Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Syria Halts Contacts With France on Lebanon

If nothing else, a post about France and Sarkozy provides an excuse to post a pic and video link about Carla Bruni. But this particular video is relevant since Sarkozy and Bruni are apparently an item. Seems the French might not be real crazy about this arrangement. Hence, for this and other reasons, the post title is ‘Bon Chance, Sarkozy’.

France Stubs Out Smoking

By VOA News
29 December 2007
The French cafe society culture of long conversations over wine and coffee while relaxing in the ever-present haze of cigarette smoke is about to be transformed.

The smoky cafe will be only a memory when France bans smoking in bars, discotheques, restaurants, casinos and cafes on January 1.

Cafe and restaurant owners are concerned there will be little conversation with less wine, coffee and food purchased when customers are not allowed to smoke.

In November, thousands of cafe and restaurant owners marched in Paris to protest the upcoming ban, but the French government is moving ahead with implementing the new law.

Smoking restrictions began earlier this year in workplaces, schools, airports, hospitals and other public sites.

Officials say France has at least 65,000 smoke-related deaths each year.
That France is engaging the politically correct smoke free stance is not a surprise. Surely everyone can climb on board the no smoking band wagon. This is not entirely unlike the global warming mentality that selects causes for which the supporters can feel better about themselves. It’s easy to select only those causes requiring no self-sacrifice or discipline and look upon those on the other side with disdain. Have these same crusaders eliminated any questionable lifestyle choices of their own? Do you see Al Gore giving up his private jet or palatial estate? Has the health problem of obesity received as much attention or willing crusaders as smoking or drinking or other popular targets? The reality of stigmas for personal choice is another reason this post expresses bon chance, Sarkozy.

But the more serious reasons for wishing Sarkozy good luck is related to another hot topic, nuclear power and the threat of a viable energy source being used for weapons.

Sarkozy: France Supports Egypt’s Nuclear-Power Plans

By VOA News
29 December 2007
French President Nicolas Sarkozy says France is willing to help Egypt develop nuclear power plants.

In an interview published Saturday in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram, Mr. Sarkozy said France will cooperate and work together with Egypt if the Cairo government wants to develop civilians uses for nuclear technology.

Earlier this year, authorities in Cairo announced that Egypt intends to build several nuclear reactors to meet its future energy needs.

The French president has been vacationing in Egypt in advance of an official state visit he will begin on Sunday in Cairo.
France generates 75 or 80% of its electrical power capacity from nuclear plants. This may be one area where France is a leg up on other countries in limiting less desirable effects of other power generating sources. Offering to help Egypt develop similar nuclear power capabilities as many countries align to oppose Iran’s arguments over nuclear issues could just be bad timing. Like the outspoken little maniac from Iran won’t use this in his arguments. Again comes the bon chance Sarkozy.

France opposed the US on many items in recent years. Some critics of those opposing the US suggested certain financial arrangements with Iraq in recent years may have been the real reason for the opposition.

Thursday, 13 February, 2003, 17:31 GMT
France’s economic ties to Iraq
By John Laurenson

During the late 1970s, French companies started work on the Tamuz One nuclear reactor near Baghdad - designed to produce plutonium - and on a second reactor, Tamuz Two.

During the Iran-Iraq war, France was soon supplying Iraq with top level military hardware of its own.

All told, France sold some $25bn-worth of weaponry to Iraq before the UN embargo was imposed after the Gulf War.

But above all, the French are interested in Iraqi oil.

Nicolas Sarkis, of Arab Oil and Gas magazine, says France’s state-controlled TotalFinaElf is poised to win contracts to drill the largest unexploited oil reserves in the world.

Before and after Sarkozy’s election in France reports suggested he was interested in improving the relationship with the US. Some may have cheered no more Chirac, no more freedom fries, no more hassles or some promise of good feelings between France and the US. Like most optimistic forecasts or expectations it will probably require bon chance for the new leader of France even with the cherry reports of his early success.

2007 was France’s Year of Nicolas Sarkozy

By Lisa Bryant
Paris
22 December 2007

Bryant report - Download MP3 (1.2MB)
Listen to Bryant report

The year 2007 in France can easily be called the year of Nicolas Sarkozy. Since Mr. Sarkozy’s election as president, he appears to be everywhere, and as Lisa Bryant reports for VOA from Paris, he is living up to some of the high expectations.

It’s May 6, 2007, and Nicolas Sarkozy, candidate for the ruling conservative Union for a Popular Movement Party has won the French presidential elections, beating out his Socialist rival Segolene Royale with 53 percent of the votes. During his campaign Mr. Sarkozy promised not just change in France, but a real “rupture” or break from the country’s past. He reiterated this vow during a triumphant speech shortly after the results were announced.

Speaking before cheering supporters, France’s new leader said the country had given him everything. Now, it was time for him to give back to France.

The past seven months have indeed brought changes and a new tone to French politics. Mr. Sarkozy appointed an extremely diverse cabinet, including not only a number of women and ethnic minorities, but also members of the leftist opposition, including French Foreign Affairs Minister Bernard Kouchner.

Steven Ekovich specializes in French politics at the American University of Paris.

“Right now, he’s exploiting his image as a young, dynamic president,” he said. “And we’ll see how quickly the French get tired of this energy. But we have quite a dramatic difference with the previous president who seemed to have no energy at all.”

When it comes to domestic policy, says Frederic Micheau, an analyst at the IFOP polling agency in Paris, the French president has largely delivered.

Micheau says Mr. Sarkozy has made good on campaign promises to help realize a new, simplified European Union treaty, simplify immigration laws, and reform the universities and special pension privileges for some French workers.

Not all the changes are popular. The pension reform plans brought hundreds of thousands of striking workers to the streets in November and students upset about the proposed university reforms blocked several dozen French universities. Critics have also blasted new immigration restrictions passed by Mr. Sarkozy’s center-right government.

President Bush poses with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Kennebunkport, Maine, 11 Aug 2007

President Bush poses with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Kennebunkport, Maine, 11 Aug 2007
In fact, Stephane Le Foll, a Socialist deputy in the European Parliament and Cabinet director for Socialist party chairman Francois Holland has nothing good to say about Mr. Sarkozy’s performance to date.

Overall, Le Foll gives Mr. Sarkozy a negative year-end report card. He says the economy is doing badly, and likely to be worse next year. And, he says, the president’s social policies aren’t any better.

Mr. Sarkozy’s foreign policy has also generated criticism. He has established warmer ties with the United States than under his predecessor Jacques Chirac, but analyst Micheau says he has not respected his campaign promises to make human rights issues an integral part of his foreign policy, notably in his dealings with Russia and China, which he visited this year.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, left, greets Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at his arrival at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 12 Dec. 2007
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, left, greets Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi at his arrival at the Elysee Palace in Paris, 12 Dec. 2007
And the December visit to France of Moammar Gadhafi of Libya, once considered a terrorist nation, generated outcry particularly when Mr. Gadhafi contradicted Mr. Sarkozy and said the French president had not brought up human rights concerns during their talks.

Socialist politician Le Foll says Mr. Gadhafi’s visit deteriorated the image not only of Mr. Sarkozy, but also of France. He also criticizes the way the French president monopolizes the media and public space.

And Mr. Sarkozy’s energy seems unending, visiting French fishermen one day and flying off to Chad the next, to bring back Europeans facing kidnapping charges. Although he tried to keep his rocky relationship with his wife Cecilia private, the announcement of their divorce in October splashed across front pages of the French newspapers. His new relationship with Italian singer Carla Bruni is similarly grabbing media attention.

Mr. Sarkozy’s popularity has also plummeted from a peak of nearly 80 percent in August to between 50 and 55 percent today. Most analysts believe his honeymoon with the French people is over. Micheau of IFOP is among them.

But Micheau said President Sarkozy’s highest popularity ratings almost reached those of French wartime hero, Charles de Gaulle, so it was inevitable that they should drop.

Micheau says Mr. Sarkozy’s best plan of action for 2008 is to continue making good on his promises of 2007.

(note for this post: if bonne chance is correct and bon chance not precisely so, that explains the use here of bon chance)

The items that become popular on the internet usually involve video.

No explanation should be necessary beyond the video.

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Conservative Thoughts
Reject the UN
Screw the UN

There is little that is more entertaining than to watch representatives of a state sponsor of terrorism like Iran act so innocent in light of previous statements that the holocaust never happened and they intend to destroy Israel. Not to mention the default Islamofascist creed bent on killing all infidels which also includes other Muslims they don’t like.

The sad part of the recent appearance of the Iranian President at Columbia University beyond the obvious was the number of closet liberals in the media tripping over themselves to attend a dinner with him. Not understanding that they may be the only ones in the world who actually believe their claim of doing it all in the name of journalism. So much so that their automatic defense of simply mentioning the first amendment is no longer presented with a supporting argument.

Whether the Iranian President was too busy trying to fool other audiences this week or simply bored with the easy prey in American media and academia, the second errand boy has made his presence known. The Iranian foreign minister is currently attempting to give foreign policy mentoring to the Whitehouse and State Department. The worn out complaint of American saber rattling coupled with a plea for cooperation rather than confrontation is another amateur ploy looking for a gullible audience.

With the advent of changing politics in France, the former opposition from the French as well as Germans, Russians and others at the United Nations may be altering course. A brief pause until November to put in place stronger sanctions against Iran on the nukes issue may be evidence of a difficult transition to pro American attitudes, the simple realization that Iran is an excessive risk with nukes or reluctance of some to agree with the US on Iran.

But the French Foreign Minister has annoyed Iran by hinting at the threat of war if they continue to act like Saddam on nukes. While he backpedaled slightly after tension was raised, Iran may be less sure than their words indicate when stating the US is not in a position to deal with them militarily. While some pundits claim air strikes against Iran are not a viable option and the out of control public comments on the Iraq war suggest the US is not prepared to put more boots on the ground anywhere, the options available may not be so limited. It is fair to say one reason Iran makes these claims is to convince themselves or their population that the US will not resort to air strikes. And changing attitudes toward Iran from other nations may be enough to convince Iran to comply with international demands.

And this post ends with a comment on an Iranian university inviting President Bush to attend a question and answer session. Presumably to reciprocate for the Columbia University fiasco. The White House Press Secretary Dana Perino indicated the invitation was not taken seriously. Let’s just say in addition to the nearly impossible security requirements there is no real upside to honoring such a request. It is doubtful minds would be changed and determining whether the invitation is based on genuine interest or merely another ploy of the Iranian government will not take place. But there is some humor in the story.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Says US Threats Not Helpful to Resolving Nuclear Issue
By Margaret Besheer
United Nations
03 October 2007
Besheer report - Download (mp3) 671k
Listen to Besheer report

Iran Summons French Diplomat To Protest Kouchner Comments
By VOA News
03 October 2007

Iranian University Invites Bush to Speak
By VOA News
02 October 2007

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
FaultlineUSA
Conservative Thoughts

Positive news is always welcome. It has been in short supply lately. Some attribute the predominance of negative news to a liberal leaning MSM. But there are plenty of left leaning sources who claim the press is right wing while the right leaning sources claim it’s left wing. Which means the audience must rely on their own judgment in checking news.

A group of headlines viewed today are encouraging. An additional report on how Sarkozy is reinventing French politics reversing the trends from former leaders and a similar trend in the US Congress on views toward conditions in Iraq and Iran comes from the following reference. It is almost like people are beginning to understand what is at stake.

France Flips While Congress Shifts
By Charles Krauthammer
September 28, 2007

On the largest possible stage — the U.N. General Assembly — President Nicolas Sarkozy put Iran on notice. His predecessor, Jacques Chirac, had said that France could live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. Sarkozy said that France cannot.

A few months ago, the question was: Will the Democratic Congress force a withdrawal from Iraq? Today the question in Congress is: What can be done to achieve success in Iraq — most specifically, by countering Iran, which is intent on seeing us fail?

Another report had a title asking if we were friends again with France. That might be getting ahead of ourselves. After years of opposition from France in international politics and not knowing what will come of the Sarkozy period in France, a little restraint might be in order before the hugging begins.

On another front, no pun intended, SOD Gates has reeled in some victories after replacing the controversial former SOD Donald Rumsfeld. Perhaps the one characteristic of Rumsfeld’s cool appearing determination and quick remarks to shield himself from the press that forecast his fall from grace was the refusal to alter his agenda based on changing situations. It is as if current SOD Gates lost no time working other strategies in search of success. Not due to Gates alone, the public may finally be reevaluating positions on critical issues that will result in victory in Iraq as well as success in related matters.

Bob Gates’s Victory

To little notice, the Defense secretary has gotten his way on Iraq, and possibly on Iran. Now, Gates is about to appoint a former top Clinton official to prove he means business.

By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

Sept. 27, 2007 - Defense Secretary Robert Gates is, quite by choice, the anti-Rumsfeld—a man so low-key and consensus-oriented that it’s hard to find his fingerprints on any particular policy. But no one can win internal battles the way Gates has been doing in Washington lately without leaving a few traces.

While some may view the next story as negative, anytime Ted Kennedy confirms he has overstayed his welcome in a world screaming for sensible politics is a good news day. Certainly Kennedy is not alone in adding nonsense amendments to active legislation but he must be a master at this useless self-serving practice. It is part of what makes Congress the recipient of the lowest approval rating since the earth cooled. This is not to say the amendment is invalid on its own although it is because it duplicates laws already on the books. If being convicted of a crime is not enough for liberals that they require extra vengeance if it offends their vindictive sensibilities, adding this amendment only serves to expose what is wrong with the left. Thank you Ted Kennedy for again drawing attention to the fact your self-righteous nature may inflict another inequity on the victims you so proudly misrepresent.

Kennedy’s defense priorities
By Byron York
September 28, 2007
While most senators were concentrating on defense issues during the defense reauthorization debate, Kennedy was busy trying to turn the fight over the authorization bill into a fight over something entirely different: a hate-crimes bill.

More proof of insanity among the leftmost of us. Whether it is or not an indictment of the left for falling over themselves to rub elbows with an errand boy from a land, by their own words, bent on the destruction of Israel and eliminating infidels, accepting a dinner invitation from one who supports insurgents in Iraq is beyond understanding. The only good news about this is people like Hugh Hewitt do not stay silent when those who hold themselves in high regard encourage international terrorists. Would you have dinner with someone who threatens to kill you?

There Is No Spoon Long Enough: Dining With Mahmoud
By Hugh Hewitt
Thursday, September 27, 2007

On Tuesday a group of Manhattan’s elite accepted an invitation to dine with Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadienajd. Time Magazine’s Richard Stengel recounts the vening here, and gives us a glimpse of the guest list which included NBC’s Brian Williams and CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.

What I cannot understand is how any American can accept an invitation to dine on Iran’s tab even as that regime ships weapons and advisors into Iraq to kill more of the nation’s finest. It is beyond moral confusion –it is moral collapse.

The article above and two others referenced below in a depressing fashion make the good news of the week list as they offer a record of those suggesting their superior understanding dictates not only surrender in Iraq but at every opportunity offered by those bent on their destruction. What’s the word; sheep, lemmings, just plain foolish?

Worldview | My dinner with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
He really believes what he says, and knows less about the U.S. than he thinks.

By Trudy Rubin
Inquirer Columnist

The invitation for Tuesday dinner with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came from the Iranian Mission to the United Nations. The scene was the darkly brocaded Barclay Room of New York’s Intercontinental Hotel.

The Iranians must be texting each other with LMAO at the stupidity of some who are called Americans. Not only were they duped to appease a terrorist but they did it in New York City. There’s some irony.

PEGGY NOONAN
Hear, Hear
Americans should not fear talking–and listening–to those whose views we loathe.
Friday, September 28, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

You don’t want to judge Christ by Christians, someone once said. He is perfect, they are not.

In a similar way you don’t want to judge capitalism by capitalists, or the legitimacy of democracy by the Democrats, or the vitality of our republic by the Republicans. You have to take the thing pure and in itself, while allowing for the flaws and waywardness of its practitioners.

Very good Peggy Noonan, now how about the part where the devil’s in the details. If you want to ‘talk’ with Iran you don’t do it with Nancy Pelosi wandering all over the Middle East or a cozy sit down with President Bush. Which would indicate by default that you don’t accept invitations to a quaint dinner which indicates you are honoring someone who wants to kill you. A nice opinion piece from WSJ that fits the good news of the day by displaying one more person who just doesn’t get it. You want to talk so bad but apparently you haven’t been listening. Three stories representing a record of some of America’s most naive citizens who cannot speed their own destruction fast enough. All with the blessing of the United Nations.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Stop the ACLU, Perri Nelson’s Website, 123beta, guerrilla radio, Adam’s Blog, Stix Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, , third world county, Allie is Wired, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Church and State, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, 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.

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.

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.

This is a real American. You can read his speech to Congress regarding H Con Res 63 on a tribute page to him in the “Pages” menu to the right on the main page.or click here

The List OT Weekend at The Right Nation

OTA and Linkfest Weekend Who’s Are Ally?

Tech Support Weekend OTA 

Escalating Our Military Involvement in Iraq Sends Precisely the Wrong Message Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Richard Durbin released the following statement tonight on President Bush’s address to the nation on the war in Iraq. 01/10/2007

There seems to be more conflict among people in this country as to an Iraq strategy than there is in Iraq. How’s that for helping out the other side? One of the drawbacks to freedom of speech is that people use it even when it is not in their best interest.

President Bush’s Administration is reminiscent of Lincoln and his difficulties with General McClellan in the Civil War. I will skip some obvious comparisons for the Demoratic party’s sentiments but can ask if anyone else was reminded of 1968.

It is unlikely that war plans have ever been completed without modification. Somewhere I heard someone say that after the first round is fired the battle plans go out the window. What politicians won’t give to us they expect from everyone else based on the words in the critiques. They claim they have the answer in their proposal. Leaving Iraq will solve the problem. They also claim the President’s current plan sends the wrong message. They think we’re doomed to fail. Have they ever considered their own actions may become a self-fulfilling prophecy? I have heard them say support the troops. Have they considered the positive effect of also supporting the mission? Slowly the Democrats opposition will convince me of the Dems suspected belief that utopia can be delivered if we all just talk and give each other a big hug. Let’s see ya try that with a terrorist who has repeatedly announced the fundamentalist mantra of killing all infidels. In case you’re not aware, that applies to anyone who doesn’t believe what they believe. And the way two distinct Muslim groups are killing each other in Iraq, that probably means everyone else.

Give the Bush Administration a chance to make something turn right about this wrongly initiated war. You might stop to think that some of us hold Congress partially to blame for failing to uncover the flaws as opposed to covering your political butts. And if the holier than thou minority of those voting against the war feel above reproach, forget about it. You were among the entire Congress, both houses, who failed to unearth the hoax. There is no “fool me once” loophole in matters of this importance. You all have a responsibility to see this thing through to a positive conclusion to right the wrongs and honor the sacrafice of others, Iraqis as well as Americans.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Another glance at a list of most popular news stories indicates the story of the two “abducted” boys has moved into first place since yesterday. In second place is a strange combo-looking thing featuring Hollywood divorces, Trump and Rosie and assorted other useless information. Third place has electronics standards and the BS electronics show hording space it doesn’t deserve. As a post of ours pointed out, the technology related industries in this country as well as others doles out tech advances in minuscule portions to maximize the profit ripoff of consumers. We have little sympathy for their perceived difficulties and absolutely no respect for their methods. Actually Beckham was in third place but who cares about soccer?

There are no other stories in the list worth mentioning with the possible exception of one on Secretary of State, Rice. The headline reads” Rice Encounters Skepticism in Mideast”. That is offered only for its comedic value. Maybe if the U.S. would put Israel in its place, show some compassion for the ordinary citizens of Palestine, Lebanon and elsewhere in the Middle East and warn every nation in the region to make an effort at peace, we might have something. Show them you’re serious by completing what you started in Afghanistan and Iraq, quickly. Straighten out some of the messes you’ve gotten us into and start acting like world leaders and maybe some one will take you seriously. If you get that far you can tell Iran and North Korea or any one else spoiling for a fight to straighten up or their situation will change abruptly. Do what you need to provide a little lasting peace and prosperity in the region and then take a break and bring the troops home. It can be done so quit wasting time and get at it. Tell the morons back in the states to stop debating foreign policy and military strategy in the news and get to work also. This country could use some leadership. Let’s start with what we have and stop playing politics. For once, finish the job and stop looking like the idiots you probably are.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Walker’s World: EU-U.S. agree on Mideast

By MARTIN WALKER
UPI Editor Emeritus

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) — The striking feature of the UPI-Zogby poll on American attitudes toward the Israel- Palestine dispute is the similarity with views in Europe. This suggests that the transatlantic political support now exists for a concerted push for a new effort to reach a settlement, which is exactly what Britain’s Tony Blair and the Iraq Study Group have been urging on President George W. Bush this month.

This is an interesting article but the bottom line is most conflicts in the world continue for outrageous lengths of time. Does anyone really want to solve these problems? Conflict involving Israel have existed since 1948. Certainly they have existed since the 1967 war. Much hope was placed on efforts during the Carter Administration. It looked good until the assasination of Anwar Sadat. Again, does anyone really want to resolve these problems? Sixty years and counting and nothing has been settled. Everyone can share in the blame.

Iran has experienced many problems. Any anger remaining from the US support of the Shah of Iran is understandable. Additional anger over lopsided support of Israel by the US is equally understandable. However, the current leaders in Iran calling for the destruction of Israel is not real helpful either.

Other nations in the region and US involvement produce problems based on objectives that are basically selfish and have nothing to do with solving world problems and only add to the difficulties. Therefore an article claiming the EU and US agree on the Middle East is hardly useful.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com

Bush, Mexico’s Calderon to work on immigration
Reuters -
… W. Bush and Mexican President-elect Felipe Calderon
pledged on Thursday to work together for a comprehensive
solution to curb illegal immigration from Mexico …

If it was not a plot by both Houses of Congress to introduce
HR4437 knowing it would never get through the Senate, then
the fine new Senate of the 110th Congress should be able to
finish strong reform starting in January 2007. Similar to the
fact that Immigration Reform of 1986 was never enforced, in
their grand wisdom, politicians have improved on their deceit
by creating a better strategy. Work together just long enough
to satisfy mutual goals and fool the public in believing you really
give a damn. Like Democrats conceding Presidential 2004
elections by nominating John Kerry when John Edwards wsa a
much more viable candidate. Kerry was a sacrificial lamb and
the only one who did not know it was Kerry. He still doesn’t.

We hope all you smiling Democrats are enjoying your victories.
We hope all you Republicans are understanding your arrogance
that led to this. And we hope you both as well as all of America
is prepared for a continuation of porous borders, unrestricted
immigration and a complete breakdown of national security.

If you haven’t noticed, the resignation of Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld and previously mentioned items absolutely elated the
Muslim world. Al-Jazeera and the rest have been celebrating
since November 7th, 2006. Thank you one and all. NOT!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

There may have been a legitimate reason for refusing to sign
the Kyoto agreement. People seem to fall into one of two
categories on the issue of global warming. Either you deny
the possibility of global warming or you want to stop any use
of fossil fuels immediately. Either position is unrealistic. The
calm, reasoned approach may be more productive. Countries
like Britain and Germany have reduced their greenhouse gas
emissions by 17% and 14%, respectively. While the overall
world emissions have increased by 2.4% in the same period.
If the reductions in Britain and Germany were accomplished
with an acceptable economic impact and are accurate, would
it be that simple for other countries to achieve? Even if one
is skeptical of the necessity for this cure, if effective and also
economically feasible, what would be hte harm? Eliminating
the extreme reactions on either side of the debate would be a
good first step in either case. Let’s look at the data and try to
find a solution rather than wasting time with needless banter.
If Al Gore and those who support or oppose him can remove
politics from the discussion, his input may be useful. Britain
asking him to help out is a surprise.

Gore to Advise British on Global Warming
ABC News - 20 minutes ago
By THOMAS WAGNER. LONDON Oct 30, 2006 (AP)— Unchecked
global warming will devastate the world economy on the scale of the
world …

Of Unchecked Global Warming
Wall Street Journal (subscription), NY - 31 minutes ago
AP. LONDON — Unchecked global warming will devastate the world
economy on the scale of the world wars and the Great Depression, a …

Both articles above are credited to AP.

Another article implies a different take on the global warming
problem with an assertion that the EU involvement with Kyoto
is failing and the 15 countries in the union will not meet targets
for greenhouse gas emission levels by 2012. Could this be the
reason for the urgency of the British report? If global warming
is as critical as advertised, such an approach would be harmful.

Europe falling far short of targets
David Gow

Brussels: The European Union, self-styled global champion in the
battle against climate change, is falling woefully short of its targets
for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and will need to take
radical measures to achieve them, new projections have shown.

The European Commission said that, based on current measures
and policies, the emissions of the E.U.’s original 15 members will
be just 0.6 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010. The E.U.-15
countries are committed under the Kyoto protocol to an 8 per cent
cut on 1990 levels by 2012.

Again, it would be productive to remove extraneous arguments for
or against the existence of global warming and objectively work out
a solution. Dismissing the notion of global warming and placing our
collective head in the sand appears as absurd as abandoning the use
of current technology without further evidence of the problem.

C. Harris
MoreWhat.com