Hi there, !
Today Sat 06/06/2009 Fri 06/05/2009 Thu 06/04/2009 Wed 06/03/2009 Tue 06/02/2009 Mon 06/01/2009 Sun 05/31/2009 Archives
Rantburg
531695 articles and 1855967 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 79 articles and 259 comments as of 12:53.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Opinion       
Hafiz Saeed sprung
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 6: Politix
0 [1] 
1 00:00 Jumbo Slinerong5015 [] 
0 [] 
1 00:00 Mullah Richard [] 
14 00:00 European Conservative [1] 
3 00:00 Rhodesiafever [] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
0 [1]
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
14 00:00 Richard of Oregon []
5 00:00 ed [1]
7 00:00 trailing wife []
3 00:00 Cromert []
4 00:00 ed []
8 00:00 Walter Ulbricht []
2 00:00 Anguper Hupomosing9418 [1]
1 00:00 g(r)omgoru []
18 00:00 DarthVader [1]
0 [1]
4 00:00 Bugs Floluling1285 []
0 []
1 00:00 Old Patriot []
0 []
1 00:00 crosspatch [1]
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 Icerigger []
0 []
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 Paul2 [1]
Page 2: WoT Background
14 00:00 European Conservative []
1 00:00 ed []
0 []
0 [1]
1 00:00 Free Radical []
1 00:00 ryuge []
11 00:00 ed [2]
31 00:00 OldSpook []
2 00:00 Besoeker []
0 []
3 00:00 trailing wife []
0 []
4 00:00 Alaska Paul []
9 00:00 JosephMendiola [1]
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 SteveS []
4 00:00 Old Patriot []
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
Page 3: Non-WoT
2 00:00 OldSpook []
7 00:00 Parabellum []
7 00:00 JosephMendiola []
2 00:00 DMFD []
15 00:00 European Conservative []
5 00:00 CrazyFool []
3 00:00 49 Pan []
0 []
5 00:00 Besoeker []
4 00:00 3dc []
0 []
6 00:00 trailing wife [1]
6 00:00 rwv []
1 00:00 g(r)omgoru []
Page 4: Opinion
2 00:00 Barbara Skolaut []
2 00:00 JosephMendiola []
6 00:00 funky skunk []
0 []
15 00:00 OldSpook [2]
0 []
Britain
Jacqui Smith to resign as Home Secretary at reshuffle
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, is to stand down from the Cabinet to focus her efforts on saving her Commons seat after bruising revelations over her parliamentary expenses.

A source close to Ms Smith said that she told Gordon Brown of her intention to resign two months ago amid a controversy over her second home claims. The source said that she had "hurt" by the controversy, which included the humiliation of having to refund taxpayers for two blue movies watched by her husband.

On a day when it appeared when the Prime Minister's control of events was looking particularly shaky, it emerged that another minister was also heading for the exit. Tom Watson is standing down as Cabinet Office minister but will continue to advise the Prime Minister and help organise campaigns.

Mr Watson, known as the first MP to have set up a blog, was among Brownite loyalists who joined the alleged Curry House Conspiracy against Tony Blair's leadership in 2006 and has been among Mr Brown's closest coterie of advisers at No 10.

In addition, three other Labour MPs -- David Chaytor, Beverley Hughes and Patricia Hewitt -- announced that they would be leaving the Commons at the next election, adding their names to an increasingly long list.

Mr Chaytor is accused of claiming £13,000 in parliamentary expenses for a mortgage that had already been paid off. The MP for Bury North said that he was stepping aside because his priority in the coming months must be to explain his errors to investigators.

"This will be time-consuming and stressful," he said. "I have referred my case to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will co-operate fully with his inquiry."

Ms Hughes, the Children's Minister, insisted this morning that her decision to step down as MP for Stretford and Urmston had nothing to do with MPs' expenses but was motivated purely by family reasons.

Ms Hewitt, the 60-year-old former Health Secretary, said that she would not be seeking re-election in her constituency, Leicester West.

"I did initially want to serve another term. But I feel the time is right," said Ms Hewitt. "The truth is that after 13 years as an MP and ten years in Government, I have not seen enough of my family. They have paid a high price for that."

Ms Smith's decision to jump before she was pushed - she had been widely expected to be moved from her post - paves the way for an even broader Cabinet shake-up in a reshuffle now expected on Monday.

That reshuffle is also expected to see Alistair Darling moved from the Treasury in favour of Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary. Mr Darling, one of the Prime Minister's oldest political allies, could be offered another senior Cabinet post, perhaps that of Foreign Secretary.

No 10 rejected reports of Ms Smith's resignation as "reshuffle speculation" but it is clear that she wants to retain her seat in Redditch, Worcestershire, where she has a a relatively slender majority of 2,716.

Ms Smith is being investigated by the parliamentary Commissioner for Standards after claiming her main residence was her sister's London home. That allows her to claim £116,000 on her Redditch home which she shares with her husband and children. Items claimed included a flat screen TV, scatter cushions, a £40 barbecue and even a bathplug.

She was also forced to pay back £10 she claimed for the two adult films watched by her husband, Richard Timney, who is employed as her assistant.

Today a campaign group in Redditch said that it had gathered 1,180 signatures calling for Ms Smith to quit over her expenses. The Jacqui Must Go Now! group said it aimed to gather more signatures than Ms Smith's 2,716 majority.

There were mixed feelings in Ms Smith's constituency. Peter Turner, 72, a lifelong Labour voter, said: "It's very embarrassing for her, her husband's actions were the most damaging.

"I would consider voting for her but I think the tide is against her at the moment. The husband, the bath plug, it was all a bit petty wasn't it - fancy claiming for a bath plug."

Another constituent said: "If we hadn't found out about this it would still be going on, that is the worrying thing. I'll be glad to see Jacqui Smith go, most people around here are angry with her and I don't think she has any hope of getting the votes. If any ordinary person had behaved like these politicians, they would have been arrested."
Posted by: Fred || 06/03/2009 00:00 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Savage was all over this story last night.
Posted by: Kofi Flomotch5556 || 06/03/2009 6:59 Comments || Top||

#2  Meh. Call an election already. (What is the mechanism for that, anyway? Does there have to be vote of no confidence first?)
Posted by: Jonathan || 06/03/2009 14:46 Comments || Top||

#3  Who knows, Jonathan? Law unto themselves.
Posted by: Rhodesiafever || 06/03/2009 15:28 Comments || Top||


Economy
The California Way?!?!?
Why do I pay my taxes for THIS?!?!?!

BS! Total BS.

I am a native Californian, and WAS proud to admit it.

This is crap.
Posted by: Jealet Jerese4586 || 06/03/2009 12:33 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  join the rest of us and leave.
Posted by: Jumbo Slinerong5015 || 06/03/2009 16:49 Comments || Top||


Fifth Column
Justice Dept supporting Saudi Princes over 911 victims
The US Justice Department is supporting the efforts of the Saudi royal family to have five princes removed from a lawsuit filed by the families of Sept. 11 victims. The lawsuit contends that the five princes knew that the charities they were donating to were diverting funds to al Qaeda. The Justice Department contends that the Saudi royal family cannot be sued in a US court.
Odious as it is, this is the correct move. We don't want private lawsuits against foreign countries, we want our government to lean on the Saoodis hard and good.
Posted by: 3dc || 06/03/2009 00:00 || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The Justice Department contends that the Saudi royal family cannot be sued in a US court.


Neither ACORN activists, nor Soody royals.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru || 06/03/2009 5:32 Comments || Top||

#2  I disagree, Steve.
As a staunch conservative, I view it as their right to sue the Saudis, just as other victims have sued Iran. Our gov is in bed with the royals and it has less to do with oil than simple money & politics, and this ruling, unless specific existing US laws prohibit it, is a perfect example of their influence.
Saudi Arabia is at least one state the US needs to break off relations with for so many reasons I care not to list them.
Let them sue...it's their money. Besides, it sends a message to the politicians and, though with limited impact, to the Sauds as well.
This story really is simply about lawyers defending politicians' donors, and, notwithstanding the obvious 9/11 issues, is an outrage and is anethema to conservatism.
Posted by: logi_cal || 06/03/2009 7:59 Comments || Top||

#3  I also disagree. There's no reason that members of the Saudi Royal family shouldn't be held to account for their personal actions. It might be a somewhat thornier issue if they were acting solely in an official capacity as agents of the Saudi government but there's no indication of that being the case. Besides, aren't there something on the order of ten thousand Saudi princes & pincesses? That's an awful lot of folks to be given free passes to support terrorists.
Posted by: AzCat || 06/03/2009 9:44 Comments || Top||

#4  I know most are aware, but it warrants a reminder. I all fairness, our government's... 'slobbering love affair' with the Saudi Royals, Bandar, etc, did NOT start under the Obama Regime.
Posted by: Besoeker || 06/03/2009 10:17 Comments || Top||

#5  "Besides, it sends a message to the politicians and, though with limited impact, to the Sauds as well."

logi_cal ,
As much as I agree with your overall sentiment, using “civil courts” as tool for eradicating extremism is at best ineffective and at worst counterproductive. Here we have an amorphous money trail that fails to connect to the specific operation. Even if it were allowed to go to court it would most likely fail based on lack of merit. However, there is no doubt about the negative diplomatic impact that would result. Their host country would be less susceptible to concessions. Further, there’s not much evidence to support the notion that the threat of a lawsuit motivates terrorist financiers to quit their evil deeds. If a diplomatic solution can’t be achieved, a better course would be to first use the criminal justice system to indict the five individuals. Moreover, if it was proven that they acted in their capacity as government officials then list their native country as a state sponsor of terrorism. (Neither seems likely in this case.) So it seems the best course is to continue the military solution. Capture or kill the bastards (and their minions) at every available opportunity.
Posted by: DepotGuy || 06/03/2009 10:26 Comments || Top||

#6  yeah we want our governtment too lean on the saudi gov real hard. Well lets see, Nobama is kissing the saudi kings ass as we speak, al jizz released new bin laden tape at the moment he landed in saudi arabia and I say we will be attacked again in the next month. Wonder if wonder boy will be in the middle east at the time?
Posted by: funky skunk || 06/03/2009 10:42 Comments || Top||

#7  'slobbering love affair' with the Saudi Royals, Bandar, etc, did NOT start under the Obama Regime.

Nope. Probably FDR. Foreign concession granted in 1933 & first discovery in 1938. BIG discoveries were not until after WWII though. Pretty much every Western leader (including US Presidents) has been on their knees to the Saudis ever since. At first it was on behalf of the Big Oil companies (in return for unstated behind-the-seens benefits from those companies to those politicians), then since the late sixties because we needed their oil and we needed it cheaply, and 'kneeling' was cheaper than war.
Posted by: Glenmore || 06/03/2009 12:55 Comments || Top||

#8  I just don't see or hear of any evidence that our government is leaning on the Soddies at all. Snuggling under the covers is what it looks like to me.
Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 || 06/03/2009 13:00 Comments || Top||

#9  Besides the new OBL tape threatening attacks on America, Fox also reported an AQ plot to smuggle anthrax or other bioterror plots through the Mexican border. Something about sprinkling the agents on the White House lawn but I didn't catch the source or whole plot. I definitely do not feel safer nor do we have much recourse with the Obama Admin. in power. I hope Darth Vader has some secret nefarious plans we don't know about.
Posted by: Lumpy Elmoluck5091 || 06/03/2009 13:49 Comments || Top||

#10  Even if they won, there'd be no way to collect. The Saudis would refuse to recognize any US court-ordered payout.
Posted by: mojo || 06/03/2009 14:35 Comments || Top||

#11  As I understand it, cases won against Iran were awarded assets that were seized and held by the US Gov. In court cases such as this, should the plaintiffs prevail, the aim is to seize assets of the defendants.
This is NOT a case of combating extremism, but simply making amends financially to the insurance companies that also suffered, allegedly as a direct result of the financial support afforded personally by these princes.
Even with this case, I still do not support the so-called Int'l Criminal Court, but the plaintiffs have every right to seek recourse.

That's all I was really getting at...

Also, IMHO, extremism is a euphemism for tolerance of a religion that clearly seeks submission of everything else to 'it' and outlines violent methods to achieve it.
I disagree with the use of the words 'Islamic' and 'extremism' together; they are redundant, as they are 'the same'.

As well, I didn't note that anyone here was asserting that AliBama began this love affair with the oil sheiks...he's simply exacerbating it with all this 'warming up' crap to Islam and his Apology Tour. News reports are that the WH, State & the 'state-run' media have accepted some rather draconian rules for the media coverage while the One (heil-O) is meeting with his handlers...
Posted by: logi_cal || 06/03/2009 15:35 Comments || Top||

#12  Not a good plan. They should be sued because we can't hang them at ground zero...
Posted by: Icerigger || 06/03/2009 18:43 Comments || Top||

#13  The Saudis would refuse to recognize any US court-ordered payout.

Lots of Saudi owned mosques to seize. That's a win-win.
Posted by: ed || 06/03/2009 23:03 Comments || Top||

#14  True. The army could use them for ammo storage... to uphold the tradition
Posted by: European Conservative || 06/03/2009 23:29 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
Obama administration now in the mobile home business.
Administration to Reveal Plans for Katrina Housing Transition

The Obama administration will announce plans today to virtually give away roughly 1,800 mobile homes to 3,400 families displaced by Hurricane Katrina who are living in government-provided housing along the Gulf Coast, officials said.

The administration also will make available $50 million in rental vouchers to income-eligible trailer occupants who move to targeted housing projects, and take over from Louisiana the job of helping residents find permanent homes, said a senior White House official, speaking on the condition of anonymity before the formal announcement.

"We knew we needed to bring this program to a close," the official said. "We also want to ensure a humane and secure transition for all of them."

The sale option comes weeks after the trailer program formally ended May 1, and after Federal Emergency Management Agency officials said they could begin officially referring cases for eviction June 1.

FEMA typically provides disaster aid for 18 months. It extended assistance for 45 months since Katrina hit in August 2005.

About 1,150 families in FEMA housing live in units the agency classifies as mobile homes and park models, which will be offered for sale at $5 and $1, respectively. FEMA expects to free up an additional 600 to 700 units from its inventory to donate through state and local governments and nonprofit groups, the administration official said. Individuals who previously bought units will be offered refunds.

It is unclear what impact the changes will have. Many local jurisdictions refuse to alter zoning ordinances to allow small manufactured homes.

Thousands of existing vouchers from the Department of Housing and Urban Development that are becoming available in Louisiana are going unused. Some trailer occupants await promised grants to rebuild their homes or do not want to leave their home sites. Others do not want to move to HUD-subsidized housing or to pay more rent. Some occupants are so sick, elderly or dysfunctional that they require more help to find housing, officials said.

Spokesman Clark Stevens said FEMA is committed to working with families case by case, adding that 139,000 other households have cycled out of the trailer program. "No one will face evictions from a temporary unit while these new measures are implemented," he said in a written statement.



Posted by: Besoeker || 06/03/2009 15:04 || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:


Home Front: WoT
SHAKES HEAD.....
Snip, duplicate.
Posted by: 3dc || 06/03/2009 09:28 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Obama unexpectedly joins Barak-Jones meeting
With the public spat between Jerusalem and Washington over construction in the settlements intensifying daily, US President Barack Obama dropped in unannounced on Defense Minister Ehud Barak while he was meeting National Security Adviser James Jones in the White House on Tuesday.

No details of the 15-minute conversation were provided, but it came following Obama's call Monday for a halt to all settlement construction, including for "natural growth." That was the first time Obama himself, and not an adviser or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had included "natural growth" in the settlement freeze.

Obama joined Barak's meeting with Jones at the very end.

While former president George W. Bush would often drop by in White House meetings that top Israeli officials were conducting with figures such as the vice president or national security adviser, Obama's visit was seen as particularly meaningful, as it came just a few hours before he was to set off for Saudi Arabia and then Egypt, and following several statements criticizing Israel for its settlement policy.

It was seen as an effort to show a balanced approach and give Israel a boost amid the US administration's outreach to the Muslim world, which will include a visit to Riyadh on Wednesday and a major speech in Cairo on Thursday, but no stop in Israel.

At the same time, the two countries have serious issues to discuss, including the settlement policy. In that context, Barak's role is particularly key, as he represents the left flank of Netanyahu's government and has a warmer following in Washington than some of his fellow coalition members, even as he has articulated a position supporting the prime minister's assertion that natural growth must continue.

Officials in the Prime Minister's Office on Tuesday said that understandings on settlement construction with the US had formed the basis of Israel's acceptance of the road map in 2003 and the adoption of the disengagement plan in 2005, firing back at Washington for its demand for a settlement freeze that would include natural growth.

The implication of the officials' comments were clear: that if the US was changing its understandings on the settlements, it was undermining the foundations of the road map and was in essence reneging on understandings that were an essential part of Israel's decision to leave the Gaza Strip.

According to the officials in the Prime Minister's Office, "over the past decade, important understandings were reached on the issues of settlements, understandings that Israel abided by. While Israel committed itself not to build new settlements and to address the unauthorized outposts, there was an effort to allow for normal life in existing communities, especially those in the large settlement blocs that will definitely stay part of Israel in any final-status agreement."

According to those officials, the "overall concept was that neither Israel nor the Palestinians would take unilateral steps that would prejudge a final peace agreement. Those understandings reached between Washington and Jerusalem provided a crucial foundation for US-Israeli cooperation in the peace process.

"On the basis of these understandings, the government accepted the road map in 2003, and adopted the disengagement plan in 2005," the officials continued. "Israel will continue to abide by these bilateral understandings and seeks to strengthen them with the new US administration."

Dov Weisglass, who was intimately involved in reaching these understandings with the US, wrote in Yediot Aharonot on Tuesday that there was "no doubt" that the Bush administration recognized Israel's right to build within the construction lines of the settlements, on condition that no new settlements would be established, that there would be no expropriation of Palestinian land for the settlements and that no budgets would be allocated for encouraging settlement.

Officials in the Prime Minister's Office said there was concern that the US was now attempting to roll back those agreements.

That impression was strengthened by Obama's interview Monday with National Public Radio, in which he claimed to have "said very clearly to the Israelis, both privately and publicly, that a freeze on settlements, including natural growth, is part of those obligations [that Israel must fulfill]."

Although the US needed to maintain its "strong support" for Israel, Washington also had to be "honest" with Israel regarding the direction in which the region was heading, Obama added, three days before his address to the Arab world in Egypt.

"I don't think we have to change strong support for Israel," Obama said in the interview. "We do have to retain a constant belief in the possibilities of negotiations that will lead to peace, and that's going to require, from my view, a two-state solution."

Asked how he would reply to those in the Muslim world who felt the US blindly supported Israel, Obama replied, "Well, what I'd say is, there's no doubt that the United States has a special relationship with Israel. There are a lot of Israelis who used to be Americans. There [are] huge cross-cultural ties between the two countries. I think that as a vibrant democracy that shares many of our values, obviously we're deeply sympathetic to Israel."

And, he added, "I would also say that given past statements surrounding Israel; the notion that they should be driven into the sea, that they should be annihilated, that they should be obliterated - the armed aggression that's been directed toward them in the past - you can understand why not only Israelis would feel concerned, but the United States would feel it was important to back this stalwart ally."
Posted by: Besoeker || 06/03/2009 08:45 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Obama's visit was seen as particularly meaningful Kabuki Theater.

Fixed it.
Posted by: Mullah Richard || 06/03/2009 12:59 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
56[untagged]
3al-Qaeda in Pakistan
3TTP
3Govt of Pakistan
3Lashkar e-Taiba
2Pirates
2al-Qaeda
1Jemaah Islamiyah
1Jundullah
1Taliban
1al-Shabaab
1TNSM
1Global Jihad
1Jamaat-e-Islami

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Wed 2009-06-03
  Hafiz Saeed sprung
Tue 2009-06-02
  NKor names Kimmie's successor
Mon 2009-06-01
  Mass kiddy abduction by Talibs in Pakistan
Sun 2009-05-31
  Former director of National Security Intel was owned by ISI
Sat 2009-05-30
  Mighty Pak Army clears Piochar valley
Fri 2009-05-29
  Pakistan: Suspects arrested for ´plotting attack against spy agency´
Thu 2009-05-28
  7 killed in attack on Somali presidential palace
Wed 2009-05-27
  Taliban strike ISI headquarters in Lahore, 35 killed, 250 wounded
Tue 2009-05-26
  SKor military bolsters defense readiness
Mon 2009-05-25
  N. Korea appears to have conducted second nuclear test
Sun 2009-05-24
  Pak security forces enter Mingora
Sat 2009-05-23
  Car boom kills 10, injures 75 in Peshawar
Fri 2009-05-22
  Thousands flee tense Wazoo
Thu 2009-05-21
  Iran tests long range missile
Wed 2009-05-20
  Army takes Sultanwas, kills 81; Mullah Fazlullah maybe titzup

Better than the average link...



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.
3.80.164.96
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (27)    WoT Background (26)    Non-WoT (14)    Opinion (6)    (0)