I don’t like hearing it under any circumstances, but John McCain sure seems to find the worst situations to use the phrase “Judeo-Christian”, doesn’t he?

According to Fateh Abdusalam of Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper, that nation’s so-called democracy would be funny of it wasn’t so tragic.

Abdusalam writes sarcastically:

“For a long while as they ranted about democracy, Iraqi politicians were also laughing to themselves. And they have been backed up by the greatest laughers of them all, the Americans - and the might of the U.S. Army. In fact, since the Americans created the racist, sectarian Governing Council on the first day of their occupation, everyone has been laughing to themselves over the ‘democracy; that Iraqis have been practicing.”

After venting a bit on Iraq’s political class and foreign interference, Abdusalam adresses what Iraqi leaders need to do to make things right:

He writes in part:

“Now all of Iraq must show the courage necessary to stop this democracy game that has been exposed, and for which we Iraqis have paid so heavily with our priceless blood. The question is: what’s the solution?What’s the alternative to the false democracy with which all Iraqis ‘comfort’ themselves today? For if the new Iraq is to rise up, Iraqis must take hold of the only choice - real democracy - which doesn’t submit to racial or sectarian influence, regardless of which side it comes from.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Surprise, Surprise!

In his much awaited Monday column in the New York Times, “Showdown at Saddleback,” Bill Kristol declares John McCain the winner at Saddleback’s Cone of Silence event.

In addition to his unbiased verdict on the Saddleback Church “debate,” made scrupulously fair because Obama went first and McCain second after having been “safely placed in a cone of silence,” Kristol tells us that the cone of silence event yielded three conclusions for him:

“First, Rick Warren should moderate one of the fall presidential debates.” Hopefully without cone of silence charades.

“Second, it was McCain’s night.” Wow, what an unexpected “conclusion,” cone of silence and all.

“Third, Obama and McCain really do have different ‘worldviews,’ to use Rick Warren’s term.”

For a change, Kristol is dead-right on this (third) one—cone of silence or not. Am I glad that Obama does have a different worldview than “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” McCain.

For much of the rest of his enlightening revelations, Kristol fixates on the “evil” thing—remember, the “evil” that brought us Iraq and took our eye off the real evil in Afghanistan and elsewhere—and says:

It’s nice to see a liberal aware of the limits of good intentions — indeed, that the road to hell is paved with them. But here as elsewhere, Obama stayed at a high level of abstraction. It would have been interesting if Warren had asked a follow-up question: Where in particular has the United States in recent years — at home or especially abroad — perpetrated evil in the name of confronting evil? Hasn’t the overwhelming problem been, rather, a reluctance to effectively confront evil — in Darfur, or Rwanda, or pre-9/11 Afghanistan?

As for how McCain would confront evil, Kristol says: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb evil.” No, not quite. According to Kristol:

McCain asserted that ‘of course evil must be defeated,’ and he put ‘radical Islamic extremism,’ Al Qaeda in particular, at the top of his to-defeat list.

I assume “radical Islamic extremism” and “Al Qaeda” must have been on top of McCain’s list when he gung-ho cheered-on the invasion of Iraq and we took our eye off the real radical Islamic extremism and off the real Al Qaeda.

As for the alleged “cone of silence,” Kristol must have been in his own cone of silence and not read the same-date article in the Times, “Despite Assurances, McCain Wasn’t in a ‘Cone of Silence’,” because his only mention is:

Now I’m not entirely unbiased (!), so I don’t quite trust my initial judgment in such matters. But it was confirmed the next morning. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported on “Meet the Press” that “the Obama people must feel that he didn’t do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context. … What they’re putting out privately is that McCain … may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.” There’s no evidence that McCain had any such advantage. But the fact that Obama’s people made this suggestion means they know McCain outperformed him.”

I am sure we’ll hear much more about the “cone of silence,” unless McCain and his crowd are able to put a bigger and better cone of silence over this leaky one–the one that McCain jokingly (?) said, he was able to hear through the wall.

Hot on the heels of his staunch defense of the legacy of President George W. Bush, Alexandre Adler, historian and France’s foremost neocon, examines the underlying causes of Obama’s wild popularity and what Adler sees as McCain’s only chance for victory.

On the reasons for Obama’s strength, Adler discusses in part:

– ‘his campaign’s lack of any tangible racially-based resentment.’

– ‘the fact that Reagan assured the United States a spectacular economic recovery, but nevertheless, paid for it with social inequalities that little-by-little have surpassed by way of inconvenience the advantages brought by free markets.’

– ‘the sometimes incredible stagnation of all public facilities in a country where the pressure for lower taxes has kept railroads, airports and sometimes roads at the technological level of the 1970s.’

– ‘the generation of children of humiliated communists and progressives, who are today rich and in power, and who are tempted to inflict a spectacular defeat on the American right.’

And what hope do U.S. Republicans have of beating Obama?

Read on at WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the U.S. election.

Read the rest of this entry »

A convergence of events–the Russian crackdown in Georgia, Musharraf’s imminent impeachment in Pakistan, the continuing impasse over Iran’s nuclear ambitions–is underscoring the damage of the bellicose Bush foreign policy to America’s relations with the rest of the world.

As the McCain campaign mocks Obama’s willingness to negotiate with rather than bully adversarial nations and dicey allies, reality keeps offering up situations that demonstrate the failure of the Neo-Con blueprint for American world dominance by military power that took us into an unending war in Iraq.

Nicholas Kristof points out that “the United States is hugely overinvesting in military tools and underinvesting in diplomatic tools. The result is a lopsided foreign policy that antagonizes the rest of the world and is ineffective in tackling many modern problems. After all, you can’t bomb global warming.”

Item: As Bush and Putin watch the Beijing Olympics together, the US is helpless to deter new Russian aggression. “While America considers Georgia its strongest ally in the bloc of former Soviet countries,” an analysis concludes, “Washington needs Russia too much on big issues like Iran to risk it all to defend Georgia.”

More here.

Highly recommended.Fallon is the CENTCOM Chief who resigned last year.

Fallon opposed the “surge” in Iraq and…consistently battled the Bush administration to avoid a confrontation with Iran, calling officials’ warmongering rhetoric “not helpful.” (Think Progress)

Whatever he may have thought before, he says that the situation in Iraq generally is greatly improved. He also discusses troop withdrawals, Iran, and his own role in US foreign policy. At any rate, it’s an interesting interview by a serious interviewer; and Fallon makes an excellent showing.

As we enter the second day of hostilities between Russia and Georgia, I see that the two major party candidates have already weighed in on the subject. (Has anyone even bothered asking the President, I wonder?) In a previous column, I posed the question, “do we even have a dog in this fight?” Some readers were quick in displaying the intellectual honesty to eschew any dithering over American parental obligations to the nascent Georgian democracy and the fragile Rose Revolution, pointing out the threat which exists to the strategic Baku-Ceyhan pipeline, which brings Caspian oil to the west. (If nothing else, this crisis should remind us yet again of how our dependence on foreign oil supplies - controlled by countries who rarely have our best interests in mind - impacts each and every move we make on both domestic and international fronts.) Even the Washington Post decided to opine that Russia must be “stopped.”

John McCain came out with an aggressive approach, demanding that the Russians withdraw from Georgia and calling for an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council and a “neutral and independent peacekeeping force in South Ossetia.” Obama, on the other hand, issued a call for “all sides to show restraint” and stressed the importance of the United States working with “international partners.” While Obama’s comments are devoid of both teeth and specificity, they may still prove to be superior to McCain’s rehtoric on this situation.

First, why would anyone even bother calling for a meeting of the Security Council? Whether it be a resolution to condemn the actions or pushing for a neutral peacekeeping force, Russia will use their veto to squash the motion. Making demands of the Russians at this point in time seems even less plausible, as such calls will likely be properly viewed as empty saber rattling. We would be foolish indeed to think that the Russians are unaware that our military forces are currently, shall we say, otherwise occupied. It is also worth taking a look at the current state of Russia, both militarily and politically, when gauging our response.
Read the rest of this entry »

There are some people in this world who think President Bush has been a great president - even in France. One such person is French historian Alexandre Adler - also known as France’s foremost neocon. In this article, Adler makes a very convincing case for President Bush’s legacy and his ‘unparalleled service to Europe.’

In regard to Iraq, Adler writes in part:

“At a time when “Obamania” is in full swing, why not say all the good things we can about George W. Bush, if not about the eight years he spent battling terrorism? Indeed, a certain amount of false evidence has been laid at the doorstep of the current U.S. president. … The first such item is in the process of crumbling before our eyes: not only was the destruction of the Baathist regime in Iraq not a failure for the United States, but it’s now turning into a genuine success. First of all, because indeed, Saddam Hussein did a good job organizing what was left of Iraq’s state apparatus into an unwavering support system for terrorist operations that America found intolerable. Then, because the current transformation of Iraq has had a considerable medium-term impact: Iraqis have voted freely three times since 2003, although to be sure, these free elections are not yet entirely pluralist. Nevertheless, they have played a role in helping assess the actual size of the three major communities in the country [Sunni, Shiite and Kurd] and have also allowed the real political majority to emerge in Iraq [Shiites rather than Sunnis].”

In regard to the economy, Adler writes:

“We now see that by maintaining strong growth, and even at this moment, by keeping America from entering a recession that the bursting of the subprime bubble clearly provoked, George Bush, helped mightily by [FED Chairman] Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, his remarkable treasury secretary, has done unparalleled service to the whole of Europe.

Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, the already-mentioned Hank Paulson, and General Petraeus in Baghdad, as well as Zalmay Khalilzad, ambassador and a veritable patron of Afghanistan, will in time come to be seen as true statesmen whose achievements are simply impressive.”

Adler also looks at the situation in the wider Middle East, Latin America, China and North Korea - and although significant blunders are mentioned, he gives President Bush high marks.

Read the rest of this entry »

Rainer Hachfeld, Neues Deutschland, Germany

Now that Barack Obama’s world tour is over - how do Gulf Arabs see the junior senator from Illinois?

While some commentary in the Arab world has been less than glowing, at least in the Persian Gulf States, hope for an Obama presidency remains high.

For the Al-Ittihad newspaper of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed Khalfan Aloasi writes in part:

“All people, especially in the Arab and Islamic world, long to see Democratic candidate Barack Hussein Obama win, occupy the chair of the American President and replace Republican Bush at the helm of the United States.”

Dismissing Obama’s claims that he isn’t Muslim and explaining why Arabs are so hopeful about him, Aloasi continues:

“The way Obama absorbed the inside of America during the primaries is reflected in his compelling campaign slogan (change). In the same way, his intellectual assets and his Muslim origins have allowed him to absorb the thinking of many Arabs and Muslims, notwithstanding his subsequent assurances that he isn’t Muslim, which is a position taken for political purposes only … The entire world awaits Obama, considering him a good man to replace an “evil” one. It is Bush who has prepared the ground for Arab and Muslim religious and social support for Obama, a man who may find it possible to look at their problems differently than other presidents, especially Bush.”

Later, remarking on the unprecedented global popularity of Barack Obama, Aloasi appears to compare him to Jesus - as the Arabic word he used is the same used to describe the ‘Prophet Jesus’ in the Koran:

“It is commonplace to have U.S. presidential candidates become the focus of world public opinion and controversy. It’s to be expected that they become the center of attention for newspapers, analysts and other politicians. But in Hussein Obama’s case, almost everyone has gathered around him and considers him a possible world savior.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Barack Obama avoided going there and John McCain has trouble remembering where it is, but Pakistan is the hottest spot in the Mideast with today’s news that Islamabad’s intelligence agency, the ISI, helped plan last month’s bombing of the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul.

A senior US official tells the Washington Post about “significant” evidence that ISI members provided logistical support to the bombers as well as in an attempted assassination of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

In this CIA leakfest, the New York Times gets “new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.”

Read the rest of this entry.

My friend Ed Morrissey of Hot Air and I don’t generally see eye to eye when it comes to matters involving Iran, and his column today on that country’s nuclear power ambitions isn’t likely to change that. Most of the fuss arises from this short item from the BBC. It includes reports of a statement by Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani (pictured to the left) given as part of a speech delivered to students in Tehran.

The official Iranian news agency (IRNA) quotes Expediency Council chief, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani as saying, “We have started the first activities of nuclear fusion.”

This clearly set off some alarm bells for Ed. He begins by noting that the Iranians are sitting on a “sea of oil” while claiming to be working toward nuclear energy capabilities.

Civilian nuclear power comes from fission, the splitting of atoms and the heat it releases. Fusion, on the other hand, has other uses as well. Hydrogen bombs rely on carefully constructed stages of both fission and fusion for their enormous release of power. In fact, thus far, hydrogen bombs have been the only successful and reliable fusion reactions produced by man.

Allow me to select a few bones to pick from this carcass. First of all, the Iranians are fully aware that they are sitting on a sea of oil. They would also have to be unimaginably stupid to not know that the sea of oil is eventually going to run out, and it will almost certainly happen during the first half of this century. When that happens, their economic hegemony in the area will unceremoniously end, and they may well find themselves suddenly thrust into third world status if they fail to find a new revenue stream. It’s not at all surprising that they would be looking into alternate energy sources, though it’s shocking that they wouldn’t be looking into mass amounts of solar energy. (A question for another day.)

It’s also not exactly accurate to say that nobody has achieved a successful and reliable fusion reaction. We’ve had a couple of experimental fusion reactors running for a while now. The main problem is that we can’t seem to figure out how to make them produce more usable energy than they consume in the process of operating. But be that as it may, I suppose the bottom line here is a question of what exactly Hashemi-Rafsanjani was saying during his remarks. I suppose it’s possible that he actually did say - and mean - fusion, as unlikely as it is that the Iranians would be mastering that technology for a reactor. But might anything else explain this?

First of all we’re dealing with a very short, one off news clip from the BBC which has been translated at least once. Is it possible that he actually said “fission” and it was copied over incorrectly? Here’s yet another possibility. Take a look at Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s background. Coming from a farming area, he studied to be a cleric and later moved into politics. This guy is no nuclear engineer. Because of my background, I happen to know the difference between fusion and fission, but I assure you that I speak to plenty of otherwise intelligent, educated people on a regular basis who couldn’t explain it without pulling up The Google. Might the cleric have misspoke?

It might also be helpful to take a look at some of his background.

Rafsanjani is a relatively moderate Iranian cleric who served two terms as president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, from August 17, 1989 to 1997. As president, Mr. Rafsanjani sought to encourage a rapprochement with the West and re-establish Iran as a regional power. His influence in Lebanon helped to bring about the release of Western hostages there in the early 1990s.

Rafsanjani doesn’t seem to fit the profile of somebody who would engage in that sort of reckless saber rattling. Besides, let’s assume that Iran actually is working on a bomb in secret. They are busy running around and insisting to the entire world that they are only working on nuclear technology for peaceful, energy generating purposes. Are you then going to turn around and go out in public and essentially admit you’re working on a bomb? Plus, he’s listed as being “one of, if not the richest man in Iran.” Not exactly the profile of a suicide bomber. He has a lot to lose.

There’s just something off about this story. I can’t conclusively say that it fails the smell test, but it’s definitely got me wrinkling my nose.

Israel prime minister, Ehud Olmert’s resignation last night follows months of mounting pressure over allegations of corruption. His successor, apart from managing the ongoing talks with the Palestinians, would have to face another major issue concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The Guardian reports that “Mofaz, a former chief of staff and defence minister, said recently that an Israeli attack on Iran was ‘unavoidable’ because sanctions were not working.

“Olmert, in office for two and a half years, said he would step down in September after his Kadima party has chosen a new leader. The main candidates are Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, a pragmatic centrist, and Shaul Mofaz, transport minister but a hawk on national security issues, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the ongoing, though faltering, negotiations with the Palestinians.

“Olmert’s reputation was irreparably damaged by the 2006 war in Lebanon, when he was criticised by an official commission of inquiry for having mishandled Israel’s response to a cross-border raid by Hizbullah guerrillas, embroiling the country in a month-long war in which civilians were subject to missile salvoes and at the end of which there was no clear victory over the enemy.

“But he was credited with having helped restore Israel’s battered deterrent capability by bombing an alleged nuclear reactor in Syria and, so many Arabs believed, assassinating a Hizbullah military leader in the heart of Damascus.

“Olmert is the subject of two criminal investigations. ” More here…

And here… (Photo courtesy AP/Eliana Eponte)

As we’ve seen over the past week, the global reaction to Barack Obama’s world tour has been largely positive - if not at times skeptical. But particularly in the Arab world - disappointment is the dominant theme.

Writing for Le Quotidien-Oran of Algeria, K. Selim focuses in on Obama’s 45-minute visit to the Palestinians, and the conclusions many Arabs are drawing from it.

Describing the deflated hopes of the Palestinians, Selim writes in part:

“Anxious to forge an international image, the mixed-race candidate - courageously we were told - decided to visit the President of the Authority. And it was even expected that after their discussion, a luncheon was to be offered by President Abbas. The Authority had in mind “putting small dishes into the larger ones” (A French expression meaning preparing a grand meal), no doubt anxious, for once, to dine on something other than illusions and receive the potential future president of the United States with dignity. Alas, Barack Obama canceled the culinary portion of the meeting and rushed back to the King David Hotel in Jerusalem where, doubtless, the electoral kitchen is more nutritious.”

Summing up the widely held view on the Arab street, Selim concludes:

“Democrat or Republican, Black, White or mixed race, man or woman, U.S. officials are implementers of a Middle East policy that constitutes the basis of their international relations. That policy, which is based on the dispossession of the Palestinians, is that of the military-industrial complex - at the heart of which the Zionist lobby plays a major role. … The Palestinians know that freedom isn’t something to be granted by the United States - that grand patron of the last colonial state [Israel], and that the only realistic course of action is that of resistance.”

Read the rest of this entry »

From JTA.org:

Ehud Olmert has decided not to run for the leadership of his centrist Kadima Party.

The Israeli prime minister was expected to make the annoucement during a hastily organized speech at 8 p.m. Israel time (1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time).

The Prime Minister’s Office did not give details of the speech, but Israeli media are reporting that Olmert will announce he is not running in primaries for the leadership of Kadima. Olmert has been the subject of a number of corruption investigations. Some of his government colleagues have called on him to step down, saying the scandals are impeding peace talks with the Palestinians and Syria.

Omert’s decision is expected to turn the spotlight on Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the second-ranking member of the party.

Livni was the subject of a lengthy New York Times Magazine profile almost exactly a year ago. I’d urge people who are following the Middle East to read it. Now.

After Messiah One touched down back in the States, Barack Obama sat down for a meeting with fellow Democrats to cover some of the lessons learned during the trip. One of the big topics was, apparently, mideast relations.

Obama told the caucus, according to an attendee, “Nobody said this to me directly but I get the feeling from my talks that if the sanctions don’t work Israel is going to strike Iran.” Others in the room recall this as well.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Look, Senator Obama. You’ve already sold me on the fact that I’m more in line with the majority of your foreign policy objectives than Senator McCain’s. But frankly, I get nervous when I hear any of you talking about Israel. I don’t think anyone aside from a few stray coy dogs on a river island in the midwest would, at this point, be surprised if Israel decided to unload on Iran. The real question is, what would you do about it? You’re supposedly not a proponent of unprovoked wars, right? Would you condemn the attack? Or would you at least go on record saying that you wouldn’t throw our military into the fray on Israel’s side without at least consulting Congress first?

You’ve been a bit wishy-washy on the entire subject over the course of the campaign. I, for one, would like to hear a few more specifics.

Mike Lester, The Rome News-Tribune

After the open display of affection and support Barack Obama received from French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris on Saturday - John McCain cannot be pleased. On the other hand, such a display could serve to hurt Obama, which is something that will perhaps become clear in the coming days. The French are not oblivious to this.

Referencing the danger for Obama, Nicolas Moscovici writes for Le Journal du Dimanche au Quotidien:

“Drawing too close to Paris could cost him precious from the center of the electorate in November. But on Friday standing behind his lectern, Obama had only sweet words for the Hexagone [France is often referred to as a six-sided Hexagon due to the geometric shape of its territory].”

In one telling passage, Moscovici refers to remarks made by Sarkozy:

“One is interested in a candidate who’s looking toward the future rather than the past” - in reference to the way he campaigned last year. ‘Good luck to Barack Obama. If he is chosen, then France will be delighted. And if it is somebody else, then France will be the friend of the United States of America,’ he finally concluded; with a formulation which again - says a lot about his preference” …

Read the rest of this entry »

One might call it the $2 trillion question: Of all of the people, parties and sources of information in Iraq, who should Obama turn to for ‘accurate information’ about what’s really going on there?

It’s a question that Fateh Abdulsalam of Iraq’s Azzaman newspaper endeavors to answer in this op-ed article written just before Obama’s arrival there last week.

Abdulsalam writes in part:

“We are told that Obama has three hundred advisers. But the advisers he needs are Iraqis who played no part in the Bush Administration’s bitter experiment. He has to find people outside the group that provided information on the Iraqi issue before, during and after the war began. These advisers should not be from the leadership of any of the Iraqi parties, which have enough trouble just managing their own affairs. And they should certainly not be from organs of the current, previous or future Iraqi government.”

So where then, should Barack Obama look?:

“He must find his advisers on the Iraqi street, in factories, on farms or next to the huts and tents of immigrants and displaced people or perhaps in an elementary school. It is here that Obama will be able to derive accurate information which will truly reflect the truth. Only here will he encounter the “wisdom” that is completely missing from Iraq’s unstable political environment.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Mike Keefe, The Denver Post