On Monday, millions of people received a “special edition” of The New York Post that told the truth: “We’re Screwed.” I guess only fake newspapers can print real news.
More than 2,000 volunteers of The Yes Men, a “culture jamming” group, distributed a fake edition of The Post in New York City. The group’s previous prank against The New York Times incorporated an Onion-esque fake paper with fake news. But this time, the fake paper contained real news.
The 32-page Post and accompanying Web site cite environmental issues from a February 2009 report from the New York City Panel On Climate Change, a study commissioned by Mayor Bloomberg. The lead article, “It’s Coming!” notes that our carbon emissions will cause New York to experience “dangerous increases in temperature, extreme weather, and sea level rise.”
The article encourages readers to “put pressure on government — local, state and federal — to convert our entire energy systems to sustainable sources.” The “staff writer” urges leaders at the G-20 Summit in Pittsburgh “to make the tough decisions and policy changes that will turn the heat down on New York and the world before it’s too late.”
The Yes Men strategically placed their news at the pinnacle of news surrounding the upcoming summit. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is expected to push 100 world leaders on climate change at the Copenhagen conference in December 2009.
In a speech on August 10 in Seoul, Ki-Moon said leaders have a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” in order “ to avoid catastrophic consequences for people and the planet.” He warned that climate change is “simply the greatest collective challenge we face as a human family.”
But environmental author Bill McKibben fears legislation will be too weak. In the May 2009 issue of Sojourners, McKibben explained why “350 is the most important number on earth.”
“A year ago, our foremost climatologist, NASA scientist James Hansen, published a study showing that the maximum concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere compatible with the ‘planet on which civilization developed’ and to which ‘life on earth is adapted’ is 350 parts per million,” McKibben wrote. “That’s a tough number, because we’re already past it.”
McKibben’s 350 environmental organization has organized an International Day of Climate Action for October 24, 2009.
The 350 organization is a partner of the Global Wake Up Call, which incorporated over 1,500 events in 112 countries, including the fake Post newspaper.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Quiz Saeed for 26/11, says India ahead of Krishna-Qureshi meet (Roundup)
NEW DELHI/ISLAMABAD - With Islamabad arresting suspected Mumbai attacks mastermind Hafiz Saeed, External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna will hold talks with his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mehmood Qureshi in New York Sep 27 to review Pakistan’s action against the 26/11 terrorists.
The foreign ministers’ meeting will be preceded by talks between India’s Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir in New York Sep 26 on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session.
“The foreign secretaries meeting is being held in accordance with the decisions made during the talks between the prime ministers of Pakistan and India at Sharm-el-Sheikh in July, Bashir said in Islamabad.
“The foreign ministers will meet to discuss the agenda prepared by the two foreign secretaries, he said.
“The meetings between the foreign secretaries and foreign ministers of Pakistan and India in New York are the follow-up of the summit meeting held in Sharm-el-Sheikh,” he said.
Bashir said, All the issues between the two countries, including terrorism and the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, will be discussed in these meetings.
But India wants the talks to focus on an issue it considers central to its relations with Pakistan: an end to cross-border terrorism and justice for the 26/11 carnage that was perpetrated by Pakistan-based militants.
After six dossiers India gave and months of pressure from New Delhi and Washington, the Pakistani police Monday put Saeed under house arrest with a posse of police personnel ringing his residence in Lahore. The police have also barred Saeed from leading Eid prayers on grounds of “security concerns”.
But India is not entirely convinced.
Home Minister P. Chidambaram Monday demanded that Saeed be interrogated as all evidence against him was “on Pakistani soil”.
“Even if it is a face saving technique, I have no objection. My demand is that now that he has been arrested, he should be interrogated for his role in the 26/11 incidents,” Chidambaram told reporters on the sidelines of a function in Chennai.
“Evidence is on Pakistani soil. When Pakistan says ‘give us evidence’, evidence is not on Indian soil. All the evidence against Hafiz Saeed is on Pakistani soil,” the home minister said.
“Therefore, one must investigate in Pakistan and find the evidence in Pakistan,” Chidambaram said while referring to Islamabad’s contention that the evidence provided by New Delhi against the JuD chief was not adequate for arresting or prosecuting him.
In a recent interview, National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan also questioned the credibility of the FIRs (first information reports) Pakistan police had filed against Saeed and stressed that these did not add any credibility to Pakistan’s commitment to act.
The meeting between the two foreign ministers, the first high-level contact between the two countries after the meeting between their prime ministers in July, will be keenly watched for any sign that may indicate the resumption of stalled comprehensive dialogue between the two countries.
But the meeting, say reliable sources, is unlikely to produce any breakthrough as there is growing perception in India that Pakistan has done little to bring 26/11 attackers to justice after the Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting.
Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao Saturday made it clear that the resumption of dialogue, stalled after 26/11 attacks, is contingent on Islamabad tackling cross-border terror squarely.
The dialogue process is contingent on creating an atmosphere free from violence. The first step we need to take is to squarely address the issue of terrorism, she stressed.
The foreign ministers’ meeting will be preceded by talks between India’s Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao and her Pakistani counterpart Salman Bashir in New York Sep 26 on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session.
“The foreign secretaries meeting is being held in accordance with the decisions made during the talks between the prime ministers of Pakistan and India at Sharm-el-Sheikh in July, Bashir said in Islamabad.
“The foreign ministers will meet to discuss the agenda prepared by the two foreign secretaries, he said.
“The meetings between the foreign secretaries and foreign ministers of Pakistan and India in New York are the follow-up of the summit meeting held in Sharm-el-Sheikh,” he said.
Bashir said, All the issues between the two countries, including terrorism and the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, will be discussed in these meetings.
But India wants the talks to focus on an issue it considers central to its relations with Pakistan: an end to cross-border terrorism and justice for the 26/11 carnage that was perpetrated by Pakistan-based militants.
After six dossiers India gave and months of pressure from New Delhi and Washington, the Pakistani police Monday put Saeed under house arrest with a posse of police personnel ringing his residence in Lahore. The police have also barred Saeed from leading Eid prayers on grounds of “security concerns”.
But India is not entirely convinced.
Home Minister P. Chidambaram Monday demanded that Saeed be interrogated as all evidence against him was “on Pakistani soil”.
“Even if it is a face saving technique, I have no objection. My demand is that now that he has been arrested, he should be interrogated for his role in the 26/11 incidents,” Chidambaram told reporters on the sidelines of a function in Chennai.
“Evidence is on Pakistani soil. When Pakistan says ‘give us evidence’, evidence is not on Indian soil. All the evidence against Hafiz Saeed is on Pakistani soil,” the home minister said.
“Therefore, one must investigate in Pakistan and find the evidence in Pakistan,” Chidambaram said while referring to Islamabad’s contention that the evidence provided by New Delhi against the JuD chief was not adequate for arresting or prosecuting him.
In a recent interview, National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan also questioned the credibility of the FIRs (first information reports) Pakistan police had filed against Saeed and stressed that these did not add any credibility to Pakistan’s commitment to act.
The meeting between the two foreign ministers, the first high-level contact between the two countries after the meeting between their prime ministers in July, will be keenly watched for any sign that may indicate the resumption of stalled comprehensive dialogue between the two countries.
But the meeting, say reliable sources, is unlikely to produce any breakthrough as there is growing perception in India that Pakistan has done little to bring 26/11 attackers to justice after the Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting.
Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao Saturday made it clear that the resumption of dialogue, stalled after 26/11 attacks, is contingent on Islamabad tackling cross-border terror squarely.
The dialogue process is contingent on creating an atmosphere free from violence. The first step we need to take is to squarely address the issue of terrorism, she stressed.
Obama Rips TV News for Making Rudeness the Road to Stardom
President Obama turned media critic during his Sunday show marathon, zinging television news during interviews on CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC for making stars out of people who are "rude." Obama wants bookers to reward "decency" and "civility" in public discourse.
We'll see.
Obama seemed determined to make this point because the president used remarkably similar language during his interviews with Sunday morning show hosts, deploring the state of discourse, especially on cable news shows.
Obama, who also sat down with Univision, snubbed the outlet where many of his loudest critics have found a perch -- Fox News Channel.
The interviews were taped back-to-back Friday afternoon in the Roosevelt room of the White House. When I walked by the Roosevelt Room earlier on Friday en route to an interview with an Obama official in the West Wing, the room looked like a television studio, stuffed with lights, wires, cameras and other equipment.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Obama's Worldwide Star Power Finds Limits
Eight months into his presidency, Barack Obama has become a global celebrity, far more popular abroad than he is at home and sometimes eclipsing foreign leaders among their own people.
He has sought to use his renown to repair America's image in the world, extending an "open hand" in major speeches on trips to more than a dozen countries. Obama has restarted talks to limit nuclear weapons, begun engaging adversaries, helped orchestrate the world's response to economic collapse and reversed Bush-era policies that had angered allies and distanced the United States from the world community.
But just as his domestic honeymoon has clearly ended, international events have demonstrated the limits of Obama's personal charm.
As he takes the stage to address the United Nations for the first time Wednesday, Obama will face world leaders -- adversaries and allies alike -- whose rebukes of the new American president serve as reminders that the world's differences with the United States transcend who is in the White House.
European nations have refused to send significant numbers of new troops to aid the U.S.-led war effort in Afghanistan. Few countries have agreed to accept detainees held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Scottish officials ignored Obama's plea to keep the Lockerbie bomber in prison, and U.S. efforts to head off a coup in Honduras were ineffective. North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons, Iran may be doing so, and Middle East leaders have rebuffed Obama's efforts at peacemaking.
"When he came into office, there was kind of a sigh of relief around the world because he wasn't Bush," said Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "What was he going to do to solve these problems? They haven't seen that yet."
Obama's top foreign policy advisers say the president's popularity abroad has helped to clear a path for substantial policy achievement by ushering in a new era of respect for the United States in other countries.
ad_icon
Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in an interview that the administration's conscious decision to break with the past -- and specifically with the presidency of George W. Bush -- has altered the dynamics of world politics.
"It's palpable every day with a new openness and a new willingness to listen and respect our positions and our policies, a readiness to cooperate even where in the past we have met resistance," she said. "Not just change in tone and reaction, but change in policy that has been noted and recognized."
Yet even staunch Obama defenders such as Rice concede that the expectations for the president abroad were exceedingly high.
"What did you expect?" she said. "The president gets elected and all of a sudden, you know, we reach nirvana in short order? I mean, that's a little bit ridiculous."
Unappreciated Realities
Obama began building expectations for peace in the Middle East in the first months of his presidency and raised hopes even higher with a June speech in Cairo in which he pledged that he could make things happen.
He has sought to use his renown to repair America's image in the world, extending an "open hand" in major speeches on trips to more than a dozen countries. Obama has restarted talks to limit nuclear weapons, begun engaging adversaries, helped orchestrate the world's response to economic collapse and reversed Bush-era policies that had angered allies and distanced the United States from the world community.
But just as his domestic honeymoon has clearly ended, international events have demonstrated the limits of Obama's personal charm.
As he takes the stage to address the United Nations for the first time Wednesday, Obama will face world leaders -- adversaries and allies alike -- whose rebukes of the new American president serve as reminders that the world's differences with the United States transcend who is in the White House.
European nations have refused to send significant numbers of new troops to aid the U.S.-led war effort in Afghanistan. Few countries have agreed to accept detainees held at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Scottish officials ignored Obama's plea to keep the Lockerbie bomber in prison, and U.S. efforts to head off a coup in Honduras were ineffective. North Korea continues to develop nuclear weapons, Iran may be doing so, and Middle East leaders have rebuffed Obama's efforts at peacemaking.
"When he came into office, there was kind of a sigh of relief around the world because he wasn't Bush," said Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "What was he going to do to solve these problems? They haven't seen that yet."
Obama's top foreign policy advisers say the president's popularity abroad has helped to clear a path for substantial policy achievement by ushering in a new era of respect for the United States in other countries.
ad_icon
Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said in an interview that the administration's conscious decision to break with the past -- and specifically with the presidency of George W. Bush -- has altered the dynamics of world politics.
"It's palpable every day with a new openness and a new willingness to listen and respect our positions and our policies, a readiness to cooperate even where in the past we have met resistance," she said. "Not just change in tone and reaction, but change in policy that has been noted and recognized."
Yet even staunch Obama defenders such as Rice concede that the expectations for the president abroad were exceedingly high.
"What did you expect?" she said. "The president gets elected and all of a sudden, you know, we reach nirvana in short order? I mean, that's a little bit ridiculous."
Unappreciated Realities
Obama began building expectations for peace in the Middle East in the first months of his presidency and raised hopes even higher with a June speech in Cairo in which he pledged that he could make things happen.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
‘Politics have been in the schools for many years’
There is some discussion about whether an American president has ever spoken “with intent only to me and my fellow classmates across the nation as children,” as Jonetta Hughes writes in the Sept. 12 Hamilton JournalNews (“Who really influences our children?”).
Hughes’ point is that politics are “for adults” and parents alone have the choice and responsibility “to provide exposure in that area.” Be that as it may, it is important to clarify the record on presidential talks to schoolchildren that might be deemed “political.”
On Nov. 14, 1988, then-President Reagan spoke to students nationwide via a C-SPAN telecast broadcast that was shown in classrooms across the country, and that centered on the legacy of the American revolution on contemporary world politics. ...
In October 1991, President George H.W. Bush, then in the midst of a re-election campaign, gave a speech to schoolchildren intended “to motivate America’s students to strive for excellence” and “to promote students’ and parents’ awareness of the educational challenge we face.” The White House sent letters to schools across the nation to encourage teachers and principals to allow students to tune in the speech.
On a more local level, on Jan. 8, 2002, President George Bush visited Hamilton High School to sign No Children Left Behind — billed as a nonpartisan event because political leaders of both parties, including Sen. Ted Kennedy and Republican Rep. John Boehner, were on the high school stage with the president. The school and community were deeply engaged in this national event, and a statue of that significant event in our nation’s political history now stands permanently in front of Hamilton High School.
And in late September 2004, during his re-election campaign, President George W. Bush, came to the VOA in West Chester for a huge rally. On that day the Lakota school system shut down the entire system two hours early so people could attend, canceled afternoon preschool and kindergarten, bused the marching band to the event, and sent the school choir to sing the national anthem.
Parents may well want to keep their children out of politics, but the record shows that politics have been in the schools for many years and across many political platforms.
Hughes’ point is that politics are “for adults” and parents alone have the choice and responsibility “to provide exposure in that area.” Be that as it may, it is important to clarify the record on presidential talks to schoolchildren that might be deemed “political.”
On Nov. 14, 1988, then-President Reagan spoke to students nationwide via a C-SPAN telecast broadcast that was shown in classrooms across the country, and that centered on the legacy of the American revolution on contemporary world politics. ...
In October 1991, President George H.W. Bush, then in the midst of a re-election campaign, gave a speech to schoolchildren intended “to motivate America’s students to strive for excellence” and “to promote students’ and parents’ awareness of the educational challenge we face.” The White House sent letters to schools across the nation to encourage teachers and principals to allow students to tune in the speech.
On a more local level, on Jan. 8, 2002, President George Bush visited Hamilton High School to sign No Children Left Behind — billed as a nonpartisan event because political leaders of both parties, including Sen. Ted Kennedy and Republican Rep. John Boehner, were on the high school stage with the president. The school and community were deeply engaged in this national event, and a statue of that significant event in our nation’s political history now stands permanently in front of Hamilton High School.
And in late September 2004, during his re-election campaign, President George W. Bush, came to the VOA in West Chester for a huge rally. On that day the Lakota school system shut down the entire system two hours early so people could attend, canceled afternoon preschool and kindergarten, bused the marching band to the event, and sent the school choir to sing the national anthem.
Parents may well want to keep their children out of politics, but the record shows that politics have been in the schools for many years and across many political platforms.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
In Health Endgame, Senate Democrats Need GOP-Style Discipline
It was too much to hope that the watching-grass-grow stage would be over when Sen. Max Baucus unveiled his long awaited, painstakingly negotiated health reform bill. No, both Democrats and Republicans apparently view this as a mere starting point.
The Montana Democrat, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and led months of bipartisan negotiations, had to release his bill Wednesday without one Republican on board. It was very public evidence of failure. He wore a smile, however, and insisted some Republicans will sign on before the bill leaves the committee.
Maybe he hadn't yet seen statements from Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell and House GOP leader John Boehner. Disregarding the countless hours of talks and fine-tuning among three Democratic and three Republican senators, both McConnell and Boehner called the Baucus bill "partisan." McConnell further ripped it as a "thousand-page, trillion-dollar government program" that cuts Medicare and raises taxes on families and business. Talk about cold.
Baucus' fellow Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, weighed in at tepid. Reid called the bill "another important piece to the puzzle" and said he looks forward to a "healthy and vigorous" committee debate. Pelosi said the House bill "clearly does more" to help people buy coverage and prescription drugs, and has a public insurance option that would compete with private plans.
On the left, there was bitterness and name-calling. Daily Kos bloggers called the Baucus bill a debacle and cut it to pieces. Site founder Markos Moulitsas himself called Baucus "the biggest idiot in the entire Senate." Matthew Iglesias said Baucus made huge substantive and procedural concessions "to get nothing." Marcy Wheeler coined the phrase "MaxTax" – defined as "your mandated payment to (obscene adjective) insurance companies."
So how bad is it, really?
The Baucus bill, like the two other major bills before Congress, would protect people from being excluded or dropped from coverage, and from going bankrupt. It has an exchange, or web-based marketplace, that eligible individuals and businesses could use for one-stop comparison shopping for policies. It promotes all kinds of pilot and demonstration programs designed to get doctors and hospitals to provide better, more coordinated and hopefully less expensive care. And like the two other major bills before Congress, it would require most Americans to buy health insurance.
That's the source of one big problem. Unlike the other bills, Baucus sets aside what Pelosi and other liberals view as an insufficient amount for subsidies to help lower-income people handle that requirement. That's a math problem that shouldn't be impossible to resolve at some point in the process. Same with a Baucus provision that allows insurance companies to charge older people up to five times as much as younger people (the House bill limits the differential to two times as much).
Another math problem, more complicated, is how to offset the cost of expenditures such as the premium subsidies. The Baucus bill would tax the highest end plans offered by insurance companies. Some senators fear that instead of ending such plans, the companies will raise all premiums. But there are other avenues to raise money – particularly if you're not worried about getting Republican votes.
The stickiest problem is, as always, the public insurance plan that some Democrats, such as Jay Rockfeller of West Virginia and Roland Burris of Illinois, say they must have while others – such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska – say they can't accept. The Baucus bill sets up a system of consumer owned co-ops in place of a public plan. But an analysis Wednesday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office was dismissive of the co-ops' potential competitive and fiscal impact. "They seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many areas of the country or to noticeably affect federal subsidy payments," the agency analysis said.
It is easy to sympathize with liberal anguish. Why should Democrats make so many compromises if no Republicans are going to support the bill anyway? But conservative Democrats are among those insisting on fiscal restraint and resisting a public option. And even if every single Democrat was in the chamber and voted yes, that's only 59 votes – not enough to get the Baucus bill or some variation of it past a filibuster.
The hope of getting 60 votes assumes that ailing West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd is able to be present, and that either Maine Republican Olympia Snowe relents in her opposition or that Massachusetts legislators approve the appointment of an interim senator to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. It also assumes that conservative and liberal Democrats swallow their objections and perhaps hold out hope of moving things their way in a conference committee with the House.
Whatever makes it to the Senate floor, it would be exhilarating to see Democrats present a united front and get it done. It is so rare that they show the kind of discipline that Republicans are famous for. It is maddening to look back at the Democratic votes former president George W. Bush managed to win for his deficit-busting priorities -- unfair tax cuts for the rich, an unpaid-for Medicare prescription drug plan and the tragic war in Iraq. Contrast that with the lockstep Republican opposition that killed former president Bill Clinton's health care reform drive and nearly killed his 1993 budget, the one that set the country on the path to a booming economy and a budget surplus.
In fact those are great models for Democrats to keep in mind as the wrangling and legislating drag on. Simply put, stick together in the crunch. It'll pay off for the party and the country.
Gaffe-prone Biden avoids weighing in on Obama verbal slip
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) – The famously free-wheeling Joe Biden found himself in an unaccustomed situation Thursday: asked to comment on a White House gaffe that wasn't his own.
The vice president was asked by CNN what he thought of President Obama's unguarded moment earlier this week, when he was caught calling entertainer Kanye West a "jackass" for grabbing the microphone from teenage singer Taylor Swift at MTV's Video Music Awards earlier in the week.
Biden responded cautiously. "I honestly didn't know that. I have no comment on that," he told CNN's Chris Lawrence, adding with a laugh: "For someone who occasionally says things that I shouldn't say, I have no comment."
How does it feel to be on the observing end of an administration verbal slip? "Well first of all, (Obama) very seldom has a slip of the tongue," said Biden. "But I really can't comment. I truly don't know the incident. I heard it for the first time from you."
Biden is in Iraq this week, his third visit to that nation so far this year.
Filed under: Joe Biden • President Obama
Friday, September 18, 2009
Scottish Politics, Middle East Money
Scotland is no longer the invisible country of Western Europe. Following its decision last month to release Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the man convicted of carrying out the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, the semi-autonomous state has attracted global attention, albeit not all positive. It seems that was precisely the government's plan.
Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice minister, insisted that the "compassionate" act of releasing Megrahi was "based on the values, beliefs and common humanity that defines us as Scots." He has omitted to mention one fact: That the decision may have been a favor granted to wealthy Arab benefactors in the hopes that they will bankroll Edinburgh's push for full independence from the U.K.
This is now coming to light, after the government last week revealed that it had been lobbied in June by Khalid al-Attiyah, Qatar's minister for international cooperation, to free Megrahi. The revelations have prodded the Scottish parliament to launch an investigation into the release, with an emphasis on any foreign investment tie-ups. But it is no secret that, for several years, Scotland has been engaged in feverish efforts to secure billions in Middle Eastern funds for overdue infrastructure projects, so as to lessen dependence on the British Treasury.
The world is now aware that Scottish justice is sovereign, and that since 2007 the country's decentralized parliament and administration have been under the control of the Scottish Nationalist Party. Alex Salmond, the country's pugnacious and crafty first minister, is actively seeking to sever links with the rest of the U.K. This, despite the fact that his heavily urbanized and now largely post-industrial country spends far more than it raises in taxes, and depends on subsidies from London.
Carefully stage-managed conflicts with London have been designed to depict Mr. Salmond's Nationalists as the only force prepared to uphold Scottish interests against an overbearing England, with whom Scotland has been formally united since 1707. In a new twist, Mr. Salmond has gambled that taking on the supposed American Goliath will further cast his party as liberators standing up to bullying overlords. Mr. MacAskill, also of the Nationalist party, stood his ground over the convicted bomber's release, despite a phone call from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a letter from senior figures in the American Congress. FBI Director Robert Mueller has referred to the distress of the Lockerbie bombing's relatives in a letter he wrote to Mr. MacAskill in August, expressing his "outrage" at the decision which he said made "a mockery of the rule of law." The nonchalant response of the Salmond government suggested that it no longer feels the need to win over the U.S. in its quest for total Scottish independence.
Given Mr. Salmond's aims, it was probably always a question of when, not if, relations with the U.S. would hit the rocks. He is adamant that a separate Scotland will quit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and hopes to use existing laws to stop British nuclear missiles from moving through Scotland's River Clyde. The Nationalists seem happy with Scotland being a small but active cog in a multipolar world, one in which the West must learn to give way to old adversaries and new powers. This stance has won Mr. Salmond open praise from Iran, which he has not disavowed.
He relies on one individual in particular to direct his government's anti-Washington and anti-London strategy, and simultaneously to raise Scotland's profile in the Middle East. This is Osama Saeed, an energetic 29-year-old tax expert drawn from Scotland's growing and hitherto moderate Muslim community. Mr. Saeed doesn't hide his belief in the restoration of the caliphate, and he has spoken up for Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian cleric banned from both Britain and the U.S. In 2008, Mr. Saeed intervened to ensure that over £400,000 was found in the Scottish budget to establish a Scottish Islamic Foundation, which has given a platform to many high-profile Islamists.
Scotland's Muslims previously had clear secular leanings. Now the Nationalists are going to great pains to ensure that politicized forms of Islam make the running among them. It is part of a wider strategy to impose rigid identities on all Scots based on a stereotypical expression of Scottishness firmly wedded to political nationalism.
The Nationalists only have a one seat majority over their opponents. They narrowly won power in 2007 thanks in no small measure to their vocal opposition to intervention in Iraq, which won many voters previously attached to the far left. In 2004 Mr. Salmond openly called for Tony Blair's impeachment over Iraq, and for good measure lashed out at George W. Bush.
These Nationalists have failed to outline an ethical vision for governing a separate Scotland, despite Mr. MacAskill's emotion-laded rhetoric. Nor do they present viable economic policies. Many Scots are now fearful that the country's newfound visibility will plunge them into isolation from formerly close allies, exacerbating their economic problems. But the demoralized opposition in Edinburgh has so far neglected to lead. A document leaked to the press earlier this month showed that Mr. Salmond has even persuaded top Scottish civil-servants to support his policy of "conflict and confrontation" with London.
Mr. Salmond is a formidable politician who has come a long way in his quest to break apart the U.K. All signs point to his continuing to cater to radical Islam, and to goad the most liberal administration in Washington since that of Franklin Roosevelt, if it will bring him goal closer to that goal.
Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice minister, insisted that the "compassionate" act of releasing Megrahi was "based on the values, beliefs and common humanity that defines us as Scots." He has omitted to mention one fact: That the decision may have been a favor granted to wealthy Arab benefactors in the hopes that they will bankroll Edinburgh's push for full independence from the U.K.
This is now coming to light, after the government last week revealed that it had been lobbied in June by Khalid al-Attiyah, Qatar's minister for international cooperation, to free Megrahi. The revelations have prodded the Scottish parliament to launch an investigation into the release, with an emphasis on any foreign investment tie-ups. But it is no secret that, for several years, Scotland has been engaged in feverish efforts to secure billions in Middle Eastern funds for overdue infrastructure projects, so as to lessen dependence on the British Treasury.
The world is now aware that Scottish justice is sovereign, and that since 2007 the country's decentralized parliament and administration have been under the control of the Scottish Nationalist Party. Alex Salmond, the country's pugnacious and crafty first minister, is actively seeking to sever links with the rest of the U.K. This, despite the fact that his heavily urbanized and now largely post-industrial country spends far more than it raises in taxes, and depends on subsidies from London.
Carefully stage-managed conflicts with London have been designed to depict Mr. Salmond's Nationalists as the only force prepared to uphold Scottish interests against an overbearing England, with whom Scotland has been formally united since 1707. In a new twist, Mr. Salmond has gambled that taking on the supposed American Goliath will further cast his party as liberators standing up to bullying overlords. Mr. MacAskill, also of the Nationalist party, stood his ground over the convicted bomber's release, despite a phone call from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a letter from senior figures in the American Congress. FBI Director Robert Mueller has referred to the distress of the Lockerbie bombing's relatives in a letter he wrote to Mr. MacAskill in August, expressing his "outrage" at the decision which he said made "a mockery of the rule of law." The nonchalant response of the Salmond government suggested that it no longer feels the need to win over the U.S. in its quest for total Scottish independence.
Given Mr. Salmond's aims, it was probably always a question of when, not if, relations with the U.S. would hit the rocks. He is adamant that a separate Scotland will quit the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and hopes to use existing laws to stop British nuclear missiles from moving through Scotland's River Clyde. The Nationalists seem happy with Scotland being a small but active cog in a multipolar world, one in which the West must learn to give way to old adversaries and new powers. This stance has won Mr. Salmond open praise from Iran, which he has not disavowed.
He relies on one individual in particular to direct his government's anti-Washington and anti-London strategy, and simultaneously to raise Scotland's profile in the Middle East. This is Osama Saeed, an energetic 29-year-old tax expert drawn from Scotland's growing and hitherto moderate Muslim community. Mr. Saeed doesn't hide his belief in the restoration of the caliphate, and he has spoken up for Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Egyptian cleric banned from both Britain and the U.S. In 2008, Mr. Saeed intervened to ensure that over £400,000 was found in the Scottish budget to establish a Scottish Islamic Foundation, which has given a platform to many high-profile Islamists.
Scotland's Muslims previously had clear secular leanings. Now the Nationalists are going to great pains to ensure that politicized forms of Islam make the running among them. It is part of a wider strategy to impose rigid identities on all Scots based on a stereotypical expression of Scottishness firmly wedded to political nationalism.
The Nationalists only have a one seat majority over their opponents. They narrowly won power in 2007 thanks in no small measure to their vocal opposition to intervention in Iraq, which won many voters previously attached to the far left. In 2004 Mr. Salmond openly called for Tony Blair's impeachment over Iraq, and for good measure lashed out at George W. Bush.
These Nationalists have failed to outline an ethical vision for governing a separate Scotland, despite Mr. MacAskill's emotion-laded rhetoric. Nor do they present viable economic policies. Many Scots are now fearful that the country's newfound visibility will plunge them into isolation from formerly close allies, exacerbating their economic problems. But the demoralized opposition in Edinburgh has so far neglected to lead. A document leaked to the press earlier this month showed that Mr. Salmond has even persuaded top Scottish civil-servants to support his policy of "conflict and confrontation" with London.
Mr. Salmond is a formidable politician who has come a long way in his quest to break apart the U.K. All signs point to his continuing to cater to radical Islam, and to goad the most liberal administration in Washington since that of Franklin Roosevelt, if it will bring him goal closer to that goal.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
As Right Jabs Continue, White House Debates a Counterpunching Strategy
Facing a near-daily barrage of attacks from conservative opponents, White House officials are engaged in an internal debate over how hard to hit back, even as they have grown increasingly aggressive in countering allegations they deem to be absurd.
After brushing aside criticism during the presidential campaign that they tried to keep candidate Barack Obama too far above the fray -- and with memories of the abundance of media coverage during the Clinton years -- administration officials are accelerating their efforts to anticipate and respond to the most sharp-edged charges.
The White House officials are eager to avoid the perception that the president is directly engaging critics who appear to speak only for a vocal minority, and part of their strategy involves pushing material to liberal and progressive media outlets to steer the coverage in their direction, senior advisers said.
When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.
The controversy escalated, but by the time it was over, White House advisers thought they had emerged with the upper hand. The speech, they said, was the most-viewed live video on any government Web site in history, and they were pleased with the media coverage of the event.
ad_icon
In private, Obama has developed what his advisers say is becoming a familiar response to new allegations, rolling his eyes in disbelief and asking how his staff plans to counter them. Several senior advisers said in interviews that they are more focused on getting legislation passed than trying to manage the "right-wing noise machine," convinced that voters will react most positively to measurable improvements in their lives.
But at a tactical level, administration officials are taking seriously the potential for damage and are attempting to respond forcefully. In early August, officials stepped up their efforts to link the "birther" movement -- with its contention that Obama was not born in the United States and is thus not a legitimate president -- to Republican leaders.
Later in the month, Obama advisers began pushing back against allegations that he would establish "death panels" in his health-care overhaul, calling out former Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin for posting that charge on her Facebook page. Obama publicly rejected the charge that he is maintaining an "enemies list," raising the issue to dismiss it at a town hall meeting.
Officials who were interviewed said the goal is to anticipate the conservative attacks and be ready to respond the moment they threaten to balloon into a major story. They acknowledge, however, having limited success so far.
"In a world with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and the Drudge Report and everything else that makes up the right-wing noise machine, nothing is clean and nothing is simple," a senior administration official said. "You don't stomp a story out. You ride the wave and try to steer it to safe water."
The level of hostility toward Obama in recent months has been exceptionally high for a new president. Even before Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "You lie!" during a presidential address to Congress last week, Obama had been accused of wanting to kill people's grandparents (through health-care reform), expose their children to political re-education (through an expansion of community service programs) and use health care to make reparations for slavery (by expanding coverage).
How the Obama White House deals with the frenzy going forward will be a test of its talents, senior administration officials acknowledged.
Enrollment in Arabic soars
_jpg_512x1000_q85.jpg)
As the Middle East plays a larger and larger role in world politics, Yale students have flocked to learn Arabic in record numbers.
Enrollment in both beginner and more advanced Arabic classes has skyrocketed over the past few years, bringing with it challenges as the Arabic program attempts to deal with overworked teachers and large class sizes, lector and Arabic program coordinator Shady Nasser said. Responding to a record 96 students enrolled in first-level Arabic this year, the program is thinking of opening a sixth introductory level section and may hire additional staff next year, Nasser said.
“The sudden increase in interest caught us a little off guard,” said Arabic professor Dimitri Gutas, who has been teaching Arabic since 1976.
He recalled that back in the 1970s and 1980s, up to 20 students took first-year Arabic in a typical year. Enrollment has been climbing since the 1990s, he said, with 71 students taking first-year Arabic last year.
Responding to the growth in the program — now with 201 students enrolled in Arabic classes — Nasser’s position was created last year to oversee and coordinate all aspects of the Arabic curriculum. This year a fourth lector position was added.
While the program welcomes the influx of students, the increased enrollment also poses some challenges, Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations Director of Undergraduate Studies Beatrice Gruendler said.
“Our faculty often has to teach over and above their duty,” she said.
Despite class sizes larger than the department would like, many students remain undeterred.
Meredith Potter ’13 said she is studying Arabic as part of her plan to major in modern Middle East studies.
“It’s always been an area of interest, and I think it will be an area of contention for some years,” she said.
While six of the ten faculty and students interviewed said they think that the Middle East’s prominence in politics following Sept. 11 is the main force behind the increased interest in Arabic, Gruendler argued that a steady rise in Arabic studies actually began before the attacks.
Arabic’s popularity is on the rise nationwide, and it is now the tenth most commonly studied foreign language in American universities and colleges, according to the Modern Language Association’s most recent report. In the association’s 2006 survey, Arabic boasted a 127 percent increase in enrollment over four years.
The expansion of Yale’s Arabic program is also pushing the program to explore new frontiers, including starting an official study abroad program in Jordan next summer.
Gutas said the program is also considering creating its own textbook so that it will no longer have to rely on others’ materials.
“We hope to be able to develop something that will be more attuned to the needs of our students,” he said.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Former Speechwriter Says Bush Slammed Obama, Predicted Palin Debacle
Former president George W. Bush had a flair for insulting the people fighting to be his successor, former speechwriter Matt Latimer reveals in the October issue of GQ. The piece, an excerpt from Latimer's forthcoming book, "Speech Less: Tales of a White House Survivor," gives a candid look at the final days of the Bush presidency. In several passages, Bush comments on the candidates then vying for the White House:
The president, like me, didn't seem to be in love with any of the available options. He always believed Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. "Wait till her fat keister is sitting at this desk," he once said (except he didn't say "keister"). He didn't think much of Barack Obama. After one of Obama's blistering speeches against the administration, the president had a very human reaction: He was ticked off. He came in one day to rehearse a speech, fuming. "This is a dangerous world," he said for no apparent reason, "and this cat isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you." He wound himself up even more. "You think I wasn't qualified?" he said to no one in particular. "I was qualified."
Latimer also writes that in the final months of the presidential campaign, Bush stunned the euphoric White House by objecting to John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, which the former president would at first only describe as "interesting." Even though he was informed that conservatives were responding enthusiastically, Bush advised people to wait "until the bloom is off the rose." Finally, as everyone in the room "looked at him with horror, Bush gave a 'smart assessment' ":
"This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for," he said. "She hasn't spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let's wait and see how she looks five days out." It was a rare dose of reality in a White House that liked to believe every decision was great, every Republican was a genius, and McCain was the hope of the world because, well, because he chose to be a member of our party.
The president, like me, didn't seem to be in love with any of the available options. He always believed Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee. "Wait till her fat keister is sitting at this desk," he once said (except he didn't say "keister"). He didn't think much of Barack Obama. After one of Obama's blistering speeches against the administration, the president had a very human reaction: He was ticked off. He came in one day to rehearse a speech, fuming. "This is a dangerous world," he said for no apparent reason, "and this cat isn't remotely qualified to handle it. This guy has no clue, I promise you." He wound himself up even more. "You think I wasn't qualified?" he said to no one in particular. "I was qualified."
Latimer also writes that in the final months of the presidential campaign, Bush stunned the euphoric White House by objecting to John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, which the former president would at first only describe as "interesting." Even though he was informed that conservatives were responding enthusiastically, Bush advised people to wait "until the bloom is off the rose." Finally, as everyone in the room "looked at him with horror, Bush gave a 'smart assessment' ":
"This woman is being put into a position she is not even remotely prepared for," he said. "She hasn't spent one day on the national level. Neither has her family. Let's wait and see how she looks five days out." It was a rare dose of reality in a White House that liked to believe every decision was great, every Republican was a genius, and McCain was the hope of the world because, well, because he chose to be a member of our party.
Taking on the world, one forum at a time
Today, the first World Leaders Forum event will take place at Low Library, featuring Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and Mayor Boris Johnson of London. They will kick off an ongoing conversation that aims to address some of the major issues facing both cities. The World Leaders Forum provides Columbia students with unique opportunities to engage with some of the top policymakers and politicians of the world, one they should take part in as much as possible.
Since University President Lee Bollinger established the World Leaders Forum in 2003, the conference has brought prominent figures such as Bill Clinton, the Dalai Lama, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to campus. This year’s guest list features Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Sept. 21) and former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan (Sept. 23), among others. Seven events are already set for September, and as Bollinger invites more speakers throughout the year, more will be scheduled in the months ahead. Even though controversial speakers tend to garner the most attention, each brings valuable insight and experience. If possible, professors should integrate the forum events into their classes. Students in classes related to the topics of discussion should be given permission to attend the events instead of class should the times coincide. Students who do attend should share their experiences with those who could not attend.
We look forward to the launch of this year’s World Leaders Forum today. The dialogue between the two mayors promises to be an insightful discussion on the future of these two urban centers. It is fitting that the first World Leaders Forum event of the year features Bloomberg, one of our local leaders. Since New York is a global city, intertwined in world politics and the world economy, the forum should continue to tap into the ambassadors, diplomats, and other leaders that make this city their home.
As Columbia continues to reaffirm its commitment to dialogue and international exchange, we should take advantage of the opportunities that living in New York and attending Columbia University have given us.
Since University President Lee Bollinger established the World Leaders Forum in 2003, the conference has brought prominent figures such as Bill Clinton, the Dalai Lama, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to campus. This year’s guest list features Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Sept. 21) and former Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan (Sept. 23), among others. Seven events are already set for September, and as Bollinger invites more speakers throughout the year, more will be scheduled in the months ahead. Even though controversial speakers tend to garner the most attention, each brings valuable insight and experience. If possible, professors should integrate the forum events into their classes. Students in classes related to the topics of discussion should be given permission to attend the events instead of class should the times coincide. Students who do attend should share their experiences with those who could not attend.
We look forward to the launch of this year’s World Leaders Forum today. The dialogue between the two mayors promises to be an insightful discussion on the future of these two urban centers. It is fitting that the first World Leaders Forum event of the year features Bloomberg, one of our local leaders. Since New York is a global city, intertwined in world politics and the world economy, the forum should continue to tap into the ambassadors, diplomats, and other leaders that make this city their home.
As Columbia continues to reaffirm its commitment to dialogue and international exchange, we should take advantage of the opportunities that living in New York and attending Columbia University have given us.
US Strategic Objectives
US national strategy is myopic - short sighted and fragmented. It rests on overall US strategic objectives that are broad and dated. The most authoritative statement is in President George W. Bush's introductory letter to the last National Security Strategy, published in March 2006. He gives two pillars of national strategy: to promote effective democracies while expanding global prosperity and to lead a growing community of democracies. Promoting freedom is the core of this strategy which recognizes that it cannot be imposed but must be chosen; the struggle with terrorism is a battle of ideas. The nation's ultimate security depends on creating a world of democratic, well-governed states that can meet the needs of their citizens. This National Security Strategy is based on the Department of Defense's Quadrennial Defense Review (the latest version is now in progress); the Department of State has recently begun a parallel Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review. But both of these reviews are departmental efforts. There is no government element responsible for developing an overall national strategy, and so no authoritative overall statement of national strategic objectives. The National Security Strategy with the subordinate National Defense Strategy naturally focuses on the government's Constitutional responsibility to "provide for the common defense."
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Medvedev says global dominance is illusion, welcomes criticism
YAROSLAVL, September 14 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Monday that the idea of global dominance must be abandoned in world politics, and more intelligent policies adopted.
Speaking at an international security conference in the Volga city of Yaroslavl, Medvedev said: "Smart, efficient policies and state pragmatism must eliminate all irrational things from the political sphere - a dangerous illusion of nationalism and archaic superstitions of class struggle on the one hand, and utopian projects of global dominance... high-flown phrases justifying military aggression, and clampdowns on rights and freedoms on the other hand."
The president also acknowledged nations' right to criticize each other's foreign and domestic policies, a view that comes as a contrast to Russia's angry reactions to Western criticism under Medvedev's predecessor, Vladimir Putin.
He said criticism was necessary to deter international conflicts, economic crises, pandemics, and reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.
"Incompetence, and sometimes the unwillingness of a government to tackle problems, damage its own country, and the inefficiency of state institutions contribute to international conflicts," Medvedev said.
The president called for common "standards" in such issues, but warned against enforcing them on any state, saying such standards "should not be used to create isolated, non-transparent political regimes."
He also said he would pursue a new European security pact, which he proposed last year.
"We look forward to substantive dialogue with our partners in Europe, and will continue to promote our proposals, and clarify our position," Medvedev told the forum.
The Russian leader also urged for new financial supervision measures to prevent the current economic downturn from recurring in two or three years.
Medvedev, who turns 44 today, also held separate meetings with French Prime Minister Francois Fillon and Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, on the sidelines of the conference.
The conference, entitled The Modern State and Global Security, is planned as an annual event.
Osama bin Laden Addresses Americans in New Tape
Two days after the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington, Osama bin Laden released a new audio recording titled "Message to the American People," news agencies reported Monday. The 11-minute 20-second message appeared on the Arabic Web site As-Sahab and offered justifications for al-Qaeda's attacks eight years ago. "Amongst some other injustices," Bin Laden says on the tape, U.S. support for Israel motivated the terrorist attacks. He criticized Barack Obama, saying that the new president has sowed new seeds of hatred in the Muslim world.
"The time has come for you to liberate yourselves from fear and the ideological terrorism of neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby," bin Laden said. "The reason for our dispute with you is your support for your ally Israel, occupying our land in Palestine." He added that there had been no real change in U.S. policy since Obama took office, especially because the new president retained Robert Gibbs as secretary of defense.
"I don't think it's surprising that al-Qaeda would want to shift attention away from the president's historic efforts and continued efforts to reach out and have an open dialogue with the Muslim world," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded.
Netanyahu plays a Russian rope trick
he day-long public disappearance of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on September 7 had his country's gossip-mongers salivating. Many went to work on speculative theories about just why he suddenly vanished from the media's eye and official records. The strange disappearance of a head of government is, after all, no small scoop.
The initial alibi from the prime minister's military secretary - that he was "visiting a security facility" within the country - attempted to avert prying eyes in a country where the press corps dutifully obey military censorship laws. Netanyahu's aides believed that spinning the story of his inspection of a top-secret Mossad installation inside Israel would be enough to satiate the curious.
But this version soon tanked; and rumors multiplied (allegedly from disgruntled elements within Netanyahu's inner circle) that"Bibi", as he is popularly known, was on a sensitive diplomatic mission to a foreign country. The Palestinian daily al-Manar claimed that he flew to an undisclosed Arab state with which Israel has no formal relations and used the undercover route to preclude criticism from foreign-policy hawks at home.
A more credible narrative began emerging in tidbits that Netanyahu was actually in Moscow with top military advisers in tow. He is said to have borrowed a private plane from an Israeli business magnate for the clandestine 15-hour trip. The ambiguous responses to queries about this from both Russian and Israeli officials added fuel to the fire of guesswork.
A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said evasively, "We have seen these reports in various media, but there is nothing more I can tell you." The same source added, "I am not saying yes or no." Netanyahu's own office was tongue-tied and issued vague post hoc messages that distanced itself from the Mossad facility yarn and exculpated National Security Adviser Uzi Arad from spreading this apparent falsehood.
According to the leading Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Netanyahu was in Moscow to present concrete evidence to the Kremlin that Russian arms were making their way to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon. The Israeli agenda allegedly also included persuading Russia not to sell its S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.
The S-300 system has been bothering Israeli war planners for a while, particularly since the mysterious case of the "hijacked" Russian ship, the Arctic Sea, came to light in late July. Ostensibly carrying timber bound for Algeria, the vessel was reported to have been captured off the coast of Sweden by pirates and vanished until it was "rescued" by the Russian navy some 25 days later, near the Cape Verde Islands.
Since the waters of Scandinavia are among the safest for mercantile shipping and given the hush-hushing of the incident by the Russian government, strong suspicions emerged that the Arctic Sea had something more valuable on board. An anti-piracy official of the European Union as well as an unnamed general from the Russian navy suggested that the freighter was taking S-300 or Kh-55 missiles to Iran via an organized Russian crime syndicate. Mossad got into the act with hints that the Arctic Sea was transporting "a Russian air defense system for Iran".
After the Russian navy "retook" the ship and escorted it home, Moscow conducted an official enquiry and declared the "hijackers" to be eight ethnic Russians with criminal backgrounds who were simply chasing ransom money. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, termed the canard about the freighter's contraband missiles to Iran as "an absolute lie".
But informed insiders in the Israeli media kept insinuating that Mossad had either "tipped off" Moscow that it was tracking the covert missile supplies on the ship or, more colorfully, that Israeli intelligence hired ethnic Russian gangsters to abort the Arctic Sea's journey before it reached Iran.
Netanyahu's hidden dash to Moscow is being bandied about as a sequel to the oceanic missile-smuggling saga. If Netanyahu did go to Russia with evidence, it could have been used as a shaming device to compel his hosts not to beef up Iranian defenses. The Russian newspaper Kommersant even asserts that the Israelis were planning to attack Iran soon to stop its alleged nuclear program and that "Netanyahu decided to inform Kremlin of this".
A key question regarding Netanyahu's rope trick is why he resorted to a secret face-to-face with the Russians (presumably with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, President Dmitry Medvedev or someone close to one of them) if he just wished to warn them or convey war plans. Could the Israeli Embassy in Moscow, the Russian Embassy in Tel Aviv or plain old telephonic communication not served that purpose?
The answer lies in the mounting mutual distrust between Israel and its longtime special ally, the United States, over restarting peace talks with the Palestinians. Since the Barack Obama administration has taken charge in Washington, unprecedented pressure has been applied on Israel to completely halt Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
So low is the confidence of Netanyahu's right-wing government in Obama that an internal memo by Nadav Tamir, the Israeli consul general in Boston, lamented recently that "the distance between us and the US government is causing strategic damage to Israel".
Racially insulting depictions of Obama in Arab headdress and as a Muslim who is partial to Palestinians have proliferated in Israel, especially among settlers adamantly defying the recalibrated American position. They reflect popular angst that the greatest insurance policy to aggressively pursue Israeli national interests - a blank check from Washington - is now outdated.
For the past several months, Netanyahu has been walking on pins and needles, trying to juggle Washington's demands to halt settlements and his own coalition's desire to alter facts on the ground demographically before any land-for-peace deal is signed with the Palestinians.
One old strategy of states that are losing the unconditional love of a former ally is to court a rival of that ally and force the ally to realize the horrible blunder it is committing. Netanyahu's veiled personal visit to Russia could be part of such a long-term hedging strategy against at least three or probably seven more years of Obama rule in Washington.
For decades, Israel has had a single vector foreign policy towards great powers, banking on total diplomatic and military cooperation of the US. But with relations with Washington at an all-time nadir, Tel Aviv is forced to seek new powerful friends like Russia.
Since Moscow continues to contest Washington in every theater - from Latin America and Central Asia to the Middle East - Netanyahu could be probing an opening to Russia that the US would not take lightly. If Russia can somehow be inveigled to act tougher on Iran for its nuclear standoff, Israel would find fresh room to keep the heat on Tehran.
Already, Israel-Russia defense ties are on an uptick after a breakthrough US$50 million agreement on transferring the Israel Aerospace Industries' unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which were used by Georgia against Russia in the war over the breakaway Georgian state of South Ossetia last year.
Netanyahu's Russian gambit is a balancing maneuver that is being done on the sly because of the sentiment in Tel Aviv that Obama cannot be trusted. Netanyahu undertook a cloaked personal mission possibly out of fear that US intelligence is preying harder on cable traffic or electronic communication between Israel and Russia. Even in the friendliest of times, American intelligence is known to have kept an eye on Israeli diplomatic correspondence and vice versa.
Netanyahu's decision to hoodwink his own public and media and fly in person to Russia must be understood in light of Israel's current paranoia about American policies in the Middle East.
With no less a figure than Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor grudgingly accepting that Netanyahu did fly to Russia on September 7, the cobwebs are slowly clearing from Israel's quest to counter the diplomatic isolation it is encountering in the Obama era.
The initial alibi from the prime minister's military secretary - that he was "visiting a security facility" within the country - attempted to avert prying eyes in a country where the press corps dutifully obey military censorship laws. Netanyahu's aides believed that spinning the story of his inspection of a top-secret Mossad installation inside Israel would be enough to satiate the curious.
But this version soon tanked; and rumors multiplied (allegedly from disgruntled elements within Netanyahu's inner circle) that"Bibi", as he is popularly known, was on a sensitive diplomatic mission to a foreign country. The Palestinian daily al-Manar claimed that he flew to an undisclosed Arab state with which Israel has no formal relations and used the undercover route to preclude criticism from foreign-policy hawks at home.
A more credible narrative began emerging in tidbits that Netanyahu was actually in Moscow with top military advisers in tow. He is said to have borrowed a private plane from an Israeli business magnate for the clandestine 15-hour trip. The ambiguous responses to queries about this from both Russian and Israeli officials added fuel to the fire of guesswork.
A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman said evasively, "We have seen these reports in various media, but there is nothing more I can tell you." The same source added, "I am not saying yes or no." Netanyahu's own office was tongue-tied and issued vague post hoc messages that distanced itself from the Mossad facility yarn and exculpated National Security Adviser Uzi Arad from spreading this apparent falsehood.
According to the leading Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, Netanyahu was in Moscow to present concrete evidence to the Kremlin that Russian arms were making their way to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon. The Israeli agenda allegedly also included persuading Russia not to sell its S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.
The S-300 system has been bothering Israeli war planners for a while, particularly since the mysterious case of the "hijacked" Russian ship, the Arctic Sea, came to light in late July. Ostensibly carrying timber bound for Algeria, the vessel was reported to have been captured off the coast of Sweden by pirates and vanished until it was "rescued" by the Russian navy some 25 days later, near the Cape Verde Islands.
Since the waters of Scandinavia are among the safest for mercantile shipping and given the hush-hushing of the incident by the Russian government, strong suspicions emerged that the Arctic Sea had something more valuable on board. An anti-piracy official of the European Union as well as an unnamed general from the Russian navy suggested that the freighter was taking S-300 or Kh-55 missiles to Iran via an organized Russian crime syndicate. Mossad got into the act with hints that the Arctic Sea was transporting "a Russian air defense system for Iran".
After the Russian navy "retook" the ship and escorted it home, Moscow conducted an official enquiry and declared the "hijackers" to be eight ethnic Russians with criminal backgrounds who were simply chasing ransom money. Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, termed the canard about the freighter's contraband missiles to Iran as "an absolute lie".
But informed insiders in the Israeli media kept insinuating that Mossad had either "tipped off" Moscow that it was tracking the covert missile supplies on the ship or, more colorfully, that Israeli intelligence hired ethnic Russian gangsters to abort the Arctic Sea's journey before it reached Iran.
Netanyahu's hidden dash to Moscow is being bandied about as a sequel to the oceanic missile-smuggling saga. If Netanyahu did go to Russia with evidence, it could have been used as a shaming device to compel his hosts not to beef up Iranian defenses. The Russian newspaper Kommersant even asserts that the Israelis were planning to attack Iran soon to stop its alleged nuclear program and that "Netanyahu decided to inform Kremlin of this".
A key question regarding Netanyahu's rope trick is why he resorted to a secret face-to-face with the Russians (presumably with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, President Dmitry Medvedev or someone close to one of them) if he just wished to warn them or convey war plans. Could the Israeli Embassy in Moscow, the Russian Embassy in Tel Aviv or plain old telephonic communication not served that purpose?
The answer lies in the mounting mutual distrust between Israel and its longtime special ally, the United States, over restarting peace talks with the Palestinians. Since the Barack Obama administration has taken charge in Washington, unprecedented pressure has been applied on Israel to completely halt Jewish settlement construction in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
So low is the confidence of Netanyahu's right-wing government in Obama that an internal memo by Nadav Tamir, the Israeli consul general in Boston, lamented recently that "the distance between us and the US government is causing strategic damage to Israel".
Racially insulting depictions of Obama in Arab headdress and as a Muslim who is partial to Palestinians have proliferated in Israel, especially among settlers adamantly defying the recalibrated American position. They reflect popular angst that the greatest insurance policy to aggressively pursue Israeli national interests - a blank check from Washington - is now outdated.
For the past several months, Netanyahu has been walking on pins and needles, trying to juggle Washington's demands to halt settlements and his own coalition's desire to alter facts on the ground demographically before any land-for-peace deal is signed with the Palestinians.
One old strategy of states that are losing the unconditional love of a former ally is to court a rival of that ally and force the ally to realize the horrible blunder it is committing. Netanyahu's veiled personal visit to Russia could be part of such a long-term hedging strategy against at least three or probably seven more years of Obama rule in Washington.
For decades, Israel has had a single vector foreign policy towards great powers, banking on total diplomatic and military cooperation of the US. But with relations with Washington at an all-time nadir, Tel Aviv is forced to seek new powerful friends like Russia.
Since Moscow continues to contest Washington in every theater - from Latin America and Central Asia to the Middle East - Netanyahu could be probing an opening to Russia that the US would not take lightly. If Russia can somehow be inveigled to act tougher on Iran for its nuclear standoff, Israel would find fresh room to keep the heat on Tehran.
Already, Israel-Russia defense ties are on an uptick after a breakthrough US$50 million agreement on transferring the Israel Aerospace Industries' unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which were used by Georgia against Russia in the war over the breakaway Georgian state of South Ossetia last year.
Netanyahu's Russian gambit is a balancing maneuver that is being done on the sly because of the sentiment in Tel Aviv that Obama cannot be trusted. Netanyahu undertook a cloaked personal mission possibly out of fear that US intelligence is preying harder on cable traffic or electronic communication between Israel and Russia. Even in the friendliest of times, American intelligence is known to have kept an eye on Israeli diplomatic correspondence and vice versa.
Netanyahu's decision to hoodwink his own public and media and fly in person to Russia must be understood in light of Israel's current paranoia about American policies in the Middle East.
With no less a figure than Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor grudgingly accepting that Netanyahu did fly to Russia on September 7, the cobwebs are slowly clearing from Israel's quest to counter the diplomatic isolation it is encountering in the Obama era.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Maureen Dowd's disgusting insinuation that Joe Wilson is a racist would land her in court in Britain
Nasty piece of work, Maureen Dowd. In the Barack Obama-worshipping New York Times over the weekend, she insinuated that Congressman Joe Wilson’s “you lie” outburst during the presidential address was inspired by racism:
The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
“Boy”, of course, is how some whites used to address black subordinates, even if they weren’t young. Maureen tries to cover her ass by including the caveat “fair or not”. I wonder if the Times lawyers insisted on that, or whether she thought it actually made her suggestion less outrageous.
Either way, I can’t see a British newspaper lawyer allowing her to get away with that snide “boy”, or with this:
But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.
This isn’t a case of limey gutlessness. It’s to do with our legal requirement that if you accuse someone of a gross moral lapse, you have to prove your case. Dowd has just strongly implied that Wilson insulted the office of the president (and there’s no doubt that he did, and was right to apologise) because he’s a racist. Evidence? None that a jury over here wouldn’t throw out in five minutes.
Please, don’t give me that first amendment crap. The New York Times demands high enough standards of evidence when the target of a defamatory remark is a liberal. But Joe Wilson is fair game – not because he behaved so badly, but because the financially troubled “old gray lady” and her employees are still in the grip of Messianic delusions.
This might seem a mean thing to say about an old lady, but I really hope she croaks soon.
The normally nonchalant Barack Obama looked nonplussed, as Nancy Pelosi glowered behind.
Surrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.
But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!
“Boy”, of course, is how some whites used to address black subordinates, even if they weren’t young. Maureen tries to cover her ass by including the caveat “fair or not”. I wonder if the Times lawyers insisted on that, or whether she thought it actually made her suggestion less outrageous.
Either way, I can’t see a British newspaper lawyer allowing her to get away with that snide “boy”, or with this:
But Wilson’s shocking disrespect for the office of the president — no Democrat ever shouted “liar” at W. when he was hawking a fake case for war in Iraq — convinced me: Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.
This isn’t a case of limey gutlessness. It’s to do with our legal requirement that if you accuse someone of a gross moral lapse, you have to prove your case. Dowd has just strongly implied that Wilson insulted the office of the president (and there’s no doubt that he did, and was right to apologise) because he’s a racist. Evidence? None that a jury over here wouldn’t throw out in five minutes.
Please, don’t give me that first amendment crap. The New York Times demands high enough standards of evidence when the target of a defamatory remark is a liberal. But Joe Wilson is fair game – not because he behaved so badly, but because the financially troubled “old gray lady” and her employees are still in the grip of Messianic delusions.
This might seem a mean thing to say about an old lady, but I really hope she croaks soon.
Britain eyes Nagpur, India’s new aerospace hub
LONDON - Britain’s Trade, Investment and Business Minister Lord Mervyn Davies is to visit India for four days beginning Monday for talks to expand growing ties in defence technology and other cutting-edge sectors.
High on his agenda is the city of Nagpur, which is being developed as India’s new aerospace hub and, according to the UK-India Business Council, needs new infrastructure and engineering capability.
The UKIBC hopes that by engaging now with Nagpur, British businesses will be able to grow with the city and able to beat off the competition.
Davies, who will also travel to Delhi and Mumbai, told IANS in London recently that Britain was keen to develop high-tech defence and aerospace ties with India.
His visit is likely to lead to a ‘mix and match’ between Indian and British defence and security companies with a follow-up visit from the Indians later this year.
The entire effort could give defence cooperation between the two countries its biggest push in more than 60 years, with jobs created in both countries.
India is on the move and we must move with it, said Davies Sunday.
Innovative Indian and UK firms are now working together at the top end of the industrial spectrum - on pharmaceuticals, electronics and advanced manufacturing. India’s talent, confidence, energy and entrepreneurial spirit is for the world to see and experience,” he said.
The UK and India stand shoulder to shoulder in a new millennium. In forums such as G20, we are promoting global trade and economic liberalisation, which is vital to bring prosperity and jobs to millions in both our countries and around the world,” he added.
Davies will visit Nagpur to support a delegation of British businesses led by the UKIBC. The delegation will have companies from urban infrastructure, town planning, mining, energy, legal, financial, construction, water, power, education, and brand marketing sectors.
Britain’s bilateral trade with India is worth over 12 billion pounds and Indian investments last year created some 4,000 jobs in Britain - second only to US investments.
High on his agenda is the city of Nagpur, which is being developed as India’s new aerospace hub and, according to the UK-India Business Council, needs new infrastructure and engineering capability.
The UKIBC hopes that by engaging now with Nagpur, British businesses will be able to grow with the city and able to beat off the competition.
Davies, who will also travel to Delhi and Mumbai, told IANS in London recently that Britain was keen to develop high-tech defence and aerospace ties with India.
His visit is likely to lead to a ‘mix and match’ between Indian and British defence and security companies with a follow-up visit from the Indians later this year.
The entire effort could give defence cooperation between the two countries its biggest push in more than 60 years, with jobs created in both countries.
India is on the move and we must move with it, said Davies Sunday.
Innovative Indian and UK firms are now working together at the top end of the industrial spectrum - on pharmaceuticals, electronics and advanced manufacturing. India’s talent, confidence, energy and entrepreneurial spirit is for the world to see and experience,” he said.
The UK and India stand shoulder to shoulder in a new millennium. In forums such as G20, we are promoting global trade and economic liberalisation, which is vital to bring prosperity and jobs to millions in both our countries and around the world,” he added.
Davies will visit Nagpur to support a delegation of British businesses led by the UKIBC. The delegation will have companies from urban infrastructure, town planning, mining, energy, legal, financial, construction, water, power, education, and brand marketing sectors.
Britain’s bilateral trade with India is worth over 12 billion pounds and Indian investments last year created some 4,000 jobs in Britain - second only to US investments.
Oliver Thomas offers views on arrest of Henry Louis Gates, and its aftermath
Former City Councilman Oliver Thomas, serving a 37-month federal prison sentence after pleading guilty to accepting bribes, won't be eligible for release until September 2010, but he's still following the news.
The latest issue of the New Orleans Tribune features a letter from Thomas commenting on the incident in which Harvard scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested by a white police officer in Cambridge, Mass., leading to a national debate on racial profiling and a beer-sharing White House visit by both Gates and the arresting officer.
In his letter, Thomas discusses the role played by President Barack Obama, who initially said the police had "acted stupidly" and then had to backtrack.
Thomas writes that Obama found "he cannot take sides or stand up for a friend in a racial dispute, especially one where his black friend is pitted against a law enforcement official. The liberal, moderate and conservative media that tolerate you will bail on you in a minute and remind you that by taking up for your friend you acted 'stupidly.' "
But Thomas also urges the Tribune's mostly black readership not to blame Sgt. James Crowley for arresting Gates. He calls Crowley "a good guy who's been influenced by stereotypes and images he's seen his whole life" -- negative images of African-Americans that Thomas says many black people share.
Thomas sent his letter from the Oakdale Federal Correctional Complex in southwest Louisiana, where he was moved in June after serving the first part of his sentence at a federal prison near Atlanta.
NASA Exercises Payload Processing Contract Option
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - NASA is exercising its final option in the Checkout, Assembly and Payload Processing Services contract known as CAPPS.
The option is the second of two on the cost-plus-award-fee CAPPS contract awarded to Boeing Space Operations Company of Titusville, Fla., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Boeing Company. The option's performance period is from Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2012, with a maximum potential value of approximately $156.5 million.
The contract provides management and technical services in support of payload processing requirements at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida for the International Space Station, space shuttle, expendable launch vehicle, Constellation and other payload programs. Boeing performs all aspects of payload processing, including planning, safety and mission assurance, payload processing ground systems support, space shuttle integration, launch and post-landing activities.
Option 1 on the CAPPS contract began in October 2006 with a value of $308.8 million. The base contract began in October 2002 with a value of $359.4 million. The total maximum potential value of the CAPPS contract with both options is approximately $824.8 million.
For information about NASA and agency programs, visit:
The option is the second of two on the cost-plus-award-fee CAPPS contract awarded to Boeing Space Operations Company of Titusville, Fla., a wholly owned subsidiary of the Boeing Company. The option's performance period is from Oct. 1, 2009 through Sept. 30, 2012, with a maximum potential value of approximately $156.5 million.
The contract provides management and technical services in support of payload processing requirements at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida for the International Space Station, space shuttle, expendable launch vehicle, Constellation and other payload programs. Boeing performs all aspects of payload processing, including planning, safety and mission assurance, payload processing ground systems support, space shuttle integration, launch and post-landing activities.
Option 1 on the CAPPS contract began in October 2006 with a value of $308.8 million. The base contract began in October 2002 with a value of $359.4 million. The total maximum potential value of the CAPPS contract with both options is approximately $824.8 million.
For information about NASA and agency programs, visit:
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The big day has finally come: The 11th International İstanbul Biennial opens its doors to arts buffs today.
While there is already a huge artistic traffic flowing through İstanbul apart from the biennial, the event itself will host 141 projects by 70 artists from 40 countries.
Organized by the İstanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts (İKSV) under the sponsorship of Koç Holding and the curatorship of WHW (What, How and for Whom), the event is also supported by the İstanbul 2010 European Capital of Culture Agency, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and the İstanbul Metropolitan Municipality.
Turning the city into a platform of contemporary art through Nov. 8, the İstanbul Biennial is showcasing its exhibitions at three venues: the old customs warehouse, Antrepo No. 3 in Karaköy; the old tobacco warehouse in Tophane; and the Feriköy Greek School in Şişli, which is serving as an art space for the first time and has been empty since it closed in 2003 due to lack of students.
The biennial also attracts a high level of international interest. Opening its doors to members of the press with a news conference on Thursday, the biennial is expected to draw 400 members of the press from 35 countries. Besides the press, it is anticipated that the number of professionals visiting the biennial will reach 3,000 with art critics, curators and directors of numerous museums and galleries from all over the world. The directors of such prestigious institutions as the New York Museum of Modern Art, the Tate Modern and Centre Georges Pompidou will also be here during the first week of the biennial.
Highlight on political issues
The exhibitions in the biennial have a somewhat political stance. “Pomegranate,” “Smuggling Lemons” and “Sainthood and Sanity-hood” by Jumana Emil Abboud; “The Sea is a Stereo” by Mounira Al Solh; “Decolonizing.ps” by Sandi Hilal, Alessandro Petti and Eyal Weizman; “Qalandia” by Wafa Hourani; “The Signs of Conflict: Political Posters of Lebanon's Civil War” by Zeina Maasri; and “I, the undersigned” and “With Soul, With Blood” by Rabih Mroué are only some examples which have strong reflections of Middle East politics.
“Territory 1995” by Marko Peljhan; “Democracies” by Artur Zmijewski; “Administration of Terror” by Bureau d'études; “Ideal Media” by Lado Darakhvelidze; and “Pipedreams: A Chronicle of Lives Along the Pipeline” by Rena Effendi are some of the artworks which refer to the political situation in the former Yugoslavia and in Caucasia and refer to the use of power by specific groups influencing world politics.
Every artist has his or her own style: photographs, installations, performances or posters, but most of them highlight the outcomes of the use of violence on ordinary people's lives, the forgotten stories of immigrants, the never-realized promises and a questioning of “autonomy.” In this respect, the biennial has an anti-violent stance while trying to break down the clichés that have been fed to the masses up to now by those who govern.
‘What Keeps Mankind Alive?’
The question is surely one of the most striking aspects of the biennial. The title of this year's biennial, “What Keeps Mankind Alive?” is a quote from the closing song of “The Threepenny Opera” written by Bertolt Brecht in 1928 in collaboration with Elisabeth Hauptmann and Kurt Weill. The title itself invites the visitor to develop a (self) questioning approach while exploring the works of art in the exhibitions. The curators of the exhibition of WHW also explained the background of the title during the press conference: “The Biennial's title, ‘What Keeps Mankind Alive?' evokes two main subjects: politics and economics. ... ‘What Keeps Mankind Alive?' seeks to rethink the biennial as a meta-device with the potential to facilitate the renewal of critical thinking by extracting thought from the immediate artistic and political context where it takes place. In other words, ‘What Keeps Mankind Alive?' does not seek to take local specifics as some sort of prism to read the global. It rather addresses both local and international audiences head-on with questions about the contemporary world.”
Don't Worry About Iran, Israel a Much Bigger Nuclear Threat!
You would think with all the hysteria about Iran's "nuclear program" that they have already developed a few hundred bombs and these will be heading our way any day now.
According to Washington's chief envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a recent report shows that "Iran is now either very near or already has enough low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon". In simple English that means "maybe" they can produce ONE bomb soon, but we don't really know for sure.
And what if Iran does actually produce ONE nuclear bomb? Will they use it? How far can they send it? And what are the chances of it getting shot down long before it gets anywhere near a target?
But what if Israel were to let loose 200 nuclear warheads, would the rest of the world be able to stop all of those?
Dont worry about Iran
Unlike Iran, Israel already has nuclear weapons (at least 200 of them), and in the words of Israeli Professor Martin Van Crevel (some years ago), Israel has the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons. "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force" Crevel has also been quoted as saying "We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under"
Whilst it is unlikely that everyone in Israel shares Crevel's extreme views, you can be reasonably sure he is not the only one who thinks like that. With this thought in mind, which country is potentially the most dangerous, at this moment in time?
A table showing which countries have nuclear weapons (and how many) has been published in an article by The Guardian (click here to view). In first place came Russia with 12987 warheads, the US came second with 9552, France third with 300, and in FOURTH PLACE Israel with 200 (more than China and the UK).
Is it just me, or do other people find this more than a little worrying? Israel has forced its presence onto world politics and business (especially in the US), does whatever it likes to the Palestinians (regardless of world opinion), penalizes people in any way it can if they should dare to criticize Israel or its people, and promotes the "Holocaust" in a way that ignores the suffering of others who have shared a similar plight throughout history.
According to Washington's chief envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a recent report shows that "Iran is now either very near or already has enough low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon". In simple English that means "maybe" they can produce ONE bomb soon, but we don't really know for sure.
And what if Iran does actually produce ONE nuclear bomb? Will they use it? How far can they send it? And what are the chances of it getting shot down long before it gets anywhere near a target?
But what if Israel were to let loose 200 nuclear warheads, would the rest of the world be able to stop all of those?
Dont worry about Iran
Unlike Iran, Israel already has nuclear weapons (at least 200 of them), and in the words of Israeli Professor Martin Van Crevel (some years ago), Israel has the capability of hitting most European capitals with nuclear weapons. "We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force" Crevel has also been quoted as saying "We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under"
Whilst it is unlikely that everyone in Israel shares Crevel's extreme views, you can be reasonably sure he is not the only one who thinks like that. With this thought in mind, which country is potentially the most dangerous, at this moment in time?
A table showing which countries have nuclear weapons (and how many) has been published in an article by The Guardian (click here to view). In first place came Russia with 12987 warheads, the US came second with 9552, France third with 300, and in FOURTH PLACE Israel with 200 (more than China and the UK).
Is it just me, or do other people find this more than a little worrying? Israel has forced its presence onto world politics and business (especially in the US), does whatever it likes to the Palestinians (regardless of world opinion), penalizes people in any way it can if they should dare to criticize Israel or its people, and promotes the "Holocaust" in a way that ignores the suffering of others who have shared a similar plight throughout history.
Germany's Merkel, Steinmeier in live TV debate
BERLIN – German Chancellor Angela Merkel faces off in a live television debate Sunday night against challenger Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who needs a strong performance to lift his struggling center-left party's prospects two weeks before elections.
The prime-time debate is being shown on four public and private channels.
It is the only head-to-head duel of a campaign notably short so far on passion and personal attacks between Merkel and Steinmeier, currently her foreign minister and vice chancellor.
A good Merkel performance would strengthen her hopes of ending an awkward "grand coalition" with Steinmeier's Social Democrats after the Sept. 27 election. In a second term, Merkel aims to form a new center-right government with a pro-business opposition party, the Free Democrats.
Steinmeier needs to score points against Merkel to prevent that and boost his own, currently slim, chances of taking the top job.
Polls give Merkel's Christian Democratic Union and its Bavaria-only sister, the Christian Social Union, a lead of 12 percentage points or more over the Social Democrats. They show a majority, though not a big one, for a center-right alliance.
Nearly 21 million people in Germany, a nation of 82 million, watched Merkel debate then-Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, a Social Democrat, four years ago.
Schroeder's strong performance was credited with helping narrow a deficit against the conservatives. The indecisive election outcome resulted in the "grand coalition" of Germany's biggest parties.
Merkel looks better placed this time. She is a popular incumbent and, in Steinmeier, faces an opponent who lacks Schroeder's rhetorical gifts.
"The ball is in Steinmeier's court," given his party's poll deficit, said Frank Brettschneider, a communications scientist at the University of Hohenheim.
"His greatest chance lies in presenting the (party) as a guarantor of social justice," in contrast to what a center-right government might do, he added.
Merkel's conservatives are pledging tax relief to stimulate the economy, but haven't specified when. Steinmeier's party says that isn't feasible when the government is racking up debt to deal with the crisis.
Steinmeier also is defending a Schroeder-era plan to shut down all Germany's 17 nuclear plants by 2021. The "grand coalition" has stuck with it, but Merkel wants to extend the life of some reactors.
There are limits to how hard the two can attack each other. They worked together on bank rescues and stimulus packages in the crisis; both pushed for the sale of General Motors Co.'s Opel unit to auto parts maker Magna; both back German troops' mission in Afghanistan.
PAS stands firm over Islamic criminal laws
KOTA BARU: PAS has stood firm that hudud and qisas laws will be implemented should Pakatan Rakyat take over the government.
The latest call for the implementation of Islamic criminal laws came from its spiritual leader, Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat.
The push has not only resulted in criticism from Barisan Nasional parties, which say that it is a PAS tactic for the Kuala Terengganu by-election, but also from its Pakatan Rakyat partner DAP.
The DAP has come out strongly against PAS’ statement and pointed out that it was never part of the Pakatan Rakyat manifesto. It has called on PAS to explain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
