#1
A worthy cause. Also, it gets Imus to talk about something other than his wife's cleaning products every morning. It's like an Amway commercial on that show anymore.
Indeed, the far left group Rebellion has admitted to transfer 14,000 Euros (around $17,000) to the Colombian FARC and the Palestinian PFLP, both on the European Union list of terror organizations. Rebellion considers these two groups as being "secular, democratic and humanist". Also, its spokesman is also charged for having called on national TV other far left groups to collect money for other terror groups placed on the EU's black list.
Rebellion placed on its website this fundraising operation and got 35 other leftists groups in Denmark and around the world to relay on their own websites this same call for collecting money on behalf of terror groups. Among them was the leftist Danish political party Enhedslisten that scored 3.4% during the February 2005 elections. Enhedslisten only recently agreed to remove the fundraising effort from their website.
Rebellion is being sued on these two charges and the trial should start next month. It is high time that our democracies deal with the alliance between some in the far left and terrorist groups. Clamping down on them strongly would definetely send the message. We can trust Danish justice to do the right thing (Denmark has been one of our staunchest allies in the War on Terror).
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
01/30/2006 04:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Funding terrorists is a crime. They should be arrested and their bank accounts frozen.
#2
It is true that the PFLP is secular. They're one of those traditional Palestinian terror groups. They murder Israelis the old fashioned way, not like those new-fangled, Islamist Palestinian terror groups. I s'pose I should be happy that Rebellion is supporting the old ways....
#4
HHHHmmmmmmmm, so like the US Dems, Russia-China, or Clintonian Amerika's Communists-for-Fascism-for-Communism, or most recently HAMAS, et tu the Danish Far Left - which Dane gets to be POTUS Kerry or "They Call Me Mr. Judith" Howie.
By Michael Mandelbaum, MICHAEL MANDELBAUM is the author of "The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World's Government in the 21st Century," from which this article is adapted.
THE WIDELY differing reactions to Iran's drive for nuclear weapons among the countries of the world present a paradox: Those in greatest jeopardy from such weapons seem willing to do the least to stop it. This apparently illogical situation illustrates the most important and least appreciated feature of 21st century international relations: the remarkable role of the United States.
It is the U.S. that has taken the lead in trying to block Iran's nuclear ambitions, calling attention to Tehran's violations of its nuclear agreements, insisting on referring these violations to the United Nations for sanctions and hinting that a U.S. military attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is a genuine possibility. Even if Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, however, it will not have the capacity to launch a direct attack on the U.S.
On the other hand, the governments of Iran's Arab neighbors, which the Iranian regime has termed illegitimate and has tried in the past to subvert, have remained virtually silent about Tehran's nuclear program.
The Western Europeans (whose territory Iran could strike), while expressing disappointment that their diplomatic efforts to rein in the Iranian nuclear program have failed, proclaim their opposition to the use of force for this purpose. And Russia, which is also within striking distance of Iran and is fighting a Muslim insurgency in Chechnya to which the Iranian regime, a notorious sponsor of terrorism, could some day supply nuclear materials is balking at seeking a U.N. reprimand of Tehran.
The reason for this odd pattern of behavior is that the United States has come to assume wide responsibility for ensuring international security and global prosperity. In particular, it is the U.S. that has taken the lead in pursuing two goals that benefit all other countries and that the Iranian nuclear program threatens: limiting the spread of nuclear weapons and ensuring a steady supply of oil from the Middle East.
THESE ARE NOT the only tasks the United States carries out that benefit others. The U.S. military presence in Europe and Asia forestalls nuclear and conventional arms races between and among the countries there, and it creates the political confidence necessary for trade and investment to flourish. The American dollar is the world's most widely used currency. The United States supplies the largest and most open market for exports, access to which is vital for the well-being of other countries. In fact, the U.S. provides to other countries some, although not all, of the services that governments typically furnish to their own citizens. The U.S. has come to function as the world's government.
To be sure, the U.S. did not deliberately seek this role; it gradually grew out of American policies during the Cold War. Nor has the rest of the world ever officially approved this global American role. And the United States has never set out with the intention of furnishing benefits to others. The international initiatives it undertakes are designed to serve American interests. This they do Iranian nuclear weapons would make the world a more dangerous place for the U.S., as well but they also serve the interests of other countries.
Yet other countries do not acknowledge the benefits they receive from the United States because that could raise the question of why they don't pay more of the costs of supplying these benefits. No government would lightly abandon such a "free ride." So it is in the case of Iran's nuclear program.
Other governments know that the efforts to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons may fail, and that in that case they will be less secure. Yet even this prospect is unlikely to induce them to pay higher costs and run greater risks to achieve this goal, and for a familiar reason. The Arabs, the Europeans and the Russians have a country they believe they can count on to contain a nuclear Iran should that be necessary: the United States.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/30/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There are many other 'free rides'the world recieves from the USA about which there is a deafening silence from the world's media. GPS and weather satellites come to mind. There are many places in the world that used to have unreliable weather forecasts, including us here in Perth. We have gone from a forecast that ten years ago only gave us 6 hours warning of a very destructive storm to a incredibly reliable forecast 5 days out.
#2
Add in there the local presence of the US Navy in reducing piracy for the worlds ocean going trade. Wonder how well the world economy would do in the absence of their existance. Certainly more expensive for countries which are dependent upon such trade in either insurance or the establishment of their own naval capability to protect that trade.
By Walter Russell Mead, WALTER RUSSELL MEAD is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author, most recently, of "Power, Terror, Peace and War: America's Grand Strategy in a World at Risk."
ABOUT 100 SEASONED State Department officials recently got perhaps the nastiest shock of their professional lives. Headed for long-awaited cushy assignments in the fleshpots of Europe, they were suddenly reassigned to such developing countries as Kenya and Pakistan. The word is that another 500 officials scheduled for moves later this year will get the same news.
You do have to wonder whether this is just a sly move by Condi to get a lot of deadwood to quit.
However frustrating these orders are for Foreign Service veterans looking forward to restful years in Paris and Rome, the transfers signify an important and long-needed transformation of U.S. foreign policy.
As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made clear in a speech this month at Georgetown University, the world has changed, and the State Department needs to change with it. The United States, Rice pointed out, has as many diplomats in Germany population 80 million as it does in India population 1 billion-plus. In China, Pakistan, India, Indonesia and Brazil, there are cities with millions of inhabitants and few U.S. diplomats have set foot in them or even gone near them. Across Africa, Asia and the Muslim Middle East, there are failed and failing states in which terror organizations are springing up, global pandemics are brewing and from which, increasingly, the United States' new immigrants are coming.
Yet until recently, U.S. foreign policy was mostly about Europe. The confrontation between Washington and Moscow over the future of Europe was the main preoccupation of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War.
Everything changed on 9/11. Danger and opportunity now lie outside Europe. Short term, U.S. foreign policy is centered on the Middle East. Longer term, East and South Asia will probably shape the new century's agenda. When Rice calls on the State Department to move its personnel out of Europe and into the new frontiers of world politics, it is one part of a larger and more historic shift U.S. foreign policy is now non-Eurocentric. But there's more to it than geography. Rice wants the State Department to practice a new type of diplomacy.
In the old days, striped-pants cookie pushers as U.S. diplomats were sometimes derisively known focused on governments and elites. There was no need to learn such languages as Urdu, Farsi and Arabic because English was the language of high places. Why bother speaking to common people?
Yet the old style of diplomacy no longer works. Television and the Internet are creating new and sophisticated channels of communication around the world. Democracy is shifting power from the suites to the streets. Accordingly, U.S. diplomats must learn how to engage the large majorities in most countries who don't speak English, who have never attended a foreign university and who get their information about the United States from Hollywood movies and their local media. I noticed this on a recent trip to India. English is one of India's official languages, and an estimated 150 million Indians speak it. But the more important number is the estimated 900 million who don't. These people vote, and unless U.S. diplomats connect with them and give interviews in the proliferating native-language electronic media a 24-hour all-news, all-Bengali channel is starting up this year in the communist-ruled state of West Bengal our ability to work with the Indian government will be limited.
At an Islamic high school I visited, students wanted to know if Americans lived like the characters they see in movies. They were surprised to hear that Hollywood movies and American life are no closer than Bollywood movies and Indian life. Indians don't break into singing and dancing every time they have an emotional moment, and Americans don't fire guns whenever we disagree. The students didn't know that opinion polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that God exists and will judge our souls, that religion is important or very important to most Americans and that 67% of us pray every day.
Part of the problem is that U.S. diplomats spend so much time locked in embassies and consulates that are blocked off and guarded. Sad experience shows they need protection. More than 200 people were killed in 1998 when terrorists attacked U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. But that can't be the end of the story. Especially in developing countries, the United States needs a bigger diplomatic presence outside embassies. When Rice calls for a greater emphasis on public diplomacy and on outreach, this is part of what she is talking about.
Much of President Bush's foreign policy is controversial. But even in a time of polarization and partisanship, Rice's effort to make the State Department less Eurocentric, and her advocacy of broader public diplomacy in a democratizing world, should not be seen as either conservative or liberal, Republican or Democratic. Those who disagree with everything else in the Bush foreign policy can and should support this piece of it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
01/30/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Time to earn their pay and remind their fellow Americans what their Agencies exist for - ala 9-11, Americans weirdly and mysteriously don't feel "right" placing our individual, familial, societal, national and geopol security in the hands of those whom let 9-11 happen, includ but not limited to anti-American Americans. AMERICA, NOT AMERIKA OR USSA/USR, TEACHES THAT NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT EVEN GOVERNMENT.
#2
Well said, Mr. Mendiola. And well done, Secretary Rice. I wonder how the diplomatic types will will respond when they are mugged by the reality of their new posts? The ones that don't retire in a huff, I mean. Either way, the State Department, and the country they represent, will benefit from the new outlook of the remaining cookie pushers (gotta love it!).
#3
A house cleaning very long overdue. When President Reagan ordered polygraph tests for Cabinet officials in 1985 to discourage leaks, Secretary of State George Shultz threatened to resign rather than undergo testing, in a famous outburst. "Management through fear and intimidation," he said, "is not the way to promote honesty and protect security." Reagan should have fired his arsss on the spot. That place is disgusting, a den of Pentagon hating, pink bowtie wearing Ivey League perverts, and scam artists. Use the big broom Condi.
#4
Listening to what the common people are saying is good, as long as you don't listen to their advice.
That is, we have an idea. One, really big and powerful idea. That is, that truly democratic and free nations are our friends--nobody else can truly be trusted.
If a nation is truly democratic and free, we can listen to their leaders, because what their leaders say accurately mirrors what they people think, in a republican-democracy sort of way.
That is, for all his ridiculous faults, Bill Clinton was what the American people were saying at the time. He was their truth, repulsive as it was. The world should have listened to him then, as the voice of America.
So this is how we should greet other countries as seen through their leaders. Chirac, as the representative of France, for example.
However, there is still much of the world where the leaders do not speak for their people. And here is where we must speak to their people instead. The local el dictator presents us with nothing more than an obstacle, at the best of times, with his bodyguard of lies. Perhaps a useful tool to achieve eventual true democracy and freedom, but nothing to be relied upon.
So once again, what of the advice of the common people? It means nothing, unless they are telling us what we already know: that they want true democracy and freedom.
If they do not say that, and mean it, then it doesn't matter what they say. They deserve the regime of their el dictator by default; being unwilling to strive for the higher goal.
If they do want true democracy and freedom, then they should have our sympathetic ear, though we already know what they are saying.
#5
Polygraph tests, eh? I still find it incomprehensible that I can't get a job at a McDonald's without a drug test and warrant check, and yet you can be a Congressman without ever going through either of those.
Here are some American heroes who were born in other countries, but fought for America.
Capt. Patrick M. Rapicault - France
Master Sgt. Suran Sar - Cambodia (also served in their military)
Cpl. Gentian Marku - Albania
Sgt. Uday Singh - India / Sikh
Pfc. Ervin Dervishi - Albania
Rick Rescorla - United Kingdom
That is for the people who joke about cheese-eating-surrendering monkeys even in posts about NAoppeonic soldiers or French Naval aviators: Naval aviation is very dangerous and requires a LOT of courage even in peacetime.
#2
Rick Rescorla was one of the mainstays of American resistance in the action pictured in the movie "We were soldiers". In fact his photo is on the cover of the book. He was security chief in a company whose offices were at World Trade Center. On 9/11 he successfully evacuated all staff but two and died when he returned to check no one had been left behind. He was a giant among men.
From Jewish World Review
By Walid Phares
Their winning may well be their undoing
As soon as the Palestinian commission for elections declared Hamas as a winner of the legislative elections in Gaza and the West Bank, a hurricane of questions slammed international media, Governments, politicians, and analysts. Among officials of the Palestinian Authority: what's next? Will Hamas ruin the advances in international recognition? Within Israel: Is the Peace process dead? How can we deal with a Terrorist Government? In the West: Is Democracy a weapon for radicals in the Arab world? And in America: How to deal with Hamas? These and more dramatic questions are the direct result of a political earthquake that seemed to shake off the foundations of the new US policy in the region: People are eager for freedom. But in the Palestinian territories, voters gave Terror a resounding legitimacy: Why, and more importantly, what is to happen?
Before democracy-critics rush to rapid conclusions, let them be attentive to the complexity of the democratization process. First, elections aren't the only tool to produce democratic societies. They are the institutions that checks and balances the democratic culture. Voting opportunities within societies that lacked the practice for decades systematically produces a proportional reality to the layers underneath. In short, if the most organized, well disciplined and better financed forces are given the opportunity to show their strength at the first electoral test, and the incumbent government is plagued with corruption, don't expect major surprises. This is the case of Hamas today. Let's review the road to its electoral victory.
Hamas' founders are the heirs of the Muslim Brotherhood, al ikhwan al Muslimeen, launched in the 1920s in Egypt by Hassan al Banna. Its ideology was inspired by Salafism, which also inspired its sister current out of Arabia, Wahabism. So, we're talking about two centuries of doctrinal legacy and 80 years of organizational experience. The Muslim Brotherhood was already active at the inception of the Arab Israeli conflict in 1947. An off shoot of the movement created Harakat al Muqawama al Islamiya (HAMAS, Movement of the Islamic Resistance) in 1987, to lead an active role in the struggle against Israel. It paralleled the surge of other off shoots across the Arab world in the 1980s and 1990s: The NIF of Turabi in Sudan, the GIA and the Salafi Combat group in Algeria, the Gamaa Islamiya in Egypt and later on the Islamic Jihad of both Palestine and Egypt. In the mid 1990s, a mix of the above groups produced al Qaida. However, while the Bin Laden galaxy mutated into an international organization of Jihad, Hamas was a "nationally" based Jihadist movement.
By the late 1980s, Hamas was gradually operating a socio-economic infrastructure financed by Saudi Wahabis. This jumpstart gave the movement an ahead social leap over its competitors, including the PLO. Later in that decade, into the early 1990s, Tehran's Mullahs opened a giant financial account in support of Hamas. The Baath of Assad hosted its headquarters in Damascus. Three regional streams fed the organization with state- sponsored strategic support for more than two decades, allowing Hamas to compete with, and eventually defeat Yassir Arafat's Fatah. The Jihadists of Palestine didn't start from scratch on the material level: Two capitals backed them, powerful circles in Arabia displayed generosity towards them, and out of the West, supporters excelled in fundraisers, taking advantage of Hamas skilled propagandists.
Rejecting the Oslo Peace Process in 1993, Hamas sunk most Palestinian-Israeli agreements with car bombs. While the PLO was signing treaties with the "Jewish enemy," the Jihadi organiation was striking deep behind those "Zionist lines." Hamas focused solely on the "Palestinian arena" making sure not to engage in direct Terror against the US or Europe. In the 1990s, Arafat's men were getting richer and were treated as VIP internationally including by Israel, while Hamas was stealing the "passion of the intifada" from the old Fatah. Its hospitals and schools-turned madrassas served the masses, while the PLO barons stole them. In parallel it took the group extreme violence against the Israelis, mostly civilians, to beat the Palestinian Authority on the "struggle" level. A full circle was established: The schools and services were controlled by Hamas and it produced more supporters; the terror strikes kept the Jihadi flames alive, while the PLO sunk in corruption. It became clear to any seasoned observer, that at the first electoral opportunity, the young, dynamic, economically supported network will displace the old, undecided, and financially corrupt Government. In fact, between the PLO and Hamas, there were no other alternative: The international community turned a blind eye on the third generation of Palestinians. The Europeans and their Arab allies stood by Arafat, and the Tehran-Damascus axis and the Wahabis backed Hamas. Asked to select their legislators, the Palestinians had these two camps to choose from.
The dice has rolled now. Hamas obtained the largest slice of seats in the representative assembly. But by projecting itself that high in the process, it flew higher than the comfortable atmosphere it was used to: the underground. As one of Hamas' leaders said on al Jazeera after the victory was announced: "As we were in the underground we will continue to act above the surface:" Nothing will change, he added. A representative of the ailing Fatah responded: "Everything is going to change for you. We've been there, saw it all." The prophecy of the vanquished camp may well turn true.
In that very revealing al Jazeera forum, the Hamas spokesperson attempted to smooth down the "victory." Facing a number of young activists questioning already the position of the group on the religious scarf and other liberties, he said "we understand the fears of the youth and females on social issues. We're here to say that there will be no imposition of unpopular measures." In the first few hours after Hamas' ascendance, Palestinian future tensions were already at the table.
"Freedom is guaranteed by the Koran," says Hamas using the verse: la ikrah fil deen (no compulsion in religion). But most Palestinians are secular, and the youngest among the latter are modernist. I have seen both, living side by side: But how about Hamas' immediate challenges? There are many scenarios.
Saib Oreikat, Mahmoud Abbas' main negotiator said Fatah will become a "supportive opposition." Other PLO cadres do not want to help Hamas in Government. In Tehran, Ahmedinijad is jubilating: Now he can see "Hamastan" as a basis for his future attacks against Israel. Syria is relieved for this breath of fresh air coming from the south. So is Hezbollah: The Jihadists are up and running in the Eastern Mediterranean, they fantasize. Hamas has brought hope to the axis of Jihad from the Sunni triangle to Beirut's southern suburb. But inside the group's "war room" wise men are advising for moderation in display. They have hard choices to make, much harder than blowing up buses across the green line.
At their first press conference after "victory" Hamas chiefs said "al fawz mina allah" (Allah granted us this victory) signaling that the next steps are going to be inspired by the divine as well. They insisted that the results are a referendum in favor of the "resistance."
They collected 80 seats (60.6% of the votes), or so depending on how to count the allies seats, and hence they can form a Government. But will they? Many scenarios were advanced by the Bir Zeit University scholars: 1) A fully Hamas Government. 2) A national unity cabinet. 3) A Government of technocrats. or 4) Chaos at will.
The near future will tell us.
But Hamas announced its long term agenda: Jerusalem is the capital and the return of all refugees. But they omitted to define the Palestine they want. More important they didn't say a word about Israel: does it or does it not exists? This question will be the hardest to answer by an organization which existence is about the obliteration of the Jewish state. If it doesn't recognize Israel, the world will isolate Hamas. If it does admit the idea, it will loose its raison d'etre.
And while awaiting the "holy spirit" to advise the Jihadi group in this regard, a Hamas controlled Government will have to deal with the following:
* The Peace Process with Israel: Will it resume it or not?
* The alliance with Iran, Hezbollah and Syria: will it keep it or not?
* Religious state in Palestine: will it enforce it or not?
However, the devil is in the details. And the most explosive ones are the security agencies, fully controlled by Fatah's powerful men. It is going to be very difficult to dislodge them. For Hamas can send suicide bombers inside Israel at will. But inside the Palestinian territories, everyone knows everyone and Terror is not the sole exclusivity of Hamas.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
01/30/2006 13:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
"It hardly mattered now; it was, in fact, a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm."
Posted by: Phil ||
01/30/2006 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
In Wednesdayâs Palestinian elections, Hamas, a fundamentalist party that sponsors terrorism and denies Israel's right to exist, won an outright majority. It was a victory for democracy.
While supporting Israel's legitimate security needs, we have to analyze what happened without prejudice: Why did Hamas win? Why did Fatah, the movement that dominated the Palestinian cause for more than a generation, suffer a stunning defeat?
After all, the Palestianian Authority had established a fledgling government â with broad international support. Aid was flowing. Israel left Gaza â and began to admit that its West Bank posture is unsustainable.
Why did the Palestinian people overwhelmingly vote for terrorists?
They didn't. Fatah lost because of the party's disgraceful corruption and neglect of the practical needs of its constituents. If not all politics are local, most are. Hamas won by providing basic services slighted by the Palestinian Authority and by avoiding the blatant corruption of Fatah's old guard.
Did Hamas's hard line on Israel help it? Yes, with a minority of voters. But most Palestinians voted for a better quality of everyday life, not for a doomsday confrontation with Tel Aviv. Disgust had more to do with the out come than militancy.
This isn't meant to whitewash Hamas's history of mass murder. On the contrary, the lesson we need to take from this election is one we should have learned years ago: Corruption is the greatest plague on the veloping world, opening the door for fanatical movements insightful enough to offer children a semblance of education and to provide the neglected poor with running water.
In country after country, Islamic parties gained power by filling the vacuum left in urban slums by corrupt governments. Westerners made excuses as Turkish, Pakistani, Egyptian, Algerian, Palestinian and an array of African governments looted their national patrimonies, stole aid funds and be haved with utter disdain for their fellow citizens. The bills come due.
No human being likes to live in squalor while his leaders splurge on London real estate. The wretched of the earth â to use that still-valid phrase â simply want their basic needs addressed. Above all, they want hope for their children.
If the desires of the global poor could be summed up in three words, they'd be "work, education, pride." Throw in electricity and sanitation, and you've got a winning electoral program.
Too often, we remain on the side of the corrupt and powerful, instead of standing up for the hurt and humiliated. If America won't defend the poor, who will? Extremist parties with bigoted agendas.
So, what does the Hamas victory mean for us?
First, the era of strong-man rule is ending. Democracy is on the march. Yet, from sheer inertia we often find ourselves on the side of the old, collapsing order â while our enemies grasp the potential of the ballot box better than we do.
Second, we must be far more aggressive in spotting, publicizing and fighting corruption around the world â no matter the short-term costs. Corruption is the most insidious enemy of rule-of-law democracy.
Third, we have to avoid knee-jerk reactions. By reflexively condemning electoral outcomes we don't like, from Venezuela to the Middle East, we only make heroes of our opponents â while sounding like hypocrites ourselves.
President Bush's comments yesterday struck about the right note, accepting the results and praising the positives, while staying noncommital on future relations.
Fourth, democracy requires patience. Whether in Iraq or Bolivia, we can't force voters to make the "right" choices. Electorates need to make their own mistakes â and learn from them.
Give Hamas time to discover how much harder it is to govern than to oppose a government. See if the movement evolves â or defaults to violence. In power, Hamas will have to deliver the goods. And better lives for Palestinians can't be achieved through terrorism.
The ball's in Hamas's court. If we don't like their serve, we've got a powerful backhand.
#1
Cripes, just when I thought Colonel Peters was going to make sense again. "Victory for Democracy??" What is he on? However you may define democracy, it ain't having a choice between two mutually homicdal groups of fanatics, who can only be told apart by the extent of their corruption and religious insanity.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
01/30/2006 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Col. Ralf has some valid points here. The election was both democracy in action and a vote against the amazing corruption of the PA. I've seen estimates that the PA was hauling in around 1 billion a year, so over the past two or three decades we are talking somewhere on the order of 20~30 billion dollars. For that kind of cash, you can not only build a shining city on a hill, but build the damn hill, too.
I see Hamas' victory as a clarifying moment. No more weaseling back and forth between peaceful roadmap/death to joos depending on the target audience. The best historical analogy is when the German people elected Hitler. Another example of democracy in action followed by people getting the government they deserved.
It is possible that Hamas will straighten out and function as an actual government but I'd sooner expect monkeys flying out of my butt. I do expect Hamas to translate their 'mandate' into a major offensive against Israel. The Israelis, behind their wall, will play rough. None of it will be pretty, but the result will be better than the current "slow war". And there is always the chance those monkeys will fly!
#4
"a choice between two mutually homicdal groups of fanatics"
And why isn't that a democratic choice? Democracy and liberty aren't synonyms, and nowhere is it written in stone that you automatically get good government when people vote. (Counterexamples abound, from ancient Athens to now. California, Russia, etc)
I'm still surprised that the election was held at all. I expected violence to "force postponement" indefinitely.
Posted by: James ||
01/30/2006 14:30 Comments ||
Top||
Do you ever get the feeling, while listening to the political debate, that we're stuck in the '70s? The 1970s, that is, that slum of a decade which gave us the worst popular music, the ugliest hairstyles and clothes, and the most disastrous public policies of the 20th century.
The decade in which a Republican president imposed wage and price controls, the decade when we managed to have inflation and recession -- stagflation -- at the same time. The decade when crime and welfare dependency zoomed upward. A decade when Americans saw our diplomats seized -- an act of war -- and no effective force used to free them. A decade when a president was forced to resign in disgrace and when America lost its first war.
But for some people, it seems to be the '70s all the time. After The New York Times revealed on Dec. 16 that the National Security Agency was monitoring telephone calls from suspected terrorists abroad to people in the United States, a hue and cry went up from the mainstream media and some Democrats that the Bush administration was engaged in a massive and illegitimate program of domestic wiretapping. Never mind that few if any wires were tapped -- it's likely that most of these calls were on cell phones -- and that every one of the calls was by definition international.
Yes, there are some serious people who argue that the program violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (that slum of a decade again) because warrants were not obtained. But no serious person doubts that the president can order surveillance of enemy communications in time of war. And it doesn't make much sense to listen in on enemy communications but to hang up when a call is made to someone in the United States.
Admittedly, in the 1970s Americans were reacting to a genuine scandal, the wiretapping conducted on the orders of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover until his death in 1972. In the 1960s, Hoover's FBI even listened in on Martin Luther King Jr., with the approval of Attorney General Robert Kennedy. And in the 1970s, there was reaction against past authorizations of attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, which were numerous when Kennedy was attorney general and his brother president.
In the 1970s, when Americans seemed to accept defeat in Vietnam and detente with China and the Soviet Union, many of us thought there was no greater threat to our rights than our own government. That was wrong then, and Sept. 11 convinced most Americans that it is wrong now. But many people in the mainstream media and many Democratic politicians seem stuck in the '70s.
They're stuck in the '70s also on the matter of Supreme Court nominations. The early 1970s saw the first defeats of Supreme Court nominees since 1930, of Clement Haynsworth (some of whose opponents later admitted was a worthy nominee) and of Harrold Carswell (who was not). The pattern of aggressive and sometimes extravagant attacks by Democratic senators was set, to be taken up again by the opponents of Robert Bork in 1987.
We were told that the nominees would return us to the days of segregated schools and, in Bork's case, coat-hanger abortions. (Almost no one imagined when Haynsworth and Carswell were defeated that the Supreme Court would overturn all abortion laws.) Now we have the absurd spectacle of Sen. John Kerry calling for a filibuster against Judge Samuel Alito from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Stuck in the '70s, and to no good political purpose. For the press and partisan attacks on NSA surveillance of suspected terrorists' calls to the United States has not convinced most Americans that their rights are in peril. To the contrary, they have raised a political issue that helps George W. Bush and the Republicans. And the fiery attacks on Alito have a tired, going-through-the-motions sound and have failed to convince something like three-quarters of voters that he should be rejected.
We can learn from history, and each decade has something to teach us. But we can't repeat history, because so many things change. Not many Americans, if they could vote for a decade to go back to, would vote for the 1970s. But for many in the mainstream press and for many Democratic politicians, it's always sometime between 1970 and 1980, and they're forever young.
The public isn't buying it. Enough with the bellbottom pants and the disco music, most Americans seem to be saying.
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.
Indeed, the far left group 
Here are some American heroes who were born in other countries, but fought for America.
