“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:
“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.”
Over at the Wall Street Journal, reporter Neil King Jr details the internal debates in Saudi Arabia over oil production. With the price now skyrocketing past $140 dollars a barrel, some Saudi officials are starting to sweat.
Intuitively, you’d think it would be the opposite. Higher prices lead to greater revenue, right? Yet historically, Saudi Arabia has been the leader of the OPEC block pushing for mid-range oil prices. They have resisted driving the price through the roof, much to the irritation of oil-producers like Iran. There are a few reasons for this. Back in the 1970s, during the Arab oil embargo, the Saudis began to notice that the effects of high oil prices - much celebrated amongst OPEC states - were not entirely positive. Exploration by non-OPEC countries began to occur in places like the North Sea, a development that would soon cut into the Saudis’ market share; moreover, investment in alternative fuels rose.
Just as it occurred in the mid-1970s, the same thing is happening today. Oil companies are looking wildly for new reserves to tap into (think ANWR) and research into alternative energy sources has apparently jumped some 60% in the past year alone. In oil-importing states, there is also more talk about conserving energy and switching to fuel-efficient technologies. None of this is in the Saudis’ long-term interest. If prices were to remain steadier, they figure, many of these outcomes could be delayed for years to come. Moreover, Riyadh worries that high prices will undercut the United States’ economy - and, by extension, their own. The country’s foreign holdings, totaling billions of dollars, would also be hit hard.
Then there’s Iran. Higher prices give their regional rival a huge boost. During the Iran-Iraq war, the Saudis (allied with Saddam) worked to keep Iran low on cash by ensuring that OPEC’s production remained high. The same fear holds now; with an expansionist and rising Shiite neighbor, the Saudis are quietly trying to keep the lid on the region’s shifting power balance. With a stumbling President Ahmadinejad, tightening the screw on oil prices would lead to domestic troubles for Tehran, and would also undercut the country’s aggressive foreign policy agenda.
Their problem, however, is that there’s only so many extra barrels that they can put onto the market. Over the last few weeks, the Saudis have agreed to increase production by about 500k barrels. Yet a lot of the new supply consists of heavier oils, for which there is less demand. For now, at least, the Saudis may be stuck with skyrocketing prices like the rest of us. Whether they like it or not.
“If for political and tactical reasons, the American administration won’t announce the terms of the Convention; if some of the terms of the deal adversely affect Iraqi “sovereignty and dignity”; and if as Nouri al-Maliki has said, talks are at a standstill, then why doesn’t the Iraqi government or it’s representatives at the talks reveal to the Iraqi people the items that they say so detrimentally affect Iraqi sovereignty and dignity, to help win popular support for the government’s position so that all can understand how the government defines its “sovereignty and dignity”? … Do we truly live in the era of transparency and democracy, as our esteemed government leaders, members of Parliament and party leaders claim? Or is this only talk - the sowing of seeds of illusion within the minds of this pitiful people, whose field of dreams is desolate and barren, and for whom the hoped-for heaven is instead a living hell?”
“Someone should explain the meaning of the absolute secrecy that has surrounded the draft Convention - and the meaning of the non-disclosure of the names of those on the negotiating team … Are negotiators afraid to shoulder the blame, or are they concerned they can’t stand up to the Arabic or Iranian backlash? The legs of the negotiators tremble when it comes to accepting responsibility for their actions.”
“… not only to repel the conflicting ambitions of Arabs, Turks and Iranians, but also to prevent a civil war, the flame of which has yet to be extinguished. For there are thousands who continue to blow on the embers - embers that are mainly due to the presence of political Islam at the head of the state and the spread of sectarian thinking in politics, culture and different types of Arab media.”
“That attitude of some parties, politicians and religious authorities are just an echo of the sectarian forces outside of Iraq, that don’t care about Iraq nor the people of Iraq, except to the extent that it’s in harmony with their wasteful, selfish interests. Hence we can understand why so many are opposed to the Iraqi-American agreement, because their opposition isn’t based on the national interest. Rather, they oppose it on the basis of sectarian motivations, decided by people outside of Iraq.”
Just as it has in the United States, Barack Obama’s strategic ambiguity in regard to the Middle East and foreign policy in general has definitively shown up on Europe’s radar screen.
“The candidate of American Democrats, Barack Obama, is campaigning with the help of the American Jewish lobby. Going further than many presidential candidates before him; Obama calls for an ‘undivided Jerusalem’ and threatens to do ‘everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.’”
“Confusing for many voters are the contradictory statements that Obama has made about the most controversial foreign policy issues. On the question of the moment: “How should we deal with Iran?,” Obama offers ambiguous answers. Before liberal students, he portrays himself as a true pacifist. However, before the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC - the acronym for the praised or damned Jewish lobby - he declares with the deepest conviction that there will be no limits when it comes to preventing Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons.”
But Weidenfeld cautions that after the campaign, whoever wins will have to engage in ‘intellectual decontamination’ to clarify where the winner truly stands.
June 26th, 2008 By BRIJ KHINDARIA, International Columnist
Rivals Barack Obama and John McCain agree on one thing – that persistence of $4-a-gallon gasoline will damage their electoral prospects. Obama democrats often place the blame on Big Oil, speculators and price gougers while McCain’s people blame controls on drilling offshore or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Both sides agree that the US has compelling reasons both economic and geopolitical to sharply reduce its use of oil and import less from the unstable Middle East. Many from both sides also agree that emissions of greenhouse gases must be cut to mitigate global warming.
Energy could push aside other domestic issues and the Iraq war if gasoline and other petroleum related prices continue to rise and recession or stagflation becomes more menacing. Compared with people in other countries, the pain is immediate for Americans because earning their livelihoods requires a lot of driving, in the absence of decent public transport outside city centers. Therefore, the politics of this issue is critical.
Yet neither Obama nor McCain offer anything “we can believe in” about the solution to this situation other than harping on the needs for energy security, energy independence and clean air, all of which are long term remedies.
With enough political will, many things could be done over the long term, such as diversifying sources of supply, energy conservation, improving efficient use of energy, alternative fuels, new technologies, solar and wind energy, and carbon capture and sequestration. But there are so many ifs and buts, and each requires so much new investment, that we shouldn’t hold our breath.
In the short term, ordinary Americans have already begun their personal solutions by cutting back on using gasoline and other oil derivatives. People around the world are reducing unnecessary air travel and pruning back their home fuel and electricity bills.
But both Obama and McCain are sitting on their hands. Obama blames Big Oil and speculators, including their windfall profits, but punishing them wouldn’t bring the price down at the pump by more than a few cents. The real problem is tight supplies.
McCain wants to work on supplies by removing regulations that stop exploitation of American resources but new US oil would take years and probably decades to come on stream in the best of conditions. What you pay at the pump would still be governed by world oil prices and those would not be affected much by the increase in US-based oil.
Saudi Arabia held a meeting of producers and consumers a few days ago and decided to put about 200,000 new barrels a day on the market but that tiny relief was immediately wiped out by a rebel attack on pipelines in Nigeria. That cut Nigerian output by nearly 800,000 a day. In effect, on the supply side there will be no relief in coming months.
The only possibility of sudden good news is a change in market sentiment. Currently, traders are pushing up prices by continuing to buy because they fear still higher prices. They think the Middle East producers are reaching their output ceilings and rising demand is unlikely to abate from China, East and Central Europe, Latin America and India. They expect shortages so they are buying quickly.
Expectations about supply would change significantly if the market felt that Iraq and Iran were sure to increase output even over a 6-15 year horizon. That would make it less necessary to fear tomorrow.
But Iraq is stymied by the war and Iran by US and European sanctions, which stop it from raising the money it needs to expand supplies and employing American and European companies with the best expertise. The other major supplier, Russia has dilapidated oil infrastructure that will take at least 10-15 years to put right. In any case, both the US and Europe are wary of its growing economic and political power and would rather depend less on it.
So we come back to square one. The only feasible way to mitigate suffering from high oil prices now and in the near future is for Americans to use less oil and its derivatives. Perhaps Obama will have the courage to say so and stop Americans from returning to profligate ways or look for scapegoats.
Here’s a quick geopolitical quiz: What country is three times the size of Texas and has more than 300 days of blazing sun a year? What country has the world’s largest oil reserves resting below miles upon miles of sand? And what country is being given nuclear power, not solar, by President George W. Bush, even when the mere assumption of nuclear possession in its region has been known to provoke pre-emptive air strikes, even wars?
If you answered Saudi Arabia to all of these questions, you’re right.
Apparently our Secretary of State has already signed an agreement to provide the Saudis with assistence in developing a “peaceful nuclear power program” and they are moving forward with it. This, as the editoial points out, is in the middle of a country which could probably power the entire Middle East with a decent number of solar panels. Consider the following:
1. Saudi Arabia is far from innocent in any number of questionable international incidents. (Where were those 9/11 highjackers from again?) They have a horrible human rights record and are in the middle of one of the most tumultuous areas on the planet.
2. Even if you assume that the King’s government is nothing but sweetness and light, is there any way to assure us that a future revolution won’t overthrow them and put nuclear technology in the hands of more questionable actors? (Naw… never happen. Huh? What does Pakistan have to do with anything?)
3. The Saudis don’t have to refine uranium and build an actual bomb. All they need to do is lose control of some spent fuel rods and the locals will be able to assemble a dirty bomb. (No, you can’t put uranium in your shoes, but nice try.)
Are not all of the points above exactly the same arguments we’ve been hearing about Iran lately? And are they not the same reasons being given from some quarters as to why we (or Israel) should bomb the Iranians if they go any further in their nuclear ambitions?
I have long felt that we will never be able to stop the spread of such technology indefinitely. Countries who are determined will eventually develop it on their own. But by the same token, we don’t have to go out of our way to push it into their hands. And, if nothing else, we should at least present a consistent foreign policy. If Iran can’t have nuclear reactors, handing them to the Saudis is questionable to say the least.
Leave it to the deaf, dumb and blind president of the United States to help drive already out-of-control oil prices into the stratosphere by further upsetting the always delicate balance in the Middle East through another round of saber rattling.
It is not unreasonable to conclude at this point that George Bush is so inept that he literally cannot do anything right beyond handing the grieving parents of an Iraq war casualty a medal and folded American flag without dropping them.
The Iraq war has been unique in American history in that the president has worked hard to make it sacrifice free and has largely succeeded. But now we all are feeling the effects of a war without end at the pump and supermarket checkout line even if most of us have not made the connection.
Don’t expect John McCain to do the math for us because he’s too busy beating the bomb Iran war drum with the president. Besides which, $5 gas and spiking food prices are justified because we’re making the Middle East safe for democracy, right?
Analysts described the global oil market as “hysterical” and “shooting itself in the foot” after oil futures jumped a staggering $11 a barrel on Friday to set yet another new record at over $138 a barrel.
This development, combined with still more bleak economic news as the unemployment rate surged to 5.5. percent in May, the biggest increase in more than two decades, further fanned recession fears. Some 330,000 Americans have lost their jobs because of Bush economic policies since the year began, while government unemployment figures do not include the millions of Americas who have run out of benefits and are no longer looking for work.
But while the U.S. may not be technically in recession according to some economic parameters, that is of cold comfort to consumers.
Consider this while you pump $50 worth of gas to fill your thrifty Honda hybrid or $120 to top off your macho-man Chevy pickup truck: Rising inflation continues to eat into your paycheck like the rust around the wheel wells of the car you can’t afford to trade in because you’re so deeply in hock to mortgage and credit card companies. As it is, wages grew at less than a 1 percent rate on an inflation-adjusted basis in the first quarter of the year.
Overwhelmingly criticized in the Arab world during his most recent and final trip to the Middle East as U.S. leader, President Bush does appear to have at least some supporters in the Gulf Arab states.
“During the U.S. president’s speech, when he discussed how much injustice exists in the Arab world due to unopposed heads of state and the large number of imprisoned opposition figures, the Egyptian president walked out of the hall. … Read the rest of this entry »
“In this region, George Bush has failed as few American presidents before him. His diplomatic balance sheet is pure calamity - and his last tour of the Middle East this week was a reminder of it. … With him, the United States has definitively moved passed the role of even-handed mediator to that of hallucinating prosecutor. But even more incredible is that he still believes in a peace agreement between the Israeli and the Palestinians before his departure next January.
“The Republican president even took the opportunity of his tour to engage in domestic politics. Without naming him, he lashed out at Democratic candidate Barack Obama, likening him to those who wanted to “talk to the Nazis” because he believes that the United States has more to gain by talking to Iran and Syria. … In any case, this is something the French and British have already understood. After having followed Bush for too long, they recently resumed contact with Hamas. Secretly.” Read the rest of this entry »
This Guest Voice post is by journalism professor and author Walter Brasch who is also a syndicated newspaper columnist and radio commentator, and president of the Pennsylvania Press Club. Guest Voice posts do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Moderate Voice or its writers.
President Bush’s Week-Long Middle-East Adventure
by Walter Brasch
President Bush is in Egypt today to meet with President Hosni Mubarak. It is Bush’s last day of a week-long adventure into the Middle East, where he also met with the leaders of Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority, and Afghanistan. It is probably Bush’s last formal chance to pretend that he’s going to broker a peace between Israel and the rest of the Arab world and secure a legacy that leads to the Nobel Prize.
He must be thinking that if Jimmy Carter could do it between Israel and Egypt, it must be time for a neo-con Republican to get a few accolades.
So far, the trip of the “war president,” as he often calls himself, has produced no significant results, and a huge embarrassment. In Israel, speaking to the Knesset and pandering to the sensitivity of the victims and descendants of the holocaust, he unsuccessfully tried to link his strong stand against terrorism to the weak stand of appeasement to the Nazis by Britain’s prime minister Neville Chamberlain in the months leading up to World War II.
The President’s comments were a not-so-subtle veiled attack upon Barack Obama who had said that as president he would meet with leaders of countries that were hostile to the United States, or were even leaders of terrorist countries. Diplomacy before war is Obama’s belief; they certainly aren’t Bush’s.
And speaking of terrorist leaders, after schmoozing with the Israelis, he met with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a long-time family friend. President Bush could have talked with the king about many issues. He could have talked about Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, that are providing a refuge for terrorists. But he didn’t.
He could have talked about the tyrannical, sexist, racist regime in Saudi Arabia, and suggested that the region’s largest country could become more democratic, not unlike what the United States has proposed for Iraq. But he didn’t.
He could have talked about Saudi Arabia’s oppreessive laws that restrict free association and free speech. He didn’t do that, either.
What was on Bush’s mind was oil and arms. Specifically, President Bush succeeded in getting Saudi Arabia to agree to treaties to protect its oil industry against terrorists. He didn’t get the billionaire friend-king to increase oil production, which would lower the price of gas.
After a week of sightseeing and “talks,” and yet-to-be-determined millions of taxpayer dollars, George and Laura Bush, and their White House posse, will again be on American soil. And so will be the recession, unemployment, poverty, the health care and housing crises, and innumerable domestic problems that haven’t been solved because this fake-cowboy president has focused his administration upon combating terrorism? except among its terrorist friends? and has spent the last six years using fear as justification to restrict American freedoms.
How damaging to U.S. interests in the Arab world was President Bush’s speech to the Israeli Knesset? If Arab reaction is anything to go by, it will certainly guarantee the end of U.S. credibility as an honest broker for some time to come.
Here’s a sampling of reaction from the Egyptian press from the Egyptian Gazette:
“Bush’s outrageous comments in the Knesset will backfire on his alleged war on terror, providing added ammunition to terrorists and extremists who will now hit back and intensify their activities.”
“‘This lunatic American president [Bush] took pride in the fact that his country was the first to recognize the independence of Israel and give U.S. cities Jewish names,’ concluding that Bush had solicited support for Republican John McCain in the U.S. presidential race without considering whether such a act would increase hostilities toward American troops and the number of U.S. casualties, he concluded.” Read the rest of this entry »
The rush to get off the S.S. Bush turned into a stampede this week as John McCain, Congressional Republicans and even the Saudis headed for the lifeboats.
King Abdullah, who used to hold his hand, gave Bush the royal finger when asked to pump more oil to ease gas prices.
John McCain backed away from the Imperial Presidency, not only by promising to emulate British prime ministers and regularly going to both houses of Congress to answer questions but also, as a New York Timeseditorial put it:
“McCain said, if elected, he will…work in ‘concerted action’ with other nations to counter the nuclear threats of Iran and North Korea; and eliminate a tax meant for the rich that is crushing the upper-middle class. He promised to not ’subvert the purpose of legislation,’ as Mr. Bush has done, with signing statements.”
Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans were jumping ship by joining Democrats in ignoring Bush’s veto threats with lopsided votes to boost food stamps and farm subsidies and to order the Administration to stop pouring oil into the nation’s emergency reserves.
Over vocal White House opposition, 35 of 49 Senate Republicans voted with Democrats to pass a $290 billion farm bill to increase food aid for the needy. A hundred House Republicans had voted the same way after the party’s third straight loss of a long-held GOP seat on Tuesday.
After seeing the results of Dick Cheney’s help in that special election, Congressional Republicans have a sinking feeling about November. If George W. Bush is looking for friends until then, he will have to turn to his dog Barney.
If President Bush’s goal on his last trip to the Middle East was to enrage the entire Arab world - not to mention U.S. Democrats - he could not have done better than the speech he delivered to the Israeli Knesset on Thursday.
“In front of Israeli deputies, the president of the United States indulged in exaltation about ‘the chosen people,’ while expressing his loathing for those Arabs who resist his diktat. The speech exuded pure hatred coupled with the fabrication of prophecy.”
“It’s a shame that since 1948, history only designates the other war maker [the Arabs] rather than the Zionist entity and its ally. Read the rest of this entry »
President George Bush has made another comment from foreign soil (Egypt) that doesn’t specify who he’s criticizing but it’s again clear who he means: he says don’t blame Saudi Arabia for America’s oil problems, blame Congress (which just happens to be controlled by the opposition party):
US President George W. Bush said on Saturday that a hike in oil output by Saudi Arabia would not solve American energy problems.
“It’s not enough, it’s something but it doesn’t solve our problem,” Bush told reporters in Egypt’s Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.
Bush said he was “pleased” with a Saudi decision taken on May 10 to increase its oil production by 300,000 barrels per day in response to customers, but said that he was “also realistic” about what the Americans should do.
“Our problem in America gets solved when we aggressively go for domestic exploration. Our problem in America gets solved if we expand our refining capacity, promote nuclear energy and continue our strategy for the advancing of alternative energies as well as conservation,” he said.
Fair enough. And how could he open himself to criticism for that? It’s what comes next that could cause some ripples, although not as much as earlier in the week when he used the same rhetorical technique to swipe at Democratic Senator Barack Obama from Israel:
“One interesting thing about American politics these days is those who are screaming the loudest for increased production from Saudi Arabia are the very same people who are fighting the fiercest against domestic exploration, against the development of nuclear power and against expanding refining capacity.”
Who do “those” refer to? Bush often uses this rhetorical device (which Richard Nixon used quite frequently) of saying “there are those” without naming them.
What’s notable about Bush is that he is one of the few Presidents in American history who seemingly rejects the idea of the virtue of seriously working to build genuine bipartisan consensus on solving national problems. It’s almost as if he views bipartisan consensus and problem solving as weakness. It’s all divide and rule hot-button politics.
In fact, BOTH parties are to blame for not coming together over the years and putting aside differences and hammering out a short term plan and a long term strategy. Just insisting that ANWAR must be drilled doesn’t cut it.
“The American president could hardly have envisaged a more unfavorable climate for his Middle East tour. Expected this morning in Jerusalem to participate in celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, George W. Bush will have few other reasons to rejoice during a tour that will also take him to Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and which is likely to illustrate the failure of his policies in the region. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is on the brink of collapse. In Lebanon, the pro-Western government of Fouad Siniora is suffering a Hezbullah onslaught, while the Shiite movement is supported by the two black beasts of U.S. policy in the region, Iran and Syria.”
By Patrick Saint-Paul, correspondent in Jerusalem
Translated By Sandrine Agoerges
May 13, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
The American president arrives in Israel in midst of political uncertainty and with the peace process is at a standstill.
The American president could hardly have envisaged a more unfavorable climate for his Middle East tour. Expected this morning in Jerusalem to participate in celebrations for the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel, George W. Bush will have few other reasons to rejoice during a tour that will also take him to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and which is likely to illustrate the failure of his policies in the region. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process is on the brink of collapse. In Lebanon, the pro-Western government of Fouad Siniora is suffering a Hezbullah onslaught, while the Shiite movement is supported by the two black beasts of U.S. policy in the region, Iran and Syria.
For his second visit to Jerusalem since last January, Bush will be forced to note that since he undertook to revive peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians at Annapolis in late 2007, no progress has been made. “Unless he has a rabbit in his hat, this will be the third time in the past half year that the U.S. president shows the Palestinians and the entire Arab world that they are wasting their time by trying to end the occupation by peaceful means.” says Akiva Eldar in an editorial entitled Bush should stay home .
The hope of the American President to see an agreement before the end of the year seems illusory. According to his entourage, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, told Bush during his visit to Washington last month that upon discovering the positions of Israeli negotiators, he thought it was a joke - so far where they from the parameters set by Bill Clinton at the time of the previous talks.
According to the Palestinians, Israeli negotiators sought to retain, in addition to large areas with Jewish settlements, the Jordan Valley up to the outskirts of Nablus - amounting to about 10 percent more territory. In Jerusalem, there would be no question of splitting the old city - home to the sacred sites, nor the restoration of the Arab districts that border it. Israel merely proposed Palestinian control over an “Esplanade of Mosques” and some of the suburbs surrounding East Jerusalem. The talks were jeopardized by programs to enlarge Israeli settlements in the West Bank and violence in Gaza strip, where missiles launched by Hamas activists have led to an Israeli military response.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing foreign press coverage of President Bush’s trip to the Middle East.
The separation between the sexes in Saudi Arabia is so extreme that it is difficult to overstate. Saudi women may not drive, and they must wear black abayas and head coverings in public at all times. They are spirited around the city in cars with tinted windows, attend girls-only schools and university departments, and eat in special “family” sections of cafes and restaurants, which are carefully partitioned from the sections used by single male diners.
Special women-only gyms, women-only boutiques and travel agencies, even a women-only shopping mall, have been established in Riyadh in recent years to serve women who did not previously have access to such places unless they were chaperoned by a male relative. […]
But they seem to regard the idea of having a conversation with a man before their showfas and subsequent engagements with very real horror. When they do talk about girls who chat with men online or who somehow find their own fiancés, these stories have something of the quality of urban legends about them: fuzzy in their particulars, told about friends of friends, or “someone in my sister’s class.”
Well-brought-up unmarried young women here are so isolated from boys and men that when they talk about them, it sometimes sounds as if they are discussing a different species.
For the techno-utopians among us who like to think that we can change the world simply by enabling people to communicate and connect via Bluetooth, texting, or Facebook, the article is an eye-opener.
The role of women in Saudi life since the introduction of those technologies sounds very much the same. But different: Read the rest of this entry »
Now that the pro-Western government in Lebanon has been “put in its place” by Hezbollah - and by extension Iran and Syria - what is Israel up against - and what narrative will the Islamists use to heal the wounds and consolidate their victory?
Explaining why Lebanon’s Pro-West Sunni government is afraid of Hezbullah and Iran, Zaatera writes:
“The people of the Umma [the Muslim Nation] and in particular the Sunnis, are as captive as they are perplexed. On the one hand, they know that what’s happening in Lebanon is an integral part of the battle that the Americans and Israelis are waging against forces of resistance and opposition in the region. Read the rest of this entry »
There is angst on North Africa - otherwise known as the Maghreb - over the second-class treatment meted out to the region by the Bush Administration.
And since this is where the Pentagon intends to headquarter its new African Command - and since it hosts a blossoming al-Qaeda presence - this is not an inconsequential matter.
In the latest in a series of articles WORLDMEETS.US has translated that one might call “we can’t get no repect,” Read the rest of this entry »
