Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Hardly a day goes by without some ‘rights group’ being featured in the MSM. There are groups that could be defined as ‘responsibility groups’ but they receive little attention from those individuals that regard themselves as journalists or organizations that claim to present news and information based on standards of journalism.

Last week one report opened by describing Human Rights Watch as a ‘leading human rights group.’ Could the author be referring to the executive director’s salary? Since 1993 a lawyer named Kenneth Roth has been the executive director of HRW with an annual salary of $350,000. That’s nearly 18% of HRW’s management and general expenses for the year. And they may have 275 employees. And let’s not forget their fundraising expenses of $8,641,358 for 2008 (according to Wiki).

The non-governmental organization claims they do not accept government money directly. But they receive funds from other groups who may. And they supported ACORN at least in 2000 and/or 2001 to the tune of a half-million dollars.

So what’s this all about? The report out last week has Human Rights Watch whining about the rights of illegals. And for all their whining the problem they perceive could be solved if no one entered the United States illegally. They bad mouth countries all over the world for claimed wrongdoing. It is interesting that they say nothing about Mexico’s ‘responsibility’ to correct their own problems and eliminate the attraction to cross the border illegally into another country.

Here’s the report. Have a good laugh. HRW is a scam. The last three paragraphs assume the reader is extremely gullible. Correction, the entire report assumes you are gullible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

A leading human rights group is calling on the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration to include protections for immigrants’ rights in their proposals for immigration reform.

New York-based Human Rights Watch released a report Friday saying more needs to be done to protect undocumented immigrants in the workplace and in court.

The group says at work such people are vulnerable to exploitation - including sexual abuse and poor working conditions - and should be allowed to find other jobs in such cases.

It also recommends giving undocumented immigrants a path to legalization that includes government protection, so they feel safe to report crimes.

Earlier this month, President Obama called for bipartisan support for immigration reform. He described overhauling the system as a “moral imperative.” Congress is sharply divided over the issue, with Republicans generally opposing what they call amnesty programs.

The Human Rights Watch report also urges the government to allow immigration judges to consider the ties legal permanent residents have in the United States before deporting them for minor crimes. The group says thousands of legal residents are deported each year without having their family connections or past military service considered.

Human Rights Watch also calls on the government to limit immigrant detentions. The group says those who have committed nonviolent crimes should be exempt from detention.

This is no surprise to anyone. Beyond the problem of national security, border control and ignoring the rule of law and founding principles of our nation illegal immigration is a crushing economic burden. It’s time for a reminder to all the liberals supporting shamnesty. Like the rest of the liberal agenda the notion of shamnesty is dangerous. An excerpt from a new report on the economic risks associated with illegal immigration is presented below followed by a link to the full report. Read it and weep, or join the fight against illegal immigration to save our country.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

Executive Summary

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level.

The full report (click here)

In an apparent throwback to the Cold War, Moscow and Washington are discussing a deal to swap 10 of the suspected deep-cover Russian agents arrested last month in the U.S. for prisoners held in Russia, according to people familiar with the talks.

That’s how a story about recently arrested Russian spies opens at the WSJ. How about there’s no ‘throwback’ at all? The Cold War never ended. Remember Hillary Clinton’s gaffe translating the English word ‘reset’ to Russian and being politely punked by a Russian official? That essentially sums up the current administration’s grip on foreign relations. In other words they don’t have a clue.

Hearings in the US for the Russians arrested for spying have been delayed. The Russians don’t want to comment and those all too familiar unnamed sources close to the story suggest a spy swap is in the works. But not unlike the 70’s the US may swap garden variety prisoners in Russia for those arrested for spying in the US. Does that sound smart to you?

“We’re rolling back the clock,” said Yuri Ryzhov, a former Russian ambassador and prominent academic who heads a commission that has defended scholars accused of treason. “It’s the 1970s now.”

Prisoners that may have been accused by the Russians of treason in Russia would be swapped for likely Russian spies?

As if the entire liberal agenda in Washington, DC wasn’t bad enough now the Obama administration is adding more foreign affairs blunders to their list of achievements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

If the recent rev/con of the United Nations on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for 2010 is any indication the world is no closer to being the nuke-free peaceful utopia envisioned by UN rhetoric or that of US President Barack Hussein Obama. Statements made by Iran and Israel merely extend the never ending debate on Middle East peace that is equally illusive.

The following report from a few days ago inspired this post.

Israel denounces NPT ‘hypocrisy’ as Iran hails accord
by Gavin Rabinowitz Gavin Rabinowitz – Sat May 29, 4:24 pm ET

TORONTO (AFP) – Israel Saturday denounced as “hypocritical” a resolution adopted by the Non-Proliferation Treaty’s 189 nations and said it would refuse to take part in a conference on a nuclear-weapons-free Middle East.

Israel said the resolution adopted at the United Nations on Friday singles out the Jewish state and fails to mention arch-foe Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

One may have to take the announcement above at face value until the 28 page doc from the UN is available. As of this writing the following notice was found at the UN’s website.

8:58 AM 6/2/2010
Parts I and II of the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference are still being finalized and will be posted here (in English only) as soon as they are available. Other language versions will be added when ready.

It always seems that some sources are able to receive these items before the general public. But there are other items that help paint the picture.

UN NPT conference backs steps to disarm
Sat May 29 2010 12:05

A Major Gap

The disarmament action plan also inevitably leaves a major gap, since it doesn’t obligate four nations that are not members of the treaty - India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, all of which have or are suspected of having nuclear arsenals.

On the Middle East, Arab states and Israel’s allies had been at odds over wording in the plan to convene a conference in 2012 to begin a process to turn the region into a zone free of nuclear and other mass-destruction weapons.

This Arab proposal for a WMD-free zone, to pressure Israel to give up its undeclared arsenal of perhaps 80 nuclear warheads, was endorsed by the 1995 NPT conference but never acted on.

Israel has long said a full Arab-Israeli peace must precede such weapons bans. But at this conference the US, Israel’s chief supporter, said it welcomed “practical measures” leading toward the goal of a nuke-free zone, and US diplomats discussed possibilities with Israel.

And what about Iran?

NPT 101: Is Iran violating the nuclear treaty?
By Scott Peterson, Staff writer / May 4, 2010
Istanbul, Turkey

Is Iran violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?The answer isn’t black and white. It depends on whom you ask – and how deftly you define “violation.” But in essence, Iran is following the letter but not always the spirit of the NPT.

Iran claims it is in complete compliance with its NPT obligations, including declaring all its nuclear material and allowing inspectors to monitor its facilities. It advocates against nuclear weapons and notes that despite thousands of hours of inspections in Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the United Nations body that monitors NPT compliance – has found no evidence of a bomb program.

It is not like the IAEA never dropped the ball regarding Iraq, Iran or other investigations they have undertaken. No one really knows the status of Iran’s nuke program but their repeated call for the elimination of Israel raises suspicion about nuclear weapons.

But let’s not get all worked up over Israel’s denouncement of this year’s nuclear theatre courtesy of the United Nations. Just last year there was at least one similar response by another nation under similar circumstances.

Friday, September 25, 2009, 00:47 IST
UN passes NPT resolution, India says no

New Delhi: India refused to abide by the UN Security Council resolution asking all non-NPT nations to sign the pact, saying it cannot accept the “externally prescribed norms or standards” on issues that are contrary to its national interests or infringe on its sovereignty.

India maintained that it cannot join the NPT as a non-weapon country even as it reiterated its commitment to no testing and no-first-use besides non-discriminatory universal non-proliferation.

The details may have changed over the years but generally speaking we are no closer to a nuke-free world than we were decades ago. Nothing anyone has expressed improved the chances of the world becoming peaceful. Perhaps focusing on nukes misses the point although it makes for popular news stories. War and other armed conflict with ‘conventional weapons’ as well as violence in general needs to be addressed in addition to nuclear threats before ‘universal’ peace can be achieved. Something that seems unlikely given the history of humans on this planet.

It would be helpful to keep the nuclear club at its present size. It would be more helpful to keep terrorists from making an IED from nuclear material e.g., a ’suitcase bomb.’ It might be fair to state that government leaders over a long period of time have caused this predicament in the way relationships, strategies and tactics have been arranged. Changing alliances and ‘national interests’ at odds with solutions that benefit all or at least do not unduly burden some while others gain are at the heart of the matter.

Until those trends are resolved the larger problem of a nuke-free world and an end to armed conflict are simply wishful thinking.

If only wishing for a perfect world made it so.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

According to an earlier news report US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote a three page memo in January stating the US ‘lacks a long term plan’ regarding Iran and nukes. The typical anonymous sources were credited in the NYT fish wrap stating the memo had various departments and agencies within the federal government scurrying to produce a game plan.

No one really needs a memo from Gates or proof of a formal plan from the Obama administration to counter a conclusion US leaders are clueless on what to do about Iranian nukes. That nothing has been resolved and Iran is allowed to continue as before suggests a US plan does not exist or is entirely impotent.

“It is absolutely false that any memo touched off a reassessment of our options,” National Security Council spokesman Benjamin Rhodes told The Associated Press. “This administration has been planning for all contingencies regarding Iran for many months.”

Well then, how about that contingency where Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons? You can place your bets on the Obama administration waiting this one out. If they have a plan it is for hope and change.

Hope Iran implodes under the stress of internal opposition to the current regime that cancels further progress on nukes by default.

Change the relationship with Israel so plausible deniability is available when the last option is all that is left. Israel will be the world scapegoat to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons pursuit while other world powers continue to ignore the threat.

Even lightweights like Senator John McCain (RINO-AZ) understand this.

Republican Sen. John McCain says he didn’t need to hear about a secret memorandum from the Pentagon to know the U.S. does not have a coherent and effective policy for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program.

And Ahmadinejad and his crew are free to pursue nuclear weapons.

Iran has succeeded in producing its first significant batch of further enriched uranium, the country’s nuclear chief Ali Akbar Salehi said Wednesday, a move defying U.N. demands to halt the controversial program.

Ya, ‘UN demands’, like that has ever worked. And then the US allows itself to be bitch slapped by Iran.

Iran slammed “atomic criminal” the United States on Saturday and called for its suspension from the U.N. nuclear body, urging changes at the U.N. Security Council and in the Non-proliferation Treaty.

Maybe Obama can cap this one off with a bow to an Iranian ‘head of state’.

Let’s see, there was Saddam Hussein and ‘the mother of all wars’ and then there’s Ahmadinejad’s hallucination.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad extolled Iran’s military might during an annual army parade on Sunday, saying the country is so powerful today that no one would dare attack it.

Then there is this….

“Obama should start cooperation with Iran in practice,” he said. “I have written a letter to Obama which will be published soon.”

Wonderful. A radical community organizer ‘allah’ Saul Alinsky is in the White House. The far left liberal majority is in the US Congress with nutcases all around the world. No, there is no plan to deal with Iranian nukes. The NYT fish wrap did not need anonymous sources to print their story. It is obvious.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related:
Can’t Turn Back the Nuclear Clock

This post is dedicated to those who serve.

The Doolittle Tokyo Raiders Association Reunion was held Friday through Saturday, April 16-18, at the U.S. Air Force Museum abeam Wright Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio. There are eight surviving crew members of the 80 who flew on the mission and four attended the reunion, including 88-year-old MSgt. David Thatcher (engineer/gunner - aircraft #7); 90-year-old Lt. Col. Robert Hite (co-pilot of aircraft #16 - the last one off the USS Hornet); 92-year-old Maj. Thomas Griffin (navigator and mission planner - aircraft #9); and 94-year-old Lt. Col. Richard Cole (co-pilot of aircraft #1 - Jimmy Doolittle’s plane).

All four men had numerous public autograph sessions, with hundreds of people in a line snaking through the museum, waiting for every two-hour session. We attended a 45-minute media conference to ask questions and hear their stories on Friday afternoon.

Sixteen B-25B Mitchell bombers were launched from the aircraft carrier USS Hornet deep within enemy waters. The plan called for them to hit military targets in Japan, and land in China. All of the aircraft involved in the bombing were lost and 11 crewmen were either killed or captured. One of these B-25s landed in Soviet territory where its crew remained interned for more than a year. The entire crews of 13 of the 16 aircraft, and all but one of a 14th, returned to the United States or to Allied control. The raid caused little material damage to Japan, but succeeded in its goal of helping American morale. It also caused Japan to withdraw a carrier group from the Indian Ocean to defend their homeland and contributed to Japan’s decision to attack Midway. Up to 250,000 Chinese were killed by Japanese retaliatory measures.

related:

The Official Website of The Doolittle Tokyo Raiders

from the site:
This web site is dedicated to my father, Richard O. Joyce and the other 79 Brave Men whom were in the Doolittle Tokyo Raid.

Those seeking to justify their pursuit of nuclear weapons are fond of waxing nostalgic about those who belong to the ‘club’. And of course, mentioning that the US is the only country to have used a nuke in wartime is a favorite of ‘rogue states’. To no one’s surprise they casually omit the fact they might all be speaking German or Japanese or even Russian had the US not entered WWII. Just like the US gets to bear the burden of cleaning up other messes around the world. Something the UN likes to complain about publicly but toast privately while wringing their hands at the thought they should actually live up to their charter.

Enter Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton. On the topic of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons here’s a nice summary excerpt….

‘Our aim is not incremental sanctions, but sanctions that will bite.” Thus did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seek to reassure the crowd at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee two weeks ago about the Obama Administration’s resolve on Iran. Three days later, this newspaper reported on its front page that “the U.S. has backed away from pursuing a number of tough measures against Iran” in order to win Russian and Chinese support for one more U.N. sanctions resolution.

This fits the pattern we have seen across the 14 months of the Obama Presidency. Mrs. Clinton called a nuclear-armed Iran “unacceptable” no fewer than four times in a single paragraph in her AIPAC speech. But why should the Iranians believe her? President Obama set a number of deadlines last year for a negotiated settlement of Iran’s nuclear file, all of which Tehran ignored, and then Mr. Obama ignored them too.

After bowing to other heads of state in his world apology tour while trashing the country he was elected to lead President Obama continues pursuit of his reckless agenda. It could make you wonder who he’s working for? Talking about ‘tough’ sanctions or other means to stop Irans’ nuclear pursuit while caving to Russia and China at the UN will solve nothing.

“Do we have unanimity in the international community? Not yet,” said President Obama. “That is something we have to work on. We think that we are in a much stronger position to get robust sanctions now than we were a year ago, prior to us initiating our strategy.”

The United States has been working to obtain crucial support from China and Russia for a Security Council resolution. Beijing and Moscow have veto power in the council.

But efforts at the United Nations come amid increased concern in the U.S. Congress that Iran might be speeding up efforts to develop a nuclear weapons capability.

Dems in Congress like a deer in the headlights worried about November re-election chances and GOP members dreaming of retaking the majority combined with an inept White House give Iran all it needs to complete their objective. Help from Russia, China and the UN don’t hurt their chances either. While President Obama talks of a nuclear free world. How naive.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘…the Hudson Institute scholar argues that the principle cause of continued violence in the Middle East — and the reason so many peace initiatives have failed — is Arab culture itself.’

There’s a quote to attract your attention. It’s a safe bet Lee Smith, author of ‘Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations’ will not be offered a job in the Obama State Department.

The report offered below was a timely find for presentation with the last post featuring another slur of Israel from the United Nations Secretary General. The view from this blog has typically been the reason for elusive Middle East peace is that no one really wants it. It is as if world powers need conflict among less powerful nations to accommodate their perverse competition. A handy excuse to distance themselves from direct confrontation with each other.

Be that as it may the book by Smith provides a tempting addition to anyone’s reading list. It is refreshing to see a story not blaming Israel or the US for Middle East problems. A few more authors from the Middle East couldn’t hurt. But then speaking out in other parts of the world is much more dangerous than it is here. (the US) At least one American tradition (and contitutional concept) seems to remain intact.

So repeat after me, it’s all the Arabs’ fault.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA….

Lee Smith says it has always been hard for Americans to understand exactly why peace in the Middle East is so elusive, and why violence and terrorism are so pervasive and persistent in the Arab world.

He says those questions became even more difficult to answer after the 9/11 attacks by a group of Sunni Arab terrorists that killed 3,000 people on American soil, and after the massive U.S. military deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Smith says American academicians and journalists often cite a list of root causes for Middle East turmoil, in which the U.S., the West and Israel usually play a big part: a history of colonialism and economic exploitation, the creation of Israel and American support for the Jewish state, the politics of oil, Western backing of repressive Arab regimes and the U.S. military presence in the region.

‘Culture of Violence’

Smith concedes these are factors in Arab perceptions of the West. But in his new book, “The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations,” the Hudson Institute scholar argues that the principle cause of continued violence in the Middle East — and the reason so many peace initiatives have failed — is Arab culture itself.

It is a political culture, Smith argues, in which violence has always played a central role. “Of course, it was not America’s hand that blew up mosques in Iraq. It was not the Bush administration that conducted a campaign of terror in Beirut, assassinating Lebanese politicians, journalists and civil society activists,” says Smith. “And the U.S. State Department sentenced no opposition figures, intellectuals, journalists or bloggers to prisons in Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere around the Middle East, where they were subject to torture, rape and murder. It was Arabs who did this to other Arabs.”

Smith believes that is the main lesson American policymakers should learn: that Arabs today are divided against themselves.

“A clash of Arab civilizations; clashes between Arab regimes and their own people, the regimes and their domestic rivals and insurgencies, clashes between Arab regimes themselves,” says Smith. Perhaps most importantly, there is the clash between world views, where on the one hand, there is the democratic and progressive trend embodied in the venerable and still extant tradition of Arab liberalism, and on the other hand, the bloody and violent current represented by far too many of the region’s seminal figures.”

Strong Horse

Smith is an Arabic speaker who moved to Cairo after 9/11 determined to find out what motivated the al-Qaeda attackers. He has spent the past nine years crisscrossing the Middle East in search of the answer. Smith took the title of his book, “The Strong Horse,” from a quote by Osama bin Laden, who said, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.”

Smith believes Arabs are trying to stabilize and strengthen their societies after centuries of Ottoman control, Western colonization and decades of conflict while also looking for that strong horse to lead them out of their troubled past. Faltering Arab states like Yemen, which faces new threats from young, radicalized Muslim insurgents, also need help maintaining the rule of law and exploring democratic pathways to political reform. Smith argues that the United States can and should continue to play that role.

“There is no evidence that the U.S. is any less strong than it has always been. So I think it becomes clear that even if we want to reduce our regional profile, an issue like the Yemen issue makes it clear that this is not possible,” says Smith. “I think the U.S. can certainly be of assistance. I think that one of the things that a ’strong horse’ does is not just punish his enemies but he rewards and protects his friends.”

Struggle for supremacy

Smith sees a clear distinction between the two world views vying for regional supremacy in the Middle East. On the one hand, there is Iran and its allies in the so-called “resistance” block, including Syria, the Palestinian group Hamas and Lebanon’s Hezbollah. And on the other hand, there is the United States and the American-backed Arab regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.

Smith says the U.S. and its allies cannot afford to lose to the other camp. “It would be very bad for the U.S. and even worse for our allies in the region, because that would affect the political culture of the region to show that resistance ideology has scored a victory and that moderation and compromise are not as successful as resistance ideology,” says Smith. “So it would be a very bad thing for U.S. interests and U.S. allies in the region.”

Smith believes a victory for what he calls “the culture of resistance” would enshrine violence and vengeance as the manner in which all grievances, real and imagined, are routinely addressed.

U.S. role

The author acknowledges that after nine years of large-scale U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, and with the nation’s economic difficulties bearing down on them, many Americans feel the temptation to pull the U.S. strong horse out of the region.

But Lee Smith’s new book concludes that diminishing the American presence in the Middle East at this moment could create dangerous new instabilities that could worsen, not improve, the prospects for peace in the region.

Smith believes that would be especially true in the Arab Gulf states, where the U.S. for decades has ensured the security of the world’s largest oil reserves.

“The Strong Horse: Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations,” by Lee Smith, is published by Knopf Doubleday.

What a surprise this is. Imagine that. The UN Secretary General is condemning Israel. Can anyone point to a UN condemnation of the Palestinians or Hamas or Hezbollah or al-Qaeda etc., etc.?

It is amazing that such a tiny place, Israel, surrounded by a massive geography of unfriendly neighbors is so often characterized as the sole problem for unrest in the Middle East.

Maybe the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon, could try something new. How about pointing to the activities of others involved with unrest in the Middle East rather than simply single out Israel?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA….

As a result of the blockade, residents have been unable to rebuild thousands of homes destroyed by Israel during three-week Israeli war on Gaza in 2008 and 2009.

Luis Ramirez

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has made a visit to the Gaza Strip and repeated his condemnation of the blockade. Meanwhile, international efforts to get Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations are stepping up.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon came the region to press Israelis and Palestinians to return to negotiations. On Sunday, while visiting the Gaza Strip, he condemned Israel for the blockade it and Egypt have on the enclave.

“I have repeatedly made it quite clear to Israel’s leaders that the Israeli policy of closure is not sustainable and that it is wrong,” Mr. Ban said. “It poses unacceptable suffering of human beings. This policy is also counterproductive. It undercuts moderates and empowers extremists.”

Israel has imposed a blockade since the 2007 violent takeover of the Strip by the militant group Hamas. Israeli officials say their restrictions on cement and other construction materials are meant to prevent Hamas from building bunkers to attack Israel.

As a result of the blockade, residents have been unable to rebuild the thousands of homes that were destroyed during Israel’s war on militants in 2008 and 2009.

While in the region, Ban has criticized Israel’s construction of settlements on lands it occupies in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

On Sunday, he appealed for Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a prisoner exchange that would result the in the release of Palestinian prisoners and the liberation by Hamas of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Speaking at a Cabinet meeting, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government will not restrict building in East Jerusalem. The move puts Mr. Netanyahu further at odds with the United States, just before he is due to leave for a visit to Washington this week.

The prime minister said that from Israel’s point of view, building in Jerusalem is like building in Tel Aviv. He said he has made this clear to the U.S. administration. Mr. Netanyahu said that in upcoming indirect talks with the Palestinians, each side can present its position. He said he will make Israel’s position clear during his visit to the American capital.

Israel has not complied with U.S. calls for it to cancel the approval of 1,600 new housing units in a Jewish settlement of East Jerusalem, which the Palestinians claim as the capital of their future state.

The Palestinians have said they will not return to talks until Israel stops all settlement activity.

Special U.S. envoy George Mitchell is returning the region to push along efforts for both sides to start indirect negotiations.

Foreign policy has not exactly been the Obama administration’s strong suit. But then what has? President Obama has delayed his international travel until Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer and the rest of his crew can ignore the public and worse, the US Constitution as they remain fixated on their government in everything agenda. Or is that government IS everything agenda?

So, Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, that’s Barry from DC (his words) and H Rod (my words) are embarking on a world rap tour. Obama will visit Indonesia which is probably more of a family reunion than a foreign affairs junket. And H Rod will try to match wits with the Red Bear. Do you suppose she’ll try to find another Russian word to use like the last fiasco?

This may equal the concern over so-called health insurance reform or whatever it is. What makes you more nervous? Obama and Clinton touring the globe representing you, sort of, or committing crimes to takeover your healthcare? Right! It’s about a horse, or a deadfish a piece. Elections for 2010 and 2012 can’t come fast enough.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from David Gollust….

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is en route to Moscow for a key international meeting on the Middle East peace process. She also meets with Russian leaders on efforts to conclude a new big-power nuclear arms reduction accord.

Clinton will meet with colleagues in the international quartet on the Middle East with peace efforts suddenly complicated by a U.S.-Israeli dispute over East Jerusalem home-building and a surge of Israeli-Palestinian unrest.

Secretary Clinton says the Obama administration was dismayed and disappointed by an Israeli announcement last week, coinciding with an Israel visit by Vice President Joe Biden, that it will build 1,600 new Jewish housing units in mainly-Arab East Jerusalem.

She scolded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in an angry telephone conversation last Friday that triggered reports of a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.

Officials here say an anticipated follow-up call to Clinton and conciliatory steps by Mr. Netanyahu have not occurred.

But the Israeli leader Wednesday praised President Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security and a senior U.S. official expressed hope the issue will die down somewhat in the coming days.

Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Philip Gordon, who is accompanying Clinton to Moscow, told a Washington seminar on U.S.-Turkish relations the U.S. criticism of Israel’s Jerusalem action was an example of friends who are able to speak to each other frankly.

“We have an important partnership with Israel, and a close relationship with Israel. It goes on. It’s important to us,” said Gordon. “It’s important to them. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t disagree with them when we have a frank difference. And we’ve been very clear that on this particular issue, we have a frank difference,” he said.

The quartet - consisting of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations - condemned the Israeli housing move last week and said the world community won’t recognize unilateral steps by either side that could prejudice peace talks.

U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell put off a trip to the region this week aimed at starting indirect Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But U.S. officials say he is likely to make the trip after attending the Moscow quartet meeting.

They say the United States would like to see statements from both the Israelis and Palestinians recommitting themselves to the peace process after events of the past week that, they say, included incitement by Palestinian officials over Israel’s dedication of a rebuilt synagogue in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s old city.

In addition to quartet meetings, Clinton will hold talks with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on bilateral issues, including negotiations on a new U.S.-Russia strategic arms reduction, or START, accord.

U.S. officials had originally expressed hope that a new START agreement could be ready by the time the previous one expired in December, but talks in Geneva have dragged on inconclusively.

Acting State Department Spokesman Mark Toner Wednesday declined to cast blame for the delay.

“Both sides have repeatedly stressed their commitment to reaching an agreement. Are there hard issues to tackle? Sure. But they remain hard at work and they’re getting closer. But I can’t predict when. The goal here is to get the best agreement we can get,” said Toner.

Clinton and Lavrov are also expected to review efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program, with officials here saying Moscow supports the imposition of new U.N. Security Council sanctions against Tehran. Among veto-wielding permanent council members, only China is seen as a potential hold-out.

One report attributed to Reuters at the NYT fish wrap and a similar one at Reuters report the IPCC will be investigated by an independent board of review. Each report is slightly different yet share some text and the titles are not the same. Given the scam proportions of AGW and the IPCC this raises suspicion this blog will deal with right now as no time is available for further investigation. But it can make you wonder. Was the NYT taking a little creative license with the report?

Moving to the real problem, how do you convince the public everything is above board when you make a claim that irregularities related to scientists will be investigated by other scientists? Who cares if you claim they are independent? The ones under investigation were described that way too!

This blogger, for one, would like to report on at least one example where confidence is high that so-called scientific evidence on AGW is correct. As much as this issue smells of scam any skeptic worth their criticism would expect at least one example of scientific truth regarding global warming. Everything being false or fabricated is no more believable than everything being correct.

Okay, let’s go back to the report…..

“It will be [made up of] senior scientific figures. I can’t name who they are right now. It should do a review of the IPCC, produce a report by, say, August and there is a plenary of the IPCC in South Korea in October.

“The report will go there for adoption,” he told reporters on the sidelines of a UNEP conference in Nusa Dua, on the Indonesian island of Bali, where environment ministers have been meeting this week.

It would appear that the powers-that-be within the United Nations are simply seeking vindication by any means in advance of the next scam meeting. It is not difficult to believe those in lesser industrialized nations and the third world view the AGW issue as a great strategy for sabotaging their more successful counterparts. Launch initiatives like those suggested by Al Gore and his crew to destroy the economies of ‘rich’ nations to even the playing field.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When the words war and crimes are used together it speaks to an underlying problem. As a species we have failed to render armed conflict obselete. And given that two or more sides of an issue engage in the practice from time to time additional problems arise in the aftermath. Someone always wants to justify war by finding someone to accuse of war crimes. As if having rules for war somehow makes it more palletable or civilized.

It is no surprise that the United Nations is central to this story. Neither is it a surprise that it surrounds the Israeli/Palestinian problem or that others can cloak their real intentions as participants in the international organization. So after more than a year since the conflict in question took place there’s a new wrinkle in the situation.

The U.N. General Assembly has adopted a resolution renewing pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to conduct independent and credible investigations into crimes committed by both sides during the 22-day Gaza conflict that erupted in December 2008.

The General Assembly voted to give Israel and the Palestinians five more months in which to conduct investigations of alleged war crimes that are “independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.”

The US continues to support Israel and says the Goldstone report is flawed. Other countries line up on familiar sides of the issue as with any other item involving Israel. It’s a logjam that demonstrates absolutely no probability for resolution. Not just about the 22-day conflict in 2008 but everything else involving the Middle East.

There is nothing ‘united’ about these nations. It should be possible for a large group of nations to impose their will on the occasional problem areas from time to time. But not when the large group supports their own interest rather than the world at large and politics trumps all else.

Just another example that the United Nations is one useless organization.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For more information on the topic click here

From unrest displayed by various factions in Pakistan to the strange relationship between the US and former top dog Musharraf to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the some-time ally nation is a wild card in foreign affairs.

The story below is typical of those demonstrating that which may frustrate public officials and the public in countries around the world. However, terrorists who view this latest development as positive may change their minds later. US intelligence operatives may lament this decision publicly but keeping a top Taliban commander in Pakistan’s custody may actually expand options available for acquiring necessary information.

How much money will the US have to provide Pakistan for ‘extracting’ intelligence from this individual without all those messy rules some find comforting? Sure, Pakistan is denying extradition to any other country based on perceived rights of the detained. Not likely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Pakistani Court Blocks Extradition of Top Afghan Taliban Commander

VOA News

A Pakistani court has blocked the extradition of at least five captured Afghan Taliban leaders, including top Taliban commander Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar.

Judge Khawaja Mohammad Sharif issued the order Friday after Islamist rights activist Khalid Khawaja filed a petition with the high court in Lahore. The judge said the militants should not be handed over to any other country.

One day earlier, the Afghan government said Pakistan had agreed to send Mullah Baradar and other militants to Afghanistan.

The Afghan president’s office said Thursday that Pakistan had agreed to give up the militants in exchange for the return of Pakistani prisoners.

Pakistani security forces captured Mullah Baradar in a joint operation with U.S. agents. Pakistan also detained several other top Taliban members in recent weeks.

The United States has urged Pakistan to crack down on Afghan Taliban militants who use northwestern Pakistan as a base for attacks on U.S.-led forces in neighboring Afghanistan.

Given the current political climate you would be hard pressed to find anyone to suggest the government is competent. At least in matters of public policy and foreign affairs few agree with public officials in the US. Boots on the ground and others who serve in the armed forces and are getting it done when allowed are the exception rather than the rule these days.

Is it possible that over the last several years a bipartisan scheme between the executive and legislative branches of the US government is coming to fruition? The political left and right had a minor media frenzy over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s meddling in Middle East affairs in 2007 with a trip to Syria and elsewhere. Most reports then suggested President Bush opposed the trip as well those raising legal questions about official roles and capacity.

A post on this blog suggested it was political theatre of a bipartisan nature. Again, bipartisan meaning anything but its standard definition. Typically it is used for covering the political backside of both parties by mutual consent. And the Pelosi trip may have been a classic example. And you can expect both sides had hopes of a political upside for themselves and their opposition taking a hit. Here’s a link to the older post featured on this blog.

President Barack Hussein Obama’s World Apology Tour and other appeasement strategies suggest US State Dept outreach to Syria is coincidence and has no connection to the earlier Pelosi trip reported as annoying President Bush in 2007. But you have to wonder if it was one of those seeds planted with hopes of a later harvest. Pelosi’s trip may have thwarted some development that was brewing and hurtful to both parties and a scheme may have avoided that plus provided options for the future both parties wanted. Yet no public announcement of such an agreement was an acceptable political strategy for either party.

It’s still appeasement.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Here’s the brief report on the US kissin’ up to Syria.

US Official, Syrian President Meet in Bid for Improved Ties
VOA News
17 February 2010

One of the highest-ranking U.S. officials to visit Syria in years held talks with Syria’s president Wednesday, one day after Washington nominated its first ambassador to the country since 2005.

The U.S. Under Secretary of State, William Burns, said he and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad spoke candidly while meeting in Damascus. Burns said they discussed both areas of disagreement and common ground.

On Tuesday, the White House named long-time U.S. diplomat Robert Ford to serve as ambassador to Syria. Ford, who is fluent in Arabic, now serves as the U.S. deputy ambassador in Iraq.

Burns called the appointment a “clear sign” of America’s readiness to improve relations and to pursue a comprehensive peace between Arabs and Israelis.

The United States said in June that it planned to reinstate its ambassador to Syria, as part of the Obama administration’s efforts to improve relations with Syria and advance the Middle East peace process.

Ford’s nomination will have to be approved by the U.S. Senate.

The United States withdrew its last ambassador to Syria after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. Many countries have blamed Syria for the assassination, but Damascus has denied involvement.

The U.S. has long accused Syria of supporting Islamic militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which the U.S. considers terrorist organizations. Washington also has voiced concern about Syria’s human rights record and its role in neighboring Lebanon.

BEIJING (Reuters) - China urged other powers on Tuesday to show more flexibility in dealing with Iran’s disputed nuclear programme, playing down prospects of sanctions after six countries met to discuss the standoff.

While Western powers have looked to further sanctions against Iran over its rejection of a U.N. plan to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, Russia and now especially China have resisted such steps and called for more negotiations.

How about this for a conspiracy theory? China and Russia have ties with Iran. They could care less if the US or its allies view Iranian nukes as a problem. China is hell bent on being a dominate force on the planet and has achieved much in that regard. Russia has lamented the fall of the Soviet Union since it happened and Putin is determined to regain that status as a world power.

Imagine Russia wants to relive the Missiles of October scenario from 1962 and allow Iran to be their proxy and provoke a nuclear standoff or worse, launch a strike against Israel? Israel may well be able to react in advance and preempt a first strike. Add to that any reaction that would come from China and others with nuke capability and Armageddon is poised to occur as the end of the Mayan calendar approaches in 2012. Coincidentally, the year President Obama is up for re-election and the VPOTUS warning of a test shows up late.

Even without the conspiracy theory, the so-called international community continues its impotent policy toward the current nuclear threat.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com