Blog @ MoreWhat.com

By Sonja Pace
London
30 November 2007

A British court has ordered the government to remove the Iranian opposition group, the People’s Mujahedeen, from its list of terrorist organizations. The group is hailing the decision as a major victory while the British government says it will appeal the ruling. VOA’s Sonja Pace has the story from London.

The People’s Mujahedeen of Iran has been described by some as a cult and by others as the only viable opposition to the clerical regime in Tehran. It has also been fighting a long-running battle to get off the list of terrorist organizations in Europe as well as in the United States.

On Friday, it won a major victory when a British tribunal ruled that there is no evidence the People’s Mujahedeen has carried out any terrorist activity in years or encouraged others to do so. The court ruled the group should be dropped from Britain’s list of terrorist organizations.

The People’s Mujahedeen is part of the broader umbrella grouping - the National Council of Resistance in Iran. The group’s president-elect Maryam Rajavi called Friday’s verdict a “magnificent victory for justice.”

Speaking to VOA from the group’s headquarters in Paris, spokesman Shahin Gobadi says the ruling sends an important political message to the government in Tehran.

“The message is that firmness should be the policy vis-a-vis the Iranian regime, and also it means that the policy of appeasement which this [terrorism] listing is part and parcel of, should be put aside once and for all,” Gobadi said.

Gobadi says Friday’s ruling vindicates the group’s assertion that the terrorist label was wrong from the start and was part of the West’s attempt to get on a better footing with Tehran.

The British government said it was disappointed by Friday’s ruling and will appeal. Until then, the People’s Mujahedeen will reportedly remain on the terrorist list.

The opposition group was first set up in the 1960s with the aim of overthrowing the U.S.-backed regime of the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. It took part in the Islamic revolution, but soon fell out with the new clerical government and set out on a campaign of assassinations and bombings to topple it. The group moved to Iraq in the 1980s and operated from there with the blessing of Saddam Hussein. After Saddam was ousted, the U.S. military disarmed the group.

The group’s resolve toward regime change in Iran has found support among lawmakers in Europe and the United States. Dozens of British members of parliament supported the case to drop the People’s Mujahedeen from Britain’s terrorism list.

By VOA News

A British court has ruled that radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri can be extradited to the United States to face terrorism charges.

The court in London issued the ruling Thursday.

Al-Masri is currently serving a seven-year prison sentence in Britain, after his 2006 conviction for inciting murder and racial hatred.

He was originally arrested in Britain on an extradition warrant from U.S. authorities in 2004. But that process was put on hold until his London trial ended and his appeals were exhausted.

The decision still needs the approval of Britain’s Home Secretary Jacqi Smith.

U.S. officials accuse the cleric of aiding a 1998 hostage-taking in Yemen and of trying to set up a terrorist training camp in the northwestern U.S. state of Oregon.

The Madrid and London bombings were not the only terrorist attacks after 9/11 but they might be the most reported at least in western media. Certainly the longstanding relationship between the United States and United Kingdom explains the amount of attention these stories receive. Some other stories have pointed the cameras at both countries. Much controversy has characterized decisions made by President Bush not only about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but on terrorism in general. Former British PM Tony Blair took on the criticism of his close relationship with President Bush with style and flare and is staying in the game in Middle East peace process since leaving the PM’s job in Britain.

Another story that received much attention was about the British military and an incident where nine or more of their service people were captured by Iran and the claim they had drifted into Iranian waters. The tale as it developed over the next days portrayed the group as less than impressive if not down right unpatriotic. Fair or not, together with the sense that the UK is soft on terror and tripping over itself to appease complaints from the Muslim community paints a rather disappointing picture of the island nation. Like most stories there is probably some truth and some misconception within the details.

That is why the story below is of interest. There are indications that while Tony Blair was PM he was unable to get agreement within government to stiffen ‘anti-terror laws’ and the same landscape will face the new PM Gordon Brown. After Brown entered office he was described as a no-nonsense kind of man that may prove to be a formidable adversary to those who disagree with him. But the fact may remain that opposition in the UK to tougher legislation against terrorist activities is more proof that the UK is soft on terror.

Britain to Push for Tougher Anti-Terrorist Laws
By Tom Rivers
London
06 November 2007

Rivers report (mp3) - Download 600k
Listen to Rivers report (mp3)

In time-honored British tradition, Queen Elizabeth presided over the state opening of parliament, and unveiled several government proposed pieces of legislation, including new anti-terrorist measures the government hopes to pass in the new lawmaking session. For VOA, Tom Rivers reports from London.

The queen’s been here many times before. An ornate horse-drawn carriage pulled up at Buckingham Palace for the short journey down the road to the House of Lords, where members of both parliamentary chambers gathered to hear her deliver a speech outlining the government’s planned legislative initiatives for the new term.

Amid the pomp and ceremony, political observers were watching closely as this was Gordon Brown’s first time to set the lawmaking agenda as prime minister.

And as the queen read out the words of the Brown government, it is clear that the prime minister sees more anti-terrorism work to be done.

“My government will take further action to create stronger communities and tackle terrorism,” she said. “Legislation to reform the criminal justice system will continue to be taken forward.”

That means Brown will try to do something his predecessor Tony Blair could not do in his final days and that is to get cross-party agreement on strengthening Britain’s terrorism laws.

“My government will seek consensus on changes to the law on terrorism so that the police and other agencies have the powers they need to protect the public while preserving essential rights and liberties,” said Queen Elizabeth.

And trying to find that balance will be key. Specifically, it is thought the government will try to double the time terrorist suspects can be held before formal charges must be brought from the current 28-day period.

The new counter-terrorism bill will also seek to allow for additional questioning after a suspect has been formally charged.

In addition, it is thought the government will try to ban convicted terrorists from traveling abroad after any release.

In addition to measures here, the queen’s speech highlighted the prime minister’s intention to work even more closely with international bodies to counter global terrorism.

“My government will continue to work with the United Nations, G-8 [Group of Eight] and [the] European Union to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction, including addressing international concerns over Iran’s nuclear intentions,” she continued.

Britain is behind efforts to impose a third wave of U.N. sanctions on Iran.

Meanwhile, the European Commission is currently proposing the collection of more flight data on passengers and tighter internet laws as part of its anti-terrorist moves. All EU member states would have to sign off on the new measures if they are to become law.
(end)

Just in case memory is a little vague on the days following the bombings in London in 2005 here is an extensive list of stories from that time.

.
London Bombs Death Toll Expected to Remain Below 100
Authorities say number of deaths now exceeds 50, with more than 700 wounded
08 July 2005

Europe Needs Unity to Battle Terrorism, Analysts Say
Some say London blasts are a wake-up call for EU fractured by infighting
08 July 2005

Bush to Sign Condolence Book in Washington for London Victims
President is now en route to Washington from Group of Eight summit in Scotland
08 July 2005

NATO Ambassadors Express Solidarity with Britain Over London Attacks
Ambassadors meeting in Brussels, condemned terrorism in all forms
08 July 2005

London Police Sift Through Bomb Scenes for Clues
Terror bombings Thursday killed at least 50, injured 700
08 July 2005

British Launch Massive Hunt for London Bombers Who Killed 37
Londoners end terrifying day with resolve to carry on
07 July 2005

US Lawmakers Condemn London Bombings
Lawmakers also say attacks should serve as harsh reminder that war on terrorism must continue, and of weaknesses remaining to be addressed in mass transportation security
07 July 2005

Transit Systems in US Increase Security Measures
A higher level of protection is ordered for all forms of passenger travel
07 July 2005

London Bombing Overshadows G-8
Summit members indicate ending the summit early would play into the hands of those who killed dozens of innocent civilians
07 July 2005

Local US Officials Extend Condolences to Victims of London Attacks, Heighten Security
US officials say they have no information that US transit system is threatened, but they have heightened security on buses and trains
07 July 2005

London Bombings Kill 37; Officials say ‘Hallmarks of Al-Qaida’ Attack
British government suspects Islamic terrorists responsible; massive investigation under way
07 July 2005

Iran, Syria, Others in Middle East Condemn London Attacks
Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad condemned the attacks in a cable sent to Prime Minister Tony Blair
07 July 2005

London Bombings Draw Media Focus from G-8 Summit

07 July 2005

US Muslim Groups Condemn London Attacks
The group has said in the past that those who commit acts of terror in the name of Islam are betraying that religion’s values
07 July 2005

World Leaders Pledge United Front against Terror after London Attacks
Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe, whose city lost bid to host Olympics to London, said after attacks ‘right now, we are all Londoners’
07 July 2005

Scenes of Mayhem Terrorize London
Multiple blasts in transit system creates horrific situations for thousands, hundreds known to be injured
07 July 2005

Australia, Japan Offer Support to Britain in Aftermath of Attacks
Australia’s PM John Howard says it is important his country stands ’shoulder to shoulder’ with its British allies
07 July 2005

UN Security Council Condemns London Blasts in Emergency Session
Measure expresses condolences for British people, victims of four bombings in London; says any act of terrorism threatens peace and security
07 July 2005

France On Alert After London Bombings
French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin asks ministers to provide ways to beef up security around France’s vulnerable sites
07 July 2005

London Olympic Bid Team Devastated by News Of Bombings
Chief executive of London’s bid team, Keith Mills, says delegation is shocked by the news
07 July 2005

Bush Condemns London Blasts, Expresses Condolences to British PM
President says ‘we will not yield’ to terrorists
07 July 2005

IOC Expresses Confidence in London after Blasts
International Olympic Committee selected London to host 2012 games during meeting in Singapore, Wednesday
07 July 2005

Trackposted to The Pink Flamingo, Perri Nelson’s Website, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, third world county, Right Truth, Adeline and Hazel, and Shadowscope, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:

Reject the UN

Screw the UN

.

In spite of all the efforts of those not directly involved in the war in Iraq to facilitate a failure by aiding the enemy or favoring surrender, their has been much positive news presented in recent weeks. The antiwar, peacenik, surrender at any cost crowd may be in for a rude awakening as a result of the incredible commitment of the United States military.

That is why news of possible re-involvement of the United Nations in Iraq is a bit troubling. While those opposed to victory in Iraq will attribute UN member opposition to military force in Iraq to the flawed intel and other mistakes leading up to the war, that would be putting the horse in front of the cart. The opposition was for different reasons and the intel flaws were not determined or presented until after the war began. The reasons for the opposition had more to do with arrangements with Saddam Hussein by those expressing opposition to enforcing UN resolutions. The primary reason for opposition presented by the left in the US had little to do with any antiwar philosophy. That excuse was used by liberal politicians to inflame the antiwar segment of the public to cover the failures of the Clinton Administration. Had Clinton successfully addressed the Saddam Hussein problem during his Administration, the problem would not have been left for President Bush.

News reports indicate President Bush and Prime Minister Brown are in favor of this new UN involvement. Some sources report there are clerics and others associated with various groups in Iraq who prefer discussion with the UN rather than with American or British leaders or representatives. Perhaps that preference is based on insistence from the United States, Britain and others that the new Iraqi government is dragging its feet in forging solutions among its members. The recent defections from the government and its members’ summer vacation are examples of a complacent attitude.

Which brings this discussion to the conclusion to be drawn in this post. There may be some truth in all the talk of a need for a political solution in Iraq. But not for the reasons often given. Just as Democrats have conceded a victory in Iraq would be a problem for them, the same may be true of members of the new Iraqi government as well as previous opposition from members of the UN.

The trade, economic or financial scams initiated by Saddam Hussein with certain UN member countries was the real motive behind opposition to US enforcement of UN resolutions. The Democratic party’s political agenda was the real motive behind opposing the war in Iraq. And the failure of the new Iraqi government to solve their problems in a timely manner can be explained by the selfish motives of members who stand to gain by prolonging sectarian violence.

If the continued success of current military operations in Iraq provide enough positive news in September to thwart efforts of the contrived opposition, victory in the Iraq war may be at hand. But the question remains whether current plans for UN intervention will jeopardize the current success. Members of the Iraqi government who prefer UN intervention may only see it as a way of prolonging the conflict. While the real reason the US and Britain express support for the UN may in fact be a concession. T(hat offering may develop into an Achilles heel for victory.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

(SOURCES)

UN Security Council to vote on Iraq mission
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - The UN Security Council was expected to vote on Friday on a resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq, diplomats said.

U.N. council to vote on Iraq resolution
By EDITH M. LEDERER, AP
UNITED NATIONS - U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said a resolution that would expand the U.N. mandate in Iraq will internationalize the effort to assist Iraqis in overcoming their internal differences and bringing neighboring countries together to help the country.

U.N. to have expanded political role in Iraq
By Patrick Worsnip
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United Nations will see its role in Iraq expanded to include seeking reconciliation between warring factions and dialogue with neighboring countries under a Security Council resolution planned for Friday.

Blue Dogs barking
For the first time during 110th Congress, the Blue Dog Coalition — a 47-member grouping of self-described moderate and conservative Democrats — defied House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership on a critical national security issue: Saturday night’s vote on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), where 41 dissident Democrats, nearly all of them Blue Dogs, provided the margin of victory for President Bush on the issue of terrorist surveillance.

Clyburn: Petraeus Report May Split Dems
On its website, the Washington Post reports House Majority Whip James Clyburn said “a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq” by Gen. David Petraeus “likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.” Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, “said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting [their] next steps.” Clyburn noted that Petraeus “carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats,” and “without their support…Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.”

Split in anti-war left
By Manu Raju
August 08, 2007
Congress’s failure to secure a timetable for withdrawing American troops from Iraq has split anti-war activists on the tactical question of whether to attack Democrats, who now control Capitol Hill.

The split has also underlined accusations among some activists that MoveOn has abandoned its credentials as an issue-based advocacy group and now instead provides cover for Democratic Party leaders.

Opinion: The Turn
William Kristol Mon Aug 6, 11:13 AM ET
Washington (The Weekly Standard) Vol. 012, Issue 45 - 8/13/2007 - Hot July brings cooling showers, / Apricots and gillyflowers, as Sara Coleridge’s doggerel has it. But for the American antiwar movement, this July brought only a cold drizzle, wilted blossoms, and bitter fruit.

For the Iraq war’s opponents, July began as a month of hope. It ended in retreat. It began with Democratic unity in proclaiming the inevitability of American defeat. It ended with respected military analysts–Democrats, no less!–reporting that the situation on the ground had improved, and that the war might be winnable..

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Wake Up America, Gone Hollywood, Church and State, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:

Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog

FaultlineUSA

.

Nixon’s legacy included the milestone of opening dialogue with China and historic visits by the West to the mysterious and isolated region of the world. Carter’s often criticized administration had what appeared as a Middle East peace effort that came closer than any other at resolving the conflicts. Reagan convinced the Soviet Union to ‘tear down this wall’. Much about President Bush these days points to the near obsession of American Presidents to push for their legacy in the fading hours of their Presidency. Beyond victory in the war in Iraq, President Bush’s latest call for Middle East peace talks presents among other things, his search for a legacy.

Along with most in the international community, as indicated below, the US and EU want nothing to do with Hamas while a few voices are heard urging dialogue with the generally perceived Middle East outlaws. No relationship in the search for Middle East peace may be more of a gamble than the involvement of both President Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In general, the intentions of both men may be to recover some success for their respective legacies after the controversy and criticism over the war in Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan.

US, EU shun Hamas as Blair takes over as Middle East peace envoy
Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, July 20, 2007
The Quartet of Middle East mediators met for the first time with Tony Blair as special envoy on Thursday at a meeting Washington hopes will breathe some life into the stagnant Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In Cairo, Foreign Minister Ahmad Abou al-Gheit said Thursday that a Mideast peace conference called for by US President George W. Bush will likely be held in September on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Understandably, some in the Middle East are wary or even suspicious of Tony Blair’s involvement. Of all the people on the planet likely to have a role to play in the search for Middle East peace, Tony Blair probably has the best chance of providing a sense of genuine sincerity and honesty to the task at hand. But the baggage of his history with President Bush and some indications he bears his own separate agenda on solving this never ending crisis may sabotage his ability to assist before it really begins.

Blair hampered in Middle East role
BEN LYNFIELD IN JERUSALEM
Ms Rice deftly defended the limiting of the scope of Mr Blair’s job, despite EU foreign ministers arguing that it should be expanded. The American backed brief says “yes” to Palestinian institution building and economy, but “no” to a role in peace negotiations.

Indeed, if Mr Blair entertains the idea of gradually expanding his own mandate, and dreams about jump starting peace talks, he may find that Ms Rice is a no less formidable obstacle than the Israelis and Palestinians.

Among Palestinians, Mr Blair’s impending arrival is being greeted with a mixture of skepticism and anticipation.

But Palestinian politicians outside of Fatah, and even some Israelis, say such a policy is doomed to failure because it excludes the group chosen by the majority of Palestinians in the 2006 elections.

Abbas may be viewed as a wild card in this entire scenario. His power or influence over any part of the conflict may be suspect and the call for elections just one more attempt by a weak player to muster languishing support.

Abbas plans to call early elections, isolate Hamas
AP, RAMALLAH, WEST BANK
Friday, Jul 20, 2007
In a speech on Wednesday, Abbas asked the Palestine Central Council, a Palestinian Liberation Organization decision-making body, to endorse his call for elections that aides said would be designed to freeze Hamas out of the political arena.

Abbas’ aides said they expected the election by the end of the year or early next year. His announcement came as the US and other international mediators were moving swiftly to try to revive Mideast peace efforts.

And no one should overlook the complications provided by the most suspected opposition to any peace in the region, none other than the President of Iran. A meeting between Iran, Syria and Hamas is nothing more than a strategy session of those opposing peace efforts in the Middle East.

Iran’s Ahmadinejad in Syria for talks with Assad, Hamas
19/07/2007 11:04 DAMASCUS, July 19 (AFP)
The fact that Ahmadinejad’s visit — his second to Damascus since becoming president in 2005 — comes so soon after Assad’s re-election will be seen as a clear sign of the value of the relationship to both sides.

The strength of their ties is viewed with the deepest suspicion in Washington, which blames Tehran and Damascus for much of the instability dogging the Middle East region.

The classic mixture of opposing agendas by all involved in Middle East ‘relations’ are no more an optimistic forecast for resolving problems now than at any time in the past. No one should be hopeful this early in the recent moves to hold talks on peace in the Middle East or anywhere else on the planet.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog’s Weblog, Maggie’s Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, Blue Star Chronicles, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

We are not so different from the UK even if the UK doesn’t believe it. Critical issues in the US are the Iraq war and immigration as well as health care. The Brits have half their country considering immigration as the number one priority. 40% believe working towards leaving Iraq and 31% think fixing health care is the biggest issue.

In the US half the people probably agree on illegal immigration and the other half are the left fringe. More of the left fringe comes out on the Iraq war. And only people without health insurance think it needs fixing. But then that would be 50 million people or about 16% of the population. They have about solved the problem for kids or illegals without health insurance. But for some reason adult American citizens don’t warrant the same concern.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

UK Wants Brown to Focus on Immigration, Iraq

July 2, 2007

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Half of people in Britain consider their new prime minister should act to reduce immigration into the country, according to a poll by YouGov released by Sky News. 50 per cent of respondents think this should be Gordon Brown’s top priority.

An additional 40 per cent of respondents think Brown should work towards withdrawing British troops serving in Iraq, and 31 per cent say reforming the National Health Service (NHS) should also be at the top of the new government’s agenda.

On Jun. 27, Brown officially took over as prime minister from Tony Blair. Brown—who had worked as chancellor of the exchequer—became Labour’s leader on Jun. 24. Blair served as Britain’s prime minister since May 1997, winning majority mandates in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections to the House of Commons.

In his first speech as prime minister, Brown declared: “I have heard the need for change. Change in our NHS. Change in our schools. Change with affordable housing. Change to build trust in government. Change to protect and extend the British way of life.”

On Jun. 28, Brown presented his cabinet. Jacqui Smith became home secretary, and is the first woman to ever oversee matters of immigration and counter-terrorism in Britain.

On Jun. 29, Smith met with Brown and Britain’s security services after a car bomb was discovered and defused in central London. Following the meeting, Smith said: “We are currently facing the most serious and sustained threat to our security from international terrorism. (…) This latest incident reinforces the need for the public to remain vigilant and to be alert to the threat that we face at all times.”

Polling Data

Which two of the following do you think should be Gordon Brown’s top priorities when he becomes prime minister? (Please tick up to two options)

Reducing immigration
50%

Withdrawing troops from Iraq
40%

Reforming the NHS
31%

Reducing crime
29%

Improving standards in schools
20%

Fighting climate change
14%

Don’t know
4%

Source: YouGov / Sky News
Methodology: Online interviews with 2,080 British adults, conducted from Jun. 22 to Jun. 25, 2007. No margin of error was provided.

….from VOA News….

By Sonja Pace
London
02 July 2007

Pace report (mp3) - Download 584k
Listen to Pace report (mp3)

British police say they have arrested two more men, bringing the number of arrests to seven. Police say they are searching for more suspects in connection with attempted car bombings in Glasgow, Scotland and central London. VOA’s Sonja Pace reports from the British capital.

Police arrested the two men, said to be in their 20s, near Glasgow. Five others are already in custody and an intensive manhunt continues for additional suspects.

Early Friday police found two abandoned cars in London, filled with gas canisters, gasoline and nails. They say had the explosives been detonated, hundreds of people might have been killed.

A day later, two men tried to ram their burning sport utility vehicle into the entrance of the Glasgow airport terminal. The two men were subdued and arrested, one remains in a local hospital with severe burns on his body.

Investigators declined to identify the suspects, but British television and newspapers say one of the men may have worked at North Staffordshire Hospital in central England. A hospital spokeswoman declined comment. Some reports say one of those held is a physician who completed medical school in Jordan.

Police believe they are dealing with a terrorist cell either linked to or inspired by al Qaida.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith says the public reaction has been encouraging.

“People were still going out and about in London,” said Smith. “We saw all of the concerts and activities over the weekend, people are still going off through airports to travel away on their holidays, that is the way we should respond to this. Alongside that obviously we need the increased security measures that are in place and we need the public to carry on being as vigilant as possible.”

The terrorism alert level remains at its highest stage, critical, as the investigation continues. Security has been stepped up around the country, especially at airports and other public places and events, including at the international tennis tournament at Wimbledon.

President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom walk to the Grand Hotel after their meeting Thursday, June 7, 2007, in the Music Salon of the Kempinski Grand Hotel in Heiligendamm, Germany. Among the issues covered, the two leaders discussed AIDS, global warming and Darfur. White House photo by Eric Draper

Apparently, Alabama is much more tolerant than one might suspect. An Iranian-born, British citizen identified as an Imam and the religious leader of a group in Alabama, was delayed in departing the US with his passport for overstaying a visa ‘waiver’.

As stated in the excerpt below, the US is no longer using the honor system after apprehending those who violate the terms of their visas. Just why that has not always been the case is a nagging question. It would also be worthwhile to know the other details of this story. Such as what was the reason for the ‘visit’? Does the Imam live here also? Has his background been checked? But then that would bring out all the liberal complaints that we should just let everyone come and go as they like. Even though so many with the same general description of this British citizen have constantly reminded us of their intentions.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Imam’s U.S. departure slowed by immigration delay

The Associated Press
Published: May 31, 2007

The U.S. government no longer allows visa violators to be released and leave the country on their own because many of those released and ordered to leave simply did not go, said Behruz Rahmati, another lawyer who has worked on the case. He said immigration officials have given him no estimate of when Razavi will be taken to the airport.

This post on Senator Harry Reid opens with evidence to support the position that not only does he lack the ability to determine when it is time for politics and when is it time to support the troops. He also lacks the class to fulfill his obligation for proper respect for visiting heads of state or other dignitaries He has no problem with Nancy Pelosi’s poor judgment on ‘diplomatic’ missions to Syria but he cannot see his way clear to attend a state affair in honor of the Queen of England.

Harry Reid Passes on White-Tie Affair With British Queen

KLAS-TV, NV - May 7, 2007
Nevada senator Harry Reid decided to not accept his invitation, but many others will be there. It was a day of high pomp and pageantry and the weather …

But with Harry there are always bigger fish for us to fry. Like his adverse affect on the American people and worse, the troops serving in defense of our country. There is a headline out there and at least one blog reference to an op-ed post that makes very little sense. For those of you on the right or independents, here is some more fodder for why many on the left are proving they have lost their minds.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can make bipartisan history on Iraq

By Brent Budowsky
May 09, 2007
George Washington must be banging his fist in heaven at the damage inflicted from home on American troops in Iraq.
Enough. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) can change American history by standing hard for 60-to-90-day funding for the war, requiring a new vote by August, and leading a landmark new policy supporting troops and vets.

First of all, the initial link was to a post on one of TPM’s user areas with a blog reference from a user who linked to the above op-ed at The Hill.com. The reason it was interesting on first glance was trying to guess how the Dems could make bipartisan history on Iraq. After reading the TPM poster’s comment it was still a mystery. This inquiry was not made any easier by the poster with a link to their site and a bad link to the Hill. Leaving an extra ‘/’ at the end of a link would normally be excused as a simple typo. But in this case it only served to suggest there was little that would make sense in all of this bipartisan history talk.

After reading the op-ed at the Hill, the author of the opinion is just as much in error as the person posting the comment at TPM. Excuse the assumption that a comment at TPM and a link to an op-ed the commenter found appealing are all three left biased. Especially when the resume’ history given by the author of the op-ed includes work for various Democratic party entities.

The dribble presented by the sources above draw the conclusion that Reid and Pelosi can get credit for fixing everything the way the left wants it, renaming it patriotic and in support of the troops and convincing the public and the other side of the aisle that this is the right thing to do. That these two people contend they actually believe their own words is one of the most incredible collections of madness on display lately. If this is the standard fare that one can expect from those who support the Democratic party, it should be easy to eliminate their newly found majority in the next election.

There are some scary folks out there on the left. This would not be the first mention of that fact. But it is the first time this blog has not dismissed it as just a little craziness around the fringe. The comment at TPM could have been discounted as just such a fringe anomaly. But an op-ed posted at the Hill is more disconcerting that people in actual jobs and positions within the Democratic ranks share the insanity of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Fortunately, there are numbers growing to combat this insanity. A recent effort widely reported and responded to as well as being mentioned on this blog is the We Win, They Lose initiative. In addition, one group that has been around for a while and is openly against Harry Reid is Oppose Senator Harry Reid. These are just two of the recent additions to the sane world that seek to overcome the dangerous ideas of the fringe left. Again, we would like to declare we are non-partisan, independents. But that does not preclude taking action opposing insane positions on the left or supporting sane initiatives on the right. We only wish that there were more cases of the reverse but lately that is not the case.

Here is a story written about Oppose Senator Harry Reid:

Harry Reid the Target of Activist Group

By Josh Hart
May 8, 2007
Harry Reid, the name-calling US Senate leader has come under fire from a group that wants to challenge US Senator John Ensign (R-NV) to end his silence on Reid’s ‘the war is lost’ mantra that gained so much attention earlier. The group plans protests against Reid in Nevada and DC calls him ‘an embarrassment to Nevada.’

Both political parties are capable of wrongdoing. The problem with allowing the Dems wrongdoing is that it is much more dangerous than that of GOP mistakes. GOP wrongdoing can be fixed. The same cannot be said of the wrongdoing supported by the Dems. Complete lack of support for the troops and success with the war in Iraq is a widely held position in the Democratic party. It is held by all 2008 Democratic party candidates. By failing to openly oppose her husband’s wrongdoing in office Hillary Rodham Clinton shows her complicity, not any admirable quality of the phrase ’stand by your man’. If they commit bad acts, you don’t stand behind them unless you concur.

Edwards and Obama also fail to support the troops. The Dems support partial birth abortion and oppose the Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v Carhart. This has changed this writer from a long time pro-choice stance to that of entirely against Roe v Wade, etc. This would indicate their support of embryonic stem cell research would result in turning abortion clinics into stem cell farms. All of which I thought laughable in the past. Their response to the Supreme Court decision uncovered their true intentions with an indisputable admission of guilt.

The sins of the GOP thus far can be resolved and any damage repaired. But the dangerous path the Dems seek has begun to scare the hell out of me. I still find it hard to believe they could be this far off base. Their other viewpoints on national security, border control, defense, health care, education and Global Warming, etc., have helped to shine light on an ideology that must be confronted. It will be tough to remain independent if the Dems cause the need to regularly favor their opponents. Party politics is still unpleasant on either side. The GOP is just not as dangerous as current Democratic party philosophy.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Adam’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, The Florida Masochist, Conservative Cat, Rightlinx, Allie Is Wired, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Planck’s Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Wake Up America, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The Middle East is quite the focal point of international politics. The main points of contention are rooted in religion and economics. Based on size and the fact that there are essentially two sides to the argument, Israel and any strong alliances they have are positioned on one side of the argument. Anyone with even a casual interest in the history of events in the region would be willing to agree that Israel is a small country surrounded by nations with opposing viewpoints in religion and economics as well as ideology and prejudices in general.

Israel is, of course, a Jewish nation surrounded by Muslim or largely Muslim nations. The differences between Israel and the surrounding nations can be characterized as being on opposite ends of a spectrum. And most people would probably agree that Israel’s neighbors have in common a strong desire for Israel to go away. Many alliances in the region have been altered with the passing of time and the distinction between allies and enemies has been blurred from time to time. The only exception appears to be Israel and the United States.

Some examples of altered relationships may be useful to consider. Prior to the undoing of the Shah of Iran in the seventies, the United States had a workable relationship with Iran. After the hostage crisis of 1979 and since, that relationship has ceased. Likewise when the former Soviet Union was in a war with Afghanistan during the cold war, Osama bin Laden and the Afghan ‘rebels’ were supported the the U.S. The United States was at one time friendly with the government of Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Obviously, things changed for Saddam. The cold war found the former Soviet Union and the United States typically on opposite ends of the spectrum with regard to relationships in the Middle East.

These trends continued right up until and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the announcement of the new war on terror. Some of the relationships based primarily on economic relationships were emphasized during the run up to the war in Iraq. Germany, France and Russia were at odds with the US at the UN not just on philosophical grounds or opposition to an impending war. Commencing a war in Iraq would disturb many ‘economic’ arrangements as well as obvious detriments and concerns.

Which brings us up to this year and the Wild West antics and politics of crazy times and trying to determine what’s next in the Middle East. The recent entrance of members of the United States Congress into matters of diplomacy has caused quite a stir and muddied the waters significantly. As if there wasn’t already enough confusion or actions offering contradictory evidence of positions, here are some more.

Just about the time we were reasonably convinced that the one constant in the Middle East was consensus among members of the Jewish community with the possible exception of Israeli politics, these headlines and stories appear.

Speaker Pelosi’s Statement in Damascus was Reckless, Irresponsible

Contact: Executive Director Matthew Brooks
Thursday, April 5, 2007, Washington, DC… The Republican Jewish Coalition issued this statement regarding House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s statements following her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday:

“The Speaker’s statements were reckless and irresponsible,” said RJC Executive Director Matthew Brooks. “Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism and an ally of Iran. Speaker Pelosi’s statement, ‘We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,’ represents a softness and a weakness in foreign policy that hurts the United States and Israel.”

Actually, the article above from the RJC is what we would have expected as a response over Speaker Pelosi’s trip to the Middle East. And since this blog claims to be non-partisan and independent with a tendency to lean to the right or conservative viewpoint, this being also a ‘Republican’ Jewish Coalition was no surprise. However, the following statement was what started our head scratching.

NJDC Defends Speaker Pelosi from GOP Smear

April 10, 2007 - 9pmWASHINGTON – Today, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) condemned the Republican Jewish Coalition’s (RJC) misguided television advertising campaign, which smears Speaker Pelosi’s recent Middle East trip. The RJC makes the ridiculous claim that Speaker Pelosi’s trip “weakened America’s security.”

“The notion that the Speaker’s trip to the Middle East had negative ramifications for American national security is laughable,” said NJDC Executive Director Ira Forman. “If RJC wants to do something productive for our national security, they should stand with the majority of Jewish Republicans, Independents and Democrats in opposing the administration’s failed Iraq policy.”

We may be guilty of a lax approach to staying informed about the Middle East. In our defense, the conflicts in the Middle East have appeared to us to be so simple and obvious as to their nature, the need for strict, formal and immense critical research seemed unnecessary. Our consensus was no one was really interested in solving the problems so they will not be solved without opposing ideologies making mutual concessions.

After tripping over the articles already presented here, we found the following:

Pelosi’s father and the Holocaust

RAFAEL MEDOFF, THE JERUSALEM POST
When Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, stepped to the podium at a Knesset dinner during her visit earlier this month, she made history in more ways than one.
Not only was she the first woman Speaker of the House to address Israel’s lawmakers, Pelosi was also addressing the parliament of a country whose creation her own father championed, at the risk of his career - and perhaps her career, as well.

Speaker Pelosi’s father, the late US congressman Thomas D’Alesandro, Jr., of Maryland, was known as a Roosevelt Democrat. What is not widely known is that D’Alesandro broke ranks with president Franklin D. Roosevelt on the issues of rescuing Jews from Hitler and creating a Jewish State.

Is someone trying to say that Speaker Pelosi’s disregard for established protocol is a genetic flaw? We could accept that but it still does not provide an excuse for her behavior regardless of motive. Here are some more enlightening excerpts from other reports.

Pelosi stand on the war in Iraq bothers Israel lobby
But House speaker insists U.S. commitment to security of Jewish state is unshakable
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

(03-14) 04:00 PDT Washington — Speaker Nancy Pelosi is widely recognized as a strong, second-generation supporter of Israel, but the scattered boos she heard during an appearance before the Israel lobby’s most committed activists highlighted their conflicting emotions over the war in Iraq.

With the first two articles presented, this one just muddies that water a little more. But the following excerpt gives some understandable insight of Nancy Pelosi simply being a political animal afflicted with typical ambitions for power and influence of a arrogant, wealthy, misguided, selfish politician and nothing more.

To adapt, she will have to understand that today’s opponent could be tomorrow’s ally. Few in Congress have such a memory for slights and betrayals. She still bristles at the fact that when she first went to Washington, many in the Democratic establishment didn’t take her seriously and opposed her march up the leadership. As she told Time earlier this year, “They couldn’t control me, so they tried to take me down.” When her former House colleague Martin Frost was running to head the Democratic National Committee after the 2004 elections, she lobbied against him with a determination that all sides attributed to Frost’s challenging her for Democratic leader two years before. Asked about those conflicts, Pelosi refused to discuss them specifically but said, “Anybody who’s ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me.”

That first whip race intensified her rivalry with Hoyer and also cemented her bond with Murtha, who managed her campaign. Not only did he get her the votes to win that job but his support also made it possible for other old bulls in the House to begin to imagine a woman rising to the top

But Pelosi has also found a way to make her gender a weapon in political combat

All that raised a lot of new questions about Pelosi herself—about her judgment, her political instincts and her real ideology. Was her endorsement of longtime ally John Murtha over Hoyer a testament to her loyalty or proof that she is incapable of letting go of old grudges? Was putting her muscle behind the hero of the party’s antiwar wing a sign that she would steer her fractious and fragile coalition over the guardrails on the left? Did her support for a man who is notorious for slipping special-interest earmarks into spending bills prove that she didn’t really mean all that talk about cleaning up Congress? In other words, was Nancy Pelosi really up to the job?

If it is to be attributed to her father’s influence then maybe not all about him is flowery and innocent. The next reference is the bio presented at house.gov and is also used by Infoplease offering the dry facts. That is followed by a report of an insight into Nancy Pelosi’s father and his less displayed political philosophy.

D’ALESANDRO, Thomas, Jr., (father of Nancy Pelosi), a Representative from Maryland; born in Baltimore, Md., August 1, 1903; attended the parochial schools and Calvert Business College, Baltimore, Md.; engaged in the brokerage and insurance business in Baltimore, Md.; member of the State house of delegates in 1926-1933; general deputy collector of internal revenue in 1933 and 1934; member of the Baltimore City Council 1935-1938; delegate to each Democratic National Convention from 1944 to 1968; elected as a Democrat to the Seventy-sixth and to the four succeeding Congresses and served from January 3, 1939, until his resignation on May 16, 1947; mayor of Baltimore, Md., from May 1947 to May 1959; defeated for renomination in the March primary election; unsuccessful candidate for election to the United States Senate in 1958; appointed by President Kennedy to the Federal Renegotiation Board, 1961-1969; insurance and real estate broker; was a resident of Baltimore, Md. until his death there August 23, 1987.
Tommyrot in Baltimore
Monday, Nov. 18, 1957
Baltimore’s newspapers went on a rampage last week against a startling proposal by Mayor Thomas D’Alesandro Jr.: special taxes on advertising revenue, their main source of income. No other U.S. city, however hard up, has tried to raise cash by threatening the economic wellsprings of the press.

This ends our sad belief that dirty politics claimed as anything else are still dirty politics and the likelihood of a solution for the conflict in the Middle East in our lifetimes is remote. If you would like to present arguments or alternative opinions, fact, anecdotes or whatever in the comments, knock yourself out. Thanks for reading.
Stanford Matthews
with assistance from C. Harris
and the staff at MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Stuck On Stupid, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Conservative Cat, Jo’s Cafe, Conservative Thoughts, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, third world county, stikNstein… has no mercy, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

The two selected paragraphs below and probably the entire report may be the best article we have found to date on the current disagreement between Britain and Iran. It is from the Asia Times and the only reason attention is being drawn to that simple fact is the disappointment in Western news lately. It is common for people in the United States to complain about the news media. But after reviewing items on this story available from a wide variety of Western news sources, an Asian news organization appears to have the only sensible report. And that would not be the typical complaint against Western, especially American news. It is not a matter of left or right, but of content.

Maybe that is because, at least this time, they can operate from a position of detachment to the story. Other reports we read focused on the Iranian or British position or lead with headlines suggesting new developments without providing answers to the headline in the body of the report. As if to say we have nothing to report but we’ll make it appear as though we do by producing an attention seeking headline.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Middle East
Apr 3, 2007

Iran-US: Fighting fire with fire

By Trita Parsi

…Whether the British were in Iranian waters or not - and whether the Iranians believe the British were in Iranian waters or not - Tehran seems to be using the incident to regain leverage over the West in the confrontation over its nuclear program and its rising power and influence in the Middle East.

Both Iran and the US have come to recognize that it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid some sort of diplomatic confrontation between them. This is particularly problematic for the administration of US President George W Bush, which for several years has adamantly opposed the idea of talking to Tehran….

I read a post at the Blue Star Chronicles that in my estimation was possibly a little harsh on Britain for their response so far to Iran capturing 15 members of their Navy and Marine forces in a dispute over whether or not they were in Iranian waters when apprehended.

I resisted posting a comment at the time in favor of contemplating the situation longer in hopes of presenting a better response than is usually available with a knee jerk reaction. I am quite favorably impressed with Britain over these many years as relates to their government’s support of our government. Most notably this impression has its roots in the Reagan and Thatcher years of the eighties. And it continued with President Bush 43 and PM Tony Blair.

With the recent report of a sort of survey of other countries and their respective attitudes toward the US, I only remember an unqualified support from Poland and possibly Britain was on the list. In any event, while I still feel it is premature to bash Britain over their handling of the current Iran problem, this report from VOA News only serves to delay reevaluating my opinion as there appears to be no concrete evidence that they are truly buckling to this expected intimidation from Iran.

And considering the results lately in this country as regards our so-called Congressional leadership and Iraq, etc., I do not know that we should feel so comfortable in our own response as a nation in terms of foreign affairs and national defense and security.

Stanford Matthews
MoerWhat.com

Britain Calls for Peaceful, Quick Resolution to Crisis with Iran

By VOA News
31 March 2007 Britain’s foreign secretary says London wants the crisis over Tehran’s seizure of 15 British naval personnel resolved peacefully and as soon as possible.

Speaking on the sidelines of a European Union summit in Germany Saturday, Margaret Beckett said Britain wants to be told where the sailors and marines are being held and given access to them.

In London, British officials say they have responded to a letter received from Iran Thursday concerning the incident. They did not reveal the contents of the letter, which is believed to be the first written communication between the two nations since the crisis began March 23.

Meanwhile, Iran’s ambassador to Moscow has denied he said the British personnel could be placed on trial for entering Iranian waters. Gholam-Reza Ansari told Iran’s official news agency that Tehran had begun a legal investigation into the incident, but his comments on Russian television Friday had been poorly translated.

Earlier reports quoted Ansari as saying it was possible the British personnel could be punished if convicted for illegally entering Iranian waters.

Britain says the naval personnel were in Iraqi waters when they were overwhelmed by a larger force from Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. Tehran says they illegally entered Iranian waters when they were picked up in the disputed Shatt al-Arab waterway between Iran and Iraq.

The United Nations Security Council has expressed “grave concern” about the detention, and called for an early resolution to the standoff.

Some information for this report was provided by Reuters.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, Right Celebrity, Woman Honor Thyself, , stikNstein… has no mercy, Pirate’s Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Right Pundits, The Random Yak, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Phastidio.net, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, , Conservative Cat, LaTogaStrappata®, sissunchi, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Was Iran just not thinking when they captured the 8 sailors and 7 marines, one of whom is a woman? Or is everything from them a knee-jerk reaction and they don’t know how to handle this one? At a time when Britain was ratcheting down there published involvement in the Iraq conflict seems a particularly poor time to risk annoying them. Whatever Tony Blair does, he has no reason to worry about re-election. And this piece from Times Online may be the first subtle warning of things to come. Perhaps Mr. Blair is providing the new millennium version of ‘go ahead, make my day.’ So go ahead Iran, play the punk.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

PM warns of ‘different phase’ in Iran crisis

Iran must obey international law and release 15 British military personnel or face the consequences, says Tony Blair

“What we are trying to do at the moment is to pursue this through the diplomatic channels and make the Iranian government understand these people have to be released and that there is absolutely no justification whatever for holding them. I hope we manage to get them to realise they have to release them. If not, then this will move into a different phase.”

Trackposted to Perri Nelson’s Website, third world county, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Shadowscope, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, Right Voices, Conservative Thoughts, and LaTogaStrappata®, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

If the previous post does not show you that Senator Harry Reid is a contradction then understand he said they would not cut and run in Iraq or raise taxes. Right at the moment the tax thing is secondary. He said they would not cut and run. Senator Reid would you kindly explain the report below if you are not planning on cut and run?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

US Senate Democrats Draft Plan to Revise Military’s Iraq Mission
By VOA News
23 February 2007

Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Senate are working on legislation that would effectively revoke the 2002 resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.

Senate Democratic aides say the proposal, which is not expected to be adopted, would limit the U.S. military’s mission to training Iraqi troops and police forces, securing the country’s borders and combating terrorist forces. Regular combat forces would be withdrawn by next year.

The proposal, drafted by Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and Joseph Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel is set to be presented to other Democratic senators next week.

If accepted, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would likely attach the proposal to an anti-terrorism bill. If passed by the Senate, which is not likely, the revised authorization would also have to be passed by the House and would be subject to a veto by President Bush.

Democrats and the independents aligned with them hold a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate, but hold a more comfortable majority in the House of Representatives.

The 2002 resolution gave President Bush authorization to take military action against Iraq, because of its alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. In a speech last week, Biden said the original resolution is now irrelevant because the WMD program did not exist, and former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is “no longer there.”

The bill is the latest effort by Senate Democrats to challenge President Bush on his Iraq policy. A vote on a non-binding resolution criticizing Mr. Bush’s plan to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to Iraq failed in the Senate, but was passed in the House last week.

Meanwhile, Democrats in the House of Representatives are considering a proposal by lawmaker Jack Murtha that would link funding of the U.S. military mission in Iraq to strict conditions on troop readiness and training standards.

Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Right Nation, Leaning Straight Up, Maggie’s Notebook, and basil’s blog, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.