“Osama bin Laden has never lived in the Americas, but thanks to the slaughter he directed on September 11, 2001, he became the most important U.S. elector by triggering Bush’s rise in the polls. … The greatest vote-getter that McCain could hope for would be if bin Laden would allow himself to be captured or if he carried out another massive attack.”
“Osama, however, must be wondering whether a victory for Obama would be more dangerous to him than one by McCain, since the African-American will give the United States a new image and get the U.S. out of Iraq to concentrate on hunting down and capturing him.”
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.
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.
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 Timesgets “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.”
Thank God for YouTube. I just finished watching Obama’s Berlin speech (all 30 minutes of it) and besides the high number of people in attendance (over 200,000), I was concerned by a couple of comments in his speech that are questionable from a historical context.
About 1/3 of the way through the speech, Obama made this statement:
“The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews cannot stand.”
Within this passage, Obama paid his subtle homage to Presidents Kennedy and Reagan. It was almost as if he was saying “So what if I can’t speak at the Brandenburg Gate, it is only a location; it is the message that is most important.” The point he seems to be making is that the barriers that separate us as human beings are no longer drawn on a map; they are truly within the heart itself.
Later on in the speech, the second statement of concern to me involved the replacement of Communism with extreme Muslim political thought (Terrorism). “If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope,” said Obama. This statement is a bit more problematic as it connects the socio-economic and political structure of the Communist state of the Soviet Union with the non-state dynamics of political terrorism. As I tell my Political Theory class, Socialism is the theory (Marx/Engels) and Communism is the economic and political governmental structure of the former U.S.S.R. (Lenin/TrotskyStalin). I realize that I am being picky but I expect the President of the United States to know the difference between Communism and Socialism.
The speech was a success because few people really bothered to read between the lines. It was well delivered but was lacking in bringing something new to the table. Rehashing Reagan and Kennedy is fine but I expected more from this speech. The German newspaper Bild called Obama “the political pop star.” I hope that is not a sign of things to come. Initially, pop stars are interesting to watch and attract a lot of media attention. Unfortunately, some of them go crazy and act a bit strange. Wasn’t Michael Jackson called the “King of Pop” in the 1990s…does anyone want him to run the country?
Well now. A tape of a Canadian 16 year old sobbing as he’s interrogated at Gitmo has surfaced after the Canadian Supreme Court ordered it released. The teen was captured in Afghanistan and accused of being a terrorist, alleges torture at Bagram, was held in solitary and subjected to disorientation techniques at Gitmo - - and is still held there. He may well be a teen terrorist, may well be guilty as sin. But torture and "hearsay" evidence in kangaroo courts fails entirely to uphold the notion of the rule of law for all, a hallmark of free and just society. (Newshoggers; emphasis added)
Squeeze them out of Iraq, and they squirt into Afghanistan and Pakistan tribal areas. What’s clear is that the Bush-McCain mantra of “fight them there [Iraq] so we don’t have to fight them here” has turned out to be an oversimplification of the war on terror the US will be fighting through the next Administration and beyond.
This week, A US Marines commander reported his troops have killed 400 insurgents in southern Afghanistan since late April, and visiting Congressmen were told the Bush administration is “recalibrating operations in the region because of a 40 percent increase in violent attacks against US-led forces in Afghanistan that have pushed US casualties for the month of June beyond the monthly toll in Iraq.”
An East Jerusalem Palestinian hijacked a bulldozer today and began attacking buses, cars and the people in them. A few people were killed and around 60 were wounded. Fortunately, the terrorist was quickly killed.
While BBC Online currently covers the story “Bulldozer rampage hits Jerusalem,” this was not the original headline. Offering a glimpse into the BBC’s warped journalism, the initial headline read “Israel bulldozer driver shot dead”.
I am appalled to see that CNN is writing “terrorist” and MSNBC is writing ‘terrorist’ when these are TERRORISTS without quotation marks or apostrophes.
Credit for some of these links goes to Rabbi David in Iowa.
“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.”
Beyond the headlines, we occasionally get “soft” news about how the post-9/11 world really is, as we do today in disturbing narratives about the unseen wars in Iran and Pakistan–patterns of secrets and lies that Americans and their representatives in Washington either don’t fully know or want to talk about publicly.
In the New Yorker, Seymour Hersh details a new “major escalation of covert operations against Iran…designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership” as part of a literal tug of war in the White House and Congress on how to deal with the nuclear threat from Tehran.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reports “a secret plan to make it easer for the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda,” a plan that exists only on paper as a result of Washington indecision and in-fighting.
Until the Bush Administration departs next January, it will be easy enough to blame all this dangerous confusion on their certified bunglers, but how well will successors of either party in a country that prides itself on government transparency be equipped to navigate this shadowy world of shifting alliances among violent splinter groups?
June 16th, 2008 By DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Assistant Editor, TMV Columnist
You might remember my reports on the monk’s, nun’s and Burmese people’s protests in September of last year, how my contacts in Yangon (Rangoon) dried up within days as cpu’s were confiscated, cell phones smashed, communications wires cut, and various deeply good souls arrested, many children, men, women beaten, many murdered by Than Shwe’s evil orders. It was agony and remains so, not to know the fates of those specific contacts/blogger/photographers who were bravely and desperately funneling information and photos out of Burma to literally anyone who would receive them.
I pray for highly endangered bloggers and journalists and radio and broadcast press people everyday. But after such brutal crackdowns as the smug dictator Shwe’s in Burma, for instance, I dont know the storytellers’ whereabouts, if I should pray for them on earth, or perhaps they have been killed and are in heaven. So I pray for them wherever they might be, that they be given all mercy possible, that they be made invisible at just the right moments, that they somehow know we know; that they can be assured that their courage work did not fall on stones.
I would like a monument to The Unknown Bloggers of the World. I would. I am deadly serious. Those who risked their lives to tell the story. Those who gave their lives to tell the story before they were cut down.
Here is more on the hugely disturbing free-form arresting and harming of bloggers, a practice that despite public knowlege, continues without effective intervention… In this report from University of Washington, a reported 64 bloggers arrested for publishing their views in 2003, to a 192 bloggers reported arrested in 2007, the numbers only increase. It is poignant to note that ‘reported’ numbers does not include those who are maimed, disappeared, murdered. Nor does it include, as the article states, those arrested in place just like Burma where the government gives the evil eye to anyone who asks after the welfare of any citizen.
From BBC
…A University of Washington annual report….
More than half of all the arrests since 2003 have been made in China, Egypt and Iran, said the report.
Citizens have faced arrest and jail for blogging about many different topics, said the World Information Access (WIA) report.
Arrested bloggers exposed corruption in government, abuse of human rights or suppression of protests. They criticised public policies and took political figures to task. Read the rest of this entry »
Europe this week bade President Bush farewell - and if it was a fond farewell, it is because they know he’s leaving not only Europe, but the corridors of American power.
“As expected, the demagogues have begun shouting hostile ideological slogans without taking a moment to consider the advantages that the United States offers a devastated country like Iraq. Read the rest of this entry »
“We still have a long way to go to the presidential elections in November, more than sufficient time for the intentions of the voters to change. … There is no doubt that as far as the interests of Colombia are concerned, McCain would be the ideal president. But it’s the same for the middle and upper classes of the United States. McCain would be ideal, especially after listening to the pacifist and naive Neville Chamberlain-ideas of Obama in regard to confronting Iran, inasmuch as the Iranian threat is real and one fears a repeat of the Democratic government of Jimmy Carter, who was a disastrous dolt as much for the United States as for the rest of the Western world. ”
“The issue is that the Democrats lack vision in international affairs. For example, look at the issue of the “assassinations of Colombian trade unionists.” For them this is such a serious fault that they can’t sign a Free Trade Agreement with their first ally in Latin America. It hasn’t occurred to the myopic Democrats that by emphasizing the unproven murders of Colombian trade unionists as an argument against the FTA, they may well encourage such killings by President Uribe’s own enemies.”
When and if Barack Obama takes the oath of office as President of the United States, who most will he owe that high privilege to?
According to Alexandre Adler, one of France’s leading historians, journalists - and according to many - a neocon, that person would be George W. Bush. 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 »
The events now unfolding in the Middle East, which have been set in motion by Hezbullah’s takeover last week of much of Beirut, do not bode well for American or Israeli interests, warns one of France’s leading historians and journalists, Alexandre Adler.
Writing for France’s Le Figaro newspaper, Adler writes that Iranian President Ahmadinidjad, hemmed in by opponents at home and abroad, has turned to one of the last cards he holds in his hand: the Lebanese Hezbullah:
“Let us first turn to Iran, which is in a fever and where the most decisive threats originate. Iran’s President and his trusted accomplices - and a pro-Iranian faction of al-Qaeda - hope to recreate unity among all people of Muslim faith for a renewed jihad against America and Israel. Voices have been heard, notably among the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, who hope for such an outcome and support Iran’s nuclear program, which many Islamists - not only in Cairo - regard as a liberating force that should be immediately employed against Israel, whatever the risks.”
“Israel cannot tolerate a military victory for Hezbullah over its [pro-West] Lebanese opponents - any more than it can allow Ahmadinejad to pursue nuclear blackmail, especially in this very strange context: There is the probability that a Democratic candidate - indeed an Obama election victory - could bring to the White House a supporter of negotiations at all costs. … Clearly, this is a distressing 60th anniversary for Israel.”
This is a seminal article about what the United States now confronts, and it should be read by anyone interested in understanding this very important and hard-to-penetrate topic. Read the rest of this entry »
Could the Northern Alliance - America’s allies who helped bring down the Taliban Government in 2001 and bring Hamid Karzai to power - be behind the brazen attempt on his life during a military parade last week?
“Who was behind the April 27 attempt on the life of the President of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, and what did they have to gain? Read the rest of this entry »
As Frederick Kagan spins Neo-Con daydreams of “turning a corner,” McClatchy reporters on the ground are telling a different story:
“One of the most powerful men in Iraq isn’t an Iraqi government official, a militia leader, a senior cleric or a top U.S. military commander or diplomat. He’s an Iranian general, and at times he’s more influential than all of them.”
Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force, as “Tehran’s point man on Iraq,” is manipulating election of pro-Iranian politicians, meeting often with Iraqi leaders and backing Shiite elements in Iraqi security forces in the torturing and killing of Sunni Muslims.
According to American and Iraqi officials, Suleimani is Iran’s Petraeus who has succeeded, among other things, in slipping into Baghdad’s Green Zone in 2006 to orchestrate the choice of a new Iraqi prime minister and building intelligence networks in Iran’s embassy while providing Shiite Muslim militias with generalship, cash and arms, including mortars and rockets fired at the US Embassy and advanced roadside bombs that have killed hundreds of Americans and Iraqis.
Now it’s Condoleezza Rice’s turn to take a hand in putting up the false front the Bush Administration is trying to construct and pass off as “victory.” She follows President Bush last September, Vice President Cheney and the war’s heir apparent, John McCain, last month in projecting a perception of peace with smoke and mirrors.
In a surprise trip last weekend, the Secretary of State was cheerleading “a coalescing of a center in Iraqi politics in which the Sunni leadership, the Kurdish leadership, and elements of the Shiite leadership that are not associated with these special groups have been working together better than at any time before.”
The “special groups” are militias of the Mahdi Army. If the central government continues to attack them, as it did ineptly in Basra this month only to be bailed out by US forces, al-Sadr is threatening “all-out war.”
While Rice hailed the coalescing, there were three rocket attacks–the first as she was meeting with Maliki at his office, another while returning to the Green Zone from a meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talibani, a third that delayed a ceremony at which she unveiled a plaque commemorating civilian deaths in the Green Zone.
Credulous, likely-senile Jimmy Carter had tea with the terrorist group Hamas and now, according to MSNBC, Hamas is asking for a 10-year “truce” while refusing to recognize the State of Israel on the condition that said State of Israel return to the nearly-indefensible 1967 (read 1949) borders.
This is nothing new from Hamas, which would love to import offensive weaponry for the next 10 years while ruling both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Hamas’ terrorist attacks will simply be farmed out to (or conveniently blamed upon) Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Al-Aksa Martyrs’ Brigades etc…while Hamas claims to be at peace and that Israeli self-defense violates this ‘hudna’ (an Islamic temporary truce until victory can be attained over an unwary enemy).
Hamas had its chance to give up violence and become a constructive political organization when it won that so-called election. Hamas could have suppressed violence and dismantled the other terrorist groups (see above list) while working with Israel and the world community to ease the plight of its subjects. Did Hamas choose to grow up? No way! Hamas chose to blow its big chance and continue to bring misery to the Palestinian Arabs.
Only an ignorant, politically-correct, self-righteous moralizing fool would buy-into this nonsense.
