At a certain level, the trial of Geert Wilders for the crime of "group insult" of Islam is déjà vu all over again. For as the spokesperson for the Openbaar Ministerie put it, "It is irrelevant whether Wilders's witnesses might prove Wilders's observations to be correct. What's relevant is that his observations are illegal."
Ah, yes, in the Netherlands, as in Canada, the truth is no defence. My Dutch is a little rusty but I believe the "Openbaar Ministerie" translates in English to the Ministry for Openly Barring People. Whoops, my mistake. It's the prosecution service of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. But it shares with Canada's "human rights" commissions an institutional contempt for the truth.
As for "Wilders's witnesses," he submitted a list of 18, and the Amsterdam court rejected no fewer than 15 of them. As with Commissar MacNaughton and her troika of pseudo-judges presiding over the Maclean's trial in British Columbia, it's easier to make the rules up as you go along.
And in Amsterdam the eventual verdict doesn't really matter any more than it did here. As Khurrum Awan, head sock puppet for Mohamed Elmasry, crowed to the Canadian Arab News, even though the Canadian Islamic Congress struck out in three different jurisdictions in their attempt to criminalize my writing, the suits cost this magazine (he says) two million bucks, and thereby "attained our strategic objective--to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material." Likewise, whether Mijnheer Wilders is convicted or acquitted, a lot of politicians, publishers, writers and filmmakers will get the message: steer clear of the subject of Islam unless you want your life consumed.
But at that point comparisons end. Had the CIC triumphed at our trial in Vancouver, the statutory penalty under the B.C. "Human Rights" Code would have prevented Maclean's ever publishing anything on Islam, Europe, demography, terrorism and related issues by me or anybody of a similar disposition ever again. I personally would have been rendered legally unpublishable in Canada in perpetuity. But so what? I'm an obscure writer, and my fate is peripheral to that of the Dominion itself.
Geert Wilders, by contrast, is one of the most popular politicians in the Netherlands, and his fate is central to the future of his kingdom and his continent. He is an elected member of parliament--and, although he's invariably labelled "far right" in news reports, how far he is depends on where you're standing: his party came second in last year's elections for the European Parliament, and a poll of the Dutch electorate in December found it tied for first place. Furthermore, if you read the indictment against him, you'll see that among other things Wilders is being prosecuted for is proposing an end to "non-Western immigration" to the Netherlands: the offending remarks were made in response to a direct question as to what his party would do in its first days in office. So the Dutch state is explicitly prosecuting the political platform of the most popular opposition party in the country, and attempting to schedule the trial for its own electoral advantage. That's the sort of thing free societies used to leave to Mobutu, Ferdinand Marcos and this week's Generalissimo-for-Life.
To put it in Canadian terms, it's like the Crown hauling Michael Ignatieff into court. Well, except for the bit about being the most popular politician in the country and ahead in the polls and whatnot. But imagine if Iggy was less tin-eared and inept and his numbers were terrific--and then the Ministry of Justice announced it had decided to prosecute him for his policy platform. That's what's happening in the Netherlands.
It gets better. The judge in his wisdom has decided to deny the defendant the level of courtroom security they afforded to Mohammed Bouyeri, the murderer of Theo van Gogh. Wilders lives under armed guard because of explicit death threats against him by Mr. Bouyeri and other Muslims. But he's the one put on trial for incitement. His movie about Islam, Fitna, is deemed to be "inflammatory," whereas a new film by Willem Stegeman, De moord op Geert Wilders (The Assassination of Geert Wilders), is so non-inflammatory and entirely acceptable that it's been produced and promoted by a government-funded radio station. You'd almost get the impression that, as the website Gates of Vienna suggested, the Dutch state is channelling Henry II: "Who will rid me of this turbulent blond?"
Posted by: Fred ||
02/19/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Holland no longer can be considered a civilized country.
Several weeks after the Senate rejected Barack Obama's plan to create a bipartisan congressional panel charged with decreasing the deficit, the president will use his executive authority to create the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.
Will the members get a salary, or will they be working on commission?
The less-powerful bipartisan commission, chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, will be tasked with formulating a plan to decrease the federal budget deficit to 3% of GDP by 2015.
Yawn.
With the signing of this executive order, Obama will add fiscal responsibility to his growing library of political theater. Thus far, his other featured films have starred earmarks, lobbyists, Sonia Sotomayor, bipartisanship, etc. Unsurprisingly, they all share a common theme: disingenuousness. You're welcome to grab some popcorn and take a seat, but as you watch the production of fiscal responsibility featuring Obama the deficit hawk, keep in mind you're only being entertained.
In his first year in office, the president spent a record-breaking $3.52 trillion. At the end of the year, he used Christmas Eve to sneakily sign an executive order that provides an unlimited, perpetual bailout to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
At the beginning of this month, he released a $3.8 trillion budget proposal that will increase the deficit to a record-breaking $1.56 trillion, and just last week he signed a bill that increases the federal debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.
The president's track record speaks for itself. He's not a deficit hawk; he's a big government ideologue. Unfortunately, big government costs big money, and the formation of Obama's America will cost unprecedented amounts of money--to use the administration's favorite word.
So what's going on here?
As usual, Barack Obama believes he's the smartest guy in the room, and he can trick the American people because they only pay attention to his words, not his actions.
That's why he makes a pledge of no lobbyists, but allows waivers to sneak them in the back door. That's why he makes a pledge of no earmarks, but signs unread legislation filled with thousands of them into law. That's why he talks about bipartisanship, but behind closed doors proclaims to the GOP, he won, they lost, and they can either go along or get out of the way. And that's why he creates a commission designed to create the appearance of a president who wants to get the nation's financial house of cards in order even while he plots to spend it into oblivion.
Films often capture our imaginations, allowing us to believe in the unbelievable. Obama wants us to believe the unbelievable in him, but according to a recent CNN poll, 52% of the participants don't believe he should be re-elected.
Translation?
The American people don't believe he's doing a great job directing, and they're going to be the ones to say "cut!"
Posted by: Fred ||
02/19/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
#2
And the results and recommendations of the "bipartisan congressional panel" are due out when? Just after November 20th of course, which means a lame duck congress, still under dem control can sign off on anything without re-election concerns. How very convenient.
#3
Congress used to be responsible for government spending. That's so 1800's. Obama is shuckin' and jivin', using smoke and mirrors. I guess some people are fooled by this.
#5
The less-powerful bipartisan commission, chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, will be tasked with formulating a plan to decrease the federal budget deficit to 3% of GDP by 2015.
The main purpose is to share blame so none sticks to Oblahblahbutt.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
02/19/2010 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Hand jive, hand jive
Doin' that crazy hand jive
#7
The 'commission' is nothing more than a vehicle for Obama to raise taxes on the middle class...he'll just point to them and say he had nothing to do with it.
If you want to be honest, face these facts: At this moment, President Obama is losing, Democrats are losing and liberals are losing.
Who's winning? Republicans, conservatives, the practitioners of obstruction and the Tea Party.
The two immediate causes for this state of affairs are a single election result in Massachusetts and the way the United States Senate operates. What's not responsible is the supposed failure of Obama and the Democrats to govern as "moderates." Pause to consider where we would be if a Democrat had won the Massachusetts Senate race last month. In all likelihood, health reform would be law, Democrats could have moved on to economic matters, and Obama would be seen as shrewd and successful. Amazing leap considering the numbers only changed with the election; before, the democrats had the numbers to win, and didn't...
But that's not what happened, and Republican Scott Brown's victory revealed real weaknesses on the progressive side: an Obama political apparatus asleep at the switch, huge Republican enthusiasm unmatched by Democratic determination, and a focused conservative campaign to discredit Obama's ideas, notably his economic stimulus plan and the health-care bill. An admission by Dionne that the previous paragraph he knowlingly lied about the wherefores. The only reason Obama's ideas were discredited is that they were discreditable.
The Obama administration argues that both the stimulus and the health bill are better than people think. That's entirely true,
I quite agree. However, Mr. Dionne fails to note -- or quite probably, to realize -- that better than horrible is not at all the same as good, and in fact often means bad. Why would the voters choose something that is not horrible but merely a very bad idea?
and this is actually an indictment -- it means that on the two big issues of the moment, Republicans and conservatives are winning an argument they should be losing. One didn't work and the other won't work. Neither were shining examples of representative republic; they were abominations rammed through in relative secret because the details were so ugly.
The dreadful Senate is a major culprit here, and that's why Sen. Evan Bayh's complaints in explaining his retirement rang partly true, but also partly false. What's true is that the Senate isn't working. What's false is that there is no room for moderation. The fact is that the legislative outcomes on both the stimulus and health care were driven by moderates. Riiight. The other legislative element responsible for, you know, legislation, wouldn't pass it, so it, and not the law was the problem.
Moderates. So that's what they call them nowadays. It's fascinating watching a language evolve. Once upon a time liberal was a respectable political position.
Economists agree that the stimulus worked to create jobs,
Really? Which ones admit to ignoring the actual data?
but Senate moderates made it less effective by shrinking its size and including irrelevancies -- notably $70 billion to fix the alternative minimum tax -- that did little to create jobs. The moderates got their way because the stimulus needed 60 votes, an absurd standard now that we have an ideologically polarized, parliamentary-style party system.
How so parliamentary-style? Other than that it appears to be a term of insult to dear Mr. Dionne.
We can waste time mourning that development or we can recognize it and act accordingly.
On health care, months of delay in a futile quest for Republican support got the Democrats the worst of all worlds. The media gave them no credit for reaching out to the other side but did blame them for an ugly, gridlocked process. Reaching out example: "I won. You lost. Go away... Wait! Come back!"
The demands of moderate Democrats for concessions -- remember the politically lethal Nebraska payoff for Sen. Ben Nelson? -- made the process look even seamier.
Appearance equals reality in this case, Mr. Dionne.
The bill's conservative opponents shrewdly focused on such side issues and on made-up issues such as the "death panels."
Death panels is a descriptor, Mr. Dionne, regardless of the official title in the various versions of the bill that hopefully will never be reconciled.
Nobody wants to admit that on health care the moderates won all the big fights. Single-payer was out at the start. The public option died. A Medicare buy-in died. The number of Americans who would be covered shrank. The insurance companies kept their antitrust exemption. If a bill eventually becomes law -- as it must if the Democrats are not to look like a feckless, useless lot -- the final proposal will be much closer to the moderate Senate version than to the more progressive bill passed by the House. And conservatives all did that while the bill itself was made available for public viewing so their charges could be refuted. Oh, wait. Did I say made available? I meant wasn't made available.
And if the Republicans refuse to cooperate, this will not mean that the bill isn't moderate. It will mean only that Republicans refuse to vote for a moderate bill.
How can the Republicans cooperate? They aren't even being invited to the meetings.
But if all the media talk about the "failure of moderation" is nonsense, this doesn't get liberals or Obama off the hook.
While liberals were arguing about public plans and this or that, and while Obama was deep into inside dealmaking, the conservatives relentlessly made a straightforward public case based on a syllogism: The economy is a mess. Obama and the Democrats are for big government. Big government is responsible for the mess. Therefore the mess is the fault of Obama and the Big Government Democrats.
Sounds right to me.
Simplistic and misleading? Absolutely. But if liberals and Obama are so smart, how did they -- or, if you prefer, "we" -- allow conservatives to make this argument so effectively? Why do the mainstream media give it so much credence?
We are simple people, we Americans. Even our journalists. We seem to believe that one demonstration of intelligence is to tease out the simple essence of a complex situation, so that we can act, and that big words and complex sentence structures are intended to hide confusion or to cause it. One very successful multinational corporation, beloved of the Harvard Business School case studies program, requires all but the most technical writing to take place within the format of a one-page memo, the thinking being that if you can't summarize the data and present an action plan within one page, you haven't thought about it enough. The corporation's training process for young managers is exceedingly painful.
Of course, I think the conservatives' argument is wrong. But at this point, I have to admire their daring and discipline. Moderate and progressive Democrats alike have eight months before this fall's elections to change the terms of the debate and prove they can govern. Otherwise, they'll be washed out by a tidal wave.
Because if they've proved they cannot govern, why keep them in office. Right, Mr. Dionne?
Posted by: Fred ||
02/19/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Did you see the polls I saw, E.J.? Two-thirds of Americans did not want Congress messing with their health care.
That means we won. You lost.
It's got nothing to do with the Senate, loser.
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/19/2010 7:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The problem with Dionne and a lot of his buddies is that they all still think they're moderate, because everyone they know tell them that they're reasonable guys. Me, I don't pretend to be moderate anymore. I was an angry young RINO, and now I'm an irate aging conservative. Moderation is for people who don't want to think about politics and self-deceiving activists who are trying to sell you on something they've already sold themselves on.
Dionne is a political dealer strung out on his own junk.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
02/19/2010 10:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What's holding the Democratic Party down
Fear of the Second American Civil War [in which the very people need who are willing to fight and die in such a war are way and far on the 'other side'].
#4
Yo, E.J., if the Cornhusker Kickback is "politically lethal" as you say, then isn't that the reason the health care bill failed? If not, then it's not "lethal" then, is it?
Posted by: Mike ||
02/19/2010 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It doesn't take 60 votes to pass a bill. It takes 60 votes to force an end to debate and make them vote right then. If you are willing to compromise on your ideology and craft a bill that 60 senators would vote for, you can end debate and get on to the vote. It was never meant to be a steam roller to force legislation down the country's throat. It is working exacly like it should now that Dems don't have a 60 vote majority.
And they talk as though all is lost because of it. It may very well have saved the course of this country and will force them to moderate their views if they want to get a bill passed. You didn't hear a peep about changing senate rules when they had 60 votes, did you.
Pakistan's latest arrests of senior Afghan Taliban figures and al Qaida operatives have raised the prospect that Islamabad has begun a major strategic shift away from backing its favorite Afghan militants. Analysts cautioned, however that Pakistan's aim may be to apply just enough pressure to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table on terms acceptable to Islamabad .
Posted by: ed ||
02/19/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Soviets called such "policy shifts" One step back, two steps forward.
Haaretz assumes, like so many, that Mossad is actually involved in this. What if someone else done it? Should the Mossad chief go then, too?
An important figure with many followers goes overboard and gets exiled to a faraway village in the north. That creative solution comes courtesy of the rabbinical forum "Takana." But the sanction meted out to Rabbi Mordechai Elon should also be applied to another gentleman, who anyway already resides in the north: Maj. Gen. (ret.) Meir Dagan, the belligerent, heavy-handed chief of the Mossad.
The State of Israel did not claim responsibility for the assassination of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai. The entire matter is treated as AFMR - According to Foreign Media Reports. We can still argue both sides of the broader issue at hand: assassinating senior officials in hotels (see under Rehavam Ze'evi) and in public (Imad Mughniyeh, Fathi Shkaki, Abbas Mussawi, Ali Hassan Salameh, and the list goes on). But we could also narrow the question to the quality of the performance in Dubai. And what must have seemed to its perpetrators as a huge success is now being overshadowed by enormous question marks.
If the perpetrators were from the Mossad (AFMR, of course), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must be walking around with an acute sense of deja vu. Once again, an assassination of a senior Hamas leader in a friendly Arab country; once again, an operation designed to kill someone quietly and inconspicuously; once again, a diplomatic mess; and once again, it is all happening on Netanyahu's watch. In 1997, it was Khaled Meshal in Jordan. This time, it's Mabhouh in Dubai.
#4
Well, so far, we've got two Palis. Who may be Hamas. Or Fatah. Below we have the Jordanians. And a buncha people on European passports.
Maybe those "question marks" are just what whoever did this wants. They never have nailed down who killed Mughniyeh, have they?
#5
I'd suggest the "Mossad chief..." (if they indeed dunnit) "must go" and accept a Nobel Peace Prize, but those've been devalued so much over the last 20 years....why bother. Stay home and I'll send a couple drinks and an IDF pizza, k?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/19/2010 19:55 Comments ||
Top||
There is no reason to believe Brian Whitaker's argument that Al-Mabhouh's murder will start a diplomatic row between Israel and Europe. The long assassination history between the Palestinians and the Israelis never started a diplomatic crisis (UK's Telegraph tells more about the state sponsored Israeli assassination team).
In his last paragraph, Robert Fisk says that Dubai authorities have other information which they have not yet revealed. The world awaits.
No need for a long wait, what Dubai police hides is the following:
Charismatic character Dhahi Kalfan head of UAE police insists that the passports of the European-suspects' involved in the assassination are not forgery, and the police keeps copies of these passports.
Dubai police kept one crucial thing away from the media: The role of a third country in the murder.
Not a very reliable source, Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Sayassah full of propaganda and fake news but you can trust the newspaper with this report (English) for a simple reason; Chief Editor of the newspaper Ahmad Al-Jarallah is a close friend of UAE Police Chief Dhahi Kalfan.
Dubai arrested Hamas leader Nehru Massoud' for his connection with the assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh.
What Al-Sayassah newspaper deliberately failed to report, is that Nehru Massoud is recruited by the Jordanian Intelligence specifically Hamas Department A service, full-time monitoring and follow-up Hamas and the activities of its leaders in coordination with several international security services among them the Mossad.
The family relation between the two countries (Jordan and UAE), since Sheikh Mohammad is married to King Abdullah's sister, put Jordan in a very embarrassing and difficult situation.
To solve the situation, the Jordanian intelligence handed over two junior Palestinians officers as scapegoats, but not the head of the Jordanian Hamas Department who is a Palestinian high rank Fatah officer. The two scapegoats fled to Jordan after the attack, but Jordan extradited them right back to UAE. I think the technical term for that is "hanging them out to dry."
#1
Dubai arrested Hamas leader Nehru Massoud for his connection with the assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh.
In addition to all this unseemliness, his Rolodex is dated and he's been giving us bad poop. We think he's been making stuff up, therefore we terminated our relationship with Al-Mabhouh.
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.
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
